Posts by Cassius

As I was editing and posting this episode it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to point out that our discussion contained elements that some people (maybe even me) are going to question. You will want to pay special attention to at least the following:

1 - Is the phenomenon being discussed here limited to, or primarily about, "imagination"?

2 - At the end of the episode it is stated that the mind does not store images, but patterns.

I think we all agreed that what is under discussion here is the mind's direct receipt of images from outside itself, without going through the eyes, but beyond that conclusions to be drawn seem to me to be challenging, to say the least.

Listen for these issues and I think you will see why we'll probably want to discuss them further.

Episode Fifty-Eight of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's podcast we will discuss the mind's direct receipt of images. There is some challenging material here on imagination and memory and whether / how the mind stores images, so be sure tolet us know your questions and comments in the thread below.

Well what you're saying there Elayne is basically the development of a new philosophy, which kind of goes along with your thoughts for a new blog. As for me personally that's more than I think I could possibly tackle -- I have a hard enough time working within a shared existing framework. And especially as to some of the physics issues, I am really not comfortable taking a position on specific theories and theorists since being a scientist isn't really my focus.

You're certainly correct that the existing framework requires a "history" component that would not be required were one starting a new philosophy. Maybe it's just my personal orientation or disposition, but I doubt I personally can separate out the "history" from my interest in the subject and motivation to pursue it. For example on the issue of religion, for me personally it isn't really the whole story to say "there is no supernatural god." I personally am much more into what I see as the Lucretian framework of illustrating the problems of religion by references to the history of how we got here and the specific outrages that have happened in the name of religion. And it really isn't possible from my point of view to understand where we are without understanding those questions of how we got here.

So no doubt you are correct that for some people "the historical and physics issues are a substantial barrier to practicing and teaching it the way Epicurus did. But on the other hand I am convinced that there are others for whom it's exactly those historical and physics issues that spur the interest and motivate the study. I agree with you that it would be good to work to show how the philosophy can appeal to everyone, but I guess that means that there's a division of labor involved in different people pursuing their different interests in it.

Welcome to Episode Fifty-Nine of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and 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.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any question about that, please be sure to contact us at Epicureanfriends.com for more information.

In this episode 59 - we will discuss how the uses of the body were not designed before the body arose, and we will continue on the minds use of images.

Our text comes from Latin Lines 823-906 of Book Four.

Now let's join the discussion with Martin reading today's text.

Munro Notes

823 (822)-857: pray do not think that the parts of the body have been given us in order to be used; in truth their use arose long after their first existence: before the eyes there was no seeing, before the tongue no speaking; on the other hand the instruments of peace and war we know to have been invented after their use was known; not so the senses and the limbs, which you must not believe to have had a final cause, as swords and shields, cups and beds had.

858-876: the body requires food, because it loses many particles constantly, and thus an aching void is produced, which has to be filled up and the pain allayed; liquid too is taken into the body and quenches the particles of heat in the stomach; thus both thirst and hunger are appeased.—These vss, too, as Lach. p. 959 shews, are well adapted to the general subject of iv, but here interrupt the connexion of the argument and are manifestly an after-thought of the poet's.

877-906: this is how we walk: idols of walking strike the mind, and rouse the will; next the soul throughout the body is stirred by the mind, and then the body by the soul; the body too is then rarefied, and the outer air at once enters into all the opened pores; so that the body is pushed on as a ship by the wind; the mass of the body being moved and steered by a few small particles, just as a big ship by the rare wind and by the hand of the pilot: thus too a machine will easily lift a heavy weight.

Browne 1743

But in subjects of this nature, guard yourself to the utmost of your power against that error, that gross mistake, and never believe that those bright orbs, the eyes, were made that we might see; of that our legs were made upright, and things fixed upon them, and were supported by feet, that we might walk and take large strides; that our arms were braced with strong sinews, and that our hands hung on both sides, to assist us in those offices that are necessary to the support of life. And whatever constructions they put upon other parts of the body, they are all absurd and against reason; for no member of the body was made for any particular use, but after it was made each member found out a use proper to itself; for there was no such thing as to see before the eyes were made, nor to speak before the tongue was formed, but the tongue was rather in being before there was speech, and the ears were made long before any sound was heard. In short, all the members, in my opinion, were in being before their particular uses were set out.

