Posts by Kalosyni

Thinking on this further...symbols come about through intense practice over time, through religious feelings and meditations, and religious application/practices of thoughts and ideas.

You can read about the development of "Om" on Wikipedia to see that it is a long and complex process born out of the usefulness of the symbol.

So creation of an Epicurean symbol must have an interface between feeling and usefulness.

Right now I see a usefulness of the 20th moon symbol that Eikadistes created, as this is something all Epicureans would partake in.

Quote from Julia

This seems to imply getting agreement before actual usage, and I don't think that's how it works. Symbols like these are adopted and used without asking for universal agreement, let alone permission, and they either make it or they don't.

Regarding the use of the symbol of the cross: "Before the 4th century AD, multiple Christian symbols were used, including the fish (Ichthys), the anchor, the ship, and the Chi Rho. These symbols were often found in catacombs and other early Christian art. The cross itself wasn't a prominent symbol until later, with the main focus on symbols like the fish which represented Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior. Christians were initially hesitant to openly display the cross due to fear of ridicule and persecution from the Roman authorities. Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in the 4th century was a major turning point. He promoted the cross as a symbol of the faith and even used it in his battle banners. The Edict of Milan in 313 legalized Christianity, paving the way for the open display and celebration of the cross." Source: Google search.

An idea, the animal who most enjoys life holding a pearl of wisdom:

Quote from Cassius

"In Epicurean theory, is ANYTHING in life (even desire) always pleasurable except pleasure, or is anything always painful except pain?"

Are you asking if a particular set of unfolding circumstances will always produce pleasure or always produce pain in a human being?

Such that:

If I am hungry and I eat something sweet it will always produce a feeling of pleasure.

-or-

If I someone forcefully sticks bamboo shoots under my fingernails it is always painful.

??

Thinking further about the question "What is the goal of life?"

...more directly: "What is my goal in life?" -- I would add more such as well-being, satisfaction, peace of mind, and pleasant abiding...in addition to pleasure (enjoyment) and happiness.

I don't think I'll be able to feel settled about this until I feel that "natural and unnecessary" has been adequately defined.

We know that Epicurus was 1) influenced by, 2) transformed and adapted, and 3) argued against, some aspects of the philosophical ideas that were popular during his time in ancient Greece.

Does anyone know which section of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics talks about "unnecessary desires" ? Bryan  Don  Joshua

According to an internet search:

"Aristotle also identified unnecessary desires, which he viewed as those that go beyond the essential and contribute to excessive consumption, luxury, and unhappiness. These desires are often associated with material possessions and status, rather than genuine human needs."

Thinking about "natural and unnecessary"...(natural but unnecessary is another way to think about it):

You need a jacket to keep warm but it doesn't matter what it looks like.

Unnecessary for it to be a new jacket.
Unnecessary for it to be "in fashion" or a particular style.
Unnecessary for it to be a certain type of fabric or color.
And, a blanket could keep you warm if you don't have a jacket, but a jacket is easier to wear because it won't fall off.

Here is a graphic that I made some time ago.

Thinking to soon make one regarding "natural and necessary/unnecessary" and "unnatural/unnecessary".

Important Update! First Monday is tommorow evening, and we are changing the topic of discussion to this thread:

Post

Why pursue unnecessary desires?

Hey folks!

I’m getting stumped on something that previously I felt I had a firm grasp on: Why pursue (natural) unnecessary desires, if necessary desires are all that are needed for happiness? If the limit of pleasure is the absence of pain (ie. 100% pleasure 0% pain), aren’t unnecessary desires merely variation?

I recall the ‘cup’ infographic. One of the examples of a “bad” cup is one that is half full, in which only necessary desires are pursued - a cup of asceticism. I can acknowledge…

Rolf

May 2, 2025 at 12:41 PM

Rolf A few thoughts (a little late)...

You would avoid pursuing "unnatural and unnecessary" pleasures such as power, fame, and great wealth because they are very difficult to obtain and the pursuit of them comes with great troubles and pains and the attainment of them also results in great troubles and pains.

As for "natural and necessary" (things which are necessary for survival and living a good and happy life - food, water, shelter, safety, clothing, friends, exercise, study of philosophy etc.) -- these should hopefully come about fairly easily and if they don't we buckle down and put in some effort and tolerate short term discomfort so that these will be satisfied).

And as for "natural and unnecessary" (things which are like "icing on the cake" of life - great variations of sensations and "luxuries") -- we realize that these are not the main focus of life but we do not shun them when they are readily available and easy to get, and knowing that we can best enjoy "luxuries/luxurious sensations" not through continuous enjoyment, but intermittently.

