Right!

Answering my own hook question: that's where the hedonic ethic starts to fall short. There are some circumstances, namely political, which the hedonic ethic is incomplete for. I believe this is true for all ethical philosophies. They are good-at or good-for, rather than good simpliciter or an arbiter of all action allowing us to once and for all categorize our actions and choose the good ones. And when they are good-at or good-for isn't subject to a rule: it's a choice which we make.

But in favor of this still counting as a moral realism, rather than the obvious anti-realism that this seems to indicate, I might say that hedonism is the first morality, cribbing from Levinas. It's not always the case, but often enough we look out for ourselves and our pleasures and our people and our projects first, and we are even expected to do so. So if there is a higher ethic, something beyond human beings seeking pleasure, due to us being human we have to find a way to satisfy our hedonism regardless.

And then from Levinas I would depart to Kate Millet's Sexual Politics -- forming a Bildungsroman that starts with human pleasure and integrates sexual, racial, and economic equality as a worthy pursuit. Just tempered by human pleasure and joy -- because while anger is a gift, it's a double-edged one that can turn into rage and hate if left unchecked.

And that's definitely not tranquil.

I'm sorry, I can't decipher NIST. What does it mean? — Ludwig V

I'm sorry! I should have posted a link and not just assumed we might use the same acronyms. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has a peanut butter reference standard.

One could claim that one brand of peanut butter is better than another on objective grounds - that it is organic or doesn't use palm oil. Sure, the fact/value distinction would kick in, but the argument about whether those grounds are appropriate is at least not straightforwardly subjective. Whereas making that claim on the ground that "I like it" is quite different; that would be subjective. (But "I like it because it is organic" is different.) — Ludwig V

Yup, I think I can go along with this. I'm not hardline on how I use the objective/subjective distinction. There are other ways of expressing the same without it.

But, yes, the examples were meant to highlight exactly that one can claim this peanut butter does or does not fit a standard, or has so much oil concentration in it, or is organic and that'd be the "objective" example with NIST, and the "subjective" example is the "I like Brand A over Brand B", though in normal usage there are fuzzy cases (which is why I'm not hardline on how we use objective/subjective).

"Reputable", it seems to me has objective elements, because (in normal use) it would be based on reasonably objective grounds. The question would be about the worth of, for example, relevant social status (relevant professorship or other mark of success).

Surely with dogma, though, there'd have to be a shared other dogma which would allow for a third party to be relevant? Which is where the subject would come back into the mix -- we can poison the well ahead of time and claim our dogma is good, and their dogma is bad objectively because we have chosen a judge. This process can be repeated so as to bury the foundations, so that the judge is also chosen on objective grounds -- philosophers would be tempted to call this ground "reason".

But reason speaks differently to different people, and people are motivated by passion before reason so subjectivity has a way of coming back around even as we try our best to adhere to objective reason.

But in normal use, yes I agree. Relevant social status, and also I think a general sort of trust in our social designations gets us over the intellectual hurdles. If my doctor was right about a sickness before then she's probably right about this one. Being in a safe social environment which allows for that kind of trust is a very important feature of being able to have reasonably objective grounds for everyday use, though. If we trust our third parties and they have the relevant social status then there are objective grounds.

It looks like it. :grin:

I accept that if we dig in to it, we'll find differences of opinion. — Ludwig V

True.

I'm still happy. Progress!

Originally I wanted to have a kind of rule for classifying dogma, but this way of looking isn't really like that. It's probably better that way.

Well, yes - if you don't have a definition of "reputable" that's not subjective. — Ludwig V

Heh. I think the people I read and like would say you cannot have that definition :D. Or suggest it, in various ways that doesn't assert it.

I'll grant differences, though. While NIST is ultimately a maker of subjective definitions, they are inter-subjective and checked and about as good as you can get for those purposes. That's not the same as me claiming this or that brand of peanut butter is better though; we'd call that obviously subjective.

The assumption seems to be that dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps intolerance is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'. — unenlightened

This version is fine. — Ludwig V

So I'm just going to ask the obvious: Did we actually find a description of dogma that three of us are fine with?

Sorry to hear it my friend. I like the quote you chose: stoic courage means nothing.

I'd say that this can be resolved, though it's not resolvable internally to the thoughts of Epicurus -- going back to notions of resonances and balances from before I think Epicurean dogma is a good basis for orienting oneself towards having a calmer mind, which in turn makes one more able to engage in public political life.

And, on the flip side, if one is dedicated to a political life, Epicureanism serves as a counter-balance to making that a total life philosophy -- the impulse to totalize can be tempered with an opposing philosophy.

