Posts by Don

All of these use some form of ἀπολαύσεις, and, from my perspective, have to have similar connotations among themselves. I've used the English gloss "enjoy" but am not satisfied with that as any kind of best solution. I've also added some inline commentary, basically thinking out loud...

Letter to Menoikeus 124

A correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life ἀπολαυστὸν (enjoyable).

(We enjoy all that life has to offer, we are grateful for the benefit we gain from being alive.)

Letter to Menoikeus 130

firmly persuaded that those who need luxury the least ἀπολαύουσιν (they enjoy) it the most,

(They can get enjoyment from having the benefit of partaking in luxuries)

Letter to Menoikeus 131

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people and those in ἀπολαύσει κειμένας (lit., those lying in enjoying),

(I find the 'lying in repose in enjoyment' intriguing, but I'm still not entirely sold. Especially now in light of the other uses. "those embedded in enjoying..." I don't know.)

Letter to Menoikeus 132

and ἀπολαύσεις (enjoying) boys/slaves and women

(enjoying the benefits of boys/slaves and women??)

VS27

Whereas other pursuits yield their fruit only to those who have practiced them to perfection; in the love and practice of wisdom, knowledge is accompanied by delight; for here ἀπόλαυσις (enjoyment) does not follow learning; but learning and ἀπόλαυσις (enjoyment) occur at the same time. (A more literal translation)

It's also instructive to see where Epicurus uses the word positively and where he gives it a negative connotation:

LM124, 130, and VS27 are positive statements (i.e., απολαυσισ should be pursued)

LM131 and 132 are negative statements (i.e., απολαυσισ should be avoided)

Why is απολαυσισ not what Epicurus means by pleasure when it's paired with κειμενας?

What is negative about ἀπολαύσεις with boys/slaves and women?

Per LSJ: απολαυω has the connotation of "enjoy," but more specifically "have enjoyment of a thing, have the benefit of it"

Also, I remain unconvinced that παίδων necessarily refers to "boys." In the plural, it can mean "children" in general but is also a common word for "slave." Enslaved people and women were members of Epicurus's school, in contrast to other philosophical schools. I need to resolve the ambiguity of ἀπολαύσεις before I'll be satisfied with simply accepting the translation sense of "having sex with boys and women." That sounds anti-sex, and Epicurus couldn't comprehend "The Good" without the pleasures of sex, etc.

P.S.: I may have to accept the ambiguity... but I'm not willing to throw in the towel quite yet. Although, I recognize this has taken on a slight tinge of obsession here.

Quote from Cassius

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between desire and choice and avoidance and pleasure and it's probably time to go back into that subject, because I am not sure we ever clarified it, and I agree that would help. How does "desire" differ from "choose to pursue" or even just "choose?"

We can choose to pursue or reject a desire.

We cannot choose whether or not something feels good, ie, evokes pleasure.

Still VERY much a work in progress but...

I'm seeing απολαυσις and its derivatives as:

- Taking pleasure or enjoyment in something to which you feel entitled to do so since you have "worked for it," in the broadest sense.

Or something like that.

This, to me, dovetails with what Elli is saying the modern sense of the word is:

Quote from Elli

e.g. I enjoy special privileges. ~ I enjoy of great esteem / I enjoy trust - I am well esteemed, I am highly respected.

Thus, there is no need "to fight" to enjoy of being trusted and well esteemed!

Quote

Slaves were often called pais (‘boy’/‘girl’) and its diminutives paidion, paidarion and paidiskē. These words express paternalistic views of slaves and their equivalence to minors in the family, but the slaves thus described are not necessarily children (e.g. Lysias 1.12). Therefore, these words too must be studied in context. The pais-words, especially the vocative form, ‘pai’, often have a demeaning shade. As words referring to the domestic scene they are most frequently used in comedy (Mactoux 1980: 156–157). In Graeco-Roman Egypt these words were used mainly in private documents, whose addressees knew the legal status of the persons so called; in official documents other terms are generally found.

