Posts by wbernys

Collection of qoutes I found, hope others find more! Please use this thread only for more qoutes.

The more you help a friend, the more you help yourself, as their goodwill returns to us. - Polyaenus. Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 283 end, Catholic Library website.

Don't lament those who die, such a thing is inevitable, rather lament those who died shamefully - Polyaenus, Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 347 top, Catholic Library website.

Neither ridicule nor celebrate those among us, for ridicule invites resentment and celebration invites flattery - Polyaenus, Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 356 end, Catholic Encyclopedia website.

Habit aims at small things, that when neglected, gain strength - Polyaenus. Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 385 middle, Catholic Library website.

Sure. I'll do that, I'm just gonna keep this up as well.

Don, could you give a few excerpts in English? it's in German I think and I wouldn't want others to go through the hassle of translation.

Hello all, i want to start this thread for quotes belonging to other Epicurean founders. Obviously Epicurus has own collection so i wanted to put a place for the other founders of our philosophy in once place to remember them by. Hope others can pitch in with other quotes. Some of my own translations below.

The more you help a friend, the more you help yourself, as their goodwill returns to us. - Polyaenus. Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 283 end, Catholic Library website.

Don't lament those who die, such a thing is inevitable, rather lament those who died shamefully - Polyaenus, Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 347 top, Catholic Library website.

Do not seek for things to happen as you wish, rather wish for things to happen as they happen - Metrodorus. Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 355 end, Catholic Library website.

Neither ridicule nor celebrate those among us, for ridicule invites resentment and celebration invites flattery - Polyaenus, Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 356 end, Catholic Encyclopedia website.

Habit aims at small things, that when neglected, gain strength - Polyaenus. Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, section 385 middle, Catholic Library website.

Very long quotation or paraphrase from Hermarchus on the origins of laws against murder and manslaughter, along with why animals are not protected under law from killing them. Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, from Topos text 1.7-1.12 Translation of Thomas Taylor.

1.7 The Arguments of the Epicureans, from Hermarchus
The Epicureans, however, narrating, as it were, a long genealogy, say, that the ancient legislators, looking to the association of life, and the mutual actions of men, proclaimed that manslaughter was unholy, and punished it with no casual disgrace. Perhaps, indeed, a certain natural alliance which exists in men towards each other, though the similitude of form and soul, is the reason why they do not so readily destroy an animal of this kind, as some of the other animals which are conceded to our use. Nevertheless, the greatest cause why manslaughter was considered as a thing grievous to be borne, and impious, was the opinion that it did not contribute to the whole nature and condition of human life. For, from a principle of this kind, those who are capable of perceiving the advantage arising from this decree, require no other cause of being restrained from a deed so dire. But those who are not able to have a sufficient perception of this, being terrified by the magnitude of the punishment, will abstain from readily destroying each other. For those, indeed, who survey the utility of the before-mentioned ordinance, will promptly observe it; but those who are not able to perceive the benefit with which it is attended, will obey the mandate, in consequence of fearing the threatenings of the laws; which threatenings certain persons ordained for the sake of those who could not, by a reasoning process, infer the beneficial tendency of the decree, at the same time that most would admit this to be evident.

Event Date: -1 GR

§ 1.8 For none of those legal institutes which were established from the [15] first, whether written or unwritten, and which still remain, and are adapted to be transmitted, [from one generation to another] became lawful through violence, but through the consent of those that used them. For those who introduced things of this kind to the multitude, excelled in wisdom, and not in strength of body, and the power which subjugates the rabble. Hence, through this, some were led to a rational consideration of utility, of which they had only an irrational sensation, and which they had frequently forgotten; but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punishments. For it was not possible to use any other remedy for the ignorance of what is beneficial than the dread of the punishment ordained by law. For this alone even now keeps the vulgar in awe, and prevents them from doing any thing, either publicly or privately, which is not beneficial [to the community]. But if all men were similarly capable of surveying and recollecting what is advantageous, there would be no need of laws, but men would spontaneously avoid such things as are prohibited, and perform such as they were ordered to do. For a survey of what is useful and detrimental, is a sufficient incentive to the avoidance of the one and the choice of the other. But the infliction of punishment has a reference to those who do not foresee what is beneficial. For impendent punishment forcibly compels such as these to subdue those impulses which lead them to useless actions, and to do that which is right.

