Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
Aristippus'I possess, I am not possessed' ---Aristippus INTRODUCTION Aristippus was a follower of Socrates, and the founder of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy. He taught that the ultimate goal of all actions is pleasure, and that we should not defer pleasures that are ready at hand for the sake of future pleasures or as a reflection on the past. His philosophy came to be known as egoistic hedonism. He was willing to break the social conventions of his day and engage in behavior that was considered undignified or shocking for the sake of obtaining pleasurable experiences. The Cyrenaic school developed these ideas further and influenced Epicurus, later Greek skeptics, Herbert Spencer, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and even Ayn Rand, among other well known philosophers. LIFE AND WORK Not much is known about the life of Aristippus, as the main source for information on him is by Diogenes Laertius, who wrote over 500 years after Aristippus' death. In fact, the very timeline of his life is unknown and falls somewhere within 430-370 B.C. Diogenes’ account of Aristippus lacks reliability as it was based on many “scandalous” stories that were told in moral contempt (O’Keefe 2001) and as a way to promote rival conceptions of hedonism (Guthrie 1969). As a result, most research on Aristippus is based in negativity, as he was a focal point of moral outrage. Without first hand accounts of Aristippus’ philosophy, from his own writings or more accurate, less politically and/or morally motivated second and third hand accounts, it is impossible to say for certain what his life was like or what his beliefs entailed. What we do know of Aristippus’ life is as follows: He was born in Cyrene, a Greek colony in Northern Africa. He moved to Athens and became one of Socrates’ most scandalous pupils, with his advocacy of sensual pleasure and his acceptance of money for his instruction (O’Keefe 2001; Guthrie 1969). Along with his daughter, Arete, his grandson, Aristippus the Younger, and a few other disciples, he formed the basis for the Cyrenaic school (O’Keefe 2001). Instructing and including a female in the creation of a school (even if it was his daughter) was far ahead of his time and largely unheard of. Granted, however, she never did receive the credit she deserved or was given as much regard as Arete the Younger. The Cyrenaic School of Philosophy, founded in the city of Cyrene, flourished from about 400 to 300 B.C., and had for its most distinctive tenet hedonism, or the doctrine that pleasure is the chief good (McNeil 1995). From Socrates, the school derived its doctrine of the supremacy of pleasure from happiness as the chief good and from Protagoras, its relativistic theory of knowledge. It is unclear how much of the developed Cyrenaic school of thought is based in Aristippus the Elder’s teachings or his grandson’s, who is reported to have systematized much of the Cyrenaic philosophy (O’Keefe 2001; Guthrie 1969). Arete and Aristippus the Younger are believed by some to be even more focused than Aristippus the Elder on momentary pleasure as the goal, not an overall pleasant life (Merlan 1972). Information about the school rarely differentiates origins based on the Elder or the Younger Aristippus (and pays little to no regard to Arete, since she was female). ETHICAL BASIS OF HEDONISM Like other Greek ethical thinkers, Aristippus' ethics are centered on the question of what goal humans’ actions aim at and what is valuable for its own sake. Aristippus’ identification of the end as pleasure makes him a hedonist. “His definition of pleasure included not merely sensual gratification but also mental pleasures, domestic love, friendship, and moral contentment-all that is commonly understood to comprise happiness" (Bhattacharya). He was depicted as showing “disdain for conventional standards as being mere societal prejudices” (O’Keefe 2001). “He argued that the difference between good and bad came down to the question of pleasure. The good is pleasurable; the bad is painful. Therefore, the good life is one which produces pleasure and personal satisfaction to a person and avoids pain” (Wellborn 1999). Xenophon reported that Aristippus advocated immediate gratification and not worrying about future pleasure (O’Keefe 2001). He argued that the only thing people have control over is what is in the present, which is why pleasure should be the goal. One should not worry about the implications that pleasure could have for your future, or be absorbed by lessons of the past (Margolin 2001; Guthrie 1969). In fact, Aristippus argued against seeking happiness, which he defined as a collection of past and future pleasures, as only particular and immediate pleasure should be sought (Irwin 1991). The good life may have been the end result of a lifetime of happiness through all of the particular pleasures, but it should not, in and of itself, be the goal. Aristippus largely agreed with Socrates’ lack of support for religion and science. Springing from the conception of good and bad, Aristippus went as far as to argue for the non-existence of objects that were not based on such a dichotomy, such as math (Guthrie 1969). In fact, he argued that math, among other elements of the physical world, should not be studied, but only practical principles of conduct should be (Guthrie 1969). Scientific “truths” can not be classified as good or bad, but only as observations of “truth.” In contrast, conduct can be good or bad and/or have good or bad motivations. Like Socrates, Aristippus rejected institutionalized religion. “He called it ridiculous to pray and make requests to the divinity: doctors, he said, do not give food or drink to a sick man when he asks for it, but when it is good for him” (Guthrie 1969). Aristippus’ philosophy