Posts by Don

I don't see Epicurean Friends listed in the USPTO database, but trademarking the name isn't a bad idea to preserve the identity. That being said, one has the responsibility to defend their own trademark. There's no trademark police.

I'm not a lawyer (and you are Cassius !), but I think you can use TM or SM (service mark) if you want to "plant a flag". The (R) is only legal once the trademark is actually registered.

For anyone interested, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics and https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks#trademarks-0 .

(I'm still curious about intellectual property as I was manager of the department that ran the Patent and Trademark Resource Center at my library)

Quote from Cassius

But anyway now we're probably reaching the point where this tangent is empty of additional benefit!

Point taken but one last response to your comment...

Quote from Cassius

Even the phrase "empty desire" sounds more like something s Buddhist or even stoic would say.

Even if it "sounds" Buddhist or Stoic, we can't deny that that's the word Epicurus liked to use to convey these concepts. He obviously had a reason for doing it, so I wouldn't want us to obfuscate *his* meaning for the sake of our being uncomfortable or wanting to put a different slant on it.

Interestingly enough, κενός is also the word translated as "void" in "atoms and void." Ex., Περὶ ἀτόμων καὶ κενοῦ*. Peri atomōn kai kenou Concerning atoms and void/emptiness (The title of Epicurus's work on the topic).

*κενοῦ = genitive singular of κενός

Quote from Godfrey

In the chapter on anger she refers to "orge" and "thymos" which she interprets as natural and empty anger. It's a bit confusing though, since apparently Philodemus and his rivals had opposite definitions of the two terms. Possibly examining the original Greek meaning of these two words would provide more to chew on?

οργή orgē

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=o)rgh/

θυμός thymos

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=qumo/s

(Directly related to επιθυμία epithymia "desire, yearning, longing" which shows up in KD 29 & 30)

Κενός empty was a popular word. I thought some additional context might help. These are not exhaustive by any means but I thought it might be interesting to see where empty is used.

KD 30:

Quote

30: Ἐν αἷς τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν (physikōn epithymiōn "natural desires"), μὴ ἐπ’ ἀλγοῦν δὲ ἐπαναγουσῶν ἐὰν μὴ συντελεσθῶσιν, ὑπάρχει ἡ σπουδὴ σύντονος, παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν αὗται γίνονται, καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν.

τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν tēn tou anthrōpou kenodoxian "the 'empty beliefs' (one word) of humans/humanity/'mankind'"

The word also occurs in KD 37:

Quote

37: Whatever in conventional law is attested to be expedient in the needs arising out of mutual intercourse is by its nature just, whether the same for all or not, and in case any law is made and does not prove suitable to the expediency of mutual intercourse, then this is no longer just. And should the expediency which is expressed by the law vary and only for a time correspond with the notion of justice, nevertheless, for the time being, it was just, so long as we do not trouble ourselves about empty terms (φωναῖς κεναῖς phōnais kenais "empty sounds, empty speech") but look broadly at facts.

Quote

And Fragments:116. I summon you to sustained enjoyment and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.

And 202, here translated groundless:

Quote

202. He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is poverty.

ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει παρακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστι πενία.

(Note: This is the same phrase as in KD 29 and 30)

Quote

KD 29: Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ <καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι· αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ> καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι.

κενὴν δόξαν (kenēn doxan) "empty/groundless beliefs/opinions/doctrines"

κενὴν is the empty

δόξαν is the same word used for the Principal Doctrines.

If I typed earlier "empty pleasures" I was referring to pleasures chosen due to empty desires founded on empty beliefs.

Sorry for any confusion.

Quote from Elayne

Are you quoting Epicurus by using "empty" pleasure, Don ? Which text, if so?

See my posts above for clarification on that.

It's not argumentative by any means! These are important issues. Besides, there's pleasure in the intellectual pursuit so that's (a) good

The reason people like to use empty in translations is because that's the literal meaning of the Greek word. But as we know, literal doesn't always mean best. When used in this sense, I think of it as an excuse with no real argument behind it - empty space behind the excuse. Colloquially as in "That's no excuse!" Colloquially again, an empty desire uses a rationalization. A valid desire uses the Canon.

(P.S: I should say "uses the Canon along with phronesis (to choose that desire).")

Quote from Cassius

t a pleasure would NOT be labeled "empty" because the pleasure does not bring pleasure, because if that choice or action were not pleasurable then it would not be pleasure.

It's not the pleasure itself that's "empty." It's the desire for specific pleasures that lead to pain that is "empty." Desires and "pleasure as the good" are two very different things.

