PD19 And The Meaning Of No "Greater" Pleasure

Quote from DavidN

one to poke at Don, Wouldn't the Jefferson Bible count as an epicurean "job".

Oh, exactly.

Somebody now needs to purge the "irrelevant" material out of DeWitt's book on Epicurus.

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

Is not boredom a pretty general human problem?

I'll have to push back on that statement. Boredom comes from dissatisfaction not lack of variety. Sometimes people looking for variety are running from something - possibly even an emotional trauma. They try to fill a void with novelty. I have a real problem if we start using boredom as a reason for varying pleasures.

Quote from DavidN

Two points to start with one to poke at Don, Wouldn't the Jefferson Bible count as an epicurean "job".

And to Cassius:

"The only horrible thing in the world is ennui, Dorian. That is the one sin for which there is no forgiveness." Oscar Wilde

“Boredom is therefore a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it.” ― Bertrand Russell

Otherwise I agree with the conclusions reached pertaining to PD's.

As a long time sufferer of ennui, I can assure you that variety doesn't solve it! (in other words - agreeing with Don's comment that boredom comes from dissatisfaction)

I do agree with Cassius's assertion that boredom is a general problem for humans, just not the conclusion that therefore variation is preferable/necessary. My best friend would eat nothing but chicken fingers and fries for the rest of her life (with a protein shake to round out her nutrition) and that would be peak pleasure for her. She'd always know exactly what was coming, no surprises, no meal planning or researching recipes.

In fact, there's been a lot of research recently about decision fatigue and how making many little decisions throughout the day like what to eat, what to wear, etc... can impact your ability to make good (read: leading to greatest overall pleasure) decisions by the end of the day. Greater variety is directly correlated to more decisions. Unless you just roll a d20 to pick which shirt to wear, but that's still more mental effort than just grabbing one of the 10 identical black turtlenecks from your closet.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the ideal is to reduce your choices to zero, but just that you get the best overall outcomes by putting the majority of that effort toward things with the greatest payoff. For some people, that really is having a varied diet or wardrobe because those things bring you immense pleasure.

Regarding PD19 - the contrast between finite and infinite -- I just stumbled upon this in another thread. (Which may muddy the water here on this).

Quote

“Moreover there is the supremely potent principle of infinity, which claims the closest and most careful study; we must understand that it has in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals, and if the causes of destruction are beyond count, the causes of conservation also are bound to be infinite."

From: Velleius from Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods"

Then I went online and search for isonomia and found this article: "Theories Concerning Epicurean Theology and Metaphysics"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/694107

Here is an excerpt from the preview page:

Quote

...a wider application of the doctrine not merely as a Balance of opposing Forces but as a pairing of opposite things, one of which implies the other.

So this isonomia could be another thing to look into. Anybody have any ideas on this?

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 Greek usage.

Quote from Cassius

Godfrey you are saying that he is saying that because human lifespans are by nature finite then it is useless to talk about infinite time(?)

I think that is true and possibly a part of the issue, but for a man who prodes himself on clarity I think Epicurus could have said exactly that had that been the main point he wanted to make. If that was intended to be his main point, that strikes me as a "too cute" way of stating a subject on which he would likely have been deadly earnest.

Rather than me be the heavy here and always sound like I am disagreeing maybe the best way to eventually approach this is to round up some volunteer 20 to 30 year olds and run our proposals by them for reaction.

We are far from being finished with our proposals so we need more first, but my personal litmus test is whether those intelligent 20-30 year olds will say that they (1) find the proposed point understandable AND (2) find it convincing given what they know themselves regardless of what they think of Epicurean philosophy.

I am hoping we can draft Charles and reneliza and @smoothiekiwi and Root304 and DavidN as a start. Who am I missing who is generally in that "youthful" category? If you think of others please tag them here in this thread too. I apologize if I missed someone but I am not sure of all the ages we have here.

No offense to those of us who are "aging out" but I think this is one of those real litmus test questions where people tend to gloss over taking a position by fitting it into the black box of "limit of pleasure is absence of pain", and I think it would help to get a more youthful "vigorous" perspective.

We know that Epicurus has clearly said (to Menoeceus) that we do not pick the largest quantity at a banquet, but the "most pleasant." Do we not therefore think that there is something at work here in PD19 other than a reference to our limited lifespan?

To call up another memory, I suspect that Reneliza's pink circles are relevant here. I wonder if she thinks they are?

Display More

So... I somewhat doubt that Epicurus meant this exactly as it reads to me - I'm still in the process of reading DeWitt and consolidating a lot of different aspects of the philosophy. And full disclosure, I really don't know what "if its limits are measured out through reasoning" means - I can see it having about a half dozen different and highly varied meanings.

But yes it did have me thinking about the pink circles too. The pink circles are just another version of the vessel analogy but in a way that I could see a) pleasure b) pain and c) variation, while also noting the lack of a neutral state (because there is no neutral - only pleasure and pain).

