Posts by Elli

Dear friend Martin hi! Thanks for your comment.

What I meant is not that Schopenhauer left no letters to his mother, but that Epicurus is the only one of the three - Epicurus, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche - who left us a letter of that tone, that emotional quality, and that human clarity. Schopenhauer’s letters to his mother certainly exist, but they are famously tense, cold, and full of conflict. None of them resemble the letter we have from Epicurus.

Lets’ see again the letter of Epicurus to His Mother (Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 125–126)

“…you must think carefully and with certainty about these matters. For indeed, the images (in dreams) of things not present to our sight, when they reach the soul, fill it with the greatest fear. But if you examine the whole issue attentively, you will understand that these images appear entirely the same - whether of things absent or present. For since they are not perceived by touch but by the mind, they possess the same power with regard to what is not present as they do to what is present. Therefore, mother, do not let these things frighten you. You must not consider your dreams about me as ominous. On the contrary, think that day by day, as I acquire something good, I advance more and more toward happiness. For not small nor fruitless are the things that make our condition resemble that of the gods and show that mortality does not make us inferior to the incorruptible and blessed nature. For as long as we live, we rejoice in the same way as the gods… …equally so, if it perceives diminution. But if it no longer has sensation, how could it be diminished? Think of me, mother, as surrounded by such blessings, always happy; and take pride in what I do. And, for Zeus’ sake, show greater restraint with the money you constantly send me. I do not want you to lack anything so that I may have more; better that I lack and you do not. Besides, I live comfortably in every respect, thanks to my friends and to the money my father continually sends me. Recently, in fact, he sent me nine minas through Cleon. Therefore none of you should worry about me, but rather support one another…”

The above letter of Epicurus to his mother is one of those texts you do not simply read…you hear it. You hear the tone of his voice, the calmness, the tenderness, the absence of any trace of irony or severity. Here, he does not speak as a philosopher, but as a son. His mother is anxious, troubled by dreams that frighten her, sending him money not out of duty, but out of that primordial maternal need to be present, to protect, to support. And Epicurus does not reject her, does not scold her, does not push her away. He speaks to her in a way only someone raised in emotional safety can speak: with clarity, with serenity, with that quiet strength that does not need to raise its voice to be heard.

He explains to her that the images of the mind, whether of things present or absent, have the same power, and that she must not let her dreams terrify her. This is not philosophical instruction; it is emotional regulation. It is the adult son who can contain his mother’s fear without being swallowed by it. It is the mark of a secure bond, a bond not built on guilt, fear, or dependency, but on a deep, steady, human presence. And when he asks her to be more sparing with the money she sends him, he does not do so out of pride or self-sufficiency. He does it because he has internalized a maternal figure he does not need to protect from himself, but rather to relieve from her excessive generosity. It is the moment when care becomes mutual, when love matures and is no longer one‑sided.

And at the end, when he says: “Think of me as surrounded by blessings and be proud of what I do,” we see that he is not asking for validation. He is asking for recognition, the most mature form of connection between mother and son. In this small letter, it becomes clear that Epicurus’ philosophy was not born from trauma but from safety. It is not a defense against life; it is the natural continuation of a childhood in which life was not an enemy. This is why his philosophy is serene, earthly, human: the philosophy of a man who grew up in light.

And here lies the answer to why women flourished in his Garden. This should not surprise us. Epicurus carried within him a maternal figure who was warm, steady, non‑guilt‑inducing, and non‑threatening. A man raised in such a way does not fear women, does not belittle them, does not idealize them, does not exclude them. That is why in the Garden women were equals, participated in teaching, lived alongside men, had a voice, a role and a presence. The Garden was the first philosophical space in antiquity where women truly flourished. Because only a man who does not fear his mother, does not fear women, does not fear the body, does not fear the life itself.

The mother is the first mirror of the child. Through her gaze he learns whether the world is habitable or hostile, whether life is a gift or a threat, whether existence is joy or burden. And before a son even meets his father, he meets him through her: through the way she speaks to him, the way she thinks of him, the way she carries him within herself. If the mother does not poison, does not seek revenge, does not demand alliances, then the son can see both parents as human beings and not as opposing camps. And then he learns something few people ever learn in life: that love does not require perfection, it requires presence and mutual care. It requires being there, not being flawless. It requires truth, not roles. It requires people with feelings, not statues.

And when parents, even separated, remain united in their role, when they do not poison one another in the child’s mind, when they do not ask the child to become judge or ally, then the son receives the rare gift of loving both without guilt, without fear, without division. He gains the freedom to see both the good and the flawed - because no one is perfect- without needing to choose sides. He gains the ability to love human beings, not ideals. And this is the foundation of a healthy soul.

If Epicurus is the example of light, other philosophers show how the childhood relationship with the mother can become shadow, wound, or void.

• Socrates carried the hardness of a mother who worked endlessly as a midwife, in poverty and without tenderness; and his philosophy became an exercise in death.
• Plato grew up in the coldness of an aristocratic mother who demanded perfection; and his philosophy became an escape from the world.
• Aristotle grew up orphaned, without a maternal figure to internalize; and his philosophy became the logical organization of a world that never embraced him.
• Schopenhauer grew up with a mother who rejected him; and his philosophy became suffering.
• Nietzsche grew up in suffocating religious austerity; and his philosophy became a cry of transcendence.
• Kant grew up in moralistic coldness; and his philosophy became duty without warmth.

