Transcript
Speaker: Welcome to Stoic Conversations. My name is Cael Bonteveros. I'm Michael Tremblay. And today we're going to be kicking off a series on Cicero's On Ends.
Speaker: That's Definibus Bonorum et Melorum. So this is a Roman work of philosophy by the orator, statesman, and of course, philosopher, Cicero.
Speaker: And we'll be doing a series going through it, all four books um of On Ends, and to discussing what we think are some of the most ah interesting, essential, and important parts of the work.
Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. It should be lot of fun. Once we've, once we've done the whole thing, you can marathon it like Lord of the Rings or something. It'll be a, it'll be a perfect set. Um, yeah, no, I'm super looking forward to it. I love this book.
Speaker: I loved it when I read it before and I started rereading it again. And even the translation I'm reading is from like the early 1900s and it's, it's such a great read. And I mean, it's, this is either a really great translation from that time or Cicero's just, he's got the chops. Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah. Well, Cicero, we we haven't talked about Cicero as much in part because he is not a Stoic, though he's very sympathetic to the Stoics, but he is one of the main sources for Stoicism in the ancient world because he gives a sympathetic portrayal as well as, and we'll talk about this today, Epicureanism.
Speaker: And... And for that reason, I think, you know if if of course, if you're interested in Stoicism at all, it's worth going directly to the Stoics themselves, Seneca, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius.
Speaker: But if you really want to dive into Greco-Roman philosophy generally, Cicero an essential source, um not just philosophically, but I think historically as well.
Speaker: So just before we jump into the substance of the first book, just some words by way of intro. So Cicero, he wrote this in 45 BC, and Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC.
Speaker: And this is part of the Roman Civil War. Of course, this is during the time of the fall of the Republic. So it's a time of turmoil for Rome. Cicero tries to stay out of the Civil War, but eventually endorses the losing side. He endorses Pompey the Great, who Cato the Younger, who we've talked about, the great Stoic, also endorsed.
Speaker: Cato the Younger actually died the previous year in 1946. He took his own life. um Rather than being pardoned by Caesar, Cicero accepted the pardon.
Speaker: um But at this point, he's effectively... out of the action and for Cicero that's important fact so I think it's probably something that's difficult for him to deal with psychologically the fact that he was out of the center Roman political action because that's what so much of his life had been oriented around but another level of his life of course I think was philosophy rhetoric and that's what he took solace in and ah
Speaker: I think, return to some of these fundamental philosophical questions, which is what On Ends is all about before getting back into the fray, ah which he does. um And I think it's important to emphasize, I think, that this is a time of turmoil, great contingency for these elite Romans. As I said, Cato the Younger had taking his life during the civil war previous year.
Speaker: Julius Caesar is at on the top of the world right now, 45 BC. He doesn't know it, he only has like one more year to live. Cicero is going to be called back into action, but he only has two more years to live. So amongst this, like all this action, you can imagine it really ought to be captured better in some of our ah movies perhaps, but ah you can almost almost imagine him taking a little bit respite and then thinking through some of these deep philosophical questions, perhaps to reorient himself, perhaps and you know in itself, it's a kind of therapy. So anyway, that's just some words by way of background.
Speaker: have anything else you want to add to that, Michael? Yeah. I mean, my Roman history isn't great. um I have a philosophy degree, not a classics degree. So I sometimes get really caught up in these, you know have beautiful ideas and I lose sense of that context. It's really interesting context. You've got this, um yeah, many great Romans dying, seems like on both sides, but
Speaker: Cicero is going to die two years after he wrote this. And I don't it's kind of it's an interesting context. um And I think goes to show that Cicero is still taking these questions seriously or taking this kind of work seriously, even though he's in the middle of of really um politically tumultuous time.
Speaker: What you just said helped frame for me is that one way... I think one way this, I didn't express well enough, the fact that this is such a um intense time for Romans and yet Cicero takes the time to think through these philosophical issues, I think speaks to how seriously he takes them and perhaps how seriously we should take them as well.
Speaker: He's not somebody trying to show off or trying to cement his position or anything like this. It's like if you looked at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, i know there's issues with that framing, but you know what do these rich, powerful, um important ah Romans do, or at least Cicero? He says, well, you know this is the most important thing for me to do now um is reflect deeply on what's the point of life, right? On ends, what's what's the meaning of it? Why do we...
Speaker: what's the What's the better way to live? um Yeah, great. Yeah, absolutely. And then you you said you wanted to dive into some of the some of the writing? Well, not the not the quote itself, but just some context on the writing for those that are listening. yeah So well in our timeline, right um Cicero is 45 BC.
Speaker: So that puts him actually like almost 200 to 250 years before Marcus Aurelius. So we sometimes lose track of that. Time puts him about 250 years after Chrysippus and after Zeno and Cleanthes and these the the the first ah you know founders of the school of Stoicism.
Speaker: So he's kind of in this middle period and he's he's pre-Roman Stoics is the point I wanted to make. When we think about Stoicism, we often think about Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus. Maybe if you're a bit hardcore, you add Masonius Rufus in there.
Speaker: Um, but he he's writing before this. So Marcus Aurelius, when he writes is, is influenced by Epictetus. Maybe Seneca when he writes is influenced by Cicero.
