ALL CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY: "Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself."
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
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.
That substitution of "absence of pain" in the place of pleasure is exactly what Hieronymus of Rhodes did, but which it's amply clear that Epicurus refused to do.
Epicurus' logic in rejecting Hieronymus's view is easy to understand:
When you get to the limit of pleasure you haven't left behind all the bodily and mental pleasures you've accumulated to get there. You still have those pleasures -- it's just that you're now experiencing those same pleasures without any mixture of pains.
Sorry, I'm not following the statements in each paragraph. Am I missing the trees for the forest? Do you have citations of the Hieronymus of Rhodes reference? Are you disputing his wording or the concept, which I don't think you are disputing the concept.
And do you have a citation of Epicurus specifically rejecting Hieronymus on that point?
And after addressing the first two points, please address the last paragraph above. Are you paraphrasing? The phrases: limit of pleasure, leaving behind pleasures you've accumulated to get there, you're still experiencing those same pleasures without any admixture of pains, what point do they suffort?
Cassius Pacatus I suppose I above posted more for my personal application of Epicurus' doctrines to my everyday life. My life observations myself, and of other people are the source of the questions I raised.
I have no quarrel with the Forum's guidelines as Cassius formulated them. I believe you both implied, the way we adopt and apply the doctrines for ourselves is always a matter of choice based on our own ability to independently reason out our lifestyle choices.
Respecting the man, and Epicurus' mind, is what the Forum is dedicated to, right? I usually enjoy all the posts, and have no ax to grind, in either direction when it comes to interpreting or commenting on Epicurus. Always the student, me.
I have trouble understanding that explanation of policy. It seems overly rigid.Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that? No one can actually feel physical pleasure over a prolonged time period, but we can't feel prolonged physical contentment I.e.the absence any mental discomfort for a prolonged period. After all, physical pain and discomfort are crucial bodily mechanisms to maintaining good health. So why is it unreasonable to distinguish the two forms of pleasure just within those distinctions?
We do have two complete manuscripts, Codex Oblongus and Codex Quadratus, as well as the partial Gottorpienses -- all Carolingian and from the 800's.
Speaking of the Carolingian period, I recently learned how the Muslim scholars had translated a great deal of Greek writings into Latin (many who lived in Islamic Spain). I wonder why, other than that they abhorred Epicurean denial of life after death, they didn't translate Epicurus, too. Perhaps all of the loss occurred before the 800's to 1000 CE period. Anyway, it is a question that likely can't be answered
Joshua Thanks for the research above. So how do you think the Romans who were not literate in Greek learned Epicureanism in the Gardens in Italy? Historically I understand that the southern portions of the Italian peninsula and perhaps Sicily had been been colonized by the Greeks. So perhaps the common people in the south were still speaking or understanding some Greek, if not being bilingual, for verbal learning of Epicurean philosophy. What do you think?
I've heard the estimates are that we only have about 1-5% of ALL texts from the ancient world. (One source example)
Astonishing that the single copy of Lucretius was found. Another thing this made me think about was that probably the number of illiterates who learned by someone reading the texts or booklets decreased when Epicureanism moved to the Latin language of Rome. Unless they were translated into Latin, probably only the few educated elites were privy to the teachings of the Garden. Do you or anyone have knowledge of how that went in the Roman language areas?
Kalosyni Thank you for the history of papyrus and writing tools etc. Very interesting. Although the topic of the literate and illiterate probably can't be resolved, I'm curious on your source materials on Epicurus' financial holdings and his income and the bearing they had on copying his work? If I remember DeWitt, in the beginning of his work he said Epicurus' father was an elementary school teacher, a profession that was looked down upon before and after the family was evicted from Samos. I'm thinking he was not wealthy, but I don't know. Also, if I remember DeWitt, he indicated that at the time handbooks were written and disseminated by him, as well as perhaps copied by his students for us to prosyletize new converts. Assuming they were on papyrus, and they were short lessons so to speak, I can understand why they didn't survive.
But the fact that we have so many examples of Cicero, and Plato and Aristotle's work has me puzzled still. I guess I can buy into the hypothesis that the Christians burned the copies, except that they had no real influence in the Roman empire until the end of the 5th century.
As I thought about this question, I remembered that the only way of sharing written scrolls was to have someone manually copy it. Since this likely was an expensive proposition done by skilled scribes (No Jeff Bezos types) there were probably rather few copies made.
So, if the most exact method of teaching from his letters etc was to read off a copy and open the meeting to discussion, I'm thinking it didn't matter whether the students could read or write.
However.... I think an absolute necessity to the teaching and learning process had to be frequent, (dare I say more than weekly) meetings for both the illiterate and illiterate to learn and adopt the lessons from the Garden(s) into daily life.
In addition, if teachings were also done through memorized lessons, a certainly less exact method of passing on the doctrines, etc. repetitive reinforcement was also absolutely necessary.
As an aside to the original question, I'm guessing that only those who were free enough and rich enough to attend, and learn several times a week had the time to spare. Am I wrong to conclude that women were not free to navigate the cities alone so perhaps the enslaved were members of those households where women were free enough from their other duties to attend.
I'm also wondering if the cost of copying was one of the reasons so few of Epicurus' writings were preserved.
