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
PIE root *bhrug- "to enjoy,"
Always a fan of etymonline and PIE, too!
Check out..
I *think* the bh- could also have evolved into an F or V sound, which is why there's frui... etc. in that entry.
Strictly speaking I don't have any problem with "you only live once" but I gather the connotations of recklessness are top in everyone's minds.
Prudent YOLO? Frugally YOLO? 
I am really thinking I need to get my own copy of this book.
As I'm listening to the library's audiobook in my car, I keep thinking "yep, yep, that's good, oh, that's straight out of Epicurus... Good...." and so on. I can't take notes and I don't really want to go through the aggravation of doing it with the audiobook.
I'm currently 27% of the way through and really haven't heard anything off-putting or even much if anything outside what Epicurus would be writing in the 21st century. Granted, Rucker doesn't get into epistemology or physics, but the book isn't designed that way.
So, review so far continues to be 
In keeping with Cassius new thread:
Epicurus taught YOLO but not the YOLO That You Are Familiar With.
Maybe instead of "frugal hedonism" it's "prudent hedonism"? 
Exploring this topic a little and came across this:
Robert Louis Stevenson, An Apology for Idlers
Something else to read now! I've never heard of it before, but I'm intrigued... Especially by writing such as this:
There is a sort of dead-alive, hackneyed{21} people about, who are scarcely conscious of living except in the exercise of some conventional occupation. Bring these fellows into the country, or set them aboard ship, and you will see how they pine for their desk or their study. They have no curiosity; they cannot give themselves over to random provocations; they do not take pleasure in the exercise of their faculties for its own sake; and unless Necessity lays about them with a stick, they will even stand still. It is no good speaking to such folk: they cannot be idle, their nature is not generous enough; and they pass those hours in a sort of coma, which are not dedicated to furious moiling in the gold-mill.
One of the meanings of απονια aponia is "idleness, non-exertion; exemption from toil (of women)"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπονία
Plutarch uses it in this sense to describe Romulus and Remus:
They also applied themselves to generous occupations and pursuits, not esteeming sloth and idleness generous, but rather bodily exercise, hunting, running, driving off robbers, capturing thieves, and rescuing the oppressed from violence.
PS. And note this is "apology for idlers" as in the sense of defense, as in Plato's Apology and apologetics. Just wanted to say that explicitly.
Chapters 3-7 notes
Take care of the things you have. Don't automatically default to "throwaway materialism" and over consumption.
Appreciate what you have and what went into it: author's example - appreciate that plastic chair you have, have gratitude for the workers that smelted the metal in the legs, mined the ore, worked in the factory. Don't just throw it away because you're bored with it.
Be aware of where you're spending your money!
Buy quality when possible and take care of it.
Be mindful of what you're throwing out and don't be wasteful.
(*Side note: the authors may tout this whole idea of scrounging the "waste stream" a little hard for my taste. They're advocating getting everything from furniture to clothes and more from trash left on the street to secondhand stores. Using every last scrap of food including sour milk for pancakes (although that's probably not that bad of an idea). Even scooping dried pigeon droppings under bridges for "the best garden fertilizer." This is where it starts to sound like work!)
Chapter: Recalibrate you're Your Senses: I like this one. The gist is similar to "hunger is the best spice," but, again, it's paying attention to what's in front of you and appreciating it.
They talk about a consumption rhythm of lean-lavish-lean, which strikes me as similar to the intermittent fasting idea. Or the sandwich eaten at the top on the mountain tastes so good!
(*Side note: I maintain I had the best soup and homemade bread *ever* after a four hour hike to the Tea House of the Six Glaciers near Banff, BC. In retrospect, expectations for the food were low, it was a long hike, we were hungry... But lunch was amazing! Google it. Go there! Also, this whole topic reminds me of the text that talks about Epicurus, from time to time, would try to see how much food would be just enough to give him pleasure, I assume how much or how little would satisfy his hunger.)
There's also the appreciation of natural light when the electric goes out. Then an appreciation of electric when it comes back!!
"Frequently making frugal choices furnishes us with a more sensitive pleasure palate."
"Frugal hedonism furnishes us with an Elegant sufficiency of consumption."
(*Side note: Elegant. Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah: "There is an elegance in simplicity...")
"Be patient and gloat over every little increase in your capacity for pleasure."
Yep. Notifications (not push notifications, just the red dot on the top right), unread posts (red dot top left), and heavy use of the "recent" tab. Also, the chat box that pops up from bottom right never fails to drive me to distraction. When I try to make it go away it gets bigger...when I do finally manage to close it I just go the notifications area and click on whatever chat I haven't read, and read it there. There's probably a way to disable that from my settings...
Ditto... Plus primarily use the site on my Android phone.
