This is probably a good time for a reminder that the only authoritative explanation (so far as I recall at the moment - are there others?) of the natural/necessary classification (aside from the scholium in DL which is of uncertain source) is that of Torquatus in On Ends
It is in the letter to Menoikeus.
Also, Menoikeus 130:
πολυτελεῖ διαίτῃ “expensive/extravagant/costly/luxuious way of living”
Would you say “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” are suitable terms to use?
Well, if it was good enough for Epicurus...
PS. Okay, let me add that "Yes, I know Epicurus didn't use “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” because he spoke Greek." But those translations are about as close to literal as one gets for φυσικαὶ, ἀναγκαῖαι, and κεναί.
I also don't think it's perfect, but I like the idea that the word conveys that there is nothing wrong with enjoying things "above and beyond" what are considered necessities.
You think so? I would have said that "extravagant" carries strong negative connotations.
One of the reasons I'm fine with Dr. Austin's decision is that it takes back or reclaims that "negative connotation" and turns it on its head. That negative connotation of "extravagant" strikes me as potentially Puritanical. IF "extravagant" desires do no harm to the person or anyone else and IF they do not pose an undue burden to acquire or fulfill, why not indulge in them? Extravagant, indulgent, why not? One definition of the word is "excessive,
going beyond a normal or acceptable limit in degree or amount." (my emphasis added) "Acceptable" to whom? Someone else telling you you're living extravagantly? Mind your own business 
Now, do I think there's something to the idea of "conspicuous consumption"? "the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power—the income and the accumulated wealth—of the buyer. " (Wikipedia) Now, in the Austin context, I would not call that "extravagant." I would call that trying to fulfill an empty desire. But if something brings you pleasure and meets the criteria of no harm/no undue burden to acquire, I don't think Epicurus opposes that "extravagance."
You know, this has me thinking: At least for those of us who are already familiar with the philosophy, using the abbreviations NN, NU, and UU would be a lot cleaner and clearer.
I can appreciate your desire for conciseness, but I'm not a fan of in-group abbreviations. I don't even like referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP. I would also offer that the term "unnecessary" doesn't actually in at least one exposition of the categories of desires, that in the letter to Menoikeus:
Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. (This is my own literal translation)
In this categorization, Epicurus is only concerned with natural (φυσικαὶ), necessary (ἀναγκαῖαι), and empty (κεναί) categories. I would still contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc.
This is an alternative to the triangle format for Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maybe Basic Necessities, Friendship, Prudence or specific items from canon in the boat and the sail or multiple sails could be other aspects.
I like the little boat idea/metaphor, especially in light of παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος : Set sail in your own little boat, blessed one, free from all indoctrination. (Usener 163) τἀκάτιον (takation) literally means a light boat, the diminutive of ἄκατος (akatos). The acatium (ἀκάτιον) was especially adapted for fast sailing with light winds.
That said, I'm not sure how to label the parts. I wouldn't advocate for necessary, natural, unnecessary because those are classifications of desires. Maybe Prudence is the sail which steers the ship? I'll have to think on that.
I use the word "extravagent" as it's the word Emily Austin uses in her book to describe natural but unnecessary desires. I agree it's not the perfect word though - if I recall correctly, Austin doesn't think it is either.
Agreed. It's not perfect by any means, but I remember Dr. Austin saying in our interview episodes that there was NO WAY her editors were going to let her use "natural and necessary" and "natural but no necessary" over and over again the book She had to come up with something.
I also don't think it's perfect, but I like the idea that the word conveys that there is nothing wrong with enjoying things "above and beyond" what are considered necessities.
can all occur at the same time.
Pillars? Holding up... Something?
Welcome aboard!
I found that studying the Key Doctrines in short groups of 3 or 4 related doctrines was more beneficial to focus on a key topic.
Don do we or you have a page or listing somewhere that breaks the PDs down not by number but by related paragraph and/or topic? I know we've discussed this many times but i am not sure I have seen a polished and formatted version. I am sure that there are many possible divisions but we might as well be helpful to people and suggest one or two.
Good question. Surely somewhere on this forum.
Try this thread:
The wise one will also pay just enough attention to their reputation as to avoid being looked down upon. (DL 10.120)
Hicks: He will pay just so much regard to his reputation as not to be looked down upon.
Yonge: He will show a regard for a fair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised;
Original text: εὐδοξίας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον προνοήσεσθαι,
εὐδοξίας good repute
τοσοῦτον so far as
Provide for good repute for as far as...
