Principle Doctrine 27:

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 (like myself) could put some work into making more friends.

And for any of us who are not currently in any kind of romantic relationship, (and maybe not even dating), it takes a lot of friends to make up for not having a romantic partner or a life partner.

Friendships can be challenging for some, especially for introverts. And the covid shutdowns, covid restrictions and restructuring, and continued mask mandates have had a big impact on socializing and making new friends. So this thread is a bit of an "antidote" for anyone who feels lonely, or who wishes to have more friends in their life.

I want to have this thread running for anyone who wants to say 'hi'... or drop in here for giving or receiving friendship support.

So for anyone who feels the desire to make more friends, and improve their friendships. I will post helpful tips, and feel free to share any of your own tips as well.

Here is a beautiful Leonard Cohan song about life-long marriage, and this would illustrate "secure attachment" style.

Attachment theory is interesting, in that it points to why some marriages last and go more smoothly than others. According to attachment theory, a person’s early relationships in life with mother/caregiver can affect their romantic relationships later on. The four attachment styles are: 1) secure 2) anxious-preoccupied 3) dismissive-avoidant 4) fearful-avoidant

How Different Attachment Styles Affect Relationships

Knowing your attachment style can help improve your romantic relationship.

www.psychologytoday.com

Examining the meaning of: "Sex is never beneficial, and you are lucky if it doesn't actually harm you."

From a modern understanding...what kind of "harm" are we talking about now, in our times?

Without birth control and condom use, sex can lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases - so if you want to avoid those harms you must be scrupulous in your birth control and STD protection methods.

And also more importantly, from sex, some emotional consequences will be felt...which can become complicated if you are not in a committed relationship. (Casual sex will result in it's own type of emotional consequences, but since we are talking about Valentine's Day and "romance" and "love", I will exclude discussing modern casual sex, which is only practiced by a very small percentage of the population anyway).

I would say that the emotional consequences of sex within a committed relationship are "addiction" and a drive to protect what you have...so "attachment"...which can lead to fear of losing what you love, and jealousy. And then you are in a very precarious place within yourself...you are less free...but these are just some ideas, haven't thought this through very much yet. It is possible that in the right situation, you will not end up with the negative emotions of over-attachment, but you can only prevent this if both people in the relationship are very emotionally mature and grounded.

So most people choose to have children and also do so within the legal protections of marriage. And modern marriage is a big subject, which I think would be better discussed by someone who is both married and happily married.

Quote from Don

Just found this in Academia. Just read the first few paragraphs,

Reading further, the author of that article concludes that the traditional translation is the right one:

Quote

Until very weighty evidence is brought forward to the contrary, it seems to me that we should feel confident that the traditional translation is the right one: sex is never beneficial, and you are lucky if it doesn't actually harm you-by implica- tion, it usually does. The sentence does not say "sex is desirable"; the syntax does not connect those two words. As to Cicero's translation, I reluctantly conclude that he, like Purinton, simply got it wrong.

Quote from Cassius

in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.

That in itself doesn't prove any position on marriage. It was just the prudent and compassionate thing to do, because back then all respectable women were married...all unmarried women would have been either a courtesan or a prostitute. But for men, they could live unmarried and not be stigmatized.

It seems that the only way to solve this puzzle for modern times, is to use a hedonic calculus. But then how do you determine the outcome with regard to pleasure and pain? This simply could be a subjective feeling, so some people might decide that marriage results in too much pain and so will not get married...or if divorced they will not seek to get re-married. But the problem is that you sometimes can't predict the outcome. And then this: is it worth experiencing an extreme amount of emotional pain so that you can enjoy some brief times of emotional (and physical) pleasure?

Thank you Don for sharing your "Epicurean Sage" translations...very helpful to read.

So...we could do an intellectual assessment of the historical context of male/female (or even male/male) relationships back in Epicurus' time...because it's quite fascinating how different things were, for people in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

But for now maybe let's stay with love and romance in modern times...

Here is an interesting song by a band called "Sweet" that I came across just last year (this song was shortly before my generation of music)...I am focusing specifically on the chorus (and not on the verses).

"Love is like oxygen,

You get too much,

You get too high,

Not enough,

And your gonna die."

So thinking about just these words...this talks about a human need. And also the need for having the best amount of love. But there is "sexual love" and "non-sexual love"...romance or friendship...and in modern times we can sometimes have a mix of both (a very rare thing in the form of a "situationship"). And certainly for married couples the best hoped for situation is a mix of romance and friendship.

