Posts by Kalosyni

Badges have been given out...if we have missed anyone, please let us know!

There is now a new forum member badge: Advocate

This is awarded to forum members who support the ongoing process of sharing Epicurean philosophy with others through the creation of reference, study, or teaching materials such as documents, articles, YouTube videos, pamphlets, books, social media materials, external Epicurean philosophy websites, or events such as seminars or symposiums

Quote from Matteng

I see they some include/not include awareness/ attention / appreciation, so there is an active / virtuous activity to feel these pleasures.

Vatican Saying 17: "It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of."

This says that the "young man" can look to and learn from the "old man" about how to live happily.

Gratitude is pleasurable, and there is no need to label it "a virtue".

Quote from Cassius

Why does Epicurus consider the absence of pain to be pleasure?

When pain is absent from the body, the appreciation of that experience is mentally enjoyable.

***

And here is a full list of pleasures:

- enjoyable and pleasant bodily sensations (sights, sounds, tastes, touch, smell, etc.)

- the cessation of pain in the body (when pain is no longer present) (pain = sharp, piercing, burning, stinging, throbing, heavy)

- awareness that the body is healthy (no pain present)

- enjoyable and pleasant mental feelings and thoughts (joy, clarity, calm, strength, gratitude)

- the cessation of unpleasant emotions (fear, worry, anxiety)

- awareness of a clear mind free from unpleasant emotions (fear, worry, anxiety)

Quote from Matteng

What speaks against the idea that intense sensual pleasures go beyond the limit of absence of pain? (my ideas: short-livedness, negative consequences of maintaining these pleasures e.g. numbness, hedonic treadmill, costs, ungratefulness, harming friendships and other values ( which are in core Pleasure) ...)

Instead of "short-livedness" and as long as the pleasure didn't cause unwanted/painful consequences, then one would simply feel a sense of gratitude and appreciation to life for having been able to experience that particular short-lived pleasure.

As for anything that feels like it is a "hedonic treadmill"...I would suggest slowing down and putting more attention on the specific experiences and to "open up the senses" to be fully present both in your mind and body.

Quote from Julia

To partially concur and partially expand on what has been said during this episode regarding the discussion of suicide as a sign that someone might have accepted the notion of fate, providence; in my experience, that is only rarely the case. Rather, suicide is the last line of defence, the ultimate boundary a person — a self, as opposed to a body — can set and enforce.

Julia thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think that there are people on both sides of this saying that suicide is a choice and those that say suicide is not a choice because it seen as the only option.

When I attended a Buddhist group, there were two younger men who committed suicide a few years apart. I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

Yes as you say there are many cognitive distortions that need to be corrected, and also I think an important element is overcoming a sense of powerlessness and instead learning how to make change happen in one's life. By regaining a feeling of being effective and a sense of personal power to do what needs to be done to minimize pains AND increase pleasures, the suicidal thoughts can disappear. Life must have some sweetness in it, so regaining the power to experience pleasure is paramount.

"Nothing comes from nothing" = there are causes for what exists and there are conditions (natural laws) that everything is conditioned and governed by...cows don't pop out of thin air, because they depend on causes and conditions of the material world of matter.

This would be better as a cartoon, but here it goes anyway...lol.

Person A: "I'm trying to find my big heavy winter coat and I just looked inside the guest room closet where I thought I put it at the end of last winter...but there was nothing in the closet!"

Person B: "You better go look again, because I'm sure that there is something in there."

Person A: "Oh yeah? Do you think it magically appeared?"

We then see Person A and Person B go and look inside the closet.

Person B: "See, look at all that dust in the bottom of the closet! I told you there was something in there!"

For all practical purposes "quantum foam" is still closer to "nothing".

