Posts by elli

    AND HERE IS THE WHOLE ISSUE : We have to understand what were the issues that Epicurus had confronted, in his era, - and not only in his era, but what issues we have to confront in our era too - and we have to realize also that the following is only a small excerpt of what Epicurus had heard and read about philosophical issues.

    Here is a small excerpt by Aristotle's Eudemia that is taught by theologians and philologists inside the greek schools, till today (sick).

    "It is said that the virtue of temperance concerns pleasures and sorrows, but it is actually limited to the first (pleasures). Initially, the pleasures of the intellect are excluded, for the people who become slaves of them they are never characterized as profligates/punishable (my note : WOW and thrice WOW). Also, the pleasures of vision, hearing, and smell are excluded. The virtue of temperance concerns only those sensations that provide direct enjoyment to both inferior animals and humans, namely touch and taste. Besides, not all the pleasures of touch and taste are included, but only the purely of inferior animal ones (my note: oh, my goodness, here Aristotle separates the senses of touch and taste in lower and upper level !!!), and those are the pleasures from food, drink and aphrodisiacs (my note lower are the pleasures for food, drink and aphrodisiacs, so you are going straight to asceticism).

    The only sorrows that are concerned with the temperance are those due to the unfulfilled desire for these pleasures. The ideal life, according to Aristotle, lies in the action that corresponds to the virtue of wisdom: ":«ὡστ' εἴη ἀν ἡ εὐδαιμονία θεωρία τις» and that means : that the goal of eudeamonia is for theorizing on the view (contemplation) of the Absolute Truth about the eternal being (THE GOD). (My note : ABSOLUTE TRUTH, JUSTICE, and GOD only in their stupid head had existed, exists and will exist).

    After the reference in the above, the teacher inside the schools makes the parallelism with the following excerpt by saint Maximos. And here we the epicureans understand the root of the decadence that is followed by the stoicism and its evolution the christianism.

    Saint Maximos ("his holly grace"), he directly inspired by the Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, argues that: in

    order to succeed the knowledge of God and virtue, there are many that are demanded, such as discharge from passions/emotions, patience in temptations, virtues logoi (my note : virtues logoi are the mere opinions, empty beliefs to which are due to the greatest disturbance of our mind/soul), realization of modes of salvation, disconnection of the mood of the soul from the flesh, alienation of feeling from its relation to the senses, perfect departure of the mind from all creations and generally all that contribute to abstaining from evil and ignorance, since without the synergy of Grace of God, the virtues lose their true meaning, but without the consent of the believer, the grace of God remains fruitless.

    (My note : I have anything more to say, I remain shocking and speechless !!!)8o8o

    Elayne, please if you would like make the statement that [aponia] and [ataraxia] are words that give the description of the magnitude of the limits of pleasure, and for making more clear the description, make a reference of the PD3, as it was translated in my above text.

    PD 3 on the limits of pleasure serves as the cornerstone for all further elaborations on the Epicurean understanding of pleasure and pain: the limit of the various, particular pleasures is the relief of the respective, corresponding "pains". For this, epicureans do not speak about "moderation" and "golden rule", but they always speak about limits, that are personal.

    For the epicurean understanding of both, what is meant here is neither the ecstasy of delight nor the agony of torture, but the natural everyday activities of our personal experiences. For example, once one has eaten enough, one is no longer hungry. Logically, for as long as one continues to feel full, one is not hungry; nor, of course, can one feel both sated and hungry all at once. Since there is a graduation for this of our bodily procedure. Epicurus closes the argument snugly with a glaring reduction ad absurdum.

    As well as, he goes on a crucial tangent, saying that this very same principle applies not only to pain in the strictly physical sense, but also to "that which causes sadness", or mental/emotional distress. This analogy between e.g. the "pain" of hunger and the "pain-trouble" of anxiety, or stress, or grief, has momentous ramifications in Epicurean ethics. Since, for Epicurus, the body/mind/soul is one and the same thing.

