Posts by Don

LOLOL Okay, *that* makes sense!

This is what I had found: https://www.nflshop.com/philadelphia-eagles/47/t-3444+br-479

And I see '47 is the brand!

*That's* what I get for being sports illiterate

Quote from Scott

47?

Is that a *Philadelphia* Eagles reference? (I had to Google it)

Quote from Cassius

posting a link publicly on the EP Facebook group.

Intriguing idea, but I would be careful and think twice about posting the zoom link publicly. I speak from experience! Back when COVID started, we hosted an online book club and our first one had a "zoom bomber" share their screen with ... how do I say this delicately ... extremely explicit video. We were VERY new to Zoom and it was disturbing and embarrassing. That's a risk with a public link.

However, that's not heard of as much anymore and zoom has put some safety protocols in place. There's never any guarantee though.

Are there any free registration platforms it there? That way, people would register and receive the zoom invitation in their email.

Just an anecdote and an idea.

Quote from Cassius

Note:. My gosh, after relistening to "Already Gone" I am immediately struck by the connection that comes to mind to a particular Vatican Saying! We could use Peaceful Easy Feeling as a background to any reference for Tranquility, but as a quiz, what Vatican Saying needs a particular type of song that fits Already Gone?

LOL! I'm assuming "I will sing a victory song!" came into play in your connection?

What about "Take it to the limit" for one of the PDs?

Quote from Godfrey

Having said that though, I can't say if that's what Epicurus meant or if he was focused on a philosophical argument. However in practical day to day terms I think your conclusion is spot on

Thanks, Godfrey . In answer to your question, I think it could be both. It was definitely a response to the Cyrenaics (and possibly other schools); but it could have had practical application as well in light of:

Quote

For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

First, I feel bad that we've strayed from Kalosyni 's original purpose for this thread, but that seems to happen one this freewheeling forum

I've also been letting the topic of this "there is no neutral position between pleasure and pain" roll around in my mind today. I originally, as I stated above, saw the "peaceful easy feeling" of taking a walk, lying in a hammock, taking a warm bath as the position identified by the Cyrenaics as the "neutral" position that Epicurus identified as pleasure. But I'm rethinking that now.

Those activities (walk/hammock/bath) are actively pleasurable. If I do those, I feel pleasure - a calm, peaceful, everything is right with the world, satisfying "aaaaaahhh" feeling that's easily identified as pleasure. Even the calm of meditation is a real, positive feeling.

The Cyrenaics' neutral position, I'm thinking now, is more the "I'm going about my daily routine not paying attention to whether I feel pleasure or pain... I'm not 'consciously' or 'actively' experiencing pleasure or pain right now." But Epicurus posited that you have to be feeling either pleasure or pain. So, I was sitting at work today working on tasks when this question hit me: "Am I feeling pleasure or pain right now?" Honestly, it was a difficult question to answer. I came down on the side that, if I was being honest with myself, I was mostly experiencing pleasure with a couple twinges of pain in my body and a couple minor turbulences in my mind.

Maybe that's what Epicurus is calling us to do by eliminating a "neutral" position. *Really* understand your body and your mind. The feelings are two. How are are you really feeling, right now. Do you have a healthy body? Is your mind untroubled? If the answer to either of those is "no," your life is not as pleasurable as it has the potential to be. What needs to change? What choices and rejections do I need to make?

Thoughts?

Quote from Kalosyni

in renaming the "neutral" as being a pleasureable tranquility...I would agree, but caution against putting too much on this, as this mind state only naturally occurs in very short intervals.

Thanks for the response. I would add here that it was the Cyrenaics and others that called it neutral, not Epicurus. Epicurus's position was that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain. Therefore, you can't say you're "neutral." That "calm, tranquil" feeling - what The Eagles called "a peaceful, easy feeling" - is pleasure.

I'm also not talking about the tranquility found in meditation. I think he's referring to the state of the body and might working correctly. I would include this calm tranquility in taking a walk or a relaxing bath. That relaxation is what I'd describe as calm and tranquil.

