Posts by Cassius

Eikadistes while I will bow to the common view that Nietzsche is a mixed bag, I personally very much agree that a knowledge of Nietzsche is very helpful for understanding Epicurus, and I am not just talking about his pro-Lucretius and anti-Stoic comments.

The helpfulness of Nietzsche is a view shared by Elli in Greece, who I think has internalized the intensity of Epicurran philosophy so well at least in part because of her affinity for Nietzsche and also for the Greek version of Nietzsche, Dimitri Liantini.

At present I think I will target 12:30 EDT this coming Sunday the 27th for those who are available. It won't be super long or super detailed, just an hour (at most) for us to meet Rolfe (who says he is available) and any other Europeans or other new people who would like to attend.

If you're interested please let us know. We'll do a public announcement on the front page but we'll also set up a private conversation with Zoom details for those who let us know that they would like to attend.

Of course this is open to all regular Zoomers or any of our other regulars here who would like to attend, whether you're in Europe or not.

We'll think about a name for this as well to highlight that it's intended to be convenient for both USA and Europe, but for now it'll just be Sunday EpicureanFriends Zoom.

Or as Cicero wrote:

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.

Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Quote from vlasalv

In that light, certain pains might be endured for the sake of greater inner peace, if they lead to that deep serenity.

There's definitely a lot to think about in coming to terms with what Epicurus means by the word pleasure, but just as with "gods," Epicurus did not change the word, just made its use more precise.

The danger in giving up the word "pleasure" and substituting "peace" or anything else in its place is that the result is to narrow the definition and to imply that what people ordinarily think of as pleasure is not part of the goal, and that danger is present whether the word one chooses is "peace" or "tranquility" or "absence of pain" or anything else. The ancient writers were very clear in stating that Epicurus was held to be an advocate of "pleasure," and that words like tranquility or peace fall within pleasure, not the other way around. As Epicurus is reported to have said, he would not know what the good is were it not for pleasures that we all understand to be pleasures. For example:

Quote

Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, XII p. 546E: "Not only Aristippus and his followers, but also Epicurus and his welcomed kinetic pleasure; I will mention what follows, to avoid speaking of the “storms” {of passion} and the “delicacies” which Epicurus often cites, and the “stimuli” which he mentions in his On the End-Goal. For he says “For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."

This has been a good thread and maybe not gotten to exactly the destination Rolf may have thought but it points out how important it is to be precise.

Quote from Rolf

There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.

Even here, we have to balance the wording that Torquatus and Epicurus used about "blame":

Quote from Torquatus

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

Quote from Epicurus to Menoeceus

[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

Yep - Santoniogarden's examples are good.

Epicurus is regularly pointing out that pursuing power and fame and glory and the like are generally not worth the effort.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out however that "effort" is not a bad word in itself, but that side of Epicurean philosophy can tend to get lost when fail to "denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain.

Quote from On Ends Book One

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided.

But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

It's probably worth noting that of course this isn't saying that there won't be some desires which will take a lot of effort to obtain but also which will lead to great bodily or mental pain if they are not achieved. Those desires aren't the result of empty imaginings, but of real factors, and in those cases, it will make sense to exert great effort to obtain them.

So the point isn't "it's ok to be a slug and always avoid desires which take a lot of effort." The point is that before you put in a lot of effort to pursue a desire, be sure the goal is one that you really will feel the absence of if you don't pursue it.

Quote from Rolf

I think part of it is learning to become more aware of one's feelings, along with gratitude and appreciation. While in the past, before encountering Epicurean philosophy, I might have dismissed a state of "mere" satiety as a bland neutral state, I can now see that this is a pleasure in itself. This in particular has been a great boon to me, as it's helped me to gain a far more positive perspective on both my own life and life in general, by realising how much pleasure there really is.

I think you're going in the right direction, but in addition to this you'll want to consider closely what DeWitt has to say about terminology around page 240 of his book. You'll also see the issues illustrated most clearly when you look closely at Torquatus' argument with Cicero in books one and especially two of "On Ends."

