Posts by Kalosyni

This was interesting from the Wikipedia article on Diogenes Laertius:

Quote

English translations

Thomas Stanley's 1656 History of Philosophy adapts the format and content of Laertius' work into English, but Stanley compiled his book from a number of classical biographies of philosophers.^[36] The first complete English translation was a late 17th-century translation by ten different persons.^[37] A better translation was made by Charles Duke Yonge (1853),^[38] but although this was more literal, it still contained many inaccuracies.^[39] The next translation was by Robert Drew Hicks (1925) for the Loeb Classical Library,^[40] although it is slightly bowdlerized. A new translation by Pamela Mensch was published by Oxford University Press in 2018.^[41]

And before these translations, there is the question of how earlier manuscripts might have been affected (or altered) during the medieval ages.

Don do you have a JPASS?

I signed in but looks like I can only read the introduction and not the full book.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40858433?seq=1

Found this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40858433

Quote from Don

Do we know what Burley said specifically?

No, and now I see he may not have been the author of the particular book De vita et moribus philosophorum, (Wikipedia says: "It was formerly attributed to Walter Burley, but is now recognized as anonymous. Its author may be known as "Pseudo-Walter Burley".^[3]) Though it would be interesting to see if we can find out more:

De vita et moribus philosophorum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I am still back on Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers,

and found this eyebrow raising qoute in Wikipedia:

Quote

He is criticized primarily for being overly concerned with superficial details of the philosophers' lives and lacking the intellectual capacity to explore their actual philosophical works with any penetration. However, according to statements of the 14th-century monk Walter Burley in his De vita et moribus philosophorum, the text of Diogenes seems to have been much fuller than that which we now possess.

Going back to the original question: What are the possible reasons why the list of 40 Principal Doctrines does not feature a statement explicitly stating pleasure to be the goal of life?

It is possible that there were more Doctrines than just 40? So that what we have from Diogenes Laetrius is incomplete?

It looks to me that Diogenes Laertius lists two goals -- and this excerpt shows a conflict. On one hand there is "health of the body and tranquility of the mind" but further down "pleasure is the alpha and omega".

Letter from Menoeceus (R.D Hicks):

Quote

We must also reflect that of desires some are
natural, others are groundless ; and that of the natural some are
necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the
necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if
the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live.
[128]
He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will
direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body
and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a
blessed 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 creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking,
nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of
the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the
absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of
pleasure. Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a
blessed life.
[129]
Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the
starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we
come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of
every good thing. And since pleasure is our first and native good,
for that reason we do not choose every pleasure whatsoever, but
ofttimes pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues
from them.

Display More

Quote from Cassius

Was the view that pleasure is the good so clearly a part of every Epicurean discussion that it became a habit to omit the statement as repetitive and taken for granted?

From Diogenes Laertius, Book 10:

"It is observed too that in his treatise On the Ethical End he writes in these

terms¹¹ : "I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form."

Happy Birthday SimonC:

Quote from Don

[82] But mental tranquillity* means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

*ἀταραξία ataraxia (literally spelled ataraksia)

Quote from Godfrey

This reads to me like a definition....

Yes! And I think that this is very important. Because the "tranquility" within Epicureanism is a state of mind which is free from worry. It is not a state of the body (sitting in stillness). And it is not a state of mind which comes from doing something like Buddhist or Hindu meditations. Rather it comes from studying nature and reasoning out issues such as the nature of the natural world, the nature of god(s), the nature of death, using proper choices and avoidances, being confident in future health and security, being confident in support from friends and good neighbors, and self-sufficency.

So that when we do talk about "tranquility" within Epicureanism, it is a result caused by the mind's ability to impliment and reason through all the things I listed in the above paragraph. We would never say: let's concentrate hard to create some tranquility (that would be putting the cart before the horse) but instead we would simply focus on doing what needs to be done to remove worries from the mind (which may entail making some choices and taking action).

Principal Doctrine 2: "Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."

I found these questions which dive deeper into the meaning with in this phrase (presented in an article reviewing "Facing death : Epicurus and his critics", by James Warren.

Quote

 

The Epicurean belief that “death is nothing to us” is meant to correct the mistaken beliefs which people have that generate a fear of death. But as JW acutely notes, precisely what is fearful about death is ambiguous. On his analysis, it could include at least four analytically distinct fears: 1) the fear of being dead (namely, of not existing); 2) the fear that one will die (namely, apprehension about being mortal); 3) the fear of premature death (namely, of dying too young or before one has completed one’s goals in life); and 4) the fear of the process of dying. JW claims that “there is no single Epicurean ‘argument against death’. Rather, they had an armoury of arguments which could be deployed against the various different kinds of fear of death”

Quote from Don

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" ~ Epicurus,

So sounds like "calmness" coming through the practice of studying natural science?

Thinking about the larger context:

It possible that the "calm" within Epicureanism is refering to the feeling which arises when one thinks about "when death is, I will not be" and the "gods do not punish" (they are not the cause of thunder and lightening and they are not involved with humans).