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὴ καταφρονήσεσθαι:
καταφρονέω look down upon, think slightly of
So, the translations are accurate.
How well do you think modern-day Epicureans navigate the relationship with tradition--given that Epicureanism in classical times was said to value orthodoxy (to the point of not disagreeing with or criticizing the Hegemon), and yet there are obviously a few areas where rethinking is necessary, as in some parts of the physics.
As you may be able to tell from my last post, I think the modern-day Epicureans don't have nearly the level of problems the modern-day Stoics have in keeping closer to the ancient school. I've read the complaints about the Epicurean school having to do with their being dogmatic or not disagreeing with the teacher. I'd have to look up where those came from, so I won't discuss specifics. Part of this from modern commentators it seems to me has to do with being hung up on the word "dogmatic" itself. "Epicureans were dogmatic," as in Diogenes Laertius 10.120: "He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." I addressed this on my site: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt Dogmatic doesn't mean keeping to strict orthodoxy, it means being willing to take a position as opposed to remaining skeptical of everything, or as the word used means, "to be at a loss, be in doubt, be puzzled."
When it comes to the physics, I'm not overly concerned about the specifics. The Lucretius Today podcast did a great job of working through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles and mining those for some great practical insights! The specifics don't matter. What matters is that Epicurus taught that we live in a material universe, governed by understandable laws that can be known; where we lack sufficient evidence for a conclusion, we withhold judgement and accept that there's a material cause until sufficient evidence is available. We are not ruled by Providence as the Stoics would have us believe. If you read the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles or sections of Lucretius, Epicurus and Lucretius are constantly writing "it could be this way, or this way, or this way..." and accept that there's a physical cause for the phenomenon they're discussing. Lucian in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" writes that an Epicurean could find the physical mechanism behind the Snake-Oracle even if wasn't readily apparent.
That unswerving commitment that we live in a physical world, not under the thumb of capricious gods, is what makes it possible to be a modern-day Epicurean.
Just curious--could you elaborate further on your view of modern-day Stoics?
I will be honest to say I haven't delved too deeply into Stoicism. I flirted briefly with it, read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (where I discovered this guy named Epicurus), read some articles on Stoicism, learned about Epictetus and his Enchiridion, discovered some more of their doctrines, then read The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain De Botton which led me to decide to dig into this Epicurean stuff. And I haven't looked back. I've read more about the Stoics after leaning more into Epicureanism.
When this topic comes up, I usually first point to Dr. Emily Austin's article Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicureans? In it, she makes the point that modern "Stoics" are closer to Epicureans than they are really to ancient students of the school. For example...
Marcus [Aurelius] objected to Epicurus’ natural science and his advocacy of hedonism, the view that humans achieve tranquility through strategic pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. That sounds like two objections—natural science and hedonism—but it’s really one. The Epicureans were intellectually-refined hedonists because of their science. ... Marcus rejected these Epicurean views whole-heartedly because he considered the divine creation of a providential universe essential to the Stoic project, as did other Roman Stoics like Epictetus and their Greek predecessors. For the Stoics, human rationality is a manifestation of God’s generosity to humans, not a sophisticated animal capacity. Marcus insists that “the whole divine economy is pervaded by Providence.” When he writes, “If not a wise Providence, then a jumble of atoms,” he means to offer two options: “If not Stoicism, then Epicureanism.” In fact, Marcus admits that if Epicurean natural science were right, he would fall into despair. Without providence, he asks, “Why care about anything?”
The ancient Stoics believed in Providence, that every person's fate was already cast. Whatever happens to you if fated to happen. As Dr. Austin points out, the ancient Stoics believed that the universe was imbued with a divine providence. We face our suffering because it's part of a bigger plan, we were meant to suffer this pain we are undergoing. It's the classic "Everything happens for a reason." Which, I fervently believe, it does not.
Modern "Stoics," from what I have read, tend to downplay this idea of Providence, of divine will, directing their lives. But you can't have your muscular Stoic fortitude without the Providence. That's not Stoicism, at least not in the classical, ancient sense. There are some classical Stoics nowadays that keep their Providential underpinnings, but they appear to be a minority.
Another thing that turned me off Stoicism was the idea that even if your child dies, you should treat that loss no different than you would the loss of a drinking cup. There are nuances, but, that's basically what they're saying. Epictetus writes:
Do not attach yourself to them and they will not be necessary: do not say to yourself that they are necessary, and then they are not necessary.
