Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

I should also point out that this quotation in post 7 is a long distance from the point where this thread started out, when your advocated "Joy" as the goal ("Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia", but "Joy as the goal").

I presented several ideas in the first post of this thread (the first point should have been addressed in a separate thread):

Point 1) There is no mandate to spread Epicurean philosophy to the masses

Point 2) There are some who study Epicurean philosophy and put more emphasis on one or the other...either pleasure (moving pleasures) or ataraxia.

Point 3) An alternate way to word "the goal" is by using the word "joy" (and I now see that joy is a subset of pleasure and so this would not correlate with the Epicurean texts).

We can continue to see that the words we use can be unclear or confusing, if they are too abstract (for both "camps" of Epicureans - both maximalists or minimalists).

This goes to show that both "camps" still need to consider "the ladder of abstraction" which illustrates the difference between abstract and specific words (developed by linguist S.I. Hayakawa in 1939, and introduced in his book "Language of Action". This tool illustrates how language moves from concrete, sensory details at the bottom (e.g."my speckled apple") to high-level, abstract concepts at the top (e.g."fruit" or "nutrition"). The bottom rungs consist of specific, tangible details, while the higher rungs represent increasingly broad, conceptual, or categorical terms - and it helps make communication more clear.

The following website has an illustration of the full ladder of abstraction:

Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction – Choosing the appropriate abstraction level – jtoy

I believe that it is possible for something to sound correct (or even "wise") while being presented using highly abstract words, however those words end up not "working" in reality for two reasons:

1) differing understandings (cognition) of highly abstract words depending on the individual.

2) when you attempt to pin things down with specific and tangible human experiences, the "wise sounding" but abstract ideas don't work - are not helpful because they are too vague.

So that is what I want to shed some light on...and hopefully find some clarity and also continue to find language and words that actually work!

I've copied over from that thread (linked in the above post) on Christos' introductory book, which was shared by Christos.

The following is by Christos Yapijakis:

Quote

Regarding pleasure and happiness, just see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-We aim to happiness (eustatheia of katastematic pleasure/pleasurable state)

-We do not need pleasure unless our body is in pain lacking it

"He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquility of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a happy life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained lacking pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure".

4. Regarding useful and harmful pleasures, again see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-Although pleasure is naturally akin to us, some pleasures lead to greater annoyance than pleasure

-Useful pleasures=those that appease pain or vary our enjoyment of life (the second ones we don't need necessarily)

-Harmful pleasures=those that result in more pain than pleasure

"...we do not choose every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is worthy of choice, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. ".

All three papers I authored in that special issue of Conatus-Journal of Philosophy on "Philosophical Management of Stress" (the first ever such issue of an international philosophical journal and I was invited to be the Editor) promote Epicurean philosophy, although they do that in a more subtle, "politically correct" and objective way discussing other philosophical approaches too, which by comparison are barely useful for a very short period of time until reality prevails.

...

...Always remember that the pursuit of pleasure is the path to eustatheia and happiness (katastematic pleasure or pleasurable state) for Epicurus and not a goal by itself as Aristippus or 'prodigals' think (see letter to Menoeceus DL 131-132).

Display More

Quote from Kalosyni

As Epicureans, we do seem to fall into two "philosophical camps"...those that hold to the importance of ataraxia and aponia (free from physical and mental pain) and those that hold to the importance of a life filled up with prudent pleasures (both active and static, and more pleasures than pains).

I would like to argue that we should not fall into either of these two camps...

I wanted to mention that at the last Wednesday night Zoom (for Level 03 and above members), we did have a very good discussion on pleasure/happiness/ataraxia. And in the meeting it was said that it isn't an "either/or" because both sides of this are included in the goal of pleasure...and I agree. I still hold that there is a subtle "either/or" for individuals studying Epicurean philosophy in that they hold either a goal of removing pain (relief from pain) as being more important than "sensory pleasures / mind pleasures" or they hold that "sensory pleasures / mind pleasures" are more important than removing pain (relief from pain). I have heard it said that there is a label for those who place "sensory/mind pleasure" as being of higher importance as "maximalists". For those who put ataraxia as being of higher importance, they are called the "minimalists".

