Posts by Eoghan Gardiner
Listen to the latest Lucretius Today Podcast! Episode 226 is now available. We begin (with the help of Cicero's Epicurean spokesman) the first of a series of episodes to analyze the Epicurean view of the nature of the gods.
-
-
I don't think so I can't recall any from plato anyway
-
"Logic, on which your school lays such stress, he held to be of no effect either as a guide to conduct or as an aid to thought. Natural Philosophy he deemed all‑important."
I am wondering what exactly do we mean by logic, does the above text from Cicero refer to things such as syllogisms e.g.
1. Socrates is a man
2. All men die
3. Socrates will die therefore
One criticism I have is that it solves nothing, there are famous arguments for Gods existence in catholic tradition but they really have no power of demonstration or convincing.
-
I have gone from about 110kg to 87 kg in about 6 months from just eating 500-700 calories less than my daily intake and doing either an hours walk or jog (at a leisurely rate not killing myself) the main thing is being happy when you feel hungry and saying to yourself "I am losing weight". At least for me even if I am at 200 calorie deficit I still feel very hungry so I had to accept it.
I also do IF so I eat from 1 pm - 9 pm
-
"Moderation" is never the ultimate goal either, any more than calmness is the 'ultimate' goal. Moderation in eating is a tool to find pleasure. It's pleasure that is the ultimate goal and sometimes you're going to eat more than other times. So I'd say you never set out to "Find moderation," you set out to find pleasure, through which moderation is often (not always) an appropriate tool.
Great point all things must be means to an end which is pleasure, it's good to be temperate in eating and drinking insofar as it leads to a pleasurable life, so then we can say it's good to over indulge insofar as it leads to a pleasurable life, when and where you should over indulge only you can calculate.
-
Listened to a lecturer from about 10 years ago on Epicurus it gave me the idea of a prompt.
"Epicurean Philosophy teaches that absence of pain is pleasure"
"Ok, but isn't the goal of Epicureanism ataraxia and not pleasure? Also isn't the absence of pain just a tranquil state?"
How would you respond to someone like this?
For me all I could say is without a least some knowledge of the physics and canon it probably won't make sense.
Thinking about another reason I like Epicurean philosophy is that it is a full examination of reality, with Stoicism etc... it seems like they just pick a choose. For me that's unattractive, I want a view which encompasses all of reality not merely the ethical side, as at that stage it just becomes endless debate over which ethic is right with no answer. Anyway just a tangent.
-
I find a practice of "lectio divina" on the texts of Epicurus or even some of the in-depth messages here on this forum. Just reading over it slowly, thinking about what it could mean in different circumstances and really having a "conversation" with yourself about the text. For one it keeps EP on the mind. Rather than just a skim reading or reading for knowledge but filling your mind and chewing on the text, one of the only few good practices from Catholicism but it's far older than that.
-
-
Experientially I have discovered this to be true but I don't think I could explain it in a good way.
Interestingly I am not sure that I would agree that "absence of pain = pleasure" can be "discovered to be true experientally" -- at least not fully.
Well by this I mean I examined the claim and originally dismissed it but after studying a bit more in the past 6 months (and further loosened the fetters of catholicism/monastery life) I have accepted it due to the fact for Epicurus there is no neutral state it's always one or the other. After this experientially I have experienced it, not that it's some magical infused contemplative pleasure but just a low hymn of pleasure.
-
-
-
Slanderous man, I wonder how many millions (billions?) of people's happiness he destroyed with the doctrine of Original Sin? Catholics, Puritans etc... making us distrust our own feelings and thoughts due to then being "totally depraved". Anyway thanks for sharing, perhaps his hand got burned by some Epicurean ember before he wrote this.
-
-
-
And for the sake of appreciating that complexity we should all take a second to revel in the appropriateness of Don's hostility to hypotheticals! How do you set out a hypothetical "natural" and "necessary" that is actually useful without referring to the facts of a particular situation?
Yes this is what I like to see!! But generally I think for some reason, western people generally see sex as something nice but not needed for a happy life and my eastern/asian/middle eastern friends see it as 100% necessary. So I have people in mind when I ask these questions but I wonder what's everyone here perspective, for you is it necessary?
Also as you indicated the broader humanity it is necessary, death is nothing to us, so life is everything. So being born is everything to us, before birth shares the same regard as death - no sensation/consciousness - therefore also nothing to us.
Also what just came to my mind is how would I would respond to an antinatilast who says "life is too much pain, so don't reproduce" anyway just thinking out loud maybe someone has an answer.
-
it makes things difficult outside of one night stands which as you move from early 20s to early 30s become less desirably it seems for most.
Just want to mention that "one night stands" -- may or many not bring more pain then pleasure, it depends on both parties fully understanding the terms of the encounter. And before considering a "one night stand" one should contemplate this guidance:
PD5: "It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."
Yes I agree, I find in early 20s they are far more pleasurable than now in my 30s for both parties. Not because of the act but because of the pain after it e.g. one party wanting more than a one night stand etc... where as in early 20s it's expected that it is just for the mutual singular night pleasure.
-
Also, maybe technology (cellphones/internet) is subduing the mind-body connection so that people are less aware of sensations of the body.
Yeah in my discussions with friends this is one of the main causes. The other is lack of financial freedom, most of us are house sharing at least with 2 other strangers here so it makes things difficult outside of one night stands which as you move from early 20s to early 30s become less desirably it seems for most.
-
When I talk to my friends about it, my friends here in Ireland would agree that's it's great to have but isn't strictly necessary for a "happy" life. It seems Epicurus would agree somewhat. Yet my friends from Asian countries think sex is undoubtedly necessary for happiness placing it in the natural and necessary category. Is it simply a case that we are more influenced by Catholicism here in Europe and N.A.?
I wanted to make a new topic about another question as well. It seems so many young people (18-50) are just not having sex. Men but also women increasingly as well. I couldn't find the exact quote but it's something like "I can't distinguish the Good without sex, food etc.." Why do you think young people are leaving sex behind despite increasing secularization?
-
-