Post by Robert (May 25, 2025 at 2:46 PM ).
This post was deleted by the author themselves (May 25, 2025 at 2:51 PM ).
Daily life of ancient Epicureans / 21st Century Epicureans
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
Post by Robert (
-
Display More
Again, reasoning through things, regarding beer...which contains alcohol...and so wouldn't be considered healthy. (see article excerpt below).
But perhaps once a month or less, or according to each person's choice and avoidance, and if you have a strong enough liver (as people age the liver isn't functioning as well.)
I personally have decided that I won't drink alcohol unless it is a very special occasion (such as a wedding).
Plus it's important to be sure to eat some food when drinking alcohol so that the absorption is slowed down.
QuoteAs explained in this article, alcohol metabolism also results in the generation of acetaldehyde, a highly reactive and toxic byproduct that may contribute to tissue damage, the formation ofdamaging molecules known as reactive oxygen species (ROS), and a change in the reduction–oxidation (or redox) state of liver cells. Chronic alcohol consumption and alcohol metabolism are strongly linked to several pathological consequences and tissue damage.
Yes, I think the calculus delivers different results as we age. I'm in my late fifties now and less inclined to bring on a hangover. I also don't take the health of my liver for granted, or assume that I'm immune to diabetes.
None of which means that I won't order a beer at the family event I'm attending this evening.
-
If I'm thirsty, and convince myself that I need to have soda, beer, or whatever, might that also be an example? After all, very often a glass of water will do just fine.
I think that here we're talking about the necessary / unnecessary / etc analysis, which yes addresses the problem that through our own mistake, or through outside conditioning, we end up thinking that we have to have X in order to be satisfied, but in truth Y would produce a better overall pleasure over pain result.
The thing I like to caution against, though, is thinking that what a person should target is "just enough to get by" as if "just enough" is the goal. The goal is choosing the "most pleasant" option, rather than the "just enough" option, and I would argue that there is a very important difference between the two. Sometimes the soda, beer, etc., is in fact the most pleasant option and worthy of being chosen.
As VS 63 is usually translated, "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess."
Thanks--that's a helpful clarification. FWIW, I had in mind situations in which our pleasure is diminished by not having something we think that we need (e.g. alcohol or coffee). This can happen while traveling, for instance, or when attending a party where booze is not being served. Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil (and sometimes unpleasant bodily sensations as well, aka withdrawal symptoms).
-
Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil
Good point Robert - sort of an inverse of Menoeceus 131:
“To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.”
-
Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil (and sometimes unpleasant bodily sensations as well, aka withdrawal symptoms).
Coffee...since it is easy to get and make at home, and just one-and-a-half cups a day in the morning feels like it creates mental sharpness for me. The caffeine addiction doesn't cause any mental turmoil.
So it is really depends on whether or not there are any bad consequences, and whether or not it is easy to get (and not expensive so that it does not deplete one's funds).
-
Secondly, I was reading Voula Tsouna's chapter on Epicurean "therapies" (in her book on the ethics of Philodemus), which got me thinking about how we might view Epicureanism as a set of practices, as opposed to (simply) a set of views.
@Eikadistes, I'm reminded of this distinction when you write that Epicurean teachings aren't "passing curiosities" but "practical guidance so we can confidently respond to the obstacles that characterize daily life." Also, your comments on memorization/recitation dovetail with what I just read in Sorabji's chapter (in Emotion and Peace of Mind) on Hellenistic spiritual exercises, as well as Hadot's discussion of same (in Philosophy as a Way of Life). Both authors point to memorization as a characteristic Epicurean practice.
Robert , have you read Voula Tsouna's paper on epibole, where she talks about the process of how we should study and pay attention to the words and meanings of Epicurus writings.
https://www.bsa.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Tsouna_310321_ABSTRACT-HANDOUT.pdfIn her paper on prolepsis, she emphasizes the role of mental focus in learning Epicurean concepts.
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”Epicurean PreconceptionsThis paper provides a comprehensive study of the Epicurean theory of 'preconception'. It addresses what a preconception is; how our preconception of…www.academia.edu
I find that understanding these concepts of prolepsis and epibole are key to better understanding how to integrate the simple, but powerful, practices of living prudently, pleasurably, and pleasantly. -
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
According to Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus (37-38), students were instructed to actively focus their minds (epibolē) on the "indemonstrable starting points" (the core doctrines) so they could properly apply these principles in daily life. This mental focusing helped reinforce the preconceptions (prolēpsis) that developed naturally through experience.
What is fascinating is that Epicurus understood the functioning of our brain's reticular activating system (RAS). The RAS does indeed function similarly to how Epicureans described epibolē working. The RAS acts as a filtering system that brings relevant information to consciousness based on what we've programmed ourselves to consider important.
I find this comparison aligns remarkably well with Epicurean teaching methods.
1. The RAS, like epibolē, actively filters incoming information based on what we've trained ourselves to consider significant
2. When we consciously focus on Epicurean principles through epibolē, we're essentially programming the RAS to notice related patterns
3. The brain's "predictive mind" function works similarly to how Epicureans described the interaction between epibolē and prolepsis.Do others here have a similar understanding of how to apply the principles of epibolē and prolēpsis to create a more pleasurable Epicurean practice?
-
I'm late to the game here, but I'd offer that philosophy - as conceived of in the ancient schools - was always meant to be lived. One chose a school (or took a more eclectic approach as I'd argue Cicero does in certain ways), and lived one's life in accordance with what one learned from one's teacher and one's school: Stoic, Peripatetic, Platonic, Skeptic, Epicurean, etc. As time went on, "religion" moved into that sphere - I'm thinking especially of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism (although some call that a philosophy - depends on the flavor I suppose), especially when those major religions got the imprimatur of government authority... like when the Roman emperor decided it would behoove him to have one emperor, one religion, one empire kind of thing. Later, philosophy became (in the popular and academic mind) a "subject" one studied apart from living one's life. In more recent time, the ancient schools - I'd argue spearheaded by "Stoics" (and, yes, I'm putting it deliberately in quotes) - have seen a revival of sorts, including philosophical counseling. Our little corner of the internet is one of the ways Epicurus' philosophy is part of that renewal, revival, and renaissance.
Yes, it's the applied aspect that's been on my mind. Perhaps because we most often encounter philosophy as an academic subject, the province of scholars and historians, it can seem more like intellectual entertainment than an approach to living. And, as you point out, when folks today are interested in the question "how should I live?," religion is the go-to.
Just curious--could you elaborate further on your view of modern-day Stoics? I haven't delved into that corner of the philosophical world too much, other than listening to a few podcasts, but I'm interested to know where you see the divergences (from actual Stoicism). 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 oters have mentioned, Epicurus took part in commemorations (rituals) of his own birthday, his family's, his friends, and took part in the large city festivals regularly. I think you can also incorporate an Epicurean mindset when taking part in holidays - even if you attend church services as pro forma with family. Epicurus and the early Epicureans took part in rituals and processions and other civic affairs that paid homage and sacrifice to the gods; but I'm convinced they were not (mentally) taking part the way most in the crowds were participating. They saw the gods differently, but could take pleasure in the festivities and even the sacrifices which were a part of every civic festival. So, enjoy our (American) secular festivities like Thanksgiving, or "religious/secular" events like Christmas.. but feel free to put your own Epicurean spin on things even its only to yourself.
I'm reminded of an interview I heard recently with a British actress who had grown up Catholic. She had lost her faith many years ago, but still loved the ceremonial aspects of Catholicism--indeed, she said it was her first introduction to theater.
-
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...
Quote from Emily AustinMarcus [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.
