Quote from Cassius

Diogenes of Oinoanda Fr. 32... [the latter] being as malicious as the former.I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now.If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.

Not only do we need to understand the word pleasure, but also "virtues" and "happiness" -- as then how do you know you are happy? Is happiness a kind of feeling of pleasure? And then what virtues lead to that feeling?

So this brings up questions for me. Because it would make more sense to say that virtues lead to satisfaction.

We would never say that virtues lead to sex, drinking, and fine food.

For example, if I substituted a word in the follow sentence:

I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that satisfaction is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.

This makes more sense to me. I'm curious to hear what others think?

Quote from Cassius

There is no "non-violence principle" in Epicurean philosophy...

Quote from Cassius

I would argue that there are no such absolute principles in Epicurean philosophy of any kind - there are simply sets of circumstances which you must navigate and ask yourself always "What will happen if I engage in this course and what will not."

There is no absolute morality of any kind in Epicurus other than that Nature gives all living things the goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. There are no absolute rights and wrongs that apply to humans any more than in the animal world, where killing is a way of life.

There are many absolute ideals that are created in society which have a skewed approach to Nature's goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. For example: there is a kind of rule (but not a law) of "don't wear your shirt backwards" and you could say that doing so doesn't cause much pain to yourself or to others. Then there are religious rules such as for Christians it is "wrong to have sex before marriage". These two I think are skewed (or off) in that they point to moving toward pleasure and avoiding pain, but only in rare circumstances.

Then moving to laws of the land which are firmly established: is it wrong to kill a person unless there is some extreme case of self-defense. I would assert that this should be held as an "absolute law" but it exists because of the rational thinking mind and it is based on Nature's goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. Knowing that if someone were to try to kill me, that it would be very terrible and very painful and something I would not want, then I take on the idea of this as something to not do -- so this is the "golden rule". (The golden rule is do unto others as you would have done unto you or don't do what you wouldn't want done unto you).

Then going further there is the "platinum rule" which is a variation of the "golden rule". Following the "platinum rule" means thinking about and checking with people to know how the people around you would want to be treated. The platinum rule asks that you: "Do unto others as they would want to be done unto them." But again this is all about Nature's goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and thinking about and checking in to see what others would want.

I would say that the Epicurean "moral path" or the best way to live, is to consider one's actions carefully, because if you cause harm to others, then that leads to many bad results 1) the harmed person will seek justice. 2) there will be a loss of trust, because others will no longer trust you. 3) if you do things repeatedly which harm others, then you could create habits of acting or thinking which eventually will catch up with you (as in the previous two points). So the Epicurean is motivated by what creates the best life, and not by some abstract rule of right or wrong.

Quote from Kungi

Not everyone speaks ancient greek :-D.

Me neither -- I just compare various translations and then intuitively choose what makes the most sense to me.

Here is another translation of PD5 (St. Andre):

Please join us again Wednesday night at 8:30pm ET, for our weekly Epicurean Philosophy Zoom Meeting!

This week we will be discussing PD16. New attendees are always welcome to join -- if you are a forum member send a message to me, and we will get the Zoom link to you. If you a non-member forum reader you can get the link by email by using Eventbrite to register.

"Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure."

and...

"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."

So from this, when one is aware of physical or mental pain then one treats it with a pleasure which removes the pain.

Pains which are physical: hunger, thirst, being too cold or too hot, feeling sleepy, feeling the need to stretch, walk or exercise, needing sexual release

Pains of the mind: worry, fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, loneliness, boredom, etc.

(Wondering if maybe we need to move some of these posts to a new thread, since this was originally a thread for Kungi.)

Yes, that diagram is based on the following:

Quote

Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless [note]; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness, some for physical health [note], and some for life itself. The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life. Our every action is done so that we will not be in pain or fear. As soon as we achieve this, the soul is released from every storm, since an animal has no other need and must seek nothing else to complete the goodness of body and soul. Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure.

ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί, καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον· τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν. [128] τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ πάντα πράττομεν, ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν. ὅταν δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται, λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμών, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς ἐνδέον τι καὶ ζητεῖν ἕτερον ᾧ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἀγαθὸν συμπληρώσεται. τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· <ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν> οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα.