In the end the resolution is only in how we actually act. The philosophies are for reflection on that, but regardless of the justification we're the ones who own the choices we make. So there's an existential element to my approach to ethics. In fact I don't think we can re-create that era when there were ethical masters, so in a way the existential approach is forced on us by our circumstances.

For myself, at least, while I've lived in intentional community spaces I'm of the mind that they're more like personal projects and less like political projects. In one sense they are political in that you're arranging the basic economy of the home, which is where we all begin. But in the other sense you have to utilize the system of private property rights in order to establish a space for those who fit in, which is actually quite insular rather than addressing the needs of people at large. It becomes a private affair rather than a public one.

But the Epicurean wouldn't care that their life is a private affair. In fact, if we adhered to the code that would be the right thing to do.

What if you are? You may be a professional prizefighter, ballerina or soldier and nobody thinks it's any of their business. If you are seen to do certain kinds of self-harm, you may be deprived of your liberty by legal authority and placed in an institutions. But modern human rights codes generally allow people to overindulge in food, drink, sex, extreme bodybuilding, masochistic relationships, conspiracy theories or sleep-depriving, stressful occupations.
Either it's your life, your choice, your responsibility or it's someone else's. — Vera Mont

I'd say that our legal system is doing the work for us here -- Epicurus made a decision as to when it was time to intercede on the basis of self-harm, and we have to make that same decision collectively if we ever believe it's OK to act against someone else's will for their own good.

That, or something like it may already exist. https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/
Or you can start one. Modern intentional communities are whatever the participants want them to be. — Vera Mont

Starting one wouldn't be the same, would it? Not for the method of immersion, at least. That would be a creative move rather than listening and letting go to see where a particular way of life leads in practice.

The reason I chose Buddhist centers is Epicureanism is variously described as greek Buddhism, and there are enough resonances between the thoughts that I thought it worked as a living tradition that's close enough. (though, clearly, I eventually decided that was wrong)

That's why I put that school in with the Pythagoreans, Zen, Bauhaus and Kellogg - because they're holistic lifestyle regimes, rather than stand-alone philosophical theories. — Vera Mont

Cool. Then I won't re-iterate the point :).

The immersion method is exactly what some people need -- but it must be one that corresponds to their actual life situation and the options available to them. Anything you can't move into for six months is just theory: interesting, often edifying, but external. — Vera Mont

Yup! So goes it with Epicureanism. The closest I could find were Buddhist study centers, but the emphasis was different enough for me -- I was looking for something more materialist than what I encountered. I did do a lot of gardening at the time, though... and still love gardening (I'd like it if I ever get access to a plot of dirt again).

I've always preferred the immersion method, though I'd call it the phenomenological method. Combining gardening, buddhism, and Epicurean philosophy with a few academic monographs I got a coherent feel for the philosophy at the way-of-life level, but then I had all the thoughts I've already expressed about the lack of a community and how it's very much a long dead way of life out of time.

Epicurean philosophy and the purpose of science -- rather than truth, it, too, is reduced to its ability to reduce anxiety.

As human beings, however, we have reduced anxiety when we do not attribute cosmic significance to the world, and so the naturalization of experience -- demystification -- is appropriate not because of the power it brings over nature, but rather because of the peace of mind it brings someone to realize that the sun doesn't rise because we sacrifice goats, but due to momentum and the way of nature. The mantras you say are for you, and not for the gods or nature. You have no magic powers.

So even knowledge is put in a secondary position. In my reading Epicurus is a practioner of ethics as first philosophy.

Another reflection:

The main reason I like the ancients is because, through study, you can start to get a sense for how different life was back then which gives a basis for understanding how life is now.

To get an idea across I say I'm an Epicurean-ish person, but in thinking through the implications I don't think it's really possible due to the practices of Epicureans. There's a philosophy we can piece together from the quotes of others and study, and I think it's a worthy and worthwhile philosophy -- but the community is long dead. And looking at the efforts of stoics it's apparent to me that reviving ancient communities still manages to ignore the important political problems of the day.

Ethics as a personal quest rather than as a way of life.

And while you don't need Epicurus to see that difference, it is a remarkable difference to note for understanding ourselves -- then there were masters of ethics, and now:

Anybody can call himself a philosopher. — Vera Mont

Many people call themselves philosophers, and they are on offer like a buffet for each individual to pick and choose as they see fit.

Which is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy reads, and is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy was practiced.

By overruling you, or rolling over you.... not quite my definition of freedom. — Vera Mont

Sure.

