ALL CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY: "Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself."
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I might disagree about exactly how much ataraxia is under our control--it's quite unclear, I'd say. Clearly there are some sources saying we can have it under many different circumstances; but PD 4 seems to imply that fatal pains might be pretty rough for a short time, and there's the evidence in DL 10 that not all circumstances can lead to a good life.
Ah, this might be a good way to get at why or how we might have a different perspective on this. My understanding of our control over our own ataraxia stems from my view of tranquility/ataraxia being (possibly) less expansive than you.
I maintain that ataraxia is best understood specifically as the state of mind engendered by the eradication of false/empty beliefs and the fears and anxiety they produce. Once those beliefs are totally eradicated from our minds, pulled up by the roots, they don't come back and the tranquility - literally the undisturbed state - is solid. The eradication of those fears and anxieties is final IF we've really understood and internalized at the gut level, asleep and awake, the understanding that the gods present no reason for fear, that death is nothing to us, that pleasure is the goal and should be the North Star by which we steer our little boat. Pleasure writ large as Epicurus defined it, which means we undergo some pain if we know there's pleasure on the other side of the pain.
If I remember, you include ALL fears and anxieties within ataraxia; which MAY be the case if it is understood that there is no reason for fear and anxiety IF we steer our boat by the goal of nature, which is pleasure. My understanding is that if one defines ataraxia/tranquility to be encompassing of every fear and anxiety, it has to be understood in that way.
I go back to Metrodorus, Fragment 5: "Metrodorus, in his book On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects, says: 'What else is the good of the soul/mind/psykhe but the sound state of the flesh (τὸ σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα), and the sure hope of its continuance?'" I take this to mean the entire body - body & mind - taken as a whole, the Good of the Mind is inextricably linked with the stable state of the body
PD4 does say that fatal pain is bad, but fatal physical pain is short (per Epicurus' writings) and we know from his example that eudaimonia is still possible under pain.
I'm curious to explore what you refer to when you mention "not all circumstances can lead to a good life." I certainly don't disagree, especially if you're referring to chasing after empty desires. We're not guaranteed a good life if we persist in empty desires, and we're not guaranteed a completely pain free life if we're mortal.
PS: I woke up with other ideas on how to explain my perspective on how much control we have over our own feeling of ataraxia. Martin Ferguson Smith's Oenoanda inscription is instructive in this (Formerly fr. 34 VI-VII, now separate fragment 38 I-II):
Let us now [investigate] how life is to be made pleasant for us both in states (κατασ̣τήμασι) and in actions (πράξεσιν); and let us first discuss states, keeping an eye on the point that, when the emotions that disturb the soul are removed (τῶν ὀχλούντων τὴν ψυχὴν παθῶν ὑπεξαιρεθέντων), those that produce pleasure enter into it to take their place. Well, what are the disturbing emotions? (II) [They are] fears – of the gods, of death, and of [pains] – and, besides [these], desires that [outrun] the limits fixed by nature. These are the roots of all evils (αἱ ῥί[ζαι] κακῶν π̣ά̣ντων), and, unless we cut them off, [a multitude] of evils will grow [upon] us.
So, we need to cut those fears of gods, death, etc. at the root so they don't grow back. I find it interesting that VS79 has a negative related form of the word Diogenes uses here for troubles AND a word related to ataraxia for peace: VS79 He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος. The "within himself" (ἑαυτῷ) also reminds me of the title of Metrodorus' book.
By Zeus! Gedney's going after Robertson's assertion that the Epicureans advocated "experiential avoidance" and does a good job from my perspective. The fact that he doesn't mention pleasure seems irrelevant in this context.
When an Epicurean is going against a Stoic in defense of the philosophy, it seems to behoove us to circle the wagons. You'll likely counter that "that's not the philosophy," but I see nothing in those two concise comments to make me ungrateful that he's willing to speak up against Stoic slander.
Jack Gedney has struck a blow for Epicurus in two comments to that Robertson article! Huzzah!
But the fact that we have so many examples of Cicero, and Plato and Aristotle's work has me puzzled still. I guess I can buy into the hypothesis that the Christians burned the copies, except that they had no real influence in the Roman empire until the end of the 5th century.
