Posts by Kalosyni

Quote

During the Archaic period, Greek men wore a long chiton; thereafter, except for charioteers, priests, and the elderly, they wore a knee-length version. Sleeved chitons were worn by actors and priests. Patterns and colours varied with the times and with the status of the wearer.

Quote

himation, mantle or wrap worn by Greek men and women from the Archaic through the Hellenistic periods (c. 750–30 bce). A very large rectangle of fabric, the himation was draped in different ways—e.g., as a shawl, a cloak, or a head covering—during various periods.

Usually made of white wool, the version worn by women could be of coloured silk or cotton. A somewhat shorter Greek wrap was known as a chlamys.

From my reading...It seems that women sometimes wore three layers and men wore one or two layers of fabric.

source

Quote from Nate

Gen has been a digital artist for over a decade, so everything is done with a digital tools. However, she does neither use AI Optimization Enhancement tools nor does she use text-to-image designs.

Wow, that's great! I would guess perhaps she uses a stylus pen for digital drawing/painting.

Quote from Nate

Based on my understanding, the "white toga" is a bit of a historical misnomer. The toga is a Roman-specific piece of garb whereas the Greeks wore tunics and chitons (among a number of other styles). Clothing was typically colorful and included a variety of dyes, as much as people have always used dyes and pigmentation as an aesthetic. (Lee, Mireille M. Body, dress, and identity in ancient Greece. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Thank you, I realized I used "toga"...which is from the later Roman era. I can find a lot more on ancient Roman compared to ancient Greece. The toga virilis was white and senators also wore white. We now know that ancient sculptures were painted bright colors, but that doesn't really answer the question of what color robe Epicurus would have worn.

This is on ancient Roman clothing:

Quote

The boundaries between the different classes were strict and legally enforced: members of different classes even dressed differently. Only the emperor was allowed to wear a purple toga, while senators could wear a white toga with the latus clavus, a broad purple stripe along the edge. Equestrian togas had a narrow purple stripe (clavus augustus).

(Source)

I am still doing more research on ancient Greece, such as finding out if certain colors where reserved for special festivals, in which ritual clothing (perhaps more colorful) was donned.

Also, certain color dyes were very costly. Red madder (a brick red, paler and browner) was less expensive than red kermes (more vibrant crimson red).

The question remains...what would a philosopher/teacher wear?

Eikadistes, thanks for sharing, very nice! Since the description doesn't say a print of an original oil or acrylic painting, then wondering if these are text-to-image designs?

Also, seeing Epicurus in a red toga got me curious, as I seem to remember reading that philosophers wore white...but I need to find a reference for that (so do not yet have reference source for that).

In post one above, I used the word "anxiety", but the word "stress" was actually more appropriate. Now that the situation has passed, I feel better - so it was definitely stress (and high cortisol levels).

This is a good comparison:

Quote

Stress and anxiety go together so often that the two terms are used interchangeably, but there are differences between the two. Stress is a normal bodily response cued by the brain and nervous system, and usually is triggered by an event or situation. Anxiety is a psychological condition that can develop when the stress response occurs too often, lasts too long, and is disproportionate to the situation.

(Source link)

In over the last two days have been feeling some anxiety. Have some brief downtime and then it occurred to me to try listen to some soothing music. Found this and it seemed really helpful (pentatonic music scale):

Quote from Don

From cookie cutter to artisanal pastries, so to speak.

I was reading too fast and read: "cookie cutter artisanal pastries" - which made me think of how here in America some grocery stores turn out these "fake" artisanal breads and pastries (unlike the good quality that you find in Europe.) And then that had me thinking about how much comes out of "economies of scale" for the sake of efficiency and greater profits. So unless that shifts then we are stuck with things. Schools are run under the "economies of scale" mentality - with a focus almost like a "factory" setting. But I don't have school age kids, so probably a bit out of touch with things these days.

Here is an interesting article about wrongdoing and punishment, in ancient Athens...and excerpt:

Quote

The Athenians, then, punished in answer to someone’s anger, but to what end did they do so? If a modern citizen were to hear that someone, a parent or teacher, or a state, had punished out of anger, he would expect the motives of the punisher to be essentially vindictive. Anger, we think, leads directly to a desire for payback of the eye-for-an-eye variety. In contrast, the Athenians developed a far more nuanced view of what it meant to take anger as the starting point of punishment. Anger might be the origin of punishment, but they also conceded that it was a disease.

(I haven't yet read the whole article, but looks to be interesting).

Quote from Kalosyni

often unforseeable and potentially unpleasant.

Some kind of retribution or revenge.

There isn't much in the extant texts about this truth: Any time you harm or kill another human there will be consequences - often unforseeable and potentially unpleasant.

PD5 is somewhat related to this: "It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."

