Posts by Kalosyni

This may be a cause for marriage difficulties, and yet the article also suggests that over time people can work to improve their attachment styles:

Article from Yahoo Life: WashingtonPost:

• Scientists say this is the reason some relationships flourish and others flop.

Quote

• Securely attached people generally trust others and feel comfortable with both intimacy and independence.
• Those with an anxious attachment style often crave closeness but worry about rejection or abandonment.
• Avoidant individuals tend to prize self-reliance and keep an emotional distance, even from those they love.
• And people with a disorganized attachment style may swing between seeking connection and pushing it away, reflecting conflicting expectations about whether relationships are a source of comfort or danger.

And here is an older study (on Pubmed), and the only one study that I currently found online, about shifts in attachment styles:

• Changes in adult attachment styles in American college students over time: a meta-analysis.

If new research was done now perhaps there might even be greater shifts in attachment styles, since Covid-induced patterns of isolation. And I would guess that the more "avoidant" and "disorganized" attachment styles are less likely to marry. But this is just a guess.

Thanks @TauPhi, and Patrikios has also RSVP'ed...And a new Level 1 member has also RSVP'ed! ...all for Monday.

Quote from Don

*My statement here assumes anyone would even notice if I was quiet or not.

I noticed...glad you are back posting.

Quote from Don

The living, sentient, sensing being ONLY feels pleasure OR pain. The dead feel neither. Pleasure comes in various varieties/flavors/experiences but is always pleasure. That terse quotation from Epicurus (which I continue to feel is genuine given the various references/citations Diogenes Laertius give it) is simply referring to the various experiences of pleasure by living, breathing people. AND he firmly plants his flag that THAT IS the goal by which we steer our ships. Pleasure, in all its multifarious manifestations, IS the North Star. And, no, he says, we can't exclude pleasant smells, pleasant sights, pleasant tastes, pleasant motions, any more than we can exclude contemplation of a healthy, fortunate state. It's all pleasure. For anyone to parse one pleasure above others, if it brings no pain, is a fool's errand...

Cassius as you wrote in post 24 above, I've now tried to briefly summarize this, and we may need to make this even more prominent...

Here is a possible wording, and which you may need to edit this:

The EpicureanFriends forum policy is intended to make sure that the clarity of the objective (the Epicurean summum bonum) as being pleasure, is not lost by substituting something else as the "supreme good."

Epicurus embraced all varieties of pleasure (active, resting, etc.) as part of a happy life. When we understand that "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure" we don't allow that to be qualified or modified to say "a life of happiness is a life of minimalist pleasures"; or "a life of happiness is a life of tranquility"; or "a life of happiness is a life of ataraxia"; or any other formulation that implies that some concept other than pleasure is actually the supreme good. Any post asserting a "minimalist" stance toward pleasure falls outside of this forum's understanding of Classical Epicurean Philosophy.

Oh...and I clicked on the link for the book and see that the cover has a little hermit crab on it... that's a "bad omen"!

Thanks, Don ...at first glance it looks intriguing, though it's a fairly vague general description. Perhaps it is written for middle age folks who really do "have it all" but for some reason still feel unhappy. We have VS68 which touches on the idea of "enough" ---> "Nothing is enough to one for whom enough is very little."

Yet, for younger folks, the book author's statement: "We already have what we need in order to be happy" is not going to be a helpful thing to hear for those who actually do need to put in more effort into getting their lives in order (gaining work experience, building financal sufficiency, building friendships, dating if they wish to find a partner and start a family.)

But basically I just wanted to speak up to say that the idea of just accepting your life "as it is" is not Epicurean.

Epicureanism is about understanding that we all need to make wise choices in life -- and take action when needed -- and as VS41 says: "One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy."

Hi Everyone! We are now offering two new Zoom opportunities for new members (both Level 1 & Level 2) to come join us for a "meet-and-greet"! This also provides time for asking questions about the forum and Epicurean philosophy.

Level 3 established members are encouraged to please join us as well!

• Monday, August 3rd at 8pm ET
• Sunday, August 9th at 12:30pm ET - a good time especially for our members who live in the European time zone!

