Posts by Kalosyni

In the real world of actual experience, I'd like to question whether or not you can easily separate the "fear of the state of being dead" from "the fear of the process of dying".

This year I got the flu twice, and it was really bad in January, and slightly not as painful when I got it at the start of November. Everyone knows both from experience and modern medicine that most people that are in generally good health recover from the flu. But imagine experiencing some sickness and not knowing if you were going to die from it. Even now with modern medicine, there are times when it is unclear if a sick or injured person is going to recover or eventually die, and so that uncertainty could cause anxiety.

It would seem that if you "feel okay with" the concept of death, then the process of dying should theoretically not cause as much anxiety.

Here is a movie that might go with this discussion:

I just found this, which has a lot more on a priori and a posteriori:

A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It seems like we must have some level of logic when we use words and speak - an example is "all bachelors are unmarried" which doesn't require sensation to understand. "On Methods of Inference" seems like an important source to incorporate.

Quoting Joshua, quoting the Letter to Herodotus:

[38] For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference. And besides we must keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations, and in particular with the immediate apprehensions whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen.

Quote from Joshua

the difference between a priori and a posteriori claims of knowledge

I looked up the difference because I don't use those words in everyday life, and wanted to get a better understanding:

Quote

The following is from Google AI:

A priori and a posteriori claims are types of knowledge distinguished by how they're justified:

A priori knowledge is independent of experience (e.g., math, logic, definitions like "bachelors are unmarried"), known through pure reason; A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical experience and observation (e.g., "it's raining," scientific facts). The former relies on thought, the latter on senses or data from the world.

A Priori Knowledge (From the Earlier)

• Definition: Knowledge justified independently of experience, often through understanding concepts or definitions.
• Key Idea: You don't need to go out into the world to verify it; understanding the terms is enough.
• Examples:
  • "All triangles have three sides."
  • "2 + 2 = 4."
  • "All bachelors are unmarried men." (True by definition)

A Posteriori Knowledge (From the Later)

• Definition: Knowledge justified through empirical evidence, observation, or experience.
• Key Idea: Requires stepping outside of pure thought to gather facts about the world.
• Examples:
  • "The sky is blue."
  • "Water boils at 100°C at sea level."
  • "Socrates is drinking wine." (Requires seeing or knowing about Socrates's actions)

Key Differences Summarized

• Source: A priori comes from reason/logic; A posteriori comes from senses/experience.
• Justification: A priori is conceptual; A posteriori is empirical.
• Necessity: A priori truths often seem necessary (couldn't be otherwise); A posteriori truths are often contingent (could have been different).

Display More

I've just copied two good posts from that other thread, as they serve as part of an exploration regarding "reason vs. sensation". And this goes beyond just Epicurus vs Aristotle, and my hope is that we can shed light on some subtleties within Epicurean philosophy. Can talk more about these two posts I copied over from this standpoint

Because in some religious contexts reason is an earthly thing. There is the emphasis on faith within Christianity. And even in Buddhism there are some teaching that urge the practitioner to let their thinking mind drop away (meaning that reason doesn't bring enlightenment).

I would like to suggest that Epicurus embraces many aspects of sensation but also rejects certain aspects (such things as "dionysian" frenzy). And Epicurus embraces many aspects of reason but also rejects certain aspects. And I think it would be very important for us to get clear about what is embraced and what is rejected...perhaps a visual table would be helpful (with references).

Quote from Kalosyni

my question deals both with "the telos" and with the definition of "pleasure"...of course we have talked about these many times in many threads here on the forum.

Here is a recent thread which brings up good points:

Post

'Their God Is The Belly" / "The Root of All Good Is The Pleasure Of The Stomach" And Similar Attributions

This weekend in our Sunday zoom which was devoted substantially to food issues we tangentially discussed the statements that I gather are traditionally attributed to Metrodorus to the effect that the stomach or belly is of particular significance.

