Search Results

Yes I agree Godfrey it is an important point - a threshold way of getting the terminology right, because it helps clarify that all pleasures are pleasing and in that sense desirable. But at that point the ball is still in play. Even if Pacatus had stated his comment in terms of only pursuing natural desires, we would still have essentially the same set of problems: What exactly are these "non- natural desires" and what should be our attitude toward them? Are we to fully banish them from our live…

Kalosyni you are saying those are the ones mentioned? (Quote from Godfrey) Godfrey so you are saying that this is the definition of unnatural desires? And can you spell our further what you mean by "the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain?

Here is another way of asking my continuing question on this topic: I think we can all agree that air, food, water, shelter from the rain, and warmth in the cold, are natural and necessary desires. I think we can all also agree that one can obtain all of these by living in a cave and never straying far except to gather firewood, kills a few deer or rabbits for food and clothing, and to gather water from a nearby stream. What guidance does this discussion of natural and necessary desires give us …

This is the quote from A Few Days In Athens That I cited Wednesday night and which I think applies to this discussion: (Quote) The natural and necessary analysis is being used by OKeefe and others across the Internet to argue that the best Epicurean is the one who most limits his desires to only those which are "natural and necessary." Has Epicurus thrown open the gate to the construction of his philosophy that the best life is the one in which the desires are limited only to those which are nat…

I agree with Don's formulation. The only thing I might tweak is to bring what is implied and to explicitly refute the hyper-frugality option by saying: "My take has been to understand Epicurus's point as "If your circumstances, for some reason, made it so that you *had* to live in a cave by yourself on the barest of necessities, you *could* find pleasure in that since you're still alive and Nature can supply your necessary needs. BUT it is NOT necessary to live this way, nor is it desirable, unl…

(Quote from Don) Ha - All things being equal in terms of the pain measurement, as implied in the hypothetical, I am pretty sure I know which option I would take! But all humor aside that would surely seem to be a matter of personal preference and individual circumstance and it would be critical to make that point.

See I read that differently. I think he's saying not saying that everyone has to avoid those things completely, but that everyone has to evaluate their circumstances and options and preferences and decide exactly how much partying and fine food is going to be what they wish to pursue - for the more they pursue, if their circumstances do not allow it - the more pain they will suffer in cost. I put key emphasis on the "endless" adjective. That's why I see this as included: " reasoning and examinin…

Exactly -- as usual we look like we are sparring and really close in agreement. I think these conversations are extremely helpful regardless of how they look. The recent emphasis on "desires" as the word used in some of these places is also extremely helpful. If we keep hammering at these issues we'll be in a good place to better present a clear alternative to the "academic consensus/ Okeefe" position.

(Quote from reneliza) (Quote from reneliza) I am in general agreement with the recent line of discussions about pleasures / desires that have no limit. But I don't think we have a complete picture until we address the question of "how much" and/or "how" to pursue those pleasures / desires that are potentially unlimited. Let's take "power" for example. That's pretty unlimited in the abstract, and the power to rule the world on its face would be very very difficult to justify as a goal. But the po…

"The desire for perfect health" is a great example Godfrey. Perfect health is unlikely for most of us, especially after s certain age. But we still want health "as close to perfect as possible." What I am wanting to see here is a good explanation of how we can recognize that while an extreme of a good may be unobtainable, a lesser amount of that good is definitely desirable and working hard to get, and any formula we develop has to take that into account. This is why I still am not sure I see an…

Yes Godfrey I pretty much agree with that, but at the same time I would argue that many people are being sickened by the sloppy prescription of "natural and necessary" without a proper framework. Not here or by you, of course, but until a clear presentation of these issues is articulated I don't see that we are making the progress we need to make

(Quote from Don) I think that formulation can't be repeated often enough. Any "X" for the sake of "X" is going to be empty, foolish, wrong-headed, or all sorts of negative words. There is nothing in the rigorous application of Epicurean philosophy (or good reasoning in general, once a goal is defined) that is worth pursuing for the sake of itself other than pleasure. I think that issue is probably behind a lot of the issues in formulation that we are coming up with. I think Epicurus was rigorous…