Posts by Cassius

Great suggestions Godfrey and thanks for the time you spent making them. We'll go through each one and see what we can do!

Episode 230 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This we discuss Empedocles and take a general view of the implications of living life without supernatural gods or a belief in life after death.

Quote from Little Rocker

But maybe I've now come too close to the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll interpretation.

I suspect the only thing that would possibly hold a time-transported Epicurus back from getting in one of these rockets might be the realization that he is so desperately needed by so many here on earth that he would not want to take the chance of not fulfilling his real "mission." However I would bet that if he thought there were a reasonable chance of coming back to finish his job here, he'd do both

Quote from Kalosyni

undue physical pain and mental distress

Always remembering that "undue" is subjective with the individual person, and not written in stone to be "forced" on everyone except as they themselves make the analysis. Without always including that qualification, what seems like a good idea to the person saying it an easily get changed into a moral imperative for everyone.

To me this bust from Herculaneum

File:Zeno - portrait for a library, Colosseum.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

looks much more like the "Epicurean style" of the busts of Epicurus and Metroorus and Hermarchus than the second photo, which appears to me to have a longer face:

File:Zeno of Citium - Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

But my real reason for the post is to remark that what is it that supposedly "does not look Epicurean" about him? Are they alleging that just because he has a "serious" look he does not look Epicurean? Despite the desire in some quarters to see a "smiling" version of Epicurus, as they think better befits his philosophy, it seems to me the intensely earnest look is much more fitting to an Epicurean, so I don't think the "expression" is very persuasive in pointing to a Stoic model, if that is the point being made.

Quote from Joshua

Given my historically lax approach to completing research tasks,

LOL. Your "laxness" is more efficient than me on my most efficient day.

Also:

Twentier's photo definitely has a different hairstyle and the Berlin information definitely gives an interesting lead so thanks to both of you for these posts.

Here's a new article and some brief observations about it. I don't think that this gets too close to "politics" as the article seems relatively neutral on those issues, and intended to be general advice for all police officers.

https://www.lawofficer.com/stoicism-for-police-executives/

Not a word, as far as I can tell, that would give a police officer a moral compass on how to do his or her job, just a standard recitation of "virtue" as "the only true good," as if virtue exists apart from a view of what good is being targeted for accomplishment:

Quote

Stoicism, at its most basic, is about practicing what the Greeks called Arete, or virtue – the only true good. Stoics divided Arete into these four categories:

1. Wisdom (Phronêsis) – One’s ability to employ the Dichotomy of Control and to identify and separate what they control from what they do not.
2. Courage (Andreia) – One’s fortitude in facing and overcoming fears.
3. Temperance (Sôphrosynê) – One’s self-discipline, self-awareness, and self-control.
4. Justice (Dikaiosynê) – One’s commitment to righteousness, kindness, fairness and equanimity.

As to the "dichotomy of control," why should anyone consider that Stoicism has a copyright on distinguishing what is within our control vs. what is not? Should Zeno be considered brilliant for copyrighting a fancy name for something that everyone of common sense can see?

As for the rest of the descriptions, how does it advance anything to discuss character traits divorced from an analysis of the goal that is sought to be achieved?

I'd say it's always dangerous to elevate process over a deeper moral analysis of goals, and police officers are among the last group of people who should detach themselves from deeper issues of morality.

It is unfortunate that some people are going to see these back-and-forths as uncomfortable or disconcerting but this is the only way we will get to greater clarity.

And more clarify is needed because I think there is a significant number of people who come at Epicurus in a modified-Cicero way.

They understand "pleasure" to mean the equivalent of "sex drugs and rock and roll," and they would like Epicurus to tell them how to experience that feeling all the time.

They understand that there are limits to sex, drugs, and rockandroll specifically, but they hear "pleasure" and they think that Epicurus is going to instruct them in a new experience, hither-to unknown and undiscovered by them, which they will find to be a feeling of stimulation equivalent to sex drugs and rockandroll, but without the "hangover."

So they concentrate on "removing pain" from their life, working toward asceticism, trying to be as "altruistic" and as "good" a person as they can, and they wait and wait for that transcendent moment when in a blinding flash of light they experience this new feeling that does in fact feel as strongly agreeable to them as sex, or drugs, or rockandroll.

Such a moment will never come, but it was never promised.

