Posts by Godfrey

I took a look at the Getty Aphrodite website. From reading the tags, I get the feeling that writing on the tags and posting them actually could be quite cathartic. It's not as if one's prayers would be answered, but I can see how doing that could help a person to release some pent up emotion. It might have something in common with Catholic confession or Tibetan prayer flags although I don't know much about either of those.

Quote from Kalosyni

Statistically women over the age of 50 are much less likely to partner up again (I have researched this. Often any men who are single in older age are either not in the mindset for wanting a relationship, or they have "attachment-avoidance" behaviours and are therefore unfit for long-term relationships.)

Kalosyni I don't say this to be harsh, and please forgive me if it comes across in that way. But I don't live my life with statistics in mind: that seems too much like accepting fate.

It's highly unlikely to be struck by lightning, but do the odds matter in the least to the rare individual who does get stricken? One can take prudent safety measures and go about their business.

It used to be thought that genetics determined particular things about a person's future. Now the field of epigenetics has arisen to study the ways in which behaviors can influence whether particular genes are expressed or not. I use this to illustrate that statistics are also, at least to me, "macro" data but underlying that data is "micro" data, the influence of which of which we are often unaware.

Really the best we can do is to take prudent actions to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain in pursuit of a pleasant life, which it seems like you're doing. So, damn the statistics! Full speed ahead!

One approach to dealing with a negative thought loop is to work at feeling gratitude for tiny things in your life. The more you do this, the more "blessed" (maybe like a blessed and incorruptible being?) you feel, the more you can enjoy fulfilling the natural and necessary desires. As the joy in your life increases, so does the openness to further blessings.

VS19: He who forgets the good things he had yesterday becomes an old man today.

VS35: Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

VS55: Misfortune must be cured through gratitude for what has been lost and the knowledge that it is impossible to change what has happened.

I'll second what Don said in post #26

reneliza regarding your post #20 above: in EP the feelings of pleasure and pain are our guides to living a pleasant life. In order to use them properly, we need to be aware of these feelings. If you’re eating ice cream while doomscrolling, then not only are you not aware of the pleasure that comes from eating the ice cream but you are also unaware of the pain that comes when you’ve over indulged. So you’re definitely on the right path in trying to be more conscious of your pleasures. For me, trying to be aware of my various feelings of pleasure and pain is a key Epicurean "exercise".

I'll chime in briefly with PD10 (Peter Saint-Andre translation):

"If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad)."

This is a pretty succinct statement of the "goal" of Epicurean philosophy, although you might have to read it a couple of times and let it percolate.

The Epicurean B&B is a great idea and would probably attract people who never heard of Epicurus or think he was a foodie. This would provide a "teachable moment" by creating an environment to introduce them to the real Epicurus through the library, garden &c.

This would also work with a cafe and similar establishments.

From Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods:

XVIII. With regard to his form, we are directed partly by nature and partly by reason. All men are told by nature that none but a human form can be ascribed to the Gods; for under what other image did it ever appear to any one either sleeping or waking? and, without having recourse to our first notions, reason itself declares the same; for as it is easy to conceive that the most excellent nature, either because of its happiness or immortality, should be the most beautiful, what composition of limbs, what conformation of lineaments, what form, what aspect, can be more beautiful than the human? Your sect, Lucilius (not like my friend Cotta, who sometimes says one thing and sometimes another), when they represent the divine art and workmanship in the human body, are used to describe how very completely each member is formed, not only for convenience, but also for beauty. Therefore, if the human form excels that of all other animal beings, as God himself is an animated being, he must surely be of that form which is the most beautiful. Besides, the Gods are granted to be perfectly happy; and nobody can be happy without virtue, nor can virtue exist where reason is not; and reason can reside in none but the human form; the Gods, therefore, must be acknowledged to be of human form; yet that form is not body, but something like body; nor does it contain any blood, but something like blood. Though these distinctions were more acutely devised and more artfully expressed by Epicurus than any common capacity can comprehend; yet, depending on your understanding, I shall be more brief on the subject than otherwise I should be. Epicurus, who not only discovered and understood the occult and almost hidden secrets of nature, but explained them with ease, teaches that the power and nature of the Gods is not to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind; nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to number, like those things which, because of their firmness, he calls Στερέμνια; but as images, perceived by similitude and transition. As infinite kinds of those images result from innumerable individuals, and centre in the Gods, our minds and understanding are directed towards and fixed with the greatest delight on them, in order to comprehend what that happy and eternal essence is.

