Posts by Don

Just needed to say, Joshua , I always enjoy reading your insightful comments. Thanks!!

Quote from Titus

Do I just want to expand my knowledge about philosophy? Or do I want to find new friends/contacts?

I think hear what you're saying, Titus

Speaking personally, I have found this forum (and by extension, the podcast) to have been absolutely critical to my endeavor to consider Epicureanism as a viable path of philosophical exploration. I've only been involved here for a little over a year, but I've come to value the contacts I've made and to look forward to "talking" with them... Albeit asynchronously the vast majority of the time.

So, to respond to your specific questions: I think you can do both. Ideally, one increases the other. The more friends/contacts you make, the deeper one's knowledge of philosophy becomes.

Here's my interpretation of KD29:

29Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ <καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι· αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ> καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι.

DB - 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 ( κενὴν δόξαν (kenēn doxan) beliefs devoid of merit).

Additionally...

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον; (kai tōn physikōn hai men anangkaiai, hai de physikai monon;) "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the only natural ones."

ἀναγκαίων (anangkaiōn) "necessary, essential"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, (tōn d' anangkaiōn hai men pros eudaimonian eisin anangkaiai,)

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

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

ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"

“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 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 necessary for life itself are, one might suppose, those at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Those necessary for eudaimonia may be even a little more open to interpretation but still have to be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

I think Elayne is onto something here.

It's important to note that Epicurus didn't say desires could be categorized into "natural" and "unnatural" although that's an easy dichotomy to make in English. He called the desires in the Letter to Menoikeus:

μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί
"On the one hand, (some are the) φυσικαί; on the other hand, (others are) the κεναί"

φυσικαί (physikai - compare English physical, physics, etc) = natural, produced or caused by nature, inborn, native; physical, having to do with the study of the material world (Antonyms: διδακτός (didaktós), νομικός (nomikós))

κεναί is our old familiar kenos = empty; vain, fruitless; exhausted, void, destitute (Antonyms: μεστός (mestós), πλήρης (plḗrēs))

I find it interesting that Epicurus didn't use a common set of antonyms: natural/unnatural; but emphasized the source of desires. Some derive from natural sources, some arise from fruitless sources that can never be quenched.

Quote from Cassius

Yep I think it is a combination of SIMPLE plus (to many) "distasteful," and I think probaby the "distaste" outweighs the "simplicity" issue.

In the US at least, distrust and distaste of pleasure was baked in from the 1600s with the Puritans and Pilgrims.

Quote from Cassius

Anchoring and lleaving the discussion at the "Follow pleasure" level guarantees that most people won't give a second thought to taking you seriously.

Additionally, I contend we need to be careful even with the slogan "Follow pleasure" not being caricatured* or cliched into "if it feels good, do it." It easily veers into a Cyrenaic path in people's minds (not that they know who Cyrenaics were). Epicurus did not deal in Platonic ideals, but he did recommend paths that - through observation - would lead to more pleasurable lives overall.

Quote from Cassius

Epicurean philosophy is really a comprehensive view of the nature of the universe that when followed to its logical conclusions totally invalidates the absolutist approach.

Well, people generally don't like ambiguity. They like simple answers to complex questions. Black and white, not grey. Epicureanism makes you do the work.

Quote from Cassius

There's definitely a list of attributes that can be identified, though, and among them would be the degree to which a person values thinking independently from the larger group.

I suppose a natural audience would be secularists, humanists, and freethinkers. But that's a very diverse group and fragmented (like our sources).

The modern Stoics seem to have targeted the "go-getter" business-type and plugged into the "warrior ethos" thing and leaned into that in their philosophy and promotion. The whole "rugged individualist" would appeal to an American audience, too.

I do want to say that it appears to me that many of the modern Stoics truly practice what they preach and appear to be sincere in their drive to resurrect and rebuild Stoicism, and seem to have plugged into a need out there in the world. Now, there are probably dozens of relatively well-selling and popular Stoic "self-help" books, Stoicon-type events and resources, etc. They definitely got a headstart on the Epicureans in that respect. There are way more relatively well-known Stoic authors and speakers than there are Epicurean ones. Who is it on our side? Hiram Crespo and Catherine Wilson? That's about it. With Hiram, I'm specifically referring to his chapter in "How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy" by Massimo Pigliucci (Look at that, a leading Stoic voice!) Those two are probably the go-to "Epicureans" now if the popular press would want to include an "Epicurean" perspective on something.

Interesting thread. I also saw the other techniques thread. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head...

Stoicism (along with Aristotle) got accepted and rationalized into the Christian club early on. The whole first chapter of the Gospel of John talks about Jesus being the Logos/Word, a concept straight out of Stoicism and Greek Philosophy. In some ways, Stoicism glorifies the bearing up against suffering and pain, the stiff upper lip, even voluntarily undertaking painful experiences to "train" yourself (Stoics) or "purify" yourself (Christianity). Stoics also saw pleasure as dangerous, and this also was the view of the Christian Church Fathers. This all could fit in with the Christian worldview and so Stoicism could "go stealth" and its tenets could never really die out as a dominant Western worldview. Look at the connotation of "stoic" - it's generally deemed positive by society: bearing up under pressure, not succumbing to emotional reactions, rational.

