Posts by Don

Quote from reneliza

I don't think that you can draw a limit, I think the limit has to be inherent in some way. You're pursuing wealth - to what end? Your end will always (eventually) be pleasure (if not, then that's a bad sign), but do you have good reason to believe that the specific pursuit of wealth will end in net pleasure? Has it worked in the past? When will it pay off? What will happen next?

I like where you're going in this paragraph! What are the ends you're working toward? That has to be answered by someone "pursuing wealth." Wealth for wealth's sake is empty. Wealth for a specific pleasure or pleasurable goal could be something different. Although it could also be problematic if it's working for wealth only to be enjoyed decades from now and not finding any pleasure now. If I've misconstrued your intentions with those lines, just let me know.

Quote from reneliza

I would disagree, at least for my own self, with the wisdom in pursuit of an ambiguous goal that may never pay off when there are so many strong pleasures (mostly) easily available to me. That doesn't mean I don't believe in hard work or that I never choose pain for a greater pleasure

Same here. I think you're raising some really good points here.

I'm not sure anyone's done this yet, but I thought it might be instructive to see where the word empty "kenōs" is used in other places.

Saint-Andre translation of PD29 which includes the scholia commentary

29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from 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)

PD30 also addresses empty beliefs/opinions/doctrines κενὴν δόξαν "kenēn doxan":

Hicks translation

30 Some natural desires, again, entail no pain when not gratified, though the objects are vehemently pursued. These desires also are due to groundless opinion, and when they are not got rid of, it is not because of their own nature, but because of the man’s groundless opinion.

Saint-Andre translation

30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.

Epicurus wiki translation:

Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own nature, but because of human vanity.

Nussbaum translation, p.153

Whenever, among those natural desires that do not lead to pain if they are not fulfilled, an intense eagerness (spoudē suntonos) is present, they too are the products of false belief. And it is not on account of their own nature that they are not dispelled, but in account of the human being's empty believing. (On suntonos "intense", see Nussbaum, chapter 8). Philodemus uses the word of the sort of anger the Epicurean will avoid.

PD37 uses empty in a novel way, to describe "empty sounds, words, prattle" The phase is φωναῖς κεναῖς "phōnais kenais" and yes that's where English "phone" comes from, so φωναῖς κεναῖς = empty sound, meaningless yelling, blah blah blah

Saint-Andre translation

37 Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts.

The word empty is also used here for the ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας "empty and trifling virtues (aretas)"

116. I summon you to sustained enjoyment and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.

And in Fragment 202, we get "empty beliefs/groundless opinions" κεναῖς δόξαις (kenais doxais) in juxtaposition with "following nature" so, in a way, setting up the dichotomy of natural vs empty.

Fragment 202. He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is poverty.

ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει παρακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστι πενία.

Same with 422 κενὰς δόξας "groundless opinions"

422. We need pleasure when in pain because of its absence; but when we are not experiencing such pain, and are perceiving stably, then there is no need for pleasure. For it is not the needs of nature which, from outside us, create harm, but desire driven by groundless opinions.

τότε χρείαν ἔχομεν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι αὐτὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ πάσχωμεν ἐν αἰσθήσει καθεστῶτες, τότε οὐδεμία χρεία τῆς ἡδονῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἔνδεια τὴν ἀδικίαν ποιεῖ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς κενὰς δόξας ὄρεξις.

471. (Saint-Andre) It is rare to find a man who is poor with regard to the aims of nature and rich in groundless desires. For a fool is never satisfied with what he has, but instead is distressed about what he doesn't have. Just as those who are feverish through the evil of their sickness are always thirsty and desiring the opposite of what they should, so those whose souls are in a bad condition are always poor in everything and through their greed fall into ever-changing desires. [note] σπάνιόν γε εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον <πένητα> πρὸς τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος καὶ πλούσιον πρὸς τὰς κενὰς δόξας. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν ἀφρόνων οἷς ἔχει ἀρκεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οἷς οὐκ ἔχει ὀδυνᾶται. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ πυρέττοντες διὰ κακοήθειαν τῆς νόσου ἀεὶ διψῶσι καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ τὴν ψυχὴν κακῶς ἔχοντες διακειμένην πένονται πάντων ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν.

