Posts by Don

LOL! Here we go!

Here also is Gassendi's chapter on the birth of Epicurus (Thanks, Cassius !)

Gassendi’s Epicurus – Part 1 – Life of Epicurus – NewEpicurean

I like the idea of Epicurus being born on 7 Gamelion due to its association with Apollo Epicurus.

In his will, Epicurus's words convey that somehow the "first tenth" of Gamelion was chosen to customarily celebrate his birthday: τὴν εἰθισμένην ἄγεσθαι γενέθλιον ἡμέραν

εἰθισμένην = "accustomed"

τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος (tēi proterai dekatēi tou Gamēliōnos) "for the first tenth of Gamelion"

BUT (and I can't vouch for the authority here but Joshua pointed this out, too)

Quote

The first day was the New Moon - Noumenia. Then the first two phases were numbered consecutively from 2nd rising to 10th rising, then 11th to 19th. On the twentieth, the day was called the first tenth. The twenty first was named the last tenth and the numbers decreased from the 9th waning to the last day of the month - Old and New.

But does that mean that Epicurus's Birthday was celebrated *within* the first ten days of the month of Gamelion (ie, actually on the 7th) or it was on the "first tenth" or is the 20th of the month called "the first tenth" like that website says???

LSJ gives an interesting definition (one of them) that δέκατος can mean "festival on the tenth day after birth, when the child has a name given it, τὴν δ. θύειν to give a naming-day feast"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δέκα^τος

It definitely appears to me that his actual birthday did not occur on τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος but that it was only celebrated that day by custom. Why else use εἰθισμένην?

Well, unless, his birthday - which did it occur that day?? - was celebrated over the years and it was customary now to throw a party for him *on* his birthday. But that εἰθισμένην gives me pause. BUT Epicurus says in his will to go ahead and keep celebrations going on τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος as we've become accustomed to doing. Maybe I am inclining to celebrate it τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος. Hmmm....

btw

Here's the thread from earlier this year with Eikadistes 's and Joshua 's excellent detective research on the Date:

Post

RE: Epicurus' Birthdate

I note that Diogenes documents both dates (the 7th and the 10th) within one page of each other, the first one being a citation to Apollodorus, and the second being a citation of Epicurus' Last Will: “He was born, according to Apollodorus in his Chronicles, in the third year of the 109th Olympiad, during the archonship of Sosigenes, on the seventh day of the month of Gamelion, seven years after the death of Plato" (498). And then, one page later, "[T]he customary celebration of my birthday each…

Eikadistes

July 8, 2022 at 2:42 PM

In preparation for the annual "controversy" of when to celebrate Epicurus's Birthday:I

- 'm going with 7 Gamelion as the day.

- I'm using this as my authoritative source for the Athenian calendar: http://www.numachi.com/~ccount/hmepa/calendars/700.html

- Therefore, I'll be celebrating from sunset on Jan. 28 to sunset on Jan. 29, 2023.

- Check out the homepage of the site:

HMEPA: Hellenic Month Established Per Athens temporary

Especially the "About the Calendar" page.

PS: As of Jan 2023, I'm adding in this link to the final version of my paper where I've compiled all the findings in this thread in one place. Enjoy!

Quote from Pacatus

The winter solstice: when the days (daylight) start lengthening again.

Ah! A celebration of the regularity of the cosmos, that we do not live at the whim of the gods. The cosmos is knowable and not capricious. The lengthening days is a metaphor for our gradual understanding of the cosmos, celebrate Epicurus's triumph over the darkness of ignorance (especially if you're compelled to attend a midnight mass where the lights are extinguished then relit at midnight to announce "the birth of the Savior").

Quote from Lucretius, Proem of Book 3 DRN

O thou who first uplifted in such dark

So clear a torch aloft, who first shed light

Upon the profitable ends of man,

O thee I follow, glory of the Greeks,

And set my footsteps squarely planted now

Even in the impress and the marks of thine-

Less like one eager to dispute the palm,

More as one craving out of very love

That I may copy thee!-

Display More

How's that?

It seems to me that Thanksgiving is the most Epicurean of modern holidays with its emphasis (at least nominally) on gratitude.