These Zoom meetings are open to registered members of the forum and new members who have fully completed their registration process.

Inviting Level 1 members: Morgan  Aeneadum  @Aristos  Carlos  Stas  randres61  WilliamJ  Tgonzalez3790

Inviting Level 2 members: EdGenX  Randall Moose  Autoataraxic  ScottW  Noah Calderon  warjuning

...and anyone else that I may have missed mentioning. Even if you've been a Level 1 or Level 2 for quite some time, please don't be shy, we'd love to meet you!

To attend:

• All Level 2 and Level 3 members please RSVP here in this thread.
• Level 1 members please RSVP by messaging Cassius.

Agenda:

• Welcome by Cassius and individual introductions - please be prepared to introduce yourself to everyone.
• A short presentation may be given either by Cassius, or by Kalosyni (depending on the number of people attending this may or may not be included in the meeting).
• Open time for asking questions about the forum or Epicurean philosophy (or further discussion on the presentation topic).

We make our Zooms informal and easy-going, so you can enjoying coming out to meet your fellow forum members who are moving forward in the study of the philosophy of Epicurus!

Thoughts today after picking up a fallen pear...prolepsis--->Letter to Herodotus--->the infinite universe...

Here are some modern cosmologists and theoretical physicists who think that the universe is spatially infinite (models of cosmic inflation that point to an infinite or eternally growing multiverse).

Andrei Linde - https://profiles.stanford.edu/andrei-linde

Quote

"For a long time, scientists believed that our universe was born in the big bang, as an expanding ball of fire. This scenario dramatically changed during the last 35 years. Now we think that initially the universe was rapidly inflating, being in an unstable energetic vacuum-like state. It became hot only later, when this vacuum-like state decayed. Quantum fluctuations produced during inflation are responsible for galaxy formation. In some places, these quantum fluctuations are so large that they can produce new rapidly expanding parts of the universe. This process makes the universe immortal and transforms it into a multiverse, a huge fractal consisting of many exponentially large parts with different laws of low-energy physics operating in each of them."

Alan Guth - https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/b…next-big-ideas/

Quote

"The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain. The laws of physics themselves don’t seem to make any significant distinction between the future and the past. As the universe evolves, its entropy, or disorder, will grow. What we call the future is simply the direction of higher entropy; a state of lower entropy is what we call the past. But a curious thing happens if you take this initial low entropy state and follow it backwards in time, towards what we previously called the past: the entropy will also start to grow in that direction. I think that the people living [along that arrow of time] would not feel anything different from what we feel. Everybody will think that they’re living from the past towards the future, except what they call the future will be what we call the past."

Thanks Godfrey for sharing. It ties in with: "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided." - Letter to Menoeceus.

You mention that you just started with the book and this is from the first section of it. I see that there are words/phrases such as "personal values", "moderation", "meaningful satisfaction"...and I think that these need to be unpacked and re-labeled according to Epicurean philosophy.

"personal values" - Where do these come from? And you might ask, How did these come to be "my" values? They are often instilled by parents, family interactions, school, childhood experiences and friends, and culture (pop music, books, movies), etc. Now, through the lens of Epicurean philosophy then we might ask how what we value relates to: "natural-necessary, natural-but-optional, and empty opinion" -- as it relates to what brings pleasure, joy, and long-term well-being. But also it seems that we will see certain patterns with regard to "values" such that everyone essentially will value the same basic categories if they want a life of feeling good and experiencing joy - financial sufficiency, exercise (movement), friends/family connections, etc.

"moderation" - moderation in everything, right? ...no, sometimes we need to not do something at all. And the reason is that when we firmly decide that something brings more pain then pleasure then we lose interest in doing that. And what about excess of something? Who determines what "excess" is? If it causes problems (or pain) then it is no good, but if it brings pleasure and well-being then it's a thumbs-up. So as Epicureans we don't need to even need to worry about adding in "moderation" because it is baked-into the feedback loop automatically when we choose things according to long-term well-being.

