Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Did you come to a conclusion there Don?

Nope. Not yet.

If we end up with a good discussion on autarkeia here, Cassius may want to move this part of the "Welcome Philia" thread to another spot. Just a suggestion.

Sorry, Macario , for the delay in responding to your posts above!

Quote from Macario

It seems to me that the term 'self-sufficiency' in Epicurean Philosophy, is strongly related to an economic meaning.

My soapbox here on the forum is always go back to the original texts, and don't trust any one translation of any word that was originally in Greek or Latin. I saw that Saint-Andre has this note on Vatican Saying 44:

Quote

VS44: When the sage contends with necessity, he is skilled at giving rather than taking — such a treasury of self-reliance has he found.

ὁ σοφὸς εἰς τὰ ἀναγκαῖα συγκριθεῖς μᾶλλον ἐπίσταται μεταδιδόναι ἢ μεταλαμβάνειν· τηλικοῦτον αὐταρκείας εὗρε θησαυρόν.
[44] The word αὐτάρκεια is often translated as "self-sufficiency", but I think "self-reliance" is slightly better because the Epicurean sage needs friends and therefore is not entirely self-sufficient.

So, right away, we have self-reliance and self-sufficiency as two options. I agree they may mean similar things, but it doesn't get us closer to whether it's economic, a sense of satisfaction, contentment with circumstances, or a combination or something else.

Thank you for the quote from DeWitt. As Cassius will no doubt confirm, I have certain problems with DeWitt's interpretation and lack of citations sometimes. I took a look at the section you referenced, especially because I was curious about the beans! Sure enough, the footnote for that is from Plutarch, Demetrius, Chapt. 24: "At this time also, we are told, the philosopher Epicurus sustained the lives of his associates with beans, which he counted out and distributed among them." In Greek, "associates" is συνήθης which seems more friendly than that word would imply, I'd like something like "ones with whom he was well-acquainted or intimate with one."

But, I realize, I digress. This doesn't get us closer to an understanding of what αὐτάρκεια conveyed to the ancient Greek mind. What I'm going to do is take a look at where that word shows up in Epicurus's extant work (to the best of my ablility)

We've seen VS44 above.

VS45. The study of what is natural produces not braggarts nor windbags nor those who show off the culture that most people fight about, but those who are fearless and self-reliant and who value their own good qualities rather than the good things that have come to them from external circumstances. οὐ κομποὺς οὐδὲ φωνῆς ἐργαστικοὺς οὐδὲ τὴν περιμάχητον παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς παιδείαν ἐνδεικνυμένους φυσιολογία παρασκευάζει, ἀλλὰ σοβαροὺς καὶ αὐτάρκεις καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀγαθοῖς, οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων μέγα φρονοῦντες.

VS77: The greatest fruit of self-reliance is freedom. τῆς αὐταρκείας καρπὸς μέγιστος ἐλευθερία.

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.

Fragment 476: 476. Self-reliance is the greatest wealth of all. πλουσιώτατον αὐτάρκεια πάντων.

And, please let me add, I'm not copying these here to be pedantic! I just want all those in one spot to make it easier for us to refer to them. That's all for now that I can find on the fly.

Fragment 202 especially, to me, gets at contentment with what one has and not necessarily being economically self-reliant/self-sufficient.

The definition in LSJ for αὐταρκεία is here and the definition gives links to:

Plato. Philebus, 67a.

Socrates

In this argument, then, both mind and pleasure were set aside; neither of them is the absolute good, since they are devoid of self-sufficiency, adequacy, and perfection?

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1097b.

The same conclusion also appears to follow from a consideration of the self-sufficiency of happiness—for it is felt that the final good must be a thing sufficient in itself. The term self-sufficient, however, we employ with reference not to oneself alone, living a life of isolation, but also to one's parents and children and wife, and one's friends and fellow citizens in general, since man is by nature a social being....

