To me, eudemonia is very much objective. — javra

:up:

I misunderstood you for a moment. My bad.

I was referring to @javra's post. But now I understand that eudaimonia is objective. :up:

------

There is a mixture of concepts in my mind right now. I started talking about pleasure, and now eudaimonia has shown up. It caught me by surprise. :lol:

Sure, but you do know you're here putting words into the mouth of a different poster. I was wanting to see what he had to say as a rebuttal, this so as to better discover were he himself stood in his own original thoughts.

As to the "correct way" to interpret Epicurus's doctrine, as I previously said, it can be argued back and forth in terms of meanings and intents. You seem inclined to defend and uphold Epicurus's doctrine. OK Can you then comment on your own stance as regards romantic love being a general wrong as per Epicurus's convictions?

His system, to me so far, seems to only lead to this very conclusion: romantic love is a wrong to be shunned, this then being indicative of wisdom.

(Which, for better or worse, then seems to have lead to the justification for Roman orgies by having the pleasure of sex in manners utterly devoid of romantic love and its likely pains. Hence, "Epicureanism" as its often connotatively understood nowadays. And no, I don't view orgies as uniform evil/bad, but I am one who much likes romantic love and the sex which comes with it; viewing the prospect of orgies as rather empty, humanistically speaking.)

You seem inclined to defend and uphold Epicurus's doctrine. — javra

I'm willing to play the apologist in order to increase understanding.

OK Can you then comment on your own stance as regards romantic love being a general wrong as per Epicurus's convictions?

Sure.

The outline of desire to which @180 Proof wrote needs further specification to address why, though.

There are three kinds of desires: the fulfillable and the unfulfillable, and that which falls in-between. Or another way to put the same categories: the natural and necessary, the unsatisfiable, and the natural and unnecessary desires.

Romantic love in this division falls under "natural and unnecessary"; one may live a content life without it, and one may live a content life with it -- the important part is to live a content life. Similarly so with the marathon runner: If someone is taking on the pains to run marathons out of the pleasure of running a marathon then there's nothing wrong with pursuing a natural, unnecessary pleasure (unnecessary here because one need not run marathons to live a content life). What would be in error, though, would be to run marathons out of a fear of death because no matter what you do you'll die, and then the entire time you're here all you did was spend time pursing that fear.

To put that latter part in terms of the lover: imagine the person who never settles down because every real person doesn't satisfy them from the vantage of "The One" -- when, really, there is no "The One", there's a relationship you can build with someone who wants similar things out of their life.

It's not that we must avoid pains -- it's that we shouldn't be the cause of our own mental anguish; the pains aren't so bad as they stand, and the pleasures are not so alluring that we need to punish ourselves for not obtaining them.

Romantic love in this division falls under "natural and unnecessary"; one may live a content life without it, and one may live a content life with it -- the important part is to live a content life. — Moliere

I then take it that you find Epicurus wrong in his stance that romantic ("passionate") love, and marriage, are to be generally shunned.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you. If not, thanks for the reply.

But now I understand that eudaimonia is objective. :up: — javi2541997

I'm not confident it is. The idea of human flourishing is dependant upon whose version of eudaimonia one privileges. Eudaimonia is objective only if, like Aristotle or the Stoics, say, one believes in a fixed human nature or function that defines flourishing but without such a foundation, as in most modern views, it becomes subjective, reflecting personal or cultural values rather than an objective standard. Which follows the debate on a number of subjects on this forum - essentialists versus non-essentialist positions.

I then take it that you find Epicurus wrong in his stance that romantic ("passionate") love, and marriage, are to be generally shunned. — javra

Not really -- I'm giving an exposition of what I think a reasonable Epicurean response to your example. As in Epicurus wouldn't say "Do not marry", but would instead contextualize your action back to why you're doing what you're doing. Romantic love is not to be generally shunned -- it's not a bad unto itself. It depends upon why you're motivated towards it.

