Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Yes Don it's time to reinforce that and confirm that we count to three rather than four. I seem to remember Cicero questioning this in On Ends, and perhapes Aulus Gellius defends Epicurus, on the same point:

1 - Natural and Necessary

2 - Natural but not Necessary

3 - Necessary but not Natural ???????

4 - Neither Natural Nor Necessary

If you have Cicero's citation handy, that would be handy.

That's one reason I like natural, necessary, and empty.

Epicurus' categories are not a strict permutation of the words un-natural and un/necessary.

Quote from Cassius

those desires which don't bring pain - if unfulfilled - are "empty."

In part (or in full?), empty desires, from my perspective, are those that cannot - by definition - ever be satisfied. I want more money, I want more power, and so on. I'd be curious for others' examples. Power and money have their place. Philodemus talks about "natural wealth." But greed - without limits - can never be satisfied. That's an empty - think bottomless - desire.

Quote from Rolf

We should probably rarely, if ever, sacrifice natural necessary desires for unnatural necessary ones, when keeping long term pleasure in mind.

I don't think there are unnatural but necessary desires (per Epicurus' categories).

Quote from Bryan

I think you want U423, and so for the rest.

Exactly! Thanks, Bryan ! I was switching back and forth between VS and Fragments. (Corrected above now)

Selected Fragments, by Epicurus

This one has the Greek and English side by side.

And

Epicurus: Fragments - translation (3)

423. What brings unsurpassed joy is the removal of a great evil; and this is the nature of the good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about chattering emptily. [note] τὸ γὰρ ποιοῦν ἀνυπέρβλητον γῆθος τὸ πάραυτα πεφυγμένον μέγα κακόν· καὶ αὕτη φύσις ἀγαθοῦ, ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἐπιβάλῃ. ἔπειτα σταθῇ, καὶ μὴ κενῶς περιπατῇ περὶ θρυλῶν.

***

[ U423 ]

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 7, p. 1091A: Not only is the basis that they assume for the pleasurable life untrustworthy and insecure, it is quite trivial and paltry as well, inasmuch as their "thing delighted" – their good – is an escape from ills, and they say that they can conceive of no other, and indeed that our nature has no place at all in which to put its good except the place left when its evil is expelled. … Epicurus too makes a similar statement to the effect that the good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil and from your memory and reflection and gratitude that this has happened to you. His words are these: "That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good."

Ibid., 8, p. 1091E: Thus Epicurus, and Metrodorus too, suppose {that the middle is the summit and the end} when they take the position that escape from ill is the reality and upper limit of the good.

SIDEBAR: In looking at the Vatican Sayings above, I made the following delightful discovery.

Quote

U471. ...through their greed fall into ever-changing desires. ...καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν.

The word translated here as "ever-changing" is πολυτρόπους (polytropous).

My delightful discovery part is that πολυτρόπος is the first word used to describe Odysseus in the first line in Homer's Odyssey: ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ "Sing to me, O Muse, of the man of twists and turns,..."

πολυτρόπος has a myriad of interpretations, which is appropriate. It is literally formed of πολυ (poly) "many" + τρόπος (trópos) "a turn, direction, course, way; a way, manner, fashion; of persons, a way of life, habit, custom"

So, in VS471 the πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας " 'polytropic' desires " conveys the meaning of desires that are ever-turning, always changing direction, taking many courses or directions. To me, it conveys a sense of never being satisfied, always changing ones mind as to what they want, and so on.

I can hear the objections like "We shouldn't just be satisfied. What happens to ambition?" and so on. I simply point to VS35. Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

I'm going to push back hard on this line. Yes, it's the same word but with different connotations.

The Void is empty. Yes, it allows for movement by atoms, but the important thing is that it's empty. It's the emptiness that allows the unimpeded movement.

Empty beliefs, metaphorically, are devoid of any substance. There's nothing that supports them. They arise not from philosophical understanding but from misunderstanding or disregard of the goal of life.

I'll let Epicurus take it from here...

U116. I summon you to unceasing joy and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.