This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of a completely happy life. For we recognize it as the primary and innate good, we honor it in everything we accept or reject, and we achieve it if we judge every good thing by the standard of how that thing affects us [note]. 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.

Letter to Menoikos, by Epicurus

It would all depend on what is considered necessary for happiness.

Welcome Kungi!

Quote from Kungi

What is virtue for an epicurean?

This is a good question, and I agree with what the others have said so far.

It also brings up the idea of actually listing (on one's own, for oneself) what virtues lead to pleasure and a pleasant life. This should be a kind of simple common sense list, and it may be worth some contemplation. This list would be based on what leads to the best outcome for the overall most pleasant life. I would say thinking about this will bring one to think rationally, justly, and wisely when moving through life.

As for my own studies, I have been focusing on the Principle Doctrines, the Vatican Sayings, and the Letter to Menoeceus. (And wanting to eventually study more closely the Diogenes Wall of Oinoanda, the "wise man" list within Diogenes Laertius Book X, as well as "unpack" the Torquatus section of Cicero's "On Ends".)

Also an important interpretation regarding pleasure -- to remember "it is not the pleasures of the profligate" (letter to Menoeceus) AND "no pleasure is bad, but some lead to much worse pains" (PD8). And here one might want to contemplate what would be considered to be excessive and also what would bring longterm pains -- some things are obvious and others may just be a matter of trial and error. I would say that there is no one-size-fits-all "absolute rule" list, because wisdom comes from thinking these things through for oneself -- though a friend might speak privately to another good friend about these things if a particular situation comes up requiring it (not in judgment, but out of caring and compassion).

Good luck in your continued Epicurean studies!

I like Don's translation: " Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach."

The above article ("Retrospectives: What Did the Ancient Greeks Mean by "Oikonomia?") linked at the top of this thread, is very good a shedding some light on the meaning of this. Here are some excerpts:

Quote

A summary of Stoic and "Peripatetic" (meaning "Aristotelian") economic though by Arius Didymus was saved, as well as treaties dedicated to economics by members of the Pythagorean (Callicratidas), Stoic (Hierocles), and Epicurean (Philodemus) schools.

By and large, these texts were addressing male citizens who headed well-to-do households and adhered to the values of the landed gentry. This meant that, on top of uncritical acceptance of enslavement and the subjection of women already mentioned, a valorization of self-sufficiency of the household (autarky) and a degree of scorn about market trading infused these works.

*****

In the writings of the ancient Greeks, the life of the head of the household--the oikodesptes who was the addressee of these texts--was conducted in three dimensions: the spiritual realm of of philosophy, the heroic realm of politics, and the economic realm. The role of the economic dimension was to secure the means necessary for existence and to generate a surplus that sustained the two other dimensions that were deemed worthy of man. This could be done in two ways: either by increasing production or by moderating consumption.

*****

Economic theory distinguished between four different possible ethical dispositions (corresponding to philosophical life, political life, luxurious life, and economic life). It discussed the surplus generated by the economy and the means suited to achieve what was deemed the best ethical disposition.

*****

Modern economists hold that means are scarce. However, the ancient Greeks saw nature as potentially capable of satisfying all of man's needs if economized rationally (for example from Aristotle, see Polanyi 1968, pp. 98-9, in Epicurean and Cynic economics, see Tsouna 2007, pp. 178-80). Moreover, nature was assumed to provide for much more than man's needs, and thus a limit had to be placed on engagement in wealth generation that might otherwise lead men to lose sight of the good life. The need to set a limit to indulgence in wealth generation on the one hand, and the threat of submerging oneself in a luxurious life on the other, meant that nature was seen not just as the means to sustain humanity abundantly, but also excessively.

Display More

Epicurus would have studied and known the other existing philosophies, and it would be interesting so be clear about how his views were either similar or different than Aristotelian views -- especially regarding natural, necessary, and unnatural.

In the article jumping to the section on "Abundance, Surplus, and Economic Rationality" which starts on page 230, brings up Aristotle views about these terms.

