New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I don't know that it is limited to England by any means
I meant an "English speaker" thing. Sometimes the interpretation of topics is related to the use of a language, which influences their interpretations. I corrected my original post to "English speaker thing".
Does Epicurus mean natural as innate or natural as in nature approves of it? I think Tim O'Keefe misreads natural desires as meaning innate, whereas it actually means "actually helps with pleasure", this is why natural desires can turn into vain or unnatural desires if they become sources of stress or likely to cause harm. It's natural and should be pursued when brining more pleasure than pain but unnatural when not and should be shunned. There is also the fact that i think Epicurus just outright disagrees that sex or lavish food is necessary for happiness and can't be eliminated and he seems to say the opposite below.
My interpretation has always been that of the natural desires being key factors to focus on. I somewhat would agree that they are "innate" in the sense that they are indiscutible and inherently connected with our being. Not caring for one's health and security/social connections is disastrous. I am confroted with these points every single day, may it be at work, outside or within my social sphere.
Instead, people focus on anything else and do not realize on what basis their house is built on. My life isn't perfect either, but I realize that focusing on natural desires and meditating (finally transferring into action) these points is a great source of realizing what really matters. From there on I refer to Diogenes from Oinoanda:
"when the emotions which disturb the soul are removed, those which produce pleasure enter into it to take their place"
Diogenes of Oinoanda, fragment 34
The purpose of this forum is to study and promote Classical Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurus taught it. It is extremely important for us to grapple with Epicurus' framing of the term "absence of pain" and explain how Epicurus is about PLEASURE - which can indeed be defined for certain important uses as "absence of pain" or "reduction of pain." But to place PAIN in the center of the philosophy rather than PLEASURE is not what the ancient Epicureans did, and it's not consistent with the mission of this forum to allow for the regular advocacy of that position here.
Maybe this discussion about "absence of pain" is an "English speaker thing". I remember Epicurus receiving a more nuanced interpretation in e.g. German literature. The "absence of pain" discussion is know there as well, but Epicurus is still the philosopher of pleasure (sometimes rather translated to "joy" which is perhaps a good term to include both the status of a healthy being and experiencing appreciated feelings). Obviously, there is just weak connection in the German language between "Epicurean" and food, perhaps this is also a root why English interpreters might dislike the term pleasure.
Generally speaking, in German literature Epicurus is understood as a wise man who taught how to live a joyful life, focussing on the "little" but important aspects while skipping disturbance.
I agree with you that the "absence of pain" might has something to do with other philosophies. Today, Stoicism, Buddhism, even the monotheistic religions are marketed as something that can reduce stress and leads to less pain in life.
There is also the point of "reducing pain" being more doctrinally neutral than "promoting pleasure". Declaring pleasure as an end in itself is like appreciating Epicurus and his philosophy way to much, elevating him to a saint.
It sounds very stark, but perhaps people sometimes deliberately misread Epicurean philosophy or study it just as being worth a superficial reading. A wide range of authors e.g. Karl Popper, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus relate to some Epicurean content just to conclude that their own thought is of bigger importance. Okay, this is how egos and new traditions of thought are formed.
No doubt, "This wasn't originally intended for an explicitly Epicurean audience".
The Humanist wasn't interested so now I'm sharing it here.
Lol, I read "was" instead of "wasn't" 
. This explains your emphasis on political/societal topics. On the other side, your text is explicitly at the beginning and in the middle part full of Epicurean thought. This might sound too doctrinal or even religiously for a humanist audience. Did they offer you to change some parts of the article?
"...irrevocable changes to the Earth’s biosphere will lead to the displacement of 2 billion human beings and cause the deaths of hundreds of millions more..."
I know that people give well reasoned arguments related to this. But I also know the bigger picture: The more abstract problems are, the more they tend to not enter into realization.
Proof? In my 25 years old geography book from school (data base already 30-35 years old) the authors claimed hunger crises to come in the Sahel Zone, which is the part of Africa situated between the Sahara desert in the north and the tropical climate southwards. Instead of starvation and people going extinct the population has doubled or tripled since. Ironically, in some parts even overweight and obesity go viral now.