"meaningful satisfaction" - the word "meaningful" can have two main definitions: 1) anything that brings long-term enjoyment to me, 2) long-term enjoyable social connections and interactions with people

Admin Edit: We now are setting up two meeting times: August 3rd, and August 9th... be sure to see post 2 below for more info.

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

Hi Everyone! We are planning a New Member Meet-and-Greet Zoom, for Monday, August 3, 2026 - 8pm ET -- This Zoom meeting is open to registered members of the forum and new members who have fully completed their registration process.

EpicureanFriends.com is a community dedicated to studying, practicing, and promoting Classical Epicurean philosophy. Like the ancient Epicurean school, it is a community of friends learning and working together to advance Epicurean philosophy today. The forum is dedicated to Classical Epicurean philosophy and participation which supports the shared focus of Pleasure as the Telos. Thoughtful questions and respectful discussion are the foundation upon which our group is built.

We want to especially invite Level 1 and Level 2 members, as an opportunity to get more involved and meet the admin and other members of the forum, as well as provide time for answering any questions about the forum and Epicurean philosophy. Attendance will also contribute toward future consideration for promotion to a higher membership level.

Level 1 and Level 2 members, please be sure you have reviewed Cassius' article: Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself - INCLUDES FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY. (*The full article is lengthy providing full supporting documentation, but you can find the basic points stated in the opening three paragraphs*).

Agenda:

• Welcome by Cassius and individual introductions - please be prepared to introduce yourself to everyone.
• A short presentation may be given either by Cassius, or by Kalosyni (depending on the number of people attending this may or may not be included in the meeting).
• Open time for asking questions about the forum or Epicurean philosophy (or further discussion on the presentation topic).

To attend: please RSVP here in this thread or message Cassius. A Zoom link will be given out the day before the meeting by private message.

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

A Brief Review of Participation Levels on the EpicureanFriends forum:

Level 1 Guest: New members exploring the community -- after replying to the Welcome email sent out by the Admin (in which they introduce themselves), they can begin participating by posting further in their Welcome Thread (posting at this level is limited to the Welcome Thread). This membership level is invited to attend New Member Meet-and-Greet Zooms (please message Cassius if you are interested in attending).

Level 2 Guest: Members who have demonstrated good-faith participation -- are promoted to Level 2 and welcomed to post into the main discussion forums. This membership level is invited to attend New Member Meet-and-Greet Zooms -and- after receiving admin approval can attend Sunday Afternoon Zooms.

Level 3 Friend: Established members -- recognized for their sustained participation, shared commitment to Classical Epicurean philosophy, and trusted contributions. Friends have access to most forum features as well as advanced meetings (Twentieth Zooms and Wednesday Night Zooms).

Level 4 Veteran Friend: Experienced members -- who help maintain the quality and direction of discussion through long-standing commitment and leadership.

These participation levels reflect each member's permissions for posting, and indicate the level of engagement and alignment with the forum's purpose. They also help readers understand the experience and perspective behind each post. (Read a longer description here, in section 2).

Quote from Bryan

I’ll admit I do not think this fits. A drink is just another pleasure within the meal, not the thing that gives all the other pleasures their order and security. This makes established pleasures sound like an optional side item.

My analogy may not work for everyone...I was thinking about it this way:

If you were invited over to someone's house for dinner, and they served you a full dinner, but did not serve anything at all to drink with the dinner (no water, no lemonade, no wine, no nothing, etc.) then the meal would be lacking in something -- your total pleasure would be incomplete. Whether or not the meal is simple or extravagant is irrelevant, because there is still something else needed...and the pleasure of the meal would be "mixed" with a sense of discomfort. And I think that this is the point of PD10, and also PD12.

Here is a possible analogy for the "completeness" of pleasure:

A meal served without something to drink would be considered incomplete...

"a meal" = all the many varied pleasures of life

"something to drink" = removing fears of death & gods and adding in prudence (the correct understanding of choices and avoidances).

So altogether these would make a "complete meal" which would be an analogy of a complete life of pleasure and well-being.