What if I'm hurting myself, though?

If goodness is living a tranquil life, and tranquility is what leads to independence, then the material conditions of freedom aren't exactly being satisfied if I'm chasing groundless desires out of anxiety.

Which goes to show different faces of freedom -- in one freedom is an individual choice and inhibiting that choice is what deprives one of freedom. In the other freedom is the ability to choose from tranquil desires rather than from groundless desires -- since the anxious desires tend to build on themselves and make one un-free.

It's the state of mind, rather than one's formal rights, which define freedom.

Though students and masters aren't unusual -- where it's unusual to a modern ear is on the topic of ethics.

Heh, that's what's different to our ears about the Epicurean philosophy -- it's an authoritarian philosophy. It's the student who is wrong, rather than the master.

At least this is how the texts make sense to me.

And to make things even more confusing I'd point out that sometimes we don't really know what works for us, and others can tell better than we can. The only refrain here is to double-down on the value of individual freedom over other values.

But there's a hint there -- one of the goals of the Epicurean cure is autonomy. So what Epicurus aims to remove from the soul without your permission are the very things which inhibit a person from being free.

But surely there's no rule for that.

And yet -- there's value in reading a text from the standpoint of its own truth. While he is not my master I had to think through the text to really find the parts I disagreed with. There wasn't a list ahead of time. Else that would be one boring interpretation -- comparing what I already believe to what is stated and checking off the boxes.

Maybe it's best to say that Epicurus is one of the philosophical masters that I think people should study because there's something good in there.

Oh no, it couldn't work for me. There's no master to do the teaching, after all. In terms of how Epicureanism was lived the philosophy is basically dead.

I say The Master because I think that's the appropriate way to read the texts -- Epicurus was a dogmatist in the same way that a modern doctor is a dogmatist, in that you don't allow people to opt-in to sickness. I don't say it because he is my master.

Yes. Kant is using "dogma" in its traditional, non-rhetorical use. Which is not wrong, just very unusual. One of my problems here is precisely to distinguish "respectable" dogma from the disreputable kind. — Ludwig V

Right... if we have reputable dogma then my dogma is good and their dogma is bad.

I certainly agree that dogma is a relationship between beliefs, in that dogma is in some way protected against refutation, with the implication that other beliefs can go to the wall. But that status is attributed by the believer, so I don't see that I can delineate any content in advance. — Ludwig V

True.

Though I wouldn't propose content could be understood in advance -- only after reading or understanding or listening or something like that. The informal inferential relationships come to be known through reading scripts or through conversation, and can partially define dogma.

Though that's very cumbersome in comparison to:

Dogma is the bedrock of one's understanding; the bars on the cage of the mind that stop one falling out into the bliss of total ignorance. To imagine oneself without dogma is to imagine oneself as God. — unenlightened

Which is succinct and manages to lay out what's meant. I'm understanding better what is meant by dogma at this point.

This clicked:

It is a dogma that dogma is bad. — unenlightened

I've been expressing my own disdain for certain patterns of thought, a certainty which I've acquired through experience.

The only avowedly atheist governments I know of are the old Soviet regime and Modern China. One might also include Japan, but not 'avowedly'.

It's a very small sample, but not a great record. the assumption seems to be that dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps it is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'.

I was thinking of dogma differently before, but I think I can get along with this way of talking.

Could some customized variation on that theme work for you? — Vera Mont

Heh, never. I read philosophy, which means I'm interminably unsatisfied ;). On a more personal note I think I grab-bag because I see resonances and also balances between philosophies -- so, for instance, Marxism-Anarchy holds both a resonance and also they balance one another. Something like that. Still working it out.

The doctrine shouldn't be ignored. I say "The Master", and thought I should include Epicureanism in my list of dogmas, because of Martha Nussbaum's Therapy of Desire -- whom I owe a deep debt to. The Garden, in terms of the community, was dogmatic in the same way that a hospital is dogmatic. The Doctor knows how to set a bone, and The Master knows how to cure your soul. Why would a doctor listen to the opinion of a non-practitioner? At least, this is how I've been able to make the most sense of the Epicurean philosophy so far.

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’. — I like sushi

True, but it's a therapy of desire rather than the elimination of, or freedom from, desire. At least in this rendition -- obviously these are ancient texts and we can read things in various ways. And because of my general existential outlook I'd say one has to actually want ataraxia in order for the therapy to begin to work. Nietzsche is a good contrast case, here. From Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

Lo! I show you the last man.
What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is
a star? so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth
the last man who maketh everything small. His species is in
eradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
We have discovered happiness; say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they
need warmth. One still loveth one s neighbour and rubbeth
against him; for one needeth warmth.

