Posts by Rolf

Quote from Don

That said, whether you take a realist or idealist position on Epicurean gods is secondary - in my opinion. David Sedley is the main popularizer of this position, but I believe it was floating around prior to his and A.A. Long's exposition of it. I usually go to Lucretius point about "you can use Bacchus to refer to wine, Ceres to refer to the grain harvest, etc, but know you're using metaphors" kind of thing. I can walk into a cathedral and be awed by the grandeur. That doesn't mean I need to accept the theology inherent in the architecture. I can enjoy religious music but don't need to believe in gods. I probably think of myself as a functional atheist. I find it unlikely there are gods of any kind with an objective physical existence. Are there aliens more intelligent than humans? Sure, I can believe that. But they are not "gods" but simply other beings in the infinite universe.

That's a reasonable explanation. I'd say my thoughts align with yours on this Don, at least at this stage. I agree that the important thing here is the materialistic view of reality (ie. The three points you listed). Thanks for the great write-up!

Quote from Cassius

So there are many deep implications of the physics and epistemology that you never get to until you get past the superficial idea that Epicurus only cared about "pleasure" and nothing else.

Ahh okay, I see where you're coming from. Is this what's known as "canonics"? I hadn't heard that term before coming here. I ought to read up on this area of the philosophy. DeWitt's book is on its way so I'll dive in once I'm finished with Austin's.

Quote from Cassius

even to the point of conquering death

Woah, I was following until this part. What's the logic here?

Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand. The whole "not mixed, but different reactions in different aspects of their experience" part just feels like semantics to me, rather than an actual distinction.

Could you explain it through the example I gave of thinking back to a past romance?

Cassius

Hey folks

I've always found it helpful to have some sort of motto or aphorism to live by. While of course such mottos inevitabely oversimplify things, I feel they can be useful to ground and remind oneself of the bigger ideas that lie behind them.

Recently I've been holding close the phrase, "Enjoy what you can, accept what you cannot".

Does anyone else have a short saying they use as a mental reminder or a salve during hard times?

Quote from Cassius

OK someone correct me if I am wrong but care has to be taken here: "mixed" is exactly what a feeling *never* is: a feeling is either pleasure, or it is pain. It is never "both" or "neither" or "mixed."

"Mixed" is a word that describes results which have multiple feelings, in that Epicurus' feelings were mixed on his last day - he felt some pleasure and some pain -- but in different parts of his experience. His gladness of his feelings for his friends was not mixed - it "co-existed" in his experience with other experiences which were painful.

But at the feeling level, feelings are discrete, at the total experience level, multiple feelings co-exist to produce the full level of experience that we're talking about as 100%, such as 60% pleasurable feelings and 40% painful feelings.

Apologies for reviving such an old thread - I've been doing some digging around the forum!

I see the logic behind feelings being either pleasure or pain, not both. I can have an aching belly but still find pleasure in the warmth of the sun hitting my face or in the sound of the birds singing. At the same time though, I can't help but feel some feelings are truly mixed. For instance, if I reminisce over some former partner, I might feel both glad for the good memories and sore about losing them. That is to say, what is often described as "bittersweet".

How do you reconcile this?

Well said, Cassius.

Out of interest, what’s the conflict between humanism and Epicureanism?

In order to illustrate this use of language, I’ve rewritten the contentious portion of Menoeceus 131 as if it regarded cleanliness rather than pleasure:

When, therefore, we maintain that cleanliness is the end, we do not mean the cleanliness of lazy teenagers — those who mask grime with body spray or shove messes under the bed — as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but rather the absence of filth on the body and of clutter in the home — in other words, spotlessness.

Humorous as this may be, I hope it is helpful in pointing out the effect of linguistic negation.

I thought about this some more, particularly Homer’s use of negation to imply the greatest degree of something. The word “spotless” came to mind.

”The table is clean” = Sure, it’s clean.

“The table is spotless (without ‘spots’)” = Wow, that is one clean table. The pinnacle of cleanliness.

Thus, “absence of pain” is to “spotless” as “pleasure” is to “clean”.

Spotless and clean refer to the same thing - being free from dirt - but the negative form, spotless, implies the highest degree of cleanliness.