And then, within this panorama, Epicurus shines as the exception. His philosophy is not defense, not reaction, not wound. It is the natural continuation of a childhood in which life was not an enemy. It is the thought of a man who grew up in pleasure —and offered pleasure. That is why women flourished only in the Garden. Because only there was a man who had learned from childhood that life is not a threat, but a GREAT gift. And only someone who learned from his mother clarity and presence could teach others that eudaemonia is not a theory, it is a way of living.

Warm greetings to all epicurean friends

I would like to add my own small Greek contribution to this discussion, since we are speaking about Epicurus and a philosophy that blossomed on Greek soil and continues to illuminate minds to this day.The relationship between Epicurus and Schopenhauer becomes much clearer when viewed through Nietzsche, who acts both as a bridge and as a boundary. Epicurus and Nietzsche, despite their differences, meet in a profound affirmation of life, of this world, of the body, and of the present moment. Schopenhauer, by contrast, places the center of reality in a blind, noumenal Will outside the world of experience, a move that both Epicurus and Nietzsche would see as a retreat from life rather than an embrace of it. Both agree that the world we live in is the only world we have, that meaning is not hidden behind things but found within them, that suffering is a natural part of existence rather than a metaphysical curse, and that wisdom is not an escape from life but the art of living it. Epicurus expresses this through pleasure as the natural guide and the removal of fear, while Nietzsche expresses it through amor fati that is, the love for this one and only life that has been given to us, and through the creative affirmation of existence. Different vocabulary, same orientation: life is to be affirmed, not denied.

Schopenhauer, on the other hand, sees the world as fundamentally painful, life as a disease, and morality as renunciation. This stance stands in direct opposition to Epicurean teaching, according to which pleasure is natural, pain is manageable, fear is unnecessary, and life is pleasant only when it contains prudence, beauty, and justice; if any of these is missing, life cannot be pleasant. And here lies the crucial difference: Epicurus never enters the dilemma “to live or not to live.” For the wise person, life is not a burden and death is not an evil; the issue is not quantity but quality, not “more” but “more pleasant.” As he writes in the Letter to Menoeceus, the wise person neither despises life nor fears not living, for life is no burden to him and not living is no evil. The care of living well and dying well is one and the same, and anyone who claims that “it would be better never to have been born” either does not truly believe it -- for if he did, he would already have left life -- or is joking about matters that do not admit of jokes. This clarity, this absence of tragic posturing, this simplicity of truth is what makes Epicurus so different from Schopenhauer.

Nietzsche initially admired Schopenhauer, just as he admired Wagner, but later broke away from both when he realized that each, in his own way, continued the Platonic–Socratic tradition of devaluing this world and seeking a “true” world behind appearances. Epicurus had already dismantled this Platonic illusion two millennia earlier, insisting that there is no world beyond this one and that wisdom lies in living well here and now

And perhaps here lies an even deeper difference that is rarely discussed: the figure of the mother in the life of the philosopher. Epicurus is the only one of the three who l eft us a letter to his mother -a letter so balanced, so gentle, so beautifully composed, precisely because their relationship was like that from the beginning. There was no trauma, no conflict, no darkness that needed to be transformed into a philosophical system. Instead, there was stability, warmth, and clarity, and this is why Epicurus’ philosophy is serene, grounded, and free from existential drama. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche carry within them the shadow of a difficult maternal presence; Epicurus carries the light of a mother who did not wound him. And this, simple as it may seem, changes one’s entire stance toward life.

Very interesting discussion about how we describe the 'unnatural' desires. I agree that the word corrosive overloads the meaning, as if we are talking about permanent damage, while Epicurus simply speaks of vain or harmful desires which require strict control to not become φαύλες συνήθειες (vicious habits). The problem is not that they 'corrode' something good, but that they are empty of genuine pleasure and lead to pain.

Epicurus himself is clear:

• 'We must not force nature but persuade it; we persuade it by fulfilling the necessary desires, the natural ones if they do not harm, and the harmful ones we must strictly check.' (ES 21)
• 'Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.' (ES46)

He does not speak of corrosion, but of persuasion, of control, and of removing vicious habits that bring no pleasure. Here in Greece, after all, the phrase 'corrosion of character' is something we mostly hear from certain robed priests who think the soul rusts like iron and needs anti-rust spray…

Greetings to all epicurean friends,

Nietzsche is ultimately contradictory in many aspects with all philosophers. While in other works he speaks very highly of Epicurus, in his work "The Antichrist" he characterizes Epicurus as "decadent". However, Liantinis did not agree with Nietzsche on this point at all. Here, in this Facebook post, I respond to Nietzsche with a letter as if it were written to him by Epicurus.

Epicurean Philosophy | A letter with a response to Nietzsche for his characterization against Epicurus as decadent, in his book entitled "Antichrist": | Facebook

A letter with a response to Nietzsche for his characterization against Epicurus as decadent, in his book entitled "Antichrist": Epicurus to Nietzsche…

www.facebook.com

Nice to meet you too Mr. Peter!

Sorry, dear compatriot, but your example is not relevant with the conversation for the Aristotelian term on "modesty". And when we try to confuse the study of Philosophy - giving examples - with political ideologies the result is always a mess. Plato did that in Syracuse as he had the desire to make in practice his philosophy and tried to educate "a wise King Philosopher". As it is very known he had failed three times on this, and in the end he has been sold as a slave !!! Poor Plato!

