We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website
Yeah, I'm going to need to go in and take that out of the Wikipedia article with a "citation needed" if someone's going to say "Epicurus called life a "bitter gift."" I've spent some time with the letter to Menoikeus and I can say for certain that that phrase is *not* in there.
Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):
Oh, this is fun! That line is also translated:
Hippolytus
Poseidon your father's gifts, what woe they brought!
In Greek:
Ιππόλυτος
ὦ δῶρα πατρὸς σοῦ Ποσειδῶνος πικρά.
That last word of the Greek πικρά "bitter" is the same word that shows up in Democritus's quote about "by convention" we've been discussing elsewhere.
So, ὦ δῶρα πικρά. is literally "the bitter gift."
I was a bit shocked to see "bitter gift" so widespread across the Internet!
It's just so counterintuitive if one knows anything about Epicurus's philosophy. Life is a precious gift if anything... Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.
So, there's yet another topic that needs corrected... In addition to all the rest 
By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!
In Greek:
νόμωι (γάρ φησι) γλυκὺ καὶ νόμωι πικρόν, νόμωι θερμόν, νόμωι ψυχρόν, νόμωι χροιή, ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν (Tetralogies of Thrasyllus, 9; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII 135)
νόμωι "by custom, conventionally" is an interesting word to use, and I'm not sure I completely disagree with Democritus. We are all - everything - is literally temporary arrangements of atoms and void. That doesn't mean we're not "real". If one drills down far enough, you end up with atoms and void. But through our arrangements of atoms, we interact with the world, each other. Epicurus himself or Lucretius said atoms don't have color or smell or taste, but arrangements give rise to color and smell and taste.
Edit: I suppose I should also include ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν. That word does mean "in reality." LSJ uses Democritus's quote in its definition.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐτεός
That "bitter gift" reference now has me curious. Doesn't seem like something someone would come up with at random, and even the "gift' part doesn't sound really like Epicurus. I wonder if this person has totally transposed this thought from someone else and that "life as a 'bitter gift'" is a core thought of a competing philosopher.
It's also word for word in the Wikipedia article:
insisted that the best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing."
My personal preference is "well-being," playing of the literal breakdown of eu + daimon.
For myself, I tend to use "happy well-being" (where I intend well-being to be the opposite of ill-being -- say, tarache and pone)
And don't forget there's the literal opposite of eudaimonia, kakodaimonia.
not an (Aristotelian?) abstraction
I'd say Platonic. I was surprised in Book I of Nichomachean Ethics that Aristotle doesn't like Plato's abstract Ideal Forms. I think I know this but he's basically like "I liked Plato but I am not a fan of the Forms."
I sometimes get the impression that, for the Stoics, eudaimonia reduces to a kind of self-righteous pat on the back: "Look how virtuous I have been! What a happy feeling!"]
And from which they get pleasure. LOL. It just always seems to end up with pleasure! No getting around it.
Didn't the ancients discuss "the most pleasant life" rather than happiness?
Epicureans or in general?
Happiness is the usual English translation of ευδαιμονία eudaimonia.
I've actually just started today deciding to work thru Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and he uses eudaimonia and makarion and they are translated happiness and supreme happiness.
For consideration:
https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/happiness-definition.html
Commentary:
I come back to the Greek (big surprise) with eudaimonia instead of English "happiness." I know Cassius isn't keen on using untranslated Greek words but I think words like eudaimonia or ataraxia can also jolt us out of preconceptions and make us reexamine what we mean when we use an English word casually. I don't think "well-being" is exactly synonymous with "happiness." I think a sense or feeling of well-being can be more stable while happiness can be fleeting. But maybe that's just me. I think that's why it is SO important to know what word is used where in texts when translations use "happiness."
No worries at all, heated arguments are more than welcome.
Thanks! And I hope my post came across as more "light" than "heat" 
I imagine myself in front of my 20 something son, who lives in the world of all the social media, gaming, basketball, memes (you can add to the list). Should I expect him to have the same patience and curiousity?
I hear you!! I agree that avenue could be about marketing (what Diogenes might call "evangelism"). Social media is, for better or worse, THE giant stone wall with inscriptions in the marketplace now. That's also where heartfelt conversations come in between father and son, between friends, etc. Not lectures but "what do you think?"
