Posts by Don

I was curious to see where Epicurus uses λύπη "pain, distress, etc" or its variants elsewhere and found:

PD3 Ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. ὅπου δ’ ἂν τὸ ἡδόμενον ἐνῇ, καθ’ ὃν ἂν χρόνον ᾖ, οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἀλγοῦν ἢ τὸ λυπούμενον ἢ τὸ συναμφότερον.

The limit of the magnitude of pleasure (is) the whole of the removal of that which causes pain. Where that which gives pleasure exists, during the time it is present, there is neither pain nor that which causes pain in body or *in the mind* nor either of these together. ( Don)

PD10 Εἰ τὰ ποιητικὰ [τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν] ἔλυε τοὺς φόβους τῆς διανοίας τούς [τε περὶ μετεώρων καὶ θανάτου καὶ ἀλγηδόνων], ἔτι τε τὸ πέρας τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐδίδασκεν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴχομεν ὅ τι μεμψαίμεθα αὐτοῖς, πανταχόθεν ἐκπληρουμένοις τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ οὐδαμόθεν οὔτε τὸ ἀλγοῦν οὔτε τὸ λυπούμενον ἔχουσιν, ὅ περ ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν.

If the things that produced the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind’s fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that’s what is bad). (Saint-Andre)

Menoikeus 125

οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν δεινὸν τῷ κατειληφότι γνησίως τὸ μηθὲν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ μὴ ζῆν δεινόν. ὥστε μάταιος ὁ λέγων δεδιέναι τὸν θάνατον οὐχ ὅτι λυπήσει παρών, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι λυπεῖ μέλλων. ὃ γὰρ παρὸν οὐκ ἐνοχλεῖ, προσδοκώμενον κενῶς λυπεῖ. τὸ φρικωδέστατον οὖν τῶν κακῶν ὁ θάνατος οὐθὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐπειδήπερ ὅταν μὲν ἡμεῖς ὦμεν, ὁ θάνατος οὐ πάρεστιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ὁ θάνατος παρῇ, τόθ᾽ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμέν. οὔτε οὖν πρὸς τοὺς ζῶντάς ἐστιν οὔτε πρὸς τοὺς τετελευτηκότας, ἐπειδήπερ περὶ οὓς μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, οἱ δ᾽ οὐκέτι εἰσίν.

For there is nothing terrible in living for the one who truly comprehends that there is nothing terrible in not living. So, the one who says death is to be feared is foolish, not that there will be pain and distress when it is present but that there is pain in anticipation; because that which is present does not trouble, disquiet, or annoy, and anticipation itself pains and distresses one fruitlessly. Death, that which causes utter horror, which causes one to shudder, that "most utterly horrifying of pains" as it is understood by the hoi polloi, then is nothing to us. On the one hand, at the time when we are (that is while we are living), death is not present; on the other hand, whenever death is present, then we are not (that is, we don't exist). Death is neither a concern for those who are living nor for those whose lives are ended.

I found κενῶς λυπεῖ interesting because one of the best ways to translate that is "distressing one fruitlessly" which may give a sense of Diogenes' wall.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

For anyone who's interested, here is the Greek text for the inscription:

DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216

And that's exactly what we need to address Kalosyni's question! Thank you!

Fragment 2, column 6, lines 5-14

γύρω ματαίως [κ]ατ[έχον-]

τας ἡμᾶς φόβους [ἀ-]

πελυσάμεθα, ⁦ vac. 1⁩ τῶν τε

λυπῶν τὰς μὲν κ̣εν̣ὰ̣ς

ἐξεκόψαμεν εἰς τέ-

λειον, ⁦ vac. 1⁩ τὰς δ̣ὲ φυσικὰς

εἰς μεικρὸν κομιδῇ

συνεστείλαμεν, ἐλα-

χιστιαῖον αὐτῶν τ̣[ὸ]

μέγεθος ποι̣ή̣σ̣α̣[ντες]

λυπῶν τὰς μὲν κ̣εν̣ὰ̣ς = lypōn tas men kenas

λυπῶν = pain (of mind or body), suffering, affliction, distress

κ̣εν̣ὰ̣ς = same word used throughout Epicureanism for void, empty, groundless, vain, etc.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm coming to think of katastematic pleasure as generated within myself. As Epicurus does, I include ataraxia and aponia in that category. Kinetic pleasures I'm coming to think of as being generated from taking part in an activity like dancing, sex, eating, relaxing, etc.

Granted, I need texts to back up my intuition but that's where I'm headed.

So to connect this to Pacatus post above, I'd agree that fear is manifest or felt in the body and mind; however, I'd say it originates in the mind since it can be demonstrated that two people can have very different reactions to the same stimuli. Removal of that fear then leads to ataraxia in the mind.