Moreover, those people that have the irresistible desire to make a career in politics in 99,999% are idealists - platonists - stoics as they also speaking to the people with empty words without meaning (see kenes doxes).

You said: "They (in the golden Dawn) were so highly popular for a time that nobody in Greece doubts that they could have climbed to stellar political heights".

I answer to your argument and on that failed example of yours :

Nobody have doubted... EXCEPT THE EPICUREANS, since they smell the platonists/stoics like the dog smells a hidden bone. HA !

So, my "modest" - friendly exhortation to you is that if you want to study properly the epicurean philosophy you have to clear your mind from political ideologies that always confuse the reality with the worlds that do not exist.

Finally, Epicurus says something remarkable to us in the following PD7. Thus, and in this PD we realize that Epicurus does not speak for "modesty", but he speaks just for "safety".

Doctrine 7. Some men wished to become famous and conspicuous, thinking that they would thus win for themselves safety from other men. Wherefore if the life of such men is safe, they have obtained the good which nature craves; but if it is not safe, they do not possess that for which they strove at first by the instinct of (their) nature.

Hello from Greece to all epicurean friends

Based on greek historical facts, if we say in newgreek, that this man is a "modest Laconian" i.e. a "modest Spartan" this is could be called as a schema oxymoron, but anyway...

Modesty and Lathe Viosas... is a candy that - throughout the ages- is given with happiness by stoics to all epicureans all over. However, the genuine epicurean does not like the stoics and stoicism at all.

Both in greek and english language the word "modest" has a synonym word of "humble" and next to both these words always follows the "despised". For the modest, humble and despised, there is neither freedom nor pride and nor parrhesia i.e frankness of speech. Actually "modesty" is an aristotelean term, since Aristotle wanted modest, humble and despised little men infront of Kings. And of course Christianism took whatever was convinient from the philosophy (with the many logical fallacies) by Plato and Aristotle who both of them used the methodology of dialectics that is against the clear thinking of the people to have freedom, pride and dignity that leads to the genuine Democracy.

Epicurus does not use anywhere the word "modest" and "modesty", since in his VS 45, he speaks for serious, self-sufficient, high spirited and proud persons, as well as in VS 29 Epicurus does not look "modest" at all, as he is speaking and announcing openly his philosophy, infront of many people without expecting and any applause from the mases of course.

This is the genuine Epicurean, not modest but [μέγας φρονών] "megas phronon" i.e. proud for the pleasant/beneficial things that he has been achieved and still achieves with his high-sharp mind.

28. “Consequently, even the gods have prescribed remaining pure by abstinence from food and sex".

And then, he continues his letter with his cunnings: He unites the pure abstinence from food and sex with some sayings by Epicurus (without mentioning him) and in the basis of self-sufficiency and the like, he speaks about a law of Nature without mentioning anywhere what the heck is that law; and what is real goal by Nature!!! For him, the word "pleasure" is nowhere inside that letter. His letter suffers from the illness of "moralism".

imo, only an old paralyzed stoic man reaching the end of his life would write these things, and in such a way to his wife.

Poor Marcella, I empathize you, since you were widow with seven children, and maybe desperate for marrying such an old man reaching the end of his life!

For this reason and to unclear the whole situation with the platonists and stoics Epicurus said loudly this: <<I don’t know how I could conceive of the good without the pleasures of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms>>.

Quote from Don

remain leaning toward the sense of not taking advantage of slaves and women/wives, but now Elli has planted the idea in my mind that... Could the phrase means something like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" to go along with an ambivalence toward marriage and children. It seems to harsh, since Epicurus was obviously concerned with the well-being of the children of Metrodorus and was not averse to having children named after him. I don't *think* so... but I'm raising it here for discussion.

Hello and Joy to all the friends.

Frankly, dear friend Don, I do not like to plant such an idea that "enjoyments with paides as boys/children, and women" is an ambivalence of Epicurus toward marriage... this hypothesis is going too far since, it would be and against this: "The wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in treatises On Problems and On Nature, but only in accord with the circumstances of his life".

"enjoyments with paides/slaves and women...and fish"!

All these are considered as "things" i.e. beings without feelings and free will. All these have masters that decide on how those would live, since all these are not the masters of themselves to decide on how they live in freedom.

We have to understand and point it out of what Epicurus is against, and on what epicureans were accused/slandered by those that do not understand what means "pleasure" for EP. Of course, when speaking about pleasure we do not mean any mania for luxury and wealth, and as I said above: "Thus, it is not a coincidence “why”, greeks, made such wars among them. Because, for maintaining and having at the same time not one, not two, but (3) three women with children (legitimate or not legitimate) in their life, they have to be rich! How else?"

We exclude that when Epicurus says "paides" does not mean sex with boys i.e. the paiderasty. It is a false notion that greeks were inclined to paiderasty and homosexuality in general. The love for the young man was inside the gymnasium or in the Academy of Plato, and that was something of a platonean love/eros i.e. more imaginative, and not the sexual intercourse itself. Since for ancient Athenians (and Spartans) - above all - was the production of children by their wives. With homosexuality and paiderasty there is no production of children.

But anyway, with the phrase "enjoyments with paides and women", we said that "paides" means "slaves" and women means "wives". Since we read on the wise man and this: "The wise man will not have intercourse with any woman whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus".

