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
It has to have some merit to it. If it fell away quickly, it would have been forgotten long time ago.
Your points are well taken. I'd just add as an aside that...
Remember that Stoicism and Neo-Platonism were palatable enough to early Christians that they could be co-opted into their religion. Merit isn't always what sustains something. Sometimes it's who you know.
Judging by this, "calculus" wasn't even a word in Greek. So "hedonic calculus" would be a later overlay onto choices and rejections, which probably doesn't add any clarity to this thread. 🤔
Jeremy Bentham came up with the idea of the "felicific calculus" although he didn't use that exact phrase in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). If you want to see someone apply mathematics to pleasure and pain, that book is a tour de force!
The words Epicurus used translate to things like decide, judge, etc. Section 129 of Menoikeus is probably the most succinct exposition. Here's my paraphrase/translation:
[129] Because we perceived pleasure as a fundamental good and common to our nature, and so, as a result of this, we begin every choice and rejection against this, judging every good thing by the standard of how that pleasure affects us (i.e., how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure). And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized and we pass by many pleasures when greater unpleasant things were to result for us as a result: and we think many pains better than pleasures whenever greater pleasure were to follow for a longer time by patiently abiding the pain.
κρίνοντες “judging, deciding + (accusative” πᾶν ἀγαθὸν “every good thing,” i.e., “every pleasure” against or by the κανόνι τῷ πάθει “the standard of how we react to what happens to us when we experience - or consider experiencing - that specific good thing.
“And against this (that pleasure is a fundamental good and common to our nature), judging every good thing (i.e., every possible pleasurable experience) by the standard of how that pleasure affects us or how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure.”
By the way, I'm translating πάθει (pathei) in its literal sense as "that which is experienced."
See also:
DL 10.34 (Diogenes' commentary)
They affirm that there are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain, which arise in every animate being, and that the one is favourable and the other hostile to that being, and by their means choice and avoidance are determined
κρίνεσθαι < κρίνω "judge, decide"
So, it seems to me we're more of a judge than a mathematician.
Thanks, Martin , for that clarification. You make some thought-provoking points.
Your post made me think of this from my musings about the characteristics:
The word here is ὁρίζω
Trivia: From which we get the English word horizon.
Don the part where I underlined there -- should that be "desired" rather than "defined"?
I got that primarily from a Google Translate of the French in Les Epicureans, then fine tuned it in English from there. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to parse the Ancient Greek, but if anyone else wants to dig in, here's column 4 in context:
καὶ [τὸ κ]ακ̣ὸ[ν οὐ] μό̣νο[ν ἔ-]
χον̣ ὅ̣[ρ]ους [κατ]ὰ̣ τὸ μέγε̣θ̣ος
καὶ κατὰ [τὸν] χρόνον, ἀλλὰ
καὶ εὐεκκα[ρτ]ακ(*)ητον, ἐπει-
5δήπερ οὐδ[ὲ]ν̣ ὄφελος ὡ[ρίσθ]αι
μέν, ἡμῖν δ̣' [ἄκ]τητον ἢ δ[ύσ-]
κτητον ε[ἶναι] τἀγαθόν, ἢ [πε-]
περάνθα[ι μέ]ν, ἀνεγκαρτέ-
ρητον δ' [εἶν]αι διὰ τὴ[ν πο-]
10λυχρονιότ[ητ]α τὸ κακόν· πε-
ριγίνεται γὰρ ἐκ τῶν γνώσε-
ων τούτων τό τε μηθὲν δι-
ώκειν ὃ μὴ πέφυκεν ἀλγη-
δόνα περιαιρεῖν, οἷα τὰ πλεῖσ-
15τα τῶν κατεσπουδασμέν[ων]
ἐστὶν παρ' ἀνθρώποις, μή[τε]
φεύγειν ὃ μὴ κωλύει τ[ὴν ἡ-]
δονὴν ἔχειν, οἷ(*)α τὰ πλεῖσ[τ]α
τῶν ἐν προκοπῆι δεῖ ν[οῆσαι·]
20κ̣αὶ πάλ̣ιν πρὸς μηδεο̣[ ̣ ̣]ς
For aponia, we can take a look at LSJ:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπονία
non-exertion, laziness
freedom from pain (Epicurus)***[see PS note at bottom]
Xenophon, in Cyropaedia: And so, when people are bad only because of laziness and indolence (βλακείᾳ καὶ ἀπονίᾳ), I believe that they, like drones, damage their associates only by the cost of their keeping. But those who are poor companions in toil, and also extravagant and shameless in their desire for any advantage, these are likely also to lead others to what is vicious; for they are often able to demonstrate that vice does gain some advantage. And so we must weed out such men at any cost.
Plutarch, in Romulus: They also applied themselves to generous occupations and pursuits, not esteeming sloth and idleness (ἀπονίαν) generous, but rather bodily exercise, hunting, running, driving off robbers, capturing thieves, and rescuing the oppressed from violence. For these things, indeed, they were famous far and near.
