New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Here is an interesting article:
I may be alone in this, but I continue to think that desire is a kind of pain. We feel it as pain because we feel it as dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is a kind of pain.
Every individual perceives things subjectively according to the given circumstances. And it seem that there are differing levels of intensity of desire (from just a low-level niggling feeling of dissatisfaction up to high-level stress, anger or hopelessness.)
There are some desires that when we know they will will soon be fulfilled, it is a pleasurable experience of anticipation. For example: feeling mildly hungry and arriving for Christmas, smelling the turkey just out of the oven, and the announcement for everyone to come sit down at the dining table.
When we desire something and believe we need it, but yet we don't know how to get it, that it when desire feels painful. (For example: feeling extremely hungry, arriving for Christmas, being told the the turkey just went into the oven, and noticing that there are no hors d'oeuvres).
I think as time goes on (and depending on circumstances) the sense of pain can shift to feel less painful, because we can learn to problem solve situations. (For example: remembering to always pack a small amount of food (nuts or protein bar) with you if you tend to have hypoglycemia episodes).
Hi All, and this is especially to new members and readers...you can check out our Featured Threads here:
We'll keep this post "pinned" at the top of the list so people can easily find the link.
I've been thinking about how to express a response to incorrect statements that Epicureans were people who minimized their desires. Also behind this is the idea that having desires cause pain, and thus leads to the erroneous idea to try to remove desire rather than doing what needs to be done to achieve the goals of desire. But the goals of desire are pleasure and removal of pain. We've talked about this already in many other places on the forum in other threads, but...well why not again. 
Since I am starting with theory (and quotes from the Principal Doctrines) to point to why this idea is incorrect, I decided to post in this forum rather than the Practical Applications Forum. But ultimately this needs to be applied in one's life, so I hope to write about practical applications as well (in later additional posts).
In the Principal Doctrines we see:
PD22: You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion. (Saint Andre translation)
PD25: If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony. (Saint Andre translation)
In the Torquatus narrative (section 30) we read:
"Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet..." (Reid translation)
Seeing that we are naturally drawn to pleasure just as we are naturally drawn to the sweetness of honey, let us now consider this question: What should we do when we want something but it is difficult or impossible to get?
PD26 says this: "The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm."
1) If a desire for something is easy to fulfill then it there is no problem with it unless it produces harm as a consequence. (see PD8)
2) The desires that bring pain when unfulfilled are the ones that are necessary (necessary desires) and so these are the ones to put time and effort into fulfilling. By pain = physical pain AND those things which when unfulfilled lead to depletion of strength/health of the body and the mind. (see Letter to Menoeceus).
PD30 says this: "Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind."
It is common sense that all animals (including humans) need to eat to live, and naturally become hungry (with a feeling of discomfort). This occurs daily and we easily know what to do when we are hungry - we eat!
It is important to think about what other "creature comforts" we are born to desire? These are the desires that occur over and over again, and when they are adequately fulfilled on an ongoing basis they lead to good health and happiness, plus the experience of pleasure arises when these desires are fulfilled. Unfortunately we don't have a specific list from the extant texts of Epicurus, but we do see that friendship (PD27) and self-sufficiency (achieving security of adequate skills/resources) are ones that are highlighted.
I hope this shows that Epicureans are actually embracing many desires by fulfilling desires, and that we need not fear the feeling of desire, but instead turn towards the ones that nature gives us with joy.
There is probably a lot more to add here, so I welcome further thoughts. 
Welcome to the forum GnothiSeauton !
Here are some things you might want to check out if you haven't already:
...and two YouTube videos by Cassius:
Welcome to the forum Lua050904 !
Here are some things you might want to check out if you haven't already:
...and two YouTube videos by Cassius:
Cassius posted this over in another thread:
I wish we had some shorthand way of indicating a reasonable level of confidence for a particular passage of text. Maybe we ought to create a thread to explore some kind of ranking system that would include factors like:
....