Here is a tough question: Can the killing of a another human being ever be justified under Epicurean philosophy? Thoughts?

Wishing you a Happy Birthday Joshua !

Tomorrow night, in our Zoom (Wednesday Oct. 25th) in addition to the Vatican Says 38 & 39, we will also have a chance to discuss the recent interview of Dr. Boeri:

Post

RE: Episode 197 -LucretiusToday Interviews Dr. Marcelo Boeri

Our interview with Dr. Boeri is now live!

spreaker.com/episode/57347852

Cassius

October 22, 2023 at 8:13 PM

Hoping we can start a new list here in this thread regarding the question of "How to live the Epicurean life in today's society".

(Another thread was started by forum member Eoghan Gardiner presenting this question to ChatGPT...which had some interesting points, but also some incorrect ones. You can find that thread here. Rather than react to correct ChatGPT, here we can start from scratch (and if we want to incorporate some of the previously discussed ideas also).

It might be important to consider:

What makes you an Epicurean? What do Epicureans do that others do not do?

And are there challenges to living an Epicurean life in today's society?

What is different in our current time compared to Epicurus' time or Lucretius' time?

If anyone wants to respond to the above questions, please do so. And I'll start thinking further on the "how to" list and post within the next week.

Perhaps this list could be made into a pamplet, or something good for new forum members to read.

ChatGPT...this paragraph was lol

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Remember that living an Epicurean life doesn't mean avoiding all forms of pleasure; rather, it encourages the pursuit of enduring and meaningful forms of pleasure while avoiding excessive and unnecessary desires.

How to live the Epicurean life in today's society...or...how to live according to the philosophy of Epicurus -- definitely would be good to create a list. The list should include study the philosophy with a like-minded friend...and other items from the Letter to Menoeceus, the PD's, and VS's.

I keep mulling this over...it seems that Humanism goes a step further than Epicureanism -- with an ethical goal of improving the greater good of humanity - so progressive politics, philanthropy, and on-going involvement in projects to make the world better according to conceived ideals of peace and equality would be part of Humanism. So while thinking/acting this way wouldn't stop one from "being Epicurean" (finding pleasure in philanthropy), not all Epicureans think this way (and pleasure is found in myriad things). And I think many Epicureans might consider that "perfect peace and equality" are impossible when clearly observing the root causes of inequality and war -- and we are animals with basic needs for food, shelter, and security -- and who have "animal" fears and anxieties. But so many people want to see humans as being something other than animals -- and that we must evolve into "perfect human beings" -- in spite of the stresses that civilization causes to human animals.

Perhaps this Principal Doctrine has some applicability with regard to Humanism/virtue/ideology:

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."

(a reminder to "not put the cart before the horse").

The philosophy of Epicurus can't be humanism because it is already called Epicureanism, lol (Apples and oranges are both a fruit)...and maybe we need a chart comparing them.

Quote from Pacatus

"Humanism” is such a broad concept, with many – often conflicting (e.g. theistic and nontheistic) – strands, that I find it pretty meaningless as a catch-all philosophical term in itself. Better, perhaps, to speak of “humanisms” of different sorts.

Perhaps a chart with some common types of humanism listed.

Quote from Titus

The lecture was quite interesting as it reminded me of a popular stance on Epicurus which is predominant in modern German literature. Epicurus is understood as a philosopher who reaches for inner independence while also granting enjoyment of pleasure as long as the enjoyment doesn't collide with freedom from pain.

Just for clarity sake, wanted to point out this ( Titus you likely already know this) from the Letter to Menoeceus:

"And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains. So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good."

Quote from Titus

I would definitely see them as allies, but I also recognise them as focused more on societally tasks than promoting the personal transformation through philosophy which I regard as the key point.

This is definitely a key difference between Epicureanism and Humanism. Within Humanism, I think there is nothing wrong with the attempt of societal transformation, but there is only so much time in life -- and it is quite a difficult task to actual do something rather than just talk about it (plus potentially more pain than pleasure). And ever since Epicurus, perhaps this is an issue (and virtue not being the goal) that detractors brought against Epicureanism.

Quote from Cassius

Words mean something. When you accept (1) that if you are aware of anything at all then what you are aware of is either pleasure or pain, and (2) someone has said that their life is "free from pain," then (3) the realization that what they have said is that they are at maximum pleasure follows like night follows day.

It may be important to acknowledge that occasionally we feel something that seems like neither-pleasure-nor-pain (a kind of nothingness) but this rarely happens and also it shifts into either pleasure of pain fairly quickly (perhaps upon reflecting on it one becomes aware of it feeling painful).

Regarding "freedom from pain is the height of pleasure" - I would say this is a kind of remedy which is similar to "death is nothing to us". Without a thourough contemplation and using the mind to reason through them, then both of these do not appear to make sense - so it takes thinking in order to see the application of these two points.