Quote from Cassius

Yes, and the key world there is "including"

No question.

Even at its most basic wording, we need *both* "the health of the body *and* the tranquility of the mind" for our well-being. That's why Epicurus's definition of pleasure in the letter to Menoikeus does not include an "endless string of drinking parties." That would be detrimental to the health of the body at the very least.

Quote from Cassius

Don is very much with us that a life of total contemplation might or might not be hypothetically the one some of us would choose, but as with the Bliss machine hypotheticals, is not practical for most any of us.

I'm with you, but...

A life of "total contemplation" sounds Aristotelian in his promotion of wisdom and "philosophy" as the highest good. That's not what Epicurus was advocating. Epicurus was not a navel-gazer nor did he advocate removal from all distractions in a cave (to use Cassius 's favorite metaphor).

That being said, Epicurus's insistence that we strive for the "health of the body and tranquility of the mind" has led me to understand he was including a calm mind in his definition of what it means to lead a pleasureable life. In looking at various sources, ancient and modern, I think Epicurus was specifically including that "intermediate state," described by the Cyrenaics, "in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm" as a pleasure and that it is, in fact, that state which is the natural, biological homeostasis in the body.

Approaching life with a calm, tranquil mind makes us much better equipped to make choices and rejections for what will lead to a pleasurable life. A calm and tranquil mind is a base of operations from which to encounter the "slings and arrows" of our daily existence. It's not living numb in the world. It's like a lens through which to clearly encounter and evaluate what needs to be done. If our minds are disturbed, troubled, turbulent, it's like driving through our lives with a dirty windshield in a snowstorm. There is nothing wrong or improper about trying to have a tranquil mind. I think it can allow us to experience life more fully, more pleasurably. That's my summary take on this tranquility discussion.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

if I want complete tranquility, I would simply kill myself

That's not tranquility; that's non-existence. Be very careful about throwing around casual statements like this. That is also, if I remember, a Cyrenaic argument against Epicureanism.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

if you want to find tranquility, then you go into an isolation cell in a prison

I also have to take issue with this one as well.

Epicurus specifically took a stand against the Cyrenaics that what they called the neutral place between pleasure and pain, that tranquil balance was a pleasure. This section from Eusebius that I recently found gives a good summary:

Quote

For he said that there are three states affecting our temperament: one, in which we feel pain, like a storm at sea; another, in which we feel pleasure, that may be likened to a gentle undulation, for pleasure is a gentle movement, comparable to a favourable breeze; and the third is an intermediate state, in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm.

That was the Cyrenaic position. Epicurus said, no, the calm we feel is pleasure, too.

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 14

I did another version of this timeline a year ago, and thought it needed a revision. With a "snow day" off work, this felt like a good time.

This chronology is meant to put historical people into a more relatable context. For me at least, it’s hard to remember who would have been contemporaries of whom, especially when there are BCE and CE dates involved. It’s also helpful to sometimes have a more firm grasp on how far apart people were from each other. How long was it between the time Epicurus lived and when Cicero and Plutarch were writing treatises against his school?

Let's imagine Diogenes Laertius is putting together his chapter on Epicurus right about now (i.e., 2022):

• Epicurus would have lived around the same time as Columbus was making his voyages across the Atlantic Ocean to North America.
• Philodemus would have been active around 200 years after Epicurus; or, in our alternative scenario, around the time of Isaac Newton. Cicero was a contemporary of Philodemus.
• 400 years after Epicurus, Plutarch could still be vehemently anti-Epicurean. Plutarch lived around the early-mid 1800s in our alternative timeline, making him active during the time of the American Civil War.
• Diogenes of Oenoanda would have been commissioning his wall around the 1950s or mid-20th century generally. He lived 500 years after Epicurus.
• Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius died in 1984 in our alternative timeline, the same year as the pro-Epicurean satirist Lucian of Samosata.
• Our contemporary Diogenes Laertius, beginning to compile his notes for his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, is working 600 years after Epicurus. Epicurus’s philosophy was still vibrant after six centuries! In the next few decades, the spread of the philosophy will come to a screeching halt with the “triumph” of Christianity all but snuffing out the flame of the Epicurean school.