Happiness, therefore, being found to be something final and self-sufficient, is the End at which all actions aim.

Aristotle, Rhetoric. 1.6.

To enumerate them one by one, the following things must necessarily be good. Happiness, since it is desirable in itself and self-sufficient, and to obtain it we choose a number of things.

Aristotle, Politics, 1.1256b.

This then virtually completes the list of the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade—the lives of the herdsman, the brigand, the fisherman, the hunter, the husband-man. Others also live pleasantly by combining some of these pursuits, supplementing the more deficient life where it happens to fall short in regard to being self-sufficing: for instance, some combine a pastoral life and brigandage, others husbandry and hunting, and similarly with the others—they pass their time in such a combination of pursuits as their need compels. Property of this sort then seems to be bestowed by nature herself upon all, as immediately upon their first coming into existence, so also when they have reached maturity.

The final selection from Aristotle definitely has an economic aspect; however, the excerpt from Plato has an aspect of contentment about it. So, it seems to have been a multi-purpose word. But I'll post this, and feel free to continue the discussion! I find this very pleasurable to engage in.

Quote from Cassius

So is there a separate video on consciousness as an emergent property?

I'm a fan of Kurzgesagt. This video talks about emergence which seems to me what Epicurus/Lucretius talked about as "accidents":

The Sea We Swim In: How Stories Work in a Data-Driven World

Columbia University's Frank Rose shares 5 key insights from his new book, The Sea We Swim In: How Stories Work in a Data-Driven World.

nextbigideaclub.com

Never heard of Frank Rose before, but this caught my eye. I'd be curious to read what anyone thinks if they've read any of his books:

2. Stories, not reason, are our default mode of thought.

For decades, psychologists didn’t deign to study stories—they were considered frivolous, unworthy of serious study. But Jerome Bruner was different. “There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought,” he wrote in 1986, “each providing distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality.” One mode is reason, which philosophers have been studying for centuries. The other is what we now call “narrative thinking.”

Narrative thinking is our default mode—it’s what we engage in all the time. It’s gossip. It’s television. It’s the movies. It has little to do with reason and everything to do with emotion. As a species, we humans have an enormous investment in the idea that we are rational creatures, that we’re far too smart to be persuaded by something so emotional as a story. Unfortunately, our attachment to this idea is much more emotional than it is rational.

Synopsis of Epicurus’ “On Nature”, Book 25: On Moral Development | Society of Friends of Epicurus

I haven't had a chance to read this all from Hiram, but it gives a summary of Epicurus's On Nature XXV that directly relates to this topic.

Wiser: The Scientific Roots of Wisdom, Compassion, and What Makes Us Good

UC San Diego psychiatrist Dilip Jeste shares 5 key insights from his new book, Wiser: The Scientific Roots of Wisdom, Compassion, and What Makes Us Good.

nextbigideaclub.com

I came across this today and found Epicurean echoes. Dr. Jeste researches "wisdom" which he calls practical wisdom in this short recording. That sounds exactly like phronesis, one of the "virtues" Epicurus says leads to a pleasurable life. I also first saw this as an episode of the 10% Happier podcast, "#379: How to Get the Wisdom of Old Age Now," but I haven't listened to it yet:

Ten Percent Happier with Dan Harris Podcast - ABC Audio

Meditation podcast from ABC News anchor Dan Harris, author of the bestselling book "10% Happier." New episodes every week and free guided meditations.

abcaudio.com

That idea of becoming wise when we're young is exactly echoed in the Letter to Menoikeus.

The line from the Next Big Idea recording was: "Remember that you are the master of your own ship—so check from time to time if you are navigating in the right direction, and correct the trajectory if needed." This immediately reminded me of the boat metaphor in Epicurus's fragments.

So, just sharing. Not necessarily endorsing at this point, but feel free to share your ideas if you listen to either one.

Quote from Godfrey

Funny thing, Don ... I was listening to this podcast earlier this morning while driving and thought that it might be worth posting. Of course my second thought was "I wonder if Don has posted this?"