Will post more on this later.

I found this article, which may shed some light on Epicurean principles. I can see now from the few pages I started reading that this can help with understanding historical context and meaning. For example when we see the phrase "self-sufficiency" it most likely refers to the complete economic self-sufficiency of a household (which is very different than our current times). Also it explains the ancient idea that nature supplies an abundance (which also is very different than how we see things in modern times). And that back in ancient times there was the idea that a very large surplus could easily be had, and could led to pursuit of unnecessary desires (desires of grave excess). The article in a few places brings up Epicureanism and also gives references to other articles by others such as Voula Tsouna. (I only got a few pages in but looks like something maybe Don and Godfrey might like).

Retrospectives: What Did the Ancient Greeks Mean by "Oikonomia?"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43710018

I thought this was an interesting read, about the differences between Greek and Roman clothing:

Quote

“Now wait a minute,” you might say. “How is the enkyklon different from a toga?” After all, a flat bedsheet is the fabric of choice for many attending toga parties in movies. The primary difference between togas and enkykla lies in the shape. While enkykla were rectangular, togas were semicircular, which is what gave them the wonderful drape and folds you can see on the stone versions worn by ancient statues.

The Truth About Togas

To many people, togas are synonymous with ancient Greece. The only problem? Togas aren’t Greek.

pieceworkmagazine.com

Quote from DavidN

'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!'

This idea from Nietzsche perplexes me. There is something "dark" in this that I can't quite place, and something not particulary helpful, at least for me. The "eternal return" makes sense when reminiscing pleasant or enjoyable experiences, but not for unpleasant events. I think we must choose our actions wisely, due to our understanding of what will bring the best future outcome, but if there is some kind of mistake we have made or some terrible event that happens, then we need to work through that is a much different way than what the eternal return suggests.

Quote from reneliza

The one thing I do agree with the author on, is that the "neutral" affect, if it exists at all, need not be experienced neutrally. My thoughts are that "neutral" states are valenced by our perspective (not necessarily only fleeting momentary moods), which is why an Epicurean can experience hedonic pleasure from them,

Thank you reneliza, I started reading the article and it looks good, and brings up some important ideas. Also, as I get older I am noticing that I now have "neutral" feelings with regard to some things which in the past used to create a tremendous positive affect. And reading this article may help me understand, as well as feel okay about that neutrality.

Here is an excerpt about how the author of the article defines neutral affect.

"We define neutral affect as feeling indifferent, nothing in particular, and a lack of preference one way or the other. Note, when we use the term “indifferent,” we do not use it to indicate disliking something because that would imply a negative rather than a neutral reaction. It also is important to keep in mind that neutral affect could, theoretically, co-occur with positive and/or negative affect."

".....Additionally, it is important to point out that neutral affect is distinct from other nonvalenced states, such as feeling numb or shocked."

I especially like the phrase: "a lack of preference one way or the other" as a way to define neutrality.

This thread is a place to post about practical aspects of pleasure and satisfaction, in all things physical and mental.

We've been having a long running thread on kinetic and katastematic pleasure, and I believe it is important to balance "theory" with some practical applications. I found this article on "intuitive eating" which looks to be very helpful:

Eating for Fullness vs. Satisfaction – What’s the Difference?

Quote

It is common to think that knowing how much to eat is about focusing on how full you feel and how to stop eating when you feel that fullness. In reality, though, eating an amount that works well for your body is less about learning to feel your fullness and more about ensuring you’re not getting too hungry or depriving yourself. Finding a place of comfortable fullness comes naturally when your body stops feeling deprived. Beyond this, if we tune into satisfaction, we are much more likely to eat until we feel adequately nourished rather than uncomfortably full. Read on for the difference between fullness vs satisfaction and why satisfaction is known as the “hub” of intuitive eating.

...

As Rachael Hartley, a fellow registered dietitian, explains: “Fullness is the physical sensation of satiety, while satisfaction is the mental sensation of satiety.”

Intuitive Eating: Satisfaction vs. Fullness - What's the Difference?