    Epicurus' says that pleasure is as easily attainable as satiety in the course of attending to our everyday, natural needs: we can "fill" ourselves with ongoing emotional wellness just as easily as (and provided that) we can satisfy our hunger, thirst, and need of shelter and safety on a daily basis. The main core of this doctrine is that - through our sober reasoning - when we banish mere opinions and empty beliefs to which are due to the greatest disturbance of our mind/soul, so then, it's easy to understand consciously what makes us feel pleased and bliss.

    Our epicurean friend Elayne wrote : They can have what is clinically termed "alexithymia", inability to describe a feeling.

    WOW ! "alexithymia"... that's a greek word of that clinical situation that can also give the "apathy" of the stoics and stoicism. HA :S

    Alexithymia :

    "Alex" means "I repel" or "I push back". That's how we have and that name "Alex+ander" that means I repel, or I push back "men".

    and "thymos-thymia" which means [ the emotion] or [the passion]. "Alexithymia" means I repel my emotions, and that's the same with APATHY which means I uproot, I push back my emotions. And why I am in the clinical situation of apathy or alexthymia? Because "ex apalon onychon" i.e. from childhood, something enforced me to not make properly the measurement among pleasure and pain, something did not make me clear where are my limits among pleasure and pain, and of others limits too. Something enforced me to do my "duty", and accepting my "fate" or "necessity". And that "something" is an authenticity i.e. my parents and then people - as leaders - of my social environment, and this is NOT for purpose to lead myself and others in pleasure and happiness, but for being a virtuous guy. :P

    And now for a+taraxia that goes along with a+ponia.

    this (a) means [without]

    ataraxia means without agitation.

    aponia means without pain.

    ataraxia and aponia are words that describe the limits of magnitude of pleasures i.e. the situation that consciously I understand/feel with my body/mind/soul as the feeling of pleasure.

    Again the PD 3 : The limit of magnitude of the pleasures is the removal of everything painful, wherever there is pleasure, however long it may present there no pain or sadness of both together.


    Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long it lasts, there is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both together.

    Or with the fg 423 Epicurus addressed to peripatetics : "What brings unsurpassed joy is the removal of a great evil; and this is the nature of the good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm, and do not stroll about chattering emptily" .

    Like the words "aponia" and "ataraxia", in greek language, we have the word "a+lithea". This "a" means [without] , and "lithe" which means [oblivion]. "Alithea" means the situation that is without oblivion. And in english is given with the word "truth". For the word "lithe" [oblivion] in english and greek languages the synonym words are "unconsciousness", "insensibility", "a stupor" "stupefaction", "senselessness", "a coma", "a blackout". That's why we call senses and feelings the criteria of "alithea" [truth] inside the methodology of the epicurean Canon.

    As I said in the past, in this paragraph Epicurus does not use the words "freedom of pain" or "absence of pain", he uses "neither - nor" next to the verbs "algein" and "tarassesthai" in the grammatical form of greek language that declare motion i.e. activities. Pleasure is to do such actions e.g. study the Nature, celestial phenomena, and our nature and on the basis of our personal limits to not feel pain in the body and disturbance in the soul. To maintain a pleasure I have to do something i.e. maintenance of pleasure depends on our activities and similarly to chose a pain and then minimizing this pain is for the achievement of a greater pleasure. Prudence and the study of Nature teaches us where to set our personal limits, in accordance with the experiences and the reality and the society we live, and how to use tools as called virtues to live a pleasant life. This is the way that goes the hedonic calculus in the Canon that includes both of our feelings pleasure and pain, and not a neutral state of anesthesia or amethexia that leads to apathy and the decadence of any society.

    We have to realize also that Epicurus speaks for gradation among pleasure and pain, as well as, all the things/issues get constantly different values depending of what we choose to do for the achievement of the goal of pleasure. For this the division on pleasure to kinetic and katastematic pleasures is not given by him anywhere. The only he speaks is for eudaemonia and this is how he starts his letter to Meneoceus and how he is ending it : when we do not possess eudaemonia we do EVERYTHING to win it. This is the art to live like gods among men.