Event Date: -1 GR

§ 1.9 Hence also, legislators ordained, that even involuntary manslaughter should not be entirely void of punishment; in order that they might not only afford no pretext for the voluntary imitation of those deeds which were involuntarily performed, but also that they might prevent many things of this kind from taking place, which happen, in reality, involuntarily. For neither is this advantageous through the same causes, by which men were forbidden voluntarily to destroy each other. Since, therefore, of involuntary deeds, some proceed from a cause which is unstable, and which cannot be guarded against by human nature; but others are produced by our negligence and inattention to different circumstances; hence legislators, wishing to restrain that indolence which is injurious to our neighbours, did not even leave an involuntary noxious deed without punishment, but, through the fear of penalties, prevented the commission of numerous offences of this kind. I also am of opinion, that the slaughters which are allowed by law, and which receive their accustomed expiations through certain purifications, were introduced by those ancient legislators, who first very properly instituted these things for no other reason than that they wished to prevent men as much as possible from voluntary slaughter. For the [16] vulgar everywhere require something which may impede them from promptly performing what is not advantageous [to the community]. Hence those who first perceived this to be the case, not only ordained the punishment of fines, but also excited a certain other irrational dread, though proclaiming those not to be pure who in any way whatever had slain a man, unless they used purifications after the commission of the deed. For that part of the soul which is void of intellect, being variously disciplined, acquired a becoming mildness, certain taming arts having been from the first invented for the purpose of subduing the irrational impulses of desire, by those who governed the people. And one of the precepts promulgated on this occasion was, that men should not destroy each other without discrimination.

Event Date: -1 GR

§ 1.10 Those, however, who first defined what we ought to do, and what we ought not, very properly did not forbid us to kill other animals. For the advantage arising from these is effected by a contrary practice, since it is not possible that men could be preserved, unless they endeavoured to defend those who are nurtured with themselves from the attacks of other animals. At that time, therefore, some of those, of the most elegant manners, recollecting that they abstained from slaughter because it was useful to the public safety, they also reminded the rest of the people in their mutual associations of what was the consequence of this abstinence; in order that, by refraining from the slaughter of their kindred, they might preserve that communion which greatly contributes to the peculiar safety of each individual. But it was not only found to be useful for men not to separate from each other, and not to do any thing injurious to those who were collected together in the same place, for the purpose of repelling the attacks of animals of another species; but also for defence against men whose design was to act nefariously. To a certain extent, therefore, they abstained from the slaughter of men, for these reasons, viz. in order that there might be a communion among them in things that are necessary, and that a certain utility might be afforded in each of the above-mentioned incommodities. In the course of time, however, when the offspring of mankind, through their intercourse with each other, became more widely extended, and animals of a different species were expelled, certain persons directed their attention in a rational way to what was useful to men in their mutual nutriment, and did not alone recall this to their memory in an irrational manner.

Event Date: -1 GR

§ 1.11 Hence they endeavoured still more firmly to restrain those who readily destroyed each other, and who, through an oblivion of past [17] transactions, prepared a more imbecile defence. But in attempting to effect this, they introduced those legal institutes which still remain in cities and nations; the multitude spontaneously assenting to them, in consequence of now perceiving, in a greater degree, the advantage arising from an association with each other. For the destruction of every thing noxious, and the preservation of that which is subservient to its extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life. And hence it is reasonable to suppose, that one of the above-mentioned particulars was forbidden, but that the other was not prohibited. Nor must it be said, that the law allows us to destroy some animals which are not corruptive of human nature, and which are not in any other way injurious to our life. For as I may say, no animal among those which the law permits us to kill is of this kind; since, if we suffered them to increase excessively, they would become injurious to us. But through the number of them which is now preserved, certain advantages are imparted to human life. For sheep and oxen, and every such like animal, when the number of them is moderate, are beneficial to our necessary wants; but if they become redundant in the extreme, and far exceed the number which is sufficient, they then become detrimental to our life; the latter by employing their strength, in consequence of participating of this through an innate power of nature, and the former, by consuming the nutriment which springs up from the earth for our benefit alone. Hence, through this cause, the slaughter of animals of this kind is not prohibited, in order that as many of them as are sufficient for our use, and which we may be able easily to subdue, may be left. For it is not with horses, oxen, and sheep, and with all tame animals, as it is with lions and wolves, and, in short, with all such as are called savage animals, that, whether the number of them is small or great, no multitude of them can be assumed, which, if left, would alleviate the necessity of our life. And on this account, indeed, we utterly destroy some of them; but of others, we take away as many as are found to be more than commensurate to our use.