11 12

Greek and Roman Terminologies of Slavery

The Greeks had no single generic term for ‘slave’, but a variety of terms for diverse relations of dependence and unfree people, many of which were also used…

www.academia.edu

I just realized Epicurus also uses ἀπολαυστὸν in the letter in line 124:

ὅθεν γνῶσις ὀρθὴ τοῦ μηθὲν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν θάνατον ἀπολαυστὸν ποιεῖ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς θνητόν,

I've translated that was simply:

"So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable:"

But it's not just "enjoyable", it's fully taking advantage of the time that is available between birth and death.

So, 124, 130, 131, and 132 all need to be read in relation to each other to get at the meaning in 131. Which both complicates the process and makes it more interesting.

Quote from stpeter

Preliminary and somewhat poetic modification: I think I'll change "the enjoyment of sleep" to "lying in a bed of desire", which echoes the roundabout wording in the original Greek.

In going back - again - to the Greek wording and the text itself, I can see how this is a viable solution.

I find it interesting that the two groups singled out specifically would be the prodigals and those who "lying in a bed" among sensual pleasures. The one of the specific activities is ... (looks at screen... looks back at line 131... looks at line 132....)

I JUST SAW THIS... BY ZEUS!! I've completely overlooked the key!!! Just now, I went back to look at the Greek...

Here's what it says in 131:

οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας

"not the pleasures of the prodigals AND (nor) [our *&%#@ mystery phrase here!]

THIS is what it says in 132...

οὐδ’ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν

nor ἀπολαύσεις of boys/children/slaves and women (I prefer to use the "slaves" connotation)

Anything look similar in those two phrases!!!????

οὐδ᾽ἀπολαύσεις is usually translated as "nor the act of enjoying, nor the taking pleasure in…"

THE SAME WORD is used in both places in the Greek! They have to be connected!

I have to process this. I can't believe I overlooked this until right now!! For now, here is the section in my translation/commentary on the mention in 132:

ἀπολαύσεις

In translations of the Letter I have seen, οὐδ᾽ἀπολαύσεις is always given a straightforward sexual meaning:

"not sexual love" (Hicks)

"sexual enjoyment" (Epicurus Wiki)

"enjoying [boys and women]" (Saint-Andre)

"enjoyment (of female society)" (Yonge)

"sexual pleasures (with boys and women)" (DeWitt)

"satisfaction of lusts" (Bailey)

ἀπολαύσεις, according to LSJ, doesn't have this sexual connotation by itself. I'll admit that it could be here within the context of this passage. My contention is that Epicurus is getting at a deeper, more nuanced point. ἀπολαύω does have to do with enjoying something (or someone, in this case), but it seems to also include a sense of taking advantage or taking benefit from something (or someone). I can't necessarily vouch for the authority of a website by Georgios Babiniotis, but the etymology he gives of the word implies something taken as booty. Translated into English, Babiniotis states "it is a delight that comes from an acquisition that has been preceded by conflict, an exercise of violence that offers the joy of fruition and power." So that idea of taking enjoyment in something you feel entitled to or that you can take advantage of with impunity underlies the word Epicurus decided to use. It's not just a sexual meaning. So, in light of all that, I would advocate translating that phrase as "not taking advantage of slaves (or boys) and women," Admittedly, it's most often likely advantage for sex, but the translation for which I'm advocating expands that sense. For me, this fits into the egalitarian ethos of the Garden in which slaves and women took active roles in the life of the school. People who took advantage of these members of society - who were most often seen by ancient Greek society as the lowest, least important members - would be going against the equality of opportunity that the Garden professed. From my perspective, this also seems to fit with the characteristic of the sage shared by Diogenes Laertius: γυναικί τ᾽ οὐ μιγήσεσθαι τὸν σοφὸν ᾗ οἱ νόμοι ἀπαγορεύουσιν "The wise one will not establish a sexual relationship in a way that is against the law or forbidden by custom." Now, I know ancient "law or custom" is a wide spectrum, but I'm using that as the translation for νόμοι. In the end, my perspective is that ἀπολαύσεις - yet again - demonstrates the inadequacy of relying on a single translator or translation and not digging into the original Greek.

