Posts by Elli

A hypothesis : once upon time a primitive e.g. a homo Neanderthal or a homo sapiens that lived in a primitive village was devoured by a black panther and some primitives that were his companions, when they saw that, then they had spread around that black cats bring bad luck.

But these are "ypolepses" (false suppositions i.e. painful memories with mythical stories that are mixed with the fear of death) and not "prolepses" (preconceptions or anticipations or intuitions i.e. pleasurable memories with real fact stories without being mixed with the fear of death).

And here is the ending paragraph in the letter to Pythocles in which Epicurus describes the procedure of the manifold way of the Canon, and on how, we can be able to separate the imagination from the reality since the real purpose is living without agitation i.e. the pure pleasure.

"All these things, Pythocles, you must bear in mind; for thus you will escape in most things from superstition (mythical stories) and will be enabled to understand what is akin to them. And most of all give yourself up to the study of the beginnings and of infinity and of the things akin to them, and also of the criteria of truth and of the feelings, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things. For these points when they are thoroughly studied will most easily enable you to understand the causes of the details. But those who have not thoroughly taken these things to heart could not rightly study them in themselves, nor have they secured the end for which they ought to be studied".

τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον

the translation in english is "what is terrible is easy to endure", but the word "καρτέρι" in greek means the "ambush".

e.g. The commandment ordered them to fire from ambush.

So, the phrase in english could be "what is terrible is easy, because you're waiting to attack" IF you have a strategy on how to attack, since you do not forget your goal that is pleasure.

However, this little phrase can be connected with the Epicurus’s epistle which is addressed to Idomeneus, inciting him to rush as soon as possible and escape, before a stronger force interferes and deprives him of the freedom to withdraw. But he also adds that no one would attempt anything, except only when he can attempt it in the appropriate conditions and with the appropriate opportunity. But when the expected opportunity comes, we 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 our time and do not hesitate when the right one comes.

Hiram Crespo said : You will continue to push away friends and the only people you'll attract who will remain here will be flatterers.

I have the impression that he confuses the enrichment of feelings of empathy, understanding, care, pleasure, and joy with the flattering.

Maybe he did not have a clue that we do use all the criteria of truth of the Canon for judging rightly who are those that produce to us pleasurable feelings and who do not.

Does he say that we are naive ? Who said that Cassius and Elayne did not accept frankness of speech from me or me from them or from other persons? Does he know what we do say in our private messages to each other or on the private group of friends ?

Does he say that Elayne who is a doctor needs medication or Cassius needs too? Concerning me he does not comment, he will open the can with worms! Does he mean that I am a worm ?

Sorry, I am not a brown-nose for kissing filthy pants of such people that proclaim idealistic-humanism just for the purpose to sell any book. And sorry that I am not a Buddhist that I have to eliminate my self and my desires for reaching Nirvana. From the beginning, I did not agree with him with all these and these are the fist causes of our differences.

And again I say that I did not speak to Elayne behind her back and I did send to her a private message to understand each other better. This case is closed for us, and we are very closed friends now. But really, does he think that he was the reason for that ? Did he feel that he had any ability to inspire me to any beneficial thing after his actions with the translation of his book and as I commented to my first comment here ?

But really who speaks for all these ? The one that does not accept frank criticism from the beginning and the only he does is to speak to other persons and for other persons behind their backs ? I admit he has a master degree in intrigue.

However, for the flattering issue, we have Epicurus and some fragments of his letters to his friends that are as follows :

Epicurus to Leontion : “O Paean and Anax Apollo, my dear little Leontion, with what tumultuous applause we were inspired as we read your letter.”

Epicurus to Themista, the wife of Leonteus: “I am quite ready, if you do not come to see me, to roll around three times on my own axis and be propelled to any place that you, including Themista, agree upon”.

Epicurus to the handsome Pythocles : “I will sit quietly and await with desire for your God-like coming”.

...and, as Theodorus says in the fourth book of his work, Against Epicurus, in another letter to Themista he thinks he preaches to her.

Epicurus corresponded with many courtesans, and especially with Leontion, of whom Metrodorus also was enamored.

----------------------------------------

You are a bad-bad man Epicurus it seems in your above words that you flattered all the persons in your Garden, and you did not speak to each other with Parrhesia as Philodemus said!