Quote from Cassius

I question how this term can be reconciled with the "all pleasure is desirable" foundation,

"While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is choiceworthy, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned."

Note that he doesn't say all pleasure is desirable. He says all pleasure is a good (αγαθόν agathon) not that every pleasure is desirable. Pleasure is the good toward which all our actions point, but that doesn't mean *every* pleasure is desirable or choiceworthy.

Good point on defining our terms. The word Epicurus most often uses is κενός kenos where were see "empty" in translations: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=keno/s

Quote from Elayne

Don the sense are subjective in that they involve both the real, external object being sense _plus_ that person's specific locus and specific sense organs. We a...

Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with this X-plus-Y characterisation you state here. The previous post sounded to me like there was no objective reality to be sensed. As long as we're "subjectively" sensing a real physical reality, I'm fine with acknowledging we all have different abilities to sense that reality.

Quote from Elayne

there is no absolute perspective and that every perception is _by_ a subject and includes that subject's materiality.

Isn't that even the basis of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? That there's no absolute vantage point?

Quote from Elayne

I never experience pain or pleasure without a full context of experience, so trying to isolate feelings seems almost Platonic in idealism.

LOL. Ouch. No need to accuse me of Platonism! I'm going to defer to the work of Dr. Linda Feldman Barrett's work on constructed emotions on this. Her empirical research isn't Platonic.

Quote from Elayne

Epicurus made the point that pleasures are not interchangeable-- there is variety!

There are different things that we experience as pleasurable, but the common characteristic is the reaction of pleasure. Are you referring to Principal Doctrine 9 here or another text? Just want to make sure so I don't respond further off the cuff.

We may be talking/writing past each other again on the first point, so I'll try and respond in more detail to that later.

The second point is that emotions are built on pleasure/pain but have a lot more going on. That's why it's important to "feel" pleasure/pain and know why you're feeling pleasure/pain and not just label it with an emotional description. Take anger as discussed here in this conference abstract. According to this (and I've seen similar more detailed expositions in Tsouna's book), anger can stem from pain but be sustained by "the pleasure of revenge." One is acceptable and understandable, the other is "empty." Anger and most if not all of the emotional designations have culturally influenced definitions and connotations (as in Barrett). I think that's why Epicurus put so much emphasis on pleasure and pain. Strip things down to the bare essentials free of all indoctrination. Nature provides pleasure and pain. Period. That's why he can say that ataraxia, aponia, khara, and euphrosyne are different expressions of pleasure: they have the reaction of pleasure as their foundation.

To make choices about leading the pleasurable life, we have to really know what's motivating us, what's driving our choices. What are we really feeling? We need to be honest with ourselves and not overthink what we're feeling. Are we angry from real pain caused to us, or are we feeling pleasure at self-righteous indignation and thoughts of getting even? If the latter, choosing a path based on that could lead to more pain and could be a pleasure we should not choose. Humans are good at fooling ourselves. That's where reason gets the better of us. What are we *really* feeling? And is it pleasure or pain that motivates our decisions? And as I mentioned, I still think Dr. Barrett's work (of which I'm continuing to look into) has some interesting and potentially important light to shed on this topic.

Quote from Elayne

We would be wise to always remember that our sense data is obtained subjectively, through the perspective of a particular subject, and although it is real it is never experienced as an absolute, objective point of view, there being no such thing.

I thought the reason for the senses (the αἰσθήσεις) being a criterion of the Canon was that they were a direct connection with reality without any intermediary. Our opinions and beliefs are then constructed on that "real" authentic reflection of objective reality "out there." While each perceiver - the one who senses - will have a subjective and culturally influenced reaction to the senses , I don't think it's accurate to say "our senses are also subjective." That sounds like a Skeptical position as if our senses can't be trusted and nobody could agree on what their senses are telling them. We sense a real reality, we react to that sensation with pleasure or pain, and our prolepses then compare it to previous sensations. We then form concepts, beliefs, and opinions in keeping with the choice that will provide the path to the most sustained pleasurable life to the best of our ability.

Quote from Elayne

For almost all of us, emotions like contentment, gratitude, or affection for others-- are pleasurable, and those words wouldn't be accurate communication with the feeling of pleasure removed.

