Posts by Cassius

I don't know that I would consider it a "rules based standard," but I think we have to all face the question and answer for ourselves whether different types of pleasure are in fact interchangeable, or whether they differ in at least intensity, duration, and location.

And are those three considerations the *only* distinctions? I think probably not.

What I see us discussing here is that while all pleasures are not reducible to atomic "pleasure units," it is still essential to confront and answer for ourselves whether our rankings of them are totally subjective whims of the moment, or whether they are linked to repeatable and regular bodily or mental phenomena that can usefully be described in repeatable observations, or what.

I do think that it is useful exercise to at least in our individual capacities examine how we want to answer those questions.

My bright line is drawn that I think it's totally inappropriate to take "my" measurements of relative values of pleasure, and presume that my own measurements apply to other people, or that there's any natural design to "maximize pleasure units for all" -- that kind of thing. "The greatest good for the greatest number" has always seemed to me to be a prescription for total monotheism / authoritarianism.

But short of that, I think the exercise we're engaging in is useful, at the very least in that it emphasizes this bright line where I gather that (apparently) the Benthamite utilitarians went far afield.

Frank -- Thanks for joining us here on the forum. I just posted a "Welcome" message to you -- please be sure to take a look at that.

As for your question, the first and primary source that comes to mind on this topic is the statement from Torquatus as recorded in On Ends Book One section XVII -- see item (3) below

De finibus bonorum et malorum : Cicero, Marcus Tullius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Latin and English on opposite pages

archive.org

Welcome frank1syl !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

I probably obscured the topics with my several posts there. Maybe the ultimate question is:

"Is it useful at all -- is it possible at all - to think in terms of a "total experience" or "net experience" and then break down that experience into discrete pleasures and pains that fall one one side of the balance vs. the other side?"

Is a "total experience" or a "net experience" just an intellectual abstraction and not something "real?"

Even if not "real," is it "useful?" Is it more misleading than useful? If so, is there a way to reduce the hazards so that it becomes useful? Or is it possible that there is just something so inherently inappropriate in the analysis that it can never be made useful?

A prior effort at an equation:

Post

RE: The Hedonistic Calculus - explained through an equation

Charles --Very interesting! This is similar to a discussion we had in regard to coming up with a " pleasure maximization spreadsheet." A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

One of the first problems that makes this hard is in regard to "intensity." What does "intensity" really mean, and how do we judge it in comparison with duration / time and the other factors as well?

Given this statement in the letter to Menoeceus it seems clear that Epicurus would not say that "time" can alone…

Cassius

November 4, 2019 at 10:43 AM

For those who don't remember past discussions, here is one of my infamous worksheets:

The questions involved in this thread came up tonight in our "First Monday / New Member" meeting. To some extent the question comes down to:

Is it useful at all -- is it possible at all - to think in terms of a "total experience" or "net experience" and then break down that experience into discrete pleasures and pains that fall one one side of the balance vs. the other side?

I think most of us agree that it is impossible "mathematically" or "in precise quantity" to "measure" individual pleasures and pains.

On the other hand, I think most of us would also admit that there is a sense in which we are continually doing exactly that: we are looking at situations and deciding what to choose and what to avoid based on what we expect to happen in terms of more pains or more pleasures.

So I post this to suggest that we have more work to do so that people on both sides of these issues can bridge the gap between what we do in real life (where we do weigh pleasures against pains) vs the limitations of a mathematical model.

How do we sufficiently explain the limits of such a model while also getting the benefits that should come in visualizing the practical choices we have to make in life?

December 6, 2023 - Agenda - Wednesday Night Zoom - VS 50 & 51

• Please join us. (Post here in this thread if you have never attended one of these sessions, as we do have a vetting process for new participants.)
  Vatican Sayings 50 and 51
• VS50. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.
• VS51. You tell me that the stimulus of the flesh makes you too prone to the pleasures of love. Provided that you do not break the laws, or good customs, and do not distress any of your neighbors, or do harm to your body, or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please. Yet it is impossible not to come up against one or other of these barriers, for the pleasures of love never profited a man and he is lucky if they do him no harm.

