We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Started June 28, 2022:
"It was indeed excellently said by Epicurus that fortune only in a small degree crosses the wise man’s path, and that his greatest and most important undertakings are executed in accordance with his own design and his own principles, and that no greater pleasure can be reaped from a life which is without end in time, than is reaped from this which we know to have its allotted end." Cicero, On Ends, Book 1. [63]
Thank you Don - I noticed you were scarce yesterday so I am glad you came back around for this one.
The target is the life of pleasure, and yes, it makes a lot of sense that staying "within one's means" is generally a very good idea, and it's something of course I try to do myself too. But in doing so it's essential to remember the goal at all times, and to never get carried away with this or any other "technique" as is the technique in itself is the goal.
That lesson never gets old and seems to need constant repeating in virtually every aspect of life.
"From sensory pleasures and drugs of abuse to monetary, aesthetic and musical delights, all pleasures seem to involve the same hedonic brain systems, even when linked to anticipation and memory."
You mean there's no special mechanism involved in the pleasure of contemplating the majesty of Zeus, or considering yourself to be a flickering part of the Divine fire? That won't please the Stoics if they find out! 
Looks like Kalosyni and I crossposted, but I am glad to say that after reading her post I agree it is well stated and thank her for finding the thread I didn't have time to find.
"According to Lucretius, love is insatiable, accompanied by pain, heart-ache, bitterness, and other mental disturbances."
I don't know who wrote that, but even if it was David Sedley or someone else I highly respect I would say that is not a full picture of what Lucretius wrote.
Certainly romantic high-intensity love CAN be all of those things, but one of the first rules of Epicurean physics that crosses over into ethics is that there is no fate -- no "hard determinism" - and those results are not "inevitable." So the quote above "can" be a "part" of the picture of love, but it is by no means the full picture, and I don't believe Lucretius can fairly be read to say that it is.
(Forgot to start with -- Have you read Chapter four yourself?)
The final words of the chapter are (Humphries):
Finally,
The little woman does not have to be
A raving beauty; she can win your love,
Without the help of any gods, without
The darts of Cupids or of Venuses,
Simply by being decent, neat and clean,
A pleasant person to be living with.
That's about all it takes, and love depends
On habit quite as much as the wild ways
Of passion. Gently does it, as the rain
In time wears through the very hardest stone.
So one of the first observations I would make is that what is being discussed mainly is the intoxication of sexual passion. Intoxication of ANY kind can get someone into trouble, and romantic love is a high-risk / high-reward activity that has to be "handled with care."
I could almost stop there because that's really the main point to be made, but there are all sorts of other observations, including those made in some threads here in the past. (If I have time I'll search through but I know we have forums dedicated to the topic.)
Now if you're talking about long term relationships, marriage, children, and all the rest, that's very different from the intoxication of sexual passion.
We know, for example, that in Epicurus' own will he provided that the daughter(s) (i forget if there was one or more) be married off to one of the members of the school. So we have that example that Epicurus himself was clearly not against all marriage.
The part of the Diogenes Laertius that attempts to summarize what the wise man would do regarding marriage appears to be corrupted, and the experts argue whether it's a general advice yes or no to get married. But the provision for Metrodorus' offspring to be married in my mind tells the tale, and even those who argue about that passage include in their translation that he's talking about marriage "according to circumstances."
And that's exactly what we would respect. There are no moral or fated absolutes in human life (with exception of death) and even dynamite can be handled with care and be very useful. If you're getting long-term attached solely for sex most everyone would agree that that's a bad idea - it just won't work over time.
But as Lucretius closed his chapter, you can have much deeper relationships that DO stand the test of time, and grow over time, if they are based on shared values, shared interests, shared goals, etc.
OK that's a start
I note the reference to VS48 which Bailry translates as VS48. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content.
I've always considered that more targeted at "end of life" considerations rather than just "make tomorrow better than today" but surely that is implied as well, as you suggest, and your might even be the major focus.
I don't think there are as many alternate translations to choose from as with the PDs but hopefully one day we will have a supplement to Nates PD compilations and/or maybe Don will try his hand at his own translation.
Thank you Michele!
Clearly in friendship there is also a risk of pain, in if your friend moves away or dies you will feel the pain of the loss of that friendship
Another excellent example why the "Avoid Pain At Any Cost" Approach is TERRIBLY unEpicurean!
