On the other hand, what is the literal meaning of Epicurus? It means "the helper".
Also, it is worth considering that in many countries and languages there are names given to children (both male and female) which mean "helper" or "helpful". (Cody, Ezra, and Alexis are examples, and other names can be found online).
Just for clarity sake (and for later readers who may skim through this sometime in the future)...here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article in post 2 above:
The traditional view is that this word's derived from the Hebrew word for Nazareth (Nazara) that was used in ancient times.[12] Nazareth, in turn, may be derived from either na·tsar, נָצַר, meaning 'to watch',[13] or from ne·tser, נֵ֫צֶר, meaning 'branch'.[14]
The common Greek structure Iesous o Nazoraios (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος) 'Jesus the Nazarene/of Nazareth' is traditionally considered as one of several geographical names in the New Testament such as Loukios o Kurenaios (Λούκιος ὁ Κυρηναῖος) 'Lucius the Cyrenian/Lucius of Cyrene', Trofimos o Efesios ('Trophimus the Ephesian', Τρόφιμος ὁ Ἐφέσιος), Maria Magdalene ('Mary the woman of Magdala'), Saulos Tarseus ('Saul the Tarsian'), or many classical examples such as Athenagoras the Athenian (Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος).
The Greek phrase usually translated as Jesus of Nazareth (iēsous o nazōraios) can be compared with three other places in the New Testament where the construction of Nazareth is used...
Re post #12 graphic: also include PDs 15, 21, 26 and 29, in addition to 30.
Thanks Godfrey... I updated it 
I am going to need to ponder upon post number 14, Cassius...and will reply later.
Drives for survival, health, and happiness do not require wealth, power, or fame.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* Edit note:
Cassius I apologize for the cross-post
I should add to the above chart...that essential drives cause pain when unfulfilled (and they may or may not be easy to aquire).
_____________________________
* Have now updated chart
I made this chart as I was contemplating the various categories of desires. I came up with a few new labels, but these labels may or may not work for others. Everyone might want to consider if these labels or other labels help with cognition and clarity.
Any thoughts or further ideas?
__________________________________
* Updated chart Aug. 9th 1:22 pm ET
** Second update Aug.10th 10:52 am ET
This is an interesting line of exploration Godfrey which may be useful in some situations. My only hesitation is that that I am thinking that certain things should be examined from the stance of whether or not they are realistic and based in reality, rather than labeling them as an "incorrect" desire (unnatural or unnecessary).
When one clearly see things for what they are -- and when one realizes that what they are wanting is not realistic or may have painful consequences -- then the desire for those things can evaporate/dissipate on its own.
SYNOPSIS OF THE CATEGORIES OF DESIRE:
Natural and necessary desires: a) some for happiness; b) some for physical health; c) some for life itself
Natural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) require intense exertion
Unnatural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) hard to achieve; 4) seem to produce harm
As far as I understand, only unnatural would be defined as due to groundless opinion.
So the way I would define "natural and unnecessary" - would be this: a) brings more pain than pleasure; b) produces harm; c) difficult to obtain; d) and, also at the same time as any of the previous three, it doesn't bring pain if unfulfilled.
There is a lot of interesting stuff here that may be useful, and I will linger over the list of questions for a little while longer, and then may say more.
(The following description and discussion agenda was created by Cassius)
=============================
The Way Things Are - Planning Session - 08/05/24
In August of 2024 our First Monday meeting will be a special session to discuss planning of a new regular "live-stream" project. The intent here is to open the EpicureanFriends project to a wider group of people who might not be at the point of wanting to sign up for an EpicureanFriends account, but who would like to ask questions in a live chat to which members of the forum can respond to in real time. The format would likely be 2-3 of our regular members "live" (likely by voice only, with the screen occupied by graphics and/or icons of the speakers) in a format of mostly responding to questions, both pre-selected and according to those that come in through the chat window.
The working title for the livestream for the moment is "The Way Things Are," and the regular programming will be somewhat like Godfrey suggested in a recent discussion: Without discussing politics or the "political" reasons for the turmoil that exists in the world today, we can discuss how people can use Epicurean philosophy to respond intelligently to life in the modern world both (1) as individuals, and (2) how groups can work together locally and on internet. This theme allows us to shift the focus from politics to the parallels between life today and life in the late ancient world, when turmoil of all kinds was beginning to make it more difficult for the school to survive and for individuals to identify as Epicureans. An alternative title is "What Would Epicurus Do?" in the sense of "What would Epicurus have done for his school and his supporters if he had been alive in, say, 200 AD?" We can of course cite Diogenes of Oinoanda's reference to people around him catching a disease like sheep, and we may be able to mine some of Lucian's dialogs for material too.
