Ha - I will say on my last reading that I detect some bias in listing "too much frugality" without listing the negative "descending" that is attached to profligacy"
Not intentional bias.
VS63 warns of choosing too much frugality.
The letter to Menoikeus clearly says that "an endless string of drinking parties and festivals" is not how Epicurus defines pleasure.
So... One is looking for pain with too much frugality or too much "sex, drugs, and rock and roll."
My take has been to understand Epicurus's point as "If your circumstances, for some reason, made it so that you *had* to live in a cave by yourself on the barest of necessities, you *could* find pleasure in that since you're still alive and Nature can supply your necessary needs. BUT it is NOT necessary to live this way. Living among friends, discussing and practicing philosophy, making all your choices and rejections based on practical wisdom and other sound criteria, living neither with too much frugality nor descending into profligacy... That is a pleasurable life."
For an Epicurean, virtue is one of the tools to experience pleasure.
In Epicurean philosophy, what is virtuous depends on the particular context, whereas in Stoic philosophy, they seem to be rather absolute.
The 4 Stoic virtues are:
- (practical) Wisdom
- Justice
- Temperance
- Courage
For the Stoics these are the only good things, with all others being (preferred or dispreferred) indifferents. The stoics are absolute when it comes to their cardinal (in a non christian sense) values. I think all of these virtues are important for a pleasurable life. I can't be unwise, unjust, without self discipline and a coward and have a happy life.
Are there more or different virtues in Epicureanism than these? If yes, how are they defined?
Thanks for bringing your thread back around to the Stoic/Epicurean question. My first thought when reading the list of virtues was Principal Doctrine 5:
5 Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως· ὅτῳ δ᾽ ἕν τούτων μὴ ὑπάρχει οἷον ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.
ἄνευ + gen = without
φρονίμως wisely, sensibly, prudently
καλῶς II. regul. adv. καλῶς, mostly in moral sense, well, rightly
δικαίως —adv. -ως, rightly, justly
ἡδέως pleasantly < ἡδονή
My translation: PD5 It is not possible to live a pleasurable life without the traits of (practical) wisdom, morality, and justice; and it is impossible to live with wisdom, morality, and justice without living pleasurably. When one of these is lacking, it is impossible to live a pleasurable life.
Consider in light of Fragment 519: The greatest fruit of justice is serenity. δικαιοσύνης καρπὸς μέγιστος ἀταραξία.
Epicurus clearly thinks the "virtues" are important, but they are important because they are instrumental to achieving a pleasurable life and not as ends or goals for their own sake.
(Wondering if maybe we need to move some of these posts to a new thread, since this was originally a thread for Kungi.)
Agree with Kalosyni on that.
Additionally, I advocate getting away from the natural and "unnatural" descriptors. There are natural desires - those arising from nature - and those that are not natural arising from fruitless, void, groundless, empty beliefs. They are κεναί:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=keno/s That's a much better description of what they are than unnatural. Unnatural implies they are somehow not human. They are unfortunately very human desires, but they're empty of substance and can never be satiated.
This is the exact same word Epicurus uses to name the "void" in "atoms and void." He's saying that there is literally nothing there to back up the desire. The void is the absence of atoms. It is the empty space within which the atoms move.
It would all depend on what is considered necessary for happiness.
Here's my take from my translation of the last part of section 127 of the letter to Menoikeus made into a bulleted list:
"Furthermore, ...
I imagine this may sound like nitpicking
Doesn't sound like nitpicking to me 
If anyone is curious from our last 20th get together, here is the play by Aristophanes entitled Wealth (Πλούτος , Plutus is the Latinized spelling since, evidently, *everything* has to be spelled like the Romans did it 
)
PD15 Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.
ἐκπίπτω
Don translation: Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach.
Hicks translation: Nature’s wealth has its bounds and is easy to procure, but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.
Saint-Andre translational: Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion are boundless.
.dangerous for it (the soul) to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence" is intriguing. This provides maybe the simplest description of vain desires: ignoring the commands of nature. And it implies the antidote: pay attention!
"...attachment to its usual independence" is less clear.
And I just realized that that "independence" is our old friend αὐταρκείας autarkeias usually translated as "self-reliance"! I was too fixated on the first part!!
