Posts by Elli

Sorry, but you always forget to examine all the issues for jumping freely from Physics to Canon and to Ethics and vice versa. These three are firmly bonded and united and of course they are such, for the achievement of the goal of pleasure.

We are not idealists that made all the ideas as a system/frame with steady idealistic/imagined pictures of their minds that are the root of all -ISMS. And may this of my insistence will be proved one day. And if Dewitt would be here to realize how things are going, would understand what I mean and maybe he will change his mind for being agreed on that issue. I beg you for so many times to not call Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ism, Physics, Canon, and Ethics can't be systematized since no one is able to close the whole Nature in a box and in a frame with imagined pictures that exist in the minds of people - and are also steady and without motion.

We epicureans do speak for atoms and fields that have energy, and are doing all the motions and swerves, as well as, the Nature of All Things are developing and evolving without end. We speak for constant measurement through the Canon and then we unite the Ethics with the Canon and Physics. For what is in our times our natural and necessary won't be the same in the era of Epicurus. Epicurus will be found many things that are useful today as his natural and necessary too i.e. the electricity power, the internet and so many discoveries.

Thus, this is our philosophy and please give its place in the 21st century that follows that many other discoveries will be done and the right philosophy is needed to many persons that are like-minded with us. I do not know how else to convince you on this issue.

And I would like also to add that in -isms the person loses his uniqueness, he is the unnamed and unidentified, and for himself and for the others, because as the purpose in -isms is always "higher" and also abstract there is no this unique measurement through persons' own feelings. So, this person is not person anymore is just one of the mob and nothing more.

And also I would like to add that usually the persons that drive to -isms are not able to be real friends even with themselves, since friendship has and responsibility, and responsibility needs actions and feelings of empathy for the very known next other. Feelings of empathy, and permit me to use an Aristotelian term means friends on the basis of “sharing the peck of salt” and as we say it similar today in greek we are friends that together "we ate bread and salt" that means we've shared many common experiences to such an extent that we trust each other.

My conclusion is that the persons that drive in -isms lack of high emotional intelligence ΕQ.

All -isms, imo are like a sheepfold that the owner/founder is a shepherd accompanied by his helpers, as also they have and some watchdogs. All of them the only they seek is to box inside the sheepfold as many sheep as possible, in order to shear them, to milk them, and in the end, to slaughter many of them.

in -isms usually, the purpose is idealistic and the people inside them I doubt that are able to measure among pleasure and pain prudently for the positive purpose of pleasure, since, usually, the purpose in -isms is duty and virtue... and the absence of pain ! lol

In -isms there are many suckers that are happy to give without getting back at least something of what they gave. In -isms there is not of what we epicureans say and be convinced of such issues if are in accordance with the study of Nature as we examine the phenomena and the causes that cause them, and as we say also that the basis of friendship is on the common benefit and the trust, our means are the virtues, and our common purpose is pleasure.

Yes, I agree in any difficult situation we have to think of what would be the right strategy to overcome this situation that is against the goal of pleasure. But we have to keep in mind that we have to not be delayed or to be very hurry. This is what the greeks said with the word [eu+kairia] "opportunity".

"You would attempt something, only when you can attempt it in the appropriate circumstances and in the appropriate opportunity. But when comes the right opportunity, you must be ready to grab it. Epicurus forbids us to stay idle, when we think about fleeing, and gives us the hope of a way out even from the most difficult situations, as long as we are not in a hurry before the time nor too dilatory when the right time arrives”.

I wonder if that lady with the name Elaine Blair has already or she would like to have in her life such a husband like Oblomov ! Speaking theoretically is easy...and when the theories are applying in practice and at stake things, issues and persons are so different.

There is a movie that is based on this novel. Here is some critics on the movie and the book.

An inactive (all I want in my life is absence of pain) nobleman, with the name Oblomov, a classic good-hearted lazy of the aristocratic old school, and the other with the name Stolts, who is a dynamic and ambitious businessman, imbued with the spirit of rationality and progress. These two men have been friends since their childhood. Oblomov, is sticking to the values of a lost old world, stubbornly refuses to accept his friend's life stance and dismisses it as frivolous, cynical and superficial. Of course, he suffers deeply because he knows that he is already out of things and that he has no place in a rapidly changing new world era. When a beautiful woman with the name Olga comes between them, their lives and their relationship will be tested.

