Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

no absolute basis for ethics - that everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain

I feel the need to say something in response to this (and we must have a thread on this already) -- no absolute basis for ethics means that we don't do things to please God or to attempt to prove that we are perfectly behaving according to some ideal standard, but instead we act ethically because it brings pleasure and a happy life. And we make ethical choices based on pleasure and pain -- not just my own pleasure or avoidance of pain, but that if I cause pain in someone else it will usually (but yet not always in every case) result in more pain for myself. Now we can go a step further and apply a kind of heuristic which is that we will more quickly guess (or sense) whether or not we are causing pain to someone, and then be sure to avoid any behavior that might cause pain. The usual impulse is when a human feels pain then a reaction results, as we naturally seek to find a way to end the pain, whether or not the method found to end the pain actually works or not. So if I hurt you in some way, even if it is by accident, then you look around to see who or what hurt you (and then you react in myriad ways in response).

I just think that this ethical understanding needs to be clear. Any thoughts Cassius?

Quote from Pacatus

Why is some further organization/organizing needed? Or wanted? How organized is the Garden supposed to be (e.g., to meet modern needs)?

Pacatus it sounds like your focus is on presentation of the Epicurean philosophy, and so this forum is a good way to do that. Would it be correct to say that your desire could be for learning (or sharing); maintaining reference material or literature of some kind; and mainly for sharing the philosophy through written word? And currently this most often occurs in an anonymous format, as we have readers who visit this site who are not members of the forum.

As for myself, I would like to see more social engagement -- both online and potentially in-person, because I have a desire for more social connection and conversation. I don't know if there are any others who feel this way?

Quote from Cassius

Once you're clear that there is no life after death and no supernatural gods and no absolute basis for ethics - that everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain -- that is a very clearly-denominated world view in itself that is more than sufficient to be a basis for "organization" in a world that is very hostile to those ideas.

Belief in these tenets (as listed above) would determine entry into the fellowship (no life after death; no supernatural gods; no absolute basis for ethics (everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain).

Yet, I think there will need to be additional substance to organize around -- the importance of friendship and community within the organization. And this could be expressed through specific "rituals" -- we could celebrate everyone's birthday, we could celebrate holidays together (and need to think about what holidays we might hold as important?). And we could find ways to bring together people within the organization who have common interests, focusing on shared enjoyments such as enjoyment of nature, enjoyment of cooking, enjoyment of study/teaching of philosophy, etc, etc -- so we could create friendship peer groups or affinity groups within the organization which might have monthly meetings to share fun events focused on that particular interest. While of course the 20th would always be reserved for the larger organization meeting.

Thinking further about organization names:

Koinonia of Epicurus

or

Fellowship of Epicurus

Thank you Don for sharing those links, which brings up an important point: the word "Epicurean" is associated with food, and culinary arts/culinary professionals.

So what do you think that means for us moving forward? Does it seem that the word "Epicurean" in some sense is already taken to mean something different. Even if we say "Epicurean Philosophy" the common person will think "Food Philosophy"?

Do we need to use a name that is vastly different?

-- The Society of Volitionary Philosophy

or

-- The Society of Volitionary Enjoyment

It's not that we are trying to convert the whole world, but rather just add a few new friends that most likely already think the way that we do.

And do we want to continue with the "Epicurean" word and be seen as simply food related?

To start the ball rolling...just throwing out some of my ideas.

Who we are?

We share a common world-view based on Epicurean philosophy, and see the world through materialism (a non-supernatural world). We take personal responsibilty as the basis of our choices and avoidances. In life we prudently seek to increase pleasure, and choose ethical and practical actions which lead to a pleasant and happy life.

What might we hope for in Epicurean community?

We hope for a community of friends to join in the study of Epicurean philosophy, and engage in discussion and contemplation of Epicurean principles. We hope to create a place where supportive friendships of like-minded people can develop and be enjoyed.

I am using the word "we" instead of "I" because I want to see a big picture of what community might look like, and also what it is that we all might agree on.

If you think of different phrasing, more to add, or different ideas, please post.

