Posts by Godfrey

As I recall, the Farrington book addresses more than theology, and attempts to situate Epicurus within Greek philosophy and society.

In addition to what Cassius just said....

From the Epicurean point of view, no pleasure is an evil. But what can lead to more harm than good is to pursue unnatural desires, and arguably in some cases to pursue particular natural and unnecessary desires. Deciding which desires are worth pursuing is, of course, a matter of individual choice and avoidance.

I'm catching up on this thread and probably missed a lot, but, at least for me, the title to this thread refers to another shibboleth, and the "answer" is quite simple. (Apologies if I missed this elsewhere in the thread, or if I'm stating the obvious.) My interpretation is based on the following:

PD09: If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another. (Saint-Andre translation)

Which I read as a confirmation by Epicurus that pleasures have three components: intensity (condensed to the same intensity is how I read this translation of the PD; someone please correct me if the Greek contradicts this), duration, and location in the body/mind. With this in mind, duration is pertinent to consider in evaluating pleasure, along with intensity and location. Pleasures are typically not of the same intensity, duration and/or location, and so they differ from one another in one's experience, even though they are all "pleasure".

PD19: Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning. (Saint-Andre)

The only thing that makes this statement even remotely confusing or controversial is the worldview that one bases their reasoning on. In a worldview where life is finite, infinite time does nobody any good. A life is finite, therefore the pleasure possible in that life is finite. Infinite time is irrelevant to a person's life. This is an extremely simple, practical statement and in no way contradicts PD09. In fact, it defines another limit to pleasure in response to Plato. This complements PD03: The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress. (St-Andre) PD03 and PD09 describe pleasure within a person's lifetime, PD19 compares a life of pleasure to a myth of immortality.

Of course, Cicero and his ilk would never accept such a simple idea as this, as it negates the supernatural and destroys much of their power over other citizens. So they do what they do best: obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

For 2., I would point out that Epicurus separates desires from pleasures. In doing so, he is able to clarify that there are various categories of desires which allow for personal evaluation, whereas all pleasures are good as a matter of biology.

The categories of desires are: natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and unnatural. These are described in various PDs as well as in the Letter to Menoikeus.

The word "utilitarian" was used in the podcast regarding this particular Torquatus ancestor's action. (I think this was in a translated quotation.) To me, this word was well chosen, and is a good launching pad for further discussion. Such a discussion could include the utility of pleasure, as well as how EP and Utilitarianism aren't the same thing.

Excellent episode!

It would seem that some contemporary poets are guided by this, if I'm reading it, and them, correctly. I'm curious to hear what our resident poets have to say about this! (Who, to my limited understanding, and to my pleasure, don't follow these dictates.)

Quote from Kalosyni

"For it is not continuous drinkings and revelings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit."

Kalosyni , as I was reading your original post above, I thought that I was following your line of thought, but then my conclusion was the opposite of yours.... In this context I read it as an indictment of Cyrenaic pursuit of pleasure and a description of the fullness of Epicurean pleasure. Sober reasoning, etc, as the cake, and drinkings, etc, as the icing.

Or sober reasoning and such leading to katastematic pleasures, drinkings and such leading to kinetic pleasures. As it were.

Will the livestream be recorded for viewing later by those unable to attend live?

Some years back I was vegetarian for a year, and my bloodwork took a turn for the worse. I started working with a dietitian and got everything back on track in a couple of months. The most important takeaways, in my case, were to: get more protein; eat good fats/oils and avoid bad fats/oils; eat whole grains, avoid "white" foods; minimize sugar; avoid highly processed foods.

For what it's worth, I think that these are good general guidelines and can apply whether one eats meat or not. And, for the record, I reintroduced meat into my diet

I just read the paper from the first post in this thread... guess I'm a little behind in my reading! I didn't remember this thread; I read the paper and then found the thread. Quite an interesting paper.

Quote from Cassius

I would say that the entire question of having a "complete" life is troublesome. I've probably used that phrasing but I'm not sure how much sense it really makes, and referring to a life as "complete" or "less than complete" smacks of a more absolutist attitude than I would expect Epicurus to take.

I'm ok with words like "full" and "pure" to the extent that they refer to quantities that are 100% of the respective issue. But "complete" (at least some of the modern interpretations of it) seems to go beyond that, and imply a certain list of activities that everyone should experience in order to call their lives "complete." And I doubt Epicurus would sanction that.

Don do you have thoughts on wording that might bear on "complete

The author used a formulation of the good life from Aristotle, and examined how Epicurus' thinking might map on to that. That seemed to be a starting point of the paper: to compare and contrast the two.

From the second paper, which I haven't read (at least not lately):

Quote from Don

Third, Epicureans hold that the pleasures of tranquillity are valuable because they are produced by inquiry into nature and the best way to live, by crafting our desires accordingly, and by living so that these desires are unlikely to be thwarted. As such, they are an achievement of reason, and one that, as we have seen, leaves luck only a modest role in shaping our lives. The Epicurean tranquil life is therefore autonomous, in the sense that it involves being guided by our reasoned view of the world and our conception of the good and accomplishing what we set out to achieve.

While I understand the qualms of using the word "tranquillity," I think this quote puts it into a proper context.

And further:

Quote from Don

What sets Epicurus apart from many hedonists, however, is his idea that the greatest (in the sense of most valuable, or most choiceworthy) pleasures are generated in a state of ataraxia, or tranquillity. This is a condition in which a person is free from physical pain and mental distress.

