Posts by Don

Quote from Epicurus

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal 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. [132] For it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.

It seems to me that he's clearly stating that an "endless string" of drinking parties and those others do not fall under his definition when he says "pleasure is the goal/end/telos." He's not being coy or obtuse. When we say this, we don't mean that.

Quote from Cassius

Ha - I will say on my last reading that I detect some bias in listing "too much frugality" without listing the negative "descending" that is attached to profligacy"

Not intentional bias.

VS63 warns of choosing too much frugality.

The letter to Menoikeus clearly says that "an endless string of drinking parties and festivals" is not how Epicurus defines pleasure.

So... One is looking for pain with too much frugality or too much "sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

My take has been to understand Epicurus's point as "If your circumstances, for some reason, made it so that you *had* to live in a cave by yourself on the barest of necessities, you *could* find pleasure in that since you're still alive and Nature can supply your necessary needs. BUT it is NOT necessary to live this way. Living among friends, discussing and practicing philosophy, making all your choices and rejections based on practical wisdom and other sound criteria, living neither with too much frugality nor descending into profligacy... That is a pleasurable life."

Quote from Kungi

Quote from Martin

For an Epicurean, virtue is one of the tools to experience pleasure.

In Epicurean philosophy, what is virtuous depends on the particular context, whereas in Stoic philosophy, they seem to be rather absolute.

The 4 Stoic virtues are:

• (practical) Wisdom
• Justice
• Temperance
• Courage

For the Stoics these are the only good things, with all others being (preferred or dispreferred) indifferents. The stoics are absolute when it comes to their cardinal (in a non christian sense) values. I think all of these virtues are important for a pleasurable life. I can't be unwise, unjust, without self discipline and a coward and have a happy life.

Are there more or different virtues in Epicureanism than these? If yes, how are they defined?

Thanks for bringing your thread back around to the Stoic/Epicurean question. My first thought when reading the list of virtues was Principal Doctrine 5:

Quote from Epicurean Principal Doctrines

5 Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως· ὅτῳ δ᾽ ἕν τούτων μὴ ὑπάρχει οἷον ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.

ἄνευ + gen = without

φρονίμως wisely, sensibly, prudently

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

δικαίως —adv. -ως, rightly, justly

ἡδέως pleasantly < ἡδονή

My translation: PD5 It is not possible to live a pleasurable life without the traits of (practical) wisdom, morality, and justice; and it is impossible to live with wisdom, morality, and justice without living pleasurably. When one of these is lacking, it is impossible to live a pleasurable life.

Consider in light of Fragment 519: The greatest fruit of justice is serenity. δικαιοσύνης καρπὸς μέγιστος ἀταραξία.

Display More

Epicurus clearly thinks the "virtues" are important, but they are important because they are instrumental to achieving a pleasurable life and not as ends or goals for their own sake.

Quote from Kalosyni

(Wondering if maybe we need to move some of these posts to a new thread, since this was originally a thread for Kungi.)

Agree with Kalosyni on that.

Additionally, I advocate getting away from the natural and "unnatural" descriptors. There are natural desires - those arising from nature - and those that are not natural arising from fruitless, void, groundless, empty beliefs. They are κεναί:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=keno/s That's a much better description of what they are than unnatural. Unnatural implies they are somehow not human. They are unfortunately very human desires, but they're empty of substance and can never be satiated.

This is the exact same word Epicurus uses to name the "void" in "atoms and void." He's saying that there is literally nothing there to back up the desire. The void is the absence of atoms. It is the empty space within which the atoms move.

Quote from Kalosyni

It would all depend on what is considered necessary for happiness.

Here's my take from my translation of the last part of section 127 of the letter to Menoikeus made into a bulleted list:

"Furthermore, ...

• 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."

Quote from Godfrey

I imagine this may sound like nitpicking

Doesn't sound like nitpicking to me

If anyone is curious from our last 20th get together, here is the play by Aristophanes entitled Wealth (Πλούτος , Plutus is the Latinized spelling since, evidently, *everything* has to be spelled like the Romans did it )

Plutus (play) - Wikipedia

PD15 Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.