Likewise, “absence of pain” and “pleasure” mean the same thing (considering only pleasure and pain exist), but the negative form, “absence of pain”, implies the highest degree of pleasure.

Epicureanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was skimming through the Epicureanism Wikipedia page and noticed some potential issues. Mainly, the popular interpretation that Epicureanism is all about reducing pain so that one can live in a pain-free, tranquil state. Is this worth revising? Wikipedia is such a commonly used reference and it could very well be the first stop for many people learning about the philosophy. Admittedly, I’m not the best when it comes to academic writing and I’m certainly no expert on the ins and outs of Epicureanism, but I figured it was worth forwarding this idea.

A few examples:

• “Epicureans had a very specific understanding of what the greatest pleasure was, and the focus of their ethics was on the avoidance of pain rather than seeking out pleasure.^[42] As evidence for this, Epicureans say that nature seems to command us to avoid pain, and they point out that all animals try to avoid pain as much as possible.”
• “While the pursuit of pleasure formed the focal point of the philosophy, this was largely directed to the "static pleasures" of minimizing pain, anxiety and suffering. From this understanding, Epicureans concluded that the greatest pleasure a person could reach was the complete removal of all pain, both physical and mental.^[52] The ultimate goal then of Epicurean ethics was to reach a state of aponia and ataraxia.^[52]”
• “Natural but not necessary: These desires are innate to humans, but they do not need to be fulfilled for their happiness or their survival.^[55]Wanting to eat delicious food when one is hungry is an example of a natural but not necessary desire.^[55] The main problem with these desires is that they fail to substantially increase a person's happiness, and at the same time require effort to obtain and are desired by people due to false beliefs that they are actually necessary.^[55] It is for this reason that they should be avoided.^[55]” [Emphasis mine]
• ”If one follows only natural and necessary desires, then, according to Epicurus, one would be able to reach aponia and ataraxia and thereby the highest form of happiness.^[56] Unnecessary and, especially, artificially produced desires were to be suppressed.^[57]”
  
  

You know, my issue here might be that I’m applying my modern view of the idea of “gods” onto Epicurus when he talks about gods. Gods were of course a major aspect of the society he lived in, and it makes sense that he would be required to start from the societal perspective that gods do exist and they have xyz characteristics. He wasn’t living in a society where secularity and atheism is assumed like many of us do today.

So perhaps it’s best for me to drop my modern understanding of the term “gods” when I read what Epicurus and his fellow philosophers have to say on this point. He was reacting to the contemporary understanding of “gods” by redefining what they are and what they are not.

I’m still hazy on this. I hope I’m explaining myself clearly.

Quote from Joshua

The major problem with casting the gods aside is that doing so challenges Epicurus' view of the anticipations (prolepsis) as a canonic or epistemological faculty parallel to the senses (aisthesis) and feelings (pathe).

Why is this? What relation to the gods have to anticipations?

Thanks for your replies everyone. To be honest, I’m still rather confused on this issue, but I imagine I’ll understand better once I’ve read more epicurean physics (canonics?).

I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of believing in the existence of some non-interventional, mundane, not at all supernatural “gods” on a theoretical basis. The “living between worlds” (intermundia?) part throws me off a bit though.

Do you folks tend to just not think so much about the idea of gods, or how does it play out for you? I suppose it’s like you said Cassius - we don’t have the full picture of what Epicurus believed on this matter. But still…

Hmm, related question I’m pondering this morning: Is NOT stubbing your toe pleasurable?

Hey folks!

Is it essential for one who follows (classical) epicurean philosophy to believe in the existence of (non-interventional) gods existing in the “space between worlds”, in the same way that it is essential to hold a materialistic view of reality?

My gut tells me it’s not so important, since gods play no role in epicurean cosmology and ethics. That said, Epicurus didn’t deny the existence of such gods (as far as I’m aware). Do we disregard this as a mere product of its time or does it play some vital role within epicurean philosophy?

Thinking aloud here.

"This is not pleasurable" gives me a notably different impression than "this is painful". "This is not pleasurable" brings to my mind some sort of neutral middleground, which as we know does not exist under the Epicurean framework. Perhaps this explains why people get so hung up on "absence of pain" implying some sort of ascetic nirvana-esque state. Not because of unclearness on Epicurus' part, but because they don't know or don't understand the idea that there is only pleasure and pain, and the way the brain processes negation points them to this non-existent "neutral third state".

