Posts by Don

Quote from camotero

Hi Cassius! Is this an active project? I followed the link but encountered an error.

The links just misspelled. Try https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wiki/

Cassius brought up earlier the three-legged Canon, so I went back to see the three original words:

αἰσθήσις (aisthēsis), Latin sensus. sense-perception, sensation, perception from the senses (incidentally, the source of "aesthetic")

προλήψις (prolepsis) preconception, mental picture, anticipation

πάθη (pathē) that which happens to someone, one definition is also sensation, passion, emotion

From this, it appears that the pathē are not apprehended through the five (or more) senses but are experienced directly. The senses are covered under aisthēsis, so why would you need two of only three Canonic criteria that deal with the senses. I'm not sure how this would work (How else do you experience something?) But it takes me back to my earlier posts about "We experience the world in one of two ways: pleasure or pain." It's a direct hard-wired experience that we feel viscerally.

Is the order important here? This may be basic stuff, but I'm just coming to this realization as I type:

1. The senses directly receive stimuli from objective reality. (aisthēsis)

2. The stimuli are automatically processed by means of preexisting patterns in your brain from both heredity/genes and learning (prolepsis)

3. The processed stimuli then trigger either pleasure or pain and you experience one or the other "feeling" (pathē)

Finally, you assess those two "feelings" using your practical wisdom to make choices and rejections.

I think I see where Joshua is coming from with the "objective." Please correct me, Joshua , if I misinterpret!

He's not saying it's an objective abstract standard. It's a visible, objective reaction in the brain if you're looking at a fMRI scan. You can literally see the "pleasure" or "pain" centers lighting up in the brain. The pathē of pleasure or pain can be objectively observed by science now. It is the "subjective" assessment of those pathē that determine our choices and rejections.

According to that one program I listened to, animals are wired to find sweet pleasurable and bitterness painful. Scientists know the chemical and neural pathways. But some people can learn to choose bitter coffee or beer and eventually find pleasure in it.

Excellent point, Joshua ! Your beer analogy finally lit a light bulb for me.

This reminds me that my wife and I are watching the Netflix doc series Babies. I have found it fascinating and keep seeing the learning and "pre-wiring" of the babies and toddlers as echoing the idea of innate prolepses. I was also listening to apodcast with Alan Alda and Cori Bargmann that talked about the innate chemical receptors in the brain that also reminded me of prolepses.

Unfortunately, Latin is not my forte. I'll defer to others on that one.

For my contribution, in poking around on the Perseus Digital Library, it seemed like *maybe* variations on sentiō were used by Lucretius and Cicero (who are cited in the definition). However, I also seemed to be seeing Cicero would just say "pleasure and pain" (voluptas et dolores?) and it gets translated as "feelings of pleasure and pain."

Oh, the hazards of autocorrect. I know it well

I'm certainly not opposed to using the original transliterated Greek. I do seem to remember that Cassius is wary of eudaimonia. One issue is most people wouldn't know what the pathē are, so it's a level of obfuscation that works need clearing up.

Two ways of paraphrasing our issue are:

There are only two ways of experiencing the world: through pleasure or through pain.

...Or...

Epicurus taught that all experiences are either pleasurable or painful. There is no in-between state.

We need to get away from saying there are only two feelings. We know what it means, but it flies in the face of most people's "common sense."

PS: Although I do kind of like Godfrey 's "guide" and feel it would be worthwhile to integrate that. My suggestions above get at the experience part but Godfrey gets at the fact that pleasure and pain are criteria of truth, guides if you will.

Quote from Cassius

Yep that expands the problem! Quite possibly the root of the problem is that the religionists and the Platonists not only won over the ancient schools, they succeeded in removing from the language the proper alternative means of discussing the guides of life that are true, rather than their own words for the discussion of gods and virtue.

Yep. For the same reason you build churches on the sites of pagan temples: Wipe out or appropriate.

