Thanks, Lowri834 , I just saw Green's video over the weekend. For those curious:
I did notice that now that I'm aware of Epicuris, that even as a newbie, I am noticing it in culture and in my life.
Agreed. Epicurean ideas are far more prevalent in culture than people realize, from science to psychology to "common sense." People just aren't aware of them.
Pacatus raises an interesting point.
The word that Epicurus consistently uses that is translated "friend, friendship" is philos, philia φίλος, φιλιά.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, φι^λί-α
Ancient Greek had several words that evoked gradations and varieties of affection or love. I'm curious which one would be closest to Pacatus's "neighborliness" scenario.
Maybe xenia (ξενία, xenía) instead of philia?
For additional context, here's a related thread:
It is kind of ironic! In many cases it makes sense to avoid politics, in many other cases it is essential to charge right in! In truth politics is just another example of exercising prudence to chose your actions wisely, and not a place for a flat prohibition any more than any other place in life!
Context, context, context.
We mentioned Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett on the episode. I maintain that the research that Dr. Barrett and researchers like her are doing is directly relevant to a modern understanding of Epicurus's concentration on the feelings and prolepseis. This is a pretty good introduction to her work:
123 | Lisa Feldman Barrett on Emotions, Actions, and the Brain – Sean Carroll
PS. I thought this from Dr. Barrett strengthens Epicurus's broad definition of pleasure (and pain):
You never have an affectless moment in your life, so you can never be without feeling unless you have a non-neurotypical brain or something is terribly wrong, and so rational moments, moments of rational decision are not moments without feeling, that’s just not possible based on the anatomy of how our brains are structured.
PPS. At around 36:23 on that podcast with Sean Carroll, Dr Barrett starts talking about "categories" and "concepts" (specific scientific terminology, not the common meaning.. just listen) and, to me, those ideas sound a LOT like how prolepseis function, at least insofar as I understand prolepseis.. including how Dr Glidden described them. I find this intersection of Epicurean philosophy and neuroscience absolutely fascinating!
I admit (unapologetically) that I have some Cyrenaic tendencies (while recognizing errors in Aristippus’ philosophy that I think Epicurus corrects)
I was looking closer at your post above and wanted to comment on this. And I'm glad you added "unapologetically"! From my perspective and interpretation, the genius of Epicurus was to include *all* pleasures under his umbrella definition of pleasure. He supposedly said he couldn't imagine The Good (ie, pleasure) "without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms." He urged his students to experience joy and merriment. He talked about the importance of "peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature." And more! The Cyrenaics seem to have had a narrow definition of pleasure, but Epicurus understood that pleasures come from a myriad of sources. Having a few "Cyrenaic tendencies" doesn't seem to be a problem for him. If they bring you pleasure with minimal painful consequences, enjoy...unapologetically 
Apologies Don if I am misinterpreting/misrepresenting you here.
No apologies necessary, Pacatus. 
I can see how what I said might be interpreted that way.
But neither do I want to be continually working an abacus in my head to calculate, calculate, calculate (nor a set of scales to weigh, and weigh and weigh) – or even to think, think, think.
I definitely don't advocate literal calculations like adding up Utilitarian dolor (pain) and hedon (pleasure) points for decision-making. The word used there in Greek for "ask" actually means "one must apply, administer, of instruments or drugs." We use our faculty of choice and rejection like applying a treatment, a tool, or a medicine to our lives.
I think it becomes second nature to apply that idea to decisions. I don't think Epicurus was saying to make a list of pros and cons for every decision every moment. But I do think he was saying to get in the habit of not making rash decisions and such.
With that said: although it might be “a bit early,” I’m going to enjoy an afternoon martini (even if it leads to an unplanned nap
).
Substitute a cold IPA and I'm right there with you!
We mentioned the circumplex in today's episode. Here are some resources:
Russell’s (1980) Circumplex Models – Psychology of Human Emotion: An Open Access Textbook
PS: From my perspective, Epicurus included *everything* to the right of the vertical axis in his definition of pleasure. The Cyrenaics, for example, only included the upper right quadrant.
Here's a Spanish version of the text cited by Ciceron (and supposedly found in Herculanum), the APOKARTERŌN:
https://www.mainlanderespana.com/single-post/ap…esias-de-cirene
I was able to find the English original, to which the Spanish version refers.