Now, consider"epicurean": decadent, fussy, snobbish, elitist. It's becoming more positive in a foodie culture, but overall I'd say it has a more negative connotation in society at large. Christians and thus Western culture have had more than a millennia and a half to denigrate the memory and philosophy of Epicurus. And Epicurus's physics have gone mainstream since the renaissance (thanks in large part to Lucretius), but not under Epicurus's name. They've taken the bathwater but left the baby behind.

Because of this established connotation of small e "epicureans" it creates a hurdle to get people to think they might be capital E "Epicureans." Stoics could also capitalize on the macho, tough-guy, warrior stereotype and target that audience. What's the natural audience for Epicureans? (I genuinely don't have an answer. Thoughts?)

I also think the penchant for referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP is off-putting. It's very in-group jargony with no semantic content to a wider world. It reminds me of TM or EST. I may be reopening the can of worms by saying this, but I see no issue with using the terms Epicurean and Epicureanism. It makes a much more immediate contrast with Stoicism in people's minds. We're not Epicureanists anymore than they're Stoicists. Practicing Epicureanism vs practicing Stoicism sets up a definite choice for people. Both, in my opinion, are philosophies of personal responsibility. Both offer definite life paths and ways to set your priorities. But one glorifies overcoming pain (Stoic); one emphasizes seeking pleasure. There are also a number of "techniques" that can be gleaned from Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus, and the fragments. But more on that later...

I need to take some time and look where I'm getting things from. Thanks for catching that, Joshua !

Quote from Cassius

Don I went to your profile to look at that one but it looks like all one can see is a part of it on the profile, so maybe post a full copy somewhere(?)

https://chilonas.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/painting1.jpg

Oh! Mea culpa! That's a different one than I found and put on my account.

The painting on my account is Antal Strohmayer, The Philosophers Garden, Athens, 1834.

I may have to change that now.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol14-doc/497?…tText=Lucretius

LOL! That's the painting I put on my account page here at the forum! All I knew was that it was called (where I found it) The Philosopher's Garden. I wasn't even sure if it was Epicurean. And I didn't delve into the artist.

Thanks for posting this!!

Just finished listening to this one. Seen to have skipped over it before 60.

Your discussion of snakes and baseballs immediately brought to mind Lisa Feldman Barrett's work. I'm still working through her How Emotions Are Made (that's the problem with having 12 books going at a time!). Seems I'm slowly becoming a Barrettian Epicurean when I've implied some other people are DeWittean

According to Barrett's research, all of our experiences are counterintuitive to our understanding. With the snake, our mind compares our senses to our preconceptions and prior experience. We could never "respond" fast enough if we actually had to "react" after we consciously senses what our senses were showing us. And the whole system is built on our internal pain/pleasure and level of arousal of those, what Barrett refers to as our interoception and affect. Fascinating stuff!

Quote from Elayne

And he said that is a process of deciding to see the thing and that image is instantly available. Not that the memory of what a cow looks like comes from inside a storage in the mind!

But isn't that how some academics describe the prolepseis? We know we're seeing a cow because we "have" a prolepsis of the concept of a cow in our language? Where do we "have" that Prolepsis?

I'm not attempting to imply I have answers... Just questions.

Quote from Cassius

And to add to this mix of confusion in my mind I can't help but this this could be related to the process of forming anticipations, but on the other hand I remember from the first time I read DeWitt's book (i would have to now look for the reference) that DeWitt didn't think that Lucretius addressed anticipations anywhere at all in the poem, so apparently DeWitt himself didn't relate this section to anticipations.

I think you're onto something here, Cassius . The anticipations seem to clearly reside in the individual somehow.

Quote from Cassius

something that is so dramatic that - if true - would have been documented extensively by every ancient and subsequent critic of Epicurus who ever lived, not just in the private joking of Cicero and Cassius!

Well, those quotes you have are intriguing! Plus there is the fact that there is SO many lost Epicurean texts, I'm not willing to say that an alternative memory mechanism isn't out of the question.

There's also the Sedley idea of one sending images *to* the gods which sounds like we can create images in our minds. I don't think he'd say this without substantiation.

Cassius , I'm willing to entertain that there may be more here than I originally thought.

I agree with the contention that the images enhanced the mind's ability to perceive similar images and that is what constitutes memory. There is no storage from what I can see.

This makes sense to me. Epicurus was arguing against any inborn memories like Plato so he needed the mind to perceive existing images. Even the prolepses appear to have been based on repeated exposure to concepts and things. This grooves those mind passages to be able to recognize justice, a cow, Plato ( my phone autocorrected there as "potato"!). Now, this ability could take place as infants even... I don't know if a text says this, but that would allow infants to acquire prolepses and memory without their being born with those things from a previous life or from some supernatural soul corral. Epicurus needed a fully physical procedure for memory with NO supernatural input and this seems to be what her hit on.