Quote from Cassius

Yes the issue is with the word "pathe" which just doesn't work in English conversation. What word does?

Good question

Consider the shades of meaning of the following:

• I feel pleasure or pain
• I experience pleasure or pain
• I sense pleasure or pain
• I perceive pleasure or pain
• I undergo pleasure or pain
• There are two feelings
• There are two sensations
• There are two emotions
• There are two passions
• There are two impressions
• There are two perceptions
• There are two subjective responses

I'm NOT saying these are equally adequate but rather trying to get at the range covered by pathē. I don't have the answer, just expanding the problem.

Quote

"Perceptions" and "sensations" are closely related terms describing different aspects of the mechanisms of experience that generate what we call "feeling." There are only two feelings, pleasure and pain, which means that everything we experience is either pleasurable or painful. All of the discussion about highest and best pleasures and their duration and evaluation revolve around the basic observation that all experience is either one or the other, which means that the presence of one means the absence of the other, and thus that the purest/most intense form of experiencing either one is when the other is totally absent. Life is all about feeling, and the state of being without feeling is nothing to us (death).

I think this is a good start at a concise summary; however, It is important to remember what words Epicurus used so we're not going in a circle. The problem is that English words don't always convey the same or full meaning of Epicurus's language.

I like your statement "everything we experience is either pleasurable or painful." Pathē πάθη was the word Epicurus used to describe pleasure and pain and this word literally at its most basic means "that which happens to a person, that which one had experienced." So, Epicurus was saying that ALL that we experience can ONLY be experienced as either pleasure or pain which goes back to his assertion that there is no neutral state between these two. So, your sentence I quoted is spot on, but I think saying there are only two feelings can confuse people because English "feelings" cover such a wide range of... Feelings: I feel happy, I feel sad, I feel sick, I feel sorry, etc.

And then I'm with you up until your last sentence: "Life is all about feeling, and the state of being without feeling is nothing to us (death)." Again, using that English word, makes it sound like it is all about "feeling" happy, sad, sick, tired, etc. But death is nothing to us because we can't experience anything any longer after we die. The word Epicurus uses in PD2 is ἀναίσθητος "lacking perception; unconscious, insensate." When we die, we lose the ability to "experience" pleasure or pain and so death is nothing to us, literally in a manner of speaking.

Godfrey : Thank you so much for posting your notes! There's a lot to dig into, and we owe you a debt of gratitude for sharing your work, insights, and questions for discussion!

Quote from Cassius

1 - My how times have changed. There was a time when I was convinced that Don would never cite anything that DeWitt said about the christian analogy approvingly!

LOL! Well, if the DeWitticism fits...

Quote from Cassius

3 - Yes I started a wiki earlier but have not had time to expand it; I use it mainly for the Lucretius texts: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wiki

Didn't realize that was out there. Have to dig around a little.

Quote from Cassius

5 - Wait - so WHAT is the root of evangelize? It is greek and not latin? And the greek does not have a religious connotation?

You bet! It's Greek: ευ- "eu-" good as in euthanasia (good death), eulogy (good words), etc. + άγγελος "angelos" messenger as in "angel" (again, co-opted by the Christians). It literally just meant the bearer of good news (like victory in a battle) or to bring good news as a verb. The ευ/eu- got the "ev" pronunciation instead of "you" pronunciation in the c. 1st-4th c. CE when the Christians would have been appropriating and coining terms.

Or we take the word back from the Christians! In looking at the Liddell & Scott at Perseus, the word evangelize and its variants was used by Lucian, Pausanias, Aristophanes, and other ancient authors before being co-opted by the Christians. Although I know exactly where Godfrey is coming from - emoji and all

It's not like Christians have cornered the market on "good news."

But I get what Mathitis Kipouros and Godfrey are saying about the goal here on the forum: opportunities for collaboration, education, etc. (for evangelizing classical Epicurean philosophy).

I know it's a loaded term with tons of baggage, but the word that maybe best describes what you're proposing is evangelism.

