New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I would characterize the "answers" that ChatGPT gives as glorified versions of the Magic 8 Ball with simply a larger repertoire of available responses.
For those younger readers:
At least the haruspex was relying on their own experience and interpretive "skills" when looking for "signs" in sacrificial entrails. 
(Not an endorsement of haruspicy btw).
Perhaps the biggest danger is that somehow any human being might be tempted to give ChatGPT some kind of "authority status" and to somehow think that it is smarter than any human being.
For example, if you had to "weigh" this:-- Kalosyni says "xyz" vs ChatGPT says "xyz"
It is possible that some people out there would give more credit to ChatGPT?
This is an excellent point!! That "authority status" is a real problem, especially in people accepting a "good enough" answer and moving on, heedless that they've been given a response entirely void of intellect, human feeling, and introspection (and I use "void" purposefully).
I will always give more authority and respect to Kalosyni than any AI.
AI's real promise (as John Oliver shows) is in narrow applications where huge amounts of data need to be winnowed and organized. And I wouldn't call that "authority" just utility.
And in some ways it isn't any different than asking the opinion of another human being. When I was attending a Buddhist Zen group, there would sometimes be new people asking questions that were very "simple" (almost cringeworthy) which most likely they should have just taken the time to answer for themselves (but the Zen teacher would answer anyway).
But at least they were asking questions and getting a human response.
As a librarian, I cringe when I hear other librarians making fun of patrons' "stupid" questions. If someone has a question, they have a void in their information environment that they feel needs filled. The allure of things like ChatGPT is that people can get "good enough" answers and may never know if it's reliable or even accurate.
I personally think that this particular question that I started the thread out with: "What are the limits of desires?" to be a worthwhile question. And in some ways the ChatGPT maybe didn't fully answer it, so will need to think some more on it.
Oh, fully agree that it's worthwhile to ask that! I would add that ChatGPT didn't even in reality "answer" the question. It responded algorithmically with segments of text from its training data, mathematically splicing and dicing text that it predicted would occur adjacent to each other, and put it into grammatically comprehensible text. There was no consideration, thought, reflection, scholarship, etc. ChatGPT supplies text that the reader imbues with "authority" that is not present in the product itself.
I thought this segment from this past Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver summed up the promise and peril of AI pretty well:
Caveat: Please note that this show is on **HBO** so viewer discretion is advised, for language (at least). John Oliver doesn't pull any rhetorical punches.
I'm going to be blatantly and frankly honest and say I didn't even read what ChatGPT responded with. I think it is extremely dangerous to consult "answers" from AI chatbots, no matter how sophisticated, to questions like this. I will admit it can be a novelty or intriguing, but any answers we want to questions like that should be weighed against *human* feelings and sensations. Chatbots can **only** regurgitate text that has been fed into it and its output only uses an algorithm that tries to piece together predictive sentences that statistically occur adjacent to or in proximity to other texts.
I've been discussing this whole chatbot thing with my students in library and information science this semester so I freely admit this is a raw nerve, so to speak. But I think it's insidious and, in contexts like this and similar threads on the forum, is frightening. I would encourage us, as Epicureans, not to succumb to the siren song of AI. Don't let the convenience and novelty of this lull us into consulting this technological oracle as if it had some great insights. It may provide some "food for thought" but we would be better served by growing our own food, to finish that metaphor.
Deep breath.... ... ...
Kalosyni , this is not directed at you in any way, and I apologize if all that came across as such. That's not my intent. But this seemed an opportunity to unload, as it were, and put all my cards on the table in regards to ChatGPT and its ilk.
It appears it isn't the reward of future results for beavers. It's the sound of running water that elicits dam building:
LOL! That was two years ago! I didn't even look at the date.
PS. That said, I think I still have qualms about seeing "instinctual behavior" as evidence of a prolepsis. I'll have to give it more thought, but that's my leaning right now.