• Πλούτος wealth, riches
• ὥρισται (verb 3rd sg perf ind mp redupl) divide, limit
• εὐπόριστός easy to procure
• ὁ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν empty beliefs
• ἄπειρον boundless, infinite (same word to describe the extent of the universe)

ἐκπίπτω

• 1. to fall out of a chariot, c. gen., Hom., etc.; c. dat. pers., τόξον δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός Il.
• 2. of seafaring men, to be thrown ashore, Lat. ejici, Od., Hdt., etc.: of things, to suffer shipwreck, Xen.
• 3. to fall from a thing, i. e. be deprived of it, Lat. excidere, τινός or ἔκ τινος Aesch., etc.
• 4. to be driven out, of persons banished, Hdt., etc.
• 5. to go out or forth, sally out, id=Hdt., Xen.
• 6. to come out, of votes, id=Xen.
• 7. to escape, Thuc.
• 8. of oracles, to issue from the sanctuary, be imparted, Luc.
• 9. to depart from, digress, Xen., Aeschin.
• to fall off, come to naught, NTest.
• 11. of actors, to be hissed off the stage, Lat. explodi, Dem.
  • fut. -πεσοῦμαι
  • aor2 ἐξέπεσον
  • Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach.

Don translation: Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach.

Hicks translation: Nature’s wealth has its bounds and is easy to procure, but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.

Saint-Andre translational: Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion are boundless.

Quote from Godfrey

.dangerous for it (the soul) to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence" is intriguing. This provides maybe the simplest description of vain desires: ignoring the commands of nature. And it implies the antidote: pay attention!

"...attachment to its usual independence" is less clear.

And I just realized that that "independence" is our old friend αὐταρκείας autarkeias usually translated as "self-reliance"! I was too fixated on the first part!!

200. Don't think it unnatural (ἀφυσιολόγητον aphysiologēton) that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.

ἀφυσιολόγητον μηδὲν ἡγοῦ βοώσης τῆς σαρκὸς βοᾶν τὴν ψυχὴν· σαρκὸς δὲ φωνή· μὴ πεινῆν, μὴ διψῆν, μὴ ῥιγοῦν· καὶ ταῦτα τὴν ψυχὴν χαλεπὸν μὲν κωλῦσαι, ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ παρακοῦσαι τῆς παραγγειλάσης φύσεως αὐτῇ τῆς προσφυοῦς αὑτῇ αὐταρκείας καθʼ ἡμέραν.

Otherwise, the phrasing appears to be:

οὔτε δὲ φυσικὰς οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαίας

Neither natural nor necessary

I realize it's possibly pedantic, but the words natural and necessary are simply in a negative phrase: neither X nor Y. It's not the words "unnatural"and "unnecessary" themselves.

Please, if anyone sees otherwise, post your findings!

There's also this thread on self-sufficiency from 2021 that might be of interest:

Post

RE: Autarkia And Epicurean Living In The Modern World

I also apologize, @Macario , but I should have directly responded to the DeWitt quoted passages. I'll try to do that over the weekend. I did see that this line:

[…]

seems to convey to me the idea of contentment in relation to αυτάρκεια.

Thank you again for engaging in this conversation. I know it's been valuable for me so far to get me to delve into this topic.

Don

September 17, 2021 at 8:15 PM

For anyone who REALLY wants to get into the weeds...

Greek and Roman Textiles and Dress

Greek and Roman Textiles and Dress

www.academia.edu

Quote from reneliza

my understanding is that, at least in the letter to Menoeceus he didn’t use the term that would be an inversion - or direct opposite of “natural” and that “unnatural” is more of a translation choice because it seemed like they were meant to be opposites in that way - Don’s post seems to affirm this as well, but please correct if I’m wrong)

You are correct. Natural and Empty in Menoikeus. I don't think the Greek word for unnatural is ever used. For example:

PD29 Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ <καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι· αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ> καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι.

Don - Of the cravings, first there are those that are natural and required to live, then there are those that are natural but not required, and, finally, there are those that are neither natural nor required which come to be along with empty beliefs (beliefs devoid of merit).

That's as close as we get, I think.

At the risk of self-horn-tooting, here's my translation and commentary on the desires from my Letter to Menoikeus. Apologies for the length. See the PDF for more:

Translation:

Furthermore, 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.

Commentary:

127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,

• Ἀναλογιστέον "consider..."
• τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν "of the desires, yearnings"
  • "Consider then of the desires, on the one hand, are the φυσικαί "natural ones'
    • φυσικαί (physikai)
      • English physical, physics
  • on the other, the κεναί 'empty, fruitless, vain, void ones."
    • κεναί is also again the word used when Epicurus talks about atoms and void.

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·

• "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
  • ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

• "then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

• ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
• σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
  • σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"
• “then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.

