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
This seems to say that the barley grains were roasted and then ground into flour:
https://www.romanobritain.org/2-arl_food/arl…barley_cake.php
That might work a little better but then it's getting the barley ground into flour which presents its own problems. The Pass the Flamingo says to roast the flour itself:
Maza begins as álphita: barley flour that has been toasted over a fire,
If "freedom from pain" amounts to the highest sensual pleasure, would you expect that "freedom from pain" or "freedom from disturbance" could just as easily have been listed among these (taste / sex / sound / dance) that Epicurus chose to list? If so, why? If not, why not?
By definition, "freedom from pain" = "filled with pleasure" so I don't think he *had* list specifically list it for it to be intrinsically there already. Note also that all three reference you give appear to be citing Epicurus's On the End-Goal (listed in Diogenes Laertius as On the Telos Περὶ τέλους. It just seems Cicero is quoting more of the text.
The goal isn't a kind of "boring existence" of neutral feeling in the body which doesn't have pain and therefore qualifies as a state of pleasantness. But the goal is maximizing the sweetest sensations of pleasure by seeing that we haven't yet reached the "purest" feeling of pleasure if we are also still feeling pain in the body (over-indulgences) or the mind (anxiety/fear).
I like that summary very much.
In other words the highest form of sensual pleasure (at it's height) will also be free from mental pain (we will be free from worry and fear).
Also, this has to do with a certain segment in time -- it isn't going to be at every moment of every day -- But rather it will unfold depending on a given situation. Ideally we will experience some parts of our day in this way -- we will have the experience of situations that feel very sweet and enjoyable.
Well put again! I would add - from my perspective - one of the goals is to increase those "segments of time" to be both longer and more frequent. And - again from my perspective - that's why cultivating "tranquility" and "peace of mind" is important: it allows us to have a "tranquil" baseline and to be less easily perturbed/disturbed. We will experience the bites of anger, annoyance, etc., but we won't be swept away by them.
Is it listed in the same way such that it appears to be parallel or could have been included in the original listing?
I'm not quite sure of what you're asking here? Could you expand on that? One thought: there is not way to know what was in the original text by Epicurus - the "original listing" - which is lost except for these fragments.
Okay, I had the day off today so I decided to put my money literally where my mouth is and tried making some maza. I had a qualified success and a dismal failure, but Here's the play by play.
First, it was VERY hard to find barley flour. I finally tracked it down at an Indian grocery store in the area, so I bought two small bags (total $5.00 - okay, so not a LOT of money where my mouth is).
I tried two recipes:
First, make your álphita. Pour 1 and 1/4 cups of barley flour into a skillet over medium-high heat. Stir it thoroughly with a wooden spoon until it gives off a toasted aroma and turns a rich brown color. Then, remove from the heat and add 1/2 a cup of water, 2 tablespoons of olive oil and a pinch of salt. Continue stirring until you have an even, thick dough.
Maza
2 cups, 12 tbsp (680 mL) barley flour
2/3 cup (160 mL) water
3 tbsp (45 mL) honey
3 tbsp (45 mL) olive oil
In a large mixing bowl, coming barley flour, water, honey and olive oil by hand into a dough. Cover and rest in fridge for 15 minutes.
Preheat oven to 325F/160C. Brush a baking tray with olive oil. Form dough into golf ball-sized spheres. On a floured surface, roll out dough to about 1 cm thick. Bake on tray until crispy, about 10 to 15 minutes, turning halfway. Place on wire rack to cool.
I tried making them both but made a 1/2 batch of the 2nd one (from The Star).
Mistake #1:
I left the flour in the skillet WAY too long!! It had a very pleasant nutty odor early on in the skillet roasting process, but I couldn't see the color on the stove well. And, I believe I burned it. This is the color of the finished balls at the end of the process.
They tasted terrible and the texture didn't set up. Plus there was the cognitive dissonance of them looking like chocolate. They were NOT chocolate! They also weren't dry like they look in the Pass the Flamingo pictures because I think I added too much water - going unconsciously for a batter almost. They were like slightly congealed pudding and tasted of burnt flour. NOT pleasant! I even tried baking them, but they never set up, and tasted possibly worse! 