Our August meeting will be a discussion of how we might implement this project, including:
1. Technology - What platforms and software will work best? Right now I see how to do a single person webcam stream on Youtube, but we need the ability for at least two people to speak, as in a skype or zoom call. I expect we will want a minimum of two people, but not more than three or four, to "carry" the discussion online live, while most everyone else participates by typing into the live chat. OBS Studio software appears to be free and used by a lot of people, but the best way to get 2 or 3 people signed on "live" (likely by voice only) into the chat is not yet apparent.
2. Programming - Selection of episode discussion themes and pre-selected questions.
3. Timing - How often and when (day of week and time) would work best for this. The key to making it successful over time will be a regular date and time people can add to their calendar. We also need to set a duration - I presume something around or just over an hour but to some extent depending on number of questions received online.
4. Structure - How we can produce both an interesting and quality program. A main feature of the live-stream would be allow for people to ask questions "live" using the chat box, and we can discuss how to manage that format on a spectrum from selecting live questioners who deserve responses to selecting live questioners to ban or remove from the chat. One way to do that will be to rotate graphics during the stream which keep the focus on the main themes we want to discuss, for example as below.
In this first session we will not try to duplicate a sample session, but we will set that as a goal for a date and time to be determined.
Once we run a prototype session, we will need to be prepared for very small attendance even if we advertise this on Facebook and Twitter. However we have to start somewhere, and a few sparsely-attended episodes will allow us some practice and set the stage for expansion later.
============================= =============================
If you have not previously attended a First Monday Zoom, but are interested in attending, please let us know here in this thread so we can add you to the list (or you can send a private message to Cassius or me).
The link and reminder message will be sent out via private message (link will be same as last month).
I found this:
Ask pretty much anyone if they want to live a longer life, and the answer is probably a resounding yes. But how exactly does one go about living longer? Valter Longo, PhD, a professor of gerontology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, the director of the USC Longevity Institute, and the author of The Longevity Diet: Discover the New Science Behind Stem Cell Activation and Regeneration to Slow Aging, Fight Disease, and Optimize Weight, combed through the research on how diet can influence lifespan in order to develop the longevity diet.
And then there is also this, which emphasizes exercise:
https://foreverfitscience.com/exercise-scien…0of%20longevity.
Here are some definitions from Wikipedia:
Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]
While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".
Science is a strict systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies;[4][5] and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.[6][7] There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are scientific disciplines,[8][9][10] as they do not rely on empirical evidence.[11][9] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.[1][2][3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is often similar. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[4] A hypothesis is a conjecture based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[5]
While the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.
Junk science is spurious or fraudulent scientific data, research, or analysis. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives.
I think this is a much needed discussion, because those who consider themselves materialists, and study Epicurus, will likely have questions as to science, scientism, vs Epicurean physics.
I just need to look at the text again to see if he's ever like, 'but don't generate implausible explanations just to muddy the water,' or 'but you should feel free to narrow it down to the more probable.' Or, 'sure, there's only one actual best explanation, but we would all do well to recognize our intellectual limitations when it comes to discovering it.'
Here is an excerpt from Letter to Herodotus, which gives us an overview of what Epicurus recommended to his students:
"For those who are unable to study carefully all my physical writings or to go into the longer treatises at all, I have myself prepared an epitome56 of the whole system, Herodotus, to preserve in the memory enough of the principal doctrines,57 to the end that on every occasion they may be able to aid themselves on the most important points, so far as they take up the study of Physics. Those who have made some advance in the survey of the entire system ought to fix in their minds under the principal headings an elementary outline of the whole treatment of the subject. For a comprehensive view is often required, the details but seldom.
[36] "To the former, then--the main heads--we must continually return, and must memorize them so far as to get a valid conception of the facts, as well as the means of discovering all the details exactly when once the general outlines are rightly understood and remembered ; since it is the privilege of the mature student to make a ready use of his conceptions by referring every one of them to elementary facts and simple terms. For it is impossible to gather up the results of continuous diligent study of the entirety of things, unless we can embrace in short formulas and hold in mind all that might have been accurately expressed even to the minutest detail.
[37] "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole.
"In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning. [38] For the primary signification of every term employed must be clearly seen, and ought to need no proving58; this being necessary, if we are to have something to which the point at issue or the problem or the opinion before us can be referred.
