[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 59 KB, 1080x1334, 68F14C96-FF9B-438E-828C-F5738F3CE342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19220846[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Epicurus was a fraud
>refuses to elaborate further
>leaves

>> No.19221004

>>19220846
Pains at the gym result in more gains, so it doesn’t go against Epicureanism.
There’s nothing fraudulent with the advice to avoid pain and negativity.

>> No.19221201

>>19221004
Not that, if you analyze his work, it’s complete bullshit. Supposedly there are three types of pleasures: natural and necessary, natural and not necessary and non-natural and not necessary. The latter one being the only “bad” one and we should pursue the first two. Now, whats the problem with that? Every pleasure is natural, now with the scientific revolution we have determined that there’s no such thing as a non-natural pleasure. So according to Epicurus we should pursue every single type of pleasure, including jerking off multiple times a day. In other words, it would mean that addictions are good, we should shoot heroin every day because it’s a natural pleasure and makes us release dopamine

>> No.19221227

>>19221201
>Scientific revolution

You have to go back

>> No.19221230

>>19221227
not him but you should kill yourself dumbass

>> No.19221240

>>19221201
So you’re POed over categorization.
And then you take it to silly extremes.

>> No.19221249

>>19221201
Should have just said ‘only necessary pleasures’

>> No.19221269

>>19221201
The word natural might be used now, but also in the text of Epicurus, but that doesn't mean that they mean the same thing
Read the text and ask yourself what the text is trying to say within a specific culture or context

You're distorting what is being said

>> No.19221273

>>19221201
>>refuses to elaborate further
>proceeds to elaborate further

>> No.19221288

>>19221273
>refuses to contribute meaningfully to the discussion
>posts this anyway

>> No.19221290

>>19221288
>He thought this would work

>> No.19221347
File: 211 KB, 615x901, 4918376371849873.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19221201
Not from Epicurus himself, but see pic related for how 'natural' and 'unnatural' pleasures are understood. One drinks water and the thirst is completed, the goal of the action is within reach, addictions and the like you mention are without end, for they do not provide the supplicant with what he envisions he will receive. Taking heroin does not complete one's desire, it only spawns more, which is the opposite of one's goal (being to satisfy/end desire), in that sense they are seen as unnatural or deceptive illusions of desire as they violate the natural purpose of desire, and I expect that will harmonise with your 'scientific revolution' and your understanding of desire's purpose from the evolutionary perspective

>> No.19222702

>>19221249
Then reproduction is useless and we should go extinct? Makes no sense

>> No.19222736

>>19222702
One thing though, to add to this. With necessary Epicurus refers to vital, necessary to live. So reproduction would be rendered useless according to his logic.

>> No.19222905

>>19220846
>that's why you read Plato

>> No.19222983

>>19221347
There is a goal in addiction, which is releasing dopamine or whatever neurotransmitter/hormone that makes you addicted to the substance in question. I don’t like rambling about “WE ARE ALL MADE OF HECKIN CHEMICALERINOS, TRUST THE SCIENCE” but it makes sense in this case. But I get what you mean. I haven’t read pic related, so I’ll read it and come with another reply after that.

>> No.19223007

>>19221240
Every idea must be tested by being taken to its logical extreme. If it fails at the extreme, it fails in all other aspects

>> No.19223039

>>19223007
>its logical extreme
Its silly extreme. This was already explained ITT more thoroughly by anonymous here >>19221269 >>19221347

>> No.19223066
File: 321 KB, 1023x731, Unhappily-Ever-After-nikki-cox-35150539-1023-731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19223066

>By reputation Epicureanism and Stoicism are opposites. The first is said to be a philosophy of sensual enjoyment and indulgence, the second a philosophy of austerity. Both reputations are misleading; the English word “Epicurean” nowadays gives an impression of Epicurus about as inaccurate as the word “Stoicism” does of the Stoics. The two schools of thought do differ in many significant ways, most prominently in the relationships they propose between virtue and happiness. Epicurus regarded pleasure as the only rational motive for mankind, whereas the Stoics thought that our sole rightful purpose is to act virtuously – to live by reason and to help others, from which happiness follows assuredly but incidentally. Despite these differences, however, the Epicurean and the Stoic agree on some important points in their analysis of judgment, desire, and other subjects.
>Like many other Hellenistic philosophers, Epicurus produced books and essays that have not survived. But we do have a small set of his writings – mostly a few letters and some sets of quotations. One of the larger sets was found in a manuscript in the Vatican Library during the 19th century (the so-called “Vatican Sayings”). Epicurus is also quoted here and there in the writings of other classical authors. Indeed, a number of the entries from Epicurus in this book were preserved by Seneca himself, who saw it as no cause for embarrassment.
I shall continue to heap quotations from Epicurus upon you, so that all persons who swear by the words of another, and put a value upon the speaker and not upon the thing spoken, may understand that the best ideas are common property.
Seneca, Epistles 12.11