[NOTE 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. (See also 116 above)

Fr. 485. Unhappiness (kakodaimon) is caused by fears or by endless and empty desires; but one who is able to rein these in creates for oneself a blissful understanding (logismon).

ἢ γὰρ διὰ φόβον τις κακοδαιμονεῖ ἢ διʼ ἀόριστον καὶ κενὴν ἐπιθυμίαν· ἅ τις χαλινῶν δύναται τὸν μακάριον ἑαυτῷ περιποιῆσαι λογισμόν.

χαλινῶν genitive: rein, bit, something that restrains

μακάριον makarion = blissful, the same word used to describe the gods

περιποιῆσαι keep, preserve; procure, secure, achieve.

512. "I spit on the kalon and on those who wonder at it in an empty fashion -- whenever it does not produce any pleasure."

προπτύω τῷ καλῷ καὶ τοῖς κενῶς αὐτὸ θαυμάζουσιν, ὅταν μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν σοιῇ.

That's a translation of Nussbaum's and it's much more literal (and better) than other paraphrases I've read of this Fragment. Here we see κενῶς "kenōs" empty used to describe how some people wonder at The Noble/The Beautiful τῷ καλῷ Tō Kalō(n)

Quote from reneliza

And in the end I wonder if that’s the sort of wrong-thinking that the void desires stem from: treating the thing as an end in itself instead of only using it as a means to obtain maximum overall pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

As for "agreeably" I get the idea that was intended just to be a synonym of "pleasantly" without intending much of a distinction. I don't think I recall anyone asserting that anything significantly different was intended.

Exactly. They're all translating ἡδέως which is just the adverb of "pleasant."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἡδύς

PS: Translators' choices like using "agreeably" stem from an uneasiness or dislike in calling "pleasure" pleasure, in my opinion. A puritanical mindset seems to pervade some earlier translators' approach and persists to the present. They may feel "pleasure" isn't high-minded enough and they need to obfuscate or otherwise dilute that idea.

Welcome to the rabbit hole LOL!

I hope I didn't use honorably/honestly?! Καλώς had a LOT of synonyms, but switching between two words in the same paragraph in a translation certainly isn't recommended when the same Greek word is used.

Epicurus's theology is primarily directed at removing one's fear of the gods. He wanted to get people to rid themselves of the ideas that their every move was being tallied, and the gods were either going to rain down divine punishment now or after death, or they were going to bestow blessings on the pious. Neither of those scenarios were going to happen according to Epicurus.

He maintains "gods exist" but "not as the hoi polloi believe." As you'll read here and elsewhere, there are two primary perspectives on the gods in modern scholarship:

1. Epicurus believed there were real beings existing somewhere in the universe who were eternally blissful, who had bodies that didn't decay, and who took no interest or action in human affairs, and who did NOT create or maintain the universe.

2. Epicurus used the vocabulary of the "gods" to describe mental concepts or archetypes of what a blissful, incorruptible being would be like and that Epicureans could use those concepts as an ideal of what a blissful existence could be like. David Sedley is one of the prime advocates for this position.

1 is referred to as the realist approach. 2 is the idealist approach. Personally, I fall well towards 2 in my current understanding.

Yeah, I mostly agree with you.

I could accept something like "Even the smallest pleasure can bring the greatest joy" but that is NOT what Bailey is saying.

BAILEY: [116] For not even the lowest animal, although ‘a small thing gives the greater pleasure,’ would be seized by such foolishness, much less one who was possessed of perfect happiness.

HICKS: [116] For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect felicity.

INWOOD/GERSON: For such foolishness would not afflict any ordinary animal, even if it were a little more sophisticated, let alone one who possessed complete happiness.

YONGE: Nor can such folly as this occur to any being who is even moderately comfortable, much less to one which is possessed of perfect happiness.