Notes: Any circa dates have used the specific year for calculation of the "modern" years.

Dates are from the person's Wikipedia article for consistency within this timeline. For more information, refer to Wikipedia.

Within the entries, I've included the alternative dates; the actual dates of their lives; and their age. Surprisingly, it's not uncommon for these people to have lived into their 60s and 70s and beyond.

If you see a mistake in my math, please don't hesitate to comment, and I'll be happy to edit this!

Enjoy!

• Heraclitus of Ephesus (1235-1295; c. 535 – c. 475 BCE (60))
• Anaxagoras (1270-1342; c.  500 – c.  428 BCE (72))
• Empedocles (1276-1336; c. 494 – c. 434 BCE (60))
• Socrates (1300-1371; c. 470–399 BCE (~71))
• Democritus (1310-1400; c. 460 – c. 370 BCE (~90))
• Plato (1342-1422; 428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BCE (~80))
• Aristotle (1386-1448; 384–322 BCE (62))
• Pyrrho (1410-1500; c. 360 – c. 270 BCE (90))
• Epicurus (1429-1500; 341–270 BCE (71))
• Polyaenus of Lampsacus (1430-1485; c. 340 – c. 285 BCE (~55))
• Zeno of Citium (1436-1508; c. 334 – c. 262 BCE (72))
• Metrodorus of Lampsacus (1439-1492; 331/0–278/7 BCE (53))
• Hermarchus (scholarch of the Garden) (1443-1518; c. 325-c. 250 BCE (~75))
• Colotes of Lampsacus (1448-1500; c. 320 – after 268 BCE (~52))
• Polystratus (scholarch of the Garden) (c.1470-1550; d. 218/9 BCE)
• Dionysius of Lamptrai (scholarch of the Garden) (c. 1493-1563; d. 205 BCE)
• Basilides (scholarch of the Garden) (1518-1593; c. 250 – c. 175 BCE (75))
• Chrysippus (1489-1562; c. 279 – c. 206 BCE (~73))
• Apollodorus (scholarch of the Garden) (fl. early 1600s; fl. 2nd century BCE)
• Zeno of Sidon (scholarch of the Garden) (1618-1693; c. 150 – c. 75 BCE (~75))
• Phaedrus (scholarch of the Garden) (1630-1699; 138 – 70/69 BCE (69))
• Patro (scholarch of the Garden) (fl. early 1700s; contemporary of Cicero’s)
• Philodemus (1658-1728; c. 110 – prob. c. 40 or 35 BCE (~70))
• Marcus Tullius Cicero (1662-1725; 106 – 43 BCE (63))
• Julius Caesar (1668-1724; 100 – 15 March 44 BCE (56))
• Titus Lucretius Carus (1669-1713; c. 99 – c. 55 BCE (~44))
• Quintus Horatius Flaccus ("Horace") (1703-1760; 65 – 8 BCE (57))
• Plutarch (1814-1887; 46 – after AD 119 CE (~73))
• Epictetus (1854-1939; 50 – c. 135 CE (~85))
• Diogenes of Oenoanda (wall dated around 1950s (mid-1900s); lived 2nd century CE)
• Marcus Aurelius (1925-1984; 121 – 180 CE (59))
• Lucian of Samosata (1929-1984; c. 125 – after 180 CE (~55))
• Diogenes Laërtius (fl. early-mid 2000s; fl. 1st half of 3rd century CE)
• Athenaeus (fl. late 20th/early 21st century; fl. late 2nd/early 3rd century CE)
• Eusebius (will be born in 2064; AD 260/265 – 339/340)

Quote from Matt

I’ve been looking for that ring…Saruman the White told me to use the palantir to find it. Expect the Nine to arrive soon.

