Perspectives On "Proving" That Pleasure is "The Good"

    just so we have the text in front of us:

    [30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet, no one of which facts are we bound to support by elaborate arguments; it is enough merely to draw attention to the fact; and there is a difference between proof and formal argument on the one hand and a slight hint and direction of the attention on the other; the one process reveals to us mysteries and things under a veil, so to speak; the other enables us to pronounce upon patent and evident facts. Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?

    [31] There are however some of our own school, who want to state these principles with greater refinement, and who say that it is not enough to leave the question of good or evil to the decision of sense, but that thought and reasoning also enable us to understand both that pleasure in itself is matter for desire and that pain is in itself matter for aversion. So they say that there lies in our minds a kind of natural and inbred conception leading us to feel that the one thing is t for us to seek, the other to reject. Others again, with whom I agree, finding that many arguments are alleged by philosophers to prove that pleasure is not to be reckoned among things good nor pain among things evil, judge that we ought not to be too condent about our case, and think that we should lead proof and argue carefully and carry on the debate about pleasure and pain by using the most elaborate reasonings

    So as to the question of whether the cradle argument is reasoning, we have the cradle argument being a form of " direction of attention" rather than "proof and formal argument."

    ".. no one of which facts are we bound to support by elaborate arguments; it is enough merely to draw attention to the fact; and there is a difference between proof and formal argument on the one hand and a slight hint and direction of the attention on the other; the one process reveals to us mysteries and things under a veil, so to speak; the other enables us to pronounce upon patent and evident facts. Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?"

    So how would you restate your concern Todd, that looking to examples of people who have not had the time or exposure to ground their actions on "abstract reasoning" is a poor idea for getting at examples of the calling of Nature?

    Why is that a poor way of looking at the question? Because they are not "educated" in some goal other than the one they were born with?

    Hmm...well, I see that Epicurus is solidly in favor of the cradle non-argument.

    And since he refuses to even allow it to be an argument, I guess I can only say I disagree.

    I guess I could even go further and say that since it isn't an "argument", and no reasoning was used to arrive at it, then it can't possibly have any other implications. That addresses my original concern with the cradle argument. It's not an argument. Solved.

    Seems like it would make it difficult to engage with others though. Not sure? Want to discuss? Nah. Come back when you agree.

    And I'm not even saying I disagree with the conclusion. I just think there is a better way of getting to it. Or should be - not to say I have one ready to go.

    Quote from Cassius

    So how would you restate your concern Todd, that looking to examples of people who have not had the time or exposure to ground their actions on "abstract reasoning" is a poor idea for getting at examples of the calling of Nature?

    Why is that a poor way of looking at the question? Because they are not "educated" in some goal other than the one they were born with?

    I would state my concern more or less the way I did above. Looking to a supposedly uncorrupted state of nature is problematic.

    If you want to be more specific about what is corrupted and why, as you seem to be with the idea of "uneducated", I would be on board with that, although I personally don't think the solution is in that direction, because the reasoning is going to be even more involved. That is a very different thing than just pointing at babies though.

    It's been an interesting thread and whether it is over or just starting, it is an important question. I take it your ultimate question is probably "Why" should we look to nature at all, regardless of whether we look at children or any other phase of life?

    Why does "is" give rise to "ought"? And you definitely have another step in that process in getting from is to ought.

    Of the alternatives in Torquatus it seems to me that "anticipations" makes some sense to look to as a foundation of pleasure, but why does pleasure exist at all for us to follow?

    I think we're on very important territory here and the resolution comes very close to (paraphrasing Nietsche) whether we choose to say "yes" to nature or "no". Nature allows us to do either and it is ultimately up to us to decide and pay the price / reap the consequences for our decisions.

    Regardless of what we as individuals decide, Epicurus seems clearly to have chosen to say "yes" to a view of nature based on sensation/ feeling, rather than abstract logic, as the standard of a proper human life.

    At least several days (or maybe a week or so) I changed the banner headline for page one to a fragment that seems to me directly applicable as another illustration of Epicurus' approach to base identification of "the good" on feeling rather than abstract analysis:

    “That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about, prating meaninglessly about the good.” Epicurus, as cited in Usener Fragment U423

    Quote from Cassius

    I take it your ultimate question is probably "Why" should we look to nature at all

    No! Emphatically no! I'm all in favor of nature (i.e., the universe, reality). I just think the particular way nature is used in the cradle argument was sort of inherited from other philsophers and not closely examined. I think it deserves some close examination at the very least.

    I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

    Actually, a lot of the time they start good, and get better. Not always. But sometimes. I would even venture to say most of the time.

    I hate the idea that such a wonderfully positive philosophy has to be founded on that rotten, pessimistic core assumption.

    Quote from Todd

    I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

    Oh, I don't necessarily think good/bad is the way to go. We as humans are observed (especially as children) to instinctively gravitate towards what gives us pleasure (in the widest sense) and to recoil from that which gives us pain. It's not good or bad. That's just what happens. As adults, we should learn - per Epicurus - how to do that skillfully to provide ourselves with a maximally pleasurable life. Some adults find other motivations and stop listening to their pain/pleasure guide.

