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
This is a good source for reading what his beliefs were:
Giordano Bruno | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Bruno criticized and transformed a traditional Aristotelian theory of nature and helped revive atomism. His advocacy of Copernicanism and the claim that there is an infinite number of worlds was innovative. In metaphysics, he elevated the concepts of matter and form to absolutes so that God and creation coincide.
Or maybe better described as an "organizing" pleasure: something that brings one's life into a type of focus, and that serves as a filter for choices and avoidances (commitments and rejections, pursuing and fleeing &c). Actually, I like this take on it better than the multivalent idea.
Yes, I like this also!
And brings to mind this:
VS17: "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."
Especially: "the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds" - makes me think of someone who is disorganized and is going in ten different directions and so does not get (or know how to get) what is needed or wanted.
So the "harbor" here could actually be a kind of clarity of mind with regard to what is important in life and what actions to take to bring about happiness.
Another way of thinking about this could be this:
-- I am feeling satisfied with the "story" I am telling myself (internal thoughts) and others (external words). --
So many of the Vatican Sayings touch on this, especially this one:
Vatican Saying 48:
"While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end."
Seems like an Epicurean would evaluate and then take action to make their life better (perhaps based on natural and necessary for happiness).
There are a few other threads and posts that bring up the topic of "meaning", but just this morning I was thinking about it again.
It seems to me that "meaning" and "meaningful" - as in "my life has meaning" or "my life is meaningful"...for an Epicurean could be translated to this:
--- I am feeling satisfied with how my life is going ---
We really can't put the "meaning"-genie back in the bottle, and so we need to reframe it in Epicurean terms.
To start, perhaps the idea "meaning of life" comes to us from the Judeo-Christian purpose in life with the roles dictated by God - serving or worshiping God. And also from society - being a "hero" or of service to others, or roles such as being a parent, etc., and all of these also mostly come through religious institutions.
Now, if you think about it, all of the above tends to increase connection or involvement with other people. And they have aspects which touch on "transcendence of time" and an "extention of consciousness into the future" (working for the good of heaven to "do God's will", working for the good of the community or for the good of children (one's own or other's) -- but ultimately they are also all touching on the desire for an "immortality of consciousness" (even if I die there is something that I have done that will exist into the distant future in future generations of people).
So one way of translating "meaning" into an Epicurean understanding, would be to think of it as a natural and necessary desire for human connection. And if there is a question of whether one's life feels meaningful, an Epicurean could examine whether the basic need for satisfying human connection is being fulfilled. (And this may be where the necessity of creating an "Epicurean Church" might be helpful for some people).
The need for "finding meaning" can come up when bad things happen or big changes in life occur (the need to make sense of things) or when life seems devoid of activity (boring/empty), or a lack of close friends (feeling alone/isolated).
So I would say that if you feel that you are not quite happy with your life, look at how your connections with other people can be improved or increased.
Regarding the desire for an "immortality of consciousness" which I brought up above - I think this may vary from person to person, and whether or not there is a belief that one "should" leave some kind of a legacy (having children is one form of leaving a legacy). Martin Godfrey Don maybe anything to say about this aspect of "meaning" (agree or disagree? or change it to an Epicurean viewpoint?)
Also, anyone elses ideas on "meaning" and translating it into an Epicurean frame of understanding? Whether is correlates with natural and necessary desire for emotional/relational connection?
Just adding this to the mix, as why in my mind vision and perception are inseperable and why I am thinking that the sense of sight can be true most of the time (99.9%) but not all of the time:
How vision works:
What is vision?
Vision is the process where your eyes and brain work together and use light reflecting off things around you to create the ability to see. It’s one of the five main senses and a key contributor to how most people understand the world around them.
How does vision work?
Vision starts when your eyes detect light and turn it into coded nerve signals, which then travel through your optic nerves to your brain. Your brain receives and decodes the signals, and turns them into the pictures you see.
...and this:
Optical illusions play tricks on your brain and can make you see things that aren't really there, from static images swirling around the page to images that stay with you even after you look away. Scientifically, researchers use optical illusions to gain insight into how humans see and process visual information, although the mechanisms behind many of them are still a mystery.