Aretaeus, De causis et signis acutorum morborum (lib. 1)
This is what we call Peripneumonia, being an inflammation of the lungs, with acute fever, when they are attended with heaviness of the chest, freedom from pain, provided the lungs alone are inflamed; for they are naturally insensible (απονος), being of loose texture, like wool. But branches of the aspera arteria are spread through them, of a cartilaginous nature, and these, also, are insensible (απονος); muscles there are nowhere, and the nerves are small, slender, and minister to motion. This is the cause of the insensibility to pain (απονος). But if any of the membranes, by which it is connected with the chest, be inflamed, pain also is present; respiration bad, and hot; they wish to get up into an erect posture, as being the easiest of all postures for the respiration.
***
And remember aponia is a "not/un" + ponos.
Ponos carries the meaning in Ancient Greek of "pain" but that's woefully inadequate.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πόνος
work, esp. hard work, toil, in Hom. mostly of the toil of war, μάχης π. the toil of battle; generally, toil, labour
stress, trouble, distress, suffering
pain, esp. physical; distd. from λύπη (pain in general) (see the use of lype in Philodemus above)
So when the word a+ponia is being used, we can't just think of pain like a sprained ankle or upset stomach. To my reaading, it refers to the physical components (which *can* include the mind since it is connected to the physical body, the sarkos) working without exertion, to be free from distress, suffering, trouble in the physical body. All that rolled into one succinct word.
***PS: Note: In thinking about this more, it seems to me that LSJ provides the "freedom from pain" definition and attributes it to Epicurus because that is the usual paraphrase used by academic translators. To my reading, Epicurus is using the word as its literal meaning given in the connotations of a+ponos.
Uses of πόνος (or αλγος and related words)
VS4. Pain (algedon) is easily disdained; for a pain (ponoun) that causes intense suffering is brief, whereas a pain (ponon) that lingers in the flesh is weak and feeble.
πᾶσα ἀλγηδὼν εὐκαταφρόνητος· ἡ γὰρ σύντομον ἔχουσα τὸ πονοῦν σύντονον ἔχει τὸν χρόνον, ἡ δὲ χρονίζουσα περὶ τὴν σάρκα ἀβληχρὸν ἔχει τὸν πόνον.
VS457. Passion for true philosophy destroys every disturbing (epi+ponos > painful, toilsome, laborious) and troublesome desire.
ἔρωτι φιλοσοφίας ἀληθινῆς πᾶσα ταραχώδης καὶ ἐπίπονος ἐπιθυμία ἐκλύεται.
Philodemus
On Choices and Rejections (peri haireseon kai phygon)
[Column 4] [Epicurus teaches us that good is easy for us to procure] and that evil is [not] only limited by precisely because it is useless to have defined the good (τἀγαθόν), if it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to attain, nor to have fixed limits to evil, if it is difficult to bear because of its long duration. This knowledge has the effect of prohibiting both the pursuit of any [good] which is not by nature capable of eliminating pain (ἀλγηδόνα) - such are, most of the time, the [goods] which have motivated a search eager in humans -, and let none be discarded which does not prevent having pleasure -- that is how one must [conceive] most of [those which are acquired] gradually.
Column 10: And the pain (λύπην > grief, sadness; pain of mind or body, suffering, distress; LSJ antonym = ἡδονή hedone!) that grips them at the idea of dying makes them irascible, never happy or in a good mood
Column 12: although they do not have the [fundamental ideas (ἀξιοῦμεν ὑπο[λή][ψ]εις)] that we are talking about. And what leads him instead to upright behavior are the laws, which brandish threats over his head: death, punishments of divine origin, as well as punishments (pains) considered very difficult to endure
πόνους ὡς δυσ[εκπο]νήτους) and deprivation of certain things which are said to be difficult to obtain.
Column 17: They are not ready, for insignificant gain, [both] to say goodbye to the only things that can give pleasures, and to bear pains (πόνους) in vain -- indeed, they also turn away entirely from philosophy, each saying: "Am I now going to start giving myself endless pain only to then get thrown like a disc halfway through?" -- even to share anything because, they believe, it is up to the immortals to do so, or to those who wait to be thanked.
Thanks for re-posting that! I forgot I had put that list together. I was literally thinking today that I needed to do it for this thread.
I disagree.
My current understanding is that ataraxia is not merely the "calm" or "tranquility" we get from relaxing on a beach or floating in an inner tube down a river or even on a meditation cushion. Those pleasures feel good, but they're not ataraxia. I take it that kind of "calm" is what's being described by Martin and Kalosyni .
My understanding is that ataraxia has to be worked on, arises from study and reflection, but once you have rooted out those beliefs that cause anxieties, fear, dread and turbulence in the mind, they don't grow back. It becomes the background against which life is experienced. It's is a stable state of the mind. That's what I'm getting from the texts. We can get glimpses of it as we study, reflect, and internalize "how things are" but it's not easy to throw the baggage of cultural indoctrination overboard. It doesn't happen all at once like some kind of epiphany or Buddhist satori or bestowed by the grace of some heavenly being. It takes human work and effort. But it's worth it in the long run to face the world with an assured, solid, stable mind.
