"I've seen somewhere a scientific experiment which determined that pain is worth four times the amount of pleasure. Means that when you experience pain, you'll need four times the amount of pleasure to feel as happy as before."
I would say that rules of thumb can be helpful but most frequently the ratings are so subjective that it's essential that the limits of thumbnails always be part of the conversation
The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us.
I shouldn't have said it that way because this phrasing begs the question. We don't "have" to take risks in many cases. We choose whether to do so or not. We could simply choose to live in our caves on bread and water and forgo the possibility of many activities that may bring significant pleasure but at the cost of significant pain. If "all pain is to be avoided at all cost" is the formula, then the cave-dwelling life would be a logical option. But that doesn't appear to me to be the formula Epicurus taught, nor does it make sense to me that he would have taught it.
And only certain people will be able to grasp this big picture understanding of Epicureanism,
Exactly that seems to be contemplated in several sections of the texts, not the least of which is the Diogenes Laertius section translated as:
A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation.
As well as in Torquatus' statement:
Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.
He said: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck."
I had a judge telll me one time that his best advice in life was "When in doubt, don't."
Of course he was widely considered in the community to be neither a great judge nor having a lot of personal insight 
The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us. Figuring out how to do that prudently in itself would be a great topic -- "how to evaluate risk" -- because I don't think Epicurus would or did recommend avoiding all risk. That's another way of framing the question that is often asked as "Should we pursue ONLY the natural and necessary desires?"
Welcome to Episode One Hundred Five 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 six books of Lucretius' poem, 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.
At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Last week we spent most of the episode discussing several listener questions. Today we return to the Torquatus text and look more closely at this list of core Epicurean doctrines.
Now let's join Martin reading today's text:
[62] XIX. But these doctrines may be stated in a certain manner so as not merely to disarm our criticism, but actually to secure our sanction. For this is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man as continually happy; he keeps his passions within bounds; about death he is indifferent; he holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread; he has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course. Furnished with these advantages he is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains. For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present; he is also very far removed from those defects of character which I quoted a little time ago, and when he compares the fool’s life with his own, he feels great pleasure. And pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation.
[63] 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. He judged that the logic of your school possesses no efficacy either for the amelioration of life or for the facilitation of debate. He laid the greatest stress on natural science. That branch of knowledge enables us to realize clearly the force of words and the natural conditions of speech and the theory of consistent and contradictory expressions; and when we have learned the constitution of the universe we are relieved of superstition, are emancipated from the dread of death, are not agitated through ignorance of phenomena, from which ignorance, more than any thing else, terrible panics often arise; finally, our characters will also be improved when we have learned what it is that nature craves. Then again if we grasp a firm knowledge of phenomena, and uphold that canon, which almost fell from heaven into human ken, that test to which we are to bring all our judgments concerning things, we shall never succumb to any man’s eloquence and abandon our opinions.
[64] Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. Now those who invalidate sensations and say that perception is altogether impossible, cannot even clear the way for this very argument of theirs when they have thrust the senses aside. Moreover, when cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and rmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes, and as I shewed just now, our leader again has established the canon and criterion of knowledge and thus has imparted to us a method for marking off falsehood
from truth.
I remember Epicureanism being described as altruistic hedonism
Yes, but that's another example of why categories are dangerous. What is "atruism"? Putting others first always? That would certainly not be Epicurean. What is "hedonism?" Putting pleasure first always? Yes, from a certain perspective, but absolutely no from a moment to moment perspective, because we often choose pain to avoid worse pain or pursue greater pleasure. And here is where I particularly agree with Elli's criticism of "ism's" - anything that suggests a single goal that orients every other decision (other than pleasure) is going to be a bad idea at certain times. And even "pleasure-ism" doesn't accurately convey the point to most people. If you insisted on an "ism" -- the only one that would be most consistent with Epicurus' full worldview would be "Epicureanism" -- which does not appear to be the way even the ancient Epicurean's phrased it.
Just today, I found myself thinking that the thing which prevents me from inflicting pain on someone is altruism and the wish to make their lives better- that's my definition of love.
That may be your definition of love, but then "love" isn't the ultimate value in the Epicurean worldview, so has to be treated with caution too. As you observed smoothkiwi in another recent thread, not every example of prudent eating is Epicurean. Not every instance of "common sense" is Epicurean, and by similar token not every instance of love, or even of pleasure, is something that Epicurus advised everyone to engage in all the time.
I don't intend this to sound harsh of course but it's really challenging to think through the implications of what Epicurus is teaching. It doesn't add up to "god is love" or even "the universe is pleasure" or any kind of master intention-based plan of action that applies everywhere and all the time. "Pleasure" probably comes the closest to the universal motivating force, but every time we say that we need to remember that Epicurus was plain that we don't choose every immediate pleasure.