The limit of pinkness is when the circle is fully pink (pleasure) - no black (pain) or white (because there is no neutral), but pale pink, dark pink, or a swirl of both doesn't make any difference. That's as pink as the circle can get. 100% pink

This is why I don't think that variation is good (I also don't think it's bad - I think it's a neutral preference which can have positive or negative effects depending on the circumstances). If variation was preferable, then the swirly pink circle would be "more pink" than the solid pink circles, which doesn't make any sense. Pleasure isn't increased, only varied. But again! Variation isn't bad just because there's the word "only" in there. And variation doesn't decrease pleasure. It just also doesn't increase it. I need to stop here before I try to bring in the desires discussion again.....

Anyway, PD19 also reads as a matter of percentages to me (not that I think it was meant that literally, but again my math brain wants to math things up). 100 years of life that is spent almost entirely in excruciating pain, deep depression, and all-around poor spirits, compared to 30 years of nonstop contentment and bliss is an interesting but kind of straightforward comparison for an Epicurean, but what about 100 years of consistent 80% pleasure compared to 30 years of 80% pleasure? It seems like rather than look at that as 80 years of pleasure vs. 24 years of pleasure, we look at it as 80% compared to 80% - ie, they're the same.

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

Personally I think it is absolutely inadequate - and not what Epicurus meant - to try to say something like "The limit of pleasure is met when pain is absent and so therefore once you obtain painlessness for a moment if does you no good to live a longer time."

Your comment "for a moment" is off the mark. It's not experiencing "the limit of pleasure" "for a moment" then going about your day. It's experiencing the limit of pleasure as part of your whole life, you experience life with this pleasure filling your mind and body. That's why ataraxia and aponia are important components of an Epicurean life. Once you are experiencing full pleasure without mental troubles or bodily pain, it doesn't matter if it lasts a moment and you die or you live 100 years then die or live an infinite number of years and die. He says, in this state at the limit of pleasure, "the mind does not flee from joy." There are innumerable ways to vary the pleasure, but you can't increase it once the limit has been reached. That's why - "reasoning it out" - a moment or infinity can conceivably contain the same amount of pleasure. Now, is this achievable for any being other than a god? Epicurus seems to think so because we are told that if we do, we live as gods among mortals.

...

Well, it seems to me Epicurus is saying that once we have filled every nook and cranny of our minds with peace and pleasure and rid it of fears and anxieties and troubled thoughts and have a sure confidence of not losing that, you're filled up. You can vary your pleasure, but at that point your perspective on life is unassailable, filled with joy, in fact your mind never flees from joy, that is your default mode of being and interacting with the world. Living in that way is what can make one equal to the gods.

But - this is where I would very much defer to people with greater grasp of the philosophy - it seems like you don't necessarily need to average over an entire lifespan either, and that's where the points Don was making way back in posts #3 and #5 come into play. Once you've "filled every nook and cranny of your mind with peace and pleasure" and are going about your days in a state of constant pleasure (varied to whatever degree), then what difference does it make how many years you lived before that state? If you compare the 100 year old person living a good life of 80% pleasure, day to day with a 30 year old who lived in near constant mental anguish for 29 years and 11 months, but then found a way to peace and pleasure and who recognizes his hard years, but doesn't suffer for the past, and is now living a life of 100% pleasure - then who has experienced greater joy? The person living with 20% pain or the person who has rid themselves of fear and pain and who experiences constant pleasure (again, varied to any degree) in the here and now, despite earlier years of agony?

Sorry I didn't actually answer the question, but just asked more questions.

Final point: I appreciate being lumped in with the youngish/20-30 crowd and will make no further comment about that lol

Quote from Cassius

Dewitt comments that Epicurus is pointing to a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints). I am not so sure about that, and in fact I wonder if we fail to grasp some of what Epicurus is saying because we are trying to fit his perspective into a mold in which life can be viewed as fair to everyone. .

Oh my! I'm about to defend DeWitt everybody! Mark your calendars.

It's true that the Principal Doctrines literally laid out the "basic doctrines" of the philosophy for Epicureans to study and memorize. But Epicurus was providing practical solutions and philosophical medicine to real people. I think he had to provide "a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints)." I'm not sure of the word "console" but he had to provide an alternative. This went hand in hand with removing the fear of divine punishment or reward. Even without Eternal Hell/Heaven, there was also the prevalent ancient Greek of existing eternally as a shade as Homer describes Odysseus' trip to Hades. Even as a shade, you still get to "live" forever. And most people, I believe, would answer in the affirmative if asked "If you were given the ability to be immortal, would you?" before, of course, thinking about the details. So, yes, Epicurus had to provide consolation or at least a reasonable alternative to the desire for immortality.