Speaker: Um, but Cicero is influenced by the Greek Stoics, the early Stoics. Um, and I think that's, that's really cool. Um,
Speaker: because he's he's writing based on Stoics that we've lost, right? Like his understanding of Stoicism comes from texts we don't have anymore. He's reading these original sources and talking about these original sources.
Speaker: um There's also this framing in philosophy sometimes where it's like, well, the Roman Stoics are popular because they really care about practical issues. They care about how to live.
Speaker: They care about the ethics, right? um And then the earlier Stoics were a bit more boring or maybe not boring, but like metaphysical or logic or things like this.
Speaker: And i you you get this almost opposite picture of Cicero who is reading the earlier Stoics and having these really clear, concrete thoughts about how to live in the good life. And maybe maybe we we prioritize the Roman Stoics because they're who we have left. not you know Maybe they're not more interesting or exciting or more exciting than their earlier Stoics writing was.
Speaker: And then the third thing that I wanted to hit on was that... Cicero is doing, we'll get into it. He's doing the same thing we're doing, in Caleb, which is he's reading what smart people said before him and doing his best to make sense of it and summarize it accurately and compellingly and wrestle with it and digest it and internalize it. He's he's just, he's doing the thing we're doing. and And it's cool to see somebody 2000 years ago doing what we're doing, which is like reading the Stoics and wrestling with them and ah agreeing with some of what they say and struggling with other things they say and being pulled towards,
Speaker: um Epicureanism um in some directions and then Stoicism or Skepticism in others. it's It's very cool um to see him do the same project.
Speaker: um Yeah. And then one other thing I wanted to add because my ideas are just um coming in pairs now.
Speaker: One thing I was thinking, and I thought this was smart, so you tell me if this is not as smart as I think it is, but one of the criticisms of philosophy is that it's not really made any progress. like right like somebody Some people look at the fact that we're still talking about the Stoics, and they see that as not a good thing.
Speaker: they think so They think philosophy is not it's not something where concrete progress can be made. It's kind of self-indulgent. Maybe it's artistic. And i was thinking about that with Cicero because Cicero is here doing what we're doing. we're not We haven't made any progress in Cicero, not really. We're still just reflecting on the Stoics.
Speaker: And then I thought, well, that's an issue if you think of philosophy… I don't know, almost like a science. But it's not an issue if you think of philosophy as a craft, right? Like painters are still trying to learn how to paint. Wrestlers are still learning how to wrestle.
Speaker: Runners are still learning how to run. It's not weird that i'm if I'm a runner that I'm doing the same thing a Roman did, trying to learn how to run. um It's only when you try to look at it like it needs to be this concrete science that gets built upon that it seems like an issue. But if you view it as like an individual craft of self-transformation, then yeah, he's he's doing that. He's practicing his self-transformation and so are we.
Speaker: um that's That's another thought that I had. yeah I suppose the thought is that philosophy is in the activity. it's and Yeah, exactly. Two philosophies is...
Speaker: It involves these these practices that we focus a lot on, but of also, of course, these discourses, conversations, ah essentially working on thinking better philosophically. And that is, I think the craft analogy is perfect here. It's not something you're going to be able to say,
Speaker: immediately take whatever knowledge has come from the past and apply immediately. Instead, need to work through it to some extent. Do the proofs yourself. you know Do the thinking yourself that
Speaker: you can. So then then you can be a better philosopher. Yeah. And so that was my that's my brain dump on why think On Ends is cool. Yeah, yeah. ah So the book one, i sort of has three sections to it. First, there's by way of introduction, Cicero dispatches with some objections to his project.
Speaker: And then he introduces the work, which is sort of captured as a dialogue. um dialogue, when like many dialogues perhaps, consists largely of long speeches.
Speaker: But it's a a dialogue between himself and two Epicureans, Lucius Torquatus and Gaius Triarius. um And that first bit is essentially Cicero's diatribe against Epicureanism, the philosophy of Epicureanism.
Speaker: And the final section is Torquatus's, apologies about the pronunciation, defense of Epicureanism against Cicero's assault So I'll go through all of and ah all those sections quickly, but the the first section i think is is interesting. It doesn't really get to the doesn't get to the main substance of the discussion, these debates over the philosophy of life.
Speaker: But I thought it was nice to see Cicero dispatch with objections like philosophy is basically just for dilettantes. It's not important.
Speaker: Or that you know philosophy should be done only in ancient Greek, not in Latin. And finally, that don't you, Cicero, have better uses of your time than that ah writing philosophy. And to which Cicero responds to that last one.
Speaker: Basically, I've used my time well writing tons of other great works. So now I have time to to take on it additional great work, which to some extent is true.
Speaker: And I like how he worked through the the objection that philosophy should be done in ancient Greek, which just for some context here, Greek was sort of the language of the educated people in Rome.
Speaker: Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek. Arian took his notes of Epictetus's discourses in Greek. Because Greek was sort of like the high status language is what educated most educated folk would do. They probably, like perhaps like we do today, look on more favorably on ancient Greek philosophy, ancient Greek works of arts like Euripides and so on.
Speaker: But, ah you know, Cicero says, I'm going to i'm going to write this in Latin. that's a Latin's a fine language, has many fine works, and every educated person should not should not be, you know, no educated person should be a same just ashamed of Latin.
