Posts by Elayne

I am going to put my thoughts in this thread as I go, hoping for comments, and maybe eventually can pick out which parts to put in a full review.

I have read the intro, and here are a few things I noticed:

1) She identifies several specific modern stressors such as pollution, which I think is largely accurate, and then she makes the astonishing statement "we live longer than our ancestors but in a sicklier fashion." Really? I have not seen evidence of that. Seems like she needs to cite sources. Anecdotally ( I know, not evidence lol), I would be functionally blind in premodern times and one of my kids would have died from appendicitis in childhood or from the sepsis she had due to a secondary infection of chickenpox, a year before the vaccine-- and she's a healthy, athletic young adult.

2) p 21 "no philosopher who is honest about it can give you a formula for being happy"... hmmm. If she means it isn't going to be precise math, ok. But if she is saying the general method of the hedonic calculus isn't reliable, I disagree.

3) P 22 the philosophy "needs rethinking in some ways"-- guess we will find out how, in her opinion, this is so.

4) P 24 "they sought... to balance the ethical treatment of others with our own self-interest"-- omg. So, what is ethical, then, lol? "Balance" used this way is a huge pet peeve of mine. There is no need to balance-- the pleasure of others is on the same side of the scale as my own, inseparable, although this depends on specifically who they are. These things are inseparable for a typically empathetic human. Understanding this is absolutely critical to understanding Epicurus, I believe. Believing that these pleasures are on opposite sides of some imaginary scale will lead to nonsense finagling, every single time. You only wind up with this stuff if you forget about subjective feelings.

5) P 24, discusses what she sees as the 3 key claims of Epicurus-- material nature of reality, no divine oversight, and finality of death. Although I do think these are important, I do not know that I would consider them more important than the way he put subjective feelings of pleasure and pain into the Canon or that this can be derived from those 3 items without the experience of feelings.

6) P 27 I may be over my head here-- could use some help. She includes the sense perceptions of sweet, bitter, etc as "conventions" as opposed to "natural"-- I think she has misunderstood. The specific words may be conventions, but the sensory information is natural. IMO this whole idea of conventions and nature as being different is unhelpful. Everything is nature. Our conventions arise from natural processes in our brains-- they certainly can't be supernatural. I would say the key element is whether a process or object is amenable to change by human action or not, which does not depend on whether it is social or not. This line of thinking makes me think of people who believe we should go "back to nature"-- lol, we have not left it. They think there was some mythical golden age. But maybe there is something Epicurus said that she is referring to, and I am the one who is confused.

7) P 34 "Epicurus himself pointed out that the direct pursuit of pleasurable sensations is usually self defeating." What? Did he do that? I missed it. She doesn't give a reference-- help me out? This doesn't sound accurate at all, for my own life. Definitely I use wisdom to choose the sensations and the setting, etc, but direct pursuit works very well for me almost all the time. I made homemade spaghetti for my family a few days ago, and I was definitely taking direct action to pursue the pleasures of taste and friendship around the table.

I guess I will need to get the book so I can say I read it when I diss it, although every single excerpt and interview has been convincingly awful enough.

I can take this comment down, Cassius, if political, but they mention abortion rights not being compatible with pleasure. Lol, in what way??? I'm in training for a month, right now, to learn to do them. It's actually quite enjoyable to provide a medical service someone wants! It's generally not a teary occasion-- patients are relieved to have this available. When I see the protestors I just think ah, Children of the Corn, which gives me an interior giggle. I thoroughly enjoy being part of efforts to maintain and improve the freedom of women!

Of course, they haven't found the evidence yet... but it's a pretty compelling theory that is worth investigating! The aha moment of thinking "hey, maybe this previous climate oddity had a technological reason"-- I love those epiphanies, even if they turn out not to lead anywhere, because every so often it leads to new discoveries!

Is #3 supposed to be On Ends?

I vote for checkmarks

I'd also be interested in knowing whether members adopted the philosophy after reading about it (and if so, which reading)-- or if while reading, they recognized Epicurus had the same philosophy as them, which is what happened to me.

Because of the unappealing and inaccurate way EP is written about these days, when I was younger I had dismissed it as wrong. Never realized Epicurus was being misinterpreted until I finally read the core texts myself and thought whoaa! This brilliant guy agrees with me 😂😂😂! And he's done much more with it, more pieces, made it airtight! There's not a single hole in it, and now I understand exactly why the other philosophies never worked for me. I'm not alone after all!

😂 agreed, Todd!

oh duh, I forgot the feasts every 20th!!! A must!

I would see the _end point_ as a group of close, likeminded friends who agreed on the core doctrines (I don't personally consider issues like having exact agreement on the prolepses as all that critical-- makes for interesting discussion) and who are actively practicing lives of pleasure.

I see them getting together multiple times a week because they enjoy each other's company so much that they wouldn't dream of waiting a whole week. Sometimes they'd do this in subsets according to their hobbies-- maybe some enjoy hiking and others don't. They'd want to eat together several times a week. No single person among them would wind up eating dinner alone, most likely. They bring each other casseroles and vegetables if they garden. If they crochet, they make each other hats, lol.