LOL! We definitely seem to be leading parallel lives around here, Godfrey

And I agree with your conclusions, too!

Another reason, I realize, is to share what appears to me to be the widespread presence of Epicurean principles and practices in positive psychology and neurobiology research. They're not identified as such, but I continue to see parallels, echoes, and reflections of those ancient philosophical teachings throughout these podcasts, articles, and papers.

https://www.happinesslab.fm/season-3/episode-5-you-cant-always-want-what-you-like

At the risk of becoming the podcast reviewer here on the forum, here's another podcast suggestion. It's also from Dr Laurie Santos on her own podcast, The Happiness Lab.

This one seemed to me to directly address the Epicurean practice of choice and avoidance. Around 5:55, they talk specifically about choosing to experience pain in the pursuit of pleasure ("chosen suffering" at 7:15). It also talks about the myths associated with dopamine. According to current research, dopamine is not the "pleasure" neurotransmitter, it's involved in "wanting." They also talk about Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of flow. I'm wondering if "flow" has parallels with ataraxia or eudaimonia.

Another reason I've been posting these is to find examples of popular podcasts to see what they're doing: what's their format like, what their production is like, etc, to see if there is anything we might learn for efforts here.

Enjoy (fast forward through the commercials!).

We talked about mining in today's episode and I wanted to share this paper I found:

Ancient Roman Mining and Quarrying Techniques

From Dr. Stephen T. Muench (by student Jacob Deb) / 11.28.2015 Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Introduction…

brewminate.com

This section looks at what I brought up about enslaved miners:

Quote

If a miner was a slave, how he was treated depended on his social status; ‍‍‍if he was privately owned‍‍‍, it was in the owner’s best interest to keep him healthy to maximize profits. State owned slaves (and sometimes their families) on the other hand were often treated terribly because they were mostly condemned criminals or prisoners of war sentenced to be worked to death in the mines. Diodorus of Sicily notes the poor working conditions in Egypt where workers were always chained together and worked night and day “under the hard supervision and blows of an overseer” (Sherwood, 1998). Guards that were assigned to watch slaves could not speak their language to ensure that no communication could happen that might make the guard have pity for the slave. Slaves were used in large numbers for their physical strength and not for their trade skills.

Quote from Paquin

There is a long tradition of authors posing as editors of found manuscripts.

JRR Tolkien stands firmly in that tradition. His conceit was that he had discovered The Red Book of Westmarch written in the language of Westron by hobbits named Bilba and Maura Labingi. Tolkien "translated" this manuscript and published it as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings originally written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins.

The reality is even better: Tolkien had created his Elvish languages and wanted to create a world in which they would be spoken. That's the real origin of The Lord of the Rings.

Sorry. I could go on ad nauseam. Big Tolkien nerd here Tolkien was definitely no Epicurean, but he did talk and write about the pleasure language - both natural and constructed - gave him.

https://www.alieward.com/ologies/eudemonology

Ologies is a fun, informal, eclectic podcast that I listen to when the topics interest me. I was aware of Dr. Laurie Santos, director of the Happiness Lab at Yale, instructor of the Happiness course in Coursera, and currently the go-to expert on research on happiness and positive psychology. I don't always find her compelling but feel it's important to keep up with the research to see where it parallels or echoes Epicurean philosophy. I also found the title of the episode attention-getting: Eudemonology - the study of eudaimonia.

You're welcome to listen to the whole episode but I found the section from 1:06:20 to the end surprisingly reminiscent of the Epicurean idea of seeking pleasure. Dr. Santos calls it delight, but to me she's saying "Train yourself to look for what brings you pleasure."

At 1:09:58, they talk about how we can be happy with so much "bad" stuff happening in the world. We've talked about this elsewhere on the forum, so I found this interesting as well.