Laws did not forbid to a man having intercourse with a hetaira or a mistress, as those women were libertarians. imo laws forbid to have intercourse with a legitimate wife of someone else since this is called "adultery". Ιn ancient Athens the only reprehensible adultery on the part of the husband was the one he committed with the legal wife of another Athenian, and the reason was that by this act he wronged another citizen.

And again, from Demosthenes that is the general picture: "Because, we have the hetairai/courtesans for the sake of pleasure, the concubines for the daily care of our bodies, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.

Maybe Epicurus with this word "women as wives" had in mind the wife of Pericles Aspasia that was first as hetaira and Pericles made her as his legitimate wife.Please remember the photo I posted with Philodemus with Aspasia. So, that Epicurus maybe he says: we do not enjoy hetaira as a person without free will, but we can see her as a woman that is equal in rights with us, as she is educated same with us, and is able to be next to us, as any legitimate wife that - above all- she must have "parrhesia"/frankness of speech for all the issues concerning life.

The epicurean Leontion that was hetaira and the wife of Metrodorus is an example as Aspasia was for Pericles. in a few words, it is like Epicurus declares: In my Garden, all women are human beings, they can be educated, they are able to speak with "parrhesia/frankness of speech" for all the issues…and not as Plato who excluded them from his academy.

Dear epicurean friends hello and Joy!

"Enjoyments with paides and women...and fish".

For our epicurean issues, this good catch that was done by Don, it has to be considered as the first really quite a find!

Dear friend Don , I found more material in the basis of the etymology of the greek words, and for the further strengthen on your argument on what the above sentence means really, and as is written by Epicurus.

1. The word “paides” does not mean “boys” indeed. It means “slaves”.

Epicurus in his last Will (which was an official document and it had to be written according to official terms) writes and ending it with the freedom of his slaves:

Ancient Greek text: <<ἀφίημι δὲ τῶν παίδων ἐλεύθερον Μῦν, Νικίαν, Λύκωνα· ἀφίημι δὲ καὶ Φαίδριον ἐλευθέραν.>>

Translation: And of my slaves, I hereby emancipate (or I set free) Mys, and Nicias, and Lycon: I also give Phaedrium her freedom (or I set free Phaedrium).

2. And now, my dear epicurean friends, stand up from your chairs, your sofas and your beds to see clearly what means the word “women”, as used by Epicurus! 😊

Ancient Greek text: Δημοσθένης, Κατὰ Νεαίρας  [122] Τὸ γὰρ συνοικεῖν τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὃς ἂν παιδοποιῆται καὶ εἰσάγῃ εἴς τε τοὺς φράτερας καὶ δημότας τοὺς υἱεῖς, καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἐκδιδῷ ὡς αὑτοῦ οὔσας τοῖς ἀνδράσιν. Τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ᾽ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν θεραπείας τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν.

The above passage is from Demosthenes “against Neaira” (that was a Hetaira) and was one of his speeches for use in private legal suit inside a court. The translation was made by Norman W. DeWitt and his son Norman J. Dewitt.

Demosthenes was a politician and a lawyer and of course some of his speeches were presented to judges inside the court and in the city of Athens. Demosthenes died 19 years before Epicurus was born. So, the words that used by Demosthenes had same meaning and in the era of Epicurus. Thus, we read in this paragraph something that is remarkable, and the translation in English as follows:

Translation by Norman W. DeWitt and his son Norman J. DeWitt, [122] “For this is what living with a woman as one's wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one's own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our person, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.

My translation [122] : “Because this is what living with (a woman) is – to have children (by her) and to introduce the sons to the members of the phratry (i.e. brotherhood or kinfolk) and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one's own. Because, we have the hetairai/courtesans for the sake of pleasure, the concubines for the daily care of our body, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.(*)

(*) My note: And that is because we, the greeks - and not only greeks- we have them ALL (hetairai/courtesans, concubines and women i.e. wives) for our enjoyments taking advantage from them as to be subjects and things. Please, remember the phrase by Epicurus in LTM : “enjoyments with slaves and women... and fish”!

Thus, it is not a coincidence “why”, greeks, made such wars among them. Because, for maintaining and having at the same time not one, not two, but (3) three women with children (legitimate or not legitimate) in their life, they have to be rich! How else?

So that Epicurus when he writes “women” he means literally “wives”. Women that have to be pathetic accepting this kind of choices of their husbands, and treating them ALL as to be subjects without free will! Τhat’s how so οpressed were women in ancient Greece and in the basis of what is called “patriarchy” that this word means: man in the house was the alpha man, the “pater” i.e. “father” that means a Despotic and a Ruler who decided for all the issues concerning in the house and in the city! And are same narcissistic-despotic behaviors and phenomena that exist in our era too!

Yes indeed, Epicurus was a real liberator for his era and for every era. A real savior and a healer that gave the remedy to mankind. And as Norman DeWitt points out somewhere:

[..."I prefer to agree with Plato and be wrong than to agree with those Epicureans and be right," wrote Cicero, and this snobbish attitude was not peculiar to him. Close to Platonism in point of social ranking stood Stoicism, which steadily extolled virtue, logic and divine providence. This specious front was no less acceptable to hypocrites than to saints. Aptly the poet Horace, describing a pair of high-born hypocrites, mentions "Stoic tracts strewn among the silken cushions." Epicureanism, on the contrary, offered no bait to the silk cushion trade. It eschewed all social distinction. The advice of the founder was to have only so much regard for public opinion as to avoid unfriendly criticism for either sordidness or luxury. This was no fit creed for the socially or politically ambitious. Yet this similarity is apt to be obscured by more conspicuous differences.

