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
If for absolutely certain you were sure you would be dead in ten seconds regardless, it might then make sense to jump off the wall of the Grand Canyon to experience the thrill of flight for nine seconds - a calculation that would not ordinarily be valid.
I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, but there's a Buddhist saying that: If you were to fall to your death from as great height, it would be a shame to miss the view on the way down.
And sometimes we would in fact choose death if we can firmly project that living on would be too painful.
Agreed.
But I do think it is a good point to say that "pleasure and pain have meaning only to the living" so that overall context of life does need to be incorporated into the "big picture" somehow.
So, how do you propose to "incorporate (it) into the 'big picture'"? PD2 does a good job of emphasizing that only the living have sensation and so only the living can experience pleasure and pain. I don't want to dilute the goal of pleasure/living pleasurably.
I understand where Dewitt is coming from with his "life is the greatest good" (because we can't experience pleasure without being alive as in PD2 ) but I fail to see how "life" is going to help me make choices and avoidances other than "stay alive." Pleasure - living a pleasurable life - is at least a target to shoot for. We should strive to live the most pleasurable life using pleasure and pain - long and short term - as our guiding principles.
Ok well are we seeing it the same way that he is saying that "good" must be identified with a sensation / feeling, and is not something that can be defined in terms of a particular set of abstract ideas?
What he's talking about here is not "good" as in just the adjective "good/bad" it's "the good" ταγαθον (tagathon) as in the goal, the telos, the Alpha/Omega, the beginning and the end of life. Pleasure = The Good. He's planting his flag for pleasure as The Good in opposition to those who would tout virtue, etc.
I note you used the term "naturally-occurring phenomenon" rather than "pleasure" - but do we agree that "pleasure" or "the feeling of pleasure" is the ultimate meaning of the reference?
Yes, The "feeling of pleasure" *is* the "naturally-occurring phenomenon." Living things feel pleasure. I'll try to get to your other questions soon.
“That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”
So right there, Epicurus defines "good" as "that which produces a jubilation" (I would like to see some alternative translations there.).Simple, straightforward, pegged to a naturally-occurring phenomenon. He's chastising the "strollers" for adding on unnecessary complications on what should be a straightforward definition. Epicurus seems to have always gone for the most basic definition of words.
Also, here (emphasis added):
67. I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀφροδισίων, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀκροαμάτῶν, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς κατʼ ὄψιν [those by way of shapes and along with vision] ἡδείας κινήσεις [pleasing motion].
τἀγαθὸν "the good" is the same word used in the Tetrapharmakos.
I think that's what Epicurus was pointing to and those who insist on pegging a single abstract concept as "the good" are going to forever be at war with Nature and with Epicurus.
Hmmm. Epicurus equated pleasure (or living a pleasurable life) with the "good", ex., 3rd line in the Tetrapharmakos. Lucretius's summum bonum is just the "greatest good." The "good" is just that to which everything else points (again, using an English word for an ancient concept). The difference is the experience of pleasure isn't an abstract concept... Even though the word "pleasure" attempts to capture that lightning in a bottle. The problem isn't that other philosophies point to a "good" (they all do that, including Epicurus) it's that other philosophies ground their goal or "good" in something other than Nature. Virtue is the "good" of the Stoics, but Epicurus says they strive for their "good" just because "being virtuous" brings them pleasure. Aristotelians find their "greatest good" in the philosophical, contemplative life... Because it gives them pleasure.
Or are we saying the same thing different ways, Cassius ?
One of the issues, from my perspective, that the article doesn't address is the simple fact that "happiness" is an English word. They almost start to address it with the Danish hygge but then rapidly move one. If you ask people whose first language is not English to map their non-English subjective experience to the lexical field of English, you have problems. They're going to pick a "feeling" for which they might use a specific word in their language and then agree to use the English word "happiness" to describe it. I bet that if you asked those Japanese respondents what Japanese word they'd use to describe their "happiness" you'd find a much different semantic field covered than an English speaker saying they were "happy."
