Posts by Cassius

Brett what day of the week is likely to work best. Saturday? Sunday? Or a weekday?

I agree Eric, that that should be the rule in most situations. Some venues require more direct action, as a person who is "trolling" a particular site ends up being banned after a while if the argument loses all semblence of being productive. But in general I think that's exactly the right approach.

I think we ought also be careful not to conclude that 'agreeable motion' or "smooth motion" (a popular alternate translation) is simply a reference to "dancing," as sometimes is implied. The Latin text from Perseus is clear and unmysterious - "suavis motionis." Given that from birth to death we as a whole and our individual components of mind and body are constantly in motion (even when we sleep or appear to be at rest) I suggest it's likely that "smooth motion" is a wide term that could also encompass all our mental and physical experiences. As such, "smooth motion" gives us insight into the use of words implying "tranquility" and "absence of disturbance." We're never really at rest; we're always experiencing pleasures and pains, what we want is for those experiences to be experienced "smoothly." Nothing mysterious or anti-feeling or anti-emotion in any of this; in fact just the opposite: clear, ordinary, understandable feelings of pleasure experienced deeply and smoothly.

[41] Quid tergiversamur, Epicure, nec fatemur eam nos dicere voluptatem, quam tu idem, cum os perfricuisti, soles dicere? sunt haec tua verba necne? in eo quidem libro, qui continet1 omnem disciplinam tuam,—fungar enim iam interpretis munere, ne quis me putet fingere—dicis haec: “nec equidem habeo, quod intellegam bonum illud, detrahens eas voluptates quae sapore percipiuntur, detrahens eas quae rebus percipiuntur veneriis, detrahens2 eas quae auditu e3 cantibus, detrahens eas etiam quae ex formis percipiuntur oculis4 suavis motiones, sive quae aliae voluptates in toto homine gignuntur quolibet5 sensu. nec vero ita dici potest, mentis laetitiam solam esse in bonis. laetantem enim mentem ita novi: spe eorum omnium, quae supra dixi, fore6 ut natura is7 potiens dolore careat.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Asection%3D41

This is what I posted to the Facebook page:

Don't accept ambiguities and "nothing but words" as the definition of Pleasure. "Pleasure" isn't a word game, but a wide term that includes all the mental and physical experiences we all feel it includes. Here is Epicurus stating that exact point: "I have often inquired of those who have been called wise men what would be the remaining good if they should exclude from consideration all these pleasures [pleasures which are perceived by taste, or from what depends on hearing music, or abstracted from ideas raised by external objects visible to the eye, or by agreeable motions, or from those other pleasures which are perceived by the whole man by means of any of his senses], unless they meant to give us nothing but words. I could never learn anything from them; and unless they choose that all virtue and wisdom should vanish and come to nothing, they must say with me that the only road to happiness lies through those pleasures which I mentioned above.”

These are reliable quotes directly from Epicurus himself, according to Cicero, as recorded in Tusculan Disputations. Check for yourself the full text here: http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924…arch/translator

Here is a text version of the wider passage from Cicero's Tusculan Disputations:

[Addressed to Epicurus]: This is what you say in that book which contains all the doctrine of your school; for I will perform on this occasion the office of a translator, lest any one should imagine that I am inventing anything. Thus you speak: “Nor can I form any notion of the chief good, abstracted from those pleasures which are perceived by taste, or from what depends on hearing music, or abstracted from ideas raised by external objects visible to the eye, or by agreeable motions, or from those other pleasures which are perceived by the whole man by means of any of his senses; nor can it possibly be said that the pleasures of the mind are excited only by what is good, for I have perceived men’s minds to be pleased with the hopes of enjoying those things which I mentioned above, and with the idea that it should enjoy them without any interruption from pain.” And these are his exact words, so that any one may understand what were the pleasures with which Epicurus was acquainted. Then he speaks thus, a little lower down: “I have often inquired of those who have been called wise men what would be the remaining good if they should exclude from consideration all these pleasures, unless they meant to give us nothing but words. I could never learn anything from them; and unless they choose that all virtue and wisdom should vanish and come to nothing, they must say with me that the only road to happiness lies through those pleasures which I mentioned above.” What follows is much the same, and his whole book on the chief good everywhere abounds with the same opinions

After receiving comment I have modified this to be Weekly, with an end of week discussion on Saturday (picked at random; subject to change.)

