Another mainstream article claiming ataraxia is the goal

Quote from Cassius

would have been totally unsuitable to Cicero

Quote from Cassius

suitable to the professional academic class today, I very much doubt it,

Ask me if I care about what Cicero and the academics think! I'm just trying to make sense of this philosophy for my own life!

To clarify, I don’t mean that Epicureanism isn’t a one size fits all philosophy (although it may not be, I think it has vast utility for the vast majority) but that the way to approach different kinds of people about the philosophy depends on their own background.

I never needed to be told that pleasure is good. That was obvious to me. I needed to be told that just having calm undisturbed peace of mind was ALSO good. And I definitely define it the same as Don does. Having this kind of mindset actually helps me get more pleasure from my active pleasures because I’m not constantly looking to the next one. So it’s not only for moments of meditation in my dark cave (although I do like me a dark cave lol)

Edit: essentially, I needed it explained to me how to make pleasure continuous, and Epicurus did that.

Quote from Kalosyni

So then this "working towards having a calm baseline" would require therapeutics?

And if so, then we need to list all of them -- sourced from PD's, Vatican Sayings, Letter to Menoeceus, Diogenes Laertius wise man sayings, and Cicero's Torquatus -- so we see what specifically leads to this calm baseline.

I'm not sure of "therapeutics" but maybe techniques? Exercises? Suggested activities? Epicurus did make the direct comparison between medicine and philosophy, so there's something there.

I'd have to review all those texts, but I can say that I doubt we'll find specific instructions. Our textual treasury is just not deep enough However, I'm going to offer that his "maza (bread) and water" comment in Menoikeus is an instruction - a declaration - to pay attention to the daily, ordinary pleasures in the moment. To take pleasure in the ordinary. That's a powerful instruction!

I recently had someone recommend The Mindfulness Solution by Dr Ronald Siegel, PsyD. I just started listening to the audiobook, but it's mindfulness sans woo. And it says exactly what I'm saying: mindfulness makes us better at paying attention to - and enjoying! - the everyday experiences we have, makes us less anxious about the future, and less stressed about the past. That sounds exactly like what Epicurus was advocating to me! I'll have to listen to more, but what I'm hearing is encouraging and I think directly applicable to Epicurean practice.

Random Internet sites I found sort of on this topic I now submit for consideration, neither endorsing nor disapproving at this point:

(Edit: I'm slowly going back and pulling out quotes and commenting. I hope that doesn't change anyone's reactions )

Quote

My biggest problem with Epicureanism is their belief in absolute goodness and absolute badness. I think life is much less stressful and more enjoyable when we consider everything’s goodness or badness to be relative. Some things seem bad in the moment but end up being good; I think an Epicurean mindset of absolute good and badness precludes one (at least practically) from having faith that some bad things may turn out to be good things.

I found some interesting comments from this college student, but the excerpt above made me sad. I'm not sure where he got the "absolute" idea from, but I suspect it was "all pleasure is good .." But he overgeneralized to "all pleasure should be chosen" I think.

Epicurean Spiritual Exercises | Counter-Currents

1,291 words Trans. Guillaume Durocher Translator’s Note: The following is drawn from Pierre Hadot, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique ? (Paris: Gallimard,…

counter-currents.com

I think some on this forum flinch at the term "spiritual exercises" but I chalk that up to Hadot's idiosyncracies. This excerpt of his work seems mostly uncontroversial to me, except for bringing up "asceticism". It seems to me primarily a bringing together of some of the practices scattered in Epicurean texts which *could* be a helpful start.

Philosophy As a Way of Life

Philosophy, as it is practiced today, is abstract, theoretical, and detached from life. In the Greco-Roman world, it was something quite di…

www.nypl.org

Quote

He (Epicurus) was in fact an ascetic. Pleasure, for him, is not sensuality and luxury but freedom from pain and tranquility. If we live a simple life, restrict our desires, free ourselves from the fear of death, and learn to accept our mortal condition, we can have a tranquil life, and recover the simple joy of existing, with a feeling of profound gratitude for life.

AND there it is! In their defense, they're summarizing Hadot who said the same thing above in those excerpts. There's some other interesting items in here comparing the various schools, but the old ascetic trope lives on.

Why Epicurean ideas suit the challenges of modern secular life

Sure, Epicureans focused on seeking pleasure – but they also did so much more.

bigthink.com

Finally read this one in its entirety and probably my favorite one of the bunch. This author seems to get it. Not a mention of asceticism!

Comments by Kalosyni on the physiological need for tranquility, especially for some (I would count myself there) and Don’s comments on ataraxia generally, reminded me of this that I came across:

“For ataraxia, ultimately and simply, is a physical undisturbedness.” [That is, not simply a mental state.]

https://www.academia.edu/34402398/What_…card=view-paper (p. 458)

I think that some sharp distinction between the mental and the physical is likely wrong: fear, for example, is manifest in the body as well as mind (say, as a tingling numbness) – as is any disturbance (tarache). Absence of such disturbances I would see as pleasure – and not necessarily strictly “katastemic”: think of the feeling of release/relief when a strong emotional disturbance (say, fear or rage) is assuaged.