Since we are talking about Valentine's Day, I am excluding from this discussion "family love" which would be a type of friendship, such as between sibblings, or adult parents being friends with adult children. I am also excluding the "non-sexual" -- "love-as-a-duty"...when there is a mix of the feeling of duty and caring...the feeling of caring but not necessarily loving. (Yet there could be a mix of caring and loving).

The word "love" itself becomes very complicated because of all it's forms.

Also it is important to exclude "love as infatuation" since this is based on the imagination and is not based on reality...except...wait a minute ...isn't this what Valentine's Day is all about??? And so many millions of modern love songs, are all describing the "love as infatuation" kind of romantic love. Is this "passionate love" the very thing of human sexual reproduction...we must submit to this inaccurate mixed up state of mind in order to procreate? Perhaps this is how it is for us now, but back in Epicurus' time marriage was not for love and romance, but only for having children.

Now popping back into thinking about the original Epicurean Garden...was there an emphasis on friendship as a substitute for "romantic" entanglements? Was there an emphasis on friendship based on the study of philosophy? Were there rules against the kind of romantic entanglements that might have been going on back then...romantic relationships with courtesans and also paiderastia (yikes! way too complicated for me).

So maybe we better bring it back to modern times...would a modern Epicurean think: if you are married, then that's fine...stay married (if your marriage is working out fine) and if you are single, then stay single because you will find more "love" (of the friendship variety) amongst a group of friends than by going off with one person.

But then this does bring up the question of friendship. As in modern times we can have very deep friendships, or just very shallow superficial friendships.

Does anyone know if Philodemus wrote anything on friendships?

Would love to hear comments on anything I have written here

Valentine's Day is one month away...how do we make sense of romance and love within the "Epicurean worldview". Is romantic love in direct opposition of the wisdom of free-will?

Quote

Diogenes Laertius :

Book 10, Sections 84-154

"They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial, nor that love is a passion inspired by the gods, as Diogenes says in his twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory. Intercourse, say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; [119] G and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Problems and in his treaties on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of life, he will forsake these rules and marry."

Diogenes Laertius: Principal Doctrines of Epicurus

And yet, is Venus standing at the center of the Epicurean Garden?

Lucretius begins his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) with a dedication to Venus:

Quote

Address to Venus

By Lucretius

Delight of Human kind, and Gods above;
Parent of Rome; Propitious Queen of Love;
Whose vital pow’r, Air, Earth, and Sea supplies;
And breeds what e’r is born beneath the rowling Skies:
For every kind, by thy prolifique might,
Springs, and beholds the Regions of the light:
Thee, Goddess thee, the clouds and tempests fear,
And at thy pleasing presence disappear:
For thee the Land in fragrant Flow’rs is drest,
For thee the Ocean smiles, and smooths her wavy breast;
And Heav’n it self with more serene, and purer light is blest.
For when the rising Spring adorns the Mead,
And a new Scene of Nature stands display’d,
When teeming Budds, and chearful greens appear,
And Western gales unlock the lazy year,
The joyous Birds thy welcome first express,
Whose native Songs thy genial fire confess:
Then savage Beasts bound o’re their slighted food,
Strook with thy darts, and tempt the raging floud:
All Nature is thy Gift; Earth, Air, and Sea:
Of all that breathes, the various progeny,
Stung with delight, is goaded on by thee.
O’er barren Mountains, o’er the flow’ry Plain,
The leavy Forest, and the liquid Main
Extends thy uncontroul’d and boundless reign.
Through all the living Regions dost thou move,
And scattr’st, where thou goest, the kindly seeds of Love:
Since then the race of every living thing,
Obeys thy pow’r; since nothing new can spring
Without thy warmth, without thy influence bear,
Or beautiful, or lovesome can appear,
Be thou my ayd: My tuneful Song inspire,
And kindle with thy own productive fire;
While all thy Province Nature, I survey,
And sing to Memmius an immortal lay
Of Heav’n, and Earth, and every where thy wond’rous pow’r display.
To Memmius, under thy sweet influence born,
Whom thou with all thy gifts and graces dost adorn.
The rather, then assist my Muse and me,
Infusing Verses worthy him and thee.
Mean time on Land and Sea let barb’rous discord cease,
And lull the listening world in universal peace.
To thee, Mankind their soft repose must owe,
For thou alone that blessing canst bestow;
Because the brutal business of the War
Is manag’d by thy dreadful Servant’s care:
Who oft retires from fighting fields, to prove
The pleasing pains of thy eternal Love:
And panting on thy breast, supinely lies,
While with thy heavenly form he feeds his famish’d eyes:
Sucks in with open lips, thy balmy breath,
By turns restor’d to life, and plung’d in pleasing death.
There while thy curling limbs about him move,
Involv’d and fetter’d in the links of Love,
When wishing all, he nothing can deny,
Thy charms in that auspicious moment try;
With winning eloquence our peace implore,
And quiet to the weary World restore.