1. We have discovered Epicurus's philosophy.
2. We have found it to be valuable.
3. We want to spread that valuable message of "good news" to others - the original meaning of evangelize: "bring good news."

I fully realize the word has been almost trademarked by the Christians, but even DeWitt used it to describe Epicureanism.

I'm certain others will respond, too, but I'll get the ball rolling. One classification that Epicureans get put into is hedonism or hedonistic philosophies. I think I remember that Cassius is reluctant to describe Epicurus this way, but most popular and academic perspectives put the school into this category. Elsewhere on the forum, we've been comparing and contrasting the Epicureans with the Cyrenaics, another contemporary hedonistic philosophy with the ancient Epicureans. The hedonism Wikipedia article provides a solid survey with additional links. French philosopher Michel Onfray is a modern hedonistic philosopher.

Hear, hear, Cassius ! I wish there was an Epicurean "Amen!"

You're spot on about Epicurus opposing THEIR culture, too.

"Flee from all indoctrination, blessed one, and set sail in your own little boat!"

This may be off thread a little and a little later to the game, but here goes. And I after with Cassius 's last post. Academic philosophers probably need to tow the party line to an extent if they want to publish and present.

On 18.3.19, it seems off to me as well, and I mostly agree with Cassius on his thoughts on ataraxia in that section there. For me, ataraxia and aponia have been simply characteristics of the most pleasant life. The fact that they are both negative (a- "not, no" as in apolitical, atheist, etc.) has struck me as odd; but, as descriptors of pleasure, I think I can see where Epicurus is coming from. Pleasure can be euphoric, washing over you so thoroughly that you get that "wrapped in a warm blanket" feeling, not disturbed, not feeling any pain. Actually, the "-ponia" is cognate with "ponos" which is defined as:

- work, especially hard work; toil

- bodily exertion, exercise

- work, task, business

- the consequence of toil, distress, trouble, suffering

So, the connotation of "aponia" goes beyond what we think of as feeling pain in your body. The non-philosophical definition of "aponia" is actually "laziness, non-exertion."

I don't want to go down a tranquilist rabbit hole, but there's an element of tranquility in there.

I think both academic and popular writers get hung up on Ataraxia and Aponia in Fragment 2 being called katastematic pleasures, but if you look at the whole text below, why aren't euphrosunē and khara obsessed over as well. Ataraxia is used throughout Epicurus's writing simply referring to "peace of mind" but it's hidden by various translations of the Greek.

Here are some examples I found in a quick search. I think it helps to see Ataraxia used in a wider context. My notes are in brackets.

Fragment 519: The greatest fruit of justice is serenity [ataraxia]. δικαιοσύνης καρπὸς μέγιστος ἀταραξία.

[You have peace of mind if you treat people justly.]

Fragment 2: Lack of mental disturbance [ataraxia] and lack of bodily pain [aponia] are static pleasures, whereas revelry [khara] and rejoicing [euphrosunē] are active pleasures involving movement. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ <ἡ> ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί. ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται.

[It seems to me that here it's just saying that lack of pain and mental distress don't involve moving around or doing something but they're still pleasurable, revelry and rejoicing by definition seem to involve bodily movement (dancing, singing, merry-making if you will). I realize tons of academic ink have been spilled on this, so I'm sure I haven't settled anything here! Just my take. And I also think this contrasts with the Cyrenaics, to bring it back, who felt all pleasure started in the body not in the mind. Epicurus may be emphasizing both the mind (no disturbance in the mind) and the body (no disturbance in the body) since the Cyrenaics seem to have only recognized pleasure as originating in the body.]

Letter to Menoikos:

The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject [uses same Greek terms for "choice and avoidance"] in terms of the health of the body and the serenity [ataraxia] of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life.

τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος.

