Posts by Don

Thanks, Cassius !! All good points and sources. Some random thoughts:

• So, we're setting up a David v Goliath scenario.
• The majority isn't always correct (ex, geocentrism anyone?)
• We got some Wikipedia editing to do, backed up with sources.
• The fact that that author reads all of Epicurus through the Philebus lens is problematic and frustrating.
• "Epicurus does not think there are any positive pleasures". By Zeus, What an ignorant statement!.. None except for sex and pleasing sights and joy and....

That's enough for now.

Quote from Cassius

IF katastematic pleasure can indeed be "felt" under the authorities that talked about these issues

By "authorities," are you referring to ancient texts or current academics?

Quote from Cassius

whether {katastematic pleasure} can be felt

Isn't all pleasure a sensation by Epicurean definition? Πάθη is something that happens to you, something that is experienced. LSJ: "what is done or happens to a person or thing, opp. πρᾶξις"

Quote from Cassius

clearly delineating it from any other type of mental pleasure

That's my position in defining it as the two components of homeostasis: mental and physical. It can be maintained over time while "kinetic" pleasure is momentary and provides variety, with "katastematic pleasure" providing a ground or background or foundation so to speak.

Quote from Cassius

wrestling with the "experts" who have a lot more firepower in their citations is something else

Bah! "Experts" can cherry pick just like anyone else. It's building a case using the texts that counts. We shouldn't wrestle in their ring. We should return to the texts and build our own. Always return to the books, to paraphrase Philodemus.

PS. That doesn't mean we can't use academics who've done some leg work. It is notoriously hard to access some of the ancient texts for numerous reasons. But leaning on translations is one thing. Accepting their commentary is another.

Quote from Cassius

That's why for me it's a lot easier to take a position in what it is "not" (some special "higher" type of pleasure that is the "true goal" of life) than what it "is."

The easy (painless) easy isn't always to be chosen, to paraphrase a certain ancient philosopher.

I think I agree with you, Godfrey . My position is that katastematic pleasures - namely aponia and ataraxia - are what we feel in homeostasis when the body and mind are in proper working order and our minds are not troubled (especially by those existential fears of "the gods" and death). Then we can more readily experience other pleasures that give us variety of pleasure.

I need to go back and review Nikolsky et al.

Had this been shared before?

Epicurean Happiness: A Pig's Life?

Epicurean Happiness: A Pig's Life?

www.academia.edu

About the Piglet | The Herculaneum Society

Quote from Cassius

Thank you Don - I noticed you were scarce yesterday so I am glad you came back around for this one.

It's nice to be missed...

I realize I’m late to the game here, but…

The idea that Epicurus was an ascetic and ordered an ascetic lifestyle for his students seems to stem from two primary sources: the idea of the “necessary and natural” desires, and the mention of “bread and water” in the Letter to Menoikeus.

As for the latter, I’ve stated in other places (including my translation of the letter), I am convinced that Epicurus was using “maza and water” because that was the everyday meal of the regular ancient Greeks. Epicurus is referencing the meal you have every day and don’t even pay attention to and contrasting that with the extravagant table laden with fish and other delicacies. He’s urging us to pay attention to the meal that’s in front of us. We don’t have to shun luxuries should they come up every once in a while, but we have all we need right here in front of us if we pay attention to it.

The natural and necessary desires are never singled out as the ONLY desires to pursue or fulfill, although he says that’s all we *need* should that befall us. We aren’t commanded to only pursue those… and there is some question in my mind what those “necessary and natural’ ones are since he’s a little circumspect in the letter to Menoikeus 127-128 (see below). Most of these, to me, encourage us to pay attention to our needs and desires; not necessarily what to choose. Everyone has to make those decisions for themselves.

VS63 is a good one to bring up. Bailey’s commentary on that one is LXIII is interesting as showing that Epicurus did not wish to push his idea of the simple life to excess: the ascetic will suffer bodily distress like the glutton and so fail to attain aponia.

Menoikeus 127-128:

Furthermore, 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.

PD29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion). (Scholion on PD29: 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.)