No one gets my preciouss. Nasty Sarumans can't haves its but the Eyes is always watching us, isn't he, my precious.

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 14

This is a link to Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel, Book XIV, which has extensive commentary on Epicurus and his school.

I recommend doing a "Find in page" search for epicur find all the mentions of Epicurus and Epicurean(s).

For anyone else interested where it comes from. I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere unfortunately.

Quote from Bryan

Have we found "SFOTSE" being used in the Roman period? Seneca was popular, and it became a well known phrase

Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 25 - Wikisource, the free online library

Quote

I must insert in this letter one or two more of his sayings:[2] 5. "Do everything as if Epicurus were watching you." There is no real doubt that it is good for one to have appointed a guardian over oneself, and to have someone whom you may look up to, someone whom you may regard as a witness of your thoughts. It is, indeed, nobler by far to live as you would live under the eyes of some good man, always at your side; but nevertheless I am content if you only act, in whatever you do, as you would act if anyone at all were looking on; because solitude prompts us to all kinds of evil.

Epistulae morales ad Lucilium/Liber III - Wikisource

Quote

ait Epicurus, cuius aliquam vocem huic epistulae involvam. [5] 'Sic fac' inquit 'omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus.' Prodest sine dubio custodem sibi imposuisse et habere quem respicias, quem interesse cogitationibus tuis iudices. Hoc quidem longe magnificentius est, sic vivere tamquam sub alicuius boni viri ac semper praesentis oculis, sed ego etiam hoc contentus sum, ut sic facias quaecumque facies tamquam spectet aliquis: omnia nobis mala solitudo persuadet.

Quote from Joshua

Don, I quite like that.

Except for the One Ring. That belongs in a museum the fiery chasms of Orodruin!

LOL! You noticed! Ash nazg durbatuluk...

I've posted this before but figured this was appropriate here, too. These are my two Epicurean keychains: 1 with 4 wooden beads for the Tetrapharmakos; one with SFOTSE (Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching") with three beads for both physics, canon, and ethics or sensations, pathē, and prolepseis (take your pick )

I'm going to have to miss Tuesday and Thursday at that time is our regular Skype call with our daughter. Family takes precedence in the hedonic calculus

Since Kalosyni was kind enough to start this thread, I wanted to directly respond to some of her posts:

Quote from Kalosyni

Love is like oxygen,

You get too much,

You get too high,

Not enough,

And your gonna die."

So thinking about just these words...this talks about a human need.

Display More

I do find it interesting that the oxygen analogy is used. I can't remember the song context (although I did remember the song!) and whether we're talking eros or philia or another flavor of "love." However, even Epicurus seems to caution a balance between intoxication (as Cassius has mentioned) and no love at all. He certainly didn't prohibit it in his students. Some of his handpicked closest students and fellow teachers in the Garden were married and had children. He expressed (friendly) affection for Themista, the wife of Leonteus. If Epicurus had a completely negative view of sex or romantic love or marriage, I find it hard to believe he'd allow a number of his students to engage in the activity. So maybe you do need just "enough."

Quote from Kalosyni

From a modern understanding...what kind of "harm" are we talking about now, in our times?

Oh, all kinds of psychological harm for sure. Romantic entanglements can lead to all kinds of problems. Let's say one partner falls out of love, but the other partner doesn't accept that. If one partner cheats on the other. If one partner gets in trouble and drags the other one into a dangerous situation or legal problems. And so on and so on. I am can envision all kinds of harms, Ancient and modern.

(Let me clearly state: I'm not talking from experience! I'm quite happy and blessed! )

Quote from Cassius

I think if Epicurus were here today he would probably say

These kind of statements always make me a little uneasy. The only speaking Epicurus is doing today is through his extant writings. I realize we need to interpret what we have, but I'd just advise treading carefully when putting words in Epicurus's mouth.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, but just adding that caveat.

Epicurus: Fragments - translation

I keep coming back to Usener Fragment 67:

"For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."