Once again trying to do some filing of threads posted in General Discussion. If you were the originator of a thread and believe that it should have been filed in a different location, please let me know by private message.
Also, if you can't find a thread that was previously in the General Discussion, you might try Google search and type in:
-EpicureanFriends.com and the topic or title-
...(which sometimes works better than the forum search function).
And that drachma line has A LOT of holes.
In all studies, when there are so many holes, I think it is important to categorize which texts are complete and can be trusted vs. which are incomplete and therefore not to be trusted. (I am saying this in regard to all found ancient texts).
Call me a skeptic
If we don't have a complete text (ie we just have fragments with missing lines and missing words) then we should hold off on making judgements because the evidence is incomplete -- and an incorrect understanding of what was written could arise, because missing words change the meaning.
At most we can state a label of the subject matter.
Happy Birthday to Tgonzalez3790 !
More thoughts, and still thinking about creating an Epicurean heirarchy or wheel.
From the Letter to Menoeceus:
"Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness, some for physical health, and some for life itself. The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life." (Peter Saint Andre translation).
------> "serene" - calm and free from agitation, distress, fretting, restlessness, or irritability
------> "happy" - pleased and free from sadness, disappointment, hopelessness, or lethergy
------> The word "necessary" can be thought of as a human need.
We also see from the Principal Doctrines:
PD29 "Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion)."
PD30 "Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind."
------> necessary desires are relieved by nature -- desires that arise because of our animal nature can be relieved by simple and natural means.
------> but unnecessary desires can't be relieved by nature -- desires invented because of the consequences of wealth (the desire for continuous variations of sensation), power (the desire for protection by trying to find security against political violence or murder or by making unsavory alliances with unwise/tyrants against a greater enemy), or status (the desire to be admired or worshipped)
PD27 says: "Of all the things that wisdom provides for the complete happiness of one's entire life, by far the greatest is friendship." And in PD28 it says: "...security amidst the limited number of dreadful things is most easily achieved through friendship."
------> Friendship should be included in an Epicurean wheel of needs.
Coming up next Monday evening is our First Monday!
Agenda: Welcome and introductions, discuss current popular forum threads, discussion on topic, and time for questions.
The topic of discussion is the second major doctrine of Epicurean philosophy and here is a description as it is presented on our front page:
Once Epicurus determined that the universe results from atoms moving naturally through void, he reasoned that the universe could not exist if the atoms were infinite in number but space were limited in size. If that were so, everything would be close-packed and nothing could move. Likewise, the universe could not exist if the atoms were limited in number but space were unlimited in size, If that were so, the atoms would never combine into bodies, any more that debris floating on a vast ocean could ever come together to form solid objects. Epicurus therefore deduced that universe is infinite in size - both the number of atoms and the extent of space are infinite.
From this Epicurus concluded that there can be nothing "outside" the universe as a whole, and so everything that exists is a part of the universe if it exists at all. This conclusion eliminates the possibility of supernatural forces existing "over" or "outside" the universe, and it focuses our attention on the tremendous implications of infinity. Given the infinity of atoms and space, all combinations of atoms which are possible can be expected to come into existence an infinite number of times and places. This does not mean that "anything" is possible, because some combinations of atoms are physically impossible. We know, for example,that there are no "Centaurs," or "Supernatural Gods," because it is Nature itself which sets the limits between what is possible and what is impossible.
As Epicurus wrote to Herodotus: "These brief sayings, if all these points are borne in mind, afford a sufficient outline for our understanding of the nature of existing things. Furthermore, there are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. For the atoms being infinite in number, as was proved already, are borne on far out into space. For those atoms, which are of such nature that a world could be created out of them or made by them, have not been used up either on one world or on a limited number of worlds, nor again on all the worlds which are alike, or on those which are different from these. So that there nowhere exists an obstacle to the infinite number of the worlds." (Bailey, at 45).
Read about more about the topic in our forums here.
***
If you are interested but have not previously attended a First Monday, let us know so we can get the link to you. All others will receive link reminder as usual.
