New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
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.
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)
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.
If found this on "anticipations" from another thread:
The passage : <<First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words ((important note : CONCEPTS ATTACHED TO WORDS)), in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning ((important note : we have to be CAREFUL NOT USING WORDS DEVOID OF MEANING)).
There is a whole lot of interesting ideas and questions coming up in this thread, starting with questions on understanding the canon. (But also includes other issues in post 11. Cassius then adds in a few more good questions about the goal of life according to Epicureanism, which gets me wanting to comment on that too, but first wanting to deal with the canon.)
For myself, I need to first understanding the meaning of "anticipations" -- where is that in the Letter to Herodotus? How do you more clearly define it? Are "anticipations" what we see/imagine in our mind's eye? Or am I incorrect on thinking that?
Some very good ideas from an article on fun:
psychologist Mike Rucker makes the case that pursuit of fun experiences may be even more valuable than seeking the sometimes abstract goal of happiness.
"Happiness is a state of mind," Rucker writes. "But fun is something you can do. It doesn't require education, money or power. All it requires is intentionality. If happiness is a mirage, fun is your backyard oasis."
*****
"Happiness is really an evaluation," ... You are constantly asking yourself what is going right and what is going wrong. It can become a trap,..."
I found this very good article on increasing fun, which has practical tips.
Real fun usually involves sensory experiences and, often, interactions with other people.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/04/1150518287/fun-play-happiness-stress-reduction
Diogenes of Oinoanda doesn't help to clear up things for me, because it doesn't saying what it means by happiness.
Thinking further on this, off the top of my head:
-- "happiness" is a feeling of enjoyment that comes when we experience pleasure, and this feeling comes and goes depending on the situation.
-- "happiness" can also be thought of as something encompassing a longer period of time (for example looking back over the past year and also projecting onto future months) -- when you feel pleased and when things are going well in your life. (And so I still stick with the idea of it being an internal story (basically if you tell yourself if you are satisfied and generally enjoying how your life is unfolding).
According to Diogenes of Oinoanda, the virtues are the means to find happiness in life:
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.
-----So now, I would say that this actually isn't the whole picture and is missing things which are in the Principal Doctrines -- a happy life (which entails more pleasure than pain), requires prudence in choices, and also other factors (a secure future, freedom from fears of death/God, supportive friendships, and self-sufficiency (which I would apply now in modern times as being having a good job in which you are free to make the needed choices to do what you need to do. I have read that not having freedom to make decisions in the workplace can be very frustrating).
This leads me to the thought that happiness is, perhaps, a static mental pleasure.
It does seem that everyone has their own subjective idea about what happiness is.
I'd say physical health and pleasure aren't necessarily necessary for happiness,
Chronic pain can lead to depression. Pleasure is a natural by-poduct of activities such as eating food, regardless of feeling "happy". So happiness is something else beyond pleasure.
and Torqatus thought there were talking to when they ended up emphasizing almost the exact words of "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure."
I was just thinking about how there is something in that "On Ends" which says that Epicurus was the masterbuilder of the life of happiness.
There's an answer for us to how to balance these terms, but why is there an issue with other people not understanding that they go hand in hand and are not in conflct? Why do people see a conflict between happiness and pleasure? And what's the most direct way to get them to see that they are mistaken in presuming that there is a conflict? What's the key to unwinding that perceived discomfort?
The conflict is about what does the word "pleasure" mean, and what does the word "happiness" mean. It may not be possible to have everyone agree about what these words mean.
If I understand correctly, Kalosyni 's quote above is related to Don 's description of a background state of happy homeostasis.
Hmmm...I wasn't thinking about homestasis when I wrote my post earlier (and need to go back to see what Don said about that).
Is there a "recipe" for how to make happiness? (the following things are needed for happiness):
--Both physical and mental pleasures
--Assurance of security in the future (basic necessities and safety)
--Freedom from fear of death and God(s)
--Physical health
So...this means that pleasure is easier to get than happiness.
In fact, I was thinking that the Tetrapharmakos should be this:
Don't fear God
Don't worry about death
Pleasure in life is easy to experience
Pain in life can be endured through the addition of pleasure
Riffing on some ideas coming up after reading previous comments.