I believe this is not (only) due to the effective communication. Stoicism has been merged with most despotic states since Rome. It has always been an extremely convenient philosophy for the central state alongside any superstition.
Amen! Come to think of it, there's a reason the Christians kept transmitting Stoic (and Platonic) texts and burned Epicurean ones. 
Hmmm. Why could that be?
Thanks for the thoughtful response!!
I like the idea, but to do so I feel I miss a simple and modern body of knowledge/message
By "modern" do you mean contemporary, modern science communicators or modern figures that present "Epicurean" ideas whether or not they identify specifically as Epicurean?
Vatican collection is the closest, but even then it's archaic and requires a predisposition to reading old texts. There is little point in attempting to convey valid, strong and sensible ideas driven by facts in a language that is not accessible for most people.
I think it all depends on the translation. I could certainly advocate for "updated" translations and certainly wouldn't advocate for anything with thee's, thou's, or behold's that give off a "Biblical" vibe.
That said, I also think there's something very valuable in reading "old texts" if for no other reason than to clearly see that human nature hasn't changed all that much in say several millennia. Even Ancient Babylonians were worried about dying, losing friends, and the exercise of power. We still do that and, no doubt, will continue to do that as a species. That thread is worth investigating, from Gilgamesh, Euripides, Shakespeare, even through even Ecclesiastes and religious and literary texts we don't necessarily agree with. Recognizing and struggling with texts makes us better able to decide what we ourselves believe and why and why not. Seeing what we believe - or sharpening what we believe - by using the classical Epicurean texts to me is a way to make a human connection to a well-worn path instead of cutting a way down the jungle path again and again.
I think there's also something to be said for being part of - dare I say - that tradition, lineage, or a worldview informed by a cohesive "body of knowledge." For me, I take pleasure in attempting to apply a school of thought that has stood the test of time. Being able to see reflections of Epicurus's Garden in contemporary thought and science amazes me and was something that attracted me enough to say " What is up with this 2,500 year old philosophy that sounds so modern??"
I don't think we can abandon the "old texts," but I also don't think we should intentionally imbue them with archaic language or fetishize them. Updating time-tested ideas is how the modern "Stoics" have managed to corner the market on "look at this ancient wisdom we're selling." But they've thrown out or repackaged a LOT of inconvenient ancient Stoic principles to speak (i.e., to make sense) to a modern audience to the extent that I feel Marcus Aurelius or Seneca would say "Well, those are interesting ideas but... Stoicism? I don't quite recognize that as my school." I think Epicurus can survive MUCH more intact and still appeal to a modern audience. That's my argument for keeping the original texts and encouraging people to study them.
Epicurean philosophy does not need any of that since the message is very simple and applicable
I agree Epicurus's message is very simple and applicable, but it can be deceptively simple. That's a LOT behind it, serving as a foundation, that, if one doesn't grasp that, it can be a thin veneer. That's one reason why I now agree with Cassius and others on this forum about getting a grasp of how and why Epicurus's physics is so important and how it underpins the philosophy and why one shouldn't jump right to the ethics. I disregarded a lot of the physics for awhile, but without building from the ground up, the understanding of the whole system isn't as steady. Listening to them go through the letters to Herodotus and Pythocles specifically were very instructive.
In the end, I think the old texts ground us, show us we're not alone in our ages-old struggle to come to grips with our mortal lives, and allow us to avoid reinventing the wheel over and over again.
All that said, if I've addresses something you didn't intend or completely misinterpreted what you were saying, mea culpa!
The Buddha’s exhortation to not accept things on faith and his encouragement of critical thinking really struck a chord with me. However as I dived deeper into it I found the same issues with Buddhism as with other faiths.
Although I wasn't a serious Buddhist (getting bestowed a refuge name being evidence to the contrary I suppose ) I found I eventually had some of the same initial attractions and then objections/misgivings as you in trying to reconcile myself with that philosophy/religion. Epicurus filled a void (no pun intended... Well, maybe unintentionally intended) in providing a completely material non-supernatural perspective.
Welcome aboard the forum!
