Posts by Don

I think it's interesting that The Declaration provided for the means to pursue happiness. It didn't guarantee happiness, just the right to have the opportunity to pursue it.

This is why I dislike "happiness" as a translation for ευδαιμονια (eudaimonia). It is a woefully inadequate word choice. The reason I can accept "The wise man will 'be happy' on the rack" is that it actually says "κἂν στρεβλωθῇ δ᾽ ὁ σοφός, εἶναι αὐτὸν εὐδαίμονα" "Even if the wise one is under torture - stretched on the rack, he is experiencing eudaimonia."

It seems also important to realize that the Greek is not punctuated like the English. The Greek seems to include this whole section:

Even on the rack the wise man is happy. He alone will feel gratitude towards friends, present and absent alike, and show it by word and deed. When on the rack, however, he will give vent to cries and groans.

That middle section about gratitude comes right between the "rack" parts. When on the rack, the wise one may still feel gratitude for their life and for their friends. It's not that they're "happy happy joy joy" on the rack. They can feel gratitude for their life and friends, they can feel satisfied that they've lived their life well. They won't give up their friends even on the rack, they will show their gratitude "by word and deed." Honestly, I don't know if I could do that. I doubt it. But I'm not wise yet. I still have work to do in putting Epicurean principles deep into my bones. Do I still have tingly feelings of an afterlife sometimes in the dark of night? Maybe. Old habits are HARD to break. Do I feel gratitude for my life and my friends and my family? Yes, THAT I can do.

PS. And, of course, the wise one will "give vent to cries and groans" while being tortured!! They're not Stoics. There should not be any question that a human being will cry out of under severe pain. I'm sure Epicurus let out cries when his kidneys were inflamed and he felt like his insides were being twisted in knots. That's just common sense. He felt the pain. It's not like the memories of past good times removed his pain. That's not what the letter says. He was satisfied with his life, knowing it was coming to an end. Between pangs of severe pain, he took satisfaction in a life well lived.

FWIW

I think it can go a couple different ways. From the human, mortal perspective, if one cultivates and ingrains The Four principles along with an on-going study of the philosophy, one can be a blessed one, makarios (remember the same Greek word used in the Beatitudes), whose understanding of the nature of things is incorruptible.

That's one way an interpretation could go of PD01.

Quote from Bryan

Quote from DaveT

four cardinal principals

Quote from Don

Tetrapharmakos

Yes, here is Tsouna on that section:

"The expression τὰ τέτταρα refers to the Fourfold Remedy. We suggest that it should be distinguished from τὰ κυριώτατα (1. 8). τὰ τέτταρα are precisely four principles originally expressed by Epicurus and later constituting the Fourfold Remedy. On the other hand, the term κυριώτατα in its technical sense is intended to cover all the fundamental principles pertaining to a certain subject and enabling the Epicurean student to confront particular problems and to solve them on his own."

This is very helpful, Bryan !

So, if I'm understanding the excerpt you cited:

τὰ τέτταρα literally means The Four Things (and only four things)

τὰ κυριώτατα literally means The Principal Things (as in a collection of things)

The word for "doctrines, principles" is implied in both in context.

From this here, τὰ τέτταρα is an alternative term for the Four Remedies that form the most basic, pared down, fundamental "things" on which Epicurus' ethics is built? I still think that the ethics is built on the physics, to be clear; but The Four is what one has to get right before "moving on" to details or to keep firmly in mind at all times?

Thoughts?

Quote from DaveT

the four cardinal principles,

The Tetrapharmakos?

FWIW: 2 editions in 83 libraries

Quote from Kalosyni

While in reality (as I wrote in post 27 above) without telepathy you have to go the slow and difficult way to find out what someone is thinking.

Quote from Robert

Dating myself now, but can't resist mentioning "Escape to Witch Mountain"--much loved at age 7.

Yes!! I still remember the Winnebago they were riding in! That was aliens, if I remember, too.

PS. I was 11.

On a slightly more serious note, inspired by Joshua 's post, I would offer that the paranormal and pseudoscience feed an answer to the question many seem to ask: Is this all there is?

That question presupposes there's something "less than" about our physical, natural, material universe. It's somehow "not enough". There has to be more than just this or nothing has any meaning.

For me, Epicurus (and I would offer, even the general secular and scientific perspective writ large) has an answer to that longing that "something more" in that it's not needed. The magnificence and multifarious nature of the universe is enough to feel awe and wonder.

It brings to mind: "since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole."

Gaze on Yosemite Valley, stare up at the stars at night, breathe in the air deep in the woods or the salt-spray off the ocean while standing on a cliff. Try telling me than that "Is this all there is?" Yes, this is it -- and *it* is magnificent!

The Star Wars/Trek mentions made me think of how prominent supernatural or pseudoscience is ingrained into pop culture. Just off the top of my head...

• Ghost (w Demi Moore)
• The Sixth Sense
• Touched by an Angel (TV)
• Long Island Medium (reality tv)
• The Exorcist
• The Shining
• Poltergeist

And so on and so on ...

