I just woke up and had to insert my normal sourness for Buddhism. :-). I knew you were fine yourself. Carry on! (But not necessarily calmly)

I think I recently quipped that just because the Stoics say it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. And the same would go for the Buddhists. But:

Quote from Don

The last 4 paragraphs are great! I think Buddhists would say "to want less, to control and tamp down our desires" is the right track

The right track to what?

It begins to become more apparent how phrasing things in terms of "frugal hedonism" and "abundance" - rather than unmodified "pleasure" or the absence of reference to supernatural forces or life after death can end up leading to both very divergent goals and paths. It's very easy to place modifier words on pleasure that change the focus entirely. I could easily imagine "responsible pleasure" or "noble pleasure" would suit the Stoics.

I think Diogenes of Oinoanda would have shouted at least as much at the Buddhists as he would at the Stoics, and very possibly more loudly.

Sounds like the book has food for thought for living more self-sufficiently but contains much peril for those who are not clear about why they might want to do so.

And as used by Thomas Jefferson -

The Earth Belongs in Usufruct to the Living | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Prudent YOLO I guess! It's strictly true that we only live once, so that isn't the issue.

And I think it's just clearly wrong to say the "longest life" per the letter to Menoeceus.

So we're left with "the most pleasant in subjective terms" i guess!

So maybe even prudent YOLO does not get to the heart of it quickly - I best we can get more suggestions on the right modifier if we get creative - but it needs to be something about the "most pleasant"

Strictly speaking I don't have any problem with "you only live once" but I gather the connotations of recklessness are top in everyone's minds.

"Epicurus taught YOLO but not the YOLO That You Are Familiar With." -- added per suggestion from Don - thanks

This list probably deserves a thread of its own so it can be extended and potentially reused on occasion in the future, rather than to buried in the middle of, and hijacking, the "Frugal Hedonism" thread. I wrote it as part of arguing the point that this method does *not* seem to me to be the best approach to explaining Epicurus, but it certainly has its uses. I bet others can think of corrections and even better examples:

1. Epicurus was a hedonist in that he believed pleasure to be the greatest good BUT he did not always pursue every choice that might produce pleasure.
2. Epicurus held that tranquility is a great pleasure BUT not that tranquility is the goal toward which all else aims.
3. Epicurus taught that pain was "evil" BUT he did not teach that pain should always be avoided.
4. Epicurus was an atheist BUT not the kind you think - he believed that gods do exist.
5. Epicurus believed that gods exist BUT not the kind of gods you think.
6. Epicurus was an empiricist of a sort BUT many of his most important conclusions were based on deductive reasoning about things he never personally experienced himself.
7. Epicurus held many positions that will strike you as Utilitarian BUT he did not believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number."
8. Epicurus was highly skeptical of claims of authority BUT he took strong positions himself about things that he believed to be provably true.
9. Epicurus was in many ways a frugalist BUT not always and it's important to know the exceptions.
10. Epicurus believed in virtue BUT not that it is an end in itself.
11. Epicurus held that "all sensations are true" BUT not that every sensation is accurate to all the facts.
12. Epicurus held that death is nothing to us BUT not that the manner and time of death is not significant.
13. Epicurus held that friendship is tremendously important for our happiness BUT Epicurus was not an "altruist" as that word is generally understood.
14. Epicurus taught YOLO BUT the YOLO That You Are Familiar With. (Don)

The "but" in many cases totally overrides the initial point, BUT this format can be a good way of starting off in some circumstances.

Thank you Plantpierogi and yes please extend the existing conversation on the book anytime you are ready!

Quote from Little Rocker

I'll be curious, Don, to find out whether 'frugal hedonism' ends up weighing in on the other stuff--like, you could be a frugal hedonist and still await your heavenly reward or be a frugal hedonist and still think the death of a child is part of a well-ordered cosmos.

Yesterday was busy for me and this sentence took a while to sink in.

Thinking further about it, I realize the implication:. The book title could have been the result of a phenomena that Norman Dewitt specifically mentions, that Epicurus is doomed to be anonymous when praised but named when condemned.

In other words, is the book a "conformist" approach in which someone decided to take everything they could from Epicurus that "sounds good" and strip from it everything that Lucretius' describes as "bitter?"