Event Date: -1 GR

§ 1.12 On this account, from the above-mentioned causes, it is similarly requisite to think, that what pertains to the eating of animals, was ordained by those who from the first established the laws; and that the advantageous and the disadvantageous were the causes why some animals were permitted to be eaten and others not. So that those who assert, that every thing beautiful and just subsists conformably to the peculiar opinions of men respecting those who establish the laws, are full of a certain most profound stupidity. For it is not possible that this thing can take place in any other way than that in which the other utilities of [18] life subsist, such as those that are salubrious, and an innumerable multitude of others. Erroneous opinions, however, are entertained in many particulars, both of a public and private nature. For certain persons do not perceive those legal institutes, which are similarly adapted to all men; but some, conceiving them to rank among things of an indifferent nature, omit them; while others, who are of a contrary opinion, think that such things as are not universally profitable, are every where advantageous. Hence, through this cause, they adhere to things which are inappropriate; though in certain particulars they discover what is advantageous to themselves, and what contributes to general utility. And among these are to be enumerated the eating of animals, and the legally ordained destructions which are instituted by most nations on account of the peculiarity of the region. It is not necessary, however, that these institutes should be preserved by us, because we do not dwell in the same place as those did by whom they were made. If, therefore, it was possible to make a certain compact with other animals in the same manner as with men, that we should not kill them, nor they us, and that they should not be indiscriminately destroyed by us, it would be well to extend justice as far as to this; for this extent of it would be attended with security. But since it is among things impossible, that animals which are not recipients of reason should participate with us of law, on this account, utility cannot be in a greater degree procured by security from other animals, than from inanimate natures. But we can alone obtain security from the liberty which we now possess of putting them to death. And such are the arguments of the Epicureans.

Hey Cassius , did you use the wrong quote?

You're quoting my own quotation of Diogenes but then talking about logical argument about pleasure being the highest good. Unless I'm missing the point.

Quote from Bryan

it’s nice to have Cicero fighting with us, to some degree, against the Stoics.

I tend to be much more sympathetic more to Jack Gedney than Cassius in this question so my thoughts on both.

Criticism of Jack Gedney

His dismissal of Torquatus on "vivid pleasures" is rather "bleh" he merely says that Cicero is slandering Epucureans, which I think is extremely ad hoc.

Quote

Both are from Cicero, who, as Cassius points out, is a hostile critic rather than a sympathetic Epicurean. As I would interpret that fact, that suggests that he is more likely to distort or misunderstand the teaching. If Cicero is the most explicit voice one can find describing Epicureanism as advocating “a life crammed with pleasures,” you should be suspicious.

I for one consider the speech of Torquatus to be wholly epicurean and regularly call back to it!

So to call the part on "vivid pleasures" a distortion because you disagree with it but accept other parts, like Torquatus talking about the absence of pain, as genuinely epicurean seems like cherry picking to me, and it's clear Torquatus considers vivid pleasures as genuinely very good for us, and how the best life is pictured.

I also think his treatment of famous Epicurus qoute on kinetic pleasures is a little odd.

Quote

What does Epicurus actually recommend in regard to food, sex, and aesthetic stimulation? Mostly prudential avoidance.

However, this seems too strong. I also strongly imagine that this is influenced by selection bias of ancient philosophers mainly quoting things which an ancient hedonist would not ordinarily say. This is evidently the reason for why Plutarch sometimes quotes Epicurus for example on saying that it is more pleasant to give than to receive and Marcus Aurelius holding up Epicurus as an example of pain not being so bad or Seneca quoting Epicurus extolling virtue.