God, I’m going to hate myself for saying this! 😉
LOL! Uh oh!
Are we worrying this too much?
First, I'll say "no" to that but only because Epicurus repeatedly brings up the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind, or variations on that theme. As such, it seems to me that it's good to understand what the significance was to Epicurus and the classical Epicureans and how it can be applied to an Epicurean way of life.
It seems to me that (whatever the ancient Greeks might have thought) the mind/body distinction is at best relative. That does not make it unimportant, Yes, I can (hopefully) overcome – at least somewhat, if not perfectly – the tarache in my mind that stems from the pone in my aching tooth. (Most Buddhists would, I think, say something similar)
The distinction may be relative realistically, scientifically, or medically; however, how we experience our minds is often very different than how we experience our bodies.
The disturbance in my mind is not *always* connected to an immediate physical pain in my body. It could just as easily - or more easily - have originated from rumination on a memory of an event earlier today, yesterday, or years ago.
Also,the ponos of aponia isn't pain per se. Ponos is defined as:
So, aponia is not so much "pain" in the body (and I've been guilty of perpetuating that mistake!) as it is a lack of exertion, toil, distress, suffering. In light of that, I may begin to interpret aponia as a positive relaxation in the body, a body that's not stiff and tight and troubled and exhausted; the same way I'd interpret ataraxia as a positive calm, clear-headed, mindful attitude in the mind.
But – and this was my whole original thrust – from an Epicurean view, there is no disembodied (non-physical) substance called mind or soul – as a substance of some sort.^ So everything is, at bottom, physicalist.
Oh, of course! *Everything* has a natural, material origin. We're all - and every part of us - just atoms and void! Yep! But that doesn't mean our different parts don't have different needs anymore than we wear shoes on our head or eat with our ears. I'm being absurd, obviously, but just because there's no non-physical supernatural woo-woo "mind" doesn't mean I don't have a "mind" that I need to care for for my mental well-being.
I really like your posts, and they've also given me a chance to think out loud. Keep them coming!
My understanding is that aponia has to do with pain in the body, ataraxia with disturbance in the mind
For the time being it seems to me to be most clear if we try to describe as precisely as we can what we are saying, even if it takes a number of words to do that
Yep, generally agree with your post. And the excerpt here is exactly what I'm trying to do.
For the record, I don't *think* I'm being syncretic or building some "cafeteria-style" Epicureanism in having this perspective. Mindfulness is not native to any one culture. It is not some esoteric spiritual thing. Research in secular settings has shown its applicability separated from any one tradition. "Flavors" of it show up in any number of traditions and cultures, both Eastern and Western. And I think it's inherent in human nature, just suppressed, ignored, or not encouraged. And I find evidence for it in the extant texts as I mentioned above as a sample.
I didn't mean that to sound as defensive as it does btw but there you go.
(Steps off soapbox)
Thanks for sharing that, Godfrey. It sounds like you've found one way to get at making sound choices and rejections.
Tranquility is a pleasant, potential byproduct of mindfulness but it's not the goal, it's not the process and, depending on the situation it's not always possible. But I'm finding that the practice can be useful for Epicurean living.
See, that's where using the word "tranquility" presents issues. I'd like to emphasize that using that word sets up several hurdles to overcome in really integrating ataraxia and aponia in one's life (to even better experience joy and other daily pleasures).
To me, Epicurus is calling us to be more "mindful" of - to be more aware of, to pay attention to - the pleasure that surrounds us every day all the time. As references, I'd cite:
**His reminder that "bread and water" can bring as much pleasure as a luxurious meal if we're hungry. Don't miss the pleasure of a simple basic everyday meal.
**To laugh and administer our household affairs at the same time as we expound our love and practice of wisdom.
**"Meditate day and night then on this and similar things by yourself as well as together with those like yourself. And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw yourself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans; because no person who lives among eternal pleasures is like a mortal being."
We miss SO many pleasurable experiences if we're distracted, anxious, worried, angry, selfish, friendless, dishonorable, unjust, etc. That's what being mindful means! Pay attention to what's happening to you and stop being distracted. The pathē - the "feelings" - are literally in the Greek "what is happening to you."