A graphic to illustrate an absurdibity, followed by some wise words placed into the mouth of Epicurus by Frances Wright, in chapter eight of "A Few Days In Athens:

Epicurus: "Explanation always approaches or widens the differences between friends.”

Theon: “Yes, but we also entered into argument.”

Epicurus: “Dangerous ground that, to be sure. And your fight, of course, ended in a drawn battle.”

Theon: “You pay me more than a merited compliment, in concluding that to be a thing of course.”

Epicurus: “Nay, your pardon! I pay you any thing but a compliment. It is not that I conclude your rhetoric and your logic equal, but your obstinacy and your vanity.”

Theon: “Do you know, I don’t think myself either obstinate or vain,” said Theon, smiling.

Epicurus: “Had I supposed you did, I might not have seen occasion to give you the information.” ... Well, and now tell me, was it not a drawn battle?”

Theon: “I confess it was. At least, we neither of us convinced the other.”

Epicurus: “My son, it would have added one more to the seven wonders if you had. I incline to doubt, if two men, in the course of an olympiad, enter on an argument from the honest and single desire of coming at the truth, or if, in the course of a century, one man comes from an argument convinced by his opponent.”

Frances Wright - A Few Days In Athens

Exactly Brett. THAT is why there are no hard and fast examples listed in the text. In many cases, what at one moment is a desirable choice is at the next moment deadly, and that is as it has to be since there is no master supernatural force coordinating events., and events are constantly changing.

When I was in school I was under the spell of Cicero's personal Platonic-inspired viewpoints, and back then i first ran into a well known passage in Cicero's "Republic" about TRUE LAW: (link to my post on this)

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment .” . .” — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Republic, The Laws, 59 – 47 B.C.

I used to swear by this passage, and now I see it is **completely wrong.**

That's why the PD's on Justice read as they do - there is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL set of ethical standards that are higher than the practical guidance of pleasure and pain under the circumstances then and there existing. People don't seem to talk much about those last 10 PDs and I think that is why.

People are nowadays (some of them anyway) used to the idea that in questions of personal discrection and morality that decisions have to be evaluated by circumstances. But that applies not only to whether you like vanilla vs chocolate, and whether the first scoop is good and the 200th at one sitting kills you, it applies to every question of justice and social organization as well. That's a tough thing to accept, but Epicurus followed it through to the conclusion that is logical.

Everyone has their pet political and moral issues, and I do too, but for purposes of promoting Epicurean philosophy I think it's necessary to see that there's no "one size fits all" in any of these questions other than that each person is programmed by nature to make their own calculation of pleasure and pain, and we all have to realize that and act accordingly.

Absolutely! Brett have you read the extended narrative by Torquatus in support of Epicurus in Cicero's ON ENDS? You may not have got to that yet. This point is explained there, and of course in Epicurus' letter to Menoeceus:

Torquatus:

“On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue. Equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.”

And of course the letter to Menoeceus:

And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

Your calculation tradeoff is exactly right IMO.

Also as to "Sure, I didn't NEED to undertake this enterprise, certainly not a necessary or really natural need, but it was something that i loved doing and added pleasure to my life.."

That is the other question I find myself often debating on the forum, the meaning of "natural and necessary." That also is addressed in Torquatus, but people still argue that the rule is that ONLY necessary desires (which by definition would be natural) should be pursued.

