Quote from Cassius

We don't "have" to take risks in many cases. We choose whether to do so or not. We could simply choose to live in our caves on bread and water and forgo the possibility of many activities that may bring significant pleasure but at the cost of significant pain. If "all pain is to be avoided at all cost" is the formula, then the cave-dwelling life would be a logical option.

Okay, so in some situations the hedonic calculus comes out even...equal levels of pain and pleasure...and thinking about it further I begin to see that that is why there actually might be an emphasis on activities that reduce pain. Because if you have two options: Option A - the end result will be an equal amount of pleasure and pain...and Option B - more pleasure and less pain...then you choose option B.

I think an instance of this is marriage...people go into it thinking that there will be more pleasure than pain, but only if you are lucky will this be the case...if you can find a very compatible partner with a similar world-view, similar life goals, similar likes and dislikes, and similar disposition, who is an emotionally grounded and rationally thinking person, who is healthy and strong, who knows how to problem-solve, who has good social skills and emotional intelligence, and who is kind, patient, generous, and loving.

So let's say two people with all these characteristics find each other and marry...it is possible that there will be more pleasure than pain. If any of these qualities are deficient then some problems will come up...and when they do, the pleasure and pain "hedonic calculus" will come out even...or could come out with more pain.

Quote from Cassius

The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us.

Yes.

I realise that I need to more clearly explain: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck"...I need to add...

This is in reference to interactions with people, for example if someone asks you to do something, that you don't say "yes" out of a feeling of duty or obligation, but instead get clear about what you are wanting...and so you may then decide to say "no" to their request. And when you say "yes" you know clearly why and see that it is because of mutual needs being fulfilled, or because you trust in the reciprocity of the relationship and see how saying "yes" will lead to giving pleasure to the other person (and anticipating their pleasure also gives you pleasure).

Quote from Cassius

love" isn't the ultimate value in the Epicurean worldview, so has to be treated with caution too. As you observed smoothkiwi in another recent thread, not every example of prudent eating is Epicurean. Not every instance of "common sense" is Epicurean, and by similar token not every instance of love, or even of pleasure, is something that Epicurus advised everyone to engage in all the time.

I don't intend this to sound harsh of course but it's really challenging to think through the implications of what Epicurus is teaching. It doesn't add up to "god is love" or even "the universe is pleasure" or any kind of master intention-based plan of action that applies everywhere and all the time. "Pleasure" probably comes the closest to the universal motivating force, but every time we say that we need to remember that Epicurus was plain that we don't choose every immediate pleasure.

So this makes Epicureanism quite difficult to teach. And only certain people will be able to grasp this big picture understanding of Epicureanism, and that there are no "black and white" absolutes. You have to be able to think for youself, judge for yourself, and make decisions for yourself.

Quote from Cassius

What is "atruism"? Putting others first always? That would certainly not be Epicurean. What is "hedonism?" Putting pleasure first always? Yes, from a certain perspective, but absolutely no from a moment to moment perspective, because we often choose pain to avoid worse pain or pursue greater pleasure.

I heard it said that even Mother Teresa, who was the famous Catholic nun, who dedicated her life to altruism in the slums of Calcutta, was doing it because she was deriving some pleasure from it. I would guess that she was more focused on the mental pleasure of it than the physical pleasure. (Did she learn to enjoy it out of some kind of "Christian duty"?...hard to say).The danger comes when people think...oh, everyone should be like Mother Teresa. Everyone has differenting personalities and preferences and different ways of enjoying the world. I myself have never felt any calling to do volunteer or non-profit work, and I think it is because I am very introverted and those kinds of situations would cause me a lot of mental stress. However, I can imagine a very extroverted person finding a lot of joy in doing some altruistic work because of some aspect of it that gives them mental pleasure.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Still, I think that there may be- rare- situations where it's necessary to harm other people in order to be individually happy... because if you don't, then that means that it becomes some sort of abstract thought or dogma, like "thou shall not harm thy neighbor". But I also have to admit that I can't think of any example where consciously inflicting pain on someone will bring you more pleasure in the long run... what do you think on that?

There could be an instance of a "protective use of force"...an act of self-protection coming from a need to defend your own safety or the safety of someone you love...in which you hurt someone out of self-defense, but hopely you can do it in such a way as to not kill or mame them.

Quote from Matt

Kalosyni you have a very good way with people.

Well, thank you...I don't know...

Just remember that pleasure and pain is the teacher here...with a focus on moving toward both short-term AND long-term pleasure (and the consideration of not just your own pleasure but also the other person's pleasure...because this has a built in feed-back loop).

