Posts by Rolf

Hey folks,

Woke up feeling a little under the weather today. While resting up in bed, I thought about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how it does and does not relate to Epicurean philosophy. As a result, I decided to throw together this rough idea for an Epicurean hierarchy of needs.

Now, obviously in Epicurean philosophy there isn't so much of a "hierarchy" in the sense that all pleasure is good. With that in mind, this chart is meant for more practical usage.

From bottom to top:

1. First and foremost, we need basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter, along with confidence of consistent access to these things. Without these, we physically cannot live.

2. Next, we need friendship and a community. Humans are social animals and friendship is vital to a pleasant life.

3. Then we learn about Epicurean philosophy, such as the ethics and canonics, and the natural world, so that we may live a more pleasurable life and understand the limits of pleasure.

4. Finally, we have the snow sprinkled atop the mountain representing the natural but unnecessary "extravagant" desires. Once we have everything below, we may take joy in these pleasures and allow them to adorn our life, without feeling like we require them.

The mountain climber represents prudence - the tool we use in order to ascend the mountain.

Quote from Godfrey

For me, the PDs have been tricky. At the beginning they sounded rather obscure, but as I have read, paused and returned to them over various intervals they seem to be pretty straightforward, although incredibly insightful. They require time and percolation.

Thanks for your insightful reply Godfrey. I really ought to spend more time on the PDs. That said, I appreciate you explaining things in your own words - citations are great, but it's helpful to have things in explained in a different way too.

PD04 which you mentioned gives a pretty straightforward response to my concern - despite having read it before, I didn't think about it in this specific context until you brought it up. That even "chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh" is relieving to hear and a good reminder.

Quote from Godfrey

For me, part of the beauty of Epicurus' analysis of pleasure and pain is that it is exceptionally nuanced and provides the Epicurist so much to work with. We can offset various pains by noticing and dialing in to pleasures in other parts, and we can work at increasing these pleasures even if we can't seem to diminish the pains. We can seek pleasure strategically when we understand what, for each of us, provides the greatest payoff in terms of maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our pain. Sometimes this takes time. Lots of time. But we humans are intricate instruments, not the golems that Cicero and the Stoics imagine us to be.

Quote from Godfrey

We strive for pleasure and consider pain an "evil". But even as we sometimes choose a pain in the service of greater pleasure, even being more aware of our pains can provide us with guidance to greater pleasure.

For sure. When it comes to pains that are chosen to avoid greater pain or achieve greater pleasure, I completely understand. However, I am more concerned about the pains that we do not choose - the unnecessary pains that serve no purpose. How do we reconcile them under Epicureanism, particularly if they are frequent? If one is truly unable to get rid of such pains, is it best to adjust one's mindset and accept them? Does Epicurus write about this sort of thing? From what I've read so far, pain is mainly mentioned in the contexts of a) pain should be avoided and b) some pains should be chosen in the name of prudence. But what of the pains that can neither be avoided nor are chosen?

Quote from Don

Anything can certainly be proposed and discussed. The question, to me, is "Does the idea correlate to reality or not?" Epicurus' categorization, to my current understanding, correlates to reality while Cicero, Plato, "St." Paul, etc. do not. I think some ideas in Buddhism are interesting, but overall it has too much other baggage. But that was why I considered myself a Buddhist for a number of years. It made the most sense to me and conformed to my understanding of reality at the time in contrast to all the other philosophies and religions I had studied up to that point. Then I discovered Epicurus.

100% agree. I aim to be pragmatic, and to me Epicurus' philosophy is the most pragmatic. Even from my beginner's standpoint where I don't fully grasp all the concepts yet, it requires little to no leaps in logic compared to the vast majority of other philosophies I've looked into.

Speaking of which - a vaguely related thought I want to bring up. There are times when I find myself doubting whether Epicurean philosophy can truly work for me — not because I disagree with its core ideas, but because I live with a persistent undercurrent of physical discomfort. I start to wonder if Epicureanism assumes a baseline of health that I just don’t have.

In those moments, other perspectives become tempting. The “surrender to the flow” of Taoism, or the radical acceptance of Stoicism, can seem like a way to bypass the whole problem of pain — to dissolve it in detachment. And yet, they ultimately drift from reality by denying that pleasure and pain matter.

Regardless of what I feel, it is clear as day to me that pleasure and pain do in fact matter, and that Epicurean philosophy is an accurate reflection of reality. Life is clearly about pleasure and pain at its core, without any kind of romantisation of the latter. Pursuing pleasure is always going to be the optimal "strategy", regardless of any lingering pains that may or may not be able to be stamped out. Even for somebody experiencing truly severe chronic pains, following the reality of Epicureanism is going to be far more effective than chasing mirages with Stoicism and the like.

Quote from Cassius

Also Rolf, have you read the Chrisypus' hand challenge, and if so what do you make of it?