I think your answer is absolutely the correct one, and that's my position, but this is like "absence of pain" that you have to look at the big picture and not "autisticly" apply a passage out of context. I argue the good evidence comes from the fact that passages that discuss natural and necessary never explicitly say necessary only, and they never list any examples (if Epicurus had said "drink water and eat bread only!" that would defeat our point, but he never said that). Further in the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus explicitly explained that the point of living simply is to be independent, and that luxury can be ok if we aren't dependent on it. We also have Torquatus saying:

“Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of pleasure and of the principles of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably."

And:

“Here is indeed a royal road to happiness -- open, simple, and direct! For clearly man can have no greater good than complete freedom from pain and sorrow coupled with the enjoyment of the highest bodily and mental pleasures. --- NOTE THE "COUPLED" -- he is saying that the two are different, and that simply stating "absence of pain" does not define the other completely

And there are many other arguments.... but even with these I think the position you are taking is clearly the correct one.

And Brett thank you for taking the time to put this thread in a perfect location in the forum!

That"Full cup" page at NewEpicurean has IMO a tremendous amount of good material cited, but I've never developed it as it needs in terms of a narrative and argument. It's a huge issue and deserves a book and/or years of work on it and nothing else, especially digging into the material that is available through Gosling &Taylor's Greeks on Pleasure. Boris Nikolsky's article "Epicurus On Pleasure" is also an important stepping stone, and he does the professional job of building up the argument that the supposed kinetic/katestematic division is not really Epicurean. So much more remains to be done on that.

I want to hear from others too but I think what you wrote jives very well with what I understand of Epicurus. We have this model on happiness from Epicurus' final day / letter to Idomeneus:

"On this blissful day, [I think I see this translated happy regularly, but would have to find cites] which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could increase them; but I set above them all the gladness of mind at the memory of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your lifelong attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."

So Epicurus could say even while in great bodily pain that he was blissful (happy), because his mental pleasure outweighed his bodily pleasure. That is exactly what you are saying, as I read it.

As to this sentence: "I generally take happiness to be a state of absence of mental disturbance and the presence of contentment or pleasure" I probably would not say that "absence of mental disturbance is required." As I see it every moment of life is a sliding scale of some combination of pleasurable things and painful things, and it's never really possible to totally eliminated the "painful" things, if you consider everything that requires exertion to be "painful." What you're describing as absence of pain and absence of disturbance while enjoying nothing but pleasure is the definition of the goal of living, but that's not the same as saying that that goal is reachable for everyone, or reachable at every moment. What you can say is that pleasure is alone what makes like worth living, and as long as you have some pleasure, especially combined with the prospect of more pleasure in the future, then life is worth living.

I want to hear others too.

Epicureans advise both short and long view.

The best of both. Justice, honesty and courage are useful to us.

"...but it does not follow that every pleasure is worthy of being chosen, just as every pain is an evil, and yet every pain must not be avoided... we resolve all these matters by measuring and reasoning whether the ultimate result is suitable or unsuitable to bringing about a happy life..."

Hiram CrespoGroup Admin Did you email them about this error? Even many Cyrenaics took both the long and short view.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h

Alexander RiosGroup Admin No I did not email them...yet.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h · Edited

Hiram CrespoGroup Admin I read it, thought it mentioned Epicureans directly, but it doesn't ... well, the take-away then is that perhaps we ARE eudaimonic, or we are both, or that these labels are somewhat empty or at least not mutually contradictory as they're made out to sound here1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin I would go with "empty" or at best "ambiguous"

Ross Ragsdale I see no point in saying hedonism vs eudaimonism. Maybe certain versions of eudaimonism are incompatible with Epicureanism, but regardless both seek happiness as the end goal for life. They merely disagree on what constitutes happiness and blessedness.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And the post says HEDONISM, it does not say EPICUREANISM. I do not believe the two terms were, or are now, equivalent. Who knows what "hedonism" really is, as there is no way to have an accepted definition? Therefore how can the post be right or wrong? On the other hand, Epicureanism (whether or not we like the ism) actually means something specific.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h · Edited

