Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from DaveT

Wisdom (prudence), Courage, Temperance, and Justice.

I don't think that even in the US there is just one absolute definition of what these are. And these labels are only understood in contrast to their opposites, as well as requiring an examination of specific actions and specific situations. For an "absolute" understanding we would have to be able to consistently describe what perfect prudence would look like, and what would perfect courage look like...etc.

PD05 - "It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life is not living prudently, honorably, and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life] cannot possibly live pleasantly."

And PD17 - "The just man is most free from trouble; the unjust most full of trouble."

Quote from DaveT

So, back to the thrust of my question above: Why should anyone dwell on whether Lucretius interpreted Epicurus wrongly or indeed intentionally declined to include Epicurus’ atomism?

Perhaps because it is a body of writing that has transcended time, and that has given it a bit of a "special quality" that is different than just some "Joe-shmo". There is also the presentation of many ideas which are the basis for cognizing the material world, free from religion and superstition - and we still live in a world where a great many people are bound up by superstitions so this is still important for our time. Also, because much of what Epicurus wrote was lost but Lucretius has preserved his ideas.

Even if the science has now advanced on many things, what else is there that does what Lucretius does? Perhaps it is time for modern people to do what he did in a more up-to-date manner, while also still preserving the many subtle truths on things like the nature of the soul and death.

From Torquatus:

"More, any pains that the Wise Man may encounter are never so severe but that he has more cause for gladness than for sorrow. Again, it is a fine saying of Epicurus that 'the Wise Man is but little interfered with by fortune: the great concerns of life, the things that matter, are controlled by his own wisdom and reason'; and that 'no greater pleasure could be derived from a life of infinite duration than is actually afforded by this existence which we know to be finite.'"

The following on similarities and differences, from Google AI:

Quote

• Similarities: Both systems argue that things do not come from nothing; they are formed by causes and conditions. Both philosophies are materialistic/phenomenological (denying a divine creator) and emphasize the impermanent nature of compound objects.
• Differences: Lucretius is strictly materialistic atomist—everything is physical particles in a void. Buddhist Dependent Origination is psychophysical—it includes mental states (consciousness, feeling, craving) as necessary conditions for existence. Lucretius focuses on liberating the mind from fear of death, while Buddhism focuses on stopping the cycle of rebirth and suffering through enlightenment.

Quote from Godfrey

Quote from Kalosyni

one understands that god/gods are not creating all the phenomenon of the world but that they come from naturally occurring processes.

Unrelated to the subject of this thread (with my apologies), I like the way that you worded this Kalosyni . The wording that you've used here can include both the physical processes by which gods (godlike beings?) exist, as illustrated by the realist position, as well as the natural processes of both people grappling with the unknown and of cultural accretion as perhaps in the idealist position.

I see now that the referred to object of the pronoun "they" that I used was unclear, and I had intended it to be read this way:

The investigation of nature is important so that one understands that god/gods are not creating all the phenomenon of the world, but that the phenonenon of the world are caused by naturally occurring processes unrelated in any way to god/gods.

There are quite a few passages in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (more than just these) which describe dependent origination, but here is one section, Bailey translation:

1-803

‘But,’ you say, ‘the facts show clearly that all things are nourished and grow from the earth up into the breezes of the sky; and unless the season at a propitious time fosters them with rain, so that the trees rock beneath the outpouring of the storm-clouds, and the sun for its part cherishes them, and bestows its heat on them, crops, trees, living creatures, none could grow.’ Yes, in very truth, unless we too were nurtured by dry food and soft moisture, we should lose our flesh, and all the life too would be loosened from all our sinews and bones. For beyond all doubt we are nurtured and nourished upon things determined, and other things again, each in their turn, on things determined. Yea, we may be sure, it is because many first-beginnings common in many ways to many things are mingled among things, that so diverse things are nourished on diverse food. And often it is of great matter with what others those first-beginnings are bound up, and in what position, and what movements they mutually give and receive; for the same build up sky, sea, earth, rivers, sun, the same too crops, trees, living creatures, but only when mingled with different things and moving in different ways.

1-823

Indeed scattered abroad in my verses you see many letters common to many words, and yet you must needs grant that verses and words are unlike both in sense and in the ring of their sound. So great is the power of letters by a mere change of order. But the first-beginnings of things can bring more means to bear, by which all diverse things may be created.

The topic of whether or not we can accurately perceive reality is very important, especially if some people may be more prone to errors of perception. And it does seem that modern neuroscience has made great advancements in understanding compared to the time of Epicurus. We've likely already talked about this in other threads, but I think it is a worthwhile topic to continue.

