Posts by Don

Here's my take:

Quote

The wise one will not make fine speeches, (118) but will only give public readings upon request. (120) The wise one will not get caught up in political offices nor strive to be an absolute ruler, the ultimate political office. (119) Nor will they be a Cynic nor a beggar. (119) Nor will the wise one be anxious about their burial (118). Additionally, the wise one will set up statues but will be indifferent to ones being set up in their honor. (120) The sage will leave behind writings like prose works, treatises, and written speeches, but will not make celebratory speeches in the public assemblies. (120) The sage will be fond of the countryside, enjoying being outside the towns and cities. (120) The wise one will also pay just enough attention to their reputation as to avoid being looked down upon. (120) Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly. (119) Only the wise man will be competent to discuss music and poetry without writing poems of their own. (120) The sage will found a school, but not in a way that attracts a crowd around themselves or plays to the mob. (120)

I would even speculate where a desire falls in those categories can be contextual and dependent on circumstances at any given time, too.

Ah! The phrase used in those is οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι "they are not necessary." So, the word unnecessary isn't there, but it is explicitly said "they are not necessary." Mea culpa.

I find it interesting that Epicurus didn't actually use the word "unnecessary" although one could argue it's implied. But it is not explicit:

Quote

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.

Unless he talked about the division of desires somewhere else and used "unnecessary" explicitly. I certainly don't have the texts memorized

To circle back to the topic of this thread, addictions are not predicated on empty desires. It would seem to me that most addictions start out as natural but unnecessary desires. In fact, I would posit that most of our everyday desires fall into the "natural but not necessary" category, but they do add variety to our lives.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe our lexicon or FAQ ought to include a list of actual or probable Epicurean "idioms"

If we're going that route, my suggestion would be to have an entry for "Empty" Desires and then make a point of saying "this is the word Epicurus used to describe desires which..." I don't think we should shy away from his modifier but understand it may need some context. I maintain it's a good word and gets at the unsatisfying nature of the empty desires, like "empty" calories, empty handed, empty headed, etc.

Quote from Cassius

Don I presume this ("entirely in vain") is pretty much the same sentiment we are discussing? If so maybe we can find some points of comparison with the Latin from this section.

The alternative translation just has "have come to nothing" which is comparable to "in vain" but even better, from my perspective, since it also equates to "empty" (nothing). The applicable Latin appears to be nullas: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…Aentry%3Dnullus.

Maybe desires that come to nothing instead of "empty" desires?

[60] accedit etiam mors, quae quasi saxum Tantalo semper impendet,1 tum superstitio, qua qui est imbutus2 quietus esse numquam potest. praeterea bona praeterita non meminerunt, praesentibus non fruuntur, futura modo expectant, quae quia certa esse non possunt, conficiuntur3 et angore et metu maximeque cruciantur, cum sero sentiunt frustra se aut pecuniae studuisse aut imperiis aut opibus aut gloriae. nullas enim consequuntur voluptates, quarum potiendi spe inflammati multos labores magnosque susceperant.

Alternate translation:

Moreover, there is death, the stone of Tantalus ever hanging over men's heads; and superstition, that poisons and destroys all peace of mind. Besides, they do not recollect their past nor enjoy their present blessings; they merely look forward to those of the future, and as these are of necessity uncertain, they are consumed with agony and terror; and the climax of their torment is when they perceive too late that all their dreams of wealth or station, power or fame, have come to nothing. For they never attain any of the pleasures, the hope of which inspired them to undergo all their arduous toils.

LacusCurtius • Cicero — De Finibus, Book I

Honestly, I still like "empty."

Plus, I would say a desire for power only for power's sake is always empty.

A desire for money only for money's sake is always empty.

A desire for fame only for fame's sake is always empty.

Those desires cannot be fulfilled and will end in frustration or, at least, a neverending quest to fulfill them.

But, for example, a desire for enough money to achieve a goal is finite and achievable.

Points taken, Cassius .

I like Eikadistes 's "vacuous."

Cogitating further. More thoughts to come eventually.

Thanks, Nate, for your responses! You are more passionate and articulate than I was.

Quote from Nate

While he re-defines "pleasure", it was not such a drastic leap for the Hellenistic mind to make

Before anyone else comments on your comment above, I, too, think Epicurus "re-defined" (or clarified, I might say) the word "pleasure" to include biological homeostasis, namely ataraxia and aponia, specifically as pleasure. Other philosophers of his time posited that there was a neutral state between pleasure and pain. My thought is that Epicurus specifically says "no, when you're feeling in balance, your body's working well, your mind is untroubled, that is a pleasure."