This is a thread to explore ideas about organizing and developing Epicurean community. Any one can add any thoughts or ideas about this.

Who are we?

What do we need or want?

What are we hoping for?

Here is an interesting article excerpt:

Quote

What defines a community?

As long as there have been people, there have been communities. People are social animals. In every human civilization groups of people have organised themselves into tribes or societies. A large part of our self-image is derived from the social groups that we are part of. This is where we want to fit in and what gives us self-confidence, comfort, motivation, inspiration and purpose. We all belong to various different communities: Your neighbourhood, sports club, hobby club, student group, work colleagues.

So, what defines a community?

Bind defines community like this:

Quote

“A community is a group of people with common characteristics, such as background, ambitions or interests, who gather in a physical or virtual location to talk to each other or do things together.”

Social psychologists David McMillan and David Chavis describe a sense of community as:

Quote

“A feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together.”

They argue that without clearly defined membership, an exchange of influence, fulfillment of needs, and a shared emotional connection, it’s fair to assume that the strength of community amongst a group is pretty weak.

Here is what we at Open Social think are characteristics of a true community:

• Members have common characteristics, such as background, ambitions or interests
• Working towards a common interest or goal
• “Mutualistic symbioses”: Members enter in to a social contract of give & take which is beneficial for everyone
• Members have longer-term connections
• Members join voluntarily
• Community is all about enabling connections and many-to-many communication
• It can exist in a physical or virtual location

Unfortunately, social media has contributed to an inflation of the term ‘community’ being used to describe any scenario in which people congregate online. Facebook for instance uses the term community to position its platform as a valuable instrument for a better society, even though it often leads to polarizing its members instead of bringing them together. There are lots of companies that throw around the term community, using it to describe their customers and audience regardless of whether or not there’s an actual deep sense of community amongst the people they’re referring to. Marketers love titles like Community Manager, while in practice their job usually entails broadcasting branded messages from a social media channel to an audience. The word community is thrown around without much thought for its actual meaning.

The Six Types of Communities

To understand communities better, we can categorize them into 6 community types, each with a different common denominator among participants.

What we at Open Social like about using these types is that it forces us to take the community member point of view and think about the purpose of the community, which helps when defining your community strategy and objectives. Working with community types helps us and our clients better understand the unique needs and drivers of members and the common goal towards which they are contributing.

We can identify these six types of communities, each with a different common denominator among participants:

A Community of Action is all about mobilizing volunteers as a movement to jointly make a change in the world

A Community of Practice consists of professionals sharing knowledge and skills, and learning together.

A Community of Circumstance consists of people in the same life stage or circumstance sharing tips & support.

A Community of Place consists of people living or working in the same geographical area, like residential areas, the local bar or a public space, like a park or library.

A Community of Interest consists of people sharing the same interest or passion, always comprising a passion, hobby or interest shared by participants.

A Support Community consists of people helping each other, usually non-professional and non-material, with a particular shared question or problem.

It is good to note that this classification provides theoretical handles for understanding different communities. In daily practice, the different types often bleed into each other or are combined.

Also, groups within a community can be of different types. You might have a Community of Interest to discuss hobbies or a Community of Place with members from one city, country or region within a scientific Community of Practice in which professionals are sharing knowledge.

https://www.getopensocial.com/blog/community…munity-are-you/

Display More

In the future we could become a registered non-profit, but we need to clarify what it is we are doing and what we want to see happen within our Epicurean community.

Also perhaps we have differing viewpoints or ideas about what we want?

Who are we?

What do we need or want?

What are we hoping for?

Need to start the ball rolling about talking about these questions, so that we can move beyond our virtual community.

