Posts by Cassius

Jimmy Daltrey

March 8 at 6:44am

Are there Epicurean role models?

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

3Jason Baker and 2 others

Comments

Cassius Amicus You mean ancient ones (of course Epicurus himself was considered a great role model) or modern or in-between?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 6:46am

Jimmy Daltrey I mean people we could look at today. Modern.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 6:57am

Hiram Crespo Epicurus. Yang chu. Thomas Jefferson. Frances wright. Michel onfray. I want to say George Carlin but hes mixed Cynic. And christopher Hitchens. None were perfect. But they were great for different reasons.
Like · Reply · 4 · March 8 at 8:27am

Hiram Crespo Lucian of Samosata
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 8:32am

Cassius Amicus You could certainly find some people whose personal characteristics embody partial aspects of an Epicurean approach to life, especially ethics, and that would be worthwhile to think about. But I think it would fall short in an important respect: following the ancient discussions as to the highest type of man, for a true and complete role model we would want to find also an intellectual understanding and ability to articulate the nature of the universe, gods, death, and the role of pleasure. And given the state of the world and the intimidating pressure to conform to common concepts of religion and virtue, that is very difficult to name.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 9:03am

Cassius Amicus Following Hiram's suggestion and other comments I have heard, it is possible that Michel Onfray would be someone to consider for a list of Epicurean role models. But I know nothing about Onfrey's personal or professional life, nor more importantly what his ultimate opinion of Epicurus was. In the summaries I see little acknowledgement that Onfray was primarily Epicurean (Epicurus is generally mentioned only as an influence, and he seems to prefer Cynics (?)) I would be cautious. To find someone who explicitly endorsed Epicurus you probably have to go back to Jefferson and Frances Wright, and there are limits to both of those too.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…0a1R23c1uSKBOH4

Michel Onfray on the Epicurean Garden as the anti-Republic • r/Epicureanism
REDDIT.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · March 8 at 9:09am

Hiram Crespo former president Mujica of Uruguay
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 9:16am

Hiram Crespo and the fandom / cult of the Big Lebowski may swear that "the Dude is a great Epicurean role model (or vice versa that Epicurus was a great dude)
Like · Reply · 5 · March 8 at 9:17am

Nick Bell Lol yes right here^^ the dude is absolutely an epicurean!
Like · Reply · March 8 at 9:30am

Jason Baker A NSFW Dudeist translation of the tetrapharmakos lifted directly from the Dudism forum:


1 - Can't be worried about supernatural shit man. Fuck it!

2 - Life is short, just take it easy man. worried about death? Fuck it!

3 - That rug really ties the room together man. I'm content, Fuck it!

4 - Well, you know... The dude abides!


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…W6mdWRF3VdlIsVg
Epicureanism & Dudeism
Epicureanism & Dudeism
DUDEISM.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · March 8 at 12:03pm

Hiram Crespo The dudeists have an annual gathering already. Theyre better organized than we are!
Like · Reply · March 8 at 5:13pm

Jason Baker
Like · Reply · March 8 at 9:06pm

Write a reply...

Bill Aheron Yous never do anything noteworthy. Stay in yer gardens, & let the Big Fellas lead and make the frikkn' History. No Pain, no achievement, don't expect to have it both ways.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:20pm

Jason Baker Bill Aheron, Do you mean You as in those present or as in Epicureans in general?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 4:41pm

Jason Baker To the first I would say, "By golly, I shake my stick at you! Don't deprive us of our victories over unnecessary suffering! We're counting coup every day."


To the second, killing Caesar, igniting the Renaissance, and declaring independence from tyrannical monarchy seems pretty noteworthy to me.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 8 at 4:48pm

Mish Taylor The 'big fellas' are doing such a great job, the world has never been in such disarray...DOH!
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 5:18pm

Michael Fulton Well, that's like, your opinion, man.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 8:24pm

Michael Fulton Jason Baker Brutus and gang were Epicureans?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 8:31pm

Michael Fulton I know Cassius was...

Cassius Amicus

March 7 at 7:02pm

**Stoic Challenges To Epicurean Philosophy** (1): Suppose some person attains a perfect state of pleasure. (I'll leave it for others to define, as it seems to me there's some disagreement among modern Epicureans about exactly how this should be defined, but that probably doesn't matter.) Compare that to another person who exhibits exceptional moral wisdom and courage. Let's suppose that (likely or not) they appear quite different in other regards: so the pleasure exemplar isn't known for virtue and the virtue exemplar isn't known for "pleasure". Does history not show that the majority of people tend to find the second type of person more admirable and praiseworthy? Is it not the case that those qualities better meet our preconception of what's supremely good in life? (Some people will undoubtedly disagree but I think most would agree with the above.)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an Epicurean said that on reflection, he probably did find wisdom and courage, in themselves, more admirable than pleasure/contentment, or whatever. If his doctrine is that pleasure is the supreme good, that would appear to highlight a contradiction between his implicit moral values and his professed philosophy. That's the type of reductio argument, I would expect a Stoic to use with an individual Epicurean. (Again, there will be some individuals who simply reject the premises, but that's okay.) Someone else might admit they admire wisdom and courage (virtue) more than "pleasure" in other people, on reflection, but deny that's a problematic sort of contradiction. They might say they're happy admiring qualities in other people more than they desire them for themselves. The Stoics, though, would challenge that as hypocrisy and argue that we all should (and at some level do) desire to be consistent in our thinking, especially about such important matters as our moral values.

I think they'd want to argue that there is a problem if we try to separate what we value most about the character of other people from what we value most for ourselves. They see that sort of conflict in our values as a sort of alienation from the rest of mankind. If what I actually admire most about other people is their wisdom and moral integrity then that sort of thing should be my priority for myself as well. On the other hand, if what I admire most about them is how pleasantly contented their life is, then that should probably be my own number one goal in life too. There aren't very many figures in history whom people admire for being like Epicurus in that respect, though. There are obviously many more examples of historical figures who are admired for what we call virtue, or strength of character. Now that's not intended as a proof, merely an illustration. The individual would need to reflect on their own moral preconceptions and determine whether they're being applied consistently or not, maybe by looking at the range of figures they most admire in life themselves (not merely the ones the rest of society admires).

ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ I think there is an error in supposing that 'a perfectly happy Epicurean' and 'a perfectly wise Stoic' should necessarily appear quite different. To me, regardless of the meta-discourse each uses to express their philosophy, the two, if they are as 'undisturbed' as each truly claims to be, should nonetheless bare similarly desirable fruits: patience, reflection, consistency, analysis, equanimity, composure.


If I were to play devil's advocate, and attempt to persuade a 'real' Stoic and a 'real' Epicurean that it is a positive thing to intravenously take heroin, I would expect both philosophers to reject my premise. They both would likely point out drug withdrawal, and symptoms of substance abuse, and argue that habituated heroin use is a negative. Regardless of our identifying it as being 'un-virtuous' or 'un-pleasurable,' the end result is the same: avoid heroin.


The contrast between these two philosophies is important, but I see danger in the mere intellectual act of comparison. It can lead to an over-emphasis on the differences, which may marginalize the underlying similarities that contribute to hyperbole. Within this context, I think that 'the Epicurean' has been unfairly portrayed as a selfish party monster in constant danger of becoming a conflict-avoidant agoraphobe. Likewise, the 'Stoic' sounds more and more like a sexless monk suffering from a dissociative personality disorder. Neither of these caricatures are human.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 7:39pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I don't think Epicureans believe these things can be separated to begin with. The average person is likely to find a cheerless though brave person, who is unhappy yet virtuous, also lacking.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 8:14pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey I get the impression that the ancients threw rocks at each other over different arguments: the Stoics that pleasure is base and animalistic, the Epicureans that a belief in providence is superstition.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 8:28pm

Hide 18 Replies

Jason Baker Absolutely. The arguments against Epicurean philosophy that I read really seem like naive nonsense that a week hitting the books would cure. Given some of the responses we see here, it seems that our criticisms of Stoicism don't hit the mark because no one who comes here is a Real Stoic™ that believes in providence anymore.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:27pm

Jimmy Daltrey Seneca actually quotes Epicurus to justify this "What is good is easy to get", that humans and the Cosmos are adapted to one another. The Stoics are certainly creationists, although their God is immanent, present in matter, not transcendent like the Pl...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 6:17am · Edited

Jason Baker I really don't think it can be stated enough, that without belief in Providence, Stoic ethics have no foundation. There is no rational basis for choosing one virtue over another without it, unless pleasure enters the equation.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 9:57am

Jimmy Daltrey The Stoic would argue from nature, that animals are motivated by pleasure, however humans have intellect also, so our natures are different. Humans are moved by understanding, by reason (as well as pleasure). Virtue is no more than applied wisdom.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 1:21pm

Jason Baker Of course that begs the question on what basis is wisdom founded.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:53pm

Jimmy Daltrey Same basis as the Epicureans, observation from nature. Compare a prudent man to a foolish man. The Epicurean calculus requires prudence, the foolish fall into drunkenness and obesity.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 2:02pm · Edited

Jason Baker Certainly but the Epicurean calculus can be tested immediately. The feeling of pleasure and pain is imminent and irrational, needing nothing more than to be noted. Post hoc rationalization is the only way for a Stoic to judge an action as virtuous. What standard does he have but vagaries that are subject to time and place?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:19pm

Jason Baker Specifically Donald mentioned repeatedly the need to compare and admire other virtuous men. This seems quite unorthodox, a direct borrowing from Aristotle. It's a direct appeal to culture, which we know can have a corrupting influence and prevent men from becoming wise.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:25pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey The virtue of an action is determined by its intent and its intent is determined by the character/wisdom of the individual. Both Stoics and Epicurean can be mistaken in their assessment of a situation. The Stoic leans hard on cold assessment, accurate ...See More
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:28pm

Jimmy Daltrey Hercules is admired as a role model.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 2:29pm

Jason Baker I don't see religion and emotions having much to do with one another directly.


The road to hel is paved with good intentions.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 2:31pm

Jason Baker Apologies for my brevity, I'm dealing with other issues right now.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 2:34pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey That's a fair criticism, however it depends on the nature of your intentions as to how far out of whack your plans can go. The more prudent you are the less you run a risk of it all going pear shaped.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 2:35pm

Jason Baker I think that's too close to Donald's criticism of Epicureans wanting to control their experience to not be tarred with the same brush.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:39pm

Jimmy Daltrey I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:45pm

Michael Carteron The world does suck in lots of ways (just not all). So where does that leave us with Providence?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 8:44pm

Jimmy Daltrey That it doesn't suck completely, and if it were different in any significant way, we wouldn't be here. As an atheist I like to think that the Anthropic principle covers Providence. Imagine living on Venus or Mars...you couldn't, we get to live here which is cool ?
Like · Reply · March 9 at 10:27am

Michael Carteron Providence is defined as "divine guidance and care" so I think I'd call it "good fortune" myself, though yes, it appears the Anthropic Principle covers it. The ancient Stoics would disagree however, as do many now.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 8:39pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus (1) in a world dominated by Christianity and Islam, I most emphatically reject the "opinion of the majority" as determining what is admirable and praiseworthy. Quite possibly I would feel differently about the majority if I were living in 70 BC Rome and Italy had been swept by an Epicurean wave, as Cicero complains. So I consider the "opinion of the majority" to be of little to no help in these ethical issues. [ "Does history not show that the majority of people tend to find the second type of person more admirable and praiseworthy?"] VS 29 "In investigating nature I would prefer to speak openly and like an oracle to give answers serviceable to all mankind, even though no one should understand me, rather than to conform to popular opinions and so win the praise freely scattered by the mob." VS45 "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 · 3 · March 7 at 9:09pm

Elli Pensa
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:40pm

Write a reply...

Michael Carteron The appeal to majority is simply a fallacy, of no merit.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:10pm

Jimmy Daltrey What he is trying to get at is the question: is someone who runs into a burning building to save a child a "better" person than say, a monk, who spends his life in serene and tranquil meditation? Most people would say the former (I think), where that observation takes us would be the next step in the debate.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 6:40am · Edited

Michael Carteron Well it wasn't clear from his post. So, better how?
Like · Reply · March 8 at 8:45am

Jimmy Daltrey That is the question. What do we value? How do we arrive at our values? How do we justify our values? It all gets very Socratic.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:14pm

Michael Carteron Yes, it is difficult.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 8:36pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus (2) The word "admire" as used as the basis of this question is also curious ("On the other hand, if what I admire most about them..."). I see two main definitions of admire (1 "regard (an object, quality, or person) with respect or warm approval".) or 2 "look at with pleasure." Definition 2 poses no problems and unwinds the issue - if I regard something as pleasurable and find that desirable, then I have properly identified the issue. Definition 1 however implies the road to the false problem - it implies that I have "reasoned" myself to the conclusion that there is something about the thing more important than that it is pleasurable. One can imagine all sorts of things, and have all sorts of fantasies, but in the end matters of opinion have nothing to rest on but .... opinion. Pleasure, however, is a faculty that is easily understood by all men, and needs no explanation or justification. "Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, he thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow is white, honey is sweet. None of these things need be proved by elaborate argument -- it is enough merely to draw attention to them. For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder. The former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.” (Torquatus/Cicero/On Ends)
Like · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 9:15pm

Jason Baker Let's turn the main argument around, just to get a feel for how useful it is for illuminating things.


Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a Stoic said that on reflection he probably did find pleasure, in itself, more preferable than courage, tranq...See More
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 10:00pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Jason Baker
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 8 at 2:44pm

Write a reply...

Hiram Crespo VS 29 is critical of the the morality of the mobs. I am sure that many people admire the so-called "virtuous" over the people who lead lives of pleasure, but this says nothing about how we can be happy. It also is the kind of question asked by someone who has absolutely no interest in being authentic or genuine or natural, who will subject himself to the whims and the values and ideals invented in the heads of others.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 10:04am

Jimmy Daltrey I don't think donning the air of virtue in exchange for acclaim is approved of. Hypocrisy is not a virtue.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:16pm

Cassius Amicus Unfortunately I am afraid that the crowd often approves exactly that, even if the hypocrisy is transparent.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 8 at 1:22pm

Jimmy Daltrey True. Who is it that said you can't reason with a crowd?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 1:44pm · Edited

Hiram Crespo . or that appeasing the crowd is a path to pleasant existence. It is the path of politicians and lawyers maybe.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 2:08pm

Cassius Amicus

March 7 at 7:08pm

**Stoic Challenges To Epicurean Philosophy** (8) Seneca and others also object to the Epicurean doctrine that makes virtue of value only instrumentally, as a means to attaining pleasure, as follows. (Again, some modern Epicureans may dispute this interpretation of Epicurus, although others tell me they accept it and agree with it as a philosophy of life.) Someone who acts bravely for the sake of a reward, arguably isn't really brave at all. (Again, some people will accept this particular moral intuition, others will not.) To endure danger for money isn't real bravery, it's just greed. And the same would apply to rewards such as pleasure: acting bravely to win some reward as a consequence isn't really what we mean by bravery, on reflection. The same would apply to the virtue of temperance.

Not snacking on chips for a week because someone's offered me a million dollars to do so, wouldn't, on the face of it, constitute praiseworthy (virtuous) self-mastery. It's the ability to control our desires in the *absence* of a strong reward for doing so that's actually required for the virtue of temperance. What about justice, kindness, and fairness? If I'm only treating other people kindly and fairly because I believe I'm going to gain some reward for so doing then arguably that's not really the virtue of justice at all. Doesn't the same apply if I see justice as indifferent in itself, and only of value as a means to obtaining "pleasure" (in the Epicurean sense)? So the Stoics, and others, argue that our preconceptions about virtue separate it from people acting in similar ways for personal gain, or pleasure. Someone who wants to preserve that conception of virtue but also professes to follow the Epicurean doctrine is arguably going to have to reconcile those two things somehow or accept that they're in contradiction.

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

Comments

Alexander Rios Before we begin, somebody please tell my why Stoics pursue virtue. If a virtuous action is not rewarded by our biology or some other external entity, at some future/present time then why do stoics (or people) spend so much matter/motion pursuing it?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:20pm · Edited

Ron Warrick "Virtue is its own reward." But if there is a foreknown reward, it isn't virtue!
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 1:03am

Write a reply...

Alexander Rios Courage is bravery in the face of fear or a threat. Usually we do it to preserve or save something we hold dear. Something or someone whom we prefer to have in our life. The thought of losing it or them is painful, and so we take the risk of some pain or loss now in order to secure peace, safety, and happiness in the future. Taking the risk of endangering ourselves in the process of doing so is considered bravery.


It is not brave to risk our peace, safety, health or happiness for something or somebody that we don't care about. It is foolish. For example I would not risk my safety or health to save POTUS45. I would be pleased if he were gone. I see no nobility in saving him, and much happiness in his removal.


The standard Epicurean responses follow. Courtesy of Torquatus.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 7:44pm · Edited

Alexander Rios

Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:41pm

Alexander Rios

Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:41pm

Alexander Rios

Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:41pm

Alexander Rios

Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:43pm

Michael Carteron Yes, all of these things being "good in themselves" seems absurd. Ask people why they are honest, kind, or whatever. The answer would invariably be along the line of "Because it's better when people act this way" when pressed, i.e. it's pleasing and leads to happiness. I fail to see why that makes this not "really" honest, kind, etc.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 7:45pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus At this moment I can't think of much to add to what Alexander and Michael wrote. The question clearly captures the Stoic position that virtue is an end in itself, and quite clearly implies or states explicitly that happiness / pleasure is irrelevant, and if present are indeed factors that make the act of virtue ignoble or less praiseworthy. And there are still people who like to argue that the goal of Stoicism is happiness? I give credit to Donald Robertson that he (and at least a segment of his modern Stoics) do not engage in that sleight of hand.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 9:42pm

Hiram Crespo Many worship at the altar of Virtue but few stop to inspect the pedestal on which she stands. -- A Few Days in Athens

If bravery does not lead to a life of pleasure, why worship at its altar? Same with temperance! And wealth / money. Most of us will need a natural measure of these "virtues" in life at some point or another, depending on our circumstances. That's fine. They are not ends in themselves: they have value in accordance to their advantages.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 8 at 12:20pm

Jason Baker It was mentioned in another thread recently that Stoics are always preparing for their world to be turned upside down so that they might survive any trouble with indifference. What a meager ration! Flourishing is my aim, not mere survival.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 12:43pm

Write a reply...