This is so true that, to engage in battle, to mangle the limbs, and to stain the body over with blood, these were in being before any shining darts flew through the air, and nature taught us to avoid a wound before the left hand learnt to oppose a shield in our defense; and so, to commit the body to rest was long before the invention of soft beds, and to quench the thirst was practiced before the use of cups. All these things, we may believe, were invented for common benefit, as they were found proper and convenient for the occasions of life. All things therefore that were in being before the use of them was determined applied themselves afterwards to the office that was most suitable and serviceable to them. Of this kind principally are the senses and members of our bodies, and therefore you are to avoid, upon all accounts, so much as to think that they were at first formed for any particular design or use.

Nor is it wonderful at all that it is the nature of every animal to require meat; for I have told you that a train of effluvia are ever flowing from all bodies, in various manners, but most are discharged from those animals that are most used to motion; many particles forced from within are carried off by sweat, and many exhale through the mouth, when we are fatigued and pant for breath. The body, therefore, by these discharges becomes rarefied, and all nature is falling to pieces, which is attended with great pain. Food therefore is taken to prop up the limbs, and being given from time to time, it renews the strength, and satisfies that gaping desire of eating through the limbs and veins. The cooling drink likewise descends into all the parts that require moisture, and the flowing liquor scatters all that heap of hot particles that set our stomach in a flame, and extinguishes them as fire, so that the heat has no longer power to scorch our bowels, and thus is panting thirst washed away from our bodies, thus our craving hunger is satisfied.

And now attend, and you shall know how it is that we are able to walk when we will, that we have a power to move our limbs as we please, and what it is that thrusts the body forward with all its weight. I say then, that the images of motion first affect and strike the mind, as we observed before. This makes the Will, for we never attempt to do any thing before the mind knows what it is we desire to do, and the image of that thing which occurs to the mind must be present before it. And thus the mind, having moved itself so as to resolve to go forward, strikes immediately upon the soul, which is diffused through the whole body, and this is easily done, because they are both closely joined together. The soul then strikes the body, and so the whole bulk by degrees is thrust forward and put into motion. Besides, the body by this means is rarefied, and the air, which is ever disposed to move, enters the open passages, and pierces through the pores in great abundance, and so is dispersed through every minute part of the body. By these two therefore (by the soul laboring within, and by the air entering from without) the body is moved, as a ship is by oars and wind. Nor is this at all strange, that particles so very small should turn about the bulk of our bodies, and move so great a weight; for the driving wind, formed of so fine and subtle seeds, thrust forward a large ship with mighty force, and one hand can govern it under full sail, by turning one little helm which way it pleases; and an engine with small labor is able, by pulleys and wheels, to move many bodies of a great weight.

Munro 1886

And herein you should desire with all your might to shun the weakness, with a lively apprehension to avoid the mistake of supposing that the bright lights of the eyes were made in order that we might see; and that the tapering ends of the shanks and hams are attached to the feet as a base in order to enable us to step out with long strides; or again that the forearms were slung to the stout upper arms and ministering hands given us on each side, that we might be able to discharge the needful duties of life. Other explanations of like sort which men give, one and all put effect for cause through wrongheaded reasoning; since nothing was born in the body that we might use it, but that which is born begets itself a use: thus seeing did not exist before the eyes were born, nor the employment of speech ere the tongue was made; but rather the birth of the tongue was long anterior to language and the ears were made long before sound was heard, and all the limbs, I trow, existed before there was any employment for them: they could not therefore have grown for the purpose of being used.

But on the other hand, engaging in the strife of battle and mangling the body and staining the limbs with gore were in vogue long before glittering darts ever flew; and nature prompted to shun a wound or ever the left arm by the help of art held up before the person the defense of a shield. Yes, and consigning the tired body to rest is much older than a soft-cushioned bed, and the slaking of thirst had birth before cups. These things therefore which have been invented in accordance with the uses and wants of life, may well be believed to have been discovered for the purpose of being used. Far otherwise is it with all those things which first were born, then afterwards made known the purposes to which they might be put; at the head of which class we see the senses and the limbs. Wherefore again and again I repeat, it is quite impossible to believe that they could have been made for the duties which they discharge.

It ought likewise to cause no wonder that the nature of the body of each living creature absolutely requires food I have shown that bodies ebb away and withdraw from things, many in number in many ways; but most numerous must be those which withdraw from living things; for because these are tried by active motion, and many particles are pressed out from the depths of the frame and carried off by sweating, many breathed out through the mouth, when they pant from exhaustion, from such causes the body becomes rarefied and the whole nature undermined; and this state is attended by pain. Food therefore is taken in order to give support to the frame and recruit the strength by its infusion, and to close up the open-mouthed craving for meat throughout limbs and veins. The moisture too passes into all the parts which call for moisture; and many accumulated bodies of heat which cause a burning in our stomach, the approach of liquid scatters and quenches as if they were fire, so that dry heat can no longer parch the frame. In this way then you see gasping thirst is drenched out of our body, in this way the hungry craving is satisfied.

