Posts by Rolf

I hope you had a good birthday, Bryan!

Quote

When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.

Letter to Menoeceus 131 (emphasis mine)

Quote

And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.

Letter to Menoeceus 129

Quote from ontologix

For him pleasure was not an aim in itself. It was rather a motivation how to go about things. If you do not like your work you will not succeed in it.

From everything I’ve read, pleasure is very much the aim and the end, according to Epicurus. If pleasure wasn’t the aim for him, what was?

Quote from Cassius

The "Dude's" lifestyle is no more or less necessarily indicative of the Epicurean concept of a best life than would be that of Julius Caesar.

Oh, 100%. Your comment here is important, and my imagining of that scenario probably says more about what absence of pain looks like to me than an objective path to such. I do lean a little more Dude than Caesar.

That said, sitting on a sun lounger at a resort sipping piña coladas for the rest of my days sounds absolutely awful and would certainly not leave me content.

Quote from Eikadistes

Indeed! I read this earlier today by coincidence: "He (sc. Metrodorus) [writes] that, although he likes the idea that the [best] life is the one that is [accompanied by tranquillity], peace, and cares that cause minimal trouble, it does not seem that this goal is achieved at least in this way, namely, if we avoid all those things over which, if they were present, we would sometimes experience difficulties and distress. For in truth many things do cause some pain if they are present but disturb us more if they are absent. Thus, health does involve some care and effort for the body but causes unspeakably more distress when it is absent" (Philódēmos, On Property Management, Col. 12-13)

I forget who on here said it, but this reminds me a bit of something along the lines of “the perfect/best life is for the gods”. Us mortals are always going to have to compromise like this, and while we can live like the gods for certain periods, we must expect that pains will arise.

Another question: Would you say that absence of pain as the limit of pleasure is more of a theoretical goal? In the same way that the gods can be seen as mental ideal? Or is it something we’re expected to achieve on a day to day basis?

Hmm, how’s this for an analogy on the issue of “jars both being full but containing different amounts (intensities) of pleasure?:

One jar full of water, the other full of chocolate milk. Both jars are full of pleasure: Water is great, it quenches your thirst! But chocolate milk is sure a lot tastier.

Excellent reply Cassius.

Quote from Cassius

Looking back over your questions I'll go back to the best example I know of. You only have some much time in life to experience what you're going to experience. It is helpful to visualize your total lifetime as a jar, which you must decide how to use. The jar by definitional choice can contain only (1) pleasure or (2) pain. No part of it is ever empty. The palns and pleasures it can contain are all possible mental and bodily pleasures.

This is particular I find very helpful. I’d say I’m quite a “tactile” person who prefers these more tangible and illustrative examples over abstract concepts.

To be sure I’m understanding correctly: The (conceptual) goal then is to have our jar as full of pleasures as possible, as often possible. “Absence of pain” (meaning pleasure, as the feelings are only two) is the limit of pleasure. I’m imagining someone laying down on a sun lounger, hands behind their head, saying “it doesn’t get better than this”. Absence of pain, as a conceptual term, isn’t necessarily referring to a literal absence of hunger, thirst, and backaches, but is more expansive than that. Just as pleasure includes all kinds of things, so does pain: Boredom, worry, stress, fear, doubt, guilt. And this is why simply absence of thirst/hunger etc. isn’t enough to definitively say someone has reached the limit of pleasure. Am I on the right track? Please point out anything you disagree with.

As for Chrysippus’ hand: How can it be said that the hand had reached the limit of pleasure if a hand massage would’ve been even more intensely pleasurable than the healthy resting state?

Quote from Rolf

Could you specify in my previous questions where I am talking about the concepts and where I am talking about the actual experiences? This would be helpful in clarifying for me.

If you could take a look at this when you get a spare moment, it would be a big help! Thank you for all your support with this Cassius, I very much appreciate it. I likely would’ve dropped most philosophies I’ve explored by this point, but with Epicurean philosophy my gut is telling me this is just a matter of misunderstanding terminology.

I also find practical analogies and examples very helpful. Would you be able to give such an example for absence of pain, the concepts of pleasure and pain, and the jar?

