Posts by Don

Great points, Cassius !

I think it's also significant that Epicurus uses παρακαλώ "I call, summon, send for, invite" and not "promise" or something similar.

Quote from Cassius

One of the subtleties here is involved in Epicurus saying that "I call you to continuous pleasure....."

Good point, Cassius

The word Epicurus uses is συνεχείς

https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CF%83%CF%85%C…%87%CE%AE%CF%82

There's some ambiguity to that since I see both continuous and continually in the definition. Food for thought.

Quote from isychos

I understand, well at least I think I understand, that it would be unreasonable to expect to experience a continual flow of pleasurable feelings, however if the pain I am experiencing does not lead to pleasure in the future, then that pain, dare I say, is to be avoided. Perhaps I am being too rigid in how I apply my calculation of pleasure vs pain sometimes??

You've hit on one of the issues of the motto "Pleasure is the goal." You're absolutely right that it's unreasonable to expect warm feelings of pleasure all the time... Unless we're gods... Which we're not. The Epicurean goal is to lead the most pleasurable life possible. So, you're on the right track with your understanding.

Quote from isychos

Could you please also help me in clarifying if I have understood this correctly: that the feelings are two, pleasure and pain, if I am not experiencing one I am experiencing the the other, as there is no neutral state, or have I reduced this a little too far?

You're right. We can experience a reaction of pleasure or pain. But don't get the technical definition of feeling in an Epicurean sense confused with the definition of feeling from an everyday sense as in feeling = emotions like sadness, anger, joyfulness, etc. All of those have pleasure or pain at their root.

This may be in the weeds for you right now but I've found the work of Dr. Linda Feldman Barrett on constructed emotions very helpful in sorting out the difference.

I hope that helps. Keep the questions coming!

I just realized that the good/pleasure and evil/pain equivalency is stated in Cicero's De Finibus with Torquatus speaking:

Quote

Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason.

That seems to me to underscore what I've contended here. We judge good and evil in light of the reaction of pleasure and pain, respectively.

Quote from Godfrey

But since EP isn't about minimalism, ponder from here what it would take to live an enjoyable life now that you have an idea of how little you could get by with.

This is exactly my take on the idea of why Epicurus may have taken periodic fasts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p095vj2q

One of my favorite historical podcasts had an episode about medicine in ancient Greece and Rome. They had one line that struck me in light of the medicine analogies Epicurus used. They said the default condition in the Ancient World was more or less sickness punctuated by bouts of health for the individual. The exact opposite of our modern thinking. I think that's interesting in light of Epicurus's sayings on the chronic vs acute pains.

In any case, if you like history, give You're Dead to Me a try!

Quote from Elayne

Cassius , the point I'm trying to make is that ancient history and ancient physics wasn't part of Epicurus' philosophy in his day... nor was an absent historical figure. He didn't have to deal with that because he was right there, making current observations. He wasn't asking his students to study ancient history, ancient philosophers, or a different language. If he were here today forming groups, including online forums, I can't imagine any of those aspects would be the focus of his philosophy! He would definitely not be spending time arguing over what he said centuries ago, because if he were here now, he wouldn't have been alive centuries ago

I definitely see where Elayne is coming from! If Epicurus Neoclou was developing his philosophy in 21st-century Athens and building his school, he'd be addressing life issues using modern tools and contemporary language and contemporary knowledge. No question there. I wonder if he would seem that much different than other authors in the self-help aisle of the bookstore today (or the Self-help section of the online bookstore website) given our modern sensibilities.

On another topic: Did Epicurus have a name for his philosophy or his school other than The Garden? Other than just physiology "the study of what is natural"? I believe later Epicureans thought of themselves as Epicureans, but Epicurus didn't refer to his school that way. Would it be better to go back to his - if he had it - non-self-referential designation? Concentrate on the "what" not the "who"?

Topic 3: I will admit one thing that attracted me to Epicurus (and Stoicism - briefly - before that) was the idea of a lineage. I like my philosophies road-tested, stress-tested. That's what first drew me to Buddhism and prior to that some forms of Christianity. You see people who are kind, altruistic, calm, and they follow a particular tradition... I thought "Well, there must be something there there." And for a certain personality type, there seems to be something helpful in those traditions. I still think some forms of meditation have a place in Epicurus's Garden practice. I'm thinking Elayne may find my idea of lineage or tradition irrelevant to the value of a/the philosophy, but I'll let her speak for herself. I find the idea of a connection across time and space .... comforting? interesting? I don't know the exact words. I also found a practical outlet for my interest in language and history in studying Epicurean philosophy (just as I did with Buddhism and Christianity), but as Elayne pointed out, this isn't a "selling point" for everyone.