What got me thinking about this again, is my curiousity about what the Garden of Athens Epicurean philosophy group is doing, and I found this post about an introductory book that was published:

Post

RE: "Epicurean Philosophy: An Introduction from the 'Garden of Athens'" edited by Christos Yapijakis

I have just recently received an email from Christos Yapijakis indicating that he has read through this thread. His comments that I am pasting below were drafted as a private communication to me, rather than as an exhaustive commentary on the various points raised above, so please understand that they are written in that context. I asked him for permission (which he granted) to repost these so as to include them in the discussion.

It has been some time since this thread started and I have not…

Cassius

January 27, 2023 at 6:54 PM

Just for the record...Bailey's translation of PD25:

"If on each occasion, instead of referring your actions to the end of nature, you turn to some other, nearer, standard, when you are making a choice or an avoidance, your actions will not be consistent with your principles."

Quote from DaveT

1. Who has the ability to make daily choices before the question arises or the sensation of pain, or excess pleasure arises?

We have only two options: to learn from other's mistakes (or their advice) or to learn from our own mistakes.

Here is a Medium article which tells about Maria Cosway, to whom the "Head and Heart" letter was addressed (for any who are interested in history and art). It is very likely that Epicurean philosophy would have been discussed in the social circle surrounding Maria and Richard Cosway.

There is no mandate by gods that Epicurean philosophical thought should be promoted for the sake of progeny or for the future benefit of humanity (unlike various world religions) and there is no mandate to convert people to Epicureanism. Given that this is so, what likelihood is there on the continuation on into the future? Shall we then just relax and "enjoy the ride"? Or for any of us, is our main driving force for promotion so that we have "like-minded friends" to discuss Epicurean philosophy?

There is no judge in the afterlife to declare that an Epicurean did not do what they were required to do. And indeed there are no requirements for doing things.

As Epicureans, we do seem to fall into two "philosophical camps"...those that hold to the importance of ataraxia and aponia (free from physical and mental pain) and those that hold to the importance of a life filled up with prudent pleasures (both active and static, and more pleasures than pains).

I would like to argue that we should not fall into either of these two camps, but first here is a comparison of this either/or dichotomy (fyi...made exclusively by me, and not AI):

I would like to propose a third way..."Joy as the goal" as I think that this puts a better spin on what is meant by "pleasure" in Epicurean philosophy...and I think it also leads to greater motivation to "get off one's bum" and make effort toward a good life. I do seem to remember that there is at least one reference to joy in the extant texts, but will need to track that down.

I welcome any thoughts

From the Letter to Menoeceus we see in the opening paragraph that one should study philosophy both when young and when old, and interestingly it does occassionally seem that here on the forum we have a mix of both younger (college age) and older (empty-nesters and/or retired). And it seems that studying philosophy is especially of benefit for those two lifestages - and there may be more time available for studying philosophy when in those two lifestages. Also, there are those who are neither married nor have children and that lifestyle creates more time for studying philosophy.

I started out this thread with asking: "What kinds of goals do Epicureans set for themselves?" and now thinking that another way to look at this question is that each lifestage brings questions and "existential needs" and that these needs (and depending on the lifestage) can be met through the study of Epicurean philosophy in various ways.

On a related note, I found this about Gen Z...

Talking to strangers in public is not a Gen Z thing. | Gary Rudman

Talking to strangers in public is not a Gen Z thing. As we’ve stated here, Gen Z finds comfort in speaking to others safely from behind a screen but when they…

www.linkedin.com

...and thinking that the study of Epicurean philosophy may be helpful for college age Gen Z ...and all the more reason why we need to create a "basic and friendly" guide to Epicurean philosophy. And no matter what lifestage one is in, there is joy in studying philosophy with those of like-mind.

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

It might be good think about goals for an Epicurean through the framework of lifestages. In modern psychology Erik Erikson and others have presented ideas of lifestages.

I am posting a table of lifestages categories - we could then see if we can compare for any overlaps within Epicurean philosophy.

Query: a table showing adult stages of goals, responsibilities, and psychological growth

AI Overview:

Adult development involves distinct, often overlapping, stages focusing on increasing self-definition, intimacy, and responsibility. The following table synthesizes adult stages, drawing primarily from Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages, Levinson’s life-structure model, and constructive development theory.

