Posts by Rolf

Thanks Cassius. Your replies are helpful but I feel we’re still not hitting the core of my misunderstanding here. Let me put it this way:

Let’s say I have adequate food, drink, shelter, and friends. I am able to consistently meet my necessary desires. But I am a person, as you described, who is not satisfied (ie. At 100% pleasure) with only these basic needs met. So I must unnecessary desires in order to hit that 100% pleasure mark: Watching a movie, going dancing, eating a donut. Does that not make these desires “necessary” in the sense that they’re necessary for my happiness (ie. 100% pleasure)?

I fear I’m getting tangled up in thought here and missing something obvious.

Thanks for the insight, Don and Cassius. A few notes…

Quote from Joshua

The limit of the quantity of pixels on a given screen is x, and even a black and white film will employ every pixel - but will the quality of the experience be better in full color? I think it probably will be.

Does this not fall into the fallacy of there being a “hierarchy” of pleasures? I understood it as all pleasure being equally, well, pleasurable - no “fancy pleasures”, as Elayne put it.

Cassius

I’m still a little confused. I understand that the intention is that we should simply maximise pleasure and minimise pain. However, I am struggling to follow the logical steps on this particular issue (pursuing unnecessary pleasures). Perhaps I’m getting too caught up on this classification?

When it comes to the “absence of pain” thing - I get that PD3 is a counterargument to Plato on pleasure having no limit. That’s not what I’m confused about here (though there’s another quote with a similar meaning that I still feel unsure about, but that’s a discussion for another thread).

What I’m confused about is this classification. Am I understanding correctly that the “necessary” in “necessary and natural desires” refers to being necessary for human well-being and happiness, and “unnecessary” to being unnecessary (but still pleasurable)? If that’s the case, why is it not enough for us to simply pursue and fulfil the necessary desires in order to reach this ideal (and largely hypothetical) state of 100% pleasure 0% pain? I understand in a practical sense that a minimal and ascetic life like this would be rather dull (and thus painful), but then I don’t understand the “necessary” and “unnecessary” terminology.

I hope I’m adequately explaining my confusion! Let me know if you’re unsure about what I mean.

Hey folks!

I’m getting stumped on something that previously I felt I had a firm grasp on: Why pursue (natural) unnecessary desires, if necessary desires are all that are needed for happiness? If the limit of pleasure is the absence of pain (ie. 100% pleasure 0% pain), aren’t unnecessary desires merely variation?

I recall the ‘cup’ infographic. One of the examples of a “bad” cup is one that is half full, in which only necessary desires are pursued - a cup of asceticism. I can acknowledge that I enjoy unnecessary pleasures and wish to pursue them, but logically speaking, why exactly should we not aim to fulfil only our necessary desires?

Hmm. On one hand, I suppose all of these could in fact lead to pain. Likely to, even. As Lucretius points out, these vices “tear a man in two” and “trouble his life”, and he laments about “how many disasters they deal”. To me, this points towards him illustrating how these vices lead to material pain, not any kind of abstract moral failing.

At the same time though, I see your concern Kalosyni - I agree that we ought to be careful about abstract virtues and vices detached from the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

I suppose it could simply be a matter of Lucretius being a product of his time, in the same way that Epicurus wrote from a perspective of gods existing (though not interfering of course).

It could also be Lucretius being Lucretius. From what I’ve seen, he’s rather flowery and dramatic with his language, and seems to use language in a way intended to elicit emotions, even if it takes away from precision.

See you there!

Quote from vlasalv

I suppose, at least in my early understanding, that Epicurus indeed used the words 'pleasure' and 'pain' as conceptual markers rather than literal interpretations. His 'pleasure' seems to point more toward an inner tranquility - a state of peace rather than momentary delight. In that light, certain pains might be endured for the sake of greater inner peace, if they lead to that deep serenity. I wonder if Mildred Lisette Norman, the Peace Pilgrim, reached that state. Could she be seen as a modern figure who attained the god-like state that Epicurus spoke of?

Hey Vlas, welcome to the forum! I'm sure others will be able to explain this better, but the equating of "pleasure" with "a tranquil state" is a common pitfall in the understanding of Epicurean philosophy. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. This includes pleasure of all kinds: The "state of peace" and the "momentary delight". The goal of Epicureanism is very much pleasure, complete pleasure, and not some kind of detached nirvana-esque state of serenity - no "god-like state", at least not in any typical understanding of the term.

