Posts by Cassius

Michael Carteron March 1 at 10:27pm I've read references to Epicureans living in communes, indeed one source claims Christian monastaries were based on them, taking over the existing communities. This is said to be an early example of communism. So what truth is there to all this?

Ilkka Vuoristo Very little truth. There's no evidence of this.
Even the original Garden group wasn't a commune, but a school and a house owned by Epicurus. The other people were either faculty, guests, or both.
Laertius 10 -- 11
"Friends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden. [...] He further says that Epicurus did not think it right that their property should be held in common, as required by the maxim of Pythagoras about the goods of friends; such a practice in his opinion implied mistrust, and without confidence there is no friendship."
Unlike · Reply · 6 · March 1 at 11:10pm

Michael Carteron I wonder where they get this idea then.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 12:03am

Ilkka Vuoristo Who knows... They probably think that because we have communes today, the Garden must have been one (because people were living together).
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 12:15am

Michael Carteron Well based on the Laertius reference and what I've read elsewhere, it seems there were ancient communes. Perhaps the Epicureans have been wrongly lumped in with them.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 12:17am · Edited

Panos Alexiou Pythagoreans had a cult like commune structure afaik.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 7:30am

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Friends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden. This is stated by Apollodorus, [11] who also says that he purchased the garden for eighty minae ; and to the same effect Diocles in the third book of his Epitome speaks of them as living a very simple and frugal life ; at all events they were content with half a pint of thin wine and were, for the rest, thoroughgoing water-drinkers. He further says that Epicurus did not think it right that their property should be held in common, as required by the maxim of Pythagoras about the goods of friends ; such a practice in his opinion implied mistrust, and without confidence there is no friendship.

-----------------------------------------------------


IMO there is a confusion between the epicurean hospitality and the commune living by some others.

The above from Laertius makes to us clear that the garden was not a commune of people who were sharing any property in common. Epicurus purchased the garden and there was a hospitality by him when his friends were visited him in Athens, and stayed there as long as they could or liked.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 2 at 9:59am

ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ Coincidentally, I was having a dialogue (that felt more like a monologue :P) with someone the other day who made this assertion to justify a separate point. To my knowledge, there is no reasonable link between the 'commune' and 'Epicureanism' any more than there is between any two other cooperative human behaviors.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:30pm · Edited

February 26 at 3:45pm **“Cicero’s Presentation of Epicurean Ethics” – Fake News?**

I don’t have time for as long a discussion as this deserves, but I want to highlight the attached excerpt from Edith Packer’s “Cicero’s Presentation of Epicurean Ethics.” The topic is a key authority for our understanding of Epicurean Ethics, the presentation by Torquatus in Cicero’s “On Ends.”

In his discourse Torquatus states:

“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.”

But Packer demurs and criticizes Torquatus harshly:

“But the total effect [of this passage] is not really Epicurean. This is true partly because of the excessive emphasis on luxurious pleasures …[and] partly because of the absence of comment on the happiness of the tranquil life. There is no hint of the difficult intellectual asceticism which Epicurus considers necessary to the attainment of a life free from disturbance.”

To this my personal reply to Packer is: “Fake news!”

We are all today familiar with the term “fake news” from all sides of the political spectrum. As unpleasant as that subject is to discuss, a great liberating wind is sweeping through the twenty-first century in that people of all persuasions are coming to see that the "gatekeepers of truth" have never merited the trust that they have claimed for generations.

In deciding between Packer and Cicero we should ask: Who had access to more Epicurean texts? Who had more access to Epicurean scholars? Who visited Athens at the height of Epicurean philosophy and learned from those who were committed to the philosophy? Packer or Cicero?

It is certainly possible that Packer is correct and Cicero is not. But if Packer is right then we are looking not at innocent error, but in fact “Fake News” of the highest order, spun by a lawyer (Cicero) for purposes of undermining Epicurean philosophy. But would Cicero have dared to stretch his own credibility by writing such a distortion in a world filled with Epicureans amply equipped to dispute him?

My personal view is that Cicero (or the source from which he copied) was correct. Torquatus was accurately describing the Epicurean model of a life of pleasure as the ultimate good. In turn, Packer is furthering the modern majority academic view -a great distortion which insists on viewing Epicurean philosophy through anti-Epicurean eyes.

Numbers of quotes can be marshaled on both sides of this issue, but my analysis starts with the premise that Epicurus expected others to understand that when he spoke of pleasure (which Torquatus has earlier stated is so plainly desirable that it needs no argument to support) he included in that term all types of pleasure, including those which some categorize as “of motion” and “static.” (I use quotes because I follow those who argue that these categories were not of great significance to Epicurus himself).

Most interpreters fail to explain to modern readers that Epicurus was speaking at a time and in a context where every educated person would understand the preliminary arguments. The leading philosophers, especially Plato in his “Philebus,” had advanced the challenge that pleasure CANNOT be considered a candidate for the “highest good” or the “goal of life.” Plato argued that this is true because pleasure (allegedly) has no “limit” – we always want more. The Platonic argument concludes that nothing which has no limit (an “end point”) can be considered to be a “highest good” because no type or status of pleasure can be considered to be “the highest.”

Epicurus lived in a world that held Plato in great esteem, and so in disagreeing Epicurus logically would have formulated his theory of pleasure to defeat the Platonic argument. Epicurus did that in large part by pointing out two major points:

(1) Nature gives living beings only two types of feelings: pleasure and pain. Thus to a living being experiencing any feelings at all, the absence of one amounts to the presence of the other. If we could measure the total experience of any living being at any time, the “absence of pain” that being was experiencing would constitute in quantity the exact measure of the amount of pleasure that being is experiencing. Why is this important? Because:

2) The Platonic objection that pleasure has no limit is wrong. In contrast to false and speculative models such as are specialized in by idealists, Epicurus suggested that we consider life as a vessel, with the liquid content of the vessel being all of the numerous types of pleasure that are available in life. A vessel (like a man) is a real thing, and a vessel can be filled to the top with liquid, just as a life can be filled with pleasures. After the vessel is filled, all that is then poured into it amounts only to variation, not an increase in the quantity or quality of pleasure. Thus the use of terms like purity, absence of pain (aponia) and smoothness / tranquility (ataraxia) are only descriptive adjectives/adverbs for the desirable state of maintenance of a vessel: that of holding its contents filled to the top, without leaking, overflowing, or under-filling.

Seen in these terms, the goal of life thus defined is not a "higher" or "mysterious" state of pleasure different from that which people ordinarily understand as pleasurable, and this goal requires no opaque terminology to describe it. Rather, the desired state / highest life - the model which serves as a guide, is that of a life experienced when filled to the top with pleasures of all kinds, a life conducted as most nearly possible without leaking or spilling (ataraxia for those who must use a Greek word) or under-filling (aponia).

So in my view Cicero was right and Packer was wrong. The goal of life identified by Epicurus was just as testified to by Torquatus, the same goal aptly summarized separately by Cicero himself : “a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasure.”

“Cicero’s Presentation of Epicurean Ethics” – Fake News?
I don’t have time for as long a discussion as this deserves, but I want to highlight the attached excerpt from Edith Packer’s “Cicero’s Presentation of Epicurean…
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare

7Jason Baker, Matt Jackson and 5 others

Comments

Jimmy Daltrey Here is De Witt reviewing Packer https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…hAsVLyhBdpQRFkw

Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethicsby Mary N. Porter Packer -…
DOCUMENTSLIDE.COM

Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · February 27 at 6:28am

Jimmy Daltrey Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethics. New York, The Columbia University Press, 1938. Pp. 127. Columbia Diss. This study is most commendable. It is clearly written and well printed, acutely reasoned and amply documented. The treatment confines itself to De Finibus I-II and is divided into two chapters: 1. Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Philosophy in De Finibus I. 2. Cicero's Critique of Epicurean Philosophy, Presented in De Finibus I and II. Each chapter concludes with a summary, and the text of Epicurus himself is abundantly cited. The conclusion is that Cicero failed "to understand Epicureanism as a consistently unified philosophy (p. 81)," but is acquitted of having been "deliberately and intentionally unfair (p. 119)." It is only to this acquittal that I take exception. Every debater has the choice of arguing to reveal the truth in its entirety or of arguing to make points. The former method is adapted to the Supreme Court, the latter to a trial by jury. Cicero was a crafty old trial lawyer and he deliberately argued to make points, because he was pleading before a reading audience, which functions like a jury, and his shrewd legal mind had long discerned the vulnerability of Epicureanism before this style of attack. His attitude was that of William J. Bryan toward biological evolution, and his pleadings are comparable to a Scopes trial, but I do not believe he could have misrepresented the truth so successfully had he not understood it completely. In the Scopes trial, the crafty old lawyer was on the opposite side-Clarence Darrow. NORMAN W. DEWITT. VICTORIA COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 6:31am

Cassius Amicus Yep. That is where i first learned of this article.
Like · Reply · 2 · February 27 at 6:32am

Jimmy Daltrey De Witt appears to be saying that Cicero indeed knew Epicureanism very well, but willfully misrepresented it. So yes, Cicero probably did know the texts better than Packer, and chose to portray the Epicureans falsely. The "continuous enjoyment of vivid pleasures" strikes me as a caricature. Epicurus did not advocate making a habit of stuffing yourself with wine and lobster.
Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 7:23am

Cassius Amicus And it is not necessary to stuff oneself with wine and lobster to live in continuous vivid pleasures, which is the point that is lost on those who insist that pleasure is a disreputable goal.
Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 7:33am

Cassius Amicus Further, Dewitt is not saying that that the misrepresentations and false conclusions are in Torquatus' presentation - it is in Cicero's commentary, generally delivered by himself or a non-Epicurean character, where the presentation and summaries are unbalanced.
Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 7:36am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Probably a minor point but worth making nonetheless. One of Cicero's most frequent correspondents, and possibly his publisher, was Atticus the devout Epicurean. There's no way to resolve any of this, but it seems much more likely to me that the Atticus / Cicero relationship would have disposed CIcero to express his disagreements via direct commentary rather than by outright fabrications of his prime correspondent's philosophy. Cicero was not writing these commentaries at a time when he could lightly dismiss the effects of upsetting his friends unnecessarily.


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…TWp6pfd8MuahCEU
Atticus and the Publication of Cicero's Works on JSTOR
John J. Phillips, Atticus and the Publication of Cicero's Works, The Classical World, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Mar. - Apr., 1986), pp. 227-237
JSTOR.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · February 27 at 8:19am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Interesting how people read things differently. I read "vivid pleasures" as in external pleasures, food etc, it could also be an internal sense of pleasure. I think Packer took it to be the first also, hence her comments that Epicurus' asceticism was being down played.
Like · Reply · February 27 at 2:05pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Yes that's exactly right Jimmy. It almost seems like people who are disposed for whatever reason to look at pleasure from a negative outlook are going to end up stoic-oriented and be suspicious of pleasure, always interpreting it negatively or restrictively. I think Epicurus was the opposite - taking pleasure as Nature's "go" signal, and therefore sanctioned by nature, the tendency is to follow nature and "go" unless the practical results of temporary pleasure are followed by too much pain. And that's another angle - some people seem to think that any pleasure at all is going to bring unbearable pain, and that all pain is unbearable, so that the goal is to suppress all pain at ANY costs, even if that means having no pleasure.


You used the word "internal" but Epicurus is very clear that "mental" pleasure is pleasure, and in fact often more intense ("vivid"?) than physical pleasure.
Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 1:26pm

Jimmy Daltrey The Stoics were more suspicious of desire than pleasure. According to AA Long, pleasure was nice to have but one could be a good person (and hence a tranquil person) with or without it as long as one didn't lust after it. You are 100% right that mental pleasure is glossed over when it should be central. I'd choose a good conversation in preference toan ice cream.(although good conversation with ice cream is good
Like · Reply · February 27 at 2:08pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus I largely agree with what you wrote Jimmy and and I have tremendous respect for AA Long but presuming he said that (you haven't listed a cite) he presumably was speaking broadly and/or making the point that the Stoics really didn't like either one, as they are distractions from their single goal of virtue(?)
Like · Reply · February 27 at 5:17pm

Jimmy Daltrey I'll pull out a reference. Stoic virtue is the same as Epicurean virtue, the former have ataraxia incidental to virtue, the latter have virtue instrumental in obtaining happiness. Virtue is no more and no less than "practical wisdom", prudence, justice...See More
Like · Reply · February 27 at 5:45pm

Eric 'Siggy' Scott "Pleasure is an optional extra"


It's slightly more than "optional." It has "selective value," and is in line with nature. Therefore virtue requires us to pursue some natural pleasures. Anything that is natural for humans is something that we should seek out, for such things are "well chosen."


That's what differentiates Stoicism from Cynicism.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 10:05am · Edited

Jason Baker Eric 'Siggy' Scott, the standard of choosing is /anything/ that is natural for humans?


That's a can of worms.
Like · Reply · 1 · February 28 at 1:16pm

Jimmy Daltrey Eric: there are loads of things that appear "natural", the blind pursuit of power for its own sake, gluttony, rape, theft, murder...The goal is to distinguish what it is wise to pursue or foolish. It is nice to have cake, or sex, or money, but it shouldn't become your life's goal, and you should be able to be content without such things. Happiness is self sufficient and does not depend on externals.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 2:13pm

Jason Baker I find the Epicurean categorization of desires to have far more utility in pursuing happiness wisely.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 2:26pm

Jimmy Daltrey I don't see a conflict; here is Cassius Gaius Longinus <<I hope that people will understand that for all, cruelty exists in proportion to hatred, and goodness and clemency in proportion to love, and evil men most seek out and crave the things which accrue to good men. It's hard to persuade people that ‘the good is desirable for its own sake'; but it's both true and creditable that pleasure and tranquility are obtained by virtue, justice, and the good. Epicurus himself, from whom all your Catii and Amafinii take their leave as poor interpreters of his words, says ‘there is no living pleasantly without living a good and just life.'>>
Like · Reply · February 28 at 2:37pm

Eric 'Siggy' Scott Jason: " the standard of choosing is /anything/ that is natural for humans?"


Haha, it sure would be, if the discussion stopped there. The Stoics had as much to say about what they meant (and did not mean) by "natural" as the Epicureans did, however.


Jimmy: 'there are loads of things that appear "natural"'


Indeed there are. But we're talking specifically about the Stoic view of ethics. Clearly they considered "gluttony, rape," etc, to be well outside the bounds of what is healthy or "natural" for humans.


"Happiness is self sufficient and does not depend on externals."


Of course. That's the definition of the Stoic position!


But virtue *does* require us to choose to manipulate externals in certain ways. That's why the Stoics were so critical of Aristo and the Cynics.


For instance, Seneca and Epictetus both admonish us to keep our bodies clean. To choose otherwise would be unnatural, and therefore vicious.