    Quote from Don
    Quote from Todd

    I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

    Oh, I don't necessarily think good/bad is the way to go. We as humans are observed (especially as children) to instinctively gravitate towards what gives us pleasure (in the widest sense) and to recoil from that which gives us pain. It's not good or bad. That's just what happens. As adults, we should learn - per Epicurus - how to do that skillfully to provide ourselves with a maximally pleasurable life. Some adults find other motivations and stop listening to their pain/pleasure guide.

    Yes. I agree with this, and that's what I think makes the cradle argument unnecessary. We all do it, not just infants. I'm perfectly fine with saying, "See, it's easy to see how infants seek pleasure and avoid pain. They have simple goals." You could then say, "Older people are more complicated. They seek pleasure in more advanced ways, and they often appear to seek pain in the short-term. But they hope that will bring them even greater pleasure later."

    I think that is a great formulation. It avoids the "infants are just better" problems.

    Quote from Don
    Quote from Todd

    Maybe this will be clarifying: In your opinion, is the cradle argument an example of "reasoning"?

    I would call it observation, seeing things the way they are.

    Sorry to bring this up Don, after you just handed me a solution.

    I can't accept the idea that anyone is capable of observing data and understanding it directly. You need a theory to make sense of the data, which requires reasoning. And if you don't think you do, then you really do.

    Aside from the risks of having a theory and not knowing it, there's also the practical problem that "just observing" doesn't provide any way to discuss, disagree, or improve. You need something to talk about. Unless you disagree on the bare facts of what you actually experienced, the thing you talk about is a theory.

    It's maybe beside the point now, but I have a hard time letting this kind of thing slide without remark.

    Quote from Todd

    "Older people are more complicated. They seek pleasure in more advanced ways, and they often appear to seek pain in the short-term. But they hope that will bring them even greater pleasure later."


    I think that is a great formulation. It avoids the "infants are just better" problems.

    I could see that formulation, but I'd push back on "infants are better."

    They're not better. They're a data point. Animals are another data point. These demonstrate through observation that this is a natural inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

    Adults not seeking pleasure but are another data point demonstrating what happens when we don't skillfully seem pleasure.

    Pain and pleasure don't tell us what to act upon but themselves. They are a guide. We use our reasoning ability to weigh outcomes and seek that which will lead to a maximally pleasurable life.

    Quote from Don

    I could see that formulation, but I'd push back on "infants are better."

    They're not better. They're a data point. Animals are another data point. These demonstrate through observation that this is a natural inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

    Adults not seeking pleasure but are another data point demonstrating what happens when we don't skillfully seem pleasure.

    Pain and pleasure don't tell us what to act upon but themselves. They are a guide. We use our reasoning ability to weigh outcomes and seek that which will lead to a maximally pleasurable life.

    I'm not saying infants are better, but that seems to be exactly what the cradle argument is saying. It holds up infants (and animals) as an ideal.

    If it only said, "infants are simple, and therefore easy to understand," I would be all for it.

    But it doesn't say that. And I suspect the reason it doesn't is because that form of argument came from somewhere else (definitely true), and it was adopted a bit uncritically (my own, slightly heretical idea).

    I agree that they are all data points.

    Hey, this may seem like a big oversight, but I just realized those quotes above were from Cicero. I had assumed they were from Epicurus.

    So maybe I've conceded too much.

    I don't see any references to babies or animals in either the PD or the Letter to Menoeceus. Of course that doesn't prove Epicurus didn't use the cradle argument. But the case remains open!

    Doesn't change anything in my positions, but it sure was disappointing to read a full-throated endorsement of the cradle argument and think it was coming from Epicurus!

    Furthermore, FWIW, the second paragraph sounds like some inter-Epicurean debates around this. In the time of Cicero(?) so I'll take that with a big grain of salt...but there may be more support for my anti-cradle argument than I first thought.

    Todd can you clarify for me what your own current views are as to whether "pleasure" is the highest good, and the role of "reason" in the establishment of truth?

    If we were clear on those things that might help light the way toward making some progress.

    Quote from Cassius

    Others again, with whom I agree, finding that many arguments are alleged by philosophers to prove that pleasure is not to be reckoned among things good nor pain among things evil, judge that we ought not to be too condent about our case, and think that we should lead proof and argue carefully and carry on the debate about pleasure and pain by using the most elaborate reasonings

    "I" here, I presume is Torquatus. He hardly even sounds like an Epicurean. They're talking about pleasure, and he's like, well, I agree with the people who think there are good arguments on both sides, blah, blah, blah. So we shouldn't be overconfident. Oh, but we need to be sure to use the most elaborate reasonings! (At least he wants to use them carefully!)

    This guy is a joke. Next.

    If this is the best evidence we have for the cradle argument, then I'm getting ready to declare victory. I bet Epicurus never used any such argument. Maybe he said something like, "Its pleasure. Not open for discussion." But maybe he didn't try to drag the babies into it after all.

    Quote from Cassius

    Todd can you clarify for me what your own current views are as to whether "pleasure" is the highest good, and the role of "reason" in the establishment of truth?

    Easy.

    1) Pleasure is the highest good.

    2) The role of reason is to interpret the data provided by the senses.

    "Interpret" might be doing a lot of work there, I would include making judgements of value as part of that - deciding what pleasures are to be chosen or avoided, for example.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

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

      • Kalosyni
      • November 21, 2024 at 1:54 PM
    3. Replies
      2
      Views
      250
      2

    4. Joshua

      November 21, 2024 at 1:54 PM

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      119
      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
      251
      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
      908
      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