Frances Wright agreed in her Chapter 10 of A Few Days In Athens:
But there is yet a pain, which the wisest and the best of men cannot escape; that all of us, my sons, have felt, or have to feel. Do not your hearts whisper it? Do you not tell me, that in death there is yet a sting? That ere he aim at us, he may level the beloved of our soul? The father, whose tender care hath reared our infant minds — the brother, whom the same breast hath nourished, and the same roof sheltered, with whom, side by side, we have grown like two plants by a river, sucking life from the same fountain and strength from the same sun — the child whose gay prattle delights our ears, or whose opening understanding fixes our hopes — the friend of our choice, with whom we have exchanged hearts, and shared all our pains and pleasures, whose eye hath reflected the tear of sympathy, whose hand hath smoothed the couch of sickness. Ah! my sons, here indeed is a pain — a pain that cuts into the soul. There are masters that will tell you otherwise; who will tell you that it is unworthy of a man to mourn even here. But such, my sons, speak not the truth of experience or philosophy, but the subtleties of sophistry and pride. He who feels not the loss, hath never felt the possession. He who knows not the grief, hath never known the joy. See the price of a friend in the duties we render him, and the sacrifices we make to him, and which, in making, we count not sacrifices, but pleasures. We sorrow for his sorrow; we supply his wants, or, if we cannot, we share them. We follow him to exile. We close ourselves in his prison; we soothe him in sickness; we strengthen him in death: nay, if it be possible, we throw down our life for his. Oh! What a treasure is that for which we do so much! And is it forbidden to us to mourn its loss? If it be, the power is not with us to obey.
Should we, then, to avoid the evil, forego the good? Shall we shut love from our hearts, that we may not feel the pain of his departure? No; happiness forbids it. Experience forbids it. Let him who hath laid on the pyre the dearest of his soul, who hath washed the urn with the bitterest tears of grief — let him say if his heart hath ever formed the wish that it had never shrined within it him whom he now deplores. Let him say if the pleasures of the sweet communion of his former days doth not still live in his remembrance. If he love not to recall the image of the departed, the tones of his voice, the words of his discourse, the deeds of his kindness, the amiable virtues of his life. If, while he weeps the loss of his friend, he smiles not to think that he once possessed him. He who knows not friendship, knows not the purest pleasure of earth. Yet if fate deprive us of it, though we grieve, we do not sink; Philosophy is still at hand, and she upholds us with fortitude. And think, my sons, perhaps in the very evil we dread, there is a good; perhaps the very uncertainty of the tenure gives it value in our eyes; perhaps all our pleasures take their zest from the known possibility of their interruption. What were the glories of the sun, if we knew not the gloom of darkness? What the refreshing breezes of morning and evening, if we felt not the fervors of noon? Should we value the lovely-flower, if it bloomed eternally; or the luscious fruit, if it hung always on the bough? Are not the smiles of the heavens more beautiful in contrast with their frowns, and the delights of the seasons more grateful from their vicissitudes? Let us then be slow to blame nature, for perhaps in her apparent errors there is hidden a wisdom. Let us not quarrel with fate, for perhaps in our evils lie the seeds of our good. Were our body never subject to sickness, we might be insensible to the joy of health. Were our life eternal, our tranquillity might sink into inaction. Were our friendship not threatened with interruption, it might want much of its tenderness.
I would like to propose that friendship is a pleasure which every Epicurean should cultivate.
Even at risk of forever disqualifying yourself from the world of Modern Stoicism????
(From ModernStoicism.com)
Or even worse (in terms of numbers of people) separating yourself from the Buddhist viewpoint (which implies not getting too attached to any one person)?
Gosh, somebody willing to do that better be ready to tread the path less trod !
But then Lucretius said (according to Humphries):
Exploring ways where none have gone before,
Across the Muses' realms I make my way,
Happy to come to virgin springs, to drink
Their freshness, to discover all the flowers
No man has ever seen, and of them twine
Myself a garland, which no poet yet
Has had from any Muse. This I deserve
Because I teach great things, because I strive
To free the spirit, give the mind release
From the constrictions of religious fear,
Because I write clear verse about dark things,
Enduing what I touch with grace and charm;
And this makes sense, for, just as doctors do,
When they give bitter wormwood to a child,
But first take pains to smear the rim of the cup
With the sweet golden honey, and to fool
The unsuspecting patient, anyway
As far as the lips, till he gulps down the dose
Of bitter wormwood, fooled, but not betrayed,
But rather given health and strength, so I,
Harsh as my system may appear to those
Who have not used it (and, in general,
People shrink back, set lips and minds against it)
Nevertheless, for your sake, Memmius,
Have wanted to explain the way things are
Turning the taste of honey into sound
As musical, as golden, so that I
May hold your mind with poetry, while you
Are learning all about that form, that pattern,
And see its usefulness.
