My only goal in those posts is to make sure we're not arguing against a Stoic strawman. Just as we're not keen on people stereotyping or willfully misrepresenting Epicureanism, I think it behooves us to be sure not to do the same to the rivals of the school.
I'll admit I know too little of the classical Stoics. I'm much more familiar with the stereotypes.
Here's a review of a book by the article's author on emotions and classical Stoics
I don't want to derail this thread but thought Cassius might be interested in these:
Star Trek’s Stoics: The Vulcans | Issue 106 | Philosophy Now
Plus there appear to be a lot more of the like our there!!
Stoicism = Theistic Vulcanism
Okay, for the sake of curiosity, I'm going to try and pull out some excerpts that intrigued/bothered me in the article. I'm not reading ahead so if I react to something the author clarifies later, I'll admit that. Bear with me if you like. If you're looking for well-crafted, thought-out prose, you won't find it here. I fully realize this post went way too long. Just sayin' All quotes are from there unless otherwise noted:
This talk was given at Stoicon in Toronto on October 14, 2017. The topic of the conference was “Stoicism in the Workplace.”
Right of the bat, I'm expecting a less-than-reliable portrayal of Epicurus and his philosophy. Go on...
- unmoved apathetic calm
- impassive serene unflappable
- tranquil unfeeling placid
- unsentimental unemotional unruffled
If you are like me and like my students, you can easily identify several of these words as negative words that you would not want to hear applied to yourself. Others are more complimentary; some might even be neutral. But the point of interest here is that if you make the effort to strip away the positive or negative valence of these words, all of them mean pretty much the same thing: they describe a person who doesn’t respond emotionally in situations where many people would.
Okay, this annoys me and seems to be a strawman argument. There's a reason we have different words in English. Each may be similar but there are shades of meaning that are important. Otherwise, we wouldn't bother with different words! The author's point of "if you make the effort to strip away the positive or negative valence of these words" is counterproductive and disingenuous. They're basically saying "if you make the effort to strip away the definitions of these words and let me substitute my own watered down meaning." By Zeus, I'm not even past the first paragraph.
bringing oneself closer to the dispassionate life
If the author is trying to say Epicureanism is a "dispassionate life," I will not be onboard with that. In fact, Diogenes Laertius relates that "(Epicurean) Sages are greatly affected by the pathē (i.e., more so than other people) but this doesn't hinder their progress to wisdom."
We’re going to need some terminology. Our word “emotion” is a class term, it names the category whose members are anger, grief, fear, delight, eagerness, and whatever else we think is of that kind. If we look for equivalent words in Greek as spoken in the fourth century BCE, we find two possibilities. One is pathos, ‘a way of being affected’; corresponding to the Latin word affectus. The other is tarachē, ‘a disturbance’, for which the Latin equivalent is perturbatio. I do not intend to make any distinction between these two terms. Some authors favor one or the other, but the meaning is the same, or at least near enough to allow for the comparisons I’ll be making here.
Okay, gritting teeth again. There's a reason there were different words! So, there's a reason that "some authors favor one or the other"! Is the author going to equate apatheia with ataraxia? I can see it coming. Go on...
The same goes for two related words that alternate in the record for the Greek philosophies we’ll be looking at. From pathos was derived the term apatheia, the a- prefix indicating a lack or absence. That one I’ll usually translate “impassivity.” And similarly, the word tarachē gets an a prefix and becomes ataraxia, which I’ll usually translate “non-disturbedness”. Either way, we have a word tied to the idea of a life without emotion, without yet specifying what exactly such a life might be.
AND there it is! I would not define ataraxia as "the idea of a life without emotion"! Isn't joy an emotion? Is the author ruling out feeling joy later on?
Crantor’s consolation must have said, as most of these pieces do, “it’s OK to cry for a while, anyone would”—but then he turns philosopher and adds,
I cannot by any means agree with those who extol some kind of impassivity (apatheia). Such a thing is neither possible nor beneficial. I do not wish to be ill, but if I am, and if some part of my body is to be cut open or even amputated, let me feel it. This absence of pain comes at a high price: it means being numb in body, and in mind scarcely human. — Crantor, quoted by Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 3.10
It's actually Tusc. Disp. Book 3.6 not 10. And I'm always skeptical of someone saying "X must have said" when we don't have any access to X. Here's the full context of that citation...
Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, On the Nature of the Gods, On the Commonwealth
Crantor, who was one of the most distinguished men that our Academy has ever produced, say this amiss: “I am by no means of their opinion who talk so much in praise of I know not what insensibility, which neither can exist, nor ought to exist”. “I would choose,” says he, “never to be ill; but should I be so, still I should choose to retain my sensation, whether there was to be an amputation or any other separation of anything from my body. For that insensibility cannot be but at the expense of some unnatural ferocity of mind, or stupor of body.”But let us consider whether to talk in this manner be not allowing that we are weak, and yielding to our softness. Notwithstanding, let us be hardy enough, not only to lop off every arm of our miseries, but even to pluck up every fibre of their roots. Yet still something, perhaps, may be left behind, so deep does folly strike its roots: but whatever may be 97left it will be no more than is necessary. But let us be persuaded of this, that unless the mind be in a sound state, which philosophy alone can effect, there can be no end of our miseries. Wherefore, as we began, let us submit ourselves to it for a cure; we shall be cured if we choose to be. I shall advance something further. I shall not treat of grief alone, though that indeed is the principal thing; but, as I originally proposed, of every perturbation of the mind, as I termed it; disorder, as the Greeks call it: and first, with your leave, I shall treat it in the manner of the Stoics, whose method is to reduce their arguments into a very small space; afterward I shall enlarge more in my own way.
I'll admit I skipped the Cynics section.
Now, the author begins to paint Epicurus with the "emotionless" brush.
The goal of Democritus’s ethics was a good state of mind, euthumia, defined as “a calm and stable existence, not disturbed by any fear or superstition or any other emotion” (Diogenes Laertius 9.45)
Okay, so euthumia was Democritus's telos or goal, not Epicurus's. And did not Epicurus call Democritus the Lerocritus (the nonsense-monger)? That said I'm curious about the author's citation of Democritus in DL IX.45:
[45] All things happen by virtue of necessity, the vortex being the cause of the creation of all things, and this he calls necessity. The end of action is tranquillity, which is not identical with pleasure, as some by a false interpretation have understood, but a state in which the soul continues calm and strong, undisturbed by any fear or superstition or any other emotion. This he calls well-being and many other names. The qualities of things exist merely by convention ; in nature there is nothing but atoms and void space. These, then, are his opinions.
The author makes mention of Epicurus's nautical and water-based metaphors, which I do find interesting. Tell you what, it's getting late. I'm going to hold off commenting on the remainder of the article until tomorrow... Stay tuned.
Thank you for the thought-provoking responses!
That's great and I also think it is highly dependent upon life circumstances. So perhaps your circumstances are supportive of living untroubled --.
I think being "untroubled" or having peace of mind regardless of circumstances is the goal of "philosophy" or seeking wisdom. But let me expand on that idea...
once one is settled down in life and lives in a happy and safe community/city, is secure with one's living situation (owns one's own home), feels fully confident in financial security (with enough savings to last till the end of one's life) has a safety net of good family and friends, and has no doubts about future well-being. Anyone who doesn't have any of these will have to use the very painful attempt of a "mind over matter" approach and try to repress their worries if they want to feel at peace
I'm not sure my circumstances are all as rosy as you might assume from the list you've provided about your assessment of my circumstances, but that's all I'll say about those. If we wait to have peace of mind until our lives are somehow subjectively perfect to an outside observer (or to ourselves), it will never happen. We humans will always find some goal unattainable, some aspect unsatisfactory, and we can think "If I can resolve that, then I can live "untroubled" or to have "peace of mind."" My position is that "peace of mind" or ataraxia is achievable regardless of circumstances. To me, that is the goal of a practical philosophy which one lives. It's not "mind over matter" or ignoring problems or wearing rose-colored glasses. It's assessing each situation - each choice and avoidance - with a clear mind, with practical wisdom, and with a clear goal in mind...which, in the case of Epicurus' philosophy, is to lead a more pleasurable life tomorrow than I did today. I often - always! - fall short of that goal, but it's a goal nonetheless that I continually try to keep in mind even though I am a novice at best this Epicurean gig.
And as such it may appear that that Epicureanism is for the "well-to-do" person, but I don't agree. I see pleasure as an antidote -- one pursues "pleasure as medicine" -- and then in this way the philosophy can be applied regardless of one's level of wealth.
