Posts by Kalosyni

From Tufts website:

"Writings that urged young men to study philosophy formed a distinct literary genre among the ancients under the name “protreptics.” The Epistle to Menoeceus of Epicurus is an extant example."

And this article: "Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.1986.4.4.309

Quote

"The protereptic has as its explicit aim the winning of a student for philosophy. The student must be won at different levels--for the love of wisdom generally, for the choice of a particular school, for full commitment to the rigors of an advanced discipline."

No (I probably didn't make that clear). I was only considering the length of time, not the intensity. I am currently thinking that a complete life is a mix of pleasures, both short, medium, and long. I think intensity will naturally vary on its own. By intensity I would define that as strong feelings of bodily sensation (of pleasure). And often intense pleasures will only last a very short time (for example: orgasm probably is the most intense pleasure, and then followed by the ice cream flavor "Death By Chocolate" -- but when eating ice cream the intensity is best at the very start and then sensory "hedonic adaptation" kicks in).

I decided to make a list of life pleasures, and include a link to my blog in which I list/categorize pleasures based on the following:

1. Pleasures of short duration

2. Pleasures of medium duration

3. Pleasures of longest duration - these I consider long because they often takes planning or more time, and they have a quality that persists over time through mental pleasure.

4. Pleasures which come naturally and are easy to have
5. Pleasures of recollection of the past or anticipation of the future

6. Pleasure of the relief of pain

And a further category that separates a few pleasures that are common for everyone, whereas other pleasures dependent on circumstances.

Before reading my list, you might want to write out your own list - I found pleasure in thinking about life's pleasures and also interesting to think about the amount of time that pleasures last. And as life goes on, one may change what is on one's list. I would say we all need a good mix of all the pleasures, and from all categories (short, medium, long, etc.) to feel a complete life.

(My list is a mix of personal and hypothetical, and just a very quick and incomplete list).

A List of Life Pleasures

This list is a combination of self-reflection, observation, and reasoning regarding pleasure. It is both those that arise naturally and thos...

epicureanphilosophyblog.blogspot.com

Join us tomorrow night 8:30pm ET! - New attendees can join - message me and I will get you the link.

(non-member forum readers can sign up through Eventbrite).

Quote from reneliza

This is about Buddhism, so it of course only applies to some extent, but I think it is a good parallel to the Epicurean who tries to force out and run from all forms of pleasure already in their life in their quest for that "greatest" pleasure that is ataraxia.

So I read the above Osho article, and I think that this it just one interpretation of Buddhism, among several, and it is somewhat different than the Theravadan lineage of Buddhism.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this phrase: "the Epicurean who tries to force out and run from all forms of pleasure already in their life in their quest for that "greatest" pleasure that is ataraxia." I think that is a rare person, and certainly not an Epicurean -- Forgive me, I may have totally misunderstood the meaning here.

As this leaves out another option of seeking and making effort daily to have as much pleasure as one can (yet with wisdom to avoid incurring much worse pains). -- this would be the fullness of pleasure model of pleasure -- which is different than the ataraxia is the goal.

Quote from Cassius

I'm ok with words like "full" and "pure" to the extent that they refer to quantities that are 100% of the respective issue. But "complete" (at least some of the modern interpretations of it) seems to go beyond that, and imply a certain list of activities that everyone should experience in order to call their lives "complete." And I doubt Epicurus would sanction that.

So I like the idea of a "full life" -- which brings up more. I would say that my own peak experience which lasted for maybe only 5 minutes while ecstatic dancing, was a feeling of living to the fullest, at that moment (and in which I had the thought, that it was in that moment that I could die knowing that I had lived the fullest). But yet there is the long term aspect of living a full life, which is more of an intellectual feeling combined with a heart feeling. And I like what Don says:

Quote from Don

"Life complete" is conveyed by τὸν παντελῆ βίον. I contend that this is one of the more important phrases in the original Greek. This is the kind of life that is produced by following the Epicurean path. Again, we have to delve into Epicurus' words to really appreciate what he's saying. Παντελῆ derives from παν "all, every" + τέλος "goal, end" but not just any goal or end, the ultimate, fully-accomplished end of something, its fully-realized purpose. So, Epicurus is calling us to a life where he believes we can find that every goal is accomplished, every purpose fulfilled IF we understand the limits of pleasure and desire. That will provide us with τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου "the best life" of all the possible ways of living.

I really like the "full life" idea, but yet I think it is good if it is also combined with the "life complete" idea -- because the feeling of living an incomplete life is not a good feeling. I think that happens a lot in modern life when people say that they have a feeling that their life is incomplete. I think this often points to a lack of good mutually supportive, emotionally supportive and enjoyable relationships. And when we say an incomplete life, we are saying that something important is missing. Now in Buddhism there is the concept of "unsatisfactoriness" which for some people can be a very subtle feeling (perhaps some people feel this feeling more than others). And interestingly there is the Vatican Saying 68 - "Nothing is enough to one for whom enough is very little".

Quote from Cassius

a certain list of activities that everyone should experience in order to call their lives "complete." And I doubt Epicurus would sanction that.

The more time I spend thinking on this, the more I think that there really ought to be a list! If you take a step back and think: human beings are a type of animal and what does the human animal need to feel happy? And then to unabashedly answer that question. (This could make for a good topic for our next 20th meeting!)

Welcome to the forum!

I definitely want to read these articles -- they are now on my "to-do list"!

Quote from Don

once we have attained tranquillity, our lives are complete. After all, tranquillity is meant to be attainable even when death is imminent.

I have to say, I am not sure I agree with this.

When death is imminent then yes I agree with the need for tranquillity.

Yet, when death is not imminent, there is more than tranquility needed for a complete life. There was a moment in which I had a peak experience, in the past -- it was a state of pure bliss, and it was at that moment that I felt my life was complete. It was a completely "safe" experience but I wouldn't say it was "tranquil" one bit because it was active and in motion -- it was a active and ecstatic experience.

Quote from Don

As the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus put it: “The one who understands, having grasped that he is capable of achieving everything sufficient for the good life, immediately and for the rest of his life walks

about already ready for burial, and enjoys the single day as if it were an eternity” (De Morte XXXVIII.14-19 in Warren 2004, p. 152).

This is interesting, as it almost seems like a state of "enlightenment" -- I think that the question here is what is the "good life"? What does the "good life" look like or entail?

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