The film is a cinematic rendition of Oblomov's novel, written in 1859 by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812-1891), who, along with Gogol, is considered one of the founders of realistic tradition in Russian literature. Goncharov is a keen observer of the changes that happened in the Russian spirit, psyche and mentality, by the Napoleonic invasion in Russia, and the consequences of the Russian army's reverse course to the west, have brought to these historical paths, for the first time contact of two different worlds to be collided: the traditional obsolete feudal structures of the East with individualism, rationality, entrepreneurship and the scientific conquests of the West. In this film - his first major production - and one of his best, Mikhalkov manages to capture and capture on screen, with great clarity and confrontation, the conflict as well as the contradictory aspects of the old and the new world era, through the diametrically opposite central characters.

The superbly sketched figure of Oblomov - a prodigal Chekhovian hero - symbolizes the lazy and dreamy eternal Russian soul, full of emotional outbursts, while the positivist Stolts is the aggressive, dynamic and energetic playmate of the new era, who, not only he will win the game of life, but in the end, he will conquer the heart of Olga. A velvet-driven film, full of lyricism, poetry, and stunningly natural landscapes, it delivers the historical conflict between the receding past and the futuristic future within the relationship of the central characters. Mikhalkov manages, in a unique way, to capture the crucial historical changes in the inner landscapes of the heroes, just when Oblomov is lost in the waste of History and the other Stolts finds the passage to the future. Great is Oleg Tambakov's performance on the Oblomov's role.

There is a movie that is based on this novel. Here is some critics on the movie and the book.

An inactive (all I want in my life is absence of pain) nobleman, with the name Oblomov, a classic good-hearted lazy of the aristocratic old school, and the other with the name Stolts, who is a dynamic and ambitious businessman, imbued with the spirit of rationality and progress. These two men have been friends since their childhood. Oblomov, is sticking to the values of a lost old world, stubbornly refuses to accept his friend's life stance and dismisses it as frivolous, cynical and superficial. Of course, he suffers deeply because he knows that he is already out of things and that he has no place in a rapidly changing new world era. When a beautiful woman with the name Olga comes between them, their lives and their relationship will be tested.

The film is a cinematic rendition of Oblomov's novel, written in 1859 by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812-1891), who, along with Gogol, is considered one of the founders of realistic tradition in Russian literature. Goncharov is a keen observer of the changes that happened in the Russian spirit, psyche and mentality, by the Napoleonic invasion in Russia, and the consequences of the Russian army's reverse course to the west, have brought to these historical paths, for the first time contact of two different worlds to be collided: the traditional obsolete feudal structures of the East with individualism, rationality, entrepreneurship and the scientific conquests of the West. In this film - his first major production - and one of his best, Mikhalkov manages to capture and capture on screen, with great clarity and confrontation, the conflict as well as the contradictory aspects of the old and the new world era, through the diametrically opposite central characters.

The superbly sketched figure of Oblomov - a prodigal Chekhovian hero - symbolizes the lazy and dreamy eternal Russian soul, full of emotional outbursts, while the positivist Stolts is the aggressive, dynamic and energetic playmate of the new era, who, not only he will win the game of life, but in the end, he will conquer the heart of Olga. A velvet-driven film, full of lyricism, poetry, and stunningly natural landscapes, it delivers the historical conflict between the receding past and the futuristic future within the relationship of the central characters. Mikhalkov manages, in a unique way, to capture the crucial historical changes in the inner landscapes of the heroes, just when Oblomov is lost in the waste of History and the other Stolgs finds the passage to the future. Great is Oleg Tambakov's performance on the Oblomov's role.

Until now, no one of the ancient greek figures comes into my mind for confirming this: "all I want in life is absence of pain".

However, my friend Cassius, in the past, I mentioned to you a figure of such kind of man from Russia. His name was Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. Here we have the leader of oblomovitism.

Schema oxymoron is a rhetorical play-trick. As we say "a prudent prodigal, "a fast turtle" "an ascetic hedonist" etc. Schema oxymoron is a rhetorical device that uses an ostensible self-contradiction to illustrate a rhetorical point or to reveal a paradox. A more general meaning of "contradiction in terms" is recorded by the οxford english dictionary in 1902.

"We live longer but in a sicklier fashion".