Given how important the "bitter" part is - in my view it is the real heart of the philosophy - if I woke up in a bad mood (which I didn't) I might be tempted to take a decidedly less charitable view of the book and its title.

Is the book attempting to do for Epicurus what the Modern Stoics do to Stoicism - strip it of integrity and add it to the modern list of anesthesia alternatives?

(Ha that last sentence sounds more harsh than I mean it to be. But the phenomena is a real one, and in the end it *isn't* one to be encouraged in either the Stoic or Epicurean worlds.)

We are considering some changes to the layout of the home page here at Epicureanfriends.com, and I'd like to solicit your comments.

I am expecting that most of us who are regulars simply come to the page and look for the red dot on notifications, then use that drop-down menu to make sure they have seen the latest postings.

That's one of my key presumptions behind how the site is set up, so let me know if that's a questionable presumption!

As to newer people, I don't think we want them having to hunt through the menus to find important topics, and that's why the home page has such a large selection from so many different areas of the forum.

On the other hand, I am sure that some people find the amount of information on the home page overwhelming. What we have here is a tradeoff between those who don't often see so much information in one place vs those who want to use their first visit as the test of whether they come back again, so they want to see what the site offers in one place rather than clicking around. I tend to think that people motivated enough to come to a site on Epicurus are of the latter camp who won't be scared away by too much text. But in fact I know some will, and that's one reason why over the years the number of websites we are affiliated with here has mushroomed from the original http://www.newepicurean.com to many more (most of which are listed here - many of which don't get much use).

Anyway it is time for a spring cleaning and any comments on how you use the site, what you might like to see changed in the way it looks, etc - are welcome. Can't promise we will implement them but it would be very helpful to hear your comments no matter how "off the wall" they might be.

I would stress that many of these back and forths are to me hypotheticals. I can easily imagine a presentation on Epicurus that would be entirely appropriate and go like this:

1. Epicurus was a hedonist in that he believed pleasure to be the greatest good BUT he did not always seek every choice that might produce pleasure.
2. Epicurus held that tranquility is a great pleasure BUT not that tranquility is the goal toward which all else aims.
3. Epicurus taught that pain was "evil" BUT he did not teach that pain should always be avoided.
4. Epicurus was an atheist BUT not the kind you think - he believed that gods do exist.
5. Epicurus believed that gods exist BUT not the kind of gods you think.
6. Epicurus was an empiricist of a sort BUT many of his most important conclusions were based on deductive reasoning about things he never personally experienced himself.
7. Epicurus held many positions that will strike you as Utilitarian BUT he did not believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number."
8. Epicurus was highly skeptical of claims of authority BUT he took strong positions himself about things that he believed to be provably true.
9. Epicurus was in many ways a frugalist BUT not always and it's important to know the exceptions.
10. Epicurus believed in virtue BUT not that it is an end in itself.
11. Epicurus held that "all sensations are true" BUT not that every sensation is accurate to all the facts.
12. Epicurus held that death is nothing to us BUT not that the manner and time of death is not significant.
13. Epicurus held that friendship is tremendously important for our happiness BUT Epicurus was not an "altruist" as that word is generally understood.

And I bet we could go on and on and on, and in the right circumstances, this is a probably a good way to introduce the topics. But is it the only way? Certainly not. Is it the best way? Well, in some circumstances yes, but it isn't the way (for example) that Epicurus himself or Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda organized their presentations, and in a better world (?) we shouldn't have to and won't have to do that either.

Yes good point Don. I really don't think we are very much apart on any of this. If I had to summarize why we frequently put different spins on things it is because I think it is interesting to find ways to push the envelope on discussions, and there are almost always going to be multiple ways to do that.

If someone asks me to go into detail about what Epicurus taught I would almost certainly say that he thought generally being frugal is a good idea, and I would say that the Greek word for pleasure is hedone and technicians like to call that "hedonism." Same effect could be gained by calling it "Voluptatism" but that's not in use even in the technical camps

My general pushback not at you but at the world is that I think it is a big problem to try to force Epicurus into boxes recognizable in modern ordinary terms, when I think the core points and thus implications of the philosophy go far beyond modern ordinary terms.