Of course, whether our bodies are clean is outside our sphere of control. But the *choice* to make an attempt to be clean is within our power. Being clean thus has "selective value," or is "to be promoted."


My point is that "optional" isn't quite the right word to describe the Stoic view of preferred externals.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 4:02pm · Edited

Jason Baker Well since we're talking about pleasure and not sanitation, let's quote-mine the stacks.


From Plutarch: "For example, Epicurus says that pleasure is good, whereas Antisthenes who said "I'd rather go mad than feel pleasure" thinks it is bad. And the Stoics say that pleasure is indifferent and not preferred, but Cleanthes held that it is not natural and does not have value in life, but, like a makeup brush, it is not natural. Archedemus says that it is natural in the way that armpit hairs are natural but does not have value; and Panaetius says that one kind of pleasure is natural and another kind is unnatural."
Like · Reply · February 28 at 4:33pm

Jimmy Daltrey Jason, indifferents can be preferred (ice cream) or unpreferred (sweaty bum). In either case neither has direct bearing on one's ability to make wise or foolish choices, which are good and bad respectively.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 4:41pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus My list of quotes of the Stoics on Pleasure - Here's just a single one from Epictetus. Yes the main distinction is that the Stoics insist that virtue is the goal and not pleasure, but I'd submit that it is impossible to read what the Stoics wrote and conclude as a practical matter that pleasure should not be avoided, and not something a wise man would allow himself to experience when there is a way around it:


“When you receive an impression of some pleasure, as with others, watch yourself, not to be carried off by it; however let it wait upon your business, and get some delay for yourself. Next remember both the times, when you will enjoy the pleasure, and when having enjoyed it later you will repent and reproach yourself; and against these refraining how much you will be glad and commend yourself. But if an opportunity appears to you to engage in the action, be sure you are not overcome by its softness and pleasure and attraction; but set against it, how much better is the awareness for yourself to have won a victory over it.” Epictetus, Enchridion


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…5sMUSUGROkd0y3I

The Stoics On Pleasure
(Note: See also this Epicurean v Stoic comparison chart.) The following is a list of quotations from (or…
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · February 27 at 5:53pm

Hide 51 Replies

Alexander Rios Wow!


Like · Reply · 1 · February 27 at 6:53pm

Jimmy Daltrey I think anger, complaining and fear get worse press. Are they talking about physical or mental pleasures? Is this blind lust or chocolate chip cookies? It's hard to judge without the context. They clearly appear to be saying that pleasure isn't necessary to live a good life, but that must depend on how you see good. Is someone who sacrifices their own pleasures to look after a sick parent leading a good or a bad life? Who is the better person a political prisoner in North Korea or Kim Jong Un? I don't see the point of sacrificing pleasure unless for a greater good.
Like · Reply · February 27 at 7:34pm

Jimmy Daltrey If you have no greater good, pleasure seems logical, but people join the army to probably get killed. Tricky...
Like · Reply · February 27 at 7:36pm

Jimmy Daltrey Why resist a tyrant? It would have been easier to collaborate with Hitler or Stalin but people didn't. I'm thinking of the French resistance, Greek too thinking about It.
Like · Reply · February 27 at 7:40pm

Jimmy Daltrey Are the Stoics more military minded than the Epicureans? Duty, virtue, eschewing pleasure? What would an Epicurean do if invaded? Fight or take to the hills?
Like · Reply · February 27 at 7:51pm

Cassius Amicus None of this is "tricky" at all. If someone wants to live pleasurably that means doing what it takes to achieve that, and that means considering all of the mental and physical ramifications of all choices and acting on that calculation. Sure the calculation can get complicated, but the general principle of the calculation that pleasurable living is the goal is very simple. And Epicurus was very clear that fighting or ANY response to protect oneself is proper - it is only stoics/idealists who insist that there is an absolute list of dos and donts
Like · Reply · February 28 at 7:34am

Jimmy Daltrey Are you confusing virtue ethics with deontology? The Stoics have "be wise" and that is it. What is wise in one set of circumstances may be foolish in another so constant understanding. and calculation is required. The notion of commandments and moral absolutes would be alien to the philosophies of the period. Those would be more legal concerns imposed by the State.
Like · Reply · February 28 at 11:33am · Edited

Jason Baker Virtue ethics and deontology are often cast as being in opposition to one another, but they both are predicated on the premise of "performing" according to some standard. One must measure oneself against that standard in order to determine if one is "acting" according to nature.


I'm not an actor in anyone's play.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · February 28 at 12:12pm

Jimmy Daltrey I'm confused now. Epicurus had exactly the same set of virtues, but they are a means to happiness rather than an end in themselves. So an Epicurean and a Stoic would act similarly in a given situation, both relying on wisdom, courage, prudence, moderation to guide their judgement. Surely?
Like · Reply · February 28 at 1:58pm

Jason Baker Jimmy Daltrey Given a comparison of the extant literature and the lives of the various proponents of the two schools as examples, I'm confident in concluding that this is not the case. I'm not certain how similarities can be drawn at all. This tendency of MoStos to smooth over the differences, when ancient stoics not only couldn't but refused to reconcile the two, appears to me to be mere eclecticism.


We're treading on Scottish ground, but can a cafeteria Christian be considered a real Christian if they don't have fellowship or doctrine? I don't see why the same sort of criticism can't be applied elsewhere. What point is there to have different words for things if the meanings attached to them don't matter?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · February 28 at 2:51pm

Jimmy Daltrey I posted this on the other thread; Cassius Gaius Longinus; I hope that people will understand that for all, cruelty exists in proportion to hatred, and goodness and clemency in proportion to love, and evil men most seek out and crave the things which a...See More
Like · Reply · February 28 at 2:54pm

Jimmy Daltrey When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this 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, for it teaches that we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them." Letter to Menoeceus"
Like · Reply · February 28 at 3:07pm

Cassius Amicus "Living for virtue" is a totally empty definition because there is no reliable way to determine whether an action is "virtuous" or not without examining the goal of the action, and there is no way to validate that goal personally - the goal is all a ma...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 1 at 6:53pm

Jimmy Daltrey "Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom"
Like · Reply · March 1 at 8:46pm

Jimmy Daltrey Pleasures of the mind are greater than the pleasures of the flesh and what greater pleasure of the mind than wisdom?
Like · Reply · March 1 at 8:51pm

Cassius Amicus “If then we observe that ignorance and error reduce the whole of life to confusion, while Wisdom alone is able to protect us from the onslaughts of appetite and the menaces of fear, teaching us to bear even the affronts of fortune with moderation, and showing us all the paths that lead to calmness and to peace, why should we hesitate to avow that Wisdom is to be desired for the sake of the pleasure it brings, and Folly to be avoided because of its injurious consequences?”
Like · Reply · 3 · March 1 at 9:14pm

Jimmy Daltrey Exactly
Like · Reply · March 2 at 4:55am

Cassius Amicus Exactly? "Wisdom" is not a pleasure in itself. Wisdom is desirable only because it BRINGS pleasure.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 4:58am

Jimmy Daltrey The distinction is fine, Wisdom is essential for pleasure " For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them" it's symbiotic.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 5:16am

Jimmy Daltrey I'm trying to think of a mental pleasure that would not fall under the rubric of "wisdom" or in fact a physical pleasure which is not enjoyed wisely.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 5:51am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this 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, for it teaches that we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them."
Like · Reply · March 2 at 5:52am

Elli Pensa Wisdom for the sake of wisdom is not an epicurean issue. Because Epicurus does not speak in his letter to Menoeceus for wisdom as a universal thing that is leading you to a leader, or a savior or a god. Epicurus speaks for personal PRUDENCE and the sober calculation and this is an achievement OF A PERSON who measures among pleasure and pain prudently and wisely. And prudence comes after the exercising and the personal experiences of the person, of where are his/hers personal limits of what is pleasurable, what is painful , what is beneficial and what is not beneficial.

Senses, anticipations and emotions of pleasure and pain are the criteria of truth of the Epicurean Canon and usally is used by prudent persons.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 7:44am

Jimmy Daltrey Who is talking of leaders or saviors or gods? We are talking about exercising one's will, making practical real world judgements in the light of experience. Did a Christian come in somewhere?
Like · Reply · March 2 at 9:51am · Edited

Jason Baker Jimmy, it seems to be a pattern where you take an aside as a direct challenge to you. Be aware that in rejecting Socratic dialogue, Epicureans illuminate their discourse with multiple explanations in order to make their meaning clear. Many paths to the...See More
Like · Reply · March 2 at 10:01am

Jimmy Daltrey I don't mean to be objectionable, I was just confused as to an apparent switch to a discussion on salvation and presumably a personal god. I do overthink things I admit. ?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 10:06am

Jason Baker Elli was pointing to the Canon, the criteria of truth in order that you might understand why wisdom isn't the telos. Using the criteria wisely leads you to the telos. We practice prudence because it is the surest way to have the confident expectation of future continuing pleasures. There's no other reason to be wise than to enjoy a life chock full of pleasures!


An insensible eternity awaits the atoms that make up our consciousness. Use them wisely, in order that you might not suffer unnecessarily in the short time you have!
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 10:19am

Cassius Amicus Jimmy Daltrey The distinction is "Fine"????? The distinction between a goal and and means is as big as a difference between a house and a hammer.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 11:10am

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I am presuming you are sincere in claiming that the distinction between wisdom and pleasure is "fine." I think we are also clearly stating that the difference between a goal and a means is huge, because a goal tells you where you want to go, and a means tells you nothing about that or how you are going to use it. So I ask this curiously and without sarcasm - what is it about that distinction that you find to be unclear or invalid? You certainly are not the only one who argues about this.....
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 11:14am · Edited

Elli Pensa Jason Baker
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 11:14am

Elli Pensa Jimmy Daltrey Wisdom for the sake of wisdom IS SIMILAR to that "Logos" and all these are leading to IDEALISM that is synonym with Religion.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 11:20am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey All I am saying is the difference is academic, or irrelevant in practical terms. If a wise person is happy, does it really matter if they are happy because they sought happiness or because they sought wisdom? We are agreed that wisdom is necessary for...See More
Like · Reply · March 2 at 11:51am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Thinking about it, Wisdom is prudent choice resulting in action, whereas pleasure is a passive internal state, so wisdom is more "real".
Like · Reply · March 2 at 11:54am

Jimmy Daltrey It is a very fine distinction...If i make only prudent decisions and undertake wise actions, how am in going to end up unhappy? Well at least less happy than if I took rash decisions and behaved foolishly?
Like · Reply · March 2 at 12:09pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Yes, wisdom is a so "real" thing. You feel it in your body when you're eating, drinking, sleeping, having sex etc Jimmy Daltrey you gave me an idea, when I am in the same room with my companion in life and sharing something with him, I will tell him : Let's eat the dish of wisdom or let's make a wisdom. Do you feel the wisdom ? HA HA
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 12:08pm

Jimmy Daltrey Of all this 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, for it teaches that we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 12:14pm

Jason Baker Jimmy Daltrey

You'll note, upon reading the whole Epicurean canon (as opposed to the Canon, which you should familiarize yourself with too) that greatest good is used on several occasions in reference to different things. This could be down to bad translation or context that we're missing.


The important thing to remember is that a lot of what Epicurus taught was in direct opposition to Platonism. Plato's greatest good was the Logos, something you couldn't achieve in life except obliquely through discourse and contemplation. Doesn't seem very wise to spend your life on something you can't experience directly.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 12:25pm

Jimmy Daltrey Jason Baker; Epicurus is clearly saying wisdom, (phronesis) is the greatest (megiston) good (agathon).
Like · Reply · March 2 at 1:41pm

Jimmy Daltrey Logos as divine wisdom is a lot later than Plato. First century AD, Philo, made famous by St John. It's a spiritual thing.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 1:43pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Jimmy Daltrey But he also said that "I do not think I could conceive of the good without the pleasures of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms" (fg. 67) .
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 1:46pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Nobody said it was unwise to enjoy yourself. However:we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 1:46pm

Cassius Amicus "Epicurus is clearly saying wisdom, (phronesis) is the greatest (megiston) good (agathon)." <<< Oh No No No!!! - the greatest TOOL is wisdom, but the REASON FOR wisdom is PLEASURE - "And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 1:56pm

Elli Pensa Doctrine 10. If those things which debauched men consider pleasurable in fact put an end to the fears of the mind, and of the heavens, and of death, and of pain; and if those same pleasures taught us the natural limits of our desires, we would have no reason to blame those who devote themselves to such pursuits.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:00pm

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I am continuing to proceed in this conversation as to whether virtue is means or an end in itself on the presumption that you are here sincerely and not trolling. "Virtue is its own reward" is indeed what I was taught myself when I was young, an...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:00pm

Jimmy Daltrey Cassius Amicus: I'll back off if I'm annoying people. "Virtue is its own reward" is a Christian thing including faith, hope and charity (agape). Not at all Hellenic and a lot later. Anyway, we can close the subject.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 2:19pm

Cassius Amicus And the question of this distinction is of HUGE significance for this reason: We all individually have faculties of pain and pleasure which allow us to judge in our own cases what we find to be in our interest to live most pleasurably. But while we a...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:20pm

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I think you realize that we have problems here with people trolling. As long as you are sincere and courteous and respectful, and the others are to you, then as far as I am concerned this conversation can go on endlessly, because the truth is it...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:22pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Fair enough Cassius. I do get the impression I have walked into the middle of an ongoing row you have been having with Christians and Stoic trolls (which is deeply ironic) which must be annoying for you.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:36pm

Elli Pensa The stoics are never trolling when they support and defend their philosophy. Nature is trolling with them. HA
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 2 at 2:47pm

Cassius Amicus Well it can be annoying, Jimmy, but the core division issue is so interesting and so important that as new people come and go it will always be something that people bring up. A different aspect of the issue is that we don't want to always be in gladiator mode - for those who come here who are grounded in that issue, there are many more things to talk about that are equally or more interesting. There are a couple of lightning rod issues like this one that come up over and over, but we need to make sure that our posters keep a balance and that we generate content that appeals to our different segments.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 2 at 7:24pm

Cassius Amicus Jimmy we are very respectful of peoples' privacy and as long as the discussion is productive it doesn't matter where it comes from, but is there anything you can tell us about yourself that would help others key into your perspective? Are you a teacher/professor? A non-academic like a lot of us? General age and or info about what brings you here? If you can address any of that it might assist the conversations.
Like · Reply · March 2 at 7:27pm

Jimmy Daltrey I'm in the UK, in my fifties, just an interested amateur. Gave up being interested in politics because of the liars on all sides. Still learning ?

Ron Warrick March 3 at 3:13pm

FWIW, Wikipedia has an article on "Aversion to happiness", or cherophobia. Does this explain stoicism and/or resistance to Epicurean philosophy generally?

