Posts by Don

I'm coming late to the game here, so I'm just starting from the top...

Quote from Daniel188

This exercise doesn't have to be used to pursue "virtue." It can be developed specifically to improve prudence

This seems akin to exercising parrhesia (frank speech) upon oneself. Not that I'll necessarily have the discipline to implement this on a regular basis, but I can see the utility of doing this to increase one's prudent choices and rejections.

Quote from Cassius

I thought this was an Epicurean forum, not a Stoic forum?

I'm inclined to take Seneca's advice (up to a point): "I am wont to cross over even into the enemy’s camp,—not as a deserter, but as a scout."

Quote from Daniel188

Self-awareness is useful in pursuing this goal because it allows us to recognize habits that are harmful. When I think of harmful habits, I mean those that cause more pain than pleasure in the long run. Without any regular introspection, we often resolve to do things but are unable to stick to them. While this is useful, it is only one possible trick and is not necessary. Self-awareness is not a goal in itself.

Well said. Self-awareness - whether gaining it from others through frank speech or looking at ourselves objectively (as far as that is possible) - is a tool, just like virtue, on the way to a more pleasurable life.

Quote from Daniel188

Rather, I'm aiming to distill the specific exercise itself. In this case, regularly reviewing everyday events in order to learn from them.

Exactly. Using a tool or modifying a tool does not endorse someone else's use of that tool in a different way. Okay, that's a clunky metaphor... but I hope the general thrust of that comes through.

Quote from Kalosyni

I would suggest doing internal self-reflection only on an as needed basis (and not nightly), when one feels internal distress. One could examine what is going on and think about how to make better choices in the future. Self-harm from over-indulgence (food or alcohol) results in physical discomfort, and the Epicurean takes note of bad results and thinks about what to do differently next time. Also, the Epicurean naturally understands that any time one causes harm to another human being that there will be consequences -- mental uneasiness and disturbance will result and the person harmed will seek restitution or retribution, lawfully or otherwise (or their friends or family will seek restitution or retribution) -- or if minor harmful actions are done then their reputation and trust will be lost.

...

Instead of thinking about work at the end of the day, it seems like an Epicurean might be more focused on all the pleasant things that happened - practicing gratitude for ones friends and family and reliving any happy/fun/pleasurable events that happened earlier in the day...anything that one appreciates.

So now thinking... an Epicurean might like to create a nightly habit of practicing gratitude and appreciation, and happy recollections on a nightly basis.

I like the idea of a regular practice of gratitude and recollection. This seems to dovetail nicely with an Epicurean perspective. I do think that recollecting where we may have made imprudent choices leading to pain - to bring back in the self-awareness can be helpful, too. So a balance between what gave us pleasure and how we got there balanced with noting what brought us pain and how we can avoid that would be a part of a worthwhile practice. As Kalosyni said, "compare and contrast".

An interesting and worthwhile discussion. Welcome aboard, Daniel188 !

This is intriguing, Cassius . I was not aware of Sextus' text. This, to my reading, supports an "idealist" concept of the gods: arising from dream images, expanding the idea of the "happy man" to an enlarged state - physical as well as immeasurably happy.

Quote

since the idea of the happy man is of one who shares in happiness. But according to them happiness (eudaimonia) was a divine (daimonia) and godly nature, and the word 'happy' (eudaimon) was applied to someone who had his deity (daimon) disposed well (eu).

This is one of the primary reasons I like translating eudaimonia as "well-being" being almost a literal translation with at least a reasonable parallel to a modern understanding of the word. Here's the LSJ entry for daimon:

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

It doesn't stretch my imagination to consider one's daimon as that part of one's mind we might call our "conscience." I could easily see that being personified, the better angels of our nature (to use a more modern phrase). One's daimon - one's conscience - if pushing one to live a moral, noble life is a eu-daimon. Hence, one lives a eudaimonic - a happy - life. If one's daimon - one's conscience - if more aligned with steering one's life in a negative direction - it's a kako-daimon.

