Posts by Don

Google Translate again:

But for, as you were saying, Epicurus denies that the length of time contributes anything to living happily, nor that less pleasure is perceived in the shortness of time than if it were eternal.

I wanted to break this down:

Epicurus denies that:

1. the length of time contributes anything to living happily

I believe that I could agree with this if it's an accurate translation. You can live a "happy" short life or a "happy" long life. The length of the life doesn't necessarily equate to one's overall happiness.

2. less pleasure is perceived in the shortness of time than if it were eternal.

This again hinges on the impossibility of eternal pleasure. Pleasure, as Cicero conceives of it, is by definition fleeting. He appears to imagine an infinite and eternal banquet. That's not the pleasure Epicurus is working with. It seems to me that "Torquatus" and Cicero are talking past each other, with Cicero of course being the author of the conversation. He's deliberately interpreting Epicurus and Plato via Philebus for his own ends.

FWIW... clunky Google Translate

88] These things are said most inconsistently. For when he places the highest good in pleasure, he denies that pleasure can be greater in an infinite period of life than in a finite and limited one. He who places all good in virtue can say that a happy life is perfected by the perfection of virtue; for he denies that the highest good brings increase day by day. But he who will think that pleasure can make life happy, who will he be if he denies that pleasure increases with length? Therefore, not even pain. Does the longest pain make any miserable person, and duration makes pleasure less desirable? What is it, then, why does Epicurus always call God thus happy and eternal? For, taking away eternity, Jupiter is in no way happier than Epicurus; for both enjoy the highest good, that is, pleasure. ‘But for here also pain.’ But he makes him nothing; for he says that if he were to burn, he would say, ‘How sweet this is!’

I have to go back to PD9

If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one’s nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονὴ, καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ περὶ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα ὑπῆρχεν ἢ τὰ κυριώτατα μέρη τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέφερον ἀλλήλων αἱ ἡδοναί.

But pleasures can't be condensed and present at the same time, therefore they differ in time/duration and what parts are affected.

However, every pleasure is the same in that they are pleasurable. That might be the thing that's getting conflated.

That said, IF one is filled entirely with pleasure, different pleasures provide variety but not more pleasure. So, the fact that they differ in variety also means they differ in duration and parts affected.

Quote from Cassius

Well, if so, we need an analysis of that decision which does not end with "duration of time makes NO difference" - because I can certainly tell the difference between a minute and a year. And not simply because I am afraid of opportunities lost.

Of course, duration in this life matters. Epicurus talks about a life filled with pleasure. That's both physically and temporally. We live akin to the gods when we live in pleasure.

My grievance (?) is with those who only talk about the loss of pleasure if or when one dies. We, the living, have NO idea what a life unlived had in store for the person who died. Chances are it wouldn't have been all wine and roses. Our own lives have some pain, but we're living. Life is meant to be lived, as pleasuraby as possible. What about the pain the person who died would have experienced? What about the potential misfortunes? Focusing on the "what might have" is pointless. Epicurean philosophy stresses that the bite of pain of someone dying is real. But the philosophy also says not to dwell on the loss but to celebrate and remember the life.

Let's be honest though. For the person who dies, death is a loss of life. That's it. You're done. That is the end of all sensation and feeling and experience. But I still don't see how we can say what they've missed or what they potentially could have experienced. Would their life have been overwhelming pain within a day of their actual death date? Would they have died a day later? A week? Ten years? There is no way to know. What we do know is that we're mortal and that is never going to change. I don't believe we'll ever be able to upload ourselves nor do I think that would be preferable to actually dying.

Quote from Cassius

It's a legitimate question to ask, separate and apart from fear of loss: Does longer length of time necessarily make something preferable?

It's not necessarily fear of loss alone. It's fear of the unknown: Will I be punished when I'm dead? Will I be aware of anything?

The only duration that means anything is the duration in this life. Less pain/more pleasure for longer time in this life is preferable. Talking about what could have been after one dies is pointless.

Whether a person dies young or dies old, a person dies, one can't say "Oh they could have seen/done etc.." Yes, maybe they could have gotten married, seen their grandchildren, etc. Yes. They could also have gotten cancer, broken their neck and become paralyzed, gotten drunk and killed someone while driving, etc. The "death is loss" crowd seems to often talk of positive pleasurable experiences but never talks about negative painful experiences that could have been experienced.

