Search Results

Search results 1-8 of 8.

  • (Quote) I think it was Laertius who explained that the argument of how pleasure exists in both katastematic and kinetic forms (static and dynamic) is because Epicurus was critiquing the Cyrenaics, who believed that pleasure could only exist in the satisfaction of the senses here and now. Aristippus of Cyrene told people to practice "presentism", to be present to the pleasures of the immediacy. Epicurus, instead, told people that they could also reminisce about past ones and anticipate future ple…
  • (Quote from Cassius) Right, but why is this an established doctrine? Why would the Epicureans make this worthy of memorization? The saying does not say or imply that abiding pleasures are "superior" to dynamic ones, or anything of that sort. If this is being said by anyone, we should consider that a SEPARATE argument and put it in a thought bubble and address it separately, without losing the point being presented here, which is that there is a need to remedy both ethical problems. I think VS 11…
  • (Quote from Cassius) I really don't think that the author of the Vatican Sayings made the argument that one is equal or superior to the other. You're jumping over the discussion, and questioning why this should even be in the doctrines. VS 11 is there, so we should make a good-will effort to read it and see what it says. The recognition of the existence of both types of pleasure does not imply the superiority of one over the other. So one way to look at this is: in what context, while discussing…
  • (Quote from Cassius) The Epicurean doctrine / teaching.
  • (Quote from Cassius) This is a huge error on your part, to suppose that this is what I'm implying or saying, or to over-interpret VS 11 in this manner even. Nowhere is there mention of "higher", "lower", "better", "worse", etc. Read VS11 again, and you will see. This is YOUR interpretation. The saying does not have to be interpreted in that manner.
  • I understand if you insist on correcting what you see as an unEpicurean opinion, I'm simply pressing based on the need, once you correct an error, to come back to the writings and understand what the Epicureans were saying--because I have a hard time imagining that a Platonist sneaked into the Garden and added heretical notes to a scroll! It's more likely that the Epicureans were discussing these things and that the discussions belong to a legitimate line of reasoning, and that we owe it to ours…
  • (Quote from Cassius) It's making me think of Epicurus' promise that we will be able to enjoy CONSTANT pleasures if we apply what he taught, for instance like when he says in Menoeceus "you will never be disturbed either when awake or in sleep". I feel like this needs to be connected with the logic behind "constant" pleasures considering that it is not in our constitution to be constantly expending large amounts of energy, so we need to mind our dispositions while idle and while active. That's ho…
  • (Quote from Cassius) THAT category helps to protect us from runaway, innumerable, limitless desires that run to infinity, and this is a crucial component of Epicureanism. If there is no satiation, if you're in a constant state of anxiety and of craving needless things, you won't be able to abide in pleasure. Diogenes on his wall includes limitless desires as one of the roots of all evils. So it IS kind of important to know that we don't need much and that what we need, we can easily procure. Eve…