Posts by Don

Quote

2.3.3 Cyrenaics were radical hedonists, taking the pleasure of the moment to be more important than the pleasantest life. Bodily pleasures were most important, but no pleasure was pleasanter than any other. All living things pursue pleasure and shun pain. All we have available to us is the present moment, which is why the pleasure of the moment isthe most important.

This gets at the reason I believe was at the heart of Epicurus's opposition to the Cyrenaics:

My understanding is that Epicurus advocated the most pleasant life, which is why we make our choices and rejections and don't choose every pleasure we encounter. I'll be interested to see if the later chapters address this or point out the fallacy in my understanding.

Thanks for posting this!

An enjoyable episode.

The discussion of being in the grass beside a river with a group of friends reminded me of one of my favorite discoveries when doing my recent translation of the Characteristics of the Epicurean Sage: the one-word (in the original) characteristic of φιλαγρήσειν "They will love the ἀγρός "fields, land, country as opposed to the town.""

Excellent posts! I've addressed some of your questions and statements below.

Mathitis Kipouros asked
First question: This is the 39th passage from what text? Are there any arguments related to it that could give a logical explanation of why this is the case?

This is the 39th Principle Doctrine as listed in Diogenes Laertius's 10th book of his Lives of Eminent Philosophers. That book is all about Epicurus and is one of the primary sources of Epicurus's works to survive from the ancient world. There are numerous translations online and the Principal Doctrines (Kuriai Doxai in Ancient Greek) are at the end of the book.

Perseus Digital Library

Attalus' site
Epicurus Wiki

Mathitis Kipouros said:
But I do recognize that we need to be aware of the limits. I was reading the other day that "complete" communication can only happen when two people are physically together.

This is actually a very interesting point and probably the reason there is the academic discipline of literary and textual criticism and interpretation. Without being able to see a person's body language, tone of voice, etc., there can be ambiguity even in the clearest writing even though sometimes it's all we have. Consider reading the Principle Doctrines as opposed to being in the Garden getting a lecture from Epicurus. Which would be the most "complete" way of receiving these teachings?

Mathitis Kipouros said:
So there's probably no point in starting a non profit to help the most people that you're probably never going to even meet (unless I'm going to get a lot of pleasure from the starting up of the organization, but this would be beside the point)

On the contrary, I think that's exactly the point. If you're going to be fulfilled by the starting of such an organization and will find pleasure in the work, then (I believe) Epicureanism would have no argument against your starting it up. You should still have a realistic expectation of the limits on the organization. However, also consider Epicurus' warning about the inherent pains of getting involved in politics and such if the organisation will take on a lobbying function in the political arena.

Mathitis Kipouros said:
Is there anything said within the philosophy about spreading its message? Oh my... I didn't mean to get evangelical... it just happened.

Actually, Epicureans *were* an evangelical bunch and their "good news" spread throughout the ancient world. There's a great (albeit depressing) book about the downfall of the ancient pagan world, including the burning of Epicurean texts: The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey.

This is a very thought-provoking discussion. Thank you, Mathitis Kipouros , for raising these issues! And thank you, Martin , for the replies and link to that article. (My mind started to bend part way through so I plan to go back for another read. Saved it to my Pocket app.)

One thing that came to mind when reading Mathitis Kipouros 's posts was the Epicurean concept of the limits of Nature. I may not be interpreting this correctly, so feel free to critique this. As Epicureans, we have to respect the natural limits of our abilities. We can't solve the world's problems by ourselves. We can't necessarily rescue every homeless individual we meet on the street (to use Mathitis Kipouros 's example). If we feel pain all the time in contemplating the plight of that person, it doesn't do them or us any good, leads to our living miserable lives, and wastes this precious - and only - life that we have to live. This doesn't mean we ignore the pain we feel at others' plights. It means we look soberly at what we can reasonably do, what we feel we can accomplish, what we know our personal limits of effective action can be. For some, this may very well translate into devoting one's life to living among the poor and having direct action every day of our lives. For others, it may mean supporting a charity. For others, it may mean accepting that the problem is bigger than you can personally handle at this time and revisiting your options later. Dwelling on misery and human suffering will, in the end, make you miserable and make you suffer... Unless it doesn't and spurs you to action! In which case, you will feel pleasure in the energy and excitement you feel about working for a cause you believe in. If, on the other hand, it makes you feel overwhelmed and full of pain, figure out where that pain is coming from, make a choice of what you can handle to alleviate that pain - at this moment in time - take the action, and move along. We always reserve the ability to make further choices and rejections in the future. Our future is not determined by Fate. Our future is made by the choices we make in the present.

