Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Figures on social media platforms, such as john vervaeke

I had to look him up because I don't know anything about him. I found this summary of some of his ideas.

The idea that the loss of religion is causing a "meaning crisis"...my first reaction is this: "correlation does not equal causation".

Perhaps (and this just an idea) the "meaning crisis" is that people neither feel a sense of belonging with people within their immediate surroundings AND the people all around them have such vastly differing worldviews (and political views)...which makes the development of a sense of belonging very difficult. So I am thinking it is not so much what exactly people believe but that everyone is believing differently from one another. (And even family members can hold vastly differing views). Add in to that, that there are so many varying hobbies and interests in life, so that finding someone to talk to with who has the same interests (and who has time to talk) can be difficult.

Feeling a sense of isolation can create a crisis for human beings, as we have evolved within family and community.

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

How would you as an Epicurean answer this meaning crisis? Do you even accept the terms of things needing "meaning"? I have my own thoughts which I'll add later.

I think I started a thread on meaning not too long ago (will need to see if I can dig it up). And there are other threads and places that meaning is discussed.

"Things needing meaning"?

-- the meaning of life? (I'd say this question comes from "religious salesmen")

-- feeling like what you do is meaningful? (worthwhile, pleasurable, gives good results in the long-term, brings happiness)

-- making meaning for yourself? (having a method for choosing the things that you do)

-- that your life matters? (feeling a sense of connection with others, and that they care about you and you care about them)

I have not studies much about Aristotle, and I found this interesting (and fun) video:

As far as I understand, the difference between Epicurus and Aristotle is that Aristotle ends with moderation and the middle ground, rather than an individual's specific experience of pleasure and pain (and for Epicurus the choice and avoidance will vary depending on circumstances). So Aristotle's goal ends with virtue, rather than pleasure.

Just a "fun-fact" ...according to Wikipedia, this time of year (August/September) would be the time in ancient Greece for the Metageitnius Apollo festival.

Quote

Metageitnia (Ancient Greek: Μεταγείτνια, μετά + γειτονία literally change of neighborhood) was an Ancient Greek festival held in Athens during the month Metageitnion (August/September) in the honor of Metageitnius Apollo.^[1][2] The month of Metageitnion was named after the festival Metageitnia, which celebrated the migration of Theseus from Melite to Diomeia.^[3] The celebration of the festival itself declined over time and was replaced by the Apaturia.^[4] The festival evolved into a celebration of migrations, immigrations, departures, and colonizations among the Ionians - Metageitnius Apollo presided over the metoikia (the abode).

The Metageitnia is also mentioned by Plutarch in the treatise On Exile in Moralia.^[5][6]

Source: Wikipedia

And, in Epicurus' will he requests the rememberence of the day of Polyaenus during the month of Metageitnion.

Thread

Polyaenus - Main Biography

"There was also Polyaenus, son of Athenodorus, of Lampsacus, a modest and friendly man, as Philodemus and his followers say.' [ Diogenes Laertius 24] Polyaenus was the son of Athenodorus. His friendship with Epicurus started after the latter's escape from Mytilene in 307 or 306 BC when he opened a philosophical school at Lampsacus associating himself with other citizens of the town, like Pythocles, Colotes, and Idomeneus. With these fellow citizens he moved to Athens, where they founded a…

Cassius

November 20, 2023 at 3:02 PM

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

Quote from Eric

The drive is stronger than the actual pleasure. Seems that regarding sex, we are wired to seek and want it more than be satisfied by it.

This perhaps depends on one's attitude and practice with regard to observing sensory experience.

A comparison can be made to eating food. There is hunger, but if the food is eaten too quickly then that can result in less satisfaction. If the meal is carefully planned and savored, and eaten slowly with an attitude of observation of every sensation, then that can result in greater satisfaction.

Quote from Don

U489

489. Nature teaches us to think nothing of what fortune brings, to understand that when prospering we are unfortunate and when not prospering we are fortunate, to receive undisturbed the good things that fortune brings and to stand ready for its seeming evils. For what is good or evil to most people is fleeting, and wisdom has nothing in common with fortune.

Don ...this sounds "stoic"...and it is from: Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 30 [p.209.12 Nauck].

While parts of it are okay, other parts do not sound Epicurean to me. Porphyry is not quoting Epicurus, but instead he is giving his own thoughts on Epicurus.

