Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Pacatus

“Attention-Fluid, Hypertexting Brain” (my more affirming version of ADHD – especially rejecting that last D).

Well said!

I'll go further out on a limb and posit that EP is the study of nature (Epicurus advised the study of nature though I don't know that he went so far as to say his philosophy is the study of nature), then you arrive at pleasure as the goal through intense examination of pleasure and pain and how they occur in the body and mind. This is perhaps how you come to an understanding of intensity, location and duration (ILD for short).

Labeling mental and physical pleasures may come either before or after in this process, but a detailed understanding comes from understanding ILD.

Having a format (such as Lucretius) that explicitly introduces the philosophy as the study of nature, and from there gets to pleasure as the goal might be a useful modern pedagogy.

What I've attempted to say is that it's a matter of location. You can experience pain in your stomach and throat as well as painful thoughts, all at the same time. Or you could experience any one of them separately. You can add pleasure/ remove pain from any and all of them by using specific remedies.

This is a way of saying that pleasure is pleasure, without putting one above the other, in order to counter the "absence of pain" argument or the "ascetic" argument. You evaluate pleasures/pains by intensity, location and duration.

Taking the previous examples: 1) the dread can show up in the mind, but at the same time in the chest or the gut. 2) anticipation is primarily located in the mind, but at the same time can cause a feeling of giddiness or increased energy throughout the body. 3) obsessing occurs in the mind, but also possibly in the gut or chest. 4) Remembering a conversation with a friend can either be pleasant or painful, depending on the subject and context, and either way may elicit feelings in the body.

An illustration is that the ancients argued whether the brain was in the gut or the chest, apparently because bodily feelings are so associated with thoughts.

The last few days my body has felt pain free (a rare occurrence!) and this is giving me mental pleasure. The feelings move in both directions. A good workout elicits all sorts of feelings in a variety of locations, and you could say that those in the mind and those in the body are constantly changing in intensity, location and duration.

A good cup of coffee not only tastes good, but that good taste brings mental pleasure in response to the taste. It also might bring physical pleasure in the brain once the caffeine kicks in. Which in turn could bring the mental pleasure of increased alertness.... &c

So, practically speaking we can use the mental model of mental and physical feelings, but I think that if you dig deeper, the model of intensity, location and duration is more accurate. And possibly could bridge the gap between proponents of "absence of pain" vs those following "pleasure".

Black. I have a daytime theme running. If I switch to nighttime the document goes to shades of gray. I have it open in the ReadEra app.

Quote from Kalosyni

So, if you remove mental pains, it doesn't necessarily add in bodily pleasure. Just like if you add in bodily pleasure, it doesn't necessary remove mental pains.

At some point separating the mind from the body makes no sense to me. The mind and body are intricately interwoven and continuously interact. If you have a lousy night's sleep (physical? mental?) both your mind and body can feel out of sorts. "Hangry" is another example: hungry (body) and angry (mind) together.

Separating "pain" from "suffering" is a common way to prevent your thoughts from increasing your pain, whether the pain is mental or physical. So I think the word necessarily is important in the above quote. There's a whole spectrum of interaction between what we consider to be mental or physical, a fact that to my layman's understanding is being emphasized by current neuroscience.

As a practical matter it's useful to be able to understand the location, duration and intensity of your feelings in order to better pursue pleasure. But at some level separating mental and physical is the same as separating pleasure from absence of pain. But maybe I'm just a curmudgeon

Quite impressive Bryan ! Speaking as one who is completely illiterate in Latin, I can say that this is a great resource

What this point immediately brings up is that the fluid added to the vessel will just mix with the fluid already there, which does make sense. This would allow for a mixture of pleasure and pain in the analogy. One answer to this is to use two different fluids such as oil and water, with the one being added always the opposite of the one in the vessel. In this case the two would be unmixed, while the vessel would contain differing amounts (analogous to intensity), and each fluid would be in a different location.

Another approach is to keep the existing model but emphasize that what the vessel contains is air and water, and be clear that one represents pleasure and the other pain. The problem with this is that air extends continuously from within the vessel into the entire atmosphere; that might imply something other than what's intended to some people. But then one might also say that water vapor also extends continuously from the bottle, which leads to quite the rabbit hole.