U202. He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is poverty. ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει παρακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστι πενία.

U221. A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul. κενὸς ἐκείνου φιλοσόφου λόγος, ὑφʼ οὗ μηδὲν πάθος ἀνθρώπου θεραπεύεται· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἰατρικῆς οὐδὲν ὄφελος μὴ τὰς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων ἐκβαλλούσης, οὕτως οὐδὲ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μὴ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος.

U422. We need pleasure when in pain because of its absence; but when we are not experiencing such pain, and are perceiving stably, then there is no need for pleasure. For it is not the needs of nature which, from outside us, create harm, but desire driven by groundless opinions. τότε χρείαν ἔχομεν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι αὐτὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ πάσχωμεν ἐν αἰσθήσει καθεστῶτες, τότε οὐδεμία χρεία τῆς ἡδονῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἔνδεια τὴν ἀδικίαν ποιεῖ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς κενὰς δόξας ὄρεξις.

U423. What brings unsurpassed joy is the removal of a great evil; and this is the nature of the good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about chattering emptily. τὸ γὰρ ποιοῦν ἀνυπέρβλητον γῆθος τὸ πάραυτα πεφυγμένον μέγα κακόν· καὶ αὕτη φύσις ἀγαθοῦ, ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἐπιβάλῃ. ἔπειτα σταθῇ, καὶ μὴ κενῶς περιπατῇ περὶ θρυλῶν.

U471. It is rare to find a man who is poor with regard to the aims of nature and rich in groundless desires. For a fool is never satisfied with what he has, but instead is distressed about what he doesn't have. Just as those who are feverish through the evil of their sickness are always thirsty and desiring the opposite of what they should, so those whose souls are in a bad condition are always poor in everything and through their greed fall into ever-changing desires. σπάνιόν γε εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον <πένητα> πρὸς τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος καὶ πλούσιον πρὸς τὰς κενὰς δόξας. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν ἀφρόνων οἷς ἔχει ἀρκεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οἷς οὐκ ἔχει ὀδυνᾶται. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ πυρέττοντες διὰ κακοήθειαν τῆς νόσου ἀεὶ διψῶσι καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ τὴν ψυχὴν κακῶς ἔχοντες διακειμένην πένονται πάντων ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν.

U485. Unhappiness is caused by fears, or by endless and empty desires; but he who is able to rein these in creates for himself a blissful understanding. ἢ γὰρ διὰ φόβον τις κακοδαιμονεῖ ἢ διʼ ἀόριστον καὶ κενὴν ἐπιθυμίαν· ἅ τις χαλινῶν δύναται τὸν μακάριον ἑαυτῷ περιποιῆσαι λογισμόν.

U486. Pain does not consist in being deprived of things, but rather in bearing the avoidable distress caused by groundless opinion. οὐκ ἀπορεῖν τούτων πόνος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ φέρειν μᾶλλον τὸν ἀνόνητον ἐκ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν πόνον.

FWIW, For my own review and for anyone else curious, I'm going to review the words Epicurus used in his categorization of desires:

"Desire" ΕΠΙΘΥΜΙΑ epithymia : desire, yearning; craving, want, wish

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐπιθυ_μ-ία

"Natural" ΦΥΣΙΚΟΣ physikos: natural, produced or caused by nature, inborn, native

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, φυ^σικός

"Necessary" ΑΝΑΓΚΑΙΟΣ anangkaios : necessary; necessary (physically or morally); indispensable (NOTE: That last connotation puts a little different spin on "necessary")

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀναγκ-αῖος

"Empty" ΚΕΝΟΣ kenos : empty, fruitless, void; vain, pretentious (NOTE: this is the same word Epicurus uses in "atoms and void" Think of empty space, no ground. Beliefs or desires that are kenos have nothing valid underpinning them or supporting them. They're a house built on sand to bring in a biblical metaphor.)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κενός

So, it seems like there are:

• Natural desires
• Natural and necessary desires
• Natural and not necessary desires
• Empty desires (neither natural nor necessary?)

