Posts by Don

  • Welcome Max Duboff

    (Sorry for the length of this. It grew in the telling, so to speak :))

    Again, welcome aboard our little boat here (in keeping with U163).

    Quote from Max DuBoff

    I might recommend Tim O'Keefe's Epicureanism book over DeWitt.

    DeWitt can also sometimes be a slog in his writing styel and I've stated elsewhere that I don't like his fondness for reading too much into scanty evidence. I use him sparingly myself, and I like his academic papers much more than Epicurus and His Philosophy. Throwing no shade on DeWitt's fans here, but I've always found him difficult to embrace. I give him 10/10 on his passion for Epicurus though!

    My go-to recommendation for anyone looking to delve into Epicureanism today as a lived philosophy is Dr. Emil Austin's Living for Pleasure. Hands down. That's my current top of the list for anyone curious about "What's this whole Epicurean thing about?" It was a pleasure getting to talk with her on the podcast.

    Thanks for the links to your papers. I found them interesting. I certainly agree that the ancient Epicureans had sex, and I liked your mentions of Epicureans' marriage and long-term relationships.

    One related thing that hit me very recently is that, upon reading Gedney's recent Substack post, he pointed out that Epicurus in his Will makes arrangements for the son and daughter of Metrodorus which means/implies that Epicurus was the one who had responsibility for the children so to be the one able to make this request. (The question remains: What happened to their mother? But a woman wouldn't have had "custody" in ancient Greece anyway) I don't mean to imply (necessarily) that Epicurus was playing tag with the kids when they were younger, but he seems to have had a custodial/in loco parentis relationship to these children. If he was helping to raise the children, it doesn't seem he'd disapprove of a relationship by which children come into the world.

    Quote from Max DuBoff

    Tranquility is a pleasure but not the only pleasure. At the same time (and here I'm wading into a perhaps controversial interpretation), tranquility is the only pleasure upon which blessedness, i.e., a perfect or complete life, is based.* (*I tend to refer to blessedness rather than happiness because "happiness" is quite nebulous. "Blessedness" is a bit nebulous too but at least connotes the life of the gods.)

    LOL I like your "perhaps" there...bring on the controversy as far as I'm concerned. Discussion engenders understanding.

    Quote from Max DuBoff

    if there were another pleasure that could improve tranquility, a human life could never be perfect/complete (PD 20), and it couldn't be the limit of the magnitude of pleasure (PD 3).

    To make sure I'm following your train and we're talking about the same things:

    • tranquility = ataraxia?
    • blessedness = makarios?
    • happiness = eudaimonia? (I personally like "well-being" rather than happiness)

    Would you say those line up generally (FULLY realizing there's never a one-to-one)?

    Let's see how far apart we actually are. I would agree that "tranquility" (to stick to English for a moment) is the foundation upon which a life of blessedness or happiness is built. I understand that ataraxia refers specifically (for Epicurus) to the absence (a-) of "disturbance" (tarakhe) in the mind caused by fear of the gods, anxiety about death, worry about having "enough" and what other people think, etc. To try to get a handle on this, I tried to go through and find all the occurrences of the word and variants in the ancient texts a while ago. I was surprised at how many times it comes up in the Letter to Herodotus, like " mental tranquillity means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths." (10.82) So, if we free ourselves from those sources of pain, our minds/souls/heart/psykhe become a solid foundation upon which to build our well-being/blessedness. The seas calm, and we can sail our boat with confidence that we can weather any storm because we KNOW gut-level what really matters, how much we really need if worse comes to worst, and can effortlessly enjoy pleasures without frantically grasping for them, fighting for prestige, glamor, riches, fame, constant luxuries.

    It's not that other pleasures "improve" tranquility (ataraxia), it's that tranquility is the foundation by which other pleasures can be experienced as good unadulterated by fear, anxiety, disturbance.