What was stated instead, is that if you *think* about life correctly (correctly meaning that there are no supernatural gods, platonic "good," or life after death), then you see that "life" allows you to participate in an unlimited number of mental and physical activities which are rewarding in all sorts of ways. With this attitude toward life it is much easier to experience all sorts of agreeable mental and physical activities. You don't have to live under the cloud of thinking that you are being watched by a supernatural god, or that you have to conform to some kind of Platonic ideal, or watch out for punishment or reward after death.

But this attitude toward life and and they way you conduct yourself under its influence is *not* in fact the same experience as continuous sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Those who study Epicurus expecting to find that result will get very disappointed and disillusioned. They will fall back into their old habits of looking for magical stimulative fixes that they think might actually allow them to experience those stimulations constantly.

Looking at your hand as feeling pleasure, when the world tells you that your hand is just sitting there doing nothing, does not magically make your hand feel as if it is being massaged. Looking at your hand or your life that way is more of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm allows you to appreciate it when your hand (or life) is healthy, and makes you realize that it is important for you to take proper actions to maintain that health, because when your hand and life are gone, they are gone forever, and they have no experience at all afterwards. You won't consider non-existence to be terrible, because it's not painful, but it is sure as heck is preferable to be alive and experience the pleasures that are possible to the living.

I think if we don't make this clear then we end up talking past each other like Cicero ignoring what Torquatus was saying to him. Worse, we end up wasting a lot of time that we should otherwise devote to living our lives under the certainty that there are no supernatural gods telling us what to do, and that there is no life after death to cause us to worry about reward or punishment. Once we are sure of those things we don't withdraw into our private gardens as if we are fleeing from pain, but we engage prudently with life according to our circumstances and make the most of it.

So I think these discussions are very helpful to clarify these questions.

Quote from Don

There are innumerable "feelings" and emotions within those two categories, but every sensation is either pleasurable or painful. That seems to be a very insightful discovery, and seems to be born out by current psychological affective research... but we're not going down that road

This statement helps clarify the difference in perspective, because i do not see this as a "discovery" at all -- it's not like he "observed" or "put his finger on" some previously overlooked characteristic that is inherent in certain activities that makes them agreeable. He "decided" or "defined" all agreeable things (as determined by mental and bodily feelings / reactions at any moment) would be called "pleasure" (or hedone or voluptas or whatever language) and all disagreeable ones would be called "pain."

Epicurus could have chosen any number of words / divisions that he liked ( e.g. he could have called some "noble pleasures" or "worthy pleasures") and so established some kind of arbitrary hierarchy within the term "pleasure." But he instead said (decided / defined) "I need one word to describe all that I feel to be agreeable" and I shall call it "pleasure." i would say that is a "philosophical choice" which makes for a "worldview" rather than a "discovery." Many other people - Cicero and essentially all philosophers besides Epicurus - choose to assign the labeling differently. Rather than calling the standard non-stimulated condition of life by the term "pleasure," they assess that standard condition differently, and they call it "neutral" or some other in-between word suggesting a less positive assessment.

Quote from Don

Finally, I don't think Epicurus is necessarily redefining "virtue". It seems to me that "virtue" to Epicurus still means generally "to do what society feels is the excellent/noble thing to do" but for Epicurus we do it because it brings us pleasure, both as the feeling and leading to a more pleasurable life (i.e., PD05) Virtue has no intrinsic value *other than* to serve as an instrument leading to pleasure. And now pleasure is widely defined!

Now that one I doubt we'll be able to bridge very easily, because I cannot see Epicurus holding a "virtue" (such as wisdom) to be "what society feels is the excellent/noble thing to do." I would think that Epicurus would have deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of "virtue" exactly as much as he deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of a "god."

But yes regardless of where we end up this discussion is extremely helpful toward bringing clarity to the questions!

The term "grand philosophical point" was introduced by Don in post 31:

Quote from Don

I'll have to dig back in, but I don't think the language supports that interpretation, especially in light of the letter to Menoikeus. It seems to me he's giving practical advice in PD10, not necessarily making a grand philosophical point. I see this as directly countering the Cyrenaic position.

Here's the way I would unwind the reason this dance seems to continue, because I think it's a deep issue that we see in many forms, including the nearby "astronaut" discussion.

As I perceive why Don used that term, there is an ongoing perspective question about Epicurus' use of concepts and whether he is primarily making practical points or clinical points. Is he giving personal advice about pleasure and how to pursue it moment by moment, or is he giving philosophical advice about how Plato et al are wrong, so that by examining the words that people are using we can make the differences between the schools clear. Or is he (more likely) working on both goals, since the statements he is making can be seen as true on both levels.

