Posts by Don

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.

It seems to me two things are getting conflated here. Let me sort them out, for myself if not for anyone else.

What is good or bad for me personally is determined by whether the action or thought elicits pleasure or pain for me, either in the short or the long term. There is no absolute Good or absolute Evil for me personally apart from my reaction of Pleasure or Pain.

What is good or bad for society is determined by whether actions are just or not. Whether something is just or not is if it (a) keeps others from harming me, or (b) keeps me from harming others (and so in turn keeping them from harming me). My not being harmed is pleasurable for me. That's, by definition, Good.

There are no absolute virtues determined by God. Virtue is instrumental to pleasure.

There is no universal justice determined by God. "Justice" is instrumental to my not harming you and my not being harmed by you. That keeps me safe and society stable to my being able to experience pleasure.

Thinks people think of as "universal human rights" could be just because they keep people from harming each other and keep people from being harmed. They're not God-given rights. They are conducive to my experience of Pleasure. Your experience of pleasure is advantageous to me. If you're experiencing pleasure, you're less likely to feel the need to harm me. And vice versa.

Everything -- everything!! -- points ultimately to mental and physical pleasure. That's why Epicurus says pleasure is the end-goal, the telos.

Quote from Cassius

Yes Don and while I have the highest respect and gratitude for your translations,

I appreciate that. I'm giving it all she's got, Captain

The word in question is ἀναίσθητος anaisthētos. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l…sqhte/w#lexicon

Look like any English word? It's the basis of "anaesthesia" when we don't feel or sense anything.

I think you're on the right track with the complementary Canon.

Another pertinent fact is the word διαλυθὲν dialythen which has the connotation of being dissolved or broken up into pieces or into elements. So, once death breaks us up into our constituent elements, there's nothing to sense, to feel, to think, to reason... No us. *We* don't exist.

Here's the Greek:
Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ· τὸ δ’ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς.

Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· literally "Death is nothing for us."

διαλυθὲν - passive aorist of διαλυω 2. to dissolve into its elements, to break up

ἀναίσθητος I. unconscious, insensate, unfeeling; senseless
Here's my translation:

"Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us."

I see it was a year ago today that I joined the forum. So, 799 posts later, it appears time certainly flies! On this day, I want to express my gratitude for @Cassius's efforts in maintaining this platform, and to all my Epicurean Friends for pleasurable intellectually-stimulating conversation this past year. Here's to another year of Epicurean exploration! Carpe annum! Ευ πράττειν και σπουδαιως ζην!

Tasting History had a great episode on garum of you haven't seen it:

That's also some other great Greek and Roman food covered in his channel.

I think any Southeast Asian fish sauce would be a possible alternative. I don't think Worcestershire sauce would be!

Great points, Cassius !

I think it's also significant that Epicurus uses παρακαλώ "I call, summon, send for, invite" and not "promise" or something similar.

Quote from Cassius

One of the subtleties here is involved in Epicurus saying that "I call you to continuous pleasure....."

Good point, Cassius

The word Epicurus uses is συνεχείς

https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CF%83%CF%85%C…%87%CE%AE%CF%82

There's some ambiguity to that since I see both continuous and continually in the definition. Food for thought.

Quote from isychos

I understand, well at least I think I understand, that it would be unreasonable to expect to experience a continual flow of pleasurable feelings, however if the pain I am experiencing does not lead to pleasure in the future, then that pain, dare I say, is to be avoided. Perhaps I am being too rigid in how I apply my calculation of pleasure vs pain sometimes??

You've hit on one of the issues of the motto "Pleasure is the goal." You're absolutely right that it's unreasonable to expect warm feelings of pleasure all the time... Unless we're gods... Which we're not. The Epicurean goal is to lead the most pleasurable life possible. So, you're on the right track with your understanding.

Quote from isychos

Could you please also help me in clarifying if I have understood this correctly: that the feelings are two, pleasure and pain, if I am not experiencing one I am experiencing the the other, as there is no neutral state, or have I reduced this a little too far?

You're right. We can experience a reaction of pleasure or pain. But don't get the technical definition of feeling in an Epicurean sense confused with the definition of feeling from an everyday sense as in feeling = emotions like sadness, anger, joyfulness, etc. All of those have pleasure or pain at their root.