And especially with regard to "natural and unnecessary", this Vatican Saying:

VS 71: "Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?"

And we wouldn't invest a great amount of effort for obtaining the "natural and unnecessary" pleasures especially if it takes away time from friendships and all the necessary things for a good and happy life. (It is important to take note that we see that many people in the modern world put a lot of mental investment into thoughts of pursuing variations of sensation, so it seems like an acceptable thing to do, when in reality they are ignoring other important areas of their life).

***

Edit note, 1:14 pm ET - I am thinking further that another way to think about "natural and unnecessary" is the desire for things which are luxurious AND cost beyond one's means. And the purpose of excluding these is so that you can enjoy the satisfaction of what is easily at hand (you aren't endlessly longing for things beyond your means) and also to support a lifestyle of "self-suffiency" (no need to sell your soul to the "devil" (a king or high ranking person, or in modern times climbing a corporate ladder) in an attempt to get luxurious things.

Coming up this next Monday is our "First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion" via Zoom. This is open to all forum members and is a great way to meet and discuss with others who are also studying the philosophy of Epicurus.

I will be giving a very short presentation on Epicurean canonics.

Updated! Discussion topic has been changed to this thread.

There will also be time for questions on any aspects of Epicurean philosophy, and so we hope to see some of our newer members join.

If you have not previously attended, please let us know if you are interested here in this thread. Hope to see you there!

In preparation for the upcoming First Monday, I was thinking about how we know that the earth revolves around the sun, and that reasoning is sometimes needed.

I did this search query on Google: "before the space age did determining that the earth revolves around the sun require logic or reasoning beyond observations":

Happy Birthday Singleton !

Quote from Don

I had to check the Greek:

ἑκουσίως ἀφεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκράτου πίνοντα τοῦ οἴνου.

Sure enough, it seems to be just wine unmixed with water. That's not fatal, last time I experimented myself... Just sayin'

I found a Healthline article, with the following excerpt:

Quote

Is there a lethal BAC?

Generally, once your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.40 percent or over, it’s dangerous territory. At this level, there’s a risk of coma or death.

Source

UPDATED announcement:

Hi Everyone, Coming up next Monday on May 5th at 8pm ET, is our First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion - open to all forum members!

Agenda:

- Welcome and round-the-table greetings

- Discussion facilitated by Cassius - Updated discussion topic will be on this forum thread:

Post

Why pursue unnecessary desires?

Hey folks!

I’m getting stumped on something that previously I felt I had a firm grasp on: Why pursue (natural) unnecessary desires, if necessary desires are all that are needed for happiness? If the limit of pleasure is the absence of pain (ie. 100% pleasure 0% pain), aren’t unnecessary desires merely variation?

I recall the ‘cup’ infographic. One of the examples of a “bad” cup is one that is half full, in which only necessary desires are pursued - a cup of asceticism. I can acknowledge…

Rolf

May 2, 2025 at 12:41 PM

Note on how to attend: If you have not previously attended a First Monday, or have been absent from the forum for a while, let us know (here in this thread) if you are interested so we can add you to the meeting link private message which will go out the day before the meeting.

Hope to see you there!

Lots of interesting ideas coming up ( AxA  Don  Godfrey  Cassius and so copied over what was said in that conversation so that we can continue as usual with further discussion (will likely rename the thread at some point).

Here are the posts - copied from that conversation:

Kalosyni wrote:

"...it occured to me that Vatican Saying 28 is relevant to what AxA brought up last night.

"We must not approve either those who are always ready for friendship, or those who hang back, but for friendship’s sake we must run risks." - Bailey translation

and

"Those who grasp after friendship and those who shrink from it are not worthy of approval; on the other hand, it is necessary to risk some pleasure for the pleasures of friendship." - Saint Andre translation

...and also VS 23 - "Every friendship is worth choosing for its own sake, though it takes its origin from the benefits." - Inwood / Gerson translation

***

Axa wrote:

I believe the biggest "gap" in the Epicurean system is the practical details of how to build and maintain our circles of friends. There's enough there in the philosophy to study for the rest of our lives, no hurry, and enjoy it along the way. But there seems to be a little more "urgency" in getting at least our first few good friendships started, and beyond these few words of advice it seems to be a matter of trial and error.

Quote

Quote from Kalosyni

Thank you to all who attended last night, and it occured to me that Vatican Saying 28 is relevant to what AxA brought up last night.