Table: Adult Stages of Development

Detailed Breakdown of Adult Growth Stages

• Emerging Adulthood (18–25): Marked by instability and exploration, this stage is characterized by "trying out" different paths in love and work.
• Early Adulthood/Young Adulthood (25–40): The primary focus is "settling down," building a life structure, and forming deep, intimate bonds with others.
• Midlife Transition/Middle Adulthood (40–65): Often involves a reevaluation of past goals (midlife crisis) and a shift toward "generativity," or focusing on the next generation and community.
• Late Adulthood (65+): Focuses on "integrity," where the individual reviews their life, accepting both successes and failures to achieve a sense of wisdom.

Key Concepts in Adult Growth

• Self-Authoring Mind (Kegan): Many adults move from a "socialized mind" (relying on others' expectations) to a "self-authored mind," creating their own values and moral compass.
• Life Structure (Levinson): Adults alternate between stable periods (building a life) and transitional periods (questioning that life).
• Goal Orientation Shift: Younger adults tend to focus on growth-oriented goals, while older adults shift toward maintenance and loss prevention.

*****

Another aspect to consider is that for some people who had difficult childhoods or had parents that did not provide adequate social/emotional modeling/learning, that those people might need to take effort to deal with and develop those skills during young adulthood (and later)...where as others may already have those skills and move forward more quickly in life.

See the full 8 stages of Erikson

Here is an interesting article from the Psychology Today website, and which would be related to the topic of "Epicurean choice and avoidance"...

Quote

Resourcefulness underlies resilience. The more ways you know how to get things done, the more options you have when your usual approach hits a wall. The more ways you've solved problems before, the less daunting new problems feel. Yet many people never target resourcefulness as a skill they can build. They stick to a narrow playbook of how they get things done, and don't consider venturing beyond that.

Resourcefulness can give you a greater sense of security in your life and more trust in yourself.

Read the full article here:

7 Ways to Increase Your Resourcefulness

Practical ways to become someone who can figure anything out.

www.psychologytoday.com

Happy Birthday!   SillyApe

I want to set up this thread as a place to do an overall comparison between Epicurus and Aristotle.

Cassius do we have a table of comparison somewhere already?

Here is an interesting historical snippet from Reddit answering the question "Did Epicurus meet Aristotle?" (we might need to research references):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian…l%20his%20death.

Quote

It would have been hard for Epicurus to be involved in philosophy and never to have heard of Aristotle. It would be a bit like being a Roman historian and never having heard of Mommsen. Or a mathematician never having heard of Russell. Aristotle was the founder of the Peripatetic school centered at Athens but influential throughout the entire Greek world, and the effects of Aristotle's teaching would have been felt by any educated Greek-speaker. Moreover, Epicurus was twenty years old when Aristotle died. He returned to Athens (the place of his father's citizenship) in 324/3 to do two years of mandatory military service and moved to Colophon around 322. He therefore would have been in Athens right around the time of Aristotle's flight to Euboea following Alexander's death. There is no evidence from the ancient biographers or the philosophical tradition that Epicurus ever actually met Aristotle, but he certainly was aware of his teachings and lived in Athens where the Academy and Peripatetics were based from 307 until his death. Diogenes Laertius claims that Aristotle was teaching in Calchis already by the time Epicurus came to Athens, but he also says that Epicurus was taught by the Academic Xenocrates. This should not be surprising--Athenian philosophy at this period was dominated by Plato's Academics and Aristotle's Peripatetics, and in the course of Epicurus' philosophical education he would have been closely exposed to both.

It is important to see that there are a number of differences between Epicurean philosophy and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam...and the Rubaiyat takes a dark and pessimistic tone.

Labeling Epicurean philosophy as pessimistic is incorrect (rebuttal to post #1 above) and there are enough large differences between Epicureanism and the Rubaiyat that we should not label the Rubaiyat as Epicurean.

Here is short comparison and then a full table of comparison follows. (source: Google AI):

Epicureanism and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (particularly in Edward FitzGerald's famous translation) share a "carpe diem" spirit that emphasizes seizing the present moment. However, they differ significantly in their underlying tone: while Epicureanism is a structured system for achieving tranquility (ataraxia), the Rubaiyat is often viewed as a more somber, skeptical exploration of life's transience and the perceived silence of the divine.