Display More

Aphrodite of Menophantos, a Venus pudica ("modest venus") the best-known copy type of the Venus of Cnidus, here bearing the signature of the sculptor Menophantos: "work by Menophantos, after the Aphrodite in the Troad". Marble, Greek artwork, 1st century BC. From the church San Gregorio al Celio, Rome. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Venus_pudica_Massimo.jpg

Is this to be seen as a reverence for nature and the natural world, rather than a reverence for romantic love?

Quote from Cassius

selecting particular views of the "good" would be contradictory to the basics of the philosophy of an atomistic universe.

Everyone has a formulation in their mind about what is "good" and what is "true". And unless they have a materialist view and pragmatic pleasure goal, then their mental conceptions and words will all be based on something very different than the "Epicurean worldview".

And in addition, here on the forum our definition of "good" and "true" is anything that is synonymous to the original teachings of Epicurus. Until everyone is completely clear about what the original teachings of Epicurus are, then we can't move forward as easily. So we almost need an "Epicurean Bible".

And now, I am not so sure that having meetings at a UU church would work...as there can be a "religious" undercurrent (a loving/benevolent Universe) based on a worldview that is different than Epicurean worldview. Epicureans would say the "Universe" is indifferent. And what exactly is this "Universe"...Epicureans would cognate it differently than UU's.

My reason for the giving the above statistics, is that here in Oregon, people will probably be more likely to join a Zoom meeting than to attend something in-person. But then who will join a Zoom meeting? It comes down to very few people...so for now this must be both on national and global level, not local level. That's just my opinion for now. Come summertime things might be different, and in addition outdoor meeting at parks or outdoor areas of breweries might make for a good meeting location.

Quote from SimonC

I think finding a critical mass of people in a given location is a much larger issue than the logistics.

I have wondered what kind of people would come to an in-person meeting on "Epicurean Philosophy"?

But before I can even answer that question I have to consider that in-person meeting aren't isn't going to happen for a while until Omicron cases come down.

"The 7-day rolling average of new coronavirus cases as they were reported by the Oregon Health Authority: 8,660"...Further here is what is happening for kids in schools: “If a school cannot confirm that 6 feet of distancing was consistently maintained or 3 foot distancing with consistent mask use was maintained during the school day, then each person the confirmed case was in contact with would be considered a close contact. Exposed close contacts without symptoms would either need to quarantine for seven days or be part of a “test-to-stay” program." ...Indoor masking requirements for all indoor public places remain (for all people over age 2)

Quote from smoothiekiwi

if there's an equal amount of pain and pleasure connected with an act, I'd choose not to have it- because, in my subjective experience, pleasure doesn't "negate" pain at a 1:1 ratio.

This jostled my memory regarding marriage:

Quote

That “magic ratio” is 5 to 1. This means that for every negative interaction during conflict, a stable and happy marriage has five (or more) positive interactions.

“When the masters of marriage are talking about something important,” Dr. Gottman says, “they may be arguing, but they are also laughing and teasing and there are signs of affection because they have made emotional connections.”

On the other hand, unhappy couples tend to engage in fewer positive interactions to compensate for their escalating negativity. If the positive-to-negative ratio during conflict is 1-to-1 or less, that’s unhealthy, and indicates a couple teetering on the edge of divorce.

https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-magic…ording-science/

Quote from Matt

With the numbers of people in society who are otherwise detached from reality increasing steadily, the “casual” remarks about unfounded things are becoming much more irritating.

We need to join together to further the understanding of science and the scientific method, as well as uphold the materialist understanding of life. We need to talk about it and share about it with others, not as a "defense" (or out of anger) but rather out of enjoyment. So not forcing it on others, but being a witness to it and it's benefits. There more people that "think clearly" the better the world will become.

