Kalosyni you are saying those are the ones mentioned?
They are desires which are divorced from the limit of the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain, and thus have become unlimited
Godfrey so you are saying that this is the definition of unnatural desires? And can you spell our further what you mean by "the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain?
Yes I agree Godfrey it is an important point - a threshold way of getting the terminology right, because it helps clarify that all pleasures are pleasing and in that sense desirable.
But at that point the ball is still in play. Even if Pacatus had stated his comment in terms of only pursuing natural desires, we would still have essentially the same set of problems:
What exactly are these "non- natural desires" and what should be our attitude toward them? Are we to fully banish them from our lives?
This conversation moves us along toward those issues, which I think is where the deepest issues have to be resolved.
For Epicureans, eudaimonia is a life pleasantly lived. A life pleasantly lived means one in which natural pleasures (mental and physical) outweigh pain and suffering (mental and physical).
I found Pacatus' post in full very good, but I would caution against the formulation "natural pleasures ... outweigh...) That is not the way Epicurus formulated it - he referenced "Pleasure" as the goal without qualification - so this formulation might well lead off in an unproductive direction.
I would say the natural and necessary classifications help us predict the amount of pain that will be required to attain them, but to imply that there is a flat rule that everyone should seek only "natural" pleasures would be going too far.
That's the real reason we debate this issue so much - because people tend to infer "natural and necessary ONLY" from the discussion and I would say that is a major mistake.
We need to continue to talk about how to avoid an overbroad formulation here and what issues arise with this. What exactly are "unnatural" pleasures? Should we seek none of them at all to any degree? If there is such a list then does that list constitute a Platonicly universal list of "Thou shalt nots" like the Ten Commandments?
Please do not take this Pacatus as critical of you personally -- and if you would like to in fact defend that position, please do, as that would help the discussion move forward too.
But any time we leave open the implication that the ideal Epicurean life would be in a cave with bread and water then we create major theoretical problems.
Johannes de Nova Domo
Great name. Am I right that that's "John of the New House"?
THANKS Nate as always for great work! I had forgotten that DeWitt had made such a remark, and all the rest is new to me, including some good names to research.
I need to reread the thread to see where we left off last year, but my general impression is that this remains an important and underappreciated issue. I am convinced the Epicurean view does not lead to nihilism ("nothing is real but atoms and void") but to a full appreciation of the dividing line between what is truly real for us and what is really just abstract fantasy and imaginings.
I suspect most people have only a foggy understanding of what is involved, and as soon as the issue is raised they drop it like a hit potato because they are disconcerted by the whole discussion. But when you are comfortable with a world without supernatural control and with only this one life to live, a quick and ready understanding of what is real and what is not real is essential.
Instead of seeing "what is truth?" as an indictment of Pontius Pilate, those blinded by religion need to think about the depth of the question and realize that they need to answer it.
This is a really core point of Epicurean philosophy.
Thank you Kungi! I only have time for a few comments now but you have raised many deep issues and I am sure others will chime in too.
First it is interesting to observe where our new participants are located. As you probably observe we have several Germans here - probably a higher percentage than pure population statistics would predict - and it is interesting to consider why.
Second, Hiram's work reaches a lot of people and that's good to know about your background. I would say this regardless, but especially knowing that, that I highly recommend your going through the DeWitt book as soon as you can for the width of background that he provides for someone at an early stage of reading. I find that people who skip that will often take longer than they would otherwise to see "the forest" rather than just "the trees" which may have attracted then initially.
As to the basic issue of Stoicism, you of course hit the nail on the head by focusing on "virtue." If you have not read the Torquatus presentation of this issue in On Ends (see our text section) you will want to read that.
The "modern" stoics tend to discount the issue of virtue, but there are fundamentalist stoics even today who recognize that the philosophy makes no sense if you do do. But they de-emphasize it because once you do examine the Stoic foundations they melt away if you walk away from the virtue/religious aspects of it.
Epicurus is rigorously logical, and once identifying pleasure in a general and sweeping sense as the goal, all else (even virtue) is instrumental toward that goal, as Torquatus explains well.
There is much more to say and add but this is a start. If you will go through the DeWitt book and focus on understanding the "big picture" as soon as you can, I think that will help a lot in your seeing that each of the answers to your questions derives from that "big picture," rather than being a set of arbitrary rules as if out of a doctor"s medicine bag. There are indeed many bits of practical advice, but until you see the big picture it's hard to understand how profoundly different the Epicurean view of the happy life is from that of Stoicism or the other larger Greek schools.
