Posts by Cassius

Bad news Nate, it looks like they did NOT do their own version. This is from the page introducing them:

I want to repeat what I hope is obvious but which should not be left to implication: I have tremendous respect for all the work that Christos has put in over the years in promoting Epicurean philosophy, and so any "criticism" here of any formulations should be seen in that context. Heck every time I formulate things myself I do it differently, always hoping to improve but sometimes backsliding. It sounds petty sometimes to state a disagreement when the full context is that there is so much to be praised, but that's exactly the kind of constructive approach I think helps us all. And that's why I agree with Godfrey's comment but also have the greatest respect for Christos and holding both those positions is not a contradiction. A lot of the benefit we can get out of this forum is friendly and constructive criticism that leads to improvement.

They have been telling me that they planned to so I hope this is it!

I note from the main article in the first post that the word "pleasure appears several times, but most frequently in general terms not referencing Epicurus, until here:

Quote

We underline that according to Epicurus: [...] prudence can maintain psychosomatic balance (eustatheia) by consciously choosing what brings happiness, namely by wise satisfaction of natural and necessary desires (which concern our instincts), by understanding the nature of our emotions as criteria of truth, and by wise selection of those pleasures that are useful and not harmful.92

I added the underlining.

Given our recent discussions, I wonder if Epicurus would agree that use of terms like "useful" and "harmful" as superior to "pleasurable" and "painful" is the most preferable way to discuss the pleasure / pain calculation of choices and avoidances. I tend to think not, but it will be interesting to see what others think about this formulation.

Thanks LR for posting those links. I have an initial observation about those articles that I find very interesting.

Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) the article "Philosophical Management of Stress Based on Science and Epicurean Pragmatism" does not contain even a single instance of the word "pleasure." No need to comment further at the moment on why that might be, but one indication of a sound Epicurean approach to me has always been to be sure that "pleasure" is not obscured or replaced with other priorities.

The other article "Epicurean Stability" does mention "pleasure" fairly regularly, so that's more reassuring. However on first glance it looks like that article is going to give us a lot of opportunity to discuss how to keep sharp the distinctions between core Epicurean viewpoints as opposed to "eudaimonia" "well-being" and "flourishing" and similar concepts often problematic when used too loosely. Could be that we'll need to consult some of Diogenes of Oinoand's "shouting" about keeping "pleasure" in its proper place before this is over.

Lots more to read before I can comment much more.

Philosophical Management of Stress: An Introduction|Conatus - Journal of Philosophy

Full text link

Christos YapijakisNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

ORCID

Abstract

All human needs are compromised by everyday stressful conditions, which may be objectively devastating or subjectively augmented due to idiosyncratic way of thinking. Unmanaged acute stress can affect emotions, thinking and behavior and chronic stress can result in several severe health problems. Philosophy may provide a frame of thinking that may help in managing everyday stress. There are personal dimensions in the philosophical management of stress based on examples of Aristotle’s eudaimonia consisted of morality and pleasure, Plato’s transcendence aiming to join with the supreme good, Pyrrho’s serenity through suspension of judgement and the Stoics’ rational attachment to virtue. Furthermore, there are social dimensions of philosophical management of stress, since there is abundant scientific evidence that stress affects moral decision-making and therefore an ethical theory of life may not be sufficient in stressful conditions. In this context, such social aspects include the relationship of eudaimonia with community life, the artistic practice and the virtual eroticism in the contemporary world of digital media as a stress relief from physical confrontation with other persons in real life, the empathy and care as a crucial quality for stress relief and social change, as well as the Epicurean approach of stress management that may have both personal and social utility. Intervention programs of stress management combining many lifestyle techniques have been shown to enhance resilience and decrease stress for a period of time, based on systematic behavioral change. Two successful novel empirical pilot studies of pure philosophical management of stress based on cognitive psychotherapy and modification of mentality have been presented, both of them realized in the COVID-19 pandemic period: a three-month positive psychology intervention combined with Epicurean and Stoic concepts was provided to adolescent students and a month-long philosophical management of stress program based on Science and Epicurean Philosophy was offered to public sector professionals.

I just found out today about the new book released by Christos Yapijakis and several other contributors from the Garden of Athens in Greece. Here is a link to the Amazon page with table of contents and preview. I haven't had a chance to purchase much less start to read, but I hope if people here are interested and go through it they will comment in the thread below. Also below is the Table of Contents:

And related is David Sedley's commentary on the same subject in "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism"

Nate my reading of your last two comments is consistent with the views taken in that A. A. Long article, and by Sedley as well in his article on Determinism, and I am pretty strongly convinced of the correctness of that position. I think it's especially important to always be thinking about the implications of the eternal universe issue, as you are doing, and to never allow implicitly or explicitly for a time "before" in our thinking about the universe as a whole. Whatever is happening now has been happening, or at least was possible to happen, eternally into the past, and any kind of "first" collision, even or especially a single one, did not bring the universe as a whole into being from something different that existed beforehand.

Yes I agree Don, and especially I want to pick out your comment on her tone of voice. She sounds friendly but firm, and I think the firmness is what we find often to be lacking. I am reminding of Charleton Griffin's Audible version of Lucretius, which was very influential on my own thinking about Epicurus. Griffin also uses a very firm voice, and while sometimes he probably goes over-the-top with sarcasm in conveying the times when Lucretius attacks other positions, I do think that firmness of tone goes right along with taking firm positions on so many controversial topics. It's even appropriate to be firm, and double down even, on firmly presenting how important it is to "wait" when the evidence doesn't support a single conclusion.

