Posts by Don

PD18, PD19, and PD20 are a prime example of PDs that should be read as one passage in my opinion. Those breaks are not in the original text, but I wish I could find when they first show up. They certainly aren't in the Arundel MS 531 manuscript at the British Library (from 1450-1500). Just scroll to the final pages, Book 10 is at the end. Even if you don't read Greek, you'll see there's no list. Just paragraphs of text.

This Latin translation from before 1439 also has no breaks in the PDs (for those who read Latin).

Quote from Cassius

What I plainly read in their material is that they are equating the particular experience of "calmness" or "tranquility to be the apex of human life and the goal of every human being. And to that I say "hogwash."

I would concur with that. I would just add that having a sense of tranquility allows one to be more open to pleasure and to be better able to make decisions on what desires to choose and which to flee from. But it's not the goal or apex.

Quote from Cassius

That is not the way the gods are described as spending their time,

How are the gods described as spending their time? I was digging around but couldn't find what I was looking for. Is that in Cicero's writings?

Quote from Torquatus - Cicero

Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them;

I'll split hairs here. I would say ataraxia and aponia are two of the "pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily." The "with no pain to thwart or threaten them" is simply a description of the condition of that life. Don't equate the "no pain" with those two pleasures. When there is no trouble or pain, we feel the positive pleasurable experience of ataraxia and aponia.

Quote from Cassius

I would say that ataraxia is a way of experiencing some (any) other mental or bodily pleasure (without disturbance). I am still firmly maintaining that "absence of something" is not something that is a positive feeling or experience. It is something we can define as desirable, like absence of roaches in your house, but when you are experiencing absence of roaches as a good thing you are really experiencing your house in a way you like to experience it - without roaches.

I'm going to push back on your analogy here. I see this "ataraxia is the lack of something" a lot in both statements favorable to this forum's interpretation and antagonistic to it. It seems people get hung up on the a- "not" prefix. Ataraxia being translated as "lack/absence of x" where x is trouble, anxiety, or something else negative misses the boat. Yes, it is technically an "absence" of trouble in the mind but it describes a positive feeling. Epicurus included it in his list of pleasures, so it is a feeling of pleasure. We feel something positive. A better translation may be calmness, tranquility, peace of mind to get away from that un- or a- prefix. The metaphor used sometimes is a calm sea. It is a positive quality.

So, to go back to your post:

It's not "a way of experiencing some (any) other mental or bodily pleasure (without disturbance)." Ataraxia is itself a pleasureable experience of calmness and tranquility in the mind, just as aponia (another pleasure singled out by Epicurus) is a pleasurable feeling of being well-rested, not fatigued or feeling any bodily pains. I imagine soaking - luxuriating - in a hot bath. Translating ataraxia and aponia simply as a "lack" or "absence" of something does a disservice to the positive qualities inherent in those stable states of mind and body.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Martin

Epicurus' philosophy is better characterized by the statement that peace of mind is required to experience maximum pleasure but is not equal to pleasure

This is good. This sheds light on things.

And so then:

Just as virtue is in the service of pleasure, so too peace of mind is in the service of pleasure.

I'm not sure I'm fully on board with the characterization that "peace of mind... is not equal to pleasure." By "peace of mind" can I surmise we're talking about ataraxia? Which is, by Epicurus's definition, pleasurable.

If I indulge further in this, I'd revise Kalosyni 's statement, too, into:

"Just as virtue is in the service off pleasure, so too ataraxia is part of a pleasureable life."

Quote from Godfrey

Aka "Hand Experiencing Katastematic Pleasure".

I was thinking more "Snatch the Pebble from my Hand, Grasshopper" (Those of a certain age will get that reference )

One grammatical note:

ζῆν is the present active infinitive of ζάω "to live", so I like translating it as a verbal form (living) rather than a noun (life), making it more active.

LOL! I was literally working on that section of my Annotated Letter to Menoikeus when I took a break and brought up the forum. Here's my literal translation:

οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν δεινὸν τῷ κατειληφότι γνησίως τὸ μηθὲν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ μὴ ζῆν δεινόν.

"For there is nothing terrible in living for the one who truly comprehends that there is nothing terrible in not living."

Language Trivia: Terrible is the translation of Greek δεινὸν which is the source for dinosaur "terrible lizard."

Quote from Cleveland Okie

the recommendation in mind for the book about Alexandria.

