Posts by Pacatus

For anyone interested, MFS also has an autobiography – titled Martin the Epicurean – that was just released by Amazon on April 15th. Here is the link:

Martin the Epicurean

Martin the Epicurean

www.amazon.com

Quote from Cassius

We are all pursuing the study of Epicurus as we see best, and it's my strong opinion that we're all making better progress pursuing out individual threads than we would be if we were constantly "turned off" by the approach of people who are friends but who see things differently.

This makes sense also for those of us who, as individuals, do explore different lines of thought re Epicurean philosophy, and even (as Martin notes) other schools of philosophy – where that seems helpful to us. For example, I often find stuff on Hiram’s site helpful – though it represents viewpoints different from the project here.

But it is not helpful to spend our time on any one forum bickering about the differences, though it may be sometimes helpful to look at and acknowledge them – and then let it go. (I know that occasionally I have crossed the line, but I do try not to. )

Quote from Kalosyni

This illustrates an on-going problem with speaking about "Epicureanism" -- how it is understood, what does it represent, what is "Epicureanism" and what isn't "Epicureanism" and who do we consider as "being Epicurean" - these questions will be answered differently depending on whom you ask. And the only way to begin to deal with this is to start labeling all of the common varying interpretations.

Your “no cookie-cutter” comment in another thread is certainly spot on, and I like the approach you’re suggesting here.

As a – likely beyond-the-pale whimsical* – metaphor, perhaps we could think in terms of a philosophical “clade”:

“In biology, a clade (/kleɪd/) (from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch'), also known as a monophyletic group or natural group, is a group of organisms that is composed of a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Clades are the fundamental unit of cladistics, a modern approach to taxonomy adopted by most biological fields.

“The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, or a species (extinct or extant). Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan") groups.”

Clade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example, bees: “Bees are winged insects that form a monophyletic clade Anthophila within the superfamily Apoidea of the order Hymenoptera, with over 20,000 known species in seven recognized families.”

Within that bee clade, are a variety of behavior characteristics: “Some species – including honey bees, bumblebees, and stingless bees – are social insects living in highly hierarchical colonies, while over 90% of bee species – including mason bees, carpenter bees, leafcutter bees, and sweat bees – are solitary.” But all bees (as opposed to, say, wasps) “are herbivores that specifically feed on nectar (nectarivory) and pollen (palynivory), the former primarily as a carbohydrate source for metabolic energy, and the latter primarily for protein and other nutrients for their larvae.”

Bee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recent research suggests that even hive bees – at least bumblebees – also, as individuals, play.

___________________________

* By way of apology, I might be reacting to this from Emily Austin that I read yesterday: “Our ability to live a good life does not rise or fall with cultural refinement or rarified intellectual skills, and sometimes it’s just more fun to clown around.” It reminded me of something Alan Watts once said to the effect that being sincere is not the same thing as being hyper-serious. As Epicurus said, we must also laugh – even whilst doing philosophy. Then again, the metaphor of a “philosophical clade” might be constructive …

Quote from Cassius

I don't think Epicurus viewed it as helpful to see things in such black and white terms

Totally agree, with all of this post.

“Most of the empirical claims Epicurus made about the world – some fundamental to his system, others peripheral – have since been falsified. … So it is not surprising that the philosophical system of Epicureanism has no adherents today.” (!?) [Tim O’keefe, Epicureanism; 2014, Routledge.]

Ouch! I thought I’d take another look at O’Keefe’s introduction – but I think I’ll just shut it down there (though I’m sure there’s some good stuff in it as well). No ancient philosophy is unaffected by advances in empirical knowledge, but the core principles of Epicureanism remain intact. And O’Keefe’s claim about “no adherents” is just false – as this on-line Garden clearly demonstrates.

I revisit introductory texts from time to time – but I’ll stick with the likes of, e.g., Emily Austin and Catherine Wilson.

[Yes, I do tend toward a bit of eclecticism (I don’t know – for myself – how to otherwise personalize any of this stuff in my daily life, and keep an inquiring mind) – but, I think of Epicurus as the core (why I keep coming back to it), with a bit of eclecticism around the edges. Which I try not to impose on discussions here – sometimes I fail. ]

It seems to me that if the dichotomy of control (as in Epictetus) refers to whatever is completely within my control versus whatever is completely out of my control – then it is an idealistic abstraction, and not useful. (And I suspect that idealism is exactly how the Stoics saw it.)

