I think that what is being said here in this paragraph is swinging a bit too far into skepticism.
Do you mean classical skepticism? How so.
You still are going trust your feelings of bodily pain and pleasure, and just because pain and pleasure is subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion.
I intended to indicate anxiety and happiness can be described as illusions, not pain or pleasure.
When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing.
Speaking frankly as Epicurus advised; I think this phrasing is not a helpful way of addressing the individual search for knowledge. Yes, evaluation of one's beliefs should be an ongoing project. Epicurus learned from Democritus on atoms, and the Cyreniacs on happiness as a goal, yet he refined those areas he agreed with in a positive way by going steps further.
I have to think Epicurus was very well read in the pre-Socratics, in Plato, and others and agreed, at minimum, with their search for knowledge by using rational thinking. For scholars (like those of us at this level in the Forum, finding agreement with other schools, itself rational thinking, is a positive act. And when found, it should be done without looking for warning signs of being poisoned by other schools.
Following up with the second essay. I suppose I need help here. I started to read it, but my nose started itching. It itches when I think someone is just repeating the bogey man, average person as the typical human who doesn't understand the basic human skill of noticing when he is happy argument.
I started skimming, but still didn't find much new to comment on other than what I noticed while reading the first essay.
Anyone care to clarify something I might have missed?
RobertI appreciate your analysis; I think you're trying to find the kernel of truth that Pinsoff is using in the first essay to make his case. Yes?
Just on that first essay, I noticed two things. He appears to be using an average of all the things he thinks people do against self interest to prove why pursuing happiness of bull shit. I don't like that style of logic to win an argument against a principal: all people do this--this is wrong--everything people do is wrong.
The second thing I noticed was where (DT note: I'm just focusing on the bolded text of his quote) he concludes: "Now don’t get me wrong. Happiness is great. It serves a vital function. But it’s not what you think it is. It’s not a substance you’re directly pursuing, like food or water. It’s not the purpose of life, or even something you’re particularly interested in. You don’t want it, and even if you did want it, you couldn’t pursue it, because it’s unpredictable, and you can’t pursue something if you can’t predict it.
Happiness is an excuse, a placeholder, an illusion a story we tell ourselves. In other words, it’s bullshit."
The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.
Catholicism tries very hard to place its belief system on a rational footing. Whether they succeed in this is another question.
They've been working on that since the Islamic scholars translated Plato and Aristotle from Greek into Latin. I don't see how they've succeeded in rationalizing their belief system in any way except for the social justice work they've done as a sideline to gaining converts. And that has nothing to do with their theology or Greek philosophy, in my opinion
Hoping this is the right thread.
I listened to a very interesting interview: https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/whats-b…rything-you-do/
The interview of Brian Greene with Sheldon Solomon on his career studying: What's Behind Everything We Do. In a nutshell Sheldon says it is anxiety over the fear of death. And that anxiety is behind everything we do, and can affect important decisions that affect others. At one point he mentions Lucretius. I posted a comment to the interview as follows: "When Dr. Solomon mentioned Lucretius, he was referring to the Roman philosopher's long poem titled De Rerum Natura. This work was dedicated to the Greek philosopher Epicurus who taught that we should not fear gods, not fear death, know that pleasure in life is easy to attain, and that pain and suffering can be managed easily. This was called the Tetrapharmikon, or four cures. Solomon said overcoming death anxiety “by the thorough contemplation of reality.” I think an inquiry into the teaching of Epicurus may very well teach us how to contemplate reality. A better personal life is possible, and who know how far that might go if Epicurus was taught widely."
The link above may or may not work for you. If it doesn't you can find it on Youtube. P.S. I listened on 1.5x speed. Love to hear any comments on the interview.
In the last two years especially, there has been more focus on the forum and in the podcast to gain a deeper context of Epicurean philosophy through study of other textual sources such as Cicero, etc. This newer material might be of interest for the more advanced student.
Everyone needs to realize going in that they are going to have to make up their own minds about what Epicurus was really teaching, and that takes time and familiarity with the subject to achieve.
