It demonstrates that pleasure is a regulatory mechanism for the health of the person, even if it's gone a little awry in modern times.
Yes, I'd say it demonstrates that pleasure is a regulatory mechanism for the health of the person that is subject to distortion both by our own error and at the initiative of others. And both problems have have reached new levels in modern times.
Can we say then that "one cannot understand Nietzsche without understanding Epicurus"?
Well I wouldn't go that far. No doubt understanding how subtle Epicurus can be would help understanding Nietzsche to some degree, but Nietzsche sure didn't approach the idea of "clarity" the way Epicurus did.
So I'm not sure that it's a good idea to look at Epicurus as a prerequisite to Nietzsche. At first thought I tend to I think the main issue is the common devotion to "this world" and to the intensity of warfare against "otherworlders." Nietzsche's "AntiChrist" to me is a good example of that, and of course that's one of Nietzsche's most clear commendations of Lucretius.
Great! We'll be setting up a private conversation with the Zoom link and we'll be sure you get included.
I sure will and let me try again to fix those permissions.
And you Martin provide a good reminder that this is not only for the Western Hemisphere but also for anyone who finds out normal Wednesday time impractical.
Eikadistes while I will bow to the common view that Nietzsche is a mixed bag, I personally very much agree that a knowledge of Nietzsche is very helpful for understanding Epicurus, and I am not just talking about his pro-Lucretius and anti-Stoic comments.
The helpfulness of Nietzsche is a view shared by Elli in Greece, who I think has internalized the intensity of Epicurran philosophy so well at least in part because of her affinity for Nietzsche and also for the Greek version of Nietzsche, Dimitri Liantini.
At present I think I will target 12:30 EDT this coming Sunday the 27th for those who are available. It won't be super long or super detailed, just an hour (at most) for us to meet Rolfe (who says he is available) and any other Europeans or other new people who would like to attend.
If you're interested please let us know. We'll do a public announcement on the front page but we'll also set up a private conversation with Zoom details for those who let us know that they would like to attend.
Of course this is open to all regular Zoomers or any of our other regulars here who would like to attend, whether you're in Europe or not.
We'll think about a name for this as well to highlight that it's intended to be convenient for both USA and Europe, but for now it'll just be Sunday EpicureanFriends Zoom.
Or as Cicero wrote:
Cicero, In defense of Publius Sestius, 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures.
Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.
In that light, certain pains might be endured for the sake of greater inner peace, if they lead to that deep serenity.
There's definitely a lot to think about in coming to terms with what Epicurus means by the word pleasure, but just as with "gods," Epicurus did not change the word, just made its use more precise.
The danger in giving up the word "pleasure" and substituting "peace" or anything else in its place is that the result is to narrow the definition and to imply that what people ordinarily think of as pleasure is not part of the goal, and that danger is present whether the word one chooses is "peace" or "tranquility" or "absence of pain" or anything else. The ancient writers were very clear in stating that Epicurus was held to be an advocate of "pleasure," and that words like tranquility or peace fall within pleasure, not the other way around. As Epicurus is reported to have said, he would not know what the good is were it not for pleasures that we all understand to be pleasures. For example:
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, XII p. 546E: "Not only Aristippus and his followers, but also Epicurus and his welcomed kinetic pleasure; I will mention what follows, to avoid speaking of the “storms” {of passion} and the “delicacies” which Epicurus often cites, and the “stimuli” which he mentions in his On the End-Goal. For he says “For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."
This has been a good thread and maybe not gotten to exactly the destination Rolf may have thought but it points out how important it is to be precise.
There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.
Even here, we have to balance the wording that Torquatus and Epicurus used about "blame":
On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.
[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.
Yep - Santoniogarden's examples are good.
Epicurus is regularly pointing out that pursuing power and fame and glory and the like are generally not worth the effort.
It shouldn't be necessary to point out however that "effort" is not a bad word in itself, but that side of Epicurean philosophy can tend to get lost when fail to "denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain.
On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided.
But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.
