Posts by Elli

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".

Nice speech indeed. I would like to repeat these phrases of the speech :

"Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels"...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... [Kennedy's speech maker forgot to mention something important between the centuries/years].........."Christianity began less than two years ago".

Who is that caricature on the left Dalai Lama ?

Quote from Cassius

It is hard to overstate the importance of this observation on the Epicurean view of "truth," from the same source:

This is the greek phrase as has been said by Epicurus in his letter Herodotus : <<Τα υποτεταγμένα τοις φθόγγοις>> [pron. ta ypotetagmena tis fthogis].

First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the concepts that are submitted to words. The word that Epicurus used is not “attached” actually, it is “submitted". And submission means you have already conquered something. And the most important is that when you have conquered in your life the pleasure and eudaemonia.

The concepts are the images that the brain from our childhood accumulates along with senses and feelings and these images are submitted to words. The brain works photographically, actually. The image of a word in our brain is as a whole and not separated into parts. When we say human our mind has already the General Picture of the human. And for giving definition to the words is unnecessary/redundant, because we will lead to funny situations.

Look how funny was the whole situation with the word "human" when Plato tried to give the definition of human as an animal, biped and featherless. Thus, Diogenes the Cynic plucked a rooster and brought it into the lecture-room of Plato’s academy saying : "Behold Plato's man !".

I imagine, in front of this scene, all Platos’ pupils to laugh out loud, and Plato to be angry and saying to them loudly:

- Why are you laughing you little roosters?

And a young epicurean responding to Plato :

- Because your methodology of dialectics is tragelafos [tragelafos is a situation for laughing and crying at the same time].

Thus, Plato angrily and loudly saying to that young epicurean :

- You are kicked out of my Academy !

And the young epicurean responding to Plato:

- At last, I'll breathe free the clean air, and I'm going to Epicurus' Garden to learn his methodology of the Canon, connected with Physics and Ethics. Indeed, my parents would be happy to not giving such a lot of money for your classes in your academy for the purpose to learn foolish things that do not bring me pleasure and eudaemonia.

You do imagine that that young epicurean provoked anarchy and revolution in the academy of Plato. HA

Since all Platos' pupils were singing also :

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the classroom

Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall

All in all, you're just another brick in the wall.

Bravissimo mio amico italiano Michelle, tu sei un autentico discendente di Lucrezio.

"Christians and Epicureans talk about friendship and love. But Epicureans must think about it".

Christians and their cousins i.e. the Abrahamic monotheistic religions may speak for "friendship" and "love" but their "friendship" and "love" has a virus that is capable enough for leading to the disease and the collapse of any healthy body inside any society. Christians speak for "friendship" and "love" hypocritically since, inside them is a hidden egoism, and a huge selfishness which is due to their fears of god and death. These fears make them thinking and acting, like the reptilian brains, and in two ways: either to attack to their opponents and destroy them, or to be hidden for acting with cunning as their double spy Saul of Tarsus acted. This hidden huge selfishness, in psychological terms, is their depression and it is against the goal of pleasure, and the enjoyment of life that leads the majority of them to apathy and anesthesia (waiting for their salvation by their saviors/leaders that with their laws and their symbols had exterminate day by day through the idealism, the greek scientific/materialistic spirit of Epicurus, inside the schools, universities, academies, courts, ministries, etc etc), and the worse consequence of these fears, it is the commitment of suicide and of themselves and any of the society they live. This is the general picture of the society the christians build and its suicide is the break of its coherence, through their movement from a fantastic world to another fantastic world, the asceticism of the numerous of monks and priests inside the monasteries, and churches, and in the end when the reality comes for showing its harsh face, they are the same that lead the societies to the decadence and the destruction.

"Christians have just to have faith. And this is probably the cause Christians won".