And while they are doing these things, the philosophy naturally is discussed in the context of daily life and decisions. Because they enjoy it.

I imagine once a week they'd have a more formal meeting to do a reading discussion together, like we're doing on Skype. And another public meeting once a month to give teachings. For sincere students, they would have a structured list of readings and students would meet regularly with guides to review their understanding.

I think they would write about how to live pleasantly as well, and apply the philosophy to modern events.

I can even see a "clinic", where members of the surrounding community could come when they needed to make decisions, and they could meet with a guide to help them figure out what the pleasurable choice would be, for them.

To get there from here... we need 2-3 people in one place as a core. One person can't do it alone -- you'd be eating without a likeminded friend--but could start as a teacher in hopes of developing such friendships!

It is nearly surreal that we are having to defend Epicurus' philosophy against someone who calls himself Epicurean but is taking one of the exact positions Epicurus argued against.

By reverting to Aristotle's meaning of eudaimonia, which you call rescuing, Hiram, one places pleasure in a lower position than the abstract concepts of flourishing and so on. Whereas by using the word as Epicurus did, the way an average person who is not Aristotelian or Stoic or whatever would, it is clear that happiness is made of pleasures, and then everything works together to support that goal.

Further, you keep saying eudaimonia is "in the sources"-- nowhere have we disputed that, nor have we ever avoided discussing it. That is dishonest to accuse us of. On the morning Alex was removed, btw, he never said eudaimonia. I have the screenshots. He said happiness. But it wouldn't have mattered. It is the same thing.

If you go to the sources, instead of the dictionary that Epicurus didn't have, you will see clearly what Epicurus meant by eudaimonia.

If you are faced with a language that is not native to you, you cannot just go by root words. You must talk with a native speaker and get examples, to understand the context and the "feeling". We've gotten the context and feeling from Epicurus, and in modern times, from Elli, whom we trust.

Well, Hiram, your first inclination was to arrive at Aristotle's definition, and it sounds like you used his methods as well, the logical ones. Whereas the instant _feeling_ an ordinary person gets from the words happiness and eudaimonia (as Elli has assured us strongly) is _pleasure_. Ask a regular person "what does happy mean?" and unless they are depressed, they will smile-- their face will show their meaning even more than their words. They do not have to go figuring out the root words to get a meaning.

So this was aimed at us, you have confirmed it. Hiram, how on earth could you misunderstand Epicurus on eudaimonia and choose Aristotle instead? I am sad. Wow. If this is aimed at us, you have completely mischaracterized both Epicurus AND our group.

Unlike you and Alex, we have attempted not to get into the "mean boys and girls" of philosophy mode and have avoided issuing personal criticisms. Our beef is on the philosophy itself, and that people who are learning are being misled.

With Alex, it was that he repeatedly violated our rules, was rude, and had been given multiple direct warnings, including on the day he was finally removed. He was behaving in a way which was malicious towards the goals of our group, which we had published in a clear way. It made us sad that he did this and that we had to remove him. It was not out of anger or personality. I had not planned to air that publicly, but you have done so now. The quotes you made from him at the end of your article? I agree with fully. But that is not whatsoever the type of thing he was posting. He wasn't even using Aristotle's definition of happiness. He was arguing that it is possible to remove pain and not have pleasure, repeatedly, despite having had this explained to him and having been asked to stop. At a certain point, that becomes unacceptable, and he crossed the line.

Hiram, I do not go on your webpage and debate with you. You have your perspective. We are trying to accomplish something here that is different.

Here is what I posted from the admins on the Epicurean Philosophy page on Facebook, just now, regarding Hiram's article being discussed in this thread.

The War on Eudaimonia

The admins at Epicurean Philosophy have learned from an article by one of our members here, Hiram Crespo, that there are “some Epicurean circles” who are at “war” against the word eudaimonia! People who somehow think eudaimonia and pleasure are mutually exclusive. This is news to us, although we suppose we should not be surprised, considering how often Epicurus is misunderstood in the modern world. We do not know who these circles are, but we are glad to join with Hiram in roundly condemning such a ridiculous war.

In case any of our other members run across these circles, we’d like to give you some background. Eudaimonia, which in English is generally translated as “happiness”, was used by Aristotle in the way Hiram describes in his article—as “flourishing” or “blessedness”, not as pleasure. In fact, that is what you are still going to find today in all the online dictionaries: Aristotle’s definition. Aristotle's definition should not be taken as the standard of Greeks for all time even though it persists in our dictionaries. This Aristotelian definition is used by many non-Epicurean groups to say that a “good life” is based on factors other than pleasure, such as virtues or ideals.

But Epicurus did not accept Aristotle’s definition.

No one can understand Epicurean Philosophy who believes that Epicurus used the word eudaimonia in the same way Aristotle did. We encourage Hiram to consider an addendum to his article to make clear that the modern dictionary definitions follow Aristotle, not Epicurus.