Epicurus asks: who is Philodemus ?

Elli responds to Epicurus : O, he is just like a small hair from your testicles, my dear teacher!

Walls

With no consideration, no pity, no shame,

they have built walls around me, thick and high.

And now I sit here feeling hopeless.

I can't think of anything else: this fate gnaws my mind -

because I had so much to do outside.

When they were building the walls, how could I not have noticed!

But I never heard the builders, not a sound.

Imperceptibly they have closed me off from the outside world.

The Windows

In these dark rooms where I live out empty days,

I wander round and round

trying to find the windows.

It will be a great relief when a window opens.

But the windows aren't there to be found -

or at least I can't find them. And perhaps

it's better if I don't find them.

Perhaps the light will prove another tyranny.

Who knows what new things it will expose?

The above are two of the top poems by C.P. Cavafy about the trapping that characterizes many people's lives and of course his own. A life of loneliness and sadness, with the feeling of being unsatisfied with the poet's wanderlust, who seeks diligently the reasons that led him to this point. The poem “The windows” symbolize the reasons sought by the poet for the state of his life. While his poem “Walls” are being built by others, we see that “windows” are combined with the concept of light and what the poet wants is to illuminate the dark spots of his life so that he can understand how he came living his life with many restrictions and oppressions. How he lost control of his life over the years and ended up spending his days in the dark - in ignorance - and in solitude.

This wondering of the poet expresses the concerns of many people who have gradually found themselves far from their original goals and the pursuit of happiness i.e. the pure pleasure as we, the epicureans, are saying. A web of habits and obligations, the attempt of man to live as others require for him without him, and a society that traps its members in a prescribed course, often alienate to the human removing from him whatever he wishes for his life.

As in the poem "The Walls" Cavafy raises the question of the restrictions that have been put on his life and states that he never understood when and who trapped him inside them, in the poem “The Windows” Cavafy appears to ignore the reasons why his life has come to be so limited and depressing. And despite his efforts to find the "windows", he fails to appear as if they were not even there or as if he were unable to locate them. The truth is, after all, that in order to be able to identify the reasons why he does not have the life he desires, he must seek responsibility not only in others and in society, as he says in the first poem entitled "Walls", but also to himself, which is not always easy.

That is why the poet thinks it may be better that he cannot find the windows – which are the causes that has to search and deepening in them – because, as he says, he may then be confronted with issues that he would rather not to know or has not to realize. Perhaps, the poet says : to find windows, to be finally a new state of the feeling of pain, and the truth that he wants so much to find, to be the cause of a crucial battle with himself, and this may, instead of rescuing him, it will bring him a greater agitation.

The poet's hard days are a result of not only the restrictions the society places on him, but also the restrictions he places on himself. The responsibility for the grief of the poet - and every human being like the psychosomatic of the poet - lies not only on others but also on himself. And this is our subjective truth that we are not always ready to handle, which is why the poet concludes that it may be better not to find the windows…. And that’s why the majority of people choose the STOIC anesthesia and apathy that is given with that known : <<pleasure is the absence of pain>> !

To Hiram Crespo Thessaloniki 15th of October 2014

5757 N. XXXXXXX Rd., XXXXX

Chicago IL 60660 USA

My dear Hiram,

I hope this parcel of mine to find you strong and well.

I am really sorry to say to you, but I did not manage to read your book.

As I told you I have many greek books to read now. I hope next month, I will read it.

Then I’ll give it to my greek epicurean friend for giving it to the publisher of “XXXXXXXXX” if there is a possibility to be translated into the greek language.

I enclose to you the tea of the mountain of gods, Olympus, and a bottle of a good virgin olive oil, as I promised.

I hope you enjoy both of them.

We keep in touch at the FB profile as usual.

With my best and friendly epicurean regards,

Elli XXX

-------------------------------------------------

This was the letter that I had sent to Hiram 5 years ago that is followed after he already sent me his book with an attached cold letter by his publisher. For speaking on Ethics that is to say, Hiram did not act like the wise Epicurus who was sending letters to his friends with many of his wise admonishments and his feelings of care above all.