So I am fine with using frugality and hedonism in proper contexts, but I sense that the contexts in which words like "hedonism" are understandable are not really the audience that I personally am most concerned about. If someone is comfortable talking about "hedonism" then odds are (not always!) but I would have to guesstimate that such a person is probably philosophically aware already and probably has already accumulated an eclectic sum that will keep Epicurus in that box in their minds, and they will move on to something else. Most of what I personally would like to be doing isn't targeted at people like that, but at developing a way to express how fundamentally deep and outside-the-box Epicurus really was.

There are lots of directions to go and people to talk to so it's all good and mainly dependent on context.

And remember, you're talking to someone who's here largely because he was roped in by DeWitt's "Philosophy for the Millions."

Wow great and thanks for posting all that Nate!

Several of us talked last night that we really need to develop a list of alternative theories so we can be sure to cover them when we record this session. I have started such a list below - please feel free to make suggestions. I intend to at least include the major quotes under each source, but I have not had time to get started. Once this is fleshed out we will be able to post it somewhere it is regularly findable:

Notes Re Anticipations / Preconceptions / Prolepsis

Alternative Sources:

1. Diogenes Laertius
2. Velleius from On The Nature of the Gods
3. References in Epicurus Letters and/or Principal Doctrines
4. Lucretius

Alternative Theories:

1. The faculty of Anticipations is what happens when we see multiple oxes, create a word-picture of an ox, and then use that word-picture as a reference in labeling things as "oxen" when we see new ones. (Diogenes Laertius)
2. The faculty of Anticipations arises because of things which are engraved in our minds at birth (Velleius)
3. Anticipations involve justice, notions about the gods, and time (references in the letters of Epicurus but no real explanation)
4. Anticipations involve the repeated inflow of images into our minds and creating what amounts to an established path by which we are disposed to route new images.
5. Anticipations is a faculty that disposes us to recognize patterns - "Pattern recognition" (These patterns are simply in the objects themselves and are not ideal forms or essences or divinely created.)

Alternative Positions By Commentators:

1. DeWitt
2. Bailey
3. Voula Tsouna
4. David Sedley
5. Others?

I agree with virtually every practical consideration stated in the thread above, but I want to repeat a statement I just madein another thread:

As usual I think it's a bad idea to try to come up with a one size fits all rule. I am haven' previously made this comment in the "frugal hedonism" thread, because I see the value in explaining words. But in the end I think the best way to convey this analysis is simply to call it "Epicurean" - and gradually begin the long crawl out of the box that we are in due to the dominance (and our acceptance) of other people's paradigms.

Unfortunately we don't have the ability to claim that our definition of "frugal" or "hedonism" is the correct one. But the word that I do think we should claim, and define as clearly for everyone as we can, is "Epicurean."

My best thought on this subject would be like with everything else, it's a matter of the individual calculating what the future holds and whether he or she would rather die than continue living on in bad circumstances.

I don't really like talking about "psychological hedonism" or saying that everything we decide to do by default means that we think we will gain pleasure by it, but I definitely think that it is within he standard Epicurean calculation to think about what the future holds, even after we are gone, and to calculate the pleasure we would receive for the rest of our shortened lives by knowing that our death would "send a message" to later generations to pursue the same path. In most cases I doubt that would really makes sense, but if we are going to be consistent that the universe has no absolute standards and that the individual is the only one who can make the call as to their own life, then I can certainly see that the "glory" that would come from standing up to the crowd would make it worthwhile to that person. So in that sense like in others I don't think that "glory" is necessarily a Stoic contention, any more than we would think about the appreciation of our children after we are gone if we were to do something that caused us to lose our lives for their sake.

In my own situation I really can't see why "moving" wouldn't be the better choice in most every situation, but I see as I get older how that gets harder and harder, and indeed if we are sure that we don't need to run the clock out to the very last second, then that does give us a certain strength of mind and spirit to spit in the face of our enemies and say "bring it on." Sometimes what even does kill us makes "us" stronger depending on what we take pleasure in.