Cassius Amicus https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…qeFGIBmxL-vuQ68
Aversion to happiness - Wikipedia
Aversion to happiness, also called cherophobia[citation needed] or fear of happiness,[1] is an attitude towards happiness in which individuals may deliberately avoid experiences that invoke positive emotions or happiness.[2]
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 3 at 3:22pm

Cassius Amicus Looks like the ancient Epicureans had an opinion on this, from Torquatus: "“No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful."
Like · Reply · 3 · March 3 at 3:28pm

Ron Warrick They don't seem to even believe there is a "how".
Like · Reply · 1 · March 3 at 3:35pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus "There are four major reasons why happiness may be avoided by various people and cultures: "believing that being happy will provoke bad things to happen; that happiness will make you a worse person; that expressing happiness is bad for you and others; and that pursuing happiness is bad for you and others".[5]
Like · Reply · 2 · March 3 at 3:52pm

Elli Pensa :p :p

Like · Reply · 2 · March 3 at 4:56pm

Panos Alexiou Elder paisios is the epitome of the idiocy of the Orthodox viewpoint. Superstition, stupidity and misery.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 8:47am

Write a reply...

Forrest Young Stoicism does not avert happiness, it strives for happiness. The difference between Epicurean and Stoic philosophy on the attainment of happiness is Epicurean doctrine would have you strive for pleasures whereas Stoic doctrine would have you strive for virtues.


I personally have found collecting virtues to be far more fulfilling than experiencing pleasures. Pleasures are fleeting, virtues are everlasting.
Like · Reply · March 3 at 6:07pm

Ron Warrick Well, fulfillment is a form of pleasure. If you can maintain a life of predominantly fulfillment, you must be a pretty good pleasure-seeking Epicurean yourself!
Like · Reply · 1 · March 4 at 12:53am

Forrest Young I would agree. So many view Stoicism in opposition to Epicurean philosophy, but they are both seeking the same end. I believe Stoicism is more to the point, though. I believe it is readily apparent that pleasure ought to be sought and pain avoided, however this is quite vague and doesn't really lend itself to forming a sustainable well of happiness.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 3:05am · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Forrest Young " So many view Stoicism in opposition to Epicurean philosophy, but they are both seeking the same end. I believe Stoicism is more to the point, though." Oh good grief.


"" So many view Stoicism in opposition to Epicurean philosophy,"<< Starting primarily with the ancient Stoics, who knew that the two were irreconcilable and denounced Epicurus with all the anger they could muster, followed closely by the ancient Epicureans, who knew that Stoicism is essentially a living refutation of Nature's goal of the pursuit of pleasure. It took almost two thousand years before it became the world dumbed down enough where significant numbers of people started claiming them to be the same thing.


"but they are both seeking the same end." <<< And the reason that they are irreconcilable is that the authorities of both philosophies made clear that the end of Epicurean philosophy is plesasurable living, and the end of Stoic philosophy is virtue, which requires the suppression of pleasure."


"I believe Stoicism is more to the point, though." <<< And if you think so then please feel free to proclaim that to the world in the Stoic group of your choice.


Exactly why did you apply for membership in this group?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:24am · Edited

Forrest Young Please apply some logic which necessitates a virtuous life to suppress pleasure.


I applied because I am interested in all schools of philosophy and wish to better myself through comprehensive knowledge.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 4 at 6:31am

Forrest Young Personally, I believe goals are a construct of the mind and since Nature doesn't have a mind it would be inaccurate to assume that Nature has any goals. I believe Nature is a consequence of reality which has no goals tethered to it.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:33am

Cassius Amicus I have no idea what the first sentence means Forrest. ("Please apply som...._ Did you read the "about" post and the pinned post before applying? This group is Epicurean, not Stoic. If you want to discuss the differences between the two philosophies then we can do that, as it will be a constant topic. But the people here know that the two are not the same, and after a certain point with each person continuation to insist on that is going to end in removal from the group.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:34am

Forrest Young I'm not claiming the two philosophies are the same, only their end goal is the same, which is to attain happiness in life.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:35am

Cassius Amicus As to "goals" of Nature I don't necessarily disagree with that post. The point made by Epicurus is that pleasure and pain are the only faculties given the living things by Nature for the indication of what to choose and what to avoid. "Goals" is a word that has all sorts of connotations and certainly Nature didn't sit around listing out the "goals" of life in the twentieth century. It is mainly Platonists and other philosophic derivatives (like Stoicism) that seem to maintain that such lists exist.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:36am

Forrest Young I doubt I will be removed from the group because I am not acting in a manner which would ever suggest removal to be a necessary action. I am not belligerent and am merely expressing my own philosophical opinions.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:37am

Cassius Amicus "I'm not claiming the two philosophies are the same, only their end goal is the same, which is to attain happiness in life." <<< And that is exactly the point on which you are not only in disagreement with me, but with every authoritative Stoic and Epicurean who knew their phlosophies and ever lived.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:37am

Forrest Young Then to what end would you suggest they are hoping to attain?
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:38am

Cassius Amicus "I am not belligerent and am merely expressing my own philosophical opinions." <<< This group is not an open forum to express philosophic opinions as stated in the Description to the group.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:38am

Cassius Amicus The Stoics stated plainly that their goal is virtue. And the Epicureans stated plainly that their goal is pleasure. They both knew very well that pleasure and virtue are not the same. What is difficult about that?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:39am

Cassius Amicus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206173087469215&set=g.646764225372541&type=1&theater

‎Elli Pensa‎ to Epicurean PhilosophyMay 23, 2015 ·

I say both now, and always, shouting out loudly, to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the highest end of life !

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · March 4 at 6:41am

Forrest Young If open discussion of philosophical ideas isn't welcomed, I will gladly remove myself from the group.


"These four definitions or descriptions of passion are in agreement though each emphasizes a different aspect of passion. For example, grief over lost or stolen property is considered a passion, a species of distress. Since the object of concern (the stolen property) is in truth of no moral worth (indifferent), for it is only our virtuous response to the situation that qualifies as morally good or bad, the impulse identified with the grief is excessive (1). Since we do not heed reason which would tell us that happiness lies in virtue alone, it is also an impulse disobedient to reason (2). Likewise, since the value attributed to an object does not represent its true worth, it is a false judgement (3). Finally, the distress which we experience in the grief manifests itself not as a smooth calm state but as a fluttering or disturbance in our soul (4).


According to Stoic ethics, only virtues are truly good, whereas externals such as wealth, honor, power, and pleasure are indifferent to our happiness since each can also harm us and each ultimately lies beyond our control. These externals then are said to be morally "indifferent" (adiaphoron). When we mistakenly value something indifferent as though it were a genuine good, we form a false judgement and experience passion."


-https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…QuOP5YLq0QBLnQk


Yeah, happiness has nothing to do with Stoicism whatsoever.

Stoic Philosophy of Mind | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
IEP.UTM.EDU

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 4 at 6:47am

Matt Jackson Claiming that virtues are superior to pleasure is a really hard sell here. I find that many virtues are abstract and can't be stored up. You are either honest or courageous by nature, you don't put those things on like a jacket and wear it. You either are a certain nature or you aren't. Abstractions aren't all that satisfying.


Pleasure on the other hand is. Physical pleasures and mental pleasures are all there is in life.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:52am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Yes, happiness has nothing to do with Stoicism whatsover, I repeat. That selection shows clearly that (1) the goal of stoicism is "virtue", and (2) "happiness" has nothing to do with pleasure.


If stoics want to define happiness as something that lies in virtue alone, regardless of pleasure, then let them, but that is not the way people who are in tune with nature think, and it is actually a perversion of Nature.


Beyond Good And Evil, (Gutenberg edition, translated by Helen Zimmern) Chapter 1, section 9


You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 4 at 6:51am

Forrest Young The goal of Stoicism is happiness, and the engine which they believe allows happiness is virtue.


I am not trying to sell one as superior to the other. Virtues allow a sustained state of pleasure.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:51am

Cassius Amicus And the problem there is that "happiness" becomes a weasel word for a concept that no ordinary person would recognize as a state of pleasurable living. Trying to sell the two as the same thing deserves just the label of "Fraud" that Nietzsche assigned to it.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:54am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Please provide an authoritative ancient Stoic quote to support this: "The goal of Stoicism is happiness" < They knew better than to make this mistake.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 6:55am · Edited

Forrest Young I live as closely as I am able to Stoic doctrine and I can assure you I am not living in tyranny. Believe what you like and live in a manner which allows you to be happy. Stoicism has allowed this for me. I'm happy that Epicureanism has allowed this for you.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:55am

Cassius Amicus Please provide an authoritative ancient Stoic quote to support this: "The goal of Stoicism is happiness" < They knew better than to make this mistake.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 4 at 6:55am

Cassius Amicus If you are happy Forrest Young in any recognizable sense of that word then your happiness has nothing to do with Stoicism.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:56am

Forrest Young Cassius, you are a fool and I refuse to engage you any longer. You completely miss the point of philosophy in the first place if you are able to unapologetically sit there and make claims about my personal relationship with the ideas of my reality.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:58am

Cassius Amicus Removed from the group....
Like · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 6:58am

Forrest Young Reflection of living with virtuous character provides me with happiness. You cannot possibly deny how I feel.
Like · Reply · March 4 at 6:59am

Elli Pensa Forrest Young wrote <<For example, grief over lost or stolen property is considered a passion, a species of distress. Since the object of concern (the stolen property) is in truth of no moral worth (indifferent).>>


The WHAT ? If someone would grab your land that is needed to cultivate it for feeding your children and your family...or you have built your home on it...You say that is not a virtue to feel sad (pain) for this, and just doing something to take it back and to feel pleasure again with your family??

-----------------------------------------------------


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.(Epicurus epistle to Meneoceus)
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 4 at 7:00am

Cassius Amicus "Reflection of living with virtuous character provides me with happiness. You cannot possibly deny how I feel." <<< Another statement unsupportable by authoritative stoicism. The founders/leaders of stoicism made clear that their goal was virtue and not happiness. If this were a Stoic group he would probably have been removed even sooner, for heresy to stoicism
Like · Reply · 1 · March 4 at 7:02am

Cassius Amicus Another major issue here which we never got around to addressing is the problem that arises from failing to define "happiness" clearly. That's a stumbling block in discussing things with Aristotelians as well because that is where the real differences between Aristotelian and Epicurean ethics come to light. What is "happiness" has to be considered first.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 7:04am

Elli Pensa The sad thing is that the stoical indifference is not only for their property. THEIR INDIFFERENCE GOES FOR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS too. Because if there would be a case to lost someone ..THEY WILL BE INDIFFERENT, because this is VIRTUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 7:06am · Edited

Matt Jackson Virtues are relative too. What is "good" to say a jihadist is not to others who find their definition of good twisted. So it's impossible to define a universal virtue across all cultures and situations. Whereas pain and pleasure are defined by nature.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 9:05am

Cassius Amicus Matt I don't think there is anything more key than that observation. And Epicurus saw it too and it's the real basis of the ethics without which none of the rest of it makes sense.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 9:25am

Cassius Amicus And of course when you talk about the defining of the goal you are talking about epistemology, which is why pain and pleasure are key primary components of the Epicurean canon, while "logic" is not. Logic is useless without the direction set by pleasure and pain.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 4 at 9:33am

Elli Pensa Fg. 70.Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!


Fg. 116. I summon you to sustained pleasures and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have.


====>Epicurus<====

Shana HT March 5 at 5:37pm Tell me about Epicurean self sufficiency. Something I can read that isn't too difficult to digest. I'm not a scholar by any means, just curious about different philosophies.

Comments

Hiram Crespo https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…Hx62GcWIDslsDu0

On Philodemus’ Art of Property Management (Part I)
SOCIETYOFEPICURUS.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 5 at 5:40pm

Shana HT I read this and it totally confused me, where is the pleasure in this?


For the Epicurean sage, self-sufficiency is a virtue produced by prudence and by understanding that “poor is not the one who possesses little but the one who desires more”, since “nothing is enough to someone for whom enough is little”. According to the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, the virtue of self-sufficiency is the opposite of greed.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 5:41pm

Hiram Crespo It is not clear to me how this is confusing.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:42pm

Shana HT how is it pleasure? prudence? virtue? how does Epicurian associate those with pleasure?
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:29pm

Todd Gibson Shana HT The Philodemus text is dealing specifically with economic self-sufficiency, which may or may not be the kind of self-sufficiency you have in mind.


Economic self-sufficiency is not equated with pleasure - in fact the acquisition and management of wealth is more often a source of pain. Hence Epicurus' advice to avoid seeking great wealth.


On the other hand, a certain amount of wealth is beneficial in that it affords one the freedom to pursue pleasure without the constraints that would be imposed by excessive reliance on others to provide for one's basic needs.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 8:46pm · Edited

Hiram Crespo If you read all the way to the seven principles of autarchy at the conclusion of the reasonings you will see advise for balancing pleasure and wealth (delegate duties, earn rental income and other productive assets so that you do not have to work as much and have time for leisure) and also how association in labor is important. Working with close friends is ideal. Working withco workers or a boss who has a bad attitude can be disastrous to morale and happiness.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 8:09am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Shana also this is where the model of "the gods" come in. Someone who is perfectly self-sufficient causes no one any trouble nor shows gratitude or envy or the like. The main quote there about a totally self-sufficient being is:


"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.”


And there are other quotes......
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:54pm

Cassius Amicus This is the model - PD1 - The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:55pm

Cassius Amicus Epicurus’ life when compared to other men’s in respect of gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:55pm

Cassius Amicus Then VS 44 and 45 = 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.


The study of nature does not make men productive of boasting or bragging nor apt to display that culture which is the object of rivalry with the many, but high-spirited and self-sufficient, taking pride in the good things of their own minds and not of their circumstances.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:55pm

Cassius Amicus So with those as background can you clarify your question Shana HT ?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:57pm · Edited

Alexander Rios Self-sufficiency. Independence and freedom.


Freedom from an inescapable Fate, proved by showing that most events in our life are a consequence of our own choices and avoidances (decision making).


Freedom from the ravages of Fortune, by use of prudence, physics, use of future planning, saving for rainy days, reasoning about consequences.


Freedom from Death, by showing that we cannot experience our own death state.


Freedom from the gods, by demonstrating that the gods do not interact with us, need not from us, and that they are maximally happy.


Freedom from unlimited desires, by showing that the soul (nervous system) can live a happy life by satisfying those bodily desires that are both necessary and natural (avoiding cultural, or religious, or mobbish, or artificial goals actually removes constraints that limit us).


Freedom from being deceived, by pointing out that we have the faculties that we need to navigate this earth, as Nature has fine tuned our human nature to be adapted to our environment.


Freedom from poor use of imagination (and speculations over logic), by explaining how it, and dreams and "visions" work, and how they fail to be reliable.