This led me to think about how other holidays could be reinterpreted (at least in one's mind and motivation) in an Epicurean context:

• Easter - This is an easy one. Just take it back to its pagan roots as a celebration of Spring, new life, renewed fertility of the Earth. Read the hymn to Venus by Lucretius on the day.
• Halloween - This one's easy, too, in tying it to El Dia de Los Muertos that comes the day after. This is a chance to remember those who have passed, to relive pleasurable memories of those who have died.
• Christmas - This one's tougher. The Christian context is the birth of Christ, the "bringer of light to the world." Well, we already have Epicurus's birthday in Jan/Feb to celebrate the birth of the founder. So, what to do with Christmas? There's gift giving. Maybe something to do with that?

Anyway, consider this an invitation to offer ideas. Include other holidays. We can always move it to a new thread of it elicits responses

Speaking of history timelines, I copied my alternative Epicurean timeline from a thread to my Wall:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/user/311-don/#wall/comment425

It's based on the idea that Diogenes Laertius is writing Book 10 of his Lives of Eminent Philosophers right now in 2022 CE.

Quote from Cassius

Wow it's possible to assemble quite a list!

And I don't think that's an exhaustive list either

Happy Thanksgiving Eve. Kalosyni inspired me to go back and pull out some more favorite "gratitude" quotes:

χάρις

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

Remember that Epicurus wrote a whole book entitled Περὶ δώρων καὶ χάριτος "Concerning Gifts and Gratitude"

VS 17 It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of.

οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.

VS 19 He who forgets the good things he had yesterday becomes an old man today.

τοῦ γεγονότος ἀμνήμων ἀγαθοῦ γέρων τήμερον γεγένηται.

VS35 (My paraphrase) Don't spoil your enjoyment of the things you presently have by craving things that are absent, but remember that what you have here and now were also things you were once devoted to getting.

VS69 (My paraphrase) The ingratitude of the soul makes a creature gluttonous for limitless variation in one's lifestyle.

τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀχάριστον λίχνον ἐποίησε τὸ ζῷον εἰς ἄπειρον τῶν ἐν διαίτῃ ποικιλμάτων.

Note: ποικιλμάτων refers literally to fancy embroidery or needlework, and so the colloquial meaning of "variety, diversity" comes from the intricate patterns and ornaments of that craft. To me, this VS again gets at not being able to take pleasure in or to be grateful for what's right in front of you.

Plutarch, Against Colotes, 17, p. 1117A: But what epithet do they deserve – with your “roars” of ecstasy and “cries of thanksgiving” and tumultuous “bursts of applause” and “reverential demonstrations,” and the whole apparatus of adoration that you people resort to in supplicating and hymning the man who summons you to sustained and frequent pleasures?

U183 Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 15, p. 1097C: One cannot ignore the man’s absurd inconsistency: he treads under foot and belittles the actions of Themistocles and Miltiades and yet writes this to his friends about himself: “The way in which you have provided for me in the matter of sending the grain was godlike and magnificent, and you have given tokens of your regard form me that reach to high heaven.” So if someone had taken that corn ration of his bread-stuff from our philosopher’s letter, the expressions of gratitude would have conveyed the impression that it was written in thanksgiving for the freedom or deliverance of the whole Greek nation or of the Athenian state.

In light of all this emphasis on the importance of gratitude χάρις, PD1 appears problematic:

PD1 Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

One who is blissful and incorruptible has no troubles oneself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, they are affected by neither anger nor *gratitude*; because all this would be an indication of weakness.

Woodhouse's (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1910) provides a long list of synonyms for χάρις that includes:

attraction, benefaction, bias, boon, elegance, fascination, favour, grace, gratefulness, gratitude, kindness, niceness, obligation, offering, pleasantness, and more than two dozen more!

With all those shades of meaning, I would offer this translation/paraphrase of PD1:

One who is incorruptible and is feeling undiluted bliss is self-sufficient, secure in themselves, and has no troubles oneself nor feels any need to cause trouble for others. So, they are affected by neither anger nor obligation because all that comes about through frailty.

I think the idea of "obligation" better conveys the self-sufficiency and self-assuredness of a completely blissful, indestructible being.

Happy Thanksgiving to all my Epicurean friends! Εὐχᾰρῐστέω! I am grateful!

I've always been partial 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.

οὐ δεῖ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ παρόντα τῶν ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπιλογίζεσθαι ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα τῶν εὐκταίων ἦν.