>> No.19223114
File: 764 KB, 2560x1536, 9FB84D3F-9455-4A1A-B873-5ED091379D2A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19223114

>>19223066
>By reputation Epicureanism and Stoicism are opposites. The first is said to be a philosophy of sensual enjoyment and indulgence, the second a philosophy of austerity.
Oh brother. And why should I read more Seneca when he so clearly is out to smear it?

>> No.19223127

>>19223114
Maybe read the rest of the fucking post fuckskull.

>> No.19223195

>>19223114
Oh brother this guy STINKS

>> No.19223210

>>19223114
Butters, I know you are not one to try to read a post in full, but still...

>> No.19223421

>>19223114
>Reads the first sentence and has a knee jerk reaction like a typical woman
Imagine being into philosophy yet being this retarded.

>> No.19223616

>>19223127
>>19223195
>>19223210
>>19223421
I do apologize. I rushed a needless response at what I assumed was just like so many other troll-y nasty barbs. I take it back. I should have read it but instead went to read my book.

>> No.19223889

>>19222983
The goal on the horizon, so to speak, is always to be sated, be it a material object, like a house, a sportscar or a drug. Even the addict desires to be in a state of contentedness, which is why (even if he understands on some intellectual level that the drug won't ever yield) he asks for just one more dose, in search of that completion. From the addict's mind, his goal isn't to endlessly want and want, but he deludes himself on some primal level into thinking consuming more of the drug will render him content

>> No.19224029

>>19223616
Its ok, it happens.

>> No.19224064

>>19223616
For all you pride yourself on and shitpost about being an epicurean, do you yourself actually understand its fundamentals? All your witty posts about epicureanism contain little substance and my impression is that you like the sound of the term, rather than having a sincere respect for its prescriptions. I somehow struggle to imagine you in any way following that ascetic ideal given the kind of flippant and self-important attitude you always seem to present (and the trip posting definitely doesn't help there)

>> No.19224083

>>19224064
>epicureanism is serious business
>repent!

>> No.19224092

>>19224083
I don't know what kind of response I expected, it's no use I suppose, don't let me keep you any longer

>> No.19224099
File: 223 KB, 421x526, moi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19224099

>>19224083
go away.

>> No.19225473

>>19224099
wow what a fucking retard

>> No.19225766

>>19222702
We're going to go extinct anyway. It doesn't really matter whether I'm the last human standing or whether the human race will exist for thousands of years after my death.

>> No.19225931

Epicureanism ruined my life.

>> No.19226199

>>19225931
>walks away, not realizing stoicism ruined his life

>> No.19227037

>>19225766
My point is that according to Epicurus, replicating your genes won’t make you happy as it’s not vital, and that has been proven to be false because of simple evolution. If replicating your genes didn’t make us happy, we would be extinct already as they wouldn’t produce offspring and reproduce.

>> No.19227225

>>19224083
kek

>> No.19227236

>>19227037
You're not considering the benefits of having children re: love, companionship, accomplishment, etc. all can be pleasurable even if there is up-front cost of struggle and effort.
Imagine a world without electronics and with limited food options. having kids would probably be hedonistically optimal>>19226199

>> No.19227355

>>19227236
I know, that’s my point, reproduction does make you happy, so neither all pleasures are good — that would mean that doing drugs is good — nor only vital ones are good — it would render reproduction useless. It’s better to pursue a virtuous life. So epicurus was wrong and is cringe.

>> No.19227389

>>19221273
underrated

>> No.19227449

>>19227355
Epicurus states that a virtuous life is also the most pleasurable/pain devoid life

>> No.19227545

>>19227449
What he considers a virtuous lifestyle is not the same as what the stoics consider a virtuous lifestyle. Epicurus believes that ataraxia (absence of worries) and enjoying all natural pleasures — which means literally every single pleasure as every pleasure is natural, including shooting heroin and fapping thrice a day — is the way to be happy.

>> No.19227650

>>19227545
>Epicurus believes that ... enjoying all natural pleasures — which means literally every single pleasure as every pleasure is natural, including shooting heroin and fapping thrice a day — is the way to be happy
Have you read even a single shred of the original material? There isn't much of it, the letter to Menoeceus will take you just a few moments. To think that this site is filled with mongoloids like you who assume the authority to instruct others as to something you haven't read yourself