Posts by Don

Fascinating video from Luke Ranieri

Quote from Cassius

So I write just to emphasize that the "all we can" is limited to "under the present state of affairs," and that "present state of affairs" will almost certainly change.

Although, the more Epicureans; the more likelihood of schisms and denominations. Three vs four legs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote from Kalosyni

I'm pondering this question today (again)...of which there are two sides...1) "what would make me Epicurean" and 2) "what would make someone else Epicurean" or to "appear to be Epicurean" (such as people we know or characters in a movie).

Revisiting Kalosyni 's post that revitalized this thread.

My perspective is that both 1 and 2 hinge on motivation. We can't know someone else's (2) motivation. They can tell us, but we can't know what's really in their minds. That's why, I feel, we can assess behavior in others but not their motivation. Someone can say "I party because I'm an Epicurean, man!" We can ask "How did you feel the next day?" But we can't police (simply for lack of a better word) who calls themselves an Epicurean... Any more than Christians can't police who calls themselves a Christian.

Now, for (1), that's another thing. If I call myself an epicurean simply because I like to eat fancy food, and drink fine wine, that's one thing and a very surface stereotype understanding of what that word means (hence my not capitalizing the word). But we can't forbid that usage. If, on the other hand, we decide - are motivated - to lean about this philosophy and to apply it to living our lives, we think of ourselves as Epicureans. Someone who lives a minimalist lifestyle may also honestly call themselves an Epicurean from another popular understanding of the actual philosophy. We here would tend to disagree with them, but can we - should we - try to make them stop? I'd say no. None of us have that authority. There is no "apostolic succession" from Epicurus to our time. And there could be denominations if there even were! The most we can do is try to get a deeper understanding of the philosophy out there and encourage sincere students of Epicurus.

Quote from kochiekoch

The poet Lucretius, secular as he was, featured her prominently in his poem for that and other reasons.

Yes, at least 14 times by name, and most prominently, of course, right at the start.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=en&inContent=true&q=Venus&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131

And the traditional gods are fine to use metaphorically. I always seem to go back to...

...whoso

Decides to call the ocean Neptune, or

The grain-crop Ceres, and prefers to abuse

The name of Bacchus rather than pronounce

The liquor's proper designation, him

Let us permit to go on calling earth

Mother of Gods, if only he will spare

To taint his soul with foul religion.

Quote from Cassius

So precision is generally a good idea. No true Epicurean would want to be less than clear!

Well played! I see what you did there.

Onenski has articulated much more eloquently than I could the thoughts that have been rolling around in my mind on this topic. Thank you!

The question comes down to "Who gets to be the gatekeeper?" and "Who defines the in-group and who gets to exclude the out-group?" That's what I like about Onenski 's five categories. They show the spectrum of potential inclusivity and exclusivity. Granted, *I* can say who *I* think should be "allowed" to carry the label of "Epicurean," but I cannot assert any authoritative mandate on the "proper" use of that "title."

We could maybe/probably assess someone's (or some character's) behavior as more or less prudent, more or less likely to lead to a pleasurable outcome. Even Epicurus, I would argue, did that! But do we get to assess whether someone gets to call themselves an "Epicurean"? Of that, I'm a little more skeptical. Honestly, I have a hard time "accepting" that Thomas Jefferson was a "real" Epicurean even though he was a self-professed one. But then I would appear to be falling into that fallacy I brought up, wouldn't I?

One thing to watch out for in conversations like this is not to fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

Realizing this is way off topic for the thread:

On the "three-wheeled cart", DeWitt cites his own paper in his footnote: 13 "N. W. DeWitt, "The Three-Wheeled Chair of Epicurus," CP 35(1940) 183-185.

For the Pamela Gordon footnotes, it appears that in Diskin Clay's Paradosis and survival : three chapters in the history of Epicurean philosophy. According to our library catalog, it's supposed to be on the shelf in our Main Library - Social Sciences Department B512 .C57 1998. I'm putting this here for reference so I can look it up tomorrow. I'm really curious if Clay himself translates it that way.. or if he's referencing DeWitt.