I've heard the estimates are that we only have about 1-5% of ALL texts from the ancient world. (One source example)
I thought it might be instructive to see how "blessed" aka makarios is used in other contexts in ancient Greek contexts unrelated to the Epicurean description of the gods.
What, then, and how many are the lives in which a man—when he has chosen the desirable and voluntary in preference to the undesirable and the involuntary, and has made it into a private law for himself, by choosing what is at once both congenial and pleasant and most good and noble—may live as happily (μακαριώτατα makariōtata) as man can? Let us pronounce that one of them is the temperate life, one the wise, one the brave, and let us class the healthy life as one; and to these let us oppose four others—the foolish, the cowardly, the licentious, and the diseased.
What a happy fellow (μακάριε makarie) you must be,” said the Sacian, “for every reason, but particularly because from being poor you have become rich. For you must enjoy your riches much more, I think, for the very reason that it was only after being hungry for wealth that you became rich.”
Stranger, you must think me a specially favoured mortal (μακάριός makarios), to be able to tell whether virtue can be taught, or in what way it comes to one: so far am I from knowing whether it can be taught or not, that I actually do not even know what the thing itself, virtue, is at all.
Xanthias
Oh! tortoises! happy (μακάριαι makariai) to have so hard a skin, thrice happy (τρις μακάριαι makariai) to carry this roof that protects your backs! Oh! creatures full of sense! what a happy thought to cover your bodies with this shell, which shields it from blows! As for me, I can no longer move; the stick has so belaboured my body.
it is important to set aside other spiritual/philosophical notions and ideas such as "Nirvana/bodhi/satori" etc.
Good point. While there may be superficial similarities to these notions, those fall apart upon any closer examination. There are completely different underpinnings and frameworks.
after having fully grasped this new way of mentally relating to the idea of death, it is impossible to lose this understanding.
Exactly! Well put.
a kind of fearlessness that the gods possess.
I've never heard it put quite that way before. I like that idea.
See also
[ U340 ]
Hippolytus, "Philosophical Questions," (Refutation of all Heresies, I) 22.5 [p. 572.14 Diels.]: He {Epicurus} concluded that the souls of men are dissolved along with their bodies, just as also they were produced along with them; these, in fact, are blood, and when this has gone forth or been altered, the entire man perishes. In keeping with this tenet, it follows that there are neither trials in Hades, nor tribunals of justice; so that whatsoever any one may commit in this life, that, provided he may escape detection, he is altogether beyond any liability of trial.
[ U582 ]
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, IV.22, [p. 228.7 Sylb.]: Even Epicurus says that a man who he esteemed wise "would not do wrong to anyone for the sake of gain; for he could not persuade himself that he would escape detection." So then, if he knew he would not be detected, he would, accordingly, do evil.
[ U532 ]
Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 6, p. 1090C: That their general prospects are poor even for a life without mental anguish you may also judge in the light of the remarks they address to others. Criminals and transgressors of the laws, says Epicurus, pass their entire lives in misery and apprehension, since even though they may succeed in escaping detection, they can have no assurance of doing so. Consequently, fear of the next moment weighs heavy on them and precludes any delight or confidence in their present situation.
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 97.13: Hence I hold Epicurus’ saying to be most apt: "That the guilty may happen to remain hidden is possible," or, if you think that the meaning can be made more clear in this way: "The reason that there is no advantage for wrong-doers to remain hidden is that (even though they got lucky) they have not the assurance of remaining so."
Cf. Atticus, by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, XV 5.5: It is not impossible to feel assurance of being undetected in wrong-doing, if indeed it be necessary to avoid detection by men: it is not necessary, however, on every occasion even to seek to avoid detection, where a man has power to overmaster those who have discovered him. So the disbelief in providence is a ready way to wrong-doing. For a very worthy person indeed is he, who after holding out pleasure to us as a good, and granting us security from the gods, still thinks to provide a plan to prevent wrong-doing. He acts like a physician who, having neglected to give help while the sick man was yet alive, attempts after death to devise certain contrivances for curing the dead man.
