Posts by Kalosyni

This thread does bring up the opportunity for a "compare and contrast":

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Acknowledgment of Life's Uncertainties:

Ecclesiastes 9:11-12: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. For man does not know his time."

From the Letter to Menoeceus:

"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."

Quote from Eikadistes

I'm organizing some data here

That looks like something which could be a jumping-board for comparing and contrasting, since some of these ideas are very much permeating our modern times.

Quote from Cassius

I remember that DeWitt discussed Ecclesiastes relatively at length

I am surprised to hear that DeWitt made connections between Epicureanism and Ecclesiastes. In my mind there are some very opposite sentiments. Ecclesiastes has a tone of "existential depression"...which then leads to this:

Quote

17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

(Yes it is true...I have not read DeWitt cover to cover).

This might be of interest to those who were at today's Zoom, given the topic of quantum mechanics (and also may be of interest to anyone who missed today)...there is both audio and a transcript:

100 Years Later, Quantum Science Is Still Weird

This year marks the 100th anniversary of two papers that sparked the field of quantum mechanics.

www.sciencefriday.com

Good thing I didn't get my forum name as a tattoo...

Looks like γλυκυθυμία rather than καλοσύνη aligns more with my intention when I chose my forum name.

γλυκυθυμία

From γλῠκῠ́θῡμος (glŭkŭ́thūmos, “sweet-minded”) +‎ -ῐ́ᾱ (-ĭ́ā), from γλῠκῠ́ς (glŭkŭ́s, “sweet”) + θῡμός (thūmós, “soul”).

Pronunciation

• IPA^(key): /ɡly.ky.tʰyː.mí.aː/ → /ɣly.cy.θyˈmi.a/ → /ɣli.ci.θiˈmi.a/

Noun

γλῠκῠθῡμῐ́ᾱ • (glŭkŭthūmĭ́ā) f (genitive γλῠκῠθῡμῐ́ᾱς); first declension

1. sweetness of mind
2. kind disposition, kindliness, benevolence

Inflection

First declension of ἡ γλῠκῠθῡμῐ́ᾱ; τῆς γλῠκῠθῡμῐ́ᾱς (Attic)

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

καλοσύνη

Etymology

καλός (kalós, “good”) +‎ -οσύνη (-osýni, “-ity, -ness”).

Noun

καλοσύνη • (kalosýni) f (plural καλοσύνες)

1. kindness, goodness, benevolence (the state of being kind; disposition to do good)
2. kindness, good deed (an instance of kind or charitable behaviour)

Synonyms

• αγαθοεργία f (agathoergía)

After reading some of this book, thinking...

Does fun equal novelty? Do you need to have a certain level of reoccurring novelty in life in order to feel happy? ...and I think that this could set you up for feeling unhappy if you feel like you aren't getting enough novelty. The concept of pursuing novelty could be a modern invention, created by the travel industry (big hotel corporations, big restaurant chains, and not too long ago there were travel agencies)...and it is not part of our evolution. Perhaps the idea of pursuing novelty continues to be popular because it can ease the "pains" of modern civilization (indoor desk jobs) as well as a lack of close social interactions.

Quote from Don

The basic premise of Rucker's book is that focusing on happiness (as it is often discussed in relation to the popular conversation in light of positive psychology) is that it emphasizes the gap between how we feel now and how we're *supposed* to feel. Why aren't we happy? Why are they happier than me? We try to - are encouraged to - quantify our level of happiness, then *work* on being happier.

What Rucker recommends is prioritizing "fun" - I'd paraphrase him by saying "prioritize taking pleasure in your life and your experiences." Of we prioritize "fun" , happiness becomes a welcome by-product. I'd rephrase saying "if we prioritize finding the pleasure in both our everyday experience and in the extravagant pleasures we occasionally experience, well-being / eudaimonia / happiness will be a welcome by-product of living that way."

I happened to find this book at my library, and I am skimming through it now. Lots of thoughts coming up.

