https://positivepsychology.com/neuroscience-of-gratitude/
See also
genesis ex nihilo (which I also think is incoherent).
And not even biblical
That would be interesting to pursue -- I wonder what crimes beyond the likely murder etc carried the death penalty in ancient Greece.
Well, we know impiety was: Socrates.
That is one dread that I still have to shake myself of.
No way I want to be "uploaded"! My question, immediately upon someone mentioning that kind of thing, is "Who owns the computer? Who built the software?" Once I would be a series of bits on someone else's quantum computer, they could rearrange me or upload any apps to my psyche that they wanted. No thank you!
I wasn't going to weigh in but curiosity got the best of me. He's only looking at 3 potential applications of Epicurean philosophy, so he's not going to be comprehensive in any way. Plus he says several times that the ancient philosophies (and his lecture) are meant to be provocative and engender discussion.
~7:35: "pursuing pleasure and thinking about the value and nature of pleasure and avoiding pain and distress"
I have no problem with this formulation in a broad sense. The word αταραξια (ataraxia) literally means an absence of distress, turbulence, trouble, confusion. From my perspective, the lecturer provides a feasible distillation of one aspect of what Epicureanism is about.
Contentment or satisfaction - Primarily "the lived experience of a person whose body and mind are in a good condition." That makes one feel good. I have no problem with this, and, from my perspective, this even gets at the "whatever does not cause pain is pleasure" that has been discussed on this forum. I do think the lecturer muddies the water around the 19 min mark when he talks about events vs contentment.
I would agree with Cassius that the lecturer doesn't talk about pursuing pain in order to enjoy a greater pleasure, but I think that might be nitpicking in the wider scope of what the lecture is trying to do. He does talk about variety of pleasures (when he talks about the decision of whether or not to have a Coke)
Overall, any halfways decent exposition of Epicurean philosophy out there (that isn't just Stoicism/Buddhism-lite variety of Epicureanism) is a bonus from my perspective.
His examples of "extravagant" desires seem pretty on the nose.
I like his "The typology in itself won't help us answer these questions!" I realize he doesn't quite go where I'd like him to go, but the typology of desires DO NOT tell us what to do. It provides a framework within which to ask ourselves the questions of whether or not something will bring us pleasure or pain.
I wasn't aware of that Philodemus quote, but I like it: "though many fine things result from friendship, there's nothing so great as having one to whom you will say what's in your heart and to listen when the other speaks. For our nature strongly desires to reveal to someone what it thinks. (σφόδ[ρ]α γὰρ ἡ φύσις ὀρέγεται πρ[ό]ς τινας ἐκκαλύπτειν ἃ [ν]οεῖ.)" (On Frankness of Speech, Fragment 28)
[ -ca.?- κα-]
[λ]ῶς ὁ̣ Φιλ̣ο̣[ν]ε[ίδ]ου(*) θηρευτής· κἂν π[ε]ριδεικνύωμεν ἐπιλογιστικῶς, ὅτι πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἐκ φιλίας περιγινομένων οὐδέν ἐστι τηλικοῦτον ὡς τὸ̣ ἔχει<ν>, ὧι τἀ[γ]κάρδ[ι]ά̣ τ̣ις ἐρεῖ καὶ λ[έγ]οντος ἀκούσεται. σφόδ[ρ]α γὰρ ἡ φύσις ὀρέγεται πρ[ό]ς τινας ἐκκαλύπτειν ἃ [ν]οεῖ. λοιπὸ̣ν̣ δὲ ...
He gives 5 other things he *could* have talked about, so he is VERY aware that his is not a comprehensive exposition.
Personally, I'd give it a C+/B for usefulness to our needs here at the forum... not the least as a starting point for discussion.
I just came across a passage in The Deipnosophists (13.92 )
But Theotimus, who wrote the books against Epicurus, was accused by Zeno the Epicurean, and put to death; as is related by Demetrius the Magnesian, in his treatise in People and Things which go by the same Name.
Διότιμος δ᾽ ὁ γράψας τὰ κατ᾽ Ἐπικούρου βιβλία ὑπὸ Ζήνωνος τοῦ Ἐπικουρείου ἐξαιτηθεὶς ἀνῃρέθη, ὥς φησι Δημήτριος ὁ Μάγνης ἐν τοῖς Ὁμωνύμοις. ’”
I'm assuming Zeno is Zeno of Sidon, teacher of Philodemus and scholarch of The Garden.
ἐξαιτηθεὶς - demand the surrender of a person, esp. a criminal
ἀνῃρέθη - ttake up, ἀνελόντες ἀπὸ χθονός having raised the victim from the ground, so as to cut its throat; make away with, destroy, of men, kill
It would appear to me that, if this story is actually true, Zeno was angry enough to accuse Theotimus of something as written in the books against Epicurus, to have him brought up on charges and eventually executed! There's a story I'd like to hear!