If it be a romantic love in the sense of Romanticism -- full of pathos and self-justifying -- then that sort of love I think Epicureanism is opposed to. But Epicureans did marry and have children, even if The Master did not. So there must be a kind of sexual love that was generally deemed as OK. Even if there be a honeymoon phase that fades away -- that's only natural.

It's not that we must avoid pains -- it's that we shouldn't be the cause of our own mental anguish; the pains aren't so bad as they stand, and the pleasures are not so alluring that we need to punish ourselves for not obtaining them. — Moliere

:up: :up:

It is well-noted the examples of objective good, but what about objective bad? This is the issue. Remember that Plato scolded us for not admitting that there are bad pleasures too. :razz: — javi2541997

I think you need to take what Plato said in context. He says that those who claim pleasure is good, in the most general sense, would have to admit that some pleasures are bad. We have made a qualification, so this no longer applies.

I then take it that you find Epicurus wrong in his stance that romantic ("passionate") love, and marriage, are to be generally shunned. — javra

Not really -- I'm giving an exposition of what I think a reasonable Epicurean response to your example. As in Epicurus wouldn't say "Do not marry", but would instead contextualize your action back to why you're doing what you're doing. Romantic love is not to be generally shunned -- it's not a bad unto itself. It depends upon why you're motivated towards it.

If it be a romantic love in the sense of Romanticism -- full of pathos and self-justifying -- then that sort of love I think Epicureanism is opposed to. But Epicureans did marry and have children, even if The Master did not. So there must be a kind of sexual love that was generally deemed as OK. Even if there be a honeymoon phase that fades away -- that's only natural. — Moliere

To be forthright, I have no interest in doing a month-long debate on the matter. Much less in rereading Epicurus’s works so as to properly reference, and then again yet debate, what Epicurus taught.

But, in point of fact, in “not really” concluding that you are then concluding that peer-reviewed quotes such as this with scholarly references are erroneous.

Epicurus actively recommended against passionate love and believed it best to avoid marriage altogether. He viewed recreational sex as a natural, but not necessary, desire that should be generally avoided.[38] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Ethics

Boldface mine. What can I say, but that both of our predilections might be here readily showing.

Nor am I in any way interested in what those who followed Epicurus did, but have only addressed, and have interest in, what Epicurus himself taught. (In parallel to Epicureanism, that “some followers of Buddhism murdered and some still murder, therefore Buddhism allows for murder,” does not make for any serious argument, at least not to me.)

But, in point of fact, in “not really” concluding that you are then concluding that peer-reviewed quotes such as this with scholarly references are erroneous.

Epicurus actively recommended against passionate love and believed it best to avoid marriage altogether. He viewed recreational sex as a natural, but not necessary, desire that should be generally avoided.[38]
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Ethics — javra

I do not think that scholarly reference is erroneous. That's why I said:

If it be a romantic love in the sense of Romanticism -- full of pathos and self-justifying -- then that sort of love I think Epicureanism is opposed to. But Epicureans did marry and have children, even if The Master did not. So there must be a kind of sexual love that was generally deemed as OK. Even if there be a honeymoon phase that fades away -- that's only natural. — Moliere

Yes, there's a kind of love Epicurus cautions against. No, that does not mean that marriage is a bad unto itself.

Rather it's a natural, unnecessary desire -- Epicurus didn't want to marry, but that does not then mean that marriage is bad.

No, that does not mean that marriage is a bad unto itself. — Moliere

And where did I ever mention that to Epicurus "marriage was a bad unto itself"? I've only mentioned that it is, according to Epicurus, something to be "generally shunned".

For one thing, I don't agree with Epicurus that everyone ought to be an ascetic like he was. For starters, just because most cases of romantic love lead to pains that would not have otherwise occurred does not to me entail that therefore romantic love ought to be shunned by one and all as a form of wisdom. — javra

Is the part that made me think so, along with the other two examples you meant to counter @180 Proof's summary with.

