Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Kalosyni

At the end of the Letter to Menoeceus we see:

"Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself; and with a companion like to yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like unto a mortal being."

For me, it seems clear in my imagination that the gods are living in a state of joy.

There is lots of good discussion happening here. But I wanted to re-state what and why I titled this thread as: "Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia" but "Joy as the goal". Perhaps it would have been more clear if I had said "eudiamonia" instead of joy.

My primary intention is for us to get out of our heads the common mantra put forward by the internet search engines (and by many philosophy scholars) that the end-all, be-all goal of Epicureanism is ataraxia. It's like this: Let's say you have a goal of having an omlet for breakfast. But then you state: "My goal is eggs". And you ignore that there is something much bigger (the omlet) which contains cheese and all the veggies, plus milk (and butter and the use of a hot frying pan) that go into the omlet and the making of the omlet.

Don I am grateful to read your your very good and helpful input on this thread.

Matteng and wbernys I think it is important to consider that the teachings of Epicurus are not presented in a linear fashion - and you need to look at the whole picture.

We see in PD27, it says: "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship."

This PD brings in the idea of "the blessedness of the complete life".

The primary ancient Greek word for the blessedness of a complete (fortunate) life is makarios (μακάριος), often used to describe the enviable state of the gods or the self-sustained blessedness of a life where all needs are met. Another crucial term for the enduring, flourishing "good life" is eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία), representing lasting happiness and prosperity.

• "Blessedness" - Makarios (μακάριος): Refers to a state of supreme happiness, often signifying being blessed or fortunate, particularly used to describe divine existence or the secure, self-sustained state of the wealthy. It implies a total satisfaction where all needs are met and secured, frequently translated as "blessed" or "happy".
• Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία): Translates to "happiness," "flourishing," or "living well." It is often considered the pinnacle of human life, as a life of complete well-being rather than just a fleeting emotion.

At the end of the Letter to Menoeceus we see:

"Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself; and with a companion like to yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like unto a mortal being."

For me, it seems clear in my imagination that the gods are living in a state of joy.

In my research today, I just found this first chapter on the Letter to Menoeceus, from a new book just published February 2026, by Solmeng-Jonas Hirschi. (Written as a scholarly/academic examination).

It looks like it will have special interest for those who are studying ancient Greek language. Bryan  Don  Eikadistes

https://academic.oup.com/book/62294/chapter/552412171

This gives you 40 seconds of the opening of the Letter to Menoeceus:

the Letter to Menoeceus • Epicurus • spoken AncientGreek.eu

Quote from Cassius

It certainly illustrates something but i am not sure exactly what!

It shows how the gods have lots to see and do in their blessed and immortal realm.

...and this one:

I just found this video, and I think it illustrates the Epicurean philosophical idea that the gods are blessed and immortal. PD01 "The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak." (See also Letter to Menoeceus, section 123)

Happy Belated Birthday Pacatus

Happy Birthday! Patrikios

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

I have not fully read the article above, but wanted to comment regarding any idea that Epicurean philosophy would be a better option for an individual interested in Christianity -- I think that anyone who is moving toward Christianity hasn't fully dealt with certain existential questions, and that they have certain psychological desires that they want to see fulfilled. The foremost desire would be for "immortality" since within Christian belief the soul does not die. Asking anyone with that desire to consider Epicureanism would not go over well. A given person in this situation won't accept something that they aren't wanting or ready to hear.

Unfortunately modernity and the larger system what we now exist within, directly or indirectly reinforces the idea of an immortal soul. Maybe the "desire for immortality" is a chicken-and-egg thing, that feeds back into itself - present in religion and present in masses and the mythos of civilization itself.

Welcome to the forum Aeneadum

The greatest motivation for quiting addictions is realizing that the pain outweighs the pleasure. Also, the strong desire to feel healthy again, and the strong desire to do what is necessary to maintain long-term health and put effort into that which enables one to enjoy a long life of health.

There is a thread (maybe more than one) regarding 12-step and Epicureanism. I'll see if I can track it down and post the link when I find it.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

And the best way to do that is through regular teamwork with people who already agree

Maybe we need an Epicurean "Death Cafe"?

https://deathcafe.com/what/

Except an "Epicurean death discussion" would end up being different than the objectives of a Death Cafe, because we would be exploring why "death is nothing to us".

According to the Death Cafe website, theirs is very open-ended:

Quote

A Death Cafe is a group directed discussion of death with no agenda, objectives or themes. It is a discussion group rather than a grief support or counselling session.

Quote from Cassius

And the best way to do that is through regular teamwork with people who already agree

Maybe we need an Epicurean "Death Cafe"?

Quote from DaveT

Therefore since biologically the brain is constantly trying to predict what will happen next (for my continued existence), it has a problem seeing the world after death. He speculates that this is why an afterlife of some type is an element of almost every religious beliefs system.

And the internal experience of being alive is as if we "feel" immortal (and yet we are not).

Also, it is much more appealing to think that there is something good coming (such as heaven) rather than nothingness.

But just because we "feel" immortal doesn't actually make us immortal. And just because we can imagine a heavenly place after death, doesn't make it so.

I think that the Epicurean needs to spend time contemplating the truth of the cessation of the senses and the mind. And, also needs to focus intently on living life to the fullest by making good and joyful choices - and in a way "make heaven on earth".