    Imo the behavior of a profligate is the same behavior with that one that says he is is humble and live in simplicity and frugality. Both such behaviors are antisocial and without limits, both they produce pain. And both declare men that are not the masters of themselves, both are slaves recognizing other masters than themselves. Eudaemonia is not an issue that is possessed by them (ex apalon onychon) i.e. from childhood , because for the achievement of eudeamonia first you have to possess yourself and that means self-sufficiency and self-restrain, (egratia) that is synonym with freedom and bravery, because your goal is pure pleasure that its limit is neither to feel pain in the body nor agitation in the soul.

    Stilpon of Megara

    Stilpon was a representative of a smaller Socratic School of Megara, especially known for its dialectical acrobatics, claimed that is not allowed for a person to give another predicate except itself. We only say that man is man and not that man is rich, because man and rich are two different things. Stilpon attributed to the "being" completely different meaning from the real.

    Thus, the epicurean Colotes with satirical mood writes :

    "How shall we live really, if we cannot say a man good, neither a man Captain, but must separately say a man man and separately a good good and a Captain Captain, and if we're talking about ten thousand horsemen and fortified city, we must say that the horsemen are horsemen, the ten thousand ten thousand; and so on."

    And now : "Pleasure is the absence of pain". The acrobatics of dialectics to define issues and things with the absence of their opposites. But above all is the separation/division in the characteristics, and that is because we do not want to give descriptions with clarity, but absolute definitions. We do not want to see that when we mix black and white, we see that there is a graduation of grey among them. No, we want the dilemmas of either black or white.

    But the whole movie of life can't be watched in cut pieces, and when we want to define things with the absence of their opposites is totally false. Because, someone may also say : "life is the absence of death". Do you think so ? Because when I study the Nature I observe that life can't exist without death. How the carnivores shall live without the death of herbivores ? And how the herbivores shall live without eating plants ? And how the Universe shall exist without fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces ?

    Βut if the epicurean young man with the name Colotes would be alive today, hearing that "pleasure is the absence of pain", he could say : How shall we live really our life, if we cannot just say that "pleasure is the supreme good, and our alpha and omega"… but we must to define pleasure in the absence of the opposite feeling of pain. And when we say pleasure we must separately divide its characteristics surpreme, surpreme, good good, alpha alpha, omega omega. And when we speak for the feeling of pleasure, we must say that we feel it separately in our body and separately in our soul. And when we eat our whole body separately enjoys the food i.e. separately enjoys our mouth, our throat, our stomach, our cells, our mind, our hands, and so on and so on.

    And if we talking for ALL the pleasures of our life, we must to define them separately, dividing the pleasures in motion, and the pleasures in rest. And if we are talking about the whole Universe we must speak for it in relation to time. So, we must say separately dividing it with a starting moment and an ending moment, as well as, to define and separately dividing the Universe with the up up, down down, left left, right right, and so on, and so on. ^^

    "Absence of pain is pleasure". This is a definition which shouts out loud, and not a description. In general, oral and written speaking, for the descriptions, we use words and verbs that declare motion. What on earth of a motion has a word like "absence"? And the more some are trying to give a definition on pleasure or pain i.e. the feelings, the more they fail, and the more they are trying to speak about absolutes and the like. Because descriptions for being more clear have to be described with actions, and examples with experiences.

    So, we see many theorizing and speaking more and more about asceticism, apathy, fantastic worlds, second life in heavens, and the like. But they are like that stupid fox of Aesop that when she saw sweet grapes, as she could not reach them, she named them as bitter. Bitter are their endless definitions.

    This is the methodology of dialectis, and idealism in general that leads us to discussions without end, but the worse of all, it leads us to nihilism, inaction and slavery. The procedure of all that matters for Epicurus, it is to learn his methodology i.e. his way of thinking/acting. Humans' feelings and all the phenomena in Nature, and in our materialistic reality, can be given only by descriptions and not by definitions. Descriptions use words with as much clarity as they could, and the more the clarity they have, the more there is a human that has such experiences for understanding and the like through the empathy.

    Time within the reality is flowing and when something happens in present it becomes quickly as a past. Observe a star and its light, it is not its present, it is not its future, it is its past.