Which brings me back to my soapbox of translation (C'mon! Y'all knew that was coming 
). Epicurus didn't use the word "happiness" but ευδαιμονία (eudaimonia). That's why I think it's so important to understand what he meant when he used that word - what semantic field was covered by the Ancient Greek term ευδαιμονία. To say it maps one to one to happiness or well-being or flourishing... Well, you can see right there that there are three English candidates.
Great find! There's another book to add to my infinite list 
This dovetails with Lisa Feldman Barrett's work, too (from my perspective)
This is impressive, @Nate !
I'll admit I was initially skeptical of the medieval and modern Epicureans, but, upon further consideration, they/we are part of the continuum.
I find it disappointing that we can't have an "apostolic" succession stretching back to antiquity. However, although the flame of the Epicurean tradition was *almost* snuffed out by the Triumph of Christianity, an ember smoldered long enough for a fire to be rekindled.
Thank you for this outstanding compilation of the history of the philosophy! Nice work!
Don is there a graphic in that first post in this thread that is referenced as "this is what we're up against"? Maybe it's just me who is not seeing it some reason but that would be strange if true. Could we try reposting it?
I was nearly disturbed to have come across the following anecdote:
a contemporary Epicurean would enjoin the truth-seeker to Be Here Now and Pay Attention.” (Mills, Epicurean Simplicity 22)
"Epicurean" has meant so many things to so many people
I don't have a major problem with the idea that an Epicurean practice could include "mindfulness" or other exercise to get us to "pay attention" to our lives. That could make us better choosers and avoiders...
BUT to equate that to the woo of Ram Dass or other Eastern philosophies writ large, that goes down the syncretism road and is not helpful.
quare religio pedibus subiecta vicissim
opteritur, nos exaequat victoria caelo.
My take is that Epicurus's "victory" is he is the first person (per Lucretius) to show how the superstitious fear of the gods is unnecessary and life-denying. Religion keeps us in bondage. By his victory, religion is trod underfoot and ground away (opteritur). His victory frees us from the shackles of religion, giving us the ability to be level with the heavens just as Epicurus cast his thoughts to the heavens and beyond to gain a wider perspective on the way things are
And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn
That's an interesting turn there I hadn't noticed. That is saying Epicurus subdued religion, then we tread upon it in turn. Hmmm. Not sure if that's supported in the Latin but interesting nonetheless.
Yeah, I see no 1st person plural "we tread". All the verbs in those phrases appear to be 3rd person singular he/she/it.
And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn
That's an interesting turn there I hadn't noticed. That is saying Epicurus subdued religion, then we tread upon it in turn. Hmmm. Not sure if that's supported in the Latin but interesting nonetheless.
Don I wonder whether you've ever seen The Browning Version? I love the 1994 production with Albert Finney. The film is set in an English boarding school (I think?) and the background of the main plot deals heavily with translation, as the title implies.
I have not!! Thanks for the tip!
Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no?
The fact that you just used metonymy in casual conversation thrills my heart btw
That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor
Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no? And aequo the same word as a verb.
That's my take. All related but distinct words with their own connotations. Sorry. I love digging in the weeds of language!
In the Hymn to Venus "Aequora Ponti" is usually translated "waves [i.e. surface] of the sea
That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…Aentry%3Daequor
Esp., the even surface of the sea in its quiet state, the calm. smooth sea (“aequor mare appellatum, quod aequatum, cum commotum vento non est,” Varr. L. L. 7, § 23 Müll.: quid tam planum videtur quam mare? ex quo etiam aequor illud poëtae vocant, Cic. Ac. Fragm. ap. Non. 65, 2 (cf. πόντου πλάξ, Pind. P. 1, 24).— Also, in gen., the sea, even when agitated by storms, Lucr. 1, 719: “turbantibus aequora ventis,”
And since Lucretius puts nos first, maybe the emphasis should be on us, accusative or not. My understanding is that the first word is used to denote emphasis.
