Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

But it's not the **only** and as Torquatus said it appears the later Epicureans (and I think Epicurus himself too) decided that for multiple reasons we cannot abandon the field of logic and philosophy itself to the pin-head Platonists. So if we are going to argue for pleasure on philosophic grounds, we have to have rigorous and bullet-proof logical statement of how all this fits together.

You keep using the word "logic" and I think we have to narrow down our terms. As I understand it, Epicurus's opposition was to Socratic-style dialectic, διαλεκτικός, defined by LSJ as "dialectic, discussion by question and answer, invented by Zeno of Elea, Arist.Fr.65; philosophical method." He didn't want to walk around, endlessly debating what things meant. He wanted to point to nature and declare, "There! Right there! **That** is what we mean (or should mean) when we say X." In that sense, I think he was "dogmatic" in the sense of taking a stand, planting his flag, and torpedoes be damned.

Now, he took those assertions and inferred larger points from them, but, as a starting point, he pointed to - what he saw as - the foundational meaning of words as phenomena existing in Nature and treated them as axioms as we might say. "An axiom is a proposition in mathematics and epistemology that is taken to be self-evident or is chosen as a starting point of a theory."

Later Epicureans got cold feet and got intimidated by other schools and their fancy arguments. I think Epicurus stood his ground as to the self-evident nature of his assertions on what was meant by pleasure, and the gods for that matter.

Quote from Cassius

Were Emily Austin to say "I think Epicurus was right -- look at what babies do! - I rest my case" and close her book and sit down for the rest of the semester, she would likely be in very hot water, and probably not satisfied with herself either

That strikes me as a reductio ad absurdum. Epicurus didn't stop at his assertion, but used it as a foundation upon which to build.

As an aside: Having been on the recording side of this podcast episode, I want to give public ΚΥΔΟΣ (kudos) to Cassius for a masterful editing job on this one! Well done!

The issue/concern I have with the limits notion is that, from Epicurus's perspective, the Cyrenaics were limiting their pleasure too much by not accepting mental pleasure into their definition.

The prodigals were giving into unlimited desires.

The Cyrenaics were limiting their sources of pleasure.

And as Lisa Feldman Barrett has said, there is never a moment when you're not feeling some kind of affect. In other words, you're never not feeling a feeling... Unless you're dead.

There literally is no neutral state.

Quote from Cassius

"the happy life cannot mount the scaffold to the wheel"

I've given that some extra thought. Joshua also helped me understand this during the recording. I'll admit it's still a little obscure. Here's my summary so far:

- It is in response to the idea that the "The wise one will have a sense of fulfillment (eudaimonia) even on the rack."

- The "mount" is not "attach" but rather "climb a set of steps" as in to mount a horse.

- One mounts the steps to the scaffold to be hung.

- The torture wheel is not up a set of stairs so you don't climb stairs to the wheel.

- Joshua also brought up that maybe you have to willingly walk up steps but can be dragged to the wheel and strapped to it.

Like I said, still obscure, but like Cassius I wanted to preserve our thoughts.

PS. LOL... Or maybe it does mean you can't attach two torture devices together and still be happy. I really don't know!

Okay, last thoughts for today...

I continue to suspect that the phrases in question τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς και τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας are digs at the Cyrenaics but not for the reason I said earlier (the being dead/asleep part). With the Latin synonyms of απολύσει being Oblectatio and Delectatio, and those being based, it appears, on delighting *primarily* in the senses, in sensual pleasures; I think Epicurus is still talking about the Cyrenaics' only accepting "kinetic" sensual pleasures as pleasure. They don't include the mental, katastematic pleasures in their definition of pleasure. They are "those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly." The prodigals are "those who are ignorant." So, the whole section could be something like:

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal **and those who are lying in sensual delight* like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind.

He's talking in those last lines about aponia and ataraxia. ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν "troubles the mind" uses tarattesthai which is related to a-taraxia.