Yes. And yes to both comments above. I can’t avoid using my decades of training and experience as an attorney when I read or study a topic. As an advocate, I needed to parse not only the words but the motivations, and first-hand knowledge of every client and then every witness. We called that combination of evaluations testing credibility. So when I read the first-hand (as far as we know) writings of Epicurus in the Principal Doctrines and the Letters to his followers, I give those the most credibility compared to other sources. Sure, it is possible that someone has mistranslated or changed the words; even so, the original has more credibility than other sources.
For instance, the Letters of Epicurus’ successors, or Cicero (to a degree), or even Lucretius or Diogenes (both of them) repeat what they know of Epicurus’ teachings, but to me they already are second-hand. Even though they purport to support Epicurus, they are not as good as the original words we’ve verified are his words. I’m really intense about questioning the Vatican Sayings, by the way. And I guess I’d include the modern commentary writers from DeWitt, up to the very latest of the scholars who interpret and comment. I won’t say they are wrong, but I’m not accepting what they say to be the best explanation.
As far as the critics of Epicurus are concerned , their credibility is no higher than his supporters. I believe it is worth learning about what they say to some degree. Yet to me, that can get so deep in the woods that it becomes a miasma of distraction.
If the other less credible sources are clearly in agreement with the original writings, then no problem exists for me. If there is a question about the specific meaning of words, then I’m going to lean toward the original first. And if there is more information about the teachings in the non-original sources than in the originals, I’m very careful and willing to withhold total belief.
As far as conflicts in the original documents, like the Principal Doctrines versus the Letters, that doesn’t bother me too much because anyone who writes frequently on a subject can write inconsistencies in their pronouncements if we look hard enough. It is only human.
I would like to see us discuss the historical periods more often as crucial backgrounding for the teachings. Anxiety filled Greece during Epicurus’ writing life because of Alexander the Great’s death. And I think we can all see, anxiety was a principal target of his pleasure-pain principle. I’d like to discuss the dates Epicurus wrote the originals we have. I think that information could be helpful for us to resolve any possible inconsistencies among his writings, since everyone can further develop their ideas over time and say things slightly differently.
Probably not necessary for me to name names in that regard other than pointing to my collection of "world's worst" Epicurus videos.
I don't know. I guess it is a personal choice. Of course we never want to appear to be relying on a strawman argument to prove a point.
Dave I am the world's worst at dropping "nots." Was this suppose to be "I am not even inferring"..... Or Iam i just misreading that sentence?
Yes, thanks for catching that. I edited the statement to say what I meant to read: I am in no way even inferrring.
Like I said I read your comments yesterday closely and I very much appreciate them because they are helping me focus in on the deepest issues.
As I feel the same way about your part of this discussion
Since pleasure and pain cannot coexist at the same space per PD03, any particular pleasure can also be called "absence of pain."
I can't agree with this "If--then" proposition. Pleasure and pain can exist in the same space, if you meant to say simultaneously. Is that even arguable?
And so say any particular pleasure can be called "absence of pain" is true on its face, but I don't know who would say such a thing. I don't know where ancient Epicureans would have said it.
The point of PD04 is to emphasize the point that we should NOT obsess about pain
Obsess? That is an emotionally charged word. Certainly PD04 can be read to infer that, but so what?
we should NOT obsess about pain or make it the focus of our lives, because pain is ultimately manageable - it can be terminated by death if it gets too severe, and when it is not so severe we can almost always find ways to experience offsetting pleasures that outweigh those pains.
And to continue, that pain is manageable, as you concur supports everything I've been trying to say. The finding ways to experience offetting pleasures is always the hard part and we have a head start when as Epicurus says plainly the absence of pain is pleasure. This is the starting point. Repeat, the starting point for everyday life. Do this, I think Epicurus is saying and you are already on the way. Find other pleasures, the natural necessary and the natural but unnecessary ones, and you will be well positioned for a happy life.
The problem that underlies much of this debate is that "completeness" does not say anything about duration, intensity, parts of the body affected, or anything else about the details of the specific pleasures under discussion.
Respectfully, I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a feature that anyone, from the wise man, to the common man can grasp within each of their ability. We are after all trying to being this philosophy to the common man as you had essentially stated and I originally agreed with in this thread.