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin "They merely disagree on what constitutes happiness and blessedness." I would put that word MERELY in square quotes, because I would argue the difference is VERY large as between Aristotle (who most link to eudaimonism as that word is used today) and the goals of Epicurus.
Manage

Ross Ragsdale As I said, certain forms of eudaemonism are incompatible with Epicureanism. ?1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin and this too "but regardless both seek happiness as the end goal for life" has the same openness to ambiguity What is happiness? Why didn't our friend Jefferson say "pursuit of PLEASURE rather than happiness?" 1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus there are many ingredients to happiness. As you know, for some their immediate connotation of pleasure rests at the level of sensuality and others pleasure involves developing one's talents and and acquiring virtue. For this reason I believe he chose the more general word, Happiness, rather than pleasure. There's no need to reject sensual pleasure a priori, but it's an empirical question to ask what constitutes unalloyed joy/pleasure/happiness. We could argue semantics until we're blue in the face, but I don't see the point.

For me, happiness is tranquility/peace of mind, or at least it's an indispensable ingredient. Developing one's talents and abilities, whether they be mental, emotional, or physical, constitutes another ingredient. What helps me the most in being happy is learning more about the natural world, the human body, philosophy, religion, and public health.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Ross Ragsdale And, as far as the happiness of others goes...to each his/her own, within reason.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin To most ordinary people who have not been corrupted by philosophical error, and for those who can give no further definition of the word as constituting the pleasures that are being experienced without interruption, the word "tranquility" is an empty, deceptive, and void of meaning as any word out of the mouth of Socrates or Plato. That is NOT what Epicurus taught - he taught "pleasure" as ordinarily understood as the goal of life. Stopping analysis at the word "tranquility" is a corruption of Epicurean philosophy that is so widespread because it is so successful.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 54m

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus how is tranquility an empty word?
Manage

Like
· Reply · 49m

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin "Tranquility" tells you nothing other than "absence of disturbance." What is it that you are doing -- what real sensible mental and physical pleasures - are you experiencing while you are not being disturbed? If you want to say books, music, art, even contemplation, all of that is fine, but those are ordinary normal understandable sensible PLEASURES.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 43m · Edited

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And Ross I am not trying to play word games, nor am i accusing you personally of anything wrong What I am saying is that "Tranqulism" has become the rallying cry of the stoic interpretation of Epicurus because it implies that Epicurus did not advise pursing the pleasures of joy and desire, which he clearly did. A particular good reference coming:
Manage

Like
· Reply · 42m

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin THIS is the Epicurean statement of the best life possible, toward which we all should strive to the best of our capability, from Torquatus /On Ends: ""The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain. What possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain. He will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.”
Manage

Like
· Reply · 39m · Edited

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin THAT is what Tranqility in Epicurean terms mean - experiencing without disturbance "A life of tranquility crammed full of pleasure." (Cicero, In Pisonem, referring to an Epicurean)
Manage

Like
· Reply · 40m · Edited

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus the speaker said “imagine.” Therefore, this is open to the same criticism that epicureans rightly give to those who offer hypothetical so called ethical “dilemmas.”

The speaker says both body and mind. Undisturbed as far as I’m concerned is means tranquility. A lack of mental or physical distress and pain, coupled with satiation of necessities and natural desires.

I’ve yet to encounter “Epicurus the Stoic.” “Tranquilism” as you say merely says that there is a lack of disturbance, which permits enjoying the life of the mind as well as the life of the body. I’ve yet to see or read of what you think “tranquilism” implies. The mind is to blame for misjudging what the eye sees, and so I consider it the fault of the reader if they draw stoic doctrines from Epicurean ideas.

They are pleasing activities, therefore they are ingredients to happiness.

For nearly 1/2 the day we’ve gone back and forth about happiness vs pleasure... even though you say that you don’t want to play word games.