Now for something completely different:

I believe I mentioned Fat Men's Clubs in this episode's recording:

Fat men's club - Wikipedia

I'm trying to figure out the difference between hedone and apolausis and just found this:

Will try to find a better scan! From Henri II Estienne — 1572

Running the last part through Google translate:

"Unless one prefers απολαύσιν to be interpreted as Pleasure (Oblectationem) or Delectation (Delectationem), as it is sometimes translated."

Delectation is "great pleasure, particularly of the senses."

Quote from Pacatus

Both in light of fragment 211 and the pleasure that I take in a sweet afternoon nap, I would not take to κεῖμαι simply meaning the enjoyment of sleep!

If we do interpret it with the "sleep" connotation, I take that as a dig against the Cyrenaics who equated the state between pain and pleasure as merely sleep or death. And κειμαι has both the sleep and death connotations. And Epicurus was adamant that there was only pain and pleasure and included the pain free state as pleasure.

Quote from Little Rocker

Yeah, I admit I still think it's 'the pleasures that lie in consumption,' but now I'm intrigued to look at other uses.

That's the weird thing to me on the grammar. The pleasure phrase "in enjoyment, in pleasure" is between the definite article τας and κειμενας. So, paraphrasing your line, it seems to me like it's "those that lie in pleasure" and not "those X that lie in consumption". The preposition is attached to pleasure/enjoyment.

I can't seem to let this go. I searched this morning for other uses of κείμενας in Diogenes Laertius plus I found 2 uses of the specific phrase τας κειμενας in Demosthenes and Diogenes Laertius:

τὰς κειμένας

1. (those) deposited (Demosthenes, Against Olympiodorus 48:17)

2. (those) deposited (Diogenes Laertius 5:3:64)

ἐν ᾧ κείμενα θεωρεῖτα

"where they are seen to be." (ie, stars) (Diogenes Laertius 10:112; letter to Pythocles)

τὰ αὐτὰ δίκαια κείμενα, (Diogenes Laertius 10:153; PD38)

"for the same things *as they are*" (see http://wiki.epicurism.info/Principal_Doctrine_38/)

And ἐν ἀπολαύσει consistently means "in pleasure"; "enjoyment" whether in Ancient Greek pagan texts or Biblical references.

In that light of day, I don't know if I'm as persuaded by Little Rocker 's conjecture. (Sorry) Although I may now be more confused than before!

I do think some translators skip over the ambiguity of the line and simply put it what they want to see or expect to see with their preconceptions of Epicurus's philosophy.

Quote from Little Rocker

Not to lead us astray here, but is it possible this could be a reference to sex? I mean, if we did follow the idea that we're talking about the kinds of things a person might enjoy while lying in bed.

Ah!! Maybe the other translations "sensual" was a circumlocution for sex! That *is* food for thought! Well done, Little Rocker !

FYI

Original text

Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν,

Saint-Andre

131: So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, ...

Don

131: Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal [and those who are lying about in enjoyment] like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; [NOTE: Still working on mine!]

Mensch

[...] But when we say that pleasure is our goal, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the self-indulgent, as the ignorant think, or those who disagree with or misinterpret our views. [...] (page 535)

Hicks

"When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or wilful misrepresentation.

Elli

"So when we say that pleasure is the end of life, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the profligates and those in the enjoyment (that lie out of limits).

Epicurus Wiki

"we do not mean the pleasure of debauchery or sensuality,"

Bailey

"When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality,"

When we say that pleasure is the goal, we are not talking about the pleasure of profligates or that which lies in sensuality, as some ignorant persons think, or else those who do not agree with us or have followed our argument

badly; rather, it is freedom from bodily pain and mental anguish (source)

So when we say that pleasure is the goal we do not mean the pleasures of the profligate or

the pleasures of consumption, as some believe, either from ignorance and disagreement

or from deliberate misinterpretation, (source)

Pamela Gordon

[So whenever we say that pleasure is the telos [the fulfillment or end], we do not

mean the pleasures of degenerates and pleasures that consist of physical enjoyment, as some assume (out of ignorance and because they disagree, or because they misconstrue our meaning), but we mean the absence of pain in the body and the absence of distress in the spirit.]