The above sounds to my ears as a schema oxymoron. Because, if we were lived in a sicklier fashion/way we won't manage to live longer than our ancestors.

But any way, and as our friend Elayne indicates through eras and periods in the history of medical science, and on the basis of environmental conditions, and molecular genetics there are diseases that appear and diseases that disappear. However, the efforts by the doctors on medical science are holding very well, till today, as are continuous, and especially in our era on molecular genetics, neurogenetics etc. Moreover, in a Nature of the multiple causes and multiple effects/results it is totally unscientific to draw such kind of conclusions as Mrs. Wilson does with the above phrase. But it is well known now, that in academician circles of philosophy, such kind of claims as conclusions have led to the confusion that means also that when someone does not have many sources of scientific studies and researches his/her claim/theory is foolishness.

"Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth". - Epicurus to Pythocles

And now the real truth what means to connect the word eudeamonia with Aristotelean terms.

Epicurus addressing to Aristotle :

Fg. 423. “What brings unsurpassed joy is the removal of a great evil; and this is the nature of the good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about chattering emptily”.

And now please simply connect the above fg 423 with the epicurean saying 42 and then read the next, in the list, sayings to realize what Epicurus means with the word eudaemonia :

Fg 423 <==> ES 42. The same span of time embraces both the beginning and the end of the greatest good.

...and Epicurus continues pulling out the mask and revealing what means Aristotle with his "eudaemonia" when he connects this word with "prosperity", "flourishing" and the like.

ES 43. : Hey Aristotle, the love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly gained, is shameful; for it is unseemly to be parsimonious even with justice on one’s side.

ES 44. Hey Aristotle, 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.

Do you see the clarity of the word self-sufficiency which means the generosity of a man?

Well guys, eudaemonia means the freedom to be generous sharing and feelings and things. Generous means also the brave. But when you are stingy and in feelings and in things you will never understand Epicurus' philosophy. And now, hide to your caves little and coward aristotelean kittens. You will never be the pride, generous and brave epicurean lions who know how to share their food. their feelings, and their ultimate goal in life !

Although Epicurus begins his letter to Meneoceus mentioning the greek word "eudaemonia" for which its accurate translation in english is "bliss" and has for its synonym word "makariotita", he continues describing this word so clearly like the clear water springs from a natural fountain on the mountain of Olympus. More high, more clear and more accurate meaning in this word "eudaemonia" that is bonded firmly with pleasure, no any other philosopher gave or will give it in all the eternities.

I insist our philosophy is not spiritual it is physical, as the body and soul is one and the same thing. And as Nietzsche who was influenced by Epicurus said it : "There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy".

Lucretius in book III remarks : "The mind is a part of the body. It is not a harmony, but has a specific physical location". As he also says and unites the physics/science with ethics : "Mind and spirit are corporeal – they are also made up of atoms, but extremely smooth, round and small ones".

Yes, do not be amazing, in these passages Lucretius describes the molecules, the cells. And as in that article there is mentioning of health, in the near future Bio-genetics will offer many beneficial results/cures for the most of the diseases. I imagine the doctors of tomorrow who with their prescription with medicines they will offer the book by Norman DeWitt saying : Hey men, read this book that is for Epicurus' philosophy. Do not fear god and death and enjoy the pleasures of life. These fears and your ignorance what is your ultimate goal in life led your molecules more quickly to cancers, to coronary artery disease, the prostate etc etc.

I’ve been stuck to the word [deamon] that in this article is translated as "spirit". And then, maybe we will invoke the spirit of the great Pan or Zeus to save us in despair? What a tangle, sorry but I do not agree with all these. Our philosophy is not spiritual. It is physical, since it starts from the body and ends to the body that is sacred for Epicurus as the soul and body is one and the same thing.

For this Epicurus declares in this important saying that includes the greek word "eudeamonia" :

XXXIII.(33) Σαρκὸς φωνῇ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγουν ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν κἀν <Διὶ> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο.

The flesh cries out to be saved from hunger, thirst, and cold. For if a man possess this safety and hope to possess it, he might rival even Zeus in eudaemonia.

A real hope to possess the safety gives us also the friendship that when we will be in a great need our trusted friends will help us, as we help them in the same way through self-sufficiency which means generosity.