    Moreover, do you know how many deletions have been made in our brain when after a long time we are trying to give a description to a friend or even to our self about a fact that has happened to us either that fact was painful or pleasurable? Many deletions. Because our brain is focused not in the quantity but in the quality of that experience. And the quality is in self-sufficiency, in generosity, in pride of what we have achieved, and in understanding through empathy for the likes.

    Once, an epicurean friend Mary Stamatiadou, who is a scientist in quantum biogenetics, she had said to me for Epicurus : Elli, there is no the issue of time in the way of thinking by Epicurus, there are no definitions in his methodology. There are no absolutes and standards in his manifold way of thinking. The only standard as the first principle, for him, is the particles and the void. The only he is doing is to describe probabilities according to whatever we experienced in the past and what we're wishing for the present or future. To describe and at the same time to eliminate those probabilities that are obstacles to the goal of pleasure. Since, for him all the issues and the phenomena in Nature get different values in accordance with the materialistic reality, and the experiences in life of what we choose and what we are wishing to choose, and what we are able to choose for the goal of pleasure and eudeamonia.

    "Man is the measure of all things" as Protagoras said, and this is something as a good starting point for the existential Psychology to liberate the persons from fears and lead them to more and higher conscientious thoughts and actions of autonomy. Nature has many causes and many effects and some facts/things are similar, some are not similar. What we have to focus on, to observe in, and study of, as much as we can, it is Nature, our nature with the usage of our agency/faculties as given by her, for the achievement of ataraxia and aponia that these two words are also a description of pleasure and eudaemonia, which are also addressed to whom they can't understand us. And why many can't understand us? Because they do not HAVE it deepen in their hearts i.e. they did not conquer it "ex apalon onychon" i.e. from childhood. They are not the masters of themselves. They live in misery and trouble and they fight to each other to climb that throne, which has for its basis mud as Nietzsche said, and as I say not only mud, but shit.8o

    - Metaphysics: No metaphysics or prophysics or between phycics only Physics or Physiology i.e. the scientific study of Nature with the observation and examination on the phenomena and the causes that caused them for finding the obvious and for the purpose to not be agitated that is leading to pure pleasure or eudaemonia.

    - Epistemology: The methodology or gnosiology of the multivaled reasoning or manifold way that is in the Canon that is leading to pure pleasure or eudeamonia.

    - Ethics: Friendship on the basis of the common benefit while all the friends are exceptional to each other having the clear sense that their common goal is pure pleasure or eudaemonia.

    - Politics: As a general picture is the constitution of Democracy i.e. many groups of mental balanced persons that are always ready for making social contracts with such fair laws to not hurt each other that is also keeps the coherence of the society they live for the purpose of the pure pleasure or eudaemonia for the majority of them.

    Epicurus that he was impious worshiping the gods of his polis/country... He does not accept an absolute justice the same for ALL, how would be an anarchist, a cosmopolitan, a globalist and ALL the mobs of the people of this world are one and the same under the rules of the same laws and justice ? No, these are ideas by Platonists and stoics !

    Cassius please we have to not forget that Epicurus on "wise man" said for Cynics that are the enemies of Hellas, because Cynics were antisocial. Epicurus here just reminds to a friend what is the philosophy that he studies for himself that is the Epicurean and totally different than the philosophy that is studied by the mob in Hellas. And which is this philosophy that is preferred for studies by the mob in Hellas and not only in Hellas ? Of course that was and still is the dialectics and the IDEALISM by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics.

    The accurate translation on this ES76 from ancient greek text is :

    "As you grow old you are such as I urge you to be and you know well what is your philosophy and what is the philosophy in the rest of Hellas. That is why I congratulate you!"

    "A time to partake of the refulgent pleasure of just BEing. The dream of the aesthetic, that's what I yearn for; all the light and power of true philosophy, shot through with the golden sweetness of beauty, form, loveliness and pleasure. Will I ever tire of such vistas?

    Could I ever want more than this?"