Hiram Crespo Let us use a real world example. In some muslim countries, and now in britain and elsewhere, fathers and brothers sometimes engage in "honor killings" of their daughters if they dare choose their own husbands, dress like Westerners or listen to Western music. Anyone who submits this to hedonic calculus can see the disadvantage and the suffering this generates, and how unnecessary this suffering is. But they are called "honor killings" because there is a code of honor that somehow links the manhood of relatives to women being treated like children. Once again, ***if we lose sight of the end that our own nature seeks, all virtue comes to nothing*** and Polystratus says it degenerates into arrogance (fanaticism) and superstition. Without aligning our values with nature, with reality and with real world repercussions, there can be no virtue.
Like · Reply · 4 · March 8 at 12:51pm

Jimmy Daltrey How do you get from Hellenistic virtues (which Epicurus adopted as a means to pleasure) to honour killings? Killing your relatives in recompense for perceived shame...i dont get the link. Sounds more like lunacy than philosophy.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:55pm · Edited

Hiram Crespo Well, these men think they are virtuous. Manhood is related to virtue for many, and in fact the particle vir relates to virility and virile. So notions of manhood, however antiquated, get tied up in what is meant. Virtue and honor, without a clear definition, can be misused by authoritarian religions and cultures, and the military also exploits these and patriotism. The key is that they have to be understood as means to pleasure. But that is not what is usually or necessarily meant in everyday conversation.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 2:22pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey I don't see the resemblance. Hellenistic virtues are quite tightly defined, they are all forms of prudence really. Practical wisdom.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:55pm

Jimmy Daltrey Izzat, honour, as seen in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh is something distinct, and not specific to any religious philosophy and certainly absent from the Hellenistic traditions.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 2:59pm

Hiram Crespo The problem we have is that we seek to have values aligned with nature and to avoid cultural corruption. So what does an Epicurean do with PD 5 in light of honor killings? We will always choose nature, that is, pleasure. And we have to mistrust people who define living honorably by culture.and not by nature. Nature is not Hellenistic, it s transcultural.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 3:38pm

Jason Baker "I say both now, and always, shouting out loudly, to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the highest end of life!" - D of O
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 4:40pm

Elli Pensa What does mean do your DUTY according to an AUTHENTIC MORAL VIRTUE ?? Who is that person - as an authority - who could set to us what is our DUTY to go in line with an AUTHENTIC MORAL VIRTUE ? And what is the criterion in order to determine correctly THE DUTY and the VIRTUE in accordance to our nature and the social phenomena, such as they are evolving according to the whole Nature ?

Example : If someone in the past, did adultery in Greece, the police caught him in "flagrante delito", wearing only his briefs because he did not live in accordance to an AUTHENTIC VIRTUE. Now this has been changed.


How do you understand the whole issue you from the stoicism?? I would like to know better !! In an entire planet and in all these social systems and the phenomena, you do say that the human being is a rational moral being living in accordance to an authentic VIRTUE ? This is the GENERAL PICTURE you’ve got ?

In this way you study the Nature rightly ??

And the ISIS say, that they do their DUTY in accordance to an Authentic moral virtue !!

And a christian priest of our parish, is telling us IF we do our DUTY and live in accordance to his AUTHENTIC VIRTUE, we will be good and having good souls...Frankly, I can’t hear the same things again and again.

Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 4:54pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Elli, I agree with everything you say, however you are not describing any system of Hellenistic virtue ethics. Arete is personal, there is no system of rules or authority or judgement. Epicurus adhered to the same arete, and said happiness was impossible without it.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 10:23am

Elli Pensa Jimmy, Nature is not any system is only the Nature. And when we study her with our senses we realize that all Nature's creatures pursue the pleasure and avoid pain. Virtues are already in my mind as prolepsis/anticipations or preconceptions. And I do...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 11:37am

Jimmy Daltrey I am not sure why you keep coming back to authority, we are discussing arete https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…KO58WB3DxmKDnn0

Arete (moral virtue) - Wikipedia
, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 9 at 12:06pm

Elli Pensa Jimmy Daltrey Arete...eudaimonia... ataraxia... aponia and so on, well, IF you do not connect them with something pretty clear and a faculty given to you by Nature for your survival, and just for the purpose to live a pleasant life... then bit all these words farewell as empty of meaning.

Since, Fg. 221. A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of the man. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul. Epicurus.


Ok arete... let's say the arete of justice as a preconception or anticipation that created through your experiences and their consequences, and still are created in your life. What was your criterion of truth to judge RIGHTLY who was fair and who was unfair in your life? Who is lying and who is not ? And which of his actions are beneficial or not beneficial for you ? How you judge all the things around you in accordance with Nature and you nature ? Please, do not say me of what makes me happy and what is not., because if you ask a donkey that is climbing a hill full loaded in his back, that donkey maybe would say to you that is extremely happy.


Frankly, I do not blame that donkey for that, since he does not examine who is saying lies and who is not, he does not study the Nature, he does not fear death, he does not know that one day will die. But if you load his back with a heavy load, yammering would say to you : Hey mister you actions were against my nature : I am not pleased....I pain (thrice I PAIN). and that poor creature will fall down in pains.


But what I say now ? Epictetus when he was a slave, as they say, he was tortured by his master Epaphroditus who twisted his leg. Enduring the pain with complete composure, Epictetus warned Epaphroditus that his leg would break, and when it did break, he said, 'There, did I not tell you that it would break?'

Well, frankly THIS IS NOT the arete of pride of the Greeks. This is not the pride of the Spartans and Leonidas who fought the persians for the purpose to win and live their children a free and pleasant life. This is not the self respect of a man who studies the Nature expressing his fellings of pleasure and pain. This is not greek philosophy !!! This is an oriental cunning!!! This is a philosophy for SLAVES who are under the heavy load of Fate and Destiny living in fully apathy. These are not free and dignity men who want to live pleasantly their life Full stop.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 4:58am · Edited

Write a reply...

Write a comment...

Elli Pensa

March 9 at 10:54am

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

12You, Jason Baker, Mish Taylor and 9 others

Comments

ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ Elli, I have some background studying Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and I'm mostly familiar with the use of 'eudaimonia' (εὐδαιμονία) to describe the state of human excellence (which seems now to be an early precursor to virtue ethics). Within the context of Epicurean philosophy, would you suggest that 'eudaimonia' (εὐδαιμονία) and 'ataraxia' (ἀταραξία) are semantically synonymous? I understand that followers of Stoicism also make use of the word 'ataraxia' (ἀταραξία), but as a consequence of the pursuit of virtue, much like the Peripatetic and Platonic schools. Now that I'm looking at it, would we also suppose that 'aponia' (ἀπονία) is another semantic synonym?


I also have a question about Epicurus' use of 'aretes' (ἀρετή) as "virtues, the means for the goal of pleasure." This description of virtue as a 'means' seems eerily similar to the usage in both Stoic and Platonic schools of thought (I also notice some similarity with Sextus Empiricus' Pyrrhonist Skepticism). I understand that the main difference between these other schools and Epicurus' ideas might be expressed as follows: (a) Epicurus' use of 'virtues' as a means to pursue tranquility, versus (b) pursuing virtue for it's own sake, with tranquility as an inconsequential side effect.


When I look at it like this, it seems that 'tranquility' is actually the true goal of all schools, but that most schools besides Epicurus' seem to have mislead themselves into believing that they 'want' or 'desire' some abstract, impersonal ideals as oppose to (what I would suggest is their actual goal) a state of tranquility. If everything I've suggested thus far is accurate, then I'd also propose that Epicurean philosophy has simply been unfairly bastardized by the other schools, simply due to it's association (their misunderstanding) with Hedonism. Hell, the Hebrews went so far as to appropriate the word 'epikoros' (אפיקורוס) to refer to atheists, non-believers, or their 'Other.'
Like · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 11:47am · Edited

Hide 24 Replies

Jason Baker I'm not fond of the use of tranquility, I think we have enough context from the extant remains to put that translation to bed, but otherwise that's a succinct analysis of the state of things. Bravo.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 11:50am

Elli Pensa ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ Excellent points. Tranquility is another descritpion of the goal and exist body and soul as we study the Nature properly. I did not understand what do you mean with the Hebrews. You mean that they went so far because maybe they did not like the goal as set by Nature and is that of pleasure ??
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 11:58am

ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ Yeah, you've got it! I understand that many ancient schools of thought, including religious traditions, looked down on the Epicureans, and misrepresented their philosophy. 'Epikoros' (אפיקורוס) is a good example within Judaism, because they associated Epicureans as strict atheists who rejected their deity as a result of (what they misunderstood to be) Epicurus' insistence on physical indulgence, which doesn't at all capture the nuance of Epicurean philosophy. It seems like these other schools see the goal of Epicurean philosophy as a form of perpetual masturbation.


Jason, I'm curious what the criticism is of 'tranquility' as a good translation. Is 'pleasure' the preferred translation?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 12:05pm

Elli Pensa The whole thing that we have to understand is that the measurement on things is dynamic, and is as follows: Let’s see the attached picture. It concerns the Epicurean philosophy.

The more the person is concerned with the study of Nature,

the more he succeeds fearlessness,

the more he uses the measurement of pain and pleasure.

These two produce pleasure that belongs to the individual, (because pleasure belongs to the one who feels it, of course).

At the same time, however, the person practices the art of self-sufficiency

which is improved with the study of nature

and the more one achieves self-sufficiency,

the more freedom he acquires and thus greater the pleasure it provides to the individual.

Let's not insist on completeness of the analysis (which anyway does not exist), but in the method.

It includes the general picture. We can later move to the rest which are the multiple causes of human happiness. We can combine the rest. Then, we are going to see what emerges from the composition of the rest. In a more compound form we will observe the rebound and feedback. The more this process provides pleasure to a person, the greater the desire to study the Nature. The system does not use the law of excluded middle, i.e. pleasure or no pleasure, fearlessness or not fearlessness etc, but uses the Epicurean Multi-valued logic where the above causes constantly get different values depending on the decisions and our actions. Imagine, for example, that I give great importance to the fearlessness and succeed pleasure from there, but I give little importance to self-sufficiency. So, depending on the general activity at a certain time, one cause will affect the other continuously taking different values and all the separate data will pulsate and will affect one another until the system settles and perhaps I wish that calmness means Katastematic pleasure of the individual. The system is dynamic, it is evolving like the nature and covers the needs of the Epicurean philosophy, which observes things as they proceed and as Diogenes of Oenoanda writes (in response to Peripatetics) this flow, flowing as he says, can be scrolled quickly but not so fast as not to conceive a situation of it.

(An excerpt on the issue entitled : “The crisis and the epicurean reasoning” by Γεώργιος Καπλάνης, founding member in the Garden of Thessaloniki.

Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 12:12pm

Cassius Amicus I will second Jason's comment. To the extent we are talking about an English word that has a common meaning, "tranquility' as a statement of the Epicurean goal seems woefully understated. Now, to the extent that someone assigns a technical definition to the word "tranquility" that explicitly conveys other core information, such as the description ofthe highest life contained in Torquatus and discussed here recently, then so be it. But to the extent that the English meaning of "tranquility' is essentially "calm" then it is not just insuffcient, but woefully insufficient, to describe what Epicurus said. Now if someone wants to assert that the goal of stoicism is tranquility, I would not object, but even there it is probably much too narrow.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 12:19pm

Elli Pensa ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ tranquility is synonym with the calmness and is a description of the goal of pleasure.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 12:20pm

Cassius Amicus Elli when you say "a description of the goal of pleasure" I am concerned that this formulation has the same problem as attempting to define "yellow" separately from "things that are yellow." I don't think calmness is itself something that exists apart...See More
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 12:27pm · Edited

Jason Baker ɳɑʈɧɑɳ, I think that both English words (tranquility and pleasure) are too abrupt and don't convey the meaning originally intended. I think that any translation of ataraxia, aponia, arete, is going to be several words, if not sentences, in length in order to capture the full meaning outside of the context of the whole (small-c) canon.


Epicureans were derided for using so-called "novel" definitions of common words. I don't think they were novel, but that they weren't understood properly even in antiquity outside of the context within which they were used. Elli hints at that with the multivalent logic discussion.


This is a good argument for describing Epicurean Gardens as initiatory organizations.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 12:29pm · Edited

Jason Baker Tranquility doesn't effectively convey the "undisturbed experience of pleasure" that I think ataraxia refers to.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 12:28pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Another way of looking at it: Is it not proper to look at a mouse at rest and say that it is tranquil? Putting aside all the many issues arising from comparing mice to men, "calmness" alone surely cannot be considered sufficient to convey the goal of a life which has pleasure as its guide.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 12:30pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Just to make it available readily, this is the same issue Edith Porter Packer was struggling with in her "Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethics." NHB raises a very real issue that must be dealt with precisely in considering the role of tranqility....See More

Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 12:34pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus And ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ let me be quick to be clear that I do not mean to be critical of you personally in these comments. You are raising what is I think probably THE most important question in practical application of Epicurean philosophy, and I am glad you raise it in the articulate manner that you do!
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 12:37pm

ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ I appreciate you clarity, Cassius, as well as your critical analysis! I'm glad we're getting to the meat of the issue, because this helps me refine my own understanding of the text.


I think I see what you mean. While 'tranquility' captures an piece of...See More
Like · Reply · March 9 at 3:24pm

Elli Pensa IMO ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ tranquility as a term IS NOT the absence of something else. Let's see Epicurus what says on tranquility or calmness : «παρεγγυῶν τὸ συνεχὲς ἐνέργημα ἐν φυσιολογίᾳ καί τοιούτῳ μάλιστα ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ» (“I recommend constant activity in the study of nature and this way more than any other I bring calm to my life”) For this purpose, he introduced Κανονικὸν (Canonikon), an empirical methodology of inquiry consisting of observation by the senses and drawing inferences for the unknown based on analogies with the observed. This approach made Epicurean philosophy very comprehensive and among all ancient philosophies by far the most compatible with modern scientific findings.====> Thus, we read that the #constant #activity in the study of Nature makes the person to be "εναγγαλίζων" calm, serene, tranquil, because with this way he adhieves the goal of the pure pleasure !! :)PD 12. It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the Universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 3:58pm

Jason Baker How is this Elli?


Constant use of Canonics without disturbance from false opinion allows the enjoyment of pleasure unmixed.


Too unwieldy? It seems clear to me but I'm used to stilted language with my study of Early Modern English texts.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 4:12pm

Elli Pensa Excellent Jason (y) Constant use of Canonics without disturbance from groundles opinions and empty beliefs allows the enjoyment of pleasure unmixed. That goes like a poem !
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 4:22pm

Cassius Amicus ɳɑʈɧɑɳ ɧɑɾɾʏ ɓɑɾʈɱɑɳ yes I think you are moving in the right direction but I still have issues. As I was driving for the last couple of hours one of the thoughts I had in general was this: I believe it is very poor practice to use a foreign language word without translation, because to use the foreign language one in another language implies that the word CANNOT be translated, or is so complicated to translate that it is not worthwhile. I believe all of these words have ready English equivalents because at the deep level we are talking about, nature made the issues readily graspable, as they are descriptions of our experiences that all of us share (on the order Epicurus' observation that pleasure needs no defense because we perceive it - in the same way that we perceive that sugar is sweet and snow is white - the issue is not complex).


Of course I say that not having been trained in a word of Greek, and only a few of Latin, but i take as my example Lucretius who to my knowledge did not use Greek words for these issues.


I believe ataraxia translates to nothing more complex than "calmnness", or "a condition absent disturbance," which is just two ways of saying the same thing.


I believe aponia translates to nothing more complex than "without pain", which because of the Epicurean observation that pleasure and pain are the only two feelings, means nothing more than a condition in which the living being is experiencing nothing but pleasure, without any pain.


I believe it is prejudging the issue and reading into it our own predispositions to consider the untranslated word "ataraxia," (which is the word most people like to throw around), as a difficult to understand complex concept which only by deep study into Epicurus is understandable. But that is exactly what is often done, and in my view that is damaging.


Epicurus and Lucretius make clear that the faculty of pleasure is the guide to how to live, and successfully following that guide means nothing more than living pleasurably as ordinary mortals understand that. We can embellish that position all we want to with implications that he is describing some equivalent to salvation or to "virtue" in the stoic sage sense, but I contend that the texts read as whole do not justify that conclusion.


Over a lifetime we want to experience as much pleasure as possible, and we want to do that calmly and continuously and without gaps (the ataraxia reference) and we want to do it with as little pain mixed in as possible (the aponia reference, which means pure pleasure). What Stoics so frequently do is to take the tools and make them the end, and it is a parallel problem to take the adverbs (calmly and purely) out of context and elevate them to focus of attention, the exclusion of the foundation references of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain, which is what the adverbs are modifying in the first place.


So in your last post you have largely done the same thing - you are describing the Epicurean goal of life without mentioning pleasure and pain!


Again I think a part of the problem here arises from the prejudice that the word "pleasure" carrries. We are not taking about cake, pies, and sex - at least, not JUST about cake pies and sex. We are talking about the faculty of pleasure, which really means pleasurable feelings arising from ANY activity - yes sex, but also friendship, and music, and contemplation of the universe - and philosophic discussion as we are doing now. We should not be shrinking back from doing exactly what Epicurus did - We should name PLEASURE as the goal of living regardless of what the prudes and the hypocrites say (but rarely apply o themselves in private). Pleasure is not cakes and pies, pleasure is the faculty that Nature gave us to order our lives and tell us what to do with those lives. To substitute ANY other term and description is to evade the issue and in my review to rebel against nature's guidance. So in my view it is Epicureans who truly follow nature, and Stoics and other philosophers who are the true decadents.
Like · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 7:44pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Here is another thought I had while driving tonight. One of the passages that I have always considered most striking is the end of the Torquatus monologue where Torquatus says that we should be ashamed that we have not learned these basic truths, as E...See More
Like · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 7:52pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus One last thought for this sequence: Another thing I think is going on is that people are programmed to be looking for "the goal" (the relates to DeWitt's summum bonum argument too, I think). If we are religious we tend to think of the goal of life is to "do what god wants us to do" - and due to the very helpful priestly class, we all have a general idea that god wants us all to do basically the same thing (be holy while supporting the priestly class).


If we are Stoic or mainstream philosophers, we believe the general goal is to "be virtuous" and we all have a general idea that that means to be courageous, strong, rational, etc., which might sound fairly broad but translates into being a cross between Mr. Spock and Mother Teresa - pretty easy to define.