Thanks for this. The only caveat is that this is "a speculative reconstruction." It appears that it's not the actual text of Apokarteron but an attempt to construct what it could have been using other ancient texts and filling in a dialogue format. For example, Hegesias is not listed in the available authors at Papyri.info, and there appears to be no P.herc.1913 & 1914 as mentioned in the 2nd footnote. Papyri.info only lists up to P.herc. 1824. So the citation is meant to provide verisimilitude to the fictional reconstruction, like Tolkien saying The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were translated from Bilbo's and Frodo's Red Book of Westmarch (with later additions by Sam Gamgee).
Not saying the article isn't interesting, but it shouldn't be taken as an ancient text.
See also
Back to the topic of the thread:
Anyway my colleague is willing to do cocaine and will go through the come down afterwards because he argue’s that the pleasure outweighs the pain. Of course at some point, he might become addicted to cocaine so the pain factor would kick in then. But he argues that he doesn’t have an addictive personality type and only does cocaine on special occasions. It could be argued in this scenario that he is being Epicurean?! Thoughts!
Right off the bat, I can't say whether your colleague is "being Epicurean" or not. Just saying you're doing something for the "pleasure" of it strikes me as being more generally "hedonistic" than strictly Epicurean. Around here at least, that capital-E Epicurean brings along a lot more than simply doing something for the pleasure it provides.
On a deeper level, Cassius (& others here) and I have had some "knock-down drag-out fights" 
over the years concerning the interpretation of PD10 as well as the section in the Letter to Menoikeus about "the pleasure of those who are prodigal." I have refined my views on that Principal Doctrine thanks to those "discussions."
I maintain that it's not an activity, in and of itself, that is objectionable to Epicurus's philosophy but the consequences. It is of paramount importance to *always* adhere to VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not? Eikadistes 's mention of symmetresis (Great word, btw!!) is a nice one-word summary of that process. One "weighs together" the "What if's?" against each other. Questions for your colleague to ask themselves would include, but not be limited to:
And so on...
Epicurus's position seems to me that you can't have a blanket statement *against* a specific activity. Epicurus is all about context. That said, I continue to assert that Epicurus thought it was *better* in the long run to not indulge all the time in "sex, drugs, and rock & roll." Those behaviors and activities have been shown to not be conducive to an overall pleasurable existence due to health and social concerns. He's not laying down a prohibition from on high. He's saying, "Okay, if that's what you want to do. Report back to me on how it's going later, and we'll talk." But, as I pointed out in post #5 above, Epicurus wrote in his Symposium (lost except for fragments now 
) , of which it appears he was a participant in the dialogue, that it was the behavior *arising* from getting drunk that was the problem, not the drinking of wine itself.
ThinkingCat : You have definitely earned your screen-name. Not only are you obviously thinking yourself; you're getting the rest of us to think as well! Thanks!
I have thoughts on the thread topic but wanted to reply to the quote..
"The wise man will never indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet." (Wise Man Saying 13)
My translation: Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly.
Hicks: Nor will he drivel, when drunken: so Epicurus says in the Symposium.
Yonge: Nor will he ever indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet,
Mensch: He will not talk nonsense when drunk.
Is the emphasis here on the drunkenness or the "drivel" (to talk stupidly or carelessly)?
Let's check the original text:
οὐδὲ μὴν ληρήσειν ἐν μέθῃ …
So, technically, the wise one can get drunk, but they need to be careful how they act. The fact that this characteristic is an excerpt from Epicurus's Symposium (Συμπόσιον) which is a banquet or drinking party, is interesting. Chances are attendees were getting drunk and acting silly. To me, Epicurus is saying, "Go ahead and drink, but, Paian Anax, don't act the fool!" (According to Normal DeWitt, Epicurus liked to pepper his writings with names of the gods, Paian Anax "Lord Apollo" was one of his favorites.)
Welcome, χαίρε, and salve, Randall Moose and thank you for the heartfelt introduction to yourself and your path here.