I think a corollary of this is that we have to ask what is our motivation for our desires. We have to look from where desires arise.

Take for example, running for political office. Is the motivation for that desire grounded in right belief or arising from empty vain belief? Is the motivation to work for more safety and security for one's community (and hence oneself) or to amass power to self-aggrandize or use power to manipulate others (which would/should make you always fearful of reprisal or other harm)?

Quote from Cassius

If so (and i think it's yes) what does that do to the attempt to make the categories into a hard and fast list?

There can be no "hard and fast" list of any of the myriad desires because it's (like much of Epicurus' philosophy) all very contextual. Granted, there are some desires that can be labeled necessary: The desire to breathe, the desire to eat, etc. BUT even there consider this:

We ALL have the desire to breathe. What happens when this desire occurs if you're trying to hide from someone who wants to kill you? You're holding your breath to remain undetected. The desire to breath is overidden by the context of your desire to remain hidden and safe. I realize that's an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: Bryan or Eikadistes or anyone good with ancient Greek - PLEASE feel free to check my grammar etc in the Letter to Menoikeus. If I'm missing something, this post just missed the mark! Thanks!

One thing that struck me tonight was the rest of that section in the letter to Menoikeus that discusses the categories of desires. Here's my translation (emphasis added - see commentary below the quote):

Quote

(127) ... on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. [128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. For the sake of this, we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind, seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking for the good of our mental and physical existence. For it is then that we need pleasure, if we were to be in pain from the pleasure not being present; but if we were to not be in pain, we no longer desire or beg for pleasure. And this is why we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment of the blessed life. [129] Because we perceived pleasure as a fundamental good and common to our nature, and so, as a result of this, we begin every choice and rejection against this, judging every good thing by the standard of how that pleasure affects us or how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure. And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized and we pass by many pleasures when greater unpleasant things were to result for us as a result: and we think many pains better than pleasures whenever greater pleasure were to follow for a longer time by patiently abiding the pain. [130] So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.It is proper when judging these things to consider what is advantageous and what is not advantageous for you; in other words, what the consequences will be. We consult the consequences of our actions; because, on the one hand, pleasure over time can lead to pain; and on the other hand, pain can lead to pleasure.

What struck me this evening was what immediately follows the categorization. To review the categories (as I understand them) spelled out in this letter are:

1. natural desires (φυσικαί physikai)
   1. desires that are both necessary and natural (καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ ἀναγκαῖαι)
      1. necessary desires for eudaimonia
      2. necessary desires for the freedom from disturbance for the body
      3. necessary desires for life itself
   2. desires which are only natural (αἱ φυσικαὶ μόνον hai physikai monon)
2. empty, fruitless, or vain desires (κεναί kenai)

The word "unnecessary" doesn't seem to be used in the letter. Now, the sentiment does show up in VS20 (which is also nearly the same as PD29). If we look at VS20 there are interesting issues in the manuscript:

Post

VS20 - Source in Vat.gr.1950

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3912/

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1950.pt.2/0256

402v

I'm skeptical now to say that VS20 = PD29 since we've seen some discrepancies in a one-to-one duplication of VS's and PD's.

The transcription of this VS/PD appears to run here:

τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ καὶ epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3913/ ἀναγκαῖαι, δὲ αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμαι.

or as it appears to be...

τῶν…

Don

July 8, 2023 at 9:46 PM

The manuscript appears to run:

τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ καὶ μέν οὔκ ἀναγκαῖαι, δὲ αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμαι.

Of the desires, on the one hand, there are the natural and necessary; then the natural ones and the not necessary ones; then the not natural and not necessary arising from empty belief.

VS20's categories seem to be able to be listed like this:

1. the natural and necessary desires
2. the natural and not necessary desires
3. not natural and not necessary desires arising from empty belief

But I've gotten off on a TANGENT!!

My point (egads, I'm easily distracted) is what came after the categories in the letter to Menoikeus:

[128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life.

This takes me back to Cassius 's idea to categorize all desires into (four) categories. I'm not sure there are four, but his point is well taken.