Speaker: It's kind of funny. I think it's like, you know the When I pull out my Latin knowledge, which is not a lot, but my my ah Latin knowledge in day-to-day language, man, you seem so pretentious.
Speaker: And I'm not trying to be pretentious. I just genuinely think Latin is cool. And so it's funny to me to see somebody who is... you know very fluent in latin kind of having to defend himself about like not being hardcore enough or not doing it in the original you just see those kind of the same kind of cycles that we get in academia today or kind of gatekeeping so fun fun to see cicero wrestle with that as well yeah yeah do you have anything else to say by it and in terms of that intro do you want to jump into epicureanism
Speaker: Um, I mean, we'll jump into it, but you mentioned it, it's a dialogue, but it's both mostly like Cicero goes on a monologue about why, why, um, Epicure. Oh, gee, I cannot say that today for some reason.
Speaker: Epicureanism. Is that it? Epicure. Yeah. You, you nailed it. Epicurus. You can say, yeah, why, why Epicurus is wrong. Yeah. Why Epicurus is wrong. So Cicero goes in that long, uh,
Speaker: long monologue of Epicurus is wrong. And, and then there's this long monologue back. Um, so it's, I like the dialogue format. I think it's fun, but I always think it's funny when it takes the form of just long monologues, yeah but no, let's, let's, let's, uh, let's jump into it. Let's see what, let's see what he has to say.
Speaker: Cool. Yeah, so Cicero, he mounts ah and a ah an assault, I should say, on Epicureanism, on Epicurus. He's sort of two-pronged, if you will. He takes on the metaphysics, the natural sciences, which he says is derivative of Democritus.
Speaker: Democritus, the founder of atomism, which Epicurus largely took over. But Epicurus did make some changes, and Cicero says, where he made changes, he just made the philosophy worse. so So much the worst for Epicureans on that front. But also centrally, and this is going to be the main point of the discussion, I think,
Speaker: The ethics itself is mistaken. So ah Epicurus, he believed that the best life was a pleasurable one. And that pleasure, we've talked about this before. We have several episodes, interviews with Emily Wilson.
Speaker: And these ah yeah pleasure isn't, like the Cyreniacs, who we also just discussed, isn't sort of this intense state, but it's a state of tranquility, freedom from pain that's best found by exercising virtue as an Epicurean. So so that's that's the view.
Speaker: ah And Cicero puts some objections to that to that kind of view in his monologue. So... I don't know if you want to dive into the metaphysics a little bit or just go straight to the ethics.
Speaker: I think the ethics is more fun. Cool, cool. Yeah, so what are your impressions of his ah objections to that to the ethics?
Speaker: um I mean, that's one of the things that makes it really good. i remember...
Speaker: There's this story of ah the skeptic. I can't remember their exact name. Maybe you remember, Caleb, who was presenting in, oh, I think it was Rome.
Speaker: And they gave this, yeah, they gave the speech one day and everybody's like, wow, that person is such a great, yeah you know, such a great order. I really agree with everything they say. And you come back the next day and he was arguing against his original position and they were just as convinced and they were like, what?
Speaker: um That's the way I feel reading this because he starts with the criticism. And when he was giving the criticism, I was not along and I was like, yeah, great. And then there's the rebuttal. And I'm like, ooh, now I don't know how I feel about Cicero's original criticisms because the rebuttal was pretty good.
Speaker: um i mean Let me try to think out on some of the main criticisms that stood out. There was one about you know, there, there, there's one about trying to double dip by trying to say, you know, virtue isn't a good thing. It's pleasure, but you need virtue to feel pleasure. And it's like, well, that's just pretty convenient. Isn't it?
Speaker: Um, that Cicero says about, um, the argument and he's like, that's just like a, it's almost like you're getting to the truth of the matter, which is that pleasure or virtue is the good life.
Speaker: but you're like not you're masquerading that around this claim about pleasure. um i think that's a really good point. He also makes some other arguments about how, look look at all of the great people you know and how many of them have kind of painful lives.
Speaker: It really is this When I think about happiness in the in the Stoic sense, um you think about flourishing, i like to think about that idea of like who lived a great life. And that's really what the Greeks meant because Aristotle talks about, well, you can't say if someone's happy until they die.
Speaker: makes no sense if we're using the English sense of the term. But if we think about we you can't say who had a great life until looking upon their life ah um after they've passed away, that's a coherent thing to say.
Speaker: And so that's really what the the Stoics and the Greeks were trying to get at And Cicero's point is his, his other anti pleasure point is that, i mean, look at the people we think had great lives or were great people or who we admire, we look up to, we put on a pedestal.
Speaker: A lot of them really suffered. And not only did they suffer, but they suffered to be great. Um, you know, if I think of, um, people that were martyrs or sacrificed or, you know, if you use the stoic example, you stand up to the tyrant, you get thrown in jail.
Speaker: though That person is great because of their willingness to endure discomfort, not because they netted more pleasure. The person who gets thrown in jail by the tyrant is not making like a strategic decision about long-term pleasure.
Speaker: No, they're they're great because they did the right thing in spite of the pain it would bring them. um I think that's his most compelling point, and I tend to agree. Yeah, absolutely. I think so.