So if anyone has any thoughts or ideas in response to this please post them

This has good info:

Ancient Greek cuisine - Wikipedia

Quote

Barley was more demanding than wheat. Barley preparations were nutricious but also rather hard to diggest. This is why barley was toasted over a fire before it was ground into flour. Barley flour (alfita) was used to prepare a very basic type of bread, the maza, which is first mentioned by Hesiod (Works and Days):

Grain

The gift of the goddess Demeter

cycladic.gr

About the grinding of grains:

"Grinding the grain was no easy task. First it was pounded with a pestle and mortar to remove the shell, then ground in a simple hand mill consisting of two circular stones, a lower stationary one (quern) and an upper rotating one (muller). Later hand mills have a central hole (hopper) for pouring the grain in the upper one. The flour was then sieved and used to make the dough, which was baked in wood-burning ovens.

Bread was made at home and was an important time-consuming and laborious chore for women. Large urban centers also had bakeries, where one could buy bread maza (a kind of barley bread), but this was a luxury..."

This seems to say that the barley grains were roasted and then ground into flour:

Romans in Britain - Recipe for Maza (Barley Cake)

Ancient recipe for Maza (Barley Cake)

www.romanobritain.org

So great see your experiment Don -- and just found this -- tried to copy and paste recipe but wasn't able to for some reason. Be sure to scroll down past the covid introduction. Also it has some odd historical facts about ancient rituals which come before the recipe (which needs more research) -- so you have to scroll down the page quite a ways -- but the end result looks beautiful paired with cheese and figs.

Bread for the Gods: Pharmakos Barley Cakes with Cheese and Figs

A pestilence is sweeping our land. The gods are pissed. It's time to take this situation into our own hands with an ancient Greek sacrifice. Be gone,…

tavolamediterranea.com

Quote

“For my part I find no meaning which I can attach to what is termed good, if I take away from it the pleasures obtained by taste, if I take away the pleasures which come from listening to music, if I take away too the charm derived by the eyes from the sight of figures in movement, or other pleasures by any of the senses in the whole man. Nor indeed is it possible to make such a statement as this – that it is joy of the mind which is alone to be reckoned as a good; for I understand by a mind in a state of joy, that it is so, when it has the hope of all the pleasures I have named – that is to say the hope that nature will be free to enjoy them without any blending of pain.” And this much he says in the words I have quoted, so that anyone you please may realize what Epicurus understands by pleasure. (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, III.18.41)

Cassius --It does seem to be listed, and maybe this is the only location?

Quote from Kalosyni

In other words the highest form of sensual pleasure (at it's height) will also be free from mental pain (we will be free from worry and fear).

Also, this has to do with a certain segment in time -- it isn't going to be at every moment of every day -- But rather it will unfold depending on a given situation. Ideally we will experience some parts of our day in this way -- we will have the experience of situations that feel very sweet and enjoyable.

Quote from Cassius

If "freedom from pain" amounts to the highest sensual pleasure, would you expect that "freedom from pain" or "freedom from disturbance" could just as easily have been listed among these (taste / sex / sound / dance) that Epicurus chose to list? If so, why? If not, why not?

Just to clarify -- I am not saying that when you don't feel pain that is exactly the same as pleasure. What I am saying is that if you have some pain mixed into your experience of sensuality then you are not yet experiencing the most pleasurable sensuality. The best experience of sensuality doesn't have pain mixed in to it.

I am basing this on contemplation of the experience of feeling in the body as it arises. So I don't have any direct Epicurean source for this idea.

But I believe that this is important to think about because I believe that this could be at the source of something getting lost in translation. The goal isn't a kind of "boring existence" of neutral feeling in the body which doesn't have pain and therefore qualifies as a state of pleasantness. But the goal is maximizing the sweetest sensations of pleasure by seeing that we haven't yet reached the "purest" feeling of pleasure if we are also still feeling pain in the body (over-indulgences) or the mind (anxiety/fear).

I don't think I expressed clearly enough in the podcast that removal of pain is the beginning or start of pleasure, and when the experience of pleasure has no mixed-in or co-existing feelings of pain then this is the pinnacle of pleasure and at this pinnacle we are living as the gods. In other words the highest form of sensual pleasure (at it's height) will also be free from mental pain (we will be free from worry and fear).