"Next, we must by all means stick to our sensations, that is, simply to the present impressions whether of the mind or of any criterion whatever, and similarly to our actual feelings, in order that we may have the means of determining that which needs confirmation and that which is obscure.
"When this is clearly understood, it is time to consider generally things which are obscure. To begin with, nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent.59 For in that case anything would have arisen out of anything, standing as it would in no need of its proper germs.60 [39] And if that which disappears had been destroyed and become non-existent, everything would have perished, that into which the things were dissolved being non-existent. Moreover, the sum total of things was always such as it is now, and such it will ever remain. For there is nothing into which it can change. For outside the sum of things there is nothing which could enter into it and bring about the change.
"Further [this he says also in the Larger Epitome near the beginning and in his First Book "On Nature"],...
Don your outline looks great! Looking forward to taking in the full experience of your amazing project.
There is Epicurus and his canonics...and wondering if there is a name or label for the part which says to be sure you are bringing up multiple hypothoses and do not settle too quickly onto one explanation for causes of phenomenon? ( Cassius ?)
Seems like it might be good to also compare Epicurus to science. And also to be clear about pseudoscience.
So we can study the extant texts of Epicurus, but we live now in modern times, so we have a much more evolved understanding of the world.
Being clear what is good science, what is scientism, and what is pseudoscience ...being clear on these would be good for the modern Epicurean ...so that we can be certain about things and not ambivalent/skeptical about the world that we now live in.
Just for fun here is a wikipedia entry on "Scientism":
"Nor does it make you more thirsty with every drink; it slakes the thirst by a natural cure, – a cure that demands no fee."
I think this is dealing with the idea of excess, as with intoxication by alcohol (and the feeling of wanting yet another drink) and the fee that is paid comes the next morning with a bad hang-over.
In contrast to the Greek ideal, the Romans had drinking habits that encouraged excessive consumption of wine, such as:
- They began drinking before meals on empty stomachs.
- They consumed excessive quantities of wine and food, and then vomited so that they had room for more.
- They played drinking games, including one where somebody would drink as many cups of wine as a throw of a dice indicated.
Clearly, in the first and second centuries BC, it was not uncommon to encounter intoxication among Greeks and Romans. However, initially it was not a universal vice and famous people like Cato the Elder and Julius Caesar only took wine in moderation. As moral values associated with drinking continued to decay, the habit of excessive drinking became more widespread.
As I see it, heart of the doctrine is that "full cannot be made more full no matter how long the time frame." If that is correct, then the analogy of it being impossible to make a full vessel being made "more full" over time applies no matter what is placed inside it.
Therefore:
Pleasure = a feeling of satisfaction and a state of being satisfied.
And now I recall what Seneca wrote regarding the Epicurean philosophy:
"This garden," he [the caretaker of the Garden] says, "does not whet your appetite; it quenches it. Nor does it make you more thirsty with every drink; it slakes the thirst by a natural cure, – a cure that demands no fee.
....The belly will not listen to advice; it makes demands, it importunes. And yet it is not a troublesome creditor; you can send it away at small cost, provided only that you give it what you owe, not merely all you are able to give.
We aren't sure how the moon formed and here are three current hypotheses:
Wishing Everyone a Happy Twentieth!
(And today is the 55th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing!)
Tonight we memorialize Epicurus and Metrodorus as always, and we give special attention to Titus Pomponius Atticus, friend of Cicero, and Siro of Naples, teacher of Philodemus, as per our Memorial Calendar.
Here is the section on the moon, from Letter to Pythocles:
94] The wanings of the moon and its subsequent waxings might be due to the revolution of its own body, or equally well to successive conformations of the atmosphere, or again to the interposition of other bodies; they may be accounted for in all the ways in which phenomena on earth invite us to such explanations of these phases; provided only one does not become enamoured of the method of the single cause and groundlessly put the others out of court, without having considered what it is possible for a man to observe and what is not, and desiring therefore to observe what is impossible. Next the moon may have her light from herself or from the sun.
[95] For on earth too we see many things shining with their own, and many with reflected light. Nor is any celestial phenomenon against these explanations, if one always remembers the method of manifold causes and investigates hypotheses and explanations consistent with them, and does not look to inconsistent notions and emphasize them without cause and so fall back in different ways on different occasions on the method of the single cause. The impression of a face in the moon may be due to the variation of its parts or to interposition or to any one of many causes which might be observed, all in harmony with phenomena.
[96] For in the case of all celestial phenomena this process of investigation must never be abandoned - for if one is in opposition to clear-seen facts, he can never have his part in true peace of mind.