For their faith, and its consequences, I explained as above, that is on fears. As for the victory and the won... I wonder what they really won ? Pride, respect, dignity, eudaemonia, pure pleasure, freedom, bravery, isonomia, isigoria, isigonia, isokratia, isopsyfia, and isotimia ? Someone has to be blind to not see to where they lead our western societies: to a caricature of Democracy for which they're boasting about and around, for spreading and this motto as the coldman sucks said it :"we do God's work", for leading the societies to the worse that are the endless debts that give birth to the ideologies of fascism and its barbarism.

"Think about everything, be ready to explain our reasons is far harder than saying: "God said that". And people are lazy and sometimes stupid too".

Yes, laziness, lethargy, anesthesia, and stupidity these were the main issues that Epicurus fought against in his era that the phenomena were similar like today, but not so damaging than today due to the monotheistic religions and the motto "we are doing God's work". No, the greeks did not say "gods says this and that". They said we say this and that and we are doing this and that. Man is the measure of all things - Protagoras. For this reason, Epicurus won the day, and every brave spirit was an epicurean and in Greece and in Rome. There were numerous of Epicureans and Gardens all over the ecumene. But christians' and Judaistic religions' battle was not Man to Man, but was a battle with cunning that lead to the destruction of all the ancient temples and those symbols that led the humans to lose their identity and pride of what they really were and what was their real goal in their one and unique life.

On friendship and love, we the epicureans we do not think about anything more or less, since we grasp the concept of the words directly and without mistake along with its first principle that is the common benefit and the common goal of pleasure that sprung from inner self-sufficient man spontaneously and automatically, like the swerve that is our freedom and bravery to choose with cleverness among many options. The opportunity is here and now, and it has to not be lost again. The opportunity is for a transvaluation to all the fake values, because without Epicurus and his greek spirit, we will be lost again in the darkness of the abyss as it has been lost in the medieval ages.

P.S. Dear Michelle, many thanks for your efforts to spread the right message of epicurean philosophy, and I hope in the festival there would be a reference to some of my above thoughts, by honest men and women as speakers.

A notice by me to the author of the book. Dear Michelle, I read in the synopsis of your book this sentence: "un incontro impossibile fra due grandi spiriti, quello greco, ancora pagano, e quello cristiano".

I totally agree with you that the "incontro" (encounter) and the mixture between them is impossible.

Grande spirito christiano, that means : The great spirit of christianism. I have a question : Which were these ideas that came by christianism to be considered from epicureans as great ?

quello greco, ancora pagano that means : That greek one, still pagan. This characterization for the greek cosmotheasis as paganism and the people as pagans, as well as, idolatres show how disrespectful were the people who tried to keep their customs. All these characterizations came by christianism and the christians.

But anyway, according to "the encounter between them is impossible", me, as a greek epicurean, addressed to them, I would like to say: What those gypsies and shepherds of the dessert are able to teach me, on how to milk goats and sheep? Who were those that were searching for 40 years a land that was so near by to them, and they called it "EDEN" ? They say that this word "EDEN" derived from the word "HEDONE" and means "delight/pleasure". They were searching for pleasure for 40 years, and it was in front of them, but still they give me the impression that are searching pleasure till our days.

Here is an interesting article on the webpage of YSEE, by a historian Chris Aldridge https://www.ysee.gr/aldridge.html

What a great news. Does this event hold/happen for the first time ? Michelle you made me really happy and wishing to all of you to have for this event such a success for becoming also an institution that will be followed by the people every year.

As for my presence at this event, sorry it is not possible, since this period of time my son will be married, and a lot of supportive issues for that day have to be done by me too.

Cassius the museums protection laws did not expire. They are still nowadays, as they also forbid the visitors taking pictures of the finds inside the museums. I think it is the same in the museums of the USA. We are in their disposal, maybe in their research on the marketing, if they will have sufficient income of the reproducing of copies of the finds, for the purpose to buy them as individuals. Museum's goal is the profit and the income, what else could be ? Since, the expenses for the excavations, for paying salaries of workers, archeologists, safe-guards, the sculptors for making copies of the finds, as well as, for all the expenses of the buildings of the museums are enormous.

