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
I would say that it's a different quality of pleasure: quieter, more subtle
ἡσυχία (hēsykhia) "Stillness, rest, quiet" (see my other post where Epicurus uses this exact word).
Trivia: Hesychia was also "In Greek mythology, either the daemon personification of silence, a handmaiden of the god of sleep, Hypnos; or a mortal daughter of Thespius."
I knew I'd hit a nerve with Cassius on this whole katastematic/kinetic topic. I'm still digging through all the posts from today, and I'll have to go back and read Nikolsky, G&T (not gin and tonic, unfortunately), et al. I'll have more to say over the next few days. Plus I'm digging into the original texts as well. *That's* the most important task in my opinion.
For the record, however, there is no doubt that Epicurus divided up pleasures into at least 2 different but related kinds. No matter what, we have to account for:
DL X.136. ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἱρέσεων οὕτω λέγει: "ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."
And Epicurus, in his On Choices, says this, "For freedom from disturbance ("ataraxia") and freedom from suffering ("aponia") are katastematic pleasures, and joy and delight are viewed as kinetic and active." (trans. Inwood & Gerson)
Epicurus is quoted, directly dividing pleasures into at least 2 katastematic ones and at least 2 kinetic/active ones. He made the distinction. He used the terms. Note, however, that he is NOT quoted as putting them in a hierarchy that I can see, but the words are there.
Plus this is the passage directly before Epicurus's On Choices quote:
Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest."
Metrodorus's quote is:
νοουμένης δὲ ἡδονῆς τῆς τε κατὰ κίνησιν καὶ τῆς καταστηματικῆς.
Right there, again, is κίνησιν (kinēsin) and
καταστηματικῆς (katastēmatikēs).
Metrodorus is also quoted as saying (I'm paraphrasing, don't have it in front of me) that we can be more confident of the pleasures arising from states than from those of objects or activities outside of ourselves. To me, this points directly to the katastematic/kinetic debate plus seems to point to the importance of autarkeia/self-reliance.
So, even if by some chance Epicurus and Metrodorus were responding to criticism from another philosopher (and I don't think they were, but for the sake of conjecture), the two katastematic quotes show both Epicurus and Metrodorus accepted the terms and the categories as useful. We have to understand why, taking into account:
- All pleasure is good.
- The feelings are two: pleasure and pain.
Also for the record, I don't accept, as some academic commentators appear to, that ataraxia and aponia are "negative" or "not sensed". That makes no sense to me just because there's an a- "un-" prefix on the words. One can take pleasure in being in a state one can describe as being "undisturbed" or in a state one can describe as "pain-free." I simply don't accept that ataraxia and aponia are not "sensed."
[ U416 ]
Olympiodorus the Younger, Commentary on Plato’s "Philebus," [p. 274 Stallb.]: Epicurus, referring to natural pleasure, says that it is katastematic.
Philo of Alexandria, Allegory of the Law, III.54, t. I [p. 118 Mang.]: ... to those who say that pleasure is katastematic.
The closest think that comes to me regarding "homeostasis" is Vatican Saying 11 - "For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied." And so this is pointing at something which is neither.
Here's some of my own commentary on VS11.
VS11 For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied.
τῶν πλείστων ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὲν ἡσυχάζον ναρκᾷ, τὸ δὲ κινούμενον λυττᾷ.
So an alternative translation by Don: For the majority of people, to be at rest is to be bored stiff; but to be active is to be raving like a rabid dog.
To me it seems to be saying there needs to be a balance or that stillness is important and that most people don't recognize this. Plus they're just running around to appear important or just simply to do something, they can't be alone with their own thoughts… they're not self-reliant.
Additional note: In light of the current discussion over multiple threads on katastematic and kinetic pleasures, I find the words ἡσυχάζον (hēsykhazōn) and κινούμενον (kinoumenon) VERY indicative of the senses of katastematic and kinetic (in fact, kinoumenon is directly related to that word in Greek). I find their juxtaposition here very interesting.
I also see his "for most people" directly implying "but not for us (Epicureans)". He is setting up a contrast with the masses against the Epicureans, and, from my reading here, the Epicureans *value* ἡσυχάζον and κινούμενον and the Epicureans do NOT see them as numbness and "raving like a rabid dog," respectively.
In fact, hesykhias shows up in a PD14.