    Letter to Menoeceus 128 is very important. Completely agree. Here's my translation so readers know to what we're referring:

    Quote from Letter to Menoikeus, Don (trans.)

    The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, (that is for our physical and our mental existence), since this is the goal of a blessed life. For the sake of this (i..e.,the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind), we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind, seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking for the good of our mental and physical existence. For it is then that we need pleasure, if we were to be in pain from the pleasure not being present; but if we were to not be in pain, we no longer desire or beg for pleasure. And this is why we say pleasure is the foundation (arkhe) and fulfillment (telos) of the blessed life.

    So, I read the "goal (telos) of a blessed life" is BOTH the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind (ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν <τῆς ψυχῆς> ἀταραξίαν). Plus pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment again because there are only two feelings, and we eliminate those sources of pain that we are able to. We seek for pleasure as the foundation (the cradle analogy) and, when we eliminate pains, pleasure fills our blessed life to the brim.

    I will add that Diogenes Laertius says that the Epicureans believed there were "Two sorts of happiness (eudaimonia) can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." To me, this implies that the "highest well-being/happiness" is only enjoyed by the gods. We mortals, while being able to approximate the blessed life of the gods will always have a well-being that can be augmented by addition and subtraction of pleasures.

    Quote from Max DuBoff

    it couldn't be the limit of the magnitude of pleasure (PD 3).

    PD3 doesn't say The limit of "tranquility" is the removal of all pains. It says the limit of pleasure is the removal all pain. I won't belabor this, but if there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain - if all of one is removed, you're left with the other.

    I don't believe you can read the PDs in isolation. The original text didn't have versification, so I encourage people to read "units" so to speak. I believe PD20 needs to be read in the context of PD19, 20, 21, and 22. "Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of pleasure (τὴν ἡδονὴν)... The flesh assumes that the limits of pleasure (ἡδονῆς) are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time...You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion." To me, this again is hammering home the two feelings - pleasure and pain. Pleasure is not infinite because its limit is the removal of all pain. Again, one is banished, the other one fills that void. There's no vacuum in the feelings. We can feel pleasure (positive affect) or pain (negative affect) when we're alive. There is no neutral state per Epicurus and it seems modern neuropsychology.

    Okay, I've rambled on long enough for now. Look forward to discussion from all.

  • Rebuttal to a Stoic who stated that "flourishing" would be a "better" goal of life than Pleasure

    Quote from Cassius

    One last comment for now - as to "flourishing" -- what does that word even mean?

    You took the words out of my mouth. I was going to post this exact same question. I *really* dislike it when "flourishing" is used as a translation of eudaimonia. That translation does nothing to explain the original Greek. Sure, in a circuitous way if we contort certain meanings, ... maybe?? "Flourishing" is worse than "happiness" as a translation. Does "flourishing" just mean "livin' your best life"? But what does "your best life" mean? Is that subjective? Objective? GAAAHH! It's a never-ending circle. My preferred translation for eudaimonia is still well-being or more fancy: subjective well-being. To expand that "a subjective feeling of wellness, wholeness, contentment, security, and confidence in one's ability to weather the storms with a mental foundation free from fears and anxiety." But that isn't as catchy as "flourishing" (insert eye roll here)

  • Welcome Noah Calderon

    Don't hesitate to ask questions. Even if they've been answered before, it is always instructive and helpful to revisit topics some may take for granted. In having new conversations, new insights can occur.

    Glad to have you aboard.

  • There is One Reality but it is "Perspective Dependent"

    Perception Box on Instagram
    82K views, 10K likes: "What you see, feel, and believe isn’t just �...
    www.instagram.com

    It's been a while since I posted anything from Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett. This short video reinforces that "there is one really" but she provides an interesting perspective on whether we really experience it "objectively." It's a "perspective dependent" experience of one reality.

    To me, this gets at "all sensations are true" in that they have there source in a physical reality but our minds are the filter through which we experience and make sense of that reality. Her "for dogs, red isn't real" is a new perspective. The one comment from a father of a daughter who is "color blind" but only in one eye also sheds new light on how we experience reality.