It's probably worth noting that of course this isn't saying that there won't be some desires which will take a lot of effort to obtain but also which will lead to great bodily or mental pain if they are not achieved. Those desires aren't the result of empty imaginings, but of real factors, and in those cases, it will make sense to exert great effort to obtain them.
So the point isn't "it's ok to be a slug and always avoid desires which take a lot of effort." The point is that before you put in a lot of effort to pursue a desire, be sure the goal is one that you really will feel the absence of if you don't pursue it.
I think part of it is learning to become more aware of one's feelings, along with gratitude and appreciation. While in the past, before encountering Epicurean philosophy, I might have dismissed a state of "mere" satiety as a bland neutral state, I can now see that this is a pleasure in itself. This in particular has been a great boon to me, as it's helped me to gain a far more positive perspective on both my own life and life in general, by realising how much pleasure there really is.
I think you're going in the right direction, but in addition to this you'll want to consider closely what DeWitt has to say about terminology around page 240 of his book. You'll also see the issues illustrated most clearly when you look closely at Torquatus' argument with Cicero in books one and especially two of "On Ends."
It's going to take time to go through all the texts and evidence. There's no shortcut, and this is why there's such a problem in talking about Epicurus to people who aren't really interested in the details but only want to "have a good time." Those people hear "pleasure" and like Pavlov's dog they are programmed to hear nothing except "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll." Yes, those are included, but they are not the full picture.
But in the end I think you'll see that Gosling and Taylor were right in striking back against the orthodoxy, and why DeWitt's quote on page 240 is also correct.
On some level I am still having a hard time being able to integrate the idea of only two feelings: pleasure and pain.
And this is why Cicero is so vocal in complaining about Epicurus' references to pleasure. Cicero is capitalizing on the fact that Epicurus is clearly using non-standard terminology, but Cicero isn't explaining that and only allows Torquatus to explain it briefly.
But understanding that this is a conceptual division that makes sense, even though it is non-standard, is the only way to make sense of the passages we find difficult, like the passage from Menoeceus we're discussing. This is why we've cited DeWitt's summary of this issue so often. Cicero is right that Epicurus is speaking about pleasure in a manner many people find confusing. But just as with 'gods,' there's a better way to look at both gods and pleasure. The name "god" can be used to describe something(s) that really do exist, but not supernaturally. The name "Pleasure" can also be used to describe something extremely important to human life, but the word as most people use it is being used too narrowly:
Quote from “Epicurus And His Philosophy” page 240 - Norman DeWitt (emphasis added)
“The extension of the name of pleasure to this normal state of being was the major innovation of the new hedonism. It was in the negative form, freedom from pain of body and distress of mind, that it drew the most persistent and vigorous condemnation from adversaries. The contention was that the application of the name of pleasure to this state was unjustified on the ground that two different things were thereby being denominated by one name. Cicero made a great to-do over this argument, but it is really superficial and captious. The fact that the name of pleasure was not customarily applied to the normal or static state did not alter the fact that the name ought to be applied to it; nor that reason justified the application; nor that human beings would be the happier for so reasoning and believing.
In the past we've held sporadic Zoom sessions at mid-day eastern time in order to provide a reasonable time for our European friends, but I think it's time we set something up that is more regular so that our European friends can get better connected. We have a good number of people here already who are in Europe, and we need to devote more resources in that direction.
It seems very likely that either a Saturday or Sunday would work best, with Sunday the most likely to suit more people. That may create an obstacle for our podcasters, who are already devoting much of Sunday morning to the podcast, but all in all Sunday around noon or 1:00 PM Eastern USA time probably makes the most sense for everyone.
Therefore this thread is to start a discussion of setting up such a project -- at least once a month, but perhaps weekly if we get enough interest.
While a mid-day Eastern time allows for a reasonable meeting time from California to at least central Europe, there's no doubt that there will be conflicts no matter what time or day of the week we pick.
We further need to set up a "theme" for these meetings. Our current Wednesday meetings are centered around going through Usener's Epicurea, but if we get to the point of doing these weekly we'll want to pick another theme, such as going through a book or a particular Epicurean text, to provide some continuity. I'm thinking largely in our current format, which is to limit the session to about an hour, with the time split almost evenly between "general conversation" followed by discussion of a particular topic of Epicurean philosophy (or chapter of a book, etc).
