Posts by Kalosyni

Regarding Joshua's post 36 and this: Are they not those who say that the garland (στέφανος) of tranquillity and a reposed life are far more valuable than all the kingdoms and principalities in the world?

In Buddhism the garland represents a collection of teachings: "In Mahayana Buddhism, a garland, or avatamsaka, can refer to a vast collection of teachings, particularly within the Avatamsaka Sutra. This sutra is considered one of the most influential in East Asian Buddhism. In Sanskrit, "avatamsaka" can mean "a great number," "a multitude," or "a collection," and is often translated as "Garland of Buddhas" or "Buddha's Fine Garland," according to Wikipedia."

Quote from Julia

I think a symbol should be so simple that an average 8yo child could reproduce it

A long time ago I tried drawing a nice looking yin-yang symbol...it looks simple right? ...I ended up going to the library and making a photocopy from a book .

Here is something I made using Canva layers (for the shapes and colors) together with a text-to-image (the woodcut).

Quote from Don

One thing to watch out for in conversations like this is not to fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

For a movie character or a fictional literary character, we could still apply an absolute when we are using it to point to something -- using it as a model.

But for an actual human being, we can't expect someone to always do things a certain way, so more correctly would say "usually", "most of the time" -- acts in a certain way.

I'm pondering this question today (again)...of which there are two sides...1) "what would make me Epicurean" and 2) "what would make someone else Epicurean" or to "appear to be Epicurean" (such as people we know or characters in a movie).

And I want to focus on the the second one, which is somewhat of a projection of "what "qualifies"(lol, hypothetically) someone as being Epicurean" or even better to say is as: "what qualities and actions would an Epicurean" exhibit, such as we could then say "that person is Epicurean".

And here are a few thoughts on this off the top of my head:

-- an Epicurean knows how to exercise their thinking process to make good choices that result in good outcomes, for their personal happiness and well-being (physical and mental well-being), both in the short-term and in the long-term. (Letter to Menoeceus and Principal Doctrines).

-- an Epicurean lives neither as a secluded ascetic, nor as sleepy sluggard or addict, nor as a wild bohemian party animal, nor as a work-aholic -- but instead finds a pleasing and pleasant sense of a well functioning life. (Vatican Saying 11: "For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied.")

-- an Epicurean spends time studying or contemplating the nature of things as the material (what is, its nature, its causes, its beginnings and endings) rather than the ideal/forms. (Letter to Menoeceus and Lucretius).

Thoughts? Anything else?

Quote from Rolf

But that’s only your preference in extravagant desires, right?

In post number 12 above Rolf you wrote something that I was unclear about what exactly you were trying to convey -- I'm not sure what "extravagant desires" has to do with this?? ---- "extravagant desires" being the same as "natural but unnecessary"?? ----- btw...I personally don't use "extravagant" or "fancy" when it comes to "natural but unnecessary" because I feel like it changes the meaning, but of course this is an area in which there is disagreement regarding how to label and what exactly it means.

Also, I see now (as well as remember) that not only is there no way to tell someone what they "should" or "shouldn't" do, but it seems that we can't tell someone what is "natural but unnecessary".

And we can't tell someone what actions lead to bad consequences either, because that is uncertain.

We can only choose for ourselves what feels like the best actions. (I will in the future refrain from any "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts).

Quote from Rolf

But that’s only your preference in extravagant desires, right?

I am not sure what you are saying here... can you rephrase your idea with different words to help me understand?

Quote from Rolf

statement about what media an epicurean should or should not engage with (so long as it does not lead to more pain than pleasure).

You are right, because pain and pleasure is subjective, so I can only talk about my own pain and pleasure.

Quote from Rolf

It reminds me of the Christians who refuse to let their kids read Harry Potter because magic is satanic.

I don't think Epicurean philosophy would say Harry Potter is satanic, ...however Harry Potter it is promoting "superstition" and that the material can be affected in a non-material way ...and so it is really the same as Christianity, just packaged differently.

Quote from Godfrey

A wealth of pleasures are waiting to be had, if one chooses wisely.

Yes, and there are certainly movies that do not use gratuitous violence or other unpleasant aspects or characters - for those like myself who tends toward "high emotional absorption" (empathy).

Quote from Kalosyni

to observe their sense of whether or not they are feeling more pleasure than pain. It is a subjective thing for everyone.

Another thought...to ask: Is it making a person happy or helping to create a sense of well-being? Or is it causing sadness, anxiety, or un-easiness?

Everything is subjective, and affects people differently.

Quote from Rolf

As long as watching movies leads to more pleasure than pain, and for many (myself included) it does, then what's the harm?

Yes, I see your point and stand corrected.

I'll think about how to express my thoughts about movies in a such a way that it simply suggests for those who do watch movies, to observe their sense of whether or not they are feeling more pleasure than pain. It is a subjective thing for everyone.