We are free from many constraints and are tuned by Nature to find what we need. Being self sufficient is easy, as long as we do avoid falling into vanities.


See Epicurus' letters.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 5 at 9:01pm · Edited

Alexander Rios

Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 6:25pm

Ilkka Vuoristo Self-sufficiency in the Epicurean Philosophy has the meaning that you -- the individual human -- have the power to achieve a happy life with your actions.
Like · Reply · 4 · March 5 at 7:58pm

Cassius Amicus I agree with the clear meaning of what Ilkka wrote - that we have the "power" to achieve a happy life, but I would clarify "power" in the sense of "capability" because of course not everyone, because of circumstances beyond their control, will be able to achieve the goal of happy living over a normal life span. Some will, and some won't, but at least in many situations we have the power to make choices that will effect our outcomes. A big distinction here is that the determinists give no people any ability whatsoever to effect their own course in life, and hold everything to be beyond human control.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:17pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus In followup to Ilkka Vuoristo and my point that we are ABLE to live happily, but aren't guaranteed to succeed, here's my opportunity to quote Virgil! And darn if almost every cite on the internet cuts out a lot of the most important part of the quote!!! Anyway, here's my pig Latin translation of what ought to be one of the most famous lines of Virgil poetry, which the experts say was intended to refer to Lucretius, but might even refer to Epicurus himself:


"Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, (THE INTERNET STOPS HERE!! but it continues )..... atque metus omnis et inexorable fatum subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acheronis avari"


"Happy was he who was able to know the causes of things....

and more, all terrors and inexorable fate he trampled, along with the roar of greedy Acheron!"


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…haF4aCnsEfe4gvg
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:28pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus An example of how Wikiquote (and especially John Dryden) strips Epicurean meaning from the quote ----

Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:30pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus

March 5 at 10:36am

For those here who contend that there is some goal in life higher or in any way more important than pleasurable living, may I ask you to explain what you think that goal is, and why? And if you generally agree that pleasurable living is the goal, but you feel uncomfortable with the term "pleasure" and you prefer the word "happiness," why is that, and what do you mean by a happiness that is not pleasurable?

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

11Elli Pensa, Haris Dimitriadis and 9 others

Comments

James Epic My goal is included in pleasurable living. My goal is to spread the idea of kindness and compassion to others. To be a good steward of my environment and leave it in a better condition than what it was. This brings a long-term pleasure to my life.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:51am

Hide 15 Replies

Jason Baker To me, all of those things are instrumental to living pleasurably, not goals in themselves. I cannot live a pleasant life if I'm cocking up my immediate surroundings with garbage and poor stewardship.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 10:58am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Agreed Jason. WHY do you spread kindness and compassion James Epic? Presumably because this gives you a mental pleasure because you have established mentally that this is your goal and you are achieving it? Or do you get direct mental pleasure from spreading kindness to people who hate you, as I referred to in the accompanying question? And if you are selective about who you spread kindness to, then are you not directly spreading kindness for the pleasure it brings?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:01am

James Epic I may have several meanings for environment. One meaning being kind to others and not aggressing upon them. If the "room" is gloomy and dark, I make the effort to be the light. You can't, but I would imagine others wouldn't necessarily be displeased with a dirty environment.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:03am

James Epic I'd say that being kind and compassionate to those that hate you, instead of harboring within yourself disdain and hate for them as well, brings more mental tranquility and pleasure to your brain than otherwise. It'd be like holding a hot stone to cast at your enemy. You may or may not hit them, but you're the one getting burned. This is not to be confused with actual self-defense and preservation.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:17am

Ron Warrick Can something which is "included" in something else be greater than that something?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 11:30am

James Epic Probably not, but would there a difference to be gaining pleasure from what I stated, and possibly something darker and negative? I guess that would be where society decides and philosophers discuss.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:32am

Cassius Amicus "I guess that would be where society decides and philosophers discuss." << but up to ordinary mortals like us to decide and implement in our daily lives....
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:42am

James Epic I'm talking about things like murder and sanctioned murder by state for example. Society has deemed it immoral to murder a fellow citizen for a non-violent reason, but approves the murder of non-citizens under a different banner. That's just one example. I do agree, we implement it in our lives, irregardless of what society currently approves of or not. Just that society is not uninvolved in our actions.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:45am

Cassius Amicus Yes absolutely. People generally talk about Epicurean theory on a pretty abstract level, but the last 10 of the Principal Doctrines are very specific as to the nature of justice, and very controversial. Lots of people who think that they can live with Epicurean goals by calling it "happiness" recoil in horror at the principles of "there is no absolute justice" in the last ten Doctrines.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:47am

Ron Warrick James Epic "Probably not, but would there a difference to be gaining pleasure from what I stated, and possibly something darker and negative?"


Now you are changing the subject from ends to means. Generally, Epicurus's philosophy is that seriously anti-social behavior is incompatible with pleasure.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 12:09pm

James Epic But what is anti-social today may not be anti-social tomorrow? That's where the discussion happens, no?
Like · Reply · March 5 at 12:12pm

Cassius Amicus I am not sure I understand fully Ron's comment, but I agree with him if he means this: that "generally" anti-social behavior is incompatible with pleasure because *generally* it is going to spur a reaction from those affected to "get back" at you for that behavior. That is the principle stated in several parts of the texts and the point is that there is no absolute justice. So as is stated in PD 38, exactly as James Epic states, what is considered just (social) or unjust (anti-social) can and will change over time. I am very confident that Cassius Longinus understood his Epicruean philosophy, and he found no issue with asassination and revolution under the right circumstances (in fact he probably believed it was the logical conclusion of applying his philosophy to the circumstances)
Like · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 3:36pm

Cassius Amicus The point being that because the universe consists of atoms and void constantly moving, and because there is no supernatural god, there is no absolute source of perspective or guidance from which it is possible to say that there are absolute ethical laws, which leaves us the constant in human existence that nature gave us pleasure and pain for the practical determination of what is "good" and "bad" for us. The error thus to be avoided is idealism / absolutism to think in accord with Cicero that there is one universal law controlling all people at all times and all places (and in his view enforced by god).
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 3:38pm

Neo Anderthal Cassius Amicus Absolute justice can be theoretically considered to be the truth of consciousness stripped bare of all its illusions. There can be no absolute justice in illusions (of any kind). Pleasure,happiness,love and tranquility is TRUTH.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 12:49am · Edited

Ron Warrick James Epic "But what is anti-social today may not be anti-social tomorrow?" Yes, and it varies from place to place and within places as well. I suspect that one of the reasons Epicurus seemed to recommend keeping our affairs as close to home as possible was to be free to make our social milieu compatible with our desires.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 1:04am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus And when those goals conflict, James Epic, how do you resolve the conflict? When someone you wish to spread kindness and compassion to rejects it and returns violence against you in its place, what do you do? When your goal of being "a good steward of your environment" by spending your money toward that goal conflicts with spending your money for the health of your wife and children, which do you choose?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 10:58am

James Epic My wife and children would be included in my environment. If someone rejects it, all you can do is plant the seed and walk away.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:04am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Also Matthew, you state that you do these things for the "long term pleasure it brings to your life." Absolutely in accord with Epicurean thinking, so long as that is indeed the reason you are doing them, and you have selected these goals through that very calculus of bringing more pleasure than pain. Would you dispute with someone however who was totally introverted and found no pleasure in spreading kindness and compassion to others?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:03am

James Epic I would discuss with them and make the case. If they chose not to agree with me, I'd respect that.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:08am

Write a reply...

Dima Meikler Since there is no reliable way to establish what goal it is and if objective goal even exist one must set one for himself.

I think that a good goal can be being the best version of yourself you can. This includes but not limited to experiencing pleasure. It's biologically impossible to experience pleasure all the time without dealing massive chemical damage to your body (at least before the trans humanism stage).
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:04am

Cassius Amicus So as stated by James Epic he is not disputing that pleasurable living is the goal, he simply wants to make sure it is understood that helping others can bring pleasure too. Correct Matthew?
Like · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 11:04am

James Epic Yes, for me it brings pleasure. You asked in regards to people's opinions on goals in life. I stated the above as offshoots to my pleasure. Others may not agree with what brings me pleasure.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:05am

Cassius Amicus James Epic but if it in fact brings you pleasure then I would not let anyone else argue with me, and I would cite Epicurus' PD10 among others for the proposition that whatever in fact brings pleasure is a natural good. "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."
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:07am

James Epic What do you mean by not letting anyone argue with me? Like speech censor? If not through argument, how would I get my point of view across to them? Or do you mean that if someone gains pleasure from what I disagree with, I shouldn't share my pov on it but let them go on doing what they're doing, even if delusion is possible involved?
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:11am · Edited

Michael Carteron What about those like Marquis de Sade who have gained pleasure from inflicting pain? I think we need to make a note of Epicurean justice here.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 12:22pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus James Epic No i did not mean speech censor, I was using the colloquial expression for considering such speech to be nonsense and rejecting it, not suppressing it.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 3:39pm

Cassius Amicus Michael Carteron yes indeed there are those who get pleasure from inflicting pain, and if we who wish to live our lives happily want to continue doing so then we put the hammer down on that person in any way possible. See PD 6 and from Torquatus: "“Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more, so much so that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation."
Like · Reply · March 5 at 3:41pm

Michael Carteron Yes. De Sade claimed people such as him should be free do as they please, and there is no objective morality stopping them. Yet this contradicts itself, for others will "do as they please" also through restraining him for their own sake, and who is he to ever call it wrong by his own philosophy?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 3:45pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus OK Dima Meikler steps up to the bar. WHY Dima would you chose some other goal - for what motivating factor?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:05am

Dima Meikler I know that your looking for me to answer "pleasure". But this would be arguing over semantics of how pleasure is defined. I understand pleasure as the positive bodily feedback you get from doing things you are programmed to like by evolution.

Experie...See More
Like · Reply · March 5 at 1:02pm

Cassius Amicus I agree with most all you wrote until the last sentence, which drops the context you established previously. Yes the brain is wired to embrace pleasure and avoid pain. And so **based on that wiring** the only logical and natural course is to choose a life goal that produces the greatest pleasure and the least pain. To choose any other life goal, given this context, is unnatural and illogical.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 3:42pm

Dima Meikler I don't think that there is a logical and natural goal, if there were everyone would agree on it. Come to think of it life has only one natural inevitable goal - death.

So we shouldn't talk about a goal but rather about the process. Minimising pain and maximising pleasure during this process should be the natural automatic tendency of all biological being but as humans we transended into this more complicated stage where it's not clear what is pleasure and what is pain. Is running a marathon pleasurable or uncomfortable? Are long months of exercising your will to train and doing the hard run itself while experiencing discomfort worth the pleasure of achiving the goal of finishing? Some will say that finishing is so plesurable it's worth it. But why? Does the feeling of victory lasts for the same time as the pain of preparation? Or does the memory of achievement lasts forever? And what if you fail or get amnesia, etc. It's too subjective.

What is clear is that sometimes exercising will and reason and submitting to discomfort or sacrificing for a higher goal can lead to satisfaction. But is it really pleasure? Is having a threesome is as pleasurable as the satisfaction of being a national hero that died in a tragic way for example? Who knows...
Like · Reply · March 6 at 1:34am · Edited

Write a reply...

James Epic What a great question op! I'm curious as to your view on this quote, "And if that seems desirable to you which costs another pain or sorrow, cast it out of your heart; so shall you attain to peace. Better it is to endure sorrow, than to inflict it on those who are weaker." Does this conflict with Epicureanism?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:27am

Cassius Amicus Yes, James Epic, as broadly worded as that is, I do believe that Epicurus would disagree. The problem is its broadness. It is the foundation of Epicurean justice that the wise man will not do violence to his neighbor, but for the specific reason that his neighbor or his neighbor's friends will in the end retaliate, and one can never be sure of safety after doing something like that. But that is a practical reason, and if in fact violence were to lead to a happy life, violence would be acceptable in that person's life.


The overbroadness of this statement can easily be seen by the fact that we readily do violence to those who would do violence to us in order to protect ourselves, yet in that instance we believe that "costing another pain or sorrow" is fully justified.


So as Epicurus advised, justice must be evaluated in the context of the particular people involved, and statements like the one you listed are dangerous because the obscure the guiding principle, which is pleasurable living for ourselves and those who are our friends.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:40am

Cassius Amicus And I actually focused only on the first sentence of your passage. As for this one Better it is to endure sorrow, than to inflict it on those who are weaker." then what i said I think applies with even greater force.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:41am · Edited

James Epic Thanks, I came to a similar conclusion. That it needs to be clarified. For example, if you want to trade 20 silver coins for my boat, and I refuse you, I've in turn created sorrow in you.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:42am

Cassius Amicus Right - "pain" and "pleasure" are VERY broad terms, and certainly include mental pain and pleasure and not just physical pain and pleasure. So the point of this original post is to sort out whether anyone other than religionists seriously contends tha...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:45am

Michael Carteron Even "doing what God wants" always comes down to pain vs. pleasure. Do what he wants and your reward will then be the ultimate pleasure. Do what he doesn't want? An ultimate pain.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 12:24pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Yes I agree Michael, but I am not sure that applies across the board to all religions (?). It certainly applies to the sort of Christianity I am most familiar with, but I am not at all sure that it applies to eastern religions that seem to promote nothingness or ideals quite different from personal pleasure
Like · Reply · March 5 at 3:43pm

Michael Carteron I can't claim familiarity with all religions of course. However it seems that Buddhism for instance promotes release from the world as it claims this is suffering. The similarity between ataraxia and nirvana is claimed by some.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 3:46pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus I am going to be away for a while now but I welcome other responses. My goal here is not to look for takers to start an argument, but to get sincere, cogently stated objections from people in 2017 who are reading the internet. It helps all of us to know what people today are thinking and not just presume that the old debates from 2000 years ago would be argued on the same terms.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:44am

Christos Tsigaridas Most of the people THINK that "happiness" has a HOLY (RELIGIOUS) aspect and pleasure has a lot to do with SEXUALITY Imagine if there was NO PLEASURE in sex ? PLATONIC LOVE is "happiness" but not pleasure And without pleasure no reproduction We would not be here IF was not pleasure and what LIFE is if you don't have "PLEASURE" ? If you don't have SEX ?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 12:22pm · Edited

Matt Jackson I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks of the acceptance of pleasure is the idealism that comes from abstract ideas i.e. belief that the world is crude and corrupt and the soul is pure etc. this has a very Gnostic and Neoplatonist flavor. Sex and other pleasures become part of the corrupt world and are avoided.