[I hasten to add that I’m not implying mind and body are separate – as if the mind were some kind of “ghost in the machine”.]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm coming to think of katastematic pleasure as generated within myself. As Epicurus does, I include ataraxia and aponia in that category. Kinetic pleasures I'm coming to think of as being generated from taking part in an activity like dancing, sex, eating, relaxing, etc.

Granted, I need texts to back up my intuition but that's where I'm headed.

So to connect this to Pacatus post above, I'd agree that fear is manifest or felt in the body and mind; however, I'd say it originates in the mind since it can be demonstrated that two people can have very different reactions to the same stimuli. Removal of that fear then leads to ataraxia in the mind.

Don

I tend to think of the mind/consciousness as being emergent phenomena/processes/expressions of the brain, which is part of the body. People do respond to stimuli differently, both physiologically and psychologically.

I tend to think that all feelings (pathe) originate from physical stimulus at some time (to be redundant: “originally”) – but can subsequently be re-membered, re-examined, re-imagined by mental processes (conscious or subconscious). And then such brain/mind activities can neurologically produce stimuli in the rest of the body (think imagining a sexual experience, or recalling a past experience of terror in a nightmare).

However, none of that answers the so-called “hard questions” of consciousness – such as intentionality, decision and choice. Again, I just tend to think of them as emergent phenomena/processes/expressions of the underlying physical/neural substratum. And I accept them (as opposed to some strict determinism). [Which is not really an answer, if one can be had.]

~ ~ ~

I have no education or expertise in any of this: it’s just how I work it out for myself – and subject to change.

Quote from Pacatus

I tend to think that all feelings (pathe) originate from physical stimulus at some time (to be redundant: “originally”) – but can subsequently be re-membered, re-examined, re-imagined by mental processes (conscious or subconscious). And then such brain/mind activities can neurologically produce stimuli in the rest of the body (think imagining a sexual experience, or recalling a past experience of terror in a nightmare).

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the first part (I don't disagree either, it's just interesting and I need to think on it more), but the second part is so important.

A lot of what I hear around the internet about Epicurus talking about remembering past pleasures is presented like a very calm quiet contemplation and as such it doesn't seem like a true pleasure in the way people usually mean the word, but a very whitewashed kind of pleasure that is basically just a neutral state that he's pretending is the same as pleasure. And sure some memories are like that, (and sometimes that tranquil state is more pleasurable than an activated state would be - often even, to me)

But the mind can also produce quite strong sensations in the body and it's important to remember that. It seems like a pretty fundamental tool for Epicureanism - when certain pleasures are unavailable, we can still experience a strong pleasurable sensation by remembering them.

I'm leaning toward Metrodorus in his fragments. Here's what I posted in another thread:

"Metrodorus, in his book On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects, says: 'What else is the good of the soul but the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?'"

This, to me, points to the "source" - "the sound state of the flesh" (to sarkos eustathes *katastema*) - being a more confident source of pleasure than "objects" (kinetic pleasure). It does NOT say the source "in ourselves" is "better (more value)" just that we can be more "sure" of its continuance - I would add - because we have control over it.

Quote from Pacatus

“For ataraxia, ultimately and simply, is a physical undisturbedness.” [That is, not simply a mental state.]

https://www.academia.edu/34402398/What_…card=view-paper (p. 458)

In taking another look at that quote, I would call "a physical undisturbedness" aponia instead of ataraxia.

Quote from Kalosyni

And also, this brings up the firm belief that an Epicurean would not choose to be employed in any kind of high-risk/high-adrenaline enterprises -- or anything which disturbs the physical body or threatens its continuance.

I thought I better comment on this sentence. I think it's consistent with the idea that "in general" an Epicurean would not choose a career in politics or something that depends on the whims of crowds.

But to say flatly that "an Epicurean would not choose to be employed in any kind of high-risk/high-adrenaline enterprises" would IMHO probably be going too far. I doubt that it is the risk or the adrenaline are determinative - those would be according to our judgment as to whether it is "worth it" or not. I realize that applies to politics and fame as well, but I think the closer reading of some of the fragments indicates that Epicurus said we need to be flexible on firm rules and allow for personal preference.

Not only would many of the Roman Epicureans (especially Cassius Longinus himself) be an example of that, but I personally respect the decisionmaking of Amrinder Singh (member here was killed in an ultralight accident) or Martin (who likes zip line rides - if I had a picture link i would link it )

Obviously it is prudent to be very careful about high-risk activities. But I thought I better mark the point that I would not suggest the strict avoidance of these activities just for the sake of a longer life - just prudence and a careful review of the risk-reward analysis before engaging in them.