PD14 . “Although security on a human level is achieved up to a point by a power to resist and by prosperity, the security afforded by inner peace and withdrawing from the crowd is the purest.” White (2021)
Τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένης μέχρι τινὸς δυνάμει τινὶ ἐξερειστικῇ καὶ εὐπορίᾳ εἰλικρινεστάτη γίνεται ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἡσυχίας καὶ ἐκχωρήσεως τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλεια.
+ ἡσυχίας (hesykhias) "peace; silence, stillness"
+ + ἐκχορεύω (ekkhoreuo) "to break out (ἐκ-) of the chorus (χορεύω)"
I find reading the ἡσυχάζον in VS11 in light of the ἡσυχίας in PD14 , and vice versa, to be intriguing.
Epicurus's and other classical Epicureans' numerous uses of words connoting calm, peace, freedom from disturbance, etc. convey to me that without ataraxia and aponia, there's always going to be an impediment to living pleasurably, wisely, nobly, and justly.
In light of my assertion here, I'm compiling said "numerous uses." Consider this just a start (I may move this somewhere else at some point as/if it grows):
DL X.37 (Letter to Herodotus). "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and **reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this**,..."
"Ὅθεν δὴ πᾶσι χρησίμης οὔσης τοῖς ᾠκειωμένοις φυσιολογίᾳ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁδοῦ, παρεγγυῶν τὸ συνεχὲς ἐνέργημα ἐν φυσιολογίᾳ καὶ τοιούτῳ μάλιστα ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ ἐποίησά σοι...
+ ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ (enggalenizo to bio)- spend life calmly
+ + ἐγγαληνίζων related to γαληνισμός (galenismos, see DL X.83 below)
+ μάλιστα - superlative of μάλα "very, exceedingly"; "most of all, above all"; also used to strengthen statements.
DL X.83 (Letter to Herodotus) "who are not altogether entitled to rank as mature students can in silent fashion and as quick as thought run over the doctrines most important for their peace of mind."
ἐκ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄνευ φθόγγων τρόπον τὴν ἅμα νοήματι περίοδον τῶν κυριωτάτων πρὸς γαληνισμὸν ποιοῦνται."
+ γαληνισμὸν (galenismon) calming, (Epicurus); calming of the conscience (Aristotle)
+ + from γαληνός calm (also, "calm, especially of the sea" which fits with Epicurus's other nautical allusions; of persons, gentle)
Fragment 548. Happiness and bliss are produced not by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature.
τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.
+ τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον - eudaimon & makarion, "happiness and blessedness", latter is SAME word used for the gods in PD1]
+ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα. "peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature."
+ + ἀλυπία (alupia) "freedom from pain or grief"
PD14 . “Although security on a human level is achieved up to a point by a power to resist and by prosperity, the security afforded by inner peace and withdrawing from the crowd is the purest.” White (2021)
Τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένης μέχρι τινὸς δυνάμει τινὶ ἐξερειστικῇ καὶ εὐπορίᾳ εἰλικρινεστάτη γίνεται ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἡσυχίας καὶ ἐκχωρήσεως τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλεια.
+ ἡσυχίας (hesykhias) "peace; silence, stillness"
+ + ἐκχορεύω (ekkhoreuo) "to break out (ἐκ-) of the chorus (χορεύω)"
PD17 Ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δ’ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γέμων.
One who is just, moral, and virtuous has peace of mind; but one who is unjust is overflowing with agitation, confusion, and uncertainty.
+ ἀταρακτότατος (ataraktotatos) "not disturbed, without confusion, steady, of soldiers, X.Cyr.2.1.31: generally, quiet; not excited, calm"
+ ταραχῆς (tarakhes) "disorder, physiological disturbance or upheaval" i.e., the opposite of αταραξία (ataraxia)
Seneca, Letter 24: And in another passage (from Epicurus): “What is so absurd as to seek death, when it is through fear of death that you have robbed your life of peace?”
'quid tam ridiculum quam appetere mortem, cum vitam inquietam tibi feceris metu mortis?'
+ inquietam "restless, unquiet"
Seneca, Letter 66: For the absolute good of man’s nature is satisfied with peace in the body and peace in the soul. I can show you at this moment in the writings of Epicurus a graded list of goods just like that of our own school. For there are some things, he declares, which he prefers should fall to his lot, such as bodily rest free from all inconvenience, and relaxation of the soul as it takes delight in the contemplation of its own goods.
Si qua extra blandimenta contingunt, non augent summum bonum, sed, ut ita dicam, condiunt et oblectant; absolutum enim illud humanae naturae bonum corporis et animi pace contentum est.