Here is a good article for list making and getting things done:
Here is what is in the article:
1. No list, just a calendar:
Rather than relying on Post-its or productivity apps, use your digital calendar to organize your time. For every task you have to get done, estimate how long it will take, and block that period off in advance. Markovitz argues that this method helps you better prioritize your work, gives you built-in deadlines, and keeps you from prioritizing super easy tasks. ...
...Would I do it again? As much as I love the idea of straight up shredding my to do list, if I were to try this method again, I would approach it a bit differently. I would keep a written to do list and schedule items from it on my calendar each morning. That way, I get both the structure of time-boxing tasks and the satisfaction of crossing them off.
2. Just "do one thing"
The core concept is: Keep your to do list, but use it only as a reference — not something to work off of. Every time you want to tackle a task, write it down on a Post-It and stick it where you can see it. Then, hide your full list and focus. Once you finish your chosen task, cross it off your list, and start again.
The idea here is that by selecting one task at a time, you’re more likely to follow through on it, as opposed to hopping half-heartedly from task to task (or just staring off into space).
3. A digital task manager
4. Make three lists
Basically, we have more tasks on our to do list than we can ever imagine completing. When this happens, we get caught up in a never-ending cycle of completing the easiest and most urgent ones, and fail to finish the ones that are most important. Instead of working off of one long list, Rimm suggests keeping three. List #1 is for important non-time-sensitive tasks (aka things you need to do eventually but not today). List #2 is for tasks you need to complete today. List #3 is for tasks that have been on your to do list forever, but that you’re never going to get done.
Once you have all three lists, start with list #2. Schedule the tasks you need to get done today on your calendar (similar to what I did on Monday). Then, take list #1 and schedule those tasks for future dates. By scheduling your tasks by priority, you’re acknowledging that your time is a valuable, finite resource. You’re more likely to complete meaningful work and throw away work that doesn’t really need to be done.
Here is an article which is very practical, and which I think can help increase anyone's ability to be effective, and therefore leave less things to chance.
Thinking anyone may want to create their own personal list of types of lists for their own life (...if you think of something not on the list you can post it in this thread).
Here are the lists which are suggested in the article:
1. Goals List
2. Gratitude List
3. Strengths List
4. Spending List
5. To Do List
6. Gifts List (birthdays of friends and family members)
7. Bucket List
8. Friends List
9. Doctors List
10. Shopping List
11. Wish List (for future purchases)
12. Get Your Sh*t Together List
You can Read more about each category.
For myself, I would probably make only some of the above lists.
I can see adding a "Books to Read List" and maybe even an "Epicurean Philosophy Concepts Study List" 
Also, seems like might be good have a method to mark items which are of higher importance or higher priority on a given list.
Looks like more on Philodemus' On Piety is over in this thread:
I found an interesting article telling about this scroll:
The papyrus roll containing the first part of De Pietate was among those covered by the eruption of Vesuvius that buried Herculaneum, with its Villa of the Papyri, in A.D. 79. These carbonized scrolls were so distorted and damaged that the original excavators mistook them for lumps of charcoal. In 1787 the roll containing De Pietate was opened.
1997.12.19, Philodemus, On Piety Part 1. – Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Enter now the malign gods of chance, muddle, and scholarship. When the first part of De Pietate was cut open, the two halves were for some reason given different catalog numbers and transcribed separately, with an interval of nearly two decades separating the transcriptions. One half, designated P.Herc. 1077, was drawn on two separate occasions between 1787 and 1809; shortly afterwards, the Rev. John Hayter absconded with several fragments of papyrus and the complete set of apographs, which are now in the Bodleian. The Bourbon government of Naples had another set of drawings made from the surviving fragments, but not before the edges of the outer half had been somehow severely damaged. Not until 1825 did the Italian technicians move on to P.Herc. 1098, the other half of the original roll, now believed to be a separate document.
a commitment to engage
I would say (in my opinion) that the only time that an Epicurean makes a "commitment" is when there is a pact or contract that is signed or agreed to between people (marriage, rental agreement, peace treaty, etc.)