Now how it comes to pass that we are able to step out when we please, and how it is given us to move about our limbs, and what cause is wont to push forward the great load of this our body I will tell: do you take in my words. I say that idols of walking first present themselves to our mind and strike on the mind, as we said before: then the will arises; for no one begins to do anything, until his mind has first determined what it wills. From the very fact that it determines such thing, there is an image of that thing. When therefore the mind bestirs itself in such a way as to will to walk and step out, it strikes at the same moment the force of the soul which is spread over the whole body throughout the limbs and frame; and this is easily done, since the whole is held in close union with the mind. Next the soul in its turn strikes the body, and thus the whole mass by degrees is pushed on and set in motion. Then again, the body becomes also rarefied, and the air, as you see its nature is, being always so nimble in moving, comes and passes in great quantity through the opened pores and is thus distributed into the most minute parts of the body. In this way then by these two causes acting in two ways the body like a ship is carried on by sails and wind. And herein it need not excite any surprise that such very minute bodies can steer so great a body and turn about the whole of this our load; for wind though fine with subtle body drives and pushes on a large ship of large moving mass and one hand directs it however great the speed at which it is going and one rudder steers it to any point you like; and by means of blocks of pulleys and tread-wheels a machine stirs many things of great weight and raises them up with slight effort.

Bailey 1921

Herein you must eagerly desire to shun this fault, and with foresighted fear to avoid this error; do not think that the bright light of the eyes was created in order that we may be able to look before us, or that, in order that we may have power to plant long paces, therefore the tops of shanks and thighs, based upon the feet, are able to bend; or again, that the forearms are jointed to the strong upper arms and hands given us to serve us on either side, in order that we might be able to do what was needful for life. All other ideas of this sort, which men proclaim, by distorted reasoning set effect for cause, since nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

But, on the other side, to join hands in the strife of battle, to mangle limbs and befoul the body with gore; these things were known long before gleaming darts flew abroad, and nature constrained men to avoid a wounding blow, before the left arm, trained by art, held up the defence of a shield. And of a surety to trust the tired body to rest was a habit far older than the soft-spread bed, and the slaking of the thirst was born before cups. These things, then, which are invented to suit the needs of life, might well be thought to have been discovered for the purpose of using them. But all those other things lie apart, which were first born themselves, and thereafter revealed the concept of their usefulness. In this class first of all we see the senses and the limbs; wherefore, again and again, it cannot be that you should believe that they could have been created for the purpose of useful service.

This, likewise, is no cause for wonder, that the nature of the body of every living thing of itself seeks food. For verily I have shown that many bodies ebb and pass away from things in many ways, but most are bound to pass from living creatures. For because they are sorely tried by motion and many bodies by sweating are squeezed and pass out from deep beneath, many are breathed out through their mouths, when they pant in weariness; by these means then the body grows rare, and all the nature is undermined; and on this follows pain. Therefore food is taken to support the limbs and renew strength when it passes within, and to muzzle the gaping desire for eating through all the limbs and veins. Likewise, moisture spreads into all the spots which demand moisture; and the many gathered bodies of heat, which furnish the fires to our stomach, are scattered by the incoming moisture, and quenched like a flame, that the dry heat may no longer be able to burn our body. Thus then the panting thirst is washed away from our body, thus the hungry yearning is satisfied.

Next, how it comes to pass that we are able to plant our steps forward, when we wish, how it is granted us to move our limbs in diverse ways, and what force is wont to thrust forward this great bulk of our body, I will tell: do you hearken to my words. I say that first of all idols of walking fall upon our mind, and strike the mind, as we have said before. Then comes the will; for indeed no one begins to do anything, ere the mind has seen beforehand what it will do, and inasmuch as it sees this beforehand, an image of the thing is formed. And so, when the mind stirs itself so that it wishes to start and step forward, it straightway strikes the force of soul which is spread abroad in the whole body throughout limbs and frame. And that is easy to do, since it is held in union with it. Then the soul goes on and strikes the body, and so little by little the whole mass is thrust forward and set in movement. Moreover, at such times the body too becomes rarefied, and air (as indeed it needs must do, since it is always quick to move), comes through the opened spaces, and pierces through the passages in abundance, and so it is scattered to all the tiny parts of the body. Here then it is brought about by two causes acting severally, that the body, like a ship, is borne on by sails and wind. Nor yet herein is this cause for wonder, that such tiny bodies can twist about a body so great, and turn round the whole mass of us. For in very truth the wind that is finely wrought of a subtle body drives and pushes on a great ship of great bulk, and a single hand steers it, with whatever speed it be moving, and twists a single helm whithersoever it will; and by means of pulleys and tread-wheels a crane can move many things of great weight, and lift them up with light poise.

