Posts by Godfrey

I haven't seen this before, and I particularly like it as well!

Don you're creating a useful resource. Carry on!

Quote

...we need to extend the principles and do a lot more discussion on the emotions at a very basic level.

Exactly. I think that it's ultimately of limited use to try to dissect an individual emotion but is of great value to understand the factors which contribute to various emotions. For example a proper understanding that death is nothing to us has an underlying relationship to particular instances of grief, among other things. Understanding the nature of desire has an underlying relationship to envy, among other things. And so on. It seems to me that examining the nature of things as contributing factors is where the useful discussion can occur. This discussion could be carried out with regard to factors underlying particular emotions in particular instances, however I've found that just increasing my understanding of nature, pleasure and desire has gone a long way toward making me a "happier" person.

Returning to the initial post in this thread, I think it's instructive to compare EP to the Stoics. Stoicism involves (often miserable) mental training practices to prepare one for future adverse situations. In contrast, Epicurean practices involve training in understanding the underlying "nature of things": by having this understanding, the Epicurean removes some underlying causes of painful emotions and is therefore free to experience both painful and pleasurable emotions more fully.

To my limited understanding, fear is an underlying contributor to anger. So removing fear where appropriate is much more therapeutic than trying to decipher whether a particular form or degree of anger is "okay" or not. Removing fear goes deeper in that it works to transform a person from an "angry person" to a "not so angry person". But anger is by no means the only emotion. We would also need to deal with sadness, grief, depression, longing, envy and on and on. And what about positive emotions?

The primary fears are considered to be those of the gods and of death. Next comes a proper understanding of pleasure and pain. These are addressed in PD 1-4. We have the rather glib tetrapharmakos, but I'm speculating that the Epicurean theory of the emotions is based on these four doctrines and that they were further developed in writings lost to us and in life, with frank speech, in the Garden. A deep and voluminous subject on this forum is the proper understanding of pleasure which goes way beyond "pleasure is easy to obtain". I'm wondering if similar depth of study in all of PD 1-4 isn't where the Epicurean theory and therapy of the emotions lies.

I totally agree: once one gets a proper understanding of the philosophy it makes the idealist viewpoint look silly.

Have to point out though that one needn't be young and healthy and vibrant to benefit!

Which leads me to the rumination that perhaps EP is a particularly nice fit for one who is older. Not only does life experience provide additional verification, but there's a certain joy in aging well which meshes nicely with EP. And as the end gets nearer it's nice to have your facts straight.

Just finished listening. This one was a particularly good discussion. Thanks to all involved!

Exactly.

If I'm not mistaken I originally found this essay on Peter Saint-Andres Monadnock page and therefore expected it to be in agreement with Epicurus/Lucretius (it's no longer there, not sure why). Imagine my surprise as I worked my way through it!

I lump this essay with 1) Plato's Philebus and 2) the various statements condemning atomism as impossible and ridiculous. These belong to a group that is so obviously biased and mistaken that the only value in reading them is to strengthen, by contrast, one's conviction regarding feeling and science. Otherwise it's a waste of time (although Philebus does have value to the extent that it prompted a response from Epicurus).

Yesterday I gave George Santayana's Lucretius essay a quick read. (http://monadnock.net/santayana/lucretius.html)

It had a few good observations, but was quite hostile toward Epicurus. It occurs to me that it's a great example of the conclusions one might reach if considering EP to be "tranquilism". Maybe the most pertinent quote is:

"Epicurus had been a pure and tender moralist, but pusillanimous. He was so afraid of hurting and of being hurt, so afraid of running risks or tempting fortune, that he wished to prove that human life was a brief business, not subject to any great transformations, nor capable of any great achievements".

The essay is full of similar drivel. Reading the essay makes me suspect that Santayana hadn't the courage to live in the world which Epicurus so aptly described. But I know nothing more of Santayana.

You're welcome! After reading that wiki page, I'm thinking that I might watch it again. This time for any philosophical tidbits in addition to the oddball black humor.

A more pleasant practice, aside from Josh's, is semi-regular viewing of the movie Harold and Maude. I haven't watched it in a long, long time though so I'm not aware of where it falls on the philosophical spectrum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_Maude

A more pleasant practice, aside from Josh's, is semi-regular viewing of the movie Harold and Maude. I haven't watched it in a long, long time though so I'm not aware of where it falls on the philosophical spectrum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_Maude

This may be a bit of a detour, but the attached article on the invocation of Venus in Lucretius is a brief discussion of religion among the early Epicureans. This is the only thing that I've read on the subject other than what's in DeWitt; my main takeaway (as someone with minimal knowledge of early Greek and Roman religion) is the importance of understanding context in interpreting ancient doctrines. DeWitt's book is very good at addressing the philosophical context of Epicurus, but this points to a different subject of context.