Still, I wouldn't call it inherently Epicurean- many religions and philosophies have rituals and traditions regarding meals. I regard eating your food consciously and with great joy as inherently natural, something which bring us more pleasure in the end. Epicureanism has simply succeeded in noticing natural patterns, in contrast to the other religions out there. Still, thanks for sharing!
I think this is exactly right and a huge point. It is good to have this article for reference because we constantly need reinforcement in living prudently toward a happy life.
But it's also true at the same time that even though Epicurus would maintain that his philosophy is largely just "common sense" applied to observation of nature, that doesn't mean that every activity implementing "common sense" should be claimed to be "Epicurean."
That would almost be what we sense (rightly or wrong) to have been DeWitt's attitude toward Christianity, on steroids -- every observation of commonality between Christianity and Epicurus becomes "aha - there was crosspolination!" And every observation of people having a good time means that they are Epicurean!
It would clearly be wrong to overgeneralize like that, but it would also be wrong to throw up a barrier and say "We will discuss nothing on this forum but the most abstract of philosophy!" (I know some people probably think that already! )
So that's what we use separate forums and subforums on the site to do -- put things in their proper place where they can be found at the appropriate times.
We are not disembodied minds, nor do we want to be, so we need to experience all sides of life, and I think we will find that we likely have similar approaches to a wide variety of things - even food and other day to day matters.
Thanks for that! Seems like there are also instances in Cicero of an Epicurean saying something "with a smile" in a similar way to what you are referring to here. And Ciceros jabs at Velleius in On the Nature of the Gods as talking as if he had just come from the intermundia, and his remarks to Cassius in his letters also seem goodhumored and not nasty. And of course Lucians works are full of humor in conveying Epicurean points.
I would go so far as to say i think it would be generally out of character for an Epicurean to have a "sour" disposition.
so deeply involved with psychics
My experience with people who are into psychics is that they are probably easier to deal with than hard-core religion.
I’m way less inclined these days to let certain things pass by without notice.
I agree - the question is more what to do about it after you notice it. I am all in favor of gently steering people in the right direction, maybe by dropping some ideas of reading that they might find interesting. Depending on whether they are left or right or some kind of weird religion, you can often find people they identify with who have in the past had some good things to say about Epicurus. But as far as hard-charging efforts to change peoples' minds, I am not sure there is a really good method.
Wow something happened to my first post in this thread. At this point I don't have a clue as to what it was supposed to be!
But because this isn’t the first time I’ve dealt with this type of thing it has caused me to really want to draw the line in the sand between what is casual belief in something supernatural and what is on the complete verge of madness.
My only caution is that most of the time when I have gotten too deeply involved with a person who is so clearly out of touch with reality nothing good has come of it. The chances of your changing their mind are next to none. Of course on the other hand we all have many casual relationships with people of all types and it doesn't really matter what they believe as long as their general relationship with us is beneficial.
No doubt there are lots of people in the world like that and always will be, and many of us will even have relatives that way. Possibly the real issue before the house that ought to be discussed is something like PD39 on what general methodology can be used to accurately decide whether someone (1) can be made our friend, or (2) can at least not be treated like an alien (stranger?) or (3) ought to be someone we actively separate ourselves from to the extent possible.
I don't necessarily think that Epicurus was suggesting that we ought to have only Epicurean friends, but those are interesting questions to consider -- such as "what really is a friend?" -- in realistic rather than poetic terms.
At this point a person must use prudent judgement for the best to “correct” this person. Either by using frank speech to shock them out of their imaginings by letting them know they are in jeopardy of having their friends lose faith in their ability to perceive reality or simply to leave the person to their imaginings neither reinforcing them but also never speaking of them again. I guess it depends on the relationship a person has with the other.
So i gather that this person is in a circle of relationship where it is appropriate to try to correct them, as opposed to simply separating from them?
This particular person believes she sees “things” like angels, spirits, demons etc.
That's a pretty specific list. So you do mean this literally, that this person says she actually sees these things in front of her, or is it still at all possible that she is talking figuratively?
I would almost be tempted to think it is possible that this person thinks that they are "ministering" to you by insisting on something that she really doesn't believe herself, out of a desire to try to bring you back into the fold.
You're the star of the show, except I am afraid that I sometimes botched your name as "smoothkiwi" instead of "smoothiekiwi."
Elli reminded me of this article that she wrote some time ago which includes some material on what might be called multivalent or manifold reasoning. I think the basic idea is tied to Epicurus' observation that when we do not have enough evidence to conclude that only one option of several is "the single correct one," then we have to avoid arbitrarily selecting between them as if we did have enough evidence to be sure which is right.