Quote from Cassius

As another example, I regularly regret that the ancient Epicureans had to face the decline and fall of their civilization to Christianity, but I try to budget the time I spend on that to a minimum since unless I am able to build a time machine before I die, there is precious little I can do about it!

You can at least take pleasure in the thought experiment in going back and helping to save the Epicureans and bring back some original texts.

I got worried when I read Cassius 's first sentence here:

Quote

I agree with Don's post in every significant respect.

uh, oh! I was waiting for the "...but..." But it ends up, we agree. The only way "our own long-term individual interest lies in the welfare of everyone" is that we live in a society and "everyone" can potentially or tangentially have an impact on our own pursuit of happiness (eudaimonia). Primarily, we need to be concerned with those with whom we come in contact. Those with whom we interact. Those will have the most direct affect on us. I think Cassius is right in referring to Principal Doctrine 39. Here's another translation (excerpt):

Quote

Those of whom he cannot make friends, he should at least avoid rendering enemies; and if that is not in his power, he should, as much as possible, avoid all dealings with them, and keep them aloof, insofar as it is in his interest to do so.

Excellent questions and perspectives, Mathitis Kipouros ! Thank you very much for sharing and welcome to the forum. I read echoes of my own experiences in your post.

Martin and Cassius have done a good job in beginning to address some of your points. Let me add a few initial thoughts myself.

You mention:

Quote

It’s unappealing that it may be perceived as a selfish way to live life and act in the world. It worries me that the ethics won’t comprise a care for the less fortunate and the downtrodden. Or that morality would be not relevant to it because of its ultra materialistic foundation.

In thinking through this (and I've had similar thoughts), I sometimes refer to another tradition, to what I've read the current Dalai Lama calls "selfish altruism" which has also begun to be studied by academic researchers including research studies in neuroscience. The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:

Quote

Being wise selfish means taking a broader view and recognizing that our own long-term individual interest lies in the welfare of everyone. Being wise selfish means being compassionate.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to import Buddhism into Epicurean philosophy. I'm just trying to bring in a perspective on altruism or empathy that isn't recognized sometimes. As Martin said, we feel pain when we see the plight of others. However, I would say it's more fundamental and goes to how we make our choices and avoidances: if we treat others kindly and compassionately, we have a better chance of being treated kindly and compassionately in return. No guarantees, but more likely. Epicurus said that even friendship "is based on our needs... but it is maintained by a shared enjoyment of life's pleasures." Those who treat others kindly, who work for the downtrodden, do it because it brings them pleasure to help people. If people are unkind, cruel, or indifferent, they may experience momentary pleasure in feelings of superiority, etc., but, in the long run, may be hurting their own chances for future pleasures in how people will interact with them.

For anyone interested, I've put together a quick website today with all my notes and research:

https://sites.google.com/view/epicureansage/

For anyone interested, I've put together a website with all my notes and research along with the translation below. That's the page to go to for updates and additional edits on this work.

My goal in this translation was to be as literal as possible to preserve the flavor of the original lines. As Diogenes Laertius seemed to pull from disparate sources, have no real organization, and potentially had his writings rearranged by subsequent transcribers anyway, I felt at liberty to rearrange them again into thematic sections with headings. I think my favorite linguistic discovery was the single word φιλαγρήσειν which in one word connotes a love of the countryside and fields away from the cities and towns.

See notes below for additional commentary. Numbers in (x) are to sections in Diogenes Laertius, Book X. I hope at some point to be able to clean-up my approximately 20 pages of notes, background material, comparative translations, and research. Until then, I hope you take pleasure in reading this new take on this excerpt from Diogenes.

Characteristics of an Epicurean Sage: A New Translation

The Path to Wisdom
One sage is not wiser than another, (120) and a sage will be grateful to anyone who corrects them (120) since Epicureans believe that not all errors are equal. (120) The sage will not be subject to fate or necessity (120) and will be the same person whether awake or asleep.* (120) Additionally, once the sage has become wise, they will no longer fall back into ignorance but can be exceedingly affected by the emotions (and will feel grief (119)) although this will not be a hindrance in their progress toward wisdom. (117) The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing,** (120) and will declare their beliefs and not remain in doubt about them. (120) However, in the end, not every bodily constitution nor every nationality will permit someone to become a sage. (117)