Which Is It? Is "Ataraxia" Or "Pleasure" The Ultimate Epicurean Goal? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

This might be a good place to start!

Quote from Don

And there's nothing "sinful" about overindulging in wine, for example. But if you're going to, you've made a choice and you'll have to deal with the consequences. No more, no less.

Well said Don, that's exactly how I see it.

Quote from Cassius

This has been a good thread and maybe not gotten to exactly the destination Rolf may have thought but it points out how important it is to be precise.

Quote from Rolf

There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.

Even here, we have to balance the wording that Torquatus and Epicurus used about "blame":

Quote from Torquatus

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

Quote from Epicurus to Menoeceus

[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

Display More

Hmm, this is certainly an interesting counterpoint. You're right about the importance of precision in language - I appreciate your frankness!

These two quotes do sound rather uncharacteristically harsh to my ear. Alhough perhaps the former is a case of Cicero's embellishment. Epicurus using the word "blame" in the second quote makes sense to me, as I read it as him saying that we can only hold ourselves accountable for what is in our control. Feel free to correct me if I'm off-base here.

Count me in! I can't promise I'll be available every week, but I'd love to hang out and discuss with everyone on a semi-regular basis.

Quote from Kalosyni

The usual cognition of the word "pleasure" and which has been with me most of my life until encountering Epicurean philosophy, seems like it has almost an eternal "prolepsis" of being bodily sensation and a kind of movement/active state, (and pain being a sensation that is more than just a mild discomfort). In my mind this leaves out the state of "feeling satisfied" (and therefore not needing anything to be different than it is).

I think part of it is learning to become more aware of one's feelings, along with gratitude and appreciation. While in the past, before encountering Epicurean philosophy, I might have dismissed a state of "mere" satiety as a bland neutral state, I can now see that this is a pleasure in itself. This in particular has been a great boon to me, as it's helped me to gain a far more positive perspective on both my own life and life in general, by realising how much pleasure there really is.

Wherever in the case of desires which are physical, but do not lead to a sense of pain, if they are not fulfilled, the effort is intense, such pleasures are due to idle imagination, and it is not owing to their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but owing to the empty imaginings of the man. (PD 30)

I'm having some trouble understanding this one, specifically the grammar. What is Epicurus saying here?

Quote from Cassius

Yes definitely Godfrey:

Article

On Pain, Pleasure, And Happiness

Brief: The feelings are only two, pleasure and pain—there is no third state such as neutral, and there are no “fancy pleasures” which are different from regular pleasures. Because there is no neutral, reducing pain in life is only possible if there is a corresponding increase in pleasure. The extent of pleasure can be maximized by making sure to attend to all parts of one’s body, including the brain. Happiness is comprised of a pleasurable life. The capacity for pain is a valuable warning system and should not be disabled except in unusual conditions. The experience of pain is to be avoided except when it is chosen for the sake of greater pleasure/ lesser pain over the lifespan. Humans have many shared responses of pain or pleasure to specific experiences, and they also have individual variations. The standard of pleasure in one’s life must be one’s own subjective feelings, not a generic advice. There are many pitfalls to avoid if one desires a happy, pleasure-filled life, such as a false belief in a neutral state, practices which attempt to disable the normal capacity to feel pleasure and pain, and failure to consider the long-term pains and pleasures resulting from actions. In discussing pain and pleasure, Epicureans stick to real life situations, not hypothetical philosophical puzzles.

Elayne

July 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM

Reading this now - immensely helpful. Perhaps it would be good to consolidate these particularly useful posts/articles somewhere on the site? There's so much good stuff on here but it feels a bit scattered.

As a result of Cassius' friendly encouragement, I've decided to post this publicly, along with a tongue-in-cheek title.

Something I really appreciate about Epicurean philosophy is that there is no concept of sin. I don't necessarily mean the concept of religious sin - I was not raised religious - but the idea of falling short of some ideal. With other philosophies of life I've tried on, I always feel this shame or guilt whenever I miss the mark. Maybe I indulged too much in worldly desire and clinging (Buddhism) or allowed my emotions rather than virtue guide me (Stoicism). But with Epicureanism, I haven't "sinned" if I do something that results in more pain than pleasure. It's a learning process. Sometimes I drink too heavily on a night out and feel hungover the next day, and realise that I would've been better off drinking more moderately. But it's not some kind of stain on my soul. Life can be messy and Epicurus, from what I understand, gets this. There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.

