Display MoreI've always thought a clip of just Epicurus's eyes from one of the famous portraits or busts sandwiched between
SFO
(eyes)
TSE
would make an interesting Tshirt design with small print of Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus on top and Do all things as if Epicurus were watching one the bottom
Then EpicurueanFriends.com on the back?
A VERY ROUGH draft of the idea using a public domain image.
Hmm... I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, although it wouldn't be the first time we've talked past each other. So I'll prattle on myself.
When I read "X is the product of war" I read that as "War is necessary for X."
I yhink I understand what you're saying about ALWAYS and CAN BE, but I read that as making it possible to say, "I want to feel pleasure so I'll go to war." or "War gives me pleasure."
Some people may feel pleasurable feelings while fighting a war, but, overall, I would have to posit that war is not a choice-worthy source of pleasure because you are putting yourself in danger of being killed and other - let's say - hazards. And, yes, I'm judging whether someone's pursuit of pleasure is choiceworthy or not in this case. I think I have precedent for that from Epicurus himself.
Even on the side of the one who does not choose war but has war thrust upon them, war does not "produce" pleasure. Here's how I'm playing out that scenario in my head (Oh, save me Zeus! I'm going down the road of hypotheticals!!!)
So, given this scenario, I would not say the "pleasure" I feel after the war is a "product" of the war. I felt pleasure for fleeting moments while fighting the war. I will hopefully feel more pleasure as a result of the absence of conflict and a return to peace and stability. But the war did not "produce" pleasure. It may have created an environment conducive to experiencing feelings of pleasure more likely, but I'm just having problems with that phrasing of produce and product.
PS. I reread Cassius 's post in the light of morning and pulled this out:
The test is always in the consequences, because if a thing in fact generates any degree of pleasure, it is pleasurable at least for that moment. Maybe not a wise idea at all, but the proof of whether any pleasure is generated is in the actual result for the time that pleasure is generated, rather than all the ultimate consequences of pain which may or may not occur later.
I think we're saying similar things here and in my paragraph that starts "Some people may feel pleasurable feelings while fighting a war..." Here I'm thinking of mercenaries and those who feel pleasure in the sense of power (I'm assuming) they feel engaging in battle. Maybe even those who are "fighting for a cause" although this latter may fall in my bullet points. Although I still maintain that mercenary pleasure isn't choice worthy for the same reason endless strings of drinking parties are not choiceworthy.
The "pleasure of relief" in my mind is not pleasure - it is just relief.
Pleasure is for bodily sensations.
Enjoyment is for mental sensations
I would suggest "the feelings are two: pleasure and pain." Everything we feel is either pleasure or pain. It may be mild or intense, but it's either pleasure or pain. Relief is pleasure. Anxiety is pain. Enjoyment is pleasure. Happiness is pleasure. Aponia, ataraxia, khara (joy, exultation) , euphrosyne (mirth, good cheer, merriment), etc. are all pleasure. Take any "feeling" and it will fall somewhere on the scale of pleasure or pain. Even equilibrium or homeostasis is pleasure according to Epicurus. I personally am becoming more convinced that that is exactly what aponia and ataraxia are.
And in other cases happiness and joy can be the product of war, if under the circumstances war is necessary to obtain or preserve the peace.
Something about this statement doesn't sit with me well. But maybe it is right up there with: humans kill animals for food and eating them gives us life. The level of abstraction has missing pieces. It may take me several more days to ponder this.
It strikes me (literally at first blush) that that statement has an echo of "we can only experience pleasure if we go through pain."
Happiness and joy are not the product of war. I'll give you that undergoing the pain of conflict may be necessary to obtain or preserve peace, but I wouldn't phrase it as happiness and joy are the "product of war." It may be necessary to endure the pain of war, but war does not "produce" happiness. The end of war may allow the environment in which happiness may be found, but I'd be careful about using produced or product. That implies causation.
I don't know if I'd be able to do it, but, theoretically, pleasure can be found in small things during a war with the right perspective... Even if it is as small as "I'm still alive to live tomorrow. I can still feel." Pleasure is emphatically not always the big joyful feeling. It can be as small as taking pleasure in breathing, feeling the breathe in and out.
The philosophical boil has to be popped:
Well, there's a mental image! 
But I see where you're coming from.
60] "Further, we must not assert `up' or `down' of that which is unlimited, as if there were a zenith or nadir.92 As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw93 a line to infinity from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space --or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity--appear to us to be at the same time `up' and `down' with reference to the same point ; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum, and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum. (Emphasis added, Hicks from Perseus Digital Library)
Finally getting around to listening to the episode. I wanted to say that I agree with Cassius on his interpretation of this passage. Correct me if I misinterpreted you, Cassius . My reading is that that line that I can draw "up" from my head is going to hit the feet of those above me and be interpreted as coming from a "down" direction by them. And their "down" is going to be interpreted by me as coming from an "up" direction. So there is no absolute up and down but even something as supposedly concrete as up and down is relative to the observer.