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ (αν) εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

So, the major difference in translation here seems Bailey's decision to put in the proverb itself that he says the line κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη "obviously" alludes to: "The smaller the trifle, the greater the joy." While the others don't seem to necessarily accept this as alluding to a "proverb":

- if ever so little enlightened

- even if it were a little more sophisticated

- any being who is even moderately comfortable

χαριέστερον

"in Attic, freq. of persons, in relation to qualities of mind, elegant, accomplished"

χαρίεις - Wiktionary

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χα^ρίεις

Yeah, I don't get Bailey's proverb allusion there. It doesn't quite seem to fit to me and the other translations seem more on the mark.

And the "perfect happiness" παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν is our old friend eudaimonia modified by that word pantele (from pan-telos) "all-accomplishing, all-complete, absolute, etc."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, π , παντα^χοῖ , παντελής

The only difference between the Greek of Hicks and Bailey appears to be αν:

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

Hicks

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ (αν) εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν (εἰ) μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν κεκτημένον.

Bailey

Here's Bailey's commentary on those lines:

Greek Word Study Tool

That mine/drilling disaster video was fascinating!! I had never heard of it. Thanks for sharing, Joshua !

Quote from Kalosyni

I have to say, I am not sure I agree with this.

When death is imminent then yes I agree with the need for tranquillity.

Yet, when death is not imminent, there is more than tranquility needed for a complete life. There was a moment in which I had a peak experience, in the past -- it was a state of pure bliss, and it was at that moment that I felt my life was complete. It was a completely "safe" experience but I wouldn't say it was "tranquil" one bit because it was active and in motion -- it was a active and ecstatic experience.

I found this line from the 2nd papers introduction interesting (emphasis added):

What sets Epicurus apart from many hedonists, however, is his idea that the greatest (in the sense of most valuable, or most choiceworthy) pleasures are generated in a state of ataraxia, or tranquillity. This is a condition in which a person is free from physical pain and mental distress.

To me, that gets at an idea of ataraxia (and aponia, although I don't believe the paper mentions that specifically) being the ground on which we can more fully experience other pleasures. Without that ground or foundation, other pleasures are experienced but may be fleeting. With a steady, tranquil mind and healthy body, we are already feeling pleasure, then other pleasures vary our experience.

And I would offer that one can be "tranquil" in activity. It doesn't mean sitting on a cushion, meditating. Or being numb (as some might say, both ancient and modern)!!

By a "complete life," Epicurus meant "one filled with pleasure." Once you're filled, you're complete, the goal has been reached. PD20 uses the phrase.

"Life complete" is conveyed by τὸν παντελῆ βίον. I contend that this is one of the more important phrases in the original Greek. This is the kind of life that is produced by following the Epicurean path. Again, we have to delve into Epicurus' words to really appreciate what he's saying. Παντελῆ derives from παν "all, every" + τέλος "goal, end" but not just any goal or end, the ultimate, fully-accomplished end of something, its fully-realized purpose. So, Epicurus is calling us to a life where he believes we can find that every goal is accomplished, every purpose fulfilled IF we understand the limits of pleasure and desire. That will provide us with τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου "the best life" of all the possible ways of living.

Good questions, Kalosyni .

Broken record that I am, when anyone says something like "Not only do we need to understand the word pleasure, but also "virtues" and "happiness"" I immediately think "Back to the source material!" I agree with Kalosyni , so what words does Diogenes of Oenoanda (DO, for short) use that are translated as pleasure, virtue, and happiness. And how were the words DO used understood by him in the period he was writing. That's the rub from my perspective.

I'm using this resource:

DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216 (papyri.info)

Pleasure is the familiar hedone ἡδονῆς (which the Latin writers translated to voluptas)

Virtue is arete ἀρετή

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀρετή (tufts.edu)

Arete is a slippery word that's accumulated a LOT of baggage over the centuries. The more literal meaning is "excellence" as in displaying excellence in character or deed. It came to take on the idea of "virtue" due to this original meaning.

As for happiness...

the word DO uses is eudaimonia ευδαιμονία, and even more slippery word than arete!

