Search Results

Thank you for starting this thread Godfrey! I think there's a lot of useful thought there and I agree with your direction. (Quote from Godfrey) As Joshua might say, however, having identified that at least some desires can be unlimited, and that a limit has to be imposed upon them, we are, "only at the beginning" of the analysis. Always referencing VS63 that a life that is too frugal can be just as mistaken as a life that is too extravagant, the knowledge that we need to impose a limit on some d…

Right, we do limit desires, even the desire for life to accommodate us to our mortality. The issue I think is how to articulate how much of anything to pursue. The answer cannot be "no more than causes any pain" because we sometimes do chose pain as Epicurus said, for greater pleasure, and we seek not that which is longest but the most pleasant. The great problem is that much Epicurean discussion makes it sound like Epicurus was a modern minimalist, whereas "the least in every aspect" is not nec…

Well so as not to leave this question up in the air for too long without giving my answer, I personally think the answer lies in the obvious as to pleasure and pain. The goal of life is to live as nearly as possible along the pattern described by Torquatus (which is so close to the letter to Menoeceus that I see no reason to doubt it's reliability): "Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presen…

(Quote from Don) When one fills a glass with water, the glass is full of water without any air, and we no longer leave room for the people of sour disposition to say that it is "half-empty." If we want to squash the people of sour disposition fully (which we may need to do if their name is Plato) then we might usefully call the quality of being full "the state of zero-emptiness." But I doubt if there is much call in life, short of dealing with obstinate manipulators like Plato, to dwell on terms…

Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4: DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. JACK CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 't is the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.

Godfrey I can't get rid yet of a nagging concern that evaluating desire on its own separate from pleasure is going to lead to problems of its own, but I am more than happy to suspend that concern while this path is developing. With that caveat I would say yes you are right in this last point.

Godfrey as a means of furthering the discussion, can we take the analysis and direction so far and apply it to a specific - such as: How would you apply what you have so far to the question "Should I (or anyone else) want to build a rocket and fly to the moon?"

For example, in generally considering that question under a pleasure pain framework, I would simply ask: What is your best estimate of all the expected pleasures and pains to come from that project? Will it be worth it to you in the form of pleasure over pain? If so, go ahead! How would your suggestion as to separating out the "desire" part of it apply?

I understand and agree how that applies to you yourself. But in the interest of generalizing this to a philosophical level that gives a guideline to express to others generally, how does that work at a general level? I would distill all of what you wrote down to "In my case, building a rocket to fly to the moon would not lead to a favorable pleasure/pain balance, so that's not something I would choose to do." But if we are looking for general statements to discuss philosophically, the unstated n…

(Quote from Godfrey) Godfrey from this formulation I infer you are eliminating all "unnatural" desires completely. How did you define or give examples for that category?

(Quote from reneliza) That leads me back to this point: (Quote from Don) To some extent the observations that food water shelter etc are needed for life is so obvious that it doesn't seem to me to be useful for much more than what Epicurus says -- touchstones for contemplation of the issues. Those minimal levels stand at one end of the spectrum, while "master of the world" is at the other. No one should seriously suggest that either of those extremes is appropriate, but they serve the purpose of…