To me, that gets at an idea of ataraxia (and aponia, although I don't believe the paper mentions that specifically) being the ground on which we can more fully experience other pleasures. Without that ground or foundation, other pleasures are experienced but may be fleeting. With a steady, tranquil mind and healthy body, we are already feeling pleasure, then other pleasures vary our experience.

And I would offer that one can be "tranquil" in activity. It doesn't mean sitting on a cushion, meditating. Or being numb (as some might say, both ancient and modern)!!

This, to me, does a good job of describing the relationship of the pleasure of "tranquillity." Not only does it not come from withdrawal, but it enhances other, more fleeting pleasures.

An understanding of truth is the basis of everything. If you begin with false premises, you can't reach proper conclusions. But if you take the time to ascertain the truth, you have a solid base on which to build the best life and from which to come to proper conclusions in other matters.

To paraphrase Epicurus: for you are never too young or too old to study philosophy!

I've always enjoyed Halloween, and never considered the supernatural implications as anything more than silliness. This year, I've been thinking of it as a secular Dia de los Muertos: a time to remember and to honor our deceased loved ones. I've been thinking of making a display of photos to add a bit of ceremony....

In that vein,

Quote from Julia

write a letter to lost loved ones

sounds to me like an excellent practice!

Quote from Patrikios

Was Epicurus using people's positive views of the best possible unperturbed state of mind (as envisioned with peaceful gods) as a goal of our practice to prudently live pleasantly?

That seems to be the case. It also seems to be the interpretation of the "idealist" theory of the gods, which is contrasted with the "realist" theory. There are several threads in the forum discussing these two interpretations.

Notes from a ruminaceous journey through my “innermundia” after reading the Raghunanan article:

- I didn’t find the premise very convincing.

- Might it be most constructive to be satisfied with multiple possible explanations of the gods? And perhaps useful to look at the subject for practical insights, through modern eyes?

- If the goal is to live like gods among men, and since we have no direct evidence of their existence (others may feel differently) is there any point in trying to discern anything about them other than their blessedness and incorruptibility? Other than for the pleasure of scholarship, of course. One can live like a god by not troubling oneself or causing trouble for others by worrying about the form(s) of the gods. Instead, what if one were to think of a god as "the being whose blessedness is incorruptible" rather than "the blessed and incorruptible being"? I realize that this is a leap from the texts, but it may be a more useful way for us moderns to contemplate the gods by being more in line with our current understanding. Instead of troubling ourselves over the forms of the gods, we can focus on achieving a godlike state of blessedness.

- Also, could it be that one will only come to a proper conception of the gods when one has achieved a state of blessedness that one has a reasonable expectation of continuing? By focusing on the action, not on the form. There’s no textual evidence of this that I’m aware of; I’m just ruminating. But it's kind of indirectly analogous to Eastern "enlightenment" or the rarity of the Stoic sage, although I'm not suggesting any direct connection, just ruminating.

- And "neither causes trouble for oneself or another" (which the author repeated several times) can also be read to say that an Epicurean isn't a selfish hedonist, but one whose "hedonic calculations" include the well-being of others as consequences of one's own pleasure. EP is a philosophy of personal responsibility: nobody is dictating what is right. Consider, though, that one of the greatest gifts is multiplying pleasure by sharing it.

- In sum, know that a god is a being whose blessedness is incorruptible…. Meditate on this and other things, and you will live like a god among men!

Quote from Don

I suppose someone could counter that the gods are "confident of continuing" to be incorruptible.

This actually makes sense if you follow the reasoning that (I think; correct me if I'm wrong!) Cassius is doing in the podcast. There's a prolepsis of gods, but one must use correct reasoning to determine their nature. This leads from the fullness of pleasure, and the confidence of it continuing, to blessedness and incorruptibility.

There are no stupid questions!

Not sure if this paper is on here somewhere; it critiques Placita 2.29:

(33) Aëtius, Achilles, Epicurus and Lucretius on the Phases and Eclipses of the Moon (final draft version) | Frederik Bakker - Academia.edu

Understanding that it's a paraphrase, I like "boldly met." The big criticism of PD04 is that it takes severe circumstances too lightly. Chronic long-term illness, terminal illness: these must be boldly met.

Epicurus doesn’t shy away from bold language. Two phrases that immediately come to mind are "live like a god" and "I spit on...." And I don't see boldness as Stoic: one has to be rather bold to be an Epicurean and to go against the prevailing Platonic/Aristotlean/monotheistic worldview.

Even everyday pains can benefit from a bit of boldness, from being bold in living the philosophy. They tend to quietly build up, and don't just disappear on their own.

Having said this, "boldly met" and the complete haiku is a paraphrase. Of a paraphrase.

I highly recommend the article that Don posted in #26; the link is copied here:

(31) The Tetrapharmakos (Fourfold Cure) and the Sober Reasoning in Epicurus: A Critical Philosophical Paradigm against the Politicization of Medical Truth? | ANNA MARKOPOULOU - Academia.edu

I can't say that I agree with everything in the article, but it brings up some interesting points for discussion. For starters, it posits that each of the fourfold remedies corresponds to one of the criteria of truth. So, the author is presenting a case for four, not three, canonic criteria.

I've got to reread this and let it percolate for a while, but I definitely recommend reading it. Only 5 short pages, for those of us who are time and/or attention crunched