Eudaimonia
The wise one will have a sense of fulfilment (eudaimonia) even on the rack, although they will moan and wail when tortured. (118) Epicureans believe there are two kinds of eudaimonia (fulfilment or happiness): the highest happiness such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be increased; and the kind that allows for the addition and subtraction of pleasures. (121)

Friendship
The Epicureans say that friendship is based on our needs. It has to be initiated, of course, just as we have to plant a seed in the earth; but it is maintained by a shared enjoyment of life's pleasures. (120) The wise one alone knows how to feel gratitude toward their friends, both those present and those at a distance. (118) In fact, the sage will never betray a friend (120) and will be willing to die on behalf of a friend. (120) However, the Epicureans also believe that courage and bravery do not come naturally but come by reasoning which course of action incurs a benefit or is most useful. (120)

Sexual Relationships (see note below)
The wise one will not establish a sexual relationship in a way that is against the law or forbidden by custom. Epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passions. According to the school, sexual passion is not sent by any supernatural force.*** They say that having sex like animals never did anyone any good, and people should be content if it does no harm. Epicurus also said that the wise one will not marry nor raise a family (and talked about the pains involved with that life); however, under certain circumstances, the wise one will forsake these rules and decide to marry. (118, 119)

Earning a Living
If in need, the wise one will earn money, but only by their wisdom, even on occasion being in the service of a king. (120) The sage will take care of their property and provide for the future. (120) The wise one will not treat their household slaves**** harshly but rather show kindness, encourage them, and reward those of good character. (118)

Living Unknown (see note below)
The wise one will not make fine speeches, (118) but will only give public readings upon request. (120) The wise one will not get caught up in political offices nor strive to be an absolute ruler, the ultimate political office. (119) Nor will they be a Cynic nor a beggar*****. (119) Nor will the wise one be anxious about their burial (118). Additionally, the wise one will set up statues but will be indifferent to ones being set up in their honor. (120) The sage will leave behind writings like prose works, treatises, and written speeches, but will not make celebratory speeches in the public assemblies. (120) The sage will be fond of the countryside, enjoying being outside the towns and cities. (120) The wise one will also pay just enough attention to their reputation as to avoid being looked down upon. (120) Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly. (119) Only the wise man will be competent to discuss music and poetry without writing poems of their own. (120) The sage will found a school, but not in a way that attracts a crowd around themselves or plays to the mob. (120)

Health
One's health in some instances is a good, at others times it doesn't matter. (120) Even if the wise one loses their sight, they will not withdraw into themselves and avoid living their life. (119)

Injuries and Justice
Epicurus said that hatred, jealousy, and contempt are the motives behind the injuries that people cause each other, and that the wise one can overcome all of these by their power of reason. (117) However, the Epicurean sage will be willing to seek justice in court when necessary. (119)

Notes
*the definition of the original Greek, to me, implies this is because the sage is "untroubled by dreams or thoughts of death or predictions of the future."

**Most translations place "enjoy themselves at public spectacles" here, but the Greek word used here, θεωρία, was used throughout the original text and other texts (including by Aristotle, Philodemus, and Epicurus himself) in the sense used here. Yonge also uses "speculations" in his translation.

***which could mean they believe people are responsible for their actions in this regard.

****"Household slaves" would, of course, have to be updated to employees or staff if this characteristic was modernized. I leave it here to not obfuscate the meaning of the Greek.

*****My theory for why these are linked in the original - and why I'm including them in this section - is that Cynics and beggars both live on the street, call attention to themselves by virtue of this, and, in the case of the former, accost people with their philosophy (e.g., Diogenes and his lantern, living in a wine jar in public, etc.). Additionally, the life of a Cynic or beggar is not safe or secure which is not a life advocated by the Epicureans.

Sexual Relationships: I have tried to use the most literal translations of the Greek words here for more impact. Some translations use "marriage" or "fall in love" for words in the original that are more raw or carnal. Eros is about sexual desire and even lust. That gets lost, in my opinion, when trying to soften the meanings.

Living Unknown: The Epicureans are said to have encouraged lathe biosas, living unknown or not calling attention to themselves. This is a controversial fragment, but Diogenes Laertius compiled several characteristics of the sage that, from my perspective, could arguably connect to this idea so that's the reason for my decision to include this as a section.

I always imagined a "welcome mat" sized dog. They're not kidding around! That's one large dog to beware of!! Thanks for posting.

I found myself smiling just reading your description of next steps! Good luck!