Sure Epicurus wants us to avoid pain if we can find a healthier way to get the pleasure we want (such as having sex before or after dinner) or avoid pleasures outweighed by pains but I don't think him giving advice on how to avoid pain from certain activities means those activities are not actually good and desirable, and Epicurus is clear these kinetic pleasures are truly part of THE GOOD. Saying he can't imagine the good without these pleasures clearly indicate they have great value are are worth pursuing, so long as we do it within the hedonic calculus of going after pleasures that are not outweighed by pains and choosing pains that have more pleasures.

Criticism of Cassius.

Quote

2. People who claim that the Letter to Menoeceus emphasizes the avoidance of pain are considering only “a single sentence torn from context.”

This is just wrong in my view, and Jack is absolutley right to point out that it's a lot more than just the one sentence. This is his strongest point by far. It's several sentences and given the fact that the letter to Menoeceus is only supposed to be a short summary which mentions several other subjects, saying that the absence of pain is not important to me is like saying the classification desires, or views on the future, or all pain being short or manageable is not important or "just a single sentence" (about one to two sentences each) even though it has much more length than either of these.

Also Cassius has sometimes made the arguments that pain reduction is the incorrect emphasis because of joys like friendship or owning a pet, which has "inevitably ends in grief" but Jack is right to point out that these things also lead to removal of pain in their own right, such as feelings of loneliness or anxiety, this is explitlictly what makes Friendship necessary for Epicurus, and Jack is right to point out that PD40 seems to say grief is not inevitable, perhaps a natural missing of pleasure, but not really extreme grief.

I also think Jack is right when he says

Quote

Cassius is right in pointing out that PD 3 is not an isolated maxim, but part of an intentional series of Principal Doctrines 1–4 (abbreviated further in the tetrapharmakon). However, looking at this context only underlines the importance of pain reduction in Epicureanism: all four are about pain reduction in the broad sense I describe.

PD3 is meant to be read as an affirmation that pleasure, it's limits understood by reason, can serve as a guide, and that guide seems to be "don't chase after higher and higher pleasures of more stimulation, pleasure reaches it's height in pain removal, calmness and healthiness is as good as sex or fine food". So don't accept those supposedly higher pleasures which have greater pains than they are worth.

Quote

10. The “absence of pain” reading arose from Stoic, religious, and Humanist filters, rather than an objective look at the original Epicurean texts.

Heavily agree with Jack's criticism of this in the blog! I certainly consider this emphasis on absence of pain as purely Epicurean and don't interject other ideas, In fact I tried to do away with other ideas that I had earlier such as Epicurus being a "virtue ethicist" from a previous thread. and I dislike this sort of behavior of seeing any disagreement as a "corruption". I certainly don't think you intentionally do this Cassius but sometimes you come close and I hope we all know that we are fellow hogs of Epicurus and not "corrupters".

An interesting passage is in Diogenes Laertius 138, which seems to have conflicting translations of education either being a hobby or skill. Inwood and Gerson translate it as

Quote

as Diogenes too says in book twenty of the Selections; he also says that basic education is a [form of] pastime.

Other people translate it as "recreation" including White (2021) This seems to imply that "basic education" is a hobby or a way to spend one's leisure? Like studying history of poetics for fun. This would seem to make Epicurus more friendly to Poetics than assumed, like Plutarch records Epicurus as saying the wise man will enjoy festivals, so long as it's kept clear of philosophy or assigned false importance. Alternatively this could be somewhat dismissive as saying that poetics is "only" a pastime at best and not something inherently noble.

Otherwise Bailey and Mensch translate it as

Quote

So Diogenes says too in the 20th book of Miscellanies, and he adds that education is a ‘way of life. (Bailey)

This seems to imply that Education is like a skill, and in line with the context being the discussion on virtues this makes a good deal of sense of saying education tells us how to pass life in a respectable manner. Education is for the training of the how to live a pleasant life.

The Greek is καθά φησι καὶ Διογένης ἐν τῇ εἰκοστῇ τῶν Ἐπιλέκτων, ὃς καὶ διαγωγὴν λέγει τὴν ἀγωγήν.

Just realized i never did this. Here's my outline.