However if we are Epicurean we are told that "pleasure is the guide of life" - but we all know that there are innumerable things that are pleasurable to us, and that does not sound like a discrete and well-defined enough goal. And that is where a lot of the problem arises, because that faculty of pleasure (and its opposite pain) is what nature gave us, and nature didn't tell us specific places to find that pleasure, except between very wide limits.


And resistance to that idea that "pleasure is the guide" is wide and deep. Ha - I think about the videos about Epicurus I see on the internet, and if you watch them you might think that Epicurus set up his Garden in Athens solely so he could say "Don't fall for advertising and commercialism in the 21st century." Sure, it is important to Epicurean doctrine that we adjust our desires to our means, and that we not seek to overshoot our capacities so that we end up disappointed unnecessarily. But that's just another observation / adverb / guideline like avoiding political careers, or avoiding seeking fame as one's primary goal. It is a good idea not to be overly "greedy" for material things because if you set that as a priority you will very likely cause yourself all sorts of problems. But "avoiding being greedy" is not the goal of life! The goal of life is always to live pleasurably, and that is why Epicurus advised against living too luxuriously but also advised against living too frugally. The target is always pleasant living under the circumstances, and circumstances vary tremendously.


Which takes me back to the first observation - saying "pleasure is the guide of life" is not a copout, and it's not a poor sister to the admirable goals of living godly or living virtuously. It's simply a recognition that nature has given you many different options in how you might live pleasurably, and that Epicurus was smart enough not to fall for the Stoic/Platonic error of trying to dictate to Nature how we "should have been" created.


Here we cue the Nietzsche "Fraud of Words" passage again to let him drill home how ridiculous it is for us to try to dictate to Nature the rules that WE think should govern, rather than simply look to what Nature has actually given us.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 8:44pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Cassius Amicus When sometimes I say the philosopher is a philosopher during 24 hours a day and even when he writes some memos giving them in the laundry for cleaning his clothes, I speak seriously. This is to say that a philosopher is a teacher and has to apply in practice all of his teachings in his own life inspiring his pupils to preserve all their first principles. Some would say now that what I would say is ad hominem argument, but I have to say that : What the heck we will learn from stoic teachers e.g. Zeno that he went to his death struggling himself and the other Epictetus that was a slave the most of his life ?To not mention the stoic teacher Cleanthis that took the stoic philosophy and made it as it was : a paralyzed theology, when we read in his prayer and that :


Most glorious of immortals, Zeus

The many named, almighty evermore,

Nature's great Sovereign, ruling all by law

Hail to thee! On thee 'tis meet and right


That mortals everywhere should call.

From thee was our begetting; ours alone

Of all that live and move upon the earth

The lot to bear God's likeness.

Thee will I ever chant, thy power praise!


For thee this whole vast cosmos, wheeling round

The earth, obeys, and where thou leadest

It follows, ruled willingly by thee.

In thy unconquerable hands thou holdest fast,

Ready prepared, that two-timed flaming blast,

The ever-living thunderbolt:

Nature's own stroke brings all things to their end.

By it thou guidest aright the sense instinct

Which spreads through all things, mingled even

With stars in heaven, the great and small-

Thou who art King supreme for evermore!


Naught upon earth is wrought in thy despite, oh God.

Nor in the ethereal sphere aloft which ever winds

About its pole, nor in the sea-save only what

The wicked work, in their strange madness,

Yet even so, thou knowest to make the crooked straight.

Prune all excess, give order to the orderless,

For unto thee the unloved still is lovely-

And thus in one all things are harmonized,

The evil with the good, that so one Word

Should be in all things everlastingly.


One Word-which evermore the wicked flee!

Ill-fated, hungering to possess the good

They have no vision of God's universal law,

Nor will they hear, though if obedient in mind

They might obtain a noble life, true wealth.

Instead they rush unthinking after ill:

Some with a shameless zeal for fame,

Others pursuing gain, disorderly;

Still others folly, or pleasures of the flesh.

[But evils are their lot] and other times

Bring other harvests, all unsought-

For all their great desire, its opposite!


But, Zeus, thou giver of every gift,

Who dwellest within the dark clouds, wielding still

The flashing stroke of lightning, save, we pray,

Thy children from this boundless misery.

Scatter, Oh Father, the darkness from their souls,

Grant them to find true understanding

On which relying thou justly rulest all-

While we, thus honoured, in turn will honour thee,

Hymning thy works forever, as is meet

For mortals while no greater right

Belongs even to the gods than evermore

Justly to praise the universal law! :


Oh, this is theology indeed. This leads to the religion indeed. This leads to the confusion indeed. This is against the Nature of all the Things, indeed.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 5:58am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Jason Baker I think you were rephrasing what Elli was saying and this works well for me "Constant use of Canonics without disturbance from false opinion allows the enjoyment of pleasure unmixed." I think this is correct as far as it goes. Just a mental note though - I get the impression that people think results are / should be guaranteed (like a christian who confesses goes to heaven automatically). And I think it is appropriate to regularly point out that Epicurean philosophy is not magic. We can't do an incantation and be happy. (But wait! isn't that what this mysterious "ataraxia" is, I can hear them say!) (And, didn't Epicurus say that a person who lives virtuously will automatically be happy? I am virtuous; why aren't I happy??)


So as I read that I mentally note "Constant use of Canonics without disturbance from false opinion allows the OPPORTUNITY for enjoyment of pleasure unmixed." Because sometimes if the Persians are streaming across the penninsula then no amount of perceptive thinking alone will keep an Athenian happy when the Persians arrive. Maybe this observation I am making is so obvious that it doesn't need to be made, but I get the impression a lot of people coming to philosophy groups are coming with thoroughly messed up lives and looking for instant relief (thus the appeal of Stoicism/anesthesia). They don't realize (or don't want to admit) that ACTION is frequently (always?) necessary to implement Epicurean philosophy and live pleasantly too.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 8:48am · Edited

Elli Pensa <<Because sometimes if the Persians are streaming across the penninsula then no amount of perceptive thinking alone will keep an Athenian happy when the Persians arrive. Maybe this observation I am making is so obvious that it doesn't need to be made>>.


Sorry Cassius my friend I won't agree with you on that concerning the Canon which is an excellent tool for a perceptive thinking in all the issues of our life indeed. What do you think made the Athenians or the Spartans and what made the good ancient greek Generals to win the battles with the numerous soldiers of the Persians? The strategic and perceptive thinking of the Canon :

1) Study of Nature with the Senses looking and searching what is right space to line up.

2) Anticipations or preconceptions based on past and present experiences how the persians used to fight and what was their wicked point-

3) Sober calculation when is the right moment of the opportunity to attack because here is the struggle for all the things..The calculation was also among pleausure and pain. as they had had to chose a pain for the purpose of a future pleasure for all.


Here is a small expert of Epicurus how he uses the strategic thinking of the Canon :


“You will attempt something only when you can attempt it in appropriate circumstances and in the appropriate opportunity. But when comes the right opportunity, you be ready to grab it....", "When you contemplating the fleeing is prohibited to stay empty-handed ... there is a hope for a way out even in the most difficult situations, if not in too great a hurry before the time, nor too dilatory when the time arrives…” From epistle to Idomeneus, on The Urgent Need for Action (Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XXII).
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:16am

Cassius Amicus I agree with you Elli! The Canon tells us to ACT! But don't you think a good number of people studying philosophy are simply wanting to live the life of contemplation as if that is the highest and best and really all we have to do? I think they need constant reminders how impractical that is....
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:23am · Edited

Elli Pensa There are many tools in our life but always it depends on how we use them. Contemplation with the belief that the goddess Athena who was a symbol of a strategic thinking IS the one that she will help you in crucial moments, is a faitytale for the little children. Nature gave us all the faculties to survive and the tools are in our hands...but as I said before it depends on how we use them. The same is with the philosophy of HOW we can apply it in the life according to the reality of Nature. The goal is survival, but what kind of survival is the case. Pressure your emotions and waiting your destiny or measuring with the natural purpose to live as a human being.wth the proper connection with other human beings ? The conclusion is only this : We can't make social contracts with all the people on this planet Earth. And as Diogenis of Oinoanda says : Those men who hold that this world was created uniquely by the gods, as a place for the gods to live, of course have no answer to this question. By their view, the gods were destitute and roaming about at random for an infinite time before the creation of this world, like an unfortunate man, without a country, who had neither city nor fellow citizens! It is absurd to argue that a divine nature created the world for the sake of the world itself, and it is even more absurd to argue that the gods created men for the gods’ own sake. There are too many things wrong, with both the world and with men, for them to have been created by gods!


Let us now turn our attention from gods to men.


Many men pursue philosophy for the sake of wealth and power, with the aim of procuring these either from private individuals, or from kings, who deem philosophy to be a great and precious possession.


Well, it is not in order to gain wealth or power that we Epicureans pursue philosophy! We pursue philosophy so that we may enjoy happiness through attainment of the goal craved by Nature.


But know this also: We Epicureans bring these truths, not to all men whatsoever, but only to those men who are benevolent and capable of receiving this wisdom.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · Yesterday at 9:46am · Edited

Cassius Amicus

Yesterday at 9:00am

Let's suppose one of our Stoic acquaintances walks into the room and suggests to us that Epictetus was one of the most virtuous men who ever lived. And let's say our Stoic also quoted to us the wording of PD5 (translated below by Cyril Bailey; alternate translations follow below). Question: Would our Stoic be right in suggesting to us that Epicurus would have said that Epictetus had lived pleasantly?

"It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and Justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life, is not living prudently and honorably and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life], cannot possibly live pleasantly."

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

5Stella Lambrinatou, Matt Jackson and 3 others

Comments

Cassius Amicus One point of clarififcation - it appears to be Bailey who uses the word "virtuous" in the parenthetical expression near the end. Other translators do not use that term.


Epicurus Wiki: "It is impossible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live prudently and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life."
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:06am · Edited

Cassius Amicus This is the HICKS version -https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…aFULVtLZJhX-6D4

Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:09am · Edited

Cassius Amicus CD Yonge versionhttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…EQlBRM_85pJR4C0

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 9:10am

Write a reply...

Ron Warrick You say he quotes PD 5. Are we to assume he endorses it also?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 9:03am

Cassius Amicus For purposes of this hypothetical let's presume that the Stoic simply asserts that the clear meaning of PD5 is that the man leading a virtuous life must necessarily be living pleasantly. Since stoics are masters of dialectical gamesmanship I would never presume that a true Stoic (eg- Seneca) is being sincere with a question like that.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:09am · Edited

Ilkka Vuoristo
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:43am

Ron Warrick Cassius Amicus I can't see a Stoic saying that. If a passage has two claims, he wouldn't say the meaning of the passage is just the one claim, unless the one claim implied the other, which it doesn't in this case. Even the Stoics were not that faulty in their logic.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:48am · Edited

Write a reply...

Jason Baker I would tell our stoic friend to stick to his own criteria and not play games. Epicurus preceded Epictetus by some three hundred plus years. It's like asking what Voltaire would have thought of any of us. It's a vain fantasy. I grow weary of vain fantasies. Hypotheticals should be shut down immediately, they serve to illustrate very little about the scenario but a lot about the person posing the question.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:57am

Bartosz Morzynski Not sure if getting angry at hypothetical Stoic or at Cassius for posting that hypothetical scenario.
Like · Reply · 17 hrs

Jason Baker It does read angry, doesn't it? Not my intent at all.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Well in this case Jason I think the hypothetical has a useful point and will lead to some interesting discussion. We can substitute anyone else who is reputed to be virtuous, but the key is that whoever we are talking about is simply considered to be extremely virtuous, at least as that term is ordinarily understood by most ordinary people who are not applying a special definition to the word "virtue"
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:16am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Not sure if I get the question, both Epictetus and Epicurus would hold that virtue (arete) and eudaemonia are symbiotically linked. The difference being that the Stoics thought pleasure to be a baser goal than living in accordance with one's rational nature.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:41am

Jimmy Daltrey Epictetus does say that the Epicureans are good people following a bad philosophy, whereas Stoics are bad people following a good philosophy...rather cryptic...he doesn't claim to be a sage.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:43am

Cassius Amicus So Jimmy Daltrey (or anyone else) the question is, considering PD5, would Epicurus had held that Epictetus (as a paragon of virtue) had lived a pleasant life?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:52am

Hide 14 Replies

Ron Warrick Epictetus denied he was a sage, meaning he was not 100% virtuous. So, it is not clear whether he would have had a pleasant life or not. It would be a psychological matter of how he viewed his imperfection, I think.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:54am

Jimmy Daltrey I would think so. If pleasure is inner peace in the face of adversity, yes. (with the caveat that no Stoic ever claimed to be truly virtuous, just doing their best to head in that direction, there has never been a sage)
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:57am · Edited

Cassius Amicus OK there you guys are taking a specialist (Stoic) interpretation of virtue and saying that even Epictetus did not think he was virtuous. That sounds like correct reasoning to me, but it takes the practical use out of talking about living virtuously if...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:59am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey There is no "specialist" definition of Hellenistic virtue/arete. It is shared by every ancient philosophy, Stoic, Epicurean, Platonist alike. Wisdom, prudence, courage, justice, moderation.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:05am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Perfection is what is impossible to achieve. One can try to be wise on a case by case basis.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:03am

Jimmy Daltrey The Christians added "faith hope and charity, which confuses people and causes them to conflate Greek sagacity with Jihadis and the Spanish Inquisition.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:06am

Jimmy Daltrey Are the prudent happier than the rash? Probably.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:07am

Jimmy Daltrey Are the courageous happier than the fearful? Definitely.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:08am

Jimmy Daltrey Are the wise happier than the foolish? Probably.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:09am

Jimmy Daltrey Are the just happier than the unjust? Sadly, I doubt it, but maybe.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:09am

Jimmy Daltrey Is it better to be foolish than wise? No...
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:11am

Cassius Amicus Just trying to bring this down to real life Jimmy Daltrey. Talking philosophy makes no sense if it is not of practical value to living. Epictetus is just being used as an example. The question before the house is: Does PD5 mean that Epicurus would say that everyone who lives by the definition you state to be "shared by every ancient philosophy. Wisdom, prudence, courage, justice, moderation]" living pleasantly? If not, why not? If more information is needed before answering, what else needs to be known?
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:17am

Jimmy Daltrey I think Epicurus would say to live philosophically, to live virtuously is to live pleasantly.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:20pm

Cassius Amicus " to live virtuously is to live pleasantly." << That is exactly the conclusion that I think a lot of people draw from PD5, and that is exactly what I intend to question with the hypothetical. By most any common definition Epictetus would probably be thought by many people to have lived virtuously. Would Epicurus agree that Epictetus lived virtuously? From that perspective would Epicurus also agree that Epictetus lived pleasantly? I do not think that either of those questions is obviously answered "yes"
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:14pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Or to ask the question another way, is an Epicurean bound by PD5 to conclude that anyone living virtuously is living pleasantly? If not, what are the limitations and why not conclude that?
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:53am

Ilkka Vuoristo If it were actually true that someone was living a virtuous, then they would be living a pleasant life. But it would be impossible for us to say, that a single person is _actually_ virtuous. They might be hiding vice from us.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · Yesterday at 10:56am

Cassius Amicus Yep - hiding vice, and also, once again, do we really have any definition of what it means to live virtuously? And if we do try to define "living virtuously" the more specific we get about it without talking about pleasure, the further we get from the ability to conclude that whatever we are talking about is pleasant living.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 11:01am

Jimmy Daltrey The Stoics would hold that personal integrity would trump pleasure. If given the choice between bowing to a tyrant or death, the ideal Stoic would take death. So there is a big gap there.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:22pm

Ilkka Vuoristo We have a pretty good definition of virtuous living in the PD 5. We can define what such a life is, but not say that any particular life is like that. Most definitions are the ideal cases, and most particulars fail at some detail of the definition. Life isn't easy to cram into convenient boxes.


And, yes, if we are talking about virtues without talking about pleasure, we've gone astray. Principal Doctrine 25 reminds us that "If you do not on every separate occasion refer each of your actions to the end prescribed by nature, but instead of this in the act of choice or avoidance swerve aside to some other end, your acts will not be consistent with your theories."


Virtues are actions, not empty words. Things that lead to death are _vices_.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:34pm

Cassius Amicus Ilkka Vuoristo your last post raises another point I think is relevant here. The list of qualities in PD5 seems to be at most prudently, honorably, justly. As Jimmy Daltrey has listed earlier in that thread, the classic list of "virtues" is considerably longer than that, and at least in regard to justice, we know that Epicurus' definition of justice is almost the opposite of the common definition of justice. I think it is entirely possible that Epicurus did not intend this list, which the Epicurus wiki suggests is just a subset of prudence, to be synonymous with "virtue" at all.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:17pm

Cassius Amicus Note from Epicurus.wiki that maybe this is not a broad reference to "virtue" but maybe all PD5 refers to is prudence:

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:19pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Ilkka Vuoristo I would say that it's not right to make such a suggestion.


It would be impossible for anyone (Epicurean or not) to say that a single person is living virtuously or pleasantly. We have to also remember that Epicurus is talking about the virtues in the context of Epicurean Philosophy... and in that context Epictetus wasn't "prudent".
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 10:53am

Cassius Amicus Yes Ilkka Vuoristo, that is exactly where I am going. And yet I regularly see PD5 used as if it were totally clear that Epicurus endorsed virtuous living in the same way the Stoics did, and that because virtuous living leads to pleasure there is no reason to worry about distinctions between the goal of living between the two philosophies.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:55am

Ilkka Vuoristo When I see that I laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh... And then go do something pleasurable.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:35pm

Ron Warrick At some point we'll be challenged as to why it is necessary to live pleasantly in order to live wisely, honorably and justly. Frankly, I've not been able to make that connection to my satisfaction, and haven't seen it discussed anywhere.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:42pm

View more replies

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa The moralist stoic translators put words in the mouth of Epicurus.


I have translated from the webpage of the greek gardens based on the ancient greek prototype text.


V.(5) Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. ὅτῳ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει ἐξ οὗ ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.


new greek V.(5) Δεν ζει κανείς ηδονικά δίχως φρόνηση, ομορφιά και δικαιοσύνη, ούτε δίχως την ηδονή μπορεί κανείς να ζει με φρόνηση, ομορφιά και δικαιοσύνη. Όταν δεν υπάρχει αυτό, δεν υπάρχει ηδονική ζωή.


V. (5) No one lives pleasantly without prudence, beauty and justice neither without the pleasure one can live with prudence, beauty and justice. When there is not this, there is not a pleasant life.