The only we have to do is to make through emails for sending many requests to the managers of the museums (usually the managers are archeologists that working for the state), asking for the reproduction of our epicurean finds and to declare them that we are many buyers, from all over the world, that have a willing to buy them through internet and an eshop.

The graphic is a gif that is moving. https://data.photofunky.net/output/image/0…/photofunky.gif

Elayne, frankly this is outstanding. Eύγε/Bravo and that is because you also give many examples which show how much rightly you have grasped and the concepts of greek words as ataraxia, aponia, autarkea, and eudaemonia that describe only the pleasure that is a feeling which springs from the inner self and can be preserved and feed back with the presence and the safety that we share with our friends. The first principle of friendship is the common benefit and through the empathy we are able to understand and to help/benefit each other in life.

I promise that when I 'll have free time I translate it into greek language to become known among the greek epicurean friends. It is like to hear some of them saying : hooray, we found an epicurean lady who lives abroad and without knowing the language of gods, she understood perfectly what Epicurus had said. Yes, we found such an artist who knows the most important art that is: " to live like a goddess among men". And that's all folks http://pf.gy/0b9c5f

AND HERE IS THE WHOLE ISSUE : We have to understand what were the issues that Epicurus had confronted, in his era, - and not only in his era, but what issues we have to confront in our era too - and we have to realize also that the following is only a small excerpt of what Epicurus had heard and read about philosophical issues.

Here is a small excerpt by Aristotle's Eudemia that is taught by theologians and philologists inside the greek schools, till today (sick).

"It is said that the virtue of temperance concerns pleasures and sorrows, but it is actually limited to the first (pleasures). Initially, the pleasures of the intellect are excluded, for the people who become slaves of them they are never characterized as profligates/punishable (my note : WOW and thrice WOW). Also, the pleasures of vision, hearing, and smell are excluded. The virtue of temperance concerns only those sensations that provide direct enjoyment to both inferior animals and humans, namely touch and taste. Besides, not all the pleasures of touch and taste are included, but only the purely of inferior animal ones (my note: oh, my goodness, here Aristotle separates the senses of touch and taste in lower and upper level !!!), and those are the pleasures from food, drink and aphrodisiacs (my note lower are the pleasures for food, drink and aphrodisiacs, so you are going straight to asceticism).

The only sorrows that are concerned with the temperance are those due to the unfulfilled desire for these pleasures. The ideal life, according to Aristotle, lies in the action that corresponds to the virtue of wisdom: ":«ὡστ' εἴη ἀν ἡ εὐδαιμονία θεωρία τις» and that means : that the goal of eudeamonia is for theorizing on the view (contemplation) of the Absolute Truth about the eternal being (THE GOD). (My note : ABSOLUTE TRUTH, JUSTICE, and GOD only in their stupid head had existed, exists and will exist).

After the reference in the above, the teacher inside the schools makes the parallelism with the following excerpt by saint Maximos. And here we the epicureans understand the root of the decadence that is followed by the stoicism and its evolution the christianism.

Saint Maximos ("his holly grace"), he directly inspired by the Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, argues that: in

order to succeed the knowledge of God and virtue, there are many that are demanded, such as discharge from passions/emotions, patience in temptations, virtues logoi (my note : virtues logoi are the mere opinions, empty beliefs to which are due to the greatest disturbance of our mind/soul), realization of modes of salvation, disconnection of the mood of the soul from the flesh, alienation of feeling from its relation to the senses, perfect departure of the mind from all creations and generally all that contribute to abstaining from evil and ignorance, since without the synergy of Grace of God, the virtues lose their true meaning, but without the consent of the believer, the grace of God remains fruitless.

(My note : I have anything more to say, I remain shocking and speechless !!!)

Elayne, please if you would like make the statement that [aponia] and [ataraxia] are words that give the description of the magnitude of the limits of pleasure, and for making more clear the description, make a reference of the PD3, as it was translated in my above text.

