Posts by Don

Several thoughts on topics brought up above:

If we struggle with words like natural, necessary, "not necessary," and "empty" to describe desires, we're struggling with Epicurus. Those are his words.

The reason I like "extravagant" is that it's slightly over the top but, for me, evokes Epicurus's own sometimes-playful use of language. The "extravagant" = "not necessary" also evokes the idea of "It's possible to find pleasure in the barest circumstances such as while eating the simplest of meals: barley bread and water, and in the midst of the most dire of straits like at the point of dying in great pain. But it IS nice to have those other pleasures, and we include them all in our definition of the good." That is why I harp on Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus stating that the internal pleasure of tranquility (ataraxia) is a more secure source of pleasure than pleasure arising from external sources. We always have the pleasure of tranquility readily available in our minds - if we work at achieving it, nurturing it, maintaining it. That's why they place a high value on tranquility.

Stepping back a minute: There are several places where the necessary desires are discussed:

Letter to Menoikeus:

on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. [128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. (My translation)

PD26

26The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject when they are hard to achieve or when they seem to produce harm. (Saint-Andre)

PD29

29Of our desires, some are natural and necessary; others are natural, but not necessary; others, again, are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

[Epicurus regards as natural and necessary desires which bring relief from pain, as e.g. drink when we are thirsty ; while by natural and not necessary he means those which merely diversify the pleasure without removing the pain, as e.g. costly viands ; by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour.--Scholia](Saint-Andre)

Cicero

But how says our philosopher? 'The desires are of three kinds, natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, neither natural nor necessary.' To begin with, this is a clumsy division; it makes three classes when there are really only two. This is not dividing but hacking in pieces. Thinkers trained in the science which Epicurus despised usually put it thus: 'The desires are of two kinds, natural and imaginary;11 natural desires again fall into two subdivisions, necessary and not necessary.' That would have rounded it off properly. It is a fault in division to reckon a species as a genus. 27 Still, do not let us stickle about form. Epicurus despises the niceties of dialectic; his style neglects distinctions; we must humour him in this, provided that his meaning is correct. But for my own part I cannot cordially approve, I merely tolerate, a philosopher who talks of setting bounds to the desires. Is it possible for desire to be kept within bounds? It ought to be destroyed, uprooted altogether. On your principle there is no form of desire whose possessor could not be morally approved. He will be a miser — within limits; an adulterer — in moderation; and a sensualist to correspond. What sort of a philosophy is this, that instead of dealing wickedness its death-blow, is satisfied with moderating our vices?

Quote from Cassius

Don (or others) I wonder if there is a precedent for the "natural and necessary" classification in the writings of Plato or Aristotle such as you found for the bread and water discussion. If there is that might also place this in context.

Selected Fragments, by Epicurus

Quote

471] In the second chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes desires as groundless and trifling (κενὴν καὶ ματαίαν) if they are not related to or subsumed under an overarching goal of life; in this fragment and in Fragment 442, Epicurus applies the same terms to certain kinds of desires.

Just a quick response for now.

If we have positive things to say, we all should individually leave reviews on Amazon. No one seems to have reviewed it yet:

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

www.amazon.com

Just as an example where I'm at right now (emphasis added):

Quote

Many scholars have argued that while Epicurus recognizes that sex is pleasant, he is actually largely hostile to sex, even more so to love. If you find it difficult to make sense of how Epicurus could reject sex and love and still have said what Athenaeus claims, then you are in the good company of me, at least. I think Epicurus’ concerns about sex and love have been overstated. That Epicurus thinks sex and love should be selected prudently makes complete sense, especially given the many ways it can cause and sustain anxiety. Nevertheless, Epicurus thinks sexual pleasure and committed romantic relationships are natural, but unnecessary, desires (or so I argue). In the terms of this book, they are extravagant desires, and all extravagant desires can adorn the tranquil life if you do them right.

Her calling out academic assumptions and "common knowledge" that she sees as erroneous or misguided is both refreshing and well reasoned! Her analysis, to me, takes in the scope of Epicurus's philosophy instead of trying to impose a perspective on it like many academics seem to try and do. That is a breath of fresh air.

I will say I really like Austin's terms natural, extravagant, and corrosive desires. Granted, "extravagant" may not be exactly correct, but, as it gets at the "not necessary" aspect of this category, I endorse her choice.