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

Listen to the Epicurus Rap - Free as Epicurus!

Since tomorrow is the Twentieth... I am thinking again about this quote: "To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his simple cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."

And particularly this section: "...you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians."

A bit of background on the "the Phaeacians"... In Homer's Odyssey, they are a legendary seafaring people who live on the island of Scheria. Known for their advanced shipbuilding and hospitality (xenia), they welcome a shipwrecked Odysseus, listen to his adventures, and safely transport him back to Ithaca on their magical, self-steering ships.

Descended from the god Poseidon, the Phaeacians live in a utopian, paradisiacal realm untouched by war or hardship. They are a semi-divine race ruled by King Alcinous and Queen Arete, possessing an idyllic city with a bronze-walled palace, golden statues, and ever-blooming orchards. Homer emphasizes their mastery of the sea and their status as master navigators.

In the Odyssey, the Phaeacians serve as the primary audience for Odysseus's epic tales. After being stranded on Scheria, Odysseus is discovered by Princess Nausicaa, who brings him to her parents' palace.

The Phaeacians host a grand feast where their blind bard, Demodocus, sings of the Trojan War. Hearing these stories causes Odysseus to weep, ultimately leading him to reveal his true identity and recount his ten-year journey (found in Books 9–12).

Wikipedia: Scheria

Just for fun, my illustration of many pleasures:

I may need to update this (which I made back in 2024) and add more subtitles: "pleasures of the mind" (and which can include planning (anticipation), "pleasures of the removal of pain", etc.

WilliamJ welcome to the forum!

What would Epicurus have said about Homer's Odyssey? At some point in ancient Greece it was popularly taught amongst the people, and perhaps even in early philosophy schools (though no clear evidence during the time of Epicurus).

Here we are in 2026 and there is a new Odyssey movie that is opening, and I'm guessing that now there will be increased interest in ancient Greece, because movies tend to greatly influence American culture.

Here are links to an old version made for TV movie, in two parts:

An interesting article explores the possibility of how the story came to to be, since the myths were not originally written down.

And you can check out a wikipedia about the gods in the Odyssey:

Gods in The Odyssey - Wikipedia

As for Epicurus, regarding the nature of the gods, some excerpts from the Letter to Menoeceus:

"First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many.
[124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods."...

...

[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."

Pythocles read physical copies, and constantly had them in his hands...

From the start of the Letter to Pythocles:

[84] CLEON brought me a letter from you in which you continue to express a kindly feeling towards me, which is a just return for my interest in you, and you attempt with some success to recall the arguments which lead to a life of blessedness. You ask me to send you a brief argument about the phenomena of the sky in a short sketch, that you may easily recall it to mind. For you say that what I have written in my other works is hard to remember, even though, as you state, you constantly have them in your hands. I was glad to receive your request and felt constrained to answer it by pleasant expectations for the future.

[85] Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation. Therefore lay good hold on it, keep it in mind, and go through it all keenly, together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus.

And from Diogenes Laertius Book 10, on Epicureans (these are section excerpts appearing before, between, and after the Letters:

Quote

XXIII. They say that there are two passions, pleasure and pain, which affect everything alive. And that the one is natural, and the other foreign to our nature; with reference to which all objects of choice and avoidance are judged of. They say also, that there are two kinds of investigation; the one about facts, the other about mere words. And this is as far as an elementary sketch can go—their doctrine about division, and about the criterion.

***

XXVI. Such are his sentiments on the heavenly phænomena. But concerning the rules of life, and how we ought to choose some things, and avoid others, he writes thus. But first of all, let us go through the opinions which he held, and his disciples held about the wise man.