This may be in the weeds for you right now but I've found the work of Dr. Linda Feldman Barrett on constructed emotions very helpful in sorting out the difference.

I hope that helps. Keep the questions coming!

I just realized that the good/pleasure and evil/pain equivalency is stated in Cicero's De Finibus with Torquatus speaking:

Quote

Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason.

That seems to me to underscore what I've contended here. We judge good and evil in light of the reaction of pleasure and pain, respectively.

Quote from Godfrey

But since EP isn't about minimalism, ponder from here what it would take to live an enjoyable life now that you have an idea of how little you could get by with.

This is exactly my take on the idea of why Epicurus may have taken periodic fasts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p095vj2q

One of my favorite historical podcasts had an episode about medicine in ancient Greece and Rome. They had one line that struck me in light of the medicine analogies Epicurus used. They said the default condition in the Ancient World was more or less sickness punctuated by bouts of health for the individual. The exact opposite of our modern thinking. I think that's interesting in light of Epicurus's sayings on the chronic vs acute pains.

In any case, if you like history, give You're Dead to Me a try!

Quote from Elayne

Cassius , the point I'm trying to make is that ancient history and ancient physics wasn't part of Epicurus' philosophy in his day... nor was an absent historical figure. He didn't have to deal with that because he was right there, making current observations. He wasn't asking his students to study ancient history, ancient philosophers, or a different language. If he were here today forming groups, including online forums, I can't imagine any of those aspects would be the focus of his philosophy! He would definitely not be spending time arguing over what he said centuries ago, because if he were here now, he wouldn't have been alive centuries ago

I definitely see where Elayne is coming from! If Epicurus Neoclou was developing his philosophy in 21st-century Athens and building his school, he'd be addressing life issues using modern tools and contemporary language and contemporary knowledge. No question there. I wonder if he would seem that much different than other authors in the self-help aisle of the bookstore today (or the Self-help section of the online bookstore website) given our modern sensibilities.

On another topic: Did Epicurus have a name for his philosophy or his school other than The Garden? Other than just physiology "the study of what is natural"? I believe later Epicureans thought of themselves as Epicureans, but Epicurus didn't refer to his school that way. Would it be better to go back to his - if he had it - non-self-referential designation? Concentrate on the "what" not the "who"?

Topic 3: I will admit one thing that attracted me to Epicurus (and Stoicism - briefly - before that) was the idea of a lineage. I like my philosophies road-tested, stress-tested. That's what first drew me to Buddhism and prior to that some forms of Christianity. You see people who are kind, altruistic, calm, and they follow a particular tradition... I thought "Well, there must be something there there." And for a certain personality type, there seems to be something helpful in those traditions. I still think some forms of meditation have a place in Epicurus's Garden practice. I'm thinking Elayne may find my idea of lineage or tradition irrelevant to the value of a/the philosophy, but I'll let her speak for herself. I find the idea of a connection across time and space .... comforting? interesting? I don't know the exact words. I also found a practical outlet for my interest in language and history in studying Epicurean philosophy (just as I did with Buddhism and Christianity), but as Elayne pointed out, this isn't a "selling point" for everyone.

What makes Epicurus's philosophy relevant is not the historical context. It's the universal human experience. What makes me choose one path over another? What does a philosophy have to offer to live *my* life "better" than I am right now? And how do I define "better"? Why do we still read Homer and Shakespeare? It's the universal human experience.

Epicurus also took part enthusiastically in the religious rituals and practices of his day. What possibilities does that open up for us in a predominantly Judeo-Christan environment? Could we commandeer some of their rituals for Epicurus (just like they did by building churches in temples)? As I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus took periodic fasts to experiment what would provide pleasure and true satiety. Sounds like Lent? I do NOT believe he lived on bread and water all the time, but I could see him gathering empirical evidence in this way periodically.

Okay, now I'm just musing out loud and getting far afield of the thread...

Happy Twentieth! Welcome to your first post!

isychos , you bring up one of the most important topics possible: How do we apply Epicurean philosophy in our lives? As Epicurus said:

Quote

A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

So, enough prologue! Here are my thoughts...

