Posts by Matteng

Quote from Cassius

....because happiness is viewed as having more reason for joy than for vexation - having a positive balance of pleasures over pains. Epicurus had that positive balance even in his last days, and as even the wise man on the wrack can have because he can consider his past experiences and current thinking and upcoming relief from pain (through death if necessary) as offsetting his present torture

Cassius thank you, your post improves my understanding.

Ok, yes seeing the cup as the whole life makes more sense.

"more reason for joy than for vexation - having a positive balance of pleasures over pains"

I first thought: oh that is an opposite image to the full cup model. But on the other side it means the possible pleasure of life.

And fearing of pain makes the cup not fuller but emptier.

I see how this is also connected to the "absence of pain" subject.

To avoid or fear every Pain because it could disturb a perfect fullness or cup is not the Epicurean way when exactly this leads to more pain and fear.

The Epicurean way is to choose Pain when it leads to better/more Pleasure overall. The prudent way to go for Pleasure.

Pacatus Nice comparison, see it the same. Life as obvious basis than health and the peak Eudaimonia.

Is it needed that the Cup „must“ be full ? I think we not only fill the cup with Pleasure but also and that can be an important point: adjust the size of the cup ?

Reflecting desires, gratitude and other Epicurean Virtues often aim at limiting or realistically measure the desires and with it the limit of the cup.

So now maybe I am full of Pleasure but later when I am hungry do I lose the full cup of Pleasure ?

What is more stable is ataraxia or satisfaction with the one life and when this is my limit of the cup than it would be full even when little pains/ desires come back. Than Epicurus had a complete full cup of Pleasure in his last days.

But maybe that would go in the Stoic direction and neglect the body. And maybe it is ok that the cup is not always full and one is not a full Sage ( another topic could be, does one need to be an Epicurean Sage for full Pleasure ? Again a Stoic Idea ? But for what than should someone aim at wisdom / Sagehood ? )

Epicurus is frequently criticized because he allegedly advised against political engagement.
But he teached against unnecessary desires like fame not to engage for better circumstances.

Epicureans engage in politics when necessary. Why should one engage when unnecessary ? Yes for fame.
And the ancient politicians assassinated each other often.
Security is a natural/ necessary desire and for that Epicureans would engage in politics.

In an ideal community of friends there is maybe no one necessary who rules over others. Anarchy in a good sense.

And would I be a woman and would live in ancient time with no access to politics and the duty to give birth until you die with low or no medical help I would only laugh about the view of Stoic-like duty and the Epicurean garden would be the very best and healty place for me.

Fullnes of Pleasure makes sense for me. It is not about avoiding all pain but to fullfill necessary bodily and mental desires. An unfullfilled necessary desire is a pain.

Only problem could be vulnerability ?
The vessel doesn‘t stay full, would a small pain destroy the fullness ?

When getting old we become more ill, is there fullness than even possible ?

Otherwise yes pain is a signal and motivation to get back to the fullness of Pleasure and maybe thats a reason why Epicurus advices to reduce the desires to natural/necessary, there is then a smaller vessel to fill or it will become easier/faster full.

Interesting is the role of mental pleasure vs short bodily in this subject. Epicurus memory if philosophy with friends made is whole life to a happy life in his last days. How full / complete was his Pleasure in his last days ? Overshadowed his Eudaimonia his bodily pains ? How long is that possible ? I think it supports the enduring of pain and resilience.

Quote from Godfrey

„The reasoning behind pleasure as the goal is that we are embodied human beings, and pleasure and pain are our guidance system…“

Good point.
Pleasure/Pain guide to what ?

Today I also thought about this connection.

I do sport to maintain a healthy body. Why do I want a healthy body? To function? To satisfy my needs? To live... ultimately for pleasure, that is the intrinsic good.
Yes.
But would I take a shortcut if I could? Would I forgo exercise and health if I could obtain pleasure directly?
Two things come to my mind that argue against this:

1. Is it realistic? Can pleasure be separated from a healthy body?

2. Why do I feel an inner resistance/conflict at the thought of separating health from pleasure? Even if one were to feel comfortable in a sick body, suffering or pain would inevitably follow—at the very least, when bodily functions fail and I cannot fulfill my desires.