My interpretation of this whole concept is that it is specifically the fear of death that makes us unable to take pleasure in the life we have here and now.

We cannot be dead. We can't experience death. As Epicurus says, when death is, we are not. No one is dead. My father is not dead. He no longer exists. I have my memories and there are those memories held be family and friends. Death is not a state of existence.

Another aspect is Epicurus' unflinching facing up to our mortality, indeed the mortality of everyone and everything, including the cosmos itself. The Universe is eternal, but everything within it is always changing, evolving, dissolving, rearranging. We may want infinite time, may desire it, may long for it. We are not going to get it. We're dying at some point, and then we won't exist. Saying that death deprives us of experiences, while true, but I also cannot experience 2nd c Greece or the 24th c settlements on Titan. Proximity in time to my life whether in the past, future, or the day right before or after my first or last breath has no impact on what I experience here and now.

I cannot have infinite time. Longing for it robs me of pleasure during my one and only life.

This was too good not to share, from the upcoming Odyssey movie starring Matt Damon:

TĒS THDPSSSSPS

Coming to theaters in 2026

Would these help?

https://www.academia.edu/download/34124740/epicurus_apeiron_proofs.pdf

Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life

Eds. John J. Cleary and Daniel C. Shartin, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy vol.4 (1989) pp. 303-322.

www.academia.edu

You really have to read 18 through 21 as one chapter in Principal Doctrines and not as discrete sayings. They hold together and expand on each other and the divisions are not part of the original text anyway.

(Using Saint-Andre translation)

As soon as the pain produced by the lack of something is removed, pleasure in the flesh is not increased but only embellished. Yet the limit of enjoyment in the mind is produced by reasoning out these very things and similar things, which once provoked the greatest fears in the mind. Infinite time and finite time hold an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, reasoning out the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life. One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one’s entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.

Thanks for the reminder Kalosyni I've always liked that saying:

52. Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.

ἡ φιλία περιχορεύει τὴν οἰκουμένην κηρύττουσα δὴ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐγείρεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν μακαρισμόν.

The key term is περιχορεύει (perikhoreuei) that literally refers to dancing a round in a chorus.

Welcome aboard.

Quote from AxA

"the academic world ... has labeled Epicurus as a philosophy for losers, misfits, loners, and recluses."

I would add "*mistakenly* labeled" in there just to be clear to people.

Maybe structure it as an Epicurean book discussion using Dr. Austin's book?

We also have a two part podcast episode with her:

Post

Episode 156 - Lucretius Today Interviews Dr. Emily Austin - Part One

Welcome to episode 156, a special two-part Episode of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you too find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where…

Cassius

January 10, 2023 at 12:58 AM

AxA : You might want to join one of the live get togethers that Kalosyni and Cassius make available, too.

Welcome aboard.

Not in Toronto, unfortunately. Feel free to use the resources on the forum here for discussions etc at your Meetup. Keep us posted how it goes!

KD 17 Ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δ’ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γέμων.

One who is just, moral, and virtuous has peace of mind; but one who is unjust is overflowing with agitation, confusion, and uncertainty. (ταραχῆς, i.e., the opposite of αταραξία).

This Principal Doctrine just makes sense. If you are just in your dealings with other people, moral in your actions, and do your best to display fair behavior, you have no need to be troubled. You've done your best. Don't get me wrong. Bad things will happen to you, and some people still won't like you. But you don't control that. Your mind can be at peace. On the other hand, if you treat people poorly, display amoral behavior, and are basically an objectively poor excuse for a human being, you have reason to be troubled! People will be out to get you. If you're the latter, you need to have some frank speech with yourself and get on the right track. To paraphrase Wil Wheaton: Don't be a jerk! If you take his advice, you and all of us who interact with you will be the better for it.

fwiw - Here is my (on-going!) look at Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in light of Epicureanism:

For example, (an excerpt):

Quote

At 1097b, Aristotle states “What is always chosen as an end in itself and never as a means to something else is called final in an unqualified sense. This description seems to apply to happiness above all else: for we always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else. Honor, pleasure, intelligence, and all virtue we choose partly for themselves – for we would choose each of them even if no further advantage would accrue from them – but we also choose them partly for the sake of happiness, because we assume that it is through them that we will be happy. On the other hand, no one chooses happiness for the sake of honor, pleasure, and the like, nor as a means to anything else.”