Yes we ought to get some good info out of Philodemus about the meaning of "natural."
Episode 131 of the Lucretius Today podcast is now available. This week we continue with the letter to Pythocles and discuss issues involving the weather.
Welcome to Episode One Hundred Thirty-Two of Lucretius Today.
This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.
I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.
If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.
Today we continue Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles and we look at the implications of the Epicurean position on certain weather phenomena. Now let's join Martin reading today's text:
BAILEY:
Earthquakes may be brought about both because wind is caught up in the earth, so that the earth is dislocated in small masses and is continually shaken, and that causes it to sway. This wind it either takes into itself from outside, or else because masses of ground fall in into cavernous places in the earth and fan into wind the air that is imprisoned in them. And again, earthquakes may be brought about by the actual spreading of the movement which results from the fall of many such masses of ground and the return shock, when the first motion comes into collision with more densely packed bodies of earth.
[106] There are also many other ways in which these motions of the earth may be caused.
....
The winds may be produced when from time to time some alien matter is continually and gradually forcing its way in, or owing to the gathering of a vast quantity of water. The other winds arise when a few (currents of air) fall into many hollow spaces, and cause a spreading of wind.
Hail is produced both by a powerful congelation, when certain windy bodies form together from all sides and split up: also by a more moderate congelation of watery bodies and their simultaneous division, which causes at one and the same time their coagulation and separation, so that they cling together as they freeze in their separate parts as well as in their whole masses.
[107] Their circular shape may possibly arise because the comers melt off all round or because at their conformation bodies, whether watery or windy, come together evenly from all directions part by part, as is alleged.
Snow may be produced when fine particles of rain are poured out of the clouds owing to the existence of pores of suitable shape and the strong and constant compression by winds of clouds of the right kind; and then the water is congealed in its descent owing to some conformation of excessive coldness in the clouds in the lower regions.
[108] Or else owing to congelation in clouds of uniform thinness an exudation of this kind might arise from watery clouds lying side by side and rubbing against one another: for they produce hail by causing coagulation, a process most frequent in the atmosphere. Or else, owing to the friction of congealed clouds, these nuclei of snow may find occasion to break off. And there are many other ways in which snow may be produced.
Dew may be produced both when such particles as are productive of this kind of moisture issue from the atmosphere and meet one another, and also when particles rise from moist regions or regions containing water, in which dew is most naturally produced, and then meet together and cause moisture to be produced, and afterwards fall back on the ground below, as (is) frequently (seen) to be the case in phenomena on earth as well. (And frost is produced by a change) in the dew-particles, when such particles as we have described undergo a definite kind of congelation owing to the neighborhood of a cold atmosphere.
[109] Ice is caused both by the squeezing out from the water of particles of round formation and the driving together of the triangular and acute-angled particles which exist already in the water, and again by the addition from without of particles of this kind, which when driven together produce a congelation in the water, by squeezing out a certain number of the round particles.
The rainbow is caused by light shining from the sun on to watery atmosphere: or else by a peculiar union of light and air, which can produce the special qualities of these colours whether all together or separately; from it as it reflects back again the neighbouring regions of the air can take the tint which we see, by means of the shining of the light on to its various parts.
[110] The appearance of its round shape is caused because it is perceived by our sight at equal distance from all its points, or else because the atoms in the air or those in the clouds which are derived from the same air, are pressed together in this manner, and so the combination spreads out in a round shape.
A halo round the moon is caused either when air is carried towards the moon from all sides, or when the air checks the effluences carried from the moon so equably that it forms them into this cloudy ring all round without any gaps or differences, or else when it checks the air round the moon uniformly on all sides so as to make that which encircles it round and thick in texture.
[111] This comes to pass in different parts either because some current outside forces the air or because heat blocks the passages in such a way as to produce this effect.
HICKS:
Earthquakes may be due to the imprisonment of wind underground, and to its being interspersed with small masses of earth and then set in continuous motion, thus causing the earth to tremble. And the earth either takes in this wind from without or from the falling in of foundations, when undermined, into subterranean caverns, thus raising a wind in the imprisoned air. Or they may be due to the propagation of movement arising from the fall of many foundations and to its being again checked when it encounters the more solid resistance of earth.
[106] And there are many other causes to which these oscillations of the earth may be due.
"Winds arise from time to time when foreign matter continually and gradually finds its way into the air; also through the gathering of great store of water. The rest of the winds arise when a few of them fall into the many hollows and they are thus divided and multiplied.