Christos, brings up a good point about "holiness." There is a sort of "virtuous" conception of holiness especially among people of Christian background. It's a corruption of the original idea due to early philosophical synthesis with Christian theology. An examination of the earlier Semitic scripture shows that originally "holy" or "qodesh" meant something separate belonging unto a deity. It is almost entirely materialistic and hardly ever used in an abstract sense. Sex and pleasurable activities are acceptable and promoted given that they are lawful...there is no edict that man should avoid pleasure just as long as they fit into the many societal laws (often deity ordained.) Certain characters such as David is a blood thirsty warlord that womanizes yet he is also considered righteous or "qodesh" just as the austere Daniel or Elijah are also holy, though they lived very different types of lives. It has more to do with their relationship with a deity than it does with an abstract virtue. It isn't until much later in the Christian Era that Platonic abstract virtues become things to strive for, rejection of the physical world and awaiting the apocalyptic World to Come. But we must see that the original idea of holiness wasn't abstract. It was physical, it was holy as long as it belonged to the deity or was important to the worship of the deity. The deity made it holy. Holiness depends on the presence of deity. It doesn't stand alone as a virtue of its own. That idea came much later.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 5 at 1:52pm

Hide 23 Replies

James Epic I can think of a number of reasons why sex is not pleasurable, that has no connection with pureness of soul.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 2:01pm

Jason Baker Well James Epic, don't be a tease, complete your thought.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 2:08pm · Edited

Jason Baker Matt Jackson, don't answer for him. He made the claim, he has the burden of explaining it. He didn't say rape, he said sex without any adjectives or modifiers.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 2:06pm

Matt Jackson My main point was basically bouncing off of Christos that what most people consider "holy" i.e. virtuous in relation to purity of soul, by abstaining from physical things and denying pleasure simply has no real basis in early religion and has more to do with later abstractions.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 2:08pm

James Epic Haha I was thinking along the lines of STD's, potential child entrapment, jealousy, zombie brain, control/seduction, false rape accusations, time wasting, desire for it after it's removed etc. You did mention though that a lot of these can be avoided with "proper" intercourse, though some still exist with that
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 2:09pm

James Epic Let's not forget performance anxiety.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 2:11pm

Matt Jackson Lol!
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 2:15pm

Jason Baker Why would you, pardon my crudeness, dip your wick in someone who would cause you this sort of suffering? Take it in hand if you can't find a partner with compatible outlook and goals as yourself. Sex is a natural but unnecessary desire, pursuing it to the detriment of your health, physical and emotional is a serious miscalculation.


Sex isn't the problem, it's not taking care of yourself that is the problem. The fact that you have confused sex with the behaviors that accompany it in the uninformed and profligate don't make sex a problem. Can you see where I'm going with this?


"There's a process of befriending the self which is needed to declare the commitment to Epicureanism, which includes being considerate for the future self." - Hiram Crespo
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 3:29pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Jason Baker Hey that's a good quote from Hiram - never seen that but it is good!
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 3:45pm

James Epic Jason Baker I understand where you are going. A lot of those risks can happen as a result of deceit. Not only deceit, but the partner you've decided to mate with who was once an angel, can change into a devil.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 4:05pm

Jason Baker Lucretius has some words that might be helpful to remember when letting oneself be seduced by angels; "et miseram taetris se suffit odoribus ipsa."
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 4:24pm

Matt Jackson So speaking of angels and devils, the point of my post was to illustrate that the common idea of holiness is removed from its original Semitic connotation. Without a deity, holiness is nothing. If you wanted to try to attach holiness to some abstract virtue then you are free to, but it renders it meaningless.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 4:30pm

Matt Jackson It's the equivalent of an atheistic Christianity, that Jesus was not a divine being but just a good mortal, moral teacher. It doesn't really make sense without the majestic God behind him. If he wasn't who he said he was, like St. Paul says himself, he was a babbling liar. So actually NOT a good teacher.


So no deity no righteousness and no holiness. You now have to create some universal standard by which abstract virtues can exist independently across all cultures.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 4:43pm

James Epic Matt Jackson I see what you're saying. The Gospel I follow doesn't claim that Jesus was the son of God, but a son of God. A messenger not cloaked in divinity, but whose message was morally divine. Not to get into too religious of a discussion, but I do not subcribe to the miracles, more so the man and his teachings. No less respect than I have for the Buddha or Epicurus.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 4:53pm

James Epic He wasn't a babbling liar when many of the lies written were put down far after his death by others.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 4:55pm

Matt Jackson For me personally it's all or nothing. Either the man walked on water and rose from the dead according to the Gospels, or he did none of those things. His message in my opinion is unintelligible without divine backing. Otherwise he's the equivalent of a subway preacher on a soapbox.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 4:58pm

Matt Jackson

Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:00pm

Jason Baker I agree Matt. I never understood what it was about Jesus that Jefferson took a shine to. Too bad Jesus never wrote a book. You would think a divine such as he would have the foresight to think about the difficulties of exegesis and make things plain to his followers.


It's a shame we don't know any Classical author who did exactly that. Oh wait, who's this Epicurus bloke?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:03pm

Matt Jackson Lol!
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:04pm

Matt Jackson I just expect more from divinity than most I guess. In the absence of deity and the supernatural, nature is the standard.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:05pm

Jason Baker Well Matt, that's because you won't let Jesus into your heart. If you don't let Jesus into your heart, you'll never feel his love and understand his magical book. It will look like nonsense to you. Not your right ventricle, mind, that'll just give you a stroke.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:13pm

Matt Jackson "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."


Mark 10:18
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:18pm

Matt Jackson Without the backing even he knew he was nothing.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:19pm

Write a reply...

Kris Pliotis To be in a pleasure-giving friendship with somebody next to me and be in harmony with him makes me happy. There are no.singel feelings but a ful of feelings putting together: pleasure of eyes, pleasure of feelings, pleasure of friendship, pleasure of sincere reactions, pleasure of art, pleasure of music ....all together!!!!! Difficult to reach that state i agree. But I found a way for that: Read greek philosophy and greek civilisation books !!!!!!
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:02pm · Edited

Kris Pliotis Greek civilisation targets only MAN. No gods
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:03pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Kris Pliotis hi ! Greek books on greek civilisation and Greek philosophy in general is something unspecific and not so clear, for me as an Epicurean.

Since Plato and the stoic philosophy supports that is examing things and issues according to the greek philosophy. What do you say about that ? I would like to have in a few words your opinion on this issue.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 8:14am · Edited

Write a reply...

Ron Warrick If you are a parent, what do you want most for your children, that they be happy, or turn out to be virtuous? I think only the most puritanical would say the latter is more important for their children. Why should we prefer less for ourselves?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 7:24pm · Edited

Christos Tsigaridas Don't do whatever you like but you SHOULD like what you do
Like · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 7:49pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Christos could you show me this phrase of yours, in one or two of Epicurus sayings to understand better what do you say with these "DON'"T and "SHOULD" ?? Because I do not realize where is the algorithm on the desires and where is the real goal. Thanks

Michael Carteron

March 5 at 5:19pm

In regards to Epicurean justice it is said that the harm of injustice only comes from the fear criminals feel at getting caught. Yet the philosophy acknowledges pain is bad as a core principle. So how is the harm of the various crimes (mental, physical, both) not also a part of injustice (a much greater one, in fact, as many criminals do not appear to fear their getting caught-sometimes reasonably)? Correct me if I have been mistaken about any aspect of Epicureanism.

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

4Jason Baker, Alexander Rios and 2 others

Comments

Cassius Amicus (1) "Yet the philosophy acknowledges pain is bad as a core principle." Pain is "bad," but it is sometimes / frequently chosen in order to ward off more pain or to experience greater pleasure. That applies not only to you but to other people.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:41pm

Michael Carteron Yes, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:19pm

Write a reply...

Hiram Crespo I Dont think the harm ONLY comes from fear of apprehension. There are other harms. Injustice is disadvantage. So depending on the kind of advantage that one has given up, one pays another price. One may have given up the feeling of safety or an important friendship.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:45pm

Michael Carteron Definitely.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:19pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus (2) While pain is "bad" and pleasure is "good" that does not mean that (a) your own pleasure and pain and (b) the pleasure and pain of your friends and (c) the pleasure and pain of strangers and (d) the pleasure and pain of enemies are all on the same level of relevance to you. In the absence of a supernatural creator and/or an absolute justice that links you, then I would think that your relationship with other people is governed mainly by the specific circumstances of those relationships and how those relationships affect yourself and your friends. There is no one in heaven keeping score, and no scorecard at all to add up at death who 'wins" and who "loses" to determine what is "fair."
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:45pm

Michael Carteron Sure. The pain to you, friends and strangers can all be factors that it seems would make injustice bad.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:20pm

Cassius Amicus But injustice is not bad IN ITSELF- only in its effects - PD34 is very explicit: "Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions."
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:01pm

Michael Carteron My point is that those effects include other things, which I laid out.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:02pm

Cassius Amicus Well certainly if you feel bad because of the pain you inflict, that is part of the equation, but that is very subjective and as you point out - most people don't feel bad in some situations, and some people NEVER feel bad about inflicting pain.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:04pm

Michael Carteron That's not what I'm suggesting.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:05pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus " (a much greater one, in fact, as many criminals do not appear to fear their getting caught-sometimes reasonably)" << I think this is the part where the main difficulty comes in as the implication here is that this is"unfair." Again, given the absence of a supernatural judge or referee evening out the score at the end, it is entirely possible (but not likely) for a reprobate to live successfully, and if he does, then he does, and there is no "justice" which evens the scales at the end of the day.


Edit: "Evening the score" is "our" job - the job of those who are effected by the reprobate, and if they don't do it, the score doesn't get evened.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:50pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I'm not disputing that, just the specifics of what makes an injustice bad.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:20pm

Cassius Amicus in Epicurean philosoohy nothing makes it bad except the consequences: "Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions."
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:02pm

Michael Carteron I know, it's just there are consequences besides what the Principle Doctrines says it seems.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:03pm

Cassius Amicus Like a lot of other aspects, I think that Epicurus presumes that we keep the basics in mind as we get to the particular cases. And the basics ALWAYS IS: VS72 - "Every desire must be confronted by this question: what will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished and what if it is not?" If you always keep that in mind then you have all the bases covered
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:05pm

Michael Carteron I don't disagree with that, but I'm not sure how what I've said doesn't jibe with it.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:07pm

Cassius Amicus I think if you combine VS72 with PD34 you're totally in sync with it.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:14pm

Michael Carteron Okay.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:15pm

Write a reply...

Ilkka Vuoristo When we are talking about the Principal Doctrines, we need to remember that they are the condensed core of Epicurean Philosophy, and leave out much of the meat around the bones.


In the case of PD 34 the context is that the injustice is bad for the _offender_ because they can never be sure that they will not get caught. This fear will prevent the pleasant life that is the goal. (In real life it's possible that they are never caught, but the fear remains.)


For the _victims_ injustice is bad in other ways (physical and mental harm, loss of necessary property, etc.).


There is another aspect of justice that isn't specifically mentioned in the PDs: self-defense and the catching of offenders are _virtues_ in Epicurean Philosophy. Passively enduring crimes isn't conducive to a pleasant life either...
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 7:45pm

Hide 20 Replies

Michael Carteron I figured it would be considered bad for victims too, but that's not mentioned, hence the post.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:47pm

Ilkka Vuoristo The strongest motivation is always an internal one ("this thing is good for me. That thing is bad for me.") This applies to justice as well as to eating. In effect Epicurus is saying: don't be a criminal, because you're hurting yourself, too.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 7:52pm

Michael Carteron Well yes, that is often the case, but it's incomplete.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:54pm

Ilkka Vuoristo Welcome to the hunt for the lost pieces of Epicurean Philosophy!

Epicurus wrote at least two books on justice (Of Just Dealing, Of Justice and the other Virtues), which we no longer have access to. It's probable that your question was answered there.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:22pm

Michael Carteron Yes, very sad so many ancient texts have been lost. I'd be very surprised if he didn't include these as part of injustice.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:24pm · Edited

Andrew Wright Has anyone attempted to write these in modern times using Epicurus' ideas and ideals as a foundation?


I believe deeply in acting for a more just world. I believe there are injustices that hack away at our humanity, but that don't directly impact me in my white, middle class, male position. I don't believe I should turn away/ignore these even though acting will not necessarily bring greater pleasure to me, and could cause greater pain.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:47pm

Michael Carteron A good question. I'd be interested to hear the more experienced Epicureans' views.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:49pm

Ilkka Vuoristo What are you referring to with "these", Andrew?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:54pm

Andrew Wright By "these" I mean, has anyone had a go at recreating, or just setting out to fill the gaps you refer to, the lost works.


Sorry, now I re-read it, it's clearly ambiguous.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:55pm

Ilkka Vuoristo Yes, many of us are trying to fill the gaps by extrapolating from what we know from all the surviving sources and from what seems reasonable to have been the Epicurean position. I certainly don't have the hubris to try and re-create the actual works...


This group is one of those efforts.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 9:01pm

Cassius Amicus "I believe deeply in acting for a more just world. I believe there are injustices that hack away at our humanity, but that don't directly impact me in my white, middle class, male position. I don't believe I should turn away/ignore these even though acting will not necessarily bring greater pleasure to me, and could cause greater pain." <<< This recalls a debate we used to have several years ago about how to integrate the "live unknown" and other more complete texts that advise against a life in politics. Some take a strong view that it's not Epicurean to get involved in the community at all, but I take the other side, and I think that for the reasons you state (you get mental pleasure from acting, and pain from not acting) that one can easily justify many types of community involvement.


My standard example is Cassius Longinus who clearly knew his Epicurean philosophy and still (or even because of it) helped lead one of the sides in the Roman civil war. But I also think it is key that it is realistic to take action on the issue that brings the mental pleasure and pain. Unrealistic abstract logical constructs or other mental fantasies would seem to be definitely against the Epicurean view. For example we today can visit Pompeii and feel sorry for all the people who died in the eruption of Vesuvius, but should we spend our lives trying to develop a time machine to go back before the eruption help them? Very poor example, but unrealistic goals of any kind are not going to be productive of happy living. (Of course if we were some quantum theorist who had made actual progress with a time machine, then maybe that would make sense....)