Check this out, too:

L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda - Persée

It has drawings of the fragments of the inscription!

For anyone who's interested, here is the Greek text for the inscription:

DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216

Quote from waterholic

It's funny how you can get even religion out of the people but not the instinctive hatred and mistrust of pleasure

Well put!

Political Animals: Pathetic Animals, in R. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 10-17.

Political Animals: Pathetic Animals, in R. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 10-17.

www.academia.edu

I'm not keen on someone posting a work still under copyright, BUT, until it's taken down, we might as well profit from it

This book has some interesting sections, especially the one starting on p 485.

One thought: the authors talk about the Garden being a residential community where all the Epicureans lived together. I'm still not convinced that this was the case. I can imagine some students and senior teachers lived there but it seems more likely it was a "commuter" school. This opinion of mine partially comes the fact that enslaved people were welcomed. Those people would have lived at their masters house and would have attended Garden classes on their "days off" I would assume. Same with women - I would assume were mostly hetairai since those women had the most freedom of movement in ancient Greece from my understanding.

I'm any case, an interesting book with scatterings regarding Epicurus in it.

Quote from waterholic

I have been raised in a completely non-religious environment

Lucky you!

So your upbringing would fall under the first or second category of Epicurus's "some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power."

Random Internet sites I found sort of on this topic I now submit for consideration, neither endorsing nor disapproving at this point:

(Edit: I'm slowly going back and pulling out quotes and commenting. I hope that doesn't change anyone's reactions )

Quote

My biggest problem with Epicureanism is their belief in absolute goodness and absolute badness. I think life is much less stressful and more enjoyable when we consider everything’s goodness or badness to be relative. Some things seem bad in the moment but end up being good; I think an Epicurean mindset of absolute good and badness precludes one (at least practically) from having faith that some bad things may turn out to be good things.

I found some interesting comments from this college student, but the excerpt above made me sad. I'm not sure where he got the "absolute" idea from, but I suspect it was "all pleasure is good .." But he overgeneralized to "all pleasure should be chosen" I think.

Epicurean Spiritual Exercises | Counter-Currents

1,291 words Trans. Guillaume Durocher Translator’s Note: The following is drawn from Pierre Hadot, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique ? (Paris: Gallimard,…

counter-currents.com

I think some on this forum flinch at the term "spiritual exercises" but I chalk that up to Hadot's idiosyncracies. This excerpt of his work seems mostly uncontroversial to me, except for bringing up "asceticism". It seems to me primarily a bringing together of some of the practices scattered in Epicurean texts which *could* be a helpful start.

Philosophy As a Way of Life

Philosophy, as it is practiced today, is abstract, theoretical, and detached from life. In the Greco-Roman world, it was something quite di…

www.nypl.org

Quote

He (Epicurus) was in fact an ascetic. Pleasure, for him, is not sensuality and luxury but freedom from pain and tranquility. If we live a simple life, restrict our desires, free ourselves from the fear of death, and learn to accept our mortal condition, we can have a tranquil life, and recover the simple joy of existing, with a feeling of profound gratitude for life.

AND there it is! In their defense, they're summarizing Hadot who said the same thing above in those excerpts. There's some other interesting items in here comparing the various schools, but the old ascetic trope lives on.

Why Epicurean ideas suit the challenges of modern secular life

Sure, Epicureans focused on seeking pleasure – but they also did so much more.

bigthink.com

Finally read this one in its entirety and probably my favorite one of the bunch. This author seems to get it. Not a mention of asceticism!

Quote from Kalosyni

So then this "working towards having a calm baseline" would require therapeutics?

And if so, then we need to list all of them -- sourced from PD's, Vatican Sayings, Letter to Menoeceus, Diogenes Laertius wise man sayings, and Cicero's Torquatus -- so we see what specifically leads to this calm baseline.

I'm not sure of "therapeutics" but maybe techniques? Exercises? Suggested activities? Epicurus did make the direct comparison between medicine and philosophy, so there's something there.

I'd have to review all those texts, but I can say that I doubt we'll find specific instructions. Our textual treasury is just not deep enough However, I'm going to offer that his "maza (bread) and water" comment in Menoikeus is an instruction - a declaration - to pay attention to the daily, ordinary pleasures in the moment. To take pleasure in the ordinary. That's a powerful instruction!

I recently had someone recommend The Mindfulness Solution by Dr Ronald Siegel, PsyD. I just started listening to the audiobook, but it's mindfulness sans woo. And it says exactly what I'm saying: mindfulness makes us better at paying attention to - and enjoying! - the everyday experiences we have, makes us less anxious about the future, and less stressed about the past. That sounds exactly like what Epicurus was advocating to me! I'll have to listen to more, but what I'm hearing is encouraging and I think directly applicable to Epicurean practice.