PD 3 on the limits of pleasure serves as the cornerstone for all further elaborations on the Epicurean understanding of pleasure and pain: the limit of the various, particular pleasures is the relief of the respective, corresponding "pains". For this, epicureans do not speak about "moderation" and "golden rule", but they always speak about limits, that are personal.

For the epicurean understanding of both, what is meant here is neither the ecstasy of delight nor the agony of torture, but the natural everyday activities of our personal experiences. For example, once one has eaten enough, one is no longer hungry. Logically, for as long as one continues to feel full, one is not hungry; nor, of course, can one feel both sated and hungry all at once. Since there is a graduation for this of our bodily procedure. Epicurus closes the argument snugly with a glaring reduction ad absurdum.

As well as, he goes on a crucial tangent, saying that this very same principle applies not only to pain in the strictly physical sense, but also to "that which causes sadness", or mental/emotional distress. This analogy between e.g. the "pain" of hunger and the "pain-trouble" of anxiety, or stress, or grief, has momentous ramifications in Epicurean ethics. Since, for Epicurus, the body/mind/soul is one and the same thing.

Epicurus' says that pleasure is as easily attainable as satiety in the course of attending to our everyday, natural needs: we can "fill" ourselves with ongoing emotional wellness just as easily as (and provided that) we can satisfy our hunger, thirst, and need of shelter and safety on a daily basis. The main core of this doctrine is that - through our sober reasoning - when we banish mere opinions and empty beliefs to which are due to the greatest disturbance of our mind/soul, so then, it's easy to understand consciously what makes us feel pleased and bliss.

Our epicurean friend Elayne wrote : They can have what is clinically termed "alexithymia", inability to describe a feeling.

WOW ! "alexithymia"... that's a greek word of that clinical situation that can also give the "apathy" of the stoics and stoicism. HA

Alexithymia :

"Alex" means "I repel" or "I push back". That's how we have and that name "Alex+ander" that means I repel, or I push back "men".

and "thymos-thymia" which means [ the emotion] or [the passion]. "Alexithymia" means I repel my emotions, and that's the same with APATHY which means I uproot, I push back my emotions. And why I am in the clinical situation of apathy or alexthymia? Because "ex apalon onychon" i.e. from childhood, something enforced me to not make properly the measurement among pleasure and pain, something did not make me clear where are my limits among pleasure and pain, and of others limits too. Something enforced me to do my "duty", and accepting my "fate" or "necessity". And that "something" is an authenticity i.e. my parents and then people - as leaders - of my social environment, and this is NOT for purpose to lead myself and others in pleasure and happiness, but for being a virtuous guy.

And now for a+taraxia that goes along with a+ponia.

this (a) means [without]

ataraxia means without agitation.

aponia means without pain.

ataraxia and aponia are words that describe the limits of magnitude of pleasures i.e. the situation that consciously I understand/feel with my body/mind/soul as the feeling of pleasure.

Again the PD 3 : The limit of magnitude of the pleasures is the removal of everything painful, wherever there is pleasure, however long it may present there no pain or sadness of both together.

Or

Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long it lasts, there is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both together.

Or with the fg 423 Epicurus addressed to peripatetics : "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" .

Like the words "aponia" and "ataraxia", in greek language, we have the word "a+lithea". This "a" means [without] , and "lithe" which means [oblivion]. "Alithea" means the situation that is without oblivion. And in english is given with the word "truth". For the word "lithe" [oblivion] in english and greek languages the synonym words are "unconsciousness", "insensibility", "a stupor" "stupefaction", "senselessness", "a coma", "a blackout". That's why we call senses and feelings the criteria of "alithea" [truth] inside the methodology of the epicurean Canon.