VERDICT on the Pass the Flamingo recipe: I may try it again. Pan roast flour for less time. Use much less water! Wait until flour is completely cooled (I put some of the water in when the skillet was still hot!). And make an actual dough and bake it anyway even if the recipe doesn't call for it. If I could get that nutty smell into the finished product, it might be worth experimenting again.
The Star recipe:
I made 1/2 batch of the batter with the honey and olive oil. I did NOT roll them out thin like the recipe said to. Slight mistake there. I put my hand in the photo for size. Here's a finished one after baking more than 2x as long as the recipe calls for... because they were thicker.
Photo taken at an angle. It's about the size of a cookie.
VERDICT on The Star recipe: The taste was quite pleasant with the honey. The texture wasn't great. BUT I think *when* (yes, when) I do it again, I'm going to keep the idea of a tortilla (Thanks, Joshua !) in mind instead of a "loaf" of bread or "pita bread". Without the gluten, that's not going to happen. I will definitely make them larger and flatter, going for a crispy texture.
So, If I were to give my experiments a grade:
0/10 - Pass the Flamingo (but most - if not all - of that is on me, need to follow the recipe + bake the final product)
5/10 - 
The Star (Has some potential and worth trying again with some tweaks - In fact, I ate another small one as I'm typing this. Yes, worth another try at some point... tortilla style 
)
A simple meal of hearty, wholesome bread and spring water delivers the most extreme pleasure whenever food and drink have been brought to bear against hunger and thirst
You did a good job summarizing, Joshua 
Good job everyone! A solid episode!
Joshua also mentioned my aversion to "profligate." Here's that section from my commentary:
131h. οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν,
A quick diversion on ἄσωτος is in order. For those readers with a background in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the parable of the Prodigal Son uses this exact word to describe the lifestyle chosen by the wayward son: And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (Luke 15:13, KJV) Here ἄσωτος is translated as "riotous living." The word also occurs in one other place, this time in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (known to Christians as the "Old" Testament) to describe a sex worker, calling her ἀνεπτερωμένη "inciting" and ἄσωτος "carnal." (Proverbs 7:11) The original connotation of "having no hope" or "lost" gives an extra dimension to the word. The word literally is formed from ἀ- (“not”) + σῴζω (sṓizō “save”): "not saved, lost, desperate." That sense, along with the "extravagant, prodigal, profligate," gives me a much richer sense of what Epicurus's point was.
It needs to also be pointed out that, unlike those Biblical references, there's no moral judgment being passed here. All pleasure is good. It's a question of the consequences. We'll discuss this after we examine how Epicurus describes the pleasure of those who are described as ἄσωτος.
[133] Seeing that, whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. [134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer; and such a one accepts that Fortune is not a god, as the hoi polloi understand (for a god does nothing in a disorderly or haphazardly manner); And it is not the uncertain cause of everything, for one cannot think it can grant good or evil for a person’s blessed life; however, it does furnish for oneself the starting point of great goods and great evils, [135] believing that it is better to be unfortunate rationally than fortunate irrationally because it is better to have been deciding the noble way in accomplishing one's actions and to have been foiled than having decided the bad way and to succeed by means of chance.
Meditate day and night then on this and similar things by yourself as well as together with those like yourself. And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw yourself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans; because no person who lives among eternal pleasures is like a mortal being.
Comes from my spear...? Meaning what?
It means he gains his bread and wine through his military exploits. He earns them by means of his military prowess.
Thanks, Kalosyni !
For completeness, I'm going to post the maza recipe that author links to in that article too:
The significance is that that is the *exact* word Epicurus uses in the (in)famous "bread and water" statement in the letter to Menoikeus.
PS: I'm still trying to find barley flour to be able to try the maza recipe 
To me that sets the whole philosophy up to be a kind of psychological math problem. Which is why I like it so much, the idea that there's a formula for happiness.
Yes, I'd agree up to point but I don't think we need to go the whole Utilitarian way of adding hedons and dolors.
Just wondering if this is the/a source:
The Epicurean Doctrines on Wealth | Society of Friends of Epicurus
Philodemus makes frequent appeals to the authority of Metrodorus, one of the founders of the School, who promoted the idea that hedonic calPhilodemus makes frequent appeals to the authority of Metrodorus, one of the founders of the School, who promoted the idea that hedonic calculus must be employed in the management of one’s household and economic affairs, making the point time and again that we must run certain risks and go through certain inconveniences in order to avoid greater ruin and gain greater advantages.