Arrian, Diatribes of Epictetus, III.7.11: A man acts foolishly {according to Epictetus’ derisive portrayal of Epicureanism}, if, when he is a Judge and able to take the property of other men, he keeps his hands off it. But, if you please, let us consider this point only, that the theft be done secretly, safely, without anybody’s knowledge. For even Epicurus himself does not declare the act of theft evil – only getting caught. Only because it is impossible for one to be certain that he will not be detected, does he say, "Do not steal."
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, V.1152:
Hence, the fear of punishment spoils the {ill-gotten} prizes.
Violence and wrong catch people in their own nets
and those who start such things are most often entangled.
It is not easy to pass a peaceful life
if you act in a way that disturbs the general peace.
Although you elude the gods and the human race
you still must wonder whether your secret will be kept forever.
I suspect Bruno would say that he too had peace of mind standing up to the church even as they were burning him at the stake.
An Epicurean sage experiences eudaimonia even under torture?
Am I wrong to conclude that women were not free to navigate the cities alone
The hetairai were more "free" than wives or other women, so I would think it was primarily they who attended. Women were more free in Roman settings than Greek.
FWIW From my Menoikeus commentary:
μακάριον
This word is often translated as "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off.'" There appears to be no certain etymology of the root [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on]. It appears to possibly have something to do with being wealthy, either literally or figuratively. Taking Ancient Mythology Economically by Morris Silver (see link below) has a very interesting section on the origins of the word. This is yet another example of the inadequacy of using one word to translate from one language to another.
***
A quick digression on eudaimonia is appropriate here. εὐδαιμονία is defined by LSJ as "prosperity, good fortune, opulence; true, full happiness."
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57%3Aentry%3Deu)daimoni%2Fa
The word is derived from εὐ- (eu-) "well, good" + δαιμονία (daimonia) "spirit, divine power." This is where English gets the word "demon" but it could be either benevolent (eudaimon) or malevolent (kakodaimon). If you have a good, benevolent in-dwelling spirit, you will lead a prosperous, healthy, flourishing, fortunate life. Socrates claimed to be listening to his daimon for guidance which was used against him at his trial as evidence of impiety. But the term generally in common parlance means what LSJ refers to. However, it encompasses a range of qualities but is often pared down in English to simply "happiness" which is woefully inadequate. It's much more than that, encompassing that and more. Translators try to convey this with paraphrases like "complete happiness," but our comparative translations just use "happiness." Sometimes it's left untranslated and only transliterated eudaimonia, but this is somewhat of a cheat, too. A cheat I may be guilty of shortly! If you look up that word in Merriam-Webster, it gives "well-being, happiness." So you see we can go in circles. Personally, I think "well-being" is better than "happiness" since it is almost a literal translation with a twist: eu- "well" + daimon "being" (the latter having a little double entendre). So, when you see any of those -- happiness, well-being, flourishing, eudaimonia -- remember that it's that word plus a little more. That's why I advocate using eudaimonia itself. There's a rabbit hole of papers, essays, and websites that convey the deep meaning of εὐδαιμονία if you feel intrepid.
FWIW, here are two threads from a few years ago where the katastematic discussion was taking place:
I think I still generally agree with what I posted over there in 2023.
I found this Medium article interesting, too: https://medium.com/thought-thinke…ce-4301dccc3990
Excerpts:
We learn about the specific of reading practices in ancient Greece mostly not from written evidences which would describe the process of reading, but from the terms which the Greek used for the word «read». There are more than 10 verbs with this meaning in ancient Greek. Analyzing these verbs we can understand the patterns of the ancient reading practices, because they indicate how the process of reading was perceived. It means that the difference in reading practices was enshrined by the language [1].
For example, there was a verb nе́mein, which meant «read out loud» and «distribute something, including yourself among recipients». It means, that the words which were read aloud were addressed not only to the listeners, but also to the reader itself. It is just one of the examples of the verbs which were used in Ancient Greece to specify one of the aspects of the reading process [1].
Other ancient Greek verbs with the meaning of reading also refer to reading aloud. It means, that people of that epoch read not much and with difficulty and it also means, that exactly the sounding word played crucial role in the culture. Moreover, for the concept of reading in ancient Greece the man and his voice were considered to be instruments at the service of the text. Written speech demanded mandatory scoring, it was considered to be not complete by its nature. Until the writing began to sound, it meant not more than just a set of symbols. That is why it was not the reader who was the addresser of the text, but the listener — he was listening to the text which was read to him [1].