[...(Εpicureanism allied itself instead with the lonian tradition of medicine, which was philanthropic and independent of political preferences. Just as all human beings, men, women and children, slave and free, stand in need of health, so all mankind, according to Epicurus, stands in need of guidance toward the happy life. This view of things tinged his philosophy with the color of a gospel and bestowed upon it a pragmatic urgency, which is lacking in Socratic thought. With the leisurely meanderings of dialectic he had no patience. Truth, he believed, must possess immediate relevance.

[..."Love goes dancing round and round the in habited earth,crying to all men to awake to the blessedness of the happylife." About the identity of this Love there can be no doubt; it is the Hippocratic love of mankind, which to true members of that craft was inseparable from the love of healing. In this teaching Epicurus displayed his originality.His new design for living was applicable everywhere, irrespective of country or government. He had emancipated himself from the obsessions of his race, political separatism and the exclusive faith in political action.The whole world was a single parish. It is mere justice that other original features of the new philosophy should receive recognition.

[...Cicero, a crafty trial lawyer, in his last years employed the tricks of the courts to discredit Epicureanism with his contemporaries and with posterity. Among other false charges he upbraided Epicurus for neglecting methodical partitions of subject matter, classifications and definitions. Yet the pragmatic partition of knowledge that was standard in Cicero's own day and through out the greater part of ancient time was the invention of the despised Epicurus. His division was three headed:The Canon, Physics and Ethics...]

To all epicurean friends, have a nice day!

What is the appropriate way to call a waiter in a restaurant?

The french say: "garçon" that means literally "boy" and this has a bad meaning if we read the etymology of the word:

Garcon (n.) c. 1300, "a boy, a youth" (early 13c. as a surname), from Old French garçun "menial, servant-boy, page; man of base condition," ["in jocular use, 'lad'" - OED]; objective case of gars (11c.; Modern French garçon "boy, bachelor, single man; waiter, porter"). This comes, perhaps via Gallo-Romance, from Frankish *wrakjo- or another Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *wrakjon (source also of Old High German recko, Old Saxon wrekkio "a banished person, exile;" English wretch). From c. 1400 as "young male servant, squire, page." Meaning "a waiter" (especially one in a French restaurant) is a reborrowing from 1788.

How the greeks do call a waiter in a taverna?

The greeks call a waiter in a taverna as "paidi"/boy...

- Paidi, would you bring me another glass of wine please? oh my goodness, greeks call the waiters as slaves!

How the english do call a waiter in a restaurant ?

An english speaking person gave the following answer:

catching the waiter’s eye and smiling

politely saying “Excuse me” when he is nearby or “Excuse me, when you have a moment” if he is busy with another table

Raising my hand an nodding or smiling if he is some way away.

What I do not recommend is what my brother-in-law’s father did in a fancy French restaurant in London: snapping his fingers and bellowing “Garçon!” - eliciting the response: - “Monsieur, I am not a dog!”

Another english speaking person gave this answer:

It depends on where you are and what the service is actually like. In the West a polite beckoning motion may have the appropriate effect, do that in Thailand and you will probably get punched... that beckoning motion? It's very rude in Thailand. In China the expected form is simply to bellow for a server something which would probably get you punched in America. I would tend to observe what others around me do and follow their lead if I were unsure.

How the japanish do call a waiter in a restaurant?

A person who been living in Japan for about 20 years now... he points out the attached photo :

the japanish just press a button! LOL

The translation of the text in the photo that is circulated on the internet is as follows:

Philodemus "on wealth":

You write, Xenophon, that the slave's procreation is a sign of loyalty to his master. Are there no other reasons for procreation?

Is the slave's loyalty to the master the only reason? And why should it be the loyalty to the master and not some uncontrollable love passion?

Hesiod you write that in order for the house to prosper I must marry a woman who must be a virgin. Why definitely a virgin? Are the virgins better at financial management than others?

In financial management, Aspasia was "more scientific" than Socrates. None of you is able to compete Aspasia (for whom we don't know if she was definitely a virgin - my comment - George Kaplanis).

From Aristotle on his treatise "for animals": "Of molluscs the sepia is the most πανουργιότατον (that means the most: clever, invetive, ingenious, and resourseful) only species that employs its dark liquid for the sake of concealment".

The words as "περιμήδης/πανούργος, πολύτροπος & πολυμήχανος" were the characteristics for Odysseus by Homer, that means the ingenious, invetive, and resoursful. So, Epicurus for greeks could be considered invetive like a sepia, and like the man Odysseus, or as the english say : "a sly old fox" (?)

In this passage from LTM Epicurus writes a letter (only to one person Menoeceus) but in the same time he is throwing his dark liquid - ink- to all of his rivals and leaving them aside, like a sepia. And they, as ignorants, think that he speaks about "the sexual enjoyments" and the like. Actually the fact is that Epicurus speaks for them so disparagingly and called them all as "profligates" that means also "frauds" and "dishonests".