I don't think it has to be circular. It's starting out from a human-centric position and expanding the potential of one's daimon to the extreme: blessedness and imperishability. The gods - the super-daimons - life a life of uninterrupted blessedness and uninterrupted imperishability - no backsliding ever ever. It's aspirational but unachievable for a mortal being. We can live as if we are gods but we will still not BE gods. We can have tastes and glimpses of a divine imperishable blessedness but we live in a mortal physical body that will experience pain.

I remain intrigued, but I feel Sextus doth protest too much.

Thread

On Use Of The Term Apikoros / Apiqoros / Bikouros Against Epicureans

Admin Edit

This thread came back to life in 2024. Unfortunately I can't remember the context in which it was first written. it starts with a paste of a comment from someone else, and I believe that comment itself was in response to the "What if Life Were All About Pleasure?" article. As a result the original thread was a little disjointed, although the intent is clear - to focus on the friction between Epicurean philosophy and certain of its opponents. I am therefore cleaning up the original

…

Cassius

December 17, 2018 at 9:14 AM

This thread may be relevant to refer to here.

As far as subjective vs objective, I do think it's up to the individual to assess their sense of well-being with their life. This is why Epicurus can write he could be "happy" with his life on his last day.

But wait...

Let's look quickly at what he wrote, since it is a quote that is often, and rightly, brought up:

22] And when near his end he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus :

"On this blissful (μακαρίαν makarian, same word to describe the life of the gods) day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. 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 (ψυχὴν χαῖρον, psykhe khairon, joy of the mind/spirit/heart - joy = one of the kinetic pleasures) at the remembrance of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."

So, he does NOT use happy/eudaimonia here. He uses makarios and khairos, blissfulness and joy. μακάριον is often translated as "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off.'" There appears to be no certain etymology of the root [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on]. It appears to possibly have something to do with "being wealthy," either literally or figuratively.

So he felt blessed, well-off, surrounded by friends and students and his household. He felt joy - a fleeting pleasure - in his mind at his memories. And though he doesn't write it, I would bet that he felt a sense of well-being and satisfaction as to how he had lived his life.

ADMIN NOTE: This conversation was split off from a thread devoted to discussion of Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 311. The title of the thread was added to indicate the content of the thead and was not originally associated with this first post.

I have to say that the word "happy" does not make me happy in these contexts. The connotations of "happy" in English - effervescent, transitory, fleeting - really don't convey what Epicurus wrote. I also know Cassius doesn't like using Greek words, and I can respect why. Saying "eudaimonia" doesn't really mean anything to many people. It can also be used to try to obfuscate and to give a woowoo mystical feeling to an otherwise ordinary word, ordinary to Epicurus and the ancient Greeks. Like using nirvana or samsara in a Buddhist context.

It's clunky, but I much prefer something like "subjective well-being."

Another potential paper to add to the mix:

Epicurus on the Fear of Death and the Relative Value of Lives

Epicurus argued that death is no misfortune, because when a person dies, he no longer has sensation, and sensation is a necessary condition of value for a…

www.academia.edu

Quote from Kalosyni

It would seem that if you "feel okay with" the concept of death, then the process of dying should theoretically not cause as much anxiety.

Excellent point Kalosyni, and you actually gave voice to something similar rolling around in my head.

(Caveat: I'm still getting around to reading Dr. Austin's paper)

TauPhi gave the four "fears of death" from the paper:

(1) the fear of being dead;
(2) the fear that one will die, that one’s life is going to end;
(3) the fear of premature death; and
(4) the fear of the process of dying.

I would agree that Epicurus directly attacked (and won against, from my perspective):

• (1) - no sensation/no existence/no thing
• (2) - Epicurus emphasized that we and every other compound thing is transient, mortal, and will eventually dissolve. There is nothing to fear from the FACT that our life will end. It feeds directly into (1). The 2nd line of the tetrapharmakos is literally something like "There is no need for the suspicion of something awful happening when we die. 'When we are dead' is a nonsensical/irrational statement because we will not BE after we die."
• (3) - In the greater scheme of things, there really is no such thing as "premature" death. We die when we die. That is NOT to say we don't feel grief - biting, gnawing, indescribable, screaming grief - if someone dies young or "before their time." But who's to say what one's "time" is? There are things that happen by chance, things that happen by necessity, and things we have control over. The time of our death (unless under controlled circumstances) is up to chance by and large.