Where did all the translators find the word honor and honorably in this PD 5 ? In the greek language for this word honest the adjective is έντιμος or the adverb <εντιμότητα> or the other word adj <ειλικρινής> or the adv. <ειλικρινώς> ?


But Epicurus used the word <καλῶς> which means beautiful or nice.


Cassius my friend, if you remember in our first correspondence that we've exchanged with emails, we had the same discussion on this issue. But think now again HOW MUCH pleasure brings the beauty of the Cosmos (means jewel) when you study the Nature or the presence of a sweet form ? Why Epicurus to be so moralist to use in this PD another word like honor ? I found in the lexicon that in the vocabulary of the UK: and the US honour is also a virtue and is also connected with virginity, purity substances

Is this word "honest" seems to be unecessary when you said already that one man has to be prudent and just to pursue the goal of pleasure? Is a prudent and a just man and honor too or not ?

All the evidence how the greeks admire the beauty of the reality and Nature is all in their statues and in that word "Cosmos".

And even this word "statue" for them was "agalma" from the verb "agallomai" means I feel joy and pleasure when I stare this form/figure infront of me. (Y)
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 2:50pm · Edited

Ron Warrick In English, honorable is not quite the same as "honest".

I don't see "ομορφιά" in the ancient Greek version above.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:11pm

Elli Pensa Μr.Ron Warrick You do not see in the ancient greek prototype the new greek word for "ομορφιά". But I can see this word in both texts, because I am an Hellene epicurean lady .
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 1:25pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Every time I go through all these textual problems I shudder at the concern that so little of the modern translations/commentaries can be trusted without scrutiny. At least in the time of Cicero he would be aware that there were many orthodox Epicureans around to correct him, and there would be some restraint on how far he might go. In the last 500+ years there has been virtually no restraint, and a great deal of incentive, to read "virtue" and other Stoic ideas into every line of Epicurean text. To which the only antidote I have is to point out how illogical it is for modern commentators to imply that these views are reconcilable when the ancients who knew the material far better took the position (and very heatedly) that they were NOT reconcilable
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 1:28pm

Cassius Amicus But if the principles of Epicurean philosophy are really as simple, and really derived so clearly from Nature as was alleged, then it ought to be very possible to reconstruct them with confidence, which I think is what we are doing.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 1:29pm

Ron Warrick Check out this refutation of the Stoics on this point.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…3LJVDXiLnso3dqE

Peace and Safety For Your Twentieth of October – Lorenzo Valla Sides With…
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · Yesterday at 2:17pm

Cassius Amicus Yep, for example - … [Y]ou Stoics, unhappy and inflexible as you are, desire that nothing should exist that is not wicked and vile; you measure everything by a hollow wisdom that is in all respects fixed and complete. Thus, while you take joy in flying prodigiously and in striving toward the higher regions, your wings melt (not being natural to you but artificial and made of wax), and like the foolish Icarus [who flew too close to the sun] you fall into the sea. Truly, what kind of farfetched subtlety is it to describe the wise man in such a way that, by your own admission, no example can be found among us men, and to declare that he alone is happy, that he alone is friendly, good, and free? I would gladly endure this if your law did not deem that anyone who is not a wise man is by necessity a fool, a reprobate, an exile, an enemy, and a deserter, ‘anyone’ meaning all of us, since no one has yet possessed this wisdom. And lest by chance someone could become wise, you barbarians have made vices more numerous than virtues, and have invented an infinity of the most minute kinds of sins so that there are not more diseases of the body, which you say are hardly known adequately by the doctors themselves. If only one of these maladies were to affect the body, its health would not be completely lost; but if even a minimal spiritual evil exists in a man (as is necessarily the case), you pretend not only that this man incompletely lacks the honor belonging to wisdom but that he is also deformed by every shame and infamy. By Hercules, it is amazing that, when the doctors say there is one state of health and many illnesses, you do not also affirm that virtue is also single, although this is the same as declaring that whoever has one virtue possesses them all.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 2:28pm

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa I have the evidence =====> From the Liddell & Scott the adv. "καλῶς" as used by Epicurus in PD5 derives from the adj."καλός" means good looking, handsome, and for woman is «καλή» means beautiful. In Latin "pulcher". According to Homer as a feature of the external form. Other meanings good body, good physique, according to Homer in Odysseia.; Similarly with the “Callistus”, the most beautiful in body in Xenοphon.; Kalon means beauty in Euripides. In Xenophon and Plato as the Latin “praeclarus” wonderful, brilliant, kindness.

=============================================

And now according to CICERO !!!!! “Kαλός” means : the good person, the moral beauty, the virtue, contrary to the obscene, the indecent, (the honestum and turpe of Cicero).
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 2:30pm · Edited

Hide 20 Replies

Ron Warrick That's Cicero's platonism showing.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 2:38pm

Elli Pensa No, Cicero was not only a Platonist, he was a dangerous mixture of a platonist and a stoic too ! Because even and Socrates through Plato when said for a person these adj. "Kalos k'agathos" meant "the handsome and the brave".
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 2:45pm

Jimmy Daltrey Dangerous?
Like · Reply · 22 hrs

Elli Pensa Not exactly dangerous, but perilous.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 22 hrs

Jason Baker Cicero clearly had some philosophical issues that led to much personal peril! He most certainly wasn't using the hedonic calculus wisely. I think perilous is an apt description.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Ron Warrick Jason Baker Once when I traveled to Italy on business, I got to talking to a lady in the office I was visiting. At one point, she mentioned she was from Arpinum, which was nearby. "That's the birthplace of Cicerone", she said with evident pride. "He was a great Italian author." Had I been on the ball I would have realized she meant Cicero, before she walked away, instead of two minutes later. I regret not getting the opportunity to purse that discussion.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs · Edited

Jason Baker I think you might have lucked out on that one Ron. I learned a long time ago to never do anything other than offer effusive praise for a hometown favorite while visiting some place.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Ron Warrick I should have mentioned that in Italian, "Cicerone" comes out as "Cheecheroni". I wasn't prepared for that!
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs

Ron Warrick Jason Baker No problem, I'm an admirer.
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Jason Baker :O
Like · Reply · 22 hrs

Ron Warrick Jason Baker Please don't vote me out of the group.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs

Christos Tsigaridas Ron Warrick I am Greek but my name in SPANISH mean Chicharrón
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 18 hrs

Cassius Amicus Vote you out of the group for saying something good about CIcero, Ron? For years I had in my office a three feet tall bust of Cicero. It's not in my office anymore, but I still have it!
Like · Reply · 3 · 18 hrs

Ron Warrick Cassius Amicus When I build my villa, I will have one, too.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 18 hrs

Ron Warrick Christos Tsigaridas And "Cicero" is named after the Latin word for chickpea (garbanzo), which is "cicer".
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 18 hrs

Ron Warrick Christos Tsigaridas Be careful, we will nickname you "Porky".
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 18 hrs

Christos Tsigaridas celebrating TSIGARIDEShttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…EZKwPydmunreW1A

Tovoion Tv Γιορτή τσιγαρίδας στο Σισάνι…
YOUTUBE.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · 17 hrs

Christos Tsigaridas LOOK LIKE EPICUREAN GARDEN !!!
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 17 hrs

Ron Warrick Christos Tsigaridas Wow. "My Big Fat Greek Tsigaridas Festival"
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 17 hrs

Jason Baker I really feel like I'm missing out! I wish there were more food festivals around here. I'm at the end of a week long beer festival and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs

Write a reply...

The full text of the Wenham Article (On Cicero's Interpretation of Katastematic Pleasure) is here.

Every so often I like to remind people of two particularly important articles in our "files" section here. One is Boris Nikolsky's "Epicurus on Pleasure." The second, which I haven't mentioned recently, is Mathew Wenham's "On Cicero's Interpretation of Katastematic Pleasure in Epicurus." In all our discussions of details we shouldn't forget the central issue of being able to understand and describe the goal of life with clarity. What does "pleasure" really mean? There are at least two major dueling positions on how to answer that question. If you have read wikipedia or 98% of the internet websites on Epicurus, you know the majority position. Just be aware that there is a minority position (and of course it's the one I favor). Wenham does a good job of laying out the argument. Added on to Nikolsky's analysis, anyone interested in truly understanding the Epicurean goal of life owes it to themselves to read these two articles.

*** In truth Nikolsky's is more important, because it argues that the entire katastematic/kinetic distinction is non-Epicurean and should be discarded. But if you choose to accept the distinction, Wenham shows how to interpret it in a way that neatly eliminates the contradictions inherent in talking about (1) a "static" state, in an Epicurean universe of atoms that never come to rest, and (2) a state in which feeling is absent, in an Epicurean universe where the feeling of pleasure is the guide to life.

Jimmy Daltrey

March 8 at 7:59am

Since we are discussing with Donald, I thought I would clear this up

I did encounter Stoicism first, so am more familiar with it than Epicurus, however I hope you have seen that I don't have a particular axe to grind. I'm still learning about Epicurus.

This keeps cropping up, a conflating of the Stoics with Platonists. They both claim heritage from Socrates but there are some stark dividing lines.

Stoics are not essententialists, nor to they believe in transcendent forms.

They are monists and materialists. All the Cosmos is matter, substance.

The only Good and Bad are only moral, resulting from human action.(I believe they share this with Aristotle)

A thing does not have an essence, a thing can be neither good or bad, it is inert. Indifferent.

A gun is a chunk of metal. It has no value, no essence.

A person can save lives with a gun, or kill innocents. That is where the morality lies.

It is the action, or more precisely the intent of the action that is good or bad.

Virtue, good and bad are physical, actions, thoughts (yes thoughts are material), words.

If you want to debate a Stoic, woo and spirits is a poor line of attack. There are no spirits.

The divine fire is not something that effects day to day life (Liebniz called energy divine force) and another person's providence not turn out well for you. Practicing, preparing for your life turning to shit is a big Stoic thing. (premeditatio malorum) so they are no Polly Anna's.

The gods are physical, and not to be relied upon.

You will find individual quotes that run against this, but the movement as a whole Stoicism is all about rationality, making rational decisions, rational actions, focusing on your own moral actions, and ignoring the rest.

The "magical thinking" if you like, comes from Socrates, in that a moral person is necessarily a happy person. I think that is naive. I am sure the evil sleep well. Some of them at least.

Also that the intent of your actions are more important than the outcome. Not sure at all about that.

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

5Matt Jackson, Jason Baker and 3 others

Comments

Alexander Rios It seems strange to me that Stoics consider only human intentional actions as morally good and evil. Animals suffer. Animals enjoy. Humans are animals. Animals choose, animals avoid. We all navigate the same universe. Many animals exhibit social virtues and mental joys and pains. Heck, lots of evidence indicates that plants should not be excluded.


Lots of harm occurs by accident too. If in my lack of awareness I unintentionally harm someone, and they suffer a pain, and loss of time, work ... an evil event has coincided with them.


So we should agree that objects like guns, animals and people are not evil, but that only events are evil/painful/cause suffering.


I mean if modern Stoics accept materialism, and the Standard Model of Particle Physics tells us that all bodies are composed of elementary particles in motion through space and time, binding, colliding, and emitting and absorbing images, then Stoics should agree that only sequences of events (bindings, collisions, emissions and absorbtions) can be good/evil. When we casually say that a person, animal, plant, virus is evil, we must mean that we agree that it initiates/propagates events that are detected/sensed as pain and suffering.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 8 at 4:19pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Alexander, our understanding of the nature of animals and our relationship to them is pitifully flawed.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 1:06pm

Jimmy Daltrey Stoics are compatibilist, cause and effect all the way down, however humans can choose their reactions. An earthquake cannot be evil, it is just physics and a virus is simply acting in accordance with its nature. It has no ill intent. Big fish eat little fish. Stoicism and Epicureanism both proceed from observation of nature. The "good" is to be in accordance with one's nature, sharks kill little fish, dogs hunt in packs, birds fly, humans reason and act collectively. To each their own nature.
Like · Reply · March 8 at 1:12pm

Hide 11 Replies

Alexander Rios Many animals can choose their reactions too. Animals learn from consequences too, and many can adapt their behaviors based on what they have learned.


The person that senses pain from the consequences of the earthquake is gonna suffer. They experience ...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 3:25pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey I am very interested in animal psychology and like you think they reason after a manner. An earthquake is to be regretted but not evil.. It was not caused with intent.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 3:33pm · Edited

Alexander Rios All events are natural. Even intentional ones.

When Stoics say evil, they demand pre-planned intentional harm. And so they are forced to say that not all pain is evil, despite the obvious suffering....See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 8 at 4:22pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey It is a major distinction. For the Stoics pain does not affect your ability to reason, which is the highest good, so pain is considered neither good nor evil. A toothache does not nullify my ability to make prudent decisions, or at least it should not, if i am in control of my facilities (which is the difficult bit)
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 3:39pm · Edited

Alexander Rios I think that is a really bad example. Some snake bites directly attack your nervous system, and so your brain's ability to reason is severely compromised.


A dull toothache may not affect your decision making abilities much, but a sharp toothache will....See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 4:45pm · Edited

Alexander Rios Jimmy Daltrey


Suppose a snake bites an Epicurean, instinctively, and not pre-planned. The Epicurean suffers pain. The Epicurean does not say that the snake is evil. The Epicurean says the bite causes me pain and suffering....See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 7:44pm · Edited

Dewayne Korth dispreferred indifferent
Like · Reply · March 9 at 7:14am

Alexander Rios Am assuming Dewayne has answered like a "true Stoic" would have. Thanks. I am clueless about Stoicism.


I understand "dispreferred". The snake's venom literally kills mammalian tissue. The Stoic's nervous system (soul) and body tissue is literally kil...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 8:15am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey "Does he really believe that his life, health, happiness is not important?" That's it. Pretty hardcore. You of course would prefer to be healthy, happy and free of pain, but there are greater priorities. You throw yourself on the grenade if that is the right thing to do. I don't think Epicureanism has the notion of self sacrifice in the absence of future reward.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 10:11am

Alexander Rios Epicureans sometimes choose a pain, in order to secure long term happiness. Epicureans also sometimes choose a pain to avoid a greater pain. Epicureans also sometimes enjoy a pleasure now, by use of imagination, of the consequences of soon choosing a p...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 11:47am · Edited

Alexander Rios Jimmy, here is the bit from TEIOD.


"I must now address an error that many of you hold; an error that exposes the ignorance of your philosophy even more than your devotion to your false ideas, rather than to Nature. For you reason falsely when you contend that all causes must precede their effects. Because you think that all causes must come before the effects that result from them, you argue that pleasure cannot be the cause for living virtuously. But you are wrong, and Nature shows us that it is not true that all causes precede their effects. The truth is that some causes precede their effects, others coincide with their effects, and still others follow their effects. First, consider surgery, which is a cause that precedes its effect, the saving of a life. In this case, extreme pain must first be endured, but then pleasure quickly follows. Second, consider food, water, and love-making, as these are causes that coincide with their effects. We do not first eat food, or drink wine, or make love, and then, later, experience pleasure only afterward. Instead, the action brings about the resulting pleasure for us immediately, with no need to wait for the pleasure to arrive in the future. Third, consider the expectation of a brave man that he will win praise after his death, as this is an example of a cause which follows its effect. Such men experience pleasure now because they know there will be a favorable memory of them after they have gone. In such cases the pleasure occurs now, but the cause of the pleasure occurs later. Many men are ignorant of these facts, and they hold that virtue is a result to be desired on its own, and is caused by living in a certain way. These men do not understand that virtues are not results, but causes. Virtues are causes which coincide with their effects, for virtues are born at the same time as the pleasure of happy living which they bring. [Those of you who do not understand the philosophy of Epicurus, or those who choose to misrepresent it, go completely astray when you fail to understand that pleasure is the end of life. For Epicurus did not hold back from teaching that if a lifestyle of debauchery were sufficient to bring about a happy life, we would have no reason to blame those who engage in debauchery."
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 10:39am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Jimmy at least one prominent article at modernstoicism.com disagrees with your view of the importance of divine fire: "Without the Divine, There is No Stoicism" https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…ya21P46ReJ8IFZU

Modern Stoicism
Home of Stoicon and Stoic Week
MODERNSTOICISM.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 · March 8 at 1:25pm

Jimmy Daltrey Lol: <By Stoic teachings, ‘God’ is immanent for the Divine Fire manifests us through the quantum world moment by moment and so permeates our very being> Epictetus was silent on quantum mechanics. He sounds like Deepak Chopra. Who is he?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 1:35pm

Cassius Amicus Jimmy Daltrey Probably we need to ask Donald that question
Like · Reply · 1 · March 8 at 4:51pm

Jimmy Daltrey He sounds like a dualist to me. "God" is not manifested through anything. "God" is everything. It's materialistic monism. No space for spooks.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 10:15am

Write a reply...

Matt Jackson So my biggest concern with Stoicism comes from its terminology. I personally DID come from a Neoplatonist background so I have an understanding of pure platonic idealism. My concern that I wanted addressed is the nature of the Divine. Clearly we are not actually talking about anything "Divine." When it is brought up it is quickly dismissed by Stoics. But even pure materialism without a Divine Principle has implications on virtue. The basis of the Stoic cosmology is a "pantheism" that is fragmented among individual reasoning minds. That's all fine as long as it is interpreted as not actually being Divine, and is a materialistic process.


But like I said, if that is the final answer we are going with, that there is no "Divinity" by which virtue is contemplated on a higher level, then we must examine the nature of the individual reasoning minds that have no real continuity among each other. God makes things holy in religion, the One and Nous in Neoplatonism makes Virtue...virtuous. So then it would follow that individual reasoning minds are where virtue is conceived in Stoicism. There's no higher contemplating entity.


So we must address the problem of relativism of the individual reasoning minds, since virtue is not a "stand alone" divinely inspired concept.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 8 at 3:49pm · Edited

Matt Jackson I can say I really appreciate your candid willingness to cross philosophical borders, its really pleasant..
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 8 at 4:02pm

Hide 39 Replies

Jimmy Daltrey There is no fragmentation no discontinuity. There is one mind in which we all share. Think Borg.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 10:58am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Unless your brain is somehow made of a different set of substances than everyone else's. Silicone perhaps.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 11:07am

Matt Jackson It's just that this cosmology is so hard to pin down. The ancient writings clearly point to a "fragmented" God figure. But modern Stoics clearly deny any divine interpretation. Objectively it's very confusing.