What would the authors of the starvation thesis answer if I wrote them a letter with my objections? Probably, they are already retired and aren't interested in these topics anymore. This is the generational dimension of science. People come and go. Perhaps one would answer: "I'm happy that things have developed otherwise... at least in general, but I know a region where people are suffering!" "This is science, hypotheses can be proven wrong!..." "Our research has helped people to adapt to ecological challenges!"
I'm not interested in discussing pros and cons of certain topics as we do not discuss politics here and I don't find it fruitful either. What I observe is that crises and visions of "end times" have a psychological and sociological dimension, but the best part is this: The preacher never pays a price.
I want to note that where Martin Ferguson Smith gives "states" in the translation, the Greek is κατασ̣τήμασι and καταστημάτων, that is katastēmasi and katastēmatōn.
Do you have a recommendation how to translate this section smoothly where Ferguson instead gives "states"? (Let us first discuss states...)
Great work! I especially like your approach of rendering names as they were spoken in antiquity e.g. Epicurus as Epíkouros. This adds authority to your text.
Some criticism:
When it comes to our own futures, Epicurean history provides brave examples like Mētródōros, “undaunted against both disturbances and death”,292 “virtuous and awesome”.293 To achieve the goal of nature, the Sage of the Garden asks us to “study these and those things, for yourself, day and night, as with those like yourself, and at no time, neither awake nor in a dream will you be confounded, for no living person surrounded by immortal Good seems like a mortal creature.294 As has been spoken more eloquently elsewhere, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Here again, “when you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer.”
Superstition ain’t the way.
I appreciate how your text ends. Conversely, in the paragraphs above you dive too much into politics and fear of the failure of certain policies. This seems to me contrary to your conclusion.
Additionally, the political topics you are talking about seem to be of semantic value and interest for a "Western only" and especially US-American audience (okay, one could also speak of Epicurean philosophy as predominantly for Westerners and this is true if we look at the chain of transmission).
In the letter to Meneoceus Epicurus is warning not only of believing in the myths about the gods but even more about belief that arguably is supported by natural necessity. What Epicurus meant exactly with that section may be open to discussion. Personally, I read it as a warning of Doomsday pessimism in general (as Doomsday never materializes).
His message is otherwise: Life is good and pleasure is the guide of life!
Aside from the introductory part where Diogenes declares his (noble) motifs, this is the section I personally like the most:
Let us first discuss states, keeping an eye on the point that, when the emotions which disturb the soul are removed, those which produce pleasure enter into it to take their place.
Well, what are the disturbing emotions? [They are] fears —of the gods, of death, and of [pains]— and, besides [these], desires that [outrun] the limits fixed by nature. These are the roots of all evils, and, [unless] we cut them off, [a multitude] of evils will grow [upon] us.
Klavan's position is that Epicureanism is intellectually serious, historically influential, and philosophically important to understand — but ultimately self-defeating. It begins by liberating humanity from superstitious fear and ends by stripping life of all significance.
And Klavan also adds:
"Despite what we may profess to the contrary, most of us are moved by a powerful intuition that meaning does exist, at the level of the individual human life. The moral consequences of trying to suppress or explain away this basic intuition are exactly as monstrous and absurd as the physical consequences of trying to do a science experiment while doubting that valid observation is possible. If phrases like “moral worth” have any meaningful content at all then they must be built into the fabric of existence, not just coded as expedient fictions into our evolutionary programming. If so, then it starts to seem eerily possible that our sense of right and wrong is in fact reflective, however distantly, of a logos that governs the whole universe."
I would like to tell him that I clearly acknowledge that meaning does exist, at the level of the individual human life. This is, because at the individual level my feelings and perceptions exist. This is the very reason why something matters.
It's also always funny to read argumentation on logos. This is superstitious in itself. Logos has to be self-evident and non-independent from ourselves, clearly to access and unable to deny. Otherwise I I would like to ask why is it dependent on us to govern the universe? I know, I get him, he would argue logos doesn't depend on us, but we should align with it because it is an ultimate reality we not yet understand correctly...
