Posts by Don

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?

Quote from camotero

Trying to bridge a gap between EP and modern organized religion.

The chasm between organized religion/superstition and Epicurean philosophy is wide, deep, and filled with alligators. In some ways, it's best to turn away from the gap and beat a path in the opposite direction. As Lucretius says, religion is prone to many evils. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!!

I'm slowly trying to emulate Epicurus in his observance of the rites and holidays. Taking joy in family gatherings. Appreciating the art and celebrating with an internal realignment of what it all means.

But the opinion of the crowds is false piety and I have no desire to go down that road again (at least at the time of this writing. Humans can be fickle creatures). Being concerned by their rules, their traditions, their playing field is not required. As George Carlin says in that video, there's 10 because 10 sounds official. That, in itself, to me is a reason to come up with a different number.

I debated whether to weigh in here, but, in the end, I'll err on the side of friendly, respectful, frank speech. I hope this is conveyed and received with that framing. And, I'm fully aware, you'll do what you feel you need to do in your situation.

I would agree that the Ten Commandments is ubiquitous in Western culture. Everyone will inevitably hear about it, probably sooner than later. Plus, kids will have questions. Boy howdy, do they have questions sometimes!

That said, the idea of feeling that one is constrained to come up with 10 "good ideas" to compete with this outdated list of 10 divine commands is fraught with potential frustration. That said, the Wikipedia article on alternatives does show it's a common exercise:

Alternatives to the Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

although even those lists range from 3 to 11 but simply go through the exercise to demonstrate the outdated-nesd of the traditional list (actually at least 2 slightly different lists in the Bible... Evidently "God" couldn't make up "His" mind!).

My suggestion, if/when the question arises, is to use it as an opportunity to talk about...

"Some/all religions try to give instructions to people on how to live together. In Christianity and Judaism, their book gives them 10 instructions they are supposed to follow. Buddhists have 4 important things to say then give 8 ways to get there then have 5 important things to say on how to act (Buddhists really like lists!!). Lists are a way to make it easy to remember things. Some things on all these lists are basically good ideas for everyone. Others keep people in line and punish them for goofy things that don't exist. The 10 Commandments include things that make "God" jealous and mad. That's just silly! How could the "Master of the Universe" care about little things like that!? All of the lists mostly say something like we shouldn't hurt people and people shouldn't hurt us. That's a good idea, isn't it? But what would be in your list? Let's talk about what kind of list of good ideas you'd come up with? Would you like to think about that together?"

Raising kids is hard!! No argument there! But trying to pound an Epicurean peg into a Judeo-Christian hole seems fraught with frustration and pitfalls. Plus, I think it doesn't do religion or Epicureanism any favors. Get rid of the oppressive religion. Don't play on its field. Set sail in your own little boat, free of indoctrination!

Quote from Cassius

will substitute Don's. Link - twhanks

I would suggest picking the copy you like best. You can note that it can be borrowed from the archive with a FREE account. For ex.

Epicurus and his philosophy : DeWitt, Norman Wentworth, 1876- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bibliography, p.361-362

archive.org

It looks like there are several copies available through Internet Archive

Internet Archive Search: Epicurus and his philosophy

Quote from Cassius

With apologies to Don, I have to also note that it opens up the possibility that someone creative with Latin and in tune with the Eoicurean viewpoint might actually be able to reconstruct the thrust of what might have been included at the end of Book Six.

Maybe at some point Austin herself could take a stab at it, or even someone like David Sedley or Martin Ferguson Smith

For those interested, here is Thucydides's account of the plague. Open the Year 2 section on the linked page:

History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 2 - Wikisource, the free online library

LOL! If y'all don't stop calling attention to interesting bits, I'm never going to finish this in the right order

And the social media chapter also seems spot on!

I jumped ahead and read her first politics chapter. I think it's one of the best interpretations of "live unknown" that I've read anywhere. Short on time right now, but wanted to share that.

I just downloaded the e-book. I'll try and read it and post thoughts. If Cassius is encouraged, that bodes well.