The general summary of Epicureanism i have is that living pleasantly is the absolute goal, and all other things virtue, epistemology, and physics is completely subject to this. With living pleasantly being the most important and only genuine good, that is, it is the only thing worth pursuing and we naturally pursue it, here's my takeaway from Epicurus on how to live pleasantly.

On How to live Pleasantly.

- Cultivate loving relationships, the feeling of being loved and cared for is more important than even food or water, with Friendship being most central. And the best way to cultivate this is by the virtues of being loving, understanding, generous, friendly, just, and being able to be completely honest about yourself by staying away from vice and finding like-minded people, and sharing your genuine interests with your friends, if you can't be honest with them, it's not a good relationship either because of you or them, and you should either change your habits to be able to be more honest, or get rid of a relationship which brings more problems than it's worth.

- Remember that your body and mind genuinely gets used to almost any diet or lifestyle after a short while and does not "need" fancy luxury every afternoon, and is cheapened by more indulgence, not less. Trust in your ability of hedonic adaption and remember it, both to enjoy luxury more by enjoying things when they come, and not risking harm over trivial luxuries through obesity, anxiety over money, etc.

- One must continually remember and reread the truth of how easily a good life is acquired and revere it, feel it in your bones, to avoid ruminating thoughts and empty fears.

- Cultivate gratitude for past and present goods, and a calm hope for future ones. I am only 23 years old but as sadistic as it may sound, i sometimes think about how many didn't even make it to be one year old or 10 to feel more gratitude for the 23 years I've had and hopefully more, I like the Lucretius line about getting joy at seeing those stranded at sea, not out of malice, but out of knowing our own current pleasures. More importantly...

- Don't catastrophize and avoid rumination on the future like the devil, don't do doom scrolling. Cicero quotes Epicurus as saying that filling ourselves up with anxiety is just filling ourselves up with a present evil which may never come and waste energy on pursuing current pleasures and i think he would agree it chiefly causes neglect of good habits, thought he doesn't say it. Tusculan Disputations III.15.32. Usener 444

- Remember that wisdom requires action as well as knowledge, so actually implement your knowledge, It's useless to know things are right if you don't implement them out of sloth or fear, this helped give me the kick in the but i needed to lose weight and outreach more to my friends and brothers. (Went from 20 pounds away to class three obesity to nine pounds away from healthy weight now). I I also learned of a lovely quote from Polyeaneus thank to Hiram Crespo's blog "Habits are born of small things, but bad habits gain vigor through our neglect.

- Believe strongly that your life is decided by your actions and disposition, and don't believe or blame a terrible life on necessity or luck, which rarely makes a life miserable compared to our own choices. In short, belief in free will is obvious to our own senses and important for living happily.

- Don't feel fear about the gods (who at best don't care about what you do), death (which is nothing to us and distracts from today), or pain (which is not as bad as we think when it comes and the worst evil is usually all the anxiety before it comes)

- I follow the idealist interpretation on Epicurean gods and both believe it's what Epicurus taught and my own view that i implement in daily life, i personally like imagining gods made of star dust and dancing around in the universe.

- I am a psychological hedonist and i believe Epicurus was as well.

(Possibly) Modern updates.

- I am skeptical that the wise man can always be happy, I certainly think the wise man can always deal with misfortune better than fools so it's still worth pursuing, but reading about cases like Blanche Monnier makes me think that they're are hard limits to what the mind can endure. Perhaps someone can maintain happiness in these condition but I'm skeptical.

- I tend to think money matters more than Epicurus may think, and isn't as completely anxious as he may think it is, in large part due to emergency expenses that life throws at us and a sense of freedom to do our own things. I absolutely agree with him that fame and power are largely not as helpful as advertised and usually harmful and love of just money itself and not security that comes with it is very harmful, but because of health concerns, insurance, student loans, or car payments, i think money is genuinely quite important, perhaps more than Epicurus lets on. This could just be a difference in definition of "poverty", or difficulties in modern life versus the ancient world due to insurance and cars, since i largely agree with Philodemus "On Property Management".