    JJElbert hello and welcome here. I'm glad that I read such a poetic and full of images text of yours which - at the same time - it is clear and powerful of meanings. You remind me a small excerpt from a book "TA HELLENIKA", by Dimitris Liantinis who was a professor of Philosophy in the greek University.

    "You ask: what is my charge, and what is my waste?

    But it is the life itself. Your own life that you live it with all the joys that shows to you.

    That you saw the sun in the morning and the sea in July. That you walked in a ravine in May, with a girl on your side, and both you heard the nightingale. That you were thirsty, and you drank the cold water of the spring."

    Oh, yes, and many of the Nazis were playing guitars, violins, and pianos, but they did not hesitate to spread all the murders and disasters first in Europe, and then in the whole world. And many of the Japanese played instruments and did not hesitate to bombard the Pearl Harbor. And many of the Americans played instruments and they threw atomic bombs to them. Sorry, I do not accept this article for any evidence that the music makes us for finding inner peace, harmony and the like. ELIMINATION OF FEARS does not come from such things. EXPERIENCES in life and prudence do not come from the playing of the guitars. The pleasures of the moment comes from Aristippus the Cyrene. Epicurus in his bed death did not ask for music, he asked for a glass of wine as an analgesic, and as he remembered all the past conversations on philosophy with his friends, and as he cared for the future generations with the children of Metrodorus. There are many musicians in this world that are idealists and living a life in confusion and fears about death and god.

    The article that is posted as above is only speculations/opinions. For me it goes to the pseudoscience. It has the bad smell of <<idealism>> and the fantastic, and it has nothing to do with science and epicurean philosophy.

    "Meditate therefore by day and by night with the playing of a guitar and upon the violins and pianos that go with these, whether by yourself and in the company of another guitarist like yourself, and never will your soul be in turmoil either sleeping or waking but you will be living like a god among men, for in no wise does a man resemble a mortal creature who lives among the immortal guitars, violins and pianos blessings". - Pseudo-Epicurean.

    Plato is not excluding any pleasant reaction to the reception of harmony in one’s soul, but keeps distinct pleasure (hedoné) as what is felt by silly people from the good cheer (euphrosune) which is felt by the intelligent ones.

    Plato smashed the pleasure to 1000 pieces, and gave ready food for those that want to fool the masses. Higher pleasures for the soul, lower pleasures for the body. Harmony of the soul, disharmony of the body. Soul separated from the body for going straight on heavens or for reincarnation. Music for the soul, music for the body. Pleasure for the silly ones, euphrosyne (cheerful) for intelligent ones. Do not care at all, the spheres in the Universe play music for the harmony and the care of your soul. Who told that “And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.” Ah, Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist . Bravo Plato and Coelho you are the most "intelligent" men among those that have total ignorance!:P

    (1) What philosophical issues are involved in music?

    (2) What positions on those issues were taken by pre-Epicurean / non-Epicurean Greek philosophers?

    I found some issues in the following :

    Still on this issue of the nature of music, it has to be pointed out that in the passage of the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems to which reference was made above it is admitted that not everything in musical sounds imitates character (ethos), for this applies to the arrangement of higher and lower sounds but not to their mixture (mixis) ; further, consonance (sumphonia) is expressly said to have no moral character. Probably mixture is supposed to contribute to consonance, in any case that the beauty which music presents and the pleasure it procures depends on these aspects. There are thus two dimensions of music, one which has to do with character and the other which has not, but which both possess aesthetic significance. Plato must have been aware of this fact, for, as we have already seen, in Republic IV, in a context in which he talks of music, he is induced to point out that certain qualities, such as gracefulness and gracelessness, are also to be found in the products of painting, of architecture, of weaving, and so forth (cf. 400e ff.). In the case of these disciplines in fact certain formal qualities of beauty, such as symmetry, which have not to do with character, play an important role (as we shall see below, ch. 29), but there must be a point of contact between them and music, which lies precisely in the fact that certain formal qualities of beauty are also to be found in music. It has to be admitted, however, that in the passage I am considering Plato is not relying on any such neat distinction, for he is willing to talk of moral traits, such as the negative ones of evil disposition and illiberality, and of images of evil (eikones kakias) also in the case of the products of those other arts.