This study you ought to practice from morning to evening, beginning with the smallest things and those most liable to damage, with an earthen pot, with a cup. Then proceed in this way to a tunic, to a little dog, to a horse, to a small estate in land: then to yourself, to your body, to the parts of your body, to your children, to your wife, to your brothers. Look all round and throw these things from you (which are not yours). Purge your opinions, so that nothing cleave to you of the things which are not your own, that nothing grow to you, that nothing give you pain when it is torn from you
Basically, be unattached to everything external to yourself, from a cup to your children, wife, brothers. Be completely unattached to all of them so that "nothing can give you pain when it is torn from you." That is, if your cup is broken or your wife dies. That doesn't even sound human to me.
Epicurus and other Epicurean writers write that we will feel grief when someone dies. They also write that we shouldn't let grief overcome us, but grief will sting and be painful. We should focus on the memories of our dead friends and family and take pleasure in the time you had together. That seems a much more human response to loss.
That's a taste of why I'm not a Stoic and where I think most modern Stoics paper over the actual tenets of their philosophy to make it more palatable to a modern audience. There's also the issues brought up in Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age by Donna Zuckerberg but that's for another post.
I'll address your other question in the next post.
If I’m experiencing bodily pain, for instance, it’s objectively painful. I trust my senses that I am experiencing pain. However, if I dwell on and agonise over the pain, I will experience it more strongly. On the other hand, with a more positive mindset, or a conscious effort to accept the pain as it is, perhaps its impact can be reduced.
I don't know where I heard it but:
Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
Or words to that effect.
(2) whether it is appropriate to consider the mind as generating pleasure and pain. I am in general agreement with Don's post, but I think how we choose to use our minds does generate pleasure or pain.
I'm rethinking that a little, in the sense of "what does generate mean?" Feelings, I suppose, do arise from our minds, so maybe "generate" in some sense is correct.
Also, while I think it is very reasonable and justifiable to divide all feelings between pleasure and pain, and to insist that there is no neutral state, I am not prepared to say that Epicurus' categorization plan is the only one that can be proposed and discussed. Cicero and Plato have a different definition of pleasure than does Epicurus, and they call absence of stimulation 'neutral.'
Anything can certainly be proposed and discussed. The question, to me, is "Does the idea correlate to reality or not?" Epicurus' categorization, to my current understanding, correlates to reality while Cicero, Plato, "St." Paul, etc. do not. I think some ideas in Buddhism are interesting, but overall it has too much other baggage. But that was why I considered myself a Buddhist for a number of years. It made the most sense to me and conformed to my understanding of reality at the time in contrast to all the other philosophies and religions I had studied up to that point. Then I discovered Epicurus.
Cicero and Plato redefine pleasure for their own purposes, but Epicurus' all-encompassing concept of pleasure and pain just makes sense to me. Could he have chosen a "better" word than pleasure? Maybe? But he was going for maximum impact. He was engaging in philosophical battle with the other schools, and fighting on the same field with them. He engaged with those ideas, took a hold of them, and used the terms of the day to explain reality better than the other schools.
it is normal to feel aches, pains, and other discomforts when focusing on the body?
I would even leave off that last "when focusing..." It is normal - natural - to feel aches, pains, etc as it is to feel pleasure.
If a body without pain and an untroubled mind if the essential foundation, I’m unsure if I’ll ever reach such a state. This supposed “healthy functioning body, free from pain” sounds almost mythical to me. Do people really feel this way, beyond some scattered moments?
An untroubled mind (ataraxia) to me - and this may be just me - is about doing away with unnecessary fears, anxieties, that clog up our experience of the world as it is. Dispelling those fears and anxieties provides a base of operations from which to experience life. I'm thinking primarily of the fear of death, of divine retribution, of fate, and so on. I'm still working through some of these myself! It's not some numbness that comes over someone, it's a confidence in one's place in the universe and ones agency in it.
I'm still working on aponia, but it doesn't -again, to me - mean total absence of pain. It's being in a body that does it's thing without effort, without struggle, and there are degrees of this - again, to my understanding. Like I said, I'm still working on this!
I agree with Cassius . Keep asking great questions! This really helps me question my own positions and to ask myself again some of these same things. Enjoying the conversation!!
When I'm in a "neutral state" - not sick, injured, etc. - and I focus on my body's senses, I pretty much always notice some kind of ache, tenseness, stomach pain, itchiness, or some other uncomfortable feeling that I'm generally able to ignore when I'm not not fixating on it.