The point that I think generates the controversy is that there is a certain perspective held by many people that manifests itself (rightly!) in the reluctance to engage in hypotheticals or to adopt non-standard usages of words. Epicurus himself apparently refused to acknowledge the necessity to prove the desirability of pleasure, presumably for that very reason. On the other hand, Epicurus insisted on talking about "gods" as really existing, even though he sliced away from them most of the defining characteristics that most people consider to be essential about them (supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent).

It seems to me that Epicurus clearly did "both" because f you're going to engage in philosophy you've got to explain your terms to at least some degree. Right after Torquatus noted Epicurus' reluctance to prove the desirability of pleasure by logical philosophical debate, he goes off on a long discourse that sounds very much like a logical philosophical argument. I would say that's a necessity of engaging in philosophical debate, rather than a departure from Epicurean precedent, and that Epicurus himself was doing the exact same kind of combination of logic and "pointing attention to" in statements like PD10-12, and the letter to Menoecus.

It seems to me that this is the only realistic way to account for the "flatness" of Epicurus' choice to categorize all the many shades of feelings (which Cicero and everyone else in the world recognizes as different from each other) into only one of two categories, pleasure or pain. It seems to me that this flatness is a logical necessity when you accept the challenge of using only a single word to distinguish what is desirable, and a single word to distinguish what is undesirable. Rather than "virtue" or "piety," "pleasure" has to stand in that position of the single word that constitutes the placeholder for all that is desirable.

That's how it seems to me it makes most sense to read these flat "either-or" positions:

Diogenes Laertius 10:34 : ”The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined.“

And I see that as the only reasonable way to understand the flatness of the exchanges between Torquatus and Cicero in On Ends:

On Ends 1:30 : ”Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?

On Ends 1:38: Therefore Epicurus refused to allow that there is any middle term between pain and pleasure; what was thought by some to be a middle term, the absence of all pain, was not only itself pleasure, but the highest pleasure possible. Surely any one who is conscious of his own condition must needs be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. Epicurus thinks that the highest degree of pleasure is defined by the removal of all pain, so that pleasure may afterwards exhibit diversities and differences but is incapable of increase or extension.“

On Ends 1:39 : For if that were the only pleasure which tickled the senses, as it were, if I may say so, and which overflowed and penetrated them with a certain agreeable feeling, then even a hand could not be content with freedom from pain without some pleasing motion of pleasure. But if the highest pleasure is, as Epicurus asserts, to be free from pain, then, O Chrysippus, the first admission was correctly made to you, that the hand, when it was in that condition, was in want of nothing; but the second admission was not equally correct, that if pleasure were a good it would wish for it. For it would not wish for it for this reason, inasmuch as whatever is free from pain is in pleasure.

On Ends 2:9 : Cicero: “…[B]ut unless you are extraordinarily obstinate you are bound to admit that 'freedom from pain' does not mean the same thing as 'pleasure.'” Torquatus: “Well but on this point you will find me obstinate, for it is as true as any proposition can be.”

On Ends 2:11: Cicero: Still, I replied, granting that there is nothing better (that point I waive for the moment), surely it does not therefore follow that what I may call the negation of pain is the same thing as pleasure?” Torquatus: “Clearly the same, he says, and indeed the greatest, beyond which none greater can possibly be..”

Those are flat uses of the word "pleasure" that defy common usage, and yet they are logically consistent with defining pleasure as "everything in life that is desirable" as opposed to "everything in life that is undesirable."

Since Torquatus seemed to take the position that it is essential to use the terminology in this way, and since Torquatus had access to the teachers and the books that we do not, it seems to be it is reasonable to interpret the letter to Menoeceus, the PD's, and the other original writings in the same way that they were being interpreted by the people who had reason to know the intent behind them.

----

But I will agree that taking words in these unusual ways is a tough nut for a lot of people to follow. It's normal to object to hypotheticals, and normal to object to non-standard uses of words. In the end I think we're really wrestling with questions of how to communicate when we are using words in non-standard ways. One logical way to do that is to state things in extremes: we come up with formulations that sound like We have no cause for complaint about those who actually achieve pleasure even if we consider that pleasure to be depraved. This second statements rings the same way: We woud have no need for anything - even natural science that we all love - and which I've told you brings me my greatest pleasure - if we were to be able to achieve a life of pleasure without it. Those seem to me to be stated in extreme ways, not to focus on the practical (there are a lot better ways to give practical advice than to cite extreme situations) but to make exactly the point that "pleasure" should be understood in the widest possible way as everything in life that is desirable, and pain everything in life that is undesirable.

