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.
One way to think about "absence of pain" and "living in a cave" is that it’s actually rather unnatural to live that way. Unless you're thinking in terms of how early humans lived, which I don't think is what Epicurus had in mind as his philosophy is intricately tied to the society in which he lived.
The feelings of pleasure and pain are an entirely natural faculty. Our goal is to live the most pleasant life, which we do by listening to our feelings and using them as a guide to action. A person who is striving for maximum frugality is at some point going to experience mental and/or physical pain. If they ignore that pain then they're doing the same thing that in other situations clearly leads to unnatural desires, in this case the unnatural desire for frugality. If a person thrives on frugality, and either experiences no pain or examines their pain and determines that bearing that pain will lead to greater pleasure for themselves, then for them the desire for frugality could be considered natural and unnecessary.
Between this and Don’s note that the word Epicurus uses (in Menoeceus at least) is not “unnatural” but “void” this thread quickly became one of other people making the exact points I wanted to make before I even caught up.
The only thing that has been kind of inferred in this conversation, but I haven’t seen explicitly stated: it’s my thought that the void/fruitless/vain desires are those that are infinite and therefore unquenchable. These are desires that are by definition impossible to satisfy, because of the lack of any limit.
This is exactly where the limit of pleasure conversation comes in. Pleasure can’t be the goal itself because it is unlimited. Until Epicurus asserted that there IS a limit to pleasure, and it’s the point where you have no pain in the mind or body.
What is the limit of fame? Or wealth? Power? Frugality? (Given that couponers sometimes leave the store having been paid to shop, even zero is apparently not a limit)
This means that void desires absolutely can look a lot like someone else’s natural and unnecessary desires. (Or potentially even like someone else’s N&N desire: the difference between the desire for a place to live where you feel safe, comfortable, and protected from the elements, and a 30,000 sf mansion which will eventually not be good enough and will need replacing or upgrading)
Someone may truly have a limit to their desire for wealth, fame, frugality - although generally I suspect these people actually view wealth or whatever other potentially limitless desire as a means to meeting some other natural desires. And in the end I wonder if that’s the sort of wrong-thinking that the void desires stem from: treating the thing as an end in itself instead of only using it as a means to obtain maximum overall pleasure.
And in the end I wonder if that’s the sort of wrong-thinking that the void desires stem from: treating the thing as an end in itself instead of only using it as a means to obtain maximum overall pleasure.
The only thing that has been kind of inferred in this conversation, but I haven’t seen explicitly stated: it’s my thought that the void/fruitless/vain desires are those that are infinite and therefore unquenchable. These are desires that are by definition impossible to satisfy, because of the lack of any limit.
This is exactly where the limit of pleasure conversation comes in. Pleasure can’t be the goal itself because it is unlimited. Until Epicurus asserted that there IS a limit to pleasure, and it’s the point where you have no pain in the mind or body.
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 power to exclude burglars or murderers from your house is highly desirable. It would be very easy to start playing word games with these issues, so the questions need to be more clear, and I am not sure it is possible to get much more specific than Torquatus did when he stated "the principle of the classification" being that some categories are more difficult to obtain than others.
Once we identify the relative difficulties, I doubt we can get much more specific as to a "rule" to apply given individual differences in preferences and circumstances.
"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 anything in the natural and necessary categories beyond what Torquatus pointed out as the reason for it, which is a good reason (as a tool of analysis). But this is a tool that in the wrong hands is being used to bludgeon the philosophy of pleasure into submission in the modern world. At this point I am still at the point of thinking that in today's discussions (the world at large I mean) we are finding ourselves devoting more time to containing the damage it does in the wrong hands to the benefit it provides us in aiding our analysis.
Whoever Cicero got that Torquatus material from seems to me to have been pretty sharp. As he says, only an idiot (my overlay) pursues pain for the sake of pain, and people need to smarten up and examine their actions so as to predict whether a course of action will produce more pleasure or pain. The more extravagant the goal, the more likely it is that extra pain will be involved. And considering whether a goal is "natural" and "necessary" helps us predict the amount of pain likely to be encountered.
Now no doubt we can use the categories to give all sorts of examples, but in the end the examples get very particular and specific very fast, so the general rule remains something like "be prudent in the way you pursue pleasure."
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.
Cassius this doesn't give you the answer you're looking for, but there doesn't seem to be any formula other than frank speech. The line between N/N and unlimited desire, as far as I can tell, is so individual that it can only be dealt with on an individual basis, like medicine. People needing to depend on formulas might be better served by the Stoics (except that they would then lose the benefit of a coherent worldview).
