Posts by Don

Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness

Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness

www.academia.edu

Here's a Sedley paper on that topic.

Quote

Aristippus…advised people not to pain themselves either in memory of what is past or in anticipation of future events (μήτε τοῖς παρελθοῦσιν ἐπικάμνειν μήτε τῶν ἐπιόντων προκάμνειν).…His advice was to keep one’s thought focused on the day, and in fact on that part of the day in which one was carrying out this or that action or thought. For only the present is ours, he said, unlike what is already over and what is still awaited, of which the former has perished, while with the latter it is unclear whether it will be.

Eoghan Gardiner , yep!

The only caveat for readers of this forum that I'd add is that all pleasure is (a) good (feeling), *but* not all pleasure (good feeling) is choiceworthy. Context and consequences are also fundamental parts of Epicurus's philosophy. "If it feels good, do it" is Cyrenaic.

FUN: How to Have More of It by The Next Big Idea

megaphone.link

Fun is a feeling of Playfulness, Connection, and Flow.

Joy. Delight. Fun!

More information for my (probably never to be written ) book Pleasure is Not a Four-letter Word: The Garden Path to Happiness.

Well put, Eoghan Gardiner .

One thing I find fascinating is that one can modify Epicurus's Physics to accommodate or incorporate some modern scientific findings, and it doesn't change the philosophy or its practical application. There aren't many (any?) 2,000+ year old philosophies of life that can do that.

Quote from Godfrey

Catholic confession

I'm not entirely convinced that the practice of classical Epicurean frank speech by teacher and student didn't influence Catholic confessional practices. (I know, I'm exhibiting Dewittean tendencies here!) Descriptions in Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus sound very confessional-like.

Quote from Joshua

"Peccantem me quotidie, et non poenitentem, timor mortis conturbat me. Quia in inferno nulla est redemptio, miserere mei, Deus, et salva me." Sinning daily, and not repenting, the fear of death disturbs me. For there is no redemption in Hell, have mercy on me, o God, and save me.

Subtle, they are not. Are they? Lordy! Paian Anax!

"Be afraid! Be afraid!! We're your only hope of missing eternal torment! Did we say 'eternal'?!"

Bah!

PS: They encourage you to remember death to scare you about the possibility of eternal damnation. Epicureans remember death to remind us to pay heed to the sweetness of life in the here and now.

Quote from reneliza

So I have a degree in neuroscience (which does contribute to my understanding that the mind/soul are of nature)

You might be interested in some of my posts and others on the brain research of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett

Search Results - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

as well as Dr. Anna Lembke.

I found both of their books to be fascinating and, for me, to have some real intersections with Epicurean philosophy. Barrett and Feldman aren't Epicurueans, but I found their work to be helpful in bringing Epicuruean insights into a modern framework.

Quote from reneliza

the Atlantic article is silly for trying to demonize pleasure (I agree) while encouraging enjoyment which is itself pleasure - the thing they were just demonizing.

Well put!! What you said exactly!

Quote from reneliza

I haven't even read the letter to Menoeceus yet because I was waiting to have a little bit better foundations..

If you want to jump in on the deep end, feel free to check out my translation and notes on the Letter:

File

Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus - A New Translation with Commentary

An in-depth translation and commentary of Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus.

Don

July 19, 2023 at 11:25 PM

Quote from Cassius

I think Don and i are together on that point and he probably will agree with me - I am sure he will say so if he does not

I was at work today so only got to briefly add to this conversation.

Quote from reneliza

It's less about "every pleasure is good yet not every pleasure would be chosen" and is more about whether a pleasurable sensation in the body is even a pleasure at all if it's not appreciated by the mind.

My reaction to that is somewhat of a tautology: Every pleasurable feeling is pleasurable. Epicurus equates "the good" with pleasure, therefore, "the good is good" and "pleasure is pleasure." Any pleasurable feeling is good... BUT - the BIG Epicurean BUT - not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to pain.

For example, drinking alcohol can provide a pleasurable feeling. Endless all-night drinking parties will lead to pain and are therefore not choiceworthy. Eating a succulent [insert favorite fruit] is pleasurable. Eating a bushel of your favorite fruit is going to lead to a gastrointestinal distress. BUT the pleasurable feeling doesn't change, it is the assessment and consequences. We can't control whether we *feel* pleasure or not.

