We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
It's almost like the issue is whether the glass is half full or half empty - is the real focus of Epicurean philosophy Pleasure - or Pain?
I don't think it is satisfactory even to say both.
I think it is both pleasure and pain, because "choices and avoidances" are very important.
According to the Epicurean account of desire, achieving one’s heart’s desire is no better than not having one."
This guy can really turn a phrase. He does a great job highlighting the issues!
These interesting excerpts you've posted Cassius (I haven't read the article yet).
What came to my mind after reading this particular one, was a concept from Hinduism - "Divine Lila (Leela)" - which translates as "Divine Play" and in a very simplified sense could be thought of just as in Shakepeare's quote:
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players"
Ultimately there could be a kernal of truth in "achieving one's heart's desire is no better than not having one" -- yet thinking this way about desire makes life not worth living, and misses the point of making meaning out of life and the human condition ---- The show must go on! We must play the play and engage in life fully. And Epicurus says to make choices wisely -- and my own interpretation is to make choices which lead to a "sweet life" filled with joys of the heart.
This article just proves the importance of needing to explain that the Epicurean aim is to live joyfully. And also the need to define what is a joyful life and how to create one.
We can at one and the same time understand that (1) living in a cave on bread and water may in fact be appropriate under certain circumstances but also (2) that such circumstances and manner of living is not the norm nor should it be accepted as a norm.
This may be outside the orgininal subject matter of this thread, however I feel the need to examine more closely this phrase: "living in a cave on bread and water". I know it represents "asceticism", and that an Epicurean would not choose to live an ascetic lifestyle. Yet what about others who are not yet Epicurean or who are new to Epicureanism -- what would this actually look like? What are the ways in which people try to retreat from civilization?
1) Moving to a remote mountain cabin (or to the desert).
2) Someone who is retired and lives alone choosing to live so frugally that they only leave the house for occassional grocery shopping.
3) Seeking an ascetic spiritual life - moving into a Catholic or Buddhist monastery.
Why would someone choose this for themselves? (I doubt anyone would choose an ascetic lifestyle if they could easily live normally).
1) Lack of finances
2) Social anxiety disorder
3) Spiritual retreat for religious reasons or self-reflection (probably caused by an "existential crisis")
Could there be aspects of Epicureanism which could help people who are considering living as an "ascetic", due to feelings of anxiety, etc? Is it possible that Epicurus had teachings on psychological remedies, and those writings were lost? From Book 10 of Diogenes Laertius we know that he wrote an entire book "Of Choice and Avoidance" (and also other books).
The first two-thirds of this chapter (link in the above post) is very good, and highly recommend it -- it brings forward the idea that food, the table, and social eating was of primary importance in Epicureanism. Some excerpts:
Plutarch would describe the Garden as sharing "common meals" or trapezai, literally, "tables" (Clay 2009, 23). A typical meal of this time and place might open with tasty small dishes, resembling modern mezedes (appetizers). A main course combined sitos (the staple of wheat bread, barley mash, or a pulse) with opson (the relish of fish, meat, vegetable, cheese, or just olive oil). Oinos (wine) was the universal drink, famously taken after the food in a drinking party or symposium.
But our interest is not particularly the food so much as its central importance...
...Radically, Epicurean meals were the deliberate reason and means for philosophizing...
...With the stomach foundational, Epicurus gave integrity to the individual. We shall keep finding, nonetheless, that the individual requirement to eat, and to labor to achieve that, necessitaties conviviality...
...Epicurus was irrepressibly social, advising: "You must reflect carefully beforehand with whom you are to eat and drink, rather than what you are to eat and drink." He went on: "For a dinner of meats without the company of a friend is like the life of a lion or a wolf" (Bailey 1926, 101)
Here is an interesting read I just stumbled upon -- chapter four in a book called "Meals Matter: A Radical Economics Through Gastronomy" by Michael Symons. With this link it appears one can also scroll back to the start of the chapter. The author has an interesting way of interweaving the philosophy. (I haven't yet read all of the chapter, but wanted to share it right away).