I can see this is quickly heading back toward the "Experience Machine" or drug scenarios.
I would decide against it precisely because one loses one's freedom and connection to the real world; returning is difficult to impossible, and one sacrifices everything. Major inner conflicts arise, and there is no ataraxia—hence the decision against it.
Of course, once you're inside, everything could be simulated to keep you there—at which point it’s likely too late; the decision has to be made beforehand.

Hi together,

in a substack article Donald Robertson argues for the Stoic views of Emotion.

Thereby there are some attacks and I think strawmens from Seneca about Epicurus view.

What do you think ? There is the teaching against the Fear of Pain, and to Endure it and even to see it sometimes as good when it leads to the "better good" so Pleasure.

And another question Can we match natural/necessary Desire in the same way as for Aversion ? Means reducing Desire also to reduce aversions ? Epicurean Courage would mean to conquer Pain and Fear.

That is the article:

Stoicism is not unemotional

How not to be like a man made of oak or stone

substack.com

Main quote:

"Against the Epicureans

For this reason, Seneca elsewhere explains that whereas the goal of Epicureanism is “a mind immune to feeling”, this “unfeelingness” is actually the opposite of what the Stoics desire.

Quote

This is the difference between us Stoics and the Epicureans; our wise man overcomes every discomfort but feels it, theirs does not even feel it. (Letters, 9)

The virtue of the Sage consists in his ability to endure painful feelings and rise above them, with magnanimity, while continuing to maintain his relationships and interaction with the world. Seneca returns to this point several times:

Quote

I do not withdraw the wise man from the category of man, nor do I deny to him the sense of pain as though he were a rock that has no feelings at all. I remember that he is made up of two parts: the one part is irrational, — it is this that may be bitten, burned, or hurt; the other part is rational, — it is this which holds resolutely to opinions, is courageous, and unconquerable. […] You must not think that our human virtue transcends nature; the wise man will tremble, will feel pain, will turn pale, for all these are sensations of the body. (Letters 71)

The Epicurean ideal, usually described as ataraxia, or freedom from all disturbance (such as pain or anxiety), is normally contrasted with the Stoic ideal of apatheia, freedom from being overcome by passions not complete insensibility. As we’re told Zeno put it, what the Stoics meant by a “passion” is “an irrational and unnatural movement [feeling] in the psyche” and “an excessive impulse” or desire. Stoic apatheia therefore specifically means freedom from unhealthy, irrational, and excessive desires and emotions.

This may be one reason why Stoicism has become popular with modern psychotherapists, whereas Epicureanism has not. The Stoic position corresponds much better with the goal of mental health as defined by modern psychology. Epicureanism sounds closer to what researchers today call “experiential avoidance”, meaning an urge to get rid of unpleasant or painful feelings. The excessive effort to avoid emotional disturbance has been found to correspond, not with emotional resilience, but with greater vulnerability and poorer mental health outcomes in the long-run. The Stoics, in other words, were closer to the truth than the Epicureans...."

What is often translated as „friendship“ is greek „philia“

Like in the word „philosophy“

It is a kind of love or attitude to others, so has a much broader meaning than having a few friends:

Philia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Matteng

Today podcast episodes revolve around these questions too; I’m going to listen to them again, starting to rehear from episode 280

Good luck because that's at least 40 hours of listening!

Last year, I actually started right from the beginning.

That went on for several months.

But the great thing about it is that you stay more in the context and don't have to wait a week—it's basically "binge-listening"

It hammers the points home

I saw, many of the recent Lucretius Today podcast episodes revolve around these questions too; I’m going to listen to them again, starting to rehear from episode 280

To 3. Following human flourishing means social activities: I think that comes because of the Stoic definition of Human Nature as rational and social. Is it reasonable to speak of a Human Nature ?

And why Rational/Social ? That is not distinct to animals but a matter of degree I think.

For example I could state: Only humans are comedians so Human Nature means to become the best comedian one can be

On the one side there are feelings involved in social situations, praise and blame, pity, philia..... On the other, we need justic and security because not everyone behaves friendly to one self....

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity.