Since the basis and the first principles of friendship is the common benefit that leads the friends to the goal of “ηδέως ζην» [hdeos zin] which means = living pleasantly and not to the “ευ ζην» [eu zin] that means = living well.

Living well with the meaning of prosperity and flourishing are Aristotelean terms that are connected to political and economical definitions that we see with our own eyes where they led and still lead us. And of course, eudaemonia for Aristotle has the virtue as the goal, and above all the contemplation of God. But for us, the epicureans, virtue is not the goal is just a mean, and the contemplation of God is an issue for the querulous old women.

How many times we from those “epicurean circles” will declare all these ? I do not know. Do we use the Canon to realize that there is no any "happiness calculation" but the hedonic calculation with which a natural human being measures among natural main feelings pleasure and pain to lead to the positive of pleasure ? Finally, please when you use greek words, you have to go and be in consistency of the Epicurean Canon <==> Ethics <==> Physics.

With the usage of the words...

Sorry, but we must not cling in the accurate translations by the academicians like Bailey et.al., but we have to deepen into the whole of Epicurean philosophy as we go with the consistency of the Canon, Physics and Ethics just to realize how Epicurus used the greek words and how clarity they have.

Who said that "άφθαρτος" [aphthartos] has only the meaning of the immortal? There are synonym words that are used in greek language for [aphthartos]. What Epicurus meant when he used this greek word "άφθαρτος" that has the same synonym words in greek and in english ? And here is the whole point that Epicurus wants to point out.

greek : 1) "αδιάφθορος", the incorruptible, incorrupt

adj means the morally pure, the honest, the decent.

e.g. He is one of the few incorruptible politicians.

2) "ανέπαφος" , the untouchable something that can't be touched.

e.g. Nowadays, comedians seem to consider no subject untouchable i.e. something that can't be touched be judged and be discussed.

Here is how it goes the PD1 : The [makarion=blessed] and [aphtharton =the morally pure and the untouchable] being knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak.

"Keep in touch" we say this phrase in english and greek, and means "keep our communication, our discussions etc".

The "untouchable" means that kind of a being that we are not able to have any touch/communication/discussions at all. Here is why Epicurus placed the gods between the Cosmoi.

And the incorruptible also means morally pure. Morally pure is that being that has achieved the pure pleasure, which means a being that has no similarity with humans' morals/customs and virtues, since due to our fear of god and death the corruption, the hatred, the pains and the fighting to each other, are issues till nowadays.

And from Epicurus letter to Meneoceus we read : "And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien".

"𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰".

I consider this sentence by Pericles to be very important. He says the pleasure that we 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 feel helps us to banish sorrow. Yes, this is clear and obvious when many people in a society feel sorrow and melancholy are due to their fears of god, of death and are the same issues that lead to loneliness and depression these persons in this society. In this society people are not participating with gladness in common affairs political or religious. They are not creative. They are the fatalists for being suspicious to each other. And they vote for leaders like themselves, who think that are like the axis of Earth for spinning around the universe. Because if the common affairs (philosophical, political and religious) became boring, we may think and this : Is there any virus in these peoples' life that provoke to them an illness as a great plague? Is there something that is going against to these peoples' nature?

IF the 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 things and issues, in any society, bring to people the painful feelings of sorrow, stress, agony, depression and melancholy, this society is doomed to be dissolved because these feelings lead to suspicion and disastrous actions among them. This society has no coherence anymore. And as a greek idiom says : "in any disaster, only the carnivorous wolves are feeling happy".

And here from Meneoceus : "I (Epicurus) have abolished the Necessity that is introduced by some thinkers as the mistress of all things, for it were better to subscribe to the myths concerning the gods than to be a slave to the Destiny of the physicists, because the former presumes a hope of mercy through worship but the latter assumes Necessity to be inexorable".

And that means for being united with the others in my society I will put all the probabilities on the table for doing the hedonic calculation and according to the right study of Nature and my nature, and even to subscribe worshiping with others our common gods. Because for being bliss and happy I will use all the tools that lead myself and my society living our unique life in pleasure. Since we all 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 that there is no other life nowhere else. But when these tools do not bring us pleasure anymore e.g. worshiping some gods, we are able to change and even the image of those gods because we are 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 to choose whatever brings to us pleasure. And when we say we are free, we are also 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 . And that means we are responsible and capable to give all the laws by ourselves and for ourselves since, we do not accept that the laws are given by some leaders or by any god that were proved harmful. We are able to change and the laws, and the leaders and the gods when they do not bring to us any 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 in our daily common affairs. But what the new greeks are doing now in Epicurus homeland? They insist to vote the same stupid leaders. They insist to follow stupid religious leaders who are spreading the same image of a foreign stupid god.