Speaker: think that's ah the central objection he has to... Epicurus is... Well, the Epicureans, they have this sort of two aspects to... They have both they hold both sort of a descriptive and a normative thesis concerning pleasure, which is to say they think that humans pursue pleasure just naturally. That's what we do. That's our final end. So that's that descriptive part, just a description of human nature.
Speaker: And then... crucially, this has the ethical upshot that the best life is the pleasurable one. And Cicero's challenging both of those by listing examples of people. He has one example from an ancestor of Lucius Torquatus, another famous Torquatus who was a successful, glorious Roman general. He says, look, did he you know did he fight these battles in hope of
Speaker: experiencing pleasure. um And then famously, this general made a command to instill discipline in Roman troops that no one leave their post.
Speaker: And his son saw that there were enemies ah within his reach, left his post, killed those enemies, returned, and then celebrated his success.
Speaker: But in sort of a classic Roman discipline, the ah this ancestor of Torquatus held the line and had his own son executed because he left his post.
Speaker: And Cicero says, look, this... personally we hold up as a great Roman, did he really do that in order to feel pleasure or did he do it because he values something else, you know, martial discipline, ah what, what have you, or whatever cause, you know, it was driving him to defend, uh, Rome.
Speaker: Uh, yeah. Yeah. Which is as when you put it that way, then you think, yeah, that's, uh, surely there are more things we want in life than pleasure. And that's a strong example. Well, it almost makes me think that the Epicureans are getting confused because the Stoics have this intellectualist claim, right which is that people only ever do what they think is best.
Speaker: And that's just the I agree with that claim. And that's a descriptive claim. um And then the normative claim in the stoic sense is that, well, some of these people get that wrong and you should just actually do what is best.
Speaker: um But it's almost like the the Epicureans are like confusing the fact that people do what they think is best in each situation with the idea that people will do and should do what brings the most pleasure because i can do what's best even with the recognition that it was going to cause me more suffering because I just need a criteria of good that doesn't just place all the value on pleasure and pain.
Speaker: Right? And as soon as I do that, then yeah, that I can – Because that's the way they try to get out of it, in my view, is they say, well, maybe he thought that if he let his son live, he would be so ashamed of his son that it would be like more painful from his own shame and his sense of himself being a hypocrite.
Speaker: That would be more painful than actually executing his son. That would have to be the Epicurean argument. And that just seems, no, he did what he was thought was best, but he just wasn't, his value system of good and bad was has um variables that aren't just pleasure and pain.
Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. um He also makes this sort of subtle point that I think you're hitting on here that I'll just read. Epicurus declares right conduct and moral worth to be intrinsically and of themselves delightful, which means productive of pleasure.
Speaker: And he says, you know, this is why so many people believe. so why This is why so many men are Epicureans, because they find that plausible. And he continues, these worthy people do not realize that if this is true, it would upset the theory altogether.
Speaker: If it were admitted that goodness is spontaneously and intrinsically pleasant, even without any reference to bodily feeling, then virtue would be desirable for its own sake.
Speaker: And so also would knowledge. But this Epicurus by no means a allows. So I think that there's that that point that, look, many people, they find Epicureanism plausible perhaps because there's this match between right conduct and pleasure and and delight.
Speaker: But that requires a one-to-one mapping that once you, I think, draw out what virtue means,
Speaker: doesn't exist because, ah you know, we don't think something's virtuous just because of some bodily feeling um or some associated pleasure and such. I think, you know, it's it can't just be that goodness is intrinsically pleasant because there's some reference to bodily feeling. He's saying no there's there's some there's something more to what we find valuable in goodness.
Speaker: And I think like this goes back to some your examples of you know great people who experience pain. Yeah, there's a sense in which they think you know the best action has a kind of satisfaction with it, but it's not that satisfaction isn't identical to what we would typically think of as pleasure. it's No, it's the best action, and that's that's why it's...
Speaker: you know That's why we're choosing it or that's why that's why they choose it. Yeah. To put it in other words, there's kind of a circularity or something. If I'm understanding your point right and Cicero's point.
Speaker: anyway it's Anyway, it's not the good thing to do because it feels good. We take a degree in satisfaction because we recognize that it's we're achieving something else that is intrinsically desirable that isn't pleasure. Yeah.
Speaker: And because we think we're achieving that, we feel good. But that's the thing that we're reaching for, that recognition that, hey, I did the right thing. Hey, I'm living in accordance with nature and a stoic view or whatever. That's the thing that we're reaching for.
Speaker: And yeah, that feels good, but it's not good because it feels good. is this Is this right? Yeah, I think so. I think that's ah that's ah that's probably slightly different than what was trying to get at, but it's another it's and it's in the same neighborhood and I think um also a good argument. Yeah.
Speaker: are they Are they neighbors or are they way across the way across the way Yeah, lookre they're close. But ah so, yeah, so those ah that's I think that's, um those are some of Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism, then immediately turned to at the defense of Epicurus. And then book two is Cicero's response to the defense.
Speaker: um But Torquatus, you know, he did he says, look, leaving aside the metaphysics, let's talk about the ethics. That's where most of the action action is And something I like here is one of this starting arguments.
Speaker: is that we don't need that much reasoning or debate to show why pleasure is a matter for desire, pain for aversion. We simply perceive it. It's just observed in the same way.
