Posts by Kalosyni

Here is an interesting article from the Psychology Today website, and which would be related to the topic of "Epicurean choice and avoidance"...

Quote

Resourcefulness underlies resilience. The more ways you know how to get things done, the more options you have when your usual approach hits a wall. The more ways you've solved problems before, the less daunting new problems feel. Yet many people never target resourcefulness as a skill they can build. They stick to a narrow playbook of how they get things done, and don't consider venturing beyond that.

Resourcefulness can give you a greater sense of security in your life and more trust in yourself.

Read the full article here:

7 Ways to Increase Your Resourcefulness

Practical ways to become someone who can figure anything out.

www.psychologytoday.com

I want to set up this thread as a place to do an overall comparison between Epicurus and Aristotle.

Cassius do we have a table of comparison somewhere already?

Here is an interesting historical snippet from Reddit answering the question "Did Epicurus meet Aristotle?" (we might need to research references):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian…l%20his%20death.

Quote

It would have been hard for Epicurus to be involved in philosophy and never to have heard of Aristotle. It would be a bit like being a Roman historian and never having heard of Mommsen. Or a mathematician never having heard of Russell. Aristotle was the founder of the Peripatetic school centered at Athens but influential throughout the entire Greek world, and the effects of Aristotle's teaching would have been felt by any educated Greek-speaker. Moreover, Epicurus was twenty years old when Aristotle died. He returned to Athens (the place of his father's citizenship) in 324/3 to do two years of mandatory military service and moved to Colophon around 322. He therefore would have been in Athens right around the time of Aristotle's flight to Euboea following Alexander's death. There is no evidence from the ancient biographers or the philosophical tradition that Epicurus ever actually met Aristotle, but he certainly was aware of his teachings and lived in Athens where the Academy and Peripatetics were based from 307 until his death. Diogenes Laertius claims that Aristotle was teaching in Calchis already by the time Epicurus came to Athens, but he also says that Epicurus was taught by the Academic Xenocrates. This should not be surprising--Athenian philosophy at this period was dominated by Plato's Academics and Aristotle's Peripatetics, and in the course of Epicurus' philosophical education he would have been closely exposed to both.

It is important to see that there are a number of differences between Epicurean philosophy and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam...and the Rubaiyat takes a dark and pessimistic tone.

Labeling Epicurean philosophy as pessimistic is incorrect (rebuttal to post #1 above) and there are enough large differences between Epicureanism and the Rubaiyat that we should not label the Rubaiyat as Epicurean.

Here is short comparison and then a full table of comparison follows. (source: Google AI):

Epicureanism and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (particularly in Edward FitzGerald's famous translation) share a "carpe diem" spirit that emphasizes seizing the present moment. However, they differ significantly in their underlying tone: while Epicureanism is a structured system for achieving tranquility (ataraxia), the Rubaiyat is often viewed as a more somber, skeptical exploration of life's transience and the perceived silence of the divine.

Edit note: In the table under "primary goal" it says ataraxia, and we must be sure to understand it through the lens of PD10 - "If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life."

I just found a second book in the attic! (published in 1937 with illustrations by Edmund Dulac).

I asked Google the following question:

Did Edward Fitzgerald make mistakes when he translated the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam?

AI Overview:

Yes, Edward FitzGerald made numerous, intentional, and often admitted "mistakes" (or rather, liberties) when he translated

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Rather than a strict, literal translation, FitzGerald created a "transmogrification" or "tessellation" of the original Persian quatrains, resulting in a work that is more of an English classic inspired by Khayyam than a direct translation.

Here are the specific ways FitzGerald diverged from the original:

1. Misreadings and Translation Errors

• Literal Failures: Critics and scholars, including E.B. Cowell (who taught Persian to FitzGerald), noted that FitzGerald occasionally struggled with the language, leading to direct errors in understanding the original text.
• Opposite Meanings: In some instances, FitzGerald misunderstood the Persian so completely that he made Khayyam say the exact opposite of what was written.
• Misread Words: Scholars have pointed out that he occasionally misread words, such as mistaking mānam (I remain) for mātam (grief/tears), which changed the meaning of the verse.

