Posts by Mike Anyayahan

Cassius If wealth is not preferable to poverty nor poverty is preferable to wealth, does it mean that moderation remains significant?

Hmmm...how do you guys interpet VS 25? It says "Poverty, if measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth; but wealth, IF NOT LIMITED, is great poverty."

Here, we believe it was Epicurus who said it. Did Metrodorus contradict Epucurus if wealth is preferable to poverty?

Yes Cassius. I was reading your exchanges with Hiram on Epucurean economics.

With regards to the "Make the best out of a bad situation," I still hold on to the eliminationl of pain instead of the endurance of pain because to endure pain is useless if there is nothing pleasant to look forward to.

Thanks Cassius for the iinput. I'll create a separate article on fears or worries being the result of religious beliefs, notion of death, and other uncertainties of life.

About the right and wrong thing, It's clear among us that virtues are not the end but only useful to achieve pleasure. I am ready to answer such questions depending on the context.

Your observations will help me make my succeeding blog posts more compelling especially on the above issues you mentioned.

Thanks for sharing my blog here Cassius. Feel free to comment guys.

Quote from Charles

On the topic of Wilson, the book store I work at has a sales rep from Basic Books, the publisher of "How to be an Epicurean", so if we decide that trying to reach Wilson is a good idea, all it would take is to contact that sales rep and then talk to Wilson's publicist and then to Wilson herself.

Of course this is all just up in the air, but the possibility of contacting her is not.

You're right Charles. I have tried to search for her online profiles to no avail. The only contact information I got was her email address from her profile on the website of City University of New York. I emailed her two days ago, but I still didn't get any reply. Perhaps, the email no longer works. If that is the case, there is no way on my end to contact her as I reside in the Philippines. I think you're the only one among us here who has the most possibility of contacting her through that sales rep.

And if contacting her through that publicist is also less possible, I don't think there is still a need to bother ourselves doing so. At least we have tried our best to be as open as possible to reach out not only her but also other Epicureans out there.

Hiram and Cassius Very well said.

Cassius Thanks for being fair and understanding. Yes, to me, you are not a mere site owner or site administrator. Your wisdom and kindness are enough for me to consider you as a mentor and even a leader. You are supportive and respectful to the rest here. Ok, I will try to reach out to Catherine Wilson one of these days. I'm excited to do that.

And yes, you're right by encouraging everyone of us here to feel free to blog. Thanks again Cassius!

When I came here just a month ago, I was a very different creature of sel-declared Epicurean. But through communication with you, I feel I am getting closer to the like-mindedness of our group and further away from my original remote state. Having Catherine here will not only give us a chance to really hear from her but will also give her a chance to hear from us. This idea applies not only for Catherine but also for anyone who believes to be an Epicurean.

The reason why I suggest is that it is just proper to unite or be united with lone Epicureans the way we promote friendship among like-minded people. For sure Catherine has her own different views as much as you and I and anyone here has unique and personal way of understanding Epicurus. If we compare ourselves now with the modern stoics, they have Donald, and we have you. They have Massimo Pigliucci, but we don't have Catherine Wilson. As far as I know, Donald and Massimo have differences in views and understanding of Stoicism, yet they have been able to co-exist.

I learned from DeWitt that Epivureans are the first missionary. Inviting and uniting like-minded people can be part of this missionary work. If we fail to communicate with other Epicureans out there, our differences among one another will grow. By having Catherine Wilson here, I can say we can be considered a force to be reckoned with especially by the stoics.

Quote from Cassius

Inviting people who are open-minded and sincerely interested in reconsidering issues is one thing; inviting people who are committed to opposing ideas is something very different.

Why don't we invite Catherine Wilson? I came across one interview where she said she is not a scholar nor an academic authority of Epicureanism and instead expressed that she is just a practicing Epicurean. I think she is as open-minded as you mentioned unlike Donald who doesn't tolerate the likes of Catherine Wilson, let alone the likes of people such as him if he were you, the owner of Epicurean Philosophy group. What is your opinion on this Cassius?