of hedonism is often viewed as self-absorbed and lacking any sense of community responsibility, but Aristippus’ conception of hedonism actually required good judgment and self-control (Wellborn 1999, Lester 1999, Margolin 2001). He believed that “as long as you are clear-headed and single-minded in your pursuit of pleasure, it is not as though pursuing pleasure in this way is making you do anything unwillingly, or making you lose your self-control” and that, "what is best is not abstaining from pleasures, but instead controlling them without being controlled." (O’Keefe). His famous phrase is considered to be, “I possess, I am not possessed.” To be controlled by one’s emotions and desires threatens self-absorption to the point of detriment to the community, but self-control and good judgment enable pleasure without such threat. Like Socrates, Aristippus took great interest in teaching the ethical dimensions with his philosophy of hedonism. He believed in practical ethics, not religious or community obligations based on morality. He did warn his students not to inflict any pain or suffering (Margolin 2001). However, research on his support for self-control often turns out to be contradictory. For instance, he is said to have asserted that “one’s property could never be too large for comfort, and on the other to have advised his friends to limit their possessions to what they could save, with their own lives, from a shipwreck” (Guthrie 1969). Perhaps the contradictory nature of the research on Aristippus is due to the absence of any primary sources. VIEWS ON FREEDOM Aristippus disagreed with Socrates and Plato’s reliance on governmental control and the belief that there consists two types of people, those who are fit to govern others and those who should be subject to their rule. Instead he argued that “neither rule nor slavery appealed to him, but in his opinion there was a third, middle way: the road to happiness lay through freedom, which was certainly not the lot of a ruler or commander, with all the risks and hard work that it entailed” (Guthrie 1969). Thus, he rejected a society based on hierarchy and authority, and hoped for freedom instead. In fact, he argued that his willingness and flexibility to do anything whatsoever for the sake of pleasure made him free. He was master of himself (O’Keefe 2001) and refused to be incumbent to the control of any particular state or sociopolitical bonds and duties (Guthrie 1969; Merlan 1972). He had a sort of detached attitude towards pleasure, which ensured that he would always retain mastery over the pleasure and would never allow it to enslave him. “He takes what he, as he knows, could with equal ease leave” (Merlan 1972). Aristippus' promotion of freedom and his rejection of governmental institutions and control would seem almost anarchistic, if it were not for his egoistic hedonism. It could be argued that such an attitude is at the base of some individualist anarchist philosophers, even though their ideas are highly ridiculed and despised in the rest of the anarchist community. Although Aristippus thought highly enough of his daughter Arete to teach her (which is largely unheard of during that era), it seemed unlikely that his support for freedom was intended to include women, based on the underlying sexist assumptions of his rhetoric. For instance, when Aristippus was criticized for sleeping with a courtesan, “he asked whether there was any difference between taking a house in which many people have lived in before or none, or between sailing on a ship in which many people have sailed and none. When it was answered that there is no important difference, he replied that it likewise makes no difference whether the woman you sleep with has been with many people or none.” (O’Keefe 2001) Although this exchange shows Aristippus’ support for women’s sexual freedom, it retains objectification of women through the comparative object being based on man’s property. THE ROOTS AND HERITAGE OF THE CYRENAIC SCHOOL Aristippus, along with his disciples, started the Cyrenaic School. “The Cyrenaics started their philosophical inquiry by agreeing with Protagoras that all knowledge is relative. That is true, they said, which seems to be true; of things in themselves we can know nothing. From this they were led to maintain that we can know only our feelings, or the impression which things produce upon us.” (McNeil 1995) “Knowledge, according to the Cyrenaics, is rooted in the fleeting sensations of the moment, and it is therefore futile to attempt the formulation of a system of moral values in which the desirability of present pleasures is weighed against the pain they may cause in the future” (Margolin 2001). “Transferring this theory of knowledge to the discussion of the problem of conduct, and assuming, as has been said, the Socratic doctrine that the chief aim of conduct is happiness, they concluded that happiness is to be attained by the production of pleasurable feelings and the avoidance of painful ones. Pleasure, therefore, is the chief aim in life. The good man is he who obtains or strives to obtain the maximum of pleasure and the minimum of pain. Virtue is not good in itself; it is good only as a means to obtain pleasure.” (McNeil 1995) In rejection of the philosophies of the Cyrenaic School, Epicurus emphasized the superiority of social and intellectual pleasures over those of the senses. In contrast, Aristippus promoted immediate pleasure and taught that pain should always be avoided. Epicurus taught that pain is sometimes necessary for good health and that self-restraint and rational control of one’s desires is the way for long-term pleasure (Bhattacharya; Gosling 1969; Margolin 2001). “He further classified sensual pleasure as pleasure in motion; the state of ataraxia, which is pleasing in itself. He discarded transitory stimulation