Extreme and hypothetical formulations appear absurd to those who focus on the "practical" side alone, but maintaining the philosophical side is essential to understanding the difference between the schools is really as deep as it is - it's the only way to come up with a logically rigorous worldview.

The "astroanaut" hypothetical comes into play because the common perception is that Epicurus is all about being satisfied with what you have and not asking "too much" out of life -- which I don't think is an accurate characterization, but if accepted would make it extremely unlikely that anyone would strap themselves onto the top of a rocket -- even one made by a manufacturer with better recent luck than Boeing!

So to wrap this into a bow, one way of looking at the "grand philosophical point" is how to view Epicurus' use of the term "pleasure." When Epicurus was using it was he focusing on describing specific feelings of the moment at particular times and places, or was he using it philosophically (as his "grand philosophical point") to represent the ultimate good, as against the opposing alternatives of "virtue" or "piety" or "reason," or was he doing both?

Quote from Little Rocker

I don't want to be Pollyanna here, but it seems you can both have this point--pleasure is pleasure, and all of it is good in itself--but only some strategies for pursuing it consistently bring about and sustain the most desirable state. As in the Letter to Menoeceus, all pleasures are good, but only some are choiceworthy.

Yes, I agree, BOTH points are true, but I do think it is important to observe that BOTH points are true.

And I agree that you are right that both 10 and 11 are parallel - but I would say that depending upon whether one is debating philosophy, or giving personal advice to a friend, either perspective could be appropriate to emphasize.

And if I were an Epicurus or a Diogenes of Oinoanda seeking to etch "in stone" a summary of my message to all future generations, and to point out why virtually everyone else has things upside down, I'd find at least as much reason to come at this from a "grand philosophical point" perspective as I would from a "here's my personal observation, your mileage may vary" perspective.

Quote from Don

I don't think the language supports that interpretation, especially in light of the letter to Menoikeus. It seems to me he's giving practical advice in PD10, not necessarily making a grand philosophical point. I

Yes, that is exactly the point we have generally differed in the past, and continue to differ (respectfully!) While I agree with the practical observation that a life of profligacy will not generally lead to a good result, to me the "grand philosophical point" (a good way to describe it) is the overriding "take-away" that justifies its inclusion as a principal doctrine.

PS - I am not sure who Epicurus would have pointed to as someone who at least seems to provide such an example of profligacy being rewarded, but I gather that some later Romans might have cited Sulla, who apparently lived a pretty dissolute life and yet arguably never suffered for it, at least not in any proportion as he apparently deserved.

Quote

As promised, when his tasks were complete, Sulla returned his powers and withdrew to his country villa near Puteoli to be with his family. Plutarch states in his Life of Sulla that he retired to a life spent in dissolute luxuries, and he "consorted with actresses, harpists, and theatrical people, drinking with them on couches all day long." From this distance, Sulla remained out of the day-to-day political activities in Rome, intervening only a few times when his policies were involved (e.g. the execution of Granius, shortly before his own death).^[143][144]

His public funeral in Rome (in the Forum, in the presence of the whole city) was on a scale unmatched until that of Augustus in AD 14. Sulla's body was brought into the city on a golden bier, escorted by his veteran soldiers, and funeral orations were delivered by several eminent senators, with the main oration possibly delivered by Lucius Marcius Philippus or Hortensius. Sulla's body was cremated and his ashes placed in his tomb in the Campus Martius.^[150] An epitaph, which Sulla composed himself, was inscribed onto the tomb, reading, "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."^[151] Plutarch claims he had seen Sulla's personal motto carved on his tomb on the Campus Martius. The personal motto was "no better friend, no worse enemy."

Don I wish you had been at our Zoom last night to discuss with Kalosyni her Boeing astronaut / rocket ship question. Pursuing that at some point would advance this discussion too, because she has a position on what Epicurus would say to those astronauts that raises a lot of questions.

I think this current issue of how to look at virtue and psychological hedonism is in the same category.

It appears to me that we have to accept that Epicurus was using the terms "pleasure" and "gods" and even "virtue" in a totally nonstandard way, and that he was asserting that changing the paradigm on how those terms are used is essential for happy living.