"Hail is caused by the firmer congelation and complete transformation, and subsequent distribution into drops, of certain particles resembling wind: also by the slighter congelation of certain particles of moisture and the vicinity of certain particles of wind which at one and the same time forces them together and makes them burst, so that they become frozen in parts and in the whole mass.
[107] The round shape of hailstones is not impossibly due to the extremities on all sides being melted and to the fact that, as explained, particles either of moisture or of wind surround them evenly on all sides and in every quarter, when they freeze.
"Snow may be formed when a fine rain issues from the clouds because the pores are symmetrical and because of the continuous and violent pressure of the winds upon clouds which are suitable; and then this rain has been frozen on its way because of some violent change to coldness in the regions below the clouds.
[108] Or again, by congelation in clouds which have uniform density a fall of snow might occur through the clouds which contain moisture being densely packed in close proximity to each other; and these clouds produce a sort of compression and cause hail, and this happens mostly in spring. And when frozen clouds rub against each other, this accumulation of snow might be thrown off. And there are other ways in which snow might be formed.
"Dew is formed when such particles as are capable of producing this sort of moisture meet each other from the air: again by their rising from moist and damp places, the sort of place where dew is chiefly formed, and their subsequent coalescence, so as to create moisture and fall downwards, just as in several cases something similar is observed to take place under our eyes. And the formation of hoar-frost is not different from that of dew, certain particles of such a nature becoming in some such way congealed owing to a certain condition of cold air.
[109] Ice is formed by the expulsion from the water of the circular, and the compression of the scalene and acute-angled atoms contained in it; further by the accretion of such atoms from without, which being driven together cause the water to solidify after the expulsion of a certain number of round atoms.
"The rainbow arises when the sun shines upon humid air; or again by a certain peculiar blending of light with air, which will cause either all the distinctive qualities of these colours or else some of them belonging to a single kind, and from the reflection of this light the air all around will be coloured as we see it to be, as the sun shines upon its parts.
[110] The circular shape which it assumes is due to the fact that the distance of every point is perceived by our sight to be equal; or it may be because, the atoms in the air or in the clouds and deriving from the sun having been thus united, the aggregate of them presents a sort of roundness.
"A halo round the moon arises because the air on all sides extends to the moon; or because it equably raises upwards the currents from the moon so high as to impress a circle upon the cloudy mass and not to separate it altogether; or because it raises the air which immediately surrounds the moon symmetrically from all sides up to a circumference round her and there forms a thick ring.
[111] And this happens at certain parts either because a current has forced its way in from without or because the heat has gained possession of certain passages in order to effect this.
If we conclude that Philodemus / Metrodorus in fact says what is summarized here, this bears on many of our recent discussions.
On the other hand, Metrodorus maintains that a peaceful and happy life is obtained not by avoiding all toils and efforts but by opting for things that may involve a certain amount of trouble at present but relieve us of much greater concerns in the future. Wealth is such a thing, as are health and friendship. Although its possession and administration doubtless requires thought and labor, it is better to have it than not, for its presence allows the virtuous man to live pleasantly, whereas its absence is responsible for deprivation and distress.
O'Keefe's title is ".... on the DEVIANT craft of property management"?
It was not my understanding that Philodemus took a negative attitude toward property management.
I need a big caveat on my comments about this thread that I really need to read some of this material before commenting extensively. I have the Voula Tsouna book but it has been too long since I read it.
Scanning over it now I see this from page XXVI
According to Philodemus, Cynics and Epicureans agree that the best life is free from toil and worry but disagree as to how it can be attained, especially in respect of the possession and administration of wealth. On the one hand, the Cynics advocate a beggarly lifestyle for the reason that wealth is troublesome and, therefore, harmful to one’s peace of mind.
On the other hand, Metrodorus maintains that a peaceful and happy life is obtained not by avoiding all toils and eff orts but by opting for things that may involve a certain amount of trouble at present but relieve us of much greater concerns in the future. Wealth is such a thing, as are health and friendship. Although its possession and administration doubtless requires thought and labor, it is better to have it than not, for its presence allows the virtuous man to live pleasantly, whereas its absence is responsible for deprivation and distress. Th e only way in which the Cynics might be able to establish that the possession of natural wealth ( φυσικὸς πλοῦτος , XIV.19) 22 is less preferable to the daily provision of goods would be to prove that, in fact, the former entails more pains and efforts than the latter. However, following Metrodorus’s line, Philodemus suggests that it is highly unlikely that such a proof would be forthcoming. One practical implication of the Epicurean position is that the good person should not reject as useless the wealth that may come his way. Th e entire argument is based on the rational calculation of pleasures and pains and also makes use of the concept of natural wealth, which is related to the concept of the measure of wealth ( πλούτου μέτρον ). 23 Since Philodemus’s presentation of Epicurean οἰκονομία (property management) involves both these notions, I shall explain them briefly.