Mindfulness is NOT the *act* of meditating. Mindfulness can grow out of meditation (in various forms) but mindfulness (itself a loaded term these days) is also NOT something special, or something one sets time aside for. It is fully paying attention to our daily lives, to truly experience what is happening without being distracted. Meditation - including working to memorize the Principal Doctrines or deeply studying a particular text or even reliving the details of a pleasant memory - is one way to strengthen that attention, but the *goal* is to carry that ability to pay attention throughout one's day and one's life. We are constantly distracted, tossed about on waves of anxiety, by planning for this or by regretting that or by instantly being angered by some perceived slight and wallowing in our self-righteous indignation. Calming *those* waves is what I interpret ataraxia and aponia to mean. There are studies that show mindfulness can help even with chronic pain management which gets at the aponia of that equation. That's the daily experience of "tranquility" - a pleasure in and of itself - I think that Epicurus is pointing his students toward. That's how we can rival the gods, by paying attention to the pleasure, the joyful experiences, that surround us in everyday life. We don't have to strive and struggle and work *for* pleasure. It surrounds us in our everyday experiences IF we just pay attention and calm the waves that toss our little boat around the sea.
(Note: I need to admit I'm only recently coming around to this perspective after thinking about Epicurus's philosophy these past several years, but it's the one that resonates with me. And I am NOT in any way shape or form a paragon or epitome of ataraxia, mindfulness, or anything else. But... I can see the value in it for trying to lead a more pleasurable life, so I'm going to try to integrate it into my life a little at a time.)
Edit: in thinking more about this this morning, I want to add that my understanding of mindfulness is that it is not passivity. It's not being a doormat and passively "taking what comes" in a fatalistic attitude. It's NOT Stoically accepting fate. If someone or something is going to harm you, it's being aware of the danger and acting skillfully to avoid or confront the danger. Not panicking, not "losing it." If something makes you angry, to be aware of the "sting" of anger but not to get carried away by it but to skillfully work with it and not get swept away in rage and do something you'll regret. All that, to me, equates with having a calm mind, allowing one to skillfully and wisely make choices of what to avoid and what to pursue.
Mindfulness sometimes could end up being too focused inward or on inner sensations.
I don't think so. In listening to Siegel's audiobook, I'm seeing mindfulness as a way of interacting with everyday experience, not something that comes and goes or has a singular focus or is something someone "does" but rather how they experience their lives (while practicing the skill to make it more readily available in everyday life). This page from Positive Psychology sort of gets at where I'm beginning to come from:
According to the American Psychological Association (APA.org, 2012), mindfulness is:
“…a moment-to-moment awareness of one’s experience without judgment. In this sense, mindfulness is a state and not a trait. While it might be promoted by certain practices or activities, such as meditation, it is not equivalent to or synonymous with them.”
As we can see, mindfulness is a state that can be brought on through practice. It’s not static, nor are some people ‘born more mindful’ than others. It involves awareness, and impartiality about what we gain from this awareness. In an age of social media, where opinions, likes, and commentary are more than forthcoming, it’s easy to see how non-judgmental reflection can be a welcome change.
and later
Cambridge Dictionary
“[Mindfulness is] the practice of being aware of your body, mind, and feelings in the present moment, thought to create a feeling of calm.” (Emphasis added)
This idea of a grounded, calm awareness from which to clear-headedly (is that a word?) assess what is happening to you to better decide what to pursue and what to reject seems - to me - to be why Epicurus would lay just emphasis on "that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind" (Menoikeus, 131) and on "the health of the body and... the tranquility of the mind" (Menoikeus, 128)
the whole "tranquility problem"
See, I don't see this as a problem at all. I'm more and more thinking ataraxia is more akin to mindfulness as an adequate translation than "tranquility." Tranquility conjures up mystical mind states (not that mindfulness doesn't nowadays, but bear with me), but mindfulness is a way of interacting with daily life.
“For ataraxia, ultimately and simply, is a physical undisturbedness.” [That is, not simply a mental state.]
https://www.academia.edu/34402398/What_…card=view-paper (p. 458)
In taking another look at that quote, I would call "a physical undisturbedness" aponia instead of ataraxia.
