PD19 And The Meaning Of No "Greater" Pleasure

    Last night in our Wednesday Zoom meeting we discussion PD19 and PD20, and I have to say that I think many of us (including me) could do a lot to improve our explanation of what these doctrines, and especially PD20 really means. I don't think many of us (again including me) are as quick as we should be to be able to explain what Epicurus' attitude toward "variation" and really was, and whether variation is to be looked on as desirable or not. A very similar issue is Epicurus' attitude toward the length of time of pleasure. Is pleasure of a longer time desirable over pleasure of a shorter time?

    The primary issue is that I think we can expect most "regular people" to interpret "Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure." (Bailey) as very close to patently false and nonsensical on its face. They will reason that longer time periods afford more opportunity for pleasure over time, and that more pleasure over time equates to "greater" pleasure. I do not think that interpretation is an unreasonable construction, so if we intend to communicate with people of ordinary experience and understanding, we have to be able to provide an explanation of how "measuring the limits of pleasure by reason" make such an observation supportable.

    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." I do not think that is what Epicurus meant, but even assuming for a moment that that is what he meant, I don't find that explanation at all satisfying myself, and I would not ask a hypothetical "younger person studying Epicurean philosophy - or anyone else - to accept it.

    Therefore I would like to use this thread to get suggestions as to the best way to explain this doctrine. Before I launch off into what i would suggest myself I will let this thread simmer for a while and see if we can get some suggestions. Don't be afraid to submit them even if they are only half thought out, or to say that you do or don't find the suggestions that are made to be satisfying, because this is a very complicated issue.

    I don't believe you can read PD20 in isolation. You have to read it as it was most likely written, in context with the surrounding text.

    In fact, I took a look at the Arundel MS 531 to try and figure out where the breaks in the text were at least in this manuscript from 1450-1500:

    https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_531_fs001r

    (Flip to page f.177r (folio 177 reverse))

    In line 9, there seems to be a specific gap right before what we call PD18: Οὐκ ἐπαύξεται... So, we start reading this section from PD18 and read on until we get another gap. I'm using Saint-Andre's translations. The next gap to my eye appears to be in line 3 on the next page (177v)

    Lo and behold, that ends with καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά. which is the end of PD22.

    PD18 through PD22 should then be read as a complete paragraph:

    Quote


    As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by thinking through these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle. You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.

    This makes sense in that it begins talking about "thinking through these very things.." and ends with "You must reflect on..."

    Those are my initial contributions to the topic: Don't try to parse it in isolation.

    I'll no doubt have more to say as the thread continues, but the day calls me and I must answer (if I want to get paid ya know ;) ).

    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.

    Let's say we go with this alternate translation Don quoted above, and forget the "for a moment" for the time being:

    Quote

    "Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. "

    Is a normal person using these words normally and giving them their normal and ordinary meanings expected to understand that a life of 25 years contains the same amount of joy as a life of 50 years?

    If so, please explain how that works. If that's not a clear implication of this statement, how is it not?


    [Please remember everyone that I am to some extent playing "devil's advocate" here in an attempt to draw this out more clearly. I do think that this can be made to make sense, but I am also convinced that the way that most people will interpret these words superficially will make no sense at all to them and thus be a barrier to their advancing further in studying Epicurus.]

    Quote from Cassius

    Is a normal person using these words normally and giving them their normal and ordinary meanings expected to understand that a life of 25 years contains the same amount of joy as a life of 50 years?

    First, the normal/average person would most likely be included in what Epicurus calls the "hoi polloi" "the many/the masses/the crowd", so their understanding of life - almost by definition - may not coincide with what Epicurus would call "correct belief." So their normal understanding may be beside the point. In fact, he says "The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite." That's the "normal" understanding. Epicurus was there to provide medicine not validate someone's preconceived normal understanding. So there's that.

    Second, I don't believe it's a quantity, an "amount" of pleasure, that's being referred to. That seems a Platonic or Aristotelian argument against pleasure being able to be the goal of life. Epicurus fought against this "I need to rack up as many hedonic credits as I can. Then I win!"

    Third, I am becoming firmly convinced that we need to do away with bulleted list of Principal Doctrines and begin to read it as it was written. As a prose text, not a list. If read that way, the answer is in the text. How do we "reason" it out? "the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time." We think through what it means for pleasure to have a limit. 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.

    If someone thinks they need to try and rack up the hedonic points and need infinite time to do it (which will only end in frustration btw), they're welcome to ring up the Cyrenaics.

    Quote from Cassius

    [Please remember everyone that I am to some extent playing "devil's advocate" here in an attempt to draw this out more clearly.

    Ditto.... In some respects ;)

    Quote from Don

    Third, I am becoming firmly convinced that we need to do away with bulleted list of Principal Doctrines and begin to read it as it was written. As a prose text, not a list. If read that way, the answer is in the text. How do we "reason" it out? "the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time." We think through what it means for pleasure to have a limit. 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.

    I largely agree with this, especially as to the need to read it as a narrative so as to get the full context.

    However I observe that maybe the majority of "scholars" out there are happy to read the sentence in the letter to Menoeceus almost as if Epicurus never said anything else:

    "When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind."

    So I think it would be good training for us to take the most controversial sentences the same way that they are often taken by less-sympathetic writers and look for the best responses.