Thank you again so much for letting us in on the process! I find this fascinating. I took a jewelry making class (way back) in college, so this has been a pleasant trip down memory lane for me. I never did any casting, but other students did. I'm kicking myself for not trying it now. But living vicariously through your experience had been a pleasure!

Quote from Cassius

But I have never heard, found or read "Bayle's magnificent article."

We need to go looking for that and presumably it will merit its own thread or subforum.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bsuWr…picurus&f=false

I couldn't see if anyone had mentioned this before, so apologies if I'm repeating known info: I saw the Greek on several Epicurus rings and realized that was not Epicurus' name but ΝΕΑΡΚΟΥ (Nearkou, "Of Nearkos"). Who was Nearkos? Turns out he was probably the engraver:

Quote

NEARKOS (Νέαρκος). - Alleged gem engraver. The name, which appears on three gems (ΝΕΑΡΚΟΥ on a carnelian with a manly head; ΝΕΑΡΚΟΣ on an amethyst with a manly bearded head; ΝΕΑΡΚΟΥ on a carnelian, of doubtful authenticity, with a manly head) cannot, according to Brunn, be attributed to 'engraver.

Source (used Google Translate for English)

Unfortunately, it's no real surprise that someone would have this perspective on philosophy or "the Ancients." In our contemporary culture, Philosophy (capital P) is primarily thought of as a dry academic subject with nothing to offer everyday life. There are some who are attempting to change this, but the overall idea if you asked someone about "philosophy" would be like the person who replied to you online.

If more people thought like Epicurus, we'd be in a better spot: 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.

Cassius wrote:

Quote

I suspect that in this discussion so far everyone will largely agree that the answer to that question is "yes, there is no absolute justice" - but probably not without hesitation.

I'll admit I have hesitation when it comes to not having an absolute standard of justice. I consider something like equality for all genders and races to be universal. Can I justify this on Epicurean grounds? Maybe. Epicurus didn't see a problem with having women and slaves be an active part of the Epicurean community. The "standard" of neither harmed or be harmed comes into play arguably, too. But Epicurus did own slaves. Isn't slavery a universal injustice? Doesn't it do harm to those enslaved. Epicurus freed at least some of his slaves in his will, so he must have seen the value in setting them free. But are we going to argue that slavery was just when it was practiced in Ancient Greece? But not just in 19th century America? We have PD38 to refer to:

Quote

...actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just.

Is slavery "not to accord with the general concept"? Is gender equality "not to accord with the general concept"? If so, are these universals? If not, why not?

I agree that this subject is not easy. But if we are to call ourselves Epicureans, we need to wrestle with it. If we can't come to grips with what we believe Epicurus is saying, then maybe we're not Epicureans but rather humanists or atheists or agnostics or something else. If I want to call myself something, I have to understand what that means. If I can't defend or follow a path, I need to step off that path and find another. I admit I'm willing to look at what it means to call myself an Epicurean right now. If I find I can't agree or defend an Epicurean perspective, I'll find another path. BUT I think it's important to discuss and argue these fundamental points. It will either strengthen my Epicurean resolve or demonstrate to myself that I'm maybe not an Epicurean after all. This opportunity to talk through these issues is truly one of the values in finding this forum.

Quote from Cassius

In the spirit of keeping it coming, I think:

(1) The issue of being clear in our technical discussions about "ranking" and "divisions" and "types" of pleasure. Here we have a fascinating and important discussion that can be pursued with a wide variety of types of people (both inside and outside the Epicurean framework) without too much pressure from emotional issues.

But we also have :

(2) The issue of the apparent subjective/relativistic nature of pleasure, the acceptance of which is explosively rejected outside the Epicurean framework of Nature. In fact it is hard to even discuss personal attitudes toward pleasure without first coming to terms with the practical implications of concluding that people will disagree on how to pursue pleasure. That probably takes us off into the infrequently discussed issues such as the last ten PDs, and this issue (which might be the most important of which) has to be kept tightly tied to the Epicurean framework for us to make progress on dissecting it. Talking about this issue with people outside the basic Epicurean framework is hardly even possible because you run into immediate and emotional issues about what "should" be the best pleasures, and if you can't agree that that "objective" framework makes no sense then you can hardly even get off the ground.

This is good.Thanks for summarizing! Here are my thoughts.

1) I don't think we can "rank" or "divide" individual pleasures. What we can classify (for lack of a better word) are the *consequences* of pleasures. Do someone's present pleasures move them along the path to future pleasures? That's always been my argument for why we *can* censure the "pleasures of the profligate" (PD10). Their actions, while subjectively pleasurable for them in the present, do not assure them of future pleasures.