That's why I see the "logical extreme" interpretation of PD10 as so important -- I see Epicurus as saying that "IF we look at things his way," then a "pleasurable life" is a "pleasurable life" no matter what type of pleasure it contains, because we are using the term pleasure in a logically consistent way. From that perspective PD10 is an in-your-face assertion that pleasure is pleasure is pleasure.

I interpret your view of PD10 as focusing on the "but it won't work because it is not possible part." Yes in practical terms that is true, but stopping there does not advance the philosophical argument.

Looking at things in a conceptually rigorous way, "IF a life of debauchery did in fact bring a pleasurable life" means that for purposes of discussion we are accepting that result -- and thus we would have no problem with such a person.

Staying with the "But it won't work" never gets you to the point - which is that pleasure must be seen as pleasure no matter what type of pleasure it is, if we are going to be able to discuss these things coherently.

Similarly, "gods" must be seen as non-supernatural and non-omniscient and non-omnipotent, no matter how many people disagree.

"Pleasure" must be seen as *every* experience of life that is not specifically painful, no matter how vigorously Cicero disagrees.

And "virtue" must be seen as totally contextual (that action which leads to pleasure) regardless of how strongly the religious and rationalist absolutists object.

Yes Don and I sound like we are very far apart but I don't think we really are. I think we're mainly talking "context" of when certain words are appropriate and when they are not.

Quote from Little Rocker

I've never quite known what to do with Epicurus' insistence that virtuous people will experience the greatest pleasure and that people who experience the greatest pleasure must be virtuous.

I can't figure out any way to reconcile that other than to conclude that Epicurus is drastically modifying the usage of the term "virtue" just like he is drastically modifying the usage of the terms "gods" and "pleasure." It seems to me that the only way to make sense of it is that Epicurus is deleting the "absolute" aspect that everyone else alleges to be a requirement of virtue, and declaring classification of a thing as virtuous to be relative to the result that it brings. His view seems to me to be that If an action does not in fact lead to "pleasure," then that action is by Epicurean definition not "wise," or "just," or "courageous," or any other usage of a term of virtue.

Quote from Don

Someone may say they're doing it because of "duty" but my contention will continue to be that they're doing because it feels good to say "I did my duty."

Yes your contention will remain that, and the professor of psychological hedonism can say that to his patient all day long as a means of diagnosing that person's psychology. And in turn the person who is being accused of being a "psychological hedonist," but who in fact sees himself as a person of strong religious or humanist belief, can deny that label all day long.

In the meantime, in the real world of people who want to think about options as to how they can change their beliefs and thought processes in order to live better, rather than just talk past each other, it is useful first and foremost make this basic conceptual / philosophical point:

1. Duty is not inherently pleasurable.
2. Piety is not inherently pleasurable.
3. Virtue is not inherently pleasurable.
4. Only pleasure is inherently pleasurable.

Then afterwards if a professor wants to discuss a clinical diagnosis of erroneous behavior, for example as to why a person might consider himself to be devoted to "duty," then terms like "psychological hedonism" will allow that professor to write cool articles for "Psychology Today."

But for ordinary people who just want plain talk about how to live better, the approach found in pages of "Psychology Today" are not the first place to start. The writers in Psychology Today will talk themselves in circles about different ways to diagnose conditions, without ever taking a firm position on what "mental health" actually looks like.

The place to start is for example the letter to Menoeceus: "[129] And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."

Clarification: I am not criticizing your particlar use of the term, Don, or saying that you are talking past anyone. I have this same problem whenever the term "psychological hedonism" comes up in any context. It seems to me that applying the term "psychological hedonism" rarely if ever leads to anything useful. For much the same reason I really don't like the term "hedonism" either. It conveys all the wrong implications in modern usage that even the word "pleasure" does not have, so I personally never like to talk about Epicurean philosophy as "hedonism" or "hedonist." I understand the technical labels in a technical context but I find them very harmful in regular usage. Adding "psychological" to "hedonism" to me just adds a "deterministic" overlay that, from an Epicurean point of view, just digs the hole deeper.

I think before I comment further I better read back into the history of the thread more closely because:

Quote from Don

What I'm trying to convey is that humans don't make decisions based on "evolutionary" considerations. Humans make decisions based primarily on self-interest, or perceived self-interest, what they feel will lead to pleasure for them. That's the root of psychological hedonism as I understand it.