Quote from Rolf

1) While movies can be valuable tools for exploring philosophy, they are rarely a perfect depiction of Epicurean principles unless that’s the filmmaker's intention. I believe it’s crucial that we acknowledge where a movie and its characters align with the philosophy and where they diverge. Not all elements of a film will resonate with Epicurean thought.

2) At the same time, I believe that almost any movie can be analyzed through an Epicurean lens, particularly if we operate under the assumption of psychological hedonism. After all, most characters are in pursuit of pleasure and avoiding pain, though they may differ in how effectively they navigate that pursuit. Examining this aspect of characters’ motivations can provide insights into the challenges they face in seeking pleasure—whether it's through their choices, desires, or failures.

Many movies are 1) "good" vs "evil" - people trying to escape aliens, apocalypse, war, bad people, or death; or 2) people doing foolish/unethical things and having bad consequences or terrible unhappiness; or 3) people involved with supernatural/superstitious elements (fantasy genre) and which also contains elements of 1 and 2.

During the time I was married, I watched a lot of movies with my then husband (usually drama, independent, and foreign) and so perhaps I've had my fill (and I no longer have much of an urge to watch movies).

As Epicureans, if we lived in communites with other Epicureans, then we would not have time for movies - we would be busy doing "barn-raisings" and helping each other out to be self-sufficient, and having potlucks dinners together.

I think movies are "sold" to the masses by the few who are the "movie-makers". And you really need to ask yourself: What kinds of messages are they conveying? What thoughts are they "telling" you to think? And are they ramping up your internal fears of death?

Also, most movie plots are the opposite of this:

VS72: "He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others."

But this is just my opinion, and others here might feel differently.

Quote from Patrikios

This cuts into dinner time and PBS Newshour time for some

Thanks for speaking up...we can likely come up with more ideas...

So potentially we will have "First Mondays" start a half hour early and run from 7:30pm ET till 9pm ET.

And what will be the time for Sundays ? And once per month?

Quote from sanantoniogarden

I like the simplicity of the moon symbol, however it's similarity to the crescent and star might be confusing for some and offensive to others.

Yes, now I begin to think that could be an issue.

Also maybe looks "wiccan".

Thinking to set this idea aside for now.

Also, it seems that usefulness may come first and then the more it is used the more "feeling" it has. And some may feel it is useful, and some may not feel it is useful (lol)...and so everyone can make their own symbols.

But I like this concept that Eikadistes made some time ago... I've made it as a plain symbol without words:

Since the Epicureans did attend and celebrate the monthly festivals, perhaps they focused on the positive attributes, and according to PD01: "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness)".

Here's a list of their positive strengths (from Google search):

• Zeus (Jupiter): King of the gods, god of the sky, law, and order, often associated with strength and justice.
• Hera (Juno): Queen of the gods, goddess of marriage, childbirth, and family, known for her protectiveness and strength.
• Athena (Minerva): Goddess of wisdom, strategic warfare, and crafts, embodying intelligence and skill.
• Apollo (Apollo): God of music, healing, arts, and light, associated with beauty and inspiration.
• Aphrodite (Venus): Goddess of love, beauty, and desire, embodying grace and passion.
• Demeter (Ceres): Goddess of agriculture, fertility, and the harvest, symbolizing abundance and nurturing.
• Hephaestus (Vulcan): God of fire, metalworking, and craftsmanship, known for his skill and innovation.
• Hermes (Mercury): Messenger of the gods, god of travel, trade, and hospitality, representing swiftness and communication.

This study goup would also be open to older members as well, so it isn't limited to newer members.

Admin Edit: We have now added a new weekly meeting on Sunday afternoons 12:30 ET. For more info go here.

***************************************************

This thread is for discussing the potential of adding a regular Zoom for those who want an introductory level approach.

Our current meetings are as follows:

• Our First Monday session is a once per month meet and greet targeted at new participants.
  
• Our Wednesday night EST meeting have been devoted to status updates on recent threads on the forum and going through the fragments in Bryan's work on Usener's Epicurea.

(Our Twentieth session is only available for Level 03 and higher, and is a once per month commemoration of Epicurus and other early Epicureans, and we've been using it for advanced level general discussion of how we've pursued applying Epicurean principles over the last 30 days).

The thought is that we need a regular series for those who mainly want to get "introduced" to the basics of the philosophy

We've done several series in the past on the Principal Doctrines, the Vatican Sayings, Frances Wright's Book, DeWitt's book, and Emily Austin's book.

The Principal Doctrines would likely be a good organizing theme for the topics, but we need to work in explanations from the other sources so the doctrines will be more clear to people new to the framework of ideas.

We need to think about whether to do one per week or exactly how many per month, plus decide a time.

Potentials include:

-- "Second Sunday PD's Study Group" - Second Sunday of the month at 1pm ET (which should work for European time zone members and anyone in US who likes that time)
-- "Last Monday or Last Tuesday PD's Study Group" - Last Monday of the month at 8pm ET

-or-

-- change the "First Monday" to start a half hour earlier - meet and greet for the first half hour, and then proceed to PD's study group.

Let us know your thoughts on this here in the thread and we'll continue planning.

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.