Posts by Kalosyni

I wanted to quickly drop in to this thread to say that this episode has brought up some questions for me - regaring the use of the word "pleasure" in every-day speech.

I personally feel that I want to start using more words, and different words, which are more accurate for each and every given situation.

The word pleasure can encompass so much, however in my mind and perhaps others who speak English, the word pleasure is used to apply to sensations that have a certain intensity and stimulate the senses. (Perhaps other languages/nationalities have a different understanding than American/British people. For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.)

So then more accurately we would say that the goal of Epicureans is to seek out pleasing experiences, pleasantness, and also pleasures (sensations) - what is agreeable, pleasant, and pleasurable. When is comes to mental pleasure we say "enjoyable" or "pleasant".

This has a good overview and emphasizes that it takes pre-planning, and it also depends on which state you live in.

Alternative Options to Hasten Death | Death With Dignity

Whether or not your state has a death with dignity statute, you have a number of options available to hasten your death. These options are legal in every

deathwithdignity.org

Thank you Don for pulling out all those references to Philodemus! We can all benefit from considering these helpful ideas.

And also, Elli hope you can take a look at this topic and the above two posts, when you get a chance, as this may be of interest to you

Quote from Don

It strikes me that the Garden provided an environment where the student genuinely wanted to follow the path of Epicurus, and the teacher genuinely wanted to help the student. Some students may have been more amenable to this correction than others, but that didn't stop the teacher from administering the medicine.

Even if at times there was frank speech between two students, I can imagine that it was based on the teachings (it wouldn't be random). It seems that between students the frank speech would have been cited/referenced to specific teachings which were found in Epicurus' books.

Some questions to consider (and if anyone wants to reply):

At what point does frank speech come across as rude, harsh, or insensitive? Is the phrase "frank speech" ever used to justify harsh speech? What is harsh speech and when should we avoid it? And, what kinds of word choices appear to have a domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude? When is frank speech just an expression of anger and a kind of punishment?

Rocco and Lowri834 youv'e been added to the private conversation thread with tonight's zoom link, so check your messages

You should be able to copy a website address and paste it into the body of the post.

Wishing you a Happy Birthday Cassius!

Quote from Peter Konstans

To what extent can the views and advice of brilliant therapists or educators like John Gottman, Gigi Engle or Dan Buettner be thought of as Epicurean and admitted in some form in the 'scriptures' and literature of Epicureanism?

The writings of Epicurus can be seen as guides to wisdom, and much of what he wrote was lost. We read and study the extant remains as helpful hints for how to live a joyous life. Since here on this forum we are not eclectic, then John Gottman and others would not be added to scriptures.

Epicurus presents a theory of living, and then it is up to each person to bring that theory into practical life. There is a small section on this forum for Epicurean lifestyle questions, and it moves beyond theory with the intention to ground it in the frame work of the Epicurean world-view.

Modern knowledge and psychology has uncovered new ways to understand the world and life that is much more advanced as compared to when Epicurus was alive. I see modern psychology as fitting into the Epicurean world-view when they meet the criteria of the philosophy of Epicurus - how to make good choices, how to understand death, and the place of pleasure and pain in life, etc. If modern psychology leads to pleasure and the happiness of the soul, as a subjective experience for each individual, then each individual can choose to apply that for themselves. The theory of Epicurus remains as the frame or backbone.

Because Epicureanism is an open system of thinking, it is difficult for me to see it as a "religion". Religion often seems to require stiff and absolute thinking or the use of attitudes such as "must", "should", and "have to" which is not the best way to live. So for myself the word "philosophy" works best.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Hi Kalosyni Yes I see myself as an Epicurean. Your username is modern Greek for goodness. Since you use modern Greek I suspect you're Greek, right? Same here. Greetings from Laconia

Thank you, no I'm not Greek, but I admire aspects of Greek culture (both modern and ancient). Born in the USA and now living in South Carolina USA. I chose my forum name because I wanted to reflect on how kindness is a joy that leads to pleasure (it appeared to me that it meant "kindness", but I don't speak Greek so I was relying on the internet for the word meaning).

Peter Konstans Welcome to the forum! From your post I am guessing that likely you see yourself as an Epicurean? I do. Though others here on the forum may not. But it does seem that we can only truly take that label when we are around other Epicureans. You might like this subforum (which may need to be re-organized at some point)

Am I An Epicurean?

First Monday - New Member Philosophy Discussion - is just a few days away...October 2 at 8pm ET. This is a great way to meet others who enjoy the study of the philosophy of Epicurus. New members or any member who hasn't previously participated in one of our discussion meetings, please RSVP if you are interested!

Just an fyi...All new members who have not replied to their welcome thread are in process of being deleted.

Our welcome thread states the following:

"Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond here in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is subject to deletion. Please introduce yourself -- tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism, a little about yourself, and/or post a question."