I fully agree with you about the value of the podcast. It has been my honor and pleasure to contribute to those efforts intermittently, but I enjoy listening to every episode. The freewheeling, informal style established at the very beginning by Cassius, Martin and the others makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping on a conversation. And to be a part of that conversation is *always* a pleasure when I drop by.
I do believe that my life has improved since I began my studies.
Completely agree with you in my life as well!
I have always been shy online and I am still studying the basics, so please be patient with me. It took me some time to discover this forum. It has been a wonderful resource....
Going forward, I want to be active on the forum. I really shouldn't be this anxious about it, but I am.
I look forward to your activity on the forum. I, too, was anxious about engaging online. Your comments inspired me to go back and reread my very first post to the forum on Feb. 25, 2020. I "lurked" for some time before registering an actual account. I used an alias and fully expected to mostly read and only occasionally comment. Now, 3+ years in , I use my given name, written three articles, am an occasional podcaster, and made connection with wonderful people. I fully agree this forum is a unique and valuable corner of the Internet, and I greatly appreciate Cassius 's (and more recently Kalosyni 's) efforts in maintaining it, both the software and content.
Welcome aboard our little boat!
VS78 came up in the episode:
The noble soul is devoted most of all to wisdom and to friendship — one a mortal good, the other immortal.
ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι θνητὸν ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον.
This Vatican Saying puzzled me for a long time, and I don't know whether I read this somewhere (probably) or it hit me.
I looked at the words usually rendered mortal and immortal: θνητὸν - liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος literally "un-dying"
Wisdom σοφίαν is mortal because it dies with us. Our own wisdom, what we know, dies with our mind.
Friendship φιλίαν exists after our death in the memories of our friends.
That's how I interpret this saying now.
my ‘online friends’ as opposed to my ‘real life friends’
For what it's worth, we're real, too.
Also didn’t Epicurus only eat water and bread and sometimes a little cheese?
That's a common misconception. Here's my commentary on that in my letter to Menoikeus translation:
These are two important words: μᾶζα, ὕδωρ. A number of commentators point to these two words to insist that Epicurus and all those who lived or studied in the Garden ate only “bread and water.” I have always been curious about which kind of bread was being referred to. It turns out its μᾶζα (maza) which was an ancient Greek barley-cake or a thick barley porridge as opposed to ἄρτος (artos), a cake or loaf of wheat bread. Maza could be a quick, hearty, simple meal all by itself. Pass the Flamingo (a website on ancient recipes and food) has an interesting article on it which includes a recipe.
It’s important to point back to verse 126c at this point. The idea of eating “only” bread and water seems Spartan (pun intended) and ascetic to us, but bread and water (or, probably more commonly, wine) *was* a meal in ancient Greece. A simple meal of maza with a cup of water, without all the extra dishes that made up ὄψον, would not have been an uncommon meal. Epicurus isn’t advocating an ascetic lifestyle here. He’s pointing to the simple, everyday meals that many Athenians took for granted. You don't need an extravagant, ten-course feast to experience pleasure. Slow down, appreciate what's in front of you, take delight in the everyday pleasures - like that meal you don't give a second thought to. But Epicurus will have more to say about this soon.
FYI... Acts 17:18-34 (NRSV)
The word "babbler" is actually σπερμολόγος (spermalogos) "idle babbler, gossiper"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σπερμο-λόγος
18Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.
22Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26From one ancestor[i] he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God[j] and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his offspring.’
29Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
32When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33At that point Paul left them. 34But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
ok great, so I promise I will go away and do some reading but could anyone briefly summarise why Christianity was a problem for Epicurus - obviously Christian’s believed in a personal god but how would Christianity have helped portray Epicureanism as excess?
Christians did not like (to put it mildly) that Epicureans did not believe in an immortal soul that could be punished or rewarded in an afterlife. The Christians also didn't like that Epicureans did not believe "god" intervened in the world and human affairs. There were a number of "disagreements" but those are the main ones.
Epicureans are actually mentioned in the Bible at Acts 17:18.
TAΓAϴON seems to have a similar application, in that the word popularly connotes a perfect, transcendental principle, but also literally refers to that objects that create pleasurable feelings, or pleasure itself.
I'm not sure if I agree with the definition there.
Nicomachean Ethics starts out with:
“Every art and every investigation, and likewise every practical pursuit or undertaking, seems to aim at some good: hence it has been well said that the Good is That at which all things aim.”