Interesting thread!

Sure thing! I'm a student in my mid-20s, currently taking a painting course -- not because I'm some great artist, but simply for the joy of it. As an avid fan of Wikipedia, my interests are pretty wide-ranging, but I'm happiest when watching a good film, listening to music, or hanging out with animals - ideally sheep, goats, or cats, though dogs aren't too bad either.

For the better part of the past decade I've been (somewhat obsessively) chasing down an answer to the question, "How should I live?". I'm admittedly not the most academic person, but over the years I've dipped my toes into Buddhism, Taoist, Christianity, Absurdism, and Stoicism, among other ideas. And yet, nothing has ever felt quite right, at least not for extended periods of time. With every philosophy of life I've tried on for size, there has been some small (or large) thing nagging away at me, telling me that "this doesn't quite fit".

Somehow, Epicureanism had completely flown under my radar. I stumbled across it a couple months ago, and right away it just made sense. Perhaps it's not the flashiest or most dramatic philosophy -- it's not that of the action heroes I watch in the movies or the tortured musicians I listen to -- but it feels like a practical philosophy for actual humans, one that doesn't ask us to deny our nature, as so many other ideologies seem to do. That alone was a breath of fresh air.

I’m hesitant to throw myself headfirst into any single worldview (past experiences have made me cautious), but Epicureanism has felt more grounded and relatable than anything else I’ve found. Currently I'm reading Austin's book Living for pleasure as recommended here, alongside various articles and forum posts. I'm trying to understand the ideas of Epicurus and his fellow philosophers as they originally intended -- not through the filter of modern self-help trends, as has happened with Stoicism. At the same time, I don't want to turn Epicurus into some kind of divine and enlightened secular saint. It's important to me that I see him as a fellow human who, impressively, got a lot of things right.

Honestly, I wasn’t planning to post at all—I find the idea a bit intimidating. Not because I’m asocial (I do love meeting new people), but something about the permanence of a forum post gives me pause. Still, I found myself stuck on a few Epicurean questions, and figured that solo study only gets you so far. So here I am.

Hey folks!

I reached out to Cassius recently asking about the “absence of pain” problem. I’m fairly new to both this forum and epicurean philosophy as a whole, so I wasn’t sure about posting publicly, but Cassius kindly welcomed me to do so, so here goes!

Everything I’ve read on Epicureanism so far has been fairly easy to grasp and smooth sailing. However, the description of pleasure as the “absence of pain” in certain passages really threw me off. Little did I know that this was actually a common topic of debate.

After some digging (and reading lots of threads on EpicureanFriends!), I’ve come to the following understanding. That said, this is something I’d very much like to dive into deeper.

As illustrated by the cup analogy, the absence of pain is necessarily the greatest quantity of pleasure possible, since 100% pleasure indicates 0% pain in the cup. Therefore, when Epicurus talks about pleasure being the absence of pain in Menoeceus, he is saying that the end goal, the ideal to strive for in Epicureanism is NOT the pleasure of the “prodigal” (who spends money recklessly without concern for long-term pleasure) nor the pleasures of sensuality (imprudent pleasures, such as those endorsed by the Cyrenaics), but complete pleasure, free of pain. The term “absence of pain” here is used to emphasise the contrast between the epicurean view of pleasure and other, less prudent views of pleasure that often cause more pain.

This is further supported by the preceding text, where Epicurus talks about how habituating oneself to a simple diet is good because it makes luxuries more enjoyable when they come up. If he really meant that the goal was an ascetic, zombie-like state of painlessness, it would make no sense for him to talk about the enjoyment of luxuries right before.

As for PD3, I echo Cassius’ thoughts on it being a response to the contemporary views on the viability of pleasure as the goal of life (ie. The limited quantity).

Hello all!

I'm Rolf and I'm a student living in Scandinavia. I have long been searching for a philosophy of life that makes sense for me, with nothing seeming to click. I came across epicureanism a couple of months ago, and it all just feels so... Reasonable. That is to say, it fits like a glove. As per the recommendation on this site, I have been reading through Emily Austin's lovely introduction to the philosophy. I'm not quite sure what else to right here, but feel free to ask me anything if you're (epi)curious.

Thanks for having me!