Plus, the phrase that stands out for me in the letter is: The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection.

This steady contemplation is ἀπλανὴς "not wandering, steady, fixed" θεωρία "consideration, theory, speculation; contemplation". This word θεωρία shows up in the characteristics of the sage in Diogenes Laertius, Book X.120: The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing.

Epicurus is calling Menoikeus to consider every desire in light of these categories he just laid out. So, in keeping with Cassius 's idea, we should be able to categorize every desire we have into natural, necessary, or empty. If we go by VS20, every desire should be natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, or empty. We can ask the question of every desire at any given moment "Will this desire lead to pleasure?" and "How much struggle will I need to fulfill this desire?" and "Is the pain of struggle worth pursuing this desire?" And similar questions. That *steady contemplation* is what is important and why this categorization is a TOOL and not an EDICT. Epicurus isn't *telling* us what desires to fulfill. He's instructing us to APPLY his tools and assess what each desire offers in the way of the goal of pleasure (whether that pleasure is sensory, or memory, or any other type of pleasurable outcome).

Quote from Kalosyni

"What is my goal in life?" -- I would add more such as well-being, satisfaction, peace of mind, and pleasant abiding...in addition to pleasure (enjoyment) and happiness.

I would tend to concur with you, Kalosyni . My only tangent or adjacent thought on that is that all those (well-being, satisfaction, peace of mind (ataraxia?), and pleasant abiding) are, in fact, ALL pleasure per "absence of pain = pleasure" and "the feelings are two." So, the "goal of life" is pleasure, writ large.

The problem that enters in is that there are so many ways to define pleasure above the "pleasure/pain" dichotomy. I think that's why Epicurus can write (paraphrased) "the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind is the goal (telos) of a blessed life" and "pleasure is the goal (telos)" and "if indeed eudaimonia is present, we have everything; if eudaimonia is not present, we do anything to have eudaimonia."

Quote from Cassius

One thing I will say about it is that it strikes me that there is a connection between thinking it is a good idea to (1) categorize all feelings into two categories and (2) categorize all desires into four categories.

Another insightful idea! You are on a roll, my friend! I like that direction.

Quote from Cassius

The only way it would make sense to conclude that you would never pursue anything other than natural and necessary desires would be to believe that as a matter of natural law or some other necessity or flat guarantee, that pursuing anything other than natural and necessary desires is guaranteed to lead to more pain than pleasure

That is very insightful and something I've certainly never thought of! Well done.

Quote from Cassius

Don .... and anyone else fluent in Greek

I appreciate the vote of confidence!!

Quote

Could better evidence be cited to prove that Epicureans were pamphleteers?

Uh, yeah. That's the "evidence" for Epicureans being "pamphleteers"?

Here's the context of the Horace quote:

Quote

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE EPISTLES OF HORACE.
EPISTLE I.

TO MAECENAS.

The poet renounces all verses of a ludicrous turn, and resolves to apply himself wholly to the study of philosophy, which teaches to bridle the desires, and to postpone every thing to virtue.