I agree that Epicureanism is not a philosophy for the "well-to-do" only. His philosophy attracted the most down-trodden members of ancient Greek society but also kings and wealthy Romans. So, I also fully agree with you that "the philosophy can be applied regardless of one's level of wealth." That is my point in the previous paragraph. I would simply substitute "level of wealth" for "circumstances" and say ""the philosophy can be applied regardless of one's circumstances." Do we end up agreeing on that?
For example, it may appear that there is no way to change or improve one's situation -- but if 10 years later things CAN change -- what do you do while you are waiting to get there? You enjoy life the best you can!
Absolutely! You carpe the diem while the sun shines to mix metaphors. But I wouldn't encourage people to think of their lives as "waiting to get" something. The idea is to enjoy the little things as well as the big things every day.
I realize my own life reflects a situation in which I was not happy (living in an unpleasant house) and it took me 8 years to figure out what to do differently, to start moving in a different direction.
I'm sincerely glad that you were able to get out of an unhappy situation! Inertia, habit, and complacency are powerful forces (speaking from personal experiences both large and small).
I still stand by my word choice of "striving" -- because some of us need to choose to strive toward happiness, and strive to move toward pleasure. I suppose another choice of words would be "put in some effort" -- because we need to put in some effort into creating a good life.
I respect your decision to stand by your word. I personally have negative feelings toward that word for various reasons, so I may be inferring connotations that you're not intending. I like "put in some effort".
That said, Epicurus, to me, calls us to consider carefully what we are striving or struggling for. Is the goal worth the effort? Will the goal actually bring us happiness and well-being and pleasure, or is it a goal imposed on us by indoctrination of culture or empty desires?
I appreciate your willingness to engage on these topics. Your responses help me sharpen my mind and ask myself what it is I believe. These are some fundamental questions!
Kalosyni 's closing comment and final "Seize the day!" genuinely made me smile while listening on my way to work this morning. I thought they were spot on!
Hey mention of the Death Cafe brought to mind the current "death positive" movement to get people to talk openly about death, dying, burials, etc. I think it's a good idea. Two major figures include Caitlin Doughty and Cole Imperi. You can Google them.
Hmmm. Lots to react to, both in the article and in Cassius 's response. That'll be for later this evening (I do not know how Cassius can go from not having read the article to having long, thoughtful passages in a couple hours! That's genuinely impressive!)
My first reaction is that this is a Stoic writing a Stoic perspective for a Stoic audience. That's gonna leave a mark.
I debated whether to respond to Kalosyni 's post above, but, the more I thought about it today, the more I wanted to share my perspective on some of her thoughts. I am not saying either of us is "right" or "wrong," but I'm sharing my perspective. Please, Kalosyni , do not take any of this personally or as an ad hominem attack. It is sincerely not meant in that way! You bring a thoughtful, curious, personal perspective to this forum which I greatly appreciate. I hope I do the same and that my response below is in an Epicurean spirit of open, frank discussion.
I think that ataraxia and aponia are important, however I view them differently -- because modern life is really at odds with being "pain free or untroubled".
My first thought on reading this was: If modern life - in fact, life in any time - is at odds with being "pain free or untroubled," why do we find this acceptable? I don't want to think that "that's just the way things are." I don't want to accept that.
I want to envision a way of living in the modern world in which my mind *can* be untroubled, in which I can face any issue that comes up with composure and clear thinking. I want to think it's possible to assess every choice before me without mental anxiety or worry or distress. That's what ataraxia is about for me. It is an achievable way of experiencing the world here and now. It's not some ideal, Platonic, unattainable state. I may not have it all the time, but I can see it as a goal to work toward and catch glimpses of it so I know it's real.
Same with aponia. Epicurus obviously couldn't have meant it as a literally "pain-free existence" because he tells us he was in excruciating pain at the time of his death. The only way to not feel pain is without sensation, and if one is without sensation, you're already dead. But he did say it was possible to experience something. He describes it in PD3 as "Where that which gives pleasure exists, during the time it is present, there is neither pain nor that which causes pain in body or mind nor either of these together." The word for pain is actually άλγος "pain (of either mind or body)", but also sorrow, trouble, grief, distress, woe. And aponia is actually from ἄπονος (aponos) which has connotations of "freedom from toil or trouble." So, (as DeWitt says it) it's the whole "sound mind in a sound body" idea. We can also work toward a healthy body that doesn't give us trouble. We're going to have some aches and pains as we grow old, but maintaining health will alleviate some of that trouble.