I've seen it glossed as metaphorically "easily influenced" (lit., thrice-rolled). So the line would end up being, “If you [plural], and Themista in particular invite me, I am capable of being easily influenced and rushing to wherever you are.” That seems more colloquial. The word also appears to be a hapax legomena (I just love that phrase. It just means "only occuring once in the corpus of texts"), so interpretation is virtually wide open.

Quote from Joshua

Maybe the symbol of Epicureanism should be a tricycle!

LOL. That's taken, sort of...

For what it's worth, here's my page on that...

Quote from Julia

Don, do you have a vector file of your Four Atoms version of it

I just threw that together on Paint.net. The image I posted is all I have.

Quote from Martin

the larger atom at the top

I couldn't not see that as a hair curl in the middle of his forehead, like Superman.

I guess my pareidolia is overactive.

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Julia

Somehow I can't see it (on your wall)? Can you please also post it to this thread?

I couldn't post images to my wall, so I edited the post above.

Quote from Don

Quote from Julia

I very much like the variant of the moon Don

My major misgiving about the moon I'm using is that it can be interpreted as a moon with a surprised look on its face. (Once you see it, you can't unsee it.)

LOL I got tired of looking at the Moon going "Oh!" That experiment didn't last long. For those who are curious what that moon looked like, I'll post here for future reference:

I've gone back to Eikadistes ' 20er moon logo. It pairs nicely with my Epicurist tagline. I still like the waning gibbous moon as a symbol.

Quote from Julia

I very much like the variant of the moon Don

My major misgiving about the moon I'm using is that it can be interpreted as a moon with a surprised look on its face. (Once you see it, you can't unsee it.)

Quote from Julia

alluding to the shibboleth of the size of the sun.

You are clever. That didn't even cross my mind

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from sanantoniogarden

I like the simplicity of the moon symbol, however it's similarity to the crescent and star might be confusing for some and offensive to others.

Yes, now I begin to think that could be an issue.

Also maybe looks "wiccan".

Thinking to set this idea aside for now.

Honestly, I'd be more inclined to adopt the 20er moon given those others who use moons. Nobody has a monopoly on the phases of the moon.

PS. In light of that, I've taken Kalosyni 's version of Eikadistes' 20er moon phase and added 4 atoms of 4 different sizes in a diamond pattern inspired by Godfrey 's post above. I'm saying they represent atoms (varying in size) as well as the 4 lines of the Tetrapharmakos. I could have gone with three for the Canon. To be clear: I'm NOT endorsing this. Merely playing and "trying it on for size" for a little while.

Quote from Godfrey

I keep leaning toward a field of random dots representing particles. Maybe this could be incorporated into the moon symbol, either on the dark or the light side.

Four dots in a square or diamond? Particles/atoms/craters on the moon?

Thanks for the reply.

My first reaction to your post is that whether it's concepts or preconcepts in translation, the word there in 33 is prolepsis, so we're back to the discussion of what the canonic faculty of what prolepsis is.

Quote from Cassius

it is also valid and important to abstract into the single word "pleasure" all possible examples of pleasurable feelings so that we can discuss pleasure conceptually and understand that it is "Pleasure" and not divine will or ideal forms that constitutes the highest good.

See, that's where I'm not understanding where our disagreement lies. I agree that the single word pleasure encompasses all possible pleasurable feelings.

The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are : "Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest ; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity."

Right there, as an example, is Epicurus including ataraxia, aponia, joy, and delight under the heading of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

that it is "Pleasure" ... that constitutes the highest good.

We can capitalize the word to make it appear more "conceptual" but they couldn't do that in the ancient world. It was all capital letters when Epicurus was writing. But he also explicitly says:

U67. I do not think I could conceive of the good (τἀγαθὸν tagathon) without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms.

The word there is tagathon "the highest good." Here's including all those physical pleasurable feelings/activities within the definition of the supreme good.

The last point for now from me is that preconceptions (prolepsis) is a distinct leg of the canon apart from the feelings of pleasure and pain. I agree we have to have words to describe the myriad pleasurable and painful feelings, and words have to have a referent in the physical or mental world. For me, when it comes to naming feelings, we feel the feeling then try to name it. That's one reason the are so many shades and intensities of pleasure and pain. Similarly but distinctly, we sense a pattern in the world through the proleptic faculty and call it justice or a cow or a tower.

This is a conversation that would work better as an actual conversation, but I remain engaged in the discussion.