Epicurus maintained we have two feelings - two guides - for making choices and rejections: pleasure and pain. MANY actions and thoughts provide pleasure and pain. But Epicurus (per Diogenes Laertius) said, "The feelings are two, pleasure and pain."

Quote from reneliza

is that original sensation still "good"? Is masochistic fulfillment "evil"? If the sheer sensations would be painful or pleasurable out of context then how do we classify them (especially as in my example where the context is initially unknown)?

Excellent questions, and all ones we've dealt with and continue to deal with! "Good" and "evil" seem to only be equated with "pleasure" and "pain" according to Epicurus. BUT - there's that BUT again - we can't classify things that provide pleasure or pain in any kind of absolute, eternal hierarchy. (See my alcohol and fruit analogy above). However, Epicurus says "it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble." This also brings in the measure of Epicurean justice in "to neither harm nor be harmed."

You bring up some very good questions, so keep them coming... and I hope you're willing to investigate the answers along with the other members of this little online Garden.

67. "I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms."

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀφροδισίων, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀκροαμάτῶν, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς κατʼ ὄψιν [those by way of shapes and along with vision] ἡδείας κινήσεις [pleasing motion].

PS: I really like the fact that the word simply translated as "sex" is ἀφροδισίων "aphrodisiōn"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Α α, , ?αφριος , Ἀφροδίσ-ιος

So, he's referring to those things related to Aphrodite which include sexual desire but encompass a wider range of pleasures:

https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Aphrodite.html

I just happened on this Atlantic article again on Instagram, and - yes - it still annoys me. I was about to post then did a search here on the forum. I thought I remembered our discussion. To be very clear from my perspective, Arthur C. Brooks, the author, is just doing some "clever" Platonic/Ciceronian word play and parsing for his own ends. Epicurus recognized different kinds of pleasure, writ large, including (but not limited to!) ataraxia, aponia, euphrosyne (mirth, merriment, gleefulness), and khara (joy, exultation). Interestingly, Euphrosyne was one of the Graces/Charites in Greek mythology

Charites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea that "enjoyment" is "superior" to "pleasure" just displays an ignorance of the topic under discussion and sloppy wordplay.

And that's my rant for this morning (Steps off soapbox)

Quote from reneliza

it took only about 1/4 of a book on Seneca to determine that this guy Epicurus who he kept quoting (favorably yet still with great disdain??) seemed way more interesting to me

Ditto

Quote from Pacatus

Memento Mori." I know this is a phrase generally adopted by and associated with the Stoics.

Don't forget Seneca attributes "meditare mortem" specifically to Epicurus as well, so the Stoics don't have the practice of remembering death all to themselves.

Quote from Kalosyni

This is good stuff! And I can imagine it all being assembled into a short Epicurean reader -- titled as "Epicurean Pharmakos" (will put this on my to-do list).

To alleviate anyone's confusion over what a "pharmakos" is, maybe even title it "Epicurean Medicine" or something like that.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, φάρμακον

Quote from Kalosyni

Back then it was said that Epicurus did not teach publicly.

I think that just means he taught in his private property and not in the agora or the stoa. Book 28 of In Nature is written like a lecture with Metrodorus playing a supporting role.

Quote from Joshua

Don, do you think there is a connection between 'elements' in that sense and the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:18?

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Interesting question! That would be one interpretation; however, in light of the info below, it would seem to refer specifically to the *written* law, the Torah.

Matthew 5 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 5 - And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

www.blueletterbible.org

jot = ἰῶτα

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

tittle = κεραία "in writing, apex of a letter"

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

Democritus - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

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)

(nomōi (gar phēsi "for he says") gluku ("sweet" > glucose) kai nomōi pikron ("bitter"), nomōi thermon ("hot" > thermal), nomōi psykhron ("cold"), nomōi khroiē ("color"), eteēi de atoma kai kenon ("atoms and void" same words as Epicurus))

Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, colour by convention; atoms and Void [alone] exist in reality. (trans. Freeman 1948)[1], p. 92.

By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void. (trans. Durant 1939)[2], Ch. XVI, §II, p. 353; citing C. Bakewell, Sourcebook in Ancient Philosophy, New York, 1909, "Fragment O" (Diels), p. 60

νόμωι

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

ἐτεῆι

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