I don't think that it would be correct to compare Epicurean communities with early Christian communities.
Wasn't one of Cicero's criticisms of Epicureans that they attracted women, slaves, and the common people? That's the same criticism levied against the early Christians.
One could study the philosophy without being able to read. Attending lectures, memorizing texts with a friend who could read or in a group where the texts were read aloud.
Book 28 of On Nature ends with:
And now I think I have finished prattling to you this twenty-eighth installment of our consecutive lecture series.
He uses the word ἀκρόασις "hearing, hearkening or listening to" where "lecture series" is the translation even though its a written work. The work is also written partially as a dialogue between Metrodorus and Epicurus, using first and second pronouns. This strikes me as different than Plato's dialogues in that he created characters (including his dead teacher, Socrates). I would see On Nature being more like transcripts of actual teachings.
We know that at least Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoikeus were literate: We literally have Epicurus' letters addressed to them. We know the Founders were all literate and wrote extensive treatises. We know Philodemus was prolific in his writings. We know that Diogenes, living in Oenoanda, was literate and also thought enough people could read that his inscription would be useful to passers-by. But if the popularity of Epicurus' philosophy was as wide spread as to make Cicero clutch his pearls, I doubt literacy was widespread throughout the community.
Bart Ehrman has a relevant blog post talking about early Christian communities that includes:
So let’s assume that [the literacy rate in Graeco-Roman times] was 20%. That would mean that an average church, with 70 members, of whom 20 were adult males, would have, on average four who would read. And of course their reading abilities would cover a wide range: some could probably read very painstakingly and slowly, maybe one or two could read pretty well – it’s hard to say. Overall, there would be, around the year 100, 400 Christians (in the entire world) who could read.
He goes on to say that those who could read then would be leaders in their communities. I would think this would hold for Epicurean communities.
I found an interesting lecture online about reading, even silently, in the ancient world: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/anci…torical-context
There's also the encouragement - even requirement - for ancient Epicureans to commit epitomes to memory. That's why Epicurus provided summaries of his work, so that the written document became superfluous. For students who were not fully literate, this would have meant working with a teacher to internalize the most important works.
Epicurus to Pythocles (emphasis added): To aid your memory you ask me for a clear and concise statement respecting celestial phenomena ; for what we have written on this subject elsewhere is, you tell me, hard to remember, although you have my books constantly with you. I was glad to receive your request and am full of pleasant expectations. [85] We will then complete our writing and grant all you ask.
Epicurus to Herodotus: For those who are unable to study carefully all my physical writings or to go into the longer treatises at all, I have myself prepared an epitome56 of the whole system, Herodotus, to preserve in the memory enough of the principal doctrines,57 to the end that on every occasion they may be able to aid themselves on the most important points, so far as they take up the study of Physics. Those who have made some advance in the survey of the entire system ought to fix in their minds under the principal headings an elementary outline of the whole treatment of the subject. For a comprehensive view is often required, the details but seldom.
Epicurus encourages Menoikeus to study what he's written night and day with a like-minded friends (so they can read the work to each other?), likely to impress it into his mind so he has the information asleep and awake.
I realize Philodemus railed against Epicureans who had strayed from studying the books, but if On Nature really was a series of lectures, this could just as easily meant getting back to attending lectures from my perspective.
"I think the evidence that Epicurus believed a complete life can't get any better is clear; I don't know how else to interpret KD 3, 18, and 20-21, and Men. 128 and 131." To reiterate, I think there's strong evidence that Epicurus thought this; I personally don't know why he was so committed to it. But that doesn't change that, as far as we can tell, he was really committed to it. I don't necessarily disagree with your point about reaching an implausible interpretation; but, at least as things stand now, your approach seems to me to have more problems.
I always appreciate it when references to specific texts are given. It provides assurance that we're all looking at the same thing, although interpretation/translations sometimes/often differ.
In your assertion that "the evidence that Epicurus believed a complete life can't get any better is clear" you refer to those specific texts. Here's my take and a little of why I'm not entirely onboard with your interpretation.