I thought I'd paste the following here as what appears to be the major source of this, and repeat my belief that general statements of this type should be viewed with caution. These sources (particularly Plutarch) are substantially hostile, and I am…

Cassius

November 24, 2025 at 9:55 AM

This is facinating:

Giant rotating string of galaxies is 'probably the largest spinning object' in the known universe

A giant rotating filament of the cosmic web may be the largest spinning structure ever seen, and could help reveal how galaxies form.

www.livescience.com

Also this Reuters article.

Cassius do we have a place for these science type articles?

Cassius my question deals both with "the telos" and with the definition of "pleasure"...of course we have talked about these many times in many threads here on the forum.

Making a quick comparison between Epicurus and Aristotle could look like this:

Epicurus = "pleasure" is the telos (end) of the best life and the word "pleasure" leads most people to hear that Epicurus gave more importance to bodily sensation.

vs.

Aristotle = "living well and doing well" is the telos (end) of the best life and humans find their highest fulfillment in exercising reason, especially through contemplation.

Don Have you looked at Aristotle's book 10 ? (which is where the Google AI suggested).

Quote from Don

Work in progress, naturally.

Wow Don, that's amazing! I will check it out!

In reaction to a recent post with a song titled "Cheese on Bread", I've been thinking about the role of reason, and for Epicureans we have the Letter to Menoeceus... but also I've been wondering about reason according to Aristotle...and I did a quick search:

Quote

The following is an AI response:

Aristotle articulated the idea that humans find their highest fulfillment in exercising reason, especially through contemplation, making it a key part of a flourishing life.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, in Book 10, he defines the highest human good (eudaimonia or flourishing) as the excellent exercise of reason, culminating in the contemplative life, which he saw as the most divine and self-sufficient human activity, superior to political or practical life.

Here's a breakdown of where to find these concepts:

• Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 7: Aristotle introduces the idea that human flourishing (eudaimonia) involves fulfilling our unique function (ergon), which he identifies as the activity of the soul in accordance with reason or virtue.
• Nicomachean Ethics, Book 10, Chapters 7-8: This is where Aristotle makes his strongest case for contemplation (the life of the intellect and philosophical inquiry) as the highest form of human activity, superior to the practical life of politics or ethics because it's more self-sufficient, continuous, and akin to the gods.
• Core Concept: Eudaimonia: His entire ethical framework, detailed in the Nicomachean Ethics, centers on eudaimonia, the idea that true happiness isn't fleeting pleasure but a state of living well and doing well, achieved through virtuous activity, especially intellectual virtue.

In essence, Aristotle argues that while living virtuously in society (practical wisdom, moral virtues) is crucial, the ultimate fulfillment comes from exercising our highest faculty—reason—through contemplation, making it the pinnacle of a flourishing human life.

Epicurus talks about the life of reason and philosophy in the Letter to Menoeceus, and so he would agree with Aristotle about the importance of reason, and yet we have the idea that Epicurus said that the highest good is "pleasure"... and which can end up pointing to "cheese on bread".

So how do we make sense of this? Maybe we need a deeper compare and contrast between Epicurus and Aristotle? And also I think we need to have a more clear definition of "pleasure" and specific activities of what the mind should be engaged in? Wouldn't Epicurus think that reason is more important than the types of food one eats?

And...Is there any truth to thinking that "sensation seeking" is in competition with "exercising the mind of reason"?

Welcome to the EpicureanFriends forum! EdGenX

This is an interesting video:

Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model, but this idea did not find wide acceptance among ancient philosophers, due to a lack of observable stellar parallax.

DaveT

The updated "Forum Navigation Map" is now added to the dropdown menu under "Forum".

We now also have an updated "Forum Shortcuts" (I'll be making a few more adjustments to that). Also found in the dropdown menu under "Forum".

Quote from Raphael Raul

Hello Kalosyni, thanks for sharing the link to the 2010 interview with Ludwig Minelli.

I just now read that interview (which was linked within the quoted text)...I had been focusing on the main article about his death (linked in the big box above the quote.)

Thank you @Raphael Raulthe additional article on David Goodall is also good to read.

Two types of situations here: 1) those with a terminal illness and who want assistance; 2) those who are old and have poor quality of life, but haven't been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and yet want assistance.

The "death with dignity" is so much better than having to come up with one's own method.