First, the word translated happiness here is εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia which I prefer to translate as “well-being.” LSJ provides various translations within its short entry: prosperity, good fortune; true, full happiness. The interesting issue is that Epicurus also made liberal use of the word eudaimonia as well. But did he identify it with The Good or the ultimate, final end? A quick search of writings brings up:

Vatican Saying 33. The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness. σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]

Fragment 548. Happiness and bliss are produced not by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature. τὸ εὔδαιμον καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness, latter same word as in PD1] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

....[and so on with several other Epicurean citations, commentary, etc.]

And on a later page in my admittedly snarky commentary...

Quote

Aristotle then gets to the heart of his definition of virtue, quoting Ostwald:

"Virtue or excellence is a characteristic involving choice, and that it consists in observing the mean relative to us, a mean which is defined by a rational principle, such as a man of practical wisdom would use to determine it. It is the mean by reference to two vices: the one of excess and the other of deficiency... virtue is a mean, but in regard to goodness and excellence it is an extreme. " (1106b-1107a)

LOL! There is SO much that is problematic here from my perspective. Allow me to break down my issues with Aristotle's exhortations.

He defines "virtue" (excellence, αρητη arete) as a characteristic/disposition (ἕξεις hexeis) which remember is a "trained habit, skill, state or habit of mind" determining the choice of actions. We choose actions all the time! Epicurus puts great importance on our responsibility to choose our actions and that which we reject. The "choice" Aristotle uses here is προαίρεσις (proairesis), ‘choice’ or ‘purpose’, which he discusses in Book 3.2. It is obviously connected with the the word Epicurus uses, hairesis, but we'll leave more discussion until Book 3. So, the fact that "virtue" is connected with choices, yeah, okay, that seems mildly non-controversial. Go on...

But the mean/middle is "defined" (and we're using that word loosely, Aristotle) by a "rational principle" such as a person using practical wisdom would use to determine it! LOL! So, virtue is something that we choose by using practical wisdom - phronesis? So, far, I don't think we've defined practical wisdom either. Epicurus also places great importance on practical wisdom: It's one of the three things without which we can't experience a pleasurable life. It helps us make prudent decisions on which actions to choose and which to avoid. But Aristotle is going MUCH further in defining "virtue" in relation to this without even giving as much description as Epicurus!

And I love the last part! Virtue is a mean between extremes BUT "in regard to goodness and excellence it is an extreme"! Aristotle is attempting once again of trying to have it both ways. It sounds circular, self-refuting, and ridiculous. I am not impressed.

The next part makes me laugh as well! He goes to great length here of trying to define virtue as that elusive mean (that is actually an extreme of goodness remember) between two extremes, but then says...

"Not every action nor every emotion admits of a mean... Some actions and emotions "whose very names connote baseness, e.g., spite, shamelessness, envy; and among actions, adultery, theft, and murder."

Those are just actions to my understanding. He's trying to say you can't "virtuously" commit adultery, theft, and murder. Duh! Epicurus would say those things do harm to others and so aren't just. They disrupt society or harm relationships. However, is it just to steal bread to feed your starving children? Is it "murder" if you kill someone while defending yourself? Someone may still have to be punished for the good of society BUT maybe not? Context and social contracts are key to Epicurus's discussion of justice... I'm not as sure he's getting hung up on "virtue."

Aristotle goes on to list some of these extremes, means, and deficiencies (1107b), but - egads! - "many virtues and vices have no name" as in not all excesses or deficiencies actually have a name. So, he's going to make up things that have no name, are not referred to in regular speech, don't actually exist, but for the sake of his argument, we're supposed to pretend they exist. Methinks he's starting to use unicorns and centaurs.

Display More

Those lists of names of ancient Greek writers just drives home to me how much we've lost and that we'll never see to even be able to compare Choerilus to Anaximenes to Hipponax to...

Welcome aboard, sowhataustin

Quote from Cassius

One aspect of the metaphor is that a lighthouse is clearly man-made, and the guidance we're looking to is something completely natural, more like a "north star" maybe.

I like the North Star idea. That could still work. I'll admit I like the sailing metaphor in our little boat.

Storms can also obscure the North Star, but it remains and becomes visible again once the storm of pain passes.