I studied "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg, and took classes and workshops. He said: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck."

And this also points the need to be clear (inside yourself) about why you are doing something. So you trust your inner feelings about what feels good inside, for your own situation, and for your own needs. At some point I'd like to share more about it on the forum, as I see it as being in sync with Epicureanism, and has some helpful ideas.

(Unfortunately "Nonviolent Communication" didn't help me fix my marriage, and I am now divorced).

Some years ago, I briefly studied Carl Jung's ideas of "archetypes" and the "collective unconsious". People who believe in the supernatural are at a place in their lives where they are "needing" to engage with this primitive part of the psyche. The majority of people only interact with this through their dreams. And modern people often cannot even remember their dreams.

It is important to be clear that any "messages" that come through should not be taken on a literal level. These messages are for making sense of the "inner landscape" of the individual psyche. These are the elements, motifs, and archetypes of art and the creative forces of the psyche interacting with the realm of emotions, passions, and unconscious repressed desires. The psyche strives for coherence and "wholeness".

We can dance with these "archetypal symbols" to enhance creativity in life. But some people might take it all too literally, somehow believing that what is "mythic" in the inner worlds, is also true in the out physical/material world...as in the above stories shared by Matt . (And then people with mental disorders of schizophrenia cannot manage any of this properly unless they can get modern medical treatment...it is as if they are dreaming while awake).

Quote from Matt

This is not my first go around with people like this, I’ve met people have claimed that they see ghosts, angels, spiritual guides etc. I just didn’t know this particular person believed it.

I would either decide to "enjoy" their stories...listen and say: "hmmm, that's interesting"...or decide to move on...because you won't be able to talk anyone out of these beliefs, they have to do it on their own. And I would simply say: "I have a different belief. I believe in a materialist, scientific understanding of things."

Quote from Matt

If I add the “internet” crowd to this number of detached people that believe in lizard people, deep underground bases and other “fringe” ideas and those people are those that are not using the canon as the standard of truth, the number of detached people would exponentially multiply.

I wonder what Carl Jung would have to say about this, if he were alive. As these are the mythological elements that could haunt peoples dreams.

As for approaching it from science: this book might be relevant: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

As a consequence, I asked how God can forgive everyone, because some misdeeds don't seem forgivable for me; and if everything is forgivable, then I might as well be sinful and have a lot of fun before I come into paradise. My friend agreed with me, but said that we should still try and be good, because he don't want to let his parents suffer by harming other people.

I had some further reactions to your story, and I want to point out that...I think it is important to be careful about the word "sin" (and "sinful") because there are two things being mixed up here.

One understanding of "sin" is that it is the harming or hurting of another person, and all the things that we in a civilized world, understand as "wrong" because they cause pain to someone else. There are different levels of moral understanding: It could be based on fear of punishment - either by the judicial system of society, or by social ostracisation (or fear of getting a bad reputation or disappointing others). Also most people will react toward inflicted pain with some kind of retaliation, or they will no longer trust you. We also have our inner conscience and this will follow us for the rest of our lives in the form of our memories. When you fully understand "pain and pleasure" you see the importance of non-harming. Every person moves toward pleasure and recoils from pain. Why would you do to someone something that you would not want to be done to you? If you cause pain to others, and then justify it in some way, you will begin to attract others to you who also cause pain to others...and this will put you into harms way...and then you will live in fear that you will be harmed.

Then secondly there are the "sinful" things which have been invented to "try" to make certain aspects of civilization function more smoothly, but come from some religious opinions (for example: sex before is wrong marriage, dancing is wrong, drinking alcohol is wrong, etc.) and these opinions are not inherently correct. These are things which only cause pain when there is a lack of mutual consent or when there is over-indulgence (when there is a potential for pain, and when the person is not being fully responsible). So would guess it this second instance of "sinful" in which you said "might as well be sinful and have a lot of fun".

And I want to correct this idea of "sin" being "fun"...as this is incorrect. We cannot live a joyous life without living wisely and rightly:

Principle Doctrine 5:

Also there is this with regard to the second category I wrote about, and so one makes choices not to do things that will result in pain. For example, I would say that at all Epicureans would not do binge drinking.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Still, I'm wondering that I couldn't find an answer to his answer- that the belief in God is an intrinsic part of him

I think that the belief in god can be a component of self-identity, and also a way for the human mind to relate to the experience of the inner sense of self, the sense of "I-ness". So at his current level of development, he has an inner relationship with his sense of "I-ness" in which he needs to have a god to make sense of things, and therefore his religion feels like an intrinsic part of himself. It is good for those in Epicurean philosophy to understand when they see this in others. Eventually people grow out of their need for myths. (Also see Principle Doctrine 12).

