Search Results

(Quote) At the risk of over-simplifying, this line jumps out at me. A human lifespan is by nature limited and there is no afterlife. So I'm seeing this line as contrasting a limited, natural lifespan with an unlimited amount of time. One's life contains a fixed amount of joy, no matter that time may be infinite. He's referring to his reasoning on the vanity of the fear of death. There's no need for hypotheticals here, just sensible reasoning.

Cassius I think these PDs are making the same point that you frequently make: one's life is finite and there's no afterlife, so make the most of the time you have. As we don't pick the most at a banquet (which is also finite) but the most pleasant. The more I read them, the more I see that as the point. No talk of jellybeans is necessary for these PDs, that discussion only confuses the point here. At least that's my current take. I found these rather baffling before reading this thread, but thi…

A key point for me is that infinite and finite time are being discussed, not infinite and finite life. Those are two completely different discussions. (Quote) I think that this passage is specifically making that point. If you understand the limits of the flesh and don't fear being dead, then you can focus on the goal without stressing over the fact that you won't live forever. There's no point in thinking about infinite pleasure because the flesh doesn't last forever. Revel in the time you have…

Why thank you Don !

Don : yes, that's a good paraphrase! I would add that the PDs are stated in terms of limits and of nature, which ties into other uses of those terms. But yours is a good summary of the point of these particular PDs, at least as I currently understand them.

Isonomia is a really juicy topic, and yet another one that baffles me. It would make a great thread on its own; in fact I think we were discussing it not too long ago. My take is that PS18-22 are discussing a finite human life in contrast to infinite time. Infinite time, space, quantities &c seem to me to be a different topic from this. Isonomia seems to be something implied by infinity, but I'm not even sure about that as I think the usage attributed to Epicurus is different from the common Gre…

Another option: Infinite time contains no greater quantity of dark chocolate eaten than finite time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of quantity of dark chocolate eaten. Or, perhaps pet puppies could be used. I mean this to be serious, not snarky. If you reason that what Epicurus is referring to is that life is finite, then just about anything that an individual experiences could be substituted for pleasure and would make the same point. But since Epicurus used the word pleasure, is he us…

To me, pleasure has been defined in PD18 and a variety of previous PDs beginning with PD03. I think PD19 is referencing those, and pivoting to the subject of craving infinite time for infinite pleasure. PD20 then mentions "fears about a life after death" and "departure from life", which seems to indicate that this is the subject of these two PDs, not pleasure. The two are describing the temporal limits of a person and how to think about it. [Parentheses are my additions.] PD19. Infinite time con…

(Quote from reneliza) What if we allow for multiple explanations, as in the letter to Pythocles? Reasoning might lead one to: - A person’s pleasure is limited by their finite life: their life is still finite, regardless of the infinity of time. - If you're in a state of pleasure, the length of time of that state is immaterial and can't be quantified, so finite or infinite time are irrelevant (correct me if I'm wrong; that's how I understand Martin's point). - Using the idea of homeostasis (at le…

(Quote from Kalosyni) The interpretation that I'm currently working with is that natural and necessary desires, such as friendship, are a priority. Fulfilling them is the bottom limit of the sweet spot. Once those are met, there's great pleasure to be had in pursuing a variety of desires, as long as we stay in the sweet spot and below the upper limit that is the vain desires. If the natural and necessary desires haven't been fulfilled, then it's a priority to work with them, although this will m…

It may have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but Empedocles (I think) saw the universe as being made up of Love and Strife. That, as I recall, was one of the pre-Socratic notions that eventually led to atomism. Maybe a more directly pertinent thought is the contrast between "pleasure ethics" and "duty ethics". For most of my life I was living by duty ethics, although I wasn't consciously aware of it. Duty ethics is a great way to grow the economy and keep the worker bees buzzing, and it ta…