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐγλάγ-ετος , εὐδαιμον-ία (tufts.edu)

As anyone who's been around these parts for any time knows, eudaimonia has sparked any number of discussions on this board, with both pro and con advocates. I personally like the word, and my preferred translation is "well-being". To me, that's almost a pun on the literal eu "good/well" + daimonia "daemon, 'in-dwelling spirit"" (you could have a "good" spirit (eudaimon) or a "bad" spirit (kakodaimon)) Socrates talks about taking advice from his daemon. But enough about him.

So, I think Kalosyni 's "satisfaction" isn't too bad as a translation. Other translations include "well-being, prosperity, good fortune, true full happiness." Mr. Roger's theme song literally just popped into my head, especially the first few lines that, to me, describe eudaimonia. Never thought of Fred Rogers as an Epicurean hmmm:

It's such a good feeling,

To know you're alive,

It's such a happy feeling,

You're growing inside,

And when you wake up, ready to say,

"I think I'll make a snappy new day."

It's such a good feeling,

A very good feeling,

The feeling you know,

That I'll be back,

When the day is new,

And I'll have more ideas for you,

And you'll have things you'd want to talk about,

I will too.

You always make each day such a special day,

You know how, by just you being you,

There's only one person in the whole world

Exactly like you, and that's you yourself,

And people can like you exactly how you are,

It's such a good feeling,

A very good feeling,

The feeling you know,

That we're friends.

Hidden Brain Podcast

Hidden Brain explores the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior and questions that lie at the heart of our complex and changing world. Our work, led…

hiddenbrain.org

If anyone needed proof that our mind is inextricably linked to our physical body (and therefore physical itself), check out both the recent Reframing Your Reality episodes, part 1 and 2, of the Hidden Brain podcast. Fascinating stuff!

From the conclusion of the 2nd paper.

This seems to me not a bad argument for the importance of tranquility (ataraxia) in an Epicurean life. It's NOT a tranquility of living in a cave. It is an unassailable position from which to experience all the "pleasures of daily life in their most vivid form." It is a perspective on life. It is acquired from a right understanding of nature and our place in it. It is a tranquility that makes us self-reliant in the face of adversity. It is the tranquility that allows us to understand death truly is nothing to us.

As I said, I don't agree with all the author's points, but I find his support and reasons for tranquility refreshing in the face of most authors simply asserting a "tranquility is the only goal by itself" thesis. This author gives more of a why.

First, as argued in Section 2, its (the tranquil life's) joys are varied and include the pleasures of daily life in their most vivid form.

Second, Epicureanism is based on the idea that lives that are not tranquil are typically unhappy: due to false religious beliefs, fear of death, and wanting more than they can be confident of securing, most ordinary people are beset with worry.

Third, Epicureans hold that the pleasures of tranquillity are valuable because they are produced by inquiry into nature and the best way to live, by crafting our desires accordingly, and by living so that these desires are unlikely to be thwarted. As such, they are an achievement of reason, and one that, as we have seen, leaves luck only a modest role in shaping our lives. The Epicurean tranquil life is therefore autonomous, in the sense that it involves being guided by our reasoned view of the world and our conception of the good and accomplishing what we set out to achieve.

Finally, as Epicurus claims in the passage just quoted from Key Doctrines 20-1, once we have attained tranquillity, our lives are complete. After all, tranquillity is meant to be attainable even when death is imminent. Death must therefore not thwart any strongly held desires of the serene Epicurean. Once we have attained peace of mind, the very desire to remain serene must therefore be a purely conditional desire. That is, as good Epicureans, once we have attained tranquillity, we will want to spend any further time alive in this condition, but we will not want to stay alive in order to remain in it. If we then make the further assumption that something can be bad for a thoughtful, informed adult only if it frustrates a desire of theirs, then it follows that, once we have attained peace of mind through sagacious means, death will not be bad for us. A long time alive in a tranquil state will be welcome—because better than a life of misery—but it will not improve our lives over living a shorter time continuously in the tranquil state before dying. As the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus put it: “The one who understands, having grasped that he is capable of achieving everything sufficient for the good life, immediately and for the rest of his life walks

about already ready for burial, and enjoys the single day as if it were an eternity” (De Morte XXXVIII.14-19 in Warren 2004, p. 152).