Quote from Cassius

t could be that Epicureans were flatly so convinced of the universe's total lack of overall plan that they weren't at all thinking about any "perfection" and that they were constantly thinking only on practical terms about how best to spend "the present" whatever that happens to be.

I think that's the *Epicurean* perspective, but the Principal Doctrines no doubt circulated as a"recruitment tool" as well. As you've said, Cassius, they should make sense to "normal" people

This last Wednesday Zoom (on August 17th) we were still talking about PD19 - and I remember trying out this "word game":

Infinite time contains no greater satisfaction than finite time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of satisfaction.

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 using the word because it is the goal that he is concerned with or is he making a different point than what I'm understanding?

Quote from Godfrey

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.

Now you're talking!

Quote from Godfrey

But since Epicurus used the word pleasure, is he using the word because it is the goal that he is concerned with or is he making a different point than what I'm understanding?

This is a good question, and I think it also depends on how we interpret the word "pleasure".

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 contains no greater pleasure [the body’s goal] than does finite time, if one determines the limits of pleasure rationally.

PD20. The body takes the limits of pleasure to be infinite, and infinite time would provide such pleasure. But the mind has provided us with the complete life by a rational examination of the body’s goal and limitations and by dispelling our fears about a life after death [as described in previous PDs] ; and so we no longer need unlimited time. On the other hand, it does not avoid pleasure [which is the body’s goal, after all], nor, when conditions occasion our departure from life, does it come to the end in a manner that would suggest that it had fallen short in any way of the best possible existence.

Imagine that you are experiencing a bliss that's so great that you want it to last forever. At some point you'll bring yourself pain if you start to crave the experience. These are saying that you need to understand that your life is finite, so enjoy your bliss. Don't crave it, but don't reject bliss because it's going to end: relish it for what it is, and relish your finite life for what it is.

So I think that if you try to understand PD19 as saying something about pleasure specifically it becomes confusing and mysterious. At least for me, it becomes much clearer and simpler as I'm trying to describe it. "Now that you have a reasoned understanding of pleasure and of the material universe, think about what it means to have a finite life in an infinite universe." This, by itself, is a lot to think about.

In reading this thread, I'm reminded of the TV show The Good Place.

***BIG SPOILER ALERT for anyone who hasn't seen the show and wants to experience it**"

*

*

*

You have been warned...

The basic premise is that, after you die, there is a Good Place and a Bad Place. First few seasons, the bar has been raised so high, most everyone goes to the Bad Place. Then we find later that those in the Good Place are bored out of their minds and miserable. The main characters are given the opportunity to remake The Good Place and let more people in. Which they do.

But, even given infinite time and given the opportunity to experience literally everything they could ever conceive of or imagine, they still eventually run out of things to experience. They come to a point where there's literally nothing new to experience! After countless eons of existence, they are then given the choice of dissolving back into their constituent "atoms" let's say, or dissolving back into the universe, or however you want to phrase it. The show is ambiguous. There's a place in the woods where you can walk through a gate and it just happens. It's not portrayed as suicide because they're by definition already dead. But some of the other characters see it that way when another character realizes they're "ready to go."

Anyway, it's hard to explain, but this whole idea that we need infinite time to experience infinite pleasure brought this to mind.

If anyone else has watched The Good Place, I'd be interested to get your take on any applicability to our current discussion that you see.

btw: it seems I brought up this same point in January with a response from Joshua in a discussion about Buddhism and the Epicurean gods :

Post

RE: 2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread

That seems to be a solid epitome to me! Well done!

[…]

This always intrigued me about the Buddhist gods on the wheel of samsara: They're so blissed out and pleasure-filled, they can't conceive of not being reborn as a god (to greatly simplify the situation).

Which got me thinking: How does this apply to the Epicurean gods ? They are supposedly experiencing pleasure all the time. Is that correct? Isn't this just another form of "harps in heaven"? Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get…

Don

January 30, 2022 at 2:57 PM

The "infinite pleasure is boring" stories (which can sometimes lead to the "pleasure only feels good because pain exists" angle) tend to miss that - yes, while the greatest pleasure sometimes comes from a bit of exertion, that we humans create our own effort. Consider the new retiree who spends a month bored out of their mind and then takes up woodworking. Or the stay at home parent who is also a writer.

I think this is a part of a societal narrative where we desperately don't want the masses to believe that they can be happy without the jobs provided to them from on high. In truth, we can and will easily create our own challenges, designed personally for us to give maximum pleasure, when we're granted the resources (time, space, energy, material, etc...) to do so.

In other words, I think that for an Epicurean, the greatest pleasure can be found in either limited OR infinite time.

Playing around with substitutions in PD19 makes for really useful analogies, but I think putting in "quantity" of anything fundamentally breaks it, because it seems clear that the original is referring to quality. I mean, otherwise you might as well just sub in "quantity of hours" which would be by definition impossible

Quantity is the only thing we have more of when time is unlimited