He said that injuries existed among men, either in consequence of hatred, or of envy, or of contempt, all which the wise man overcomes by reason. Also, that a man who has once been wise can never receive the contrary disposition, nor can he of his own accord invent such a state of things as that he should be subjected to the dominion of the passions; nor can he hinder himself in his progress towards wisdom. That the wise man, however, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation. That even if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be happy. That the wise man will only feel gratitude to his friends, but to them equally[467] whether they are present or absent. Nor will he groan and howl when he is put to the torture. Nor will he marry a wife whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus. He will punish his servants, but also pity them, and show indulgence to any that are virtuous. They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial, nor that love is a passion inspired by the Gods, as Diogenes says in his twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory. Marriage, say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of life, he will forsake these rules and marry. Nor will he ever indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet, nor will he entangle himself in affairs of state (as he says in his first book on Lives). Nor will he become a tyrant. Nor will he become a Cynic (as he says in his second book about Lives). Nor a beggar. And even, though he should lose his eyes, he will still partake of life (as he says in the same book).

The wise man will be subject to grief, as Diogenes says, in the fifth book of his Select Opinions; he will also not object to go to law. He will leave books and memorials of himself behind him, but he will not be fond of frequenting assemblies. He will take care of his property, and provide for the future. He will like being in the country, he will resist fortune, and will grieve none of his friends. He will show a regard for a fair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised; and he will find more pleasure than other men in speculations.

All faults are not equal. Health is good for some people, but a matter of indifference to others. Courage is a quality which does not exist by nature, but which is engendered by a consideration of what is suitable. Friendship is caused by one’s wants; but it must be begun on our side. For we sow the earth; and friendship arises from a community of, and participation in, pleasures. Happiness must be understood in two senses; the highest happiness, such as is that of God, which admits of no increase; and another kind, which admits of the addition or abstraction of pleasures. The wise man may raise statues if it suits his inclination, if it does not it does[468] not signify. The wise man is the only person who can converse correctly about music and poetry; and he can realise poems, but not become a poet.

It is possible for one wise man to be wiser than another. The wise man will also, if he is in need, earn money, but only by his wisdom; he will propitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humour him for the sake of correcting his habits; he will have a school, but not on such a system as to draw a crowd about him; he will also recite in a multitude, but that will be against his inclination; he will pronounce dogmas, and will express no doubts; he will be the same man asleep and awake; and he will be willing even to die for a friend.

These are the Epicurean doctrines.

*****

XXVIII. Now, he differs with the Cyrenaics about pleasure. For they do not admit that to be pleasure which exists as a condition, but place it wholly in motion. He, however, admits both kinds to be pleasure, namely, that of the soul, and that of the body, as he says in his treatise on Choice and Avoidance; and also in his work on the Chief Good; and in the first book of his treatise on Lives, and in his Letter against the Mitylenian Philosophers. And in the same spirit, Diogenes, in the seventeenth book of his Select Discourses, and Metrodorus, in his Timocrates, speak thus. “But when pleasure is understood, I mean both that which exists in motion, and that which is a state.…” And Epicurus, in his treatise on Choice, speaks thus: “Now, freedom from disquietude, and freedom from pain, are states of pleasure; but joy and cheerfulness are beheld in motion and energy.”

XXIX. For they make out the pains of the body to be worse than those of the mind; accordingly, those who do wrong, are punished in the body. But he considers the pains of the soul the worst; for that the flesh is only sensible to present affliction, but the soul feels the past, the present, and the future. Therefore, in the same manner, he contends that the pleasures of the soul are greater than those of the body; and he uses as a proof that pleasure is the chief good, the fact that all animals from the moment of their birth are delighted with pleasure, and are offended with pain by their natural instinct, and without the employment of reason. Therefore, too, we, of our own inclination, flee from pain; so that Hercules, when devoured by his poisoned tunic, cries out:—

Shouting and groaning, and the rocks around

Re-echoed his sad wails, the mountain heights

Of Locrian lands, and sad Eubœa’s hills.^[143]

XXX. And we choose the virtues for the sake of pleasure, and not on their own account; just as we seek the skill of the physician for the sake of health, as Diogenes says, in the[474] twentieth book of his Select Discourses, where he also calls virtue a way of passing one’s life (διαγωγή). But Epicurus says, that virtue alone is inseparable from pleasure, but that every thing else may be separated from it as mortal.