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
It doesn't feel like a problem to me. I think it probably is difficult to communicate to non-Epicureans (or the Epicurious...which now that I think of it is already a thing...) but my view is that the necessary should always be pursued and the vain should never be pursued (I mean, I hate the word "should" but in my understanding, not having the N/N is always net painful, and pursuit of the void is always net painful, so that's as close to a "should" as I'm willing to get), and - as someone has already said elsewhere on this forum - the natural/unnecessary is the only place anything gets interesting.
Whether you should pursue a N/U desire is where the hedonic calculus comes in. Will this cause some pain but provide more pleasure? Will it cause some pain, but prevent a bigger pain? Will it cause some pleasure, but prevent a bigger pleasure? (this is actually where most of the interesting bits come in for me - learning when to say no to things I love because they get in the way of things I love even more)
But I also don't think of the three categories as being three lists, like food is in one, sex is in two, wealth is in three. I think that which category a desire goes into depends on how it's approached in the moment by the individual.
I don't think that you can draw a limit, I think the limit has to be inherent in some way. You're pursuing wealth - to what end? Your end will always (eventually) be pleasure (if not, then that's a bad sign), but do you have good reason to believe that the specific pursuit of wealth will end in net pleasure? Has it worked in the past? When will it pay off? What will happen next?
I would disagree, at least for my own self, with the wisdom in pursuit of an ambiguous goal that may never pay off when there are so many strong pleasures (mostly) easily available to me. That doesn't mean I don't believe in hard work or that I never choose pain for a greater pleasure - I'm a mom and a creator - but I don't personally believe in striving for the mere possibility of a big payoff.
I'm not sure anyone's done this yet, but I thought it might be instructive to see where the word empty "kenōs" is used in other places.
Saint-Andre translation of PD29 which includes the scholia commentary
29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).
(Epicurus regards as natural and necessary desires which bring relief from pain, as e.g. drink when we are thirsty ; while by natural and not necessary he means those which merely diversify the pleasure without removing the pain, as e.g. costly viands ; by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour.--Scholia)
PD30 also addresses empty beliefs/opinions/doctrines κενὴν δόξαν "kenēn doxan":
Hicks translation
30 Some natural desires, again, entail no pain when not gratified, though the objects are vehemently pursued. These desires also are due to groundless opinion, and when they are not got rid of, it is not because of their own nature, but because of the man’s groundless opinion.
Saint-Andre translation
30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.
Epicurus wiki translation:
Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own nature, but because of human vanity.
Nussbaum translation, p.153
Whenever, among those natural desires that do not lead to pain if they are not fulfilled, an intense eagerness (spoudē suntonos) is present, they too are the products of false belief. And it is not on account of their own nature that they are not dispelled, but in account of the human being's empty believing. (On suntonos "intense", see Nussbaum, chapter 8). Philodemus uses the word of the sort of anger the Epicurean will avoid.
PD37 uses empty in a novel way, to describe "empty sounds, words, prattle" The phase is φωναῖς κεναῖς "phōnais kenais" and yes that's where English "phone" comes from, so φωναῖς κεναῖς = empty sound, meaningless yelling, blah blah blah
Saint-Andre translation
37 Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts.
The word empty is also used here for the ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας "empty and trifling virtues (aretas)"
116. I summon you to sustained enjoyment and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.
And in Fragment 202, we get "empty beliefs/groundless opinions" κεναῖς δόξαις (kenais doxais) in juxtaposition with "following nature" so, in a way, setting up the dichotomy of natural vs empty.
Fragment 202. He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is poverty.
ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει παρακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστι πενία.
Same with 422 κενὰς δόξας "groundless opinions"
422. We need pleasure when in pain because of its absence; but when we are not experiencing such pain, and are perceiving stably, then there is no need for pleasure. For it is not the needs of nature which, from outside us, create harm, but desire driven by groundless opinions.
τότε χρείαν ἔχομεν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι αὐτὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ πάσχωμεν ἐν αἰσθήσει καθεστῶτες, τότε οὐδεμία χρεία τῆς ἡδονῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἔνδεια τὴν ἀδικίαν ποιεῖ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς κενὰς δόξας ὄρεξις.
471. (Saint-Andre) It is rare to find a man who is poor with regard to the aims of nature and rich in groundless desires. For a fool is never satisfied with what he has, but instead is distressed about what he doesn't have. Just as those who are feverish through the evil of their sickness are always thirsty and desiring the opposite of what they should, so those whose souls are in a bad condition are always poor in everything and through their greed fall into ever-changing desires. [note] σπάνιόν γε εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον <πένητα> πρὸς τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος καὶ πλούσιον πρὸς τὰς κενὰς δόξας. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν ἀφρόνων οἷς ἔχει ἀρκεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οἷς οὐκ ἔχει ὀδυνᾶται. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ πυρέττοντες διὰ κακοήθειαν τῆς νόσου ἀεὶ διψῶσι καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ τὴν ψυχὴν κακῶς ἔχοντες διακειμένην πένονται πάντων ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν.