"We must not approve either those who are always ready for friendship, or those who hang back, but for friendship’s sake we must run risks." - Bailey translation

and

"Those who grasp after friendship and those who shrink from it are not worthy of approval; on the other hand, it is necessary to risk some pleasure for the pleasures of friendship." - Saint Andre translation

...and also VS 23 - "Every friendship is worth choosing for its own sake, though it takes its origin from the benefits." - Inwood / Gerson translation

Display More

***

Kalosyni wrote:

Quote

Quote from AxA

I believe the biggest "gap" in the Epicurean system is the practical details of how to build and maintain our circles of friends.

They didn't have all the modern distractions that we do, and potentially much more commonality (less diverse interests and lifestyles)...so perhaps friendship was easier back then.

***

Godfrey wrote:

Also they were living in a much smaller area than we are, and there were fewer philosophies to explore in that area. So it would have been much easier to meet with and get to know fellow Epicureans.

***

Don wrote:

I always feel the need in these threads to bring up that Epicurus didn't use the words "friendship/friend." His usual term was φιλιά (philia) which can, of course, be translated into English as "friendship." But both "friendship/friends" and φιλιά/φίλοι have their own semantic baggage they carry with them that often goes unquestioned.

Aristotelian Philia Modern Friendship

W   are we to make of a treatise on moral philosophy so much of which appears to be a discussion of friendship? What does friendship have to do with…

Academia.edu - Find Research Papers, Topics, Researchers

This extensive article delves deep into what Aristotle wrote about φιλιά , it's various kinds, and the implications of it. I don't expect anyone to read every word, but I think (skimming through as I did myself) it lays out the ideas that Epicurus would have been familiar with in using his native language.

I found this excerpt near the beginning of the paper interesting enough to continue reading through it:

Quote



Quote

The range of relationships Aristotle examines in books 8 and 9 of the Nicomachean Ethics is extraordinary. He considers philia necessary to everyone, rich and poor, young and old, human and animal. Philia unites families and species, and holds political parties, social and religious organizations, and even whole cities together. It joins people who are equal in age or in social, financial, intellectual, or moral standing as well as others whose relationships are hierarchical—parents and children, men and women, rulers and ruled, humans and gods.10 It connects the ignorant to the wise and the beautiful to the ugly. Erotic love is one of its kinds. It arises among travellers, soldiers, and members of a tribe. It governs the relations between host and guest and, perhaps most surprisingly, between buyer and seller. Could this immense variety of relationships correspond to friendship, which, despite its own complexities, we tend to distinguish sharply from the ties that bind family members, lovers, and commercial agents to one another today? And what, if anything, holds these seemingly disparate bonds together?

This hit me that when Epicurus uses φιλιά, he may very well have a much broader concept in mind than when we use "friend."

I found myself considering this about fragment 266:

266. From the perspective of the infinite time that has passed, nothing novel occurs in the universe. οὐδὲν ξένον ἐν τῷ παντv ἀποτελεῖται παρὰ τὸν ἤδη γεγενημένον χρόνον ἄπειρον.

ξένος there is translated as "novel," but that's the word meaning "strange, foreign, unusual;" but is also the basis of ξένια which is the obligation to greet strangers with hospitality. So I would take a more thought-provoking translation of 266 as:

Nothing strange or foreign happens in the universe from the perspective of infinite time.

That change from "novel" to "strange" or "foreign" makes that fragment more intriguing to me. The source of U266 per Attalus' site is:

Pseudo-Plutarch, Miscellanies, Fragment 8 from Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, I.8.24B, Greek Doxography, [p. 581, 19 Diels.]: Epicurus asserts that nothing new happens in the universe when compared to the infinite time already passed.

I realize I've strayed away from the discussion of friendship. Mea culpa. My overall point is that we sometimes say that Epicurus insisted on using the basic meaning of words. I feel it's always important to remember that her used Greek words and not English words.

PS. I honestly don't do this to be difficult. I want us to question ANY translation, especially mine.

***

Kalosyni wrote:

Thank you Don

***

AxA wrote:

Quote

Quote from Don

...My overall point is that we sometimes say that Epicurus insisted on using the basic meaning of words. I feel it's always important to remember that her used Greek words and not English words.

PS. I honestly don't do this to be difficult. I want us to question ANY translation, especially mine.

Good point. This seems to be always be a hazard when working with translations. The philosophy encourages applying "common sense" and using "basic meanings" of words, but that can lead to projecting back an imaginary "English Epicurus" when we apply all the connotations of English translation words back to the original philosophy. "Edward Curris" lol

***

Don wrote:

Quote

Quote from AxA

Good point. This seems to be always be a hazard when working with translations. The philosophy encourages applying "common sense" and using "basic meanings" of words, but that can lead to projecting back an imaginary "English Epicurus" when we apply all the connotations of English translation words back to the original philosophy. "Edward Curris" lol

I love the last line! Mr. Curris' philosophy.