For reference, here's the author's follow-up paper:

The Pleasures of Tranquillity

Epicurus posited that the best life involves the greatest pleasures. He also argued that it involves attaining tranquillity. Commentators from Aristippus of…

www.academia.edu

Okay, I think the author raised some interesting points. I don't agree with all his conclusions, naturally, but at least he took some opinions that are a bit outside the mainstream ones.

Epicurus on Pleasure, a Complete Life, and Death: A Defence

Epicurus argued that the good life is the pleasurable life. He also argued that &#39;death is nothing to us&#39;. These claims appear in tension. For if…

www.academia.edu

Has this been shared before?

In light of the recent threads on desires, I thought this has some interesting takes. I haven't finished reading the entire paper/chapter but did see statements like this:

Now, with regard to such natural and unnecessary desires, Epicurus’ recommendations seem to have been as follows. So long as these desires are not based on false belief (say, the belief that one simply could not be happy without finery, when in fact one could adapt perfectly well to going about in simple clothes), and so long as one could be sufficiently confident that one would always be able to satisfy them without causing pain or distress, there is no objection to developing them, maintaining them, or seeking to satisfy them.

That to me is at least a step in the right direction.

And I have no qualms about the author's mention of "tranquility." He's not saying that is the only thing, and from all I read Epicurus stressed that we need a calm peaceful mind and a healthy body if we are to lead a pleasurable life.

Now, I need to finish reading...

Well, welcome back, @smoothiekiwi .

See, this is my issue with relying on translations. In Greek, the three traits/virtues are:

φρονίμως wisely, sensibly, prudently

καλῶς II. regul. adv. καλῶς, mostly in moral sense, well, rightly

δικαίως —adv. -ως, rightly, justly

And Kalōs καλώς can be defined as:

Woodhouse, S. C. (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language‎[1], London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.

admirable idem, page 12.

artistic idem, page 42.

auspicious idem, page 53.

beautiful idem, page 68.

buxom idem, page 107.

capital idem, page 111.

comely idem, page 145.

creditable idem, page 183.

elegant idem, page 265.

estimable idem, page 283.

excellent idem, page 288.

exquisite idem, page 296.

fair idem, page 302.

favourable idem, page 311.

fine idem, page 321.

fortunate idem, page 340.

good idem, page 366.

goodly idem, page 367.

handsome idem, page 383.

happy idem, page 384.

high-principled idem, page 400.

honourable idem, page 405.

hopeful idem, page 405.

lovely idem, page 502.

lucky idem, page 504.

noble idem, page 559.

ornamental idem, page 580.

picturesque idem, page 611.

plausible idem, page 618.

pomantic idem, page 625.

principled idem, page 641.

promising idem, page 653.

propitious idem, page 653.

reputable idem, page 699.

righteous idem, page 715.

skilful idem, page 780.

specious idem, page 799.

spruce idem, page 806.

virtuous idem, page 954.

well-favoured idem, page 974.

So, "morality" is only one Interpretation of that 2nd word.

Quote from Cassius

See I read that differently. I think he's saying not saying that everyone has to avoid those things completely, but that everyone has to evaluate their circumstances and options and preferences and decide exactly how much partying and fine food is going to be what they wish to pursue - for the more they pursue, if their circumstances do not allow it - the more pain they will suffer in cost. I put key emphasis on the "endless" adjective.

LOL. I don't think we read it that differently in the end in light of your explanation there.

He clearly didn't forbid attendance at drinking parties. He wrote a book entitled Symposium after all.

I too think the emphasis is on the "endless". And it doesn't really say that in the Greek. Here are my notes from my commentary:

οὐ συνείροντες (ou syneirontes) "not stringing together"

"not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals…"

Note that he doesn't say you can't attend drinking parties or take part in village festivals! He's saying life shouldn't be an "endless string" of them. That's going to lead to more pain than pleasure in the end.

συνείρω

only in pres. and imperf.

I. to string together, Lat. connectere, Ar., Plat.

II. to string words together, Dem., etc.: then, seemingly intr. (sub. λόγους) to speak on and on, go on without pausing, Xen.

PS. I still think this whole line of argument from him is a direct refutation of the Cyrenaics.