"Epicureanism has proven a total failure... the idea that Epicurus had that once we cleared away the religious horizon, we would all be free to live these contented, placid lives, I think that has been just totally refuted.”
Is there anything Klavan offers in return? (Except for abstract formulations?)
The Failure of Epicureanism as a System of Belief
In the preface of Gateway to the Epicureans, Spencer Clavin asserts:
Clavin critiques the inadequacy of Epicurean atomism in explaining the complexities of modern physics and the ethical shortcomings in addressing contemporary existential crises. He contends that the simplistic materialism of Epicurus fails to satisfy the human quest for meaning, contributing to widespread despair and societal issues like declining birth rates.
My personal conclusion is, people in the modern (for critics of the term modern I should say "current") world are eaten up by all kinds of sorts of influences and activities in the search for meaning. Conversely, Epicurean thought could be presented as a cure that guides people to focus on the relevant experiences that are within their reach.
Having only read a glimpse of Klavin, it seems his key strategy is adding perfect sounding words, words, words (ideas) without having them to be contested in the real world. Do I get him too short?
Do you think there is something to learn about Epicurean prolepsis through the understanding how AI/LLMs (large language models) work?
If my understanding of LLMs is correct, they form a "general notion" of all kinds of things through the processing of an extraordinary huge data base. Sounds familiar to the Human mind. Although some would say AI is just statistics at work, perhaps this is somehow our own minds function, too.
There are further possible implications like: In which way does prolepsis form? How dependent/exposed is prolepsis on/to its database? How does LLMs relate to the debate on understanding prolepsis as (a) fixed innate ideas vs. (b) forming general notions out of impressions on our minds?
I won't have time in the near future for discussion, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on a topic that has been on my mind for a long time.
I don’t have much more to add, except to say that I now see even more clearly the importance of resisting any framing that elevates katastematic pleasure above other forms, or that risks collapsing Epicurean pleasure into mere tranquility.
IMHO this is the championship of Epicureanism: Integrating a life reform into real existing experiences. We have to acknowledge that very extraordinary approach: Epicurus offers refinement of the existential buiding blocks of life without denial of them. This is somewhat different from the "path-to-enlightenment-with-departure-from-ourselves"-strategy. That life can be good and the stimulus of pleasure, as simple as it is, can be something coherent in an advanced philosophical framework - this just sounds scandalous to many people and hardly to believe.
Does anyone know what happened to Obbink's Philodemus On Piety Part 2? I just can find an online link with no further information.
Vatican Saying 64: "The esteem of others is outside our control; we must attend instead to healing ourselves."
It seems to be this one. How different translations can sound!
Some thoughts on today's/yesterday's talk:
1. Good and evil have all but vanished from my vocabulary. I don't know whether it's something related to simply getting older or a societal shift or indeed related to the study of Epicureanism.
For the following lines I apologize in advance, if I haven't grasped the discussion correctly.
2. There is a Epicurean "response" to Cicero's claim that a bad reputation may be worse than feeling pain. Unfortunately, I don't remember where it is from. In English it's something like:
"Recognition of the environment must come naturally. We are drawn to strive for our own healing alone."
3. Does Cicero think so, because from a theoretical Stoic point of view he is able to ignore bodily pain but his public standing is beyond his means? In contrast, I would state that bodily pain is by far more present than being afraid of social infamy. The Epicurean response might be focusing on the essentials of life first, as they are related to ourselves innately. Infamy can be treated by refocussing on one's circle of friends, ignoring the public standing (as long as it isn't threatening existentially).
Surely, in the end it depends on what is the biggest hardship to oneself.
Titus and Godfrey, in your answers, did you address this question specifically? Do you agree that you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach 100% pleasure (or happiness)? If you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach the target, why would you pursue any others than those which are easiest to obtain?
This is a very good question! And I have to admit that I probably missread the original question as I am concerned not with unnecessary desires but with with the category of "vain" desires.
I would like to say yes, but this is just a theoretical yes as I consider the classification of desires as a guidance tool for choosing priorities. In this sense, the category of natural and necessary desires is something that has to be of number one priority to us.