This will shed more light:

Some thoughts today...in regard to meditation, just thinking to point out that it doesn't lead to the understanding of the nature of things, or the best way to live.

So it is important to see it as form of enjoyment, or a kind of pleasure, but it cannot be relied upon as a complete cure (which is one reason why I left Buddhism). And I think it was said somewhere on the forum that there is no evidence that Epicureans did meditation. As a form of pleasure, meditation could be a tool for pleasure, and it would depend on a given person's inclinations. It is possible that going for a short walk gives equivelant health benefits, and possibly more pleasure.

The best way to live has many components...and I am still working out what the Epicurean philosophy brings to life-long well-being...to see a big-picture view of Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Matt

Our perception is real, though it may not be always consistent. A coat rack in a dark room may appear to be a man, it may cause us a disturbance. We may perceive it as a man…but when the light is turned on the coat rack is revealed to be just an object. Our perception is real because regardless of what it “actually” is our reaction via our perception is real.

Our perception may be different or maybe our identification of something might be mistaken, but our perception of it is “real”…I guess but what other standard would someone judge? There are no other arbiters of what is real other than what conscious humans perceive.

Quote from Cassius

Book 4 of Lucretius is all about illusions and other distortions that appear to us, yet despite that confirms that the senses are all we have so that all reasoning still ultimately rests on the senses.

Add to that the previously stated earlier in the poem observations that the universe has no center, and no edge, and no beginning (or end) and you have the elements for concluding that the search for any perspective of objectivity from "outside" the universe or by a creator or from a center or a point of origin is impossible. You therefore eliminate the possibility of a standard of omniscience or a single "absolute" answer as the test of "truth."

That leaves repeatability as the ultimate test of the senses and what is real to us - what is confirmed through repeated observation is what is "real."

The following Principle Doctrines 23, 24...seem to apply to this discussion:

Quote

23.	If you fight against all your perceptions, you will have nothing to refer to in judging those which you declare to be false. [note]	εἰ μαχῇ πάσαις ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν, οὐχ ἕξεις οὐδʼ ἃς ἂν φῇς αὐτῶν διεψεῦσθαι πρὸς τί ποιούμενος τὴν ἀγωγὴν κρίνῃς.
24.	If you reject a perception outright and do not distinguish between your opinion about what will happen after, what came before, your feelings, and all the layers of imagination involved in your thoughts, then you will throw your other perceptions into confusion because of your trifling opinions; as a result, you will reject the very criterion of truth. And if when forming concepts from your opinions you treat as confirmed everything that will happen and what you do not witness thereafter, then you will not avoid what is false, so that you will remove all argument and all judgment about what is and is not correct.	εἰ τινʼ ἐκβαλεῖς ἁπλῶς αἴσθησιν καὶ μὴ διαιρήσεις τὸ δοξαζόμενον καὶ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ παρὸν ἤδη κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσαν φανταστικὴν ἐπιβολὴν τῆς διανοίας, συνταράξεις καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς αἰσθήσεις τῇ ματαίῳ δόξῃ, ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς· εἰ δὲ βεβαιώσεις καὶ τὸ προσμένον ἅπαν ἐν ταῖς δοξαστικαῖς ἐννοίαις καὶ τὸ μὴ τὴν ἐπιμαρτύρησιν <ἔχον>, οὐκ ἐκλείψεις τὸ διεψευσμένον, ὡς τετηρηκὼς ἔσῃ πᾶσαν ἀμφισβήτησιν κατὰ πᾶσαν κρίσιν τοῦ ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ ὀρθῶς.

Quote from Matt

We can still maintain relations with certain people based on familial ties or old friendships.

Yes, I have two sisters...one is a kind and good-natured "fervent Christian". The other is very difficult to communicate with because she has a very negative and aggressive attitude. She isn't all "bad"..it is about a 50/50 chance whether she will be in an okay mood or in a negative mood. Luckily she lives in another state so I only see her once a year when I go to visit family. I have decided that I want to maintain some kind of connection with her, so will talk on the phone occassionally. But I really need to "take care of myself" and that means not letting her attitude bring me down, as well as remembering not to confide my feelings, or too many details of my life because she will twist them around and make it "unpleasant". So I set boundaries within myself to be clear about my connection with her, and to be clear about what I will and will not tolerate from her (I can remove myself from a conversation when it gets too unpleasant).