I just posted a new thread with links to details on Greek gods/goddess, and also to start exploring archetypes:
( Godfrey you mentioned you have an article on Jungian archetypes)
"For verily there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest" (Letter of Menoeceus: Hicks translation).
In a recent podcast the Epicurean understanding of gods was discussed.
And further questions came up for me, including the how to imagine why it might be that Epicureans held the gods to be important.
From Wikipedia "Ancient Greek Religion" "Ancient Greek theology was polytheistic, based on the assumption that there were many gods and goddesses, as well as a range of lesser supernatural beings of various types. There was a hierarchy of deities, with Zeus, the king of the gods, having a level of control over all the others, although he was not almighty."
Here is a website listing and describing the Greek gods (Olympian Gods, Titan Gods, Primordial Gods, Sea Gods, Underworld, etc.) https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/greek-gods.html
1) There was a common understanding of gods in ancient and hellenistic Greece
2) Epicureans saw the gods differently than what was commonly held - as not concerned or involved in the lives of humans, and as not something to fear.
It came to me that maybe the work of Jung or Campbell could help make sense of things -- specifically the idea of "archetypes". I've tried to find an online article which might explain the Jungian understanding of Greek gods, but haven't found one. (Joseph Campbell took the work of Jung further, and somewhere within his four volume book "The Masks of God" it might have something on Greek mythology - but will need to see if I can find it at the library.)
So to explain archetypes -- I pulled out my book by Carl Jung "Man and his Symbols" and on page 67 on The archetype in dream symbolism -- there is not a clear direct explanation so I will attempt to synthesize and explain:
---The mind (psyche) still has "archaic remnants" left behind from our earlier time of development in archaic man whose psyche was still close to that of the animal. These "archaic remnants" are what Jung calls "archetypes" or "primordial images" and these archetypes come to us through dreams.
----"The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif---representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern."
----"They are, indeed, an instinctive trend, as marked as the impulse of birds to build nests, or ants to form organized colonies."
And now to make sense of the Greek gods -- that these were reoccuring archetypal images that came through dreams.
More on an idealist Epicurean view of the gods, by Sedley:
Some post show thoughts:
Toward the middle or somewhere in the last half, these two options come up:
1) The gods are just ideals, mental constructs, and don't physically exist.
-or-
2) The gods are actual physical beings, a kind of order of beings that exist somewhere in the universe (non-supernatural but yet immortal)
It is unclear exactly, yet either way, we can read that the admonition of Epicurus is to see the gods as incorruptable and blessed.
And I brought up Joseph Campbell and "archetypes" of the gods/goddess, and the muses.
I see now that Joseph Campbell based his work on Carl Jung, so that is really a better source for understanding archetypes.
--Wikipedia article: Jungian archetypes.
--Wikipedia article: the muses.
As for further ideas about how to apply the psychology of archetypes within Epicureanism, I hope to start a new thread.
Epicurus makes it plain in the letter to Menoeceus that we do not set our sites on "little" but on "pleasure" , and I bet there are other instances of the same thought out there in other texts.
I do believe there is evidence for both the goal of pleasure AND the goal of well-being, at the same time -- because Epicureans seek both sides of removing pain and adding in pleasure -- and this could be the difference between Cyreniacs and Epicureans? For Cyreniacs pleasure was physical and only in the present moment, but for Epicureans it is inclusive of bodily, mental, and memory. So for the Cyreniacs over-indulgence (profligacy) would be an okay choice -- but for Epicureans if physical pleasure brings mental regret, than it would be avoided (or avoided if it brings painful consequences).
When Horace said "Seize the day" he didn't say "Seize little" or "Seize only what will keep you alive."
I may not correctly understand this idea, but it does seem to justify "seizing" upon one's passions and possibly disregarding the consequences of one's actions -- but maybe that is just a modern interpretation. So I think it is necessary to find the "sweet spot" on this - neither extremes of over-indulgence nor austere frugality.
I realize that I need to come back to this thread and add more regarding Epicurean natural goods.