To my understanding:
KD3 is Epicurus statement as to why pleasure CAN be the summum bonum against other schools' assertion that pleasure is inexhaustible or never able to be satisfied and therefore cannot be the telos. There IS a limit to pleasure, and it is the “The removal of all feeling of pain ... Wherever a pleasurable feeling is present, for as long as it is present, there is neither a feeling of pain nor a feeling of distress, nor both together.” (Inwood & Gerson (1994)) I think a key phrase there is "for as long as it is present." To me, this echoes Diogenes Laertius' "Two sorts of happiness (eudaimonia) can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." (10.121) I've always added "such as mortals enjoy" to the end in my mind; BUT Epicurus did say clearly that we can "live as a god among humans" (Men. 135) BUT we are not gods. That's also clear. Epicurus did not teach some kind of apotheosis from what I have read. We're still mortal. We still die. I will admit that there is a tension between living "as a god" and being mortal.
KD18 covers both physical and mental pleasures. Satisfying physical pleasures, per this KD, doesn't bring increase but only brings diversification/ variation / embellishment, depending on the translation of ποικίλλω. I like Epicurus' use of this word in that it evokes the various colors in a work of embroidery or other cunning workmanship. That's a poignant metaphorical connotation. The limit of mental pleasures in KD18 are specifically said to be due to reflecting on these bodily pleasures and sensations related to them and also having a eradicated "the greatest fears" to which I'm equating the fears of death, the gods, divine wrath: the first two KDs and VSs and first two lines of the Tetrapharmakos.
KD20 & 21: Again, this is Epicurus emphasizing how pleasure has a limit and why it can be the summum bonum. The "perfect way of life (I&G)/ complete life (Long) / complete way of life (S-A)" τὸν παντελῆ βίον (ton pantele bion) still to me evokes a life in which all goals are accomplished, in this case, the limits of pleasure have been achieved. But is it the understanding that pleasure is the telos along with the eradication of the fundamental fears of death and the gods that makes that "pantele" life or the actual elimination of all pain? I don't think Epicurus teaches that ALL pain can be eradicated from the life of the mortal human. He certainly couldn't do it, but he could do battle against physical pain and his greatest fears were eradicated, root and branch, from his mind. KD21 reinforces that what we REALLY need, at our most basic level, is limited. We can add variation of pleasures, but we don't NEED them. I think this is illustrated by Epicurus' periodic fasting and eating minimally so he KNEW what he needed to live pleasurably. So, if the going ever got tough, he knew exactly what was necessary for him.
I'm not going into Menoikeus since I think I've addressed that before. One other item I wanted to touch briefly on is:
Well, Epicurus's deathbed letter gives evidence that, in other cases of extreme pain, that pain won't interfere with blessedness. (Ditto for the, perhaps implausible, claim in Diogenes Laertius that the sage will be happy under torture.) If I didn't have this evidence, I'd predict that that pain would interfere with blessedness; and I worry that it does despite the claim that it doesn't. But I really believe Epicurus thought the pain didn't interfere, and the challenge is explaining why.
The problem people express with the "happy under torture" phrase (and it must be something Epicurus taught because it comes up in multiple sources) is that Epicurus, to my reading, never meant the sage would be joyous or giddy or happy in the common effervescent way we sometimes think of that. Diogenes Laertius uses "eudaimonia" that slippery, untranslatable, multivalent word. To me, and I admit this is likely idiosyncratic, the only reason I can think that a sage could have eudaimonia on the rack is if it means they could feel they did everything they could to have avoided this outcome. They would be in extreme pain, crying out, no question. If they were doing it to protect a friend, if they knew they had done everything to avoid it, they would still have an underlying sense of well-being and maybe that they had lived well and that the pain couldn't go on forever. They're not happy happy joy joy. But they have some perspective to give them some kind of "eudaimonia." And we're also talking a "sage" here, not your average student of the philosophy. Is some of this hyperbole to give the student confidence, to illustrate "here's the kind of mental fortitude you can get from following this path." Likely. But I'd rather take this idea of the sage rather than the Stoic sage who can't be concerned if his wife and children die in a war and who takes no more concern for a dead child than a broken cup.