Quote from Cassius

In the first she uses the word "discoverable" -- Does that mean that they are discoverable to the five senses,

Yes, because they are "observer independent" in her words. They exist and *can* be observed, and they exist whether being observed or not. The sun is real in this sense. It's going to exist whether humans are observing it or not.

Quote from Cassius

In the second she says "real because they are invented and shared by humans. Does that also mean subject to verification through the senses? In fact I am not at all sure this whole second category is consistent with a common sense view of "real." Are economics and sociology "real"? I am pretty well prepared to say that they are great time-wasters but does that mean they are "real"?

Justice is real in this sense, "real because they are invented and shared by humans)." Humans can agree to a contract and talk about "justice" in relation to that contract, but it's not"real" like the sun is real. Without humans (I'm sticking to Earth-based examples), the "observers", there is no such thing as justice. The agreed-upon general idea is "observer dependent." Epicurus obviously thought justice was important, he devoted several Principal Doctrines to it, so it is a "real" concept with which to grapple, it "exists" in the real world but it is contextual and cultural. It doesn't exist like the sun or atoms and void, but there is a thing we name "justice."

That's how I'd characterize her two categories of real.

Quote from Cassius

I didn't read any further than the abstract but that is one of the key issues that we answer philosophically rather than through science. What does "real" mean really mean?

She defines two definitions of what she means by "real":

Quote from Barrett

Natural sciences like physics deal with scientific categories that are assumed to be observer independent (they are real in the natural sense and can be discovered by humans)

Social sciences like sociology or economics deal with categories that are observer dependent (and are real because they are invented and shared by humans).

I think those are good basic definitions of how we use "real" in conversation. And Epicurus advised using definitions that could be agreed on by the average person. Photosynthesis - a natural process discoverable by science - is "real" in the first sense. Money - a culturally agreed-upon system of commerce - is "real" in the second sense.

I think your premise that philosophy is the arbiter of what's "real" is a tad restrictive unless you read her definitions as broadly "philosophical."

I haven't had a chance to read this full paper but it appears to lay out some interesting points of hers

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/articles/future_of_psych.pdf

Quote from Cassius

what we might call "the concept of fear."

Exactly. LFB (I like Godfrey 's initialism) would probably call that ("what we might call") something like the ideation or idea or realization of fear and the pre-rational instance the "concept."

Quote from Cassius

It seems like Epicurus was sufficiently well-off financially

Good point. It appears there is some economic self-sufficiency implied by autarkeia, but more to be satisfied with what you have as far as I can tell. Sort of like VS35

Quote from Philia

In Epicurus' teachings I remember reading something about self-sufficiency

I would be careful about ascribing the meaning of "economic" self-sufficiency to that word. From what I can find, autarkeia (the word in ancient Greek) had a self-sufficiency connotation of satisfied with yourself, content with yourself, etc. I see this as similar to the ideas of the Epicurean gods who are not affected by anger or gratitude, they are sufficient unto themselves.

I'd also bring up that the Garden wasn't a commune. Epicurus specifically did not want the members of the Garden's assets to be held in common. People could come and go. I've often imagined the Garden as a retreat in the city of Athens or other cities that had Epicurean communities, not separate from the city but a place to rest, relax, and then re-engage.

That's the point: We don't "think" about it. It's not "Well, I'm experiencing fear now." Your brain takes in all its sensory input, compares it to past experiences, and pairs this input with a "concept" of "fear." The process is entirely pre-rational. You can look at your fear post facto and realize that wasn't a snake, just a branch on the ground.

This is how people become over sensitive to certain stimuli and jump at everything. Their brains become conditioned to see threats around every corner. Everything is paired with their "fear concept."

Her and others' research showed that those photos of paradigmatic "emotions" we can "read on people's faces" are without merit. Those paradigms do not exist. So I would be careful with phrases like " all animals and all humans appear to share" especially when it comes to anthropomorphizing animals.

Godfrey is welcomed to fact check me in my interpretation here! It's been awhile since I read the book now.