And yes psychological hedonism came up last night too so I definitely see that term as related, but I continue to find the term confusing at best. Just because people make decisions based on what they think is in their self-interest does not in my mind advance the analysis of whether they are in fact acting to pursue "pleasure." And the analysis of whether they are in fact acting to pursue pleasure, rather than in pursuit of "duty" or "piety" or some other consideration, is the main issue worth discussing because it's the way to practical changes in behavior. We can discuss "duty" or "piety" in terms of the pleasure they bring all day long, but in the end what we're trying to accomplish is to decide if "duty" or "piety" are in themselves pleasurable, or whether they or anything else is worth pursuing only because they bring pleasure as a result of pursuing them.

Yes this whole sidebar discussion may be more confusing and awkward than it is worth.

Confession: I have been distracted and not read each post in this thread thoroughly. However I did read Don's last post and had this immediate question:

Quote from Don

While we are the products of evolution, we don't make choices and rejections based on evolutionary considerations in the here and now in this one life that we have.

Would that not be better worded with some kind of caveat that "we need to be cautious in making choices based on evolutionary considerations..." rather than "we don't...." because:

- in fact many people often "do" make choices that way, even though it "may" be shortsighted.... and

- in an Epicurean perspective without fate or necessity or a providential god force, '"sometimes" a decision to go against the generally-observable rule (I gather we all agree that the general rule is to the effect that blindly following evolution in every case is generally a bad idea) will in fact work out and be the proper choice in some circumstances?

I suspect Don's wording in context probably presumes that this is a "general rule" and not an "ironclad rule" but I tend to worry that there are too many people who think that Epicurus' observations about how behavior generally but not always leads to particular results are intended to be "ironclad" rules from which never to deviate, which I think would not be likely to be the way he intended them.

I also say this in context that I think Don and I sometimes come across as interpreting PD10 differently on this very point I am bringing up here, even though I don't think our positions are actually very different. I see PD10 as emphasizing the very point that I want to be sure is not misunderstood here.

Also, for those who were on the Zoom call last night, I raise this also because of the example we discussed about the current Boeing astronauts who are having difficulty getting launched into space. We "generally" don't undertake high-risk activities that could lead to death, but "sometimes" we consider the reward in pleasure / reduction of pain worth the risk, even of death.

I suspect Don and I here too are in full agreement, but we express the issue slightly differently.

A "laughing Epicurus" by Kalosyni -- can you post the AI generator and code used to produce this?

Post

RE: The Facial Expression of Epicurus

Just for fun I put into an AI image generator: "laughing Epicurus" and this is what I got, and these strike me as being not very photogenic. Others who posted here in this thread above have way much better stuff (especially those which are human made art), but I decided to post these anyway because these bring up the human quality of emotions. Even though we see and think of the stern face of Epicurus in carved busts, he was a human being with emotions.

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/4794/

Kalosyni

June 3, 2024 at 8:22 AM

I agree that the result is not particularly flattering, but the overall look and feel of the AI generation is very impressive.

We need a thread giving information on what AI generators are used, and listing the "instructions" given to the generator, so that more people can get experience in making these as foundations for new meme material.

Update: We already have one. It would be highly desirable to get this conversation going with specific tips on how to do this.

Thread

Using New Technology To Produce More Effective Memes

In addition to the new graphics that Nate's wife has been producing, I see that @Bryan has produced some new work that apparently also uses new technology.

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/image/726/

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/image/725/

When I combine my reaction to these new images with Kalosyni's recent efforts towards "motivational posters" and "pamphlets" it seems like we ought to be able to combine the two to produce striking presentations not only of persons but also…

Cassius

November 27, 2023 at 10:54 AM

Over the years I've noticed that our "Quiz" section is pretty popular, even though we've done very little to improve it or promote it. If you have the time, I'd like to encourage you to consider compiling a list of questions and answers that we can use to expand the Quiz section and make it more useful.

All we really need to make it better are new questions of general interest, followed by a set of three or four multiple choice answers, only one of which is correct.

If you have the time and interest to work on such a project, send me a message in the conversation system, or post below, and we'll gladly incorporate your suggestions into new quizzes. I can't promise to incorporate all suggestions, as no doubt some will be better than others, but even suggestions that require modification will be fuel for improving the system.

Especially if you're new to reading Epicurus and are finding new discoveries to be particularly interesting, let us know your suggestions as those will no doubt help others as well.

Welcome To the EpicureanFriends Quiz Page! - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Happy Birthday to Plantpierogi! Learn more about Plantpierogi and say happy birthday on Plantpierogi's timeline: Plantpierogi