That being said, I primarily look to the letter of menoeceus and the pds for judging what Epicurus thought, and I look to modern and present day interpreters to see what Epicureanism has to offer the individual and the world.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 12m

Cassius Amicus " I’ve yet to see or read of what you think “tranquilism” implies" == That is because it implies NOTHING! IT is necessary for the hearer of the word to supply the missing positive definition. And I submit to you, when any normal non-Platonic mortal attempts to do that, results in nothing more than a list of ordinary pleasures. So the entire exercise is an attempt to convince people that some other word, or concept, other than pleasure is the goal of life, when in fact it is not. If you can define it without listing pleasures, please by all means do so!
Manage

Like
· Reply · 1m · Edited

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin "That being said, I primarily look to the letter of menoeceus and the pds for judging what Epicurus thought, and I look to modern and present day interpreters to see what Epicureanism has to offer the individual and the world." That's entirely appropriate Ross, and that is what everyone should do. Everyone should listen to all arguments, ask questions for themselves, and decide. And I am satisfied simply to encourage people to start taking a hard look at what Tranqulity really means.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 1m

Write a reply...

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin From Torquatus in On Ends, see final phrase/sentence: "“If, then, even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on pleasure, whereas pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good, and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure.”"

translation is from H. Rackham's Loeb Classical Library Edition of 1914.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 3h · Edited

Ross Ragsdale I'm still waiting for your point... Cassius Amicus. You asked me what is happiness and said it was vague, now I return the question. What pleasure does the speaker torquatus discuss? Is it immediate and kinetic, or is it static?

To repeat...what's the point in arguing over semantics...?
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Not semantics!!!!!! Epicurus stands far from Aristotle in focusing on pleasure.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus you’re the one who mentioned Aristotle...
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin I totally disagree with attempting to pigeonhole pleasure into those categories for the reasons states by the article ib our files section by NB.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus so do I.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Pleasure comes in many different forms both physical and mental, with mental being more intense in many cases, but not more "noble" or "worthy"
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h · Edited

Ross Ragsdale Cassius Amicus worthy or choice-worthy ?
Manage

Like
· Reply · 1h

Write a reply...

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin This may seem unrelated but this discussion calls this to mind. I do not believe Epicurus would agree that " the unexamined life is not worth living."
Manage

Like
· Reply · 2h

Ross Ragsdale If he did it would have to be "the *prudent life is not worth living."
Manage

Like
· Reply · 1h

Hiram CrespoGroup Admin I do think he'd agree. One has to examine one's desires, and our categorizing of them requires introspection.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 1h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Hiram I believe you cite that from DeWiit's book or some other place, do you know where it comes from?

I disagree with both PRUDENCE and "EXAMINATION" as in and of them selves required to make life worth living, which is the point under discussion. All that is required for a life to be worth living is pleasure. Prudence and examination -- Even FRIENDSHIP - are incredibly important tools, but they are only tools - not the goal

PD10: If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky and death and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full with pleasures from every source and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.
Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

49m
Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And so to relate this to Friendship, which is even more of a hot-button litmus test than wisdom or prudence, Epicurus taught

that friendship is desirable ONLY because it leads to pleasure. If Friendship did not lead to pleasure, it would not be desirable. That is the same as for analysis of **any** subject, and it is going to lead someone seriously astray to think that ANYTHING is desirable in and of itself other than pleasure.
Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

47m
Hiram Crespo Cassius the word used in L Menoeceus was phronesia (prudence, sometimes translated as wisdom) when he said "the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom. Therefore wisdom is a more precious thing even than philosophy ; from it spring all the other virtues". This does not mean that prudence is THE END, in fact the doctrine on the end is clearly stated in our sources including Menoeceus. That pleasure is the end does not imply that we need to bash the means. There's a logic, a science, and a method considered valied for living pleasantly, and it's impossible to study it without learning the value of the efficient means. I don't think it's fair to confuse this issue for the sake of stressing the end being pleasure, which is an established doctrine and no one is questioning it, and the quote does not say "prudence is the end".