Εpicurus is not an ideologue and a dreamer that wants to be the leader of crowds and the mobs for leading people to a revolution with blood and strife. Epicurus is invetive on how to blind that great monster called as Polyphymus.

For this, Epicurus is adressed to each person one by one exhortating how to live free and be the real master of him/herself in every era. Epicurus hits slowly like the sea water on the rock that has the power to tranform the shape of rock, and in every era.

In this phrase, it is like hearing him: Hey, hypocrites, when we say pleasure we do not speaking of what you have in your mind and what you are doing all the time and this is the reason that you accuse us epicureans.

P.S1. And even that great DeWitt did not take a clue what Epicurus point out in this passage.

Bravo Don that is a really good catch that is done by you on the translations. You make me so happy!

PS2 And now, this good catch has to become known to our greek epicurean friends.

- Dear Greek epicurean friends, what does Epicurus mean with the phrase "enjoyments with paides and women"? HA

ES 54. We must not pretend to study philosophy, but study it in reality, for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health.

ES 74. In a philosophical discussion he/she who is defeated gains more, since he/she learns more.

With frankness of speech: All these days, I read again and again this passage 130-131 from LTM, and as I read again all of our comments, I've realized clearly that I am the one that I was defeated, so that I'm the one that I learned more, and especially from our friend Don!

Epicurus with the phrase “enjoyments with boys and women" does not speak for “sexual pleasures” indeed!

When he speaks for “paides”, he does not speak for “paiderasty”.

When he speaks about "women", he does not simply speak for them as “hetairai” that having sexual intercourse with men. He speaks clearly for those enjoyments of a self-interest person who takes advantage from the labor of another person.

Epicurus speaks clearly for <<the exploitation of man by man>>.

So that in this passage with the word “paides” Epicurus means “slaves” and is proved that is against <<slavery>>. Because, for Epicurus when a man had the misfortune for living as a slave and when that slave becomes THE FRIEND and member of his school, so then, this man is not considered as slave anymore for Epicurus.

Moreover, Epicurus with the word "women" points out the situation of women in general, and how men had considered them as low level human beings and in his era (see Hesiod, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon et.al). So, Epicurus in this passage, is proved that he is against <<patriarchy>> and he is proved as a feminist and the harbinger of that movement that is called as <<feminism>>, though I have to note (as woman) here, that when I say “feminism”, I mean that woman who enjoys her advantages of her sex and her important role in a society. And that means she is next to a man in terms of equality and complimentary to each other, and not of that "feminism" that wants woman to be transformed and behave as man and vice versa.

Conclusion: Epicurus is a genuine rebel of his era, and YES, he DOES POLITICS.

A fruitful rebellious politics that is considered timeless

Yes indeed, Epicurus is the Master of all masters in politics that - as every political idea has in its basis a way of thinking – i.e. a philosophy, the epicurean philosophy is connected with REALITY, and has nothing to do with imaginative “ideas”.

Epicurean philosophy cares for the “eudaemonia” of the Human being in reality of life, and it points out all the timeless phenomena of life as (social, political, religious, finance etc etc) that are against humans' eudeamonia, and pleasurable living. Epicurean philosophy is real as it gives and real solutions on every issue that concerns every real relationship among the people.

Long live Epicurus ! (*)

And again: my sincere THANKS to our friend Don! Frankly Don, for me and from now on, you are such a precious, genius and inspirative epicurean friend !

36. Epicurus’ life when compared to other men’s in respect of gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend.

(*) Diogenis Laertius book X - Epicurus

[9] But these people are stark mad. For our philosopher has abundance of witnesses to attest his unsurpassed goodwill to all men--his native land, which honoured him with statues in bronze ; his friends, so many in number that they could hardly be counted by whole cities, and indeed all who knew him, held fast as they were by the siren-charms of his doctrine, save Metrodorus of Stratonicea, who went over to Carneades, being perhaps burdened by his master's excessive goodness ; the School itself which, while nearly all the others have died out, continues for ever without interruption through numberless reigns of one scholarch after another;

[10] his gratitude to his parents, his generosity to his brothers, his gentleness to his servants, as evidenced by the terms of his will and by the fact that they were members of the School, the most eminent of them being the aforesaid Mys ; and in general, his benevolence to all mankind. His piety towards the gods and his affection for his country no words can describe. He carried deference to others to such excess that he did not even enter public life. He spent all his life in Greece, notwithstanding the calamities which had befallen her in that age; when he did once or twice take a trip to Ionia, it was to visit his friends there. Friends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden.

Quote from Don

Letter to Menoikeus 132

and ἀπολαύσεις (enjoying) boys/slaves and women

(enjoying the benefits of boys/slaves and women??)

Well, please replace the word "benefit" with the word "self-interest" and you will conclude what is going in such kind of relationships, and what Epicurus had in mind, as this issue is timeless (see my epilogue as a conclusion).

IF there is a self-interest without the existence of a common enjoyable benefit....that is in this enjoyment there is only one EGO who is NOT united with another EGO essentialy and in the basis of human values, and this means also that both use each other in the basis only of the self-interest, i.e. the one uses/manipulates the other one for the purpose to gain something, and both believe that this is enjoyable...but, this enjoyment is not real and pure pleasure, it is not eudaemonia, it's just ephemeral, fake and illusionary enjoyment, indeed.

Since when the self-interest is lost any relationship is lost too and any enjoyment. And this is something that brokes also and the social coherence.

