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.
This message just popped up on my Facebook Admin screen. Facebook becomes ever more oppressive with each passing day, and I continue to plot my reduction of use there, and eventual exit. This Epicureanfriends forum is the first step, but far from the last.
I rearrange the order of the following Epicurean doctrines slightly because I think 33 stands out as the "heading" for all the rest. Thirty-three immediately slaps us in the face, and from it we feel the implications of "there is no such thing as absolute justice." I submit to you that "justice" is simply one of the "virtues," and that Epicurus calls us to read ALL of these doctrines as if the word used were not "justice" but "VIRTUE." (and not "law" but "a code of virtue")
In other words, there is no absolute virtue, and each of these profound statements should be read and absorbed by us as referring to VIRTUE in general:
33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.
34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.
31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.
32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.
35. It is impossible for a man who secretly violates the terms of the agreement not to harm or be harmed to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure that he will not be detected.
36. In general justice is the same for all, for it is something found mutually beneficial in men's dealings, but in its application to particular places or other circumstances the same thing is not necessarily just for everyone.
37. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.
38. Where without any change in circumstances the things held to be just by law are seen not to correspond with the concept of justice in actual practice, such laws are not really just; but wherever the laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for that time just when they were advantageous for the mutual dealings of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they were no longer advantageous.
I think I misinterpreted the title, because I too think it is "unthinkable" that virtue ethics should be adopted as a guiding philosophy.
But if I read the article properly, that is exactly the conclusion it reaches - that virtue ethics IS the way forward.
For example the article says:
The Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff has suggested that the cause of refugees can be better advanced through harnessing virtues like charity and humility than hammering on endlessly about rights.
Is that not just a classic example of virtue ethics? This writer starts with a supposed given (that the cause of refugees should be advanced) and decides that pick a philosophy (virtue ethics vs "rights") according to whether it is the most likely to lead to our desired result.
But some people will think that the cause of refugees (whatever that means) should be advanced. Others will think that "the cause of refugees" is something they don't care about or even oppose.
The point of philosophy is to help us with the analysis of "What is the desired result?" in the first place! And the problem of "virtue ethics" is that it is nothing more than a slick effort to justify some particular result while hiding the reasoning for that result behind high-sounding but totally subjective and ambiguous language.
This article is depressing, to the extent it represents what some young people are thinking, but it's definitely on point, so good catch, Hiram!
(This is a post byElli)
I would like to point out something in the translation by Bailey in an excerpt from Epicurus' epistle to Meneoceus which says : "And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest enjoy luxury pleasure in luxury who least need it;" (translation found here.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Bailey in this point of "the independence of desire" is wrong. Epicurus did not mention anywhere "independence of desire as a great good".
Epicurus in this point, he mentions the word "self-sufficiency as a great good". And "self-sufficiency" includes the desire for freedom, the desire for bravery, the desire for justice, and generosity for offering to the others in the society. Freedom, bravery, justice, and generosity produce enjoyment and pleasure of course!
Here is how self-sufficiency is a great good:
-ES 44. "The wise man when he has accommodated himself to straits knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered".
-ES 77. "The greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom".
Ah, those Bailey's black glasses of stoicism... sometimes produce to him facing problems in the translation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And here is the most accurate one, by Norman DeWitt : "And self-sufficiency we think to be a great good, not that we may live on little under all circumstances but that we may be content with little when we do not have plenty, being genuinely convinced that they enjoy luxury most who feel the least need of it;"
Self-sufficiency means also : for the offering to the others of what little you have is greater than the offering to others of what plenty you have. And this is contrary to that famous religious motto : "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none". No, the constitution of democracy declares that nobody has to have two, three or more tunics when your next door person does not have any...the good, the benefit and pleasurable is for all to have one, two or more new tunics.
And as Dimitris Liantinis said : "For the Greeks , i.e., love does not mean to give one of your robes, according to Christian contemplation. But to not allow yourself to have three robes, when your next door person does not have any.
The position of Christians even though to give one of the two to someone who has nothing, is the morbid reaction towards the morbid conditions. The charity does not fit in a decent and a proud man. Because it demands to solve the problem temporarily, of residing without authorization, i.e. to «cover» a social disorder.
While the position of Greeks is healthy and means to not get three when the next person has neither one. It indicates to consider before, and do not have the need afterward for treading in a cure, inconclusively.
Besides, this position is, otherwise, the basis of that wonderful capture in the social problem, which the Greeks told the constitution of Democracy. Do you know another word more rugged, more fertile, more rich, wiser, and more beautiful of the word Democracy? I do not know. And I know letters, as they say in the courts.
This primitive Greek behavior catches up to guard against slippage in the moral chaos. Aristotle is formulating this marble's proposal. It looks like the equations that formulated by the great physicists: «the altruism, says Aristotle, is in the same degree wrong bias with selfishness».
Altruism, however, of the Christians is not such a gift. But the pretext for perpetuating their selfishness. Have you ever thought how humiliating is for you the moment to be charitable to the beggar? How do you allow, and how do you show your superiority to him? Your charity spits straight on his face.
Christians could never be uttering this word by Aristotle. Because, they come deacons of the sickness. They do not come to rim the health.
The proposal by Aristotle is the word the natural and the whole. In contrast, "to love each other " of the Christian's position is half and unnatural. Because human not only loves, but also hates. This thing is the natural and what happens around every day. The famous "odi et amo" i.e. "love and hate", beyond the erotic domination in the poetry of Catullus and Dostoevsky, has its social validity. A man who cannot ever seem to hate is like the bitch that is not battling the wolf as it comes in the corral, but mates with the wolf. Thus, yet who is going to guard the sheep?>>.
