Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

It's tricky to describe and yet not sound like a "monster," but it seems to me that Epicurus was saying that the universe simply doesn't care about our moralities.

Thoughts...

One doesn't sound like a "monster" saying the universe doesn't care - about us, our moralities, our culture, our world. That's a simple fact. Fully onboard with that idea.

However...

One starts to sound like that "monster" if it's implied or inferred or understood that Epicureans see "no problem" when people harm or kill others for pleasure. I continue to hold that the philosophy does not do that. I've had this conversation on this forum before, so apologies for anyone who was around for that. But after that basic premise, it gets complicated. After that, it's all contextual. And, I think, I'm able to now get my head around some nuances to that idea. "Torquatus" provides some tough contexts to consider. But this thread has really made me think about the foundational place that context and intention play in sizing up any "ethical" discussion in Epicurean philosophy. It seems to me that one can't really talk about "right" and "wrong" but rather, for example, "just" and "unjust." But there's no judge on high or stone-carved rulebook. A "commandment" like Thou shall not kill is somewhat useless and almost universally ignored. I'm intentionally using that as it's one of the most provocative.

Should you kill to protect your life?

Should you kill to protect your family?

Should you kill to protect your friends?

Should you kill to protect a stranger?

Should you kill to protect your car?

Should you kill to *prevent* harm to your life or your loved ones?

Should you hire someone to kill for you to prevent harm to yourself?

Should you kill animals to eat?

Should you kill rats in your house?

Should you kill bacteria that make you sick?

Should you kill animals in experiments?

Should you kill people like the TV character Dexter does because they've done "bad" things?

I'm hoping the list made you more uneasy as you went down.

To be clear, none of these scenarios matter one way or the other at all to "the universe."

However, we live in a human society with social contracts that provide context for these scenarios. There are just and unjust actions. There are choices and rejections to make. There are wise and unwise choices. *Almost* every one of those scenarios could have multiple contingencies, contexts within which some choices would be prudent and other choices that would not be prudent. Not having a rulebook is hard but it can also be seen as freeing. Because of this, I see Epicurean philosophy as a very grown up, adult way of living. There are exemplars like Epicurus, but ultimately it's up to each individual to make prudent decisions that lead to a healthy body, a tranquil mind, friends that can be relied on, enough community goodwill to be safe, and extravagant pleasures that provide for a pleasurable life.

I'll relinquish the soapbox for now.

Quote from Euboulos

Let them three parts of wine all duly season

With nine of water, who'd preserve their reason;

...

Quote from Fragment from the Greek Playwright Euboulos

"For sensible men...

I find it interesting that "preserve their reason" and "sensible men" translates τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι (tois eu phronousi) which is related to phronesis "practical wisdom." Something like "those who exercise their wisdom well."

Quote from Little Rocker

I mean, at the risk of sounding too extreme, I suspect that Epicurus is even open to the possibility that drinking to excess can be beneficial under some bizarre, even common, circumstances. If, for lack of a better example, a tyrant says he will force the citizens with the healthiest relationship to alcohol to fight in an unjust war, I think Epicurus might recommend falling down drunk in public a few times. Or if the only way a person can motivate themselves to do something courageous is to opt for 'liquid courage,' then Epicurus might say, 'hey, better perhaps you didn't need it, but well, turns out you do. Let me refill your glass.'

Or, ruling out the genuinely bad behavior Euboulos mentions, if it turns out empirically that getting drunk on Friday and ending up at Waffle House with college friends creates long-lasting memories of pleasure, then those memories could justify the hangover. I guess I'm just saying that I'm willing to consider going a lot further into traditional hedonism than a lot of people might find comfortable.

I don't think that's extreme. I would absolutely agree. You're just a little more creative in your scenarios than I've been

Having been raised in a society that likes absolutes in its ethics, that lack of absolutes in Epicurus I find refreshing, difficult to internalize, and intriguing all at the same time.

Thanks, Joshua !! I had forgotten about these lines.

Here's a variant translation from Perseus:

And Eubulus introduces Bacchus as saying—

Let them three parts of wine all duly season

With nine of water, who'd preserve their reason;

The first gives health, the second sweet desires,

The third tranquillity and sleep inspires.

These are the wholesome draughts which wise men please,

Who from the banquet home return in peace.