It also touches on early practices and might have some relevance to other threads involving practice.

The article doesn't address blessedness or imperishability, but does perhaps offer some additional context to the discussion.

There's a doctrine by doctrine commentary starting here:

http://wiki.epicurism.info/Principal_Doctrine_1/

And from there you can navigate to other texts.

Also this page links to translations:

https://duckduckgo.com/?sites=monadno…picurus+&ia=web

It includes notes on translation but not commentary.

And in this forum there are subforums for the doctrines and other texts, but the amount of commentary varies. That's a great place for discussion though.

This is an intriguing topic.... I personally discovered Epicurus while pursuing Stoicism, and for quite some time was searching for Epicurean "spiritual exercises" along the lines of some of the Stoic practices. I also spent a number of years sitting with my neighborhood Zen group, which encouraged formal practice.

Currently I've abandoned all of these. I'm finding much more pleasure and fulfillment in studying nature, science, some philosophy, some history.... The joy of this, for me, is in learning more about the world and my place in it. And interestingly, it all started through studying Epicurus: how his philosophy relates to other philosophies, to science, to history. Epicurus mentioned in the letter to Herodotus that he got great pleasure from his study of natural philosophy (I paraphrase) and I'm finding that to be true for me.

Regarding death, I'm finding that there's no fear there. It's a fact of life; the more I see the bigger scientific and historical picture, the less there is to fear in death. Not that I'm looking forward to it!

But Eugenios your post is intriguing. It would be interesting to know more about various Epicurean practices. I think many of them probably pertained to life in the garden, while those of us today don't have such a community and have (I imagine) a wide variety of life and work circumstances in which we study and practice. People have posted in other threads about types of daily practices they follow; I'm not aware of anyone following a mindfulness of death practice however.

Lately I've been thinking that "we have a pleasure attraction/ pain aversion guidance system" might be less confusing than "pleasure is the goal" in the culture we currently inhabit.

As you (and Epicurus) frequently emphasize, Cassius, the details must be seen in the context of the overall philosophy. Wording similar to what I'm suggesting might help to remind one of that context.

Hiram, I find this DL quote interesting for a couple of reasons:

1) It states that tranquility (not cheerfulness) is the goal and opposes that to pleasure

2) By implication of this contrast and Democritus' exposure to the east, it potentially contrasts pleasure with Buddhism or similar philosophies.

However there's a lot to sort out, and this particular topic is new to me. Can you recommend any sources where I could pursue this further?

I've been following her blog for a few months. Her main focus is joy in terms of environment and design, but whether she's aware of it or not a lot of her research seems to parallel Epicurus.

A blog post of some pertinence, it would seem:

https://www.aestheticsofjoy.com/2020/02/7-emot…re-joyful-life/

Particular sections of note to me are "Emotion versus reason is a fiction" and "The body leads" which I found to be nice takes on the subservience of reason and a first person description of the Canon, respectively. Written by a non-Epicurean as far as I know.

Exactly. That's why this quote seems to me to be a useful counterpoint to the Epicurean position. Epicurus would say "the goal is pleasure, which is not identical to tranquility, as some have mistakenly understood it to be." And proceed from there to replace Democritus' description of tranquility with his own description of pleasure as we often discuss it.

That quote was from the Hicks translation; here's the same quote from the Pamela Mensch version:

Quote

The goal is tranquillity, which is not identical to pleasure, as some have mistakenly understood it to be, but a state in which the soul proceeds calmly and steadily, untroubled by any fear or superstition or any other emotion. This he calls well-being and gives it many other names.

This touches on the problems of fragments, context and translation. This is all there is on this subject in DL. Judging by these two versions "any other emotion" is the intent, not just painful emotions. But it's not much to go on.

In the same section DL says Democritus, in his travels, may have associated with the Gymnosophists in India (an ascetic sect). I'm wildly speculating here, but could it be that Demo developed an affinity for Eastern philosophies of the time, which Epicurus was equally responding against? I've read the occasional article on the cross-fertilization of Greek and India but have no idea as to the validity of any of this.