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 you understand how "Babis" is derived from that Greek word, please explain it to me! Elli tried to several times, but it never stuck with me.
I'll take that challenge too.
μπ mp is pronounced like "b" in modern Greek.
(β b is pronounced like "v" βιβλία biblia "vivlia)
η ē in Ancient Greek is now pronounced like I ("ee")
So, Μπάμπης Mpampes = "Babis"
Oh, Babis is their name!! Babis the Epicurean! Now it makes sense! I was trying to figure out what a Μπάμπης was!
That's.... quite the cover photo. Now I *really* want to dig in
Yes that's possible Don, and maybe Diogenes Laertius was just confused. Or maybe you can examine that sentence and find a way that it doesnt add up to their being four.
Challenge accepted! 
Quote from CassiusAs I read what Epicurus was saying, they are one of the three legs of the canon of truth (and I say with DeWitt that Epicurus was right, and there are only three, not four).
Personally, I'm still not convinced that the prolepses and mental perceptions aren't the same "leg" of the Canon called by different names.
I'd say byproduct of natural selection. Providence has too much the ring of the supernatural to me.
So you could argue, the young are not good Epicureans, dispute their hedonism, because they lack experience in what will reliably and safely confer pleasure or pain.
And I think this is why Epicurus says in the Letter to Menoikeus that the one who is young can get the benefits of growing old by being fearless in looking ahead and weighing the consequences of their actions in the future, i.e., seeing themselves as being older.
Quote from MartinWith respect to what is pleasure and what is pain, we trust our emotions.
The way that's worded, it sounds to me like you're adding another layer to the criteria of truth by saying "we trust our emotions." The reaction of pleasure and pain is precognitive. Our experience of pleasure or pain shouldn't be mediated by another layer of reason or anything else. The pathē are two. Period. Yes, we can take that initial "reaction" into account in our determination of what to choose and what to reject, but the pleasure or pain reaction is not meant to be second-guessed.
Darn. How do I do insert an image?
And then how do I delete this after typing the quote in instead? 🤔
I think you can only insert image from link issuing the "picture" icon in the second row. there's also the stack file option.
You can also do a lot using the first icon on the top row with the "</>" that allows you to see the html.
I am *SO* glad you started this thread. I've been meaning to address this too.
I'm slowly coming around to the following understanding which may or may not be shared by others on this forum.
The problem is the English words "feeling" or "emotion." The connotation of this is that we "go with our gut." If using "our gut" is the only criteria, that's not what Epicurus meant. We also don't use happy, sad, angry, contempt, surprised, etc.
The key term about the criteria in the original text from Diogenes Laertius's Lives (X.34), is pathē: "and they say the pathē are two: pleasure (hēdonēn) and pain (algēdona)." I've come to the understanding that a better translation would be "response" or "reaction" instead of "feeling" or "emotion". We can have two reactions - pleasure or pain - to all of our experiences. That reaction helps us make decisions to choose or reject a course of action. That reaction is not the only criteria of course. We need the evidence from our physical senses and our mental perceptions and prolepses.
That's a brief summary of my understanding.
FYI I did just revise this section in 123b.ii. on my copy. It won't show up on the pdf posted here, so consider this an errata:
ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις = hē koinē "the common, the general understanding of gods" Note that this is also why we speak of the later evolution of the Greek language as "koine Greek" "the common Greek, the Greek spoken by a wide population across the Greek-speaking world." Is Epicurus talking here about the general understanding of Greeks among the general population? Or is he talking about the common understanding of the gods among Epicureans? He does specifically talk about the wrong understanding of the "hoi polloi'" below. Epicurus is writing to a fellow Epicurean. So, if he's referring to just ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις among Epicureans, how are we them to take that word ζωον?
Same for 123c:
ἀνοίκειον literally means "not of the family" or "not of the household" where οἶκος is the house or domestic sphere. Related to 123b.ii and the "common" understanding, ἀνοίκειον *could* refer to the "house/family" of Epicurus.
Attached is the first draft of my Annotated Menoikeus project containing verses 121-123. Feel free to take a look and share your thoughts.
You've done it again, Joshua ! You are a consummate wordsmith, and I so enjoy reading your posts! Pure pleasure!
You are correct! Getting caught up in the weeds of vocabulary can be a distraction from what is conveyed by the words. "You're asking what kinds of evils can religio do? What religio is?" Lucretius asks. "Didn't I just tell you the story of Iphigenia? That's what I'm talking about!"
