Posts by Don

Quote from wbernys

i ended up understanding him more fully and now am a full Epicurean (except for you know antiquated scientific views like the size of the sun as most of you are i hope).

You may find Gellar-Goad's article on "the size of the sun" an interest counterpoint to that "as most of you are I hope."

https://resolve-he.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9B9D08457AB2AE45B44845464818346A/9781009281393c10_168-185.pdf/lucretius_on_the_size_of_the_sun.pdf

It's a provocative article, and one that's got a lot of discussion on the forum. I'll admit that I had never thought of the "size of the sun" issue in this way before, offhandedly dismissing it as "Oh, Epicurus can't be right about everything." Gellar-Goad brings an intriguing (and fairly convincing) argument against that perspective.

Quote

The Epicureans did not believe that the sun was the size of a human foot. They distinguished between the sun’s actual size and the size of its appearance, the latter of which was the only magnitude measurable from earth with the technology available. In this matter as almost everywhere else, the Epicureans appealed to the truth of sense-perception – with the important caution that discerning reality from appearance requires perception-based judgment, which itself is not guaranteed to be true.

...

In closing I argue that the size of the sun is an Epicurean shibboleth. In Epicurus, in Lucretius and in Demetrius, we see the same nostrum repeated, with progressive elaborations that do not fully clarify the basic precept. The persistence of Epicureans in this formulation is not so much the result of reflexive dogma or pseudo-intellectual obscurantism as it is a passphrase, a litmus test. Think like an Epicurean, and you will figure out that the sun’s appearance and the sun itself are two related but distinct things with two different sizes; that you must keep the infallible data of the senses, tactile as well as visual, in proper perspective when making judgments about your perception; and that the available data is insufficient to estimate the sun’s magnitude to an acceptable degree of confidence. Think that Epicureans believe the sun’s diameter is a foot, that they are absurd, and you have exposed yourself as un-Epicurean.

There's also an extensive thread about that, too: "Lucretius on the Size of the Sun", by T.H.M. Gellar-Goad

Quote from wbernys

I would also like to ask a question for those who don't mind on "atoms and void". From what i can tell science tells us that the space between atoms is not really "empty space" but more like energy (electromagnetic, gravitational energy, quantum waves) which provided no friction and has no form, thus allowing movement. Do you all consider this to be a kind of "Epicurean void" or do you still believe in the classical void that there's empty space in-between?

My perspective on "atoms and void" are that, most importantly, Epicurus was not - and could not be - talking about the modern Standard Model of particle physics. The parallels between Epicurus' "ἄτομος" and the modern "atom" should not be taken too literally. They can be taken figuratively or metaphorically though.

Epicurus use of the term ἄτομος (atomos) conveyed that there were indivisible fundamental material "things" that were not capable of being cut/divided into smaller pieces that made up all the material things we see around us throughout the cosmos and, indeed, the entire universe. Not tinier and tinier replicas of the things themselves (bones are not made of tiny bones) or similar ideas. He didn't see only four elements: fire, earth, air, water, with one being predominant. Epicurus genius insight was that these atomoi could make up an infinite number of different things, things that would be eventually broken down into their constitute atomoi, reconstituted as something else, and the cycle goes on and on ad infinitum, forward and back.

The modern Standard Theory has gone beyond Epicurus, but - from my perspective again - has built on Epicurus' ideas (via Lucretius primarily and the Renaissance scholars that read him). As the CERN site says: "The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces." On face value, that insight is remarkably similar - in the BROADEST and most GENERAL sense - to Epicurus' insights 2,000+ years ago. But only in the BROADEST and most GENERAL way. I can't emphasize that enough.

So, to be an Epicurean - again from my perspective - means to accept that we live in a physical, material universe made up of fundamental particles governed by understandable principles. We should not feel compelled to adhere to ideas that are millennia old. But in the broadest sense, I have no problem with the idea of "atoms and void" as a general metaphorical phrase as long as I understand it to be pointing to fundamental particles making up the physical universe, moving through "space" however you'd like to understand that.

Welcome aboard!

Raise a glass "to the founder of the feast!!"

Thanks to you, Cassius, for being vigilant and for springing into action. ΚΥΔΟΣ! Kudos!

Some may object to my saying mortals can never be free from all pain and say something like What's the use of Epicurus' philosophy then.

It's the foundation that it's built on that matters.

If I remember correctly, the Stoics didn't think a normal human could be completely virtuous either, and yet they followed the teachings of their school.

Epicurus posited the limit of pleasure as absence of all pain and made cogent arguments in support of that thus giving the heave-ho to his rivals on their turf. Take that, Skeptics and Platonists!