Welcome aboard, stpeter !!

Quote from Cassius

there is nothing bad in any pleasure or virtue in itself except the *unlimited* pursuit of that activity,

I don't know if I agree with your implying there is only one exception: "the *unlimited* pursuit of that activity"

And I really don't think I agree with with your addition of "or virtue" there. Can't articulate my objection right now, but it's there.

As for pursuit, I go back to the measure of natural justice being "to neither harm nor to be harmed." If something that gives you pleasure that you do harms others, it would be better not to pursue that desire. Your community will sanction you for that.

There's also the continuing push-pull of pleasure vs desire. All pleasure may be good in itself, but that's definitely not true at all for every desire for pleasures. I think we have to be very careful of whether we need to use "pleasure" or "desire" in these kinds of discussions.

Quote from Cassius

no pleasure is bad in itself,

... Yes, but some pleasures are not choiceworthy.

Quote from Elli

With this "sensual" we're going against to this which says: ALL pleasures are good (and those that are kinetic and the spiritual ones which, the spiritual, are just more intense).

I found to my english lexicon: sensual pleasure (physical, sensuous enjoyment). And an example in a sentence: "He often experienced a sensual pleasure when eating a chocolate cake". It is not an evil thing eating a chocolate cake i.e. the kinetic pleasures lead to the spiritual ones and vice versa. So, all pleasures are good!

I agree: All pleasures are good. The problem is when people like the Cyrenaics limit themselves to *only* the pleasures experienced from the senses. They are denying themselves the "spiritual" ones, as you call them.

Of course, it's not evil to eat chocolate cake! I'll be the first to agree to that. However, it would be unfortunate to deny that the memory of that chocolate cake is pleasure, too.

I don't see any justification for DeWitt's "high living" other than if we take it to be a paraphrase of *only* taking pleasure in "endless strings of drinking parties and festivals, only taking advantage of slaves and women, and only eating at extravagant tables of fish and other things." Epicurus calls us to the FULL spectrum of pleasure, including those of the senses AND those of the mind/soul/spirit.

Okay, it's not Lucretius, but I thought the US Poet Laureate's poem to be inscribed on the Europa Clipper spaceship to Jupiter's moon evokes that wonder of nature that Epicurus talks about when he says "such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole."

Enjoy this rendition from NASA from the Poet Laureate herself, Ada Limón:

Can humans ever understand how animals think?

The long read: A flood of new research is overturning old assumptions about what animal minds are and aren’t capable of – and changing how we think about our…

www.theguardian.com

We've spoken a number of times on this forum and the podcast about looking to animals to understand the fundamental importance of pleasure and pain in the lives of all beings. This is a fascinating article about the minds of animals and if we can ever understand them.

Pertinent to our work here:

Quote

Among humans, the ability to sacrifice immediate pleasure for future gain is called resisting temptation, and is taken as a sign of maturity. But De Waal shows that even birds are capable of it. In one experiment, an African grey parrot named Griffin was taught that if he resisted the urge to eat a serving of cereal, he would be rewarded after an unpredictable interval with food he liked better, such as cashew nuts. The bird was able to hold out 90% of the time, devising ways to distract himself by talking, preening his feathers, or simply throwing the cup of cereal across the room. Such behaviours, De Waal notes, are quite similar to what human children do in the face of temptation.

I'm using my translation with addition of "those situated in sensual pleasures" but I'm not 100% sold on that phrasing. I just had to get it in there. Still working on a revision of the full document before uploading a new version.

I wanted to break this down into its embedded phrases to see, and I am proposing this is how the argument goes when its all disentangled and re-arranged:

"Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say (1) the pleasure of those who are prodigal and (2)those situated in sensual pleasures like (A) those who are ignorant, (B) those who don't agree with us, or (C) those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. [132] For it is not (i) an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and (ii) not taking advantage of slaves and women, (iii) nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble."