So Epicurus in a way, in the basis of his ethics, yes, he is doing and politics. Because he makes us wondering: who are those that approaching each other in the basis of a self-interest? Only STRANGERS that the mean among both of them is the money or things, and not real feelings of friendship or any kind of virtues. So the prudence that is the root of all virtues does not exist between such kind of relationships as well as any pure pleasure does not exist.

In the opposite "παίδες" as "boys" or slaves as you name them, and women as "hetairai" were maintaining and some strong bonds with their masters i.e they became as friends, since and between them the human values were existing and these feelings were exist after the familiarity. And this is what Epicurus wants to point out too OR to remind to Menoeceus to not loosing his credence in the real relationships/friendships OR whatever he saw in his society as an invasion of strangers maybe (?) why not since after the great Alexander, the invasion of strangers was a real fact.

However, imo Epicurus does not want to speak disparagingly for persons i.e. boys as "slaves" and women as "hetairai", but for situations that is the exploitation of man by man, when there is only a self-interest and the mean is - in the majority of these relationship - is the money, the waste of money and a mania for high-living.

So dear friend Don, yes, we do not disagree actually, but keep also in mind, that the relationships that Epicurus points out here is in accordance with the motive which is: "the sexual intercourse", and the gun which is: "the money" and the offender that is: "the profligate".

Since Epicurus has not any interest to mess up with the laws, and the masters, because he was a master too. As he had "παίδες", boys i.e. servants and women "hetairai" who lived next to him all of their life in the Garden. So, the only thing that he mentions here is the consequence of a choice that is "ασωτεία" i.e. "debauchery". Since, he speaks for the one that he is not the master of himself, and if someone is not the master of himself, he has no self-temperance or self-sufficiency, so he is the one that does not deserve to have servants and hetairai or a woman as a real companion in life, and real friendships in general.

Conclusion: So, here Epicurus describes a situation - as a choice - out of limits. He describes the opposite of prudence, self-sufficiency and sober reasoning. He describes situations of the powers and such kind of leaders, in the basis from historical facts (see the passage with Demetrius the Besienger). He describes what means to have an ephemeral "enjoyment" with boys and women and spending money for having company and sleeping i.e. have intercourse with them due to the fears. Since making sex (and not love/eros) in such a way is when someone wants to cover his fear of death. So, again here, the great Epicurus points out the cause of the causes that is fear of death. And of course Epicurus thoughts hide and politics, because he describes common affairs/relationships and narcissistic phenomena that exist in our era, which are timeless and painful.

Dear friend Don, my sincere thanks because, you gave me inspiration for making more fruitfull thoughts on what exists between the lines and Epicurus thoughts in his LTM.

Quote from Don

P.S.: I may have to accept the ambiguity... but I'm not willing to throw in the towel quite yet. Although, I recognize this has taken on a slight tinge of obsession here.

Dear friend Don, hello and joy!

Please, if you would like to permit me to eliminate your pain saying to you this known “follow the money” and then, maybe, you’ll realize what Epicurus meant for the enjoyment with “boys” and “women”. In this passage of his LTM for having the enjoyable company with boys and women, Epicurus means simply: spending your money for sleeping and having intercourse with them, and nothing else. In the opposite, having company with boys and women and be united with them as friends and members of your school-Garden, you do not spend your money, but if and whenever your spend some of your money for offering to them their natural and necessary, indeed, your do not spend you money in vain, and "scattering them to the five winds", as a newgreek idiom says too.

Since, for the wise man when he has accommodated himself to straits knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered. Thus for Epicurus - above all -is friendship, and friendship is a value without value, it is an invaluable value, it is a precious and of high quality value! And Epicurus always speaks for high quality values and as he calls them immortal goods. So simple is the issue, I suppose.

VS 71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: what will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished and what if it is not?

imo the desire is connecting with a vision or as an imagination to the future on how we could be/exist and whatever we have along with our existence for the future, are something (vision/imagination) that only humans are able to have (*).

Pleasure and pain are instinctive feelings/emotions that both humans and animals have.

A humans' desire as a vision to the future has to be connected harmonically with the instinct of pleasure, since pleasure is something good (and as any good has value) and pain is an evil, but sometimes we choose the pain (evil) because we want to return back again to the good (that has value) and that is a greater pleasure.

(*) vision and imagination to our future: and here lies that interference and the obstacle that is the fear of death (since we have consciousness and subconsciousness about death) and it is the same fear of death that creates another obstacle that is the image of gods. Both are the obstacles that interfere to our fullest enjoyment of life. Both obstacles are what Epicurus starts speaking in his LTM. This is the structure in his letter: first we say what is the ultimate good that is eudaemonia/ bliss, then we point out what are the obstacles to our pleasurable living, then we make the algorithm on the desires (natural, necessary and not necessary), and then we conclude with the epilogue, as we have started in the prologue which is the same thing: eudaemonia or living like god among men or the divine pleasure as Lucretius said.

Quote from Don

"So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable:"

But it's not just "enjoyable", it's fully taking advantage of the time that is available between birth and death.

In this paragraph, there is also continuity : not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the (πόθος) i.e. craving or lust for immortality.

The correct understanding (that death is nothing to us) makes the mortality of life enjoyable ...and that is BECAUSE this enjoyment does not lead to the consequence which is the desire (a desire which is out of limits) the desire "pothos"- lust - craving, for immortality (immortality is somehting out of limits). And this another attacking to Socrates & Plato!

