Posts by Godfrey

Another daily practice is reading. At the very least, after breakfast I'll read and chew on one of the Principal Doctrines or Vatican Sayings. Typically I'll read more than just that: currently I'm working through the Melville translation of Lucretius which is quite fun. I first read a prose version as an overview, but having done that the poetry is quite enjoyable.

Elayne, thanks for posting that. This is an interesting thread for the daily nuts and bolts and I'm quite interested to read what other people do.

As to my daily practice, it is very much a work in progress but here is the general idea:

For years, I've kept my weekly planning and to-do lists organized (in a fashion) by categories such as finance, health and fitness, social, work on so on. I recently gave it an "Epicurean" makeover by slightly reorganizing the categories and also grouping the categories by "natural/necessary" and "natural/ not necessary". I don't have a group for not natural/not necessary. Some categories only changed in name, while other categories got split up and still others eliminated.

For instance "finance" is now "autarky", which is natural/necessary. "Health and fitness" is now "freedom from disease" (natural/necessary) and "fitness" (natural/not necessary). "Spiritual" has become "Practical wisdom" (natural/necessary). This illustrates the general idea, and of course everyone would have different ideas as to their categories and what falls in to natural and necessary or not necessary. In applying this to my entire planning process I found that the end result is a major simplification from what it was originally, and that it now clearly prioritizes and aligns my planning and activities with my philosophy.

On a micro level, I've been working with an "Epicurean" mindfulness practice. I spent several years practicing Zen informally so this kind of comes naturally for me. The minor difference is that as I'm going about my mindfulness I focus on pleasant sensations, whereas in the past what normally has come up for me is unpleasant sensations, blockages, etc. I'm still aware of those, but just go further to notice the pleasantness. Interestingly, it's always there somewhere.

Not sure if it belongs here, but this article popped up in my feed:

https://www.businessinsider.com/exercise-makes…y---4.0-styling

An interesting point that they make in the study is that too much exercise decreases happiness. A great example of natural and necessary approaching unnecessary and/or unnatural.

Are there other translations of the Letter to Menoeceus available that use "incorruptible" instead of "immortal"? I found one that uses "indestructible", but DeWitt seems to be the only one using incorruptible. The implications of "incorruptible" are very appealing!

Can our Greek friends provide any insight on this point?

Cassius, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is a short story. You can buy it for $1.99 online or download a free PDF that pops up in a Google search. I read it in a collection of LeGuin's short fiction titled The Unreal and the Real. She was a Taoist, which sometimes comes out in her fiction.

I was going to make the point that you finished with, Cassius. Who determines the greatest happiness?

If I take the approach that I as an individual will act to maximize happiness for the most people, how can I do that? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and as you mentioned above, Daniel, (I'm quoting from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) an action can be immoral even if the intention was moral.

I believe the Epicurean answer to the greatest happiness for the greatest number is to get more people to follow Epicureanism

It looks like you've already answered your question about moral responsibility. I'd like to add that it appears to me, on the basis of this discussion, that Utilitarianism is an attempt to "improve" upon Epicureanism by adding to it. As an Epicurean, to me the additions seek to bring together ideas which do not belong together. I had thought that there would be more in common between the two philosophies but they actually seem quite divergent.

Regarding the greatest good for the greatest number, there's a rather famous short story by Ursula LeGuin that I recommend reading. It's titled " The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and I believe you can find a free copy online. It's an interesting take on the idea.

To clarify regarding PD5, my point was that PD5 doesn't talk about responsibility, moral or otherwise. Guess I wasn't very clear! Regarding consequentialism, I'm not familiar with that so I can't really comment.

And thank you for the conversation as well! I too find it a great way to clarify my understanding.

Beyond that, ditto what Cassius said. But he said it better than I can!

It's interesting how these ideas turn up in so many cultures. But why wouldn't they? It's also interesting and beneficial to examine how they manifest in various cultures. Thanks for the review!

By the way, I never drank coffee until I visited friends in Denmark. The coffee was excellent, as was the conversation and friendship afterwards. That was quite a while ago! Last summer their son came to visit us and, again, the conversation after our shared meals was extremely pleasurable.

Daniel, a key difference between the two philosophies that jumped out at me now that I've read your above post more carefully is the concept of moral responsibility. Specifically: "it is everyone’s moral responsibility to increase the pleasure of every person (including themself) while relieving their pain."

To the best of my understanding, moral responsibility is excluded from Epicureanism. In it's place is PD5: "It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and Justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life, is not living prudently and honorably and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life], cannot possibly live pleasantly."