in favor of enduring satiation.” (Bhattacharya) The term “epicure,” originated from Epicurus’ beliefs and is defined as a person of refined taste. For Epicurus, a good person “was someone who lived for pleasure but was smart enough to know which pleasures were most desirable” (Wellborn 1999). Both the Epicureans and the Cyrenaic School were based in ethical, not psychological, hedonism. Psychological hedonism views humans as psychologically constructed to exclusively desire pleasure; whereas, ethical hedonists argue that humans have a fundamental moral obligation to maximize happiness or pleasure (Margolin 2001; Irwin 1991). Many philosophers drew from the Cyrenaic School and the Epicureans promotion of pleasure as the base human goal. Herbert Spencer argued that “pleasure, in its ultimate sense, defines ethics since that which pleases us and gives us joy, is also beneficial for our survival and evolution” (Bhattacharya). However, he added to this theory the dimension that humans should seek to avoid pain. Jeremy Bentham sought to classify all pleasures and with his student, John Stuart Mill, refined it into the social philosophy of utilitarianism, that the “greatest good for the greatest number” was the ultimate aim of all good social policy. For Bentham and Mill, good meant pleasure, which was defined as what was most useful in providing the most pleasure for the most people (Wellborn 1999). These philosophers were aware of the burden of having desires and attachment to their possessions as fulfilling these desires (Margolin, 2001), but took a universalistic, social approach to hedonism, instead of the egoistic approach of their forbearers (Gosling 1969). Ayn Rand also promoted pleasure and wrote in Atlas Shrugged, "by the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself; he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." However, Rand rejected the sensual pleasure promotion of the Cyrenaic School and the Epicureans and only took into account the morality of joy (Bhattacharya). In The Virtue of Selfishness, she wrote, “Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction." For Rand, the defense of pleasure was not just an ethical choice, but also a reaction working against the anti-egoistic pleasure stance of religious authorities and moral philosophies such as utilitarianism (Bhattacharya). Rand stated in Atlas Shrugged, "For centuries the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors; between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." (Bhattacharya) CRITICS OF HEDONISM The major answer to hedonism is that it will result in self-gratification and greed (Margolin 2001; Wellborn 1999). Inevitably, Aristippus’ support for self-control will not be followed by most that seek pleasure based on his source of morality. The idea that seeking pleasure is a moral good makes the likelihood for greed even higher, since it legitimizes negative thoughts and actions in promotion of the end goal of pleasure. The result of greed is a breakdown in community and the rule of law (arguable as good or bad). Second, many argue that the promotion of pure pleasure is unrealistic (Margoline 2001; Wellborn 1999). Inevitably, increasing one person’s or group’s pleasure will decrease another person’s or group’s pleasure. For instance, increasing the wealth of one person has the alternate effect of decreasing the wealth of another. There can only be a classification of wealthy if there is an alternate classification of poor. Likewise, a developer may find pleasure in chopping down old growth forests to erect parking lots, but this destroys the pleasure of the forests, the animals in the forests, and the culture of the people who rely on the forests. Additionally, it is not possible to know what pleasure feels like without feeling pain. If everyone were wealthy, than the capitalist goal of accumulation would no longer be exciting, since everyone would have all of the toys and play they already wanted. Likewise, always experiencing pleasure may decrease the motivation of people to achieve, thereby threatening to destabilize capitalism (again this is arguable as good or bad). Likewise, promotion of pleasure for an individual or group is likely to have the effect of hurting the rights of another individual or group. If the KKK seeks pleasure in their racist attitudes and actions, it would have the result of hurting the right to life as well as the right to happiness of people of color. Likewise, pleasure for a photographer may be filming her/his neighbor, but this could infringe on that person’s privacy. Unfortunately, Aristippus does not define or classify hedonism. He argues that self-control is important and so is not causing harm to one’s community; but does not define or classify what would be outside of the boundary of self-control. Some anarchist literature could be useful in its coordination with hedonist arguments against state control and authority, since both philosophies seek freedom as the final goal. However, it is unlikely that Aristippus would consider himself an anarchist, as he does not identify with mutual aid or community self-sufficiency. Likewise, most anarchists are unlikely to agree in total with Aristippus or the Cyrenaic’s school of hedonist thought, as it is based largely in individualism. Promotion of pleasure inevitably results in greed because of capitalist socialization. Additionally, some may argue that hedonism justifies obedience to law to avoid punishment, which would hurt pleasure-seeking (Malaspina 1908). Anarchists are likely to argue that Aristipus and hedonism are more closely aligned to libertarianism, since libertarians seek diminished government control and regulation, but increased support for corporations and capital accumulation. Even though Aristippus argues for self-control and not harming the community, he