He disagreed with the destitute life of the Cynics, and appears to have made this point while arguing against them and in favor of a doctrine of the natural measure of wealth. This corresponds to that which is needed to secure the natural and necessary pleasures, and to have the confident expectation that we will be able to secure them in the future.
I strongly suspect that the bread and water reference was one of his regular in-your-face hypotheticals that he COULD live perfectly well on such fare if he needed to do so
I don't think it was merely a hypothetical. I think he probably did live perfectly well and pleasurably and intentionally from time to time on simple, everyday fare. Maybe even most of the time. To prove he could. Not hypothetically but empirically. He was surrounded by friends and students. He taught that your eating companions are as or more important than what you eat. He didn't need extravagance, but certainly wouldn't have gone out of his way to avoid it and wouldn't have struggled to put out a large extravagant banquet every day.
If I remember, there's a text that talks about Epicurus from time to time experimenting to see how little would still give him pleasure. He probably did try fasting do see what was absolutely essential to his finding pleasure in living. From Porphyry, at least, we read the Epicureans had "simple, available food" but we have to add fruit to the bread/maza and water at the very least. And cheese, we know there was cheese from time to time. So, the menu grows.
Porphyry, On Abstinence, I.48-: For most of the Epicureans, starting with their leader, appear to be satisfied with barley-bread and fruit, and they have filled treatises with arguments that nature needs little and that its requirements are adequately met by simple, available food. Riches in accordance with nature, they say, are limited and easy to get; riches in accordance with empty beliefs are unlimited and hard to get.
We also have Philodemus dinner invitation poem:
To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his simple cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply.
This implies to me we're going to get a hearty but simple, frugal meal on the 20th. Not meagre or stingy, but we know we're not getting udders and expensive wine. It's not a banquet. People will leave satiated not stuffed. Piso will celebrate "richly" because of his friendship with Philodemus not because of the food being served.
I was curious about the "simple" words:
αὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων,
ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος,
εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ᾽ ἀπολείψεις
οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακούσῃ
Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα:
ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων, ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.
καλιάδα = "simple" cottage; hut
λιτῆς = litēs = simple, inexpensive, frugal; of style, plain, simple, unadorned
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λι_τός
Philodemus was also clever in his word choice because λιτήν = litēn = entreaty, prayer, invitation echoes the λιτῆς = litēs = simple, inexpensive, frugal in the last line.
By Zeus! I knew that "bread and water" had done damage but I had no idea how much damage!!
whether Epicurus himself was restricting himself to "ordinary food" on all occasions, much less "bread and water.
Even that phrasing - "restricting himself" - strikes me as a slippery slope. If maza and wine (or watered wine as was customary) were just what you ate at a midday meal, you're not"restricting" yourself. That's just your expectation. I see Epicurus as being frugal but not ascetic. And frugal in the sense of the old Frugal Gourmet, "Frugal doesn't mean cheap. It means you don't waste your money." I could see Epicurus making sure the maza was well prepared: fresh, warm, maybe with some honey in the dough. Good fresh spring water for drinking maybe kept in the shade in pottery to keep it slightly cool.
We're told that in the diatribe against Epicurus that "he spent a whole mina daily on his table, as he himself says in his letter to Leontion and in that to the philosophers at Mitylene."
"Is this the Doctors vertuous Epicurus, who spent every day a Mina, which was an hundred Drachma's, that is 3.l.2.s.6.d. every Drachma being 7.d.ob." (Note: That's £3 2 shillings 6 pence in 1652. That's over $700 a day in 2022 $s according to this website)
PS. I wonder if there's a nugget of truth and that's $700 for the household or something like that.
I need to read Nussbaum's whole book. I have a copy. One of the first I bought and then read the Epicurean parts but it has been several years.
I always took the title to mean "using desire as therapy." So, obviously I've missed out on her larger context. Add it to my infinitely growing list of "to be read."
the author uses "affections" in place of "emotions"
Looks like the reason the author uses affections is because Aristotle uses our old friend pathē πάθη there. I double-checked both citations.