• Old Matters from last week
• New Matters for Agenda this week or next week.

Quote from Bryan

(Voula Tsouna trans.) "…for otherwise it would be of no use that the good should be limited but impossible or difficult for us to attain..."

Makes perfect sense -- thank you!

Quote from Kalosyni

..this is a deep and long practice, that takes time

The kind of thing to have a list to remind yourself daily to think about.

Quote from Don

I forgot I had put that list together. I was literally thinking today that I needed to do it for this thread.

Glad I was able to find it.

This time for this thread too let's examine the question of:

"Should we generally see "ataraxia" as meaning pain of mind and "aponia" meaning pain of body?"

If not, what is the relationship between these words when referring to body and mind?

Can we have "ataraxia" of the body? Can we have "aponia" of the mind?

And since Epicurus does regularly use words in a different way, I suppose the question breaks down into:

1 - In what way did the Greeks "in general" use these two words? and

2 - In what way did Epicurus use them?

Still focusing I think on being clear about this distinction:

Does ataraxia always refer to the mind and does aponia always refer to the body? Can we have "ataraxia" of the body? Can we have "aponia" of the mind?

Quote from Don

[Column 4] [Epicurus teaches us that good is easy for us to procure] and that evil is [not] only limited by precisely because it is useless to have defined the good (τἀγαθόν), if it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to attain, nor to have fixed limits to evil, if it is difficult to bear because of its long duration. This knowledge has the effect of prohibiting both the pursuit of any [good] which is not by nature capable of eliminating pain (ἀλγηδόνα) - such are, most of the time, the [goods] which have motivated a search eager in humans -, and let none be discarded which does not prevent having pleasure -- that is how one must [conceive] most of [those which are acquired] gradually.

Don the part where I underlined there -- should that be "desired" rather than "defined"?

From a prior post by Don:

Feb 19th 2023

#3

ΕΥΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑ (Eudaimonia and related terms. There are not as many variants of eudaimonia as ataraxia, but all present will be accounted for in this entry)

From εὐδαίμων (eudaímōn, “fortunate”) +‎ -ίᾱ (-íā, “feminine abstract substantive”); eu "good/well" + daimon "in-dwelling spirit; daemon". While δαίμων was sometimes used interchangeably with θεός (theós), when used together in a context, a δαίμων is usually a lower god than a θεός (theós).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…4.0057:entry=eu)daimoni/a

NOTE: This is a placeholder entry for occurrences of eudaimonia in the texts ... more to come.

From a prior post by Don:

Feb 19th 2023

#2

ΑΤΑΡΑΞΙΑ (Ataraxia and related terms: Note that αταραξια is literally "ataraksia" even though the usual English spelling is "ataraxia." Therefore, words that have atarak- are directly related.

From ἀ- (a-, “not”) +‎ ταράσσω (tarássō, “trouble, disturb”) +‎ -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā); Antonyms: τᾰρᾰχή (tarakhḗ)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀτα^ρ-αξία

PD17 One who acts aright is utterly steady and serene, whereas one who goes astray is full of trouble and confusion. (Peter Saint-Andre)

ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δʼ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γήμων.

NOTE: ἀταρακτότατος means "utterly without disturbance" and by extension steady or serene, whereas πλείστης ταραχῆς means full of trouble, disorder, or tumult (expanded here to "full of trouble and confusion"; see also PD22

***

VS79 He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. (Peter Saint-Andre)

ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος.

***

Fragment 519. The greatest fruit of justice is serenity.

δικαιοσύνης καρπὸς μέγιστος ἀταραξία.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus (DL 10.53; Hicks via Perseus): "Again, we must believe that smelling,81 like hearing, would produce no sensation, were there not particles conveyed from the object which are of the proper sort for exciting the organ of smelling, some of one sort, some of another, some exciting it confusedly and strangely, others quietly and agreeably.

"Καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν νομιστέον, ὥσπερ καὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν οὐκ ἄν ποτε οὐθὲν πάθος ἐργάσασθαι, εἰ μὴ ὄγκοι τινὲς ἦσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ πράγματος ἀποφερόμενοι σύμμετροι πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ αἰσθητήριον κινεῖν, οἱ μὲν τοῖοι τεταραγμένως καὶ ἀλλοτρίως, οἱ δὲ τοῖοι ἀταράχως καὶ οἰκείως ἔχοντες.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus (DL 10.80; Hicks via Perseus): [80] we must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy, so far as it is needful to ensure our tranquillity and happiness (Don Note: lit. blessedness "makarion" - same word used for the gods). When, therefore, we investigate the causes of celestial and atmospheric phenomena, as of all that is unknown, we must take into account the variety of ways in which analogous occurrences happen within our experience ; while as for those who do not recognize the difference between what is or comes about from a single cause and that which may be the effect of any one of several causes, overlooking the fact that the objects are only seen at a distance, and are moreover ignorant of the conditions that render, or do not render, peace of mind impossible --all such persons we must treat with contempt. If then we think that an event could happen in one or other particular way out of several, we shall be as tranquil when we recognize that it actually comes about in more ways than one as if we knew that it happens in this particular way.

[80] οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπὲρ τούτων χρείαν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ ἀπειληφέναι, ὅση πρὸς τὸ ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν συντείνει. ὥστε παραθεωροῦντας ποσαχῶς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τὸ ὅμοιον γίνεται, αἰτιολογητέον ὑπέρ τε τῶν μετεώρων καὶ παντὸς τοῦ ἀδήλου, καταφρονοῦντας τῶν οὔτε τὸ μοναχῶς ἔχον ἢ γινόμενον γνωριζόντων οὔτε τὸ πλεοναχῶς συμβαῖνον, τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἀποστημάτων φαντασίαν παριδόντων,121 ἔτι τε ἀγνοούντων καὶ ἐν ποίοις οὐκ ἐστιν ἀταρακτῆσαι <καὶ ἐν ποίοις ὁμοίως ἀταρακτῆσαι.>122 ἂν οὖν οἰώμεθα καὶ ὡδί πως ἐνδεχόμενον αὐτὸ γίνεσθαι, αὐτὸ τὸ ὅτι πλεοναχῶς γίνεται γνωρίζοντες, ὥσπερ κἂν ὅτι ὡδί πως γίνεται εἴδωμεν, ἀταρακτήσομεν.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus (DL 10.82; Hicks via Perseus): [82] But mental tranquillity means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

[82] ἡ δὲ ἀταραξία τὸ τούτων πάντων ἀπολελύσθαι καὶ συνεχῆ μνήμην ἔχειν τῶν ὅλων καὶ κυριωτάτων.

***

Epicurs, Letter to Pythocles (DL 10.85; Hicks via Perseus): "In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind and firm conviction.

"Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ τῆς περὶ μετεώρων γνώσεως εἴτε κατὰ συναφὴν λεγομένων εἴτε αὐτοτελῶς νομίζειν εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν καὶ πίστιν βέβαιον, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Pythocles (DL 10.96; Hicks via Perseus): [96] For in all the celestial phenomena such a line of research is not to be abandoned ; for, if you fight against clear evidence, you never can enjoy genuine peace of mind.

[96] ἐπὶ πάντων γὰρ τῶν μετεώρων τὴν τοιαύτην ἴχνευσιν152 οὐ προετέον. ἢν γάρ τις ᾖ μαχόμενος τοῖς ἐναργήμασιν, οὐδέποτε δυνήσεται ἀταραξίας γνησίου μεταλαβεῖν.

***

Epicurus, On Choices and Avoidances (DL10.136; Hicks revised slightly by Don to be more literal, via Perseus): And Epicurus in his work On Choice states in this manner: "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."

ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἱρέσεων οὕτω λέγει: "ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."

***

Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus 128 ( Don translation):

[128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind* since this is the goal of a blessed life.

[128] τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν <τῆς ψυχῆς> ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος.

*NOTE: I added the parenthetical phrase "that is for our physical and our mental existence," at this point in my translation to clarify and paraphrase the previous phrases.

***

I would also include citations to γαληνίζω (galēnizō) and related terms as synonyms for ataraxia:

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus (DL 10.37): [37] "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this"

37] "Ὅθεν δὴ πᾶσι χρησίμης οὔσης τοῖς ᾠκειωμένοις φυσιολογίᾳ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁδοῦ, παρεγγυῶν τὸ συνεχὲς ἐνέργημα ἐν φυσιολογίᾳ καὶ τοιούτῳ μάλιστα ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ ἐποίησά σοι ...

ἐγγαληνίζω τῷ βίῳ, "spend life calmly" from γαληνίζω

A.calm, still, esp. waves or winds, Hp.Vict.3.71, E.Fr.1079.

2. intr., become calm, prob. in Hp. Morb.Sacr.13; to be calm or tranquil, Alex.178.6, Ph.1.354; “τὸ γαληνίζον τῆς θαλάττης” Arist.Pr.936a5:—so in Med., Xenocr. ap. Orib.2.58.98.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus (DL 10.83, last line of the letter):

"It is of such a sort that those who are already tolerably, or even perfectly, well acquainted with the details can, by analysis of what they know into such elementary perceptions as these, best prosecute their researches in physical science as a whole ; while those, on the other hand, who are not altogether entitled to rank as mature students can in silent fashion and as quick as thought run over the doctrines most important for their peace of mind."

"Τοιαῦτα γάρ ἐστιν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς κατὰ μέρος ἤδη ἐξακριβοῦντας ἱκανῶς ἢ καὶ τελείως, εἰς τὰς τοιαύτας ἀναλύοντας ἐπιβολάς, τὰς πλείστας τῶν περιοδειῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς ὅλης φύσεως ποιεῖσθαι: ὅσοι δὲ μὴ παντελῶς τῶν ἀποτελουμένων εἰσίν, ἐκ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄνευ φθόγγων τρόπον τὴν ἅμα νοήματι περίοδον τῶν κυριωτάτων πρὸς γαληνισμὸν ποιοῦνται."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, γα^λην-ισμός

***

It would also be instructive to include variations on the word ταραχή (tarakhē; "trouble", "disorder", or "tumult") since that forms the root of ataraxia ("no trouble", "no disorder", or "no tumult")

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, τα^ρα^χή

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus. (DL 10.77): [77] For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbours. Nor, again, must we hold that things which are no more than globular masses of fire, being at the same time endowed with bliss, assume these motions at will. Nay, in every term we use we must hold fast to all the majesty which attaches to such notions as bliss and immortality, lest the terms should generate opinions inconsistent with this majesty. Otherwise such inconsistency will of itself suffice to produce the worst disturbance in our minds. Hence, where we find phenomena invariably recurring, the invariableness of the recurrence must be ascribed to the original interception and conglomeration of atoms whereby the world was formed.

[77] ἀφθαρσίας ῾οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσιν πραγματεῖαι καὶ φροντίδες καὶ ὀργαὶ καὶ χάριτες μακαριότητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίγνεταἰ, μήτε αὖ πυρὸς ἀνάμματα συνεστραμμένου τὴν μακαριότητα κεκτημένα κατὰ βούλησιν τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας λαμβάνειν: ἀλλὰ πᾶν τὸ σέμνωμα τηρεῖν, κατὰ πάντα ὀνόματα φερόμενον ἐπὶ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐννοίας, ἵνα μηδ᾽ ὑπεναντίαι ἐξ αὐτῶν <γένωνται> τῷ σεμνώματι δόξαι: εἰ δὲ μή, τὸν μέγιστον τάραχον ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτὴ ἡ ὑπεναντιότης παρασκευάσει. ὅθεν δὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐναπολήψεις τῶν συστροφῶν τούτων ἐν τῇ τοῦ κόσμου γενέσει δεῖ δοξάζειν καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην ταύτην καὶ περίοδον συντελεῖσθαι.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus. (DL 10.78):