From a fourth measure insolence proceeds;

Uproar a fifth, a sixth wild licence breeds;

A seventh brings black eyes and livid bruises,

The eighth the constable next introduces;

Black gall and hatred lurk the ninth beneath,

The tenth is madness, arms, and fearful death;

For too much wine pour'd in one little vessel,

Trips up all those who seek with it to wrestle.

Εὔβουλος δὲ ποιεῖ τὸν Διόνυσον λέγοντα ῾II 196 K':'

τρεῖς γὰρ μόνους κρατῆρας ἐγκεραννύω

τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι: τὸν μὲν ὑγιείας ἕνα,

ὃν πρῶτον ἐκπίνουσι: τὸν δὲ δεύτερον

ἔρωτος ἡδονῆς τε: τὸν τρίτον δ᾽ ὕπνου,

ὃν ἐκπιόντες οἱ σοφοὶ κεκλημένοι

οἴκαδε βαδίζουσ᾽. ὁ δὲ τέταρτος οὐκ ἔτι

ἡμέτερός ἐστ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ὕβρεος: ὁ δὲ πέμπτος βοῆς:

ἕκτος δὲ κώμων: ἕβδομος δ᾽ ὑπωπίων:

<ὁ δ᾽> ὄγδοος κλητῆρος: ὁ δ᾽ ἔνατος χολῆς:

δέκατος δὲ μανίας, ὥστε καὶ βάλλειν ποιεῖ.

πολὺς γὰρ εἰς ἓν μικρὸν ἀγγεῖον χυθεὶς

ὑποσκελίζει ῥᾷστα τοὺς πεπωκότας.

So, my interpretation has been that pleasure *is* good but it's the *context* within which that pleasure is experienced (and the personal responsibility we take for that context) that makes all the difference.

Ex., Drinking wine with friends is pleasurable.

Drinking wine to excess party after party is going to be... let's say less than optimal for your pleasurable existence.

Quote from Cassius

"flourishing" and "wellbeing" and similar terms

I'm personally fine with Epicureans using terms like that as long as they're in the context of eudaimonia and in the larger context of pleasure/pain, etc.

Quote from Cassius

Anytime we start de-emphasizing the term "pleasure" with other wording we are in dangerous territory.

See that's why I find that Plutarch quote so interesting with him claiming that the Epicureans went "back and forth" using pleasure, aponia, and eustatheia. However, my take on that is that it all referred back to pleasure. Aponia is "absence of pain" (sort of, but that's another thread) because pleasure replaces it. Eustatheia is pleasure because it's that internal, stable tranquility that we can be sure of. Pleasure is the key in the philosophy, so whatever terms one uses, they have to return to a framing of pleasure.

I should echo Cassius 's respect for Dr. Yapijakis' efforts in establishing the Gardens in Greece and the conferences in-person and online and the publishing efforts. I did watch most of the online conference in which Cassius participated (I am remembering correctly that you gave a talk, correct??), and I have an idea what it takes to coordinate events like that. So, that all is impressive in the evangelizing - the spreading the good news - of Epicurean philosophy.

However...

I'm a little uneasy about how some of that paper is phrased, especially (emphasis added):

Quote

Therefore, the Epicureans aimed at eustatheia, the good psychosomatic balance, since they believed that “the consistently good condition of the flesh and the relating hope for its preservation offer the ultimate and surest joy to those who are able to contemplate it.”30 Epicureans were taught to ascend the scale of pleasure by intensifying its continuity and to control its discontinuity. They became more interested in quality than in quantity by taking into account (συμμέτρησις, symmetrisis) useful and useless pleasures.

The "aiming at eustatheia" is interesting. It's most prominent in the Usener 68 fragment from Plutarch:

Quote

[ U68 ]

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 4, p. 1089D: It is this, I believe, that has driven them, seeing for themselves the absurdities to which they were reduced, to take refuge in the "painlessness" and the "stable condition of the flesh," supposing that the pleasurable life is found in thinking of this state as about to occur in people or as being achieved; for the "stable and settled condition of the flesh," and the "trustworthy expectation" of this condition contain, they say, the highest and the most assured delight for men who are able to reflect. Now to begin with, observe their conduct here, how they keep decanting this "pleasure" or "painlessness" or "stable condition" of theirs back and forth, from body to mind and then once more from mind to body.

Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, IX.5.2: Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good but defines it as sarkos eustathes katastema, or "a well-balanced condition of the body."

....

Fragment 68: To those who are able to reason it out, the highest and surest joy is found in the stable health of the body and a firm confidence in keeping it. τὸ γὰρ εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις.

See also VS33

The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness (eudaimonia).

Display More

Metrodorus also echoes these thoughts, almost exactly in his Fragment 5.

However, Plutarch's text is interesting: they keep decanting this "pleasure" or "painlessness" or "stable condition" of theirs back and forth. He seems to imply that the Epicureans used "pleasure" or "painlessness" or "stable condition" almost interchangeably: ἡδονὴν (hēdonēn) ταύτην εἴτ᾽ ἀπονίαν (aponian) ἢ εὐστάθειαν (eustatheian). But this is the first time I've seen the word eustatheia. It's not a bad word to use, but I can surmise some may have an issue with it being "aimed at." It might be interesting to delve into that term more. So, I applaud Dr. Yapijakis for calling my attention to that.

I'm more concerned with the phrasing "ascend the scale of pleasure" and "useful and useless pleasures." I agree with Godfrey that that should be "useful and useless *desires*" at best. The "ascent" doesn't strike me as appropriate either.

In the end, as I said, I can appreciate his work over the years, but I'm not entirely comfortable with some of his emphasis and his framing.

Quote from Little Rocker

I noticed that Conatus is open-access (hooray!), and the studies Yapijakis references in the introduction are contained separately in the issue:

Epicurean Stability (eustatheia): A Philosophical Approach of Stress Management

I realize Dr. Yapijakis is a Associate Professor of Genetics, but his use in this paper of the outdated "triune brain" - even as a metaphor - stopped my reading in its tracks. I have been familiar with this reptile/ mammal/ primate brain "theory" since Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden. But, first in Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's work then following up with others, I found out that this idea, even as a metaphor, is outdated and simply factually wrong. For example:

A theory abandoned but still compelling

In 1977 readers were enthralled by The Dragons of Eden, a book by the astronomer Carl Sagan that explored the evolution of the human brain. Dragons won the

medicine.yale.edu

Quote

MacLean’s basic premise—his “‘hats on top of hats’ view” that brain systems were added by accretion over the course of evolution—was mistaken.

Rethinking the reptilian brain. - Dr Sarah McKay

The reptilian brain model is not based on evolution or neuroscience. What neuroscience-based stories or concepts should use you instead?

drsarahmckay.com

Quote

Does it matter if we use the ‘reptilian brain’?

TL:DR. YES!

We are not born with hard-wired pre-packaged emotions emerging from a lizard brain. The human brain is not a tripartite-series of separate complexes. We are not at the mercy of our lizard brain when we experience threat. We’ve established that.

It's Time To Correct Neuroscience Myths - Northeastern University College of Science

Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor at Northeastern who has been awarded a 2019 Guggenheim Fellowship, finds misinformation and myths about the brain…

cos.northeastern.edu

Quote

“Scientists have known since at least the 1970s that the idea of a lizard brain is a fiction of neuroscience,” Barrett says. “The problem here is that is takes 10, 20, sometimes 50 years before discoveries in science make it to the public.”

And so on. I could paste a number of articles, but I think that makes the point. I also vaguely remember making this point about his using the triune brain a year or so again. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. Even if "lizard brain" is in quotes, it's factually wrong and metaphorically misleading. It's not necessary to explain Epicurean philosophy. Just leave it out.

Quote from Cassius

Bad news Nate, it looks like they did NOT do their own version. This is from the page introducing them:

Well, ya know what that means, Eikadistes Someone's gotta do it now.

I was curious what footnote 92 referred to, and it's simply the fact that that quoted section is from his other paper. That seems a little circular, but at least it's referenced.

Book 25 (very fragmentary):

DCLP/Trismegistos 59749 = LDAB 853

Also

Synopsis of Epicurus’ “On Nature”, Book 25: On Moral Development | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Sedley, in Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, posits that the swerve doesn't show up in the letter to Herodotus because the letter only covers On Nature books 1-10. He further conjectures that the swerve showed up in book 25 or books in that area, but there's no surviving fragments of book 25 that contain mention of it.

I doubt Lucretius would have included the swerve without justification from a source text. That said, it certainly doesn't seem pivotal or foundation to Epicurus's philosophy. It could be part of a specific argument against Democritus and his physical determinism but may have become overblown with later commentators and critics.