2) Again, yes, people will pursue pleasure in different ways, but: (a) are the present pleasures they experience assuring them of future pleasures? and (b) are they in keeping with natural justice: to not harm and to not be harmed? I think those are the criteria by which to "judge" pleasure (again, for lack of a better verb). There are no best pleasures, or right pleasures, or correct pleasures in and of themselves. You all here in the forum have begun to move me in that direction. I'm still wrestling with this myself because I can readily think of pleasures that people insist are pleasurable to them that I think are abhorrent. I'm also not convinced that these kinds of "pleasures" are actually pleasures and not activating some other center in the brain, but let's for arguments' sake say they are pleasurable for these people in the widest possible definition. Then we judge them by the criteria a and b above: assurance of future pleasures and accordance with natural justice. Epicurean Philosophy says that we should accept some pain for future pleasures. I'm thinking here of rehab for the profligate's drug addiction, for example.

That's my take (at least in this moment ... I could change my mind)

It seems to me we're all on the right track moving in the same direction, maybe just in different lanes.

I agree with Cassius that there is no objective standard to judge one pleasure more pleasurable than another. Pleasure by its very nature is subjective.

Both Godfrey and I have mentioned the "pursuit." According to Attalus's website, Fragment 68 is from the following:

Quote

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 4, p. 1089D: It is this, I believe, that has driven them, seeing for themselves the absurdities to which they were reduced, to take refuge in the "painlessness" and the "stable condition of the flesh," supposing that the pleasurable life is found in thinking of this state as about to occur in people or as being achieved; for the "stable and settled condition of the flesh," and the "trustworthy expectation" of this condition contain, they say, the highest and the most assured delight for men who are able to reflect. Now to begin with, observe their conduct here, how they keep decanting this "pleasure" or "painlessness" or "stable condition" of theirs back and forth, from body to mind and then once more from mind to body.

Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, IX.5.2: Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good but defines it as sarkos eustathes katastema, or "a well-balanced condition of the body."

So, Plutarch says Epicureans say that the "pleasurable life is found in thinking of this state as about to occur in people or as being achieved." This again emphasizes the process. It also echoes what Epicurus said about how important it is to remember past pleasures and look forward to future pleasures. We cannot have guarantees or assurances of stable health, but we can make choices that moved us in that direction. We can look forward to those future pleasures of stable health. We can be assured that we ourselves will make choices to move ourselves forward toward stable health (aponia) and peace of mind (ataraxia). I'm not advocating a "tranquilist" perspective but just talking about a process and attributes growing out of that process when we're making choices about what gives us pleasure in the future and the present.

Take Plutarch again:

Quote

the good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil and from your memory and reflection and gratitude that this has happened to you.

From my perspective, one key word is "arises." This again implies a process.

I think there's a difference between talking about maximizing pleasure in our lives over time in the present and the future and talking about maximum pleasure of any one pleasurable event. The latter can't be measured by definition because we're talking about subjective phenomena.

This conversation is both very pleasurable for me as well as enlightening. Keep it coming!

I think you may be on to something here, Godfrey . If I hear you right, the pursuit of pleasure (Jefferson's pursuit of happiness) is the important part. As long as we are making choices that point us in the direction of our (subjective) pleasure, we're doing it right in the moment even if we're experiencing pain in that moment.

I found Fragment 68 to be applicable:

Quote

68. To those who are able to reason it out, the highest and surest joy is found in the stable health of the body and a firm confidence in keeping it.

According to this then, from my interpretation, the "highest... joy (pleasure)" is defined as stable health and the confidence in maintaining it. We make choices to achieve this.

This is a fascinating thread and full of new information. Thanks for posting, Cassius !

I realize everyone here is already aware of all this, but I have to state that I find Lucretius's exposition of Epicurus's thinking on evolution (since I've read that Lucretius was arguably using Epicurus's multi-volume masterwork On Nature as his guide) amazingly -- shockingly -- prescient. I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that Epicurus was formulating his ideas almost two-thousand years before Darwin: Evolution isn't aiming that's any goal. Tongues and arms evolve and, if they're useful for something, they continue to evolve.

Quote

...nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

I find that someone so long before Darwin was writing like this absolutely awe-inspiring in the best sense.

I found a great illustration of the gradual, incremental, almost-imperceptible pace of evolution in a video of the evolution of the face. Paleoartist John Gurche charts his "direct ancestors" through human evolution ending with the artist's own face.