One more contextual issue that I think is underappreciated but very important is the issue of time. All things being equal, if we had plenty of time, then it makes more sense to defer action when some amount of pain is required. In the big picture, however, life is very short, and for an eternity we are nothing after we die. In my mind that is a factor that compels us to be very serious about how we make this calculation, and to realize that some pain is required in virtually everything we do in life.
As Horace said, seize the day. Or, make hay while the Sun shines.
I have failed to reference the first text that should always come to mind whenever asceticism is discussed: Vatican Saying 63:
VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.
I always enjoy discussing this issue because I think it is so important.
I find that there are basically two camps:
Camp One - People who focus on the "absence of pain" passages and conclude that "avoid all pain to the extent possible" is the supreme guide of Epicurean philosophy, without regard to the pleasure that is thereby forgone.
Camp Two:. People who focus on "pleasure" as that term is ordinarily understood, embracing all forms of mental and physical enjoyment, and who conclude that the correct statement of the primary guide is that pleasure is the focus and is to be pursued so long as we ourselves deem the resulting feeling of pleasure to be worth the cost in pain needed to obtain it.
Everyone has different tolerances for pain, and different valuations of pleasure, so it's really impossible to make the generic statement of Camp Two more precise than that. There is no absolute set of pleasures always to pursue or pains always to avoid.
The error of camp one, in my view, arises from attempting to conclude that all pain is so intolerable that it must be avoided at all costs.
I wish camp one was a straw man and that no one seriously advocates for that, but we are talking philosophy here and we need to be as precise and clear as possible with our formulations.
Camp One is the short path to Stoicism and Buddhism IMHO and is therefore to be avoided at all cost. Camp One is sustainable in Epicurean terms only by ignoring large parts of the surviving texts. The Camp Two position can explain and apply ALL the texts appropriately, but the Camp One position cannot be reconciled with the many explicit endorsements of choosing pain at times for the sake of pleasure. Camp One attempts to rely on "ataraxia" as the "greatest pleasure," to support it's position, but that too (IMHO) cannot stand the test of scrutiny when compared against the full system. Ataraxia can easily be incorporated into Camp Two's big picture, but Camp Two cannot embrace Pleasure without stretching reasonable constructions of definitions beyond the breaking point.
Nobody is saying that you have to avoid by all means pain.
Beasain I am glad to see that *you* are not saying that, but in my reading of many people over a good number of years of studying Epicurus, I observe that there are many people who in fact DO say that. And to take the example you gave as literally written, "no pain" means "no pain." I don't mean to sound overly technical here as to the meaning of words, but it is exactly this issue which is in dispute. There are those, and this is entailed in the word "ascetic" who do in fact hold out "absence of pain" as a complete and full description of the highest good.
You'll recall that is exactly what Hieronymus of Rhodes advocated, and I see it in the wording of many commentators even today.
From there to "ascetic" is not that far away, I think.
I think if we are being precise in or wording, "ascetic" is as far away from "Epicurean" as North is from South, or East from West.
I realize that playing with definitions is largely a word game, and the the subtleties of meaning vary widely and can be interpreted differently very easily by many people.
But I also think that it is possible to "generalize" about about what a word means to "most people," and that in common discussion words carry meaning that is not strictly technical in philosophical discourse.
And EpicureanFriends is not targeted at professional academic philosophers, but "regular people." And I think it is fair to say that the "regular people" who we generally come into contact with interpret the word 'ascetic' to mean something that is incompatible with pursuit of any kind of mental or physical pleasure.
If we redefine "ascetic" to mean some kind of generic "rigorousness" in applying the calculation of "always pursuing the greatest pleasure as the ultimate goal" then that word would be fine. But virtually no one interprets it that way.
ascetic
adjective us
/əˈset̬.ɪk/ uk
/əˈset.ɪk/
avoiding physical pleasures and living a simple life, often for religious reasons: They live a very ascetic life.
1 : practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline an ascetic monk an ascetic diet 2 : austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
[ uh-set-ik ]
See synonyms for: ascetic / ascetics on Thesaurus.com
noun
a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.
a person who leads an austerely simple life, especially one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction.
(in the early Christian church) a monk; hermit.
adjective Also as·cet·i·cal. relating to asceticism, the doctrine that one can reach a high spiritual state through the practice of extreme self-denial or self-mortification.
rigorously abstinent; austere: an ascetic existence.
exceedingly strict or severe in religious exercises or self-mortification.
So again Beasain let me repeat that I am not aiming this dispute at you personally. I think your interpretation you are stating is very compatible with what I read Epicurus as saying.
But for purposes of keeping the overall situation always in view, I think we need to recognize that considering Epicurean views to be related to ascetic views or practices in any way is a very dangerous thing to do, maybe not for the person (like yourself) who keeps the distinction firmly in view, but because in dealing with others we can never be sure that they will understand that subtlety.