I say this because I remember Philodemus saying that a youth who has had no time to study philosophy did not have the chance to live pleasantly, so I remember there being requisites for a life of pleasure, and these requisites being very important to study according to the sources.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 31m

Write a reply...

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Part of the connection is the Aristotelian insistence on wisdom and other "virtues/goods" in addition to pleasure, as if anything other than pleasure is intrinsically desirable other than pleasure. Nothing is, so the position and all variations ofit are false. It is not examining a life that makes it worth living, but pleasure. A life that is worthwhile to its owner can be lived in the jungles of Africa as well as in the jungles of New York or the jungles of a college philosophy department, and less frequently in the latter.
Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

1h
Alexander RiosGroup Admin The problem is that their definition of pleasure is not the same as the Epicurean definition. Every thing that brings gratification is a pleasure. But they're not using that definition.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

1h
Cassius AmicusGroup Admin And so it is impossible to talk to such people without first correcting their definition. To accept their definition is to accept their premises and make it impossible to clarify the real point.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 52m

Alexander RiosGroup Admin Or maybe you could mix it up and use words like enjoyment, and suffering, since folks don't perceive those as being so ephemeral.1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 28m

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Definitely Alex. "Pleasure" has been tainted and that's why even Jefferson couldn't use it in the place it should have been used. I definitely believe in diplomacy and in good marketing. But always with the goal in mind and when we can push people to improve, we should. We aren't ever going to the majority in any place in our lifetime outside of maybe a small conference hall if we have a get-together But we can't let the outsiders have their way when they try to box us in by calling the goal of life unacceptable.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 24m

Write a reply...

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin There are many people who like to focus on "commercialism" as the demon of the modern world. In terms of teaching people to chase after impossible, false, and damaging goals, commercialism does not hold a candle to college philosophy and religion departments.
Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

1h
Alexander RiosGroup Admin Commercialism often produces vain desires. Empty desires. The Epicurean vocabulary is even more clear.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 1h

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Absolutely it does. But it is in a very rough sense "pleasure." What does the pursuit of "virtue" of and for itself produce? A corruption of philosophy and the goal of life, which, if fully accepted, renders it impossible to correct course, because it convinces people that pleasure is a sin, not the goal of life. Commericialism at least does not do that.
Manage

Like
· Reply · · Edited

53m
Cassius AmicusGroup Admin Here's another way of looking at this. Commercialism is definitely not good, definitely damaging, and I am not defending it. But someone who falls victim to thinking that a happy life comes from spending money will sooner or later (probably sooner) find out that spending money does not give him all of the OTHER pleasures in life (music, art, family, friends, ad infinitum) that he will not get unless he puts spending money aside. No pleasure can be pursued singly - surfing 24/7 is not sustainable because one also needs food, water, shelter, sex, etc.

So someone who falls prey to commercialism is going to find out on his own, and fairly quickly, that he has made a mistake, and go looking for those other pleasures which make for a full life.

But a person who is corrupted by a false religion of philosophy to think that pleasure should not be pursued has a cancer that will eat him alive with no hope of recovery. The person who is convinced that pleasure is evil will shun pleasure, and look to greater and greater asceticism, and find nothing but emptiness. And his training in false philosophy and religion will prevent him from ever challenging his original premise that pleasure is bad.

That is far worse, and far harder from which to recover, than the mistake of thinking that buying trinkets and a new I-phone is the path to happiness.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 6m

Write a reply...

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin This is an incredibly good thread. Thank you as always Alex!
Manage

Like
· Reply · 51m

Write a comment...

I think I am about to start a weekly post here (copied to Facebook too) asking for people to give their comment every week on one single passage from the Epicurean Texts. My thoughts are to:

(1) Post the passage, starting at PD5 and continuing through the Vatican Sayings and a list of Fragments that I'll develop between now and the time we need them. I think start at PD5 since 1-4 we discuss all the time.