We can see the Epicurean understanding of the gods in Principal Doctrine 01, the Letter to Menoeceus, and in Lucretius. And perhaps Epicurus was influenced by Xenophanes ideas (which alos came down through Plato/Aristotle, but Epicurus forms different conclusions). I'm thinking that buy studying this we can come to a greater understanding of PD01. Do we already have threads on this elsewhere? Bryan ?

The following is a quote from Stanford.edu website:

Quote

...we may infer from the concluding call to pay due honor to the gods in Xenophanes’ B1 that an attribution of scandalous conduct would be incompatible with the goodness or perfection any divine being must be assumed to possess (cf. Aristotle Meta. 1072b; Plato, Rep. 379b.)

In the well-known fragments B14–16, Xenophanes comments on the general tendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in human form:

Quote

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothers and have a voice and body. (B14)

Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are are blue-eyed and red-haired. (B16)

B15 adds, probably in a satirical vein, that if horses and oxen had hands and could draw pictures, their gods would look remarkably like horses and oxen.

Source:

Xenophanes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Welcome to the forum LAMAR__44 ...here are my thoughts to give some correction and guidance:

Quote from LAMAR__44

pleasure is the sole good, and pain is the sole evil, everything else that we should pursue has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pleasure, and everything we avoid has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pain. This helps significantly in judging what is worthy of pursuit and what isn’t.

I think that your wording here makes for an incorrect understanding and application -- the meaning of the word "sole" = only. This sets you up for a big problem, because sometimes we do what is needed for good health and for long-term happiness. If you think with the word "sole" the error could be that your pleasure has to be sensory oriented or somehow a big pleasure. And it is important to understand that anything that we do that doesn't contain painful sensations is also labeled "a pleasure". We also see in the letter to Menoeceus: "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided."

Quote from LAMAR__44

it’s hard for me to think of this with relationships. I think it makes sense to evaluate before starting a friendship or romantic relationship whether there will be net pleasure or pain, but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

Your error here is in thinking too abstractly (net pleasure vs net pain). I think most people wouldn't tolerate a friend who seems to criticize all the time or who is impatient or unkind - we all know how to instinctively avoid these people. Even if the person is a family member (sibling, etc) then we make sure to keep our distance (for self-protection). So as soon as we sense that a potential friend has those characteristics, we should have no qualms in steering clear of making friends with a person like this.

Quote from LAMAR__44

I must say that there is no intrinsic value in my relationships with my loved ones, they only have value in so that they’re instrumental to my pleasure, but in doing this, I lower my experience of pleasure within these relationships. But that would result in less net pleasure then if I decided to disbelieve in hedonism, so to live according to hedonism, I need to disbelieve in hedonism.

First, regarding your cognition of "pleasure" in relationships -- if you think too abstractly then perhaps that is why you may be for some reason not feeling enjoyment. Joy is a feeling, and it has concrete and specific causes. All relationships are about about a type of "inter-dependence"...meaning that we "inter-are" and we experience things based on what all the people in the relationship do. Pleasure not only comes from what my loved ones do, but pleasure also comes when I give pleasure to my loved ones.

You don't choose your family, but you choose your friends -- so potentially your friends will be bringing more love and acceptance into your connection and interactions (for example, since in friendships there won't be any conscious or unconscious sibling rivalry that could occur in family relationships).

Regarding your idea of "no intrinsic value except through being instrumental for pleasure" -- there is an error of thinking here also -- because you are again stuck in a concept and have forgotten your heart. The sense of our heart contains the emotions and feelings together with breath of the body and the feelings of aliveness. All of this is the reason why it says in the Principal Doctrines: PD27. "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship."

Here is an interesting Q & A, but looks like the main article is behind a paywall.

Quote

Tell us a bit about your article.

My article explores Frances Wright’s defense of Epicurus in her A Few Days in Athens (1822). Epicurus was an ancient Athenian philosopher and a materialist, who argued for the senses and pleasure as the best gauges of virtue. Controversially, he also welcomed women as well as enslaved people to his school. Through her work on Epicurus, Frances Wright developed her own understanding of the relationship between pleasure and virtue, and this served as the basis for her feminist philosophy.

Despite its popularly in the nineteenth century, A Few Days in Athens has been hard to place in feminist philosophy and history. It’s generically uncertain; in places, it reads like a philosophical dialogue, but it also borrows tropes from the novel. In addition, pleasure remains difficult to discuss within feminism because of its association with sex and the body. My article grapples with Wright’s attempt to make pleasure central to living a virtuous life.

You can read the full Q & A here:

Q&A with JoEllen DeLucia: 'Frances Wright’s A Few Days in Athens' - Edinburgh University Press Blog

Frances Wright redefines feminist philosophy through Epicurus's ideals of pleasure and virtue in her 1822 novel.

euppublishingblog.com

This very short video may be relevant:

Here's a fun and short travel video in Greece (and they have done other places in the world too).

Eikadistes Thank you for your work on the Philodemus text! I see over at your link (the Twentiers website), there is this symbol used in the text:

[...]

...which is used when parts of the text are missing. Does the source text give any indication of how many words or lines are missing at each of these points?

And in general regarding Philodemus texts, are there differences of whether this is addressed or not, to be found depending on the text or the source?

Don  Bryan