However, when I did not manage for his book to be translated into the Greek language, due to the financial crisis that strikes and the editions in Greece, he did not like that of course. In the meantime, when I was speaking with frankness of speech to him e.g. as the above that is wrong to use the word “autarchy” for "self-sufficiency", as well as, for some other important issues OR when I spoke with frankness to some unknown and non-epicurean persons on the FB EP group, he suggested to delete me as an admin and as an epicurean friend from there, and please think of it, that his suggestion was in the day of my birthday when he never wished me anything at all. And that is because I did not follow educational instructions on how to write comments with prologues, epilogues, paragraphs, commas, full stop, question marks, and exclamation points! The same educational instructions were for Cassius too. Yes, indeed, this is the “epicurean friendship" that Hiram is proclaiming about and around. I wonder now who builds walls around him ? And who is the person that was never participated in anything with anyone on that FB EP group from the beginning till now? In the meantime when the newcomers were passing by from there, many of Hiram's comments were ads for his book.

But the most important is that he imagines himself that is like Philodemus who was the chief-guide in a villa-school in the Roman city of Herculaneum that was supported by a wealthy sponsor with the name Piso, and all the people must obey his epicurean -mixed with idealism - teachings. And when someone will speak to him with frankness that somewhere he is wrong, first he speaks behind his back and then he says in front of that someone that he /she does not accept the Philodemu's parrhesia, as he/she has an ill-will using a harsh language, for taking all these as personal attacks to him or to someone else like him.

So, here are some simple thoughts by Epicurus on the wise man :

- A man cannot become wise in every kind of physical constitution, or in every nation.

- The wise man shows gratitude, and constantly speaks well of his friends whether they are present or absent.

- The Epicureans assert that the wise man will not make elegant speeches.

- The wise man will not become a tyrant.

- The wise man will leave books and memorials of himself behind him, but he will not be fond of frequenting assemblies.

- One wise man is not wiser than another.

- The wise man gathers together a school, but never so as to become a leader of crowds.

- The wise man will give lectures in public, but it will be against his inclination and never unless asked.

- The wise man will teach things that are definite, rather than doubtful musings.

Patriarchy, Matriarchy, Hierarchy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Diarchy, Triarchy, Autarchy, Anarchy...and happy holidays for all.

I would like to comment here, for a few greek words such as : αυτάρκεια, αυταρχία, εγκράτεια & ευδαιμονία.

The greek word "αυτάρκεια" [pron. as aftárkea] consists of two words which are : “εαυτός” (thyself) + the verb “αρκώ” [pron. arkó] that means “It’s sufficient or it’s enough” i.e. aftárkea means the self-sufficient, but some persons that do not know the greek language at all, they transformed this word, in english, as "Autarchy"!

However, as a greek Epicurean I thought to make for this specific word a small statistical research, and I made it on my personal FB profile. Well, the majority of my FB friends who know both greek and english very well, they understood (correctly) the meaning of the word “autarchy” as <<the monarchy, the despotism and dictatorship>>, since “autarchy” includes the word "ευατός" (thyself) + the verb “άρχω” [pron. árcho] that means oneself that rules/governs others. So, the word «αυταρχία» [pron. as aftarchéa], as it is used in greek language till our days, it means oneself i.e. a man that rules/governs others; and it's synonym with the word “monarchy” i.e. oneself that governs others.

Thus, the word "autarchy" has neither the meaning of the self-govern nor the self-sufficient actually, since there is already a similar greek word for the self-govern which is “εγκράτεια+εγκρατής” (pron. engrátia+engratis) and in english is "self-restraint" or "temperance". Although, Epicurus has nothing to do with the self-govern or the self-restraint or temperance, of course. Epicurus just spoke clearly for self-sufficient - aftárkea - that is a mean that is measured - as any other mean - through hedonic calculus according to the circumstances and the consequences of the experiences for the achievement of the goal of pleasure.

In addition, and in the same way "autarchy" is being used to mean "self-sufficient," I would ask: Why not transform the Greek word "ευδαιμονία" [pron. as eudaemonía] in English as "eudaemon+archy" ("pleasure-archy")? Why not? Because the deepest purpose, above all, of "-archy/archo" is the meaning of governing others! Some people seem to want to use Greek words even when they change their meaning, because they do not consider their etymology at all. And when I say "they do not consider," I mean, above all, that they do not have a clue about the clarity that Epicurus was asking for!