That's why I take every opportunity like this to hit home the point. You yourself probably don't need it, but I wager that the majority of casual browsers who come across this discussion and read it need to be reminded of it (or, sadly, have it pointed out to them for the first time!)
Peter Adamson use the term ascetic hedonism for Epicurism. What do you think of that?
I think that label and also the example are clearly *not* what Epicurus taught.
The example makes clear (at least as you have stated it) that he would accept the business class ticket only if there is " no pain in exchange" with the emphasis there on the "no" for our purposes of discussion.
While there are definitely statements which can be taken out of context would result in that 'ascetic' viewpoint, in my view if you take all the texts as a whole that a very different conclusion is compelled. To the contrary of asceticism, the goal is pleasure as that term is ordinarily understood, in which joy and delight and "active" pleasures are among the most enjoyable (what is most pleasant to a person is personal and contextual), and as a result we willingly embrace pain on a regular basis in exchange for pleasures that we deem to be much greater than the pains we incur as the cost of those pleasures.
Letter to Menoeceus:
"And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.
...
And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.
Although the same statement is not made in the PD's explicitly, we have PD08, which states the first part, and by implication the converse is also true and could be stated - "no pain is an evil thing in itself, but some pains bring with them pleasures many times greater than the pains."
PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.
And very clearly in Torquatus (On Ends):
Nor again is there any one who loves or pursues or wishes to win pain on its own account, merely because it is pain, but rather because circumstances sometimes occur which compel him to seek some great pleasure at the cost of exertion and pain.
So based on these and many other statements that can be retrieved from the texts there is no reason whatsoever to take the position that "ALL PAINS ARE TO BE AVOIDED ALL THE TIME" which is the logical implication of any form of "Ascetic" approach to Epicurus.
Avoidance of all pain as the goal of life is simply not what Epicurus taught. He taught the pursuit of pleasure as the goal of human life, which entails the expected and even at times desirable acceptance of pain for purposes of achieving pleasure.
One last cite:
Usener 423: “That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”
Welcome Phillipe1!
You are indeed doing it right! We have the standard post which is now pasted above to welcome new users, but I have moved your post into this thread to keep things together.
There are many ways to interpret certain aspects of Epicurus' teachings, and there are many obstacles to being confident about some of them (especially so many texts were lost!) but that is the purpose of this forum - to allow people to compare notes and discuss and learn as they proceed.
You have stated your first post in a way that is more focused on minimalism and escaping pain than I think most of us here would say it (most here would say that the focus is always on "the feeling of pleasure" rather than on any particular pleasure or means of achieving it) but most all of us start out having come from different places (from Stoicism, from Buddhism, from standard Christianity) and it takes time to consider and think through what Epicurus was saying.
So again welcome and we look forward to hearing more from you.
Welcome Philliped1! Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their accounts will be deleted. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourselves further and join one or more of our conversations.
This 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.
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.
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.
Welcome to the forum!
This festival is coming up soon and I am delinquent in not getting something posted more publicly about it.
michelepinto can you help us with links to pages about the event?
I don't know about anyone else but I don't pretend to have any confidence in any particular reconstruction we've seen so far. Why should the number of horses or elephants be related to each other?
Now for things which are in some sense natural opposites, like "hot" and "cold" - I can more readily see that.
But I think we ought to be able to do a better job of reconstructing Epicurus' thought than what I have seen so far.
The principle of "Nature never makes a single thing of a kind" seems to me to be pretty firmly graspable and a firm starting point for expecting there to be an infinite number of worlds (or for the sake of our discussion, and infinite number of planets like Earth).
And I can see there being some kind of observable "progression" in those things that Nature has created. Nature has created pleasure as a reality (a very deep question there) but regardless of anything else we know that living things have the feeling of pleasure and pain and it's a small leap to conclude that this faculty of feeling allows living things to "progress" over time to get stronger and more self-fulfilling.
But as for there being an "equal number" of beings through some kind of princple of opposition or linkeage, I think we would need to be able to articulate something better than "Velleius says so." "Maybe" the equality issue arises from the infinite number series observation that is cited above, but if Epicurus' point was there there is an infinite number of everything and therefore there's the same number of everything -- that does not seem to me like the kind of point Epicurus would have made -- it sounds too purely abstractly mathematical to me.
So therefore I suspect something more than has been articulated so far, and I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that this was an interpolation of later Epicureans.
I guess my focus would be on a more likely translation of "all like things match all like things."
Yes it's not the "calculus" part that causes the problem, it's the association of the term in full as Don said.