An interesting idea that Rucker presents is the PLAY model - where you have four quadrants (four categories) that all of your activities fit into: pleasing (high fun, and easy); living (high fun; and challenging); yielding (low fun, but easy); agonizing (low fun, and hard). I've only read the first few chapters of the book so far.

*****

I feel like I need more categories than those four, so made up my own:

• "mundane fun" - provides a lower level of enjoyment, but still more pleasure than pain - things like reading the news online, or any repeative old fun habit that lacks a sense of novelty.
• "easy fun" - provides relaxation, exercise, mental stimulation, or bodily enjoyment together, and requires a low level of effort while still providing an overall sense of enjoyment.
• "novelty of exploring and travel fun" - requires driving or travel (and money to pay for gas or airplane ticket, restuarant, hotel, or camping gear and campsite fee) and which provides more pleasure than pain
• "meaningful fun" - engagement with people (friendship, teaching, giving aid) and which provides more pleasure than pain
• "researching, learning, studying" - intellectual fun and philosophy!
• "challenging fun" - requires time, effort, money, or skill development and may or may not come with some level of risk or uncertainty regarding the outcome, and it may not end up providing more pleasure than pain
• "not really fun" - pleasure and pain are equal (50/50) and doesn't seem worth the effort
• "very borying" - you'd rather be doing something else
• "very-not-fun" - physically exhausting or painful, or mentally disturbing or agitating

The thing is that sometimes we need to do things that are in the last three categories, because it may be necessary in order to prevent greater pain from arising in the future, or for the sake of procuring basic necessities, or sometimes as a basis that leads to greater pleasure in the future.

For anyone who has an understanding of ancient Greek language ( Bryan   Don   Eikadistes ...would the Garden actually have been referred to as "Ho Kepos" or just "Kepos"?

*****

Edit note: I just found this on a Reddit thread:

Quote

Epicurus’ garden school of philosophy in Ancient Athens was called “Ho Kepos” - ὁ κῆπος. ὁ (ho) means simply "the" in the nominative (the subject) and κῆπος is the nominative form of "garden" "the garden"

This should end up creating a nice list of refutations of Plutarch.

And that list could then be turned into a nice list of Epicurean views.

Here is digital retouching

Bryan just an idea...you could do a thin wash of a very diluted gold over the silver and bronze areas, and your end result would be a lighter gold tone over the skin and a darker gold for his hair, (while keeping the clothing the same color as it is).

Happy Birthday Robert !

Happy Birthday Karim !!

For 2026 Sunday Zooms we are going through De Rerum Natura by Lucretius...Every Sunday (*except on Fourth Sundays which is a "meet-&-greet"*) we will be discussing this topic.

This meeting is open to Level 03 members, and Level 02 by prior approval. (Level 02 members will need to attend a Fourth Sunday meet-and-greet and receive moderator approval before admittance).

If you are interested in attending the next one (and haven't already received a link by private message), please post to this meeting thread, or message Cassius.

* (Fourth Sundays meeting has a monthly changing topic of discussion. You can read about Fourth Sundays over in this thread.)

Also, should add here...the quality and number of friendships.

Here are two translations of sections 133,134, and portion of 135, with special emphasis on the bold sections:

Saint-Andre:

"In short, whom do you consider better than someone who holds pious opinions about the gods, who is always fearless in the face of death, who has reasoned out the natural goal of life, and who has understood that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to achieve, whereas the limit of bad things is either short-lived or causes little pain? Someone who laughs at destiny, which is asserted by some to be the master of all things? For he holds that we are responsible for what we achieve, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, because although necessity is not accountable he sees that chance is unstable whereas the things that are within our power have no other master, so that naturally praise and blame are inseparably connected to them.

Indeed he sees that it would be better even to cleave to the myths about the gods (since that leaves some hope of prevailing upon them through worship) than to be subject to the destiny of the scientists (since that way lies an inexorable necessity). And such a man holds that Fate is not a god (as most people believe) because a god does nothing disorderly, and he holds that Fate is not an uncertain cause because nothing good or bad with respect to a completely happy life is given to men by chance, although it does provide the beginnings of both great goods and great evils.