[Here we see "health of the body" (hygieian) and not "aponia" paired with ataraxia. So it's not like the word ataraxia is always paired with the word aponia. And these two are said here to explicitly be the goal/telos of a completely happy life, literally a blessed life using the same word (makarios) to describe the gods in PD 1. I don't think that takes anything away from pleasure. A healthy body and a peaceful mind are pleasurable. But Epicurus's explicit use of telos here is interesting. I think he's just using health (of the body) and ataraxia as synonyms for the most pleasant life, which *is* the goal/telos.]

Letter to Pythocles:

"In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind [ataraxia] and firm conviction."

Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ τῆς περὶ μετεώρων γνώσεως εἴτε κατὰ συναφὴν λεγομένων εἴτε αὐτοτελῶς νομίζειν εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν καὶ πίστιν βέβαιον, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν.

[Here Epicurus calls ataraxia the telos/goal of knowledge. The goal of this knowledge is to have peace of mind or ataraxia. And he emphasizes this in the next excerpt, too.]

Letter to Pythocles:

([96] For in all the celestial phenomena such a line of research is not to be abandoned;) for, if you fight against clear evidence, you never can enjoy genuine peace of mind [ataraxia].

ἢν γάρ τις ᾖ μαχόμενος τοῖς ἐναργήμασιν, οὐδέποτε δυνήσεται ἀταραξίας γνησίου μεταλαβεῖν.

Article of interest:

Epicureans and Cyrenaics on pleasure as a pathos

Quote from Cassius

" As far as I can see, Aristippus advocated for his followers to experience *every* pleasure"

Do you think so? I have not read the material closely enough to agree or disagree. But on its face that position would seem to be difficult to reconcile with real life, so I wonder if that allegation (that *every* pleasure should be experienced) was true or a slander.

Hmm... Maybe I was hasty. I take your point about slander, and the Nikolsky article opened my eyes to DL's potential shortcomings. I'll reassess and repost... Off to the books

[Edit 1: I found someone online who appears to have assembled a comprehensive list of Cyrenaic resources and quotations. The site could use work but the sources include citations. This could be helpful.]

[Edit 2: In rereading the Cyrenaic mentions in DL X and scrolling through that website mentioned above, it seems one of Epicurus's primary differences with the Cyrenaics was the inclusion of mental pleasures, for lack of a better term right now. From what I'm interpreting, the Cyrenaics only recognized pleasures in doing something in the here and now. Bodily pleasures -- eating, drinking, sex, etc. -- experienced in the present were all we have. It sounds like they didn't accept that recollection of past pleasures or the anticipation of future pleasures counted (again, for lack of a better word). It sounds to me that that is one area where Epicurus could have been contrasting his limits or fulfilment of pleasure (see Cassius 's leaky vessel graphic) with them. My next project (in addition to completing DeWitt - see how I got that in there ) may be going thru the texts and comparing and contrasting what we know if the Cyrenaics and Epicureans. It seems important to me know know how these schools differed and how they didn't. I did find it interesting that Aristippus's daughter is the one credited (or maybe blamed according to ancient authors) for having transmitted his teachings to her son, Aristippus the Younger.

Okay, no more edits on this one.]

In reading about the Cyrenaics, it seems to me that PD 10 (and the similar text in the Letter to Menoikos) is a direct rebuke to them.

Quote

If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears... and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.

The key word here, to me, has always been *if*. As far as I can see, Aristippus advocated for his followers to experience *every* pleasure. Epicurus agreed that every pleasure is good, but advocated for a selection - choice and avoidance - of pleasures leading to the most pleasant life.

Reading about the Cyrenaics has further convinced me that PD 10 is directly addressing people who would try and lump in the Epicureans with the Cyrenaics just because of their emphasis on pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

For anyone reading this thread, this is the heart of the Nikoslky argument, which is something he says that he researched after reading through the arguments of Gosling and Taylor. Full article is here.

Thank you for posting that link. I thought I had read it, but, if I did, I had forgotten some of his arguments. He raises some strong arguments for his case! I'm convinced, I think, but it definitely calls for a close, attentive reading.