I have an older brother who is VERY hard right. I actually call him once a week to stay in touch, and I just plain don't talk politics or religion with him. 
We've had some EPIC disagreements in the past, but we've never got along better since I've instituted this very Epicurean policy.
He tries to get me now and then, but I don't take the bait. 
Yeah, I do hear that greeting in the Midwest. I probably say it myself from time to time, though I'm not sure. We'll have to ask kochiekoch!
"It's a pleasure to meet you"?
Usually something like "nice meeting you". Could be regional.
Presumably most of what Epicurus wrote that would have clarified this is lost. It seems that mainly what we have left is the discussion in Menoeceus, which seems to presume that we know what pleasure is. Taking that position is consistent with Torquatus' statement that there is no need for logical definition or proof that pleasure is desirable. [So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet, no one of which facts are we bound to support by elaborate arguments; it is enough merely to draw attention to the fact; and there is a difference between proof and formal argument on the one hand and a slight hint and direction of the attention on the other; the one process reveals to us mysteries and things under a veil, so to speak; the other enables us to pronounce upon patent and evident facts.]
I'm learning the ends and outs of the board here slowly but surly. Like how to insert quotes.
Sounds like pleasure is a feeling, pre-rational and universally desirable rather than concept with a specific definition.
>>I found it interesting that the Septuagint uses εὐφροσύνην euphrosyne and its verb form, the feeling Epicurus identifies as a kinetic pleasure whereas Jerome decided to use two different terms. Although I know Lucretius uses gaude somewhere and possibly laetitia too.<<
It would seem, the religious scholars didn't have a good understanding of pleasure. Outside of their area of expertise
Yeah. A quick look at Ecclesiastes and Job seem to indicate they fall into the category of wisdom literature. That would have to have a Greek influence as the Mediterranean world at the time was DRENCHED in Greek culture. Even affecting insular cultures like the Jewish world at the time.
As per our Wednesday discussion, eat drink and be merry shows up in a couple of places in the bible. One is in Ecclesiastes:
>>Ecclesiastes 8:15
15 Then I decided to spend my time having fun because I felt that there was nothing better in all the earth than that a man should eat, drink, and be merry, with the hope that this happiness would stick with him in all the hard work that God gives to mankind everywhere.<<
And then there's Paul. 1 Corinthians is considered one of his authentic letters, unlike about six others in the New Testament :
>>1 Corinthians 15:32
32 And what value was there in fighting wild beasts—those men of Ephesus—if it was only for what I gain in this life down here? If we will never live again after we die, then we might as well go and have ourselves a good time: let us eat, drink, and be merry. What’s the difference? For tomorrow we die, and that ends everything!<<
The jist of it in the bible is that it's not a good idea. God will get you for it. Living like those Greeks.
Happy 20th you twentyers !
Thanks for the invite Kalosyni.
It all seems rather straightforward. Epicurus would rather tell the truth, even crouched in mysterious, esoteric, language, the average person wouldn't understand, than to tell the average person what they want to hear, and to reap the benefits of such action.
People love it when a wise man reinforces their prejudices.
Interesting thing about 2 Timothy is that it's disputed if Paul actually wrote it.
>>The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.[3][4][5] Some scholars have proposed that Paul may have used an amanuensis, or secretary, in writing the disputed letters,[6] although such a solution would not explain the fact that the disputed letters appear to have been written at least a decade after Paul’s death.<<
Couldn't have written it ten years after he died.
I did manage to find those letters between Ninon de l'Enclos and Lord Saint-Evremond I mentioned during Happy Hour and a whole lot more. It's been years since I read their correspondence and I haven't read the rest of it, but from what I remember she was quite a woman.
Also, you might find interesting, Saint-Evremond's letter entitled: "To a modern Leontium".
Ninon de l'Enclos (archive.org)
Here is a good article on her on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
HI all!
In tune with last nights discussion of Hegesias the 'Death Persuader' and Cyreniacism in general, I brought up the idea that Hegesias might have been dealing with the 'hedonic treadmill. The tendency of a person to become accustomed to stimuli, and no longer experience pleasure from formally pleasurable experiences. This is a well known phenomenon:
Poor guy must have been so pleasured out that he couldn't experience pleasure anymore, and decided that the only thing left was to end his life. But, he was a philosopher, and so had to preach that to other people. 
With unfortunately disastrous results. 
The hedonic treadmill problem might be why Cyreniacism died out as a philosophical school, but Epicureanism survived. At least until the Christian era. Hegesias might represent what Cyreniacism evolved into and represent the school's late stage.
The Epicurean view of pleasure helps to avoid the hedonic treadmill which people might find themselves on, and on which he addresses in PD 10:
Here is the article I mentioned during Wednesday chat, which seems to agree with Lucretius on humans becoming softer and more social, enabling us to outcompete the less social Neanderthal people. A trait that has so far contributed to our remarkable success as a species.
I would have labeled them like that. Busts of Hermarchus I've seen show him as a guy with an average head size. Busts of Metrodorus depict him as a man with a larger head and broad face.
They could have just fined him 787.5 million drachmas!
The mysticism.
Epicurus was materialist to the bone. Whereas Plato had his 'forms', out there in ozone, discernible, by reason; of which the reality we experience is but a pale image. Epicurus had his atoms everywhere at once, discernible by our natural faculties; forming our concrete reality.
The goal of life, according to Plato was to get in harmony with the universe, and it's alleged perfection. The goal of life according to Epicurus was pleasure, in our infinite, and purposeless universe.
Plato even encouraged the 'enlightened', as he defined them, to become involved in politics and govern. Epicurus took a different track with his admonishment to 'live unnoticed'.
Taking a look at both of them, Epicurus is like an un-Plato!
Platonism! He had his Garden on the same road as the competition. The Academy.
Dang! You beat me to it. LOL!!! I thought I had a new article to post!
The discussion on Canon, Reason and Nature, made me think of this old article on the difficulty religious and superstitious people have getting a firm grip on reality:
It was one of the questions Emily Austin had in her book as to why Epicurus would recommend the study of natural science as a path to tranquility. A world run by the caprices of gods and spirits doesn't sound that tranquil.
I've seen the hedonistic response in other places in history. Here's one example I dug up.
LOL!!!! Having pleasure fall out of the sky is good. Or are easily available.
Remember, it's choice and avoidance. Avoid those pleasures from the sky that will crack your skull.
I see your cave analogy. Actually, the bread and water in the cave would be a very painful life. I'm told, that in prison, misbehaving prisoners are put in solitary confinement as a punishment. Denied the company, of other people, they suffer terribly both mentally and physically. It's the sort of thing the ACLU seeks to ban. We are social animals.
Steve