I have never heard of this -- thank you! Another sad one would probably be Epicureanism vs Stoicism.

I am firmly in the camp of what I picked up from DeWitt that Epicurus was a philosophical revolutionary, and I think that if he were alive today he would be about 100 times more offended by the state of philosophy and society as he was at hsi own time, and motivated to try to to change it

So I think he'd pretty much do what he did then - he'd devote himself to organizing his school - this time using all the assets of modern technology, and he'd set about doing his best to educate and "save" a world that is vastly more sick today than it was in his own time.

As to how the Athens group was looked upon I agree with your assessment. I can see the Athens looked at as perhaps first among equals, or something that went along with "tradition" but I too doubt that they would have been tightly hierarchically organized.

Of course in the end that organization plan (or lack thereof) may have contributed to their downfall. I think at the time they were not aware of what a force Judeo-Christianity was evolving into, and had they realized it sooner, and what they were up against, I think they would have seen the necessity of closer organization in order to battle the new threat.

I think what you've stated there Elayne is very likely the conclusion that many people will decide is best for them.

I don't think it's what Epicurus would conclude for himself if he were alive today, and I've always thought that there is naturally going to be a lot of different perspectives on any individual will choose to pursue Epicurus' insights once they are recognized. Epicurus and the core ancient Epicureans could have reached exactly the conclusions that you state -- but they did not, and it's interesting to think through why they didn't.

But probably near the starting point of any productive analysis is going to be recognizing that everyone isn't cut out to want to pursue a revolutionary / missionary philosophical revolution (kind of paraphrasing DeWitt there). I think we can presume that Epicurus and his core group recognized the same issue. For those who do want to pursue a separate school / movement format, we can't let the fact that "most people" aren't wired in that way stop us from pursuing that goal.

We're jumping off here from Charles' comments about the lack of more success on Reddit, Discord, etc. I think there are clear conclusions we can draw from that experience, just like you're drawing clear conclusions from your own. Thinking through it all and making adjustments to our expectations is important no matter which path we decided to pursue. Rather than get discouraged we can learn from the experience and both clarify goals and improve methods.

Quote from Charles

using Reddit & Discord, the Epicurean communities I started there largely ended up as failed experiments with the latter having limited success.

Charle's comments remind me of my own general impression about ALL our internet initiatives on the social platforms - including Facebook, which I consider to have been the most productive of all my own past investments of time. Even though I don't consider my Facebook efforts to have been a a 'success' any more than the other platforms, it is also true that the great majority of internet-based relationships that allowed us to get this EpicureanFriends forum off the ground came through Facebook.

I think the issue in all our internet time investments is something unrelated to the platforms themselves: the platforms can provide "advertising" but they cannot provide the substance or the reason to continue to stick together.

It seems to me that most of our efforts (I really mean "my own efforts" - I won't disparage anyone's efforts but my own) have amounted to saying "Hey, look here, look at what Epicurus said!" And while that activity definitely has its place, it's not sufficient to build a "team" or the kind of real-world relationships that are necessary in life. We almost end up being Platonists of a sort ourselves, spending 99% of our efforts manipulating words as if there will be some magic arrangement that will answer all our needs.

I started my active phase of internetting on Epicurus in about 2010, and as I look back on that time the most satisfying part of it has been forming the relationships that have ended up being our core people here and now on Epicureanfriends, largely because I think we share a mission in which we feel that Epicurean philosophy answers correctly some of our most core questions about life and how to spend our time. We sense that the answers are here, but we have only scratched the surface of implementing them, and we aren't going to be able to move to a next phase until we are able to move from internet-only to "real-world" action in our local circles.

The social media world will probably remain our best means of making initial contacts, but we still have to put together the structure of how to make friends and organize locally.

Yes on your posts 4 and 5. I think your conclusion is absolutely correct as to Epicurus, and i suspect we agree on what I am about to say as to the manner of presentation:

Until someone sees the Epicurean conclusion that you just stated, it isn't appropriate to collapse the reasoning process too fast.