[NOTE 471] In the second chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes desires as groundless and trifling (κενὴν καὶ ματαίαν) if they are not related to or subsumed under an overarching goal of life; in this fragment and in Fragment 442, Epicurus applies the same terms to certain kinds of desires. (See also 116 above)
Fr. 485. Unhappiness (kakodaimon) is caused by fears or by endless and empty desires; but one who is able to rein these in creates for oneself a blissful understanding (logismon).
ἢ γὰρ διὰ φόβον τις κακοδαιμονεῖ ἢ διʼ ἀόριστον καὶ κενὴν ἐπιθυμίαν· ἅ τις χαλινῶν δύναται τὸν μακάριον ἑαυτῷ περιποιῆσαι λογισμόν.
χαλινῶν genitive: rein, bit, something that restrains
μακάριον makarion = blissful, the same word used to describe the gods
περιποιῆσαι keep, preserve; procure, secure, achieve.
512. "I spit on the kalon and on those who wonder at it in an empty fashion -- whenever it does not produce any pleasure."
προπτύω τῷ καλῷ καὶ τοῖς κενῶς αὐτὸ θαυμάζουσιν, ὅταν μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν σοιῇ.
That's a translation of Nussbaum's and it's much more literal (and better) than other paraphrases I've read of this Fragment. Here we see κενῶς "kenōs" empty used to describe how some people wonder at The Noble/The Beautiful τῷ καλῷ Tō Kalō(n)
I don't think that you can draw a limit, I think the limit has to be inherent in some way. You're pursuing wealth - to what end? Your end will always (eventually) be pleasure (if not, then that's a bad sign), but do you have good reason to believe that the specific pursuit of wealth will end in net pleasure? Has it worked in the past? When will it pay off? What will happen next?
I like where you're going in this paragraph! What are the ends you're working toward? That has to be answered by someone "pursuing wealth." Wealth for wealth's sake is empty. Wealth for a specific pleasure or pleasurable goal could be something different. Although it could also be problematic if it's working for wealth only to be enjoyed decades from now and not finding any pleasure now. If I've misconstrued your intentions with those lines, just let me know.
I would disagree, at least for my own self, with the wisdom in pursuit of an ambiguous goal that may never pay off when there are so many strong pleasures (mostly) easily available to me. That doesn't mean I don't believe in hard work or that I never choose pain for a greater pleasure
Same here. I think you're raising some really good points here.
I don't think that you can draw a limit, I think the limit has to be inherent in some way. You're pursuing wealth - to what end? Your end will always (eventually) be pleasure (if not, then that's a bad sign), but do you have good reason to believe that the specific pursuit of wealth will end in net pleasure? Has it worked in the past? When will it pay off? What will happen next?
I like where you're going in this paragraph! What are the ends you're working toward? That has to be answered by someone "pursuing wealth." Wealth for wealth's sake is empty. Wealth for a specific pleasure or pleasurable goal could be something different. Although it could also be problematic if it's working for wealth only to be enjoyed decades from now and not finding any pleasure now. If I've misconstrued your intentions with those lines, just let me know.
That’s definitely where I was going with that, although it may be worth clarifying what I meant by “eventually” which was less temporal (of course sometimes payoffs are not immediate, but I agree that it can be dangerous if there’s no payoff immediately, especially if the long term payoff is particularly far off or otherwise uncertain) and more just a chain of reasoning. Like a kid asking “but why?” until you get frustrated and just admit “because it feels good!” Haha
For example:
Why are you accumulating wealth? To go on a vacation. Why do you want to go on a vacation? Because I’ve never seen the sunset over the ocean. Why do you want to see the sunset over the ocean? Because I expect it will be beautiful. Why do you want to see something beautiful? Just for the pleasure of it!!
If the goal is defined then it has its own limits, more or less, as to how much wealth you need to accumulate and how much effort should be put forth toward this goal based on the pleasure you’ll get from it. Maybe you realize that “seeing a pretty sunset” can be accomplished with much less time, expense, and effort than the original trip to the nearest west coast assumed (but maybe not, and this is where it’s always personal).
Sorry the conversation has drifted into goal setting which is a major discussion topic of mine so let me know if I get distracted by my own ideas and go too far afield from what’s actually supported in Epicurean doctrine. This conversation is actually very helpful for me in my work (and life)! I think it’s useful to consider pleasure, desire, and goals, and how they all relate
Wealth for wealth's sake is empty.
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 rigorously and ruthlessly logical on this point -- NOTHING can substitute for the ultimate goal other than "the feeling of pleasure" because that is the only guide that Nature gave us for what to choose.