What makes Epicurus's philosophy relevant is not the historical context. It's the universal human experience. What makes me choose one path over another? What does a philosophy have to offer to live *my* life "better" than I am right now? And how do I define "better"? Why do we still read Homer and Shakespeare? It's the universal human experience.

Epicurus also took part enthusiastically in the religious rituals and practices of his day. What possibilities does that open up for us in a predominantly Judeo-Christan environment? Could we commandeer some of their rituals for Epicurus (just like they did by building churches in temples)? As I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus took periodic fasts to experiment what would provide pleasure and true satiety. Sounds like Lent? I do NOT believe he lived on bread and water all the time, but I could see him gathering empirical evidence in this way periodically.

Okay, now I'm just musing out loud and getting far afield of the thread...

Happy Twentieth! Welcome to your first post!

isychos , you bring up one of the most important topics possible: How do we apply Epicurean philosophy in our lives? As Epicurus said:

Quote

A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

So, enough prologue! Here are my thoughts...

It pains me to hear you describe your work this way. I agree with your seeing "grin and bear it" as a Stoic assessment as it applies to work. However, seeing it as a means to an end has potential. Work is instrumental in some ways - like virtues - but it can provide pleasure itself. Epicurus requires us to assess each of our choices and rejections in light of pleasure and pain.* Everything* we do is a choice. I make a choice every day to get out of bed and go to work. Could I choose not to go to work? Sure! I could choose to quit my job. I could choose to call in sick. But would each of these lead to more pleasure or pain. If I'm sick, I probably should choose not to go to work (IF this choice is available - but that's another conversation). If I choose to quit my job and have no money coming in, would that lead to more pleasure or pain. In the long run, for myself (not being able to leave civilization and live in the woods living off the land), that would lead to more pain.

I see Epicureanism as a philosophy of personal responsibility. I can't blame my lot on the gods and pray my way out. I can't blame my lot on fate and "grin and bear it." Where I'm at is a result of the choices and rejections I've made, and I'll change my lot by changing my choices based on sound reasoning (phronesis) based on my reactions of pleasure and pain based on information from my senses.

Epicurus also said:

Quote

Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

I would assume that the job you have now was something you sought out at one time. Why? Why did your present job appear desirable at one time? Just the money? Just escape from a worse job (which at one point was also sought out)? Please don't feel that you have to reply to my questions! I just want you to think about this yourself. I'm not saying you have to just accept your job. If the work is unbearable and/or dangerous, do your best to find different work. But Epicurus, it seems to me, says nothing in our day-to-day world is purely good or purely bad. At the end of your day, look back over it. Was there at least one moment of pleasure? Was there one moment of gratitude? If you can't leave your present job, your friends may be right in that this one is a means to an end. But you have to decide what that end is. You give meaning to your work. It's not imposed from outside.

Let me say that I know none of this is easy. Being stuck in a job "just for the money" is HARD! I've been there, slogging away day in, day out. But you have the power to change your perspective based on sound philosophy.

I hope this conversation is the beginning of something helpful for you. I'll end for now with Epicurus's greetings he supposedly used in many of his letters:

Quote

Εὖ πράττειν καὶ Σπουδαίως ζῆν

"May you practice well and may your life be lived with purpose!"

I don't know what this means, but here's food for thought:

Quote from Cassius

I have never heard of this -- thank you! Another sad one would probably be Epicureanism vs Stoicism.

I did that one but felt one depressing ngram view from me + Joshua 's was sufficient for one day

Here's the direct link for anyone curious to explore https://books.google.com/ngrams

I will admit that it's fun to explore with that resource.

I couldn't resist

Quote from Cassius

I don't think it's what Epicurus would conclude for himself if he were alive today, and I've always thought that there is naturally going to be a lot of different perspectives on any individual will choose to pursue Epicurus' insights once they are recognized. Epicurus and the core ancient Epicureans could have reached exactly the conclusions that you state -- but they did not, and it's interesting to think through why they didn't.