Only on chapter 3 listening, but lots of good stuff. I have yet to hear anything un-Epicurean from my perspective.
It's hard to take notes from the audiobook while driving so I'll try to go back and relisten at some point.
So far,
btw, I think Cassius and I have a variation on this "one size fits all" discussion at least once a year. In fact, here's one variation from 2021:
It's usually in relation to PD10 or the "profligate" section of the letter to Menoikeus, but it seems to be an annual event. 
In the end, we never seem to be diametrically opposed, but I think it's an important discussion to revisit time to time. I thought it might be helpful to put my current comments into that larger context.
The basic premise of Rucker's book is that focusing on happiness (as it is often discussed in relation to the popular conversation in light of positive psychology) is that it emphasizes the gap between how we feel now and how we're *supposed* to feel. Why aren't we happy? Why are they happier than me? We try to - are encouraged to - quantify our level of happiness, then *work* on being happier.
What Rucker recommends is prioritizing "fun" - I'd paraphrase him by saying "prioritize taking pleasure in your life and your experiences." Of we prioritize "fun" , happiness becomes a welcome by-product. I'd rephrase saying "if we prioritize finding the pleasure in both our everyday experience and in the extravagant pleasures we occasionally experience, well-being / eudaimonia / happiness will be a welcome by-product of living that way."
Research shows that fun, play, pleasure-filled activities have real benefits to our physical and mental well-being.
Also: Dopamine is more important to anticipation (anticipatory pleasure) than the pleasurable act itself. Dopamine is possibly evolutionarily beneficial as a motivator to action than as a reward, so to speak. (Anna Lembke talked about this in Dopamine Nation, too)
I agree with virtually every practical consideration stated in the thread above, but I want to repeat a statement I just madein another thread:
As usual I think it's a bad idea to try to come up with a one size fits all rule. I am haven' previously made this comment in the "frugal hedonism" thread, because I see the value in explaining words. But in the end I think the best way to convey this analysis is simply to call it "Epicurean" - and gradually begin the long crawl out of the box that we are in due to the dominance (and our acceptance) of other people's paradigms.
Unfortunately we don't have the ability to claim that our definition of "frugal" or "hedonism" is the correct one. But the word that I do think we should claim, and define as clearly for everyone as we can, is "Epicurean."
I posted over "in another thread," too, but thought this needed a response here as well.
If I go down a rabbit hole, apologies aforehand, but, just wondering which "practical considerations" are you agreeing with (just to verify and for clarity)?
So, how would you define the three terms "frugal," "hedonism" and "Epicurean" in the context of this thread/discussion?
That excerpt from Diogenes Laertius quotes Diocles as saying the Epicureans lived "a very simple and frugal life" εὐτελέστατα καὶ λιτότατα διαιτώμενοι. Those two words (linked above to LSJ) convey living a life that includes things that are "easily paid for" (which I take to mean "living within one's means") and "simple, inexpensive, frugal" or, "metaphorically, of style, plain, simple, unadorned." Those words, coupled with the modern word "hedonism" (not coined to refer to philosophy until 1828), to me provide "frugal hedonism" as an apt description. Not an exhaustive one or even one without a few hiccups, but an adequate starting point to describe Epicurus's lifestyle.. in keeping with my "bread and water simply means 'take pleasure in the everyday'."
When you say things like...
Quote from Cassius"Unfortunately we don't have the ability to claim that our definition of "frugal" or "hedonism" is the correct one,"
...I'm not even sure I understand the point you're trying to make. (Okay, I re-read that, and it *reads* harsher than I meant it... but I don't know a better way to express my confusion.) It seems to me that Epicurus encouraged people to use words in a way that was readily understandable and not to parse and nitpick. Granted, he never called himself a "hedonist." That didn't even exist as a philosophy term until the 19th century. But the "basic" definition is someone who regards pleasure as the primary motivator of human behavior. "Frugal" might be a little fuzzy in meaning but we have a grasp that it means things like living within your means, not spending extravagantly, etc. To me, "frugal hedonism" conveys what Epicurus was conveying throughout his texts. It is an antidote to the ascetic stereotype that is so prevalent in pop culture and academia. It's certainly not a perfect phrase, but it moves toward a more balanced portrayal... although let's get through more of the book and maybe I'll have a different opinion later
I don't really like talking about "psychological hedonism" or saying that everything we decide to do by default means that we think we will gain pleasure by it...
I think "psychological (or motivational) hedonism" is one of the better ways to describe Epicurus's philosophy to put it into a larger context.