Just like in the Epicurus quote about "the meaning of good" and walking around endlessly discussing it, Epicurus would have been faced with opposing schools constantly talking about "the good." So I would presume Epicurus was often doing exactly what we are doing now, and pointing out that there is no basis for good except pleasure and no basis for evil except pain. In order to explain the point, however, it is necessary to use the terminology of both schools, and refer to platonic good and evil. So I would expect that there is good reason to translate them as the translators are doing. (Using good and evil).

And that is why I continually point to Epicurus using "logical" arguments at times, even though he is pointing to feeling as the only reason to apply logic (or to do anything else). Just like Epicurus would have had to do with his own students, we have to acknowledge and use the terminology and approach of both schools if we are ever going to clearly show how they are different.

Yes Don if those were substituted I do think the modern interpretation of that would change a lot, because I don't think today we consider good/evil synonymous with pleasure/pain at all. But I also feel sure that Epicurus understood that there was a dramatic issue involved in choosing between the two sets of words, so we need to take a position on whether the "wider" meaning (referring to good and evil) is more true to what Epicurus said, or whether it's the more narrow reference to pleasure and pain. I don't think we today - or they back then - would have much issue in saying that pleasure and pain end with the end of sensation at death, but "good" and "evil" are much bigger questions.

Today I was looking at the graphic I did which lists four key aspects of Epicurean thought, and I prepared this to focus on alternate translations of the third of the points:

Posted at FB with this discussion starter:

Here is a significant passage from the Letter to Menoeceus which mentions "good" and "evil." Some might choose to read this as saying simply that we cannot recognize good and evil without our senses, but others will say that Epicurus went further, and taught that independent standards of good and evil do not exist in the universe apart from our sensation of them. Here are six translations of this passage into English to think about and consider his wording:

Quote from Bryan

Full physical contentment is naturally and frequently achieved when we have the natural and necessary accommodations of food and shelter. .... In failing to appreciate this fact, the common man, when he in a painless state, typically tries to add to his complete pleasure by engaging in further activities. Yet any attempt to add more pleasure to the complete pleasure of painlessness must always lead to failure, and never allows the mind to settle. .... Yet full mental contentment can be achieved just as naturally and frequently as full bodily contentment -- by the very realization of the simple ease of obtaining bodily contentment and then fostering gratitude and a full appreciation for your success in doing so.

I don't want to overemphasize this part of the discussion, because I think there are lots of aspects of how posts 10 and 11 relate to each other that are worth discussing. But certainly in my own experience I have seen it argued fairly regularly that views such as stated here would lead to the conclusion that it would never be appropriate to emerge from a subsistence level of existence. Now maybe that conclusion is in fact the position that Epicurus and/or some Epicureans sought to argue, but before we can discuss whether they were right or wrong to argue that position, I don't think we have clarity or consensus that this was in fact what some or all or any of them argued.

It seems to me that this is a pretty profound question and it is all wrapped up in what is meant by the "absence of pain" analysis. And that makes it triply important to be clear in how we discuss it. Are Bryan and Elayne agreeing, or strongly disagreeing? Is there a perspective - a a way to approach the question -- in which the two positions can be seen to agree, or to disagree, according to the perspective taken?

Yes when Godfrey thinks that the two posts are saying the same thing, and Elayne thinks they are not, I think we have a lot to explore in clarifying what is being said. And that's a difference of opinion already among us who I think read these posts closely - which means that others who are less closely reading may be puzzled even more.

As if my last question is not deep enough already, I will say that i suspect that Bryan's post was spurred by the wording of the poll option which reads: "The person holds that the "pleasure" which Epicurus held to be the goal of life includes joy and delight and active pleasures, and means more than "absence of pain.""

In comparing Elayne's post to Bryan's post, it might be helpful to consider whether Elayne and Bryan appear to be on the same page in their implicit agreement or disagreement with that wording.

To repeat, it would be interesting to hear from anyone on whether they think these posts are in agreement or disagreement, regardless of what Bryan or Elayne may say in subsequent posts, because it will be helpful to discuss not only the substance of what each post says, but the form in which the post is phrased.

I see that Bryan strongly liked Elayne's post. My question is this: does anyone think that Elayne and Bryan are not in full agreement in these two posts (10 and 11)?

If you think these posts are not in full agreement, can you articulate why you think they are not?

If you think these two posts are in full agreement, please articulate what seems most important to you about their agreement.

And I would be curious to know the response to this question by Bryan and Elayne too - do you guys see yourselves in these two posts to be in complete agreement? If not, why not?

