Posts by Don

The word akin to that also occurs in DL X.137:

137] He further disagrees with the Cyrenaics in that they hold that pains of body are worse than mental pains ; at all events evil-doers (ἁμαρτάνοντας hamartanontas) are made to suffer bodily punishment ; whereas Epicurus holds the pains of the mind to be the worse ; at any rate the flesh endures the storms of the present alone, the mind those of the past and future as well as the present. In this way also he holds mental pleasures to be greater than those of the body.

ἁμαρτάνοντας

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

Quote from sanantoniogarden

Maybe something like a physical therapy regimen necessary to walk again? Going to the dentist for some painful procedure to prevent future difficulties?

Fair enough; however, those desires are still not based on empty desires which have no limits.

Quote from sanantoniogarden

To my mind, this doctrine addresses desires that do not arise from genuine need but from empty values ingrained by social conditioning.

Exactly. It's important to make the distinction between unnecessary desires (which are part of pleasure seeking in Epicurus' philosophy) and the empty desire that have no limit. Note, I'm saying the desires have no limit. Pleasure itself always has a limit, ie, the absence of pain.

Quote from Cassius

some desires which will take a lot of effort to obtain but also which will lead to great bodily or mental pain if they are not achieved.

This strikes me as well represented by sanantoniogarden 's examples. The desire to walk when this inability is due to injury is well founded.

Quote from Cassius

It's probably worth noting that of course this isn't saying that there won't be some desires which will take a lot of effort to obtain but also which will lead to great bodily or mental pain if they are not achieved.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but do you have examples of these?

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.120: "The school holds that sins are not all equal ; ..."

Δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτήματα ἄνισα εἶναι. ...

(The school) Holds the doctrine that failures are unequal, ... (my translation)

LSJ: ἁμάρτημα , ατος, τό,

A. failure, fault, S.Ant.1261 (lyr.); freq. in Att. Prose, Antipho 3.3.8, Th.2.65, etc.; midway between ἀδίκημα and ἀτύχημα, Arist.EN1135b18, Rh.1374b7; sinful action, opp. κατόρθωμα, Zeno Stoic.1.54, cf. PTeb.5.3, etc.; “τὸ περὶ τὴν τέχνην λεγόμενον ἁ.” Pl.Plt.296b, cf.Ap.22d; “εἴς τινα” Id.Lg.729e; “περὶ τὸ σῶμα” Id.Grg.479a.

"midway between ἀδίκημα and ἀτύχημα" occurs in Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics. ie, between something intentional wrong or error of judgement and misfortune or fault of ignorance, a mistake.

Middle Liddell: 1. a failure, fault, sin, Soph., Plat. 2. a bodily defect, malady, id=Plat.

Quote from vlasalv

I like flags. Here is a suggestion from ChatGPT of an Epicurean flag:

Hurrah for Vexillology!!

I like the design , but it reminds me of the Unitarian Universalists:

If you wanted to be cryptic, replace the E with a ēta Η for ΗΔΟΝΗ (hēdonē) "pleasure" ηδονή

Quote from Rolf

Would you be able to sum up this flawed view of katastematic pleasure that mainstream academia purports?

For me, the mainstream academic and frankly broad public general position seems to boil down to:

• Epicurus goal was ataraxia, ie serenity.
• That's similar to Buddhism, Stoicism, et al.
• We'll dismiss Epicurus since "he's basically saying the same thing as these other philosophies."

Now, there are some great academics and lay proponents of Epicurus out there (Looking at you, Austin and Sedley!), but that's my take above on the general vibe of the hoi polloi.

For the record, I don't think the kinetic/katastematic distinction is the most paramount issue to be resolved in Epicurean philosophy. I do, however, believe it needs to be addressed. As with all things Epicurus, the loss of ancient texts from actual Epicureans is problematic. We have that whole "through a glass darkly" issue in trying to get at what the school itself thought.

On rereading (okay, skimming through) Nikolsky, I find that argument less and less compelling. That paper, to my reading, seems to be implying Epicurus didn't use the distinction between kinetic/katastematic. This simply seems to blatantly contradict the quotation from Epicurus himself in Choices and Avoidances cited in DL X.136.

I remain intrigued by Gosling and Taylor.