"Epictetus imagines Zeus talking to him: ...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 12:33pm

Alexander Rios Even the Borg, was made of individuals. A collective. Each had their own brain, sensors, faculties and body. It was possible for each to become disconnected, and reconnected, and resynchronization took a finite amount of time/energy. The whole "mind" was distributed in the individuals and communication was not instantaneous. Knowledge acquired by one individual had to be transported/communicated to the collective.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 12:51pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey It's Pantheism Matt Jackson
Like · Reply · March 9 at 1:27pm

Hiram Crespo the only way we avoid falling into superstition through this rabbit hole of pantheism is by understanding that any "collective mind" is not brought about my magic or telepathy, but through a complex system of communication. Nature isn't like the movie ...See More
Like · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 1:44pm

Hiram Crespo I really don't know how else to reconcile what I'm reading with the study of nature. I do not believe that it's likely that Epicurean Gods, if they exist, communicate with us.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 1:46pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up atheism" ?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 2:00pm

Jason Baker Jimmy Daltrey So basically, it's marketing bullshit?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 2:09pm

Jimmy Daltrey Have you read Spinoza?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 4:48pm

Jason Baker I don't really dig determinist philosophers. I find their arguments unconvincing.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 4:54pm

Matt Jackson I get the idea of pantheism, mostly as a poetic device to show nature as divine. From a practical standpoint it's unprovable since it's just ...nature. It should ultimately be called pan-naturalism.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 4:57pm

Matt Jackson In the Hindu tradition Sankyha is the closest thing to this idea of a non-theistic universal consciousness. The purusha (mind) acts upon matter in a sort of impotent way. It's like mind or consciousness exists independently of matter, but it has no power of its own.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 5:00pm

Matt Jackson But for it to be true we need to hammer out the mind-body dualism and hard consciousness problems.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 5:04pm · Edited

Matt Jackson Anything with a theism or Deism attached to it that doesn't actually have to do with a Divine Principle is often confusing.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 5:04pm

Matt Jackson For most of these "theistic" ideas to work there actually needs to be some sort of "active" Divine Mind that is separate from individual minds. Individual minds CAN take part in the greater whole as it is in the Neoplatonic Nous or the Vedantic Brahman or Bhagavan, but there needs to be true autonomy. It needs to be a separate entity ultimately.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 5:14pm · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey There is no mind body dualism in either Stoic or Epicurean traditions. Mind is physical in both, as are the gods.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:01am

Matt Jackson Right, so in that case the utmost mechanistic and natural explanations for things win the day. Abstract ideals mean nothing since everything is reduced to sensory stimuli reacting to matter. So for me personally a philosophy of strict naturalism that focuses only on physical process is key. Epicurean philosophy fills that role for me personally.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:06am

Matt Jackson The way the Epicurean gods work is that, though they are physical, they might as well just be dreams since they are passive beings that don't do anything to mortals. They may as well not exist since they don't disrupt our happiness. They being in a state of bliss are poetic role models for the Epicurean.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 10:09am

Jimmy Daltrey Stoicism is no different, strictly naturalist. No supernatural, just that nature is rationally structured and everything in nature is structured according to the same rules. I think of a unifed space time.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 10:49am

Jimmy Daltrey The Epicurean explanation of how the gods are perceivable, dreams also, is fascinating. Like we live in a cloud of physical projections of images perceived directly by the mind, not the senses.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:52am

Matt Jackson Well in a practical sense they effect us as dreams do, really in no actual way. But if they do exist they are the equivalent of purple unicorns in the Andromeda galaxy. They may exist, truly exist, but they have no effect on my life or pursuit of pleasure.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 10:55am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey ? The concept of physical representations of things floating into your head from outside doesn't strike you as worthy of comment? For the Epicureans the gods were very real, the proof being, in their own words, everybody has them. That they are indifferent is another matter.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:29pm

Alexander Rios Epicurean gods are never sensed. Humans imaginate them. A generated presentation. Thanks to memory of prior sensations, combined with compositing, and perhaps some cosmic radiation.

These presentations are not reliable.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:33pm · Edited

Alexander Rios Epicureans know that real gods exist, because it is easy to say that some species exists which is maximally happy and maximally incorruptible.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:40pm

Alexander Rios Lucretius' talk about the gods is not reliable. He was not an advanced student. Agreed? Plus his poem was under revision. Not completed.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:42pm · Edited

Matt Jackson The Gods are what we imagine them to be. They hypothetically exist to whatever extent we want to entertain the idea of what they "may be."
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:45pm

Matt Jackson If we are going the Sci-fi fantasy route I might imagine them as the elves in the Lord of the rings trilogy. Immortal and blessed beings that are anthropomorphic.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:47pm

Alexander Rios Epicurus says we should imagine them as happy and incorruptible, and not add other character traits.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:48pm

Matt Jackson They are completely inconsequential to our happiness. They do not interfere with us. It's as if they don't exist.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:49pm

Matt Jackson (And for many it is practical to simply not believe they do)
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:50pm

Matt Jackson Since for most God equates to the Platonic Demiurge or the Abrahamic or Dharmic Gods of Religion. The Epicurean Gods are very different.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:57pm

Jimmy Daltrey I'm sorry, but for the Epicureans the gods were real physical beings, perceptions of which were sensed directly by the soul.
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Alexander Rios soul is the nervous system

brain and peripheral

mind and spirit
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Alexander Rios gods never sensed by sense organs
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Alexander Rios am driving... later.
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Matt Jackson Perceptions of the gods are taken from our impressions of the natural world. But in the case of the Epicureans they did truly believe the gods were real physical beings. There's no argument there, but what is different about them is that they are passi...See More
Like · Reply · 22 hrs

Matt Jackson There is no real divinity in Epicurean philosophy. Not in the same Platonic and religious sense we are used to. The gods are to Epicurus real physical immortal perfectly happy beings. They don't bother humans, so they end up as a hypothetical footnote in the philosophy.
Like · Reply · 22 hrs · Edited

Matt Jackson They are literally immortal physical "aliens" that live throughout the cosmos in total bliss.
Like · Reply · 22 hrs

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus I'll drop this here in lieu of a better place. Looks like James Warren has previously and thoroughly taken apart modern stoicism, but I don't have access to his article to know for sure - https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…EOKAZYshb0LrZnY


A related quote from the article linked pretty much sums up the situation:

Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 8:51am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Irvine undertakes quite a heavy rewrite of some basic stuff which a lot of people don't like.. It's a bit like the followers of Brian's left shoe vs the followers of Brian's right shoe.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 10:40am

Write a reply...

Haris Dimitriadis The core difference between the two philosophies is that while the Epicurean considers happiness as an emotional state the stoics, as well as all other philosophies, as a conceptual state. To the first matters how one feels whereas to others how one thinks. It is as simple as that.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 3:25pm

Cassius Amicus Haris I think there is a lot of truth in what you just wrote, but I am wondering if the core differences can be stated adequately without reference to "pleasure" (?)
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 3:36pm

Haris Dimitriadis Cassius,


Pleasure is a positive emotion. It is dealt with by positive psychology. Pain is also an emotion, but on the other side of the emotional spectrum. In both cases we are talking about feelings. Happiness to the Epicureans is feeling good.

The Stoics, as well as all the rest philosophies are not interested in happiness, as we understand it, but in well being, or eudaimonia, which is a conceptual state. But these two states, happiness and well being are two independent functions of the mind. One may be successful, moral, rational, etc but unhappy and vice versa.

That's why we may say that happiness, as a feeling, is a choice. One has to make a fundamental choice. Whether he values most how he feels or whether he is successful-wealthy, prestigious, etc.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 3:51pm

Matt Jackson It's good to see you here Haris! ?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 4:11pm

Haris Dimitriadis I have always been following your posts. For the time being though I am very much involved with the finalization of the details of the book. My apologies.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 4:20pm

Matt Jackson I totally understand, it's always a pleasure to see your comments and perspective. I hope all is well.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 4:21pm

Jason Baker Haris, is that second paragraph a characterization of the Stoic position or a general picture? Also, I was with you on feelings until I read the third paragraph. It's my understanding that feelings are automatic like sense-perception or preconceptions. Could you clarify?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 5:23pm

Cassius Amicus Haris I am interested in your answer to Jason's question but here is my comment: I agree with paragraph one, and I see paragraph two as applicable not only to the Stoics but to anyone in general who sees the goal of life as "being a good person" or an...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 8:08pm · Edited

Haris Dimitriadis Sorry, but it was late and fell asleep.

Cassius, you are describing better than me what i mean. My answer to Jason's question is that, feelings are created in two ways. The first is through the automatic like senses function of the mind and the second is through thoughts. The later are created at a second stage, when the initial automatic emotional reaction of the body is realized by the conscious mind. Free Will and logic are then activated and they give their own interpretation to the physical emotional reactions. These thoughts in turn set off a second round of emotional reactions, which may be of greater or lesser intensity then the original, depending on the quality of our thoughts. It is said that these thoughts are the cause of panic attacks and unhappiness in modern societies. Fortunately we are able to get hold of our thoughts and by developing an optimistic attitude to life, as for example the Epicurean philosophy suggests, we can greatly influence the quality of our thoughts and life.

Perceptions is the means to influence the quality of our life. If one chooses to follow perceptions that value most wealth, morality, etc then he is choosing the path to well being, as the non epicurean philosophies suggest. If instead he follows perceptions that value most feelings he is pursuing happiness as Epicurus suggests.

So happiness is a choice, in the sense that we are capable in choosing the meaning of our life and adopting the perceptions that support it throughout our life.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:41am

Jason Baker That's very similar to an article on psychology I read recently Haris. The psychologist described emotions (he included analogues for pleasure and pain in emotions) and feelings as two separate experiences. Emotions in his model are the automatic reaction to stimuli and feelings are what results when we process our emotions, rationally or otherwise. He claimed that we can train ourselves to respond to our emotions in a way that leads to more satisfaction if our current response is unsatisfactory, which seemed pretty self-evident to me but apparently is controversial in academia.


I don't recall that he had a methodology for doing so, but I immediately thought of the parallels to Epicurean philosophy.


Thanks for the response!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:38am

Haris Dimitriadis Hi Jason,

We will have soon the chance to expand on this and especially on the way that the philosophical epicurean counselling acts in improving the quality of life.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:04pm

Jason Baker I look forward to that Haris. It's a perennial question that I have difficulty answering without relying on modern scholarship that doesn't explicitly reference Epicurus.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:08pm

Write a reply...

Jimmy Daltrey Happiness is a poor translation of Eudaemonia. Wellbeing would be closer.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 4:51pm

Jason Baker Well-being is just as poorly defined in lay discussions. Do we mean comfortable, healthy, happy or all three? It's all about the context.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:11pm

Jimmy Daltrey Well being, being well, to be in accordance with one's nature. To be at ease, unperturbed, unhindered.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:26pm

Jason Baker That's a novel definition! I use the common definition; a state characterized by health, happiness and prosperity.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:34pm

Jimmy Daltrey We are translating from ancient Greek. How would you put Eudaemonia intro English? It means literally "good demon"
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs

Jason Baker We're talking about the definition of the preferred English translation. You said well-being is a better definition than happiness. I gave the definition (which includes happiness) for the purposes of discussion, you provided another definition that isn't in common currency, I clarified again. If we're going to redefine an English word to mean something other than what it usually means in order to make a translation clear, why not use a different word or series of words to more accurately reflect our intention? I thought Stoics were all about intention, Jimmy?
Like · Reply · 22 hrs · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey I would rather we stuck with the original Greek terms. Happy, etymologically means "lucky", as in plain dumb luck. Happy coincidence. Fortunate, by chance. Hapless being the opposite. Children are happy when you give them balloons, which am sure is not what the ancient philosophers were driving at.. Should we try sticking with the Greek terms?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Jason Baker

15 hrs

The Hutchinson translation* of the Tetrapharmakos annoys me. Here are a handful of other English translations of Philodemus' version for contemplation:

God should not concern us.

Death is not to be feared.

What is good is easy to obtain.

What is bad is easily avoided. -Bob Lane

Not to be feared is god

Not to be felt is death

What is good is easily done

What is dire is easily borne. -Anon

God is not fearsome,

Death not frightening,

The good easily got,

The bad easily endured. -Tsouna

Not to be feared - god,

not to be viewed with apprehension - death,

the good - easily acquired,

the terrible - easily endured. -Gilleland (paraphrased)

God presents no fears,

death no worries,

while good is readily attainable,

evil is readily endurable. -Long and Sedley

*Don't fear god,

Don't worry about death;

What is good is easy to get,

What is terrible is easy to endure

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

5You, Matt Jackson, Mish Taylor and 2 others

Comments

Hiram Crespo the fourth one sounds like Yoda

Like · Reply · 3 · 9 hrs · Edited

Jason Baker The full translation he provided was

Not to be feared - God,

not to be viewed with apprehension - death,

on one hand, the good - easily acquired,

on the other hand, the terrible - easily endured.


I felt that was very unwieldy and novel, since <handedness> was not found in the original. I omitted it as unnecessary, and the Yoda-ness appealed.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs · Edited

Write a reply...

Mish Taylor I re read the 4th one in 'yoda voice' !
Like · Reply · 2 · 9 hrs

Matt Jackson God no.

Death no.

Good easy.

Bad easy.


The quick and terrible Jackson Translation.
Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Panos Alexiou I'm also not convinced about the general translation of 'ανύποπτον' as not frightening. It means more 'not perceivable' which also makes more sense.
Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Cassius Amicus Jason could you add the Hutchinson translation to the original post for comparison?
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

Cassius Amicus While I use the Tetrapharmakon often and I don't want to dwell on my reservations about it, I personally still find myself choking over the word "easy" or even "readily" in parts 3 and 4. So I like to remember that those words (easily / readily) are nowhere contained in the full length of PD3 and PD4 as attributed to Epicurus himself (and I don't think that Epicurus himself would have used the tone which comes across in English to summarize his meaning, which was probably already as terse as he could make it). But I also don't condemn the writer of the Tetrapharmakon for the seemingly harsh / cavalier result, as we have so little of the context in which the writer would have no doubt have explained fully what he meant.
Like · Reply · 5 · 7 hrs · Edited

Ilkka Vuoristo "You can only understand the four-fold cure if you understand the whole of the philosophy."
Unlike · Reply · 4 · 6 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey shared a link.

March 9 at 11:19am

The notion of arete is key to Hellenistic philosophy and often misunderstood. Conflation with religious law is wholly inaccurate.

Arete (moral virtue) - Wikipedia
, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function: the act of living up to one's full potential.
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

8You, Jason Baker, Haris Dimitriadis and 5 others

Comments

Cassius Amicus OK this is an interesting test of Epicurean vs other philosophy:. **Where in the letters of Epicurus, and/or reliable quotes by him, does the Greek word "arete" appear, and how is it used?** Finding places in Epicurean texts where this is referred to would be very interesting.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 11:29am · Edited

Jason Baker In Elli's graphic below, aretes is listed as one of the important words in the Letter to Menoeceus.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 11:32am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus One way to search for arete in Epicurean text would be by searching at the Epicurus wiki, but I am not able to search and find it - maybe I am searching wrong but (?) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…dR4l-4jlYWyttQw

Epicurus Wiki
. Epicurus developed his teachings during the Hellenistic era of Ancient Greece — a period of transition…
WIKI.EPICURISM.INFO

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 9 at 11:26am

Jason Baker I'm not certain the search function works on that page at all. Entering Epicurus returns no hits.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 11:30am

Ron Warrick I searched the site via google. No hits. I think excellence was not a particularly relevant concept to Epicurus. Can't think why it would be.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 9 at 1:35pm

Cassius Amicus Other than as a tool to achieve pleasure it doesn't seem like excellence would be a major topic tremendously more than would the topic of food or hammers or nails. But people don't admire and worship food and hammers and nails like they do "virtue" so it has to be addressed to explain why admiration for tools doesn't add up to explaining the purpose for which you are using those tools.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 1:46pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Using Perseus it would "appear" that this is one location: [132] οὐ γὰρ πότοι καὶ κῶμοι συνείροντες οὐδ᾽ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν οὐδ᾽ ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὅσα φέρει πολυτελὴς τράπεζα, τὸν ἡδὶν γεννᾷ βίον, ἀλλὰ νήφων λογισμὸς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἐξερευνῶν πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς καὶ τὰς δόξας ἐξελαύνων ἐξ ὧν πλεῖστος τὰς ψυχὰς καταλαμβάνει θόρυβος. τούτων δὲ πάντων ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν φρόνησις: διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφίας τιμιώτερον ὑπάρχει φρόνησις, ἐξ ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πᾶσαι πεφύκασιν ἀρεταί, διδάσκουσα ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως: συμπεφύκασι γὰρ αἱ ἀρεταὶ τῷ ζῆν ἡδέως, καὶ τὸ ζῆν ἡδέως τούτων ἐστὶν ἀχώριστον.


[132] It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual love, 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 prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy ; from it spring all the other virtues, for it teaches that we cannot lead a life of pleasure which is not also a life of prudence, honour, and justice ; nor lead a life of prudence, honour, and justice, which is not also a life of pleasure. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 11:35am

Cassius Amicus This is Diogenes Laertius rather than Epicurus:


[138] Διὰ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς αἱρεῖσθαι, οὐ δι᾽ αὑτάς, ὥσπερ τὴν ἰατρικὴν διὰ τὴν ὑγίειαν, καθά φησι καὶ Διογένης ἐν τῇ εἰκοστῇ τῶν Ἐπιλέκτων, ὃς καὶ διαγωγὴν λέγει τὴν ἀγωγήν. ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ἀχώριστόν φησι τῆς ἡδονῆς τὴν ἀρετὴν μόνην: τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα χωρίζεσθαι, οἷον βρωτά. Καὶ φέρε οὖν δὴ νῦν τὸν κολοφῶνα, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ἐπιθῶμεν τοῦ παντὸς συγγράμματος καὶ τοῦ βίου τοῦ φιλοσόφου, τὰς Κυρίας αὐτοῦ δόξας παραθέμενοι καὶ ταύταις τὸ πᾶν σύγγραμμα κατακλείσαντες, τέλει χρησάμενοι τῇ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἀρχῇ.