also does not argue in support of community responsibility or taking an active stance in promoting freedom. Instead, he believes that in seeking pleasure, one should not harm others, but does not argue that a person should take an active stance in trying to help others or in trying to create a society that is better. Finally, some argue that hedonism has no moral or ethical basis at all, because it is not based in responsibility or duty (Malaspina 1908; Wellborn 1999). “It rests on a false psychological analysis; tendency, appetite, end, and good are fixed in nature antecedent to pleasurable feeling. Pleasure depends on the obtaining of some good which is prior to, and causative of, the pleasure resulting from its acquisition. The happiness or pleasure attending good conduct is a consequence, not a constituent, of the moral quality of the action…. (5) No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially subjective feeling, and only the individual is the competent judge of how much pleasure or pain a course of action affords him. What is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing line between right and wrong. (6) Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty. If I must pursue my own happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice.” (Fox 1910) IMPLICATIONS FOR DEBATE Supporting hedonism is a difficult task to take on, because it comes with a good deal of ideological baggage. As is discussed in the “Critics of Hedonism” section, hedonism has a lot of negative moral baggage attached to it, since it is an individualist philosophy. The fact that hedonism answers back many common debate moral philosophies like utilitarianism, deontology, and others, makes it useful; but also shows that there is a lot of disagreement with it. This is a difficult topic to find support for and is a topic in which finding answers to it is relatively easy. What follows are ideas on how you could use the philosophies of Aristippus, but be wary, because they will not be easy to support in a debate round. First, the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and hedonism philosophies are usually used as moral justifications. However, the categorical imperative and the utilitarianism approaches are most often at odds with the hedonistic, self-centered philosophies. (Lester 1999). John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham broke away from the Cyrenaic School’s egoistic hedonism, forming the philosophy of utilitarianism, a universalistic hedonism, thus making Aristippus’ philosophy of hedonism a sound response to theirs. Whereas utilitarianism argues for the “greatest good for the greatest number;” Aristippus’ hedonism argues for the “greatest good for the individual” where good is defined as pleasure. Whereas utilitarianism looks to consequences, Aristippus’ hedonism (like deontology) looks only to the present. Second, just as Aristippus answers moralistic philosophies, his philosophy also answers religious and spiritual justifications. As mentioned earlier, he followed Socrates in not supporting institutionalized religion, but beyond that, spiritual and religious philosophies often seek repression of pleasure such as repression of sexuality and indulgence. His philosophy of egoistic hedonism promotes immediate pleasure seeking while maintaining ethical limits through self-control and good judgment. Third, Aristippus could be used to argue against nationalism, the law, or state rule, as these forms of authority and coercion inevitably impinge on an individual’s freedom to experience pleasure. If your value is pleasure and your criterion is freedom, you can argue that a specific law, form of governance, or type of social control extends a system of coercion and authority that threatens an individual’s freedom to experience pleasure. You would use Aristippus and the Cyrenaic School’s theories on egoistic hedonism to argue that such an extension is immoral. Finally, hedonism can be used to argue against Hobbes’ social contract. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, “all individuals are depraved, brutish, totally self-centered, and interested only in their own survival and pleasure” (Wellborn 1999). However, Aristippus would argue that the state of nature is good, because it lacks government control and manipulation, which prevents pleasure seeking. The social contract limits pleasure, which is bad since according to Aristippus, pleasure seeking should be the end goal of all actions and therefore it is a moral right. Of course, you may be wondering how you are going to define pleasure, i.e. what counts as good and what counts as bad for the contentions supporting your value of hedonism. Likewise, you may be wondering how you would calculate pleasure for your criterion. You could look to Bentham (1748-1832), one of the followers of Aristippus, who decided to make hedonism measurable. Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus argues that there are four measures of the intrinsic value of an individual experience: First, intensity signifies the degree of pleasure or pain. Second, duration denotes how long the feelings last. Next, certainty measures the likelihood to receive the feelings. Finally, propinquity is a measure of the effort to achieve that feeling-state of pleasure. He argues that there are two measures of the instrumental value of an individual experience: Fecundity measures the probability of the pleasurable experience being followed by additional sensations of the same kind; whereas, purity measures the probability of it not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Finally, Bentham argues that there is one measure of the social dimension of experience, which is extent, to determine the number of people affected by the pleasure. (Graber) Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|