Speaker: We observe that fire is hot, snow is white, honey is sweet. you know We don't need elaborate arguments. We just see that people pursue pleasure naturally. And just starting from the simple observation, we can build a philosophy on top of it.
Speaker: Which I think is a good one because sometimes, you know, people build up systems and they end up being fragile. They end up being divorced from ordinary reality. Sometimes people object to intuitions as, you know intuitions can be distorted and such. But ultimately that's where knowledge begins is with some basic observations.
Speaker: And it's hard to to deny that pleasure is
Speaker: least in some way worth worth pursuing, there's something there something valuable about pleasure, something disvaluable about pain. So I think that's ah that's a fine starting starting point for a philosophy.
Speaker: Yeah, one and to frame it differently, it would be to to to move away from pleasure and pain without a good argument is almost that natural, right? It's like you're over-complicating things. If we looked at people in a vacuum, if an alien came down to earth and said, well, what matters to humans?
Speaker: Well, pleasure and pain is what matters to humans. And then you'd need some sort of argument to move away from it. um And I guess the Epicurean feels like there isn't a very compelling one. um And that's where he comes in next and says, you know, those who, in my translation at least, it says, those who place the chief good and virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name.
Speaker: and do not understand the true demands of nature. And he just means like, ye and you you really do just actually just care about pleasure and you place this value in virtue because you get you get impressed by it or it's like a cultural artifice that gets put on you.
Speaker: i really like i really like this example too where he says, um we esteem the art of medicine not for its interest as a science but but for its conduciveness to health. The art of navigation is commended for its practical ah and not scientific value, but because it conveys the rules for sailing a ship with success.
Speaker: So also wisdom, which which must be considered as the art of living, if it affected no result would not be desired. But as it is, it is desired because it ah procures and produces pleasure.
Speaker: And so there's this, I guess there's this argument here that we start desiring pleasure Then we grow up and we see, okay, well, people that live well, people that live excellently, that live up to Roman virtues that are courageous, wise, temperate, just, they tend to have more pleasure. It's almost like a heuristic.
Speaker: They tend to live better lives than those that are cowardly, intemperate, unjust, um you know not wise. And so we but we we actually like lose of the grounding.
Speaker: we lose track of the original art with the the yeah original grounding Yeah. The original observation. Yeah. So we want pleasure. Virtue gets pleasure. But then we kind of it becomes the measure that fails to achieve the target.
Speaker: um We start actually pursuing virtue and forgetting that we just did that in the first place to get at pleasure, which is a compelling way of putting it, I think. Yeah. People start talking about courage, moderation, justice, wisdom, and we they forget that.
Speaker: Those are virtues only insofar as they, for the Epicurean, produce pleasure. And I think the argument Traquatis is making is that virtue must be productive of something.
Speaker: Like there's nothing...
Speaker: valuable in and of itself of doing something courageous. It's even harder to describe what that would be if courage doesn't refer to some other values. And that's that example of, you know, we don't, we praise the physician, not just for some empty skill, but because he successfully brings about health in other people. And that's his end.
Speaker: So then we need to define what's the you know what is virtue pointing at? you What's this activity of virtue? And the Epicureans, of course, is like, well, we are given that when he came into the world, it's pleasure.
Speaker: yeah what is What is courage? um he says and as There is this nice section where he goes through the cardinal virtues, you courage. It's not just the suffering of pain in itself that's attractive, nor yet endurance, nor diligence, nor watchings, nor much praise industry itself, no, nor courage either, but we devote ourselves to all such things for the purpose of passing our life in freedom from anxiety and alarm.
Speaker: and of emancipating both mind and body so far as we can succeed in doing so from annoyance. You know, why is it awesome to be courageous? Because then you're no longer scared and is experiencing pain when you need to do something important because you're able to make i decisions that ah bring about happier life for yourself, for your friends and such, because you are not anxious in sort of those critical moments.
Speaker: And I think that's a, That's an essential, I think i think that's ah that's a nice move for the for the Epicurean to make and and one they need to make here, of course.
Speaker: Yeah, it's a good move. I mean, to be charitable, so if I was like taking my criticism of stoicism hat, taking that off the shelf and putting that on, yeah.
Speaker: The Stoics kind of have to make a play here. They have to make a jump because who, you know, the the non-philosophical person, what does Stoicism offer you? It says, well, hey, the dichotomy of control, you're anxious about things that aren't up to you.
Speaker: Oh, hey, the view from above, you're kind of, you're getting stressed because you've lost perspective. Oh, you're getting angry all the time. um You're feeling these passions you don't want to experience that are disruptive, they're unpleasant.
Speaker: Hey, we we offer these tools that can take them away. The Stoic is almost selling you the cardinal virtues. At least I would say maybe the Stoic isn't doing this on purpose, but the way they have to present them to even get anybody to latch on to Stoicism as a philosophy, you're almost selling this pleasure argument, right? Or at least a reduction of pain argument. If you study Stoicism, you'll suffer less. You'll have less extreme emotions, ah like bad negative emotions, less anxiety.
