Posts by Eoghan Gardiner
Listen to the latest Lucretius Today Podcast! Episode 225 is now available. Cicero Argues That A Commitment To Virtue Is A Bar to Pleasure.
-
-
Social media too, if you want to be filled with anxiety about your weight, finances etc... spending an hour on insta or tiktok is a great way to achieve it.
Some anxiety is your conscience warning you of possible pain in the future. Of course things on the internet can often be "over the top" and annoying.
Yet these are practical issues...when is comes to weight, modern medicine gives tips for a range of what is considered a healthy weight based on height and gender. As for finances, it is important to consider your long-term situation, and thus relieve the anxiety by brainstorming solutions to any improvements that are needed and thus increase confidence in a sense of long-term security ...and this includes knowing which friend or family member would let you sleep on their couch if things went really wrong for whatever reason (but hopefully you've got all bases covered so nothing really wrong will ever happen).
Yeah some anxiety can be useful to avoid future pains (obviously we don't want anxiety at all but none of us has reached Epicurean Theosis yet )
I guess the anxiety I was referring too was more seeing men who are on enhancement drugs and comparing or hundred millionaire lifestyles etc.. My anxiety was caused by unnatural and unnecessary desires rather than natural and necessary ones as you mentioned! Thank you for helping me clarify my own thoughts.
-
I can confidently give one recommendation — do not watch television! I was fortunate enough to grow up in a house without television and I sill keep a far distance from it just as I would for any other screaming lunatic. Life IS easy and great — but your TV will argue against this fact!
Social media too, if you want to be filled with anxiety about your weight, finances etc... spending an hour on insta or tiktok is a great way to achieve it.
-
Contents
What is it?
This book of the Bible is in the Jewish scripture aka the Christian Old Testament. It's genre is wisdom literature, it's purpose is to share insights into life. It's author traditionally has been King Solomon but that is almost certainly not the case.
Below are some examples of potential Epicurean themes.
- Enjoyment of Pleasures:
- Ecclesiastes 2:24-25: "There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? Clearly mention of God is not Epicurean in this verse due to God's being directly involved...Also it's generalized assessment of what is best for every person.
- Rejection of Excessive Labor for Material Gain:
- Ecclesiastes 5:10: "He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity." - Unnatural and unnecessary desire?
- Emphasis on the Present Moment:
- Ecclesiastes 3:22: "So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?" This one is a bit of a reach "for that is his lot" seems a bit deterministic but I could see the rejoicing while working as freedom from pain = highest pleasure
- Acknowledgment of Life's Uncertainties:
- Ecclesiastes 9:11-12: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. For man does not know his time."
Maybe there are more well known examples and clearly this has much more of a religious influence then an Epicurean.
Other books of the Bible
I often found it funny reading the Song of Songs when I was in a monastery, a book clearly about passionate sex between lovers being studied by men (and women) who have taking vows of celibacy.
Anyway here are some verses.
Quote- Song of Solomon 1:2:
- "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine."
- Song of Solomon 1:13:
- "My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."
- Song of Solomon 4:5:
- "Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that graze among the lilies."
- Song of Solomon 4:16:
- "Awake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread everywhere. Let my beloved come into his garden and taste its choice fruits."
- Song of Solomon 7:1-2:
- "How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies
Now the song of songs itself has no Epicurean influence on it as far as I know BUT why I share it is this.
Two of the three books in the old testament dedicated to Wisdom have such an emphasis on Pleasure* and indeed even in the other wisdom book Proverbs there is signs of this too...
Quote
Proverbs 27:9: "Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel."*Even the wisest writers of a religious text knew that pleasure and wisdom go hand in hand...perhaps the Authors were hinting at the Epicurean truth, you can't have one without the other.
Overall I wrote this thread with this question in mind
Should we try to study Ecclesiastes from an Epicurean POV? Has it been done previously?
- Enjoyment of Pleasures:
-
-
Can't Catholics (to take one example) not find joy in memories of past times and friends?
If a Christian of any stripe is **convinced** in their bones that they'll be livin' with Jesus after they die (albeit erroneously, may I add), maybe we could describe them as being free from the anxiety of death.