It's going to take time to go through all the texts and evidence. There's no shortcut, and this is why there's such a problem in talking about Epicurus to people who aren't really interested in the details but only want to "have a good time." Those people hear "pleasure" and like Pavlov's dog they are programmed to hear nothing except "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll." Yes, those are included, but they are not the full picture.

But in the end I think you'll see that Gosling and Taylor were right in striking back against the orthodoxy, and why DeWitt's quote on page 240 is also correct.

Quote from Kalosyni

On some level I am still having a hard time being able to integrate the idea of only two feelings: pleasure and pain.

And this is why Cicero is so vocal in complaining about Epicurus' references to pleasure. Cicero is capitalizing on the fact that Epicurus is clearly using non-standard terminology, but Cicero isn't explaining that and only allows Torquatus to explain it briefly.

But understanding that this is a conceptual division that makes sense, even though it is non-standard, is the only way to make sense of the passages we find difficult, like the passage from Menoeceus we're discussing. This is why we've cited DeWitt's summary of this issue so often. Cicero is right that Epicurus is speaking about pleasure in a manner many people find confusing. But just as with 'gods,' there's a better way to look at both gods and pleasure. The name "god" can be used to describe something(s) that really do exist, but not supernaturally. The name "Pleasure" can also be used to describe something extremely important to human life, but the word as most people use it is being used too narrowly:

Quote from “Epicurus And His Philosophy” page 240 - Norman DeWitt (emphasis added)

Quote

“The extension of the name of pleasure to this normal state of being was the major innovation of the new hedonism. It was in the negative form, freedom from pain of body and distress of mind, that it drew the most persistent and vigorous condemnation from adversaries. The contention was that the application of the name of pleasure to this state was unjustified on the ground that two different things were thereby being denominated by one name. Cicero made a great to-do over this argument, but it is really superficial and captious. The fact that the name of pleasure was not customarily applied to the normal or static state did not alter the fact that the name ought to be applied to it; nor that reason justified the application; nor that human beings would be the happier for so reasoning and believing.

In the past we've held sporadic Zoom sessions at mid-day eastern time in order to provide a reasonable time for our European friends, but I think it's time we set something up that is more regular so that our European friends can get better connected. We have a good number of people here already who are in Europe, and we need to devote more resources in that direction.

It seems very likely that either a Saturday or Sunday would work best, with Sunday the most likely to suit more people. That may create an obstacle for our podcasters, who are already devoting much of Sunday morning to the podcast, but all in all Sunday around noon or 1:00 PM Eastern USA time probably makes the most sense for everyone.

Therefore this thread is to start a discussion of setting up such a project -- at least once a month, but perhaps weekly if we get enough interest.

While a mid-day Eastern time allows for a reasonable meeting time from California to at least central Europe, there's no doubt that there will be conflicts no matter what time or day of the week we pick.

We further need to set up a "theme" for these meetings. Our current Wednesday meetings are centered around going through Usener's Epicurea, but if we get to the point of doing these weekly we'll want to pick another theme, such as going through a book or a particular Epicurean text, to provide some continuity. I'm thinking largely in our current format, which is to limit the session to about an hour, with the time split almost evenly between "general conversation" followed by discussion of a particular topic of Epicurean philosophy (or chapter of a book, etc).

I think we probably have past threads on a similar topic and if i can find them I will mine them for thoughts and ideas previously expressed. But in the meantime, if you're interested in participating in such a project let us know in this thread.

We have some recent new members from Europe, including Rolf, as well as other regular participants who we will work to accommodate.

Quote from Rolf

There's so much good stuff on here but it feels a bit scattered.

Yes that's definitely a problem. Right now there are buttons and links to places where certain things are featured, but it's a bear trying to make decisions on how to prioritize.