It makes a good story.

Quote from Rolf

To be honest I think a big reason why people believe in telepathy and the like is because it sounds cool

I blame Star Wars

Oh, man! Take a look at the Noetic Institute's logo!!!

That's disappointing!! Looks like I'll have to change my avatar again.

As an aside, when topics like psychic abilities come up, I think of the Amazing Randi and the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

For ease of reference, here's the post above with the 1739 information and texts link:

Post

RE: What if Kyriai Doxai was NOT a list?

Following up on a post of mine from Cassius' thread about PDs in narrative form on a list of 44 PDs in a 1739 Greek/Latin translation:

I used a 1739 Greek with Latin translation to compare with the text at Perseus Digital Library:

1739: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nn…id=27021597768674761-1400

Perseus Greek (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D1

Perseus English (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h…3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D1

I used the Greek text to compare…

Don

August 2, 2023 at 12:00 AM

There are textual variations. The book is an edition in Latin and Greek of Diogenes Laertius.

Here's the beginning of that Book 10:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.0021060738&seq=1203

It's listed in this bibliography of Laertius:

https://www.ontologia.co/pdf/diogenes-laertius-editions.pdf

File

Kyria Doxai Comparison

This sheet grew out of the interest to understand Kyriai Doxai (Principal Doctrines) as a text and not a "list."

Don

June 4, 2025 at 11:03 PM

Check out the link above. The file was too big to add here as an attachment.

Using the posts above, especially the one on the 1739 text with 44 "doctrines," I've composed a spreadsheet comparing the various texts that contain sections of Principal Doctrines.

I've sorted the PDF spreadsheet to show the 1739 text and not the usual translation. It's a bit of any eye opener. As for the English, I've used a combo of Hicks, Saint-Andre, and Google Translate to allow me not to get attached to one translation.

Thoughts welcomed.

Quote from Cassius

This is probably a good time for a reminder that the only authoritative explanation (so far as I recall at the moment - are there others?) of the natural/necessary classification (aside from the scholium in DL which is of uncertain source) is that of Torquatus in On Ends

It is in the letter to Menoikeus.

Also, Menoikeus 130:

πολυτελεῖ διαίτῃ “expensive/extravagant/costly/luxuious way of living”

Quote from Rolf

Would you say “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” are suitable terms to use?

Well, if it was good enough for Epicurus...

PS. Okay, let me add that "Yes, I know Epicurus didn't use “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” because he spoke Greek." But those translations are about as close to literal as one gets for φυσικαὶ, ἀναγκαῖαι, and κεναί.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

I also don't think it's perfect, but I like the idea that the word conveys that there is nothing wrong with enjoying things "above and beyond" what are considered necessities.

You think so? I would have said that "extravagant" carries strong negative connotations.

One of the reasons I'm fine with Dr. Austin's decision is that it takes back or reclaims that "negative connotation" and turns it on its head. That negative connotation of "extravagant" strikes me as potentially Puritanical. IF "extravagant" desires do no harm to the person or anyone else and IF they do not pose an undue burden to acquire or fulfill, why not indulge in them? Extravagant, indulgent, why not? One definition of the word is "excessive,
going beyond a normal or acceptable limit in degree or amount." (my emphasis added) "Acceptable" to whom? Someone else telling you you're living extravagantly? Mind your own business Now, do I think there's something to the idea of "conspicuous consumption"? "the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power—the income and the accumulated wealth—of the buyer. " (Wikipedia) Now, in the Austin context, I would not call that "extravagant." I would call that trying to fulfill an empty desire. But if something brings you pleasure and meets the criteria of no harm/no undue burden to acquire, I don't think Epicurus opposes that "extravagance."

Quote from Rolf

You know, this has me thinking: At least for those of us who are already familiar with the philosophy, using the abbreviations NN, NU, and UU would be a lot cleaner and clearer.

I can appreciate your desire for conciseness, but I'm not a fan of in-group abbreviations. I don't even like referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP. I would also offer that the term "unnecessary" doesn't actually in at least one exposition of the categories of desires, that in the letter to Menoikeus:

Quote

Furthermore, 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. (This is my own literal translation)

In this categorization, Epicurus is only concerned with natural (φυσικαὶ), necessary (ἀναγκαῖαι), and empty (κεναί) categories. I would still 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.

Quote from Lowri834

This is an alternative to the triangle format for Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maybe Basic Necessities, Friendship, Prudence or specific items from canon in the boat and the sail or multiple sails could be other aspects.

I like the little boat idea/metaphor, especially in light of παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος : Set sail in your own little boat, blessed one, free from all indoctrination. (Usener 163) τἀκάτιον (takation) literally means a light boat, the diminutive of ἄκατος (akatos). The acatium (ἀκάτιον) was especially adapted for fast sailing with light winds.

That said, I'm not sure how to label the parts. I wouldn't advocate for necessary, natural, unnecessary because those are classifications of desires. Maybe Prudence is the sail which steers the ship? I'll have to think on that.