If one wants to be filled with passion and pursue great deeds, inventing new values in a continual process of puissance and overcoming then the words of Epicurus look like advice to get good sleep, rather than advice on how to be truly good.

So as with any ethic there is a normative dimension to its prescriptions, and we might choose to emphasize different norms. In a grand sense what unites both of these ethics is the focus on freedom, but their ideas of what constitutes freedom of the self differs -- one emphasizes joy and tranquility, and the other emphasizes nobility and striving (ever striving!).

Thoughts on the tetrapharmakos:

Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get,
What is terrible is easy to endure

The first and the second relate to what I mentioned in the dogma thread -- that superstition or cosmic significance ("supernatural" in that thread) are easy paths to anxiety. If you believe everything you do is judged by god in the here and now and in the afterlife (the first and the second doctrines, in my interpretation) then you will pursue groundless desires that can never be fulfilled -- the afterlife isn't the life you have to deal with, and the gods are already perfect so don't think anything about you.

I think I've explained the third doctrine in the previous posts on pleasure.

The fourth one has always been the hardest for myself, in trying out this way of thinking and living. But my second post about being "impervious" (resistant?) to pain due to having so much joy is something that's making a lot of sense to me as explanation.

Now, I'm interested that you think that the content might be relevant. — Ludwig V

Originally, I was closer to considering content because I was thinking about dogma as a relationship between beliefs, which would be partially content-dependent -- if flipping the truth-value of a belief flips the truth-value of other beliefs that could only be judged if we knew what the beliefs are and their (informal) inferential relationships to one another.

Also I have been thinking about Kant throughout the discussion and his notion of dogmatism relies upon what can or cannot be justified -- so insisting that space is infinite, for instance, is dogmatic due to the place that "space" fits within the scheme of reason.

:grin: But seriously... there is another variety of dogmatism, which is not quite the same. It starts from exactly the same response - "you must not understand me.", but does argue, properly at first. But when it becomes apparent that the proposition at stake will not be abandoned, (for example, as in ad hoc explanations), the debate is over - unless one can agree on a solution such "hinge proposition" or axiom, in which case a solution has been reached. Those solutions are a bit of a problem.

The key, though, is that proper engagement requires that one put one's own beliefs at stake. — Ludwig V

This is an interesting method for determining dogmatism!

It is interesting because the content of beliefs isn't referenced at all -- it's the character of the person at the moment rather than the beliefs, whether in content or even in relation to other beliefs. So any belief could serve as an example of dogmatism, depending upon the attitude of the person.

:rofl:

And yet we crave the reply of others -- almost like we only believe in ourselves if the other person says something.

idk guys -- I'm pretty sure those shrines have a hidden aesthetic meaning beyond both the beautiful and the sublime.

I like it. Solipsism is always good for a joke at least.

hah thanks. I was just playing along ;)

I know I'm not a fiction of your mind because I'm not that clever.

Did I post the Discussion "Solipsism" some odd 2 minutes ago?

Part of the reason Epicureanism isn't read as much is it's an interpretative nightmare due to how few sources there are. At least with Plato you have one author(EDIT: Well, there are spurious texts... it's still different? Maybe not expressing it right). With Epicurus you have quotes from other authors and later implementations of his ideas -- Cicero and Lucretius being the most cogent sources to compare the letters to (EDIT: The letters are written by Epicurus -- the primary source for the ideas, but they are just letters EDIT-EDIT: The letters are also only known because they were quoted by Diogenes in his Lives of the Philosophers. So... lots of interpretative layers).

I like the letters because that's where I began.

We're similar in spirit then. I hate cars -- nothing has caused me more anxiety in my life than all the things I have to do to do cars. But I am nowhere near as austere as The Master recommends -- if I am one then I'd say I'm a bad Epicurean :).

But I'm still Punk rock! Kind of. Not really. Sympathetic. (just to riff on 80's counter-culture)

Another point on Epicurean pleasure -- I think I disagree with the rendition of Epicurean happiness being defined as freedom from pain. The four part cure states that pain is easy to endure, not that we don't feel pain, and I tend to interpret "freedom from pain" to mean no pain rather than being able to deal with pain. I need to track down the paper, because I owe a debt to them and I don't remember who it was, but I like the rendition of Epicurus as a philosopher of joy -- rather than the harsh and austere invulnerability of the Stoics, one becomes invulnerable through developing a character that can weather pain with joy.