The breath awareness meditation I shared in the earlier post can be done in any environment, even as you are moving around, out and about (or if sitting reading/typing on the forum, lol)

So at any time or place, one can simply pause and breathe, to gain an energizing feeling:

Being aware of your breath and saying to yourself:

---Breathing in I enjoy my breath, breathing out I enjoy my breath.---

So this conscious breathing helps oxygenate the body and helps you feel the good energy of the life force in your body.

Matt and anyone else...would love to hear if you have tried it out, either the focused sitting or the active simple version.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Well, I think that it should be the goal- after all, to prevent cultism and "bubblism" by only surrounding himself with like-minded people

Quote from smoothiekiwi

yet I'm wondering if that correlates with the pursuit of pleasure in friendship. What that means is that I don't know of any Epicurean people in my surroundings. By dedicating myself to the Epicurean lifestyle, that would mean that I couldn't lead deep and meaningful relations with people around me, simply because we would talk "on different pages".

Quote from Cassius

Not many of us (maybe none of us?) have very many "classical Epicurean" friends in our personal local lives, but we can't let that stop us from developing deep and meaningful relations with those friends we do have.

Here are some thoughts coming up for me now:

Some people can have naturally occuring "Epicurean" attitudes without knowing about Epicureanism or the philosophy. And they see that life is to be enjoyed, and they have an attitude of taking responsibilty and making choices to make life joyful and enjoyable.

Other people can have very different attitudes, and they can be "sour-pusses" or "Debbie-Downers" always compaining and focusing on what is bad in the world, and they are not able to see how they are making their problems worse by not making choices to make their lives better and more fun and enjoyable.

So you have to choose wisely who you want to be friends with. You will be able to have more deep and meaningful relationships with people who enjoy living life.

As for the study and shared discussion of the wisdom in Epicurean philosophy, at this point in time that will be online, since there aren't many of us (but who's to say what things will be like in ten years from now).

It is my conclusion, though I don't yet know if we can determine if Epicurus would have agreed.

So another way of saying it is:

----The sweetest kinds of pleasures will not come with any regrets.---

Because the kinds of regrets that I am thinking about are:

1) You ended up causing more pain to yourself than it was worth - you went for a short-term pleasure that in now causing you on-going long-term pain.

2) You ended up causing pain to someone else - and now you must live with a variety of consequences resulting from that.

3) You sacrificed pursuing your own pleasure or freedom, in order to maintain some aspect of the "status quo" of your life - so later you think back and regret that you didn't choose to be more bold and live more fully.

And to define the "sweetest kinds of pleasures" - these would be things that are important in life, such as friendship and comradery - and so they are longer lasting pleasures that are always good all around.

I made a "Mexican Wedding Cookies" recipe, and made them with hazelnuts and almond butter. (Next time will experiment with adding some spices like anise).

Quote

Also referred to as Mexican wedding cakes, these buttery cookies originated outside of Mexico. Their creation has been traced back to medieval Arab baking that predominantly featured ingredients like butter, sugar, spices and nuts. As trade routes began to broaden, these sweet confections made their way from the Middle East to all parts of Europe.

Historians believe that the recipe migrated to Mexico by way of European nuns or Spanish conquistadors in the Americas in the 16th century. Traditionally, these sweet cookies are made with finely chopped nuts like walnuts, pecans, hazelnuts or almonds, though this can vary depending on the recipe’s origins.

According to Pastry & Baking Arts Chef-Instructor Norma Arellano-Salazar, these popular cookies are also called snowballs or pecan sandies on the East Coast of the United States, as they resemble snow or sand thanks to their powdered-sugar dusting. Some even refer to them as Russian tea cookies. Yet, speculation indicates that in the 1950s, the name changed to Mexican wedding cake or cookies in the U.S. to diverge from any Cold War context due to the strained relations with Russia at the time.

https://www.ice.edu/blog/mexican-wedding-cookies

Quote from Don

If all pleasures were alike in these respects, then there would be no difference at all between them, but as it is, a ‘calculus of pleasures ’ becomes possible, we can select our pleasures, either according as they are more pure, i e. more completely exclude pain (VIII and XI), or as they are more lasting or affect the whole organism or its more important parts.

The sweetest of pleasures bring no regrets.

Yes, I am interested

Diogenes Laertius states that Epicurus wrote an entire book "On Love"...

...and among the other interesting titles there is also "On Touch" and "On Gifts and Gratitude".

In celebration this evening of the birth of Epicurus!