Posts by Rolf

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!

Welcome, Karim! Happy to have you here.

Quote from Robert

Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil

Good point Robert - sort of an inverse of Menoeceus 131:

“To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.”

Quote from Cassius

I wonder if there is a way that it can be made more clear that the cup is full rather than empty? The black color alone might be hard to determine whether empty or full (?)

I was thinking the same thing. Copilot AI suggests something like the attached image - the wavy line makes it clearer that liquid is inside, but it also makes it seem like the cup is not completely full. Thus, I settled on the design I put together in Inkscape. I feel it’s somewhat that it’s full of liquid - as opposed to the oval being white showing emptiness - but I definitely echo your concern and I’m open to any ideas.

Quote from Rolf

Decided to try learning Inkscape at one in the morning...

I had intended for it to look like this, but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to easily remove the segment at the top of the bottom oval. Here I’ve done it by hand with a white pen tool.

Quote from Bryan

Posting an update to coins and rings I have been making, They are still a bit rough, but if anybody wants any, let me know. The necklaces and the coins are the easiest to make, and the Lucretius Trio ring is "on hold" at the moment (but I should be able to make more, somewhat better versions, soon).

These are beautiful, Bryan!

I also believe that a good symbol should be able to be represented in many different styles and colours while remaining recognisable. Take, for instance, the many renditions of the Christian cross. Here's a couple mockups of a more stylised, hand-drawn (though unfilled) kylix I threw together in Canva.

Decided to try learning Inkscape at one in the morning... Harder than I thought! Think I'll stick to pen and paper for now.

That said, I'm liking the idea of a full kylix as a symbol more and more. Beyond Lucretius' vessel analogy itself, the classic ancient Greek wine cup represents pleasure (and not ascetic "necessary only" pleasure!) and ties back to the historical and cultural origins of the philosophy.

I also toyed with the idea of combining a balance scale with the kylix - the scale "plates" hanging from each handle or something like that, to represent prudent and measured pursuit of pleasure. However, it would perhaps be overly complex for a simple symbol.

Some great ideas here! I’ve really been enjoying looking at all of them.

I’m firmly in the camp of “symbols should be simple enough for a child to draw”. With that in mind, I like the idea of a full cup as a symbol, representing the vessel analogy and thus the prudent pursuit of pleasure - neither ascetic nor reckless.

Quote from Cassius

the first and second most important doctrines on the list are telling you to first and foremost watch out for those who would manipulate you with bad motives.

Which doctrines are you referring to?

Related question: How does a modern-day Epicurean reconcile a) the predominant theory that the universe has a beginning with b) the Epicurean idea that the universe has no beginning and end?