Focusing so much on invulnerability, which was a major philosophical theme at the time so it makes sense, is also another point of departure for me. This dovetails with the above. It's not to be impervious to fortune, but to be able to feel and go with the flows of fortune with tranquility.

I once knew someone who was passionate about the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, he took this to mean that when someone disagreed with his argument, he should repeat the argument. He was perfectly patient, never dogmatic, but never responded properly. He was dogmatic, but not offensive - just boring. — Ludwig V

That's hillariously in character -- Disagree with me? Why, you must not understand! :D

I'm not sure I'm a card-carrying member -- but I really do love it as a philosophy for reflecting on life's choices. I think it has overlooked wisdom.

Heh. This gets to the heart of where I have problems with Epicureanism as spoken of by The Master -- he recommends against politics for the same reason that it causes anxiety, which it surely does, and yet I still feel that pull.

But there's the curious case of Cassius.

Fair. I can see what you mean.

My dogma is the stuff you have to already assent to to even make sense what I'm saying. The disbeliefs you have to suspend. — unenlightened

That's a remarkably bare list :D

What's yours? — unenlightened

Oh I have all kinds of dogmas, in this way of talking. Strictly speaking atheism would count since it's not an aspect of knowledge, but mere belief. So I suppose you could say I'm strictly an agnostic, though I know what I believe.

But just as Hume pointed out that he strictly disbelieved in causality, sobut he continued to believe in it the moment he stopped doing philosophy.

Also I'd say that my Marxist and Anarchist tendencies count as dogma.

EDIT: I should also mention Feminism, and Epicureanism -- I mean I like philosophy and I think about philosophy and freely let my mind wander, so many many dogmas are a part of my life. (I'm no rationalist, though. I just like rationality) There's also this lovely book I have called Zen Anarchism that I feel gets close to my kind of dogma.

I know that this is the conviction that I hold — Vera Mont

Would you count the convictions that you know you hold as opinion or knowledge? I'd expect you to know what your convictions are. I know some of my convictions, but I would say they are an opinion which I know I hold rather than something I know is true.

I'm attempting another distinction, other than fact/value, in an effort to understand dogmatism as a universal human tendency. In this way I wouldn't exempt myself from having dogma. I have opinions, and conviction is what motivates one to make an opinion true. We are creatures which care, whether we like it or not. And if dogma is just opinion being treated like it's not opinion then we all do that when we care about it.

The negative connotation of dogma probably comes from thinking one is exempt, that one has knowledge of what is properly thought of as opinion. At least that's what the morning thought was.

Another attempt on dogmatics, from the morning walk: Dogma is opinion which is treated as if it's known.

I hope I haven't, though I'm willing to be judged.

I thought it was about the atheist dogma of interpreting scripture with a literal lense in the same way that one might interpret "the cat is on the mat".

Or, more open: about how interpreting scripture with respect to how we use language with respect to making true statements is not a good way to interpret scripture when talking to people who don't do it like that.

For Badiou, the vitality of reason is tied to an asymmetry it cannot go beyond. And it is kind of an accident. — Paine

I really do need to read Badiou then. Sometime.

Damnit.

I am trying to 'appreciate' where you are coming from in your support of non-literal theism. — universeness

For me it frequently comes down to the political pull. If we can act in concert together in pursuing knowledge or justice or pleasure, then I don't particularly care about the frame that a person lives by. That's for them to decide. If they are interested they can ask me what I think, and we all do from time to time, but for the most part I just don't feel it's much of my concern.

And Universalist Unitarians just aren't the literalists you're targeting, if you want a bigger organization that you can investigate on your own. IMX, they're good people. It's not my thing, but hey -- that's OK.

You want to find a place god can nestle with/exist with atheism yes? — universeness

No.

I am just asking for you to analyse the proposal I am suggesting considering god as omni this and omni that — universeness

I'm not a believer, so it's a little weird to analyse things as if I were. Further, anything said by people who are believers of this sort doesn't really rely upon the ontological argument or classical philosophical notions of God.

So I am lead to believe that you're not understanding, but you're acting like I'm not understanding.

Perhaps we've come to our little spot of dogma in the conversation.

Would it confuse you, if I said some of my best friends are theists. Including one who recently lost his father, and said to me that he gained more strength from my chats with him than he got from his church. — universeness

No.

Still one to go! Are you finding this one hard to deal with? — universeness

It seemed off topic to me on the basis of focusing on truth/existence rather than truth/meaning. Is God + Universe greater/better than God? If God is love, then the two aren't mutually exclusive.