And then, Don , you continue: But it's not just "enjoyable", it's fully taking advantage of the time that is available between birth and death.

Sorry, I do not agree putting to the word, enjoyable, quotation marks and then connecting the word, enjoyable, with "fully taking advantage of the time". Since the life is enjoyable as itself! Because as it concerns "on the issue of time", we have concluded finally and for this issue: "And just as with food he (the wise man) does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant"!!

The process for understanding the LTM is a complicated process? I do not think so. We have the great Norman DeWitt who uncomplicated the whole issue in LTM making it clear and simple for all the english speaking friends!

Hello and Joy to all epicurean friends!

For intepreting the greek word "απολαύω" that means: "I enjoy", and giving meanings as "I took advantage" or "I fight for" or "taking benefit" from someone (women, and boys) or something (fish and luxurious food), it is not proper to go straight to paragraph LTM. 131-132 without seeing first the paragraph 130 in which the same word "απολαύω" is used by Epicurus. For this, I repeat again that that great Norman DeWitt gave the right translation and meaning in the phrase "τας εν απολαύσει κειμένας" is the high living/luxurious living and nothing more. Since DeWitt understood deeply all the structure that exists in the LTM.

In the LTM from the paragraph 130 we read : Kαὶ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν δὲ ἀγαθὸν μέγα νομίζομεν, οὐχ ἵνα πάντως τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, ἀλλ' ὅπως ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν τὰ πολλά, τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, πεπεισμένοι γνησίως ὅτι ἥδιστα πολυτελείας ἀπολαύουσιν οἱ ἥκιστα ταύτης δεόμενοι,

Translation by DeWitt: And self-sufficiency we believe to be a great good, not that we may live on little under all circumstances but that we may be content with little when we do not have plenty, being genuinely convinced that they enjoy luxury most who feel the least need of it;

That is imo: I am self-sufficient, I practice to be self-sufficient when I have not plenty. I do not go after as a maniac for the luxurious living if I have not the money to have luxury in my life; and that is because this will bring me PAIN. But when it happens I do not deny it, I ENJOY luxury to the fullest! And it happens: long live the father in law of Ceasar, that was named Peison, who offered a luxurious living to Philodemus in the villa of Papyri. And long live Diogenis of Oinoanda who gave such a huge amount for the construction of the huge (100 m2) inscription in Oinoanda. And long live Epicurus and his last Will in which we read that had plenty of money for the marriages, the pensions of the old friends etc etc. So, that famous phrase that was by Epicurus/Metrodorus "τον σοφόν πλούτου μελητέον" [ton sofon plouton meliteon] means the wise man has to care/interest to asquire and maintaining estate and wealth, as long as it does not bring to him pain, since this is a harmonious strategy, as Metrodorus said, i.e. the wise man has not to be obliged for being hired as a servant for working under someone else in the future.

PS1. The word "απολαύω" [apolávo] "Ι enjoy" has AND this meaning, as we use this word in greek vocabulary in nowdays:

e.g. I enjoy special privileges. ~ I enjoy of great esteem / I enjoy trust - I am well esteemed, I am highly respected.

Thus, there is no need "to fight" to enjoy of being trusted and well esteemed!

The fact is that : Epicurus enjoyed trust, respect and was well esteemed among his friends.

Moreover, we have the VS 27 that Epicurus uses the same word "απολαύω" for philosophy !!

XXVII.(27) Ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτηδευμάτων μόλις τελειωθεῖσιν ὁ καρπὸς ἔρχεται, ἐπὶ δὲ φιλοσοφίας συντρέχει τῇ γνώσει τὸ τερπνὸν οὐ γὰρ μετὰ μάθησιν ἀπόλαυσις, ἀλλὰ ἅμα μάθησις καὶ ἀπόλαυσις.

Translation : In the case of other occupations the fruit (of one's labors) comes upon completion of a task while (in the case) of philosophy pleasure is concurrent with knowledge because enjoyment does not come after learning but at the same time with learning.

P.S.2 When Epicurus speaks about "boys" does not mean "slaves" actually. He means literally "to have company and sleeping with boys". Sleeping with boys was the Socratic/Platonean tactic as well as the tactic of the powers, and the wealthy elite with which, both Socrates and Plato had company with them! So Epicurus with this "sleeping with boys" is attacking Plato et.al.

Moreover, on the issue with boys and women, Epicurus saw how the choice of luxurious living and IF this was reaching the extravagance, it was something that brought PAIN. From historical facts: "Demetrius I of Macedon or the "Poliorcetes" - the Besieger, among his outrages was his courtship of a young boy named Democles the Handsome. The youth kept on refusing his attention but one day found himself cornered at the baths. Having no way out and being unable to physically resist his suitor, he took the lid off the hot water cauldron and jumped in. His death was seen as a mark of honor for himself and his country. In another instance, Demetrius waived a fine of 50 talents imposed on a citizen in exchange for the favors of Cleaenetus, that man's son. He also sought the attention of Lamia, a Greek courtesan. He demanded 250 talents from the Athenians, which he then gave to Lamia and other courtesans to buy soap and cosmetics".

It is similar as we say:

VS23. All friendship is desirable in itself, though it starts from the common benefit.

All pleasures are desirable in themselves, though they start from the one that does the hedonic calculus.