I don't have much to add but just for the sake of it, Catholics can NEVER be free from anxiety of hell\gods punishment because it is sinful to have "absolute certainty" of your salvation and you may only have a "moral" (lol) certainty. If you read the lives of some saints a lot of them die thinking they committed the sin of presumption so even though they lived a monastery and lived a life of sanctifying grace, they still die with anxiety of death and punishment. Shaking my head vigorously as I type this.
Not to get into the fact that Catholics saints caution against having "particular" friendships, so I don't even think they could think of happy times...also finding joy in anything except for the sake of God is imperfect.
Of course today most catholics are cultural, they do the ceremonies and go to mass maybe at Christmas but don't allow the Church any hold over them...I think Epicurus or one of the Epicureans said to appear at the local religious festivities but you don't really have to believe...I could be misremembering. Anyway another catholic rant, apologies.
-
Overall, pleasure just has a terrible reputation, for some reason even non religious friends of mine do not desire to admit pleasure is the highest good.
Perhaps this is because when first impulses are followed instead of the wise consideration of choices and avoidances, an individual may end up with a unpleasant result.
Great point. What happens is after a good length of time choosing pleasures which lead to more pains, the person grows disillusioned. They are then introduced to Stoicism\Islam\Christianity\newage\Buddhism and because of the many restrictions of those belief systems it leads to a life of less pain and overall more pleasure due to the removal of the pleasures which led to greater pains (whatever they were for the person)
Quote5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the person is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.
Most of these beliefs also lead to practicing some form of Virtue Ethics (8 fold path, Decalogue, Shariah etc..) which makes life more pleasurable or is conducive to long term pleasure.
I guess what I am trying to say is that they are beguiled by the belief system when really all that has happened is they are more careful with their hedonic calculation.
-
all of these points have been mentioned but...
- Pleasure is something we don't need to reason to determine it's worth, the experience of pleasure shows that by it's very presence in us.
Quote
8. No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.- All choices we make ultimately move toward our pleasure. Whether we choose rightly is another issue.
- To be asked "why would you want to experience pleasure" is almost redundant, it's like being asked why do you want to have fresh air or why do you want functioning mind.
- We don't need to be convinced of pleasure, rather we are usually taught that pleasure is bad and some other thing is good.
Overall, pleasure just has a terrible reputation, for some reason even non religious friends of mine do not desire to admit pleasure is the highest good. Sometimes they exchange the word with happiness, wellbeing, fulfillment etc.. Sometimes it's the all encompassing "good person" alternative.
All these quasi Christian and Stoic influencers in the world don't help either, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Russell Brand etc...have such a large affect on the younger generations 18-45 and commonly preach pleasure is bad. Anyway small tangent.
-
-
The "feelings" of pleasure and pain are πάθη (pathē).
The "senses", perceptions, sense-perceptions, sensations (including mental perceptions) are αἴσθησις (aisthēsis).
Two different words, two different connotations.
We can't decide whether something is pleasurable or painful. It's immediate, pre-rational.
αἴσθησις is also the word used in PD2. It also can refer to "consciousness" in general.
very useful thank you
-
I’d like to add that, at the other end of the spectrum, one can have such a closed-fist mind that all they have is conviction: their “truth” is the only acceptable “truth,” must be all the “truth” and nothing but the “truth.” Evolving evidence be damned. (For example, certain scriptural-literalist religious fundamentalists.) The possibility of alternative explanations (ala Epicurus) rejected out of hand.
Guilty.
-
This brought to my mind the following question:
How much did Epicurus "borrow" from the existing cultural and philosophical environment and "adapt" into his philosophy?
We know Epicurus didn't blink into existence and seal himself inside a hermetically tight Garden. What ideas did he pick up from simply growing up and developing his ideas in Samos, Ionia, Asia Minor, and Athens? How did he take existing ideas and use and adapt them? There have to be some.
I am sure these 2 are obvious to everyone here but I will throw them out there to start the conversation
and
Aristippus and the Cyrenaics have a book devoted to them called "The birth of Hedonism". There is a famous story of Socrates trying to tell Aristippus to go easy with partying and women but he didn't listen. (Story could be legend)
Democritus is the father of Atomism.