Speaker: You'll feel more confident. you'll You'll feel less stressed. The Stoics are selling this argument and then the the Epicurean is go to be like, and then some way along the way, you kind of like switch the goal, right? You're like, you're you you offer pleasure as this target and then you're like, no, no, it's actually living in accordance with nature. And somebody goes, well,
Speaker: screw that. I don't want to live in accordance with nature. I want to be happy. And then the Stoics go, well, no, no, no, no. ah Living in accordance with nature will also make you happy. It just happens to also bring along this pleasant side effect. And then people are like, oh, okay, I guess I'll keep learning about it.
Speaker: But there's this almost this bait and switch that the Stoics have to kind of justify that I guess the Epicureans don't have to. always think that's interesting. and You see that a lot of people that are beginning to study Stoicism, they're coming to it for the pleasure component, right? Or the removal pain. Yeah.
Speaker: removal of of pain Yeah, yeah, I think so. think arguably, of large I think that's ah that's a classic criticism of socialism.
Speaker: I think that you almost have the same criticism of Epicureanism where ah you start with pleasure, but then you learn what it is to have the yeah know most pleasurable life is to be virtuous, to exercise these classic virtues and such.
Speaker: um And perhaps you know the Cyreniacs, the other hedonists, are a little bit more consistent on ah on that front, or at least more realistic in the sense that they didn't think there was such a nice mapping on to classic virtues and living a pleasurable life.
Speaker: Yeah. another Another way to kind of test this is the Stoics have this famous framing of, you know, yeah the Stoic can be happy on the torture rack.
Speaker: And then it's like, it really, I think, tests the way you think about Stoic happiness because, you know, what do you think the Stoic is saying there? Is the Stoic saying that the person on the torture rack is it has such a like ah ah degree of mental fortitude that they're serene?
Speaker: Or is the argument that person is suffering like hell, but you can respect them because you know they're not giving up, they're not you know betraying their country or divulging a secret or um they'd they'd rather die before they do something like that?
Speaker: And the Stoic argument is something... on the later half, which is like they're suffering terribly, but you can still admire them. Where the Epicurean doesn't can't admire that person, that's not a good life if they're suffering terribly. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker: And I think they'll also make the move you know at that moment if you're suffering terribly, say... in order for some other greater cause, you mean withstanding torture, not divulging secrets and such.
Speaker: You also need to make that move that you're not doing that because you, you know, divulging those secrets would bring about so much shame. Would be more painful than... yeah
Speaker: Torquatus takes on that example of his ancestor who punished, to you know, had his own son executed and he says the following... Yes, with the whole army looking on, what did he gain by it?
Speaker: Applause and affection, which are the strongest guarantees for passing life and freedom from fear. He punished his son with death, if purposelessly. I should be sorry to ah be descended from one so abominable and so cruel.
Speaker: But if he did it to... enforce virtue by his self-inflicted pain, the law of military command, and by fear of punishment to control the army in midst of a most critical war than he had in view the preservation of his fellow countrymen, which he knew to involve his own.
Speaker: And these principles have a wide application.
Speaker: So, yeah, and I think that's just the... There's not... so I think you can say that there is something to... that reply, which, you know beliefs about fear of punishment, pragmatic beliefs about what's necessary in this case for military command, perhaps what's necessary to preserve, to achieve one's goals, you know, those those do play a role.
Speaker: And those are connected to pleasure in some way. um But I don't know, how convincing do you find that? I mean, my initial impression was that that's whack was what I said in my head.
Speaker: I find it, I don't find it convincing. Again, it comes back to the thing we said before. Yes, he's making cost to benefit analysis. Like you're not wrong, but he's not making a pleasure cost benefit analysis. Right.
Speaker: that's That's it, right? like even the Even the utilitarian ki has room to say, well, I value pleasure, but I'm going to value the pleasure of this entire army who will lose morale and get slaughtered.
Speaker: ah But the Epicurean can only value their own pleasure, right? like they're they're they They're only looking internally. And so the the utilitarian has an argument there, but the Epicurean does not.
Speaker: Yeah, yeah. then So that's, like I mean, this is a case of ah someone sacrificing their son, but of course Epicureans also have issues with self-sacrifice generally. You know, I think, and some of those, and some of these other great great stories we have about people sacrificing their lives for the sake of loved ones.
Speaker: and Why do they do that? Because they value the loved ones because they see the loved one's pleasure as their own, but it's not literally their own pleasure. right So it can't that can't be it.
Speaker: yeah Is it the fact that if they didn't do that act, that would be worse than death? They'd have to live with that kind of knowledge.
Speaker: um It really seems like a bit of a stretch to say say that's it Well, and the Epicurean has to say something stronger, right? they don't Because we're talking on this descriptive level.
Speaker: And it's like the Epicureans, they don't deny that, yes, that person is doing it because they're trying to be virtuous, right? Like the Epicurean can point to their grandfather and say, yeah, he did that because he was trying to be but virtuous.
Speaker: But the Epicurean just has to say, but that was stupid, right? Like that's not really the good way to make a decision. um And so in your example of like, well, I sacrificed myself ah to let my family member live because, um, because I would find the pain of surviving worse than death or something like this.
Speaker: um,
Speaker: not only the Epicureans have to say, they don't have to say that's that's how the reasoning goes, but they have to say that that's the right way to think about it. And that any other way of thinking about it is is missing the point of life.