I want back again all the 30 thousand ancient greek gods that their image was given clearly by Epicurus as natural beings that were living in bliss and pleasure that is according to the natural and not the unnatural. I want back that Democracy of Pericles that is all described of how can be achieved in his epitaph. I want hundreds of epicurean Gardens to be established in the cities of Epicurus homeland. I want epicurean philosophy to be taught properly inside the schools and academies. This choice and option is against the new greeks' sorrow and melancholy that became higher after the financial crisis. No, thrice NO in Greece the crisis 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥. The crisis is in all the values that have been turned upside down. The means i.e. virtues became an abstract goal and the real goal i.e. the pleasure, and its proclaimer Epicurus, is hidden and be slandered for centuries and centuries till our days.

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘄!

Against the celebrations and the fiesta of life we have the opposite with this :

"On Sundays and in the feasts, neither you play nor you dance, because the games and the dances are works of Devil. The Hellenes (Greeks), the atheists and the deceived, were those who did not believe in God, they did not hope in the resurrection and Crisis, those were that did those things and they danced, and drunk and they enjoyed the games". Ioannis of Damaskos (A "holy father" of the orthodox christian church).

I have the impression that Epicurus and the epicureans in general, on the issue of gods have realize it on the basis of social common affairs and specifically about the customs with celebrations concerning the gods. As we know any fiesta/party is something that produce pleasure to the people. If Epicurus would be against the customs and all the annual celebrations concerning the gods, and all these things that unite the people he would be against the social coherence of his polis Athens. Epicurus wants to eliminate from people the fears and superstitions for studying the Nature properly and living pleasantly. So, the clear image about the gods is such an issue that has to produce union, friendship, creative things and pleasure to the people of a society. And that's all.

And as Diogenis of Oinoanda also said : "The important point to take from the study of physics is that the universe did not arise at random from chaos, nor was it created, or is it controlled, by any gods. But do not take from this that we Epicureans are impious, or that we fail to have sympathy for those who have false opinions about the gods. Men who experience false visions, but who are unable to understand how they are produced, are understandably apprehensive, and they convince themselves that these visions were created by the gods. Such men vehemently denounce even the most pious men as atheists. As we proceed, it will become evident to you that it is not the Epicureans, who deny the true gods, but those who hold false opinions about the gods. For we Epicureans are not like those philosophers who categorically assert that the gods do not exist, and who attack those who hold otherwise. Nor are we like Protagoras of Abdera, who said that he did not know whether gods exist, for that is the same as saying that he knew that they do not exist. Nor do we agree with Homer, who portrayed the gods as adulterers, and as angry with those who are prosperous. In contrast, we hold that the statues of the gods should be made genial and smiling, so that we may smile back at them, rather than be afraid of them.

Let us reverence the gods, and observe the customs of our fathers, but let us not impute to the gods any concepts that are not worthy of divinity. For example, it is false to believe that the gods, who are perfect, created this world because they had need of a city, or needed fellow-citizens. Nor did the gods create the world because they needed a place to live. To those who say such naive things, we ask in turn: “Where were the gods living beforehand?”

Those men who hold that this world was created uniquely by the gods, as a place for the gods to live, of course have no answer to this question. By their view, the gods were destitute and roaming about at random for an infinite time before the creation of this world, like an unfortunate man, without a country, who had neither city nor fellow citizens! It is absurd to argue that a divine nature created the world for the sake of the world itself, and it is even more absurd to argue that the gods created men for the gods’ own sake. There are too many things wrong, with both the world and with men, for them to have been created by gods!

Let us now turn our attention from gods to men.

Many men pursue philosophy for the sake of wealth and power, with the aim of procuring these either from private individuals, or from kings, who deem philosophy to be a great and precious possession.

Well, it is not in order to gain wealth or power that we Epicureans pursue philosophy! We pursue philosophy so that we may enjoy happiness through attainment of the goal craved by Nature".