To get even more granular, there seem to several sub-divisions of (4). If one has a terminal diagnosis (as in the clip Kalosyniplayed), we can decide if we want to go through months of chemotherapy or to live out our lives, with pain managed, and live as fully as possible before dying. Do we "rage against the dying of the light" or do we "go with the flow"? I'm not going to judge either decision, but it's a decision on the "process" we would go through. Both have pain and pleasure involved. There is also fear of the way one will die. If we make choices to avoid certain circumstances, we need not fear some ways that lead to death. But, there is a BIG element of chance to the WAY in which we might die. Getting in the shower, slip on the soap, bang your head, massive concussion, no one finds you for awhile. Not seeing a speeding car and stepping off the sidewalk. Genetic abnormality in a brain vessel or your aorta completely undetected and one rupture. Choking on a piece of food while dining alone at home. If we would obsess over the ways in which we might die, we would drive ourselves to all kinds of fear, anxiety, and depression!

Okay, now I need to read the paper before I comment anymore.

Cassius : Your experience with Philodemus' On Methods of Inference seems like it would be directly relevant here:

Philodemus: On methods of inference: a study in ancient empiricism : Philodemus : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

http://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/uf.jsp?st=UF001032148&ix=nu&I=0&V=D

archive.org

(No, I have not read it yet)

Quote from TauPhi

perfectly fine when you understand she's talking about fear of dying and not fear of death. There are no different forms of the fear of death in Epicurus' system. Epicurus was as radical about fear of death as it's humanly possible - we can't experience death so there's nothing to be afraid of. This radical claim is crucial to his system because it slams the door shut on supernaturalism, heaven, hell, eternal punishment, reward etc., and it leaves no backdoor option to get back to such concepts.

Well said TauPhi

The fact that "dying" is a physical process where we are STILL aware and sensations have not been dissolved is of paramount importance here, dying is NOT nothing to us because we are aware, sensing, and feeling. I agree with TauPhithat conflating "fear of (ways of) dying" and "fear of death (the end result of dying" are two very different things. We try to avoid certain ways of dying through our actions and decisions and taking care of our health. If we end up with a terminal diagnosis without recourse to therapy, medicine, surgery, etc., then we *could/should/can* focus on our coming death with the knowledge that "death is nothing to us." I can even see a bit/bite of grief for "leaving the stage" but, optimally, it should not overwhelm or deprive us of the pleasure left to us, rob us of pleasant memories.

I need to re-read Austin's paper and refresh my memory. I vaguely remember seeing it several years ago (I think)? Or maybe I bookmarked it in Academia.edu and didn't get back to it.

Quote from Joshua

Phaedrus was a Scholarch of the Garden, a successor in a long line of leaders of the school of Epicurus. Philodemus was also a devoted member of the school, having studied under the Scholarch Zeno of Sidon.

Lucretius is probably the outlier here--a Roman among Greeks, as it were. He held orthodox beliefs about the gods, and was not an atheist, but he was more critical of cultural religious devotions than Epicurus was.

Excellent summary, Joshua !!

There's a whole thread on On Piety:

Thread

Philodemus On Piety

Check out what came in on interlibrary loan this afternoon! I'll share thoughts etc on this thread. Stay tuned... epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/1550/

Don

December 10, 2020 at 5:14 PM

In addition to it having been referenced elsewhere on a number of occasions.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Isn't virtue itself a concern of humans?

Presumably he'd say that animals don't have the same kind of virtue and classify virtue with the divine (?)

Agreed. And isn't that convenient for him.