We've been giving a bit of a grace period...So following up on this now.

Thank you AydenNewman - Level 01 membership remains open. AydenNewman has posted over in this other thread:

Post

RE: Our Posting Policies At Epicureanfriends.com: No Partisan Politics; No Supernatural Religion; No Absolute Virtue

Hey, I totally get what you're saying. Keeping politics out does make sense to keep the focus on Epicurean philosophy itself. Plus, avoiding supernatural religion maintains that consistency too. It's a good approach, IMO.

AydenNewman

May 21, 2023 at 11:48 PM

Quote from Cassius

A proper attitude toward divinity has a very important impact on the way we live. But I will say as to the earlier parts of the article that no prolepsis or anticipation or logical deduction or image or anything else can in my world lead to a divinity which is totally inactive in its own sphere.

I am going to jump in without having read the article, to hypothesize that perhaps the blissfulness (and happiness) of the gods as seen by Epicurus is because he sees them as having perfected prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance in a manner in which the virtues are used as a tool for happiness...and thus the gods are to be emulated. So that the virtues aren't end, but only the means to the blissfulness.

This video is on the Death Cafe website, and brings up some "heavy" thoughts:

Quote from Cassius

For me, there is no way that Epicurean philosophy can be understood properly without always keeping in mind this core idea: that we are mortal and that we need to "live like we are dying" - because we are.

I think that there are many ways to expand upon this, because we are also animals who have a life expectancy depending on our health. So we need to take that into consideration. If a doctor visit reveals matastesized cancer then that person is going to make different choices than a person who has potentially 50 more years to live.

It costs money to do things like travel and going sky-diving (or other activities of choice) and so it's a balance between enjoying one's health and vitality (being active and doing things) and considering one's life expectancy. But when you realize what is most important to you, then you can determine the "opportunity cost" involved. And we only have so much time, so we have to make peace with that as well, since it is possible to have lots of projects that we want to finish, but that we may not actually be able to finish them all.

Quote

In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone where, given limited resources, a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would have been had by taking the second best available choice.^[1] The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen." As a representation of the relationship between scarcity and choice,^[2] the objective of opportunity cost is to ensure efficient use of scarce resources.^[3] It incorporates all associated costs of a decision, both explicit and implicit.^[4] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure, or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered an opportunity cost.

Source: Wikipedia

Regarding the quote from Lucretius, Book 3 :1053 - that is a description of a person who is "lost" and feels restless, anxious, and bored. And that individual definetly needs to take a metaphorical drink of wormwood (rimmed with honey!). The wormwood is bitter and so is the contemplation on one's own death. And this type of person is going to likely need to "take the treatment" multiple times.

Perhaps talking and eating cake at a "death cafe" meeting.

Here's what is happening on the r/Epicureanism on Reddit...found their introductory description:

Quote

Welcome to r/Epicureanism!

I’m sure you have a few questions. The foremost is probably “What the hell is Epicureanism, and why should I subscribe?” I’ve put together this introductory post to make the case for you becoming a follower of both this subreddit and the philosophy.

What is Epicureanism?

Epicureanism is an ancient philosophy based on the teaching of Epicurus of Samos (341-270BC). He based his thinking on a few simple physical principles and built from them an all encompassing philosophy. At its simplest Epicureanism can be summed up as the belief that ‘Pleasure is good, pain is bad.’ It is a misinterpretation of this which has led to Epicureans being painted as depraved pleasure seekers.

Epicurus taught that pleasure is good and should be pursued, but that not all pleasures were worth getting. If a pleasure requires a lot of pain to reach, or gives pain in the long run, then it is foolish to go for it. On the other hand not all pains are to be avoided if they give pleasure in the long run. So while Epicureanism is a form of Hedonism it is a lot more contemplative than Hedonism is usually assumed to be. The careful weighing of the outcomes of our actions reveals which pains and pleasures we should introduce into our lives.

This sort of pleasure-calculation is only valuable however if we agree with Epicurus that pleasure is good and pain bad. How did he reach this conclusion?

What exists?

Epicurus was part of a tradition in Classical Greece of quasi-scientific thinkers. He based his notion of physics on those of the Atomists Leucippus and Democritus. All that existed, they and Epicurus taught, were atoms and the void they move in. All things that we can sense are productions of the movement and compounding of atoms.

Epicurus took this belief and applied it to the human soul. The mind is simply a product of atoms acting within us. On death these atoms disperse and the mind is thus broken up. There is not immortal soul which continues after death. This means that all our concerns should be with the life we lead before death.

While Epicureans in the ancient world were, and still often are, called atheists Epicurus did believe in gods. These gods were made of atoms, exist within the universe, and take no interest in humanity. They live lives of complete tranquillity. This position, and the unusual nature of the Epicurean gods, does lend itself to atheism but is not a requirement of the philosophy. A theistic interpretation of Epicureanism is entirely possible.