It pains me to hear you describe your work this way. I agree with your seeing "grin and bear it" as a Stoic assessment as it applies to work. However, seeing it as a means to an end has potential. Work is instrumental in some ways - like virtues - but it can provide pleasure itself. Epicurus requires us to assess each of our choices and rejections in light of pleasure and pain.* Everything* we do is a choice. I make a choice every day to get out of bed and go to work. Could I choose not to go to work? Sure! I could choose to quit my job. I could choose to call in sick. But would each of these lead to more pleasure or pain. If I'm sick, I probably should choose not to go to work (IF this choice is available - but that's another conversation). If I choose to quit my job and have no money coming in, would that lead to more pleasure or pain. In the long run, for myself (not being able to leave civilization and live in the woods living off the land), that would lead to more pain.

I see Epicureanism as a philosophy of personal responsibility. I can't blame my lot on the gods and pray my way out. I can't blame my lot on fate and "grin and bear it." Where I'm at is a result of the choices and rejections I've made, and I'll change my lot by changing my choices based on sound reasoning (phronesis) based on my reactions of pleasure and pain based on information from my senses.

Epicurus also said:

Quote

Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

I would assume that the job you have now was something you sought out at one time. Why? Why did your present job appear desirable at one time? Just the money? Just escape from a worse job (which at one point was also sought out)? Please don't feel that you have to reply to my questions! I just want you to think about this yourself. I'm not saying you have to just accept your job. If the work is unbearable and/or dangerous, do your best to find different work. But Epicurus, it seems to me, says nothing in our day-to-day world is purely good or purely bad. At the end of your day, look back over it. Was there at least one moment of pleasure? Was there one moment of gratitude? If you can't leave your present job, your friends may be right in that this one is a means to an end. But you have to decide what that end is. You give meaning to your work. It's not imposed from outside.

Let me say that I know none of this is easy. Being stuck in a job "just for the money" is HARD! I've been there, slogging away day in, day out. But you have the power to change your perspective based on sound philosophy.

I hope this conversation is the beginning of something helpful for you. I'll end for now with Epicurus's greetings he supposedly used in many of his letters:

Quote

Εὖ πράττειν καὶ Σπουδαίως ζῆν

"May you practice well and may your life be lived with purpose!"

I don't know what this means, but here's food for thought:

Quote from Cassius

I have never heard of this -- thank you! Another sad one would probably be Epicureanism vs Stoicism.

I did that one but felt one depressing ngram view from me + Joshua 's was sufficient for one day

Here's the direct link for anyone curious to explore https://books.google.com/ngrams

I will admit that it's fun to explore with that resource.

I couldn't resist

Quote from Cassius

I don't think it's what Epicurus would conclude for himself if he were alive today, and I've always thought that there is naturally going to be a lot of different perspectives on any individual will choose to pursue Epicurus' insights once they are recognized. Epicurus and the core ancient Epicureans could have reached exactly the conclusions that you state -- but they did not, and it's interesting to think through why they didn't.

In the spirit of SFOTSE (Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus "Do Everything As If Epicurus Were Watching"), I'm curious what you think Epicurus *would* "conclude for himself if he were alive today"? And I'm not doing this to be provocative... Just curious. Because I'm not entirely sure myself.

Were the various "Gardens"/groups in the disparate cities in the ancient world independent? I got the impression that they looked to Athens post-Epicurus as a sort of "first among equals" but the Scholarch of the Athenian Garden didn't function like a Pope. It's that other's understanding?

Quote from Cassius

So I would expect that there is good reason to translate them as the translators are doing. (Using good and evil).

The translators are just taking the literal route:

αγαθός = good, literally http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=a)gaqo/s

κακός = bad, literally http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry%3Dkako%2Fs

Most translators - academically speaking - especially older ones - appear uncomfortable with the word "pleasure" and most likely took the opportunity to translate agathos and kakos literally instead of delving deeper into what Epicurus was trying to convey.

I've been thinking some more about this. Without any sort of "Platonic" ideal form of "good" or "evil" the only way to judge good or bad is if it elicits pleasure or pain. That is why I believe Epicurus can say pleasure is *the* good. There's no other yardstick - literally, canon - to measure "the good."