[138] And we choose the virtues too on account of pleasure and not for their own sake, as we take medicine for the sake of health. So too in the twentieth book of his Epilecta says Diogenes, who also calls education ῾ἀγωγἤ recreation ῾ διαγωγ ἤ. Epicurus describes virtue as the sine qua non of pleasure, i.e. the one thing without which pleasure cannot be, everything else, food, for instance, being separable, i.e. not indispensable to pleasure.
Like · Reply · 4 · March 9 at 11:38am

Hiram Crespo https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…NlqtXglMU7Pfl7A

On Epicurean Virtue
A discussion of Epicurean virtue is needed as a result of our constant encounters with students of philosophy…
SOCIETYOFEPICURUS.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 · March 9 at 1:41pm

Hide 17 Replies

Jimmy Daltrey We are agreed that arete is not a value system or anything resembling a codification of behaviour, punishment and reward or religious devotion. Rather personal excellence.
Like · Reply · March 9 at 1:52pm · Edited

Hiram Crespo no. Not personal excellence, but any means to pleasure. Perhaps the Buddhist concept of upayas is better suited, as they are understood and usually translated as "efficient means". Efficient means to what?! is the key question. We say it's to pleasure. Buddhists say it's to nirvana.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 9 at 2:08pm

Matt Jackson I post this again because the Neoplatonists did conceive of virtue as proceeding from a Divine Principle. Virtue is emanated from the Divine Mind into the Gods who we emulate their likeness.


But if there be no Divine Principle then man is the measure...See More
Like · Reply · 3 · March 9 at 6:17pm · Edited

Matt Jackson "What, then, precisely is Virtue, collectively and in the particular? The clearer method will be to begin with the particular, for so the common element by which all the forms hold the general name will readily appear.


The Civic Virtues, on which we have touched above, are a principle or order and beauty in us as long as we remain passing our life here: they ennoble us by setting bound and measure to our desires and to our entire sensibility, and dispelling false judgement- and this by sheer efficacy of the better, by the very setting of the bounds, by the fact that the measured is lifted outside of the sphere of the unmeasured and lawless.


And, further, these Civic Virtues- measured and ordered themselves and acting as a principle of measure to the Soul which is as Matter to their forming- are like to the measure reigning in the over-world, and they carry a trace of that Highest Good in the Supreme; for, while utter measurelessness is brute Matter and wholly outside of Likeness, any participation in Ideal-Form produces some corresponding degree of Likeness to the formless Being There. And participation goes by nearness: the Soul nearer than the body, therefore closer akin, participates more fully and shows a godlike presence, almost cheating us into the delusion that in the Soul we see God entire.


This is the way in which men of the Civic Virtues attain Likeness."


Plotinus, On Virtue.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:58am · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey Hiram Crespo: Stoic arete (I don't actually like the translation Virtue, Excellence is better) would be, I think, efficient to "being in accordance with nature" that nature in the case of humanity being a rational being. Arete, being ultimately rational (applied wisdom in effect) gives us the circular nature of arete being for its own sake.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:09am

Jimmy Daltrey They then go on to argue that an excellent person, a person in accordance with their nature, will necessarily have eudaemonia and ataraxia.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:12am · Edited

Jason Baker Jimmy, humans aren't (just) rational beings! MoSto wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, cleaving off our irrational experience of life with the cost of being indifferent to pleasure. To borrow some preferred translations of eudaemonia, arete, and ataraxia, it's not well-being (pleasurable living) if wisdom (sagacity in the management of one's affairs (efficient means)) isn't continuous (without disturbance).


We call someone wise when they experience pleasurable living without disturbance. But what does Stoicism know of wise men? It is considered an unachievable goal through their methodology.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:31pm

Stephen Brown The stoic Greek terms or meanings seem much more interrelated than the usual English equivalents e.g. eudaimonia is more like flourishing than a kind of passive happiness . Something flourishes when it expresses its particular arete or excellence e.g. a horse running fast .The same unity is not apparent when English synonyms are used. Hence a lot of circular arguments or unnecessary conflicts arise.
Like · Reply · 1 · 13 hrs · Edited

Jason Baker I think we can leave stoic out of that description and just say Greek, but I concur. That said, these concepts are universal. We have words for them in English, it's just a matter of figuring out which ones make sense as part of the whole.
Like · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs

Stephen Brown Yes you are right . The ' stoic ' was an afterthought. I have noticed a similar difficulty when the four stoic virtues arr discussed as they are considered a unity with wisdom supreme. Whether this is due to Greek retranslation I could not say. However...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · 13 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey Stephen "But what does Stoicism know of wise men? It is considered an unachievable goal through their methodology" you are criticizing them for not believing in an illusory dream of godlike perfection? All they say is improvement is possible. Eminently practical. Stoic psychology is the most powerful aspect of it.
Like · Reply · 9 hrs

Jason Baker Stephen didn't write that, I did.


Isn't it interesting how Epicureans defined the wise man as something eminently practicable but the Stoics defined wise man as something illusory?


Nothing motivates like pursuing an unachievable goal. Perhaps that's why stoics are so miserable all of the time, the impracticality of achieving their aims.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey Lol ?. Do you know any Stoics? I've never met one in the flesh.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Jason Baker I have two friends, one much closer and older than the other, who profess to be stoics. One doesn't really know what it means, other than the common conception of "stiff upper-lip." I would consider him a proto-MoSto, he has the desire but not the motivation to dig deeper into the classics. The other has spent most of his adult life contemplating philosophy alone in the wildernesses of the world as a solo adventurer. He is VERY well versed in classical Stoicism and knows very well the bases of his philosophy and his misery.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey Hmmm, alone in the wilderness isn't very Stoic. ?
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Jason Baker Right? I keep telling him the more time he spends out in the desert the more messianic he's going to become. The isolation makes people crazy, no exceptions.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey Also, how does he get to practice Stoicism with nobody to piss him off? It's like boxing solo.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

5 hrs

Discussing translations: when we talk of pleasure do we mean hedone, ataraxia, euthymia or terpsis? For Epicurus Ataraxia is the greatest good, but ataraxia is not physical pleasure, or even mental pleasure, but a state of inner calm.

Comments

Cassius Amicus " when we talk of pleasure" -- I get nervous about that question myself as I know so little Greek. To avoid reading too much into a single word I always want to know the sentence and the context.
Like · Reply · 2 · 5 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey It's like with the Bible (don't shoot me I'm an atheist) Hell (a good Viking word, not even vaguely Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew) is used to translate Sheol, Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus. As I said below, I think it best when discussing detail to stick with...See More
Like · Reply · 5 hrs · Edited

Tomos William "I think it best when discussing detail to stick with the term originally used, otherwise one gets tied in knots quibbling over 21st century definitions of almost arbitrarily chosen equivalents in a distantly related language"

Even if we stuck with the original term, how could we hope to understand it without (implicitly or explicitly) presupposing '21st century definitions'?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey That is up for discussion, however we don't end up with positively unhelpful definitions like "virtue" which in context has nothing to do with the implications of religious obedience we have now. "Happiness" is positively frivolous, and "pleasure" brings foot massages to mind.
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs

Alexander Rios That's so funny, because its true. Out there in everyday land, many folk think of happiness as frivolous, and pleasure as foot massages.
LOL!

Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Write a reply...

Haris Dimitriadis This is outright nonsense.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey I corrected a typo, does it make mores sense now?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Cassius Amicus I am not seeing indications that the original post was edited. This is the version I am responding to: "Discussing translations: when we talk of pleasure do we mean hedone, ataraxia, euthymia or terpsis? For Epicurus Ataraxia is the greatest good, but ataraxia is not physical pleasure, or even mental pleasure, but a state of inner calm."
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Cassius Amicus Somehow I did not read the second sentence you wrote, Jimmy! That second sentence will take a lot of unwinding.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey There was a typo. Does it make any mores sense now?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Cassius Amicus IF you refer to this form "For Epicurus Ataraxia as the greatest good, but is not physical pleasure, or even mental pleasure, but a state of inner calm." the answer is that it makes sense, but I will argue it is profoundly wrong / incomplete.
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey That Epicurus held ataraxia to be the greatest good or that ataraxia is not physical or mental pleasure? Or both?
Like · Reply · 5 hrs · Edited

Cassius Amicus I would certainly argue against the second (that ataraxia is not physical or mental pleasure) and probably against the first (That Epicurus held ataraxia to be the greatest good) as well. The issue of "greatest good is very subtle and there is a direct quote from Epicurus on "the meaning of "good" which I will find and add here.
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs · Edited

Cassius Amicus Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 7, p. 1091A: Not only is the basis that they assume for the pleasurable life untrustworthy and insecure, it is quite trivial and paltry as well, inasmuch as their “thing delighted” – th...See More
Like · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I grant you that your second sentence can be found in various forms all across the internet, but there are serious problems with it. In our FILES section here there are articles by Nikolsky and Wentham which explain that ataraxia is not divorced from the ordinary concept of pleasure. Also, there is the much more detailed explanation of this in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks on Pleasure" I will try to steer you to a couple of excerpts....
Like · Reply · 2 · 5 hrs

Alexander Rios I don't pay attention so much.

The way I see it, using Dewitt terminology. Each emotion has one of two feelings attached to it. Pleasant and unpleasant. Also smoothness of transition avoids early saturation.

Our bodies are physical and chemicals need to be manufactured in order to maintain the different degrees of feeling. So food matters.

Experience of events depends on the availability of these chemicals and the rate at which they can be manufactured and the rates at which they can be emitted/transmitted and absorbed/re-bound.

Knowing these physics limits, I find it easier to spend more time in the "pleasant zone", and am more grateful for it too.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs · Edited

Cassius Amicus Gosling &Taylor, The Greeks on Pleasure, Chapter 19, “Katastematic and Kinetic Pleasures: ”“Plato’s and Aristotle’s intellectual feats can only win one’s admiration, but a cool look at the results enables one to understand how Epicurus might have seemed more in contact with the subject. For if we are right, Epicurus was not advocating the pursuit of some passionless state which could only be called one of pleasure in order to defend a paradox. Rather he was advocating a life where pain is excluded and we are left with familiar physical pleasures. The resultant life may be simple, but it is straightforwardly pleasant.”
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs

Haris Dimitriadis Thanks Cassius. I am really getting embarrased when the central issue of our philosophy is doubted repetitevely and we show to be so compromising and doubtful. There are certain axioms, one of which concerns pleasure, which leave little room for discussion. It is the case of take it or leave it. Pleasure is good, either energetic or static. Ataraxia is a static one but follows the kinetic. It does not come by introversion.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · 4 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey I am indeed asking questions Haris. I wasn't doubting pleasure, rather questioning what we mean by pleasure. I hope that is ok. I don't mean to undermine anything.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I share Haris' frustration but it is not at you but at the general state of Epicurean scholarship. Especially if you are in England you will find no one questioning your formulation. But Haris is working on a book and I have been working here too to compile the authorities who are documenting that the general interpretation is incorrect. Unfortunately it takes a lengthy exposition to go through the sources and unwind how we got to the point where the impression has been given that ataraxia is divorced from ordinary pleasure. But the textual material is there and if one reads through the arguments and thinks about the entirety of the philosophy and its focus on he leading role of pleasure I think the errors in the prevailing view become clear. We can address specific questions and try to summarize the situation, but to examine the details of the history of the problem I don't think it's possible to get a good grasp without following the arguments of Gosling and Taylor, Nikolsky, Wenham, DeWitt (and hopefully Haris when his book is published )
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs

Cassius Amicus

Like · Reply · 5 hrs

Jimmy Daltrey Good stuff, aponia is a further term to be explored.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Alexander Rios I like all the pleasant emotions and I don't see a need to try to filter/regulate them. Seek them. They are easy to find.
Like · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs · Edited

Jimmy Daltrey What we I am trying to get to s to break down what we mean by pleasant, what Epicurus meant.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Alexander Rios ok. I suppose I've given up, on word splitting, and fill in the gaps for daily practice, using my Canonic faculties. If I have my needs met, and my predictions of the near future are "more of the same", and I am being prudent (and not an ingrate) then pleasant emotions come easy, by action and by use of memory of past pleasant times, and detection and cheerful dismissal of imagined fearful predictions, that have little foundation.
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs · Edited

Cassius Amicus Norman DeWitt, “Epicurus and His Philosophy,” Chapter 12, the New Hedonism (e.g.: Even at the present day the same objection is raised. For instance, a modern Platonist, ill informed on the true intent of Epicurus, has this to say: “What, in a word, is to be said of a philosophy that begins by regarding pleasure as the only positive good and ends by emptying pleasure of all positive content?” This ignores the fact that this was but one of the definitions of pleasure offered by Epicurus, that he recognized kinetic as well as static pleasures. It ignores also the fact that Epicurus took personal pleasure in public festivals and encouraged his disciples to attend them and that regular banquets were a part of the ritual of the sect. Neither does it take account of the fact that in the judgment of Epicurus those who feel the least need of luxury enjoy it most and that intervals of abstinence enhance the enjoyment of luxury. Thus the Platonic objector puts upon himself the necessity of denying that the moderation of the rest of the year furnishes additional zest to the enjoyment of the Christmas dinner; he has failed to become aware of the Epicurean zeal for “condensing pleasure.”)
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

Cassius Amicus I realize we are talking about ataraxia and not the katastematic/kinetic categories, but I believe that when it is seen that pleasure is a faculty of essentially a single nature it is easier to see that ataraxia is a term that describes a method/description of enjoying ordinary mental and physical pleasures: 3)

Boris Nikolsky, “Epicurus on Pleasure” (“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 docrines 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.“)
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

Cassius Amicus Jimmy I should also give you this link, where I have collected my largest list of cites on the nature of the goal of pleasurable livinghttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…Jqv9p3bStOcZPac

Full Cup Fullness of Pleasure Model
Link to Larger Version of Graphic It is observed too that in his treatise On the Ethical End he [Epicurus] writes in…
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · 3 hrs

Elli Pensa Jimmy Daltrey wrote : <<For Epicurus Ataraxia is the greatest good>> And Epicurus answers to him again and again : Hey my boy, "I do not know how 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".
Like · Reply · 19 mins

Elli Pensa Don't think it unnatural that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.(Epicurus).
Like · Reply · 17 mins

Quote from Hiram

In an ideal world, Epicurean philosophy should be a ground to experiment with how to maximize the steadiness and self-sufficiency in pleasure that we can have, but this will require concrete experimentation, note-taking, and discussion of the effects of the experiments in light of our sources. Maybe something for future Epicureans to consider.

Just responded with a like and a quote from Hiram's post to verify that the system is working like it should.

The Continuous Pleasure Issue: I don't have time to track this down further but responding to Don Robertson allowed me to find this, near the section of Cicero that he quoted. This is Cicero relaying a much later argument, but it seems to me that this is one of the pieces in the puzzle of the meaning of PD4 and the issue of "I call you to continuous pleasure". The argument that pain can be managed is not intended to trivialize pain, but to respond to this argument - that the goal of life cannot be happiness if we can lose it:

Since, then, the whole sum of philosophy is directed to ensure living happily, and since men, from a desire of this one thing, have devoted themselves to this study; but different people make happiness of life to consist in different circumstances; you, for instance, place it in pleasure; and, in the same manner you, on the other hand, make all unhappiness to consist in pain: let us consider, in the first place, what sort of thing this happy life of yours is. But you will grant this, I think, that if there is really any such thing as happiness, it ought to be wholly in the power of a wise man to secure it; for, if a happy life can be lost, it cannot be happy. For who can feel confident that a thing will always remain firm and enduring in his case, which is in reality fleeting and perishable? But the man who distrusts the permanence of his good things, must necessarily fear that some day or other, when he has lost them, he will become miserable; and no man can be happy who is in fear about most important matters.

http://168-143-89-185-compute-ag1-ash01.opsourcecloud.net/reader_29247_233.htm

Discussion of article You Have Been Deceived!:

Quote

You have been deceived. If you are hearing these words in the early years of the twenty-first century, then you have already wasted much of your life dealing with nonsense. If you are surrounded by people who are called “religious,” then you have wasted your time dealing with people who claim that a god created the universe; that a god determined the course of your life before you were born; that a god will tell you what to do while you are alive, and that a god will punish or reward you after…

Discussion of article Top Problematic Attitude and “Life Premise” Issues Made Worse By Stoicism and Cured by Epicurean Philosophy:

Quote

With the assistance of input from the Facebook group, I have been working on a list of basic “attitude” or “life premise” divergences that separate Epicurean v Stoic views. I have made liberal use of “scare quotes” to reference controversies, and I refer my stoic friends to the chart at the end of the post for references. With that caveat, here is the list as it currently stands:

Discussion of article The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model:

Quote

“It is observed too that in his treatise On the Ethical End he writes in these terms : “I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.” – Diogenes Laertius, Book X There are many challenges in interpreting Epicurean philosophy relate to the proper interpretation of Epicurus’ view of pleasure as the goal of life. When Epicureans used the term “pleasure,” did they mean “pleasure” as ordinary people define that term,…

• 
  
  
  • Given that Epicurus held that personal happiness is the goal of human life, to what extent did he hold that any and all paths to happiness are equally valid? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • Are all paths equally valid? How do we know which are valid and which are not?
      
      
      • Delete
      • Edit
      • Readmore
  • How Does the Epicurean Attitude Toward Women Contrast With Other Philosophies? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • What were the views of the schools that competed with Epicurus in regard to women?
      
      
      • Delete
      • Edit
      • Readmore
  • Was Epicurus An Atheist? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Physics?
    
    
    • • That depends on your definition of the word "atheist." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "atheism" as "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." Under this definition, which does not specify that gods are “all-powerful” or that gods created the universe, Epicurus was not an atheist. Epicurus held there to be a race of perfect, immortal gods living in distant parts of the universe who neither created the universe, control it, or have any concern for the happenings on Earth.
        
        • From the opening of Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus: "First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshiped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind."
      • The answer is different if your definition of “atheist” requires that gods be all-powerful or responsible for creation and direction of the universe – in other words that god is a “supreme being.” For example, Dictionary.com defines "atheist" as: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." By this definition, Epicurus does qualify as an atheist, as all Epicurean texts refer to gods as “a part” of Nature, and not as "supreme above" or "superior to" or “creator of” Nature itself.
      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What advice did Epicurus give about how much we should actively engage with society around us? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • • What advice did Epicurus give about how much we should actively engage with society around us?
        