Along these lines, I'm going to quote Obbink in his On Piety by Philodemus translation and commentary:

Quote

traditional forms of worship are viewed by Epicurus as natural responses to the recognition of divine nature, and are not merely tolerated but recommended to his followers. Numerous acts of worship are attested for Epicurus and individual Epicureans, including sacrifice, prayer, and oaths, 1 adoration of statues, dedications, mystery initiation,• participation in calendrical festivals,s and rites of private and ancestral cult. Their opponents, considering such practices were incompatible with the Epicurean rejection of natural teleology, divine providence, and divination, viewed them as insincere parodies designed to cultivate popular favour. Epicureans, however, maintained
that participation in such practices was intended to illustrate the Epicurean theory of religion and social cohesion, and the degree to which cultural phenomena (including false beliefs) could be accounted for; for Epicurus, like Prodicus and Democritus, viewed cult as a natural
outgrowth of cultural history. Similarly, we find Epicureans, in an attempt to rationalize and thereby vindicate popular belief (thus demonstrating a clear philosophical understanding of even the most primitive of ideas), maintaining the proposition that 'gods' are actually capable of doing men harm (i.e. the wicked, as a result of their own depraved conceptions of the gods).

These practices seem well-attested by the author of On Piety (it could have been Phaedrus or Philodemus, but now traditionally attributed to the latter) but they seem at odds with Lucretius in his scorn for religious practices in book V: 1198-1203: "It is no piety to show oneself / Bowing with veiled head towards a stone, Nor to be seen frequenting every altar, Nor to fall prostrate on the ground, with palms outspread ..." It seems Epicurus himself would have done these and encouraged his school to do so. I'm certain Epicurus ascribed different motivations for bowing, sacrificing, etc than would the hoi polloi but he seems to have taken part in all that.

Oh, this is a little interesting, the phrase was used by Varro in his work being written contemporaneously with Cicero:

Quote

all worldly things [rerum humanarum...

Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"It was written in the 50s or 40s BC.[2]"

Cicero's "contempt for all worldly things [rerum humanarum despicientiae]" seems even worse than Philippians "επίγαιος". That's at least generally "on or of the world" but Cicero is advocating specifically contempt for all "human" things. Isn't virtue itself a concern of humans?

Admin. Note: This post has been copied from thread Their God is Their Belly.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Cassius

who mind earthly things.

Oh the horror! That we should "mind earthly things"!? [/s]

The KJV "earthly things" makes it sound like a moral slight (earthy, base things.. And I'm sure that's part of it), but the word is literally "things on the earth, things in the world."

Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. (NRSV updated ed.)

ἐπίγαιος "on or of the earth, terrestrial" I'm assuming in contrast to things of heaven.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Cassius

who mind earthly things.

Oh the horror! That we should "mind earthly things"!? [/s]

The KJV "earthly things" makes it sound like a moral slight (earthy, base things.. And I'm sure that's part of it), but the word is literally "things on the earth, things in the world."

Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. (NRSV updated ed.)

ἐπίγαιος "on or of the earth, terrestrial" I'm assuming in contrast to things of heaven.

Quote from Cassius

date of publication from the PDF.

Copyright citation at bottom:

apeiron,vol. 45, pp. 109–129 ©Walter de Gruyter 2012

Apeiron Volume 45 Issue 2

Volume 45, issue 2 of the journal Apeiron was published in 2012.

www.degruyterbrill.com

Quote from Kalosyni

Don Have you looked at Aristotle's book 10 ?

Have not made it to Book 10. I was trying to go beginning to end, but it's a slog for all the things I have to rant about against Aristotle.

fwiw, here's my contribution to this...

Work in progress, naturally.

A helpful tutorial on Greek numerals.

PS. And note their use in the list of books of Epicurus (DL 10.28)

Τιμοκράτης γ᾽. (Timokrates 3 (books))

Μητρόδωρος ε᾽. (Metrodoros 5 (books))

Ἀντίδωρος β᾽. (Antidoros 2 (books)

Cleveland Okie and Joshua : Thank you both so much for the kind words. I am so glad y'all have found that work helpful.

I can't believe it's been 2.5 years since I uploaded the revised edition. Time flies.