In most sections of site, such as the "Articles," there is a "Featured" aspect where we try to highlight the most important entries in that section.

It's an ongoing battle to try to improve this. This is why, at present, the "front page" of the site contains a lot of text, rather than being more airy and white-space-filled like some designs. I'm trying to make that front page the place that you can't really get past without being exposed to the core ideas.

Don can help with the Greek wording but there's definitely use of words that are translated as "evil," but I agree that "sin" is different, and that you're making a very important point. There's no God or absolute force in relation to which you're "sinning against." You can very definitely commit acts that lead others to be mad at you and therefore have negative impacts later, but there's a world of difference between practical problems, which can be dealt with, and "mortal sins" which supposedly can lead to eternity in hell.

FYI -

Chatgpt:

You said:

Who is Fabian Bario and what are his views of Epicurus?

ChatGPT said:

Fabián C. Barrio is a Spanish philosopher and content creator recognized for his engaging discussions on philosophy through his YouTube channel. He frequently explores classical philosophical themes, making them accessible to a broader audience.YouTube+1YouTube+1

Barrio has expressed a particular interest in Epicurean philosophy. In his video titled "Más Epicuro y menos Armani," he advocates for a lifestyle aligned with Epicurean principles, emphasizing the pursuit of simple pleasures and inner peace over materialistic endeavors. He suggests that embracing such values can lead to a more fulfilling life.YouTube

In another presentation, Barrio imagines a dialogue between Epicurus and Elon Musk, contrasting Epicurean ideals with contemporary ambitions. This creative approach highlights the relevance of ancient philosophical teachings in modern contexts.

Through his work, Barrio underscores the enduring significance of Epicurean thought, encouraging a reevaluation of modern values in light of ancient wisdom.

Welcome and good to hear we are approved by Deepseek!

I've never heard of Barrio - do you have any links to recommend to read about him?

To illustrate how this plays out, the quote below is is the way the Epicureanism Wikipedia page as of today starts off.

Quote

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy founded 307 BCE based upon the teachings of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher. Epicurus was an atomist and materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to religious skepticism and a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, and its main opponent later became Stoicism. It is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal. However, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from hedonism as colloquially understood.

Following the Cyrenaic philosopher Aristippus, Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest, sustainable pleasure in the form of a state of ataraxia (tranquility and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of bodily pain) through knowledge of the workings of the world and limiting desires. Correspondingly, Epicurus and his followers generally withdrew from politics because it could lead to frustrations and ambitions that would conflict with their pursuit of virtue and peace of mind.^[1]

I would argue that the first paragraph sets the incorrect tone (absence of pain, without more explanation, is the greatest pleasure) that leads to the false conclusions in the second paragraph (that Epicurus advocated withdrawal from engagement with the world in favor of mental contemplation).

The first paragraph fails to explain that there are only two feelings, and that if you are not feeling pain then you are feeling pleasure, and vice versa.

Omission of this premise plants the implication that "absence of pain" does not include the type of ordinary pleasures that normal people consider the term to include, and that this transcendent condition is separate from and takes the place of pleasures as ordinarily understood.

In contrast to Epicurus, who is widening the definition of pleasure to include not only the standard active pleasures, but also all experiences whether active or stable that are not painful, the Wikipedia approach narrows the definition of pleasure.

The Wikipedia viewpoint deprecates joy and delight and standard active pleasures, and leaves behind only the implication that Epicurus was advocating the type of mental detachment that is characteristic of Stoicism, Buddhism, and otherworldly philosophies and religions.