Hmm, I'm uncertain. I recall reading this before and not understanding it, and I'm not sure I grasp it now either.

Quote from Cassius

apart from a joyous activity of pleasure

Quote from Cassius

it is the highest pleasure, as Epicurus believes, to be in no pain

This here almost feels like an endorsement for the "ascetic absence of pain" argument. "To be in no pain" seems to be used here literally, rather than to mean "100% pleasure 0% pain". And, if I understand correctly, this state is put above "joyous activity of pleasure". How do you interpret this?

Though perhaps it's meant to be read as "since there are only two feelings, if the hand is not in pain, then it is in pleasure, and therefore feels no need for pleasure".

On another note, if I think about how my hand feels right now, I certainly feel some discomfort. I don't know if I feel a specific lack of pleasure in it though, because I can't think of anything I could do to decrease the discomfort in my hand. Thus the most prudent option seems to be to accept the minor discomfort and think about something else.

I'm also unsure about how this passage relates to the topic at hand (no pun intended), in terms of attitude and mindset. Or was it meant as a more general callback to the initial topic of the thread?

Quote from Cassius

Yes I agree that that is true.

Is this something that’s discussed at all in Epicureanism? From what I’ve seen, the philosophy seems to be more focused on practical, physical choice and avoidance, rather than mindset.

Quote from Cassius

It seems to me that it's implicit in virtually all of it that you have to make conscious choices to focus your mind and decide to trust the senses and use them properly.

I mean less in the context of “trusting your senses” and more in the sense of consciously shifting your mindset regarding pain.

If I’m experiencing bodily pain, for instance, it’s objectively painful. I trust my senses that I am experiencing pain. However, if I dwell on and agonise over the pain, I will experience it more strongly. On the other hand, with a more positive mindset, or a conscious effort to accept the pain as it is, perhaps its impact can be reduced.

Do you see what I mean?

This discussion makes me wonder: How important is a conscious positive mindset/attitude to Epicurean living? I haven’t seen this discussed much, beyond Epicurus’ last day when he shifted his mind to pleasant memories rather than letting himself be distraught over the physical pain. I’m reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl:

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

What role, if any, does this concept of a conscious mindset play in Epicurean philosophy?

Quote from Cassius

Rolf I'll say publicly what I told you privately - I do not judge your questioning to be pessimistic or too persistent. You are asking excellent questions and doing us a great favor by boring in on a key issue like this. Please keep it up and feel free to expand the questioning to other topics when you are through with this one!

Much appreciated! I shall do so.

Fantastic discussion going on, Don and Cassius. Thank you.

Quote from Don

That's simply because you're a mortal being in a material world.

By this, do you mean that it is normal to feel aches, pains, and other discomforts when focusing on the body? If so, how does that align with the following?

Quote from Don

I would rather think of "a body without pain, and an untroubled mind" being the ground from which other pleasures can be more readily experienced.

If a body without pain and an untroubled mind is the essential foundation, I’m unsure if I’ll ever reach such a state. This supposed “healthy functioning body, free from pain” sounds almost mythical to me. Do people really feel this way, beyond some scattered moments?

I hope I don’t come across as pessimistic here - my intent is only to be objective about my personal experience.

Hmm, I understand where you're coming from. However:

Quote from Patrikios

You just have to tune your mind in to the small pleasures that your body is experiencing when it is just operating normally.

I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, but I also have to be truthful about my own personal experience: When I'm in a "neutral state" - not sick, injured, etc. - and I focus on my body's senses, I pretty much always notice some kind of ache, tenseness, stomach pain, itchiness, or some other uncomfortable feeling that I'm generally able to ignore when I'm not not fixating on it. This isn't some new sensation either - this has been my general experience for as long as I can remember, and I don't have any kind of underlying medical issues (that I know of) that would cause this kind of thing. This is perhaps why I've been finding it difficult to understand and reconcile the idea that pleasure is the default state.

Quote

The fact that the name of pleasure was not customarily applied to the normal or static state did not alter the fact that the name ought to be applied to it; nor that reason justified the application; nor that human beings would be the happier for so reasoning and believing.

Great post. I’d like to give a lengthier response but for now just a quick one: How does reason justify the application, exactly?

Quote from Cassius

If you do not consciously identify "absence of pain" as pleasure in your mind, then your body will not conclude that this labeling is appropriate.

Ahh, I see! This helps clear it up a bit. Even if the absence of pain might feel neutral, upon conscious identification and reason we can conclude that it is in fact pleasure. Am I understanding correctly?

Would you say that the inverse is also true?

Quote

If you do not consciously identify “absence of pleasure” as pain in your mind, then your body will not conclude this labelling is appropriate.

In other words:

If the removal of pain is always pleasurable, why is the removal of pleasure not always painful? In practical, not theoretical, terms.

If the feelings are only two, shouldn’t the removal of pleasure necessarily lead to pain? And not pain as a concept, but pain as a real, tangible feeling.

