Epicuro Hedonista psicolgico o tico? Hellenistic philosophers. Epicurus writings.

Raphael Woolf has challenged the notion that Epicurus was an ethical hedonist. Human beings, by nature, persue pleasure and avoid pain broadly construed. By ethical hedonism, I mean, a prescriptive theory that holds that human beings ought to persue pleasure and avoid pain. Human beings are always motivated by self-interest. So, human beings are determined to seek pleasure which turns out to be to the advantage of the agent in question. The burden on the ethical hedonist is to demonstrate that the content of the term good in pleasure, and by pleasure understood ion terms prescribed by the theory. Further, ethical hedonism does not necessarily entail egoism. In the case of doxographyin the ancient world, there is one important difference. It is assumed in contemporary philosophy that if the commentator grossly misunderstood or misrepresented the original autors views, the original autor would object in print, or the editor of the journal or book would object to publishing this. We might even disregard a commentator. Who grossly misrepresented another philosopher as failing to properly comment. In short, there is the expectation in contemporary scholarship to accurately represent the views of another thinker. This is important because in the ancient world, there was no such expectation. An excellent example of this in the case of Epicurus is the doxography of Plutarch. Plutarch, although he quotes more from Epicurus tan other conmmentators, distorts and ridicules this way of thinking. Plutarchs approach is to take element by element of Epicurean thinking and subjecting it to belittlement. Hence, the bias of the commentator must be taken into consideration in the use of doxography. One must examine what source materials he used to construct his reports on Epicurus views. Cicero wrote De Finibus in 51 BCE and Epicurus died around 271 BCE. Some 220 years separate these thinkers. In Ciceros youth, he studied philosophy in Athens and encountered Phaedrus and Zeno from the Epicurean school. Cicero relied on handbooks, or summaries, from the Epicurean school, that he did not think very highly of it. In De Finibus, Cicero starts his in vestigation of the nature of the final end by addressing the easiest school namely the Epicureans. The principal Epicurean speaker in De Finibus is Torquatus.

In short, there are many reasons for being suspicious of taking Ciceros docographical account as authoritative for founding an interpretation of Epicurusviews on hedonism. Hand we no manuscripts from Epicurus himself then we would have to solely and simply rely on the doxography. Second, one aware of the limitations and bias in the doxography, we might use these reports as commentary on the primary materials. Our primary source for Epicurus ethical wiews comes from the letter to menoeceus found in Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosopher Book. Epicurus ethical views was found in three other Works, namely On Choice and Avoidance On the Ethical End, On Human Life. Only very short fragments survive of On Choice and Avoidance and On the Ethical End, in the Letter to Herodotus that. it is important to remember that the letter in question is a summary written by Epicurus to a member of this community so as to aid the memory of the longer discussion found in the other. There is language in the Letter that suggests Menoeceus was struggling with his Epicurean training. Do and practice what I (Epicurus) constantly told you to do, believing these to be the elements of living well. The context of the Letter is important, because many of the references to the term we have been the subject of the Cooper-Woolf debate. Cooper claims that when Epicurus uses we he means we Epicureans whereas Woolf claims that the reference to the term we can mean we Epicureans but also implies we humans. The real issue i show to take the forc of the so-called credle argument used to support the position that pleasure is the ultimate end? I think there are at least two insights to glean from the cradle argument. First, if the claim is that human beings, by nature, seek pleasure and avoid pain, then as a starting point, this is a claim of psychological hedonism. In other words, what is meant by pleasure in the credle argument and what is proposed as the ultimate good (again pleasure) cannot have the same meaning. Epicurus does intend that from birth, human beings seek pleasure and avoid pain. Now le tus suppose that he further claims that some pleasure are ones that we ought to seek and others that we ought to avoid. The second claim has Little forc in so far as we are determined to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Second, Epicurus himself claims that acknowledgment of pleasure as the final good is the criterion for judging actions to be good ore vil. All things are mutually attracting. This mutual attraction is what we call gravity. So, we ought to be attracted by gravity.

In the letter to Menoeceus, prior to the claim about pleasure being the final good, Epicurus announced what he means by the final goal. Healfth of the body and freedom from disturbance in the soul are the katastematic pleasures Epicurus claims are the ultimate good. Epicurus is well-known for distinguishing between two general types of pleasure: the katastematic and the kinetic. This second mode of thinking then would demand a propoer understanding of pleasure. Hence the need for rational decisin to search out the reasons for every choice and avoidance, and for driving out the opinions which are the source of the greatest turmoil in men souls. If Epicurus were advocating psychological hedonism, there would be Little point in his claim that there are some pleasures one ought to avoid. Strictly speaking, if he is, in fact, advancing a psychological hedonist theory, we would not be able to choose pain and avoid pleasure. In fact Epicurus makes it clear that we, in fact, ought to avoid some pleasures and choose some pains. One should bring this question to bear on all ones desires: what will happen to me if what is sought by desire is achieved, and what will happen if it is not? If we are programmed to seek pleasure, we will seek pleasure. To claim then that we ought to seek pleasure because we are programmed to seek pleasure is to ignore the ought / is distinction. Pleasure in some course of action, the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of the action likewise becomes meaningless. In order for the moral ought to obtain, we hace to be able to choose otherwise. A portion of Epicurus On Nature, Book, discusses how we are responsable for what we do. Discusses the causes of atomic motions, distinguishing those that are through us from those that are through nature and the environment. Discussion of the concept that we are responsable for what we do.