Edit note: In the table under "primary goal" it says ataraxia, and we must be sure to understand it through the lens of PD10 - "If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life."

I just found a second book in the attic! (published in 1937 with illustrations by Edmund Dulac).

I asked Google the following question:

Did Edward Fitzgerald make mistakes when he translated the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam?

AI Overview:

Yes, Edward FitzGerald made numerous, intentional, and often admitted "mistakes" (or rather, liberties) when he translated

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Rather than a strict, literal translation, FitzGerald created a "transmogrification" or "tessellation" of the original Persian quatrains, resulting in a work that is more of an English classic inspired by Khayyam than a direct translation.

Here are the specific ways FitzGerald diverged from the original:

1. Misreadings and Translation Errors

• Literal Failures: Critics and scholars, including E.B. Cowell (who taught Persian to FitzGerald), noted that FitzGerald occasionally struggled with the language, leading to direct errors in understanding the original text.
• Opposite Meanings: In some instances, FitzGerald misunderstood the Persian so completely that he made Khayyam say the exact opposite of what was written.
• Misread Words: Scholars have pointed out that he occasionally misread words, such as mistaking mānam (I remain) for mātam (grief/tears), which changed the meaning of the verse.

2. Intentional Alterations ("Transmogrification")

• "Mashed" Quatrains: FitzGerald combined lines from different, separate quatrains to create a new, cohesive poem.
• Invented Verses: Several stanzas in the Rubaiyat do not exist in the Persian original and were invented by FitzGerald himself.
• Refusal to Correct: When informed of errors by his mentor, Cowell, FitzGerald sometimes refused to correct them because he felt his version fit the "spirit" of the poem better.
• Changed Tone: FitzGerald turned what was sometimes a, at times, pessimistic or philosophical, at times, mystical original into a more consistently hedonistic, "carpe diem" ("seize the day") narrative that resonated with Victorian skeptics.

3. Cultural and Ideological Differences

• Sufi vs. Skeptic: While the original Persian often features spiritual, Sufi, or mystical undertones, FitzGerald’s version downplays this in favor of a secular, skeptical, and Epicurean tone.
• Interpretation of the "Saki": The "Thou" or "Saki" (cup-bearer) in the original, who is often a young, budding male, was interpreted by FitzGerald in a way that fit the romanticized, often slightly homoerotic tone common in some Victorian intellectual circles, rather than the original cultural context.

Conclusion:
While FitzGerald did make technical, linguistic mistakes, his biggest "mistakes" were, by his own admission, intentional, aimed at creating a poetic masterpiece rather than a dictionary translation. The resulting Rubaiyat is widely recognized as a "transcreation" that is more of a 19th-century English masterpiece than a literal 11th-century Persian one.

In yesterday's Zoom a topic came up (very briefly and not in any detail) that could be very rich and also in need of exploration...prayer.

I don't think we have any direct evidence of prayer by Epicurus, and since he was a materialist perhaps he did not do any prayer. I would define our current understanding of prayer as distinct from ancestor rituals or sacrifices to ancient gods. Here in the US, the way that prayer is currently thought of is often originating from Judeo-Christian ideas and prayer rituals. Then there is the New Age movement which expanded that to include Hinduism and Native American (etc.), but they are all based on the idea that one's thoughts can affect the Universe and that God or the Universe is listening and will grant your wishes if you pray with a pure heart. For those people who are raised in a religion but then moved on and over to studying Epicurean philosophy, then it may seem that the habit of praying is still there in the mind or the back of the mind. And for those who feel clear about the nature of the Universe this could then create a cognitive dissonance.

A main benefit of prayer is the development of a feeling of courage. (And a related question is does Epicurus or Philodemus say anything about courage).

There is the famous AA prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference." And this can be compared to this excerpt in Letter to Menoeceus: "He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame."

I think that a downside of prayer is that it could get in the way of knowing specifically what you want, because sometimes a prayer originates from a vague "feeling" and not a specific "want" - for example saying to yourself: "I pray that everything will turn out okay" vs "I would like to have a safe journey and feel relaxed, and now I can think of specific ways that I could go about increasing my safety and relaxation". So getting in touch with desires and specifically spelling out those desires can be more empowering then prayer when you think about specific actions you can do...and thus leading to greater courage.