Pathē means "that which one experiences, that which happens to a person, that which affects a person." So it's not affection like "He has an affection for his dog" but affection instead of using feeling (something one feels) since it appears Aristotle is using it to refer to everything that can be contained under pleasure and/or pain. So Epicurus and Aristotle both use pathē to refer to the large categories of pleasure/pain.
Excellent quote Godfrey! That is one we do not talk about much but looks very relevant.
Really just what I've been saying - that I have no conception of desire that is without any pain
And maybe that is exactly an artifact of the corruption of the modern monotheistic world and misrepresentaton of Epicurean philosophy - that you and a lot of people DONT have such a conception(?). And for that reason that may be why this point needs to be pounded home in modern Epicurean discussion.
Were you by chance raised Catholic?
I can understand where reneliza (and Joshua) are coming from with the desire / pain paradigm. I think the perspective issue is an intriguing one: the urge to move toward pleasure vs the urge to move away from pain. They really are two sides of the same coin or mirror images or similar metaphors. The glass really is half full AND half empty at the same time.
I do want to dig into Aristotle and his emotion feeling classifications to get a handle on Greek thought at the time.
VS34. It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as it is the confidence of their help.
I was expecting elpis "hope" for confidence here but it ends up being pisteōs "trust" (related to "epistemology" ie, study of what you can trust)
I'm getting hung up on the differences and shades of meaning of:
Desire
Anticipation
Hope
Want
and all the similar words both in English and Greek that have to do with looking forward to something pleasurable (or wanting to escape something painful)
It seems to me at least that there's a distinction that should be important. What does it mean to desire something as opposed to just wanting or anticipating or having confidence in something.
Desire has such a sexual connotation now in English it's hard to disassociate it from that.
Anyway, that's where my head is currently.
Confession: I don't know Greek like AT ALL so reading Don's posts is usually me trying to brute force my way through Greek words by applying what I remember from college math/engineering classes.
It's important to be really careful when talking about DA in the context of motivation
Okay, D probably stands for dopamine since we're talking about that. But the A must be an abbreviation for something... 
See, it can work both ways
I don't know if we have the original Greek of the phrase that Martin Ferguson Smith translates as "desires that outrun the limits fixed by nature,"
DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216
πρὸς δὲ̣ [τοῦ-]
το̣ι̣ς̣ ἐπιθυμίαι το̣[ὺς]
φυσι̣κ̣οὺς ὅρους [ἐκτρέ-]
χουσαι̣.
The part in brackets is filled in but makes sense [ἐκτρέ-]χουσαι̣ and the word does mean outrun or run away from.
The όρους is the familiar "boundary stone" used elsewhere in Epicurean texts:
- boundary, limit, frontier, landmark
- marking stones, stones used for inscribing legal contracts
a desire for the latest iphone or a new Tesla is not "unnatural" even though the ancients never envisioned them.
Yes, that would be natural but unnecessary IF acquiring those things were within reach of one's financial and life situation. But I still think you'd have to ask yourself why you wanted them: for the Tesla, as a mode of travel, for environmental reasons, as a status symbol, etc.
The "nearby" is misleading in that translation. As always, @Nate 's compilation is helpful but here's two:
Hicks translation
25If you do not on every separate occasion refer each of your actions to the chief end of nature, but if instead of this in the act of choice or avoidance you swerve aside to some other end, your acts will not be consistent with your theories.
Saint-Andre translation
25If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony.
Plus, here's the Epicurus Wiki commentary:
Principal Doctrine 25 - Epicurus Wiki
It seems to me that this PD is just saying "walk the walk, don't just talk the talk." If you're going to profess following the "natural goal of life" (pleasure) but you don't make your choices and rejections based on that, your actions will not "be in harmony" with your beliefs.
In reading the last few posts on desire being associated with pain, I personally find it disturbing to think my life would be motivated by pain. Desires are motivating factors. Maybe not the only ones and I admit I need to think about this more. But desires motivate us to take action. If desires are initiated by pain, then is my life motivated by pain?
I would rather think my life is motivated by an appetite to move toward pleasure. I realize that could simply be rephrased as "to move away from pain" to me it's a matter of emphasis and/or perspective. Am I concentrated on the pleasure or the pain?
All that said, Epicurus did write:
By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.
I'm still not convinced that desire (epithymia/ orexis) necessarily involves pain but I'm not saying I have a cogent alternative at this point.