For me, I think more in terms of likely effective agency – given the circumstances and my own abilities. That may be more “loosey-goosey,” but it’s also more pragmatic. What can I reasonably do in this situation? What can I reasonably choose? And what will be the likely outcome? (And the Epicurean trichotomy of desires comes right into play here.)

With regard to happiness, I equate it with pleasure (mental or physical, kinetic or katastematic). If I’m happy, I’m enjoying some pleasure. In that sense, I translate (for myself) eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” In that sense, I don’t find the word problematic, nor think of it solely as just an immediate “rush” of feeling (and I’m really not sure that most people do think of it only that way). But it is a term that needs to be unpacked (Emily Austin, it seems to me, does a good job of that).

To cast it all in a lighter, humorous frame, here is a cartoon I once posted elsewhere (especially the last two panels):

As I read through this, I had to remind myself that Cassius is using the word “dogmatic” in the sense that the Hellenistic philosophers such as Epicurus did – not the sense of “characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts.” [Merriam-Webster] I think his comments about contemporary legal standards of proof are illustrative.

Happy Birthday, Steve!

Wishing a prosperous and pleasurable year for you all!

An article by Emily Austin that I don’t recall seeing on here:

Epicurus on the Politics of Fearing Death

Epicurus often serves as the standard-bearer for the view that we can and should use our rational capacities to eliminate our fear of death. Although Epicurus…

www.academia.edu

There have been lots of discussions on here about the nature of the Epicurean gods – including the “idealist” versus “realist” interpretations. But, under either interpretation, I have had trouble with the notion that all the gods are beings who exist only in some cosmic “intermundia” (Lucretius). Epicurus would surely have been aware of the very earthly Greek gods, such as Hestia and Demeter, as archetypal representations of earthly elements and functions – and especially Gaia as a divine personification of the earth itself.

In going back through some past discussions, I especially appreciated Elli’s post #12 here: RE: Epicureans and the Ancient Greek Gods (Imagery of "Gods" / "Gods Among Men")

So, anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone else has some ideas on this …

Quote from Cassius

who mind earthly things.

Oh the horror! That we should "mind earthly things"!? [/s]

Quote from Don

The word used for "belly" is indeed γαστρὶ. From whence we get words like gastric, gastroenterology, etc.

With the idea that γαστήρ actually referred to the whole digestive system, I remembered something about our gut as a “second brain.” Modern biology seems to offer new insights into the importance and multivariate role of our gut – including on such things as mood and feelings, and mental well-being generally.

What To Know About the Gut-Brain Connection

Find out what your brain and gut talk about all day, and how this friendship could affect your health.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Think Twice: How the Gut's "Second Brain" Influences Mood and Well-Being

The emerging and surprising view of how the enteric nervous system in our bellies goes far beyond just processing the food we eat

www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-brain-gut-connection

Happy Thanksgiving all!

I have always been a bit of an over-indulger when it comes to food and drink. With regard to drink, I decided by middle age that overindulgence brought more pain than pleasure, and modified my behavior accordingly. With regard to food, it has been age and economics – rather than any hedonic calculus – that has mandated change: I simply cannot eat like I used to (both in terms of quantity and some foods that I used to enjoy) without unwanted discomforts; and economics, as much as aesthetics, has led to greater simplicity.

My model is my paternal grandmother, Mae (who lived to just 99). In her early twenties, she lived a bit of a high life in San Francisco, but moved while still young to the old family farm in Pennsylvania. There, she maintained a large garden – of flowers, various vegetables and a bit of corn – which she tended every day in season (she leased the fieldland to a neighbor farmer to work). She also harvested (and stored in a cellar in winter) apples from a small orchard near the house, and gathered wild black and red raspberries from the brambles along the lane.

Her eating was mostly modest: perhaps cereal, or an egg and toast, for breakfast; a light lunch; a small portion of meat (say, chicken or a pork chop) with sides of vegetables, corn and/or potatoes for dinner. But on holidays (especially Thanksgiving), she prepared a feast and invited the whole family and some friends. The favorite was roast leg of lamb, pierced with garlic cloves; onions au gratin, sweet potatoes with gravy, and salad. She seldom drank – but always kept some bourbon and scotch and various liqueurs in the sideboard for guests.