Here is an interesting link to diet in ancient Greece:

Ancient Recipe: Ptisane [Barley Water] (Greek, at least 5th century BCE)

“[Barley] groats belong to the wheat family. They have juice that is quite nourishing and tenacious.” ~ Aelius Galenus (Galen), De alimentorum facultatibus (On…

passtheflamingo.com

Quote from Don

Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all

Epicurus said not to think this way, so guessing it must have been common enough for it to be mentioned.

I found this article:

A philosophy as old as Homer : Giacomo Leopardi and Greek poetic pessimism

A philosophy as old as Homer : Giacomo Leopardi and Greek poetic pessimism

Here is another good entry on Cyrenaic philosophy from online Britannica:

Quote

Cyrenaic, adherent of a Greek school of moral philosophy, active around the turn of the 3rd century bc, which held that the pleasure of the moment is the criterion of goodness and that the good life consists in rationally manipulating situations with a view to their hedonistic (or pleasure-producing) utility.

The school was called Cyrenaic because Cyrene in North Africa was the centre of its activity and the birthplace of several of its members. Although the elder Aristippus, a pupil of Socrates, was generally recognized as its founder, its flourishing occurred at a later date, probably at the end of the 4th century bc.

According to the Cyrenaics, a man knows that things external to himself exist because they have an effect upon him, but he can know nothing about their nature. All that he can perceive is the way in which he himself is affected by them; how other men are affected is unknown. The fact that two men give the same name to their experiences is no guarantee of identity. Thus, the only admissible objective of action is to ensure that one’s own affections are pleasant. The three possible conditions of the human constitution are violent change, gentle change, and stability. The first is accompanied by pain, the second by pleasure, the last by neither. Man must avoid the first and seek the second; it is a mistake to suppose that the third is pleasant or desirable. Moreover, the pleasure to be sought is that of the moment; only present experience can give present pleasure. Happiness, the sum of pleasures, is to be valued because it includes momentary pleasures, which are like in kind, their relative value depending only on their intensity. Bodily pleasures (and pains) are more intense than those of the mind. Nevertheless, the latter were recognized and even held to include some that have an altruistic aspect; e.g., joy in the prosperity of one’s country. To be stronger than pleasure is a true Socratic ideal and distinguishes the Cyrenaic from the wastrel.

Three Cyrenaics made innovations important enough to give their names to followers. Theodorus denied that pleasures and pains are good or bad. His aim was mental cheerfulness and the gift of wisdom, which he considered sufficient for happiness. Hegesias, like Theodorus, doubted the power of reason to procure pleasures and so advised avoidance of pain; much pain of mind could be avoided by regarding such things as poverty and riches, slavery and freedom, death and life as matters of indifference. Finally, Anniceris revived the original doctrines with some additions.

The ethical doctrines of the later Cyrenaics were, in due time, incorporated bodily into the teachings of Epicurus, founder of a later school of ethical philosophy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cyrenaic

Display More

With all this good material, I am thinging a table of comparisons could be created.

I think I better add in here that if a person interprets the Epicurean principles to be "tranquility is the goal" (as it appears that the above blogger J. Crago does) then it will appear that there are more differences between the ethical Epicurean and Cyrenaic teachings. There are however more differences between the epistemology of each one, than the ethical. I think it would be right to say that Cyrenaic leans toward skeptical and Epicureanism is empirical.

Here on this forum we use the Epicurean principles and interpret the "why" of pleasure to lead to our goal of the fullness of pleasure. And so we wouldn't agree with some of the points that J. Crago put forth on Epicureanism.

It does seem that Cyrenaic philosophy puts more emphasis on pleasure in the present compared to Epicureanism.

This also by Jordan Crago:

Quote

...Aristippus prided himself on his mastery over the pleasures he indulged, ensuring that he never made the mistake of believing a particular source of pleasure to be essential to his happiness, which allowed him to forego it if needed. For example, Aristippus said that he possessed the infamous courtesan Laïs, but that he was not possessed by her, and that “what is best is not abstaining from pleasures, but instead controlling them without being controlled.” This ability to indulge pleasure but also forego it, for example, if it will ultimately bring you greater pain in its wake, brought Aristippus a sense of freedom and self-mastery.