Here is an interesting excerpt from the above article that Don posted, which says that Epicureanism appealed to all walks of life:
Unlike the Stoics, moreover, whose philosophical ideal was extreme enough to elicit playful sarcasm from Horace (cf. Ep. 1.1.106-108), Epicurus’ universal invitation to philosophy (Arr. 4.122.1-11) effectively attracted Romans from all walks of life, including, as Cicero notes, respectable but uneducated rustics like Ofellus. As a matter of fact, Epicurus even states that, like Ofellus, the sage will be ‘fond of the countryside’ (φιαγρήσειν, Arr. 1.120a.2) and will closely associate the practice of philoso-phy with economic matters (Γεᾶν ἅµα δεῖ καὶ φιοσοφεῖν καὶ οἰκονοµεῖν, ‘One must laugh and philosophize and manage one’s economic affairs’, Arr. 6.41). One may reasonably wonder, therefore, whether this connection influenced Horace’s choice to portray his sage as a country-dwelling local whose advice is economic in nature...
Regarding PD19 - the contrast between finite and infinite -- I just stumbled upon this in another thread. (Which may muddy the water here on this).
“Moreover there is the supremely potent principle of infinity, which claims the closest and most careful study; we must understand that it has in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals, and if the causes of destruction are beyond count, the causes of conservation also are bound to be infinite."
From: Velleius from Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods"
Then I went online and search for isonomia and found this article: "Theories Concerning Epicurean Theology and Metaphysics"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/694107
Here is an excerpt from the preview page:
...a wider application of the doctrine not merely as a Balance of opposing Forces but as a pairing of opposite things, one of which implies the other.
So this isonomia could be another thing to look into. Anybody have any ideas on this?
It could be (and from self-observation of my internal feelings), that dopamine levels are actually highest during the first minute of starting to eat, and especially highest when starting to eat after being very hungry. So the intensity of pleasure is highest at that point, and though it is still pleasurable, it feels less intense after -- so this is why it is a "peak moment of pleasure".
As for PD19: "Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning."
You've all done a thorough explanation. But I wonder how to say it in the most simple way --
Joy that lasts a finite time is the same kind of joy that lasts an infinite time. So we don't need to be immortal to experience a complete life.
I find Dewitt doing this too often: taking a line or phrase out of context and imbuing it with meaning it doesn't necessarily have.
Oh wow! Yikes on DeWitt! -- I've been saving the reading of that book till we have a future book study Zoom. It seems that the excerpt in post number twenty-four above (especially the first few paragraphs) is very helpful.
In this thread on PD19 (which is really be about PD18-22) - I think I get it as I read it, yet if I had to explain it to someone, not sure if I could put it into my own words (which would be the true test of understanding).
This all very good, and I will need to ponder on it for while!
I found this, which brings in something on the meaning of a "complete life".
"But if Epicurus aims to give people good lives by making them self-sufficient, he must establish that the life he gives them is not only self-sufficient, but also really good. As Mitsis shows, it is a deep part of Greek ethical belief that eudaimonia, the good life for a human being, must be complete--must, that is, include everything that has intrinsic worth, everything without which a reasonable person will judge the life to be impoverished, lacking in value." https://www.jstor.org/stable/2107890 -- Review Essay: Epicurus' Ethical Theory: The Pleasures of Invulnerability -- Martha Nussbaum
Hi Everyone, This Wednesday night at 8:30pm ET - the discussion topic is PD 19 and 20.
New attendees sign up by sending a message to me or posting a request here in this thread. New non-member readers can sign up through Eventbrite.
Post-show notes:
On the meaning of the word eudaimonia, from Wikipedia article, which contains entries on Classical/Hellenistic philosophical understanding of the word.
Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯moníaː]; sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia, /juːdɪˈmoʊniə/) is a Greek word literally translating to the state or condition of 'good spirit', and which is commonly translated as 'happiness' or 'welfare'.
Found this on Wikipedia (which lists two ways to pronounce the name):
Menoeceus (/məˈniːsiəs, -sjuːs/;
Ancient Greek: Μενοικεύς Menoikeús "strength of the house" derived from menos "strength" and oikos "house"