And since we've been talking about justice, what if no one works to enforce the law and keep criminals from running over other people at will?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 9:57pm · Edited

Michael Carteron Good point. Apparently the historians debate how much Cassius's Epicureanism affected his politics however.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:04pm

Cassius Amicus Yes apparently they do, for the same reasons those issues are debated today. And yet it is clear from Cassius' letters with CIcero that Cassius understood Epicurus well enough to debate one of the most educated philosophers (or pseudo philosophers) of his day (Cicero) and that Cassius understood the issue of living for virtue vs living for pleasure, and that Cassius had read Catius and would have had access to the leading Epicurean authorities. So I will put my money on Cassius understanding Epicurus rather than putting my money on the modern commentators who live and breath stoic/ religious / anti-Epicurean views and read nothing but fragments
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:17pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I shall take your word for it. Many of the historians I've read who mentioned Epicureanism say things which clash with the original material you've shown, to be sure. I wonder why-don't historians read things anymore?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:18pm

Jason Baker Michael Carteron They do, but historiography has shown that narrative building is more important than integration of all information available. We have a strong desire for narratives, they're important to our identity. We're trying to reweave one here from the disparate threads cut and scattered to the winds so long ago by historians who wanted to erase Epicurus from history.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:16pm

Michael Carteron What use is a narrative if it ignores facts?
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:18pm

Ilkka Vuoristo None. It's propaganda. (I think all of it begins with the false idea that pleasure is evil. After that all the facts in the world can't save people from error.)
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:24pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I wonder how this idea developed.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:25pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Michael Carteron a question for the ages....
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 6:57am

Hiram Crespo I think it has many roots. platonism (which Michel Onfray calls "the great neurosis at the heart of Western civilization) had a hand in promoting it because it does not want us to trust our bodies and our faculties and our instincts. Plato is an attempt to deny our real (animal) nature, it is anti natural. But also I think many people with repressed libido (the kind that head the churches today) have always held positions of power in prominent schools and written theology in lonely monasteries and have done their best to poison the pleasure of everyone else by calling it evil because they resent their own inability or unwillingness (perhaps due to abuse or mental health issues) to enjoy delights. This is one of the Nietzschean explanations. I think there may be other roots to this problem but here are two main ones.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 6 at 8:25am · Edited

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa I read comments here again of some persons that insist that there are gaps that occcured by the missing works of Epicurus and the Epicureans. But this happens because they do not see the Epicurean philosophy as a whole !


There are not gaps in the Epicurean philosophy if you connect the physics, the ethics and the Canon and see our philosophy as a whole !

Specially with the usage of the Epicurean Canon and the method of the analogy we have not any gaps on any issues that are not obvious or obvious in our era too..


On the issue of justice :

Examine the meaning of the words that are based on your prolepsis (preconceptions or anticipations) and your experiences to realize what usually happens to the just persons and what happens to the unjust persons. Remember when you were a child and you were playing games with some children who made tricks against the rules of the game, as their desire was to gain unjustly. Remember on how the rest children put them out of the game. Because that was something that did not pleased the whole team. These were some exersices/experiences to put us in mind that that Epicurus said as "prolepsis".


The procedure of the Canon within we can use in all the issues of our life is this :

Use your senses to examine carefully the General Picture, remember your prolepsis what brought to you pleasure and what pain.

then examine carefully the parts,

then synthesize the parts to give you at least the same General Picture. and finally use your prudence to measure again among pleasure and pain for now and then.


After this, a question on the General Picture arises : How many criminal personalities have been escaped from the punishment ? Is there any criminal to not be found never ? Has ever been exist that is called "the perfect murder ?

The statistics on criminal actions show to us definetely that are few those that can be escape. But as they are few PARTS do not synthesize the General Picture.

Did you measure properly among pleasure and pain ? Is any criminal personality to not be troubled, agitated and in pains ? IMO no, thrice NO !

"Crime and Punishment" is a good novel written by Fyodor Dostoyevsky to read shades of the inner psychological situation of a person who made a criminal action.

Thanks.

Boris Nikolsky - Epicurus on Pleasure

Boris Nikolsky - Epicurus on Pleasure - ABSTRACT: The paper deals with the question of the attribution to Epicurus of the classification of pleasures into 'kinetic' and 'static'. This classification, usually regarded as authentic, confronts us with a number of problems and contradictions. Besides, it is only mentioned in a few sources that are not the most reliable. Following Gosling and Taylor, I believe that the authenticity of the classification may be called in question.

The analysis of the ancient evidence concerning Epicurus' concept of pleasure is made according to the following principle: first, I consider the sources that do not mention the distinction between 'kinetic' and 'static' pleasures, and only then do I compare them with the other group of texts which comprises reports by Cicero, Diogenes Laertius and Athenaeus. From the former group of texts there emerges a concept of pleasure as a single and not twofold notion, while such terms as 'motion' and 'state' describe not two different phenomena but only two characteristics of the same phenomenon. On the other hand, the reports comprising the latter group appear to derive from one and the same doxographical tradition, and to be connected with the classification of ethical doctrines put forward by the Middle Academy and known as the divisio Carneadea. In conclusion, I argue that the idea of Epicurus' classification of pleasures is based on a misinterpretation of Epicurus' concept in Academic doxography, which tended to contrapose it to doctrines of other schools, above all to the Cyrenaics' views.

Shana HT March 6 at 5:35pm

How do you use Epicurian philosophy? How do you apy it to difficult situatuon? Any examples?

For instance, my kids are now ripping the cushions of my expensive leather sofa. They are little, I tried to explain, but they think its hillarious, as they found a hidden zipper.

Jason Baker It has been my experience that wanting nice furniture when having children or animals is a desire that will lead to suffering. My wife and I have leather furniture too. Two sofas, a loveseat and chair, all bought before we had dogs. All of them are dog seats now except for the chair which is too small for either dog to find it comfortable. Buying dog beds didn't help and we didn't have the willpower to keep them off the furniture. We now have covers for them when company comes over. What can you do, besides train them from the get-go to not be destructive?

Alexander Rios As Epicurus said: "Do not desire the impossible."

Jason Baker "If you want Pythocles to have nice furniture, do not give him children or animals..."

Cassius Amicus Same with cats.....

Shana HT so dont desire and youll be happy? so how do I stop desiring?

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus This is probably a case where the desire is impossible to achieve, such as to live forever and never die, and those have to be recognized as impossible

Jason Baker Desiring luxury furniture when your living circumstances don't allow for it is an unnatural and unnecessary desire. You're setting yourself up for failure by pursuing it anyway.

I've put the desire for nice furniture away for when I no longer have any pets, since punishing them retroactively by limiting their access now is cruel. Once my circumstances allow for it, I'll likely refurnish my living room. Until then, my dogs bring me more joy than my formerly nice couches do.

I don't need nice furniture to be happy, the fact that I don't have nice furniture now is a small price to pay for cohabiting with little monsters.

Alexander Rios Ha! Seriously though. You are harmed by their actions? Rightfully so, because you have finite resources to share with them, and so if they spend their resources on this zipper exploration, you'll all have less resources for future situations. Think about the consequences of these current actions on future freedom, to enjoy. Money misspent here, means less money to have for future fun, and future needs.

Mish Taylor The kids, cats and dogs are more important than than the sofa's. There will come a time when you are glad to see the back of your sofa's, that won't (or shouldn't) be the case for the kids, cats & dogs.

Jason Baker Absolutely! Every animal I've had to bury has brought me to my knees with tears. Not so my furniture! Commodity items can be easily replaced.

Joe Balbontin Jr I agree with Jason Baker. Living things have far more importance than non-living things.

Mish Taylor Loose covers until they grow out of messing with the zip, or, alternatively, get the kids a zip each of their own and utilize it as a learning tool. As with all minor annoyances, this phase will pass. I had a relative who kept her new sofa covered in a clear plastic cover for protection, it looked silly and was terrible to sit on.

Shana HT I was hoping for a general idea of how to apply the philosophy...

I've pretty much decided the sofa is just their toy now and the destruction a measure of their enjoyment

Alexander Rios Distract them. Tell them an Epicurean story. Tell them that they can tear it apart, but that the eternal elementary particles will never be destroyed, and they will always reside in our universe. Tell them that the wood particles will be eaten and dispersed by the wood eating insects and bacteria, and decomposed to molecules and carried far away by the birds who eat those. Some might fall, by poop, into rivers and be carried away to oceans, some will feed fish, who feed people, and that maybe their grandchildren will eat some of those molecules one day. Tell them that one day, the sun will vaporize the steel in the zipper, but that those chemical atoms (iron and carbon) will still exist, until our Sun falls into a giant star that explodes by supernova, fusing those into heavier chemical atoms, until one day a black hole tears those chemical atoms into quarks, leptons and photons. But that no matter what, they do to the sofa, those elementary particles will exist.

Alexander Rios How old are your children? What ages?

Cassius Amicus But these examples do illustrate the general rule. I suspect we're not communicating if you think otherwise. What do you think is missing and we can answer further?

Cassius Amicus Shana HT given your comments earlier I think it would be helpful to say this: One of the BIG differerences between Epicurean philosophy and what you are probably reading in modern stoicism is that you are probably presuming that both of them are telling you that the goal is to be happy and thus they are going to show you how to live happily.

That may or may not be true as to modern stoicism (I know there are those who take the traditional stoic route, and say that the goal is not to be happy but to be virtuous). Some will then say that happiness comes as a byproduct of virtue, but that is where you begin to see the lack of clarity, because that is not at all what the ancient stoics who started the philosophy said. They followed their logic consistently to conclude that the goal of life was to be virtuous, and happiness (especially pleasure of any kind) was essentially a distraction, acceptable only if it does not get in the way of virtue.

Epicurean philosophy is all about establishing from the beginning what the goal of life is. It starts with specific observations about the nature of the universe (atoms, void, nothing comes from nothing, nothing goes to nothing, eternal and infinite universe). It them explains to you how these observations lead one to conclude that the universe is not supernatural, and that you are not bound by fate or determinism - that you have at least some control over your own life (at least if you are a normal healthy person) and that you should have no fear of death because there is no life after death. [All of these conclusions are very different from traditional Stoicism.]

Epicurean philosophy explains these physics to you by showing you why abstract logic and religion are not the key to knowledge, and that knowledge does exist, but that it must be established through the faculties given you by nature - the five senses , the "anticipations" and the sense of pain and pleasure. It is through this course (the Epicurean canon) that you learn to see that abstract logic not based on firm evidence of the senses is dangerous, and that all true reasoning must be based on the reality revealed to you through these three faculties.

Finally there is of course an ethics based on these observations, and this is the conclusion that pleasure is the guide of life, with all questions to be answered by projecting what will happen as a result of any choice, with all selections evaluated by whether they will lead to more pleasure or more pain. The sum of Epicurean ethics is really not much more complicated than that, with all the subtleties simply being extensions of this one general principle.

Epicurus held that this system provides confidence and is not open to being accused of being an arbitrary assertion - being based every step of the way on evidence that Epicureans contend is compelling. And Epicurus provided specific responses to Platonic and other attacks on the idea that pleasure can be the guide of life, which is where the details about limits of pleasure, purity of pleasure, oneness of pleasure, absence of pain, etc. all come into play. Those are details and responses to specific philosophical issues, and they in no way contradict the central point that pleasure is the guide of life.

So when you ask about applications, we can definitely give answers, but the context of the question is vastly different between Epicurean and Stoic and other philosophers. Epicureans insist that living happily means living pleasurably. Other philosophies, even modern stoicism in the hands of those who follow the Stoics, have a much different definition of living happily. Epicureans would generally contend that those non-Epicurean definitions of the goal of life are confusing at best and disastrous at worst.

Ron Warrick I would also like to know how the Stoics can make the claim that they are living in accordance with nature. That seems to me to just not fit with anything else in the philosophy.

Cassius Amicus It appears to me Ron that they are, like Donald Robertson, defining Nature as the source of the call to excellence/virtue, so they say they are living in accord with nature by pursuing excellence/virtue. (The old stoics were much more clear that this is divinity - I gather the modern stoics prefer to hedge on that.) And thus the epistemological question of how we know what excellence is. That's why Nietzsche's quote hits home:

"You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima."

Ron Warrick Cassius Amicus Exactly.

Ron Warrick Convert to stoicism. 1f603.png:-D

Matt Jackson Disciplne? Lol

Theo Kouk yeap a leather couch is an unnecessary desire. let them rip up leather 1f603.png:D

Cassius Amicus Don't take this as being disagreeable, Theo, but your use of the "smiley" after the categorization of the leather couch as "unnecessary" is I think a very good example of how we have to be careful with the natural/necessary categories. Yes they are helpful, but they do not immediately lead to a conclusion on their own. They *help* us think about the quantity of pleasure and pain that we can expect to occur from a choice regarding the couch, but they only *help* - they do not answer the question fully at all. Labelling the couch as unnecessary is perhaps the start of an analysis, it is definitely not the end. There are many circumstances which might make it worthwhile to secure a particular couch from damage even from our most beloved children or pets - perhaps it has some huge market value that itself would secure the future material well-being of the children and pets, which otherwise would be jeopardized. I gather Shana HT is looking for some very specific rules on how to proceed (she comes from stoicism, after all!) so i would not want her to think that the natural/necessary categories take precedence over the general calculation of pleasure vs pain that has to take place in evaluating every decision. We can remind her what the goal of life is, and we can suggest some "rules of thumb" but it is very hard to tell specific people at specific times how they should resolve their own calculations.

ADMIN EDIT: There is a lot of material on this topic buried within the "School of Athens" subforum, but the topic is broader than the fresco so we need another place to cover all the facets of the question of knowledge of the true face of Epicurus. We can start with the obvious statement that those who knew him knew what he looked like, and it appears that numerous representations of his face were produced in antiquity and were reproduced for at least several hundred years. We also know that a small version of his appearance inscribed "Epicurus" was found in the Herculaenum digs. We can also presume that not all of the ancient representations of Epicurus perished over the years, but that is much harder to trace and would be the purpose of this thread. We also have to deal with the fact that artists in England or France or right down the street in Rome might choose to portray Epicurus in a speculative way, even though a bust with his name on it might have existed in some other place but unknown to them. We probably should not also exclude the possibility that some representations of Epicurus were intentionally misrepresented. So this will be the master post in this thread. The article by Takis is HERE How Became Known To Is The Portrait of The Athenian Philosopher Epicurus - Takis Pangiotopoulos.

It seems to me that the several most clear and important leads to pursue are:

1. The inscribed bust from Herculaneum
2. The inscribed herm from Rome (Maria Maggiore)
3. The reference in Frischer of there being a gem or ring inscribe Epicurus
   

Among the main resources by which to pursue these questions are:

1. Takis P's article "How Became Known to Us...."
   
2. Bernard Frischer's Article "On Reconstructing the Portrait of Epicurus"
   
3. Bernard Frischer's Book "The Sculpted Word"
   
4. Bernard Frischer's Article "Semiotics of Epicurus' Portrait"
   
5. Pictures of Busts from Book by Richter
   
6. British Museum page on bust of Epicurus, with extensive notes
   
7. Do we have something on Roman Gems?
   

Cassius Amicus

March 7 at 5:45pm

We recently discussed the location of Epicurus in the famous "School of Athens" artwork, and as part of that discussion it came to light that Takis Panagiotopoulos has produced a lengthy summary of the history of our modern knowledge of the true face of Epicurus. Takis has kindly allowed us to post the PDF in our files section, which I am about to do and will link below. However I want to be sure everyone sees not only the full article, which is excellent, but the attached modern portrait of Epicurus which is featured in the article, by Evi Sarantea. Thank you Takis for bringing all this to our attention!

