Posts by Godfrey

And that given situation always includes the personal pleasure/pain of the person doing the evaluating. The internal situation of this individual consists of a variety of factors, and these may change over time or in relation to external circumstances.

Personal responsibility isn't for the faint of heart.

Does this apply to widowers, too?

There's also the issue of natural philosophy as well as the anachronistic nature of the situation proposed. Epicurus' life predated so much of our contemporary knowledge, although his thinking in many ways laid the groundwork for it. If he was presented in his day with the opportunity to go to the moon, might the intellectual pleasure of exploring a piece of the sky override the potential dangers involved?

Further, if somehow he turned up in our time with the opportunity to go to the moon, what would he make of the world we live in, and how would going to the moon compare to the cacophonous comglomeration of stimuli in which we spend our days?

I may be getting too far afield though. Eikadistes answer is probably the most direct and convincing response

Very well thought out and on point essay Cassius . I was actually quite surprised while reading Pigliucci's essay that he so thoroughly misreads Epicurean philosophy. His essay reads more as Ciceronian snark than as serious scholarship. At any rate, well done!

My understanding of prayer is pretty much limited to the idea of praying to someone/something that has power to intervene and grant something to someone. In this sense it is similar to talking. However, somewhere along the line I heard someone refer to another way to pray, which is to listen.

This latter version seems to have more validity, and doesn't require any supernatural or imaginary entity to listen to. It's basically a form of meditation: getting quiet and listening to whatever comes up.

Per Lucretius 5:11203+/_: True piety is for a man to have the power To contemplate the world with quiet mind.

Happy birthday!

Totally agree regarding modern competition. I spent my entire career, particularly the last 25 years, in a highly competitive big city working environment. Unfortunately, during that time I had never heard of Epicurus.

However, the last 25 years were particularly enjoyable and successful. My formula was: 1) do work that I love, 2) understand how this work can benefit people and who those people are, 3) fully utilize my knowledge, skills and talents in doing the work, 4) have a pleasant disposition, 5) get out of the way and be open to the results of my work.

Although at the time my model came more from a variety of eastern philosophies, I think this formula is completely compatible with Epicurism.

From the morning paper:

With AI, stop typing and just talk instead

With AI, stop typing and just talk instead

Comics - Los Angeles Times

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=2742e6a7-9588-4685-a821-b45fa605abb4&v=sdk

Unrelated to AI, there's an article that made me think of Martin :

Would you try California’s fastest zip lines?

Would you try California’s fastest zip lines?

My understanding is that it's essential not to separate virtues from living pleasantly, and that in PD05 Epicurus spells out the key virtues. We all agree that EP is a philosophy of personal responsibility and not of absolutes, and this must be kept in mind for a full understanding of his view of virtues.

If I'm attempting to live "prudently, honorably and justly" yet find myself angry and miserable in doing so, that is an instance of my Feelings telling me to pause and look deeper. If I'm living a life of pleasure but feel something missing, it might be constructive for me to examine whether and/or how I'm living prudently, honorably and justly. You might say that the Feelings and the stated virtues are checks and balances for each other.

Each of these central virtues obviously means different things to different people and cultures, and they don't preclude additional virtues. The ultimate arbiter is inside each of us and not in a government, a political party, a social group or in an absolute something-or-other.

Quote from Kalosyni

one understands that god/gods are not creating all the phenomenon of the world but that they come from naturally occurring processes.

Unrelated to the subject of this thread (with my apologies), I like the way that you worded this Kalosyni . The wording that you've used here can include both the physical processes by which gods (godlike beings?) exist, as illustrated by the realist position, as well as the natural processes of both people grappling with the unknown and of cultural accretion as perhaps in the idealist position.

Notice that Plato is discussing necessary/unnecessary pleasures, whereas Epicurus distinguishes necessary/unnecessary desires. As we've discussed elsewhere, this is an important distinction, specially since all pleasures are defined as good by Epicurus.

Rereading my last post, it would seem that I do agree with "we would never... pursue a desire that is neither natural or necessary." I pursue desires that are unnecessary, but I do try to avoid the unnatural.

To my embarrassment it seems that I misread the statement in the original post 😬

Quote from Cassius

In fact, a major difference came out last night, in that one view is that if we can determine that a desire is neither natural nor necessary, then there is no reason to consider evaluating that action according to the hedonic calculus. That's because it is the point of view of some that we would NEVER under any circumstances pursue a desire that is neither natural nor necessary. In our meeting last night we had specific disagreement on that

In answer to your question Cassius, this.

I specifically disagree with that

I rule out the unnatural desires, but find the unnecessary desires to be a source of great pleasure. The key to enjoying pleasures resulting from unnecessary desires is to realize that you can thrive without them and yet can fully enjoy them when they're readily available. For me, ruling out the unnecessary veers toward a life of asceticism.

Another thing that I find to be true, at least for me, is that what is necessary can change with changing circumstances but what is unnatural is rather consistent.

I would begin with natural or unnatural, and eliminate the unnatural desires. Then I would reason out whether the resultant pleasures are likely to outweigh any pains involved. This goes along with my thinking that the natural and unnecessary desires are the sweet spot of day to day choices and avoidances. I examine these in terms of both the desires and the potential pleasures/pains, in no particular order.

Quote from Eikadistes

We define virtue as a good used to achieve the goal of pleasure, and we recognize virtuous behavior as acting "practically, properly, and peaceably" (KD5). Practicing these virtues requires choice and avoidance, like avoiding things that lead to guilt, so avoiding guilt is definitely virtuous because it is a choice made to reduce pain and maximize pleasure, which is the goal of life.

The underlined part of this quote is, for me, the key point. Guilt is experienced as pain. In evaluating the pleasures v the pains in any particular activity, if there is the potential for feeling guilt we would need to include that in our analysis.

VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

And for you as well Pacatus!

Quote from Matteng

A strict rule based decision making I find difficult, we need always sober reasoning/prudence to judge/feel the consequences and the context to make good choices/avoidances.

This is well said and definitely bears repeating.

Quote from Don

there's a whole genre of sci-fi where lab-grown humanoids and cyborgs create issues. For a humorous take, see the Murderbot Diaries.

That show was quite amusing! There's also a movie, The Island, which grapples with the subject, though not with a lot of intellectual depth. I only mention it because of the fun fact that the wombs which the clones were grown in were literally designed as scaled up breast implants.

I'm in agreement with Don on this issue as far as I can tell. His post above points out what I have considered the basic problem, which is that the uploading idea, as far as I know, is typically presented as "a brain in a box", which is to me obviously untenable.

The more "realistic" approach would be to re-create a fully functioning brain in a fully functioning body, in a real world environment. This would seemingly increase the complexity of the problem exponentially, but might make the idea of reproducing consciousness captivating for those who take pleasure in pondering hypotheticals.

As for me, I'm off to the gym to work off my Thanksgiving feast. Bottoms up!