2. Intentional Alterations ("Transmogrification")

• "Mashed" Quatrains: FitzGerald combined lines from different, separate quatrains to create a new, cohesive poem.
• Invented Verses: Several stanzas in the Rubaiyat do not exist in the Persian original and were invented by FitzGerald himself.
• Refusal to Correct: When informed of errors by his mentor, Cowell, FitzGerald sometimes refused to correct them because he felt his version fit the "spirit" of the poem better.
• Changed Tone: FitzGerald turned what was sometimes a, at times, pessimistic or philosophical, at times, mystical original into a more consistently hedonistic, "carpe diem" ("seize the day") narrative that resonated with Victorian skeptics.

3. Cultural and Ideological Differences

• Sufi vs. Skeptic: While the original Persian often features spiritual, Sufi, or mystical undertones, FitzGerald’s version downplays this in favor of a secular, skeptical, and Epicurean tone.
• Interpretation of the "Saki": The "Thou" or "Saki" (cup-bearer) in the original, who is often a young, budding male, was interpreted by FitzGerald in a way that fit the romanticized, often slightly homoerotic tone common in some Victorian intellectual circles, rather than the original cultural context.

Conclusion:
While FitzGerald did make technical, linguistic mistakes, his biggest "mistakes" were, by his own admission, intentional, aimed at creating a poetic masterpiece rather than a dictionary translation. The resulting Rubaiyat is widely recognized as a "transcreation" that is more of a 19th-century English masterpiece than a literal 11th-century Persian one.

In yesterday's Zoom a topic came up (very briefly and not in any detail) that could be very rich and also in need of exploration...prayer.

I don't think we have any direct evidence of prayer by Epicurus, and since he was a materialist perhaps he did not do any prayer. I would define our current understanding of prayer as distinct from ancestor rituals or sacrifices to ancient gods. Here in the US, the way that prayer is currently thought of is often originating from Judeo-Christian ideas and prayer rituals. Then there is the New Age movement which expanded that to include Hinduism and Native American (etc.), but they are all based on the idea that one's thoughts can affect the Universe and that God or the Universe is listening and will grant your wishes if you pray with a pure heart. For those people who are raised in a religion but then moved on and over to studying Epicurean philosophy, then it may seem that the habit of praying is still there in the mind or the back of the mind. And for those who feel clear about the nature of the Universe this could then create a cognitive dissonance.

A main benefit of prayer is the development of a feeling of courage. (And a related question is does Epicurus or Philodemus say anything about courage).

There is the famous AA prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference." And this can be compared to this excerpt in Letter to Menoeceus: "He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame."

I think that a downside of prayer is that it could get in the way of knowing specifically what you want, because sometimes a prayer originates from a vague "feeling" and not a specific "want" - for example saying to yourself: "I pray that everything will turn out okay" vs "I would like to have a safe journey and feel relaxed, and now I can think of specific ways that I could go about increasing my safety and relaxation". So getting in touch with desires and specifically spelling out those desires can be more empowering then prayer when you think about specific actions you can do...and thus leading to greater courage.

One important thing that makes for both good (enjoyable) friendships and good (enjoyable) romantic relationships...emotional validation:

Quote

Has anyone ever made you feel like your emotions are truly valid? What did it feel like? Most likely, it made you feel understood, accepted and safe to process your feelings to their fullest.

Being able to give someone emotional validation is one of the strongest communication tools you can have in your arsenal when building relationships. Whether at home, in school or even in the workplace—validating language fosters mutual respect and empathy.

However, just like any other communication tool, knowing how to properly validate someone's feelings is a skill. And it takes time and intentional practice before comforting someone will become second nature.

You can read the full article here:

The Art of Emotional Validation: Understanding and Supporting the Feelings of Others

Emotional validation is a skill that can help you strengthen relationships and create a safe space for those around you. Learn how to properly validate…

blog.smilingmind.com.au

There are a number of websites about emotional validation, and I may end up posting more on this over in the Epicurean Lifestyle sub-forum.