Welcome MWheeler, and Hello Lawrence !

80. The first measure of security is to watch over one’s youth and to guard against what makes havoc of all by means of impetuous desires for idealistic ideas.

I have some news. I read carefully the following ES 80 and I've noticed a particular greek word.

LXXX.(80) Νέῳ σωτηρίας μοῖρα τῆς ἡλικίας τήρησις καὶ φυλακὴ τῶν πάντα μολυνόντων κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς οἰστρώδεις.

80. The first measure of security is to watch over one’s youth and to guard against what makes havoc of all by means of maddening desires.

Here Epicurus for describing such desires he uses a greek word that is "οίστρος-oιστρώδεις" [pron. oestros-oestrodes]. What meant in ancient greek this word? Mainly it has the meaning of the "horsefly" (*).

Who gave the characterization to himself as a "horsefly" in his "Apology" ? Well, Socrates did.

Anyone who has suffered from this insect, the horsefly, knows that there is nothing more annoying. Socrates was ironical, divisive and annoying, he declares that in his "apology" through Plato.

In the opposite, Epicurus with this ES 80 declares that we must be apart from such "horseflies", and he meant idealistic ideas by Socrates and the like. It is wrong that I read somewhere that Epicurus with this expression "oestrodes epithimies" i.e. maddening desires, he did mean the sexual desires. No, he meant that we have to go apart from mad people that produce madness. Yes, Epicurus, you are a great philosopher indeed, you used the right words since your philosophy is so clear and against the madness and illness of people!

From his letter to Pythocles : "But to assign a single cause for these occurrences, when phenomena demand several explanations, is madness, and is quite wrongly practiced by persons who are partisans of the foolish notions of astrology, by which they give futile explanations of the causes of certain occurrences, and all the time do not by any means free the divine nature from the burden of responsibilities".

https://bugguide.net/node/view/13234

Cassius wrote : <<I suspect this is another area where DeWitt slips due to his affection for Christianity.>>

Deviousness, dear reader. Deviousness and pretense. All such references are like the ink of a squid, to muddle the water. Like Themistocles and his servant, so that the Medes would think he had joined them. In order to gain a “free pass” he had to pretend to be one of them. Yet he (Dewitt) is always on the side of the Epicureans, as he makes it known at his book "Epicurus and his philosophy".

"Ionic", by C.P Cavafy

That we’ve broken their statues,

that we’ve driven them out of their temples,

doesn’t mean at all that the gods are dead.

O land of Ionia, they’re still in love with you,

their souls still keep your memory.

Cavafy will write in his poem Ionic. A statement of the eternally Greek Cavafy who invariably perceived christians as the plague of Greece. Christians should not hasten to count Cavafy as one of their own. For they will be deluded. Everybody and his dog will laugh at them. Cavafy is a stranger to christianity, as strange as a midnight sun. In 1929, four years before he died, he will declare his final verdict in the poem Myris:

I felt that he, a Christian, was united with his own people

and that I was becoming a stranger, a total stranger... and had always been a stranger.

Three times he underlines that word. Even marking it with that irrevocable always. Three cries [Τρὶς ἴαχεν]. Thrice did Achilles raise his mighty cry over the trench, and thrice did the Trojans and their horses shudder and turn back. When Cavafy underlines something there is a good reason. In his entire body of work he has only underlined a total of eight words. Now, on the other hand, there are many passages in his work where he declares his christianity in a genuine and telling manner. I love the church, he says. And he speaks of the glory of Byzantium. About chalices and grails, incense burners and chants, the cross, the invocations, the litanies and the candelabras. His verses are awash with mitres, priestly tiaras and the robes of monks.

Deviousness, dear reader. Deviousness and pretence. All such references are like the ink of a squid, to muddle the water. Like Themistocles and his servant, so that the Medes would think he had joined them. In order to gain a “free pass” he had to pretend to be one of them. Yet he is always on the side of the Lacedaemonians, as he makes it known at their Thermopylae.