I believe we can experience absence of pain in some aspects of our life, especially rooting out fear and anxiety of death, gods, etc. We can experience episodes of no pain in parts of our body from time to time. The strategy is to keep our eyes on the prize as it were. A happy life using pleasure as the North Star, steering toward that, using choices and rejections skillfully, sailing through storms when necessary, enjoying the calm seas when available, standing in awe of the stars in the sky, and delighting in the warm sun on our faces under a clear blue sky.

Welcome aboard!

Glad to see the forum is showing up in Google searches!

DeWitt is complete, but I personally get bogged down by his style sometimes. If you do happen to get tired, I highly recommend taking a break and reading Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure. It's a more approachable, conversational style for an introduction to the philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

Torquatus is making these statements very "flatly," He's speaking almost literally "The absence of pain is pleasure - in fact it's the highest pleasure." And I'd say that Epicurus is doing the same thing in the letter to Menoeceus. There's an explanation for the different perspectives, but I don't think we are yet articulating that explanation as Epicurus would.

On Ends, I. 38 Itaque non placuit Epicuro medium esse quiddam inter dolorem et voluptatem; illud enim ipsum, quod quibusdam medium videretur, cum omni dolore careret, non modo voluptatem esse, verum etiam summam voluptatem. quisquis enim sentit, quem ad modum sit affectus, eum necesse est aut in voluptate esse aut in dolore. omnis autem privatione doloris putat Epicurus terminari summam voluptatem, ut postea variari voluptas distinguique possit, augeri amplificarique non possit.

I. 38 Epicurus consequently maintained that there is no such thing as a neutral state of feeling intermediate between pleasure and pain; for the state supposed by some thinkers to be neutral, being characterized as it is by entire absence of pain, is itself, he held, a pleasure, and, what is more, a pleasure of the highest order. A man who is conscious of his condition at all must necessarily feel pleasure or pain. But complete absence of pain Epicurus considers to be the limit and highest point of pleasure; beyond this point pleasure may vary in kind, but it cannot vary in intensity or degree.

That line there: A man who is conscious of his condition at all must necessarily feel pleasure or pain. That's the essence of Epicurus' "contention" - or pointing out the facts, if I may - that if you're alive you're either feeling pleasure or pain.

The absence of pain then, by definition, means totally filled with pleasure.

The obstacle seems to be Epicurus choice of hedone in Greek, translated literally as pleasure in English and translated literally as voluptas in Latin. I will grant that Epicurus expanded what even his contemporaries well before Cicero thought hedone was. But it seems to me he had no better word to convey what he was getting at. I would say a "better" choice of words in English may have been "positive" and "negative" feelings but those connotations didn't really exist in Epicurus' language. The closest to "positive" is θετικός but that has more a "fit" argument or "affirmative" not positive in the sense of a "positive" feeling as we understand it. If we take that alternative tack, Epicurus is saying the absence of all negative feeling yields the highest limit of all positive feeling. Okay, that could still be misconstrued, but it at least uses more complementary words.

I. 39 sin autem summa voluptas est, ut Epicuro placet, nihil dolere,

I. 39 Whereas if, as Epicurus holds, the highest pleasure be to feel no pain, ...

But can mortals actually achieve no pain at all in any amount? I remain skeptical of this. Diogenes Laertius writes that the Garden taught that [X.121] Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures. And I would add "the addition and subtraction of pains." It is the theoretical limit of pleasure (No Pain) that allows it to contend with "Virtue" (don't get me started) to be the Summum Bonum/Telos.

I. 57 O praeclaram beate vivendi et apertam et simplicem et directam viam! cum enim certe nihil homini possit melius esse quam vacare omni dolore et molestia perfruique maximis et animi et corporis voluptatibus, videtisne quam nihil praetermittatur quod vitam adiuvet, quo facilius id, quod propositum est, summum bonum consequamur? clamat Epicurus, is quem vos nimis voluptatibus esse deditum dicitis; non posse iucunde vivi, nisi sapienter, honeste iusteque vivatur, nec sapienter, honeste, iuste, nisi iucunde.

I. 57 "Here is indeed a royal road to happiness — open, simple, and direct! For clearly man can have no greater good than complete freedom from pain and sorrow coupled with the enjoyment of the highest bodily and mental pleasures. Notice then how the theory embraces every possible enhancement of life, every aid to the attainment of that Chief Good which is our object. Epicurus, the man whom you denounce as a voluptuary, cries aloud that no one can live pleasantly without living wisely, honourably and justly, and no one wisely, honourably and justly without living pleasantly.

That "coupled with" to me sounds like joining katastematic and kinetic pleasure: complete freedom from pain and sorrow (ataraxia and aponia) + the enjoyment of the greatest bodily and mental pleasures (kharis and euphrosyne) . perfrŭor = to enjoy fully or thoroughly.

It's getting late and I'm starting to ramble. Consider this food for thought. Until tomorrow.

