Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Bryan

Living beings that are able to preseve themselves in the manner similar to a god -- but struggle or fail to do so -- no longer fit our anticipation of gods (and therefore are not properly considered to be gods).

I find this statement quite illuminating. We can't exactly preserve ourselves in the manner of gods, but we do have access to remarkable medical advances and a plethora of lifestyle advice (diet, exercise, sleep, stress...) I ofte struggle to maintain a "healthy" lifestyle which perhaps, beyond a certain point, can be counterproductive. Every so often someone dies relatively young, and their friends say "but they were so health conscious!"

So this quote is valuable to think about so that I/we don't lose sight of the proper goal as spelled out by Epicurus. And it's similarly valuable in thinking about our choices and avoidances.

"Won't Get Fooled Again"...

Random thoughts:

Quote from Don

I don't think we can be aware of ourselves without something external to us.

We do have interoception, an awareness of our internal sensations. But of course there's always something external to us. And we can't exist without something external to us (food, water, air).

Someone, somewhere (who I believe was worth quoting) said that awareness is awareness of something, not a state of being aware.

Amen! By Zeus

Quote from Cassius

but at the very least you won't be in the position of having to say to yourself "I didn't even try" and if the activity involved is important enough to you

Somewhere I read that this is one of the common deathbed regrets. The key being "if the activity involved is important enough to you."

Happy Twentieth one and all!

There's an interesting paper "The Polytheism of the Epicureans" by Paul Terrence Matthias Jackson which may also be relevant here.

My guess is that Epicurus' take on the gods wasn't primarily negative, but equally positive in his redirected way of thinking about them. But we've moved so far from the Greek ideas of the gods that his ideas on the subject may seem irrelevant to us. So a further question is whether it makes sense for us to attempt to apply the Epicurean ideas of the gods to our modern lives, or is doing so a form of historical reenactment?

Thank you; as are yours! The variety of colors in the various auroras is quite impressive!

From our trip to Alaska a couple of weeks ago:

Quote from Don

One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.

Agreed. And of course (preaching to the choir) this isn't some sort of mystical state, but confidence in one's worldview through observation and study. And managing (not eliminating!) one's desires using an understanding of the categories of desire. Not magic: philosophy.

Quote from Joshua

This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.

--Porphyry, De Vita Plotini

So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates. Does this make them cultish? If it makes the Epicureans cultish, they're not alone.

Great cite Joshua !

A quick thought prompted by Don 's post: did Epicurus create a cult around himself?

Did Plato? Aristotle? Epictetus? (&c) They were all the commanding personalities of their schools. Was Epicurus perhaps making his school friendlier, less intimidating? One way of doing that may have been the practice of monthly celebrations. In other words, practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.

To this question of "meaning" I would add:

The search for "the greatest good" in ancient times is also a question of meaning.

That "the greatest good" is pleasure leads to the question of what pleasure is, which leads to the understanding that it is an organic faculty, that humans are animals, that the mind cannot be separated from the body.

This, along with the understanding that the universe is material, leads to the understanding that th search for meaning is individual, as is the responsibility of achieving our most pleasant life.

A question that I have regarding eudaimonia goes back to the thorny issue of active and static pleasures.

If I understand correctly, Aristotle conceived of eudaimonia as requiring activity. (Compare this to *practicing* wisdom...) My question is: was Epicurus agreeing with this idea, or did he conceive of eudaimonia differently? Perhaps eudaimonia requires action, but blessedness doesn't? My depth of knowledge in this regard is lacking, so I'm just posing the question

Welcome Chryso !

BTW it's nice to hear that the Epicureans are at least getting a frequent mention!

One reflection which probably wouldn't find its way into Epictetus' or Seneca's lists is to think back on the pleasant things you experienced today. These could include big things, accomplishments, brief moments....

Building memories of pleasures is useful for bringing to mind when things aren't going well. It's also useful because the more you do it, the more you appreciate joyful moments throughout the day as they happen. As you reflect on specific experiences of pleasure, you can also examine what made them pleasurable to you, and relate these experiences to Epicurus' categories of desires and PDs dealing with pleasure.

Quote from Godfrey

each of the schools tailored their definition to their own ideas.

This is probably more accurately worded as:

Each of the schools built on the base that Aristotle had laid, in some cases refining, in others revising and/or correcting. Epicurus was of the refining/correcting persuasion. Authors such as Farrington have to various degrees minimized the work of Epicurus as being built from Aristotle, but this was actually the work of all of the Hellenistic schools. It could even be said that Epicurus was the most original in this regard, as well as being the most true to "the nature of things."

Eudaimonia features prominently in the ethics of Aristotle, and due to his prominence and resultant influence, each of the Hellenistic schools took it up. So the primary definition may come from him, but as Titus just mentioned, each of the schools tailored their definition to their own ideas.

Which doesn't help to clarify the meaning other than to say that I agree that it makes sense to examine it from an Epicurean perspective. As Titus has just pointed out, the fullness of pleasure is a good interpretation from that point of view.

Another way to think about a particular risk is to examine it using the categories of desire. If it's unnatural, that would suggest that the consequences are probably not worth the effort. If it's natural, that may narrow the possible consequences somewhat.