Quote from Cassius

In practice, when you view life as Epicurus suggests, you can find pleasure in all sorts of places and all sorts of things, so you're not going to normally find a "total absence of pleasure" situation.

I feel this doesn’t give “equal logical treatment” to pleasure and pain though. When talking about absence of pain, we talk about absence of pain in a specific location; absence of mental distress, absence of a sore back. And we call this pleasurable:

Quote from Cassius

We can and should through reason and logic affirmatively identify the healthy normal functioning of the mind and body (even when they are not being "stimulated") as pleasure.

So I’m not referring to a total absence of pleasure, but specific instances of the absence of pleasure. I’m talking about the equivalent to the pleasurable absence of pain - the painful absence of pleasure. If the absence of pain is pleasurable, shouldn’t the absence of pleasure be painful? Not only in a theoretical sense, but literally? And if so, does this not contradict the quote I posted above? (“We refuse to believe, however, that when pleasure is removed, grief instantly ensue”)

Quote from Cassius

Given Epicurus' framework, I think it is clear that Epicurus would say that 'absence of pleasure' equals pain.

How would this look in practice?

Quote from Don

As far as the "feelings are two," I fall back on the modern psychological research on valence and activation. You'll see some of this on this forum if you search for circumplex or Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/

There's also some research here:

https://psu.pb.unizin.org/psych425/chapt…cumplex-models/

My basic understanding, both Epicurean and modern, is that if you are alive, you are feeling something. There is no neutral state. It may be intense (high activation) or mild (low activation); and there will be an unpleasantness/pleasantness dimension (valence). But you never feel neutral if you're being honest with yourself.

Thanks Don, it's helpful to hear it in more modern, scientific terminology.

Quote from Cassius

We refuse to believe, however, that when pleasure is removed, grief instantly ensues, excepting when perchance pain has taken the place of the pleasure; but we think on the contrary that we experience joy on the passing away of pains, even though none of that kind of pleasure which stirs the senses has taken their place; and from this it may be understood how great a pleasure it is to be without pain.

Why is this? If the absence of pain is pleasurable, then shouldn't the absence of pleasure be painful, by necessity? When pleasure simply fades away, what are we left with if not pain?

Hey everyone!

I've hit a bit of a road block again with the concept of "the feelings are only two". I've read up on this before and asked questions about it, but I'm still not entirely confident in my understanding. Specifically, I'm wondering:

• How are "neutral" feelings explained? (ie. When one does not feel particularly good or bad.) If I have a stomach ache, then I am experiencing pain in my stomach. But when my stomach is not aching, I wouldn't say I'm experiencing pleasure in my stomach. It just doesn't hurt. Additionally, my mental state quite often feels neither pleasurable or painful. I just feel okay.
• How are "bittersweet" feelings explained? (ie. Experiences that are both pleasant and painful, such as the rememberance of a lost loved one.)
• If the feelings are only two and pleasure is the absence of pain - illustrated by the vessel analogy - does this mean that every pleasure corresponds to the removal of some pain? I can see how natural pleasures like eating, sleeping, or friendship relieve hunger, fatigue, or loneliness. But how do we account for unnecessary or extravagant pleasures, like eating ice cream or reading poetry? What pain is being removed?
• Speaking of the vessel analogy and the general idea of pleasure reaching its limit at the absence of pain - does intensity of the pleasure/pain play any role in the "fullness of the vessel"?

I already have an idea of the "Epicurean response" to some of these questions, but I find it helpful to twist and bend ideas as much as possible to ensure that I understand them properly and that they hold up to scrutiny. Thanks in advance!

Quote from Don

I'm looking at the word "meaning" itself. Wiktionary gives definition 2 as:

The purpose, value, or significance (of something) beyond the fact of that thing's existence. (the meaning of life)

People seem to want/need a "greater purpose" for their lives, or to understand the "value" of the lives, to understand the significance of their lives in the grand scheme. That search for "meaning" seems like trying to chase a mirage. There is no ultimate or supernatural or divine purpose, value, or significance to an individual's living their life over and above pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, just like every other living creature. That's it. Now, that said, people can derive a lot of pleasure out of what are often lumped into "meaningful" acts and experiences. But I sincerely think people are fooling themselves (and more power to them) when they call that their life's purpose or meaning rather than acknowledge they're seeking pleasure. The pundits who pontificate about having a life of meaning have it backwards. Sincerely investigate what will truly bring you pleasure, and pursue that (within the limits of justice and ethical behavior Epicurus outlined). That might indeed be humanitarian causes like working in a war-torn country providing assistance, but it might not be. It might indeed be a life spent in service to people in need, but it might not be. Looking for a "grand purpose" almost seems to set people up to see themselves as inadequate in some way. "Pleasure is the highest good" seems a good antidote to that.

Well said Don, I couldn’t agree more.