2024_04_20

  • April 20, 2025 EpicureanFriends Twentieth Commemoration!

  • image.png{:height 269, :width 394}

  • Welcome

  • Kalosyni Memorial Reading

  • Remembering Epicurus and Metrodorus

  • Remembering Notable Epicureans - Philodenes of Laodicea and Leontion

  • Topic 1 - Psychological Hedonism

    • Definition: "Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us." --Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

    • Steve's Post on the Forum - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/3813-scientific-support-for-psychological-hedonism/

    • Emily Austin's Chapter 4 [Emily Austin - Living For Pleasure](/mnt/DriveD/Dropres/NOSYNC-LMH/Ebooks/Austin - Living for Pleasure.epub)

      • The Epicureans and their chief rivals, the Stoics, call this a “Cradle Argument,” according to which we can read the fundamental motivation of a human being from observing its early, uncorrupted state. Epicurus thinks the “Cradle Argument” shows us that infants want freedom from pain, as well as the assorted pleasures consistent with maintaining that tranquil state. Adults, then, are essentially infants grown large and intelligent, facing an immensely more complex world, now largely responsible for providing that precious and pleasant secure state for ourselves. Cicero reports that the Stoics, by contrast, think that “as soon as it is born,” an infant “is concerned with itself, and takes care to preserve itself.”[3] I have admittedly not met any self-preserving infants.
      • Epicurus advances a bolder claim here than you might at first think. It makes sense that pleasure feels good, and that pain feels bad, and we do often choose pleasures and avoid pains. No controversy there. Epicurus, though, thinks that all our actions ultimately aim at our own pleasure. Epicurus is what we will call a “psychological hedonist” because he thinks that we always choose what we think will provide us the most pleasure overall. We have one fundamental motivation—pursuing pleasure. He writes that pleasure is “the starting point for every choice and avoidance.”4 As he thinks the greatest pleasure is freedom from pain and anxiety, he can restate our motivation as pain avoidance: “We do everything for the sake of being neither in pain nor in terror.”Cicero puts the point as follows: “Pride of place he gives to what he claims nature herself approves, namely pleasure and pain. For him these explain our every act of pursuit and avoidance.”6 Our every action.
      • Epicurus, though, thinks that all our actions ultimately aim at our own pleasure. Epicurus is what we will call a “psychological hedonist” because he thinks that we always choose what we think will provide us the most pleasure overall. We have one fundamental motivation—pursuing pleasure. He write
      • But that seems, at least on the face of it, insane. Consider some of your most recent actions. In the past few hours, you have likely done many things. Perhaps you washed the dishes, opened a bottle of wine, answered some work emails, talked a friend through a crisis, ate an ice cream sandwich, turned off your mind to binge-watch a show. Now you are taking at least a moment to peruse the contents of this book. Each action foreclosed other options. Your reading this book means you are not currently strolling through the night. If I asked you to explain your motivations for these assorted actions, how might you respond?

    • Questions

      • One of the things we want to discuss too is how this applies to people like Plato or Aristotle or Cicero.
      • Is it fair to also label them "psychological hedonists?"
      • Does this label explain anything helpful to distinguishing between Epicurus and Plato?
      • Does the meaning of "hedonism," especially one's definition of "hedonism / pleasure," make any difference to the analysis?
      • If everyone is in fact a "psychological hedonist," does the label help in some way to answer questions about disputes when the opponent denies that he is acting for pleasure?

  • Topic 2 - How To Explain Whether "Happiness" Is Consistent With Being Tortured?

    • Was Cosma Raimondi right in challenging this?
    • Was Diogenes Laertius correct?
    • Is there a translation issue that reconciles everything?