Epicurus recommends gratitude for what is good. (There is a Vatican Saying on that, if I recall.)

Quote from Cassius

At any rate, it's important to be clear that the senses are not right or wrong themselves, it is the interpretations we draw from the senses that can be right or wrong.

This gave me some difficulty in the past, so I want to see if I can finally get it. Can we say that the senses are the mechanics of how the mind collects "data"? Then just like a microscope may have a scratch on the lense, the eye could have a defect which slightly alters the incoming data? It would take some further effort to determine that there was a distortion in the data, by running further experiments or comparing what others are observing - and the data wouldn't be 100 percent incorrect, only skewed. This would be dealing with "correct vs. incorrect".

But then there is a different judgement of the morality of something when the words used are "right vs. wrong". So for example a video recorder can record information, but it takes human judgement to both interpret and say if something was "right or wrong".

Not sure how much it matters to say "correct vs. incorrect" compared to "right vs. wrong" for everyone else, but it seems to helps me. Another wording could be "accurate vs. inaccurate".

Which then we could ask: Do the senses always report accurately? (I am still not getting this ).

Wishing you a Happy Birthday Bryan

Quote from Kalosyni

If it looks like the place that I moved it isn't quite right, please let me know, by private message, what you think might be a better location.

And, with regard to a particular thread, if you think we need to add a sub-forum section as a better location, please let me know.

Hi Everyone, I am going to be doing (a little at a time) some filing of older threads located in the "General Discussion" section into their respective category based on their title.

If you are the orginator of a particular thread, then the forum should give you a message that your thread has been moved. If it looks like the place that I moved it isn't quite right, please let me know, by private message, what you think might be a better location. Thanks!

I just found this interesting excerpt, on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website, "Ancient Theories of Soul" - Section on Epicurus:

Quote

5.1 Epicurus’ Theory of Soul

Epicurus is an atomist, and in accordance with his atomism he takes the soul, like everything else that there is except for the void, to be ultimately composed of atoms. Our sources are somewhat unclear as to exactly which kinds of materials he took to be involved in the composition of soul. It is very probable, though, that in addition to some relatively familiar materials — such as fire-like and wind-like stuffs, or rather the atoms making up such stuffs — the soul, on Epicurus’ view, also includes, in fact as a key ingredient, atoms of a nameless kind of substance, which is responsible for sense-perception. Thus it seems that while he thought he could explain phenomena such as the heat or warmth of a living organism, as well as its movement and rest, by appealing to relatively familiar materials and their relatively familiar properties, he did feel the need to introduce a mysterious additional kind of substance so as to be able to explain sense-perception, apparently on the grounds that “sense-perception is found in none of the named elements” (L&S 14C). It is worth noting that it is specifically with regard to sense-perception that Epicurus thinks the introduction of a further, nameless kind of substance is called for, rather than, for instance, with regard to intellectual cognition. What this suggests, and what in fact we have independent reason to think, is that on Epicurus’ view, once one is in a position adequately to explain sense-perception, one will then also be in a position to work out an explanation of intellectual cognition, by appropriately extending the explanation of sense-perception. Let us consider briefly how such extension might work.

Perceptual beliefs, like the belief that ‘there is a horse over there’, will be explained, in Epicurus’ theory, in terms of sense-impressions and the application of concepts (‘preconceptions’; for discussion cf. Asmis 1999, 276–83), and concept-formation is in turn explained in terms of sense-impression and memory. According to Diogenes Laertius’ summary (L&S 17E1–2), the Epicureans say that

Quote

preconception is, as it were, cognition or correct belief or conception or universal ‘stored notion’ (i.e. memory), of that which has frequently become evident externally: e.g. ‘such-and-such a kind of thing is a man’. For as soon as the word ‘man’ is uttered, immediately its impression also comes to mind by means of preconception, as a result of antecedent sense-perceptions.