Maecenas, the subject of my earliest song, justly entitled to my latest, dost thou seek to engage me again in the old lists, having been tried sufficiently, and now presented with the foils? My age is not the same, nor is my genius. Veianius, his arms consecrated on a pillar of Hercules' temple, lives snugly retired in the country, that he may not from the extremity of the sandy amphitheater so often supplicate the people's favor. Some one seems frequently to ring in my purified ear: "Wisely in time dismiss the aged courser, lest, an object of derision, he miscarry at last, and break his wind." Now therefore I lay aside both verses, and all other sportive matters; my study and inquiry is after what is true and fitting, and I am wholly engaged in this: I lay up, and collect rules which I may be able hereafter to bring into use. And lest you should perchance ask under what leader, in what house [of philosophy], I enter myself a pupil: addicted to swear implicitly to the ipse-dixits of no particular master, wherever the weather drives me, I am carried a guest. One while I become active, and am plunged in the waves of state affairs, a maintainer and a rigid partisan of strict virtue; then again I relapse insensibly into Aristippus' maxims, and endeavor to adapt circumstances to myself, not myself to circumstances. As the night seems long to those with whom a mistress has broken her appointment, and the day slow to those who owe their labor; as the year moves lazy with minors, whom the harsh guardianship of their mothers confines; so all that time to me flows tedious and distasteful, which delays my hope and design of strenuously executing that which is of equal benefit to the poor and to the rich, which neglected will be of equal detriment to young and to old. It remains, that I conduct and comfort myself by these principles; your sight is not so piercing as that of Lynceus; you will not however therefore despise being anointed, if you are sore-eyed: nor because you despair of the muscles of the invincible Glycon, will you be careless of preserving your body from the knotty gout. There is some point to which we may reach, if we can go no further. Does your heart burn with avarice, and a wretched desire of more? Spells there are, and incantations, with which you may mitigate this pain, and rid yourself of a great part of the distemper. Do you swell with the love of praise? There are certain purgations which can restore you, a certain treatise, being perused thrice with purity of mind. The envious, the choleric, the indolent, the slave to wine, to women—none is so savage that he can not be tamed, if he will only lend a patient ear to discipline.

It is virtue, to fly vice; and the highest wisdom, to have lived free from folly. You see with what toil of mind and body you avoid those things which you believe to be the greatest evils, a small fortune and a shameful repulse. An active merchant, you run to the remotest Indies, fleeing poverty through sea, through rocks, through flames. And will you not learn, and hear, and be advised by one who is wiser, that you may no longer regard those things which you foolishly admire and wish for? What little champion of the villages and of the streets would scorn being crowned at the great Olympic games, who had the hopes and happy opportunity of victory without toil? Silver is less valuable than gold, gold than virtue. "O citizens, citizens, money is to be sought first; virtue after riches:" this the highest Janus from the lowest inculcates; young men and old repeat these maxims, having their bags and account-books hung on the left arm. You have soul, have breeding, have eloquence and honor: yet if six or seven thousand sesterces be wanting to complete your four hundred thousand, you shall be a plebeian. But boys at play cry, "You shall be king, if you will do right." Let this be a [man's] thus his forms? What does the poor man? Laugh [at him too]: is he not forever changing his garrets, beds, baths, barbers? He is as much surfeited in a hired boat, as the rich man is, whom his own galley conveys.

If I meet you with my hair cut by an uneven barber, you laugh [at me]: if I chance to have a ragged shirt under a handsome coat, or if my disproportioned gown fits me ill, you laugh. What [do you do], when my judgment contradicts itself? it despises what it before desired; seeks for that which lately it neglected; is all in a ferment, and is inconsistent in the whole tenor of life; pulls down, builds up, changes square to round. In this case, you think I am mad in the common way, and you do not laugh, nor believe that I stand in need of a physician, or of a guardian assigned by the praetor; though you are the patron of my affairs, and are disgusted at the ill-pared nail of a friend that depends upon you, that reveres you.

In a word, the wise man is inferior to Jupiter alone, is rich, free, honorable, handsome, lastly, king of kings; above all, he is sound, unless when phlegm is troublesome.

Display More

I didn't see any indication here of the "certain treatise" being an Epicurean one.

As for Cicero:

Cicero: In Pisonem (2)

[25.] L [59] But, since we cannot alter the past, why does not this mannikin, this Epicurus of mud and clay, hasten to instil these sublime and philosophical doctrines into that great and illustrious commander his son-in-law **? Believe me, it is fame that bids that great man soar; he burns, he is ablaze with desire for a splendid and a well-earned triumph. He has not learnt the lessons that you have learnt. Send him a tract ; nay, if at this stage you can contrive to meet him in person, meditate what phrases you can use to quench and stifle the flames of his desire....

"Send him a tract (libellum)"? That's it? That could easily refer to Principal Doctrines or a section of On Nature.

lĭbellus., a little book, pamphlet, esp. a book written in pages, and not in long rolls

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, lĭbellus

It is of paramount importance to remember that the ancient world didn't have printing presses and didn't distribute broadsheets like in Colonial America. All texts were manuscripts. Copying existed, of course, often copied by skilled enslaved people. But they weren't using bulk mail to blanket a community with flyers or pamphlets.