ADMIN EDIT FROM CASSIUS: I split this thread off from a discussion of an exchange with Donald Robertson because Mike raised the question (later in this thread) about whether we should issue a specific invitation to Catherine Wilson to consider joining our group here. While those of us here obviously participate in many places online, and all of us are encouraged (or should feel like they are encouraged) to invite promising new people, we haven't really extended specific invitations to people as a general rule. Should we?

Under what conditions and considerations should we consider doing that? Is Catherine Wilson in particular someone that one or more of our Admins (not limiting this to me) should consider profreaching out to? Let's use this thread to discuss these issues in general, and not solely in relation to Catherine WIlson, because it is possible that Ms. Wilson occupies a grey area between professional academics vs popular writers.

I am very interested to hear what people think. No matter what course this discussion may take, everyone should always feel free to invite anyone they wish at any time. At this point in the growth of the forum my view and practice is that pretty much anyone is allowed to join and participate who is willing to read and accept the terms of service, and if any problems develop we can deal with those after they develop. Not everyone has access to all areas of the forum, but the great majority is open to anyone to read, because if we believe that Epicurus is correct we should be happy to have new people be able to read our public posts.

Below is Mike's first post in this thread:

Quote from Cassius

I don't recommend that anyone who is not already with Facebook join it, and I am trying to minimize my use of it. But the fact is that we've made a lot of contacts there, so everyone has to make the best decision for them.

Yup. I'm surprised Donald is a member of Epicurean Philosophy FB group while he himself does not hesitate to block or remove any user from his group who he thinks does not think similarly with him. If Catherine Wilson isn't there in our FB group, why is Donald?

Cassius Ok. this link works. Thanks Cassius. 😊

Cassius Wow! This is interesting. Where can I find your actual conversation? Do you have a link so I can follow your exchanges? This is like watching WWF heavy weight finals. He he. 😁

Eikadistes and Cassius I'm not quite familiar with Jefferson's background except that he was a self-declared Epicurean. But if you think, based on your clear understanding of his bacground, that he correctly follows Epicurus' thoughts, then Donald's article only serves as a reminder to his fellow stoics not to associate stoicism with Jefferson. And this is something we Epicureans must be proud of since Jefferson is a popular historical figure.

Michele de Montaigne was a self-declared Epicurean, too, but his philosophy can be identified as a form of Skepticism. Jefferson, too, must have been an Epicurean with a blend of something else. Nevertheless, Donald Robertson can not ridicule Epicureans by simply critiquing Jefferson.

Quote from Cassius

You may be talking about the Declaration (?) Which has some good material in it but definitely far from perfect either.

Sorry. Yes, I am referring to the Declaration.

Quote from Cassius

There is definitely a lot to be questioned about Jeffersons personal life but going too far in that direction is generally a tactic that gets us too much into ad hominem rather than focusing on the philosophy.

You're right Cassius. I don't see the point of investigating Jefferson's character just to say he is an Epicurean and not a stoic. Whatever the point of the article is, Jefferson is not Epicurus.

As far as I know, Thomas Jefferson was a self-declared Epicurean. But with Donald Robertson as a self-declared Stoic (stoic)? I am not sure he is. His behavior and response to my inquiry before in his FB group was quite unstoic. I don't say he is a hypocrite. His rudeness tells me. Therefore, I am apprehensive for whatever article he writes. Anyways, just a side comment. I just know that Thomas Jefferson was a self-declared Epicurean, but I don't think his Epicureanism was correct based on the provision of the right of every person to be happy in the US constitution. The resulting reality of such right is meritocracy and Utilitarianism, not prudence.

Happy Birthday Elayne!

Quote from Hiram

One of the possible things that comes to mind is that Epicurus has been cited as saying "I call you to constant pleasures", and that this line of reasoning is that passive and active pleasures both complete a lifestyle of constant pleasures. We can not be always active (or else we'd be exhausted) or constantly idle.

This is also how I understand it. I don't know whether which authority or secondary literature is needed to explain it. But through my ignorance of different interpretations, the sentence simply tells me about the moderation between rest and activity.