I don't find anything in there about speaking Greek. Googling, I came across a reference to this Philodemus referring to the gods in this way, but I can't find a specific cite. Without the quotation in Philodemus, there's always the possibility that Cicero was up to his lawyerly trickery in this passage. The reasoning doesn't seem to be very Epicurean to my reading.

I guess that I was unclear in my summaries of attestation &c. My reference point is Sextus Empiricus as described in this previous post:

Thread

The Beginning of an Outline of Epicurean Reasoning

Getting away from Philodemus On Signs for a moment, I’ve been looking at The Hellenistic Philosophers by Long and Sedley for original quotes from Epicurus regarding signs and methods of inference. I also had a look at a cluster of Principle Doctrines that are relevant (PD 22 & 23 are from Nate’s compilation, with thanks).

PD22 We must take into account both the underlying purpose and all the evidence of clear perception, to which we refer our opinions. Otherwise, everything will be filled with…

Godfrey

March 17, 2022 at 9:19 PM

In commentary elsewhere in The Hellenistic Philosophers, Long and Sedley point out some potential errors in this formulation based on the sources that Sextus Empiricus was using. So there's still a lot to sort out!

Quote from Cassius

Godfrey: just to be clear in terms of images I think the foundational observations about them is that images was a theory about *everything* and how we perceive them. So the first step in the process is to discuss the theory about things directly in from of us, not starting with gods long distances away.

Agreed. I realized in the middle of posting that this was an important point. The texts have lots of instances of reasoning/inference but very little explanation that I can find. Presently I'm overloaded with unprocessed collected data; I may have to step back and let it percolate for a while.

Quote from Cassius

Do we have even any specific examples of a description of an Epicurean observation of a god with which to agree or disagree?

None that I'm aware of, although there is that description of gods in the form of humans and speaking Greek. I don't remember the source of that, but I remember it as a product of reasoning and not an observation.

Cassius, some thoughts on your comment, with an attempt to use methods of inference:

- The idea of films of atoms coming from the gods and into our minds over great distances was consistent with the theory of atomism in the time of Epicurus, and his innovations regarding the theory. I understand it as a conjectural opinion, but Epicurus considered it as true. It's also reasoning by analogy, I think, being formulated similarly to how he reasoned the correctness of atomism in general. As I understand it, it is:

1. Attested: (I perceive this, therefore it is evidence) For Epicurus I would say that this applies.

2. Non-attested: (evidence conflicts with the original evidence) For Epicurus, I think this would not apply.

3. Contested: (if x exists, it implies this doesn’t exist) For Epicurus, this would not apply.

4. Non-contested: (this exists, and implies that exists) For Epicurus, this would apply.

So for Epicurus, the idea of films of atoms reaching us from the gods would be attested and non-contested, which would make it a true opinion.

- Today, with far more information with which to work:

1. Attested: we have no evidence of this occurring, so this does not apply.

2. Non-attested: there is evidence that ideas of gods are obtained from the society, family, etc in which one is reared (based on neuroscience), so this applies.

3. Contested: the evidence in 2 exists, and implies that the films of gods from afar don't exist. This applies.

4. Non-contested: there is no current evidence to support the idea of these images from afar being biologically received, so this does not apply.

So for us, this idea is Non-attested and contested, which makes it a false opinion.

Additional evidence made Epicurus' opinion false by this method. Similarly, future evidence could make the current opinion (ideas of gods are propagated through socio-environmental conditions) false.

I'm in the midst of a lengthy process of trying to sort out the methods of inference/logic/reasoning; this is my first attempt at this so I welcome further discussion!

I just happened across this passage in Lucretius, which relates to the LM passage discussed above:

"Unless you expel these ideas from your mind and drive far away beliefs unworthy of the gods and alien to their tranquillity, the holy divinity of the gods, damaged by you, will frequently do you harm: not because of the possibility of violating the gods’ supreme power, and of their consequent angry thirst for bitter vengeance, but because you yourself will imagine that those tranquil and peaceful beings are rolling mighty billows of wrath against you. You will be unable to visit the shrines of the gods with a calm heart, and incapable of receiving with tranquillity and peace the images from their holy bodies which travel into men’s minds to reveal the gods’ appearance. The direct effect on your life is obvious." (Lucretius 6.68–79, Long and Sedley translation, The Hellenistic Philosophers)

This reads to me like the best resolution of the realist and idealist views that I've seen. It appears to acknowledge the realist view that the gods exist, while at the same time stressing that what is important to our well-being is how we view them.