Quote from Cassius

We don't "have" to take risks in many cases. We choose whether to do so or not. We could simply choose to live in our caves on bread and water and forgo the possibility of many activities that may bring significant pleasure but at the cost of significant pain. If "all pain is to be avoided at all cost" is the formula, then the cave-dwelling life would be a logical option.

Okay, so in some situations the hedonic calculus comes out even...equal levels of pain and pleasure...and thinking about it further I begin to see that that is why there actually might be an emphasis on activities that reduce pain. Because if you have two options: Option A - the end result will be an equal amount of pleasure and pain...and Option B - more pleasure and less pain...then you choose option B.

I think an instance of this is marriage...people go into it thinking that there will be more pleasure than pain, but only if you are lucky will this be the case...if you can find a very compatible partner with a similar world-view, similar life goals, similar likes and dislikes, and similar disposition, who is an emotionally grounded and rationally thinking person, who is healthy and strong, who knows how to problem-solve, who has good social skills and emotional intelligence, and who is kind, patient, generous, and loving.

So let's say two people with all these characteristics find each other and marry...it is possible that there will be more pleasure than pain. If any of these qualities are deficient then some problems will come up...and when they do, the pleasure and pain "hedonic calculus" will come out even...or could come out with more pain.

Quote from Cassius

The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us.

Yes.

I realise that I need to more clearly explain: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck"...I need to add...

This is in reference to interactions with people, for example if someone asks you to do something, that you don't say "yes" out of a feeling of duty or obligation, but instead get clear about what you are wanting...and so you may then decide to say "no" to their request. And when you say "yes" you know clearly why and see that it is because of mutual needs being fulfilled, or because you trust in the reciprocity of the relationship and see how saying "yes" will lead to giving pleasure to the other person (and anticipating their pleasure also gives you pleasure).

Quote from Cassius

love" isn't the ultimate value in the Epicurean worldview, so has to be treated with caution too. As you observed smoothkiwi in another recent thread, not every example of prudent eating is Epicurean. Not every instance of "common sense" is Epicurean, and by similar token not every instance of love, or even of pleasure, is something that Epicurus advised everyone to engage in all the time.

I don't intend this to sound harsh of course but it's really challenging to think through the implications of what Epicurus is teaching. It doesn't add up to "god is love" or even "the universe is pleasure" or any kind of master intention-based plan of action that applies everywhere and all the time. "Pleasure" probably comes the closest to the universal motivating force, but every time we say that we need to remember that Epicurus was plain that we don't choose every immediate pleasure.

So this makes Epicureanism quite difficult to teach. And only certain people will be able to grasp this big picture understanding of Epicureanism, and that there are no "black and white" absolutes. You have to be able to think for youself, judge for yourself, and make decisions for yourself.

Quote from Cassius

What is "atruism"? Putting others first always? That would certainly not be Epicurean. What is "hedonism?" Putting pleasure first always? Yes, from a certain perspective, but absolutely no from a moment to moment perspective, because we often choose pain to avoid worse pain or pursue greater pleasure.

I heard it said that even Mother Teresa, who was the famous Catholic nun, who dedicated her life to altruism in the slums of Calcutta, was doing it because she was deriving some pleasure from it. I would guess that she was more focused on the mental pleasure of it than the physical pleasure. (Did she learn to enjoy it out of some kind of "Christian duty"?...hard to say).The danger comes when people think...oh, everyone should be like Mother Teresa. Everyone has differenting personalities and preferences and different ways of enjoying the world. I myself have never felt any calling to do volunteer or non-profit work, and I think it is because I am very introverted and those kinds of situations would cause me a lot of mental stress. However, I can imagine a very extroverted person finding a lot of joy in doing some altruistic work because of some aspect of it that gives them mental pleasure.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Still, I think that there may be- rare- situations where it's necessary to harm other people in order to be individually happy... because if you don't, then that means that it becomes some sort of abstract thought or dogma, like "thou shall not harm thy neighbor". But I also have to admit that I can't think of any example where consciously inflicting pain on someone will bring you more pleasure in the long run... what do you think on that?

There could be an instance of a "protective use of force"...an act of self-protection coming from a need to defend your own safety or the safety of someone you love...in which you hurt someone out of self-defense, but hopely you can do it in such a way as to not kill or mame them.

Quote from Matt

Kalosyni you have a very good way with people.