I just saw this article from The Bowdoin Orient, "the nation’s oldest continuously published college weekly," about a talk Dr. Austin gave at Bowdoin College late last year. From all accounts, it appears she continues to be an effective "evangelist"* for the relevance of Epicurean philosophy to modern life.
I must admit I found the misspelling in the title somewhat endearing... Looks like The Orient needed one more proofreader. 
Maybe that's someone who is curious about the philosophy. Maybe they were playing off of Aurelius?
*The wise one will give public readings upon request. 
So "Luck" likely falls under this as well, right?
I added that to the outline and if you have recommendations as to the Latin, please do....
Yes. I would say there was no such thing as luck. The gods either smiled on you or not. Anywhere there's a "luck" or "chance" in English I would dig into the original for something that means fate or fortune.
Maybe fortuna?
fortūna , ae (archaic
I.gen. sing. fortunas, like familias, escas, vias, etc., f. lengthened from fors; chance, hap, luck, fate, fortune (good or ill; synonyms: casus, fors; fatum, providentia).
PD16: Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason. βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε καὶ κατὰ τὸν συνεχῆ χρόνον τοῦ βίου διοικεῖ καὶ διοικήσει.
VS17: https://wiki.epicurism.info/Vatican_Saying_17/
It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around by chance as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of. οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.
VS53
Vatican Saying 53 - Epicurus Wiki
Envy no one. For good people do not deserve envy, and the more that wicked people have good fortune, the more they ruin things for themselves. οὐδενὶ φθονητέον· ἀγαθοὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἄξιοι φθόνου, πονηροὶ δὲ ὅσῳ ἂν μᾶλλον εὐτυχῶσι, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον αὑτοῖς λυμαίνονται.
VS67. A free person is unable to acquire great wealth, because that is not easily achieved without enslavement to the masses or to the powers that be. Instead, he already has everything he needs, and in abundance. But if by chance he should have great wealth, he could easily share it with his fellows to win their goodwill. [note] ἐλεύθερος βίος οὐ δύναται κτήσασθαι χρήματα πολλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα <μὴ> ῥᾴδιον εἶναι χωρὶς θητείας ὄχλων ἢ δυναστῶv, ἀλλὰ συνεχεῖ δαψιλείᾳ πάντα κέκτηται· ἄν δέ που καὶ τύχῃ χρημάτων πολλῶv, καὶ ταῦτα ῥᾳδίως ἃν εἰς τὴν τοῦ πλησίον εὔνοιαν διαμετρήσαι.
One thing to keep in mind, regardless of the English translation, you'll want to look for τύχη (and its variants in the Greek). That gets translated a number of ways, including fate, chance, etc.
τῠ́χη • (túkhē) f (genitive τῠ́χης); first declension
(regarded as a result)
(in a neutral sense, in plural) fortunes
I'll do what I can to ferret out those "hidden" ones.
3.2 Menoeceus 133-135: [133] Seeing that, whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. 134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer; and such a one accepts that Fortune is not a god, as the hoi polloi understand (for a god does nothing in a disorderly or haphazardly manner); And it is not the uncertain cause of everything, for one cannot think it can grant good or evil for a person’s blessed life; however, it does furnish for oneself the starting point of great goods and great evils, [135] believing that it is better to be unfortunate rationally than fortunate irrationally because it is better to have been deciding the noble way in accomplishing one's actions and to have been foiled than having decided the bad way and to succeed by means of chance.
(My translation but feel free to use the one you like for 133-135)
I'm posting it here against the day I decide to learn French
Nice, TauPhi . Here's what I got from ol' Google Translate
the "three brains" (reptilian, mammalian, and primate) -- the "three brains" is no longer the considered the best mode
Yes! Thanks for emphasizing that. Dr. Lisa Felman Barrett has done her best to dispel the myth of the triune brain, too.
Might be interested in this
Happy 20th!
I've always thought of (US) Thanksgiving as the Epicureanest of traditional holidays with the Founder's emphasis on gratitude.
Although I, of course, have issues with Plutarch, I've always enjoyed his Sayings of the Spartans. For example:
Someone on seeing a painting in which Spartans were depicted being slain by Athenians, kept repeating, ‘Brave, brave Athenians.’ A Spartan cut in with, ‘Yes, in the picture!"
Philip wrote at the time when he entered their country, asking whether they wished that he should come as a friend or as a foe; and they made answer, ‘Neither.'
A man who was visiting Sparta stood for a long time upon one foot, and said to a Spartan, ‘I do [p. 401] not think that you, sir, could stand upon one foot as long as that’; and the other interrupting said, ‘No, but there is not a single goose that could not do it.’
Leonidas:
When someone said, ‘Because of the arrows of the barbarians it is impossible to see the sun,’ he said, ‘Won't it be nice, then, if we shall have shade in which to fight them ?’
That site is a great resource! Thanks for sharing.