Also, any previous attendees who have been absent from the forum for some time or have not attended within the last 6 months, please send private message to be added back into the link conversation.
Accusation that he's cherry picking makes no sense. This lecture is exactly about cherry picking.
The antidote to cherry picking is making a personal outline AND that outline needs to be backed up with references to specific quotes in specific texts.
In this video he makes statements that are not backed up by specific quotes from the texts.
Every person should study the textual sources themselves rather than take anyone's interpretation (even a professor's interpretation).
It's about questions like: Can I take 3 types of desires as described by the philosophy and use this knowledge in everyday life successfully? Do I need something else or is it sufficient to make good decisions? Did Epicureans got friendship right? Should I change something in my approach towards my friends? What are the personal implications of acknowledging pleasure as the good?
These are good questions to include in a personal outline.
I just don't have time to go through that video and list everything that seems incorrect to me.
It's like we are one step away from having quite an assortment of "Epicureans" or "Epicurean beliefs" such that there are three blind men in a room with an elephant and one feels the trunk, one feels the tail, and one feels the leg.
The antidote to this situation is that folks ought to create an outline of what they believe are the Epicurean tenets, and include the sources in the texts. Also updating the outline when there is a change in how one sees things. I myself need to do a better job of outlining with sources.
And then there would be no need to post outside videos on the forum, as we could be making our own videos instead. 
This seems like something modern day Epicureans would enjoy: "Friendsgiving"... looked it up on Wikipedia:
Friendsgiving is a Thanksgiving-themed feast meal typically eaten prior to or instead of a family Thanksgiving dinner in the United States. Gathering are typically a group of close friends, often millennials, although participation has broadened.
The meal began as an additional holiday or as an alternative to the traditional family Thanksgiving gathering for people who could not or did not want to go home for the holiday. For some celebrants, Friendsgiving has evolved from a pre-Thanksgiving gathering to replace traditional Thanksgiving entirely. Most celebrate it as a separate event during the Thanksgiving season.
Read more on Wikipedia
Here are some thoughts on anger:
---Get clear about who or what you are angry at:
A person? What exactly did they do? -- describe as objectively as possible as if a video camera had recorded it.
A situation or event that occurred? -- this could involve multiple people, yourself, plus unforseen circumstances, describe as objectively as possible as if a video camera had recorded it.
An idealogy or group of people? -- perhaps something political or religious that feels morally wrong and beyond control -- get clear about what you believe and value, as well as what is and isn't in your control.
Yourself? -- this could be a particular standard of competence that you thought you "should" be able to maintain -- Shift to seeing that we are all human and make mistakes, and then see the situation as a learning experience by taking note of what you would do differently next time.
---Get clear about your feelings of anger what (level of intensity and where in your body you feel it) and if you are also feeling frustrated or disappointed.
Anger is motivating but if you are too angry (out of control) or not clear about what the problem is then it isn't very useful.
---Understand the root causes of anger:
1) you think that something should or ought to be different than it is -- because it is unfair, immoral, or "wrong"/"incorrect" -- and you are judging a situation according to your internal principals (which may be different than the other party involved).
2) the situation seems very unpleasant or unbearable.
3) there is a problem that seems difficult to change and you feel a lack of power to implement changes or it feels like it is out of your realm of control.
---Shift the anger into solving a problem:
Get clear about what the problem is and what you would want instead. Get specific about what you would want, but also come up with several options for solving the problem.
Get clear about what the other side feels and wants -- sometimes they want the same end result but just have a different strategy for getting there. Find a solution that both sides can feel good about (there are a lot of modern resources on conflict mediation).
If you were harmed, decide if you want to ask for acknowledgement or restorative justice. (Remember that vengeful punishment will most likely result in perpetuating a cycle of violence, which will bring more harm than good. And trying to "teach" someone will only result in that person digging in their heals furth to defend their position).
Happy Birthday @Taverne !
In this video he emphasizes mental pleasures, but we have in both Diogenes Laertius and Cicero's Torquatus section that it is both physical and mental. (and there are other sources).