I think Epicurus is also suggesting we toil too much and trouble ourselves too much. I need to go back and re-read the full Property Management by Philodemus, but I seem to remember there are pertinent sections in there on that topic.
We certainly wouldn't want to wait to be completely untroubled in order to enjoy life.
I agree completely, and I think Epicurus calls us to not wait to experience pleasure and to enjoy life. But I don't think we have to be "completely untroubled" to get a taste of what it might be like to live untroubled.
an active modern life will bring us into "stressful" moments.
things can be a mix of pleasure and stress -- for example going to a coffeehouse can sometimes be too noisy (or unpleasing music is playing), but as long as there is over-all more pleasure than stress we will choose this activity. Also over time what might originally feel stressful can be adapted to.
I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me with these, but I think it's the emphasis on "stress" and "stressful" here. I suggest replacing "stress" with "pain" to see how that feels. I can certainly see how "things can be a mix of pleasure and pain"; but, to me, the word "stress" adds an emotional dimension - "stress" is a way of adding our emotional reaction to the immediate feeling of pain. I'm not sure that's necessary if we're aiming at the (eventual) goal of well-being or ataraxia and aponia or happiness or completely pleasurable life. If sitting in the coffeehouse is too painful, move to a different coffeehouse. If the music can be ignored or one puts earbuds in to block the noise, do that.
So, I agree with the second part of that excerpt but again, I would advocate for not adding the emotional baggage of "stress". If one thinks of it as "stress" or anxiety or annoyance or something else, I think that feeds on itself. Pain is simply negative feeling without further judgement. If the pain is to be experienced to experience a greater pleasure, then sit with it. If the pain is simply painful, do everything to rid yourself of it. There is no virtue to "grin and bear it" for the sake of grinning and bearing it.
life requires a certain amount of "striving" or work. Most people until they are retired work at a job to make money for the purpose of survival (there are stay-at-home moms which is a big job in itself). Striving brings with it a certain amount of stress, but hopefully we can find ways to adapt which isn't too stressful (or jobs which aren't too stressful). Then beyond this for people who are retired, life still needs some form of striving, or else the will to live diminishes. And the striving could be any type of interest or goal (big or small) which requires some effort but also feels engaging and important in some way. And striving will always bring with it a small amount of mental stress. I would say that it is very important to make sure the level of stress does not become overwhelming.
"Striving" struck the same chord in me as "stress/stressful." It will be a little less than a decade until I can consider retirement. I try to not constantly associate my job with stress, striving, and survival, although I admit there are days and situations that cause me pain, mostly mental. However, that again to me is an argument for working toward a mind that can think clearly and a body that isn't in pain. That word "striving" to me conjures Protestant work ethic, "idle hands are the devil's plaything," and similar themes. We can work toward goals, personal and professional, that aren't characterized by mental stress and striving. To me, the last sentence sums up the issue: "it is very important to make sure the level of stress does not become overwhelming." The way to make sure the "level of stress does not become overwhelming" is to cultivate the very freedom from trouble in the mind for which Epicurus appears to advocate.
Choosing natural but unnecessary *desires*
No doubt some of you will notice I didn't include those desires neither natural nor necessary. That was deliberate on my part.
Those are characterized by the scholia to PD29 as:
by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour
It has been conjectured that Epicureans like Cassius Longinus et al were pursuing desires that were deemed "neither natural nor necessary" in their pursuit of politics or role in the Roman Civil War. I would posit this is not necessarily the case. My take is that the situation was disturbing to him in many respects. He wasn't (necessarily) looking for "crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour." I think there are parallels with Torquatus's Epicurean justifications for his ancestor's actions.
For those unfamiliar, as I was, with Cassius Longinus:
mead
Mead is having a bit of a renaissance lately. I must say I enjoy a glass every once in awhile and we have some excellent meadery establishments in the area including:
I'm sure nothing surpasses Joshua 's homemade, balloon-pinhole method, but they all do a good job! 
Also I am wondering about getting entirely away from metaphors and just thinking about real life
I like that. Make it practical!
I would wake up in the morning and ask myself "How can I bring more pleasure into my life?"
That's a good way to set your motivation and mindset.
how one thinks of pleasure -- is it fun? is it sweetness? is it love? is it satisfaction? is it comfort? is it good health? is it a little food treat? or smelling roses or adding cinnamon to breakfast?
I would say it's all of those. All those describe pleasure.