Alex Gillham's in his 2018 dissertation
Also
All you really needed was one literate person in a given Epicurean community to read any correspondence or texts. My understanding is that it was common to listen to texts. This is what I understand happened in early Christian communities.
Ancient Greece and Rome were also much more oral cultures, too.
Consider too that the Peripatetics literally walked around while discussing philosophy, so it is easy to imagine students and teachers in the Garden sitting around discussing and teaching and listening to lectures. My understanding is that On Nature was a series of lectures Epicurus gave. The only writings of Aristotle are the lecture notes compiled by a student of his.
Quote from Cassiusdo you agree with a statement Don in an earlier post that he believes tranquility is specifically defined in terms of a lack of fear of gods and of death?
No, tranquility must be the absence of all fears.* Epicurus identified fear of the gods and of death as particularly common fears, so he devoted a lot of attention to them. But there are plenty of other fears.
*I've been struggling recently with fear of future pain. As KD 4 notes, fatal pain will be short; but it'll be bad when it happens, so it seems like the sage should justifiably fear it in the meantime, thus disturbing the sage's tranquility.
If I'm being invoked, I feel I need to expand my thoughts on this. Cassius , what I think you're referring to is this below where I wrote:
Quote from DonI understand that ataraxia refers specifically (for Epicurus) to the absence (a-) of "disturbance" (tarakhe) in the mind caused by fear of the gods, anxiety about death, worry about having "enough" and what other people think, etc.
I'll freely admit that "etc." is doing a lot of heaving lifting.
As for a what Epicurus thinks is covered under ataraxia, he says in the Letter to Herodotus: "mental tranquillity (ataraxia) means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths." (10.82) The "all these troubles" refers back to 10.81 to his assertion that "the greatest anxiety (τάραχος) of the human mind arises through the belief that the heavenly bodies are blessed and indestructible, and that at the same time they have volitions and actions and causality inconsistent with this belief ; ... if men do not set bounds to their terror, they endure as much or even more intense anxiety (ταραχὴν) than the man whose views on these matters are quite vague." This is similar to the Letter to Pythocles where Epicurus writes (DL 10.85): "In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind (ἀταραξίαν) and firm conviction." So, getting a firm understanding and belief that celestial phenomena are not caused by supernatural forces has the goal of peace of mind/ataraxia.
As Max DuBoff points out, "Epicurus identified fear of the gods and of death as particularly common fears, so he devoted a lot of attention to them." I would say he devoted a lot of attention to them because he identified them as the most important and detrimental disturbances to our minds. The first big hurdle we have to get over to establish ataraxia. Getting a correct perspective on the gods and not fearing them comes first in Principal Doctrines, first in the Vatican Sayings, first in the Letter to Menoikeus, first in the Tetrapharmakos. I would say he placed paramount importance of ridding ourselves of those fears and anxieties of the gods and death and related topics like supernatural causes of celestial phenomena, divine punishment, etc.
Yes, I agree there are plenty of other fears and anxieties, and I would agree Epicurus tries to teach how to alleviate them. So, yes, ataraxia could include the eradication of fears and anxieties both at the level of gods and death but also at the level of less significant or overwhelming sources of pains.
He tries to eliminate or alleviate, for example, fear of future pain by his living example of his last days and the observations of "pain is short if..." But he also tries to get us to replace fear and anxiety with prudence, virtuous behavior, wise choices. If we fear what might happen to our loved ones after die, make plans for what happens after we die. If we fear retribution from enemies, try to not make enemies or stay away from them. All this would contribute to a stable peace of mind that we are doing, have done, or will do everything within our power to trust that the pleasures we have now continue into the future.
So, for his at least, I would say ataraxia includes freedom from fear and anxiety writ large; with the caveat that the BIG ONES are death and the supernatural gods.
We're packing a lot into this conversaton already
LOL Ya think so?
We have to be careful and not conflate pleasures with desires. There are not necessary, natural, and empty pleasures. There are necessary, natural, and empty desires.
Anything that brings pleasure is good, but some pleasures are not worthy to be chosen due to the pain they bring in their wake.