The issue of what kind of relationship Cavafy maintained with christianity can only be understood only when considered from its very beginnings. Cavafy differentiates himself at the root from all other Greek poets who profess the Greek orthodox spirit. Solomos, for example, Kalvos, Palamas, Seferis, Elytis, and other notable individuals. Even in the asymmetrical and inadequate case of Kazantzakis. Because the writings of Kazantzakis, with Jesus and christianity as a reference point, when compared to the work of Cavafy, are nothing but the scribblings of a toddler. Literally.

Liantinis Dimitris from his book "Gemma"

.

In addition: Scientific papers and works have nothing to do with letters that are addressed to some of our young friends that within we exhort them on some wise thoughts and on how they shall live for the achievement of the goal of pleasure and eudaemonia.

Yes, when we write to someone for humans' fears, desires, feelings etc the style seems to be more emotional. I do not find it "artful". The style of writing "artfully" was only by Plato. I found it that is written emotionally and with clarity. Moreover, in all Epicurus letters the words, the grammar and the syntax are in accordance with the Attic greek language.

It seems to be that the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles, were after their request, and maybe they were teachers in an epicurean school of philosophy that had been established by them in Lampsacus. So, the only need they had, was for a good summary of the works on Physics and celestial phenomena, by Epicurus. The letter to Meneoceus looks like to be addressed in a young man that Epicurus cared for him, as he also lived him behind in Lampsacus with the other friends.

Because who needs more wise exhortations on ethics : a young man or a middle-aged man that was also to Epicurus a very known friend, and for a long life period of time?

And imo here is the answer :

ES 17. It is not the young man who should be thought happy, but the old man who has lived a good life. For the young man at the height of his powers is unstable and meets up (on his way) many coincidentally opinions (i.e. empty beliefs), like a headlong stream. But the old man has come to anchor in old age as though in port, and the good things for which before he hardly hoped he has brought into safe harbor in his grateful recollections.

On the above saying, for caring for and supportive of youth as Epicurus may have been, he also recognized that the young are unstable in their beliefs (unlike, presumably, mature Epicureans), and are therefore dragged in all sorts of directions by the whims of chance or cunning persons. This sort of vacillation and instability, Epicurus implies, is not conducive to bliss and pleasure.

The old man, on the contrary, who has lived out his life well, is presented in a beautiful simile: he is like a sailor who has let down anchor in old age, as if in a safe harbor. He is to wander no more. Better yet, all those "goods" i.e. his experiences that made him also to be prudent and happy that once seemed to him hard to attain, he now guards safely in the repository of his own grateful memory of good times past.

Menoeceus in greek "Μενοικεύς" derives from the verb (μένω) & the noun (oικεύς), and means the one who stays/lives at his family's house.

Meneoceus, as it is said, was a pupil of Epicurus. For sending him a letter, maybe Meneoceus lived in the city of Lampsacus, when Epicurus was teaching there. In Lampsacus there were many of the friends of Epicurus.

Evge - Bravo Nate ! ...and as Epicurus, if he was alive, he would say to us as an honest grandpa : Dear my grandchildren, remember always that that : ALL-isms are the "ypolepsis" i.e. false suppositions; and not the "prolepsis" i.e. anticipations that means also intuitions with which we the human beings are born, and before those insidious who are speaking about all -isms, they are the same persons that are damaging our faculties, as given to us by Nature, which are: our senses and feelings. With these faculties we are able to achieve the goal of pleasure. All else is the folly that is made by those human minds who their only desire is for us living as subordinated andrapoda (slaves). Here is how the swerve happens, when someone realizes where and which are the obstacles to his freedom that is synonym with pleasure and eudaemonia.

I can swerve for changing all the terms: We are philosophers and friends of Epicuru's philosophy. We are not Neo-Epicureans and we have nothing to do with Epicurean-ism.

Epicurean-ism is a school-ism of philosoph-ism that has for its main cores :

Pleasure-ism that is based on virtues as Prundenc-ism, Justic- ism, Honor-ism, Benefit-ism with Friendship-ism, among friendists!

And you want more ? If you say Epicurean-ism without the word as << philosophy>> it is right then, people to think : Ah, this is a mainstream with kitchens with good food and wine!

As for stoicism they did well to make their system and name it from "stoa poikele" i.e. from wall and stones as its people are bricks and stones living in apathy i.e. without passions ! And this is their evolution :