    In this case I do think that the key is going to be found in Epicurus' intent as to the word translated here as "greater." We are regularly hitting a wall in our discussions as to whether one pleasure is "greater" or "better" or "more desirable" than another, and I think the answer is that at least as to the individual, the answer is clearly yes. And as Epicurus said as to the man at the banquet, we don't look for the longest but the "most pleasant."

    Ultimately I think we have to dive into the issues involving what "most pleasant" really means. I feel certain that we can eliminate "duration" as the primary meaning, although duration is probably one component of several. We've discussed "intensity" and other words in the past. I think what you have written Don here is key " 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..." but I think it takes further explanation to really make that clear -- explanation of the issue of "variation" and our proper attitude towards it, for example.

    In fact right now I think "variation" is a prime subject to explore, because a lot of our wording seems to deprecate variation further than I think Epicurus probably intended for us to understand his teaching to be.


    Quote

    Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning.

    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.

    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?

    I really think it is useful to talk in terms of picture analogies like the pink circles.

    Another useful analogy is the jelly bean jar that is filled to the brim with jelly beans.

    Once filled, the jar cannot hold any further beans. But if we force more into it with the result of crowding some out that spill, we have "variation" of the contents of the jar.

    Do we agree that variation of the contents is desirable, if not absolutely necessary?

    What of the amount of time which the jar survives to hold those beans while they are varying? Is the amount of time the jar holds together not at least relevant in some way to the total number of beans gathered within it over time?

    It makes perfect and obvious sense to say that once filled the jar cannot hold more at a single moment.

    But I would submit that it makes no sense at all to totally ignore the larger total number of jelly beans that a jar that lasts 50 years can gather over a jar that lasts ten years.

    Do not BOTH observations have to be considered in summarizing the big picture?

    I would add that I think it would be a major mistake to think that Epicurus would suggest that "word games" can change reality. The reality is that a person who loves 50 years can experience a much larger total number of pleasurable experiences than can a person who loves only 20 years and dies. No fine words from Epicurus or anyone else could hope to change the "inequity" of that situation. Life is not fair - there are no gods or fate to make it so.

    But is it not still useful to point out to people that no matter how many years they live, each day is still essentially a repetition in many ways of past days - from a "nothing new under the sun" perspective. And that at some point if we think about it closely enough we can recognize that an endless series of similar experiences would eventually tire us out in a BIll Murray "Groundhog Day" kind of way. And that if we concentrate on filling our jelly bean jars on the days we have available to us, then when our end nears we can understand that we did the best we could with our time, and that if we had longer to live we would not be able to experience a more intense form of pleasure that we had somehow missed out on, but simply more time filling and refilling the same amount of jelly beans in our jar.

    At least for me, the older I get the more I do in fact see that doing the same things over an over again does in fact "get old" no matter how much I like them the first times around.

    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 this seems to me to be the clearest reading. I don't think Epicurus was playing word games. I think he was making the above point, and elaborates by emphasizing the language he uses elsewhere regarding the goal of life. He doesn't use word games but he does write things in such a way that you have to think about them and thereby make them your own.

    Personally, I would interpret PD19 in the sense that we should not worry about the idea of infinitive ages but focus on a good standing in our nowadays condition and be happy about it. The only characters enjoying constant and infinitive pleasure are the unshakenable "gods" but our consistency is bound on the atomic variability of the universe. Therefore we should enjoy and not disturb ourselves with unrealistic ideas of perfect and infinitive forms.

    Quote from Titus

    Personally, I would interpret PD19 in the sense that we should not worry about the idea of infinitive ages but focus on a good standing in our nowadays condition and be happy about it.

    Yes i think that is the lesson to be learned, but is there not also in here a "why we shouldn't worry" aspect beyond the fact that it is not possible for us to rival the length of life that the "gods" enjoy?

    Quote from Titus

    Therefore we should enjoy and not disturb ourselves with unrealistic ideas of perfect and infinitive forms.

    And to ask the question the same way, isn't he saying that there is no "need" for a longer or infinite lifespan, because from a certain mental perspective the longer lifespan does not translate into an improvement?

    What I am saying is that pretty clearly, as everyone so far is observing, we don't "need" an infinite span of life, even if it were available to us. He's saying there is some mental perspective from which a longer time is not "better" than a shorter time (thus the banquet analogy). Can we not improve our ability to articulate what that perspective is, describing also how "variation" (additional experiences) do not improve the picture?

    I am very intrigued by Godfrey 's Interpretation and as it's expanded on by others.

    Let's take a look at what pd19 actually says, because I think a case could be made for Godfrey 's novel (to me) take on it.

    That specific line says:

    Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος (χρόνος)...

    I've added the second χρόνος for clarity.

    So we're dealing with:

    Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος infinite time (khronos)

    καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος (χρόνος) and finite (time)

    The infinite is the same word used to describe the number of worlds, the extent of the universe, and atoms.

    πεπερασμένος is finite, limited, bounded

    Greek can split up phrases like that so the arrangement is no big deal other than that he might emphasized the infinite time by placing it first.

    ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν has equal pleasure

    isēn ekhei tēn hēdonēn

    isēn is from isos where we get isometric, isosceles, etc. It means Same, equal, etc.

    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

    The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time;

    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, as it were.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura 5

      • Kalosyni
      • November 21, 2024 at 4:13 PM
    3. Replies
      5
      Views
      329
      5

    4. Pacatus

      November 21, 2024 at 4:13 PM

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      141
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      269
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      920
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM