Posts by Kalosyni

Valentine's Day is all about celebrating love. Here is an excerpt on the first stage of love, and this is just one approach to the idea of stages within a relationship:

Quote

If there's one thing in life that's anything but simple, it's love. That's why there are so many relationships that end early and so many married couples who wind up divorced. Movies and fairytales make the entire experience look so easy, but it's a lot more complicated. While love is a natural thing to feel, most people don't know that love will eventually move through several stages of love.

It evolves as your relationship and life evolves. If you or your partner bail too early, you will never reach the final stage where many are able to find true contentment and a stronger connection than ever before.

Love Stage #1 - The Passionate Beginning

The first stage of love, often called the "honeymoon phase," is what most people envision when they think of falling in love. This is the stage where you meet a potential partner and begin to have feelings for one another. Your heart skips a beat when you see them; you have butterflies in your stomach, and they consume your thoughts. More than love, this is infatuation. You experience intense, passionate feelings for the other person.

This is the stage in which you’re most likely to disregard or overlook anything negative or concerning about your potential mate. Their weaknesses seem nonexistent. Other people might see them, but you have no idea what they're talking about. You're wearing rose-colored, heart-shaped glasses. Plus, you're high on hormones like oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen.

For most people, this is their favorite stage of love because everything just feels good. You can't imagine arguing or things taking a turn for the worse. If only you could stay in this stage forever! However, that is not realistic. For a relationship to last, you have to know your partner intimately, including all of his or her flaws and faults. That begins in the next stage.

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/love/ho…stages-of-love/

Display More

And here is a good one on 7 stages:

What Are The 7 Stages of Marriage and How to Survive Them — Loving at Your Best

All relationships go through stages. Every stage teaches you about the other person, which might reveal a side of them that you didn't know about.

www.lovingatyourbest.com

As an Epicurean, here is what NOT to do:

Quote

In a little German town called Eutin, people still fall in love the old-fashioned way, through hand-written letters and destiny. Meet the celebrity oak tree that has been bringing together dreamers from around the world long before dating apps were even conceived.

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/germany…ngles-together/

This may lead to marriage but may not lead to long-term compatibility...and would say that this would be very Anti-Epicurean, since it relies on "fate"...but if you don't properly do a "hedonic calculus" regarding compatibility, then it will lead to unhappiness later after the romance "wears off".

I have read that one of the most common ways that couples meet is through friends and family, and that would also help screen out incompatible people immediately.

Quote from Cassius

That's because In my humble view modern psychology is as frequently or more a mess (with camps saying very opposite things)

Yes, very true, and so it comes down everyone must choose for themselves which makes the most reasonable sense. Lately there is the meme within psychology of "science-based" therapies. But we must remember that science itself never holds a final or absolute answer.

Quote from Cassius

a reference to courtesans

I was referring to Lucretius Book 4, in which men are wooing courtesans (since they were not prostitutes, but were like a mistress that was supported with gifts and other economic requirements in exchange for exclusive (or mostly exclusive) sexual favors. So this description by Lucretius can appear similar to the very early stage of dating and falling in love, where a man tries to woo a woman with gifts. But Lucretius warns against having passion for the courtesan. Everything he writes is based on the context of the courtesan, and so it is absolutely not applicable to modern life.

Quote from Joshua

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

I do not, of course, accept his definitions of "light" and "righteousness". And not everyone will be flattered by the image of yoked oxen as a metaphor for marriage.

But there is something to the idea that a compatible foundation of values and beliefs about 'the constitution of the world' is important to long-term happiness and cooperation.

I do not say that it cannot work; only that it will be very difficult to make it work. And this may partly explain the reluctance of some people to pursue marriage, for who can say what changes may develop in the space of decades?

Yes, a compatible foundation of values and beliefs is completey necessary. Also, both people must have a kind, honest, and patient disposition. There are so many lists online about what makes people compatible. Some say that two people shouldn't be too much the same, while others say similarity of common interests will bring more shared activities, and shared activities are what create a lasting bond. It makes sense to me that two people should be very similar.

As for the worldview of Epicureanism, and for myself, I think now that if I should ever remarry that the person MUST also be Epicurean, which means that I may never remarry...but on the plus side, at least I will remain free, and not become a "yoked oxen" (lol ).

A few reactions:

The words and phrasing are so different from modern english that it takes a lot of effort to unravel. For example: What does it mean to "riot in luxury and vice"?

Theophrastus is thought of as being "vicious" because his style of philosophical discourse is perhaps harsh, hostile, and menacing to Leontium?

Timocrates is thought of as being "vicious" because the things that he says about Epicurus are lies? This makes more sense, as the adjective properly fits. But there is something left out here, and that is when people feel angry, they lash out as an attempt to "punish". So there is something that Timocrates was angry about.

So we are then left at a level of philosophizing about having compassion. There are absolutes presented here, which aren't tied down to any specifics of "who, what, why, when, where".

Hopefully it will get better as the story develops.

Quote from Joshua

The sad story of Lucy Harris in the early history of Mormonism

Suddenly I am wondering if Lucretius was mis-translated...and my idea is likely totally unrelated to what you had intended.

I am off now to frolick in the Oregon sunshine, a rare treat. More tomorrow on the "Stages of Romantic Love".

Valentine's Day is coming up soon. The origin may go back as far as the Roman festival of Lupercalia, which was later replaced by the Christian day honoring the martyr Saint Valentine.

Quote

Although there is no evidence linking Saint Valentine’s Day to the rites of the ancient Roman or ancient Greek cults, popular modern sources claim links to the Roman Lupercalia celebration observed around February 13–15, a rite connected to fertility. Lupercalia was a festival local to the city of Rome. The more general Festival of Juno Februa, meaning Juno the purifier or the chaste Juno, was celebrated on February 13–14. Pope Gelasius I (492–496) abolished Lupercalia. Juno is the ancient Roman name for goddess Hera, the spouse of ancient Greek father of the gods Zeus. In the ancient Athenian calendar the period between mid-January and mid-February was the month of Gamelion, dedicated to the sacred marriage of the couple.

https://greekreporter.com/2013/02/13/anc…valentines-day/

Quote

The Feast of Saint Valentine was established by Pope Gelasius I in AD 496 to be celebrated on February 14 in honour of Saint Valentine of Rome, who died on that date in AD 269.^[9][10] The day became associated with romantic love in the 14th and 15th centuries when notions of courtly love flourished, apparently by association with the "lovebirds" of early spring. In 18th-century England, it grew into an occasion in which couples expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as "valentines"). Valentine's Day symbols that are used today include the heart-shaped outline, doves, and the figure of the winged Cupid. Since the 19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting cards.^[11] In Italy, Saint Valentine's Keys are given to lovers "as a romantic symbol and an invitation to unlock the giver's heart"...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day

Regarding love and romantic relationships, there is not much to go on within Epicureanism.

In De rerum Natura Lucretius (Book 4, 1030) mentions the energies which arise in the body, and then further goes on speak of the dangers of pursuing romance with the wandering Venus' -- the courtesans with whom the men of ancient Greece had relationships.

Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book 4 (English Text)

So for modern Epicureans, we must look instead to modern psychology for help with our understanding of marriage and long-term relationships. There is an understanding that relationships go through stages, and I have seen it listed as anywhere between 4 thru 12 stages. I will post more soon on this tomorrow. I may even cover one stage per day as we approach Valentine's Day.

Quote from Don

Or the teacher or another student notices the person acting in an angry way. Then a frank criticism session is engaged in with the student, incorporating "setting before the eyes" to depict the consequences of the behavior.

That doesn't seem to address the "root cause" of the anger...so no matter how much someone knows that bad results will happen, if they don't actively shift the "root cause" (by incorporating new more effective strategies) they will repeat the same behaviour. So this must have just been one small aspect of a larger "program" (one would hope).

Quote from Don

That's how I'm thinking "setting before the eyes" goes except in reverse: "Here's what the video camera would see."

So it is like practicing something in your mind, beforehand?

Quote from Don

This is interesting from a "what was actually going on inside the Epicurean community in ancient times" perspective, but also "how can we resurrect or re-use or re-interpret ancient practices for modern times" perspective. That's one reason why it's important to dig into this.

This fascinating to me, and so some day soon hope to learn more. And there may end up being a similar process within "Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg" ...which uses "Observations, Feelings, Needs, and Requests" ...and the first step uses vivid exact description of exactly what happened or what was said...and they say: "describe what the video camera would see" as a way to be very objective.

As we bring in the application of Epicurean principles into daily life, we may need to more effectively base ideas both on specific principles AND on observable sensations, so that we can use the philosophy effectively.

Also it can help everyone here on the forum present their ideas more clearly.

More on using the Toulmin model:

1) The claim, the first element in an argument, is an assertion, thesis or propostion and answers the question: "What do I want to prove?"

2) The grounds, the second element in an argument, are evidence, specific facts or data that support the claim and answer the question: "What do I have to go on?"

3) The warrant, the third element in an argument, yields general support that links the grounds to the claim -- either implied or stated, depending on the audience -- and answers the question: "How do I get from evidence to claim?"

Then further:

4) Is it necessary to add "Backing" ? -- Backing is an additional factor considered very important to the claim. "Is the move from grounds to claim safe and reliable?"

5) Is it necessary to add a "Rebuttal" ? A rebuttal is an exception that might make the claim invalid. "What possibilities might upset the argument? (This might add a new starting point, or claim).

6) Is "Qualification" necessary? With what level of certainty will the evidence be found to effectively support the claim? (adding in words such as "likely", etc.)

Based on this PDF:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/viewFile/821/810&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjTxbH5t-L1AhX7JDQIHYxACx4QFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw2Xx3fWmBzQ2EGG0LFq0tnR

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Evidently I want to live- but I shouldn't worry about what will happen in 30 years, because I simply can't influence it.

I have read some studies on climate change which suggest by 2040 some major changes will begin to challenge civilization. Some hedonic choices will need to be made regarding where to live as climate change kicks in...as some places might become too uncomfortable (heat/humidity) or too dangerous due to floods/wild fires. Civilization will continue as long as modern agriculture and infrastructure can keep up with the changing climate. But I think it will be important to keep on top of the science. Avoid living in low lying areas which could flood, as we have already seen this happening in places, and science says this will continue.

My idea is to use this kind of argumentation for practical issues, as a way to avoid getting bogged down in abstractions. I will need to think of an example and then post.

A few days ago, I came across the argumentation theory of Toulmin, and it seems it might be useful...and much easier than formal logic. "Argumentation" here on the forum is all new to me (and for the record, I haven't put in very much study of formal logic).

Toulmin argumentation theory could have compatibility within Epicureanism. Also since we often need to come to a deeper application of Epicureanism based on Principle Doctrines and other writings, this might be a method of drawing conclusions in order to apply Epicureanism to modern life situations.

I am curious to know what others think of this?

Quote

Toulmin model of argument

This section is transcluded from Stephen Toulmin.

Toulmin argumentation can be diagrammed as a conclusion established, more or less, on the basis of a fact supported by a warrant (with backing), and a possible rebuttal.

Arguing that absolutism lacks practical value, Toulmin aimed to develop a different type of argument, called practical arguments (also known as substantial arguments). In contrast to absolutists' theoretical arguments, Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.

Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. This, he believed, will ensure it stands up to criticism and earns a favourable verdict. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

And here is another good site:

Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab

The Purdue University Online Writing Lab serves writers from around the world and the Purdue University Writing Lab helps writers on Purdue's campus.

owl.purdue.edu

Quote from Matt

Cannibalism is usually considered pretty taboo…today anyway! And is often considered by “most” people to be “wrong” or “evil.”

Quote from Matt

Obviously nature directs us not to partake in this activity on any regular basis (humans anyway, animals are another story) but it does sometimes drive people to do things they would otherwise never consider doing. Yet still…will society still judge the act as evil? Though nature directs our behavior and is entirely neutral to the action, it ultimately is the human laws and taboos that decree something is “evil” or “wrong” based then entirely on circumstances which we would need to dissect situation by situation to determine if something “unlawful” happened by societal standards.

The Epicurean philosophy is not to live by solely by nature's instincts but to use reason for the most pleasureable life:

Principle Doctrine 5:

"It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."

If civilization ended and cannibalism became the only way to survive, I can imagine that an Epicurean would sacrifice themselves or give themselves up for another's food because at that point "the party is over" meaning that a joyful life wouldn't be possible anymore, and it would also be chosen since "death is nothing to us".

Eikadistes ...thank you for the amazing chart you made comparing Epicureanism,
Theravada, and Mahayana!!!

Also, it is interesting to read your Epicurean goal, and appears you are synthesising several of the Principal Doctrines...

Quote from Nate

A godlike state of pure pleasure, a disposition of imperturbable joy, free from physical pain and mental anguish. The practice of prudence will lead the wise person to the good life.

A further comment in regard to:

Quote from Cassius

But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood;

A new definition of "evil":

Evil is not only the harmful or hurtful act itself, but the "unreasonable" justification of the harm or injury by those commiting the act, and/or the unreasonable justification by those who are in the same tribe and/or who believe they benefit from the act.

Regarding the fear that "non-Epicureans" will misperceive us, and will say to us:

Quote from Cassius

Those views you are talking about sound pretty underground to me and actually bordering on evil.

This idea is something that needs to be "unpacked"...the fear that others will see Epicureans as evil. And it means we have more work to do, since there is a clear moral understanding within Epicureanism, which is that causing harm to others will most often result in less pleasure for ourselves and for those we love, as well as much more pain in the long-term. And so we act according to ethical values just like everyone else, however the understanding of "why" and "how" is slightly different.

Christianity is the source of the modern twisted concept of "evil". Otherwise we would simply say "causing harm". Is there a thread comparing Epicureanism with Christianity?

Buddhists when feeling a sense of "unsatisfactoriness" in oneself might cultivate indifference toward it.

Where as Epicureans when feeling "unsatisfactoriness" might put more effort into cultivating friendship and sharing pleasant and pleasureable experiences with others.

Which has me wondering...how often were festivals, celebrations, shared meal gatherings, etc. part of an ancient Epicurean lifestyle?

Quote from Cassius

does life have a goal or highest good in Buddhism, and if so what is it ?

There could be several goals:

1) the goal is Buddhist practice/meditation of "letting go" and realizing "aimlessness, signlessness, and emptiness" as the path to "nirvana"

2) to become a "bodhisattva of compassion" to help others (a Buddhist teacher)

Quote from Don

I think I should prioritize reading On Anger then read Tsouna's book.

Don, when you have read that, I would be so curious to find out how it compares to modern psychology. Here is a website, has four parts, all very good:

https://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control

Quote from Godfrey

in my first couple of highlights she touched on the pleasure/absence of pain controversy, which got me thinking about some of the issues involved in that debate.

Godfrey, that sounds interesting and am curious to hear more about that.