Quote from Little Rocker

I admit to having on occasion approached the question of providence with kid gloves in the past, chiefly because many of the people I care about accept providence. Hell, they even accept petitionary prayer.

I hear you. I would never (probably) share these sentiments with certain family members, but it does feel pleasurable to me to vent them here

Quote from Little Rocker

1) lapse into Epicureanism without knowing it (see, for example, the Irvine passage attached, which is pretty much textbook Epicureanism)

I certainly see where you're going with that. Some modern Stoics I've read sound very Epicurean in their attempt to contort "their" philosophy into something palatable.

Quote from Cassius

a new presentation by Emily Austin of several major points from her "Living for Pleasure" book

I just finished listening to The Next Big Idea audio, and Yes! Yes! Yes!

The format only allows literally for "5 Big Ideas" and Dr. Austin nailed the presentation with a friendly tone, approachable language, and the best defense I think I've ever heard in a mainstream forum for the Epicurean position. Kudos!

Some may quibble with her use of responses to the COVID pandemic as "too political" but I disagree. She couches those within a "respect for science" framework which is spot on. There are charlatans peddling ignorance and there are scientists and experts.

She gives tranquility its proper place in the philosophy but not to the exclusion of "extravagant" pleasures. She never endorses a minimalist Epicureanism! I fully embrace and endorse her perspective on tranquility (i.e., "ataraxia" I'm assuming).

She gets in some good, well-deserved digs at the Stoics! It's about time in my opinion.

First rate... Now that I've heard her voice, I'd like her to do her own narration of an audiobook version

Thank you for being an eloquent, down to earth spokesperson for Epicurus!

Quote from Todd

Quote from Cassius

...the big issue, which appears to be at least in part that the question is how "much" of a deviation occurs.

Is this really a big issue?

I would agree that these are inside baseball discussions. Fun, but we're definitely in the weeds on this thread.

And my take is that this was the primordial situation with all atoms falling in parallel "straight down." However, once a couple collisions happened, the order was interrupted by collisions and conglomerations in parts of the cosmos. In other parts, the parallel falling continued. And so on.

I'm saying 4 with the caveat that that motion can happen more than once over time but not as often as 2.

Quote from Lucretius, Book 2

The atoms, as their own weight bears them down

Plumb through the void, at scarce determined times,

In scarce determined places, from their course

Decline a little- call it, so to speak,

Mere changed trend. For were it not their wont

Thuswise to swerve, down would they fall, each one,

Like drops of rain, through the unbottomed void;

And then collisions ne'er could be nor blows

Among the primal elements; and thus

Nature would never have created aught.

...

The atoms must a little swerve at times-

But only the least, lest we should seem to feign

Motions oblique, and fact refute us there.

For this we see forthwith is manifest:

Whatever the weight, it can't obliquely go,

Down on its headlong journey from above,

At least so far as thou canst mark; but who

Is there can mark by sense that naught can swerve

At all aside from off its road's straight line?

Again, if ev'r all motions are co-linked,

And from the old ever arise the new

In fixed order, and primordial seeds

Produce not by their swerving some new start

Of motion to sunder the covenants of fate,

That cause succeed not cause from everlasting,

Whence this free will for creatures o'er the lands,

Whence is it wrested from the fates,- this will

Whereby we step right forward where desire

Leads each man on, whereby the same we swerve

In motions, not as at some fixed time,

Nor at some fixed line of space, but where

The mind itself has urged? For out of doubt

In these affairs 'tis each man's will itself

That gives the start, and hence throughout our limbs

Incipient motions are diffused.

Display More

Quote from Nate

I'm trying out the idea that particles are "twitchy" and "tweak" when they move. I'm finding that "twerks", "wiggles" and "wags" imply a patterned rhythm that does not reflect the spontaneous, irregular quality of the ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ.

Well, I applaud you for making the observation of intentionally with "swerve." So, kudos there. Wiggle is the most fun, but still misleading.

Some random synonyms:

veer

drift

pivot

turn

.... Sigh.... Harder than it sounds like it would be!

PS: Do we know if the clinamen is supposed to be a fast swerving all of a sudden or a drifting off to one side or the other?

I'd describe most of us as "earnest students" of the philosophy. How does that sound, Cassius ?