So as Epicureans we try to live prudently, honorably and justly because living this way minimizes our pain and maximizes our pleasure. There is no moral responsibility to anybody else involved. The end result may possibly be the same, but the intention is entirely different. This might seem reprehensible to a Utilitarian, but to an Epicurean it provides clarity, and with clarity, freedom.

Wow that's a lot of information on utilitarianism, in a good way. I need to read what you've written more carefully as I'm only vaguely familiar with utilitarianism.

Regarding Epicureanism, I think that the best way to understand the overall ideas is by using the three categories of the Canon, Physics, and Ethics. As I understand it, this is the original framework. Part of outlining is fitting your categories into these categories: nature into Physics for example. To me, it's of primary importance to understand that pleasure is one of the three aspects of the Canon as that explains why it is the greatest good. So you need to understand the Canon to distinguish pleasure from good ol' hedonism.

Cassius has some excellent one sheet breakdowns on the forum, also his Elemental Epicureanism and Ante Oculus are quite helpful if you focus on the instructional parts before diving into all of the source material. Hiram's book Tending the Epicurean Garden is also helpful, and if you haven't seen it he has a self study course at

http://societyofepicurus.com/self-guided-study-curriculum/.

There's also DeWitt, although it's pretty expensive and (at least for me) takes a while to give it a proper reading.

It's a big challenge to zoom in to the core of the philosophy. That's where the Canon/ Physics/ Ethics structure is so valuable and from there you can explain the various ideas much more clearly. Not that I'm an expert by any means, but that's what has allowed me to get a grip on the philosophy. Now when I read new material or re-read material I feel like I understand it more clearly instead of getting overwhelmed.

Hi Daniel! Have you written an outline yet on the forum? For me the process of thinking through the overall philosophy (the more detail, the better), putting it in words and getting feedback on it was probably the most valuable way to clarify my thinking and understanding of the philosophy. It's possible that that process would be a good way for you to think about and tighten up the points you're concerned with, and could even suggest a path forward.

Hi Oscar! Godfrey here. Just want to say that I've been thoroughly enjoying the street drummer Dario Rossi. Amazing performance! I love how hard he works, how hard he must have worked for years, and how much obvious pleasure he gets from his drumming. It's inspiring to see how pursuing one's pleasure with passion and perseverance can not only multiply one's pleasure but spread it into the world as well.

Thanks for that!

This is quite helpful. I've been thinking of gratitude more along the lines of a pleasurable practice (a la the contemporary gratitude practice), which in my mind does not cause trouble to self or other. Favor and indebtedness are entirely different and make much more sense in the context of the doctrine.

Thanks Cassius and Elli!

I'm responding to Elli's graphic posted in the graphics area but not posted here yet. Not sure if this is the intent of this thread; maybe this belongs elsewhere....

The translation in the graphic has the word "favor" where some translations use "gratitude" and others use "partiality". Personally, I prefer the use of favor or partiality to gratitude: it seems to me that a blessed being would feel gratitude.

Can anyone comment as to 1) the correctness of the various translations of this word, and 2) the differences that they may have in understanding the doctrine?

I've got the impression that the school of EP is considered to have followed Epicurus's thinking unusually closely through the centuries. But this topic is interesting in that it may be an example of a bit of variation in the doctrine and the potential ramifications of that, which I think Cassius is doing a good service to explore. Given the fragmentary remains of the documentation, it's great to see accessible studies of what exists and how it might fit together.

I've thought of the tetrapharmakos as a pithy mnemonic for beginning students (such as myself) to get a basic understanding of the philosophy. For me, it's been helpful in that regard. That being said, a treatment such as this is a necessary step to a deeper and more nuanced grasp of the ideas.

Wow, that video is hysterical and a little scary!

Cassius, I appreciate and agree with your comments. The article is definitely not a "deep dive" into EP, but it's a nice starting point for some practical applications of the philosophy. It would be really interesting to see a discussion of Property Management regarding this subject.

Which reminds me of a two-part piece Hiram wrote which I need to read. Here's the link to part 1:

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-philodemus-…agement-part-i/

This article showed up in my news feed this morning. It's written by a personal finance blogger who from time to time explores a particular school of philosophy and applies it to practical living and finances. Perhaps he over-emphasizes frugality, but he has a nice take on hedonic calculus (without using the term) and an interesting take on applying the overall philosophy.

https://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-epicurean-…financial-life/

I confess that I'm an aficionado of modernism and have avoided Tom Wolfe's book for years . I'll give it a read though! In the linked article the reviewer mentioned "good modernism and bad modernism". One of the criticisms of modernism is an over-reliance on rationality. To me, the best modern design is actually more "Epicurean" in that it embraces both sensuality and rationality. And pleasure.