Dabo apud Epicurum tibi etiam nunc simillimam huic nostrae divisionem bonorum. Alia enim sunt apud illum quae malit contingere sibi, ut corporis quietem ab omni incommodo liberam et animi remissionem bonorum suorum contemplatione gaudentis;
1. Do they focus on "Ataraxia" or "Katastematic Pleasure" as the highest good?
I am coming around to the belief that katastematic pleasures, namely ataraxia and aponia, are foundational to a pleasurable life as taught by Epicurus. Epicurus's and other classical Epicureans' numerous uses of words connoting calm, peace, freedom from disturbance, etc. convey to me that without ataraxia and aponia, there's always going to be an impediment to living pleasurably, wisely, nobly, and justly. This does **NOT** mean numbness or apathy. If I were looking to leadership in any endeavor, I'd want a calm, cool-headed leader, not one who is distracted, anxious, or fearful. If I'm making choices and rejections, I want to be calm, cool-headed, and undisturbed in either body or mind. The "gods" in their blessedness and incorruptible state enjoy this foundational pleasure.
This is all NOT saying that we don't enjoy so-called kinetic pleasures. But Metrodorus implies by the title of his book and the quote from it that we can be more confident in the continuance of the pleasure arising from a calm, undisturbed mind and a healthy, well-functioning body than we can of pleasures arising from external circumstances, objects, and activities. Katastematic and kinetic pleasures can work hand in hand with each other to provide the most pleasurable life, but if you're trying to enjoy a meal with friends while remaining anxious, you're not experiencing the maximum pleasure.
I'll leave that stand for now. I have more thoughts on the gods coming later.
We have at least two threads on this topic now, so I'll post this here:
This paper by Eckerman emphasizes the importance of ataraxia in dealing with life's circumstances. What I like is his pulling in specific lines of Lucretius and Epicurus.
Here's a related paper:
And one more:
I posted another Eckerman paper on the gods previously:
Joshua brought up the κλεψύδρα (klepsydra): a water-clock, like our sand-glasses, used to time speeches in the lawcourts
This has a great parallel to English words:
kleps- related to kleptomania
-(h)ydra - related to hydro "water"
Therefore, κλεψύδρα "water-stealer"
Fascinating thread! Thanks for doing all the legwork 
I'm going to point back to my post on the title of Metrodorus 's as well as the quote from that book:
I think there is a definite distinction between pleasures. I don't think it's necessarily a hierarchy, but it seems there are pleasures of a state and pleasures from activities or objects outside ourselves.
I wanted to address the title of Metrodorus's book that is cited by Clement of Alexandria.
The title in Greek is:
Περι του μειζονα ειναι την παρ' ἡμας αἰτιαν προς εὐδαιμονιαν της ἐκ των πραγματων
The "New Advent" English translation is:
On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects
I don't entirely agree with the translation choices made there, but they'll do well enough.
What I want to do is look at several key words that impact our current discussion on katastematic pleasure.
μειζονα = greater, larger (comparative degree of μεγας megas)
αἰτιαν = (accusative singular) cause (translated above as "source" evidently)
- - την παρ' ἡμας αἰτιαν = thε cause for us"
προς εὐδαιμονιαν = for eudaimonian (translated above (inadequately, IMHO) as "happiness"; personally I prefer "well-being" to connote or play on the eu + daimon origin of the word.)
πραγματων = (pragmaton, genitive plural of pragma). This is the important one.
Pragma has a number of definitions and connotations:
- deed, act, fact
- occurrence, matter, affair
- thing, concrete reality
- thing, creature
- thing of consequence or importance
- (in the plural) circumstances, affairs
- (in the plural, in bad sense) trouble, annoyance
- - της ἐκ των πραγματων "that which is from deeds/things/circumstances/etc."
Now, from Metrodorus's book, we get his quote asking "What else is the good of the soul but the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?"
This is consistent with the title from what I can see. That title is saying that we can be more confident of "the hope of [the] continuance" of pleasure which arises within us than that which arises from deeds/things/circumstances/etc. This seems to me to be consistent with the emphasis on autarkeia (self-reliance) elsewhere in the texts and that we don't have to rely on outside circumstances for our pleasure. Of course, we can vary our pleasures with our deeds and circumstances! But the pleasure that arises from within ourselves - katastematic pleasure, namely aponia and ataraxia - is always near at hand. We have complete control over that whereas our circumstances are not always under our control due to chance and outside factors.