"Ἔτι τε οὐ τὸ πλεοναχῶς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον καὶ ἄλλως πως ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ καὶ μακαρίᾳ φύσει τῶν διάκρισιν ὑποβαλλόντων ἢ τάραχον μηθέν: καὶ τοῦτο καταλαβεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔστιν ἁπλῶς εἶναι.

"Further, we must recognize on such points as this no plurality of causes or contingency, but must hold that nothing suggestive of conflict or disquiet is compatible with an immortal and blessed nature. And the mind can grasp the absolute truth of this.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus. (DL 10.81): [81] "There is yet one more point to seize, namely, that the greatest anxiety of the human mind arises through the belief that the heavenly bodies are blessed and indestructible, and that at the same time they have volitions and actions and causality inconsistent with this belief ; and through expecting or apprehending some everlasting evil, either because of the myths, or because we are in dread of the mere insensibility of death, as if it had to do with us ; and through being reduced to this state not by conviction but by a certain irrational perversity, so that, if men do not set bounds to their terror, they endure as much or even more intense anxiety than the man whose views on these matters are quite vague.

[81] "Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ὅλως ἅπασιν ἐκεῖνο δεῖ κατανοεῖν, ὅτι τάραχος ὁ κυριώτατος ταῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ψυχαῖς γίνεται ἐν τῷ ταῦτά τε μακάρια δοξάζειν <εἶναι> καὶ ἄφθαρτα, καὶ ὑπεναντίας ἔχειν τούτῳ βουλήσεις ἅμα καὶ πράξεις καὶ αἰτίας, καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰώνιόν τι δεινὸν ἀεὶ προσδοκᾶν ἢ ὑποπτεύειν κατὰ τοὺς μύθους εἴ τε καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀναισθησίαν τὴν ἐν τῷ τεθνάναι φοβουμένους ὥσπερ οὖσαν κατ᾽ αὐτούς, καὶ ἐν τῷ μὴ δόξαις ταῦτα πάσχειν ἀλλ᾽ ἀλόγῳ γέ τινι παραστάσει, ὅθεν μὴ ὁρίζοντας τὸ δεινὸν τὴν ἴσην ἢ καὶ ἐπιτεταμένην ταραχὴν λαμβάνειν τῷ εἰκαίως δοξάζοντι ταῦτα:

(NOTE: This directly precedes section DL 10.82 cited above and below.)

***

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus. (DL 10.82): For by studying them we shall rightly trace to its cause and banish the source of disturbance and dread, accounting for celestial phenomena and for all other things which from time to time befall us and cause the utmost alarm to the rest of mankind.

ἂν γὰρ τούτοις προσέχωμεν, τὸ ὅθεν ὁ τάραχος καὶ ὁ φόβος ἐγίνετο ἐξαιτιολογήσομεν ὀρθῶς καὶ ἀπολύσομεν, ὑπέρ τε μετεώρων αἰτιολογοῦντες καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἀεὶ παρεμπιπτόντων, ὅσα φοβεῖ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐσχάτως.

***

Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus, (DL 10.131, Don translation):

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind.

Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν, ὥς τινες ἀγνοοῦντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντες ἢ κακῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μήτε ἀλγεῖν κατὰ σῶμα μήτε ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν·

***

PD22 (Peter Saint-Andre) You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.

τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφʼ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν· εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά.

NOTE: Here the translated phrase "trouble and confusion" reflects the Greek words ἀκρισία (literally "indistinctness") and ταραχή (literally "trouble", "disorder", or "tumult"); see also Principal Doctrine #17 and the note thereto.