Breaking it down:

Those ignorant or opposed to the philosophy of Epicurus:

(1) those who are prodigal

(A) (are) those who are ignorant

(2) those situated in sensual pleasures

(B) (are) those who don't agree with us

(C) (and) those who believe wrongly

Activities of those ignorant or opposed:

(i) endless strings of drinking parties and festivals

(ii) taking advantage of slaves and women

(iii) extravagant tables of fish and other things

What does Epicurus mean when he says "Pleasure is the telos"?

...whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind, bringing forth a sweet life, and self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.

For those curious: those verses and music at the end after they Epitaph of Seikilos:

Seikilos epitaph - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's Luke Ranieri singing it in several historical pronunciations, including modern Greek:

Quote from Cassius

But it's not the **only** and as Torquatus said it appears the later Epicureans (and I think Epicurus himself too) decided that for multiple reasons we cannot abandon the field of logic and philosophy itself to the pin-head Platonists. So if we are going to argue for pleasure on philosophic grounds, we have to have rigorous and bullet-proof logical statement of how all this fits together.

You keep using the word "logic" and I think we have to narrow down our terms. As I understand it, Epicurus's opposition was to Socratic-style dialectic, διαλεκτικός, defined by LSJ as "dialectic, discussion by question and answer, invented by Zeno of Elea, Arist.Fr.65; philosophical method." He didn't want to walk around, endlessly debating what things meant. He wanted to point to nature and declare, "There! Right there! **That** is what we mean (or should mean) when we say X." In that sense, I think he was "dogmatic" in the sense of taking a stand, planting his flag, and torpedoes be damned.

Now, he took those assertions and inferred larger points from them, but, as a starting point, he pointed to - what he saw as - the foundational meaning of words as phenomena existing in Nature and treated them as axioms as we might say. "An axiom is a proposition in mathematics and epistemology that is taken to be self-evident or is chosen as a starting point of a theory."

Later Epicureans got cold feet and got intimidated by other schools and their fancy arguments. I think Epicurus stood his ground as to the self-evident nature of his assertions on what was meant by pleasure, and the gods for that matter.

Quote from Cassius

Were Emily Austin to say "I think Epicurus was right -- look at what babies do! - I rest my case" and close her book and sit down for the rest of the semester, she would likely be in very hot water, and probably not satisfied with herself either

That strikes me as a reductio ad absurdum. Epicurus didn't stop at his assertion, but used it as a foundation upon which to build.

As an aside: Having been on the recording side of this podcast episode, I want to give public ΚΥΔΟΣ (kudos) to Cassius for a masterful editing job on this one! Well done!

The issue/concern I have with the limits notion is that, from Epicurus's perspective, the Cyrenaics were limiting their pleasure too much by not accepting mental pleasure into their definition.

The prodigals were giving into unlimited desires.

The Cyrenaics were limiting their sources of pleasure.

And as Lisa Feldman Barrett has said, there is never a moment when you're not feeling some kind of affect. In other words, you're never not feeling a feeling... Unless you're dead.

There literally is no neutral state.

Quote from Cassius

"the happy life cannot mount the scaffold to the wheel"

I've given that some extra thought. Joshua also helped me understand this during the recording. I'll admit it's still a little obscure. Here's my summary so far:

- It is in response to the idea that the "The wise one will have a sense of fulfillment (eudaimonia) even on the rack."

- The "mount" is not "attach" but rather "climb a set of steps" as in to mount a horse.

- One mounts the steps to the scaffold to be hung.

- The torture wheel is not up a set of stairs so you don't climb stairs to the wheel.

- Joshua also brought up that maybe you have to willingly walk up steps but can be dragged to the wheel and strapped to it.

Like I said, still obscure, but like Cassius I wanted to preserve our thoughts.

PS. LOL... Or maybe it does mean you can't attach two torture devices together and still be happy. I really don't know!