Seneca, Letter 9.20 (quoting Epicurus): “Si cui," inquit, "sua non videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit, tamen miser est." "He says: "Whoever does not regard what he has as most ample wealth, is unhappy, though he be master of the whole world."

Seneca, Letter 14: Now you are stretching forth your hand for the daily gift. Golden indeed will be the gift with which I shall load you; and, inasmuch as we have mentioned gold, let me tell you how its use and enjoyment may bring you greater pleasure. “He who needs riches least, enjoys riches most.” “Author’s name, please!” you say. Now, to show you how generous I am, it is my intent to praise the dicta of other schools. The phrase belongs to Epicurus, or Metrodorus, or some one of that particular thinking-shop.

VS48 Saint-Andre: While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end.

VS48 Epicurus Wiki: (We should) try [to make] the later (stretch) [better] than the earlier (one) while [we are] on (the) road (and) when [we come] to (the) end (we should) enjoy [smooth] (contentment) http://wiki.epicurism.info/Vatican_Saying_48/

πειρᾶσθαι τὴν ὑστέραν τῆς προτέρας κρείττω ποιείν, ἕως ἂν ἐν ὁδῷ ὦμεν· ἐπειδὰν δʼ ἐπὶ πέρας ἔλθωμεν, ὁμαλῶς εὐφραίνεσθαι.

My attempt at a literal translation:

Attempt to make that which comes afterwards better than that which came earlier while we are on the journey; for whenever we should come to the end, we should be equally making merry.

I like that Epicurus uses the first person plural in the verbs: We. He's including himself in the exhortation to "make each step of the journey better than the one that came before."

Key words from Greek:

- τὴν ὑστέραν - that which comes later or afterwards

- τῆς προτέρας - that which comes earlier or before

- κρείττω - Attic form of κρείσσων (showing Epicurus’s Attic upbringing)

This word has two meanings:

comparative degree of κρατύς (kratús): more powerful

comparative degree of ᾰ̓γᾰθός (agathós): better

Ᾰ̓γᾰθός throughout Epicurus’s writings, in my opinion, can in many instances be equated with “the good” which is pleasure. So, in one sense, κρείττω ποιείν could be translated as “to make better” but also, in Epicurean senses, “to make more pleasurable.”

- ἐν ὁδῷ “on α road” the last word here is ὁδός (hodos) which is literally “road” so literally “ἐν ὁδῷ = on a road” but metaphorically it can mean on a journey or even with the dative ὁδῷ more like “in a journey”. You’re not just “on” a road, you’re “within” the journey (of life).

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

- πέρας - a word used several times by Epicurus, including in PD10 for the “limits of desires” τε τὸ πέρας τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ; PD20 τὰ πέρατα τῆς ἡδονῆς “the limits of pleasures” ; Letter to Menoikeus 133 τῶν ἀγαθῶν πέρας "the limits/boundaries of good things (i.e., pleasure)"

- εὐφραίνεσθαι (euphrainesthai) “rejoice, be in one's element, be pleased with, delight in, enjoy oneself, exult in, joy in, take pleasure in; make merry, enjoy oneself” I believe this word has to also be connected with euphrosyne (one of the “kinetic pleasures”)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐφημ-ητικός , εὐφραίνω

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐφημ-ητικός , εὐφροσύνη

A couple interesting parallels between the Tetrapharmakos and PD11 in the Greek:

2nd line of Tetrapharmakos:

ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος

Death is "free from risk" (lit., Without suspicion)

2a. ἀνύποπτος (anypoptos) LSJ: without suspicion; i.e., free from risk, “θάνατος” Phld.Sto.Herc.339.4.

PD11 (beginning...)

Εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου,...

If our *suspicions* about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all,

ὑποψίαι

1. suspicion, jealousy, ὑποψίην ἔχειν ἔς τινα Hdt., attic; πρός τινα Dem.; ἐν ὑπ. ποιεῖσθαι Aeschin.

2. of the object, ἔχειν ὑπ. to admit of suspicion, Plat.; ὑπ. παρέχειν Thuc.

ἀνύποπτος (anypoptos) and ὑποψίαι (hypopsiai)

are related to each other.