Moreover, sense-impressions, interpreted and articulated in terms of concepts or preconceptions, yield experience concerning evident matters, which in turn forms the basis for conclusions about non-evident matters. For example, extensive experience can make clear to one not only that the human beings one has interacted with have a certain feature (say, rationality), but also (later Epicureans will say, probably somewhat developing Epicurus’ position) that it is inconceivable that any human being could fail to have that feature (cf. L&S 18F4–5). And so, experience will not only make one expect, with a very great deal of confidence, that any human being one will ever encounter anywhere will be rational. Experience also, according to the Epicureans, supports the inference to, and hence justifies one in accepting, the (non-evident) conclusion that all human beings, everywhere and at all times, are rational (for detailed discussion, cf. Allen 2001, 194–241). This obviously is an extremely generous view of what experience, and ultimately sense-perception, can do! Once we recognize the enormously powerful and fundamental role Epicurus and his followers assign to sense-perception, we will not be surprised to see that they feel the need to include in the composition of the soul a very special kind of material that accounts specifically for sense-perception, but apparently do not think that, in addition to that, some further special material is needed to enable intellectual or rational activity.

In the Epicurean tradition the word ‘soul’ is sometimes used in the broad traditional way, as what animates living things (e.g., Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 37 Smith), but the focus of interest, so far as the soul is concerned, is very much on the mental functions of cognition, emotion and desire. A view that is common in the tradition and that very probably goes back to the founder is that the soul is a composite of two parts, one rational, the other nonrational. The rational part, which Lucretius calls mind [animus], is the origin of emotion and impulse, and it is also where (no doubt among other operations) concepts are applied and beliefs formed, and where evidence is assessed and inferences are made. The nonrational part of the soul, which in Lucretius is somewhat confusingly called soul [anima], is responsible for receiving sense-impressions, all of which are true according to Epicurus. Error arises at a later stage, when sense-impressions are interpreted by the rational part of the soul, in a way that, as we have seen, crucially involves memory. Sense-perception, conceived of simply as the reception of sense-impressions by the nonrational soul, does not involve memory (cf. L&S 16B1). Since the formation and application of concepts requires memory, sense-perception, so conceived of, does not involve conceptualization, either. The nonrational part is also responsible for transmitting impulses originating from the rational part, as well as (presumably) for a wide variety of other vital functions. (When Epicurus distinguishes between pleasures and pains of the soul and those of the body, incidentally, the distinction he has in mind must be between the rational part of the soul on the one hand and the body animated by nonrational soul, on the other.)

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#5.1

Welcome to the forum @AcuDoc213 

Quote from AcuDoc213

I wonder if anyone else follows or comes from a Secular Buddhist background, too.

Was Zen Buddhist for a time. Only briefly read about secular Buddhism.

For me, my mental framing of pleasure has shifted greatly since studying Epicurean philosophy, to a more relaxed and accepting attitude. Also, a shift in my mental framing of death. So Epicurean philosophy has a more expansive take on both pleasure and death, compared to Buddhism, in my opinion. I suppose that having gone through Buddhism and then coming to Epicureanism, means that I had already spent some time thinking about desire and death. (I'll see if I can re-read that compare and contrast thread referenced above, as not remembering what was covered in that thread).

Here is a fun article which recommends "quality over quantity":

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psymon…really-have-sex?

And here is one on voluntary celibacy:

Is Voluntary Celibacy on the Rise?

How common is it for people to take a break from sex and dating? Why do so many people today seem to be doing it? And are they happy with their decision to…

www.psychologytoday.com

I personally would use the phrase "natural but unnecessary" (rather than "extravagant pleasure") and what falls into that category depends on the given situation - and every situation is unique depending on the circumstances - so I wouldn't assign sex as being "natural and unnecessary" all across the board. I would label something as unnecessary if only if it causes (or results in) pain or disturbance, or it is very difficult to aquire -- and this would reflect an Epicurean method of "choice and avoidance".

I just found this article (interview) and it mentions that he wrote an essay.

A word of caution, at the start of this he goes with an "either/or" dichotomy - saying Epicurus taught that the wise refrained from engaging in "lust and debauchery" and instead "leaned towards a rather radical form of asceticism". (The Ethics forum has sections which deal with this issue, will try to post a link to a more specific section soon).

But the article has some interesting ideas regarding history of Epicureanism.

Quote

Heretic and a slave to desire or radical ascetic and paragon of virtue: who was the real Epicurus? Retracing the history of representations of Epicureanism, the CNRS philosopher Aurélien Robert shows that the Middle Ages played an important role in rehabilitating a Greek philosopher who had been deprecated and caricatured since antiquity.

