Quote from Don:

Quote

Starting around 1095b, Aristotle appears to stake his flag against pleasure as the Good:

“The common run of people and the most vulgar identify [the highest good] with pleasure, and for that reason are satisfied with a life of enjoyment…a life suitable to cattle.”

LOL! Oh, a life of enjoyment! Perish the thought!

He goes on to say that there are really three notable kinds of life:

• The life of enjoyment/pleasure
• The political life (remember, life in service to the polis)
• The contemplative life

Could we correctly say that Epicureanism actually combines:

a) a life of enjoyment/pleasure

-AND-

c) the contemplative life (contemplating the nature of things)

hygge according to Google search:

pasted-from-clipboard.png hyg·ge

/ˈh(y)o͞oɡə,ˈho͝oɡə/

noun

a quality of coziness and comfortable conviviality that engenders a feeling of contentment or well-being (regarded as a defining characteristic of Danish culture).

"why not follow the Danish example and bring more hygge into your daily life?"

Also, this book which I need to see if my library has it:

The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living (The Happiness Institute Series)

The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living (The Happiness Institute Series)

www.amazon.com

Hygge - Wikipedia

And seems like since fall is here and winter coming soon, a good time for hygge

Here is my latest blog post -- just some personal musings (and two links to further info) for anyone thinking about making improvements to one's own environs.

An Epicurean Exploration of Minimalism Leads to Hygge

I am not a minimalist, but I have read various articles on the internet about adopting minimalist tips. I can see that the benefits and pl...

epicureanphilosophyblog.blogspot.com

By the way Don, I didn't know either until I looked it up

Quote from Don

LOL! I didn't even know what "calumny" was!

---especially the synonyms: insults, slights, bad-mouthing (see synonyms below).

Was Phyrrho really an uneducated fool? (I will have to research that).

From Google, --the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

"a bitter struggle marked by calumny and litigation"

synonyms: slander, defamation (of character), character assassination, misrepresentation of character, evil-speaking, calumniation, libel, scandalmongering, malicious gossip, muckraking, smear campaign, disparagement, denigration, derogation, aspersions, vilification, traducement, obloquy, verbal abuse, backbiting, vituperation, revilement, scurrility, lies, slurs, smears, untruths, false accusations, false reports, insults, slights, mudslinging, bad-mouthing, contumely

My stance regarding calumny is that I would want to believe that Epicurus would not have said what Diogenes Laertius wrote, because Epicurus focused on what the senses perceive. This means that any criticism would have been spoken in this way: X said "xyz" which is incorrect because of such and such Epicurean physics, etc. ---- or X is wearing his toga with red stains of the wine we saw him spill last night (this is just a hypothetical example of specific observations). So he would not have used abstract ideas which are vague categories which pigeon hole a person as forever having the same character (branding someone as a permanent cheat, etc.) and which would be very Aristotilian and much like something that Aristippus of Cyrene would have said.

On the other hand we can't know for sure about all this.

Quote from Cassius

I gather that you're saying that developing calumny into an "art" might not be a good idea, rather than that all calumny is a bad idea, since Epicurus himself was apparently regularly engaged in it!

I have a hard time believing that Epicurus would have said all that, because it doesn't fit with the Principle Doctrines. The source for all that is Diogenes Laertius, and what he wrote was what was said by Timocrates,

(the brother of Metrodorus, who was his disciple and then

left the school.)

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)

On the subject of the "art of calumny" -- I will simply say that it would not fit well with PD5:

"PD5: 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."

Also, I found this very interesting painting:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumny_o…les_(Botticelli)

and which has an interesting write up.

I feel the sense of "domination" of all of history, and the undercurrent of Christianity continues with the use of BC/AD. I would say we all need to stand up for freedom from religion by using neutral year signifiers. Unfortunately "HE" may be too big of a shift for many people, and of course Christians would not go for it at all. (although I can image that people of other faiths would support it).

And there at times seems to be little use of BCE and CE -- Wikipedia doesn't use it.

Quote

Style Guides on Religious Neutrality

The choice may be up to you and your style guide. The 17th edition of the "Chicago Manual of Style (published in 2017) suggests that the choice is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community are being violated:

Quote

"Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so."

In terms of secular journalism, the 2019 version of the Associated Press Stylebook uses B.C. and A.D. (using the periods); as does the fourth edition of the UPI Style Guide, published in 2004. The use of BC and BCE is commonly found in articles concerning academic and lay historical research—including ThoughtCo.com—but not exclusively.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the entire BBC has not dropped the use of AD/BC, but its Religion & Ethics department, which prides itself on providing religion-neutral stories, has:

Quote

"As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians. In line with modern practice, B.C.E./C.E. (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to B.C./A.D."

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-to-use-ad-or-ce-116687

(Anyway, just had to throw this in).

Don, looking forward to reading your notes on Nichomachean Ethics!

I saw this too, a different article, yesterday which said that a nose was broken off one (but don't remember what it said about the other one).

This article suggests that the person had a mental heallth problem and randomly grabbed one, and the second one fell while he was trying to escape the scene.

Seems like they should put them behind glass protectors, or they need to more securely mount them.

Thank you Titus for your feedback. I decided not to use "natural but unnecessary" category to see if I could create something very direct and usable. Something only becomes "unnecessary" if it causes much pain or trouble -- so the prediction of the end result determines the decision to say that something is "unnecessary".

And this also means that there is not any absolute labels of a specific activity. This means that if someone chooses to run for a political office, then their choice to do so is because it will bring them more pleasure than pain. (Perhaps it was much more dangerous back in Epicurus' time, compared to now.)

Quote from Don

It seems to me the three are more editions of the same text rather than thinking of them as three different "versions."

Thank you Don for clarifying that

A recent thread diving deeper into Principle Doctrines 26 and 30, had me thinking again to investigate if it is possible to categorize desires, so here is my attempt (suggest changes or additions please):

The "Epicurus in Lycia" source says three different versions of KD's !!!

Welcome to the forum Ben!

Quote from Don

By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!

Quote from Don

Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.

I have to say it is not necessarily "everywhere".

I think it may be an attempted smear campaign, because it is on a few Christian websites. But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website (and this wikipedia is poorly/incorrectly written).

Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):

The Greek Plays

books.google.com

This morning a song came to mind. When I was a teen I went to private singing lessons and my teacher had me practice Broadway hits. One song that stuck with me is from Oaklahoma (and since back in time I had no idea of the story line from this play it has a kind of simplicity for me).

Part of the lyrics:

Oh, what a beautiful mornin'
Oh, what a beautiful day
I've got a beautiful feelin'
Everything's goin' my way

And further thoughts -- that there are so many variations of feelings, and sometimes thinking about them makes it even better!

But I would say that the consideration of happiness is very important, and any kind of furtherance of Epicureanism will depend upon how we present our ideas of happiness, what happiness is, and how to increase happiness.