I think this comes from the framewor or understanding that Pleasure is only a superficial extreme/stimulating feeling. To do things is a kind of Pleasure, living with no or minimal Pain is a Pleasure....

Donald Robertson once wrote me, that avoiding all Pain leads to experiental avoidance what causes mental health problems and is boring.

I responsed that boredom is a form of pain and that Epicureans choose Pain when it makes sense, and sometimes treat it like a good (this is maybe even a point for cognitive therapy, reframing) and that they teach to not fear Pain. ( Letter to Menoceus).

Even though Pain is evil, of course it is sometimes choiceworthy (worth/value measured by feeling, pleasure) that is what Stoics not understand. Good must be always good, bad always bad. To choose the bad like in the Stoic sense Vice would contradict their definitions.

But in the context of a life of Pleasure (as seeing as the good) it makes sense to choose pains for greater Pleasure. It is more about relative relation than an absolute.

Cassius Thank you for your input.

I’m realizing now just how much one adopts the questioner’s framework and certain biases when dealing with questions. And that can quickly lead to straw man arguments.
That’s why it’s good to examine the underlying assumptions of the questions.

For question 1 and 2 that are my current conclusions (the other will follow later):

Question 1: Relates to the Stoic/Epicurean Cradle Argument: Self-Preservation vs. Pleasure. And the Stoics mean the Decision-Making Self (Hegemonikon or Proheiresis ) as the Self.

=> It is a strong argument because Evolution is about self-preservation or self-organisation.

But for me I think it is a false dichotomy. The natural/necessary desires (life, self, eudaimonia) represent all self-preservation/organisation. But just existing or self-preservation brings no Value.

Pleasure/Pain are the Value System. A growing crystal has no Values and Desires. And the self-preservation ends finally in death someday.

Question 2: The shortterm/longterm problem: Some people see pleasure as bad because they confuse desire with pleasure.

Let´s say there is a desire for a drug and it use brings pleasurable stimulus. Following the desire is the problem when not reflection about what pain it brings to follow this desire, yes that is pure Epicurean teaching.

Hi together,

I had a discussion with a Stoic and he challenged me in stating that "flourishing" would be a "better" goal of life than Pleasure ( I know with flourishing he mean "Virtue" ). His points:

1. Evolution: Pleasure/Pain are signals but instrumental for living and the self-preservation of bodily/mental functions. Seeing the inner decision-making self as the pure self than self-preservation as goal fits with Evolution, it would be the Evolution of the Virtuous Self.

2. Following Pleasure directly, leads not always to happiness but sometimes to misery (sugar, drugs, anti-social behaviour). Following to aim at the good life has not that problem (Virtue).

3. Following human flourishing means social activities, following Pleasure could lead to unsocial immorality actions, when that (unjust activities) give Pleasure, an Epicurean could not have Objections.

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity. Evolution gives no everlasting happiness based on pleasure. Eudaimonia was defined by Aristotles as an activity not an end state. Does a happy person or god do nothing when reached everlasting Absence of Pain ?

What would be your points / objections against this ? Why is or is not "Life / Living" the greatest good in Epicureanism ?

Or maybe it is ? Pleasant living ? Maybe Flourishing / Pleasure is a fals dichotomy ? Like a Flow state ?

How fits Pleasure as goal to our current knowledge about evolutionary processes / psychology and social acts ?

Good points,

I think on Philodemus and Emily Austin, that it the Epicurean Sage feels pain/fear/passions for natural/necessary desires.

In the past I thought of Epicureanism more as a realistic form of Stoicism but here is a crucial difference.
It is about avoiding unnecessary pain not avoiding the faculty of feelings.

What is the difference between mental aponia and ataraxia ?

Quote from Eikadistes

He was definitely "happy" in the general sense of neither grieving nor complaining, and he "expired undauntedly" (On Death 39.15), but I wouldn't say that he was enjoying "perfect happiness" or "pure pleasure" just because his mind was untroubled. Ataraxia is just half the formula.

I understand how an interpretation of absolute eudaimonia can be easily criticized by opponents of Epicureanism.

Aponia, as never having pain in life is not reachable. Maybe this is even more unrealistic as the Stoic Sage of perfect Virtue.