(2) I will ask for comments in the thread

(3) I will say that every Saturday night at 7:00 PM I'll be on the Discord server to discuss any that have come in on that day and gather more.

(4) I will say that after the chat is finished I'll add the commentary to a thread under the particular doctrine or passage here at the EF Forum where it can be found in the future.

I am thinking of that the weekly post will be something like:

*Weekly Discussion of An Epicurean Text* - Every day we are posting one Epicurean passage for your thoughts and comments in the thread below. On Saturday night at 7:00 PM Eastern (you can appear anytime you want, but 7 Eastern will be the target time to allow maximum participation in Europe and the USA) we'll host a text/voice chat at the Discordapp server. After that we'll compile the comments and post them in the EpicureanFriends Forum under the section for the particular passage, where they can be found in the future.

Today's passage is: PD5: "It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and Justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life, is not living prudently and honorably and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life], cannot possibly live pleasantly." (Bailey translation).

If you have a comment about the translation, or the content, the implications, or the applications of this passage, please post them in the thread below. Saturday at 7:00 Eastern we'll discuss them and compile and arrange them for posting in the thread on PD5 at EpicureanFriends.com.

The links you need are:
Discordapp.com Channel: https://discordapp.com/channels/39266…777393230151691

Epicureanfriends.com forum: Daily Discussion Of Epicurean Texts

Welcome Lawrence !

Welcome @Geoff ! Your work in Australia with the Epicurean Meetup Group is an inspiration to us all!

As of today "BOOKMARKS" are operational at EpicureanFriends.com. You can bookmark posts and other pages, and they will show up both on your Bookmark page and on the Bookmark section of the sidebar of many pages, near the top right.

As of today the CALENDAR is now operational at EpicureanFriends.com. Here you can check upcoming meetings, including the monthly 20th Celebration. Click on the event to see details such as time, date, and location, see who has marked that they will be attending, and indicate your own attendance status.

Aurelius Espinoza For this specific example, I meant a stressful job for the rest of your life, or at least a big part of it. If it's only 2 weeks, then that's a completely different situation1

Manage

Like
· Reply · 1h

Aurelius Espinoza I overall agree with you though. I think the confusion comes from the fact that Epicurus himself lived an ascetic lifestyle (he lived on bread and water, a bit of cheese was a luxury, etc). My interpretation is that he wanted to prove that it is possible to be happy with little (and in bad health). His disciples, such as Metrodorus, weren't as radical in their practice. I guess what is relevant for modern Epicureans is that one size doesn't fit all, as you say
Manage

Like
· Reply · 58m

Cassius Amicus Now see, I don't believe the comment about cheese and bread should be interpreted that way, even for Epicurus himself. (You wrote: "that Epicurus himself lived an ascetic lifestyle (he lived on bread and water, a bit of cheese was a luxury, etc.)")

There are no flat statements that he **always** lived that way. The statement in DL is: "In his correspondence he himself mentions that he was content with plain bread and water. And again: “Send me a little pot of cheese, that, when I like, I may fare sumptuously.” Such was the man who laid down that pleasure was the end of life."

Epicurus, you, or me could easily say that we are CONTENT with bread and water while not meaning that we commit to eating it three meals a day. I can say I would be content with bread and water if needed, and mean it, while eating a regular diet.

I think those statements were made for figurative statements for purpose of stating the principle (that he COULD compete with Zeus in that way), but not to be taken as a general rule even for him. There are numerous examples of Epicurus speaking figuratively, such as go to visit his friends "spinning around three times first" (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.5: Then again to Themista, the wife of Leonteus: "I am quite ready, if you do not come to see me, to spin thrice on my own axis and be propelled to any place that you, including Themista, agree upon.")