I'd also add this recommendation:

The Darkening Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Godfrey

I believe that DL mentions that Epicurus was an admirer of Pyrrho.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IX, Chapter 11. PYRRHO (c. 360-270 b.c.)

In debate he was looked down upon by no one, for he could both discourse at length and also sustain a cross-examination, so that even Nausiphanes when a young man was captivated by him : at all events he used to say that we should follow Pyrrho in disposition but himself in doctrine ; and he would often remark that Epicurus, greatly admiring Pyrrho's way of life, regularly asked him for information about Pyrrho ; and that he was so respected by his native city that they made him high priest, and on his account they voted that all philosophers should be exempt from taxation.

Pyrrho (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Pyrrho’s Influence

Pyrrho’s relation to the later Pyrrhonists has already been discussed. Given the importance of Pyrrhonism in earlier modern philosophy, Pyrrho’s indirect influence may be thought of as very considerable. But beyond his being adopted as a figurehead in later Pyrrhonism—itself never a widespread philosophical movement — Pyrrho seems to have had very little impact in the ancient world after his own lifetime. Both Cicero and Seneca refer to Pyrrho as a neglected figure without a following, and the surviving testimonia do not contradict this impression. It is possible that he had some influence on the form of scepticism adopted by Arcesilaus and other members of the Academy; the extent to which this is so is disputed and difficult to assess. It is also possible that the Epicureans, whose aim was also ataraxia, learned something from Pyrrho; there are indications of an association between Pyrrho and Nausiphanes, the teacher of Epicurus. But if so, the extent of the Epicureans’ borrowing was strictly limited. For them, ataraxia is to be attained by coming to understand that the universe consists of atoms and void; and the Epicureans’ attitude towards the senses was anything but one of mistrust.

Quote from Godfrey

my understanding is that "meditation" for the ancient Greeks was actually more of a thought process, for example memorizing doctrines or visualizing the extent of the universe

I think you're right.

I'd also suggest we dig into the practice Philodemus talks about as "setting before the eyes" which strikes me as a vivid visualization. I've seen him use it in reference to anger and, as I understand, you "set before your eyes" what you look like when you are angry and have lost all reason and composure. Really investigate if that's what you want. Do you like the look of yourself that way?

Quote from Cassius

Ok who is going to explain the "tantra" reference??

LOL. Maybe when you're older.

Seriously though, the Buddhist tantra is popular in Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist is about using *everything* as a vehicle to enlightenment: sex, anger, other things many see as "negative" or "evil." Its focus in the West has become fixated on "tantric sex", but I'll let you Google it Wikipedia that.

On second thought, let's take Kalosyni 's advice and stick with

Quote from Don

any time you can be fully present and aware is going to increase your ability to tune into your experience of pleasure.

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that any perceived similarities between Buddhism and Epicureanism are due to convergent evolution rather than direct contact. What works, works, regardless of the geography or time period.

Quote from Cassius

Wow Cleveland you inspired quite a history lesson from JJ there!

Yes, Joshua , that was excellent!!!

Quote from JJElbert

I've been reflecting on it, I have come to the conclusion that I can certainly see it as another useful tool in the Epicurean toolkit; to "occupy serene heights, well fortified by the teachings of the wise", as Lucretius has put it.

I certainly agree with that paragraph!

I'd be wary about bringing tantra into it, but any time you can be fully present and aware is going to increase your ability to tune into your experience of pleasure.

... or maybe pleasure is an apple and katastematic and kinesis can be thought of like red and sweet.

Still working on an apt metaphor.

I'll have to go back and carefully read Nikolsky. I was going to wing it but that's not fair to Nikolsky nor to this discussion.

I will share an analogy/metaphor that just struck me. As of right now (reserving the right to extend & revise etc), I think "pleasure" may be able to be thought of like "taste"; katastematic and kinetic may be able to be thought of as analogous here to salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or umami. Salty isn't better or higher than sour, just different. They're all tastes. This is only a metaphor to show how one thing can be categorized into smaller things without making value judgments. I'm not equating pleasure with the sense of taste, just trying to build a metaphor.

Quote from Cassius

But show me an instance of an authoritative EPICUREAN doing that distinguishing.

[136] He differs from the Cyrenaics136 with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest, but only that which consists in motion. Epicurus admits both ; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene. So also Diogenes in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta, and Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest." The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are : "Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest ; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity." (Diogenes Laertius X.136)