Ways to type Ancient Greek on a keyboard (in some cases without downloading any new software):
1 - within a browser (type in browser, copy and paste into documents):
2 - if you use Windows 10:
3 - document for Windows environment:
http://www.dramata.com/Ancient%20polytonic%20Greek%20in%20Windows.pdf
4 - various methods for various platforms
I would emphasize that ataraxia is not dependent on external circumstances.
I would venture to say that ataraxia depends upon safety and security. Resilience is something different which would be the ability to cope during high stress.
I agree that resilience and ataraxia are different things, but I don't see ataraxia being dependent on external circumstances. Ataraxia is the stable pleasure achieved when the fears and anxieties have been rooted out. For example:
In the Letter to Herodotus (10.82):
mental tranquillity (ataraxia) means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.
In the Letter to Menoikeus (10.128):
The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility (ataraxia) of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. For the sake of this, we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind...
In the Letter to Pythocles:
[85] In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind (ataraxia) and firm conviction (confidence, assurance, guarantee, trust < πίστις).
[96] For in all the celestial phenomena such a line of research is not to be abandoned ; for, if you fight against clear evidence, you never can enjoy genuine peace of mind (ataraxia).
The characteristic of the sage that "Additionally, once the sage has become wise, they will no longer fall back into ignorance." (Hicks: Moreover, he who has once become wise never more assumes the opposite habit, not even in semblance, if he can help it.)
From my reading, all of these point to ataraxia being the result of rooting out incorrect beliefs and the fears and anxieties that arise from them. Once those are abandoned, they don't grow back, regardless of external circumstances. I believe Epicurus could still experience ataraxia even in his last days precisely because it doesn't rely on external circumstances.
I agree that resilience - what I would interpret as self-reliance - is a part of Epicurean philosophy, but I think it's different than ataraxia. Ataraxia is the stable state of the mind once the anxiety, fears, and disturbances have been eradicated, rooted out, and abandoned. That is precisely what gives it its stability.
I agree with Kalosyni 's post.
I would emphasize that ataraxia is not dependent on external circumstances. It is a stable state of mind that arises from getting rid of false anxiety-producing ideas about death, divine retribution, fate, and so on. The stable peace of mind that results will then be the default position from which one experiences the world.
Someone as pompous and unappealing as Cicero going to such lengths to criticise seamingly sensible ideas? It was worth a read.
Not because Epicurus said so, but because the arguments he presented conform to the most reasonable (to me) assessment of the evidence from nature and science
Well put!!
Fully agree, Pacatus!
I go back to the characteristic of the sage usually translated as "Hicks: He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." People take that "dogmatist" in the modern sense of the word and see it as a fault in the Epicureans. But juxtaposed against the "sceptic," it means something more nuanced.
Here's my page on my site that talks about that from my perspective:
I really like your pie chart... but that's a looooot of text to have on the screen. That said, I realize you want the textual citations to back you up, but putting the ideas there "in everyday language" might be better for a general audience?
GREAT first draft!!
A paper looking at Epicurus's philosophy in general and Philodemus's contribution in particular.
This *may* be a repeat of a previous post, but never hurts to check it out again. Still very exciting stuff!
If I recall correctly Thomas Jefferson picked up that line and put it in his outline:
That was an incredible display of recall, Cassius . Well done!!
I was curious to check out the Oxford English Dictionary to see what definition Jefferson would have been working with (as well as maybe those translators):
From 1603-1723: † Insensibility or indifference to pain; want of feeling. Obsolete.
From 1656-1751: Freedom from pain; a state of rest or ease, in which neither pain nor pleasure is felt. Obsolete.
Quotations (This definition actually uses quotes about Epicurus):
1656
Indolence, which Epicure held, they esteem not pleasure, nor want of pleasure,..for Indolence is like the state of a sleeping man. (T. Stanley, History of Philosophy vol. II. iv. facing p. 5)
1702
D'you know, said I, what Hieronymus Rhodius has allotted for the Summum Bonum? I know, said Torquatus, he resolves it into Nihil dolere, Mere Indolence. (S. Parker, translation of Cicero, Five Books De Finibus ii. 56)
1713
I cou'd rather call it an Indolence. It seems to be nothing more than a Privation of both Pain and Pleasure. (G. Berkeley, Three Dialogues Hylas & Philonous i. 14)
1751
That tranquility of mind, and indolence of body which he made his chief ends. (Earl of Orrery, Remarks Swift (1752) 113)
From the Historical Thesaurus entries for this definition:
non-feelingness 1650 Absence of sensation.
indolence 1656–1751 Freedom from pain; a state of rest or ease, in which neither pain nor pleasure is felt. Obsolete.
dispassion 1690– Freedom from passion; dispassionateness; †apathy.
dryness 1748 figurative. Absence of emotion, feeling, or fervour; lack of cordiality; coldness of feeling; distance of manner.
dispassionateness 1842– A dispassionate condition or quality.
passionlessness 1867– The state or condition of being or appearing passionless.
emotionlessness 1873– The quality, state, or condition of being emotionless.
(My Note: Those all sound more Stoic than Epicurean!)
Finally, definition from 1710-
The disposition to avoid trouble; love of ease; laziness, slothfulness, sluggishness.