Thrice NO, I do not love my enemy. I despise him as I keep in mind that great epicurean PD 39. As well as that motto "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is wrong and idealistic. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Because if I would be united with the enemy of my enemy under the heavy load of a need and due to hostile feelings without to be agreed with him WHAT IS OUR COMMON GOAL ...then that "friend" easily will become my enemy too. This is evidenced from historical facts and the experiences of men, and are not just words. 
I will post this note in the dedicated forum too:
As I think more about this suggestion, I think a significant part of the benefit of a discussion of a particular scenario would come from being able to have a shared experience and then discuss the details of that experience.
Of necessity sometimes we won't be able to accomplish this, but one way of accomplishing this would come from each person in the discussion having direct access to the movie / artwork and being able to point out particular moments for discussion.
That is most possible on free sites containing public domain movies which can be streamed on demand for free.
The site from which "Romanze in Moll" comes is one such site: Archive.org's free movies section: https://archive.org/details/moviesandfilms
Another such site is "Free Classic Movies.com" https://free-classic-movies.com/
If you know of other such totally free streaming sites, please post those here.
Of course many movies are directly accessible on Youtube.
This is a new forum where you can post links to movies/books/artworks which you think pose interesting questions about how to pursue (or how not to pursue pleasure). The nature of these postings means that it probably is not realistic to expect quick replies, but a strength of the forum system is that people can find the post and reply to it months or years later. Feel free to post links to movie situations or other subjects you think are worth discussing. Please post a link to whether the artwork can be viewed if you can, and also describe the situation which you think is worthy of discussion. General posts to a particular movie won't be very helpful - please describe the scenario of interest.
Discussion of Movies / Books / Artwork Posing Questions Related to Pursuit of Pleasure
Please post new suggestions in that forum -- this thread is just for announcement of the opening of the forum, and any comment you might have about that.
A number of good examples here how the teachings of Aristotle lend themselves to the molding of pliable young minds:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/1…h1B-UKWYY1uBtY8
Yuk!
There's no need to wonder why thy teach Aristotle and not Epicurus.
These are definitely difficult questions, and they are controversial and easy to get "emotional" about. That's one of the things that I hope we can do on this forum is to identify what part of our reaction to these questions is "personal viewpoint," what points are "philosophical." I think it is very likely that given that there is "no absolute justice" and the implications of PD30-40, Epicurus would probably say that different people come to different conclusions depending on their circumstances. So there is an aspect of "What factors should be considered under Epicurean Philosophy?" and then a separate analysis of "What conclusion should Epicurean XX reach under his or her own personal circumstances.
I think this is the key:
anywhere I meet like-minded people
But I would probably extend that to "anywhere I have FRIENDS."
And the difficult question is "What makes someone a like-minded person?" and "What makes someone a friend?"
Those questions don't have a single answer, but to me, I do not consider someone to be like-minded or a friend just because we have similar tastes in food or in other things that I think most people would consider to be superficial.
A "like-minded friend" - I think - is going to share common foundational viewpoints about the way the world works, and the way we see our goals, and the way we see each other, and we are going to be bound to each other in common concern for our mutually-shared view of the future.
And in many cases, but certainly not all, those people who fit that category are going to share many common background characteristics. By no means is it necessary in every instance to speak the same language, or be of the same race, or the same age, or the same sex, or the same occupation, or to share the same views of politics, or of religion. But all of those factors, and more, are going to be statistically relevant in predicting who is likely to be a "like-minded friend" and who is not.
I think the controversial but true foundation here is that there is no contradiction between observing the statistical norms and also considering individual variance from the norms. Both are factors in real life, and both have to be considered. Ignoring either one is perilous for accurately predicting how things will turn out.
I agree with the comment that Benthams's ethics are influenced by Aristotle and the others, probably at least as much as by Epicurus, so from my point of view that limits the usefulness of Benthamite reasoning in Epicurean philosophy. But discussing how and why that is the case would be very interesting and beneficial. We already have some discussions in that direction previously with Daniel Van Orman
If you know of good Youtube links to those, please post them in that thread, and to your favorite Bach as well. - thanks!
Great to have you Accord! I look forward to your participation and encourage you to start threads on any topics that interest you.
If you are not familiar with Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens," you will see that she dedicated the book to Jeremy Bentham, and that is probably one of the connections between Epicurus and Utilitarian thought to which you refer.
http://www.AFewDaysInAthens.com
Welcome accord ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background in Epicurus.
Elli that is a great article and I am not sure I have read it before (?) That needs to be formatted and placed where it can be found, in the Articles section maybe? I wonder if it is possible that George Metaxas has a photo online somewhere we could add to it? And maybe we can add some other graphics to it as well. At any rate, let's get this one into an area where it can be found.
I would like to repost it at NewEpicurean.com too, and when we find one or more homes for it we can post link to it at other locations.
I am sure Elli will be glad to hear that part about Thessaloniki!!!
Elli I immediately recognize Burt Lancaster but I don't think I have ever heard of that movie, or even know what historical setting it is in. I will look this up and investigate!
Sometimes mileage takes time to accumulate but all your Epicurean meme and graphic work is going to bear fruit, Nate!
Thanks Nate! That's a very effective tool!