    Finally, it has to be stressed that the doctrine which is present in the dialogues also finds a significant expression in a passage of the Timaeus in which, after having considered the usefulness of the sense of sight, he considers the usefulness of the sense of hearing and that of voice. The passage deserves to be quoted in full :“For not only was speech (logos) designed for this same purpose, to which it contributes in the largest measure, but also that part of music (mousiké) that is serviceable with respect to the hearing of sound16 is given to us for the sake of harmony. Harmony, having motions akin (sungeneis) to the revolutions of the soul within us, has been given by the Muses to him whose dealings with them is guided by intelligence, not for irrational pleasure (hedone alogos), which appears now to be its utility, but as an ally against the disharmony that has come into the revolution of the soul, to bring it into order and consonance (sumphonia) with itself. Rhythm, again, was given us from the same entities as a help to the same intent, for in most of us our condition is lacking in measure and poor in grace.” (47c6-e2). The parallel he draws here with sight lies in the fact that the observation of the ordered revolutions in the heavens, which are a manifestation of (cosmic) intelligence, is of help in bringing order in the motions of thought inside us (cf. 47b). The idea that there are revolutions in the souls that are similar to those of the celestial bodies was introduced in a former part of the dialogue. It implies that the same harmony is present in the heavens and in our soul, when this reproduces in itself, by imitation (mimoumenoi, 47c3), the order of the heavens. (The same suggestion, in the simplified form that there is an imitation [mimesis] of the divine harmony in mortal movements, comes back in 80b.)

    Music is thus seen as an expression of this cosmic attunement and concord. This position is close to Pythagoreanism and goes beyond the idea that harmonies and rhythms are imitations of movements in our soul.(The Pythagoreans notoriously asserted that there is a celestial music - what will be called, anachronistically, the music of the spheres - that is inaudible to most men. Plato was certainly familiar with this view and, though he probably did not take it seriously, it remains significant that he supposed that the world-soul is divided into harmonic intervals and made the celestial movements depend on this ‘musical’ structure, cf. Timaeus, 35b ff., together with the commentary by F.M. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology, London 1937, pp. 66-72.17) 40

    On the other hand, there remains the idea that there is an affinity (sungeneia) between them and those in our soul, for only in this way can music exercise the effect of introducing order in the movements in our soul. This is seen as the aim that is to be pursued by humanly made music. Presumably pleasure is to be rejected as an independent (alternative) aim of music (as of the other beautiful arts) and as ‘irrational’, but not when it arises from an accord between the harmony in the musical sounds and that of the ‘revolutions’ in the soul. In fact, when coming back to this motif, in 80b, Plato is not excluding any pleasant reaction to the reception of harmony in one’s soul, but keeps distinct pleasure (hedoné) as what is felt by silly people from the good cheer (euphrosune) which is felt by the intelligent ones. As to education, this must be meant to realize this sort of accord. (Paideia is not mentioned in the Timaeus in this connection, but later on, in considering vice as ignorance resulting from lack of paideia, cfr. 86d-e, and in presenting paideia itself as the remedy for this situation in 87b. Gymnastics, music and philosophy are clearly taken as parts of paideia in 88c and said to contribute to a condition of harmony and proportion or equilibrium between body and soul.)

    source :

    Cassius you said : When I read a sentence like "The Epicureans do not underestimate music for lack of culture; to them, only philosophy counts", that means nothing to me at all, and I tend think the lack of meaning arises from the mangling of the text rather than from Philodemus.

    As I could understand this phrase : "The Epicureans do not underestimate music"... since they do not want to be considered and by themselves and in the societies of men as barbaric, cynics and ascetics i.e. those that have a lack of culture i.e. ethos and habits that unite men in the societies... "but to them, only philosophy counts" here is another issue : Epicureans' teacher Epicurus remarked in his epistle to Meneoceus that prudence (practical reasoning that derives by our experiences) is higher than philosophy, because with prudence we are able for the right hedonic calculus to judge rightly and accordingly on the issue of music and the like (arts) all the hyperboles (extravagances) or dangerous messages (see my example).

