Posts by Rolf

I’ll respond to all these fantastic responses more in depth tomorrow, but for now I just wanted to mention how much I appreciate that Epicurean philosophy is grounded in everyday reality.

Regardless of all the abstract reasoning I’m engaging in while trying to understand this point, the final judge is the senses and what I’m actually experiencing. I know and I can see clearly that a life of nothing but bread and water would leave me unsatisfied, despite my hunger and thirst being satiated. It is obvious to me that the pleasure of trimming my fingernails is not equivalent to the pleasure of dancing with friends.

So despite my confusion here, I don’t doubt for a second the validity of the philosophy. I can be sure of this because the conclusions align with what I actually experience - the proof is in the pudding.

Even while figuring out how the clock works, I can be sure that the time it displays is accurate.

Great response Cassius. That said, I feel we may be talking past each other a little.

1) I don’t hold anti-natalist views, and I haven’t done for years. I don’t see it as my philosophical base whatsoever.

And more importantly,

2) I had absolutely zero knowledge of Epicureanism before coming here. My confusion here does not stem from the mainstream false interpretations of Epicurus. I hadn’t read Cicero or Plutarch, nor had I read any inaccurate modern accounts of Epicurean philosophy. While people like Cicero and Plutarch seemed to have wilfully distorted Epicurus’ words, my questions about the philosophy come from a place of organic confusion. This matters because it means that I’m not struggling to break away from some prior false interpretation of the texts, but instead I’m trying to understand things from a fairly neutral standpoint. Your argument seems to focus a lot on disproving Cicero and Plutarch’s falsehoods, which I already disagree with, rather than independently clarifying the Epicurean view.

I mention these points to help clarify my confusion.

Another one: How would you respond to confusion about absence of pain in a single clear and concise paragraph?

Will read through above response when I get home. For now, just wanted to add another question that points to this issue: Why do we seek variation of pleasure? Why should we seek variation of pleasure?

Thanks for your reply Cassius! Would it be accurate to say then that once our basic (natural necessary) desires are satisfied, it is no longer pain or lack that drives us to pleasure but pleasure itself?

I feel this sort of relates to the question I posed a little while ago about why we should pursue unnecessary desires if necessary desires are enough. Epicurus was, among other things, a researcher of human behaviour. Why is it that we still pursue superfluous pleasurable sensations once we have reached the limit of pleasure (absence of pain)?

To be very clear, I don’t disagree with the conclusions here. But the fact that the clock displays the correct time is not enough for me - I must know how it ticks!

To put my confusion in other terms: I feel I have all the pieces scattered in my mind, but am having trouble putting them together concisely and cleanly.

Listening now, nice to hear from Don!
————
“Animals don’t just sit and do nothing after they’ve eaten, drank, slept. They fly around and play and sing.”

Why is this not a good argument against the Epicurean view of pleasure/absence of pain? If the animals have satiated all of their desires/removed all of their pain, should they not sit around and do nothing at that point?

Is it because boredom is a pain? Is it because they’re working to ensure that their pleasure continues and protect themselves against future pains? Is it because pleasure still feels good (and is still the good) even when we have no need of more?

I understand that absence of pain = fullness of pleasure, since the feelings are only two. I understand that “absence of pain” does not exist as some platonic ideal, but is a term pointing to real-world experiences. However, my cogs are still a little stuck on the logic of why we should or want to pursue further pleasures once our hunger and thirst are satiated. I feel I understand the concept but am having trouble holding it succinctly in my mind.

I was a big fan of Benatar and antinatalism as a teenager. How things can change…

That said, I have less grievances with antinatalism than with, say, Christianity. At the very least, antinatalists want to minimise pain. And while they “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, the method of not creating kids in the first place is rationally sound - not being born is nothing to worry about, just as being dead is nothing to worry about - unlike the methods supernatural religions promote for the cessation of suffering. Most antinatalists I’ve spoken to have been depressed and cynical, yet generally rational, people.

Besides, it’s not like Epicureanism is an inherently pro-natalist philosophy. Epicurus never told us to “be fruitful and multiply”. As far as I’m aware, it’s fairly neutral on the question of whether or not we should procreate.

I like your style, Ernesto - welcome!

Quote from Charles

A shop on Etsy sells more "authentic" copies of some busts of Epicurus made of marble. Though they are quite pricy. I have one.

https://www.etsy.com/shop/Historica…_query=epicurus

Wow, these are beautiful.

Enjoy your birthday Robert ! It’s been great having you around.

Well said. Even if this particular book is fairly inconsequential, as Dave mentioned, it’s a shame because it represents the vast majority of discourse around Epicurus.

Quote from Cassius

the most important thing in life is to be calm and tranquil and avoid conflict and disagreement at any cost

Hmm, I definitely have a little category 1 in me. 😅 But I will fight valiantly for pleasure and to defend my tranquil life against BS (religious or otherwise). I see what you’re saying though. Epicureanism is far less compatible with Buddhism and Stoicism than many people seem to think.

Quote from Cassius

DeWitt's book

Just received it today.

Wow, what a mess. I’d struggle to write a more misleading and inaccurate description of Epicureanism if I tried. It’s a real shame that some people will read this and think they have an accurate impression of the philosophy.

Quote

And Epicurus is telling you, don’t use these false analogies and false ideals of virtue as being the remedy for pain. Just look at it realistically and realize that life has both pains and pleasures, and it is the pleasures that make life worthwhile. It is not your dreaming up some ideal system of virtue that makes life worthwhile. It is what nature gave you through pleasure that makes life worthwhile.

I’m particularly fond of the way you phrased this, Cassius. Too many people, myself included, fall into the trap of “dreaming up ideal systems of virtue” in order to make their lives feel worthwhile. And yet, the thing that really does make our lives worthwhile, pleasure, is right in front of our faces the whole time!

Great episode! I look forward to the continuation next week.

The comparison between the “heap of sand” analogy and “absence of pain” is interesting. Would you mind explaining it a bit more?

Welcome!

Glad to have you with us, Simteau!

Welcome to the forum! Happy to have you here.

Would somebody be able to post a concise explanation of the two sides of this debate? I see what you’re getting at but I’m not 100%.

Really fascinating discussion.