200. Don't think it unnatural (ἀφυσιολόγητον aphysiologēton) that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.
ἀφυσιολόγητον μηδὲν ἡγοῦ βοώσης τῆς σαρκὸς βοᾶν τὴν ψυχὴν· σαρκὸς δὲ φωνή· μὴ πεινῆν, μὴ διψῆν, μὴ ῥιγοῦν· καὶ ταῦτα τὴν ψυχὴν χαλεπὸν μὲν κωλῦσαι, ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ παρακοῦσαι τῆς παραγγειλάσης φύσεως αὐτῇ τῆς προσφυοῦς αὑτῇ αὐταρκείας καθʼ ἡμέραν.
Otherwise, the phrasing appears to be:
οὔτε δὲ φυσικὰς οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαίας
Neither natural nor necessary
I realize it's possibly pedantic, but the words natural and necessary are simply in a negative phrase: neither X nor Y. It's not the words "unnatural"and "unnecessary" themselves.
Please, if anyone sees otherwise, post your findings!
There's also this thread on self-sufficiency from 2021 that might be of interest:
For anyone who REALLY wants to get into the weeds...
my understanding is that, at least in the letter to Menoeceus he didn’t use the term that would be an inversion - or direct opposite of “natural” and that “unnatural” is more of a translation choice because it seemed like they were meant to be opposites in that way - Don’s post seems to affirm this as well, but please correct if I’m wrong)
You are correct. Natural and Empty in Menoikeus. I don't think the Greek word for unnatural is ever used. For example:
PD29 Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ <καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι· αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ> καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι.
Don - Of the cravings, first there are those that are natural and required to live, then there are those that are natural but not required, and, finally, there are those that are neither natural nor required which come to be along with empty beliefs (beliefs devoid of merit).
That's as close as we get, I think.
At the risk of self-horn-tooting, here's my translation and commentary on the desires from my Letter to Menoikeus. Apologies for the length. See the PDF for more:
Translation:
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.
Commentary:
127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,
127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·
127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,
Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.
127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.
There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.
I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.
PS: the "on the one hand... On the other hand" are meant to literally translate the Greek μεν... δε... It is clunky and awkward in English but I wanted to get across that they were there in the original. They do not have to be, nor should they be, translated this literally in all cases.
You might want to look up Philodemus' On Property Management for an actual ancient Epicurean's perspective on this topic:
Here's an article Hiram wrote:
I realize this may be too "in the weeds" but I wanted to point out that these topics were being discussed in the Garden 2,000 years ago.
I thought that quote from Philodemus was on point about not feeling distressed by what one loses. I take that too mean don't invest recklessly and stay within your means. But he had much more to say, some applicable to modern life, other advice not so much. But it can be instructive to get a different perspective possibly.
I do not believe I can “hide” in an Epicurean Garden (not that I think that was what Epicurus advocated – even with his recommendation to, insofar as possible, live an obscure life)
We had an interesting, in-depth discussion on "live unknown" a couple years ago:
You might need interested in what was said in that thread.
I can't get rid yet of a nagging concern that evaluating desire on its own separate from pleasure is going to lead to problems of its own,
Um, Epicurus did the same thing in distinguishing desire and pleasure. So ... Just throwin' that out there.
Pleasure is, by definition, good.
Desires can be natural, unnatural, necessary, unnecessary, or empty. Desires are NOT all good by any means.
They're of course connected. We have desires for pleasures. But pleasure is separate from desire.
Eating is pleasurable. However, the desire *to eat* can come in many permutations, some necessary, some unnecessary, even though eating is natural:
But I doubt if there is much call in life, short of dealing with obstinate manipulators like Plato, to dwell on terms like "zero-emptiness." Nonstandard terms tend to confuse regular common-sense People.
I assume we're talking about "katastematic" here.
If so, I'll say your statement is true, but...
I have no problem using "katastematic" pleasure and defending my Interpretation. I'll use academic research papers and academic authors, but I certainly don't have to agree with their conclusions. Add I'll do my best to describe my Interpretation to "common-sense people" and let them come to their conclusion. And I do hope I've been using (for the most part) common-sense language in my posts at least. (btw, Just to be clear, this is NOT a polemic directed against Cassius !! I just get a tad fired up sometimes. 
)
It's interesting to note that in that summary there is no distinction between kinetic and katastematic
True. There's no distinction, but...
undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness
To my reading, both of those are solid descriptions of ataraxia and aponia, ie, katastematic pleasure. So, katastematic pleasure is mentioned but the distinction itself between katastematic and kinetic was not important enough to mention.