Display More127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,
"then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;
Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.
127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.
ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”
This is very fundamental. This is the basis on which our house is built on. It is of importance to secure ones existential needs and also to have a proper understanding of the universe and ones position within.
The category of just natural desires adds flavour to our lives and is to be pursued if the desires do not conflict with the necessity these desires are related to. Giving a classical example for a natural but not necessary desire is the decision to drink wine instead of water. This is to be approved as long as one doesn't slip into extensive drunkenness, which conflicts with the maintenance of our health or the undisturbedness of the body.
To remain close to your question, from my personal experience the category of natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary, is the proper basis for anything to stay focused on (for the 100%). Since I regard most of our desires to be related to natural stimuli, this doesn't lead to ascetisicm, at least to my understanding.
The "vain" category includes anything else, anything that isn't related directly to naturally arising desires. These are the desires we have to examine very critical.
Epicurus' classification of desires is a helpful tool, but we also have to recognize that it is quite abstract and has to be applied with caution.
Where do we place the desire to earn more money (and the related steps, e.g. building a business or pursuing a career). It is necessary and natural for our survival to have access to material resources. On the other hand, as I've displayed in my previous post, it can become excessive.
So where to place the desire to learn a specific profession or to follow a career path? I totally agree, that the short formula of the 3 categories of desires can fall short very often.
The following lines were first to be meant as a commentary on one of Cassius' statements in our last Sunday Zoom Meeting, but they perfectly fit into this discussion!
"Developing one's best potential" or something similar was a statement of Cassius at the end of our Zoom meeting. Perhaps it's an American perspective to seek for the highest, the best, the ultimate and has to be seen in its cultural context. Or I just don't get him right.
But I'm critical of this phrase as it appears to my ears. According to my understanding, Epicureanism isn't about living a frugal life and achieving tranquility under a state of painlessness. Furthermore, it's searching for pleasure, trusting one's senses, feelings, conceptions of the world. Bringing them together to "dance", as Cassius wrote in his poem "Thus Purred Catius' Cat". According to my understanding, pleasure is both epistemological (a canonical term) and teleological. It's based on our very conditions as human beings and defines also the aims of our life. It is the beginning and the end of the happy life.
In a world where every sensation that isn't painful is pleasant, we just have to open our senses and to see how many pleasurable experiences are at our hands. It enables us to enjoy and enrich ourselves with all that tiny little good influences around us. Good food (especially food!), a nice breeze under a blue sky, a vibrant talk with a friend while walking a thriving urban landscape or a magnificent peace of nature. There are so many good things around all the while, hence I'm not seeking for more, for the better, for the Everest. I am just satisfied and happy. I don't need to be a dollar millionaire, although everybody around me will tell me otherwise. Instead of living a life based on the very foundations of the human nature - as Epicurus emphasizes over and over again in the fragments that are available to us - they worry about abstract things which have no connection to happiness in the first place but are grounded in empty desire. I know, there is this relativism going on, teaching a broad definition of pleasure that is so common that there is ultimately no need for any philosophical insight anymore. I'm not talking about the little obsessions that people are striving for but e.g. about people in their 60s who worry as wealthy persons more about money as they did when they were young and had no money. They think wealth will give them security (and finally immortality!), all the while they should pursue their fundamentals: Learning philosophy, understanding the good life. They end up fighting with their relatives for the bigger share of the inheritance of their parents, ironically they are themselves already in cognitive decline. Otherwise they would recognize they give up precious relationships which build up a cornerstone of happiness. This isn't an extraordinary example but an usual experience you will find all over the place. 10 or 20 years later they end up in a nursing home, money and power then doesn't matter anymore but "moral" strength would, the capacity to stand firm, having a philosophy that guides them through the last mile. Diogenes of Oinoanda, having reached old age is the extraordinary man who reflects his past life, rejoices in the pleasures and the superior understanding of the universe he has achieved. He is at the top, having reached the heights where no snow falls and pure light is shining. This is the man I would like to be!