That's simply because you're a mortal being in a material world. I have come to the conviction, using Epicurus's philosophy as jumping off point, that there is no neutral state. If you are alive, you're feeling, sensing sensations both within and around your body and mind. Even without the findings of modern neuroscience, I have no problem thinking of Epicurus thinking through this and coming up to a similar conclusion:
It's important to remember that pathe/pathos in ancient Greek most fundamentally means "what one has experienced." Epicurus took the bold step to say there are ONLY two ways to experience the world, either as pleasure or as pain. EVERYTHING we experience, internally or externally, is either painful or pleasurable. And he encompassed the totality of human experience within those two feelings.
Now there are gradations and types of pain and of pleasure: joy, grief, anger, ecstasy, boredom, sleepiness, elation, contentment, happiness, satisfaction, rage, love, disgust, and on and on. But everything - all of those - fall into either pleasure or pain.
Your mind should never be in neutral - it always has the capacity to generate positive feelings which are (or should be) more significant to us than those aches and pains you are speaking about.
I would disagree with Cassius 's wording. Your mind can never be in neutral. Your mind doesn't "generate" positive feelings, it experiences them before you can think about generating.
Epicurus' pain wasn't eliminated by his thoughts of his conversations with friends on his last day. He continued to feel his diseased, inflamed kidneys as searing pain. His memories allowed him to "hold his ground against" the pain as if he was drawing up his troops against the pain: ἀντιπαρετάττετο. Those memories gave him pleasure in the midst of his mortal pain, not in spite of the pain. He could be happy with his life, reliving those pleasant memories, in the midst of his pain.
This is perhaps why I've been finding it difficult to understand and reconcile the idea that pleasure is the default state.
I don't know if "default state" is the right way of thinking about this. There is no "default" setting I don't think. The pleasure of the mind and body working well, being healthy, and having all your parts working in harmony is pleasure. BUT There is no guarantee in life that the mind and body are going to work well, that you'll be health, and that your various parts will be in harmony. You have to work at it. You can't set it to a default and just let it run. If you have that, you have everything needed to experience other pleasures. I would rather think of "a body without pain, and an untroubled mind" being the ground from which other pleasures can be more readily experienced. Granted, if we have that, it can sink into the background if we don't appreciate it... and if we neglect our body and mind, it can fall into pain, trouble, etc. There is no guaranteed default.
As far as the "feelings are two," I fall back on the modern psychological research on valence and activation. You'll see some of this on this forum if you search for circumplex or Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/
There's also some research here:
Russell’s (1980) Circumplex Models – Psychology of Human Emotion: An Open Access Textbook
My basic understanding, both Epicurean and modern, is that if you are alive, you are feeling something. There is no neutral state. It may be intense (high activation) or mild (low activation); and there will be an unpleasantness/pleasantness dimension (valence). But you never feel neutral if you're being honest with yourself.
Welcome aboard!
Of course there's VS41:
One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy.
That's one of the good translations! Thanks for the reminder, Godfrey . Being the broken record, I enjoy pointing out that, in the original, the first word is indeed "laugh" γελᾶν not seek wisdom, etc. Laugh is being emphasized as the first word in the text.
Going off that article I added to the first post, it seems "respecting" death vs "taking death too seriously" are ways of expressing what I'm trying to get at. As Seneca wrote that Epicurus instructed people to "meditare mortem," we can to think or reflect upon, consider, contemplate, ponder, meditate (upon) death without it becoming an obsession, a neurosis, an overbearing fear. Acknowledge, respect it, realize it's omnipresence in our future, but get on with living.
I'm reminded of Gus in Lonesome Dove:
“You see, life in San Francisco is still just life. If you want any one thing too badly, it’s likely to turn out to be a disappointment. The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things – like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself.”
and Shawshank Redemption
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living or get busy dying"
That last one encapsulates the sentiment in the letter to Menoikeus.
that's what forums are for
"don't take death seriously," or something more like "take death very seriously and realize when you're gone you're done, but at the same time don't let it get you down."
I'll point out that Connolly says, "I think people take death too seriously." "Too seriously" to me rings of being obsessive about death or, conversely, obsessively doing everything to not think about it or talk about or acknowledge one's own mortality, to live in denial. We have to take death "seriously," but that seriousness need not be obsessive or morbid and shouldn't be fearful. Look death in the eye, say " Not today," and commit to finding the pleasure available in your life.
I do think that Epicurus would agree that laughing is one way to make peace with the inevitable. Would he say that it's "the best" way?
There is no best way for everyone, but laughing is definitely one available component for everyone. That's why there's such a thing as dark comedy.