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

Quote from Don

In taking another look at that quote, I would call "a physical undisturbedness" aponia instead of ataraxia.

Yes, I think that makes better sense,

These last comments point up the issues of ataraxia and aponia. If all "disturbance" is "pain" then why were two words necessary?

The implication to me is that the issue of "disturbance " much involve some subtlety different than "pain" rather than mental vs bodily pain -- unless there is evidence that disturbance was always used only in a mental context.

Off the top of my head, might aponia and ataraxia relate to pain and suffering? Where pain has a physical cause and suffering is a mental reaction to said cause? Both pain and suffering are reactions, or pathe as I understand what Don has often said. I'm just putting this out as an initial response: I'm not at all sure that this is on the right track.

My understanding is that aponia has to do with pain in the body, ataraxia with disturbance in the mind

God, I’m going to hate myself for saying this! 😉

Are we worrying this too much?

It seems to me that (whatever the ancient Greeks might have thought) the mind/body distinction is at best relative. That does not make it unimportant, Yes, I can (hopefully) overcome – at least somewhat, if not perfectly – the tarache in my mind that stems from the pone in my aching tooth. (Most Buddhists would, I think, say something similar.)

But – and this was my whole original thrust – from an Epicurean view, there is no disembodied (non-physical) substance called mind or soul – as a substance of some sort.^ So everything is, at bottom, physicalist. (My attempt was to get at this by thinking in terms of substance versus process – mental processes emergent from physical substance,)

But, in everyday, therapeutic lingo, it makes sense to distinguish between physical pain and possibly attendant mental suffering.

__________________

^ The whole notion of a non-physicalist "substance" inescapably (to my mind) brings in the realm of the supernatural.

Quote from Pacatus

God, I’m going to hate myself for saying this! 😉

LOL! Uh oh!

Quote from Pacatus

Are we worrying this too much?

First, I'll say "no" to that but only because Epicurus repeatedly brings up the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind, or variations on that theme. As such, it seems to me that it's good to understand what the significance was to Epicurus and the classical Epicureans and how it can be applied to an Epicurean way of life.

Quote from Pacatus

It seems to me that (whatever the ancient Greeks might have thought) the mind/body distinction is at best relative. That does not make it unimportant, Yes, I can (hopefully) overcome – at least somewhat, if not perfectly – the tarache in my mind that stems from the pone in my aching tooth. (Most Buddhists would, I think, say something similar)

The distinction may be relative realistically, scientifically, or medically; however, how we experience our minds is often very different than how we experience our bodies.

The disturbance in my mind is not *always* connected to an immediate physical pain in my body. It could just as easily - or more easily - have originated from rumination on a memory of an event earlier today, yesterday, or years ago.

Also,the ponos of aponia isn't pain per se. Ponos is defined as:

• work, especially hard work; toil
• bodily exertion, exercise
• work, task, business
• the consequence of toil, distress, trouble, suffering
• anything produced by work, a work

So, aponia is not so much "pain" in the body (and I've been guilty of perpetuating that mistake!) as it is a lack of exertion, toil, distress, suffering. In light of that, I may begin to interpret aponia as a positive relaxation in the body, a body that's not stiff and tight and troubled and exhausted; the same way I'd interpret ataraxia as a positive calm, clear-headed, mindful attitude in the mind.

Quote from Pacatus

But – and this was my whole original thrust – from an Epicurean view, there is no disembodied (non-physical) substance called mind or soul – as a substance of some sort.^ So everything is, at bottom, physicalist.

Oh, of course! *Everything* has a natural, material origin. We're all - and every part of us - just atoms and void! Yep! But that doesn't mean our different parts don't have different needs anymore than we wear shoes on our head or eat with our ears. I'm being absurd, obviously, but just because there's no non-physical supernatural woo-woo "mind" doesn't mean I don't have a "mind" that I need to care for for my mental well-being.

I really like your posts, and they've also given me a chance to think out loud. Keep them coming!

Don

Thanks for all that, Don. “Thinking out loud” on here is pretty much all I’ve got, with my weird, grab-bag history. 😊

For me, though, this is the most helpful:

“So, aponia is not so much ‘pain’ in the body (and I've been guilty of perpetuating that mistake!) as it is a lack of exertion, toil, distress, suffering. In light of that, I may begin to interpret aponia as a positive relaxation in the body, a body that's not stiff and tight and troubled and exhausted; the same way I'd interpret ataraxia as a positive calm, clear-headed, mindful attitude in the mind.”

When I say “helpful,” I mean it will help me tonight and tomorrow in a true therapeutic sense. (It reminds me of the Taoist wu-wei – without having to imbibe the whole of that philosophy; if that makes sense.)

Anyway, just: Thank you