Here, instead, is how Epicurus saw eudaimonia, as explained through the words of his spokesman Torquatus (from Cicero, On Ends “it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure.”

Epicurus was proclaiming something truly radical in his time, and it is still radical today—that we cannot define happiness or a “good life” with abstract or vague concepts but only as one filled with pleasure. The fact that he used two words, eudaimonia and hedone (pleasure) does not mean that he was accepting Aristotle’s definition. It does appear that he used eudaimonia in a more comprehensive, global way—a life filled with ongoing pleasures—rather than to specify a single moment or day of pleasure, but that should not be used to imply that there is some additional element in eudaimonia other than pleasure.

Epicurus “went to war” on Aristotle’s wrong definition of happiness and on the wrong definitions of other philosophers-- not on happiness itself!

Even the neo-Epicureans who have made serious errors by thinking Epicurus advised some sort of rarified tranquility which was not pleasure as we ordinarily understand it have not made the error of confusing Epicurus with Aristotle.

When an error like that occurs, we have to wonder if it was a deliberate mischaracterization, to create a straw man for debate?

In our group, we continue to be at war with Aristotelians and other conflicting philosophies. Why? Because they lead people away from pleasurable lives. You all have only one life each—to waste it missing out on pleasure would be a disaster, and anyone who tells you otherwise is no friend to you. While we join Hiram in wishing Peace and Safety to all Epicureans and kindred spirits, we do not wish the Neo-Epicureans, Aristotelians, Stoics or other misguided philosophers to continue in their errors, and we will not leave them in peace as long as they spread misinformation. We hope, for their sakes, that they will become Epicureans instead.

Today we still shout out loudly, as did Diogenes of Oinoanda, "But since, as I say, the issue is not 'what is the means of happiness?' but 'what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?', I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life"!

If we continue to proclaim Epicurus’ actual philosophy, and if you will join us in doing so, perhaps one day we will find these words of Torquatus in the dictionary for both eudaimonia and happiness: “Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, — and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.”

This, my friends, is a happy human, possessing eudaimonia, a life full of pleasure, and this is what we want for you.

Beautiful, and an important question. IMO, a critical key is person to person handing down of the philosophy-- we must have an unbroken chain of humans who understand it. In addition, preserving it in as many different archive forms as possible-- but perhaps we should go back to memorization, for important sections, as a back-up.

Although I was not around in ancient Greece, from reading, it sounds to me like things were similar to the current situation with the word happiness in English. If you say the word "what is happiness?" to an ordinary person, they will have a _feeling_ instantly, of pleasure. I have tried it, and people instantly smile. It is not whatsoever an abstract thing.

It's only idealists today who try to define away happiness into something confusing that doesn't mean pleasure. This leads to ridiculous articles with titles like "If you want to be happy, don't seek pleasure"-- and I always want to know, ok, please tell me how this happiness you talk about feels? Is it nice? Why do I want it? Isn't not seeking something in order to get it actually still a way to seek it, lol? Sometimes they have good specific advice, but the title should be "If you want a happy live, choose wisely, because some actions turn out more painful than pleasurable."

Anyway, if I had to put money on it, I would bet my condo that things were the same then. I betcha normal people knew perfectly well what eudaimonia was, and pleasure-- by their feelings.

Sometimes I wonder if the idealists go this direction because they don't really experience much pleasure in life? But that's a different issue.

Great point-- I possess several books I've read in order to understand the positions of those I disagree with, lol. I even have, gasp, my mother's old bible (fortunately for her, she became a nonbeliever in college).

Also, whichever circles it is he is talking about think eudaimonia and pleasure are mutually exclusive. Definitely not us. We think eudaimonia is made of pleasure.

What I can definitely say is that Aristotle's definition of eudaimonia is mutually exclusive with a happy life though. Lol. Totally going with Epicurus on that!

Agree, Cassius, except that I do not see how Hiram can be talking about us, because we have never been at war with eudaimonia. Only at war with Aristotle's definition of eudaimonia, following Epicurus' lead. Unfortunately, modern dictionaries use Aristotle's definition. One day if we work hard enough, the dictionaries will have Epicurus' definition, that happiness is a life full of pleasure, instead! It is a shame Hiram chose to use the Aristotelian definition instead of the Epicurean one-- lots of people are going to be led astray by that.

Here's another one-- "honesty "-- fundamentally not a concept. It's a sensation of things matching up-- what you experience and what you express. There is no way I can imagine being able to learn that sense-- it would be like saying we aren't born being able to taste sweet.

The learning part is that after tasting sugar, fruit, etc, next time we see these things we will expect the sweet taste. We aren't born with the taste itself but the sense to taste it.

Same with honesty-- we aren't born with a concept or experience, but we have the mental apparatus to "know" when things are matching up. Then we learn the word for it, and the ideas people have built up.

Even though I know the concepts around honesty, I still experience the act of being honest as a rapid, intuitive nonverbal sensation.

Yeah in that case they aren't even citing a remotely relevant principle lol-- they thinking about probabilistic quantum physics, probably, not so much how the act of measurement changes what is being measured. Related but different issues.