I found this website which lists various cognitive biases:

Quote

Did you know that much of what we decide every day is not a “decision,” but an unconscious reaction—made when our mind makes a quick assumption on our behalf? These little shortcuts save us from deliberating about each piece of information flowing through our minds in every second of the day.

These shortcuts allow mental efficiency by letting small decisions occur quickly and often unnoticed. But, when a shortcut is flawed because of a cognitive bias, it can sometimes distort reality and impact our decision-making. ...

...The term cognitive bias was first developed in the 1970s by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who after years of research found that people often had flawed patterns of thinking and reacting when faced with decisions. Kahneman, following Tversky’s death, went on to write the now globally acclaimed: Thinking, Fast and Slow, which details how cognitive biases impact decision-making. ...

...Researchers and scientists continue to document the number of cognitive biases that can trip up our decision-making. Some scientists have the number as high as 188. Below, we highlight a few of the most common.

It is important to learn how to identify these biases, and then watch out for them so that they do not negatively impact our decision-making. Keep in mind that you, or others, can be influenced by more than one cognitive bias at a time.

Read more:

https://alliancefordecisioneducation.org/what-is-decision-education/cognitive-biases/

(scroll both up and down on that website to read the various biases)

Quote from Cassius

In the end Epicurus is defining pleasure so broadly that in the end it's not really logically consistent to say "friendship and pleasure" given that. Friendship or anything else is either pleasurable (or leading to more pleasure than pain, even if some pain is required to obtain it) or there is no reason to pursue it.

I think that is why it works better to say that there are multiple "goods" for an Epicurean -- friendship is a great good, but not the "highest good". And "virtue" is a good, when it leads to a pleasant life. As for "pleasures", you could choose to pursue a pleasure that results in 55 percent pleasure and 45 percent pain - but that wouldn't be the "highest good" -- the highest good is a good which is as good as it can get (PD03).

Quote from Cassius

The point I think needs to be made is that you can't just say that your whole goal is to avoid pain. If so, then you can just kill yourself. Your goal is to live pleasurably, which requires that you live, being alive being a good/pleasurable thing unless you are in a situation where you are guaranteed more pain than pleasure). Treasuring life in such a way is a positive activity.

There is a difference in mental cognition between "avoiding pain" -vs- "choosing pleasures which do not lead to pain" because there are a lot of pleasures which do not lead to any pain. Also, there are prudent ways to engage with objects of pleasure that do not result in pain (for example eating the right amount rather than too much).

Quote from Cassius

and if you just say "My highest goal is to avoid pain" in 2026 English, then the majority of people are rightly going to say that the only way to guarantee success in that is to kill yourself.

Probably better to say "my highest goal is to seek pleasures which have good and pleasant results rather than painful consequences". I think that confining this to the types of pleasures, rather than all necessary actions undertaken in life (such as getting into a car and driving to work which has always a small risk of being in a car accident), works much better for cognition of choices. But of course you do need to consider what is safe to do, such as avoiding driving in a blizzard. And all of this boils down to "well-being".

Quote from Cassius

In our case the guidance of nature is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, so whatever choices in reality and in total effect achieve that goal should be considered virtuous.

I'm getting hung up on the word "virtue" and it's meaning.

Cassius it seems like instead of this sentence ending in "virtuous" it could end in the word "good" or "beneficial".

I haven't studied enough to know what all of the various ancient Greek philosophers said, but here are some Wikipedia entries on modern understanding of virtue(s).

Here is Wikipedia on virtue:

Quote

A virtue (Latin: virtus) is a trait of excellence, including traits that may be moral, social, or intellectual. The cultivation and refinement of virtue is held to be the "good of humanity" and thus is valued as an end purpose of life or a foundational principle of being. In human practical ethics, a virtue is a disposition to choose actions that succeed in showing high moral standards: doing what is said to be right and avoiding what is wrong in a given field of endeavour, even when doing so may be unnecessary from a utilitarian perspective. When someone takes pleasure in doing what is right, even when it is difficult or initially unpleasant, they can establish virtue as a habit. Such a person is said to be virtuous through having cultivated such a disposition. The opposite of virtue is vice.