Here is a good article I found:

The Neuroscience of Reality

Reality is constructed by the brain, and no two brains are exactly alike

www.scientificamerican.com

Quote

The central idea of predictive perception is that the brain is attempting to figure out what is out there in the world (or in here, in the body) by continually making and updating best guesses about the causes of its sensory inputs. It forms these best guesses by combining prior expectations or “beliefs” about the world, together with incoming sensory data, in a way that takes into account how reliable the sensory signals are. Scientists usually conceive of this process as a form of Bayesian inference, a framework that specifies how to update beliefs or best guesses with new data when both are laden with uncertainty.

In theories of predictive perception, the brain ap­­proximates this kind of Bayesian inference by continually generating predictions about sensory signals and comparing these predictions with the sensory signals that arrive at the eyes and the ears (and the nose and the fingertips and all the other sensory surfaces on the outside and inside of the body). The differences between predicted and actual sensory signals give rise to so-called prediction errors, which are used by the brain to update its predictions, readying it for the next round of sensory inputs. By striving to minimize sensory-­prediction errors everywhere and all the time, the brain implements approximate Bayesian in­­ference, and the resulting Bayesian best guess is what we perceive.

Quote

To understand how dramatically this perspective shifts our intuitions about the neurological basis of perception, it is helpful to think in terms of bottom-up and top-down directions of signal flow in the brain. If we as­­sume that perception is a direct window onto an external reality, then it is natural to think that the content of perception is carried by bottom-up signals—those that flow from the sensory surfaces inward. Top-down signals might contextualize or finesse what is perceived, but nothing more. Call this the “how things seem” view because it seems as if the world is revealing itself to us directly through our senses.

The prediction machine scenario is very different. Here the heavy lifting of perception is performed by the top-down signals that convey perceptual predictions, with the bottom-up sensory flow serving only to calibrate these predictions, keeping them yoked, in some appropriate way, to their causes in the world. In this view, our perceptions come from the inside out just as much as, if not more than, from the outside in. Rather than being a passive registration of an external objective reality, perception emerges as a process of active construction—a controlled hallucination, as it has come to be known.

Another goal that I believe an Epicurean would set for themselves is to make and maintain friendships, based on this Principal Doctrine:

27. "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship."

You can check out this sub-forum on various aspects of friendship:

Friendship

And also this specific thread:

Thread

Cultivation of Friendship within Epicureanism

Principle Doctrine 27:

27.	Of all the things that wisdom provides for the complete happiness of one's entire life, by far the greatest is friendship.

Principle Doctrine 27 is very important for a happy life. Modern life is busy with work and family, and yet we all still need friends. So it is very important to take the time and put the effort into making friends and maintaining friendships. Some people might be satisfied with the number and kind of friendships in their lives, but others…

Kalosyni

January 16, 2022 at 8:54 PM

Maintaining long-term friendships takes some effort and commitment. And if friends move away (or you move to a new city) then you need to put effort into making new friends.

The Japanese concept of "wabi-sabi" might be related to the Epicurean "wealth demanded by nature" (in PD15).

From Wikipedia:

Quote

In traditional Japanese aesthetics, wabi-sabi (侘び寂び) centers on the acceptance of transience and imperfection.^[2] It is often described as the appreciation of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".^[3] It is prevalent in many forms of Japanese art.^[4][5]

Wabi-sabi combines two interrelated concepts: wabi (侘) and sabi (寂). According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, wabi may be translated as "subdued, austere beauty", and sabi as "rustic patina"....

Characteristics of wabi-sabi aesthetics and principles include asymmetry, roughness, simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and the appreciation of natural objects and the forces of nature.

-->Source article

Cassius your statement "Lower your expectations and you will never be dissatisfied" could be compared to this PD:

PD15. "The wealth demanded by nature is both limited and easily procured; that demanded by idle imaginings stretches on to infinity."

The wording of this doesn't quite work for me. An internal feeling of disappointment happens because a mental expectation was not fulfilled. But if you understand the nature of the world well, you will know which situations come with a higher probability of fufillment and which come with a lower probability, and you won't create unrealistic expectations.

I've just come up with this question: "What kinds of goals do Epicureans set for themselves?"

This could be within general categories or specific things.

If we look to the Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, Letter to Menoeceus, etc.

And in the Letter to Herodotus, it says this:

Quote

"Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered, if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail."

"Wherefore since the method I have described is valuable to all those who are accustomed to the investigation of nature, I who urge upon others the constant occupation in the investigation of nature, and find my own peace chiefly in a life so occupied, have composed for you another epitome on these lines, summing up the first principles of the whole doctrine."