***

NOTE: This is not necessarily an exhaustive list as the writings of Philodemus and Metrodorus may yield more citations, but they are not as readily searched as the sources above.

"Eudaemonia" is a key term in Epicurean philosophy. What exactly does it mean? There seems to be a consensus that it translates to "good spirit," but is this a reference to happiness, or to something else? This thread is for discussion of the meaning of "Ataraxia," including citations to reference where the term appears in Epicurean texts.

For the time being - Elli's vocabulary list -- which is excellent - but which unfortunately we cannot expect most new people to have access to:

"Ataraxia" is a key term in Epicurean philosophy. What exactly does it mean? There seems to be a consensus that it translates to "absence of disturbance," but is this a reference to bodily disturbance, to mental disturbance, to both, or with other connotations? How is "disturbance" different from "pain?" This thread is for discussion of the meaning of "Ataraxia," including citations to reference where the term appears in Epicurean texts.

ἀταραξία - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

Ion. ἀταραξίη, ἡ, impassiveness, calmness, ataraxia, unperturbedness, imperturbability, equanimity, tranquility Democr. ap. Stob.2.7.3i, Hp.Ep.12, Epicur.Ep.1p.30U., Phld.Oec.p.63 J., Cic.Fam.15.19.2, Hero Bel.71.2, Plu.2.101b, Plot. 1.4.1, etc.; prob. f.l. for ἀταξία in Hp.Praec.14.

For the time being - Elli's vocabulary list -- which is excellent - but which unfortunately we cannot expect most new people to have access to:

"Aponia" is a key term in Epicurean philosophy. What exactly does it mean? There seems to be a consensus that it translates to "absence of pain," but is this a reference to bodily pain, to mental pain, to both, or with other connotations? This thread is for discussion of the meaning of "Aponia," including citations to reference where the term appears in Epicurean texts.

ἀπονία - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

ἡ, (ἄπονος)
A non-exertion, laziness, X.Cyr.2.2.25, Arist.Rh. 1370a14(pl.); exemption from toil, of women, Id.GA775a37, cf. Plu. Rom.6.
II freedom from pain, Epicur.Fr.2, Chrysipp.Stoic.3.33, Dsc.Eup.1.67, Aret.SA2.1, etc.

For the time being - Elli's vocabulary list -- which is excellent - but which unfortunately we cannot expect most new people to have access to:

Aside - Waterholic is the thread name change ok?

Quote from waterholic

To be clear, I don't believe such mathematics in practical life would be of any value or use - we are far better equipped to do the mental "maths" between pleasure and pain by default.

Yes I agree, but I DO think that plotting out some kind of graphical picture DOES help with a high-level understanding of the relationships between plain and pleasure, and so I think this is very worthwhile. There's simply too much muddy thinking out there to take anything for granted.

Quote from waterholic

I have to think about this. The stimuli here refers to any stimulation of our brain.

And I gather that Cicero's discussion is focusing on "stimulation of the senses." Does all awareness come through the senses? I'd say probably not, and maybe the precise issue they were debating is whether pleasure must be confined to actions of "the senses" or whether pleasure can be experienced (mentally) without the *present* stimulation of the senses. The relationship between "experience" and "sense" is pretty tricky and I am not sure how to best express it.

Quote from waterholic

The middle white area is our daily life. When pain is brought down to the minimum (close to 0) we experience maximum pleasure, no matter how much pleasure stimuli we actually receive at that moment

Also: Don especially:

I wonder if the "stimuli we receive" phrasing (which is inherent in a lot of common discussion, and not just in this thread) is part of the problem. Is not Epicurus saying that the normal condition pleasures are not "stimuli" that are "received" at all, but self-generated through the minds appreciation of the true facts of life? The "received" part is especially a problem if that word implies that they just fall in your lap without effort, which I gather is pretty clear they do not (or at least they are not always seen to be pleasure without proper philosophy).