To be clear, I'm not implying that pleasure or pain can be removed from the emotions. But the initial reaction - pain or pleasure - is what gives rise to the emotions. You can't construct the emotion without the initial reaction. Pleasure and pain are part of affect (as I understand that concept in Dr. Barrett's work) and the emotions are constructed based on that interoception. I believe what Epicurus felt intuitively was this separation of affect and emotion which was why he placed pleasure/pain in the Canon (the pathē are two). One of the most important criterion in our Canonical decision-making process in choice and avoidance is the initial interoception of pain and pleasure. I believe you touched on this when you talked about sensing unease about someone. Don't stick around. The interoception of unpleasantness/pain gives rise to unease, fear, anxiety.

I'm intentionally leaving out a discussion of the "feeling of knowing" since I just got that book and don't feel I've studied that enough to have an opinion on that.

Quote from Cassius

Whatever Epicurus thought about the theory, he was dealing with the exact same facts and human nature that we are dealing with today, so he would not have had facts which are not available to us to flesh out the theory any more than we can today.

Point taken on human nature, but we do have access to additional facts on the workings of the human body at a much finer level detail (down to the molecular and atomic level) than any ancient person had access to.

P.S. In a way, our minds do pick up intangible images from the air in the sense that, if we're listening or reading, nothing tangible (i.e., too fine to touch) passes from your mind to mine for me to perceive concepts in my mind...

BUT to be clear, I'm not implying our minds are receivers of fine images composed of infinitesimally small atoms directly into our psychē and that's how we envision dragons and relive past events...

ALTHOUGH we do know that electromagnetic waves can have an impact on behavior of applied in specific manners to our heads/brains...

BUT that is NOT what Epicurus had in mind (oops, no pun intended).

I'm going to say up front that, according to modern physics and science, our brains do not receive images/films/eidōlon like a radio receives radio waves.

However...

The fact that we can just sit by ourselves in a room and imagine centaurs, invent new machines, recollect deceased relatives, enjoy past pleasures, and so on, is - colloquially speaking - magical.

Also the fact that you can speak or write to me, and your actions can make images appear in my mind is - colloquially speaking - magical.

So, this wondrous property of the Cosmos required a physical, non-divine, and more importantly a non-teleologic explanation by Epicurus.

There is no way the ancients could have known about neurons or brain anatomy. I don't slight them for that one bit. They had observation and analogy to work with. That's all. They even used to think the seat of the mind was in the area of the heart because that's where you "feel" strong emotion ("My heart ached thinking about it"). From their perspective, that was plausible.

So how could the mind perceive concepts and "visualize" images, even in sleep?? How do we sense physical things? We touch them. Well, how would we see things? Images must be touching our eyes from outside. How does our mind perceive images, even while sleeping? They must be being touched by similar images from outside. Just as the eyes are not flashlights (sorry, anachronism alert) scanning the environment to see, so our minds can't be sending out beams of thought to think. They must be being touched by something from outside them. It must be very fine eidōlon! That's it! Likewise, with this explanation we don't need gods placing concepts in our minds. We receive extremely fine eidōlon from outside.

This seems to address the need for plausible explanations by the Epicureans. Does it explain the phenomenon well enough? Yes. Does it only use atoms and void in its explanation? Yep. Does it align with the precept that the gods don't interfere in the cosmos! Check. Okay, we're good to go.

Quote from Elayne

a good book with a summary of research on the sensation of knowing is Burton's "On Being Certain." There has been more research since then, but it's a good intro to the neurobiology.

Picked up the book at the library today. Thanks for the recommendation!

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus is saying is not the feelings you list but "this is an affirmation that the goal is NOT set by gods or virtue or idealism or rationalism but by Nature herself through the faculty of feeling."

Agreed. I would even be more specific on saying "... through the faculty of feeling pleasure or pain." The Canon itself is not about emotions, the colloquial connotation of "feeling," but the initial reaction of pleasure or pain (attraction or repulsion) - before you have the chance to "think" about something. The names we give to the emotions are built on that foundation of pain or pleasure "at the speed of thought." I'll address this in response to Elayne's post asap.

I still think Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research has some intriguing applications in this area: e.g., https://michaelrucker.com/thought-leader…emotion-affect/ Elayne may have touched on some of this.

Quote from Cassius

As a philosophy I don't see this as a vacation guide or a cookbook or a relaxation therapy. Instead, it's much more a blueprint for philosophical and moral revolution against the powers of religion and conventional academia.

It has to be both. I agree with your second statement, but I don't think that precludes the first. The "revolution" has to have everyday applications on the beach, in the kitchen, or at the spa (to try and line up your examples )

Quote from Cassius

As for your final paragraph, what I mean here refers t...

LOL! Well, I'm glad I didn't go off on that tangent I was going to. Turns out I actually agree with your clarification there. Thanks!