- I think a feeling of self-esteem, a good deal of mental stimulation, and feeling of doing something worthwhile is a natural and necessary desires, sadly just because of how humans are hardwired to feel anxious if we don't have this. Not sure Epicurus would disagree with this. I imagine it's a bit of a modern problem.

- I am personally a bit of bible nerd to learn more about how absurd it is whenever i feel mystified or afraid of hell. And think knowledge of scriptures claims may be necessary for happiness and not just natural science.

- Like most, i am more positive about love and children than past Epicureans, so long as we agree to only pursue someone who we would actively want as a friend as well as a romantic partner. Along with delight of seeing children grow up. For the record i follow Emily A. Austin in think Epicurus is more against "obsessive lust" than "love" in our language and is fine with good romantic partners but does not tolerate obsessive lust with toxic partners.

Favorite medium?

Frances Wright long discussion of the virtues in chapter 10.

Vatican Sayings 35, 46, 52, 54-55.

The description of the wise man in the Letter to Menoeceus. I believe picturing the life we most want and the types of life we avoid by wisdom is extremely beneficial and Philodemus himself recommends it.

The movie "Soul" by Pixar.

Hope you guys enjoy!

Quote from Martin

Most of the struggle to maintain their power seems to be pleasurable to them.

I just wonder if this relies too much on their own self-reports and what they like to present themselves as, basically gaslight themselves and others by acting like they really, deep down, enjoy the struggle. When objectively, when they are anxious, they don't enjoy it as much as they and other people think, and only talk about enjoying the struggle after coming out of a bad situation okay.

Emily A. Austin has a great chapter on this whe issue of self-reports of happiness versus objective standards in chapter 3, which highlights this issue of a detective investigating a husband who says he's happy, even though objectively, he seems not to be.

Quote from Bryan

Many harmful actions can be committed without much fear if the perpetrator has enough power or protection.

Interesting point, I feel Epicurus would mainly counter this by saying that the power or protection that allows one to commit harmful actions is itself a constant source of stress and fear, they have to constantly be on watch to preserve their wealth and benefactors, they also tainted with restless desires which limit their own happiness along with shame or a "bad conscience".

Corrupt leaders need a ton of bodyguards for a reason. Besides even if they can feel freedom from fear of imprisonment, they will at least still live in some fear of keeping their crimes secret, leading to disgrace or political revolutions against them. One may imagine situations like corrupt presidents or oligarchs in Africa committing all sorts of acts of corruption due to their power, they are constantly under threat of politics and potential coups and the like and have to constantly watch for any developments with striking workers or something to keep their power.

It's always important to remember the firm confidence you see so many dictators and the powerful have on tv is mainly the face they want you to see and like to imagine themselves as having, and not what goes on behind the scenes. Which i like to think is more stressful than most think, perhaps that is naivety talking though.

Welcome h.nur beyaz erkizan! It's been recommended many times but as for practical living I would recommend Emily A. Austin's "Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean guide to life" for an Epicurean approach to modern living. It's ah absolutely delightful book in my view, just repurchased it for the audio book and got my dad to read it.

Also Norm DeWitt's Epicurus and his philosophy is an excellent guide to the history of Epicureanism and you can get it online through Agathon library.

As for Diogenes of Oenoanda specifically I may recommend "Martin the Epicurean" by Martin Ferguson Smith who is the main translator of Diogenes I haven't read the book but knowing Smith's other works it's quite well written.

As for your own studies, Martha Nussbaum's "The therapy of desire" may interest you, she's more a fan of Aristotle than Epicurus so I disagree with her on some points. Still I find her a valuable resource, she at least isn't actively malicious towards Epicurus and praises him quite a bit.

To add onto Joshua point, along with homer, they also may have cited Hercules, to prove pain to be an evil. In Diogenes Laertius they pointed to Hercules lamenting at the pain of being torn by his poisoned Tunic but it's hard to tell if he's quoting a Epicurean example or his own.

Quote

Left to our own feelings, then, we shun pain; as when even Heracles, devoured by the poisoned robe, cries aloud,

"And bites and yells, and rock to rock resounds,
Headlands of Locris and Euboean cliffs."