"feeling no pain" is an idiom for feeling blissful. Just saying

Quote from Cassius

"if you think about it this current feeling that you perceive as blahness is really the greatest pleasure anyone can experience in life!"

That's the point. What they rightly subjectively perceive as blahness isn't the highest pleasure. They are not really free from all pain. I would go so far as to say that none of us are ever going to be at the highest pleasure. We're not gods. Even Epicurus wasn't free from all pain, and he's supposed to be the exemplar, the savior. It's a goal, it's the theoretical limit, but we're mortal beings in a natural material world. It's a theoretical limit that let's pleasure be the good. There is a limit. Parts of our body and sometimes our minds can be free from pain, but it's temporary... Unless we're talking about rooting out fears and anxieties of things that shouldn't be feared or be anxious about.

"It depends how you look at it" plays into the other person's hands. You've accepted their terms and are agreeing to play by their rules on their turf.

They're "looking at it" ....... Okay, I hesitate to say "the wrong way," but that's what I want to say.

And what are we looking at?

I think a more potentially fruitful way is to "Consider this: If you're alive right now, interacting with the world, what are you feeling?" "Nothing much." "Tell me more." "Oh, my back's a little twingy, but overall... meh." And so on.

Are you alive?

Yes?

What are you feeling right now?

Nothing. I am in a neutral state, I am feeling neither pleasure nor pain.

Then you are not alive but dead.

Harrrrumph! Well, the absence of pain is not the highest pleasure.

If you are alive, you are *feeling*, experiencing sensations. Someone who is alive is always feeling...

Etc.

Quote from Cassius

For example, all of those headings around the circumference are labels that the model-writer has assigned based on his or her experience. Would it be any less legitimate to assign them differently?

Depends what you mean by "different". My impression is that most everyone would agree that alert, excited, happy, calm, etc are positive feelings; and stressed, upset, nervous, bored are negative feelings. Those positive and negative sides can be sliced to infinity. Those marked are marking of examples.

Quote from Cassius

a model in which there is a middle ground. Is there really a difference in real-world evidence that says that one model conforms with reality more than does the other?

I would bet that that "middle ground" is not as stable as your argument and Cicero's is making it out to be. If you actually ask someone supposedly experiencing this "middle ground," I would meet they'd defer to adjectives like calm, bored, relaxed, with varying degrees of positive or negative feelings with varying degrees of intensity.

The fact - yes, fact - is that if you are alive, you're feeling something positive or negative. There is no "middle ground" and no "neutral" feeling. "Meh, I'm okay" is still positive, albeit at a low level of intensity.

Or the circumplex model of affect is applicable:

As one moves around the circle, you experience varying intensities of pleasant and unpleasant/painful feelings. But there's are only two big baskets: pleasant/unpleasant overall. As long as you are a living, breathing being, you're going to experience something in this diagram somewhere along that continuum. Pleasure is to the right of the vertical axis, pain to the left. You can't sit on the line. (Please don't get hung up on whether it's the circumference or the area of the diagram. It's a model after all.)

You two did a great job of defining the "problem" of "the feelings are two" and giving some great answers.

I would only add that Cicero sets up this pain and pleasure spectrum. My analogy would be the timeline we currently use to reckon years. Call the AD/CE side pleasure, the BC/BCE side as pain. There is no year zero. You're either in year 1 BCE or year 1 CE. Same with pleasure and pain, your feeling might be slight, but it's going to be in one era or the other. There is no feeling zero... Unless you've died and ceased to exist.

I get why some translators use static, but I feel they want it to connotate "a state - ic" and not necessarily frozen. That's what I get about static.

καταστηματικός; κᾰτᾰ́στημα = a state, condition (e.g., weather conditions); pertaining to a state or condition

Kinetic is effervescent, momentary, ..

So...?

Pleasure found in a state of being, pleasure coming from a stable condition

Pleasure found in the momentary experience

Like I said, workshopping it. I just don't like any connotation of katastematic as frozen or stuck or static or ... Like that.

Quote from Cassius

Is it not of first importance to understand what they mean separately before combining them with pleasure?

I don't think so. It's the phrase "+ pleasure" that's important.

But I've never liked the static or rest analogies. Off the top of my head, I'd be more readily drawn to a clear blue sky, free of clouds, and the night sky awash with various stars, planets, the moon. Still workshopping this.

I'm going to ignore the Grokkery above.

To answer your question, I see katastematic pleasure as that which results, at least in part, from the weeding out of fear of the gods and death. Once those are truly rooted out - not just intellectually but viscerally - they don't come back. Without those fears and anxieties, the mind can remain untroubled. That's katastematic pleasure. A firm state of being.

Kinetic pleasure are all the pleasures that arise in the moment, from pleasant memories to drinking with friends to eating food.