And he considers it better to be rationally unfortunate than irrationally fortunate, since it is better for a beautiful choice to have the wrong results than for an ugly choice to have the right results just by chance."

***

Bailey: [133] "For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? 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.

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

[135] He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man’s actions that what is well chosen (should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen) should be successful owing to chance."

***

Just recently I heard a song with the following chorus lyrics: "I'm living in a world I created for myself" -- which to me sounds very "Epicurean", but also seems a bit daunting because then I am challenged to think about my possessions and the habits in my life and whether or not I chose them, or if I just went along with what everyone else is doing. And also: habits of "doing" influence habits of "thinking". And: what kind of habits of thinking do I want to have. So lots to contemplate.

Quote from Kalosyni

I will soon add to this thread some clear references to Plato and Aristotle's ideas on the role of contemplation in philosophy as well as "living like the gods".

I still haven't gotten to this yet, but still planning to do so.

Quote from Matteng

But what is an „undying/immortal good“ when death is nothing to someone ? That friends maybe live longer than me ? Hm maybe, but it is about the mortality of the good.

The memory of the friend and the friendship that was shared lasts even after the friend has died -- in some ways the "friendship-feeling" never dies even if the friend dies.

Quote

In 1802, passing through Florence and at the height of his notoriety, Antonio Canova was commissioned by the King of Etruria, Ludovico di Borbone, to make a copy of the Venus de' Medici, the 1st century BC marble sculpture that had already been exhibited in the centre of the Uffizi’s Tribune, but had been requisitioned by the French authorities on 11 September of the same year for the Louvre. At first reluctant to the idea of a replica, the Venetian sculptor eventually accepted, enticed both by the proposal to replace such a masterpiece and by the strong patriotic connotation that the undertaking had immediately assumed.

...the Canova divinity deviated from the illustrious model, being depicted at the moment when she demurely dries herself after coming out of the bath, with the vase of perfumed ointments at her feet. The new sculpture, whose modernity was immediately highlighted in comparison to the ancient prototype, was an enormous success, which made it the subject of extensive critical literature and the protagonist of numerous sonnets, including one by Giovanni Rosini, who baptised it with the title “Italica”. Ugo Foscolo, contrasting her with the Medici Venus, described her as “a beautiful woman, capable of making people fall in love, while the ancient one is an impassive, albeit beautiful, goddess”. In Canova’s work, in fact, the natural grace is accentuated in comparison to the conventionality of the ideal beauty expressed in the Hellenistic exemplar, thanks to the more dynamic pose and slightly larger dimensions, which make her as tall as a real woman.

Venus Italica by Antonio Canova

In 1802, passing through Florence and at the height of his notoriety, Antonio Canova was commissioned by the King of Etruria, Ludovico di Borbone, to make a…

www.uffizi.it

The Medici Venus is one of the most-copied antiquities, says Wikipedia...See Wikipedia's entry on the 1st Century BC Venus de Medici:

Venus de' Medici - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I just found this video, and likely this artist learned through apprenticeship, and techniques may have been similar to ancient Greece/Rome. (An interesting question to ponder: was it an unbroken lineage of craftsmen or was the skill lost but then rediscovered during the Renaissance).

This is a must see video for any art lovers or artists:

Master sculptor Fred X. Brownstein recreates Antonio Canova’s sculpture “Venus” using Canova’s unique 200-year-old techniques over the course of 6 months.

Bryan ...Just an idea...you could go with a solid color all over (either solid gold or medium gray (repainted) ....then you could use a "dry-brush" to lightly skim (with very little paint) or a lightly dabbed sea sponge (or any sponge with even texture) to touch on only the raised areas of the sculpture, using a much lighter color of gold (or a white if using gray as the base)... which would leave the recessed areas unpainted, and so that the lighter color would be contrasting with the darker tones in the deeper sections, and it would highlight the 3-dimensional sculpted form by creating more contrast with the light and shadow.

Happy Birthday! dlippman