Quote from Godfrey

I was surprised to learn that he was heavily influenced by Aristotle.

I would be curious what Seligman attributes to Aristotle in the development of positive psychology.

Quote from Godfrey

Positive psychology appears to fall into the objective approach to happiness, which I found quite interesting at the time as I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me about it.

I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on that topic. I think positive psychology has some useful findings to share, but I'm sometimes skeptical of their data when it's from self-reported surveys.

Quote from Cassius

There are "objective" facts of nature which we have to take into account in deciding how to live, such facts including:
No supernatural beings exist.
No consciousness / life / reward / punishment after death
No guidance from Nature as to what to choose or avoid other than (very broadly stated) the feelings of pleasure and pain.
No Platonic forms or Aristotelian essences or absolute virtue / right / wrong exist in the abstract that apply to everyone all the time and in all circumstances. ("Yellow" does not have an eternal unchanging existence apart from "things that are yellow.")

I would say that these can/should also be understood as necessary components of a pleasurable life, especially 1 and 2 as *really* understanding these leads to freedom from anxiety about god's judgment, punishment after death, fear of death, etc. Without that freedom from anxiety and fear, one can't have "subjective well-being."

Also, upon further reflection on the necessity of friendship: it seems to me that Aristotle was focused on the individual's place in the polis and one, he believed, couldn't truly achieve well-being outside that context. Epicurus, on the other hand, saw the individual's well-being as most important but that well-being was supported - flourished - by a community of friends that one could rely on. One was still a member of one's city-state and took part in the city's festivals but one's close circle of friends is what provided the most security.

Quote from Cassius

When deciding what to pursue, don't look for an objective list that applies to everyone as such a list existed and was handed down by God or by Platonic forms. Look instead simply to your own circumstances, evaluate how hard it is going to be to obtain those desires, and measure your decision on whether to pursue them by asking whether the reward to you will be worth the cost to you.

As it is, many of us seem trapped in the Aristotelian model and think that there must be a list that everyone has to check off in order to be happy. The way out of that trap is to realize that no such single list exists. And so we should reject the "objective" natural and necessary analysis that Aristotle and other pre-Epicurean Greeks had suggested, and instead substitute the Epicurean natural and necessary model, which is primarily subjective

I would say the "list" has both objective and subjective aspects. For example, Epicurus states that friendship is an immortal good. He obviously thinks friendship is necessary for a pleasurable life. That's objective to me. How many friends, what you do with your friends, etc.: That can be subjective. Are you naturally outgoing? Maybe you want lots of friends and to do adventurous things. More introverted, maybe less friends are necessary and you do quieter things. We're all combinations of introvert and extrovert with varying needs and desires. But friendship, as an example, is necessary. That's even born out by psychological research. Loneliness is extremely detrimental to one's health.

As to "happiness," I expressed my misgivings about that word at the 20th last night. The word used in the texts is eudaimonia by Aristotle, Epicurus, et al. Happiness has become a buzzword and comes along with lots of semantic baggage. The definition in positive psychology research seems to be "subjective well-being" which sounds right to me. It may be clunky, but it also is a better translation of eudaimonia in my opinion.

What Is Happiness and Why Is It Important? (+ Definition)

Do you think happiness is the same thing to you as it is to others? Find out!

positivepsychology.com

Quote from camotero

in some cases we're navigating "their" waters,

Sailing between the Scylla and Charybdis of religion and superstition.

https://philarchive.org/archive/BREEOS

"Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children" PDF

Opens with an explanation of the proposed mistranslation of pertinent passage.

Several thoughts on topics brought up above:

If we struggle with words like natural, necessary, "not necessary," and "empty" to describe desires, we're struggling with Epicurus. Those are his words.

The reason I like "extravagant" is that it's slightly over the top but, for me, evokes Epicurus's own sometimes-playful use of language. The "extravagant" = "not necessary" also evokes the idea of "It's possible to find pleasure in the barest circumstances such as while eating the simplest of meals: barley bread and water, and in the midst of the most dire of straits like at the point of dying in great pain. But it IS nice to have those other pleasures, and we include them all in our definition of the good." That is why I harp on Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus stating that the internal pleasure of tranquility (ataraxia) is a more secure source of pleasure than pleasure arising from external sources. We always have the pleasure of tranquility readily available in our minds - if we work at achieving it, nurturing it, maintaining it. That's why they place a high value on tranquility.