The issue there is being clear about "increase." From the perspective of "increase," when you truly have no pain it is not possible to increase pleasure from that point, because when there are only two options, and one of the options is gone, you are already completely full of the other option.
No, I don't think that is the issue which you then off your support for. The hedonic calculus does not spell out what each individual can (must?) do to achieve the ultimate good. I think PD 09 addresses this, no?
So yes Epicurus is telling you that every time you eliminate pain what takes its place is "a" pleasure. But it would be the height of irresponsibility not to calculate your actions to make sure that your pleasures that you achieve in your circumstance are those of the longest duration, greatest intensity, and involved the most of the total mind and body that are possible to you.
Here, it is good to see we agree. Again, and as always he trusts us to use the hedonic calculus, but as to the beginning of our journey, deal with the pain, and you are already a good solid step in a happy life.
But are you telling me that Epicurus was blind to the differences between pleasures that he discussed in PD09
No, emphatically no. PD09 actually supports my proposition.Here, from our Texts on the Forum site: "If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted, and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another. PD09 - "If all pleasure had been capable of accumulation,—if this had gone on not only by recurrence in time, but all over the frame or, at any rate, over the principal parts of man's nature, there would never have been any difference between one pleasure and another, as in fact there is.” Hicks (1925)
When I read PD3 "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."
Compare: "If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted...." with "The limit of quantify in pleasures...."
Can you see how I think they support one another without dismissing my literal reading that once you eliminate pain, you've got pleasure? Again, my point is trying to answer the question of how can I verbalize for myself and others the shear simplicity of Epicurus' teaching of how to find the ultimate good. It is like he might have said: "Once you deal with pain, I trust you to carry on using Prudence, to find more pleasures in this lifetime of yours."
We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil."
Your quote of Cicero, I think does not address my thesis. I am not questioning the academic analysis of pleasure is the chief good. Epicurus said it, and I hoped it was clear I'm not focusing on it.
Your statement taken literally continues to say "once you eliminate pains..." as if the only pleasure you are really insisting on are whatever you happen to find available when pain is gone.
Yes and no. You understand the part about eliminating pain. Except once you experience pleasure , you are mistaken in the second part of your restatement. I am in no way even inferring obliquely that whatever you find available after the pain is gone. As Epicureans, we must use the hedonic calculus at all times, choosing not whatever is available, but what is best since all pleasures are always available at least in principal.
Some pains may be readily removable, some may not. Sometimes the distress caused by pain (or by focussing on the pain) can be relieved (or at least attenuated) by engaging in pleasurable activity (e.g. Epicurus on his deathbed).
Are you responding to my original post at #33? I can agree with your comment here without hesitation. Do you see how it fits with my application of PD 3? The automatic process of pleasure upon removing pain (completely or partially) remains true and does not stop us from seeking one or more of the unlimited pleasures available to us within the hedonic calculus. For example, my swollen big toe is Iess painful this morning thank goodness, but I think I'll enjoy a pint of beer with lunch to celebrate and relax more.
When I hear people say they think the texts support identifying the goal with absence of pain, and therefore Epicurus is teaching them to target reducing pain above all, and that whatever pleasures happen to be laying aroundcan be used to achieve the supreme good, I keep wanting to remind them of the statement of the best life by Torquatus:
Man, I love your processes, but please give me time to plumb your prior comments before supporting your position with more material. I can't keep up and feel like you are giving me too many things to think about before I can finish my conversation. me out of the water. Can we come back to this after you actually read my response?
If what you mean is that your first priority is to seek out and eliminate any bodily or mental pain from your life before you turn to any pleasure, and that in the process of eliminating those pains it makes no difference what pleasures you choose to employ, then that's quite a stark statement.
No, what I mean is that once you eliminate pain(s) you have pleasure automatically and immediately. You don't need to do anything to turn to pleasure. Now, take that short explanation and see how I don't care about any discussion of kinetic and katastematic pleasures. Epicurus is telling me quite clearly that absent pain, I have pleasure.
arguably someone who used your formula would never pursue roses or music until they reach a state of perfect painlessness.
And here, I given my explanation above, I reject that argument. Never say never and by the way who care? I am in a state of pleasure which I can increase any way I choose within the hedonic calculus.