I remembered we had a previous thread about beavers, so I thought I'd link to it:
This link starts with my post questioning the beaver angle. I'm assessing whether I still agree with myself or not, but thought this could help inform the current thread in any case.
Here are some human child studies. Curious what you think of this in light of the DeWaal studies:
I'm trying to find more videos, but that's a start.
Having now watched both of these videos, I have to say they're far better than any of my summaries might suggest!
Having watched the videos, what are your thoughts on this research and the prolepsis of justice?
I like that little smile Epicurus has in his animation. 
Wasn't sure if we had posted this yet. Another approachable, friendly exposition of Epicureanism and its application to our lives... Now and in retirement.
Could we go so far as the Atomic Prophets to give it a psychedelic 60s vibe?
As for the Stoop Kids, I'd also offer Porch Preachers.
Skeptics are Pyrrho Maniacs.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κῆπος
I've always taken it that he simply taught in his garden. Just like the Plato's Academy was in the gymnasium named for the Athenian hero, Akademos. Outside the city walls of Athens, the gymnasium was made famous by Plato as a center of learning.
Lyceum is a Latin rendering of the Ancient Greek Λύκειον (lykeion), the name of a gymnasium in Classical Athens dedicated to Apollo Lyceus. This original lyceum is remembered as the location of the peripatetic school of Aristotle.
The stoics were named for the Stoa Poikile, the Painted Stoa, the public arcade in the Agora.
So, it was very common to name the school of philosophy for there they met. Epicurus was somewhat unique I understand because he taught on his own private property - his garden - and not in a public setting.
PS. I should add that some of those descriptions above are cut and pasted from Wikipedia. It was easier to do than composing info about the lyceum and academy.
***
Abstract
Readers of Philodemus are well aware of the difficulties posed by the fragmentary state of the charred papyri. The premise of this paper is that similar but often unacknowledged obstacles confront us when we read almost any text about Epicureanism, even if the text happens to be relatively well preserved. The problem is that most of our sources— in addition to being late, fragmentary, and highly partisan—are already engaged in the process of reconstructing the first generation of the Garden. Hostile writers are eager to document what they portray as the immoral sensualism of Epicurus. Friendly sources take an apologetic stance against such polemics but may sometimes incorporate hostile material unwittingly. To illustrate the problem, this essay focuses upon the issue of Epicurean women. Ancient and modern authorities seem to agree that the Garden included many female members, but a second look reveals that the sources are not as reliable as has been assumed. In fact, most of what the ancient texts say about Epicurean women is bound up—sometimes inextricably—with the twenty-threehundred- year-old tradition of anti-Epicurean polemic and apologetic response. To generations of Greeks and Romans, the presence of women and slaves in the Garden was emblematic—for good or for ill—of the nature of Epicureanism.
To my mind, "feeling romantic" and "feeling sexual passion" convey two similar but distinct feelings.
I think sexual passion (in English now) can be felt in the context of a loving, romantic relationship, as well as in other (nonromantic) contexts. But I cannot say that what I sometimes feel toward my beloved should not be called sexual passion, shared in a loving relationship. That seems to me to be an unnecessary parsing.
Oh, I have no problem with that idea! I think one should feel "sexual passion" for "(one's) beloved"! I would hope any relationship based on mutual attraction in a romantic context would include sexual passion.
My point - granted I didn't say this well - was that a relationship can't be all sexual, erotic passion all the time. Feeling romantic" lead to "feeling sexual passion" but it doesn't necessarily need to. "Feeling romantic" can just mean showing love and affection for one's beloved. A "romantic dinner" need not lead to "sexual passion"... or at least not until you leave the restaurant.
To my mind, the parsing is helpful in the context of emphasis or context. "Feeling romantic" to me seems to express something long-term but also intimate. "Passion" is episodic and intense. Consider a "romantic" embrace or a "passionate" embrace or an "erotic" embrace. I don't get the same connotation from those. All are pleasurable, but they're not equivalent.