For today we may imagine someone making the point of pain being an evil by Jesus prayer in Gethsemane to avoid crucifixion to God, and wailing on the Cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" in the Gospel of Mark and Matthew.

Welcome Buck23 as for printed versions. I would personally recommend "The Best of Epicurus" By Classic Caves.

It has all of the main letters, most of the biography (it only excludes parts about slander against Epicurus), The Vatican Sayings, and the vast majority of the great speech of Torquatus on Ethics.

It's also translated in a very easy to read, and organized, fashion while being accurate.

I really like the Hedonicon that Cassius mentioned but the english is a little rought at times sadly due to using older translations and it's missing torquatus but does have the great work of Lucretius which classic caves doesn't. Still recommend if you have an interest.

Happy to have you here!

Quote from Don

My only amplification is that we need a body to even be able to experience the world through the senses. There are no sensations without the ear, eye, tongue, skin, nose, and mind/soul/psykhē working in concert.

Oh I see! Okay good, yeah you and I are in agreement. Maybe I'll add something into the original post on this.

Quote from Don

The only summary statement I'd offer is that all pleasure had/has to be bodily in the broadest sense since we exist as mind and body as a whole and we experience everything within our a physical existence.

I think this quote interprets Torquatus as saying that the mind is apart of the body, and without it the mind cannot exist, and therefore is still physical. If it is that interpretation, i disagree. Feel free to correct me. Obviously the internet sometimes makes this difficult to understand each other's views.

I think Torquatus is making a very careful distinction between body and mind, after all if he was saying in his speech that "all experience requires we exist" which i think is what you are saying that he (Torquatus) is saying, where would the controversy be? Why the disagreement with Cyrenaicism?

Rather i think Torquatus is making the more striking idea that all mental pleasures and pains are based on the five senses specifically in either recollection, present experience, or anticipation of sensations of sight, sound, touch, etc. Which i sought to defend.

Post-Mortem concern being based on fears or hopes of seeing good sights (literally) in the future, after one dies, like family prospering. Guilty conscience based on fear of "bad sights" (literally).

Hello all, I have long been curious about this apparently orthodox claim from Torquatus that all pleasures and pains are ultimately based in the body:

Quote

“Again, we aver that mental pleasures and pains arise out of bodily ones (and therefore I allow your contention that any Epicureans who think otherwise put themselves out of court; and I am aware that many do, though not those who can speak with authority).”

I imagine the orthodox Epicureans had sophisticated ways of defending this thesis. Philodemus in particular, whom Torquatus praises, strikes me as exactly the sort of careful thinker who may have accepted something like this view and had good ways to defend it. So I started thinking about how such a position could be defended against common objections as an Epicurean.

The main objection comes from cases that seem purely “mental”: taking pride in one’s country prospering (as the Cyrenaics discuss), concern for friends prosperity, post-mortem anxieties, guilt over unjust deeds, and other examples people like Cicero mention. These do not initially appear reducible to bodily pleasure and pain.

But I think it is important to note that when Torquatus speaks of “bodily” pleasures and pains, he means pleasures rooted in sensation generally — sight, sound, touch, and the anticipations and memories connected with them. Mental pleasures would therefore still arise from sensory life, even when mediated through imagination, expectation, or memory.

For example, when we feel pleasure at the prosperity of our country, what exactly delights us? Usually imagery from things like festivals, music, abundance, stability, beauty, peace, and social flourishing — all things tied to pleasant sensory and social experience. These then produce pleasant anticipations and mental images.

The same applies to friendship. A friend flourishing matters partly because it increases the likelihood of future pleasures of companionship: conversation, shared meals, affection, mutual aid, and security. Even absent immediate sensation, the mind takes pleasure in the anticipation and remembrance of such experiences.

One of the controversial points is about Epicurus saying paternal love is not "natural" but is chosen because of a hope to be taken care of when we're older. But more importantly i imagine Epicurus would point to hopes of seeing delightful sights of seeing children prospering, and being around for you in your old age, i imagine friendship runs on the same line. But it is still based in hopes of bodily goods, of hopes for future pleasures.