Yes definitely Godfrey:

Article

On Pain, Pleasure, And Happiness

Brief: The feelings are only two, pleasure and pain—there is no third state such as neutral, and there are no “fancy pleasures” which are different from regular pleasures. Because there is no neutral, reducing pain in life is only possible if there is a corresponding increase in pleasure. The extent of pleasure can be maximized by making sure to attend to all parts of one’s body, including the brain. Happiness is comprised of a pleasurable life. The capacity for pain is a valuable warning system and should not be disabled except in unusual conditions. The experience of pain is to be avoided except when it is chosen for the sake of greater pleasure/ lesser pain over the lifespan. Humans have many shared responses of pain or pleasure to specific experiences, and they also have individual variations. The standard of pleasure in one’s life must be one’s own subjective feelings, not a generic advice. There are many pitfalls to avoid if one desires a happy, pleasure-filled life, such as a false belief in a neutral state, practices which attempt to disable the normal capacity to feel pleasure and pain, and failure to consider the long-term pains and pleasures resulting from actions. In discussing pain and pleasure, Epicureans stick to real life situations, not hypothetical philosophical puzzles.

Elayne

July 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM

Welcome @vlasalv

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

I started on that in the the prior post but deleted it because i was getting too long.

In summary, my view of that is that Epicurus is speaking conceptually as to the nature of the goal.

The essential premise that is unstated here but which is present in PD03 and recorded at length by Cicero in Torquatus' explanation of Epicurean ethics, there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain, and when you don't have pain you have pleasure. All this is reinforced immediately in the letter by the following:

Quote

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. And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

It's my view that Epicurus expected Menoeceus or any other student of his reading the letter to understand the wider context of there being only two feelings. Unfortunately, people today don't know the context, so they don't understand how saying "absence of pain" is the equivalent of saying "pleasure."

To me that context resolves the part of the passage that is arguably the worst if not understood. "When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure."

When you know that "absence of pleasure" means "pain" just like "absence of pain" means pleasure, you realize that he's just stating the obvious. When you have pain, that means there's a gap in your goal of life that needs to be filled with pleasure. When you have no pain, that means there is no gap in your goal of life, because your life is already filled with pleasure. At that point, you have no further need for more pleasure, because your life is already filled with pleasure. This does not deprecate pleasure but emphasizes that pleasure is the only thing that really counts.

You'll also see here on the forum lots of discussion of "the limit of pleasure" as referenced in PD03 and in reference to an argument by Plato, who alleged that because pleasure has no limit then it cannot be the ultimate good.

By showing that pleasure does have a limit, and thus there is a state which can be described as "the best," Epicurus refute's Plato's argument. When you think about it, it's obvious that the best state of pleasure is 100% pleasure. At that point, you have no need, or ability to experience, anything more.

I have several collections of quotes on this as I'm constantly working on a better presentation of them. Here are three:

On Epicurean Views Of Pleasure - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

A second is here: https://wiki.epicureanfriends.com/doku.php/the_norm_is_pleasure_too

And a third:

Article

A Gate To Be Burst: "Absence of Pain"

It is interesting to think about what Lucretius had in mind in Book One of “On The Nature of Things” when he spoke about Epicurus "yearning to be the first to burst through the close-set bolts upon the gates of nature." What kind of gates was he talking about? Who bolted them? How do those gates keep us from Nature?

I can't be sure which gates Lucretius had in mind, but I can suggest one "gate" that is particularly in need of bursting, as it stands directly in the way of a better understanding…

Cassius

February 12, 2024 at 1:26 PM

Don's summary of the issue is excellent. I would only add that in addition to the conclusion that there's no reason to read Epicurus because he's the same as Buddhism and Stoicism, you of course add on the huge baggage of why one should not choose to pursue Buddhism or Stoicism.

Quote from Rolf

That said, I’m not sure I quite see the point at issue here. Pleasures vary in duration, intensity, and location. Of course I would prefer a katastematic pleasure. More sustainable, longer lasting pleasure. It’s like asking someone if they want $1000 now or $100 per month for 2 years. It’s a matter of prudence.