Like later Cyrenaics, Aristippus held that bodily pleasure was greater than mental pleasure. This seems plausible, for who would argue that the memory of fine food rivals the eating of fine food in enjoyment? Nevertheless, Aristippus put great stock by the avoidance of mental suffering. Indeed, part of Aristippus’ teaching on never becoming dependent on a particular source of pleasure, which is to say, seeing them as essential to your happiness, has to do with avoiding the distress you would feel if you lost that pleasure.

...The next Cyrenaic virtue I’ll discuss is temperance, which Aristippus defines as disdaining excess. The following letter written by Aristippus to his daughter illustrates Cyrenaic temperance. He is advising his daughter on how to react to the local government threatening to seize her properties: “I instruct you to manage this business with the rulers in such a way that my advice benefits you. That advice was not to desire what is excessive. In this way you’ll live out your life in the best fashion, if you’re disdainful of every excess. Those men will never wrong you so much that you’ll be in want, since you still have the two orchards, and they suffice even for a luxurious life. Even if only the property in Berenice were left, it wouldn’t fail to support an excellent lifestyle.”

Aristippus reminds his daughter that although she will lose some land, she will still have some left, and what remains is sufficient for a luxurious lifestyle. Now, for those of us who own no property, this anecdote isn’t enormously relatable. However, Aristippus does insist that “Those men will never wrong you so much that you’ll be in want”, which implies that even if the government seized all her properties, rather than just some, she would still have enough to be happy.

What Aristippus is implying, I think, is that although luxuries add spice to happiness, they are not ultimately essential to it. Another anecdote supports this idea: “Since you share this pleasant lifestyle with those women, let the officials in Cyrene wrong you as much as they want: they won’t wrong you with respect to your natural end”. This reminds me very much of Epicureanism, which is unsurprising since Epicurus was so influenced by the Cyrenaics.

In particular, I’m reminded of the Epicurean distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires. Some desires are necessary to the pleasant life, for example, one’s basic bio-psychological needs (food, water, shelter, friends), but others are unnecessary to the pleasant life, i.e. desires for luxuries. For Epicurus as for Aristippus, I suggest, luxuries add variety to the pleasant life, but one could still live pleasantly without them. The difference being, of course, that Epicurus taught voluntary asceticism from luxuries, whereas Aristippus taught controlled indulgence of them.

Thus, we might say that to desire excess is to desire what you cannot have. The importance of disdaining excess lay in the danger of undermining enjoyment in what you have available to you by replacing it with unhappy longing and toiling for what you don’t have, which is hedonistically irrational. Disdaining excess, then, offers an antidote to the unnecessary unhappiness of those who have everything they need to be happy — basic needs and, for most people, a ton of luxuries to boot — but who nevertheless make themselves unhappy by desiring what can’t be had.

https://jordancrago.medium.com/how-to-be-a-cyrenaic-d6b06041beb0

Display More

Just adding this in here, as it has some usefullness. And to further see how this is beneficial:

When a particular thing that we want is very difficult or impossible to get or we have lost something that we thought was very pleasurable and can no longer get it, then we may feel angry or sad (and also may begin to feel feelings of hopelessness) -- then we need to survey the situation and see some important truths about happiness -- that our own happiness doesn't depend on just one thing -- happiness comes from multiple sources. So we can then stop "knocking our head against a wall" with regard to a certain thing that we want and can't get -- and not be so uptight about it. Further down the line we may decide that it is still something to put effort into achieving, and we can go about it clear-headed. Or we may simply see that we really don't need that thing as much as we thought we did, and so creatively pursue other enjoyments in life.

I think it is important to remember that this isn't the easiest to impliment -- there may be a feeling of internal resistence (I want what I want, no matter what!). But unlike Buddhism (which appears to me to teach "letting go, doing nothing, and having no further desires") I see this as different in that we are active and seek out new pleasure and enjoyments to replace what we can't have or have lost. So the emphasis is on personal responsibility and freedom -- making choices and taking actions that lead to enjoyment and happiness.