Quote

That said, your essay shows that the rehabilitation of Epicurus dates from the Middle Ages, and not from the Renaissance, contrary to a still widely held belief…
A.R.: Indeed. For nearly 100 years it has been endlessly repeated that the chance rediscovery in the early 15th century, by an Italian humanist named Poggio Bracciolini, of De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), a text by Lucretius from the first century BC containing an overview of Epicurean philosophy, enabled the return to grace of the Greek hedonist on the philosophical scene. This thesis is a myth. As paradoxical as it may seem, it was the Middle Ages that brought Epicurus out of the underworld, which quite simply went unnoticed until now due to the focus on texts (sermons, theological treatises, poems, etc.) that stigmatised Epicureans.

A close look at the medieval documentation on Epicureanism in all its facets shows that, starting in the 12th century, philosophers like Pierre Abélard, his follower John Salisbury or the learned Englishman William of Malmesbury, praised the excellence of Epicurus’ ideas, especially in the realm of ethics. In addition, the early 13th century saw the proliferation of collections of ‘Lives of the Philosophers’, some of which presented him as a model of morality, including for Christians. In my work I show that the clerics of the Middle Ages contradicted thaemselves. Although perfectly aware of the substance of Epicurus’ philosophy, they discussed it only within their own elite circles, while deliberately propagating a false image of Epicureans to the public, as a simple but effective fear tactic.

The Middle Ages brought Epicurus out of the underworld

Heretic and a slave to desire or radical ascetic and paragon of virtue: who was the real Epicurus? Retracing the history of representations of Epicureanism,…

news.cnrs.fr

Welcome to the forum Patrikios

Welcome to the forum Eric !

Article: Observational study supports century-old theory that challenges the Big Bang

Quote

Shamir's findings lend support to the century-old "tired light" theory instead of the Big Bang. The findings are published in the journal Particles.

"In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble and George Lemaitre discovered that the more distant the galaxy is, the faster it moves away from Earth," Shamir said. "That discovery led to the Big Bang theory, suggesting that the universe started to expand around 13.8 billion years ago. At around the same time, preeminent astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed that galaxies that were more distant from Earth did not really move faster."

Observational study supports century-old theory that challenges the Big Bang

A Kansas State University engineer recently published results from an observational study in support of a century-old theory that directly challenges the…

phys.org

I found this very good article on how to increase happiness based on activities that one chooses to do, as well as tips to creatively increase enjoyment of activities that are not typically fun.

Quote

Time is the great equalizer in life. No matter where you live, what you do for work, or how much money you have, we are all granted 24 hours in a day that we can choose to optimize accordingly. The sobering truth is that a lot of this time is spent on mundane activities (sleeping, chores) and obligations (work). However, even the busiest of us have some free time to do with as we please. This raises the focal question of this post: What activities are best for making us happy?

How to Spend Time to Maximize Happiness

Learn which activities make people the most and least happy on average, and how you can use this information to your advantage

www.psychologytoday.com

Quote from Kalosyni

appears there is a kind of "language of abstractions"

Of course, I realize that "doing philosophy" employs the use of abstractions.

Some further thoughts: Today, I look around my house and see a build-up of miscellaneous objects ("entropy" lol). The kitchen has items that need to be put away, as does the bedroom and the bathroom (livingroom looks mostly okay). Then there is the spare bedroom which is being used for storage, but things are building into disorganized piles.

I could say that I value "order", but for me it is just doing what brings pleasure and what removes pain -- being able to find things easily, and highlighting the beautiful possessions that bring pleasure by beautiful form and color, rather than a misc. items, and unfinished craft projects, etc. The cause of the problem is that I need to use a better system to keep things more organized and I need to purge unnecessary/unneeded things. Yet the motivating force is pleasure/pain.

Ultimately it requires an investment of time.

Julia , if this "ACT" system works for you and results in pleasure, then that is a big "Yay!"

However, for those people who are not familiar with this system, I would caution adopting it, as it appears there is a kind of "language of abstractions" at work with the adoption of abstract values words.

There is further reading in another thread which might be of interest, in that it has discussion of values:

Thread

Pleasures of the soul, Values, Meaningful Life

Hello,

For the context: I ´ve moved from the stoic camp to the epicurean and I am learning the Epicurean principles.

In metaphysics and epistemology the Epicurean have in my opionion the better and more realistic approach.

Now I dive more into the ethics.

In ethics I wonder if Pleasure involves personal values besides the "pure bodily" pleasures.

(There is a citation which says: Beside the pleasures of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching... .I would not know any pleasure)

But I think I get it wrong.

…

Matteng

June 18, 2022 at 5:45 PM