Well, thank you...I don't know...

Just remember that pleasure and pain is the teacher here...with a focus on moving toward both short-term AND long-term pleasure (and the consideration of not just your own pleasure but also the other person's pleasure...because this has a built in feed-back loop).

I studied "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg, and took classes and workshops. He said: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck."

And this also points the need to be clear (inside yourself) about why you are doing something. So you trust your inner feelings about what feels good inside, for your own situation, and for your own needs. At some point I'd like to share more about it on the forum, as I see it as being in sync with Epicureanism, and has some helpful ideas.

(Unfortunately "Nonviolent Communication" didn't help me fix my marriage, and I am now divorced).

Some years ago, I briefly studied Carl Jung's ideas of "archetypes" and the "collective unconsious". People who believe in the supernatural are at a place in their lives where they are "needing" to engage with this primitive part of the psyche. The majority of people only interact with this through their dreams. And modern people often cannot even remember their dreams.

It is important to be clear that any "messages" that come through should not be taken on a literal level. These messages are for making sense of the "inner landscape" of the individual psyche. These are the elements, motifs, and archetypes of art and the creative forces of the psyche interacting with the realm of emotions, passions, and unconscious repressed desires. The psyche strives for coherence and "wholeness".

We can dance with these "archetypal symbols" to enhance creativity in life. But some people might take it all too literally, somehow believing that what is "mythic" in the inner worlds, is also true in the out physical/material world...as in the above stories shared by Matt . (And then people with mental disorders of schizophrenia cannot manage any of this properly unless they can get modern medical treatment...it is as if they are dreaming while awake).

Quote from Matt

This is not my first go around with people like this, I’ve met people have claimed that they see ghosts, angels, spiritual guides etc. I just didn’t know this particular person believed it.

I would either decide to "enjoy" their stories...listen and say: "hmmm, that's interesting"...or decide to move on...because you won't be able to talk anyone out of these beliefs, they have to do it on their own. And I would simply say: "I have a different belief. I believe in a materialist, scientific understanding of things."

Quote from Matt

If I add the “internet” crowd to this number of detached people that believe in lizard people, deep underground bases and other “fringe” ideas and those people are those that are not using the canon as the standard of truth, the number of detached people would exponentially multiply.

I wonder what Carl Jung would have to say about this, if he were alive. As these are the mythological elements that could haunt peoples dreams.

As for approaching it from science: this book might be relevant: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

As a consequence, I asked how God can forgive everyone, because some misdeeds don't seem forgivable for me; and if everything is forgivable, then I might as well be sinful and have a lot of fun before I come into paradise. My friend agreed with me, but said that we should still try and be good, because he don't want to let his parents suffer by harming other people.

I had some further reactions to your story, and I want to point out that...I think it is important to be careful about the word "sin" (and "sinful") because there are two things being mixed up here.

One understanding of "sin" is that it is the harming or hurting of another person, and all the things that we in a civilized world, understand as "wrong" because they cause pain to someone else. There are different levels of moral understanding: It could be based on fear of punishment - either by the judicial system of society, or by social ostracisation (or fear of getting a bad reputation or disappointing others). Also most people will react toward inflicted pain with some kind of retaliation, or they will no longer trust you. We also have our inner conscience and this will follow us for the rest of our lives in the form of our memories. When you fully understand "pain and pleasure" you see the importance of non-harming. Every person moves toward pleasure and recoils from pain. Why would you do to someone something that you would not want to be done to you? If you cause pain to others, and then justify it in some way, you will begin to attract others to you who also cause pain to others...and this will put you into harms way...and then you will live in fear that you will be harmed.

Then secondly there are the "sinful" things which have been invented to "try" to make certain aspects of civilization function more smoothly, but come from some religious opinions (for example: sex before is wrong marriage, dancing is wrong, drinking alcohol is wrong, etc.) and these opinions are not inherently correct. These are things which only cause pain when there is a lack of mutual consent or when there is over-indulgence (when there is a potential for pain, and when the person is not being fully responsible). So would guess it this second instance of "sinful" in which you said "might as well be sinful and have a lot of fun".

And I want to correct this idea of "sin" being "fun"...as this is incorrect. We cannot live a joyous life without living wisely and rightly:

Principle Doctrine 5:

Also there is this with regard to the second category I wrote about, and so one makes choices not to do things that will result in pain. For example, I would say that at all Epicureans would not do binge drinking.