Quote from Cassius

Yes that emphasizes how I do not think this terminology makes sense

Well, in some ways, you're not really arguing with me; you're arguing with Epicurus. He's the one who decided to use the same word to describe both the structure of the universe (atoms and *void*) and a category of desires. Just saying.

Quote from Cassius

There IS something there, the false front is there.

Yes. The desire exists. There's just nothing to back it up

Let's get away from the "unable to be filled" metaphor for now. I still think it's applicable, but it's obviously not helpful in our current context of this discussion.

Possibly a more apt metaphor is the old Western movie set where there appears to be a main street of the town, but it's only a line of facades. The facades may be indistinguishable from actual buildings, but walk through them and you're in the desert. There's nothing there. It's an empty space. Likewise, the empty desires are nothing but attractive shells or facades. There may be bright neon signs on the facades with POWER, MONEY, etc, but there's nothing to back them up. To put it colloquially, "there's no there there."

Quote from Cassius

I am not sure that I agree that the void doesn't move, at least in terms of a particular location. You CAN fill a vessel with atoms, can you not, and that displaces the void in that particular location.

Void isn't a "thing". It's not composed of atoms. It's the "medium" in which the atoms move if you will, and even "medium" isn't the right word.

I'll have more to write and respond soon. There's a teaser.

Quote from Cassius

the nature of the atoms and void is that they move around,

The void doesn't move and it extends infinitely. The atoms will never fill the void.

Empty (κενός) as a metaphor in the texts is derived from the actual, physical meaning of an empty vessel or box. You can place your hand in an empty box and move it around. It's the word Epicurus also used for void because it implies the atoms are able to move in the emptiness. Likewise, an empty desire is literally empty.

Here's what I wrote in my Menoikeus commentary: "This is a word that carries a wide range of connotations, but all have that sense of emptiness, void, no ground to stand on (literally and figuratively). It carries the physical connotation of an empty box. If a box is κενός, it would be possible to move your hand around in it. There's nothing there to impede your movement."

Here's the LSJ definition:

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

So, the common thread of κενός is void, empty, not able to be filled.

I have to disagree with some of your points.

Quote from Marco

In clinical situations, there will be people who become heavily addicted, but those are the exceptions who go to a doctor.

Addictive behaviors are much more widespread than I have realized, and the exceptions are those people who seek treatment. I think many people with addictive behaviors don't seek professional help. That was one of the points underlying Dr. Lembke's book.

Quote from Marco

Desire is not fundamentally insatiable.

Some desires are, some desires aren't. Epicurus specifically calls out the "empty" desires because they are insatiable. I've come to understand "empty" desires to mean that no matter how much you "fill" the box of an empty desire, it's still empty. Desires for money, fame, power for their own sake and not to achieve a certain goal are insatiable. That box is always going to be empty.

Quote from Marco

There is no good reason to try and eliminate desires.

It's maybe not a matter of "elimination" but a matter of choosing which desires are worthwhile to pursue and which aren't. "Eliminating desires" sounds Buddhist. Making choices on which desires to choose and which to reject to lead to a pleasurable life puts it into an Epicurean context.

Quote from Marco

If a desire appears to be insatiable, it is likely because a person is otherwise unhappy or because the desire is for something impossible.

It may be the case that someone is unhappy or has some underlying issue, but that still means they're pursuing a desire that's going to be insatiable (or "empty" as I described above)

Quote from Marco

When a person is focused on an impossible desire, such as to live forever, the poor fit of substitute pleasures makes them feel their ordinary desires are insatiable.

I would include a desire for immortality as an empty desire, but there are many others, too. I don't think those people are necessarily feeling ordinary desires to be insatiable. I think they find them unsatisfying for any number of reasons, but we mighty be talking about two separate problems.

If I've misunderstood any of your positions due to a translation problem, my apologies. But I felt I should clarify my understanding of those issues in light of reading Lembke's book as well as Epicurus's texts.

Quote from Scott

I'm always stunned - I find it completely amazing that people think "rational thought drives our behavior". How deep that idea has pervaded our culture!

Agreed! Goes the whole way back to Socrates and Plato.