And then the flowery wording he used in addressing people in letter:

Plutarch, Against Colotes, 18, p. 1117D: But if, Colotes, you had met with expressions of Socrates’ such as Epicurus pens in a letter to Idomeneus: "So send us for the care of our sacred body an offering of first-fruits on behalf of yourself and your children – so I am inspired to put it;" to what more unmannerly terms could you have resorted? {Traditionally, first-fruits were offered to a god – support for Epicurus’ bodily needs is so depicted.}

Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, VII p. 279F: It was in fact, for the sake of the belly and the pleasures of the flesh in general that this man flattered Idomeneus and Metrodorus. ... Epicurus, in fact, was the teacher of these men.

Aelius Theon, Preliminary Exercises, 2, I [p. 169 Walz] {II,154 Butts}: ... faulty arrangement, but especially metrical and rhythmical style, like many of the phrases of the orator Hegesias ... as well as some of the phrases of Epicurus, such as where he writes to Idomeneus: "Oh you who have from youth have regarded all my impressions as pleasurable."

Plutarch, Against Colotes, 17, p. 1117B: Colotes himself, for another, while hearing a lecture of Epicurus on natural philosophy, suddenly cast himself down before him and embraced his knees; and this is what Epicurus himself writes about it in a tone of solemn pride: "You, as one revering my remarks on that occasion, were seized with a desire, not accounted for by my lecture, to embrace me by clasping my knees and lay hold of me to the whole extent of the contact that is customarily established in revering and supplicating certain personages. You therefore caused me," he says, "to consecrate you in return and demonstrate my reverence." My word! We can pardon those who say that they would pay any price to see a painting of that scene, one kneeling at the feet of the other and embracing his knees while the other returns the supplication and worship. Yet that act of homage, though skillfully contrived by Colotes, bore no proper fruit: he was not proclaimed a Sage. Epicurus merely says: "Go about as one immortal in my eyes, and think of me as immortal too."

Not to mention that doing anything "with Zeus" would have to be figurative, or else violate Epicurean theology about the way the gods live.

Also, surely devoted Epicureans like Atticus and those at the Villa of the Papyri and most other Epicureans did not live like ascetics, or the philosophy would never have spread. Lucretius was fanatically devoted and gives no hint that he himself ate an ascetic diet.

Else I think it is totally impossible to square with Epicurus' will, which showed him to be well off with numerous slaves. He had at least four slaves, and apparently more than that, as enumerated here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…3lRvJWYAxXcjFDQAnd that doesn't include the apparently very significant additional income and property that he doled out to his friends and supporters when he died. It is very unlikely that Epicurus would have had access to so many assets (even luxuries) in other areas of life, but chose to be an ascetic in the category of food.

I don't see any other way to square these statements with the numerous statements Epicurus made endorsing ordinary pleasures, including wine, food, sex, etc., being stuff of the best life. What is clearly true is that he was (as in VS63) arguing that everyone should choose a sustainable lifestyle so as not to err in either direction of too much or too little luxury, so as to be master over circumstances and be able to live economically/ independently **if necessary** for the sake of overall pleasure/avoidance of pain.

But in most cases even in the time of Epicurus, it was possible for many people (like himself) to live normal middle class or higher lifestyles, while not eating an ascetic, without being at the mercy of levels of pain that are not worth the pleasure.

So there is no way I would interpret Epicurus as telling everyone to eat bread and water all the time, and to splurge only on cheese. That's a rhetorical device, even for him. People who eat better than that are not by definition deficient Epicureans.

I think we are moving towards agreeing that in every area, one size does not fit all, and that would have to be a perspective that Epicurus applied even to himself. Eat only beans when necessary, and eat bread and cheese for discipline so you can always be independent, but when circumstances allow eating a normal diet or even higher, then by all means do so if the pleasure of doing so outweighs the pain/expense/effort in doing so.

(This is an important question and comes up often, so I edited several times. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this.)Manage

Epicurus - Last Will
EPICURUS.NET

Aurelius Espinoza Point taken. There is also historical context: the collapse of Alexander's empire, constant civil wars, the siege of Athens, etc