And note that, whether Epicurus was sexually active or not, he certainly didn't demand celibacy from his students. A number of them, we know, had children!
Remember, too, that, according to some sources, Epicurus's health wasn't all that good. So, it's possibly the case that he wasn't physically up to the task of having sex. However, wasn't one of Timocrates' slanders that there were orgies ever night in the Garden... probably only because there were women attending the classes and lectures and.. by Zeus!... writing philosophical treatises!! Oh my! Likely, due to the limitations on the movements of women in ancient Greek society, those women were most likely wives accompanied by their husbands or they were hetairai. Elodie Harper's novel The Wolf Den gives a vivid picture of the difference between the hetairai and the pornai in ancient Pompeii.
For ease of reference, he are my notes from
Characteristic 4:
Hicks: No one was ever the better for sexual indulgence, and it is well if he be not the worse.
Yonge: Marriage (Attalus's site says "Intercourse", otherwise identical to Yonge), say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm;
So, is it marriage, intercourse, or "sexual indulgence"? The original is συνουσίαν which appears to convey sexual intercourse (and can be used in relation to animals copulating) and seems to be used in the sense of letting one's passions run away with them and not the institution of marriage.
The original is: συνουσίαν δέ φασιν ὀνῆσαι μὲν οὐδέποτε, ἀγαπητὸν δὲ εἰ μὴ καὶ ἔβλαψε.
So, possible literal translation: Sexual intercourse, they say, on the one hand, never profited or benefited (anyone), and, one the other hand, one must be content if it does not disable or distract the mind.
As a possible related aside, here's my translation of the characteristics of the sage given in Diogenes Laertius about sexual relationships:
Sexual Relationships
The wise one will not establish a sexual relationship in a way that is against the law or forbidden by custom. Epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passions. According to the school, sexual passion is not sent by any supernatural force. They say that having sex like animals never did anyone any good, and people should be content if it does no harm. Epicurus also said that the wise one will not marry nor raise a family (and talked about the pains involved with that life); however, under certain circumstances, the wise one will forsake these rules and decide to marry.
Does eros necessarily imply being overwhelmed or carried away? Or just feeling romantic/sexual passion?
The verb ἔραμαι (of which ἐρασθήσεσθαι is a form) does mean "desire passionately, lust after; desire eagerly" so there's a connotation of over the top sexual desire and lust.
Consider how the word "erotic" is used in English as sexually explicit: "Relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement:
- erotic entertainment and services
- I had an erotic dream last night.
- There's a local cinema that only shows erotic movies."
To my mind, "feeling romantic" and "feeling sexual passion" convey two similar but distinct feelings.
Eros was a god of love, desire, sexual passion, just like Aphrodite/Venus was a goddess of sex, desire, passion. The image that comes to mind after satyrs and nymphs ...uh... getting together in the forest.
EROS - Greek Primordial God of Procreation
Oppian, Halieutica 4. 10 ff :
"O cruel Eros (Love), crafty of counsel, of all gods fairest to behold with the eyes, of all most grievous when thou dost vex the heart with unforseen assault, entering the soul like a storm-wind and breathing the bitter menace of fire, with hurricane of anguish and untempered pain. The shedding of tears is for thee a sweet delight and to hear the deep-wrung groan; to inflame a burning redness in the heart and to blight and wither the bloom upon the cheek, to make the eyes hollow and to wrest all the mind to madness. Many thou doest even roll to doom even those whom thou meetest in wild and wintry sort, fraught with frenzy; for in such festivals is thy delight.
Characteristic 2
Don translation: Epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passions.
Hicks: The Epicureans do not suffer the wise man to fall in love;
Yonge: They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love,
What is specifically being discussed here is ἐρασθήσεσθαι to desire passionately, lustfully, in other words to be carried away by sexual passions (eros). Hicks's "suffer" appears overly strong. The original is more "suppose, think, expect" the sage to do this, so Yonge wins on this one. Mensch uses: they "do not think" this will happen.