Stepping back a minute: There are several places where the necessary desires are discussed:

Letter to Menoikeus:

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. (My translation)

PD26

26The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject when they are hard to achieve or when they seem to produce harm. (Saint-Andre)

PD29

29Of our desires, some are natural and necessary; others are natural, but not necessary; others, again, are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

[Epicurus regards as natural and necessary desires which bring relief from pain, as e.g. drink when we are thirsty ; while by natural and not necessary he means those which merely diversify the pleasure without removing the pain, as e.g. costly viands ; by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour.--Scholia](Saint-Andre)

Cicero

But how says our philosopher? 'The desires are of three kinds, natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, neither natural nor necessary.' To begin with, this is a clumsy division; it makes three classes when there are really only two. This is not dividing but hacking in pieces. Thinkers trained in the science which Epicurus despised usually put it thus: 'The desires are of two kinds, natural and imaginary;11 natural desires again fall into two subdivisions, necessary and not necessary.' That would have rounded it off properly. It is a fault in division to reckon a species as a genus. 27 Still, do not let us stickle about form. Epicurus despises the niceties of dialectic; his style neglects distinctions; we must humour him in this, provided that his meaning is correct. But for my own part I cannot cordially approve, I merely tolerate, a philosopher who talks of setting bounds to the desires. Is it possible for desire to be kept within bounds? It ought to be destroyed, uprooted altogether. On your principle there is no form of desire whose possessor could not be morally approved. He will be a miser — within limits; an adulterer — in moderation; and a sensualist to correspond. What sort of a philosophy is this, that instead of dealing wickedness its death-blow, is satisfied with moderating our vices?

Quote from Cassius

Don (or others) I wonder if there is a precedent for the "natural and necessary" classification in the writings of Plato or Aristotle such as you found for the bread and water discussion. If there is that might also place this in context.

Selected Fragments, by Epicurus

Quote

471] In the second chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes desires as groundless and trifling (κενὴν καὶ ματαίαν) if they are not related to or subsumed under an overarching goal of life; in this fragment and in Fragment 442, Epicurus applies the same terms to certain kinds of desires.

Just a quick response for now.

If we have positive things to say, we all should individually leave reviews on Amazon. No one seems to have reviewed it yet:

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

www.amazon.com

Just as an example where I'm at right now (emphasis added):

Quote

Many scholars have argued that while Epicurus recognizes that sex is pleasant, he is actually largely hostile to sex, even more so to love. If you find it difficult to make sense of how Epicurus could reject sex and love and still have said what Athenaeus claims, then you are in the good company of me, at least. I think Epicurus’ concerns about sex and love have been overstated. That Epicurus thinks sex and love should be selected prudently makes complete sense, especially given the many ways it can cause and sustain anxiety. Nevertheless, Epicurus thinks sexual pleasure and committed romantic relationships are natural, but unnecessary, desires (or so I argue). In the terms of this book, they are extravagant desires, and all extravagant desires can adorn the tranquil life if you do them right.

Her calling out academic assumptions and "common knowledge" that she sees as erroneous or misguided is both refreshing and well reasoned! Her analysis, to me, takes in the scope of Epicurus's philosophy instead of trying to impose a perspective on it like many academics seem to try and do. That is a breath of fresh air.

I will say I really like Austin's terms natural, extravagant, and corrosive desires. Granted, "extravagant" may not be exactly correct, but, as it gets at the "not necessary" aspect of this category, I endorse her choice.

I'm currently on chapter 15, and I have found Austin's work spot on and fully endorse the work as a great starting point.

As for Cassius 's Kennedy misgiving, I see Dr. Austin only using his book as an example of what is meant by courage with Kennedy's book Profiles of Courage. I don't see this as political at all, simply a literary allusion.

I have completely enjoyed the book so far, and wish I wrote it myself.

Do I wish she covered some topics in more depth? Yes. Am I satisfied with how she's covered the topics she does cover? Yes!

Quote from Joshua

It strikes me that there are several passages in Diogenes Laertius beginning with words like "the wise man will....", or "the wise man will not..."

Where does that kind of framing fit in here?