Happiness can be an internal story you are using to explain the meaning of the pleasures you are experiencing.
Yet, happiness is also considered a feeling -- when it is vicerally felt in the the body as an extention of relief or pleasure.
A happy life is assumed to be a life full of good experiences, and we would assume that there is a great number of pleasurable experiences (both physical and mental) that happen in a happy life.
Consider the following questions and any likely situations when these questions are asked:
"Are you happy?"
"Are you enjoying yourself?"
"Does this feel good?"
A happy life can still feel happy even when immediate pleasure isn't occuring, and I think that it really points to "happiness" being mostly an internal story about whether or not we are feeling pleased about the way our life is currently unfolding.
Is it true that: You can't have a happy life without pleasure, but you could can have pleasure even if you aren't having a happy life?
It seems that we need both pleasure and happiness.
We have this from Epicurean Philosophy:
"Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness." PD 52
And this PD can work as a visual definition of happiness.
(visual as in before the internal eyes)
I dance therefore I am.
ou want to find a good dentist, parking spot, decent job, a cemetery plot, resolution to a business conflict, even a legal dispute - you simply need friends. And your friends know this. This means your daily routine is to collect and dish out favours.
That situaltion is very interesting (and I would wonder perhaps people were not very close friends). And doesn't sound very fun.
Here in the US when I lived in Oregon, I was part of a Buddhist Zen group. It was through knowing people there that I found a studio apartment (converted garage in a house). And a few other things with which I got help, just by mentioning my problem, people gave good suggestions. So being part of a religious community has a benefit, founded on mutual support arising from common religious beliefs, and others become a kind of second family. So I think it could have been somewhat like this for Epicureans back in the past.
Even if we find the accurate description of what social dynamic Epicurus implied in his definition of friendship to conclude that it is an essential element of a pleasant life, chances are, that social dynamic is no longer replicable in modern times. There is still academic benefit in researching the meaning of friendship in antiquity.
I actually envision it to be very similar to what I experienced in the Buddhist community that I was a part of. The problem was that I came to realize that Buddhist philosophy didn't work anymore for me, so it didn't make sense for me to continue with the community.
The community had a core group who did much of the work of making things run efficiently (a board of directors, teachers, and Zen priests/trainees). And then two other levels of involvement which I would call intermediate/dedicated students. And then the newer students or occasional attendees. And there were times to study together and times to celebrate with community meals and movie nights.
Well, it comes down to where you decide if you're going to trust the manuscript and use λεπτότητα "elegance" or whether you're going to correct the scribe like Bailey and Usener and substitute λιτότης "limit".
This got me wondering about the history of the manuscript, and I found this on Wikipedia:
There are many extant manuscripts of the Lives, although none of them are especially old, and they all descend from a common ancestor, because they all lack the end of Book VII.[25] The three most useful manuscripts are known as B, P, and F. Manuscript B (Codex Borbonicus) dates from the 12th century, and is in the National Library of Naples.[a] Manuscript P (Paris) is dated to the 11th/12th century, and is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.[27] Manuscript F (Florence) is dated to the 13th century, and is in the Laurentian Library.[28] The titles for the individual biographies used in modern editions are absent from these earliest manuscripts, however they can be found inserted into the blank spaces and margins of manuscript P by a later hand.[29]
There seem to have been some early Latin translations, but they no longer survive. A 10th-century work entitled Tractatus de dictis philosophorum shows some knowledge of Diogenes.[30] Henry Aristippus, in the 12th century, is known to have translated at least some of the work into Latin, and in the 14th century an unknown author made use of a Latin translation for his De vita et moribus philosophorum[30] (attributed erroneously to Walter Burley).
Welcome to the forum Adrian 
Wow, Don amazing investigation and translation work.
In an above post I quoted a Greer translation, and I should mention what Greer says in his prologue -- that he used the translations of others: Bailey, vod der Muehll, Usner, and Hicks, and that is it "not so much a translation as a paraphrase".
So we probably should be careful with "translations" like this?