Speaker: Like if you sacrifice yourself because you love the other person and want something good for them, um that cost benefit analysis is just the wrong one. You should be like conceptualizing your pleasure, which is really weird to me.
Speaker: Yeah, that's this so they there's a nice statement of the Epicurean principle of selection here, which is just this idea that you know the wise man ah should, or maybe I'll start over. so it's just this stated here. So in such cases, the principle of selection adopted by the wise man is that he should either by refusing certain pleasures, attain to other and greater pleasures, or by enduring pains, should ward off pains still more severe.
Speaker: So that's a useful principle and I think a crucial one for understanding Epicureanism you know ah solves a lot of misunderstandings of the philosophy, you know this idea that you should just jump into experiencing the most intense pleasures you can with no thought of tomorrow.
Speaker: you know You can use this principle selection to say you know you should avoid risky pleasures, you should avoid addictive pleasures, um and you should undergo great suffering when doing so will bring about more happiness.
Speaker: But as you say, i think if we think about so many admirable people in history, admirable acts, people who we think we want to emulate, it doesn't seem like this is a thought process they're going through when they make ah you know those decisions that set them apart.
Speaker: So I think that's a, we're jumping perhaps a little bit too much on the criticism side, but I think that is a Yeah. that is ah That is certainly an issue.
Speaker: mean, yeah, we're biased. We're biased podcast for sure. oh But the other thing that the Stoics have going for themselves is they just have is that the Stoics also adopt this descriptive position.
Speaker: And they're like, well, people also, kids also begin like looking at self-preservation, which you know I can't remember exactly the the way it's worded now, but it wouldn't seem to me to be strange to view self-preservation as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, right?
Speaker: But the Stoics just think you know you grow up and when you hit a certain age, you start to value things that aren't pleasure. You start to value things that aren't just your personal um self-preservation.
Speaker: In other words, you just add things to your cost-benefit scale. You're just allowed to incorporate other ways of thinking about the world. um I mean, again, for them, i mean, I should say they're, the Stoics then again, reduce it to a single thing, which is just um virtue or vice or like, you know, acting appropriately or inappropriately. So they're, they're, they are like reductionist or simplistic as well in that sense.
Speaker: um But the descriptive argument, maybe it it doesn't have that strong of an argument if you're like, yeah, that's what kids do. um That doesn't mean that's how I should act as an adult, but like, yeah, you're right. that that' That's what kids do.
Speaker: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's right. mean, something that I do like about epicurus Epicureans, a number of other, i think you can probably read other ah schools of ancient philosophy this way, is they sort of blow up the descriptive and normative distinction. I know we've been using, I introduced that initially and we've been using that throughout But Torquadis argues is he says, just look at, start with observation, start with human nature, what what we're pointed towards.
Speaker: And then that's just going to give you, that just these descriptive facts about human nature is going to give you the picture of the good life. And you don't need to
Speaker: or perhaps some of these modern moves where someone says, oh, you can describe human nature, but it's possible that human nature is flawed and that that's not what we end up point being pointing pointing towards is not in fact the good life naturally.
Speaker: I think that's a that kind of thinking is is somewhat alien perhaps to the this so this argument for Epicureanism.
Speaker: Yeah, it's a good point, but I guess it's just there's just this, I guess even even on even on its own terms, the Epicureans then have to like explain the descriptive reality that people are pulled towards virtue. And they have to kind of, well, they've got confused now.
Speaker: That's not really nature. That's like them getting and confused. And again, I mean, so the Stoics do the same thing, right? They have to make the same argument about pleasure where they say, well, people are they've corrupted or confused. So it's the same play the Stoics make.
Speaker: But you kind of end up, you know when you compress those two together, you end up doing the same thing. You're just arguing about what the real descriptive truth is, I guess. Sure, sure. Maybe you can also push but another line of criticism that, ah look, the you know the Stoics, they don't make that so much hay about that distinction. ah Aristotelians don't, but that's because they think nature is ordered.
Speaker: you know In the Stoic's case, it has as providential aspects. So it it has normativity, it has purpose, has telos built into it. Whereas Epicureans are a little bit more um on the deist side. you know They believe in the gods, but they don't think the gods care that much about us. So there's maybe little also that question mark. you know If you just have that descriptive reality, is jews is this really a benefit of philosophy that you think descriptive and normative are tied so closely together?
Speaker: ah when it could very well just be a coincidence.
Speaker: Yeah, that's a good point. Well, ah to end on a positive note, I like this description of friendship from the Epicureans. So... and There are some nice lines. truly we both rejoice at the joy of our friends as much as at our own joy and are equally pained by their vexations therefore as the wise man will entertain the same feeling for his friend as for himself and the very same efforts which she would undergo to cure his own pleasure these he will undergo to procure that of his friend that's nicely stated and i think epicureans friendship was very important about them essentially they thought you know all you need for the good life is to retreat into the garden with a community of people who you love enough food to survive and some uh basic pleasures and that's that's it and i think what's really doing the work for them in that vision is that community but i think that's something that uh
Speaker: Epicurus is right is right to emphasize. so Because other other philosophies, of course, will emphasize that aspect as well. you know Humans are social creatures, but um the Epicureans do a good job of it. And I think also it's not as perhaps moralistic. I think yeah part of friendship just really is the pleasurable aspect of it.