The subject is probably deeper than it might appear and so this post is mainly a placeholder so the topic can be more easily found for future discussions.
Multiple causes
We said above that Epicurus ranked Canon together with Physics. He honored Democritus because he first discovered the principles of Nature, the atomic theory, namely the "elements", the atoms and the void. Let's not forget that Canon was also called "Elementary". Αs we know, he added the swerve. The movement of atoms in any direction, the unpredictable movement due to swerve, the striking between them, the repulsion of the striking, the creation of formations, the deconstruction of formations, if we accept that the causes are where the atoms are (this is from Metrodorus), we end up in the logic of the multiple causes and the many possible effects... and so through Physics we get to Canon. Everything is arranged “unshaken”, namely that everything is arranged firmly, without being shaken, “in any way cleansed according to the phenomena”, if they are explained by the manifold method, always in agreement with the events.
Canon and Fuzzy Logic
Cicero blames Epicurus because, as he writes, he abolishes the definition and says nothing about division and separation to parts. We add that Epicurus does not accept the "Excluded Middle of Law": "A is B or Non-B” (A is either bald or non-bald, male or non-male.) Nature is not bound by such laws. The structure of the logical system that accepts the Excluded Middle Law is two-dimensional, which means it requires that every aspect of existence can be divided into two lasting possibilities: true - false, it is – it is not, yes or no. But these two possibilities are not the only ones in nature (we reject the necessity in nature).
Thus, we can’t characterize Epicurean way of reasoning as Two-dimensional Logic, but we can easily characterize and call it a Manifold Reasoning.
All of the above are the features of the logic system which is called Fuzzy Logic. Modern technology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology etc. are based on this.
Canon is the forerunner of Fuzzy Logic, but almost no one says it. The Garden of Thessaloniki tries and wishes this to be known throughout Europe and around the world. It would be a great help if a scientist specializing in these issues, that is in the field of the positive sciences, would be activated in this field and help us.
Elli your post references the "manifold way" and that reminds me that we have a significantly different group of people active now as opposed when we had past discussions about that - and some of those discussions were possibly on facebook.
Do you recall if you had an article or reference point that we could point out to people now who might not be familiar with what you mean by that term? Was there a Dimitri Atlas article or something you wrote that summarized the point?
Godfrey: Both logseq and obsidian have extensive and very active user communities. But I would say the best and quickest way to get a feel for what this is about is to watch a couple of user youtube videos
There are many to choose from here that are basic: https://www.youtube.com/results?search…idian+vs+logseq
I have watched several of this guys videos and he is a good presenter
He focuses on Obsidian but there are many good videos on Logseq too and they are very similar.
What I gather is going on is that there was last year a "fad" to use a program called Roam Research among a number of researchers / writers / academics. It apparently has very advanced hyperlinking abilities, but is expensive.
Then this past year Obsidian and Logseq came along offering essentially "free" alternatives to Roam that do a lot of the same things.
I need to repeat that I think that there is absolutely no necessity to use a program like this. The whole approach tends to appeal to people who like to use "outlines" in daily life. It is very interesting how some people tend to want to "outline" everything, and some people don't think that way at all and find outlines a total waste of time.
I am not ready to pass judgment on whether everyone needs outlines or how often they need them. Maybe they are a really important tool only on very complex projects, or while learning, or whatever. But it does seem clear that Epicurus recommended outlining (which itself seems interesting to hear from an ancient mind) and I do think programs like this, which offer both hyperlinks and easy ways to move elements up and down and sideways on the outlines, are useful.
Right. Lots of the discussions around "knowledge bases" can get pretty "touchie-feelie" and then you have these geometric idea maps that these programs can draw that I admit are neat and pretty but I really fail to see the benefit of.
However the concept of "outlining" does seem to be important to Epicurus, and these programs are structured to really help with that.
Episode 104 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is devoted mostly to the questions about Epicurus being arrogant and whether his movement was a cult. Thanks for the questions!
Markdown is simply a method for typing plain text, with things like *emphasis* or for _underlined_. It is meant to be extremely simple and readable in any program even without processing the tags into polished form. It is free and therefore cannot be captured by any corporation. It is widely used by web designers for its "interoperability" with most any program and format. Due to its simplicity and readability without a computer program people talk about it as a good way to make "permanent" records that won't be obsolete in five years when a new program takes over. It's kind of like pain text etched on a wall.
The thing about obsidian and logseq is that your store all these data files locally and you are not dependent on "the cloud" to use them.
i'll eventually post some more screenshots so you'll eventually see the point of it that way best.
Yes. It would give us newer folks a chance to become more acclimated too for awhile, in a cordial moderated atmosphere.
Almost like, in addition to the "Welcome Post," we need a "Welcoming" committee to coordinate new participants.