Motivational Hedonism (more commonly referred to by the less descriptive label, “Psychological Hedonism“) is the theory that the desires to encounter pleasure and to avoid pain guide all of our behavior. Most accounts of Motivational Hedonism include both conscious and unconscious desires for pleasure, but emphasize the latter. Epicurus, William James, Sigmund Freud, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and (on one interpretation) even Charles Darwin have all argued for varieties of Motivational Hedonism. Bentham used the idea to support his theory of Hedonistic Utilitarianism (discussed below). Weak versions of Motivational Hedonism hold that the desires to seek pleasure and avoid pain often or always have some influence on our behavior. Weak versions are generally considered to be uncontroversially true and not especially useful for philosophy.
I find that last sentence somewhat amusing because it seems to echo exactly what "Torquatus" says:
Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, he thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them.
Seems useful for Epicurean philosophy.
everything we decide to do by default means that we think we will gain pleasure by it
I just want to mention that from my perspective, we don't even need to "think we will gain pleasure by it." We just will, whether consciously or unconsciously, we will seek pleasure and avoid pain by virtue of being living breathing natural organisms... like every other natural organism with at least some agency.
I definitely think that it is within he standard Epicurean calculation to think about what the future holds, even after we are gone, and to calculate the pleasure we would receive for the rest of our shortened lives by knowing that our death would "send a message" to later generations to pursue the same path.
That statement seems uncontroversial enough. That's the reason, from my perspective, that Epicurus made his will. The *anticipation* of having his wishes fulfilled - even though he *knew* he wouldn't be around to see their fruition - gave him pleasure.
Bailey does use "well" in VS47. Bailey also attributes it to Metrodorus, and St.-Andre doesn't even include it in his list of the Vatican Sayings:
XLVII. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and en- trenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well.
And the wordused is καλοῦ "well, beautifully, ..." and 24 other different meanings!
As usual I think it's a bad idea to try to come up with a one size fits all rule. I haven't made this comment in the "frugal hedonism" thread, because I see the value in explaining words. But in the end I think the best way to convey this analysis is simply to call it "Epicurean" - and gradually begin the long crawl out of the box that we are in due to the dominance (and our acceptance) of other people's paradigms.
I would agree it's a "bad idea to try to come up with a one size fits all rule" in the case of dying for your beliefs or for any other reason. Those are ALL situations that are going to have entirely different contexts and mitigating circumstances, etc. My question though is "What do you mean by 'Epicurean'?" What does that word convey that the other words don't?
I'm going to make a similar post in the "frugal hedonism" thread and refer back here. This may even need a thread of its own.
(didn't Philodemus get kicked out of somewhere for impiety?)
Were you thinking of Epicurus maybe?
"Epicurus's teachings caused strife in Mytilene and he was forced to leave." (Wikipedia)
DeWitt pieces together an intriguing piece of historical fiction to flesh out Epicurus's experience and expulsion from Mytilene.
FWIW...
Diocles in the third book of his Epitome speaks of them as living a very simple and frugal life (DL 10.11)
Διοκλῆς δ᾽ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῆς ἐπιδρομῆς φησιν εὐτελέστατα καὶ λιτότατα διαιτώμενοι.
εὐτελέστατα
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, εὐτελ-ής
λιτότατα
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λι_τός
First thoughts, random:
Being frugal does NOT mean ascetic or stingy or anything negative.
It takes practice to be a "frugal hedonist".
It means being aware of what you're actually spending YOUR time and money on.
Are you actually taking pleasure in what you spend time and money on.
Don't get caught up with instant gratification: instead of "pulling the lever for cheese" (classic mouse experiment metaphor), try "walking to cheese mountain, befriend the cheese miners, etc."
Relish: REALLY experience your activities. Take time to actually taste that cup of coffee. Take pleasure in the details of your life.
My note: I think frugal hedonist is a good description of Epicurus's lifestyle, much better than the ascetic he's made out to be.
Looking forward to reading more.
I'm working my way through this book, and it specifically mentions Epicurus. Opening this thread for thoughts on this one.
Just started listening to the audiobook and it strikes me as eminently Epicurean!!
Starting this thread to record thoughts of mine or others as my listening continues...
The JSTOR paper doesn't have much else. It does say that if Burley was using Diogenes Laertius that it would have to be a Latin translation since he didn't read Greek. Burleys sources were primarily medieval not ancient. The chief source was the Speculum Maius by the friar Vincent of Beauvais. And also the Compendiloquium by John of Wales.
Burleys work included poets and philosophers and playwrights from after Diogenes' time. Diogenes also didn't include poets or playwrights in his work.
Two manuscripts erroneously attributed to Laertius were found to be other editions of Burley.
Interesting that Burley says "he said that pleasure is the highest good." Does Diogenes Laertius' commentary state it that way aside from including the letter to Menoeceus? almost sounds like there his quoting Torquatus' formulation.
I think Burley is just responding to the general consensus of Epicurus at the time.