182 is pretty good:
Ὁ αὐτὸς ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἀριστίππου τί αὐτῷ περιεγένετο ἐκ φιλοσοφίας εἶπε· „τὸ πλουτεῖν μηδὲ ὀβολὸν ἔχοντα.“
[Diogenes], having been asked by Aristippus what he got as the result of his philosophy, said: “To be wealthy without having an obol.”
Don , You and I have disagreed on this before. I have thought of eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” I continue to do so, as I still think they are related. A disagreement among friends
: and one that itself may depend on context.
Maybe disagreement is a little strong 
I had to go back and see where we discussed this previously (Nothing dies on the internet ) and found one of our threads:
So, I do agree with you that everything is contextual. I do think it is nigh impossible to look at someone and say "Well there goes a happy person!" Without having access to their inner life, we can't objectively say if someone's happy or not... or experiencing well-being, for that matter. Feelings and emotions are, by definition, subjective to the individual.
And I would agree that the Venn diagrams of "happiness" (writ large) and "well-being" intersect. I'm still not quite ready to completely embrace an expansive "definition" of happiness, but depending on how we're defining it or - maybe better - using it, I can accept talking about happiness as a sense of well-being which both equate to feeling pleasure about your life and the direction it's headed.
And, just to be clear, we're talking about a 2,300 year old philosophy originally taught in a language other than English which had its own semantic issues... evidenced by the fact that the people of Epicurus' and Philodemus' time argued with them about the Epicureans' use of the word ἡδονή (hedone) to encompass the fulll spectrum of what Epicurus saw as "pleasure."
living being
LOL 
Don't get me started on "living being," but that's a topic for another thread.
I hesitated to weigh in on this thread, but let's dive in...
the argument equating happiness with materialism and that consumerism leads to unhappiness, etc.
The word "happiness" needs to be defined...because it is both the transitory feeling that arises when human needs are met/fulfilled, and also the feeling of being okay with (or satisfied with) how one's life is unfolding.
I would say that the decision to seek "meaning" rather than happiness is directly related to buying in, or being browbeaten, into thinking that pleasure and happiness are disreputable goals.
These are exactly the reasons I personally dislike using the word "happiness" itself. In modern Western culture, this is what happiness means for most people: a fizzy, effervescent quality that many people see as inherently short-lived. "Are you happy?" means, it seems to me, to most people to convey a bubbly, giddy feeling. Of course, you're not feeling like that all the time. To recalibrate people's idea of "being happy," I would prefer using a different word for the overall direction of one's life. This sentence from a paper available through the National Library of Medicine illustrates my point:
the term “happiness” has been used to refer to momentary assessments of affect as well as to overall life evaluations. This absence of precision precludes understanding of the complexities known to coexist. For example, a person who is engaged in stressful or difficult activities, such as working toward an education or a job promotion, may find substantial meaning or satisfaction with life overall; a person who is generally suffering or lacking hope may experience temporary reprieve in an enjoyable moment.
Although it sounds clinical, "subjective well-being" (which I would maintain is a decent translation of ancient Greek eudaimonia) is a better word/phrase to use. I realize it's not going to catch on, but SWB is a common acronym for it in the academic literature now it seems. Again, I'm not advocating replacing "happiness" with SWB, but that's one of the reasons I tend to use well-being and not happiness when this comes up.
"meaning" is just a tool for the increase of our pleasure and the decrease of our pain... Though I understand where it comes from, I still think this is not a helpful tool.
That's pretty well put.
"Meaning" means many things to many different people. To me, it has the same problems as "happiness." "Meaning" can mean almost anything you want it to mean. It expands to fill any semantic field you want. "Happiness" is transitory and tied to materialistic culture; I'll just say "I live for meaning." No, you're just transposing one for the other.
I think we are all striving for "subjective well-being," a sense of satisfaction with our lives, a feeling that we're headed in the right direction, even though we will, of course, be faced with pain, hardship, loss, and so on, but inwardly we can face those things within an overall disposition of mental fortitude and satisfaction with the way we live and the way we decide to approach life. If I'm going to dedicate myself to the idea that "the wise man has more reasons for joy than vexation" that's a choice I make to maintain my "subjective well-being." I will face the day looking for moments of joy, pleasure, kindness, and reasons to have a positive affect and approach to life *without* any Pollyanna-rose-colored-glasses. I won't be a pushover or a milquetoast doormat. But I will also not be a sad sack with a dark cloud hanging over my head my whole life.
"The Universe" does not imbue our lives with "purpose" or "meaning." There is no "ultimate meaning." Your "life's purpose" is not "revealed" to you. If one wants their life to have "meaning," that's self-imposed. And, to me, "meaning" is simply that which gives you pleasure and a sense of well-being in your own life. Your purpose and meaning may hold no meaning for me. We can't tell anyone "your purpose is wrong" or "you're pursuing the wrong meaning to life."
Monty Python's film The Meaning of Life ends with this: "It's nothing very special, really. Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