PS. You don't have to posit other worlds even. Just imagine two people in different stories of a building, one in the ground level and one in the second story. Same situation applies.
I've always thought a clip of just Epicurus's eyes from one of the famous portraits or busts sandwiched between
SFO
(eyes)
TSE
would make an interesting Tshirt design with small print of Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus on top and Do all things as if Epicurus were watching one the bottom
Then EpicurueanFriends.com on the back?
"Pleasure is not a four letter word"
Then it must be a three letter word!
Yes? Yes!
LOL "Take your pleasure seriously" is right up there with "Pleasure is not a four letter word" for my never-to-be-written book 
You don’t have to tell your body “move this foot, then move that foot” - you just tell it “start walking” and after a step or two it’s going on autopilot.
Which is one reason why we trip maybe. Our brains are like "Woah! That hole wasn't in the walking plan! Oops!"
I think this is right on point with this discussion. And it doesn't negate Epicurus's basic premise that we have to rely on our senses. We have no other direct connection with the physical world than our senses and pleasure/pain. Our minds will "play tricks on us" but the "input" is coming from real, physical, material phenomena.
I hesitated to post this then realized it speaks directly to the "reliability" of the senses and what we *think* we perceive. There is still a material physical reality with which our senses interact, but we only really perceive what our brains (in many ways) *expect* us to perceive. Just like the brain research of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and others show, our brains are prediction machines. Our sense may take in all kinds of sense data, but most of it never gets processed. It just gets matched up to previous experiences and if it matches or matches close enough, our minds move on to the next split second.
This is fascinating stuff.
To be honest, all the new meetings remind me (and just me, this is VERY subjective) like church attendance at Bible Study and Youth Group and Fellowship Meeting and Wednesday Service... And if you don't or can't attend, you're not a good church member.
Again, this is just me and I KNOW that was never the intention of scheduling all these. It was to increase opportunities for attendees. I just felt obligated to throw this into the mix.
PS. While I suppose I can see the humor in this initial post (Thanks, Kalosyni ), I feel I should be frank in sharing I did not intend it that way. I *do* hope people will see the various virtual opportunities *as* opportunities to interact with others curious about Epicurus's philosophy. However, I can see (speaking from my perspective) how some might see the plethora of "meetings" as overwhelming or off-putting. "Do I have to attend *all* of these?" asks the curious newcomer? No, of course not! But I would just caution how they may be perceived. Two meetings a week + once a month? That can add up.
If anyone feels I'm way off-base, please feel free to let me know.
I wouldn't advocate for something pre-recorded. People can watch/listen on their own for those.
The 20th it seems to me was/is about openness, community, welcoming, learning, and joyful celebration.
I'd keep those keywords in mind for this discussion in how to structure the 20th.
Just a thought: With all the new meetings, I'd suggest trying to make the 20th "special" and not just *another* online meeting. That date is literally the connection to the Ancient Epicurean community. I don't have any ideas currently on making it special, just raising the point for discussion.
are you trying to paper over misery with a coating of pleasure?
Just out of curiosity - is this what Epicurus was doing in his final days when he was (apparently) cheerful and in high spirits even though he was in tremendous pain? Where is the line drawn for when it's ideal to find pleasure in less than ideal circumstances and when that's a delusion being used to mask the pain?
I get the impression that Godfrey was referring to when we try fooling ourselves. With Epicurus, no doubt that he felt and acknowledged his pain - no getting around that - but he could also experience pleasure in the memory of talking with friends. What he wrote was:
My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them ; but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past conversations.
The word for "over against them" had the connotation of holding ground against as in the line of battle. So, he was in great pain, but he fought against that - arrayed himself against that - with memories of friendship. He didn't paper over anything, he used his life's philosophy to fight against what would otherwise have been overwhelming and what did in short order actual kill him.
So we have to do both: study the details of the Greek and be sure we get the most accurate understanding of it, and then re-express the same thoughts in understandable English
Which is exactly what I was trying to provide in my letter to Menoikeus to give people a gateway to the original language and to allow them to arrive at a personal, meaningful paraphrase for themselves.
Sounds interesting, but I think I'm going to just stick with the 20th's when I can. That said, I sincerely applaud what you're trying to do in creating a more "regular" online Garden gathering. I'll look forward to hearing how it goes! I would say "Good luck!" but Βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει "Only a little does Chance creep into the sage's life."
This is important to note, and to ask the question as to why this might have happened
My impression was that Stoicism as a research focus is probably more "popular" within academic research whereas Epicurean studies are more niche.
