Erlend D MacGillivray | University of Aberdeen - Academia.edu
I tried to find him in the U of Aberdeen directory to no avail. He also seems to have gone down an Epictetus/Stoic track after the initial interest in Epicureanism. Just FYI. That doesn't diminish the utility of his papers and research!
Not sure if you saw this, but here's another later paper by the same author:
Not to belabor this any longer than necessary, but I also found the very end of that saying enjoyable as well:
ἐκ τῆς ὀρθῆς φιλοσοφίας φωνὰς ἀφιέντας.
ek tēs orthēs philosophias phōnas aphientas.
That last word, translated as "recount" had the connotation (see LSJ entry above) of "let loose" or "let fly from oneself." So, I see echoes of the epicurean "triumph-song" noted elsewhere in the texts. Let loose, baby!!
The orthēs is the same ortho- as in orthodox or orthography.
41. At one and the same time we must philosophize, laugh, and manage our household and other business, while never ceasing to proclaim the words of true philosophy.
41. One must laugh and seek wisdom and tend to one's home life and use one's other goods, and always recount the pronouncements of true philosophy. γελᾶν ἅμα δεῖ (one must) καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν (philosophein) καὶ οἰκονομεῖν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι καὶ μηδαμῇ λήγειν τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀρθῆς φιλοσοφίας φωνὰς ἀφιέντας.
I wanted to comment on the translation Eoghan Gardiner used initially. Plus, to me this sounds like mindfulness! Do all while philosophizing.
I like to note that several translations put philosophize first when instead the first word in Greek is γελᾶν, the infinitive of γελάω "laugh." So the emphasis is on the laughing first. Syntax not being constrained by word order like English (Joe bit the dog vs The dog but Joe), ancient Greek can choose what to emphasize by word order. The translations should really be something like: "One must laugh and - at the same time - pursue the love wisdom, administer the rest of one's household affairs,..." I really like the coupling of laughing and philosophizing. I wonder if this is an echo of Democritus.
Good post!
Even jobs we've chosen can sometimes overwhelm us. I have Vatican Saying 35 hanging in my office pointing toward my desk to remind me of this. It doesn't mean we can't always look for new opportunities if the chance comes, but ...
VS35 Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for. οὐ δεῖ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ παρόντα τῶν ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπιλογίζεσθαι ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα τῶν εὐκταίων ἦν.
I try to remember that going to work is a choice. We always have the choice to not go to work. But would that choice give us pleasure or pain? Most likely, in the end, we wouldn't have enough money if we didn't go to work, so we go. Can we look for a different job? Of course! But that isn't always feasible with health care being job-tied at least in the US. I like the attitude Eoghan Gardiner is putting forward. That coupled with VS35 can hopefully get us through the day.
Well put, Joshua .
I get the impression that the Cyrenaics felt that the only pleasure worth considering was the one you're experiencing *right now.* There's some nuance to that statement, but, by and large, that seems to be their position. In the immortal words of Janis Joplin, "get it while you can!" Epicurus's philosophy was a direct repudiation of the cyrenaic position in that he advocated taking pleasure in past pleasures as well as looking forward to future pleasures and mental pleasure like this was worthwhile. According to the Cyrenaics, physical pleasure experienced here right now is the only worthwhile pleasure, the only pleasure you're sure of. Mental pleasure -pleasure experienced only in the mind as memory or anticipation - doesn't count.
Here's a Sedley paper on that topic.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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! 
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:
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.
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."
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:
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
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)