We've had some knock-down-drag-out threads on this. I was reading a good long one from 2023! There is no one consensus among long time forum members that I can see. That doesn't make us rivals! Just means this is a thorny issue with multiple possible perspectives. This seems a good a place as any to rejoin that discussion, because Kalosyni 's question about negation follows right on from Epicurus' use of a-taraxia and a-ponia.

Quote from Cassius

Yes, Don thanks, that is a comment by Diogenes Laertius, who is consistent with Cicero and Athenaeus (if Nikolsky's comments below are correct).

It's not a comment by Diogenes; it's a quote from Epicurus' own work.

Quote from Cassius

and ataraxia to be a katastematic pleasure

For the record, ataraxia IS one of Epicurus' examples of a katastemaric pleasures.

"ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."

Epicurus says in his work On Choice are : "Peace of mind (ataraxia) and freedom from pain (aponia) are pleasures pertaining to a state or condition (katastēmarikai eisin hēdonai); joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity." (my translation)

And Happy First Sunday after the First Full Moon immediately following the Spring Equinox for those who celebrate!

Quote from Kalosyni

Don any thoughts on this? Maybe you have something to add about the use of negation in ancient Greek language, and the pattern of words that often occurs?

I'm sorry, Kalosyni. This flew under my radar. I don't have any thoughts off the top of my head, but I'm intrigued. I'll share any I might discover. Maybe Bryan or Eikadistes would have thoughts?

That said, great posts here on this thread. Y'all are providing some solid summaries of the "absence of pain" idea.

Rolf For recently joining our little online Garden, your contributions are insightful and greatly appreciated. Glad to have you aboard.

Quote from Rolf

what would happen to Epicurus’ argument on the existence of life across the universe if we somehow ruled out the existence of life beyond earth?

I don't see any way to rule out the existence of life beyond earth. It's like the analogy (not sure if still current but it likely is) of dipping a cup in the ocean to find if there are fish in the ocean. "Nope, no fish in the ocean!" We've only examined a miniscule infinitesimally small sample of the universe for life elsewhere so far. Also, the chemistry doesn't seem to be all that difficult to get things going. I find it harder to believe there is no life elsewhere than I do to believe life is abundant in the Universe.

Sounds more promising than the "phosphine on Venus" findings from several years ago. But 124 light years away It sounds like it could be giant mats of floating algae or something.

I'm holding out a glimmer of hope for the Europa Clipper mission!

Europa Clipper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll also offer...

Aphorism - Wikipedia

... if someone is looking for examples.

Quote from Rolf

Woah, I was following until this part. What's the logic here?

  Cassius "...even to the point of conquering death." drops the mic, walks offstage.

The Meditation of the Unstubbed Toe.

That's a title for something that needs to be written

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

if you just avoided it or are remembering a time that you almost stubbed your toe

You would have to remember stubbing your toe badly to gain any pleasure from not stubbing your toe.

Good point. Although you could also remember seeing someone else badly stub their toe.

Quote from Cassius

tackle the wikipedia editors

We are ALL (potential) Wikipedia editors. Just throwing that out there.

Great discussion, and one that can never be revisited too many times. This topic is always an opportunity to revise, rethink, and refocus. Here's my perspective (as of, checks clock, 7:02 am on a random Wednesday morning):

Epicurus places a correct understanding of the gods in a place of paramount and foundational importance in his philosophy. It is the first Principal Doctrine. It is discussed first in the Letter to Menoikeus. And so on.

However, what is shown to be paramount and foundational is the firm knowledge and conviction that:

• the universe was not created by gods
• the gods neither bestow blessings nor dole out punishment
• Therefore, we have nothing to fear from the gods

Epicurus reasons all these out, but this is specifically to get rid of the fear of the gods so prevalent in so many people, both in ancient times and still in our own.

That said, whether you take a realist or idealist position on Epicurean gods is secondary - in my opinion. David Sedley is the main popularizer of this position, but I believe it was floating around prior to his and A.A. Long's exposition of it. I usually go to Lucretius point about "you can use Bacchus to refer to wine, Ceres to refer to the grain harvest, etc, but know you're using metaphors" kind of thing. I can walk into a cathedral and be awed by the grandeur. That doesn't mean I need to accept the theology inherent in the architecture. I can enjoy religious music but don't need to believe in gods. I probably think of myself as a functional atheist. I find it unlikely there are gods of any kind with an objective physical existence. Are there aliens more intelligent than humans? Sure, I can believe that. But they are not "gods" but simply other beings in the infinite universe.