Posts by shahabgh66

Eikadistes That was a very interesting and insightful response. Thank you very much Nate

Quote from Cassius

Also just to say - good to hear from you Shahab, and stay safe over there!

Thank you Cassius. I hope you're doing well

Thank you Don . I was unaware about the root of Nazareth in Hebrew. So my description is wrong.

I'm thinking about the name "Jesus the Nazareth". What does the word "Nazareth" mean? In Arabic and Persian, "Jesus the Nazareth" is called "عیسی ناصری".

On the other hand, what is the literal meaning of Epicurus? It means "the helper". "Helper" in Arabic (also pervalent in Persian dialect) is called "ناصر" (/Nasser/). And the name ناصری (/Nasseri/), which is still a prevalent last name in Iran, is exactly the equivalent of "Nazareth". In another words, the word "Epicurean", has the same meaning as the words Nazareth and ناصری (Nasseri).

(I'm not drawing any historical conclusion out of this. But sometimes names and their connotations catch my eyes)

Cassius Thank you very much for your detailed answer. Problem solved!

Quote from TauPhi

Quote from shahabgh66

Here is the argument: From a neuroscientific outlook, when brain produces any of these six hormones of Endorphins, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Norepinephrine, Cortisol and Adrenaline, one feels pleasure.

So if someone is in a state of total inactivity, and thinks about nothing pleasurable or troubling and feels no pain in his body, the reward system of the brain is not working*. So it does not produce any hormones that create such effect which is generally known as pleasure.

I'm as much a biologist as I am a fridge but if none of the hormones and neurotransmitters are at work at any given time in one's body, wouldn't that be a strong indication that this individual is as alive as a dodo?

Thank you TauPhi

I have faced a philosophical problem. Guide or correct me please.

Here is the argument: From a neuroscientific outlook, when brain produces any of these six hormones of Endorphins, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Norepinephrine, Cortisol and Adrenaline, one feels pleasure.

So if someone is in a state of total inactivity, and thinks about nothing pleasurable or troubling and feels no pain in his body, the reward system of the brain is not working^*. So it does not produce any hormones that create such effect which is generally known as pleasure.

But according to Epicurus, this state of feeling no pain at all, is the maximum level of pleasure and it cannot be increased and more than that is the embellishment of the pleasure. So production of those six hormones are not necessary for the existence of pleasurable state.

But here it comes a problematic issue (for me): When two or more Epicurean friends start discussing about philosophy or having conversations about beautiful things in life, the brain starts to produce hormones of happiness. This state is, for sure, recognized as a great pleasure in Epicurean philosophy, not embellishment. Accordingly, we have to admit that the production of any of those hormones is a necessary material condition for the creation of that feeling in such an occasion.

But when it is not produced in the brain, it means you did not enjoy the conversation, nor did you felt bad about it. So, according to Epicurus, you are still enjoying the maximum limit of pleasure. From these statements I reach to this contradictory conclusion: From an Epicurean point of view production of those six hormones are not necessary for reaching to the maximum level of happiness, but to enjoy friendship, any of those hormones must be produced.

* I could not find a reference to check whether this very claim is scientifically valid or not.

I remember reading one of Leo Strauss's books. He was a famous classic philosopher, and also a Platonist.
The chapter was a transcript of Q&A between him and a student. At a point he was discussing about the subject of pleasure in Epicurean philosophy with a student. He said that what Epicurus meant by pleasure was actually not pleasure at all. He was interpreting the notion of absent of pain as the maximum limit of pleasure. But, here as it is discussed by Norman Dewitt, that's actually reversing the notion of pleasure in Epicurean philosophy. which was more inclusive toward the notion pleasure, let alone mixing different injunctions together. But this was not the only problem with this look. In academic world, people like Strauss, tend to have a reductive attitude in interpreting Epicurean philosophy that is aligned with this prevalent misinterpretation that Epicurus was advocating some sort of a passive way of life; A life that can be characterized as reducing the desires that normal people call pleasure. Even an untrained Epicurean who has read the doctrines once can disagree with that interpretation, but many academics easily fail to do so.

Who is the author?

I do my best not to tie Nietzsche with Epicurus, still it is a very delicate business to use proper terms, considering their fluid connotations over time. But let me simple down my question, the problem for me started with video clips like this , you can go directly to 12':10" to see how the narrator has categorized the desires; naming desire for power or fame unnatural and unnecessary. While, I was thinking that the derive for any kind of power (as a drive), political (in formal sense of meaning), or non-political, cannot be unnatural.

Hello to all friends,

According to Epicurus, is human's will to power considered an "un-natural" desire?

Can we say, according to Epicurus will to power (i.e. political power), fame (a desire to build a superior and iconic image for the mass which is another form of human's power seeking), wealth (another form of human's power seeking) are examples of a natural but non-necessary desire or, un-natural and therefore not necessary one?

Why am I asking this: We know for the fact that it's a general attribute of humans that they seek authority, dominance, influence, a top place at any hierarchy, etc. These are all different forms of humans will to power, It's also a very basic behavior seen among kids, specially male human child (which opens another door to biology and gender studies).