As I said in the past, in this paragraph Epicurus does not use the words "freedom of pain" or "absence of pain", he uses "neither - nor" next to the verbs "algein" and "tarassesthai" in the grammatical form of greek language that declare motion i.e. activities. Pleasure is to do such actions e.g. study the Nature, celestial phenomena, and our nature and on the basis of our personal limits to not feel pain in the body and disturbance in the soul. To maintain a pleasure I have to do something i.e. maintenance of pleasure depends on our activities and similarly to chose a pain and then minimizing this pain is for the achievement of a greater pleasure. Prudence and the study of Nature teaches us where to set our personal limits, in accordance with the experiences and the reality and the society we live, and how to use tools as called virtues to live a pleasant life. This is the way that goes the hedonic calculus in the Canon that includes both of our feelings pleasure and pain, and not a neutral state of anesthesia or amethexia that leads to apathy and the decadence of any society.

We have to realize also that Epicurus speaks for gradation among pleasure and pain, as well as, all the things/issues get constantly different values depending of what we choose to do for the achievement of the goal of pleasure. For this the division on pleasure to kinetic and katastematic pleasures is not given by him anywhere. The only he speaks is for eudaemonia and this is how he starts his letter to Meneoceus and how he is ending it : when we do not possess eudaemonia we do EVERYTHING to win it. This is the art to live like gods among men.

Imo the behavior of a profligate is the same behavior with that one that says he is is humble and live in simplicity and frugality. Both such behaviors are antisocial and without limits, both they produce pain. And both declare men that are not the masters of themselves, both are slaves recognizing other masters than themselves. Eudaemonia is not an issue that is possessed by them (ex apalon onychon) i.e. from childhood , because for the achievement of eudeamonia first you have to possess yourself and that means self-sufficiency and self-restrain, (egratia) that is synonym with freedom and bravery, because your goal is pure pleasure that its limit is neither to feel pain in the body nor agitation in the soul.

Stilpon of Megara

Stilpon was a representative of a smaller Socratic School of Megara, especially known for its dialectical acrobatics, claimed that is not allowed for a person to give another predicate except itself. We only say that man is man and not that man is rich, because man and rich are two different things. Stilpon attributed to the "being" completely different meaning from the real.

Thus, the epicurean Colotes with satirical mood writes :

"How shall we live really, if we cannot say a man good, neither a man Captain, but must separately say a man man and separately a good good and a Captain Captain, and if we're talking about ten thousand horsemen and fortified city, we must say that the horsemen are horsemen, the ten thousand ten thousand; and so on."

And now : "Pleasure is the absence of pain". The acrobatics of dialectics to define issues and things with the absence of their opposites. But above all is the separation/division in the characteristics, and that is because we do not want to give descriptions with clarity, but absolute definitions. We do not want to see that when we mix black and white, we see that there is a graduation of grey among them. No, we want the dilemmas of either black or white.

But the whole movie of life can't be watched in cut pieces, and when we want to define things with the absence of their opposites is totally false. Because, someone may also say : "life is the absence of death". Do you think so ? Because when I study the Nature I observe that life can't exist without death. How the carnivores shall live without the death of herbivores ? And how the herbivores shall live without eating plants ? And how the Universe shall exist without fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces ?

Βut if the epicurean young man with the name Colotes would be alive today, hearing that "pleasure is the absence of pain", he could say : How shall we live really our life, if we cannot just say that "pleasure is the supreme good, and our alpha and omega"… but we must to define pleasure in the absence of the opposite feeling of pain. And when we say pleasure we must separately divide its characteristics surpreme, surpreme, good good, alpha alpha, omega omega. And when we speak for the feeling of pleasure, we must say that we feel it separately in our body and separately in our soul. And when we eat our whole body separately enjoys the food i.e. separately enjoys our mouth, our throat, our stomach, our cells, our mind, our hands, and so on and so on.

And if we talking for ALL the pleasures of our life, we must to define them separately, dividing the pleasures in motion, and the pleasures in rest. And if we are talking about the whole Universe we must speak for it in relation to time. So, we must say separately dividing it with a starting moment and an ending moment, as well as, to define and separately dividing the Universe with the up up, down down, left left, right right, and so on, and so on.