But your overall point is an excellent one.

Just for the record, I don't think you have to learn Greek to be a student of Mr. Curris (couldn't resist). But it is crucial not to be fixated on one English translation any more than Christians should be focused on the King James version of the Bible.

***

Cassius wrote:

Quote

Quote from AxA

but that can lead to projecting back an imaginary "English Epicurus" when we apply all the connotations of English translation words back to the original philosophy.

I'll throw in my agreement on this as well. It's very easy to see something that we set out to look for. it's much harder to erase prejudices and accept things without an overlay. As Lucretius asked, the gods themselves could not have formed the universe without a pattern. That doesn't mean that knowledge is impossible, but it does mean that if insist on seeing things our way then there's no possibility of being confident of what Epicurus himself was saying.

***

Godfrey wrote:

Thanks Don for posting that article, I found it thought provoking. One thing (among many) that stands out is the idea of friendship as "good will", which perhaps equates to a general attitude of friendliness. I gather that this is something that Epicurus practiced, and what contributed to his being liked even by his rivals. I also find that my days have much pleasure when I move through them with this general attitude.

What immediately comes to mind is VS52: Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.

***

Don wrote:

We'll put, Godfrey .

FYI... Checking VS52

ἡ φιλία περιχορεύει τὴν οἰκουμένην κηρύττουσα δὴ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐγείρεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν μακαρισμόν.

Yep, philia is the word used there.

When that one comes up, I always like to point out that περιχορεύει literally means to dance in circles or dance around in a chorus (think chorus as in chorus in a Greek drama).

***

Godfrey wrote:

***

Don wrote:

Thread

Vatican Saying 52 - Happiness or Blessedness?

(Re-quoted Kalosyni)

Don - can you help out with translation of this one (my eyes go cross-eyed when I look at Greek letters). This translation is from Peter Saint Andre. (Do we already have this someplace else?)

Should the last word be translated as "blessedness"?

Kalosyni

May 6, 2023

(End re-quote)

Kalosyni in this thread pointed out a good aspect of this that eluded me this time.

That last word μακαρισμόν is a form of the word used to describe the blessed, happy existence of the gods.

Consider VS17 that starts "It is not the young man who is most happy... μακαριστὸς (ie, most blessed, most blessedly happy)

Quote from Patrikios

The list of vices could be examples of acts that would not be considered wise, honorable, or just in most situations.

What I object to is that how and when a word from "the vice list" is used will change depending on who is using the word.

A Stoic, a Christian, a Buddhist, an Epicurean, etc., - each person will define a "vice" according to what they value (each will define as either a vice or not a vice depending on what they value).

As for an Epicurean, there is no good or evil except pleasure and pain. Pain = harm. We don't like it, and others don't like it if we cause them pain (causing others pain most likely comes with unwanted consequences).

Quote from Don

Egads. Just finished sweaty yard work. I won't be able to attend. All the best to everyone!!

We missed you Don

Thank you to everyone who attended. It was a good meeting, and what struck me was how each of us comes from a unique background - having encountered varying ideas in our past (and having read various books) and yet we have all arrived at Epicurean philosophy - and so the gathering of a group brings together a wealth of knowledge, insights, and vantage points with which to approach the understanding of Epicurean philosophy.

The following was contributed elsewhere by forum member Bryan

Quote

Lucretius' list is:

1. cupīdinēs
2. timōrēs
3. superbia
4. spurcitia
5. petulantia
6. dēsidia
7. lūxūs

DRN 5.44 onward:

But if the mind's not cleansed, what dubious battles
Must we then stalk, and enter against our will!
How sharp are the (1) lusts that tear a man in two
And trouble his life! How many (2) fears will follow!
What (3) insolence, (4) filth, and (5) shamelessness!
How many Disasters they deal!
What (6) sloth and (7) debauchery!

Display More

I am seeing this as showing some evidence that later Epicureans were skewing toward elements of Stoicism (unless some Christian monks added it in ). This list of vices gives abstractions not tied to specific actions or sensations of pain or pleasure, and also implies that one is seeking a kind of perfection by removal of vices.

Thoughts?

I found this article which is a fun read about German customs being brought into modern times, and then thought this might be a creative way to jump start ideas about starting Epicurean philosophy groups or clubs.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/22/nx-s1-5233033/holidays-loneliness-cure-stammtisch