Yes, that statement illustrates how confusing this question can be. The issue is that when most people (excluding those who see it like Don does) talk about katastematic pleasure, they are not simply referring to "any pleasure that is sustainable and longer lasting." And they are not talking about katastematic pleasure as "one of many kinds of pleasure." The point I am arguing against is that many people explicitly or implicitly state that katastematic pleasure, which they equate with "ataraxia" or "freedom from pain" is the ultimate goal of Epicurean pleasure, rather than the much wider term "pleasure," which includes katastemic pleasure, but also includes kinetic pleasure.

Of course at this point we're already down the road of glazing over peoples' eyes because they understandably aren't sure what "katastematic" and "kinetic" means, so they default to thinking that it means "ataraxia" which is also highly ambiguous or just "absence of pain" which means nothing standing alone any more than it would be to say "absence of elephants." "Absence of....." doesn't tell you anything unless you have a conceptual framework that there are only two possibilities, and that the only other possibility is pleasure. But the people I am arguing against rarely explain that, because their whole issue is that they don't want to accept the common understanding of "pleasure" in the first place, because that would draw a bright red line between Epicurus and Buddhism and Stoicism.

So many commentators package this question into the view that katastematic pleasure is the only really desirable pleasure, and that the only reason we care about kinetic pleasures is so that we can obtain katastematic pleasure. They argue that once we have katasatematic pleasure we no longer have need of kinetic pleasure, and they'll cite this part of the letter to Menoeceus: "For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure."

And indeed if you are the normal man on the street today and take that statement at face value, it DOES sound Buddhist or Stoic or worse. The problem only gets resolved when you take into account Epicurus's many statements about pleasure in the rest of the philosophy, including the fact that (as with gods) Epicurus is giving a very unusual meaning to a term that everyone else uses differently. But no man-on-the-street has the experience to be able to do that, so they run in the opposite direction. Which in my view is exactly the goal of the perps I am referring to, because their goal is to remain smugly happy in their eclectic blends of Buddism and Stoicism without worry that anyone will ever see that Epicurus was arguing against their position, not in favor of it.

Gosling and Taylor exhaustively go through many examples of the contradictions that the standard view of katastematic pleasure causes, G&T conclude that these contradictions do not mean that katastematic pleasure is somehow the ultimate goal of Epicurean philosophy: they conclude that Epicurus saw pleasure as a unified thing, and that katastematic pleasure is only one sort of pleasure. And that's where Nikolsky picks up and points out that in the centuries between Epicurus and Cicero (and additional time after that to Diogenes Laertius) people like Carneades - in their fetish to categorize things - placed an emphasis on this division that is not mentioned by the true believers like Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda or to my recollection Philodemus either, and thus was not of major significance to Epicurus himself.

But it's become the hallmark of discussion of Epicurus in the modern world because when accepted in the way it is often discussed, it turns much of the philosophy upside down and makes much of the rest of it self-contradictory.

Yes, Don thanks, that is a comment by Diogenes Laertius, who is consistent with Cicero and Athenaeus (if Nikolsky's comments below are correct). To make it easier on those who have not read Nikolsky's full article, here is his abstract explaining how he takes the clues set out by Gosling & Taylor and then explains how these three men may have come to make their commentary. For those who can go down the rabbit hole without being distracted and turned off, it's a fascinating subject.

G&T really do a great job of tracking down all aspects of "The Greeks on Pleasure" from the earliest days, through Epicurus, and through the original and later uses of these terms. I've read it all through once, but can't say I have a command of it at all. It's a bear to try to dive in and then come up for air.

Quote

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

The analysis of the ancient evidence concerning Epicurus' concept of pleasure is made according to the following principle: first, I consider the sources that do not mention the distinction between 'kinetic' and 'static' pleasures, and only then do I compare them with the other group of texts which comprises reports by Cicero, Diogenes Laertius and Athenaeus. From the former group of texts there emerges a concept of pleasure as a single and not twofold notion, while such terms as 'motion' and 'state' describe not two different phenomena but only two characteristics of the same phenomenon. On the other hand, the reports comprising the latter group appear to derive from one and the same doxographical tradition, and to be connected with the classification of ethical 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.