I'm currently on chapter 15, and I have found Austin's work spot on and fully endorse the work as a great starting point.

As for Cassius 's Kennedy misgiving, I see Dr. Austin only using his book as an example of what is meant by courage with Kennedy's book Profiles of Courage. I don't see this as political at all, simply a literary allusion.

I have completely enjoyed the book so far, and wish I wrote it myself.

Do I wish she covered some topics in more depth? Yes. Am I satisfied with how she's covered the topics she does cover? Yes!

Quote from Joshua

It strikes me that there are several passages in Diogenes Laertius beginning with words like "the wise man will....", or "the wise man will not..."

Where does that kind of framing fit in here?

Quote from camotero

Trying to bridge a gap between EP and modern organized religion.

The chasm between organized religion/superstition and Epicurean philosophy is wide, deep, and filled with alligators. In some ways, it's best to turn away from the gap and beat a path in the opposite direction. As Lucretius says, religion is prone to many evils. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!!

I'm slowly trying to emulate Epicurus in his observance of the rites and holidays. Taking joy in family gatherings. Appreciating the art and celebrating with an internal realignment of what it all means.

But the opinion of the crowds is false piety and I have no desire to go down that road again (at least at the time of this writing. Humans can be fickle creatures). Being concerned by their rules, their traditions, their playing field is not required. As George Carlin says in that video, there's 10 because 10 sounds official. That, in itself, to me is a reason to come up with a different number.

I debated whether to weigh in here, but, in the end, I'll err on the side of friendly, respectful, frank speech. I hope this is conveyed and received with that framing. And, I'm fully aware, you'll do what you feel you need to do in your situation.

I would agree that the Ten Commandments is ubiquitous in Western culture. Everyone will inevitably hear about it, probably sooner than later. Plus, kids will have questions. Boy howdy, do they have questions sometimes!

That said, the idea of feeling that one is constrained to come up with 10 "good ideas" to compete with this outdated list of 10 divine commands is fraught with potential frustration. That said, the Wikipedia article on alternatives does show it's a common exercise:

Alternatives to the Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

although even those lists range from 3 to 11 but simply go through the exercise to demonstrate the outdated-nesd of the traditional list (actually at least 2 slightly different lists in the Bible... Evidently "God" couldn't make up "His" mind!).

My suggestion, if/when the question arises, is to use it as an opportunity to talk about...

"Some/all religions try to give instructions to people on how to live together. In Christianity and Judaism, their book gives them 10 instructions they are supposed to follow. Buddhists have 4 important things to say then give 8 ways to get there then have 5 important things to say on how to act (Buddhists really like lists!!). Lists are a way to make it easy to remember things. Some things on all these lists are basically good ideas for everyone. Others keep people in line and punish them for goofy things that don't exist. The 10 Commandments include things that make "God" jealous and mad. That's just silly! How could the "Master of the Universe" care about little things like that!? All of the lists mostly say something like we shouldn't hurt people and people shouldn't hurt us. That's a good idea, isn't it? But what would be in your list? Let's talk about what kind of list of good ideas you'd come up with? Would you like to think about that together?"

Raising kids is hard!! No argument there! But trying to pound an Epicurean peg into a Judeo-Christian hole seems fraught with frustration and pitfalls. Plus, I think it doesn't do religion or Epicureanism any favors. Get rid of the oppressive religion. Don't play on its field. Set sail in your own little boat, free of indoctrination!

Quote from Cassius

will substitute Don's. Link - twhanks

I would suggest picking the copy you like best. You can note that it can be borrowed from the archive with a FREE account. For ex.

Epicurus and his philosophy : DeWitt, Norman Wentworth, 1876- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bibliography, p.361-362

archive.org

It looks like there are several copies available through Internet Archive

Internet Archive Search: Epicurus and his philosophy

Quote from Cassius

With apologies to Don, I have to also note that it opens up the possibility that someone creative with Latin and in tune with the Eoicurean viewpoint might actually be able to reconstruct the thrust of what might have been included at the end of Book Six.

Maybe at some point Austin herself could take a stab at it, or even someone like David Sedley or Martin Ferguson Smith

For those interested, here is Thucydides's account of the plague. Open the Year 2 section on the linked page:

History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 2 - Wikisource, the free online library

LOL! If y'all don't stop calling attention to interesting bits, I'm never going to finish this in the right order

And the social media chapter also seems spot on!