As time goes by - regardless of what Elayne and Bryan say from here - I think it would be very helpful to hear from anyone who has time to answer my question about how they think these two posts do or do not fit together.

Hopefully this discussion will produce some good material for us to discuss well into the future. I am thinking of developing a discussion format around this in which we could conduct an online discussion of how to "rank" these elements. visually, I think we can collaborate in an interview format with something like this, the purpose of which would be to rearrange the elements into the interviewees preferred format and ordering:

Here's another angle on that same point:

Maybe the Greeks were also used to debating these issues in terms of competing "gods." For example it's clear that in Philebus, Plato has Socrates and Philebus talking in terms of a competition between their patron gods / godddesses:

Quote

SOCRATES: Then let us begin with the goddess herself, of whom Philebus says that she is called Aphrodite, but that her real name is Pleasure.

PROTARCHUS: Very good.

SOCRATES: The awe which I always feel, Protarchus, about the names of the gods is more than human—it exceeds all other fears. And now I would not sin against Aphrodite by naming her amiss; let her be called what she pleases. But Pleasure I know to be manifold, and with her, as I was just now saying, we must begin, and consider what her nature is. She has one name, and therefore you would imagine that she is one; and yet surely she takes the most varied and even unlike forms. For do we not say that the intemperate has pleasure, and that the temperate has pleasure in his very temperance,—that the fool is pleased when he is full of foolish fancies and hopes, and that the wise man has pleasure in his wisdom? and how foolish would any one be who affirmed that all these opposite pleasures are severally alike!

Quote

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now—admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite—in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question.

And also Lucretius of course starts out his poem by talking about Venus.

So maybe where we find it artificial to talk about "Pleasure" as the goal, it was much more natural for the ancients to talk in terms of Venus symbolizing a guiding force or life force, as opposed to other gods (Zeus, or someone representing personified reason? -- Who is Philebus referring to as Socrates' favorite god?). So I wouldn't go too far with this at the moment without thinking further, but maybe for people who personified Pleasure as Venus it was much less of a problem to talk in terms of Pleasure or Venus / Aphrodite more interchangeably, and it was less of a mental hurdle than we have today.

At the very least I would expect that equating pleasure in one's mind as Venus was a much more reverential or "serious" way of thinking about pleasure than is evoked by the word in our minds today.

EDIT: Maybe this comment is another reason, in accord with my recent semi-joking comment, that it would be a legitimate option for some group of modern Epicureans to go ahead and embrace Venus as our "patron" goddess in a more actual "religious" sense. Even today it might be a lot more intellectually helpful to say that we "follow Venus" rather than "follow pleasure."

i think what you are talking about is that the needs of expressing a philosophy as a logical proposition are different from those needed for personal motivation among non-philosophers.

Torquatus' formulation to me now seems clearly contextual for the professional philosophy audience, which is also my view of the "absence of pain" statement. Neither are suitable for explaining to a layman what it means to be an Epicurean. Which I think helps explains why his school was called by his name, rather than the "Hedonist" or "Pleasurist" school.

It has always been true for me that "pleasure is the goal" is more of a rejection of rationalism and religion than it is a positive statement of what Epicurus is all about.

So in my view the whole discussion about pleasure is a component of the logical whole, not a standalone slogan, and I think I need to emphasize that more.

Can you suggest better wording? Just pull a phrase out of the letter to Menoeceus about pleasure being the alpha and omega of a blessed life? Of from the Torquatus letter that pleasure is ... (rewording only slightly) "the final and ultimate Good, and the End to which all other things are means, while not itself a means to anything else."

This is obviously a huge phrasing issue.... and maybe itself something for listing as alternatives withing such a "poll"

I am eventually going to expand this poll over to Facebook and perhaps other sites, but I thought this would be the best place to start so we can get an idea of what answers definitely ought to be listed in the checkbox options. What I am thinking of here is very general, and it's probably best not to overthink it. Everyone here is familiar with the basic doctrines of Epicurus, so please pick five from the following that you think are most essential to what "you" subjectively apply in your own mind as a test of what it means to be "an Epicurean." Don't qualify your answer in terms of "being an Epicurean today" or "being an Epicurean in ancient Greece," or in any other limited way. But don't totally redefine the word, either - let's use "Epicurean" in the way that Epicurus would have used it.

What do you *feel in your gut* Epicurus himself would tell you is what it means to be an Epicurean?

Please comment to add additional options to the poll.

You may select a maximum of seven from this list.