I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.

PS: the "on the one hand... On the other hand" are meant to literally translate the Greek μεν... δε... It is clunky and awkward in English but I wanted to get across that they were there in the original. They do not have to be, nor should they be, translated this literally in all cases.

You might want to look up Philodemus' On Property Management for an actual ancient Epicurean's perspective on this topic:

Philodemus: On Property Management

Voula Tsouna provides a translation, extensive introduction, and notes on Philodemus&#39; treatise &quot;On Property Management.&quot; A fragmentary version of…

www.academia.edu

Here's an article Hiram wrote:

On Philodemus’ Art of Property Management

An overview and commentary of a scroll written by 1st Century Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara titled &quot;On Property Management&quot;. The main…

www.academia.edu

I realize this may be too "in the weeds" but I wanted to point out that these topics were being discussed in the Garden 2,000 years ago.

I thought that quote from Philodemus was on point about not feeling distressed by what one loses. I take that too mean don't invest recklessly and stay within your means. But he had much more to say, some applicable to modern life, other advice not so much. But it can be instructive to get a different perspective possibly.

Quote from Pacatus

I do not believe I can “hide” in an Epicurean Garden (not that I think that was what Epicurus advocated – even with his recommendation to, insofar as possible, live an obscure life)

We had an interesting, in-depth discussion on "live unknown" a couple years ago:

Post

What "Live Unknown" means to me (Lathe Biosas)

Fragment 551 famously reads λάθε βιώσας and is usually translated as "Live unknown." It could also be translated as "Live hidden," "Live unnoticed," or "Live while escaping notice."

But how do we square this coming from Epicurus who is known two thousand years after he died. Did he live by this maxim? We can't say Epicurus was even unknown during his life. So how are we to understand láthe biōsas as it pertains to him and ourselves?

Epicurus encouraged people to shun the world of politics and the…

Don

March 7, 2020 at 11:12 PM

You might need interested in what was said in that thread.

Quote from Cassius

I can't get rid yet of a nagging concern that evaluating desire on its own separate from pleasure is going to lead to problems of its own,

Um, Epicurus did the same thing in distinguishing desire and pleasure. So ... Just throwin' that out there.

Pleasure is, by definition, good.

Desires can be natural, unnatural, necessary, unnecessary, or empty. Desires are NOT all good by any means.

They're of course connected. We have desires for pleasures. But pleasure is separate from desire.

Eating is pleasurable. However, the desire *to eat* can come in many permutations, some necessary, some unnecessary, even though eating is natural:

• I want to eat because I'm actually hungry.
• I want to eat because I'm worried.
• I have the munchies. I'm bored.
• I want to eat because my friend is eating and I don't want them to eat alone even though I ate recently.
• I want to eat popcorn because that's what I do at the movie theater even though I'm not hungry.
• I want to eat at this one specific restaurant in Chicago but I can't travel there now. (Now, this one could turn into a pleasant memory!)

Quote from Cassius

But I doubt if there is much call in life, short of dealing with obstinate manipulators like Plato, to dwell on terms like "zero-emptiness." Nonstandard terms tend to confuse regular common-sense People.

I assume we're talking about "katastematic" here.

If so, I'll say your statement is true, but...

1. It was not a "nonstandard term" during Epicurus's lifetime or during the founding and early centuries when the philosophy of the Garden was popular and widespread.
2. It doesn't have to be - nor should it be - the first thing that's talked about when introducing the philosophy to people.
3. We need to have a response to the academics who DO use this term extensively. Because, as we know, people will say, "Didn't Epicurus say this katastematic pleasure was the be-all and end-all of his philosophy?" We need to be able to use the word, understand it (even if we may have a different take), and be able to defend our position. I cede nothing to the academics who want to make Epicureanism into "Stoicism-lite" or "Platonic hedonism" or some minimalistic ascetism that can be safely ignored and marginalized! By Zeus! I refuse to allow academics who themselves sometimes can't even agree on a translation let alone an interpretation dictate the terms of this discussion!

I have no problem using "katastematic" pleasure and defending my Interpretation. I'll use academic research papers and academic authors, but I certainly don't have to agree with their conclusions. Add I'll do my best to describe my Interpretation to "common-sense people" and let them come to their conclusion. And I do hope I've been using (for the most part) common-sense language in my posts at least. (btw, Just to be clear, this is NOT a polemic directed against Cassius !! I just get a tad fired up sometimes. )