        
        • From the Principal Doctrines: 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 this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another; and their enjoyment of the fullest intimacy is such that if one of them dies prematurely, the others do not lament his death as though it called for pity.
        • From Cicero's De Finibus: "There remains a topic that is pre-eminently germane to this discussion, I mean the subject of Friendship. Your school maintains that if pleasure be the Chief Good, friendship will cease to exist. Now Epicurus' pronouncement about friendship is that of all the means to happiness that wisdom has devised, none is greater, none more fruitful, none more delightful than this. Nor did he only commend this doctrine by his eloquence, but far more by the example of his life and conduct. How great a thing such friendship is, is shown by the mythical stories of antiquity. Review the legends from the remotest ages, and, copious and varied as they are, you will barely find in them three pairs of friends, beginning with Theseus and ending with Orestes. Yet Epicurus in a single house and that a small one maintained a whole company of friends, united by the closest sympathy and affection; and this still goes on in the Epicurean school."
        • Vatican Saying 66. We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern.
        • Vatican Saying 78. The noble man is chiefly concerned with wisdom and friendship; of these, the former is a mortal good, the latter an immortal one.
      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What Did Epicurus Say About How Consciousness Arose? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Physics?
    
    
    • • In regard to a question of physics such as this, in which our information is incomplete, we must keep in mind Principal Doctrine 24: "If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to distinguish between opinion about things awaiting confirmation and that which is already confirmed to be present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any application of intellect to the presentations, you will confuse the rest of your sensations by your groundless opinion and so you will reject every standard of truth. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not avoid error, as you will be maintaining the entire basis for doubt in every judgment between correct and incorrect opinion." In other words, where we have insufficient information to reach a conclusion, we consider as possible any theory which has evidence to support it, while rejecting any that have no evidence or which contradict known evidence. Further, as explained in the Letter to Pythocles: "For in the study of nature we must not conform to empty assumptions and arbitrary laws, but follow the promptings of the facts; for our life has no need of unreason and false opinion; our one need is untroubled existence. All things go on uninterruptedly, if all be explained by the method of plurality of causes in conformity with the facts, so soon as we duly understand what may be plausibly alleged respecting them. But when we pick and choose among them, rejecting one equally consistent with the phenomena, we clearly fall away from the study of nature altogether and tumble into myth. Some phenomena within our experience afford evidence by which we may interpret what goes on in the heavens. We see how the former really take place, but not how the celestial phenomena take place, for their occurrence may possibly be due to a variety of causes. However, we must observe each fact as presented, and further separate from it all the facts presented along with it, the occurrence of which from various causes is not contradicted by facts within our experience."
      • In his letter to Herodotus, Epicurus wrote that the "soul" is composed of a particularly fine type of atoms of a unique type which themselves have no sensation apart from the body, but which carry the potentiality of sentience in combination with the body. Neither these particles, nor any other particles, can combine except according to the laws of Nature: "Next, keeping in view our perceptions and feelings (for so shall we have the surest grounds for belief), we must recognize generally that the soul is a corporeal thing, composed of fine particles, dispersed all over the frame, most nearly resembling wind with an admixture of heat, in some respects like wind, in others like heat. But, again, there is the third part which exceeds the other two in the fineness of its particles and thereby keeps in closer touch with the rest of the frame. And this is shown by the mental faculties and feelings, by the ease with which the mind moves, and by thoughts, and by all those things the loss of which causes death. Further, we must keep in mind that soul has the greatest share in causing sensation. Still, it would not have had sensation, had it not been somehow confined within the rest of the frame. But the rest of the frame, though it provides this indispensable conditions for the soul, itself also has a share, derived from the soul, of the said quality; and yet does not possess all the qualities of soul. Hence on the departure of the soul it loses sentience. For it had not this power in itself; but something else, congenital with the body, supplied it to body: which other thing, through the potentiality actualized in it by means of motion, at once acquired for itself a quality of sentience, and, in virtue of the neighborhood and interconnection between them, imparted it (as I said) to the body also. Hence, so long as the soul is in the body, it never loses sentience through the removal of some other part. The containing sheaths may be dislocated in whole or in part, and portions of the soul may thereby be lost; yet in spite of this the soul, if it manage to survive, will have sentience. But the rest of the frame, whether the whole of it survives or only a part, no longer has sensation, when once those atoms have departed, which, however few in number, are required to constitute the nature of soul. Moreover, when the whole frame is broken up, the soul is scattered and has no longer the same powers as before, nor the same notions; hence it does not possess sentience either. For we cannot think of it as sentient, except it be in this composite whole and moving with these movements; nor can we so think of it when the sheaths which enclose and surround it are not the same as those in which the soul is now located and in which it performs these movements. There is the further point to be considered, what the incorporeal can be, if, I mean, according to current usage the term is applied to what can be conceived as self-existent. But it is impossible to conceive anything that is incorporeal as self-existent except empty space. And empty space cannot itself either act or be acted upon, but simply allows body to move through it. Hence those who call soul incorporeal speak foolishly. For if it were so, it could neither act nor be acted upon. But, as it is, both these properties, you see, plainly belong to soul. If, then, we bring all these arguments concerning soul to the criterion of our feelings and perceptions, and if we keep in mind the proposition stated at the outset, we shall see that the subject has been adequately comprehended in outline: which will enable us to determine the details with accuracy and confidence.
      • We have a further explanation of these matters in Lucretius. In Book III, Lucretius wrote (translation by HAJ Munro):"Therefore, again and again I say, you are to know that the nature of the mind and the soul has been formed of exceedingly minute seeds, since at its departure it takes away none of the weight. We are not however to suppose that this nature is single. For a certain subtle spirit mixed with heat quits men at death, and then the heat draws air along with it; there being no heat which has not air too mixed with it: for since its nature is rare, many first beginnings of air must move about through it. Thus the nature of the mind is proved to be threefold; and yet these things all together are not sufficient to produce sense; since the fact of the case does not admit that any of these can produce sense-giving motions and the thoughts which a man turns over in mind. Thus some fourth nature too must be added to these: it is altogether without name; than it nothing exists more nimble or more fine, or of smaller or smoother elements: it first transmits the sense-giving motions through the frame; for it is first stirred, made up as it is of small particles; next the heat and the unseen force of the spirit receive the motions, then the air; then all things are set in action, the blood is stirred, every part of the flesh is filled with sensation; last of all the feeling is transmitted to the bones and marrow, whether it be one of pleasure or an opposite excitement. No pain however can lightly pierce thus far nor any sharp malady make its way in, without all things being so thoroughly disordered that no room is left for life and the parts of the soul fly abroad through all the pores of the body. But commonly a stop is put to these motions on the surface as it were of the body: for this reason we are able to retain life. Now though I would fain explain in what way these are mixed up together, by what means united, when they exert their powers, the poverty of my native speech deters me sorely against my will: yet will I touch upon them and in summary fashion to the best of my ability: the first-beginnings by their mutual motions are interlaced in such a way that, none of them can be separated by itself, nor can the function of any go on divided from the rest by any interval; but they are so to say the several powers of one body.
      • In Book II Lucretius had previously written: "Wherefore the bodies of the first-beginnings in time gone by moved in the same way in which now they move, and will ever hereafter be borne along in like manner, and the things which have been wont to be begotten will be begotten after the same law and will be and will grow and will wax in strength so far as is given to each by the decrees of nature. And yet we are not to suppose that all things can be joined together in all ways; for then you would see prodigies produced on all hands, forms springing up half man half beast and sometimes tall boughs sprouting from the living body, and many limbs of land-creatures joined with those of sea-animals, nature too throughout the all-bearing lands feeding chimeras which breathed flames from noisome mouth. It is plain however that nothing of the sort is done, since we see that all things produced from fixed seeds and a fixed mother can in growing preserve the marks of their kind. This you are to know must take place after a fixed law. .... To come to another point, whatever things we perceive to have sense, you must yet admit all composed of senseless first-beginnings: manifest tokens which are open to all to apprehend, so far from refuting or contradicting this, do rather themselves take us by the hand and constrain us to believe that, as I say, living things are begotten from senseless things. ... Therefore nature changes all foods into living bodies and engenders out of them all the senses of living creatures, much in the same way as she dissolves dry woods into flames and converts all things into fires. Now do you see that it is of great moment in what sort of arrangement the first-beginnings of things are severally placed and with what others they are mixed up, when they impart and receive motions? Then again what is that which strikes your mind, affects that mind and constrains it to give utterance to many different thoughts, to save you from believing that the sensible is begotten out of senseless things? Sure enough it is because stones and wood and earth however mixed together are yet unable to produce vital sense."
      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What Did Epicurus Say About The "Greatest Good" Of Human Life? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • What did Epicurus say was the "greatest good" of human life?
      
      • Norman DeWitt explains in Epicurus and His Philosophy that due to translation issues there is much confusion today between the concepts of the "greatest good" and the "goal" of human life. He explains the proper distinction in the chapter entitled "The New Hedonism" which contains the following:
        

        "The belief that life itself is the greatest good conditions the whole ethical doctrine of Epicurus. He sees life as narrowly confined between the limits of birth and death. Soul and body are born together and perish together. Metrodorus gave telling expression in figurative language to this melancholy belief, Vatican Saying 30: "The potion mixed at birth for all of us is a draught of death." There was for Epicureans no pre-existence, as Plato believed, and no afterlife, as the majority of mankind believed. Epicurus himself expressed the thought with stark directness, Vatican Saying 14: "We are born once and we cannot be born twice but to all eternity must be no more." Thus the supreme values must be sought between the limits of birth and death. The specific teaching that life itself is the greatest good is to be drawn from Vatican Saying 42: "The same span of time includes both beginning and termination of the greatest good." If this seems to be a dark saying, the obscurity is dispelled by viewing it as merely a denial of belief in either pre-existence or the afterlife. As Horace wrote, concluding Epistle i.16 with stinging abruptness, "Death is the tape-line that ends the race of life." Editors, however, misled by the summum bonum fallacy, equate "the greatest good" with pleasure and so are forced to emend. The change of a single letter does the trick but fundamental teaching is obliterated. While this quoted statement is first-hand evidence of the Epicurean attitude, the syllogistic approach is also known from an extant text, of which the significance has been overlooked. The major premise is the assumption that the greatest good must be associated with the most powerful emotions, that is, the worst of all fears and the greatest of all joys. Now the worst of all fears is that of a violent death and the greatest of all joys is escape from the same. The supporting text runs as follows: "That which occasions unsurpassable joy is the bare escape from some dreadful calamity; and this is the nature of 'good,' if one apprehend it rightly and then stand by his finding, and not go on walking round and round and harping uselessly on the meaning of 'good'." This passage marks the summary cutting of a Gordian knot, the meaning of "good," upon which Plato had harped so tediously. Epicurus finds a quick solution by appealing to the Feelings, that is to Nature, as the criterion; it is their verdict that the supreme good is life itself, because the strongest emotions are occasioned by the threat of losing it or the prospect of saving it.

      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What Did Epicurus Say About The Origin Of The Universe? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Physics?
    
    
    • • Epicurus held that the elements from which the universe is composed are eternal. Although the atoms are constantly in motion and changing positions, such that the things we see now are not permanent, the elements themselves were never created at any point in time by any god or by any other means:
        
        • Letter to Herodotus: “To begin with, nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent. For in that case anything would have arisen out of anything, standing as it would in no need of its proper germs. And if that which disappears had been destroyed and become non-existent, everything would have perished, that into which the things were dissolved being non-existent. Moreover, the sum total of things was always such as it is now, and such it will ever remain. For there is nothing into which it can change. For outside the sum of things there is nothing which could enter into it and bring about the change.”
      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What did Epicurus say about the size of the sun and whether the Earth was round or flat? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Physics?
    
    
    • • What did Epicurus say about the size of the sun and whether the Earth was round or flat?
        
        • In the letter to Pythocles, Epicurus specifically makes clear before he starts discussing astronomy that: "But this is not the case with celestial phenomena: these at any rate admit of manifold causes for their occurrence and manifold accounts, none of them contradictory of sensation, of their nature. For in the study of nature we must not conform to empty assumptions and arbitrary laws, but follow the promptings of the facts; for our life has no need now of unreason and false opinion; our one need is untroubled existence. All things go on uninterruptedly, if all be explained by the method of plurality of causes in conformity with the facts, so soon as we duly understand what may be plausibly alleged respecting them. But when we pick and choose among them, rejecting one equally consistent with the phenomena, we clearly fall away from the study of nature altogether and tumble into myth. Some phenomena within our experience afford evidence by which we may interpret what goes on in the heavens. We see bow the former really take place, but not how the celestial phenomena take place, for their occurrence may possibly be due to a variety of causes. However, we must observe each fact as presented, and further separate from it all the facts presented along with it, the occurrence of which from various causes is not contradicted by facts within our experience." Then when he addresses the size of the sun, he says "The size of the sun and the remaining stars relatively to us is just as great as it appears. But in itself and actually it maybe a little larger or a little smaller, or precisely as great as it is seen to be. For so too fires of which we have experience are seen by sense when we see them at a distance. And every objection brought against this part of the theory will easily be met by anyone who attends to plain facts, as I show in my work On Nature. "Now his reason for this conclusion is clear from this -- he says that on earth, things that give off light do not appear to recede in the distance as much as those things that don't. So applying that rule here, there's no reason to think that the sun is a huge distance away, any further than the moon, so no reason to think it is huge in size. Of course a major reason he leaned toward this conclusion is that he was battling the platonists, who said they were gods, and who were trying to reduce nature down to a series of calculations. He chose incorrectly, but he was motivated by good reasons. I believe much the same explanation goes to the earth as well, which I gather they did think was round, but that since everything falls down you would fall off the bottom if you were on the other side. So there were good solid reasons the Epicureans chose the positions they did, and definitely not go along just because Epicurus said so.
      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What Did Epicurus Say Was The "Goal" of Human Life? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • What did Epicurus say was the "goal" of human life?
      
      • Continuing in the chapter ("The New Hedonism") DeWitt explains the distinction between the "greatest good," which Epicurus held to be life itself, and the "goal" of human life, which is pleasure:
        

        "When once the summum bonum fallacy has been detected and the difference clearly discerned between the greatest good, which is life itself, and the end or telos, the next step is to apprehend clearly by what procedure the end or telos is identified as pleasure. The nature of this procedure and of the attitude which determined it was one thing in the time of Cicero and quite another in the time of Epicurus himself. In the space of the two centuries between these two men the study of formal logic had been forced into a dominating position in the curriculum through the aggressive genius of the Stoic Chrysippus, and after his time the incessant needling of Stoic adversaries had shaken the confidence of many Epicureans in the word of their founder. The faith of Epicurus himself had pinned itself upon Nature as the norm, not upon Reason. The faith of the Stoic, on the contrary, and of those Epicureans who wavered in their faith, while ostensibly pinned upon Reason, may more correctly be said to have been pinned upon argumentation and disputation. When Epicurus himself identified pleasure as "the end of Nature" he was setting Reason aside and recognizing Nature as the norm or as furnishing the norm. In this he was merely following a trend of his time. The brilliant Eudoxus, for example, who had preceded him by no great interval, also declared pleasure to be the good and he took his start from the observation that all creatures, whether rational or irrational, pursued it. Confirmation for the truth of this observation was found in the behavior of all creatures toward pain. If we may accept as authentic the tradition as reported by Aristotle, it would seem that Eudoxus thought of the pursuit of pleasure as comparable to the instinct of wild creatures to seek their proper food and to avoid the opposite. This demonstrates clearly the incipient tendency to recognize Nature as furnishing the norm. Thus the originality of Epicurus did not consist in recognizing Nature as furnishing the norm but in working out this principle to its utmost limit, which he did by setting up his Canon, each item of which, Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings, was a separate appeal to the authority of Nature. In identifying pleasure as the end or telos it is both possible and probable that Epicurus was taking up a suggestion of Aristotle, who dropped the hint in this instance that the evidence drawn from the behavior of irrational creatures is superior in value to the evidence drawn from the behavior of rational creatures.6 At any rate the declaration of Epicurus, as reported by Cicero, runs as follows: "Every living creature, the moment it is born, reaches out for pleasure and rejoices in it as the highest good, shrinks from pain as the greatest evil, and, so far as it is able, averts it from itself." In the evaluation of this text the important words are "the moment it is born." By narrowing the field of observation to the newborn creature Epicurus was eliminating all differences between rational and irrational creatures. In infancy even the creatures that by courtesy we call rational are as yet irrational. By narrowing the field to the newborn Epicurus was also reducing animate life to its minimum value, because at the moment of birth even some of the senses have not yet begun to function. Consequently, as Cicero says in the same context, "since nothing is left of a human being when the senses are eliminated, the question, what is according to Nature or contrary to Nature, is of necessity being judged by Nature herself." It is doubtful whether any other item of Epicurean invention is the equal of this in logical acumen. Even if weight be allowed to the later objection of the Stoics that the behavior of the infant has its cause in what we now call the instinct of self-preservation, this interpretation would lead to the recognition of life as the greatest good, which was the doctrine of Epicurus, and it would still be left for pleasure and pain to function as the criteria. Incidentally, this appeal to the evidence afforded by the newly born exercised its effect upon the terminology of Epicurus. The infant, being still in a state of nature, is "not yet perverted." These words afford a hint of the perversion ascribed to the study of rhetoric, dialectic, and mathematics, which a lad was judged lucky to have escaped. As for Nature herself, she speaks through the newly born "undefiled and uncontaminated." Her word is "true philosophy," the vera ratio so often invoked by Lucretius."

      • Delete
      • Edit
  • What Specific Advice Did Epicurus Give About How Men Should Live? > What Are The Key Points of Epicurean Ethics?
    
    
    • What specific advice did Epicurus give about how men should live?
      