I think the word "nicely" in this Vatican Saying destroys the sense and a better word (at the very least "well") is needed, but I think this conveys the spirit:

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

As usual I think it's a bad idea to try to come up with a one size fits all rule. I haven't made this comment in the "frugal hedonism" thread, because I see the value in explaining words. But in the end I think the best way to convey this analysis is simply to call it "Epicurean" - and gradually begin the long crawl out of the box that we are in due to the dominance (and our acceptance) of other people's paradigms.

It's an interesting question as to when one would become a martyr for one's beliefs. Apparently Socrates thought the answer was clear, but my understanding has always been that he was doing so "for the sake of his country" or something like that. Maybe that's the same thing, but it has never been clear to my why he couldn't have made a more practical analysis of all the costs and benefits, and even if he thought his personal example was so important to the world, just gone somewhere else to continue to make it. Plus I gathered he had all these afterlife considerations.

I am not sure at all what Epicurus would have done if he thought he was about to be hauled up on blasphemy charges. Might he not have simply said "OK, guys, have it your way - I will go continue my teaching in Samos or Lampsacus or where-ever. You can believe what you want to believe here in Athens - I may die for my friends, but no spot of ground is worth my dying over?"

Great point Joshua. I am not sure which or if any of the commentators use the term "pattern recognition" but that is definitely one of the labels that we want to discuss. A faculty of "recognizing patterns or relationships between objects that does not derive from ideal forms or from internal essences, but from analogies which we are genetically disposed to recognize arising from evolution over the ages" -- but hopefully less wordy.

And this is the place also we need to discuss intuition/intuitive and instinct/instinctive with those dam-building beavers, migratory birds, etc.

And i don't think it would be out of place to compare this with pleasure and pain, which are arguably similar in representing some capability that is pre-programmed at birth to operate in certain ways that don't derive totally (or even primarily?) from experiences as we grow older. I am pretty sure that i liked ice cream the first time i tasted it, even though i also acknowledge that certain vegetables are "an acquired taste."

Episode 161 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue in Chapter 8 of the DeWitt Book abd focus on sensations and Epicurus' relationship with empiricism.

Another thing I want to mention in preparation for this episode is a question we touched on at the end of 161 - the relationship of Epicurus to "empiricism" and the focus in empiricism on "experience."

One of the important issues in controversy as to anticipations is to the extent to which anticipations exist or operate "prior to experience." Let me through out a description that may or may not be accurate: in the DIogenes Laertius example of anticipations, multiple experiences of observing oxen are made by a person, an image-picture-definition-anticipation is assembled, and then that image-picture-definition anticipation is used as a standard by which to judge later experiences.

One interpretation of anticipations (can't recall at the moment if this is Dewitt) is that this description refers to concept formation and conceptual reasoning, but that "pre-conceptions" and "pro-lepsis" and even the word "anticipation" itself refer to something going on *before* even the first exposure to an oxen.

The argument for that position would find its strongest support in Velleius (On the Nature of the Gods) which can be read to refer to anticipations of the gods being inborn and/or existing before any experience with a god. In other words, since most of us take the position that we have never seen or heard or touched or smelled or tasted a god, the existence or development of anticipations of the gods must not come from direct sensory experience of them.

I think that's a good argument but very definitely I am not taking a firm position on much of this debate - especially since I have not read either DeWitt or the Tsouna article in recent months.

However I do hope before we come to the end of this discussion we can begin to address the question: Does the faculty of Anticipations describe nothing more than concept-formation and the application of those concepts to new situations? Or - like i think most of us accept about the operation of pain-pleasure and even the 5 senses, the faculty of anticipations involves some kind of inborn predisposition of principles of operation which exist in us before any exposure to anything that causes the faculty of anticipations to generate any input to our minds. At the very least, it would seem that the "coding" for the faculty of pleasure and pain exists before we, after birth (or after conception) are exposed to anything we find painful or pleasurable. Same goes for the "Coding" in the operation of the eyes, which predates the things we see. Is the same true for Anticipations?

Another thing I think that most of us will agree on is that we are not born capitalists or communists or socialists (i.e., with fully formed concepts in our minds). Then what is this disposition toward "fairness" or "justice" and how far does the disposition go in containing comment at birth? I would say at the moment that the "disposition" goes as far as the ability to **recognize** that relationships and abstractions exist, but not much as to their content. LOTS of room for discussion on all this.

Post your comments and we will try to at least address the major points!