As I think some more, I still am becoming enamored of the idea that a pleasurable life's foundation is a mind and body free from trouble, pain, and anxiety. Ataraxia and aponia. That's where it starts! That's the foundation upon we can build experiences of pleasure arising from natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary. Without that foundation, we are anxious that we won't be able to fulfill desires we want to choose; we're troubled that our desire won't completely fulfill our expectations; we fear the pleasure coming from our chosen desire won't last long enough. The fears, anxieties, and troubles can spiral out of control. If we have a sound mind in a healthy body, we can pluck the desires we find appealing with no mental anguish, large or small. If your mind is already at peace, sink your teeth into the ripe peach, experience the juice dripping down chin, close your eyes and taste the sensuous sweetness on your tongue. Experience the pleasure undimmed by some mental baggage because you're already at the limit of pleasure and the peach is varying that feeling.
I admit I'm still working through this, but, Thank you Kalosyni for bringing us back to a practical real world perspective!
I'm trying to think of ways to get away from the vessel metaphor.
To me, the boundaries of pleasure are reached, if using our reasoning, when the mind is free from trouble and the body is free from pain and there's a confidence that state will continue. That is the natural limit of *pleasure.*
Choosing natural but unnecessary *desires*, as Godfrey has conjectured elsewhere, vary our pleasure and this is where the work happens. But what does that mean? It, to me, changes neither the quality nor quantity of *pleasure*. The latter is self-evident because the natural "limit of pleasure" has been reached. But can it change the quality of pleasure since again the natural boundaries have been reached? What does it really mean to "vary" one's pleasure if the limit has been reached? Pleasure comes from choosing to act on desires. Again, as Godfrey stressed before, desire does NOT equal pleasure. The natural/necessary etc. descriptors modify *desire* not *pleasure* because all pleasure is good but just not choiceworthy.
How do we create a metaphor that gets at that connection between desires and pleasure??
Thought you might be interested in this:
I dunno, I think a good metaphor is going to be extensible to cover the closely related issue of "What about variation?"
Okay, I'll give you that, but I don't like the idea of the spilling over as variation. It seems... messy.
I could see if the glass is tipped or jostled and there's spillage, that makes sense that the mind is still troubled and anxious. It's not steady.
But a variation analogy? I'm going to have to ponder that.
What about a change in state of what's in the glass? It could be liquid, it could be frozen, it could turn to wine, it could turn to orange juice.
I'm trying to get away from adding to it, because it's at it's natural limit but there can still be variation within the glass.
Still gonna have to ponder...
I dunno, I think a good metaphor is going to be extensible to cover the closely related issue of "What about variation?"
Okay, I'll give you that, but I don't like the idea of the spilling over as variation. It seems... messy.
I could see if the glass is tipped or jostled and there's spillage, that makes sense that the mind is still troubled and anxious. It's not steady.
But a variation analogy? I'm going to have to ponder that.
Staying with that full glass analogy for the moment, I would think that the glass "spilling" some because it is overfilled would have to be interpreted carefully.
If the glass is spilling because more is being poured into it, and the liquid simply overflows because new liquid is being added, I would see that as "variation" and not a bad thing (just not something that increases the total experience of pleasure.
On the other hand if the glass spills because it is jostled, and the liquid spills over the edge and thus the total liquid declines, that would be a bad thing from just about every perspective, I would think.
We may be taking the "full glass" metaphor further than is useful 
But on the other hand those two lives are not at all the same in many other respects
Expand on that. In what ways? (I'm not necessarily saying I disagree but for the sake of discussion, I can't just let that statement stand on it's own)
once the glass is full, it's full. Whether the glass stays full a day or an infinite time, it's the same volume.
In rethinking my comment there, I want to emphasize that the goal is to keep the glass full all the time by having banished fear, anxiety, etc. until you die. I don't want it to be understood as Cassius 's being full "for a moment" comment. Because of the glass is full and you die tomorrow or you die 100 years from now, it's the same limit of pleasure.
PS: That's why I think ataraxia and aponia are necessary components in an Epicurean worldview / perspective / paradigm (take your pick). To me, that's what keeps the glass full while, at the same time, allowing one to experience the "limit of pleasure" while going about your daily routine of laughing, loving wisdom/philosophizing and tending to one's home life and using one's other goods. Having that glass full is what saturates ones life with pleasure and also allows one to enjoy the other pleasure of life unalloyed with anxiety or pain. There's no room for ascetism or self-mortification within that worldview.