This thread may be relevant...on Asimov's Relativity of Wrong:

Thread

Isaac Asimov's Essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (Including Criticism of Socrates And Considering Proper Standards of Correctness)

Today a friend referred me to an essay by Isaac Asimov entitled "The Relativity of Wrong" with which I was not previously familiar. It contains of Socrates which seems right in line with the Epicurean perspective. Even more than that, it contains an analysis of what it means to be "right" or "wrong" that I think is probably also very consistent with Epicurus' perspective. Here's a good summary of the point from Wikipedia ("In the title essay, Asimov argues that there exist degrees of…

Cassius

August 30, 2024 at 8:51 AM

This presents Lucretius' writing as intensifying rhetorical elements already present in the work of Epicurus:

Quote

Alleged incompatibility of Epicurus’ philosophy with rhetoric has led modern scholars to isolate rhetorical procedures in Lucretius’ De rerum natura and regard them as non-Epicurean, accessory features. This study of Lucretius’ rhetorical procedures is based on a wider understanding of the term rhetoric, not limited to the genre of oratory. In a fresh discussion of the questions of provenance and the role of the most important formal procedures of exposition in De rerum natura the author argues that instead of injecting rhetorical strategies from non-Epicurean sources, Lucretius in fact intensified rhetorical elements already present in the work of Epicurus. These elements are used for the purpose of explanation, and function as cognitive and mnemonic aids for the reader.

The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius’ <i>De rerum natura</i>

"The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius’ <i>De rerum natura</i>" published on 25 Jun 2008 by Brill.

brill.com

There already exists some information on the forum about the early manuscripts (but could not find that thread) so posting this in a new thread.

Quote

This manuscript distinguishes itself by the spacious layout of the page. In spite of its large dimensions, the page counts only twenty lines. The ample spacing does full justice to the excellent Carolingian minuscule, the new script which was developed towards the end of the 8th century. As happened so often, this original manuscript was corrected afterwards. Sometimes this was done by comparing the copied text carefully with the exemplar, the book which served as a model for the copy. At other times the corrector would use his own judgment. Of course it was desirable to save the book's appearance as much as possible. In the case of parchment this is not difficult, for the writing is easily scratched out with a knife. This is what the corrector of this Lucretius manuscript did. One alteration on the presented page, folio 22r., immediately catches the eye, because the corrector replaced one single line by two new ones, marring the layout of the page in the process. The corrector's adjustments are easily recognizable, because he used another script, the so-called Insular script, which originated in England and Ireland.

We even know the corrector’s name. Bischoff discovered that the writing must be of the hand of the learned Irish monk Dungal, who had been invited to the continent by Charlemagne. The provenance of the manuscript from the circles nearest to the emperor himself explains the magnificent design of the book.

Scribe and corrector — Highlights — Medieval Manuscripts in Dutch Collections — Koninklijke Bibliotheek

Welcome to the forum sulaimanaarbi

You might like this very good introductory video of 5 major points, made by Cassius some time ago:

And there is also this recent one with 11 Key Points posted four months ago:

Welcome to the forum briefvacation and looks like your first post is over in this thread.

Here in this welcome thread, we have set this up as a place to introduce yourself to the forum community - you can tell us your location (what region or country you are in), and tell us a little about yourself and your personal background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Thank you

Hi Everyone!

First Monday is on November 4th, 8pm ET -- Remember that USA ends daylight savings time by turning the clocks one hour back on November 3rd.

Agenda: Introductions and "meet-and-greet", discuss latest forum threads and the evening's discussion topic, with time for any questions on Epicurean philosophy. Meeting is open to all forum members.

The following is from the front page of the forum (and wiki) in which there are 11 Key Points on Epicurean Philosophy. This is the overview for the first point, "Nothing Can Be Created From Nothing" (our discussion topic for the evening):

Working solely with the science available two thousand years ago, Epicurus observed that nothing ever arises from nothing, and nothing is ever completely destroyed to nothing. From this Epicurus deduced the existence of atoms - elemental particles moving through empty space from which over time all things are made and return. Given that nothing we observe ever comes into existence except through pre-existing atoms, Epicurus concluded that the universe as a whole has always existed, and that while bodies come and go, there was never a time before the universe as a whole came into being.

Given that the universe has always existed, we can firmly reject the contention that the universe was created at some point in time by supernatural forces. All that we see around us is a result of the natural movement of atoms through void over time. This does not mean that only the atoms are real, however, because Nature tells us that bodies made from atoms are also real . More than anything else, this commitment to the true reality of Nature, and the rejection of all notions of the supernatural, is the starting point for everything else in the Epicurean worldview.