Additionally, one of the definitions of pragma in LSJ is "deed, act, the concrete of πρᾶξις..."
Along those same lines, Πάθη (pathe) is something that happens to you, something that is experienced. LSJ: "what is done or happens to a person or thing, opp. πρᾶξις (praxis)"
The pathe are pleasure and pain. In this definition, the pathe are opposed to praxis. We always have the pathe to rely on. I'm still mulling over the significance of this point, but I think there's a significance there, too.
I don't remember if there is an article or discussion you may have posted some time ago on "homeostasis"? Or if you can post a link to an earlier discussion?
I've mentioned it several places. Here's a search:
You'll see me mention Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and Dr. Anna Lembke in those search results.
Just so there's no confusion, homeostasis is not some idiosyncratic state that might appeal to introverts over extroverts. It is the well-functioning of one's body and mind when everything is in balance.
Here's the biological definition:
As Khan says, homeostasis is "The tendency to maintain a stable, relatively constant internal environment."
Here's a PubMed paper:
"The health and vitality of the organism can be said to be the end result of homeostatic regulation. An understanding of normal physiology is not possible without an appreciation of this concept. Conversely, it follows that disruption of homeostatic mechanisms is what leads to disease, and effective therapy must be directed toward re-establishing these homeostatic conditions."
Homeostasis is not "mindfulness" or some "mystical" state, it is the foundational "health and vitality of the organism."
My take is becoming that this idea of biological homeostasis as the "health and vitality of the organism" is what Epicurus was referring to - generally - as katastematic pleasure. It is the underlying, foundational starting point of physical (aponia) and mental (ataraxia) health. If our body and mind are working properly and we are listening to our "feedback loops" of pleasure/pain, we can better *vary* our pleasure once we've achieved a homeostatic/katastematic foundation.
At first glance I thought the proportion was larger than that but apparently not. It is what it is but did you think larger too?
There's a huge difference between the diameter of the Sun (109 times) and the *volume* of the Sun (a million Earths). Either of which are hard to comprehend.
Just came across this paper on Academia. I wouldn't spend too much time on it, and I only skimmed it. The author's main point seems to me the opposite of Epicurus. The author seems to be saying there IS a "neutral" feeling between or in opposition to pleasure and "unpleasure."
I'll say one thing for the paper: It certainly is a lot of words gathered together in one place.
I don't think that methodological naturalism asserts that there is nothing supernatural--that to my understanding would be 'philosophical naturalism'. Methodological naturalism is not so much a doctrine or belief, as it is an attitude or approach to inquiry.
You are absolutely correct, Joshua . Thanks! Very good points to remember.
But to state my own position plainly, I think that Epicurus was a philosophical naturalist, who further employed methodological naturalism in his study of nature.
I would concur as well. I think that is an excellent way to phrase it. And so I would agree with Cassius above as well in saying Epicurus did positively assert that there was nothing supernatural. As Cassius mentioned in the most recent podcast (Nicely done on the 12 Fundamentals btw), the Epicureans could be lauded for their ALWAYS looking for a material/physical explanation even when confronted by Alexander the Oracle-monger and his magic snake. So, the Epicureans would assert, as you said Joshua that there is nothing supernatural (I would add: Because I assume they believed the universe was infinite and there was nothing "outside" of the universe.) therefore, they were "philosophical naturalists" in their perspective. As such, they would (in our terminology here) be "methodological naturalists" in their day to day dealings with the world.
By contrast, Dr. Francis Collins who is a renowned geneticist and was the the head of the Human Genome Project is not at all a naturalist, being a Christian, but in his scientific work he sought natural explanations for the phenomena of nature.
You are on fire, my friend! Excellent point there as well. That is a good illustration of the different permutations possible in the naturalist and scientist categories.
I think I mentioned that term on the first episode of the letter to Pythocles, during the discussion as to whether the ancients were really doing "science". I'd have to listen back to be sure.
But I certainly think it's applicable to what Epicurus was doing in the 4th century.
Sorry if I missed that! 
It seems to me, too, to possibly be applicable to Epicurus's outlook.
I guess that's the question.
Was Epicurus asserting that there was nothing supernatural?
Or, was he asserting that nothing supernatural would have any impact on our universe so it would be irrelevant to our lives and our happiness?
Functionally, those two could work similarly or identically, but they are two different things.
Interesting. I had not heard the term "methodological naturalism."
Just curious. I don't want to derail this thread!
I sent you a conversation regarding the homeostasis topic so we don't derail
And thanks! I'm enjoying the research