This sets up the difference between “some/a good thing” ἀγαθοῦ and The Good Thing τἀγαθόν.
SOCRATES: I omit ten thousand other things, such as beauty and health and strength, and the many beauties and high perfections of the soul: O my beautiful Philebus, the goddess, methinks, seeing the universal wantonness and wickedness of all things, and that there was in them no limit to pleasures and self-indulgence, devised the limit of law and order, whereby, as you say, Philebus, she torments, or as I maintain, delivers the soul. — What think you, Protarchus? …
I admit I need to read Philebus in full, but, just riffing on the above excerpts + Seneca, it seems to meet that Plato (via "Socrates") is conflating (on purpose) pleasure and desire. The *desire* for pleasure is infinite; and the things (mental and physical) from which we can derive pleasure are probably innumerable. But pleasure, as a feeling, is limited to the point where there is no pain, when the body is satiated. Full satisfaction is the limit of pleasure. I think Epicurus had that absolutely correct. The other philosophers took for granted (from *their* perspective!) that pleasure was bad, base, inferior and then designed their philosophy around that "a priori knowledge." Epicurus started from the ground up to investigate where pleasure came from, and decided it was nature's natural "stop and go" signals, then began to philosophize how we interact with pleasure.
And it may also be exactly the same point as with the "greatest good" which exists only in Platonic ideal status.
Νο. No, no, no.
"The greatest good" did not only exist in "Platonic ideal status." Epicurus was more than happy to discuss - to proclaim - "the greatest good" on the same terms as his rivals and predecessors but his declaration was rooted in the real world of experience, of feeling. Epicurus declared that The Good was not some ethereal ideal form. It was pleasure, the feeling of pleasure.
The word in ancient Greek that Aristotle uses, that they all use when talking about "The Good," is ταγαθον (tagathon). ταγαθον literally means "The Good Thing" or just "The Good." That is the exact word Epicurus uses when saying:
[It is observed too that in his treatise On the Ethical End (Περὶ τέλους Peri telous/telos) he writes in these terms:] "I know not how to conceive the good (τἀγαθόν), apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form."
"Οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθόν, ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς δι᾽ ἀφροδισίων καὶ τὰς δι᾽ ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς."
The "greatest good" is the reason - the final reason, the end reason, the goal, the limit, the telos - of why we do what we do. It is the reason left at the top of the heap after we answer every other question "Why do you do what you do?" The "greatest good" is that toward which every other good thing aims.
Epicurus also used the word in one of Cassius' favorite sayings:
Like unto this is that of Epicurus, where he saith: The very nature of The Good (τὴν τἀγαθοῦ φύσιν) arises from the escaping of bad, and a man's recollecting, considering, and rejoicing within himself that this hath befallen him. For what occasions transcending joy (he saith) is some great impending evil escaped; and in this lies the very nature and essence of "good" (ἀγαθοῦ), if a man attain unto it aright, and contain himself when he hath done, and not ramble and prate idly about "good" (ἀγαθοῦ). (Source with my edits)
τἀγαθόν is also the word used by Philodemus and/or the later Epicureans in the Tetrapharmakos for “The Good (τἀγαθόν) is easy to obtain.”
maybe that's exactly why Epicurus recommended against walking around obsessing over the meaning of "good."
He lampooned the Peripatetics (Aristotle's school who "strolled around") for the kind of circular arguments and hair-splitting about what "good" means like Aristotle displays in his Nichomachean Ethics. The Epicureans, starting from Epicurus himself, felt that they had answered the question "what is ταγαθον 'The Good'?" once and for all. They answered "What is the good thing at which all other good things and our actions aims?" Epicurus and the Epicureans all used that word ταγαθον deliberately and purposefully to drive the point home that they had answered that question decisively, finally, and there was no need - had never been a need! - to "stroll around endlessly prattling on" about what "good" meant. You can FEEL The Good. It's right here, now, in our bodies and our minds. All good things point to The Good Thing which is pleasure. Pleasure is the only thing good in and of itself. We do all our actions for it, at their root. Keep asking "Why?" and the final answer, the final good thing at the root of it all is pleasure.