There is no absolute avoiding of pain possible, even to avoid greater pain, we have to choose some pains what Epicurus also teaches, so this he couldn´t have meant.

But a process view makes sense, every living being is naturally avoiding pain, searching for example always pain would destroy every organism.

So Aponia as a goal is complete rational but more as a quantitative / relative goal than an absolute.

To have more Aponia than Ponia/Pain in life makes sense and another point of defense of Aponia / Epic. Eudaimonia is that mental Pleasure can "counter" bodily pain and overshadow it.

So maybe in a specific sense Epicurus had until his death complete Eudaimonia ?

Or can we have Eudaimonia and loose it ? But when Eudaimonia is about the whole life then there is maybe just one answer, but maybe this answer lies only in one person and that is the feeling person.

The question " Did/Do I have a happy life" ? Can I agree with me and live in harmony with myself, my "good self", my eu daimon ?

Is/Can Aponia be part of Eudaimonia ? A challenging question, I know.

In my view Epicurus reached Eudaimonia the happy life but he had extreme pain, so no aponia, or do I miss something ?

Or is it more relative understood, so to have more aponia than pain in life ?

This desire for Aponia is understandable and natural but also a Point of attack for other philosophical schools, for example Cicero and the Stoics would say that it is impossible t get to aponia, we have no complete control to avoid always pain, especially when you get older in life.

Coming from a religious worldview I dismissed the materialistic worldview because I thought and was teached how disenchanting it is and it would empty life of meaning and wonder.
After finding flaws in my first religion I searched for the „right“ one.

At last I dismissed them all because they rely on an idealist worldview and Epicurean Philosophy teached me how liberating and even wonderful and positive a Materialistic/ Epicurean worldview is.

I also think Plato was the „Golden“ because he values people in categories of gold, silver and bronze/iron

Gold: Elites, King/ Philosopher

Silver: Warriors

Bronze/Iron: Worker, farmers

And oh, of course Plato was in the golden category 😅

I think „the Golden“ is a play on this arrogant and inhumane assessment / valuation of people which is done in every totalitarian state. Popper saw Platos Politeia as core of every totalitarian state.

Cassius Yes, I agree.

My intention is not to change anything in the Philosophy. Indeed I think that the core principles are kind of eternal/timeless in this world.

My intention is more to see/ show that Epicurean Philosophy is not an old/dead/fixed one but it is valid in every time.
The details for example in the explanations of Epic. Physics changed but the core principles are still valid.

For example: Does the modern view of gravity and curved space-time invalid Epicurus view of an empty void ?

Some Epicureans would like to extend their view others may could say that maybe our space even consists of particles or strings as particles and so on…

But we still live in an material universe without divinity or afterlife….

„…Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy…“

Letter to Menoceus

For me Epicurean Philosophy is also ( what often Stoics claim for them ) „anti-fragile“

Where every new scientific discovery/ fact makes religion views „weaker“, Epicurean Philosophy becomes more „stronger“ or more convincing because of insisting on evidence and coherence within nature.

Hi,

in one of Hirams essays about the 4. criterion of the Canon he mentions rules for Innovations or Updating the Philosophy. I like the idea so that it can evolve with new data and scientific findings.

What do you think about it ? Has someone direct quotes for that ?

What would Epicurean Philosophy look like when Epicurus would live today or when the garden/school had evolved until today ?

Which basic principles are close to be „timeless“ or “hardcore“ ?

The essay:

„… In order to avoid cognitive dissonance and the muddying of his doctrines, the Hegemon left instructions regarding innovation, as reported by Michael Erler in the second chapter of the book Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Epicurus established two criteria for innovation: akoloythia (“that which follows”, which requires that the innovation have internal consistency) and symphonia—meaning that the innovation could not contradict the evidence of nature or any of the established doctrines of the school…“

On the Fourth Criterion of the Canon

To fully understand this essay, first read the Study Guide for the Epicurean Canon.

open.substack.com

Right, this was not good formulated from my side. Modern Physics are all new discoveries.

I think that Epicurus would integrate their findings today in his Philosophy when they have good evidence.