March 7 at 5:47pm

Takis Panagiotopoulos: "How Became Known To Us The Portrait of The Athenian Philosopher Epicurus"

EPICURUS_BUSTS_2017_en2-TK.pdf
PDF

Cassius Amicushttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…BUCghCc-SyEIDck
Like · Reply · March 7 at 5:48pm

Elli Pensa

March 6 at 4:34pm

For my epicurean friends of here I translated into the English language some pages of the article entitled “Epicurean philosophy or Epicureanism”, by Dimitris Altas a physician cardiologist and member in the Garden of Thessaloniki.

In a recent debate in the Garden of Thessaloniki a question was placed : If the Epicureans could be a political party on the political scene of the country. Our friend George Kaplanis was the first that replied that this could not be done, because the Epicurean philosophy is not an ideology, but philosophy and as philosophy is be or it should be located in the political background itself, as in the same way that philosophy as it is not a science is located in the background of all the sciences .

If philosophy provides at the science the method of research , thus provides to the policy the method of analysis of the political and social affairs and the moral framework of the decisions taken.

The background of the policy of the Newgreek state -and NOT only the New Greek state - is purely idealistic since the dominant religion and the Platonism and the Stoicism which surviving through the religion have a strong influence on the political scene of the country. But the materialist philosophy of Marxism which is affecting the Left part has also strangely mutated in an idealistic ideology.

But from what does the ideology qualifies ? According to Theodosis Pelegrini’s dictionary of the philosophy in the corresponding entry with the word “ideology” generally meant a set of ideas, concepts and positions, operating as a single system, which is displayed as the true picture of the reality. Those who adopt it are required to think and regulate their lives in accordance with it. All ' ISMS' are basically ideologies and are inherently dogmatic and metaphysical i.e, they are based on unproven mental schemata (patterns of thought) which perceive as a reality relegating the material reality at the level of a caricature of these mental schemata.

The ideologies are necessarily causal and teleological. This means that they admit a purpose which necessarily tends the universe, and by extension the society and the human . The purpose has been placed by a Creator or a dire necessity in the sequence of events. As owners of the absolute truth the ideologues do not tolerate and do not discuss the opinion of the others in the sense that if someone is not with us is against us . This is the logic of the black and white of good and evil that flows from the principle of the excluded third of Aristotle. So it is common that the ideologues are using in their confrontations the " wooden " and negative language to sloganeering and give at their opponents characterizations and "signs" that have nothing to do with reality, leading of the demonization of them .

So the frequent outcome of the ideologies and the religions which are also ideologies, is the obsession and the fanaticism, leading to the blind passion and hatred against any claims and opinions different from their own beliefs.

The ideologue simply believes in his chimeras without seeking evidence and documentation for the object of his faith. The result of this attitude of ideologues and their inability to submit events to the suffering of sober calculation and judgment, based on the reality data that are available. They are the same people who become easy victims of propaganda or interests that the ideologies exploit to gain social and political power promoting their selfish purposes.

At the level of politics, the ideologues discounted each real problem of society as an ideological resulting sterile and endless debates with their opponents, so eventually the real problem to drag on, to be forgotten and remain unresolved. (Eg the immigration issue)

Another principle by Aristotle which is also in the background of Modern politics and not just a perception, is the Golden mean or the middle way that someone should choose to resolve issues and avoid extreme judgments. This translated into politics issues, as the tendency to round the things and issues in order to gain common acceptance. Or taking vague positions on the key issues, and requiring groundbreaking solutions. The proposed solutions, usually foggy and long fruitless, to leave ostensibly at least, just to be all the people satisfied. Always follow the consensus and not to go into ruptures. Always take into account in decision making so-called political cost. Ultimately they're doing nothing! Other expressions deriving from the Golden Rule is the non-existent average person, the apolitical middle ground and so on. The decision by that politician Metaxas to dismiss the Italian ultimatum and put Greece in the throes of war was an extreme decision. But how many Greeks would argue that it was a correct decision? But it is true that it would be grossly unjust if Aristotle ascribed to him the apotheosis of mediocrity that characterizes Modern society!

And the Epicurean philosophy? This is not an ideology. There is not Epicurean-ISM. Because this philosophy is neither inspired the Modern politics but often defamed when was not ignored by the spiritual leadership. Never in the Constitution of Greece has provided as the purpose the Wel-Being citizens, as it has provided in the US Constitution. It is true that the Epicurean philosophy has been characterized dogmatic because it rejects apri ori divine intervention in Nature, divine providence and the immortality of the soul. But this conclusion leads after thorough research and observation of Nature. Certainly the Epicurean position is less dogmatic than the position of Plato and the idealists through the centuries of the purely mental constructs and have supported their whole philosophical edifice on unsubstantiated beliefs.

Epicurus said that philosophy is action that serves the happy and pleasurable life. (Sextus Empiricus To Mathematicians XI 169). It is a personal and selfish philosophy. Epicurus is not primarily interested in the society as a whole, but the constituent unit of the person. A persons stripped of titles, social status, sex, material possessions. Epicurus was trying to protect the person towards of his most primordial fears of the gods, natural phenomena and death, but also against the most deadly passion of greed,and his primordial fears that are caused insecurity to the person. A central element of the Epicurean philosophy, helps the person to evaluate his needs with prudence and sober calculation. Enjoying the pleasures that are available to him, and to avoid those that would lead to a greater pain. The friendship is a virtue, but it also has selfish motives and seeks the feeling of personal safety. Beyond the social contract friendship and justice which it imposes between people and ensure the safety living in the wider society.

(to be continued)

LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare

5Jason Baker, Δημήτρης Λιαρμακόπουλος and 3 others

Comments

Elli Pensa https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206767096319065&set=g.646764225372541&type=1&theater

‎Elli Pensa‎ to Epicurean PhilosophyAugust 2, 2015 ·

The Epicurean philosophy does not deal with political ideas. Because ALL the political ideas, as it has been proved for a million of times, are consisting of de...

See More

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 · March 6 at 4:38pm

Ron Warrick An Epicurean (if I may use that term) will probably find that a libertarian or classical liberal party will fit his preferences best).
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 4:51pm

Hide 47 Replies

Panos Alexiou If they already have a lot of money as sure...
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:31am

Panos Alexiou If not, then something that provides safeties such as good healthcare, access to education and work, coverage of basic needs (eg a UBI) community services etc and based on material analysis of society as a natural phenomenon and not as ideology would probably be more appealing.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:33am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou "What is necessary is easy to get." This is more true today than ever, unless one is among those unfortunates who has been raised to believe the world owes them a living. Such people are owed nothing, though they will probably be saved through charity.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:48am

Panos Alexiou I don't know how easy it is to get what is necessary if you don't have a job or healthcare and you get sick, or if you are made to work most of the day in uncertain conditions etc.


I think that any collective decision we make should be based on an ana...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:56am

Elli Pensa Mr Ron Warrick the social contracts with such kind of laws and constitutions is not good to be based on fortuna - fate and the charity ! These are words of the stoical cosmotheory.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:57am · Edited

Ron Warrick Elli Pensa Right.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:02am

Panos Alexiou And so as not to be confused, I'm not talking about charity, I'm talking about organized efforts to effectively alleviate real dangers. No one person as strong and individualistically proud they are can save themselves from eg nuclear war. Shouldn't ea...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:02am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I think anyone who is willing to make themselves useful to others will get by. Any disincentives in this regard are likely to lead to societal collapse. At the moment we can see that the Social Security, Medicare, etc. that so many are dependent upon are unsustainable. I shudder to think what will happen politically when this becomes widely apparent. We can already see the war of all against all beginning.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:13am · Edited

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I don't see any collective dangers worth my putting a lot of effort into avoiding, though I do try to avoid the flu. I think classical liberals are as interested in avoiding nuclear war and environmental problems as any collectivist, and more likely to come up with the best response.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:24am · Edited

Elli Pensa The solution would not come from any political party. This is the epicurean perspective based on evidences (historical facts) with all the consequenses.


Doctrine 27. Of all the things which the wise man seeks to acquire to produce the happiness of a complete life, by far the most important is the possession of friendship.


Doctrine 28. The same opinion that encourages us to trust that no evil will be everlasting, or even of long duration, shows us that in the space of life allotted to us the protection of friendship is the most sure and trustworthy.


Doctrine 29. Of the desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural but not necessary, and some are neither natural nor necessary, but owe their existence to vain imagination.


Doctrine 30. In the case of physical desires which require intense effort to attain and do not lead to a sense of pain if they are not fulfilled, such desires are due to idle imagination. It is not because of their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but because of the empty imaginings of the man.


Doctrine 31. Natural justice arises from a covenant between men for their mutual advantage to refrain from harming one another.


Doctrine 32. For those living things that are unable to enter into a covenant to refrain from harming one another, nothing is just or unjust, and this applies also to those men who are either unwilling or unable to enter into such a covenant.


Doctrine 33. Justice has no independent existence, but results only from the agreement of men to enter mutual covenants to refrain from harming one another.


Doctrine 34. Injustice is not evil in itself; it is evil because fear of not escaping punishment necessarily arises from it.


Doctrine 35. It is not possible for men who secretly violate a mutual covenant not to harm one another to believe that they will always escape detection. Even if they have escaped it ten thousand times already, so long as they live they cannot be certain that they will not be detected.


Doctrine 36. In general, justice is the same for all, for justice is a mutual advantage in the dealings of men with each other, but in different nations and under different circumstances, the application of justice may differ.


Doctrine 37. Among those actions which the law sanctions as just, that which is determined to be of mutual advantage is in fact just whether or not it is universally regarded to be so. But if a law, once established, is determined not to be mutually advantageous, then it is by nature unjust. As to those laws which were at first just, but later become unjust, such laws were in fact just for the period in which they were of mutual advantage, at least in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty words, but look to the actual facts.


Doctrine 38. Where actions which were formerly considered to be just under former circumstances are seen not to accord with the general concept of mutual advantage, then they are seen not to have been just. But actions which were in fact of mutual advantage and therefore just at one time under former circumstances, but cease being of mutual advantage under new circumstances, cease also being just.


Doctrine 39. He who desires to live tranquilly without having anything to fear from other men ought to make them his friends. Those whom he cannot make friends he should at least avoid rendering enemies, and if that is not in his power, he should avoid all dealings with them as much as possible, and keep away from them as far as it is in his interest to do so.


Doctrine 40. The happiest men are those who have arrived at the point of having nothing to fear from their neighbors. Such men live with one another most pleasantly, having the firmest grounds of confidence in one another, enjoying the full advantages of friendship, and not lamenting the departure of their dead friends as though they were to be pitied.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:33am

Panos Alexiou You 'think' that everyone will get by. I'll take a wild guess that you've never been in a society that collapses economically as many of us have seen in Greece.


As with the fear of God that is alleviated by knowing nature through natural science, so fear of the large social phenomena can be alleviating by studying social science. We are collectively pretty decent at fighting against natural disasters (eg relief for tsunami victims, building of huge sea walls to keep the Netherlands dry etc) but we don't even want to hear about looking at social phenomena. Because of ideological taboos.


Social security and Medicare are indeed impossible in a classical liberal world because they produce better quality of life and not profit. They cannot exist within this system, and that's why we can't have nice things for all in this system. If your whole world theory is based on profitability I don't see how it can be used to put a break or a steering wheel to where we are heading fast, which is sociatal collapse and war. Pretending nothing is wrong is ideologically soothing, pretending it's the fault of social programs is profitable for some and devastating for the weakest among us.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:33am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa these are all fine if the person that can harm you is at most your next door neighbor or the guy 5 city states away, but how do you reconcile this with me and all my friends losing my job to a robot created to produce more profit?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:36am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I'm not familiar with the situation in Greece, but my impression is that the government made economic decisions that no government is qualified to make. The same has happened here, and similar problems will eventually happen here.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:37am

Panos Alexiou The government, the banks, the people in power, the owners, put it any way you want. The economic decision they shouldn't have made was to take part in the farce of the world financial system, bailing out banks and following orders from international economic vultures such as the IMF. But of course this is not a realistic choice since it would create more pain to the people because these vultures are strong and love punishing anyone that tries to keep them far away for their own safety.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:43am

Panos Alexiou My point here being that you personally can do everything right and try to be safe but since we are forced in this specific ruleset we are going to suffer as the rich play their game. We have a little power to change the ruleset maybe we should try and do it. And that's all politics boil down to imo.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:45am

Elli Pensa The problem is not in a robot. my friend Παναγιώτης. And 10 million robots to be constructed the human brain can't be changed to be opened seing with prudence the reality and where are the chances to grasb these chances. It is sad that there are not many resourceful Odysseus to construct a Trojan horse again.The system as you say has its weak points. Find them with your friends.

Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:46am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou As I understand it, you are free to move anywhere in the EU where things might be better for you. With your excellent knowledge of English, I would think you could make a living. Of course it is hard to leave one's homeland.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:48am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa the resourceful Odysseus that finds the magic solution needs the thousands of poor dead soldiers that were dragged to Troy without having a say.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:49am

Elli Pensa I am unemployed too Παναγιώτης but I do not growl saying around that a fantastic system is false. I do not recognize any system ! This is a closed thing and the Nature is vast opened. There are many causes that provoke many effects too. This is not chaotic, this is to understand that you have many options to chose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Αλεξίου That's life my friend !
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:50am

Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick I've already emigrated to the US. It's actually my 3rd time moving to a foreign country. But I don't think I can always outrun the collapse. I move and I see the same thing happening around me.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou You will be fine. You would be better off if the governments did not tax you and throw the money away on useless things. Yes, we are in the process of destroying the system of liberty that produced the standard of living we have (or had).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:53am

Panos Alexiou I would rather pay more taxes and have a safety net personally. Liberty didn't get you the standard of living, being the sole country not destroyed by world war and being the financial hub of half the world did. Empire is a dangerous game!
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:55am

Panos Alexiou On that note, I need to get back to working for that Yankee dollar, so I'll talk to you all later. Enjoy and be safe.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:55am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I didn't mean just the US. I meant Western civilization generally.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:56am

Elli Pensa I hope this collapse would be the collapse of any ISM of every political system that has not any solution. It is in our hands to know each other better and with much more attention. I posted somewhere this. And this is my solution too. https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1246761308706160/
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:59am · Edited

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou If you could have kept the money you paid in taxes, I'm sure you'd be ahead of the game.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:57am

Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick not really... My most important asset which has kept me ahead of the game is my education. Which was given to me free in Europe. I've used this education opportunity to work. My parents could have never afforded the US system for example....See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:01am

Robert Stock I am learning about the Epicurean philosophy and am a member of the Libertarian Party USA. I see no contradiction. Although most Libertarians I know follow Objectivism. There is also a large group of Christian believers. I am not aware of Epicurean philosophy being promoted by Libertarians.


