Posts by Kalosyni

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.

Quote from Cassius

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).

Quote from Cassius

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:

Quote

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’ (φι󰎻αγρήσειν, Arr. 1.120a.2) and will closely associate the practice of philoso-phy with economic matters (Γε󰎻ᾶν ἅµα δεῖ καὶ φι󰎻οσοφεῖν 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).

Quote

“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:

Quote

...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.

Quote from Don

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".

Quote

"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"

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?