For all other actions within oneself, I would see choosing as coming from a natural motivation to well-being and health (it is natural to want to feel good and feel healthy, but perhaps there are bad influences from "civilization" that erode this natural impulse).
Take for instance going on a diet (weight-gain and being overweight is due to unnatural coping strategies)....going on a diet only truly works when you see that not eating the teaspoon of added sugar every morning in your coffee, not buying the ice cream, etc etc, is actually more pleasurable than eating it...because you are imagining the pleasure you will feel in the future and your enjoyment of not having tight clothes and not feeling sluggish, but feeling rejuvinated and healthy. And eating the healthy food (veggies rather than too many carbs) is also thought and felt as pleasurable for the same reason). So there is no need for "commitment" but instead the "carrot of pleasure" and "the stick of pain" are the true motivators for becoming more healthy.
"Commitment" for me brings up the idea of "duty" and "obligation" based on "virtue" and "doing what is "right" ...but maybe that is just me
.
I would like to present for discussion a perspective and (mostly) a choice of words
This sounds like it could be helpful on an individual level, but may not necessarily be helpful for finding agreement or concensus.
I always think it is important to go back to the extant texts, and study various translations. We have the concepts as they are presented in the texts, and then we can expand those specific texts to see how they can apply to modern day situations.
Another aspect is investigating modern psychology and neuroscience in specific situations. When you mention the word "play" that reminds me about something Don posted (an article or podcast) about including more play in one's life. (I'm not sure where that is located).
I apologize that I'm not being very helpful in discussing language usage which seems to be the direction that post 1 above is going in. ( Cassius maybe can help).
I tend to doubt that that statement is true as a general tendency apart from the conditioning of religion / culture / upbringing. I would doubt that children raised in nature, who quickly get exposed to the cycle of life with the animals they see around them constantly being born and dying, would have any problem seeing for themselves that they too are part of the same cycle.
I found this on how young children have difficulty understanding the concept of death:
Up to 3 Years of Age
- Do not understand death, but rather experience it as separation.
- Developmental task is to differentiate self from environment; accomplish through exploring contrasting states of being and non being in game playing.
- Senses feelings of adults.
- Depends on nonverbal communication for care, affection and reassurance.
3 to 6 Years of Age
- Cannot truly understand the meaning of death.
- Recognize it as something “special,” but unable to understand its inevitability, universality, irreversibility and nothingness.
- Magical thinking is characteristic, with the child believing in the power of his wishes.
- Common to consider death as retribution for bad thoughts or deeds.
- Play serves to relieve the reality of the loss; may seem not to be reacting to the loss.
For higher age groups you can read about it here.
Wasn't sure where to post this...I found this article which brings up a "prolepsis of "god" (and explains "System 1" thinking which sounds like Epicurean prolepsis).
System 1, on the other hand, is intuitive, instinctual and automatic. These capabilities regularly develop in humans, regardless of where they are born. They are survival mechanisms. System 1 bestows us with an innate revulsion of rotting meat, allows us to speak our native language without thinking about it and gives babies the ability to recognise parents and distinguish between living and nonliving objects.
In addition to helping us navigate the dangers of the world and find a mate, some scholars think that System 1 also enabled religions to evolve and perpetuate. System 1, for example, makes us instinctually primed to see life forces – a phenomenon called hypersensitive agency detection – everywhere we go, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Millennia ago, that tendency probably helped us avoid concealed danger, such as lions crouched in the grass or venomous snakes concealed in the bush. But it also made us vulnerable to inferring the existence of invisible agents – whether they took the form of a benevolent god watching over us, an unappeased ancestor punishing us with a drought or a monster lurking in the shadows.
Julia you may like this chart that I created, which is coming from a slightly different direction, and which is helpful for dealing with frustration, and incorporates an aspect of Epicureanism in making wise choices and avoidances:
Start at the top right where is says " I am noticing some tension and anxiety that is best described by the word "frustration", and then see which of the six below apply to the given situation, and then follow it downwards.
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
