Posts by Martin

Welcome Page259!

Welcome JMGuimas!

Welcome Novem!

Álvarez' translation neatly resolves most contradictions against the big picture of Epicurus' philosophy, which were described in:

Thread

VS41 - Translations of VS 41

A: "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time and do our household duties and employ our other faculties, and never

cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." (as quoted here, on the Epicurean Friends page)

B: "At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy." (as quoted in a post in the FB EP page from June 2017)

C: "One shall laugh and at the same time philosophize,…

Martin

May 21, 2018 at 7:15 AM

Happy Birthday to Joshua and Kalosyni!

I agree with comments #2 - #4.

2. No! Pleasure is the goal, not moderation. Whereas moderation is often the most pleasurable choice, especially with food and other necessary desires, it is misleading as a goal in itself.

5. Intellectual pleasures may have some advantages over physical pleasures, but there is no justification to call out the highest form of pleasure to be intellectual. It is up to the individual to order pleasures into lower and higher ones or not to make that distinction at all. People who detest lifelong learning, reading, and philosophical exploration can still enjoy an Epicurean lifestyle with just a rudimentary understanding of the philosophy. The vast majority of ancient Epicureans in the Roman empire were probably like that because they lacked the education for intellectual pleasures. Even the Torquatus in Cicero's "On Ends" was not that deep into philosophical exploration as shown by the passage where he was not able to explain something when being pressed hard by Cicero and referred instead to a more intellectual Epicurean than him whom he trusted to know the proper explanation.

E.g., Forrest Gump was not intellectual at all but by the intuitive application of a few simple principles which he was taught by a few trusted people, his life turned out to be fairly close to an Epicurean life.

7. This misses out on the how-to of not fearing the state of being dead.

"the pursuit of enduring and meaningful forms of pleasure":

No! It does not matter how enduring or meaningful (!?) a pleasure is. E.g., the sensation of acceleration or high speed is usually not enduring and has no meaning but can be very pleasurable. Recalling the memory of that physical experience is a great mental pleasure into old age.

"It's a philosophy that emphasizes balance, ..."

This sounds like having no meaning.

"cultivation of a tranquil ... life."

Whereas Epicureans experience tranquility most of the time because of their wise choices, their lives are not necessarily tranquil. Epicureans who pursue lots of excitements within their means do not have tranquil lives. A tranquil life is not their choice.

"Your interpretation and practice of Epicurean principles can be tailored to suit your own values and circumstances in today's society."

This is probably the most excellent characterization of Epicurus' philosophy in that text by ChatGPT.

Welcome Seqstrat!

The quote below from comment #5

Quote

As I see it, in truth Epicurus' formulation requires both "A" and "B" for clarity: "in sum" the limit of quantity of pleasure in total is arrived at when all pleasure is removed, ...

should be:

"As I see it, in truth Epicurus' formulation requires both "A" and "B" for clarity: "in sum" the limit of quantity of pleasure in total is arrived at when all pain is removed, ...

Whereas I am not aware of an outright refutation of MOND, that theory can describe well only the observations for single galaxies. MOND has significant difficulties both with galaxy clusters and over cosmological distances. It is a purely empirical modification of Einstein's theory without an explanatory foundation.

My quick reference for this is in German:

https://pro-physik.de/zeitschriften/download/12825

My impression is that MOND is an almost useless ad-hoc model because it is not good enough to explain anything to similar depth as Einstein's theories of relativity do.

Welcome Peter Konstans!

Welcome Rocco!

The quotes in our discussion of DeWitt's book were almost like reading the whole book anyway. When we went through Lucretius and the letters, we often fell short of finishing the intended section, reading the missed part again in the following session. Moreover, we still quoted in pieces as needed despite the initial reading.

I vote against reading the section before the discussion.

I will join, too.

Welcome Asclepiades!

Welcome Burninglights!

Welcome AaronSF!

Welcome Mflavia!

Me too.

We addressed it much earlier in the podcast series.

Welcome Bluebudgie!