    Because on the wise man we read also :

    -The wise man is the only person who can converse correctly about music and poetry, but he will not himself compose poems. (Epicurus was right the most of the poems have lack of clarity. The only he wanted is clarity in written and oral texts. Lucretiu's poem DRN has clarity, and I am sure that it would be considered by Epicurus as a masterpiece).

    -The wise man will find more pleasure than other men in public spectacles. (Public spectacles were the celebrations for gods, and also the theaters that were build all over Greece in which music and dancing were united with roles of actors).

    - The wise man will not live like a Cynic, as he says in his second book on Lives, nor become a beggar. Because the wise man will show a regard for his reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised. (the cynics, the enemies of Hellas, as Epicurus said. Cynics, the ascetics, sociopath-antisocial that were living as beggars without doing anything creative, and when they were encountering people in the Agora, laughing at them, and criticizing ironically the others either for their achievements or wrongdoings).

    Music therapy, fragrance therapy, chromo therapy, logos therapy, choir therapy. All these are pseudosciences for our manipulation and making us anthropoids of the masses. Pseudosciences, indeed, are doing a great job for making us more idiots.

    However, I do not read in any survival sources that Epicurus used somewhere the word "logos". Logos is a dangerous word that is used first by Heraclitus and meant a philosophical word/logic based on eimarmeni and fate, and then this word was taken gratefully by the stoics and christians to transform it to a god for being crucified and then resurrected to the heavens.

    Philodemus did not know what would follow when he used this word.

    Epicurus speaks for prudence that is higher than philosophy and teaches us in reality through our experiences past, present and expectation of future, how to set our limits on pleasure and pain for any desire and any issue. Prudence can't be achieved through music therapy, fragrance therapy, chromo therapy, logos therapy, choir therapy and the like. And the stomach can't be fulfilled with air.

    Moreover, I do not get any clear evidence from anywhere that the music, choiring and dancing could eliminate humans' fears on death and god. If those means that are still used by all the people in the societies of men, why then this world is not inhabited by angels ?

    Music is just a pleasure, but actually, it neither fulfills the stomach from hunger and thirst nor it builds a shelter to not feel cold at winter nights. Music and the like does not lead to pure pleasure and eudaemonia.

    Example how the music and lyrics in a union is a dangerous thing that does not lead a society of men for doing the right hedonic calculation :

    Music by Mikis Theodorakis, and verses of the poet "sun of justice" by Odysseas Elytis.

    Sun of justice perceivable by the mind (it means the absolute justice by Plato and as given by a god)

    and you, myrtle glorifying, (myrtle is the virgin Mary)

    don't, I beg you (thrice) don't

    forget my country! (this means that we the greeks are beggars begging the bigger countries that have more power to not forget us that we live in a country as good christians).

    The above song with the music was understood and was sung by the greeks as a revolutionary song. HA HA ^^

    What do you don't understand? Idealism keeps well everywhere.

    Ι just found the WHY, I like this melody !!! This melody is connected with those movies that have guns and shooting.

    My epicurean friend George Kaplanis likes the exercise with guns and shooting. I like guns and shooting too, but I did not try to exercise with guns because I'm afraid of the guns... George's fearlessness of the guns makes me to imagine that I can do it too. That sense of his fearlessness makes me to feel pleasure. The fearlessness of Epicurus on the issue of death makes us to not fear too, and any fear when is eliminated it produces pleasure. So, Epicurus or Philodemus on the issue of music he wanted to eliminate the fears that provoked by Plato Because Plato and his gang had spread around fears that are against our pleasure.

    When a composer composes a melody, we feel something of his hedonic calculation among pleasure and pain. This is reinforced when the melody has verses with words.

    I do not why it pleases me to hear that melody by Morricone entitled "the ecstasy of gold", and why when I created a video with an article on "epicurean friendship" by G. Kaplanis in the Garden of Thessaloniki, I had put this melody as a background. :)