The question is whether it is correct to erect the elimination of any pain of body or mind as the "prime directive"
Again, given my clarification in the first paragraph, it is simplycommon sense that tells everyone that no one can eliminate every pain. Within that common sense, Epicurus saw and thought out and wrote the words of PD 3. P.S. the use of the word erect has humorous implications!!!
I suspect you will say that that is not what your formulation is doing, but my personal opinion is that it comes very close to saying that, and I would not agree that that would be the correct conclusion. Sometimes we choose pain in order to avoid a worse pain or achieve a greater pleasure.
So, again, now that you see your initial suspicion is off, and that I clarified my meaning for you in the first paragraph, I hope your opinion is worth reconsideration. Certainly choosing pain as you ended this paragraph is completely consistent with my thesis of the common sense application and of Epicurus' plain meaning of the words of PD 3.
Honestly, I hope my explanations of your assumptions might modify your conclusions that what I have expressed is not in either of those two camps which I quote below.
Dave's post has me focused on trying to identify what I see to be two different camps with two different sets of foundational premises:
***
So might it in fact be something that can be summarized by viewing the issue as being between the competing goals of:
Maximizing Net Pleasure vs Minimizing Total Pain
It is not maximizing as I see it. It is removing or minimizing pain with the result of pleasure using the explicit words of PD 3.
To the Forum generally and Cassius. My quote insertion function isn't cooperating so I'm cutting and pasting you from above: "THe only record of Hiernymous of Rhodes is what Cicero says about him as explained in our earlier thread (note from 2019) with the citations. Hieronymus of Rhodes embraced "absence of pain" but not pleasure, as Cicero explains."
I read the thread you link attached of your 2019 thread Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?
Not to nit-pick since none of us on the Forum certainly have the highest level of confidence when Cicero or any other ancient person paraphrases what others have allegedly written. We luckily have some original Epicurus in the absence of first hand Hieronymus.
My main points, questions and propositions
When I read that linked material I noticed it begins with a typo when referring to pleasure upon citing PD 3. The corrected sentence at PD 03 is
"The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."
The plural word pleasures is important to me when contrasted to the typo'd singular word. AND I'll say why in a moment by focusing on the words limit, quantity and pleasures.
Parenthetically, allow me to note that I agree with our newly stated Editorial Policy of the forum. And in that regard, I view the comparison of kinetic vs katastematic pleasures to be an unhelpful diversion from what is most important to me.
Similarly I believe debate of whether pain removal is primary before pleasure is a wasteful debate that obscures the plain meaning of Epicurus' words. Being pain free is the means to enjoying the goal of pleasure.
Please humor me here.
You recently said something I totally agree with. You said in post #6 discussing Aronsen's book: "If our goal is to better the lives of real people rather than pinheads, it's far better to stick to basic points and then work to apply them in real life, not just debate about words and definitions."
Your words address my focus and personal challenge when applying Epicurus. I want a simple description I can repeat to myself on reaching the highest good for happiness. Okay that's not so simple, so let me explain further.
I am struck by the difficulty in matching the pleasure/pain calculus to real life. And the rubber hits the road for me by looking at Epicurus' exact words, not-- repeat NOT at commentary by academics and authors who interpret Epicurus' words one way or the other for their own purposes.
So, tell me if my understanding is wrong when I read PD 3 where it says: "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful.", and I think the following: the "limit (singular word) of quantity in pleasures (plural words) is equal but not more than the simple act of removing that singular thing or state I'm experiencing that is painful.
In other words, I can do no better looking for one pleasure alone or added to another and another in order to solve my pain than if I simply address the pain I'm experiencing and rid myself of it partially or completely.
I think Epicurus knew he could not list all pleasures available to us. They are uncountable and unlimited. But he did specifically say if you remove pain it matches the maximum level of all the pleasures you might find. He defines and counts the one state, freedom from pain, that anyone can recognize and pursue.
I think this focus allows me to not worry about which pleasure, or how much of it will make me happy more often than sad when navigating the reality of every day life. This focus tells me to first notice what is painful bodily and/or mentally and address the removal of that condition. When I do that I'm left with the various stages of pleasure and happiness however I define it.