Understanding a key concept of intuitive eating - satisfaction vs fullness - is key to eating an amount that works well for your body.

alissarumsey.com

I won't know if the tips presented in this article will work until I try them, but I do feel that I need to impliment some new habits in my life with regard to eating, so that I can put a halt on unhealthy weight gain.

If anyone else has any other practical tips or insights, please add them to this thread

Quote from Cassius

Yes it has always been something of a mystery to me too what the Cyreniacs really thought.

There is a chapter which contains comparisons between Epicurus and the Cyreniacs in the book: "Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy" - I skimmed enough to see that it goes into great detail (and it hurts my brain, so may not read it).

Which you can find the link to the PDF of the book here:

Post

RE: Do Pigs Value Katastematic Pleasure? ( Summer 2022 K / K Discussion)

I just found this, and it looks like a worthwhile read, and may be good for those who want a clear presentation of things -- Chapter 7 -- starts with a very clear introduction and then at about 5 pages into it, goes into a comparison of kinetic/kastastematic. I didn't get very far into it, so not sure what his full take on Epicureanism is. (Is this already referenced somewhere on the forum?)

"Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy" by David Wolfsdorf

…

Kalosyni

July 11, 2022 at 10:13 AM

I prefer to keep things simple, though I may come back to diving in deeper into all of this sometime in the future.

For now I would like to think of pleasures as a bouquet of flowers -- everyone has certain flowers that they like better than other flowers and the bouquet is best with a nice mix of flowers -- and everyone is happiest when they are free to choose for themselves which flowers to have in their bouquet. The foundation of the best life is like the water in the flower vase -- we need safety, freedom, self-suffiency, friends, wisdom, peace of mind, good health (these are katastematic?) The flowers are the daily changing pleasures of the sweet life which are a mix of physical and mental pleasures (these are kinetic?)

I feel as if my brain is slightly "under-performing" lately -- I am just barely following this whole discussion.

You've all wrote so much, and now I have to add this, which may not be supported by any texts or writings of Epicurus -- Besides katastematic "calmness" there should be a category for pleasures such as friendship and self-sufficiency (these "goods" could almost fall into the katastematic category). Once you establish either a friendship or self-sufficiency (which I define as the ability to provide basic necessities for yourself, but there could be other definitions) there is a solidity (and it has a static quality which doesn't come and go quickly) and it can be relied upon for pleasure in a much different manner than food and sensual enjoyments.

Quote from Cassius

life is lived moment by moment and there is no "stored up capital" like a Christian might say about storing up treasures in heaven

An Epicurean could adapt this idea metaphorically -- doing what is pleasant, joyful, and pleasurable so that it can be made into good memories for reminiscing about later, and the "heaven" would be the act of talking about shared memories with friends.

Quote from Cassius

these discussions also remind me of what I think is (to me) the most clear and unmistakeable way of referring to pleasure -- as "the guide" of life more so than "the good."

Quote from Cassius

It's like that cliche we hear a lot today about how "the journey is more important than the destination."

Pleasure is an experience --- I'd say that the goal of an Epicurean is to experience a pleasureable life.

A non-Epicurean may be focused on the life goal of getting things and achievements, through the abstraction of "virtue" or "being (or striving to be) a good person" or "excellence" or "rising to the top". But this would not guarantee a happy life. So Epicurus says here is the path that he believes will guarantee a happy life. And also important to consider that virtue still does have a place within Epicureanism, as a tool which leads to a good experience --- to give an analogy: one properly tunes up one's car engine so that the car runs smoothly. And another anology: when playing a guitar one properly tunes the strings for the most pleasant sounds, avoiding over-tightening or under-tightening the strings -- so we "properly tune up our life" so that we don't go through life feeling tense, anxious or frought, or lethargic or sleeping all the time -- and this would be important for the experience of a pleasureable life.

btw -- Cassius, it may be tempting to want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" on this writing by Wolfsdorf, but there still could be something helpful in it.

Please join us again this next Wednesday!

New attendees are also welcome!
Non-member forum readers please read our calendar entry to see how to join the Zoom meeting.

Forum members who haven't previously attended please message me or post here if you are interested in attending.