That's the nutshell.

I thought it might be interesting to listeners to see what other quotes exist from Epicurus' "On the End-Goal" (Περι Τελος): https://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html#k45

As is also my wont, I want to *briefly* address the "pleasures of the profligate" mentioned in this episode. If you want to go even more into the weeds on this, most of this below is copied from my translation and commentary of the Letter to Menoikeus.

The specific section of the Letter is:

Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν¹, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν, ὥς τινες ἀγνοοῦντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντες ἢ κακῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μήτε ἀλγεῖν κατὰ σῶμα μήτε ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν·

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the goal (τέλος)," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal and those stuck in delighting in pleasures arising from circumstances outside of ourselves like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. (My translation)

A. τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς = "the pleasures of those who are past recovery with no hope of safety'" My discovery, several years ago now, that ἀσώτων (genitive of ἄσωτος (asōtos)) is the exact same word used in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament gave this line a new resonance. I grew up on stories of the wanton ways of the prodigal son:

“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living ( ζῶν ἀσώτως). After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything."

Hmm, pigs? Coincidence?? In any case, I digress...

ἄσωτος = having no hope of safety, in desperate case; to be past recovery; in moral sense, abandoned, profligate. The Latin synonym given is perditus "squander, dissipate, waste, throw away, lost" (from which we get "perdition.")

So, when Epicurus says "we don't say" he's talking about that kind of behavior that leads to loss, desperation, and to be beyond recovery.

B. τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας = "those stuck in delighting in pleasures arising from circumstances outside of ourselves" I'll admit my translation could be controversial.

There was an extensive discussion on ἀπολαύσει on the forum a couple years ago.

I brought up that ἀπολαύσει and its variants convey the idea of enjoyment, specifically “to have enjoyment of a thing, have the benefit of it.” It can also convey “enjoy an advantage from some source.” This also implies enjoyment of something external to oneself. One source from 1572 stated that the word could also be translated into Latin by oblectationem or delectationem. These also imply enjoyment of physical or sensual pleasures:
- oblectatio "a delighting, delight (a favorite word of Cicero)"
- delectatio "a delighting, delight, pleasure, amusement"
ἀπολαύσει, at its most basic meaning, is the “act of enjoying, fruition” or the “result of enjoying, pleasure.” Again, this implies enjoying the benefit of something with the additional meaning of “advantage got from a thing.”

This sense is very clear in the use of ἀπόλαυσις in Vatican Saying 27, where the "fruit" is explicitly included in the connotation:

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 enjoying comes along with learning, not afterward.
ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτηδευμάτων μόλις τελειωθεῖσιν ὁ καρπὸς ἔρχεται, ἐπὶ δὲ φιλοσοφίας συντρέχει τῇ γνώσει τὸ τερπνόν· οὐ γὰρ μετὰ μάθησιν ἀπόλαυσις, ἀλλὰ ἅμα μάθησις καὶ ἀπόλαυσις.

One is literally here taking delight in the fruit of the love and practice of wisdom.

To cut to the chase:

I am now of the opinion that τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας should be interpreted as "those who are stuck in enjoying (only) those things which provide enjoyment from outside themselves." To me, this is a direct reference to the "incorrect" beliefs of the Cyrenaics and others in relation to pleasure. And, yes, the reader is correct that I'm referring to the kinetic and katastematic pleasures that Epicurus mentions. I realize this will be considered controversial by some, but I believe this best explains Epicurus's being able to use ἀπολαύσει in both positive and negative senses.

Epicurus is on record for including both kinetic and katastematic pleasures within his definition of "pleasure." I have now come to understand kinetic pleasures as those arising from factors and circumstances and that “stand out” from our “background” state of katastematic pleasures within ourselves. A metaphor discussed at the EpicureanFriends forum for this was that katastematic pleasures are the calm ocean while kinetic pleasures are the waves which we can surf. We can enjoy both floating on the calm water as well as the catching of the waves and “shooting the curl.” While Epicurus conveys (along with Metrodorus and Philodemus) that we can be more confident in katastematic pleasures, we continue to "delight" in kinetic pleasures when they are available. It is the exclusivity of "getting stuck in" only seeing kinetic pleasures as pleasure that Epicurus is objecting to here with τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας.

1 Footnote on ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν. When Epicurus writes this phrase, he's not just saying "Pleasure is the end-goal." It's more emphatic than that. ὑπάρχειν expresses a more integral, intimate relationship. It's more than just "is." It's more like "The telos/the end-goal has its being from the very beginning of the universe in pleasure." Granted, that may be pushing it to limit, but that gets closer than just "is" from how I can interpret it.

See also https://philarchive.org/rec/GHOWDU

Preexistence before Socrates – Research Bulletin