Posts by Godfrey

Don I got interested in anger in a roundabout way. There's an unexplored aspect of Wilson's article, which is her apparent urge to define an Epicurean political philosophy (an urge shared by utilitarians and others it would seem). I've been giving a little bit of thought (not enough yet to start a thread) to a response to that urge. Since EP is based on individual interactions with the world through the pursuit of pleasure and the Canon, I think that the consensus here is that there is no specific Epicurean political philosophy: instead it's totally individual. It seems, though, that there is a way that an individual Epicurean approaches life that would inform or influence how an Epicurean might engage in political thought and discussion and that this would not lead to any particular positions on specific issues. It might be instructive to examine the PDs on justice, the lives of the Torquati, Atticus, Caesar and, importantly, righteous anger in this regard. But it could also be a can of worms and something that isn't appropriate to discuss on this forum.... However looking at the Epicurean approach to anger, including righteous anger, might be of some interest in this regard.

Addiction is desire, not pleasure or pain. Thinking of or satisfying a desire results in pleasure or pain.

Don that's interesting that you mention anger in this context; I've been starting to think about it in light of current events and I'm curious what Epicurean writings have to say about it, particularly righteous anger. I can't think of any offhand except maybe Philodemus, who I haven't read.

Quote from Cassius

In saying that, do you think that most of your friends with whom you might be discussing that would know what it means to "keep logic/reason subservient?" If they were to ask "what do you mean?" what would you say?

I would say to start and end with observations. Logic can help to evaluate observations, but for practical real world use logic must be verified through observations. Observations coming from the senses, feelings and pattern recognition.

Could this "premise" or "starting point" in some cases be a prolepsis?

I would say to prioritize the Canon and to keep logic/reason subservient. Begin with observations, apply logic/reason as appropriate, check the conclusions with observations, rinse and repeat. I might need to clarify what the Canon is; I probably would say observations and feelings or be more specific depending on the situation.

I see that I was sloppy in my wording!

The Canon and choices and avoidances are not the point of EP but are instrumental. Being instrumental, they are necessary to maximize pleasure (unless one lives a charmed life) with pleasure being the goal. To my understanding if you remove the opportunity to choose, you remove the opportunity to maximize pleasure. Elayne you're correct that this isn't what is spelled out in PD.

Regarding the example of buying a condo: this may reduce the opportunity for choice, but in no way eliminates it. Even after making the purchase there can be continual evaluation as to what might bring the most pleasure or pain: sell it for a profit and buy a more pleasant home, keep it to avoid the pain of moving, remodel it to increase pleasure, sell it because of a more pleasant job opportunity elsewhere, etc etc.

Quote

Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life.

This quote of Don's seems like a good summary to me. It addresses hypotheticals and also provides grounds for evaluating a life of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

Though I can't comment on the Greek, I find this a very refreshing translation! Very down to earth in terms of gods and such.

To the extent that this forum is social media, Epicurus would definitely use a smartphone/tablet/computer.

I agree with Elayne's post #22 above. However the definitive term for pleasure/happiness, per the synonyms link in post #21, is actually "cock-a-hoop."

Could happiness be another name for continuous pleasure? Maybe that depends on how one defines happiness. But happiness is quite pleasant. Anyway this would make happiness a feeling and not a concept.

Playing catch-up and digressing to post #4:

Quote from Don

Our cosmos is just a piece of the infinite. So, our cosmos could be both infinite and bounded. Wrap your brain around this one: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/8897…ite-and-bounded

Infinite and bounded, I think, can only be a mathematical abstraction. In my understanding, in order to get an infinite number of atoms (or anything else) into a bounded space you would need infinite divisibility, which Epicurus discounted. Looking at the 0-1 examples in the link, the way they achieve infinity is through infinite divisibility. Epicurus may have been saying that infinite divisibility exists only in the abstract but physically is an absurdity.

Is happiness considered a "state," whereas pleasure can be considered both an "instance" or a "state?" This drifts into the territory of katastematic and kinetic pleasure....

Wouldn't that end or general purpose be pleasure?

Happy New Year!

This is most interesting for me the bigger the time gap: a way to imagine how much information Diogenes of O or Diogenes L may have had regarding Epicurus. Some sense can be had based on what we know of Columbus, etc. Of course there are lots of differences but it's a nice visualization tool.

This is a fairly recent discovery (2019 I think) that has been in the news lately. This link has the best photos that I've seen of it, as well as a video in Italian of the excavation.

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2020/12/food-stand-pompeii/

Don it turns out I've already got that article; guess I need to read it!

From pp 51-2 it appears Sedley is making a case for the idealist view.

I would think that one using the idealist view would need to abide by the idea that nature never furnishes only one thing of a kind, just as they would idealize the gods as blessed and incorruptible. But the suggestion of creating one's own concept of a particular personal god, as a means of practicing the idealist view (if I'm understanding that correctly), is intriguing and not something that I've encountered before.

Don that Sedley sounds worth reading! Any idea what it's titled or where to find it?

For those who are, like me, unfamiliar with apophatic theology, here's the Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic…that%20is%20God.