What should we do?

There were, and are, many answers to the question of how we should live our lives. A philosophy which aims to be complete must offer us guidance.

Epicurus asked what motivates humans, all living things really. What makes us want to do something? Pleasure. What makes us not want to do something? Pain. We like pleasure. Since we are going to disappear on death we should focus on the things which make us happy. What is the point of living a virtuous life if it makes you miserable? You end up just as dead in the end.

Epicurus therefore rejected the idea of being beholden to society. He withdrew with his followers to a school called the Garden where they studied how to live the good life.

The Good Life

Epicurus separated our desires into categories. There are those that are:

Natural and Necessary – These are those that are required by life. Food, shelter, and the necessities of survival.

Natural, but unnecessary – These are those things that nature has shaped us for but that we can survive without. We might like drinking wine, but water serves just as well.

Unnatural desires – These are the ones that must be cultivated before we even desire them at all. Addiction to cigarettes would be an example, but so would any overly refined desire.

For Epicurus our focus should be in filling those desires which are natural and necessary. We cannot avoid eating if we wish to live so we should take pleasure in simple fare that removes the pain of hunger. If you take pleasure in just removing the pain of hunger then you will not be disappointed when you don’t receive a three Michelin star meal

But it is natural to desire delicious food. It is in the realm of desires which are natural but not necessary that we have to train ourselves. We might want that world class chef to cook our meal but it is unlikely we will have it every day. We have to get used to not having it, but should it appear on our table we should take pleasure from it.

Obviously unnatural desires should be scorned. Why? Because their removal causes pain. Can you guarantee that you will always have an adequate supply of your drug of choice? Anyone who has suffered a caffeine headache might warn people away from that addiction.

This division of desires will tend towards the simple life. Epicureanism will not lead to riotous orgies (at least not all the time) but nor will it lead to asceticism. Pleasure is still good, you just have to take care with which ones you introduce to your daily life.

What else?

A short summary like this will never do credit to Epicureanism. The members of the subreddit have brought together a huge number of articles and posts which you should read. There are great overview articles on Epicureanism here, here, and here.

In the sidebar you'll find links to some useful Epicurean websites that have interesting articles and the surviving Epicurean texts.

If you have any questions ask them here or make a self-post. The members of the sub are friendly. Epicurus placed huge importance on friendship.

Quote

“Of all the means to insure happiness throughout the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.”

I’ll leave you with the message written over the entrance to the Garden which welcomed new members.

Quote

Stranger, here you would do well to tarry; for here our highest good is pleasure.

Display More

For the First Monday of October, we will have a new member Zoom meet-and-greet and Epicurean philosophy discussion!

Let us know if you are interested here, or send me a private message.

When announcing/advertizing an in person meet-up, I am thinking that it would be important to state the basic underlying ideas of Epicurean physics in a paragraph with just a few sentences.

This will make it more clear as to whom would want to join. There is no need to appeal to those who on the one hand have religious belief that God created the universe and is concerned about humans (and feel that everything is according to God's plan). And on the other hand there are those who might have a "new-age/visionary/magical" take on the universe (and which might include things such things as belief in multiverses, or other ideas such as healing at a distance and taping into the vibrations of the universe, etc).

This basic paragraph should say: that matter at its most basic level of atoms and void is "semper existentia" (always existing).

And it also should say: that we observe phenomenon and then look for causes, and we don't jump to any conclusions too early - and most importantly we only look at what is part of current life and actual circumstances grounded in reality, and with a pragmatic approach.

This also brings up the question: that we seek to understand natural physics because we seek pleasure and the most pleasant life. But like the chicken and the egg which came first? (Over in another thread I started wondering if Epicurus invested more time into natural physics compared to ethics. But for the record, I am back to my original focus of seeing the ethics as being the primary importance).

Just thinking that anyone who ends up chasing theories like multiverses will end up so distracted that they may never make it over to study the ethics aspects of Epicurean philosophy.

Creating Seven Steps...a thread which I started some weeks ago, almost fell back in the vast ocean of this forum. By chance found it again, spurred on by the recent very good posting by Titus - which you can read his very good thoughts on ethics over on his personal outline thread:

Post

RE: Titus' personal outline

(3) The nature of how to live.

This could also be seen as a continuation of the Epicurean Philosophy Navigation Chart to expand the Ethics. A preliminary list of topics that are important to me:

1. Awareness of becoming and passing away, consciousness of life and death in respect to the nature of the universe, processuality of life

2. Pursuing/Focussing the natural desires which

a.) is Nature's yardstick for happiness

b.) leads to self-sufficiency and autarky

c.) reveals life as an inexhaustible…

Titus

September 21, 2023 at 4:46 AM

I definitely would like to include what Titus has written into the mix here in this thread and possibly for further development on materials - I really want to move forward the idea that I have for either a "7 Steps" or maybe a "Handbook on Epicurean Ethics".