Quote from Cassius

I wonder what the pamphlets that Cicero referred to in his day said at the end to address "Do You Want To Know More?"

I can never remember where that comes up in Cicero. Where is that?

As Eikadistes has shown, there were Epicurean communities throughout the ancient world. And those are just the attested ones in the surviving texts and archeological record. Chances are, from my understanding, if you were reading an Epicurean "pamphlet," you had known Epicureans in your city or town.

I just noticed that Pacatus was the one who asked me "How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?" Mea culpa. I thought that was Cassius. Let me address those questions first.

Quote from Pacatus

How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?

I wouldn't use the modifiers "practical" and "philosophical," but I don't want to disparage one group over another. That said, I'd characterize these two groups as "browsers" and "researchers." Or maybe "surface" vs "deep." Or maybe Cliffs Notes vs encyclopedic Epicureans. Or maybe horizontal Epicureans vs vertical Epicureans, those who only need/want a surface understanding as opposed to those who want to delve deeply into one philosophy. Both are (hopefully) looking for practical applications - for a way to more fully live their life; however, the horizontal ones are skimming along the surface. The others not only want the "how" but the "why." Both groups undoubtedly come to Epicurean philosophy with preconceived notions (How can they not?), but the reason the skimmers tend to leave this particular forum is that those expectations and preconceived notions aren't borne out by deeper study. Those who think "I like Epicureanism because it validates my minimalism" or "Epicureanism sounds like Buddhism because he wants me to limit my desires to the bare minimum" don't get reinforced by further study. They retreat to a "surface" understanding of the philosophy because it's a safe place for them and satisfies their desire and basic curiosity. If someone is incurious for deeper understanding and wants a superficial understanding of the philosophy, we can't make them curious or make them study. We are working against a strong cultural headwind. They may just be looking for something to add to their eclectic cafeteria style of personal philosophy and may incorporate some personal understanding of Epicurus and move along to their next interesting philosophical topic.

Quote from Pacatus

how to offer a helpful (“therapeutic”) Epicurean practice toward daily life to the former group without undue simplification (my emphasis)? Or is that not possible? (If not, then Epicureanism seems destined to remain an option only for a fairly narrow segment of the general populace.)

Ah! So, the "former group" (what you called the "practical" Epicureans) has likely gotten what they want and moved on. It seems to me you're asking a bigger question: "What's in it (Epicureanism) for the person 'on the street'?" How can we make Epicureanism attractive to those not necessarily interested in "Philosophy"? Who could benefit from living for pleasure? Epicureanism will never appeal to everyone or maybe not even to a plurality of people. Even in the religion surveys, many people aren't "religious" but they still believe in an afterlife, a "higher power," and other supernatural ideas. They don't want to not believe in them, and Epicureanism is adamant that you can't be a supernatural Epicurean, either horizontal or vertical. So, our potential pool is limited. Now, If someone is genuinely curious and asked us "Why are you an Epicurean?" we should have a readily understood answer, succinct, clear, easy to understand.

Quote from Pacatus

What can we offer to the factory worker who labors overtime hours, or the farmworker bending her back to harvest our fruits and vegetables, or … ? Anything? If so … how? (If not ... then not.)

The factory worker and the farm worker are human beings. They're not special. They just may have never considered Epicureanism as a way of looking at the world. What do we have to offer? A life free from fear of divine wrath and punishment after death, a life focused on being in touch with how they're feeling and acting on that, a life where one's perspective focuses on happiness, satisfaction, being true to one's nature as a living being.

How would you see the factory worker or the farm worker or the body shop mechanic or the waitress or the check-out clerk at the grocery store or... name anyone... living their life differently if we successfully evangelized to them? For me, they would live it like anyone else trying to put Epicurean philosophy into practice. One's occupation doesn't define them as a living breathing human being.