Quote from Cassius

would have been totally unsuitable to Cicero

Quote from Cassius

suitable to the professional academic class today, I very much doubt it,

Ask me if I care about what Cicero and the academics think! I'm just trying to make sense of this philosophy for my own life!

A lot going on in this thread and I have some thoughts on specific comments, but for now I'd like to be clear about what I mean when I use tranquility or ataraxia.

I don't mean some mystical state or some "special" state or some woo-woo state.

I do mean simply a clear-headed, calm mind unruffled by anxiety or fear.

A person can have that state if they are relaxing, if they are engaged in action, even if they're on the battlefield. It means someone isn't freaking out. It means they approach decisions clearly, decisively, with no equivocation or regret.

Does that state arise naturally? Yes.

Does it take practice to achieve and maintain that state? Absolutely.

Is it better to have that state as a foundation from which to confront the "slings and arrows" of daily life than other states? Yes indeed, in my opinion.

In the end, I don't think one can truly be happy, be filled with well-being, or experience satisfaction unless you're working towards having that calm baseline to work from.

Quote

Quote from OKeefe

"Given this pair of distinctions, the Epicureans maintain that the main constituent of the pleasant life, and hence, of the happy life, is the static mental pleasure of ataraxia, or tranquility—the state of being free from mental disturbance."

I wouldn't call ataraxia the "main constituent" but I may go so far as to call it a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.

First thoughts:

It may be admissible to describe Epicurus's description of the highest pleasure being the absence of pain as "idiosyncratic" simply because he shifts focus. It would be like describing a full glass of water as the absence of air in the glass. But the *real* import of saying there's not air in the glass is an "idiosyncratic" way of emphasized the point that the glass is completely filled to the rim with water. Your glass is completely filled with no room for any more water. Same with pleasure and pain. You wouldn't order a glass of water by saying "I'd like a glass completely devoid of air" unless you were trying to make some point. I think that's what Epicurus was doing with his absence of pain terminology. A life filled to the rim with pleasure *can be* thought of as a life lived in the absence of pain. It's not some arcane thing like some authors and academics try to make it out to be.

Another first thought:

So many authors and academics completely skip over this line that's right there:

Quote from Cicero's Torquatus

"For the pleasure which we pursue is ***not that alone*** which excites the natural constitution itself by a kind of sweetness, and of which the sensual enjoyment is attended by a kind of agreeableness, but we look upon the greatest pleasure as that which is enjoyed when all pain is removed."

Not that alone! So "we pursue" that which excites the natural constitution itself by a kind of sweetness, and of which the sensual enjoyment is attended by a kind of agreeableness, but just not only that. We pursue both x and y.

I maintain that cultivating tranquility is an important component of an Epicurean life, an Epicurean practice, but that is not at the expense of that "which the sensual enjoyment is attended by a kind of agreeableness." It's both.

Excellent question, @waterholic and good responses from the rest of the crew. I'd just add (or emphasize) that Epicurus's philosophy encourages people - at any level of socio-economic status - that one can find pleasure in living. If all you have at the moment are the small things, we should all take pleasure in the small things: eating food to nourish the body even if meagre, feeling the sun on one's face, etc.

I think Epicurus would also encourage people to do all they can to satisfy their essential needs. Without those things "necessary for life" and we'll-being and the health of the body, one will find it very difficult to enjoy pleasure and to be sure of its continuance.

That's fascinating, Joshua !! Thanks for sharing!

To maybe answer your question:

Pub names - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote

Checkers or Chequer(s), March, Isle of Ely and many other sites : sometimes derived from the coat of arms of a local landowner (see Chequy), this name and sign originated in ancient Rome when a chequer board indicated that a bar also provided banking services. The checked board was used as an aid to counting and is the origin of the word exchequer. The last pub to use the older, now American spelling of checker was in Baldock, Hertfordshire, but this closed circa 1990; all pubs now use the modern "q" spelling (but see also Chequers, in Plants and horticulture below).

So, pubs and churches?

Quote from Cassius

I think I speak for most here in saying that there is nothing to basic or too complicated in the philosophy of Epicurus that we don't find interesting to discuss, so please do not hesitate on whatever topics are of interest to you

We're *all* learning here

When it comes to this topic of discussion of "ethical" behavior, it's more about justice than pleasure/pain. Of course, that pleasure/pain guides choices and rejections, but I'd also point to PD31:

Natural justice is an agreement for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or to be harmed.

Now for something completely different...

Live commentary on Lucretius in spoken Latin!

So, here's another reason to learn Latin.

Close your eyes and imagine a conversation in ancient Rome. Stefano also reads some selections from De Rerum Natural.

And I understand almost nothing, maybe the occasional ergo or sum or hic. I just found out fascinating.