It occurs to me that we may just be disagreeing on what constitutes a good enough summary -- I read your examples as something which were counter to Epicureanism in addition to @180 Proof's rendition, but is that wrong? You're disagreeing with Epicurus, in one sense of with the man himself, and you're disagreeing with 180, in the sense that his rendition is incorrect?

You're disagreeing with Epicurus, in one sense of with the man himself, and you're disagreeing with 180, in the sense that his rendition is incorrect? — Moliere

Yes, that is correct.

As to the quote you presented, please notice that I did not state that "romantic love always leads to unnecessary pains" or something similar whereby it is "a bad/wrong onto itself", but that it is best shunned because in most cases, aka typically, it does. All this being fully aligned with the reference quote I gave.

As to the quote you presented, please notice that I did not state that "romantic love always leads to unnecessary pains" or something similar whereby it is "a bad/wrong onto itself", but that it is best shunned because in most cases, aka typically, it does — javra

Sure, makes sense. Though I'd put it that this was the man speaking more than the philosophy -- yes, Epicurus the man cautioned against it. But the Epicureans calmly went about doing it anyways as evidenced by the continuity of the texts from Epicurus' time to Cicero and Lucretius. How to explain that?

Whether the rendition is correct: I know more needs to be said, which is why I began with the tripartite theory of desire, but the down-and-dirty version of what is good and what is bad -- which the philosophy itself sort of doesn't pursue at all -- made sense to me. It's not like it's easy to summarize these ancient philosophies so they're digestible.

But the Epicureans calmly went about doing it anyways as evidenced by the continuity of the texts from Epicurus' time to Cicero and Lucretius. How to explain that? — Moliere

Made me smile a bit. Explanations for this can be a dime a dozen, with many directly contradicting. But, again, as another example, that Christians have historically murdered galore does not make the teachings of their founder such that they allow for, much less condone, murder. (In no way equating marriage to murder, btw. :grin: ) That said, again, my interest here is in what Epicurus himself taught.

BTW, I did a brief online search to reconfirm this: The Ancient Skeptic Cicero was schooled in Epicureanism, yes, but he was nevertheless a strong opponent of it.

It's not like it's easy to summarize these ancient philosophies so they're digestible. — Moliere

OK, I can concede there. Still, improper expressions can all too easily lead to improper interpretations and the misinformation that can then follow. I do like your general rendition of Epicureanism, though.

(In no way equating marriage to murder, btw. :grin: ) — javra

Well, not today at least. There are times...

That said, again, my interest here is in what Epicurus himself taught.

I'm interested in that too. And in helping people to understand the philosophy generally. I had mistaken your counters to @180 Proof for what they are.

But

I can concede there. Still, improper expressions can all too easily lead to improper interpretations and the misinformation that can then follow. I do like your general rendition of Epicureanism, though. — javra

Hard to argue with that, isn't it? :D Thank you.

Well, not today at least. There are times... — Moliere

Yea, OK, In partial keeping with Epicurus and, maybe more, with Lucretius, mahwidge ... a perspective: You willfully enter into a pretty sturdy cage with another, lock the door to the cage, and then throw the key far, far away. Not metaphysically impossible to get back out, but pretty darn close, usually with a lot of scars to boot if you do. Not that this is an issue if only the two end up being far more happy that sorrowful in this cage together for the span of their lives. And, if so, contentedness galore.

A somewhat humongous account to me. But, as with all humor, there's some at least personal truths embedded. It might not be "The One", as you previously commented on, but it better well be "the one for you".

Anyway, I'll try to leave others to further the thread.

I figure that what the dialogue Phaedrus was concerned with was how love for other people turns into wanting things for them. Once you start doing that, it may run contrary to other desires but can no longer be just about you want.

It seems a simple enough observation to me. I watch dogs and leaves falling from the trees.