I think we probably have past threads on a similar topic and if i can find them I will mine them for thoughts and ideas previously expressed. But in the meantime, if you're interested in participating in such a project let us know in this thread.
We have some recent new members from Europe, including Rolf, as well as other regular participants who we will work to accommodate.
There's so much good stuff on here but it feels a bit scattered.
Yes that's definitely a problem. Right now there are buttons and links to places where certain things are featured, but it's a bear trying to make decisions on how to prioritize.
In most sections of site, such as the "Articles," there is a "Featured" aspect where we try to highlight the most important entries in that section.
It's an ongoing battle to try to improve this. This is why, at present, the "front page" of the site contains a lot of text, rather than being more airy and white-space-filled like some designs. I'm trying to make that front page the place that you can't really get past without being exposed to the core ideas.
Don can help with the Greek wording but there's definitely use of words that are translated as "evil," but I agree that "sin" is different, and that you're making a very important point. There's no God or absolute force in relation to which you're "sinning against." You can very definitely commit acts that lead others to be mad at you and therefore have negative impacts later, but there's a world of difference between practical problems, which can be dealt with, and "mortal sins" which supposedly can lead to eternity in hell.
FYI -
Chatgpt:
You said:
Who is Fabian Bario and what are his views of Epicurus?
ChatGPT said:
Fabián C. Barrio is a Spanish philosopher and content creator recognized for his engaging discussions on philosophy through his YouTube channel. He frequently explores classical philosophical themes, making them accessible to a broader audience.YouTube+1YouTube+1
Barrio has expressed a particular interest in Epicurean philosophy. In his video titled "Más Epicuro y menos Armani," he advocates for a lifestyle aligned with Epicurean principles, emphasizing the pursuit of simple pleasures and inner peace over materialistic endeavors. He suggests that embracing such values can lead to a more fulfilling life.YouTube
In another presentation, Barrio imagines a dialogue between Epicurus and Elon Musk, contrasting Epicurean ideals with contemporary ambitions. This creative approach highlights the relevance of ancient philosophical teachings in modern contexts.
Through his work, Barrio underscores the enduring significance of Epicurean thought, encouraging a reevaluation of modern values in light of ancient wisdom.
Welcome and good to hear we are approved by Deepseek!
I've never heard of Barrio - do you have any links to recommend to read about him?
To illustrate how this plays out, the quote below is is the way the Epicureanism Wikipedia page as of today starts off.
Epicureanism is a system of philosophy founded 307 BCE based upon the teachings of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher. Epicurus was an atomist and materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to religious skepticism and a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, and its main opponent later became Stoicism. It is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal. However, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from hedonism as colloquially understood.
Following the Cyrenaic philosopher Aristippus, Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest, sustainable pleasure in the form of a state of ataraxia (tranquility and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of bodily pain) through knowledge of the workings of the world and limiting desires. Correspondingly, Epicurus and his followers generally withdrew from politics because it could lead to frustrations and ambitions that would conflict with their pursuit of virtue and peace of mind.[1]
I would argue that the first paragraph sets the incorrect tone (absence of pain, without more explanation, is the greatest pleasure) that leads to the false conclusions in the second paragraph (that Epicurus advocated withdrawal from engagement with the world in favor of mental contemplation).
The first paragraph fails to explain that there are only two feelings, and that if you are not feeling pain then you are feeling pleasure, and vice versa.
Omission of this premise plants the implication that "absence of pain" does not include the type of ordinary pleasures that normal people consider the term to include, and that this transcendent condition is separate from and takes the place of pleasures as ordinarily understood.
In contrast to Epicurus, who is widening the definition of pleasure to include not only the standard active pleasures, but also all experiences whether active or stable that are not painful, the Wikipedia approach narrows the definition of pleasure.
The Wikipedia viewpoint deprecates joy and delight and standard active pleasures, and leaves behind only the implication that Epicurus was advocating the type of mental detachment that is characteristic of Stoicism, Buddhism, and otherworldly philosophies and religions.