Sitting here in 2022, the idea that we get images of the gods "from their holy bodies" is what makes the gods so problematic. That sounds silly today, but it’s perfectly consistent with Epicurus' atomism. To me, the idea that in an infinite universe there are beings which would appear godlike to us (realist) is reasonable (admittedly I do enjoy science fiction 😉). I also agree with the (idealist) notion that how we think of potential godlike beings can be of benefit or harm to us. The cleavage between the two is how we interpret the images and anticipations.... Our modern theories of perception invalidate the ancient idea of images of beings reaching us from afar; instead, our anticipations (at least to my understanding) of gods are passed down to us in the same manner as, say, language. So the "black" of the realist view and the "white" of the idealist view are both valid. It's just the shades of grey in between which have naturally changed over the millennia.

There are techniques, such as journaling or making a checklist sometime before going to bed, that encourage a brain dump to help clear the mind.

Sometimes of late I think of my coming night's sleep as a delicious, nourishing meal to enjoy.

"The sword of Damocles" is a great description of what I faced a decade or so ago, for a decade or so. Thanks for that Matt ! At times I regret that I didn't have the benefit of Epicurean philosophy back then and was obsessed with the "sword".

Quote from Cassius

As long as reason is being used to justify pain so that greater pleasure can be obtained then tat would presumably be correct reasoning.

I get the feeling that our error is often not so much "listening to reason" vs "listening to the feeling of pleasure" so much as it is that we lose sight of the fact that the ultimate goal of reasoning is to achieve pleasure (even if temporarily through pursuit of pain).

Agreed, although the Platonic/Aristotelian model prevalent in our society is to divorce reason from feelings. So often this puts us in a position to consciously attempt to "override" our feelings, which are necessary for prudent actions. This seems like the root of the problem, and one of the issues that Epicurus was addressing in making reason subservient to our canonic faculties.

It's amazing how often reason is used to justify pain, and it's a challenging process to learn to listen to our Feelings, develop prudence, and begin our reasoning process with our perceptions. I confess that it's a process I'm still learning.

Quote from Matt

This state of the pursuit pleasure is the natural state of human behavior, surrounded by a cloud of illusory constructs that tell us to reject this natural state. Those constructs are wrong…they keep us from pursuing pleasure.

Well put: that seems to be the crux of the problem! Not only on the level of the individual, but on the level of society.

What he describes as enjoyment sounds to me pretty much like pleasure as envisioned by Epicurus.

Definition of enjoyment (all definitions from Merriam-Webster online):

1a) the action or state of enjoying

1b) possession and use: the enjoyment of civic rights

2) something that gives keen satisfaction: the poorest life has its enjoyments and pleasures

Definition of enjoy:

- intransitive verb: to have a good time

- transitive verb: 1) to have for one's use, benefit, or lot; experience: enjoyed great success 2) to take pleasure or satisfaction in

Definition of pleasure: (Entry 1 of 2, noun)

1) desire, inclination: wait upon his pleasure— William Shakespeare

2) a state of gratification

3a) sensual gratification; 3b) frivolous amusement

4) a source of delight or joy

Definition of pleasure: (Entry 2 of 2, verb)

- transitive verb: 1) to give pleasure to: gratify; 2) to give sexual pleasure to

- intransitive verb: 1) to take pleasure: delight; 2) to seek pleasure

Definition of pleasure: (from Oxford Languages online)

- a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.

From this quick Google search, I'd say that the author's choice of words is somewhat sloppy. Then again, the English language doesn't seem to be very specific when it comes to these ideas. Might this point to a cultural lack of appreciation of pleasure and enjoyment? I wonder how these concepts are expressed in, say, French?

Googling, I found Philothea, A Grecian Romance by L. Maria Child as a free PDF. It might be a different edition of the same story, apparently without the Transcendentalist commentary. Although the commentary could be as interesting as the book!

One note: in her preface she notes that she wrote the book for her own pleasure

Yes, it's a case study in how not to respond to anger and of the ramifications of such action, both personally and in a wider context.

Reading this, I think of the Oscars last week, which provided an interesting and practical case study on anger in a modern context.

This has a section (pages 24-37) on Lucretius' plague narrative in Book 6. The author compares it to Thucydides' narrative and discusses how the differences in Lucretius' version emphasize Epicurean philosophy. This is in opposition to Bailey, who determined that the differences in DRN were due to mistranslation on Lucretius' part.

And for the more literary minded among us, there's much more: Homer, Sophocles, Thucycides, Vergil, and the titular Ovid.