So from this text, I would deduce that the investigation of nature would be an Epicurean activity and a goal that an Epicurean would set for themselves. And perhaps this goal would be a life-long goal - one that would never end since nature is vast, especially now in our modern understanding. The reason that this goal is important (and I think that this is addressed in De Rerum Natura) is so that one understands that god/gods are not creating all the phenomenon of the world but that they come from naturally occurring processes. And a second reason why this is important is so that one understands the causes of things, thereby leading to better decision making and choices - we can't pray things into existence for ourselves, but instead must take concrete actions.

And...there are other Epicurean goals, which are hinted at in the other texts I mentioned.

Just a head-up, that the sub-forum "Sunday Zoom Meetings" has been moved, and is now located under the Welcome threads in the very top forum. (Fourth Sunday is open to all members and Weekly Sundays is Level 3 ...and Level 2 by moderator approval.)

You can also find a link in the drop-down toolbar under "More".

EdGenX we have sent out a private message containing the Zoom link. Looking forward to meeting you!

Happy Birthday EricR

A shout-out to our newer members and anyone who hasn't previously attended a Zoom meeting...

Inviting all forum members to "Fourth Sunday" (this next Sunday)...which will have time for questions about the forum and Epicurean philosophy.

And Cassius will be presenting (based on the article sited above) and guiding the discussion.

RSVP if you are interested in attending!

wbernys  chump  EdGenX  Daniel188  D Campbell (and anyone else I may have missed mentioning).

Quote from Kalosyni

-- the desire for eating tasty highly palatable foods all the time is an "unlimited" desire (difficult to fulfill and comes with painful consequences)

Food addiction - Wikipedia

Quote

A food addiction or eating addiction is any behavioral addiction characterized primarily by the compulsive consumption of palatable and hyperpalatable food items, and potentially also sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Such foods often have high sugar, fat, and salt contents (HFSS), and markedly activate the reward system in humans and other animals. Those with eating addictions often overconsume such foods despite the adverse consequences (such as excess weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease) associated with their overconsumption.

fyi - The Fourth Sunday topic that was posted earlier today has now been changed to: "Pleasure, Atoms, and the Foundations of Epicurean Ethics" - facilitated by Cassius.

The thread for on that article is here:

Thread

Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics - Article By David Sedley

In researching other issues I came across this article by David Sedley: Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics

While I have some issues with the first section, but that's only a brief summary of Epicurean ethics and not essential to the main point of the article. The main part thrust of the article is to examine how Epicurus constructed his argument that in ethics good and bad divides into pleasure and pain in much the same way that in physics everything int he universe divides into bodies…

Cassius

January 22, 2026 at 2:28 PM

Quote from Godfrey

I would begin with natural or unnatural, and eliminate the unnatural desires. Then I would reason out whether the resultant pleasures are likely to outweigh any pains involved. This goes along with my thinking that the natural and unnecessary desires are the sweet spot of day to day choices and avoidances. I examine these in terms of both the desires and the potential pleasures/pains, in no particular order.

I'm not sure if the labels of "natural, necessary, unnecessary, unnatural" are workable for me. I like to use more words to explore things, and here is an example:

Step 1: I notice that I feel desire for something specific: __________(xyz).

Step 2: If I get that ____________ (xyz), will the result will be one of the following?

a) relief from pain (food relieves the pain of hunger, and rest relieves the pain of exertion/work, aspirin relieves the pain of a headache).

b) protection of long-term well-being of the body (warm clothing for winter, warm housing, exercise, healthful foods)".

c) sufficiency/means for acquiring and maintaining basic needs.

d) necessities that provide "good spirits" (such as friends, or other social activities such as playing an instrument or dancing, etc.) ...and enjoyment of mental experiences (learning, teaching, memory).

e) anything else that is an enjoyment of bodily sensations and which are free from painful outcomes.

Step 3: Is the thing I desire something that has "limits" or is it an "unlimited desire" (something that can't be fulfilled)? And does it have painful/stressful consequences?

-- the desires for great wealth, fame, or power are "unlimited" (and are difficult to aquire and come with stressful consequences)

-- the desire for high-fashion clothing or the perfect high-end house is "unlimited" (and these are difficult to aquire without great wealth)

-- the desire for a life filled with perfect endless romance is an "unlimited" desire (and is difficult to aquire and comes with stressful consequences)

-- the desire for eating tasty highly palatable foods all the time is an "unlimited" desire (difficult to fulfill and comes with painful consequences)

Hi Everyone, Coming up this next Sunday is our "Fourth Sunday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion" Via Zoom -- open to forum members. If you haven't previously attended a Sunday Zoom, let us know if you are interested (either here in this thread or by private message to Cassius) so we can get the link to you.

This month's discussion topic: "Pleasure, Atoms, and the Foundations of Epicurean Ethics" - presented by Cassius

This will be based upon sections of the David Sedley article, which you can read here.

Hope to see you there!