Hmm, okay. I think what I’m struggling with is that to me, absence of pain sounds like a state in which I’m perfectly content and don’t feel like I need anything more. At the same time, my practical evaluation of Epicurean ethics is that of prudence and hedonic calculus. In my head, these two ideas don’t quite seem to align. It doesn’t feel so clear.

Quote from Cassius

But you are asking a series of questions about "Pleasure" and "Pain" with capital "p's" -- You are asking about the concept of pleasure and the concept of pain. As a concept which serves as a stand-in for the "goal of life," "Pleasure" is a conceptual term which encompasses all possible experiences of pleasure, from the longest and most intense to the shortest and least intense. All pleasures are conceptually part of "Pleasure," but all pleasures are not by any means identical. The same thing goes for pain.

This idea with the concept of Pleasure and Pain vs actual experiences of pleasures and pain feels like it is putting me on the path to understanding. Could you specify in my previous questions where I am talking about the concepts and where I am talking about the actual experiences? This would be helpful in clarifying for me.

Would you say then Cassius that “the absence of pain being the limit of pleasure” is not something I have to hold in my everyday mind as something practical? It’s more just something for use in philosophical reasoning and debate?

They sound surprisingly good. At least the first one seems to copy a lot of Don’s wording verbatim. All in all, rather unsettling.

A quote from Menoeceus related to my confusion:

Quote

For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure.

Every time I think about this issue for more than a couple minutes, my brain starts to get jumbled again. It’s something about the logical consistency that confuses me, I think. Here’s another way of putting it:

1) There is only pleasure and pain.

2) Upon reaching the complete absence of pain, there is no room for more pleasure, only variation.

3) Let’s say my hunger and thirst are satiated, my body is healthy, I have good friends, and I fear neither gods nor death.

4) This being the case, I am experiencing the absence of pain/fullness of pleasure, am I not? The jar is full. Yet this could be called a “subsistence minimum”. I am not dancing, playing, watching movies, playing board games, eating fancy foods from time to time. Yet I am not experiencing pain as the lack of these things causes no pain.

5) What, then, is the response to Plutarch’s argument that animals do not simply rest once these conditions have been met, but play and fly around? You say that some pleasures are more desirable than others, but if my jar is already full (by virtue of containing no pain), then how can other pleasures make it “more full”?

Do you agree that the conditions listed in point 3 are all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain? If so, and if that is the limit of pleasure, why do you also press that these things are not enough, and that Epicurus also encourages these “active pleasures” like playing and dancing?

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”? How does this fit together with absence of pain being the limit of pleasure? And if the jar can be full while containing different levels of pleasure, then what is it even measuring?

Does watching a fun movie do anything to “fill my jar”? I experience no pain from not watching the movie; my jar is no emptier without it. So watching it isn’t removing any pain. And yet the limit of *all* pleasure is the absence of pain, not just the limit of subsistence pleasures.

I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here in order to understand the logic. Again, I agree with the conclusions. But I’m having trouble seeing how it all fits together. It feels almost a little contradictory.

Cassius

I generally agree with your last post Dave, but I think it’s important to note that there’s a difference between conscious skepticism (which I agree is healthy), and not being able to trust anything. The latter is the issue being discussed here.

Quote from Kalosyni

Reflecting on that chart, and the implication that everything will soon go to "hell in a hand-basket"... I was thinking that as long as everyone maintains their employment and has money, and the money maintains its value, and there is enough food in the grocery stores, then everything goes okay. But if there ever comes a time with widespread unemployment, worthless money, and no food...then that is a big problem.

At this point, I’d say AI taking our jobs is one of the smaller concerns. As Don and Cassius mentioned, the massive amount of realistic AI-generated content (articles, images, deepfake videos) flooding the internet is making it more and more difficult to discern what is real and what isn’t. In the past month or two alone I’ve noticed more and more people accusing others of using AI to write their online posts. Not only is the deceptive AI content a problem, but also the growing radical skepticism that results. When people don’t know what they can trust, and can no longer have faith in one another, justice and social ties collapse.

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?