So it is not a "mind-over-matter" like in Hinduism or Buddhism, but rather reasoning through those two things (death and the nature of the gods).

Is there any other practices in Epicureanism besides these two, that would lead to a feeling of "calm"?

We have set a date:
---Special Zoom on February 25th for the European Time Zone

-------Open to all forum members (regardless of member level)

Time: 2pm Eastern Time US -- (which would be 8pm in Germany)

I hope that this time might work for EricR, @waterholic, Titus and anyone else in Europe.

Everyone interested in attending please RSVP here in this thread and we will get the Zoom link to you.

Quote from Don

Nor Bailey. He simply references PD15:

XV. The wealth demanded by Nature is both limited and easily procured; that demanded by idle imaginings stretches on to infinity. (Bailey)

ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν (kenōn doxōn "empty beliefs/principles/doctrines") εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.

I am curious Don how would you translate it?

Pouring more salt into the wounds of translation issues...Here we see the complexity of translation (I found this here).

Bailey: 15. The wealth demanded by nature is both limited and easily procured; that demanded by idle imaginings stretches on to infinity.

**Ο TΗΣ ΦΥΣEΩΣ ΠΛΟΥTΟΣ ****ΚAΙ ΩΡΙΣTAΙ ****ΚAΙ EΥΠΟΡΙΣTΟΣ**

**EΣTΙΝ Ο ΔE TΩΝ ΚEΝΩΝ ΔΟΞΩΝ ****EΙΣ AΠEΙΡΟΝ EΚΠΙΠTEΙ. **

“The riches of nature are defined and easily procurable; but vain desires are insatiable.” Yonge (1853)

“Nature's wealth has its bounds and is easy to procure, but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.” Hicks (1910)

“Nature's wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure; but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.” Hicks (1925)

“The wealth demanded by nature is both limited and easily procured; that demanded by idle imaginings stretches on to infinity.” Bailey (1926)

“Natural wealth is limited and easily obtained; the wealth defined by vain fancies is always beyond reach.” Geer (1964)

“Nature's wealth is limited and easily obtained; the riches of idle fancies go on forever” O'Connor (1993)

“Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire. But wealth [as defined by] groundless opinions extends without limit.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Natural wealth is both limited and easily obtained, but vanity is insatiable.” Anderson (2004)

“The bounty of nature is not only easy to extract as a resource; it also has its own limits set [by nature] [so that one cannot run into excess insofar as he is attuned to nature;] but the opulence of hollow fancies plunges precipitously into a space that has no limits.” Makridis (2005)

“Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion have no end.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Nature's wealth is restricted and easily won, while that of empty convention runs on to infinity.” Strodach (2012)

“Nature's wealth is both limited and easy to procure; but the wealth of groundless opinions vanishes into thin air.” Mensch (2018)

“Nature’s wealth is both well-defined and readily obtained; but the wealth founded on empty beliefs is endlessly elusive.” White (2021)

Quote from Cassius

VS08. The wealth required by Nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity

This is similar to PD15.

Neither St. Andre or O'Connor include it in their translations -- O'Connor says in footnote that is it the same as PD15.

Quote from Joshua

in the cases of schadenfreude, déjà vu, or a cappella

Who gets to decide what these words actually mean? Who do we all accept is the authority?

Don here are some of my thought to points in post 1 above:

1. Not completely correct -- "strengthening" implies you do all sorts of things. But we only see that this is some kind of result that happens to correspond to removing fear of death and the gods (an after affect).

2. Not correct - impossible to do and where is this in Epicurean philosophy?

3. Not correct - we cultivate prudence so that we don't choose pleasures with cause much worse pains

4. Not completely correct - "Epicurus stresses over and over" -- this is an exaggeration, perhaps we should count when and where this is stated in the texts (how many times?)

5. Correct

6. Don't agree -- sounds Stoic - if that ox was smart he would find some bushes and other oxes to hunker down with instead of standing out in the wind -- luckily we aren't oxes.

7. Too vague -- if you are talking about being confident in your bodily health, and enjoying feeling healthy in the body, then I will agree

8. What about sitting out in the sunshine and the feeling that comes with enjoying that? (And this strengthens the feeling of "health in the body")

9. In my opinion what Metrodorus wrote doesn't take into consideration how the environment that you live in (which contains physical objects) affects your physical and mental well being. We are animals which require certain basic conditions for our physical and mental well being.

10. This seems not completely correct -- I am confident that my next meal with bring pleasure -- is that something which arises only in myself?

11. I don't agree with this "happy on the rack" -- I personally think this "happiness in all circumstances" doesn't make sense to me.

By pleasure: I mean the feeling that comes when tasting honey or the feeling that comes while drinking water when thirsty.

By happy: I mean the feeling that comes with pleasant sensations and pleasant thoughts.

By happiness: I mean the evaluation of the last month as having been filled with many pleasurable moments.

And one could define everything this way?

So to be more clear perhaps we could say:

By pleasure we mean the feeling that comes when tasting honey or the feeling that comes while drinking water when thirsty.