I like Epicurus' categorisation of desires. According to my understanding, a common misunderstanding is to assume that unnecessary desires are just something that is unnecessary and can be pursued whenever it seems they do not harm. The problem ist, I suggest, that the just natural but unnecessary category already covers what most of us think of as "unnecessary": Something that is related to our natural basis and because of that it is able to give us joy, but it's nothing that is necessary for survival. I am totally okay with that.
The neither natural nor necessary category is there because it relates to events and experiences in life that just nurish abstract ideas and notions about the world. The example of some senior citizens, seduced by greed for money and hunger for endless life, instead of recognizing their limits is something that has a very strong impression on me.
I know Cassius' is fighting the image of the minimalist frugal Epicurean who lives on bread and water but I would like to see more sensitivity as to why there is a category of"unnecessary desires" in the first place.
Brilliant! I'll try to join, too.
Welcome to the forum!
I held a stoic-platonistic view for about 5 years. Gradually it began to trouble me that i see others as deviating from the true nature, and the society i live in as an abberation.
Indepentently from your post, I started reading articles about Platonism a few days ago and I'm interested in how you applied your former philosophical views in your real life. I have been heavily relying on Epicurean philosophy for more than a decade and what I really like is the practical side of Epicurus' teachings which guides me on a daily basis. So I'm interested in what the implications of your former stoic-platonic worldview were.
Welcome on board!
It helped me complete my philosophical ideas which stem from process philosophy.
Sounds interesting! Would you like to add more details?
I must be still affected by my upbringing as a child, which was strict Christian fundamentalist, and they would end the church service by asking if anyone wanted to become "saved" and which was understood as "saved from hell"...so it was an appeal to the desire to remove the pain of uncertainty after death.
I am sorry for underestimating the influence that religious views seem to have - perhaps I've been to long outside of the discourse.
Saying that "You're doing what you're doing - whatever you're doing - because you think it will bring you pleasure" does not seem to me to be a very helpful way of looking at much of anything. I realize that many people that this helps them defend "hedonism," and if so than I suppose whatever floats one's boat is good.
But to me, it's an argument that smacks of circularity and even disrespect for the other person who is earnestly suggesting that whatever they are pursuing is not pleasure at all.
You are right that it would be disrespectful and it also cancels the opportunity to grasp the meaning of what the partner in a discussion is talking about. But from my personal point of view I would argue this is - more or less - the way we work as humans.
I can put your mind at ease - I would never argue about religion this way to a stranger 
Unfortunately for many religious people they are united by their distrust in the world, and their hope for something other than the world ---> seeking to transcend the world rather than inhabit the world, and seeking for a heavenly afterlife.
Ironically, from an outsider's perspective it almost always seems to materialize in socialising, setting up frameworks etc. I can hardly recognize anything otherworldly. It's always about this world.
Yes, every kind of religious system is imperfect, but:
So yes even supernatural religion "can" sometimes lead to success, and in fact Epicurus says it would be better to believe in such things rather than give in to hard determinism.
This is the point. People aren't yet ready for the philosopher's stone. One ideology seems to exchange for another and even the atheist's pursue new agendas.
But I don't think that observations makes "both statements true" in terms of them "making sense." It does not "make sense" to structure one's life based on fantasies and made-up notions about supernatural forces unless you are in an extremely unusual situation -- extreme to the point of practical nonexistence.
I speak from a perspective of Epicurean "universalism".
I would argue that even if they say they pursue the afterlife and are not seeking pleasure they are lying or not recognising their reality. It's as obvious as water is wet and the sunlight at noon is bright to me.
I agree with you, that the stories may misguide them but on the other hand the force of our innate pleasure-pain-mechanism is immensely powerful. No-one can escape this reality.
If supernatural religion, and life after death with reward and punishment are true, then the Epicurean worldview makes no sense.
Even in this case people are seeking pleasure (reward). Additionally, as long as I am in this world, I am still rewarded with pleasant impressions.
I know, from a logical point of view both arguments exclude each other. But I think, the Epicurean perspective overturns this logic epistemologically.