For those who think only the wealthy are members of the Libertarian Party. I am relatively poor for an American. I make between 18 to 20 thousand dollars a year. I am happy with what I have. To make more money than that would bring stress and headaches that would diminish my tranquility.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 10:13am · Edited

Panos Alexiou I don't see a contradiction either, I just don't think it's the most closely fitting ideology beyond the surface.


There's definitely an anarcho- thread running through epicurean teachings, but the part that comes after the dash is the most important one...
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:07am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης where do you see anarcho-thread in friendship as a mean, where do you see in prudence, and where do you see anarchia in the pleasure as a goal ??? This is natural things and issues to consider, I suppose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:11am

Elli Pensa Mr Robert Stock The more you study carefully the epicurean philosophy so much more you will find contradiction with any political Party that exist in your country too.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:19am

Robert Stock Elli Pensa I am continuing my studies. I enjoy politics but realize that politics is not the way to bring individuals happiness.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:25am

Panos Alexiou Elli I find the thread in the 'no baseless authority' that is at the base of every anarchism. Also at the autonomist and self reliant aspects of the philosophy which fit pretty well with most anarchisms.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:25am

Panos Alexiou Robert Stock agreed, politics imo is a necessary evil that has to do more with protection from some pain rather than bringing happiness. Politics is the fence that allows breathing space to cultivate your plot of happiness.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 10:27am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης No, there was not anarchy inside the Garden. Maybe you did not study "the frankness of speech" by Philodemus. There were rules inside the garden, and they were persons that placed and some rules. There was respect to the older friends from t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 11:00am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Robert Stock for a fan of Rand who is into Epicurus check here -https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…RxGASd54Jg40paA and there are a couple of other similar resources
Nietzsche, Rand, and the Ethics of the Great Task
This essay traces a trajectory of ethical thought from Epicurus through Friedrich Nietzsche to Ayn Rand. Nietzsche originally celebrated Epicureanism as a form of refined heroism but subsequently repudiated Epicurus for being overly concerned with mere happiness. Out of Nietzsche's turn away from Ep...
STPETER.IM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 7 at 11:29am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa I believe you are not very familiar with what anarchy entails. It's not 'no order' it is 'no order without a practical reason for it to be there'. For example, 'I'm accepting the doctors authority to tell me what medicine to take because I accept that they know better how my disease works' but I don't need to have some random authority figure such as a politician, a priest, a king, a boss etc what to do because I don't believe they do know better. When it comes to them, they have to use force to impose their authority (do this or else ...)


It's a misconception that anarchy advocates for 'no rules at all'. In reality it advocates for no rules without a real reason for them to exist. And here you may see the similarity of using method/canon to identify DEMOCRATICALLY what rules/authorities are useful within each community as a debated and decided social contract. This is the thread that I see running through both philosophies/ideologies.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:43am

Panos Alexiou For example in this here group people listen more to the people that have read more, the kathegemones as you say. And they do exactly because they know more. But if you made a rule that said 'every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them' then you would have created an authority without practical base which in my opinion would be illegitimate.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:45am

Robert Stock Cassius Amicus thank you for the link to the article. It is very helpful. I am finding Epicurus superior to Rand. Rand's disdain for emotion was always troubling to me. Since human emotions are part of human biology isn't repressing emotions denying re...See More
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:14pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Frankly, I do not understand the meaning of your phrase : "every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them"

Do you mean to refer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them ??
Like · Reply · March 7 at 12:10pm

Panos Alexiou Yes Elli Pensa I will write the same in Greek if its easier.


Η αναρχία δεν έχει να κάνει με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή, αλλά με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή χωρίς πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης. Δηλαδή πχ. εδώ μέσα αποδεχόμαστε την γνώμη κάποιων μελών περισσ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:30pm

Elli Pensa Στην ουσία δεν διαφωνούμε Παναγιώτη καλέ μου φίλε. Εκεί που λες αρχή δίχως πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης συμφωνούμε απόλυτα. Αρχή στην επικούρεια φιλοσοφία είναι ο σοφός Επίκουρος που με τη φιλοσοφία του μας λυτρώνει από τους φόβους και τα καταστροφικά πάθη τ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:47pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Read this phrase to see what were the greeks during the Roman empire: HUMBLES. <<A humble Greek instructing a powerful Roman aristocrat may pose ticklish problems in a hierarchical society>>. ====> For this I hate this word. "Humble" becaus...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:08pm

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa agreed, I don't think we disagree either. I was more trying to expand on the ideology/philosophy of anarcho- things and how they fit within epicurean thought and not the other way around.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:17pm

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Do you agree with my opinion that Epicurean philosophy is false to be called as Epicurean-ISM ??
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:22pm

Panos Alexiou In the same way that I don't think there should be a Marx-ism but Marxi-an economics or not Darwinism but Darwinian evolutionary theory, yes I agree. Meaning that framing something as an open system that studies phenomena scientifically. I would not as...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:33pm

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Are those persons of this political party talking about Epicurus and his philosophy ? If yes, how many of them know about the epicurean philosophy and what is their real goal ?? Do you know many of them in person Mr. Ron Warrick ???
Like · Reply · March 6 at 5:37pm

Ron Warrick Unfortunately I do not know any personally. But you can see the party philosophy here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…hPm9Q5HWXssO3t4

2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign…
LP.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 7 at 9:45am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa in Greece that party is led by one Tzimeros and is pretty small (less than 1%). Libertarians within bigger parties are Andrianopoulos, Stefanos Manos, and to a smaller extent the Mitsotakis clan (Bakoyanni, Kyriakos etc).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:05am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Αλεξίου Ι see the "company" of whom is consisting. Thanks to show me the persons just for doing a comparison who are the libertarians.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 1:25pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Hi my friend Dimitris Altas I did not manage yet to translate in english all your remarkable and outstanding article if the Epicurean Philosophy could be called as any ideology Epicurean-ISM. However, there is a need that many of the discussed and written issues has to be translated in english too. Many kisses to all the friends.!= Γειά σου φίλε μου Δημήτρη, ακόμη δεν κατάφερα να μεταφράσω στα αγγλικά όλο το αξιόλογo και εξαιρετικό άρθρο σου εάν η Επικούρεια φιλοσοφία μπορεί να λέγεται όπως κάθε ιδεολογία Επικουρισμός. Ωστόσο υπάρχει, όπως φαίνεται, μια ανάγκη να μεταφραστούν πολλά θέματα των εισηγήσεων σας και στα αγγλικά. Πολλά φιλιά σε όλους τους φίλους. See Translation
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 5:49pm

Dimitris Altas Γειά σου Έλλη μου! Με τιμάς ιδιαίτερα και με συγκινείς που διάλεξες το άρθρο μου να το μεταφράσεις στα Αγγλικά! Κάνεις πολύ καλή δουλειά. Είσαι η γέφυρά επικοινωνίας μας με τους ξένους φίλους μας. Σε αγαπάμε και σε έχουμε πεθυμήσει πάρα πολύ. Μας λείπει το ταπεραμέντο σου και η σπιρτάδα σου! Εύχομαι να βρεθούμε σύντομα να απολαύσουμε ένα κρασί μαζί σου!Hello my Ellie! Honor me especially and I'm touched that you picked my article to translate it in English! You're doing a great job. You are the bridge to our communication with our foreign friends. We love you and we miss you very much. We're missing your temperament and your wit! I hope we meet soon to enjoy a wine with you!Automatically Translated

Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 6:00pm

Translate All Comments

Elli Pensa Dimitris Altas wrote to me : Hello my friend Elli ! I am honored and very touched that you chose one of my articles to translate it in the English language! You do a very good work. You're our bridge of communication with our foreign epicurean friends. We love you and we miss you too much. We miss your temperament and your brilliance! I hope to meet together soon to enjoy a glass of wine with you !
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:06pm

Elli Pensa Look how the epicurean friends are speaking to each other !! Look how they're practicing their philosophy in their real life !! It is true that many of us, here in the internet, we cant share a glass of wine or a dish with some food. But we' ve exchan...See More
Unlike · Reply · 6 · March 6 at 7:20pm

Jason Baker
Like · Reply · March 6 at 8:43pm

Elli Pensa Jason Baker
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:00am

Write a reply...

Haze Elle I am an epicurean and an anarchist, and I not only see these two goals as inked, but inextricable. I base my anarchism on VS13, which shows that mutual advantage is the base of all justice, and justice, as VS12 and VS5 say, is necessary for a life of a...See More
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 6:21pm · Edited

Haze Elle oof sorry for this wall of text. i will put a paragraph break into this
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:21pm

Cassius Amicus Haze Elle I agree with much of what you wrote but how do you propose to protect yourself from criminals and enemy invaders who do not wish to be your friend?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:21pm

Haze Elle I take my guidance on this from PD14: "Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude." So there are two things going on here. The first is that we have the right to self-defense, and self preservation? This seems obvious to me in light of the sensual basis of epicureanism. We don't fear death, and are secure from it, but neither should we depend on luck. We should make ourselves secure against it how we can, in this case community self-defense (a militia of friends perhaps?)


The second thing happening here is material prosperity - to me this means the communism of simple needs. (PD15 is useful here) We don't need much, but still, much of what we call crime, theft, murder, comes from a confusion of natural and necessary desires, but also from a lack of the natural desires. If we all provided these to all of us, then the second isn't possible, and if we have little, but are prosperous in it, then others will have no need of our simplicity.


The third part is that very rarely do those who do not know you trouble you. Fame, being wealthy, these cause issues, not living simply and without contact with the great mass of people.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:28pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Well I personally totally agree with your first paragraph, but disagree that your second and third paragraph assertions would be effective. You are aware that Epicurus told his students not to hold their money in common, because that is not how friends treat each other?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:37pm

Haze Elle Holding money in common and not having money at all are two very different things! Do you have a source for that quote by the way?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:48pm

Jason Baker I too agree with the first without reservation.


Could the second be rephrased to "having no access to fulfillment of natural and necessary desires?" I think there is a systemic lack of access in our society that needs to be addressed, but I'm not 100>#em###...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:49pm

Haze Elle Cassius Amicus Another answer to your first point is in PD 39. "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:57pm

Cassius Amicus Haze Elle - Diogenes Laertius: " He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…55x8eAZnQj-NCSE

The Life of Epicurus - EpicureanDocs.com
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 7 at 6:59pm

Haze Elle Cassius Amicus On the other hand, in his last will he writes that "none of those members of the school who have rendered service to me in private life and have shown me kindness in every way and have chosen to grow old with me in the School should, so far as my means go, lack the necessaries of life."


I also think that Epicurus is, there, arguing for an even more expansive form of sharing than holding in common, where we always have the trust that what our friends have will be shared with us, and we dont need to bank on it being in common to assure this.

Mish Taylor Personally, I find no fault in having, adopting or acquiring a positive mental attitude, this to me is one of the main things that comes across in the philosophy of Epicurus. Most forms of 'talking therapy', self help & etc are simply old ideas dressed up in modern language.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 6 at 1:45pm

Donald Robertson I'd say that's half-true. Modern therapy recycles many old ideas. However, it's definitely not true that no progress occurs. To pick the cliched example... It used to be believed that panic disorders were biologically determined and virtually untreatable by talking therapy. (For several reasons.) However, in the mid 1980s a huge advance was made by David Clark in the UK, which took the therapy for this condition from "zero to hero" and it is now shown to have one of the highest success rates of any form of psychological therapy.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 10:21pm

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Donald Robertson Your are kindly requested to not call Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ISM. Epicurean philosophy has nothing to do with ideologies or obsessions like Communism-Nazism-Capitalism, Christianism, Budhism, Islamism etc,. Because Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy that is confirmed by the the science and has the suffix "Y" as we say PsychologY, PsychiatrY, NeurologY, EndocrinologY, PathologY etc, we say the SAME the Epicurean PhilosophY. Thanks in advance for your understanding.


If someone would like to find a list with -isms he will find here in this link :https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…xmhcTGzFQPTyuAQ


As we realize there is not at that list the Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ism.

but there is the "stoicism" and is explained as "a belief in indifference to pleasure or pain" !!

Word List: Isms

Definition of words for belief systems and isms

PHRONTISTERY.INFO

Like · Reply · March 6 at 2:41pm

Hide 23 Replies

Ron Warrick This is hypersensitive, methinks.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 2:46pm

Elli Pensa No, this was not any hypersesitive thing Mr. Ron Warrick. It is after analysis, after examination on the words. After some written articles and works by our epicurean friends. And finally after many hours of conversations made among our epicurean friends in the greek Gardens and the Symposia.Thanks.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 2:59pm · Edited

Shana HT but where is the science, then?
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:03pm

Elli Pensa Shana HT In the usage of the Epicurean Canon is the whole science my dear.

Do you know how to use this epistemic tool ?? Did you read something for this method ?
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:07pm

Donald Robertson Well, I don't want to offend anyone but to be honest, I don't really share your beliefs about the connotations of those words. As I understand it most authors still use the term "Epicureanism", and find that accepable, so I think eliminating it would be a bit cumbersome and seems unnecessary. But what do others think? Is this a common feeling among your group?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 3:19pm

Ron Warrick Donald Robertson This is the first I have heard of the complaint, but it is something we can take up in the group later. No need to involve you just now.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:43pm

Jason Baker Why not just shorten it to E-ism and Epicurus to Mr. E?


Looking at the late date that -ism entered the English language, it likely doesn't have the same connotation when we use it as when our Greek friends use -ismos in their own language. Given our wholesale appropriation of Greek morphology, I'm happy to defer to the original understanding and use the preferred Greek form Epicurean philosophy instead of Epicureanism when discussing it here amongst friends.


Perhaps if there ever were an incorporated Epicurean Church, using the -ism form in reference to it would be appropriate. In the meantime, does shortening it to Epicureanism save us so much time that it serves our purposes to be so imprecise? Precise language is one of the things that differentiates the ancient Epicurean school from the rest, one of the main complaints against the Garden by its detractors even, iirc.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 4:12pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus I see Elli posted more on this at the link below, so I will add my comment there - https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1251189141596710/‎Elli Pensa‎ to Epicurean PhilosophyMarch 6 at 4:34pm ·

For my epicurean friends of here I translated into the English language some pages of the article entitled “Epicurean philosophy or Epicureanism”, by Dimitris A...

See More

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 6 at 4:40pm

Hiram Crespo I don't feel strongly about 'isms', but I understand that some others do. It may have to do with the Platonizing influence of language in the abstract of in the singular instead of plural. It helps to more accurately describe nature.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:07pm · Edited