      
      • The Principal Doctrines
      • The Wise Man sayings
      • The Vatican Sayings

Here's one of the clearest doctrines that upends the perspective that there is any standard higher than pleasure and pain - PD10 "If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky and death and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full with pleasures from every source and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life."
"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1220942027954755/?comment_id=1221132864602338&reply_comment_id=1221866124529012¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485984167924929#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hrs

Cassius Amicus Now certainly "pleasure" and "pain" are numberless in type, and MENTAL pleasure can be counted as more intense than physical pleasure: Torquatus, from On Ends:

"(3) Regardless of this, we maintain that this does not preclude mental pleasures and pains from being much more intense than those of the body; since the body can feel only what is present to it at the moment, whereas the mind is also cognizant of the past and of the future. For, even granting that pain of body is equally painful, yet our sensation of pain can be enormously increased by the belief that some evil of unlimited magnitude and duration threatens to befall us hereafter. And the same consideration may be transferred to pleasure -- a pleasure is greater if not accompanied by any apprehension of evil. It therefore clearly appears that intense mental pleasure or distress contributes more to our happiness or misery than a bodily pleasure or pain of equal duration."
"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1220942027954755/?comment_id=1221132864602338&reply_comment_id=1221866124529012¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485984167924929#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hrs

Cassius Amicus But in the end the standard remains pleasure and pain as revealed to us through our natural faculties at particular times and places and circumstances, and not a "higher" preconceived single standard for all men and places and times, or an abstract ranking of activities or ideas according to a religion or a logical construct.
"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1220942027954755/?comment_id=1221132864602338&reply_comment_id=1221866124529012¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485984167924929#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hrs

Todd Gibson Cassius, do you mean to include ataraxia as a "higher preconceived single standard"? It seems to me that ataraxia is best classified as a sensation, which can produce pleasure. But there are other pleasures that are decidedly not tranquil. To refer to ataraxia as the ultimate end and non-different from pleasure seems like a mistake. Thoughts?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Elli Pensa Todd hi ! You wrote : <<But there are other pleasures that are decidedly not tranquil".
IMO the only thing that brings non tranquil in our mind and soul is PAIN. What are those pleasures that are decidedly not tranquil ? Someone would say listening to music or reading a book or staring the sky. Ok then why the body (mind and soul) still are in motion and in function ? E.g when you reading a book won't you feel pleasure ? Why we have to be under the regime of dialectic method to place in categories the pleasure ? All pleasures are good. That's all.
Besides, we can't see any decidedly tranquility in the Nature...all are in motion and the Earth travel around, or "orbit", the Sun at a velocity of 29.8 km/sec.
"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1220942027954755/?comment_id=1221132864602338&reply_comment_id=1221866124529012¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485984167924929#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 21 mins · Edited

Elli Pensa And to not be confused ... IMO among these two situations of a behavior there is Pleasure.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 25 mins

Cassius Amicus Todd Gibson: Yes I agree with you. I consider "ataraxia" to be an adverb describing a way in which pleasures are experienced, meaning that the particular state of experiencing pleasure at a particular moment is "without disturbance" or "smoothly." I do not consider "ataraxia" to be a separate pleasure in and of itself, and I do not consider it to be a word that standing alone should be used to constitute the Epicurean guide or goal of life. Dead bodies are also in a state of steadiness (at least for a while) but that would not be considered ataraxia because there is no particular experience going on in a dead body.

Now I don't doubt that non-Epicurean philosophers may abstract out the term "ataraxia" and attempt to hypothesize that it as an "ideal state" that exists "in the air," like the Stoics would identify a state of "virtue" as their goal. And in fact I think that is the basic problem - people are looking through Stoic eyes and expect to see a "state of perfection" or "salvation" as the Epicurean goal, since that is the approach of Stoicism and religion. They also wish to identify some "higher" or "more worthy" pleasure since their predisposition is to think that they can rank states of pleasure according to preconceived notions of which are "best." But I think Epicurus would analogize the issue of "ataraxia in the abstract" to something like color. For Epicureans "yellow" does not exist either as an ideal form or "intrinsically." Yellow does not exist apart from things that are yellow. But yellow can be ranked in terms of "purity" of yellow, and lack of mixture with other colors, with our description of certain things as "pure yellow" means that it is not mixed with another color (among numberless colors). In the same way our description of a thing as pleasurable means that it is not painful (among the two choices only of pleasure and pain) and our description of a particular moment as being "pure pleasure" ("aponia") means only that it is not mixed with pain. Yellow does not tell us WHAT the thing is that is yellow, and "pure pleasure" does not tell us WHAT pleasures are being experienced.

In the same way, the "smooth and tranquil experience" of pleasure does not exist apart from the experience of particular pleasures. The goal of pleasurable living is best experienced in a full and smooth and unbroken way, a descriptive analogy being as a jar or vessel filled with liquid (pleasure) neither jostled and spilling from the top (which would be the disturbance which we seek to avoid in the term "ataraxia") nor under-filled through asceticism or error or pain of any kind (underfilling means that pain is present since there are only two basic experiences, pleasure and pain, and the vessel analogy is the total of our individual capacity for experiences of all kind). (See opening of DRN Book VI for one place this analogy appears.)

So in the Epicurean framework I do not see "tranquility / ataraxia" as the same thing as a life of pleasure (which is the true goal of life). And that is why I do not believe Cicero was being redundant in stating these two separately in the final words of the cite below:

Cicero, In defense of Publius Sestius, 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. "

So I believe that a correct formulation of the Epicurean goal would be "a life crammed full of pleasures experienced without disturbance."

I have collected the Latin for that cite, and other cites which lead to a similar conclusion on this point here: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…nXLizFft4dSkiVM

The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Cassius Amicus I edited my post above a couple of times to make it as precise as I can. In the process I added in reference to "aponia." If we were looking for words to use to summarize the Epicurean goal of life, then "aponia" (Absence of pain) would be AT LEAST as important as "ataraxia." But we rarely hear "aponia" used - and
I suspect a large part of the reason is that Stoic ears love the sound of "tranquility," but they don't even like to hear "pleasure" referred to by implication (since thinking about absence of pain leads inexorably to thinking about pleasure).

Cassius Amicus shared a link.
55 mins

Elli's post on the response given by Richard Dawkins to the Cardinal on the goal of life takes me back to what I think is one of the most clear and explicit statements of the goal of life that is contained in any reliable ancient Epicurean text. It comes through Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends, but I see no reason to doubt that Cicero took it straight from an authoritative Epicurean source because it is so bold and so uncompromising.

Any doubts that the goal is defined by the word "pleasure" can be erased by checking the side-by-side Latin at the link below. Even this translator, clear as he is, wants to waffle in the last sentence, but check it out - the last passage is "it must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live 'agreeably'" but the Latin is "fatendum est summum esse bonum iucunde vivere" with the key word being "iucunde." Check the link to the Latin translation - iucunde means "pleasantly - delightfully" (link to translation also included). Anyone who waffles on the core point that the goal of life is to live pleasantly is not only wasting their life while they waffle, they aren't speaking Epicurean philosophy:

Torquatus: "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.”

“Suppose on the other hand a person crushed beneath the heaviest load of mental and of bodily anguish to which humanity is liable. Grant him no prospect of ultimate relief in view; let him neither have nor hope to have a gleam of pleasure. Can one describe or imagine a more pitiable state? If then a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure is the ultimate good. In fact, the mind possesses nothing in itself upon which it can rest as final. Every fear, every sorrow can be traced back to pain -- there is no other thing besides pain which is of its own nature capable of causing either anxiety or distress.

“Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of pleasure and of the principles of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…OsGJVkA&amp;s=1
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…FsKtqRg&amp;s=1

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, On Ends - De Finibus Bonorum Et Malorum

Cassius Amicus
I also think this is where the Epicurean view of the gods and the concept of divinity meshes with the Epicurean view of the goal of life. "Gods" seem to be by definition beings who have achieved the ability, in reality and in actuality, to exist in this constant state of joy defined as - "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." Our goal set by nature (the goal of all living things) is to do whatever we can to duplicate that state of constant pleasurable living, within the limits and to the best of our respective capacities and circumstances.

Cassius Amicus

4 mins

In the world of science fiction it has been suggested to generations of fans that beings which do not have emotion (e.g., Vulcans) should be accepted (or at least entertained) to be superior to humans that do. In the world of Ayn Rand / Objectivism, much ink has been spilled on one of Rand's more famous slogans: "Emotions are not tools of cognition." Whether or not Rand correctly traces her argument to Arisotle, it seems that this issue goes back to Greece and was a key aspect of the Epicurean canon. If indeed "feelings / passions / emotions" are the proper name of the second leg of the Epicurean canon of how we ascertain truth, then we have a huge divergence of opinion which students of Epicurus ought to explore. This is a topic for articles, series of articles, books, series of books, etc., and probably ought to be one of the most commonly discussed issues. I don't believe anyone would suggest that we *always* "trust our feelings" anymore than we *always* trust what we see or hear. Lucretius preserved a lot of discussion about how we test what we observe from the five senses. We need to reconstruct (the hedonic calculus?) how Epicurus would advise that we observe what we gather from our feelings. The raw material is there for us to package this into a whole that is much more coherent than wikipedia and the like.

Cassius Amicus shared a link.
December 31, 2016 at 7:58am

I noticed that Matt Jackson posted on his timeline a quote attributed to Democritus: "Medicine heals diseases of the body, wisdom frees the soul from passions" and that reminds me of several things I'd like to study more:
(1) I see that this quote appears among an interesting collection of quotes from pre-Socratic philosophers here: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…ek9NP3A&amp;s=1
(2) But the real reason I post this is that the use of the English word "passions" here troubles me. Is it an accurate translation? If so, is this statement consistent with Epicurus? What Greek word is being translated as "passions" here and what exactly is the definition? Is the meaning intended to be "excessive" feeling? It seems to me that "passion" in common use is ambiguous, and could be used either to refer either to "all" emotion/feeling/pleasure/pain or only "some" emotions/feelings...." - presumably "excessive" or "out of control"? And what is the relationship of "passion" to pleasure and pain? Is "passion" a global term that includes all pleasure and pain?
The passages I keep going back to for answers on how these terms were used in the Epicurean context are from Diogenes Laertius in his chapter ten:
Yonge has this translation: "Now in the canon, Epicurus says that the criteria of truth are the senses, the preconceptions, and the passions." Also: "They say that there are two passions, pleasure and pain, that affect everything alive."
https://archive.org/…/The_Lives_and_Opinions_of_Eminent_Phi…
Bailey: "Thus in the Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts and the feelings." Also:
"The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature...." https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…DC4W-wQ&amp;s=1
Hicks translates this as "There are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain...." and "Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth." https://en.wikisource.org/…/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Phi…/Book_X
What is the Greek being translated here? Is Yonge correct that Epicurus was using "passions" as the global term to describe the entire faculty of perceiving pleasure and pain? Bailey's use of the word "concepts" seems dangerous confusing to me, so his choice of "feelings" might be similarly off. Hicks is better with preconceptions but he also uses feelings, and "feelings" might be the least precise word of all.
So in sum I think it's important to be clear what we think is being meant in the Democritus quote. If we consider it to mean that wisdom frees the soul from pleasure and pain, or the entire third leg of the Epicurean Canon, then that would be pure Stoicism and far from Epicurus.
What do you think?
Note: Another way of stating the wider question is this: What one single word is best used as the collective term for the third leg of the canon? The first two are pretty easy but what about the third?
1) "The five senses" or / "sensations"
2) "Anticipations" or "preconceptions"
3) "Passions"? "Feelings"? What is the Greek, and the English translation, of the one single word that Epicurus used to refer to the faculty of pleasure and pain?

Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers Index
Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, by Kathleen Freeman, [1948], full text etext at sacred-texts.com
SACRED-TEXTS.COM

LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare7Tommy Holderfield, Noks Huffine and 5 others
Comments

Cassius Amicus For my American friends I should have illustrated this post with a hit song from my area of the country: "I **feel** good! is this what wisdom frees the soul from? https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…amp;h=TAQEkrDuH

James Brown - I Feel Good
LYRICS Wo! I feel good, I knew that I would now I feel good, I knew that I would now…
YOUTUBE.COM
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 8:25am · Edited

Matt Jackson
Unlike · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 9:50am

Write a reply...

Matt Jackson In my opinion, in the 21st century "passion" is not a great word to use as it might have multiple meanings. My interpretation of Democritus is that passion would mean possibly "fantasies" and "anxieties", both are destructive if not remedied, to keep him in line with his Naturalism and atomism.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 10:15am · Edited

Matt Jackson I would love to know what the original word was.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 10:03am

Mish Taylor the word 'perception' for 3/ ?
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 10:07am

Matt Jackson My general thought is that passion is from the Latin for suffering. As in "Passion of the Christ". So in this case wisdom serves to relieve suffering caused by the ignorance of the Natural world. I'm thinking that the translator used "passion " in this way, especially if he had a strong connection to Christian terminology.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 10:13am · Edited

Matt Jackson Passion here may refer to "passionem" :...See More

Online Etymology Dictionary
ETYMONLINE.COM
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · Remove Preview · December 31, 2016 at 10:11am

Cassius Amicus Interesting observation. In that definition passionem is almost entire something negative (suffering). But I don't get the impression that in english it is used that way generally - here the connotation is more "strong feeling of any kind" (at least I think it is.....)
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · December 31, 2016 at 10:52am

Cassius Amicus at least "passionate love" seems to be in common usage, and I don't think the intended implication is "suffering"
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · December 31, 2016 at 10:53am

Matt Jackson I'm just thinking that when this quote was translated, the Biblical term was the one used. Suffering as in the physical and mental suffering of Jesus.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · December 31, 2016 at 11:00am

Matt Jackson Where are all the Greek speakers??
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 11:00am

Cassius Amicus Matt Jackson Yes but do we know *when* it was translated? The link on the page in the first post only appears to go back to a book in the in 1940s
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 11:17am

Matt Jackson I don't. But my guess is it is a late 19th to early 20th century translation. A perfect example is the GRS Mead translation of the Corpus Hermeticum, its full of anachronistic wording to sound high-minded and legitimate . It's also unreadable. Lol
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 11:33am

Matt Jackson Unreadable in more than one way.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 11:35am

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus You guys are exactly on my train of thought but I don't think we can trust any single translation, and as far as I know (and I know nothing) Democritus may have intended something entirely different, and some friendly stoic translator forced the meaning to fit his preconceptions, because of course everyone (every stoic, that is) knows that passion is a bad thing (sarcasm). So with Democritus I don't know if the quote is "correct" (and I am skeptical, if he was indeed the "laughing philosopher"). Nor do I know which of the translatons of DL I quoted is correct, if any. I think we have to compare, look for the greek words (and latin if used by a reputable Epicurean like Lucretius) and then do our best to figure out what has the highest probability of being the original meaning. Only THEN can we really start to form our own opinion of whether the writer was "correct"
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 10:48am · Edited

Cassius Amicus At least with Diogenes Laertius we have the greek to work with. Gosh only knows where to find the quote from Democritus in Greek to know which word he used....
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 10:49am

Noks Huffine The removal of disease results in a healthy body, the removal of negative thoughts and feelings results in a happy mind.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 11:25am · Edited

Cassius Amicus replied · 1 Reply

Noks Huffine DL 9.9.45 is right on this topic of course "(Democritus believes) the end of action is tranquillity, which is not identical with pleasure, as some by a false interpretation have understood, but a state in which the soul continues calm and strong, undis...See More
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 11:41am · Edited

Matt Jackson It's the anachronistic English translation that is causing me to have passion. Haha
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 11:41am

Haris Dimitriadis The word passions needs special care because its meaning has been influenced by the definition of the soul that Plato gave. He imagined the soul as a chariot in which, logic-wisdom was the driver, and the two horses were the feelings and the desires. The feelings were obedient to the driver's instructions, and they contributed to the driver's guides to take under control the second horse, which was expressing the desires=passions of the body. To Plato the material body was the source of unhappiness and this was referred by him as the tomb of the mind. So to Plato passions reflected the desires of the body, which by nature are difficult to get hold on to.

As regards then Democritus saying is risky to interpret it according to the platonian terminology because they had different views. They both lived in the same time period but Democritus was about 30 years older. Plato by his influence managed to distort the initial meaning of the word passion and hence makes difficult for us to know what Deemocritus meant exactly by the saying.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · December 31, 2016 at 11:52am

Cassius Amicus

Those are exactly the kinds of concerns I had in mind. In order to even begin to dig further we would presumably need the greek version of the fragment, and then compare the word choice to the word choice in Diogenes Laertius, who is himself giving his own summary and apparently not a direct quote.

But rather than the end of the question I still think we are at the beginning. In discussing Epicurus we really need a firm statement of the "name" of the third leg of the canon as Epicurus used the term. Other than the two statements in DL I quoted I am not sure there is a direct statment in the core texts we have of the name of this third leg. I personally refer to it as "the faculty of pleasure and pain" but I am not at all sure that that is the best wording. "pleasure" or "pain" alone do not seem appropriate, and "feelings" and "passions" have all the limitations we are noting. It seems clear that this third leg is also a something we commonly think of as a "sensation" but that too is not a satisfactory word.

As I think of final remarks to close out 2016 I think this issue is one that would really help to make progress on in 2017. Greater clarity on this central point would be critically helpful - and ought to be doable if we are going to represent that we have a good understanding of Epicurean doctrine. ...
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · · December 31, 2016 at 12:06pm

Haris Dimitriadis The three legs are: The senses, the feelings and the anticipations.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 3 · December 31, 2016 at 12:14pm

Cassius Amicus Also, it seems to have been a critical point of discussion to point out that there are only two of this "faculty" (1 pleasure and 2 pain), as the fact that there are only two seems to be there reason that the absence of one is the measure of the other....See More
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 12:16pm

Cassius Amicus In our usage today the suggestion that "there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain" would seem very awkward and counterintuitive, so we have work to do in making this topic more understandable.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 12:17pm

Haris Dimitriadis The way that our mind functions is related to risk. When the mind perceives a risk it creates the emotion of pain, while in normal conditions the emotion of pleasure. The first emotion sets off the defensive or combating mechanism of fight or flight wh...See More
Unlike · Reply · 4 · December 31, 2016 at 12:28pm

Matt Jackson In my opinion, passion is being used in the Biblical sense. For physical and mental suffering. My sense is that the translator had this meaning in his consciousness. Although this is only my opinion.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · December 31, 2016 at 12:29pm

Haris Dimitriadis Not at all. By passions plato means the desires of the body, which is exactly what religions preach.
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 12:30pm

Matt Jackson Passion is an awful vague term. I'm going to have to save your response to Cassius, with the Greek equivalents for my personal study.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · December 31, 2016 at 3:14pm

Write a reply...

Haris Dimitriadis Coming back to Cassius on the meaning of the passions, may I add that Epicurus refrains from using this word, and instead he uses the word ''hedone', pleasure, and ''epithemia'', desire. He also uses the word ''aisthanomai'', feel. So it is quite natural to interpret pleasure and pain as feelings. It seems that Epicurus meant to avoid the platonian distortion of the word passion, which had an older origin.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · December 31, 2016 at 12:50pm

Hide 12 Replies

Cassius Amicus Haris do you remember a reference where ''aisthanomai'' is used? (Would be interesting to see it used in way that would not be related to physical touching) Does not "pathe / pathos" or something like that fit in here too?
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 3 · December 31, 2016 at 12:54pm

Haris Dimitriadis The word aisthanomai, feel, has the same origin, to asthesis, sense. So, senses and feelings in greeg have the same root..aisth..
&WCF_AMPERSAND"}" data-testid="ufi_reply_like_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1191890610859897/#" role="button" title="Like this comment">Like · Reply · 2 · December 31, 2016 at 12:56pm