I jumped ahead and read her first politics chapter. I think it's one of the best interpretations of "live unknown" that I've read anywhere. Short on time right now, but wanted to share that.

I just downloaded the e-book. I'll try and read it and post thoughts. If Cassius is encouraged, that bodes well.

Yes! I encourage everyone to read the article. I've hit its Up vote button!

I'm also going to check out her book, just published Nov 1.

Good find, Cassius !

I had heard the "make a eunuch a man" quote, but I wanted to look up the origin. Diogenes Laertius quotes this in Book 4.6.43 on Arcesilaus.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IV, Chapter 6. ARCESILAUS (c. 318-242 B.C.)

Another pleasant story told of him is this. Some one had inquired why it was that pupils from all the other schools went over to Epicurus, but converts were never made from the Epicureans: "Because men may become eunuchs, but a eunuch never becomes a man," was his answer.

"ἐκ μὲν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν γάλλοι γίνονται, ἐκ δὲ γάλλων ἄνδρες οὐ γίνονται."

The word translated "eunuch" is γάλλος

A. priest of Cybele, Schwyzer 633.11 (Eresus, ii/i B. C.), Arr. Epict.2.20.17, AP6.234 (Eryc.), 220 (Diosc.):—fem. form Γαλλαί Lyr.Adesp.121.

II. eunuch, J.AJ4.8.40, PGnom.244, D.L.4.43.

The word translated "man" is ἄνδρες which is man as in male person. Arcesilaus doesn't use άνθρωπος "human being" but "manly man."

A γάλλος as LSJ shows was a eunuch but I find the fact that this refers specifically to a priest of Cybele very interesting. Yes, Arcesilaus was obviously referring to the castration part. But, this part in the Wikipedia article is interesting too (emphasis added):

"Most modern scholarship agrees that Cybele's consort, Attis, and her eunuch Phrygian priests (Galli) would have arrived with the goddess, along with at least some of the wild, ecstatic features of her Greek and Phrygian cults."

The Epicureans were slandered with saying they took part in wild, hedonistic parties, which would have dovetailed nicely with this Γάλλος epithet.

Quote

As eunuchs, incapable of reproduction, the Galli were forbidden Roman citizenship and rights of inheritance; like their eastern counterparts, they were technically mendicants whose living depended on the pious generosity of others. For a few days of the year, during the Megalesia, Cybele's laws allowed them to leave their quarters, located within the goddess' temple complex, and roam the streets to beg for money. They were outsiders, marked out as Galli by their regalia, and their notoriously effeminate dress and demeanour, but as priests of a state cult, they were sacred and inviolate. From the start, they were objects of Roman fascination, scorn and religious awe.

EDIT: I stand corrected on the "ecstatic rites" in Wikipedia. I misinterpreted. See

The GALA and the Gallos

The Luwian ritual texts known as the Songs of Istanuwa and the Songs of the Men of Lallupiya are shown to be at once the earliest textual references to the…

www.academia.edu

"They are noted for their wailing and lamentation of Attis, Cybele’s mythological companion who died after castrating himself. The processions of the galloi, accompanied by the clanging of cymbals, were characterized by ecstatic selfmutilation and bloodletting."

However, that paper goes on to say that...

"The stereotypical gallus of Roman literature wore feminine dress and heavy makeup, had long yellow-tinted hair, and was willing to perform sex acts considered degrading by the Romans."

Just had to comment on Joshua 's mention of drama at 39:10. He's thinking of Aristophanes' The Clouds with Socrates teaching in the "Thinkatorium."

The Clouds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plato appears to have considered The Clouds a contributing factor in Socrates' trial and execution in 399 BC.

"There is a famous story, as reported for example by Aelian, according to which Socrates cheerfully rose from his seat during the performance of The Clouds and stood in silent answer to the whispers among foreigners in the festival audience: "Who is Socrates?""

Quote from Pacatus

Unaffrighted by carefree gods,

untroubled by unfeeling death –

I really like that you didn't go the imperative command route on these! No "do not..." just describing the situation.

Quote from Pacatus

with perhaps a mantra,

How about this:

No fear

No death

Feel good

Bear pain

That's **very** much an "of the top of my head."

As always, there's much more going on behind why I chose these lines here and in the above poem, butI 'll jump down off my TetrapharmaBox for awhile now.