"Absence of pain is pleasure". This is a definition which shouts out loud, and not a description. In general, oral and written speaking, for the descriptions, we use words and verbs that declare motion. What on earth of a motion has a word like "absence"? And the more some are trying to give a definition on pleasure or pain i.e. the feelings, the more they fail, and the more they are trying to speak about absolutes and the like. Because descriptions for being more clear have to be described with actions, and examples with experiences.

So, we see many theorizing and speaking more and more about asceticism, apathy, fantastic worlds, second life in heavens, and the like. But they are like that stupid fox of Aesop that when she saw sweet grapes, as she could not reach them, she named them as bitter. Bitter are their endless definitions.

This is the methodology of dialectis, and idealism in general that leads us to discussions without end, but the worse of all, it leads us to nihilism, inaction and slavery. The procedure of all that matters for Epicurus, it is to learn his methodology i.e. his way of thinking/acting. Humans' feelings and all the phenomena in Nature, and in our materialistic reality, can be given only by descriptions and not by definitions. Descriptions use words with as much clarity as they could, and the more the clarity they have, the more there is a human that has such experiences for understanding and the like through the empathy.

Time within the reality is flowing and when something happens in present it becomes quickly as a past. Observe a star and its light, it is not its present, it is not its future, it is its past.

Moreover, do you know how many deletions have been made in our brain when after a long time we are trying to give a description to a friend or even to our self about a fact that has happened to us either that fact was painful or pleasurable? Many deletions. Because our brain is focused not in the quantity but in the quality of that experience. And the quality is in self-sufficiency, in generosity, in pride of what we have achieved, and in understanding through empathy for the likes.

Once, an epicurean friend Mary Stamatiadou, who is a scientist in quantum biogenetics, she had said to me for Epicurus : Elli, there is no the issue of time in the way of thinking by Epicurus, there are no definitions in his methodology. There are no absolutes and standards in his manifold way of thinking. The only standard as the first principle, for him, is the particles and the void. The only he is doing is to describe probabilities according to whatever we experienced in the past and what we're wishing for the present or future. To describe and at the same time to eliminate those probabilities that are obstacles to the goal of pleasure. Since, for him all the issues and the phenomena in Nature get different values in accordance with the materialistic reality, and the experiences in life of what we choose and what we are wishing to choose, and what we are able to choose for the goal of pleasure and eudeamonia.

"Man is the measure of all things" as Protagoras said, and this is something as a good starting point for the existential Psychology to liberate the persons from fears and lead them to more and higher conscientious thoughts and actions of autonomy. Nature has many causes and many effects and some facts/things are similar, some are not similar. What we have to focus on, to observe in, and study of, as much as we can, it is Nature, our nature with the usage of our agency/faculties as given by her, for the achievement of ataraxia and aponia that these two words are also a description of pleasure and eudaemonia, which are also addressed to whom they can't understand us. And why many can't understand us? Because they do not HAVE it deepen in their hearts i.e. they did not conquer it "ex apalon onychon" i.e. from childhood. They are not the masters of themselves. They live in misery and trouble and they fight to each other to climb that throne, which has for its basis mud as Nietzsche said, and as I say not only mud, but shit.

- Metaphysics: No metaphysics or prophysics or between phycics only Physics or Physiology i.e. the scientific study of Nature with the observation and examination on the phenomena and the causes that caused them for finding the obvious and for the purpose to not be agitated that is leading to pure pleasure or eudaemonia.

- Epistemology: The methodology or gnosiology of the multivaled reasoning or manifold way that is in the Canon that is leading to pure pleasure or eudeamonia.

- Ethics: Friendship on the basis of the common benefit while all the friends are exceptional to each other having the clear sense that their common goal is pure pleasure or eudaemonia.

- Politics: As a general picture is the constitution of Democracy i.e. many groups of mental balanced persons that are always ready for making social contracts with such fair laws to not hurt each other that is also keeps the coherence of the society they live for the purpose of the pure pleasure or eudaemonia for the majority of them.