In the spirit of SFOTSE (Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus "Do Everything As If Epicurus Were Watching"), I'm curious what you think Epicurus *would* "conclude for himself if he were alive today"? And I'm not doing this to be provocative... Just curious. Because I'm not entirely sure myself.

Were the various "Gardens"/groups in the disparate cities in the ancient world independent? I got the impression that they looked to Athens post-Epicurus as a sort of "first among equals" but the Scholarch of the Athenian Garden didn't function like a Pope. It's that other's understanding?

Quote from Cassius

So I would expect that there is good reason to translate them as the translators are doing. (Using good and evil).

The translators are just taking the literal route:

αγαθός = good, literally http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=a)gaqo/s

κακός = bad, literally http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry%3Dkako%2Fs

Most translators - academically speaking - especially older ones - appear uncomfortable with the word "pleasure" and most likely took the opportunity to translate agathos and kakos literally instead of delving deeper into what Epicurus was trying to convey.

I've been thinking some more about this. Without any sort of "Platonic" ideal form of "good" or "evil" the only way to judge good or bad is if it elicits pleasure or pain. That is why I believe Epicurus can say pleasure is *the* good. There's no other yardstick - literally, canon - to measure "the good."

I always go back to the Tetrapharmakos where ταγαθον t'agathon "the good" is easily obtained and το δεινον to deinon "the terrible" is easily endured. I firmly believe both of those are supposed to denote pleasure and pain, respectively, in those four lines. Those words taken in the context of the Principal Doctrines leads me to believe that good/evil, agathon/kakon (or deinon) refer to pleasure and pain in the Letter and elsewhere. Every pleasure is a good, every pain is an evil.

Quote

Train yourself to hold that death is nothing to us, because good and evil consist in sensation, and death is the removal of sensation. συνέθιζε δὲ ἐν τῷ νομίζειν μηδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὸν θάνατον ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακὸν ἐν αἰσθήσει· στέρησις [deprivation] δέ ἐστιν αἰσθήσεως ὁ θάνατος.

I see anytime that ἀγαθὸν and κακὸν occur, you should be able to substitute pleasure and pain, respectively. Try that and see how that changes the tenor of the translations.

Quote from Cassius

Can you suggest better wording?

LOL. It's easier to be critical than to offer solutions. Here's my first attempt at being constructive...

Epicurus says in the Letter to Menoikeus that "The goal of a completely happy life is 'health of the body' and 'serenity of the soul'" but that's open to misinterpretation, too, isn't it? He also says "Pleasure is the beginning (αρχή) and the end (τέλος) of a completely happy life." I may translate/paraphrase that as " Pleasure is the foundation and result of a completely fulfilled life." And he also writes "When we say that pleasure is the goal, [we mean], by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul."

I don't think any of these are good bumper sticker slogans but each has something to contribute to getting the "goal" across.

I still have issues with the phrasing of "Pleasure is the goal of life." Not the intent of the phrase, but the phrasing! I think that that phrase is open to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, etc. The concept itself is of fundamental importance to Epicurus's philosophy, but I advocate for a different way of phrasing it. "Pleasure is the goal of life" strikes me -- and I'm betting would strike a beginner -- as "If I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy every minute, I'm obviously 'doing it wrong'." Using pleasure and pain "to steer your own little boat" towards the most pleasurable life is the goal.

In honor of the patron goddess of pleasure and erotic love and the goddess to whom Lucretius dedicated De Rerum Natura... Happy Valentine's Day everyone!

Cassius : Your observations near the end of the Episode on the different perspectives of atoms in your hands vs seeing them as just hands seems to me to be VERY similar to the idea of the Two Truths in Buddhism: conventional and ultimate truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truth…ine?wprov=sfla1

Conventional truth describes our daily experience of the world. Hands are just hands. We go about our day interacting with the cosmos, each other, etc.

Ultimate truth from an Epicurean perspective is that "The only thing that exists is atoms and void." We are atoms and void in a particularly arrangement at this moment. Buddhism expands on that to the concept of No-self/sunyata. This idea is echoed in a way by the parable of Theseus's ship in Greek thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus?wprov=sfla1

There's no problem holding both these perspectives at the same time unless it provokes pain. But both perspectives *are* true.