As Epicurus wrote to Herodotus: "Nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds." (Bailey - line 38) This is the way Epicurus teaches us to reason - always stating the evidence behind our conclusions, and never accepting any possibilities based on pure speculation or wishful thinking. The atomic basis of the universe explains how all that we see around us came into existence neither randomly or chaotically, but naturally as a result of elemental particles moving through space. The properties of atoms, and not the dictates of any supernatural forces, determines what can, and what cannot, come into being.

Link to Nothing Can Be Created From Nothing Sub-forum / Link to the front page with list of 11 Key Points

Hope to see you there!

So if Lucretius criticized Epicurean opponents, the Stoics (and Platonists?) then that is where it is satire (which Cassius pointed out in post 8 above).

And does Lucretius ridicule those who believe pleasure exists in excess riches and power?

I found this:

Quote

satire, artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.

Satire is a protean term. Together with its derivatives, it is one of the most heavily worked literary designations and one of the most imprecise. The great English lexicographer Samuel Johnson defined satire as “a poem in which wickedness or folly is censured,” and more elaborate definitions are rarely more satisfactory. No strict definition can encompass the complexity of a word that signifies, on one hand, a kind of literature—as when one speaks of the satires of the Roman poet Horace or calls the American novelist Nathanael West’s A Cool Million a satire—and, on the other, a mocking spirit or tone that manifests itself in many literary genres but can also enter into almost any kind of human communication. Wherever wit is employed to expose something foolish or vicious to criticism, there satire exists, whether it be in song or sermon, in painting or political debate, on television or in the movies. In this sense satire is everywhere.

Quote

By their practice, the great Roman poets Horace and Juvenal set indelibly the lineaments of the genre known as the formal verse satire and, in so doing, exerted pervasive, if often indirect, influence on all subsequent literary satire. They gave laws to the form they established, but it must be said that the laws were very loose indeed.

And this source has more on understanding the genre: https://www.britannica.com/art/satire

I just found this review of a book -- "The Pleasures of Reason in Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic Hedonists" by J. Warren -- and thought to share. Wondering if it would be fruitful to compare and to see how Epicurus was reacting to these earlier philosophies:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24759954

Quote from Root304

November 1st to be a big neighborhood party in our backyards. Inviting all these next door strangers over and get to know them better...

Oh that sounds fun!

On this forum, it is often the case that people hope to find life help and advice from Epicurean ethics. One of the top existential issues in the ethics of Epicurus is how to deal with the fear of death.

It may be difficult for an individual who has experienced family trauma to fully appreciate the existential philosophy that Epicurus presents ("death is nothing to us" which may be heard as sounding "stoic" rather than observation of causation). And if that person hears it as a call to deny emotions and feelings, that will be the incorrect way to apply it. They will likely need to deal with trauma recovery first before they can fully dive into applying the awareness of cause and effect, within applying "death is nothing to fear".

An individual may have experienced low level trauma or high level trauma, and I found this interesting video:

I want to encourage people to get some help if they need it from a professional therapist, and then come back to revisit the existential aspects of Epicurean philosophy.

Also, Epicureans would no doubt see a group of people coming together with a shared worldview of Epicureanism as a kind of secure, supportive, and enjoyable experience. So that group would have behaviors which are safe, loving, caring, happy, and enjoyable (and the opposite of toxic). And so imagining the nurturing of that in oneself and others to share within the group, which would be almost like a second family in which one creates the atmosphere to "live like the gods".

(Edit at 4:20 pm ET in second paragraph).

I might try this one since I have some pears and eggs. I don't have the fish sauce, and thinking of ways to tweek this into a sweeter dessert, and may use butter instead of olive oil.

Patina de Piris (Patina of Pears) — Tasting History

A sweet egg frittata-like dish that has a classic combination of ancient Roman flavors of long pepper, garum, and cumin

www.tastinghistory.com

He seems to be saying that all other poets of that time were writing satire, therefore Lucretius also wrote satire. First of all is that premise correct? (Were all other poets before Lucretius writing satire?) And second of all, his conclusion is a "bandwagon" fallacy. Lucretius could be demonstrating a witty way of speaking of things rather than critical satire.