I'm leaning towards an interpretation of Epicurus making a contrast between the frenzied pleasures of profligates and lazy indolent (maybe "self-indulgent") pleasures... Maybe?

To me, upon further reflection, this seems to echo the contrast in VS11:

τῶν πλείστων ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὲν ἡσυχάζον ναρκᾷ, τὸ δὲ κινούμενον λυττᾷ.

For the majority of people, to be at rest is to be bored stiff; but to be active is to be raving like a rabid dog.

(My translation)

Quote from Elli

A profligate would lough with this conversation, since his enjoyments are not sleepy, they are the awaken, and are those that are costantly in motion

From my reading, The two phrases joined by και are describing two different misunderstandings that Epicurus is trying to refute.

Quote from Elli

And I do not see how you're going from the feelings (enjoyments) and intepret them - metaphorically - to getting them onto the bed because they are sleepy!

The construction of the two phrases is very similar:

1. τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς

καὶ "and"

2. τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας

which Epicurus seems fond of doing in pairs.

τὰς ἡδονὰς "the pleasures"

τῶν ἀσώτων "of the prodigal"

τὰς κειμένας "the lying down (to lie idle, to rest, to lie still)

ἐν ἀπολαύσει "in enjoyment"

The second phrase to me implies lethargic inactivity while the first, the profligate one, implies wild activity. Epicurus is saying both are wrong understandings of his philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

Just for the record too, I guess we could consider asking Peter St Andre directly about his thoughts. I have never had any communication with him in the past so I am not aware whether he is reachable or not.

I'll be happy to email him even though the Epicurus texts were posted on 2011. Hopefully he'll remember

PS: Emailed.

Epicurus is writing about two mistaken ideas about his philosophy here: he does not mean the pleasures of the profligates *nor* τας εν κειμένας απολαύσεις. He is refuting two mistaken understandings of his philosophy. He could very well to my eye be contrasting the mistaken views that Epicureans indulged the wild pleasures of the profligate *and* the exact opposite of indolence or laziness.

Quote from Elli

<τας εν κειμένας απολαύσεις> = <those that lie in enjoyments> [ those enjoyments that are out of limits] and this is what Epicurus means.

I still don't see how you're going from <those that lie in enjoyments> to getting [ those enjoyments that are out of limits]. That seems to me to be reading meaning into the words that isn't there from what I can see. To me, Epicurus wrote what he meant and meant what we wrote. I'm not seeing that meaning in the literal words.

Epicurus uses a related word (κεμαι with a prefix) in Fragment 207:

Fragment 207. Better to lie serene upon a bed of straw than to be full of troubles on a golden chair at an overflowing table.

κρεῖσσον δὲ σοι θαρρεῖν ἐπὶ στιβάδος κατακειμένῳ ἢ ταράττεσθαι χρυσῆν ἔχοντι χλίνην καὶ πολυτελῆ τράπεζαν.

It seems to me that Saint-Andre was generally correct in using the meaning of "lie down to rest, repose."

Thank you for that, Elli .

To be clear, I completely agree with you that Epicurus taught that we should enjoy pleasure within certain limits. He talked about limits and boundaries a lot.

I'm just unclear how you're saying this one phrase <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> in the ancient text can be translated as "those enjoyments that lie out of limits" when I'm just not seeing any "out of limits" in the actual words.

Let me go back to the text. Using my translation of the letter, I get:

Quote

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal and <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. [132] For it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.

Epicurus *could have* talked about "those enjoyments that lie out of limits" there but there are other slanders from "those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly" that he could have wanted to emphasize.

I'm just trying to understand how you can interpret those specific words <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> the way you did. If I could ask Bailey and others how they interpreted them the way they did, I would. You just happen to be in the forum.

And I don't think I'm using some Platonic dialectical method. Epicurus advocated using words with their natural meaning, as I understand it, not to hide meaning or redefine words like Socrates/Plato did. Toward that end, I don't see "out of limits" expressed by <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> but I can see a natural literal meaning like Saint-Andre's "the enjoyment of sleep."