I thought it might be good to post this, since we have talked about "death with dignity" here on the forum. Here is a news article about him:

Ludwig Minelli: Dignitas founder dies by assisted suicide aged 92, group says

Ludwig Minelli founded the group in 1998, which has since helped thousands of people to die.

www.bbc.com

Quote

Across his life, he campaigned passionately for the right to die, giving Dignitas the slogan "dignity in life, dignity in death".

In a 2010 interview with the BBC, he said: "I am persuaded that we have to struggle in order to implement the last human right in our societies. And the last human right is the right to make a decision on one's own end, and the possibility to have this end without risk and without pain."

Quote from Cassius

Joshua is right to point to this one, which is relatively clear. And I think he's right to say that the test is not limited to "bodily" - unless someone is speaking in the sense that everything is "bodily" in the end - but that's not the sense being discussed as far as I can tell.

I think Torquatus makes clear and there's no reason to doubt him that mental pains and pleasures can often be more significant to us that bodily pains and pleasures.

The problem with including both bodily and mental pain, is that mental pain can arise from false views of reality. Lucretius warns about the pains that come from intense romantic infatuation. And there are other false views which can give mental pains...such as thinking that the stomach "needs" unlimited filling by variations of taste. So that means that using mental pains to determine when something is necessary doesn't always work.

And that is why I think we need a list of things that are necessary for the happiness of the soul. If you didn't have a single friend you could survive and your life would be very quiet, but you would lack a feeling of joy (joyousness/rejoicing).

Quote from Cassius

How do I know what desires fall into the various categories of natural and necessary desires, and are there hard and fast rules about how to apply the resulting categorization of a particular desire I am considering?"

Cassius Perhaps reformulating the question for clarity?

How do I know what desires are 1) natural and necessary; 2) natural but unnecessary; 3) unnatural and unnecessary ? And are there any rules on how to apply the categorization onto each particular desire I am having? Are there any additional methods or tools for making good choices and avoidances?

Then, can also include aphorisms such as: VS71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?

Quote from Cassius

You can't treat your projection as applicable to anyone else or even to yourself at a later time. A moment by moment analysis is all that is possible,

A thought experiment that can help clarify things is asking yourself:

For any given choice, ask: Will what I do and the outcome matter to me next week, in one month, in a year, or 10 years from now?

What you choose to eat for breakfast hardly matters (unless it is really unhealthy). But some choices absolutely matter in the long term.

Quote from Joshua

The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If pain results, the desire is necessary. If pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.

Joshuawould you want to add the word "bodily"?

So it would be:

The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of bodily pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If bodily pain results, the desire is necessary. If bodily pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.

But where does this leave us with regard to health and happiness of the soul?

Quote from Kalosyni

• natural and necessary - desire for something for survival, for health of the body, for happiness of the soul
• natural yet unnecessary - desire for something which is difficult to get or causes much more pain
• unnatural and unnecessary - desire for something which is an "empty" concept which has no limit, and does not contribute to a happy life - such as power, great wealth, or immortality.

I'm just re-reading over this list and each definition, and realizing that things like cream-puffs and rootbeer floats would fall into the first category if they are easy to get, but they would fall into the second category if they were unavailable for you to make/purchase. (And if rootbeer made you breakout in hives it would also fall into the second category).

So then in essence this list has slightly different definitions than what has been said in other places on the forum, and it is also different from what is in Austin's book "Living for Pleasure"....

Thoughts?

How do I know what desires fall into the various categories of natural and necessary desires, and are there hard and fast rules about how to apply the resulting categorization of a particular desire I am considering?"

• natural and necessary - desire for something for survival, for health of the body, for happiness of the soul
• natural yet unnecessary - desire for something which is difficult to get or causes much more pain
• unnatural and unnecessary - desire for something which is an "empty" concept which has no limit, and does not contribute to a happy life - such as power, great wealth, or immortality.

This works as a type of remedy, by reasoning through one's desires. It is common sense to know what is necessary for survival and health of the body. For happiness we must rely on the knowledge and experience of wise people (elders) and likely Epicurus gave clear guidance in his writing (which we no longer have). We do see in the Principal Doctrines that friendship is necessary for happiness.