In outline, natural wealth is one of the many objects that we naturally seek in order to satisfy natural desires and thus feel pleasure. In so far as this kind of desire has a limit, natural wealth also has a limit, and, besides, it is easy to obtain (Epicurus, Sent. 15) precisely because it is natural (Epicurus, Ep. Men. 130). 24 Correspondingly, the measure of wealth
that is appropriate for the philosopher covers the range of the philoso pher’s natural needs. “There is for the philosopher a measure of wealth that, [following] the founders of the school, we have passed down in [the treatise] On Wealth, resulting in an account of the capacity to administer the acquisition of this and the preservation of this” (XII.17–25). Further, in so far as the measure of wealth satisfi es the philosopher’s natural needs, it is slightly superior (De div. LI.27–30) or, from another perspective (see De oec. XIV.9–23), clearly preferable to poverty. In fact, there is tension in Philodemus’s position. On the one hand, he emphasizes the instrumen tal importance of wealth and its administration for the good life. On the other hand, following the authorities of the school, he holds on to the view
that the diff erence between possessing and lacking wealth, and between preserving it and not preserving it, is but small (XVIII.25–31), and he suggests that the superiority of wealth is mainly practical rather than moral.
Roughly, the position that he maintains is the following. “More” wealth may be better than “less,” because of the serenity and the material comforts that it aff ords when it is correctly used. Further, “more” wealth can be interpreted in many ways, since Philodemus does not fix precisely how much money and possessions are optimal for the philosophical life. On the other hand, “more” corresponds somehow to “the measure of wealth” but never amounts to the open-ended goal of traditional οἰκονομία , namely, to amass as many riches as possible through decent and lawful means.
Welcome Kungi !
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 account is subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself 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!
Thanks Don. I presume that most of us have the presumption that the "natural" is "good," and that which is "unnatural" or not natural, is "bad."
Probably that's far too superficial an analysis, however, and it would be good if we had a way to make clear, up front, that just like pain is sometimes to be chosen (but not for itself) that which is not natural may also deserve to be chosen under the Epicurean framework, and an explanation of how to make that analysis.
It's hard to get around investing the "natural / unnatural" distinction with our modern prejudices. I'd like to see us devote some attention at some point to working on really being sure whether the way those terms were used by the philosophers really track with the meanings we infer from them today.
Thank you for responding and welcome Marcin! If you are interested in any particular aspects of Epicurus let us know, as I feel sure that we have some people of similar interests.
There are two old threads on this work located here: Philodemus On Property Management
Rather than try to extend those into the future, however, it would probably be better to start new threads, probably here in this forum. But we'll keep the other one open for specific discussion of OPM in the context of Philodemus' other work.
As for the issues of "wealth" such as we discussed last night from PD15, we probably need to organize a special forum so we can compare what is in Philodemus' "Property Management" material. I will look into putting this thread there.
Welcome Marcin Wasilewski !
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 account is subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself 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!
Yes - presuming that last comment is a reference to Atticus - We haven't discussed him lately, but his bio is a very good example of how one can be an avowed Epicurean with friends on all sides in troubled times.
Re-reading your last post, Pacatus, reminds me of another obvious point. In my humble opinion, you would be "out of balance" if you did NOT react negatively to many current events. It's the Stoics who think that you can "rise above it all" and be so detached that no negative news affects you. I do not think that Epicurus would say that that is either possible or desirable for us humans. Rather the appropriate quote would be:
There are three motives to injurious acts among men—hatred, envy, and contempt; and these the wise man overcomes by reason. Moreover, he who has once become wise never more assumes the opposite habit, not even in semblance, if he can help it. He will be more susceptible of emotion than other men: that will be no hindrance to his wisdom. However, not every bodily constitution nor every nationality would permit a man to become wise.
If you aren't feeling (responding) positively to good things and negatively to bad things, then you're not alive. The Stoics might think such a state (detachment from emotion) to be desirable, but I do not think Epicurus taught that. He taught lack of feeling as synonymous with death.
This is why the continuing discussion of the implications of "absence of pain." "Absence of pain" cannot be numbness or lack of feeling, but is instead the unalloyed experience (feeling) of whatever combination of pleasures applies to your experience.