Almost as much as I appreciate what I think is her proper perspective the relationship of "pleasure" to "tranquility" without descending into minimalism or asceticism, I look forward to her at some point in the future specifically diving into the canonics/epistemology issue. None of us are comfortable with endorsing words like "dogmatism" given the baggage those words carry, and yet getting comfortable with the idea that there is a legitimate line between radical skepticism and "knowing" anything at all is not territory with which most of us are familiar in dealing with. The firmness of her tone of voice encourages me to think that she's going to be able to tackle that issue successfully too.

Quote from Todd

Is this really a big issue?

Yeah I am still channeling the AA Long article and the Sedley article on the swerve deriving from free will rather than physics.

1. Anything more than the slightest deviation would play into the hands of those saying that an unstable universe needs a superintending God, and

2. Is anything more than the swerve of a single atom at a single moment in time necessary to start the chain of collisions needed to bring everything into existence?

Quote from Joshua

I've never been able to reconcile a 'primordial' downward movement with the concurrent claim that there was no beginning

Isn't it even harder to accept that there *was* a beginning?

Here at this link is a new presentation by Emily Austin of several major points from her "Living for Pleasure" book.

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life

Emily Austin shares 5 key insights from her new book, Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life.

nextbigideaclub.com

As I think most of you here at the forum know, Dr. Austin has agreed to sit for an interview with our "Lucretius Today" podcast, and we hope to set that up and record in over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, I think you'll agree with me that this is a very good presentation not only of points from her book but good food for thought that those of us who are Epicurus enthusiasts would give to an audience that's not already pretty familiar with Epicurean philosophy.

So with the knowledge that we'll probably have Dr. Austin herself reading this thread at some point in the future, let's talk about our thoughts on what she picked out as significant about Epicurus, how she presents the topics, perhaps in what order they are presented, and any other thoughts you have on how to give a "first impression" of Epicurean philosophy to others.

I know myself that every time I start out talking to someone new I approach the subject in a different way, not only because my thoughts change but because I want to fine-tune what I say to the person who is listening. It's really interesting to think about how to make presentations as persuasive as possible. Do we start out with "hooks" to draw people in on terms they recognize? Do we start with the most controversial issues, or do we save those for later? One thing I noticed in this presentation is that there's not a specific item devoted clearly to "epistemology / canonics"? Is that an advanced topic that isn't best as part of a first impression, or is it something that should be addressed earlier in a talk. Should that be incorporated with the physics like the ancient Epicureans are reputed to have done? How much of an issue should be made in a first talk, and when in the presentation, is it best to bring the issues of supernatural gods and life after death into these discussions.

Lot's to think about here, but I want to repeat that I sense that even where I might quibble with certain choices she makes, I get a real sense that Dr. Austin's viewpoint is much superior to most other modern writers. Even in this presentation she doesn't shy away from negative remarks about the Stoics, and that's one of the best indications to me that she's on the kind of quest we are on - to get to the heart of Epicurean philosophy without adulteration from viewpoints that undercut the conclusions.

I agree that the contrast shown by the different options is a useful way to think of the big issue, which appears to be at least in part that the question is how "much" of a deviation occurs.

Oh one more thing. By stopping at "there is no supernatural god ....", you really set yourself up for disappointment, disillusion, and despair when the hard times inevitably come.

More so than saying "there is not..." you need to be able to say with confidence what "there *is* ...."

Sounds good to me!

Quote from Don

After reading my post from last night in the light of day, I can still feel my visceral reaction to that Stoic article. However, I ask the forum: Am I being too harsh?

Epicurus certainly didn't spare his barbed words for people he disagreed with, but he also said it's better to believe in the gods than it is to accept hard determinism.

To me, though, it seems like accepting one's Fate decreed by Providence is combining *both* the gods *and* determinism and trying to sit that fence must surely be uncomfortable in the end. But if they find pleasure in "believing" that, am I to point out the precariousness of their position?

It seems to me that Epicurus also held that the best way to live was to understand how the universe actually works in reality.

Thoughts welcomed (at the risk of hijacking this thread).

This thread is becoming a catchall for everything it seems, but I realized this morning I had another comment on this post from Don.

This kind of reaction to supernatural religion is exactly the kind of reaction I think Epicurus had, and I suspect that Epicurus thought that *this* was actually his main "calling in life" for his philosophy. Yes the goal of pleasure and the mechanics of reaching it are very important, but they come *after* one has first rejected the supernatural / providential / "idealist" nature of the universe. And one does that - one gains confidence in rejecting the supernatural / providential / idealist viewpoint - through the epistemology and the physics.

That's the focus of Lucretius' manner of presentation to Memmius, that's the focus of what appears to be the *first* letter of Epicurus (to Herodotus), and I strongly suspect it was the focus the school as a whole. In addition, I think that also needs to be "our' focus on Epicureanfriends as well. We don't need to lessen the importance of pleasure-seeking or anxiety-avoidance, but we need to keep them in their place, which is the path we take *after* we first establish the shared groundwork of a natural universe.

So to repeat the point of posting this, I think we begin to see our way to having an impact in real people's lives the more we see reactions like Don had to the Fisher article. The "modern atheists" attack religion and then stop, or else they veer off into "humanism" / idealism. Epicurus was pointing to a different path, and that's the one I think we can accomplish a lot by working to reconstruct and support with modern presentations.

Quote from Premster

I look forward to learning more from the experts

I don't know how many "experts" we have here but I think I can confidently say that you'll find a supportive group of people sincerely interested in exploring Epicurus sympathetically, so welcome aboard!

Just FWIW I see that the Long article I cited is the source for this comment that I remembered about the comparison of DeWit's and Clay's list.

And why twelve fundamentals of physics (if that is the correct classification), but not a numbered list of anything else?