The whole "meaning of life" thing is problematic from my perspective. Monty Python gave their version of the "meaning of life" at the end of the film of the same name:
Well, it's nothing very special. Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
That sums it up. The more people look for some kind of transcendent, all-encompassing Meaning of Life (capital M, capital L), the more we're potentially seduced into looking for something outside of the ordinary and into the supernatural. There is also the Make Money, Greed is Good version of the Meaning of Life that also leads to all kinds of problems and pain.
Epicurus provided sound, attainable goals in living your life, pursuing pleasure, and doing your best to not be harmed and doing no harm in turn. That's not Meaning. That's simply prudence and justice in service to pleasure. For me, it's liberating to not have some Search for Meaning hanging over me. I need not feel oppressed by the need to search for some deeper Meaning. Granted, I'm still coming to grips with this idea. I haven't been exploring Epicureanism for very long, around four years. The realization that the universe had no deeper meaning or literally didn't care about me (It's not a conscious being! How can it care! And there is no God dealing out favors or punishments!) was a little disconcerting at first then liberating. There is no external rule book imposed on us. Nature provides the only limitations and guides needed, if we listen. Epicurus listened, then passed that along and encouraged us to listen to Nature, too.
I put this in the wrong thread at first. Mea culpa!
Copied from the other thread:
I found some notes of mine in my Google Drive relating to positive psychology. PLEASE note, these were not for public consumption, but I thought the raw notes would give an idea where my head was at at the time:
Epicureanism is NOT pop "positive psychology" See https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/…gion-secularism "Seligman’s inclusion of material achievement in the components of happiness has also raised eyebrows. He has theorized that people who have not achieved some degree of mastery and success in the world can’t be said to be flourishing. He once described a “thirty-two-year-old Harvard University summa in mathematics who is fluent in Russian and Japanese and runs her own hedge fund” as a “poster child for positive psychology.” But this can make well-being seem exclusive and out of reach, since accomplishment of this kind is not possible to all, or even most."
This all sounds very Aristotelian or Peripatetic! Epicurus wanted eudaimonia to be accessible to EVERYONE! ------ BUT I was listening to a TED Radio Hour today 12/3/2019 about Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs… and realized it seemed VERY Epicurean: KD 29: Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion). The necessary desires are at the bottom. To not be hungry, etc. The need for security is the social contract Epicurus talks about. Love and friendship is next. It gets a little more fuzzy with self-esteem and self-actualization but I think the similarities remain and are worth exploring!
And in looking at this again, I think that some Positive Psychology research may be of interest and use from an Epicurean perspective. That specific article that I linked to just struck me the wrong way.
Right. One of my favorite lines from DRN
But that's Lucretius. I'm curious if Epicurus used anything parallel to religio.
I found some notes of mine in my Google Drive relating to positive psychology. PLEASE note, these were not for public consumption, but I thought the raw notes would give an idea where my head was at at the time:
Epicureanism is NOT pop "positive psychology" See https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/…gion-secularism "Seligman’s inclusion of material achievement in the components of happiness has also raised eyebrows. He has theorized that people who have not achieved some degree of mastery and success in the world can’t be said to be flourishing. He once described a “thirty-two-year-old Harvard University summa in mathematics who is fluent in Russian and Japanese and runs her own hedge fund” as a “poster child for positive psychology.” But this can make well-being seem exclusive and out of reach, since accomplishment of this kind is not possible to all, or even most."
This all sounds very Aristotelian or Peripatetic! Epicurus wanted eudaimonia to be accessible to EVERYONE! ------ BUT I was listening to a TED Radio Hour today 12/3/2019 about Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs… and realized it seemed VERY Epicurean: KD 29: Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion). The necessary desires are at the bottom. To not be hungry, etc. The need for security is the social contract Epicurus talks about. Love and friendship is next. It gets a little more fuzzy with self-esteem and self-actualization but I think the similarities remain and are worth exploring!
So what words did Epicurus use? Did he refer to "religion" or just incorrect opinions about the gods? I need to read that full article that Godfrey posted!!
I'm wondering if some of the translations "didn't want to go there" in upsetting sensibilities of readers. If I remember, some of the older translations use "superstition" for religio. The Church and church-goers may have agreed with superstition but not religion being used there.
What about using "organized religion"? I respect and like your looking up the Latin
Epicurus does seem to have advocated making the traditional sacrifices and taking part in the civic rites. That thread on Epicurus's Polytheismseems to bear this out. However, Lucretius's evocative depiction of Iphigenia's killing is clearly an indictment of *some kind* of cultural phenomenon: religion, superstition, etc. Good question on how best to relay that to a modern audience.