In line with Joshua 's point, I've often thought of the categories of desire as an improvement on Eastern philosophies that treat desire as something to be suppressed. This may be historically controversial but I feel like it's a high probability FWIW. There was plenty of cultural exchange in the ancient world and it only makes sense that a radical thinker like Epicurus would make use of all of the information available to him.

Pacatus ' concluding sentence sounds right to me.

I would add that my somewhat vague understanding of positive psychology is that it is originally based on Aristotelian concepts, so this might compromise it's application to EP. I would also add that, for me, gaining a layman's understanding of basic neuroscience is perhaps more in line with the natural philosophy approach that Epicurus applied.

Don you can be gratified that you're now established as an expert source!

Although I'm not saying that PD25 states this, at the moment I don't agree that everyone pursues nature's end. I for one spent years pursuing my "duty", and all it gave me was a life of misery. I would say that the consequences of using reason to override nature's end in all likelihood will be an abundance of pain. Being unaware of nature's end may lead to the same result.

To me, Epicurus is saying to "walk the talk."

VS26: Understand that a long discourse and a short one both achieve the same result.

And that given situation always includes the personal pleasure/pain of the person doing the evaluating. The internal situation of this individual consists of a variety of factors, and these may change over time or in relation to external circumstances.

Personal responsibility isn't for the faint of heart.

Does this apply to widowers, too?

There's also the issue of natural philosophy as well as the anachronistic nature of the situation proposed. Epicurus' life predated so much of our contemporary knowledge, although his thinking in many ways laid the groundwork for it. If he was presented in his day with the opportunity to go to the moon, might the intellectual pleasure of exploring a piece of the sky override the potential dangers involved?

Further, if somehow he turned up in our time with the opportunity to go to the moon, what would he make of the world we live in, and how would going to the moon compare to the cacophonous comglomeration of stimuli in which we spend our days?

I may be getting too far afield though. @Eikadistes answer is probably the most direct and convincing response

Very well thought out and on point essay Cassius . I was actually quite surprised while reading Pigliucci's essay that he so thoroughly misreads Epicurean philosophy. His essay reads more as Ciceronian snark than as serious scholarship. At any rate, well done!

My understanding of prayer is pretty much limited to the idea of praying to someone/something that has power to intervene and grant something to someone. In this sense it is similar to talking. However, somewhere along the line I heard someone refer to another way to pray, which is to listen.

This latter version seems to have more validity, and doesn't require any supernatural or imaginary entity to listen to. It's basically a form of meditation: getting quiet and listening to whatever comes up.

Per Lucretius 5:11203+/_: True piety is for a man to have the power To contemplate the world with quiet mind.

Totally agree regarding modern competition. I spent my entire career, particularly the last 25 years, in a highly competitive big city working environment. Unfortunately, during that time I had never heard of Epicurus.

However, the last 25 years were particularly enjoyable and successful. My formula was: 1) do work that I love, 2) understand how this work can benefit people and who those people are, 3) fully utilize my knowledge, skills and talents in doing the work, 4) have a pleasant disposition, 5) get out of the way and be open to the results of my work.

Although at the time my model came more from a variety of eastern philosophies, I think this formula is completely compatible with Epicurism.

From the morning paper:

With AI, stop typing and just talk instead

With AI, stop typing and just talk instead

Comics - Los Angeles Times

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=2742e6a7-9588-4685-a821-b45fa605abb4&v=sdk

Unrelated to AI, there's an article that made me think of Martin :

Would you try California’s fastest zip lines?

Would you try California’s fastest zip lines?

My understanding is that it's essential not to separate virtues from living pleasantly, and that in PD05 Epicurus spells out the key virtues. We all agree that EP is a philosophy of personal responsibility and not of absolutes, and this must be kept in mind for a full understanding of his view of virtues.

If I'm attempting to live "prudently, honorably and justly" yet find myself angry and miserable in doing so, that is an instance of my Feelings telling me to pause and look deeper. If I'm living a life of pleasure but feel something missing, it might be constructive for me to examine whether and/or how I'm living prudently, honorably and justly. You might say that the Feelings and the stated virtues are checks and balances for each other.

Each of these central virtues obviously means different things to different people and cultures, and they don't preclude additional virtues. The ultimate arbiter is inside each of us and not in a government, a political party, a social group or in an absolute something-or-other.