Display More

Source:

The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers | Project Gutenberg

Diogene Laertius talks about Epicureans (as a comparison to the Cyrenaics) in this section in Book 2 of Diogenes Laertius, online:

Quote

VIII. These men then who continued in the school of Aristippus, and were called Cyrenaics, adopted the following opinions.—They said that there were two emotions of the mind, pleasure and pain; that the one, namely pleasure, was a moderate emotion; the other, namely pain, a rough one. And that no one pleasure was different from or more pleasant than another; and that pleasure was praised by all animals, but pain avoided. They said also that pleasure belonged to the body, and constituted its chief good, as Panætius also tells us in his book on Sects; but the pleasure which they call the chief good, is not that pleasure as a state, which consists in the absence of all pain, and is a sort of undisturbedness, which is what Epicurus admits as such; for the Cyrenaics think that there is a distinction between the chief good and a life of happiness, for that the chief good is a particular pleasure, but that happiness is a state consisting of a number of particular pleasures, among which, both those which are past, and those which are future, are both enumerated. And they consider that particular pleasure is desirable for its own sake; but that happiness is desirable not for its own sake, but for that of the particular pleasure. And that the proof that pleasure is the chief good is that we are from our childhood attracted to it without any deliberate choice of our own; and that when we have obtained it, we do not seek anything further, and also that there is nothing which we avoid so much as we do its opposite,[90] which is pain. And they assert, too, that pleasure is a good, even if it arises from the most unbecoming causes, as Hippobotus tells us in his Treatise on Sects; for even if an action be ever so absurd, still the pleasure which arises out of it is desirable, and a good.

Moreover, the banishment of pain, as it is called by Epicurus, appears to the Cyrenaics not to be pleasure; for neither is the absence of pleasure pain, for both pleasure and pain consist in motion; and neither the absence of pleasure nor the absence of pain are motion. In fact, absence of pain is a condition like that of a person asleep. They say also that it is possible that some persons may not desire pleasure, owing to some perversity of mind; and that all the pleasures and pains of the mind, do not all originate in pleasures and pains of the body, for that pleasure often arises from the mere fact of the prosperity of one’s country, or from one’s own; but they deny that pleasure is caused by either the recollection or the anticipation of good fortune—though Epicurus asserted that it was—for the motion of the mind is put an end to by time. They say, too, that pleasure is not caused by simple seeing or hearing. Accordingly we listen with pleasure to those who give a representation of lamentations; but we are pained when we see men lamenting in reality. And they called the absence of pleasure and of pain intermediate states; and asserted that corporeal pleasures were superior to mental ones, and corporeal sufferings worse than mental ones. And they argued that it was on this principle that offenders were punished with bodily pain; for they thought that to suffer pain was hard, but that to be pleased was more in harmony with the nature of man, on which account also they took more care of the body than of the mind.

And although pleasure is desirable for its own sake, still they admit that some of the efficient causes of it are often troublesome, and as such opposite to pleasure; so that they think that an assemblage of all the pleasures which produce happiness, is the most difficult thing conceivable. But they admit that every wise man does not live pleasantly, and that every bad man does not live unpleasantly, but that it is only a general rule admitting of some exceptions. And they think it sufficient if a person enjoys a happy time in consequence of one pleasure which befalls him. They say that prudence is a[91] good, but is not desirable for its own sake, but for the sake of those things which result from it. That a friend is desirable for the sake of the use which we can make of him; for that the parts of the body also are loved while they are united to the body; and that some of the virtues may exist even in the foolish. They consider that bodily exercise contributes to the comprehension of virtue; and that the wise man will feel neither envy, nor love, nor superstition; for that these things originate in a fallacious opinion. They admit, at the same time, that he is liable to grief and fear, for that these are natural emotions. They said also that wealth is an efficient cause of pleasure, but that it is not desirable for its own sake. That the sensations are things which can be comprehended; but they limited this assertion to the sensations themselves, and did not extend it to the causes which produce them. They left out all investigation of the subjects of natural philosophy because of the evident impossibility of comprehending them; but they applied themselves to the study of logic, because of its utility.

Source:

The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers | Project Gutenberg