-
To start with here is two definitions of Eclecticism:
Quote- the practice of deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources. "the eclecticism of his work consciously reflects his upbringing"
- 2. PHILOSOPHY the theories or methods of the ancient Eclectic philosophers, who did not belong to or found any recognized school of thought but selected doctrines from various schools of thought. "there was a double movement going on, towards Eclecticism on the one side, and towards Scepticism on the other side"
Some famous examples throughout history are:
- Hellenistic Jews: Similar to Catholics, took many concepts from Greeks and implemented them into their religion.
- Catholics and Eastern Orthodox: Aristotle and Plato respectively is a the foundation of both these massive religions metaphysical ground work, transubstantiation, the view that when the Priest says the words of consecration the substance of the bread is "converted" to the body of Christ and by "natural accompaniment the blood, soul and divinity are also present comes directly from Aristotle accidents and substances.
- Neo Platonism: Although I am unaware of any person directly speaking of this in a academic paper or book (there may be I am just unaware) Neo Platonism takes from Plato and has many similarities to the Vedic schools. ( I should say Plotinus wouldn't have called himself a Neoplatonist but just a Platonist, it's the mix of the Vedic schools that's the Eclectic part)
- Mindfulness - Neo Buddhism: The Idea that you can insert mindfulness into any religion, philosophy, cooperate meeting, sports event while forgoing the tradition behind the practice (and the point of the practice)
- Modern Stoicism: Takes the ethical part of the ancient Stoics world view but everything else is replaced by either Christianity, Islam et al or by some atheistic movement.
Is it a problem for Epicurean Philosophy?
What is being spoken about with this question is this. Is Epicurean philosophy lacking in any of it's 3 main parts - Physics, Canon and Ethics so that it needs to be supplemented with another philosophy or practice?
What is not being spoken about is whether we should take Epicurus physics directly as true and ignore any modern scientific discovery and advancements. Obviously we update as we go, just as Epicurus would.
Many people take bits and pieces of neo-Epicureanism - asceticism, "enjoying cheese", simple pleasures but ignore the entire corpus left behind and being spoke about today, missing the entire reason Epicurus spoke about pleasure to begin with.
So what is the danger or benefit to people committed to saying "Epicurus was more or less right about everything related to living and nature"?
The most obvious one is losing identity all together. A personal anecdote from living in a monastery in the Catholic Church is that it wasn't Catholic. They were practically Buddhists that said Mass.
Has eclecticism influenced your EP? Do you think it's beneficial, what do you think the dangers are?
-
I have read a few humanists popular works, from a purely lay mans point of view, humanism really falls into the trap of using reason to the neglect of all else i.e. emotional intelligence, feelings, our senses etc..
Which from my conversation both online and in person with humanists leads to either a utilitarian greater good end goal or some abstract goal such as "freedom, peace, joy". Which leads to the question "what exactly does that look like for you?" in the end instead of being grounded on our immanent reality it once again leads to a goal which is in the sky in the intelligible realm.
It also places once again too much stress on humanity and somewhat divinizes us but that's minor, what I mean though is that it doesn't treat us like the animals we are and misses the mark of what our Good truly is, pleasure.
Now overall humanists are fine it isn't to bash them, although one final critique is that humanism really has no fire underneath it, it doesn't really challenge the theist or the atheist it's just kind of there. Epicurean philosophy at the very least challenges both the theist and the atheist, the former to stop forgoing their pleasure for some unseen post death bliss and the latter by truly asking them to find "meaning" in pleasure. (Many atheists my age become nihilists or super skeptics)
Anyway just some unrefined thoughts.
Edit: I also am in general not a fan of eclecticism (which humanism is in a lot of it's forms), perhaps a topic worth discussing Cassius? Can't find another thread directly on it..
-
-
In case you're interested:
Thanks for sharing this Don, it's your own blog?
Interesting on the sexual relationships
Quote
epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passionsIs this to say that they will not give into an urge but will carefully use their practical reason to weigh whether having sex will amount to more pleasure or pain? (obvious mention the act itself will be pleasurable) or is it saying the Epicurean Sage will forgo sex all together?
-
-
-
-
The idea with this meme is that the middle guy thinks the guy on the left is an idiot for his simplistic view, only to have a "high iq or enlightened" person (hence to robes) to the right to agree with the person on the left.