The phrase "Prudent Enjoyment" has been on my mind today. Or in the imperative, "Enjoy Prudently". I think it sums things up nicely.

Or if you speak emoji, 🎉⚖️.

No leaping pig on this one, but decided to try another interpretation of an Epicurean flag, this time featuring the vessel of pleasure and pain.

Quote from Cassius

"For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure."

Hmm, I do find myself struggling to reconcile this one. Could you help me break it down?

Does my understanding of the value/importance of katastematic pleasure sound correct to you?

Really interesting discussion, thanks everyone. I’ll be sure to check out Nikolsky and later G&T, though I feel I should first get a broad understanding of the philosophy via Austin and DeWitt.

That said, I’m not sure I quite see the point at issue here. Pleasures vary in duration, intensity, and location. Of course I would prefer a katastematic pleasure. More sustainable, longer lasting pleasure. It’s like asking someone if they want $1000 now or $100 per month for 2 years. It’s a matter of prudence.

At the same time, I don’t think that turns such pleasures into a specific goal. The goal is still just pleasure generally. I forget who said this, perhaps it was an older forum post, but getting wrapped up trying to define pleasure and pain sort of takes away from the whole “pleasure and pain are our inherent, instinctively knowable guides” thing. I do understand that it’s important to discuss this stuff though - I find myself especially interested in hearing criticisms and flawed takes on Epicureanism. It helps me to understand what is *not* Epicureanism. I suppose you could say I’m not just looking for an understanding of epicurean philosophy, but an absence of misunderstanding.

Cassius Would you be able to sum up this flawed view of katastematic pleasure that mainstream academia purports?

Well said Cassius!

Quote from Cassius

So Patrikios, who is older like me, due to our age can look upon some experiences as the best we could even hope for, while Rolfe who I understand is much younger, can look aghast at the things that might be 100% pleasing to old guys, and yet there is no philosophical problem.

Exactly! This state of 100% pleasure/0% pain could present itself as a peaceful tranquility, sitting out in nature, but it could just as well occur while dancing to loud music with friends.

I’d also like to reiterate that this state (which I view as more of a hypothetical ideal - correct me if I’m off-base) is NOT a one-and-done state you achieve and then live in perfect harmony for the rest of your days. It’s not nirvana. It’s simply a description of the greatest pleasure one can experience. Our pleasure and pain levels are constantly fluctuating as we move through life.

Quote from Patrikios

Quote from Rolf

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.

Rolf , thanks for this thoughtful perspective. I understand the “spotless” analogy.

I’m wondering whether “absence of pain”, implies the highest degree of pleasure fits for all persons. Couldn’t the “absence of pain” lead one to simply be in a relaxed, neutral state; with highest degree of pleasure coming from a favorite kinetic pleasure?

I may be missing something in the way you described the analogy.

This is something I’m still wrapping my head around, so I might not be the best person to ask. That said, according to epicurean philosophy there is no “neutral state”. There is only pleasure and pain. So a complete absence of pain indicates a complete presence of pleasure. The way I understand it, this “absence of pain” is more of an ideal state, a goal, rather than something that we are realistically going to achieve. As far as I’m aware, you could switch out “absence of pain” here with “100% pleasure” and it would mean the same thing. “Absence of pain” is just used to emphasise the completeness of pleasure we should strive for.

I suppose such an ideal state could present itself as a relaxed and tranquil state, but it could just as easily be a moment of ecstatic joy and laughter with friends. Epicurus wasn’t talking about some state of perfect pleasure that lasts forever once achieved, like nirvana or something. Instead, our pleasure and pain levels are constantly fluctuating.

Woah, exciting stuff! It’s insane how we’re able to detect things like this from such a tremendous distance.

I apologise for hijacking this thread with *yawn* philosophical discussion, but hypothetically speaking, what would happen to Epicurus’ argument on the existence of life across the universe if we somehow ruled out the existence of life beyond earth?