Speaker: And just having fun with with other humans is a a great thing to do. So nicely stated. Yeah, I like that way you just put it, not moralistic. It's like, yeah, friends are good because they're really fun. it's really nice to have friends.
Speaker: You're like, okay, yeah, that's seems like and that's a reasonable argument. yeah um Where the Stoics have to like put yeah the stoics have to make some weird argument that like for friendship is desirable for its own sake if they're a sage like contemplating the good character of another person like that's kind of a weird way ah talk about friendship i like my friends because i like being around them um that's a bit more compelling um the other one i wanted to say is i think that like
Speaker: Again, being positive because we because we did our you know we threw in our stoic jabs there. um i think the Epicureans, I really like the way that they divide kind of like needs.
Speaker: Is that the language that they use? There's this idea of, look, there's things that are like necessary. um Necessary. There are things that aren't necessary. and um There was kind of this division of like, if something's necessary, it's pretty easy to acquire.
Speaker: If something's not necessary, it can be easy, difficult to acquire, but you can survive fine without it. And so the kind of necessary things like, you know, water, enough food to survive, shelter, these things are actually pretty easy to get.
Speaker: And so it's it's this kind of view of like, yeah, you should take your basic human needs pretty seriously, but it's not that difficult to get them. And I almost think that does a better, it it does this like better job, I think, actually from like a practical day-to-day moment of dealing with the kind of anxiety around possessions and externals than the stoic view of like preferred indifference, indifference and dispreferred indifference does. Yeah.
Speaker: Cause I find the preferred indifference thing. It's like, yeah, you should want, like, it's fine to want money, but like you shouldn't be upset if you lose your job. And it kind of, it doesn't, it's a helpful reminder about giving you permission to pursue some things, but it it's not very behavior guiding because it comes down a lot of the times to your roles.
Speaker: It comes down, you know, maybe, maybe you should be selecting that dispreferred and different in a specific context, but It's very complicated. Yeah. The stoicism does not have a lot of precise things to say um about navigating the world of externals.
Speaker: It more says like practice stoicism and then make make the right call, which is good advice. But I just like the way the Epicureans are like, well, you know, is that something you need? You know, like, oh, I, you know, I can't afford this lobster dinner.
Speaker: Would you need a lobster dinner? No. Okay. Well, like that's, do you have enough food to eat? Yes. Okay. Well, it's fine. do you not, do you have enough food to eat? No. Okay. Well, that is a problem and that probably should stress you out.
Speaker: Um, but like, and then maybe like, you know, take some serious steps to, to, to resolve that and get enough food for yourself or your family. But, um, it just, for me, it's a more helpful way of thinking about these things. Like, is that necessary or unnecessary?
Speaker: Um, or I think maybe the indifference lumps a lot of stuff together. What do you think? Yeah. Well, I wouldn't say indifference lumps lot of stuff together, but just that it's it is complex to because there are so many different preferred indifference.
Speaker: And as you say, it depends on the circumstances, your roles. So I think a useful way to think about Epicureans from a Stoic perspective is when they're right, where they're most useful,
Speaker: is thinking about from the stoic perspective pleasure is a preferred indifferent and the epicureans have good a lot of good thoughts about how to relate to it properly and how to you know achieve that preferred indifferent and when to select it and perhaps uh when not to select it so And i think I think they also, and perhaps maybe this is this just is just just comes with the territory. you Our decisions are complex. They involve all kinds of social facts, values, and of course, pleasure.
Speaker: But the um pleasure is involved in lot of these ah decisions we make, the cardinal virtues, even if they're not completely tied up with pleasure, if they're not completely productive of pleasure, they pleasure does matter. So um i think that's ah not something we should overlook.
Speaker: And you know insofar as the Epicureans thought about that and thought about some of the strategies for achieving a pleasurable life, that then they're and they're quite useful. And I think, you know, they you have that heuristic of, do I need it? It's easy to obtain in addition to, of course, just the principle of selection, which, which can be useful. I think Stoics can put that to use.
Speaker: Well, love that. I've never thought of it that way, but it's kind of like, you know, go to a specialist when you want to learn about something and the Epicureans are the pleasure specialists, not in like a,
Speaker: a hedonistic way, but in really like maximizing that preferred and different over a lifetime, they'll tell you how to do it. Now, that's not the goal of life according to the Stoics, but yeah it's part it's a part of life and the Epicureans are a great place to learn how to do it well.
Speaker: So that's a really cool way of framing it. Cool. Nice. um Yeah. so I'll just end with... a The summary of Epicurus um from Cicero. This is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man is continually happy.
Speaker: He keeps his passions within bounds. About death, he is indifferent. He holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread. He has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course.
Speaker: Sounds nice. Yeah, sounds excellent. Sounds not a bad way to be. And we'll ah take on the next book in future episodes.
Speaker: Awesome. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Caleb.
Speaker: Thanks for listening to Stoa Conversations. Please give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share it with a friend. If you want to dive deeper still, search Stoa in the App Store or Play Store for a complete app with routines, meditations, and lessons designed to help people become more stoic.
Speaker: And I'd also like to thank Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music. You can find more of his work at ancientliar.com. And finally, please get in touch with us.
Speaker: Send a message to stoa at stoameditation.com if you ever have any feedback, questions, or recommendations. Until next time.