That said, we are not evangelizers. We are not (I hope!) going to be out on street corners with sandwich boards or yelling at people. I've regularly passed people with giant signs and using bullhorns to tell me to "turn from your wicked ways." Maybe Epicureans would be on the street corner handing out leaflets? But where do we point them? It's not like there's a Epicurean Garden three miles down the street. To our forum? To AxA's meet-up in Canada? To the podcast? One big hurdle we as students of Epicurus have is there's no wider in-person support community. We don't have "places of worship." We don't have a pop culture ecosystem like the Stoics.

I agree that we DO need an "elevator pitch" for the philosophy. The Tetrapharmakos is too inside baseball. A good, solid reminder for students of the philosophy with some depth of understanding, but not an evangelizing tool. I'll try my hand from my perspective. Your mileage may vary...

Why are you an Epicurean? What does that even mean?

For me, the philosophy reinforces my conviction that we live in a material world and are not under the thumb or watchful eye of some god.

I take responsibility for my life and the choices I make. There are two choices I can make: I can choose to act in ways that are good for me in the long run, or I can act in ways that are going to be painful now or later.

From all available evidence, I believe this is the only life I'll have: from when I was born to the day I die. That's it. Any "afterlife" is only the memory of me that will live on in those that knew me.

Great questions, Cassius. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you post. I'm currently on the road for work, and your points deserve some thoughtful response. I'll cogitate on the way home and post something later today or tomorrow.

And I have thoughts. Too be continued...

Engaging conversation. At the risk of muddying waters, I'm not sure looking for the "logical" reasons behind Epicurus' categorization of desires is as fruitful as it may sound. My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people. Breaking down desires is a way of making sense of the mental landscape in which we move. Epicurus experimented from time to time in trying to only satisfy his most basic necessary needs, wants, desires, paring down his desires to see what would give him pleasure in the case that all other opportunities were unavailable. "What, at a minimum, do I need?" I categorically dismiss the idea that he lived like this the majority of the time like an ascetic. I see his categorization as a tool for us to assess our own mental landscape and the choices that arise. His categories flow naturally in many ways from just looking at the numerous desires living beings have.

For what it's worth, here's my translation of the pertinent section in the letter to Menoikeus:

127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,

• Ἀναλογιστέον "consider..."
• τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν "of the desires, yearnings"
  • "Consider then of the desires, on the one hand, are the φυσικαί "natural ones'
  • φυσικαί (physikai)
    • English physical, physics
  • on the other, the κεναί 'empty, fruitless, vain, void ones."
    • κεναί is also again the word used when Epicurus talks about atoms and void.

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·

• "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
  • ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

• "then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

• ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
• σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
• σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"

“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.

I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.

PS. It's important to remember that this categorization tool deals with desires for something. I realize it's hard to distinguish between desires for specific pleasurable outcomes or activities and the pleasurable outcomes or activities themselves. I find it difficult myself. To provide a different way of reading that section with additional context adding in the word desires instead of just "ones" and "those":

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain desires.' And of the natural desires, on the one hand, are the necessary desires; on the other, the desires which are only natural; then, of the necessary desires: on the one hand, those desires necessary for eudaimonia; then, those desires necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those desires necessary for life itself.

Those are fascinating articles. Thanks for sharing, Godfrey . To directly respond to:

Quote from Godfrey

Something that needed water mixed in just to be palatable as well as safe to drink?

No, I don't see any evidence of that. One thing counter to that idea I've read in the past is about the symposiarch who ran the drinking parties (symposia, literally "together-drinking") being in charge of how much water to mix in the wine as the evening progressed to regulate the level of drunkenness.

Wine was a ubiquitous beverage with a wide range of qualities and flavors. But it was, from everything I've read, all potable. Granted, we may find some products less palatable ourselves but we're spoiled from modern stabilisation and consistency.

I found this intriguing in the one article:

Quote

Drinking wine that was not mixed with water (άκρατος οίνος) was considered barbaric. Such wine without water was used only as medicine for the sick or during travel as a tonic.

That Greek is the same word that showed up in our texts above.

For anyone curious about retsina:

Retsina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org