Other related terms:

ύποπτος m (ýpoptos, “suspect”)

ύποπτη f (ýpopti, “suspect”)

ύποπτος (ýpoptos, “suspect”) (adjective)

υποπτεύομαι (ypoptévomai, “to suspect”)

Isonomia reference...

Quote from Cassius

the term is today more associated with a Cyreniac "pleasure of the moment" attitude.

The phrase itself is inextricable linked to Bentham and Utilitarianism. While Cassius is correct that neither Epicurus nor the Epicureans used the specific phrase "hedonic calculus," he did - all the time - use "choice and rejection" αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν. So, in some ways, one is always weighing pain and pleasure and choosing and rejecting. That is, generally speaking, a kind of "calculus." Just don't get overly hung up on the term

Quote from Cassius

The Frying pan might be hot, but if that frying pan is suspending you over the grand canyon you might be well advised to stay in the frying pan til you've figured out a way to arrange a soft landing.

Good wordsmithing there. Vivid metaphor

I think you're generally on the right track, Mathitis Kipouros . Thanks for sharing this.

Is the only extant use of isonomia from Epicurus The mention in Cicero:

Quote

Moreover there is the supremely potent principle of infinity, which claims the closest and most careful study; we must understand that it has the following property, that in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals, and if the causes of destruction are beyond count, the causes of conservation also are bound to be infinite.

That's it? And isonomia is defined as, by Cicero, "in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart." According to the LSJ Greek dictionary, isonomia is cited as occurring in Epicurus Usener Fragment 352, which is Cicero's reference. And is it really Epicurus or is it just Cicero that goes off on "it follows that .." Is isonomia just Epicurus saying "no one thing of its kind"? I could see "its exact match and counterpart" as referring to something like that idea. I'll definitely want to dive into Academia.edu or JSTOR for some papers.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἰσονομ-ία

Quote from Cassius

1077] This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

This only means that there is never just one elephant, one human, one kosmos created in the universe. There is always a herd of elephants, a tribe of humans, an infinity of kosmoi. There is never a single solitary thing by itself. Things or beings are always part of a larger group. You don't have unique one of a kind things popping into existence.

FYI:

The word used in 134 is δουλεύειν "to be enslaved", related to δούλος "one who is enslaved" (Note: keeping up the metaphor started with the mistress/master idioms in the previous verse)

134: "Since it is better to follow the fictional story of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , δουλα^γωγ-ία , δουλ-εύω

Quote from Root304

the idea of an Epicurean Soul to mean the total package of human experience; our context, emotional and sensory depth, our passions and interests, our challenges, our relationship to ideas and people, our broadening and changing understanding as we journey through life, our histories and our relationship to that history and the core memories that shaped us.

I'd say that one... with the caveat that "soul" does NOT imply something that can exist outside the "meatsuit". The ψυχή psykhē / psyche is inextricably part of our physical, material, atomic makeup.

Final (LOL ) thought on PD10: I think PD10 is a direct refutation of the Cyrenaic position on pleasure. Epicurus and the Garden were getting painted with the same brush as them, and this is a firm statement that "We are NOT Cyrenaics".

Quote from Kalosyni

Thank you Don for your translation of the PD last night, I don't know if we have your translation on the forum somewhere?

Oh, I didn't translate the PD, just the letter. That's in my document to download on the Letter to Menoikeus.

Quote from Kalosyni

Imagine in Epicurus' time, that he was surrounded on all sides by people who believed in the myths and the power of the gods. I can see why he would continue to participate in the rituals for several reasons: 1) because there was pleasure in the festivals, and 2) he would have gotten a lot flak from everyone around him (non-Epicureans) if he hadn't participated in the rituals

I would add a third choice: I am coming to believe that one reason Epicurus took pleasure in the rites, festivals, sacrifices, etc. was that he intellectually recontextualized (sorry, neologism there?) them to coincide with his philosophy of the gods. As Lucretius talks about saying "Dionysus" but actually meaning "wine," Mother Earth but meaning the fertile, productive powers of the natural world. *If* that is the basis for ritual, I don't see any problem. Especially since there groups like Hellenion are trying to resurrect a Greek-inspired practice:

Hellenion