Source

Prudence

Courage

Temperance

Justice

For anyone who is interested in reading the Philodemus text, check out these two posts:

Post

RE: Tsouna's On Choices and Avoidances

FWIW: 2 editions in 83 libraries

https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/52572448

Don

June 7, 2025 at 11:37 PM

and here:

Post

RE: Tsouna's On Choices and Avoidances

[…]

I found a free, digital copy living here at the moment.

I've also organized the translation from that text on twentiers.com.

Eikadistes

August 26, 2025 at 1:33 PM

Quote from wbernys

analysis on virtue as inseparable goods of life

wbernys Thanks for sharing this here, and this is an interesting project that perhaps all Epicureans should take on -- a project in which we each define the virtues in our own words, and as Epicurean philosophy directs, as the means to which a pleasant life comes to be. And, I would guess that each person will have wording that differs as they describe the virtues -- the virtues are abstract ideas that need to be tied down to concrete experiences, so also in some sense they are "alive" and function in connection with life situations.

Ultimately they can be summed up as "do no harm" both to others and to oneself. Non-harming brings about a good life free from troubles.

Quote from wbernys

unfortunately they all seem really expensive and unsure quality

Here is alternative to rings & necklaces:

One inexpensive thing to do is to find an image of Epicurus online, and then print it out and frame it. Most libraries have printers if you don't have one yourself. The frame won't cost too much if you make it small 5"x7" or 8"x10". This would be one way to create something to place on a small "home altar".

And another aspect to add to a home altar would be to add a few books on Epicurean philosophy - and an inexpensive alternative to books would be to print out the Principal Doctrines, etc. (again this could be done at a library). and bind them into an inexpensive school report folder. Also, there is the option of hand-writing the Doctrines or the Letter to Menoeceus and displaying it on the altar.

PD21. "He who has learned the limits of life knows that that which removes the pain due to want, and makes the whole of life complete, is easy to obtain, so that there is no need of actions which involve competition."

I was curious what was meant by the word "competition" and so I did a search and found...

...this article:

Agonistic Orientation and Cultural Dynamics in Ancient Greece

Quote

This essay centers on the cultural experience that the Greeks had to face again and again in ever-new circumstances: agonistic orientation. Ancient Greek culture was highly competitive. There was hardly an area of life that wasn’t shaped by competitive thinking. On the one hand, the ethos of competition united all of Greece and separated it from other cultures. On the other hand, this ethos also divided them as individuals from each other within their own culture, being under the persistent pressure to distinguish themselves. The Greek word “agon” covers all the dimensions of competition: it refers to the warlike conflict of life and death as well as political rivalries. It also denotes the competition between professions and ways of life as well as the competition between athletes and artists.

Knowing the role of competition within ancient Greek society (among male citizens) really sheds some light on understanding PD21.

Since in modern times non-stop competition only exists with certain professions (such as stockbrokers in the stock market, etc, etc.) and competitive sports (such as football, etc.) and is only taken on by the few who engage in those activites, and so most people do not face the mental stresses and agitation that that kind of competition can bring on.

Quote from Kalosyni

and there are still aspects of Platonism/Aristotelian thinking in the modern world

Perfectionism and black-and-white thinking (and other problems).

Quote from DaveT

You both do a wonderful job of clarifying the distinctions between the schools, full stop! Your work on the podcasts with Joshua illuminates so much for me and most likely many others. There’s so much there to learn about.

It bothers me somewhat to hear criticism of the other schools with a broad brush in response to their attacks on Epicurean thought. It might sound odd coming from a retired lawyer, but resolving one dispute needn’t solely focus on the misstatements and accusations of the opponents. That leads to arguments that never end (except in courtrooms where judgements can be final!)

I think that comparing and contrasting between ancient schools provides a lens for learning about Epicurean philosophy and there are still aspects of Platonism/Aristotelian thinking in the modern world -- and by thinking through things at the abstract level we can avoid delving into current events or current politics.

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.