One important thing that makes for both good (enjoyable) friendships and good (enjoyable) romantic relationships...emotional validation:

Quote

Has anyone ever made you feel like your emotions are truly valid? What did it feel like? Most likely, it made you feel understood, accepted and safe to process your feelings to their fullest.

Being able to give someone emotional validation is one of the strongest communication tools you can have in your arsenal when building relationships. Whether at home, in school or even in the workplace—validating language fosters mutual respect and empathy.

However, just like any other communication tool, knowing how to properly validate someone's feelings is a skill. And it takes time and intentional practice before comforting someone will become second nature.

You can read the full article here:

The Art of Emotional Validation: Understanding and Supporting the Feelings of Others

Emotional validation is a skill that can help you strengthen relationships and create a safe space for those around you. Learn how to properly validate…

blog.smilingmind.com.au

There are a number of websites about emotional validation, and I may end up posting more on this over in the Epicurean Lifestyle sub-forum.

Happy Birthday! mlinssen

Happy Birthday! kochiekoch

I found this website which lists various cognitive biases:

Quote

Did you know that much of what we decide every day is not a “decision,” but an unconscious reaction—made when our mind makes a quick assumption on our behalf? These little shortcuts save us from deliberating about each piece of information flowing through our minds in every second of the day.

These shortcuts allow mental efficiency by letting small decisions occur quickly and often unnoticed. But, when a shortcut is flawed because of a cognitive bias, it can sometimes distort reality and impact our decision-making. ...

...The term cognitive bias was first developed in the 1970s by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who after years of research found that people often had flawed patterns of thinking and reacting when faced with decisions. Kahneman, following Tversky’s death, went on to write the now globally acclaimed: Thinking, Fast and Slow, which details how cognitive biases impact decision-making. ...

...Researchers and scientists continue to document the number of cognitive biases that can trip up our decision-making. Some scientists have the number as high as 188. Below, we highlight a few of the most common.

It is important to learn how to identify these biases, and then watch out for them so that they do not negatively impact our decision-making. Keep in mind that you, or others, can be influenced by more than one cognitive bias at a time.

Read more:

https://alliancefordecisioneducation.org/what-is-decision-education/cognitive-biases/

(scroll both up and down on that website to read the various biases)

Quote from Cassius

In the end Epicurus is defining pleasure so broadly that in the end it's not really logically consistent to say "friendship and pleasure" given that. Friendship or anything else is either pleasurable (or leading to more pleasure than pain, even if some pain is required to obtain it) or there is no reason to pursue it.

I think that is why it works better to say that there are multiple "goods" for an Epicurean -- friendship is a great good, but not the "highest good". And "virtue" is a good, when it leads to a pleasant life. As for "pleasures", you could choose to pursue a pleasure that results in 55 percent pleasure and 45 percent pain - but that wouldn't be the "highest good" -- the highest good is a good which is as good as it can get (PD03).

Quote from Cassius

The point I think needs to be made is that you can't just say that your whole goal is to avoid pain. If so, then you can just kill yourself. Your goal is to live pleasurably, which requires that you live, being alive being a good/pleasurable thing unless you are in a situation where you are guaranteed more pain than pleasure). Treasuring life in such a way is a positive activity.

There is a difference in mental cognition between "avoiding pain" -vs- "choosing pleasures which do not lead to pain" because there are a lot of pleasures which do not lead to any pain. Also, there are prudent ways to engage with objects of pleasure that do not result in pain (for example eating the right amount rather than too much).

Quote from Cassius

and if you just say "My highest goal is to avoid pain" in 2026 English, then the majority of people are rightly going to say that the only way to guarantee success in that is to kill yourself.

Probably better to say "my highest goal is to seek pleasures which have good and pleasant results rather than painful consequences". I think that confining this to the types of pleasures, rather than all necessary actions undertaken in life (such as getting into a car and driving to work which has always a small risk of being in a car accident), works much better for cognition of choices. But of course you do need to consider what is safe to do, such as avoiding driving in a blizzard. And all of this boils down to "well-being".