I used to have her recipe for risotto – but it got lost over the years. I like to cook – but now am a simple galley-kitchen cook, and the meals get simpler with the years. Usually a glass of wine with dinner, and some brandy in the evening.

If I have a personal hero, it is Mae.

AI Hallucination

Just heard about this, and thought I’d share …

Hallucination (artificial intelligence) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example (from the article):

“By 2023, analysts considered frequent hallucination to be a major problem in LLM technology, with a Google executive identifying hallucination reduction as a "fundamental" task for ChatGPT competitor Google Gemini.[9][54] A 2023 demo for Microsoft's GPT-based Bing AI appeared to contain several hallucinations that went uncaught by the presenter.”

“In October 2025, several hallucinations, including non-existent academic sources and a fake quote from a federal court judgement were discovered in an A$440,000 report written by Deloitte and submitted to the Australian government in July. The company later submitted a revised report with these errors removed, and will issue a partial refund to the government.”

“AI models can cause problems in the world of academic and scientific research due to their hallucinations. Specifically, models like ChatGPT have been recorded in multiple cases to cite sources for information that are either not correct or do not exist.”

“On top of providing incorrect or missing reference material, ChatGPT also has issues with hallucinating the contents of some reference material. A study that analyzed a total of 115 references provided by ChatGPT-3.5 documented that 47% of them were fabricated. Another 46% cited real references but extracted incorrect information from them. Only the remaining 7% of references were cited correctly and provided accurate information. ChatGPT has also been observed to "double-down" on a lot of the incorrect information. When asked about a mistake that may have been hallucinated, sometimes ChatGPT will try to correct itself but other times it will claim the response is correct and provide even more misleading information.”

Quote from Matteng

We only want to root out passions / harmful Emotions

In their somewhat technical language, the Stoics differentiate between πάθη (the “bad” passions/emotions, e.g. anger, resentment) and εὐπάθη (the “good” passions/emotions, e.g., joy).

Quote from Kalosyni

Stoics want esteem in the eyes of others, but this won't necessarily lead to a happy life

Actually, the likes of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius criticize and reject seeking such esteem. On the rest, I think you are spot on.

Quote from Eikadistes

The catbull link to the dissertation seems to be broken, so I've formatted and uploaded excerpts from the Second Edition of the Marx-Engels Reader, translated by Robert C. Tucker:

Thank you! This is so much better than the translation that I have. Kudos!

My interest (as a once-upon-a-time economist) lies in broadly-defined Marxian economic analysis, rather than Marxist (and, especially, such as Leninist/Maoist) political movements. That distinction was brought to me, as a graduate student, by a professor who described himself as “Marxian, but not Marxist.” Unfortunately, I had little opportunity to study Marxian economics then.

Even the Nobel Laureate economist Vassily Leontief (who developed input-output analysis at Harvard, and eschewed pure theory – e.g., of neoclassical economics – for reality-based analysis) thought that Marx’s Capital was a cogent analysis of capitalism, though Leontief himself was not particularly “Marxian.” Following the “great recession” of 2008, even such non-Marxian economists as Nouriel Roubini – who actually did predict the collapse (unlike some “stopped clock” economists) – revealed that they drew upon Marxian analysis, though not solely.

Of course, there are modern interpretations – and intramural critiques – of that analysis, including, I think, of Marx’s embrace, albeit with materialistic modification, of Hegel’s dialectic. One Marxian analysis of Capital that I read described Marx’s dialectic process therein as one of incorporating multiple perspectives on a situation – rather than the simpler thesis-antithesis-synthesis often presented – in recognition that no one has a “view from nowhere” so to speak.

I am currently reading a book called Marxian Economics: An Introduction, by Notre Dame economist David Ruccio. How far I will get, I don’t know. If I find anything relevant to Epicureanism – say, compacts of social justice – I’ll slap it in here.

[I have generally been in the Post-Keynesian-Institutionalist school of thought – which many think is closer to the original Keynes (of the General Theory) than later accommodations to neoclassical thought.]