Post-mortem concern can be understood similarly. Disturbing thoughts about loved ones suffering after our death, enemies rejoicing, or one’s memory being disgraced all involve distressing anticipations and imagined scenes. Philodemus seems especially helpful here. Some of these concerns may be relatively natural and even socially beneficial — for example, concern for loved ones after one’s death may strengthen friendship, which Epicurus regarded as among life’s greatest goods. But the distress still ultimately depends upon false beliefs about posthumous harm or perception.

Philodemus gives humorous examples of more vain post-mortem fears: anxiety over being forgotten, or horror at being eaten by fish after dying at sea. He points out that burial or cremation are no less physically gruesome, and yet people treat them differently because of the images associated with them:

Quote

“And what need is there to argue that it is no worse to be devoured by fishes than by maggots and grubs while covered by the earth, or by fire while lying on the earth, at least when the remnant has no perception of either the former or the latter?” (Column 32)

This is a powerful illustration of how apparently “mental” anxieties are still rooted in sensory imagination and anticipated bodily horror. Whether one fears worms, fish, fire, disgrace, or oblivion, the distress comes from imagined experiences that one falsely takes oneself to undergo after death.

Ironically, one of Philodemus’ therapies is simply to point out how universal such deaths are. If nearly all humanity undergoes these fates without perception or harm, why be especially distressed by them? Death is nothing to us, and therefore cannot injure us.

The most difficult case is probably guilt or distress over unjust action. But I think even here the same structure appears.

When we imagine the “unjust man,” we usually picture one of two things: either a successful wrongdoer surrounded by cruelty and suffering, or a ruined criminal living in fear and misery.

Even the “successful” unjust man is associated not with pleasant images, but with distressing ones: bloodshed, betrayal, children suffering, fear, destruction, grief, paranoia, and hatred from others. Epicurus may have thought that human beings naturally recoil from such experiences and images. Modern psychology arguably strengthens this point, since exposure to gruesome violence often produces trauma, nightmares, and lasting psychological disturbance even apart from legal punishment or religious guilt. Such as seen in PTSD of soldiers.

The other image of the unjust man is equally miserable, and Torquatus i imagine has this one mainly in mind: imprisonment, exile, social hatred, disease, punishment, fear of discovery, divine terror, or estrangement from family and community. These are again tied to distressing sensory and emotional anticipations. The same sort of distress that is tied to an aversion to the ascetic's fear of becoming a person of "spiritual decay" surrounded by filth, gross sights, squalor, societal hatred, or being actively hated by God in some cases.

So even where pains appear “purely mental,” Torquatus will argue that they still arise from bodily life, sensory imagination, memory, anticipation, and our natural aversion to painful and horrifying experiences of sights, sounds, and pictures. And i think this is more persuasive than it's given credit for.

Hope you all like this.

Happy to have you here RoseQuartzAxolotl!

Quote

For instance, “natural” desires for food or sex are biologically determined and probably can’t be eliminated. To argue for their elimination would be foolish, so instead we should try to manage those desires prudently. In contrast, unnatural desires (which are culturally learned, rather than innate) are more likely candidates for elimination: the desires to be portrayed in public statues or to have a billion dollars, for instance, are clearly not innate, and so it seems plausible to remove those desires through the cognitive training of philosophy.

Here's something i really disagree with on with the TIm O'Keef, and i've been curious about other's opinion on this for a long time.

Does Epicurus mean natural as innate or natural as in nature approves of it? I think Tim O'Keefe misreads natural desires as meaning innate, whereas it actually means "actually helps with pleasure", this is why natural desires can turn into vain or unnatural desires if they become sources of stress or likely to cause harm. It's natural and should be pursued when brining more pleasure than pain but unnatural when not and should be shunned. There is also the fact that i think Epicurus just outright disagrees that sex or lavish food is necessary for happiness and can't be eliminated and he seems to say the opposite below.

PD30: Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to baseless opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own nature, but because of human vanity.

Emily A. Austin seems to agree with me on this btw.

Quote

While both necessary and extravagant desires earn Epicurus' endorsement as "natural," corrosives desires are both unnatural and unnecessary. Recall that when Epicurus says "unnatural" here, he doesn't mean "artificial". Instead he means contrary to our nature, or not conductive to human well-being. (Pg.50)

Welcome Griffin !