  • What Would Epicurus Say To Someone Who Said To Him That The Value of Being Dead and Being Alive Are Equal?

    FYI

  • Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence (Eternal Return) In Relation To Lucretius

    Okay, this is good. I am genuinely curious to follow up on a couple points you made:

    Quote from Cassius

    normalizing a fixation on suffering as an acceptable attitude for most people in most normal situations.

    Quote from Cassius

    I find find the attitude i quoted offensive, and I feel offended on behalf of the ancient Epicureans that the modern "authorities" would take their philosophy of pleasure and embrace of life and turn it into into an excuse for seeing death as the ultimate reward of life rather than pleasure.

    Are there instances of people "seeing death as the ultimate reward of life rather than pleasure"?

    Quote from Cassius

    those who say it would be better to never have been born, or once born hasten to death.

    I need to go back and read deeper maybe, but is someone like O'Keefe for example actually saying Epicurus wrote that it would have been better to never have been born? I agree that Epicurus ridicules that position but I'm not sure those who write seriously about Epicurus are taking that position when they talk about Epicurus' philosophy "being about" reduction of pain in one's life. I do think some make the philosophy a little milquetoast and overemphasize the pleasure of tranquility, but that tranquility is at least a part of the philosophy. As is the reduction of pain in our lives. Shouting pleasure to all Greeks and non-Greeks also had to include how to get there, by eliminating the pain, fear, and anxiety we are living needlessly under.

  • Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence (Eternal Return) In Relation To Lucretius

    Quote from Cassius

    indicative of people who want to place "relief from pain" as the center of Epicurean philosophy rather than pleasure. Because of course if relief from pain is your main concern, you wouldn't want to live forever (because you'd just keep encountering more pain and suffering.

    Quote from Cassius

    conclude that the most important thing for any Epicurean is to avoid even a moment of pain. Truly a death-wish and death-worship

    I'll concede that some people do want to smuggle in Buddhist or Stoic ideas into Epicurus' philosophy, and this is not the right way to go. However, I have come to see that not all whose concern or focus is "relief from pain" are doing this. To paint everyone one who says something like "Epicurus calls us to relieve ourselves of pain" with the same brush as those who say something like "Ataraxia is like Buddhist satori (or other concept)" isn't warranted.

    To pursue pleasure one must alleviate pain. Pain is banished, and pleasure takes its place. Epicurus does write quite a bit on the need to rid ourselves of the pain caused by wrong beliefs in Gods and death and by empty desires and by imprudent choices. Not everyone whose focus is "relief" or "avoidance" of pain means "avoid even a moment of pain" because they acknowledge some pain is necessary for greater pleasure.

    Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe I've not spent enough time on Reddit or Facebook. In fact, to be specific, I'm talking especially about Gedney's Untroubled Substack. His work is one place, having taken time to engage more with his articles, that is more balanced than I initially gave him credit for.

    I would offer that some of these "people who want to place 'relief from pain' as the center of Epicurean philosophy" (yes, Gedney included) are potentially powerful allies in the pursuit of spreading the good news of the pleasure offered by Epicurus' philosophy.

  • Relationship between AI/LLMs and prolepsis

    LLMs are nothing like the way the brain works. Since I don't think prolepsis isn't necessarily how the brain actually functions, I'm sharing a couple videos explaining the brain as prediction machine. The mind doesn't break reality into tokens and assign values to then assign probabilities. The brain works with past experience and sensory input.

    For y'all's consideration...

    That said, I don't even think LLMs are analogous to ancient Epicurean prolepseis. As I understand, the prolepseis engrave channels in our psykhē to make it easier for similar eidola to find their channel, making our psykhē recognize the pattern and assign meaning.

    The LLM video (Thanks. Kalosyni!) did a good job of breaking down the process. I don't see ancient Epicurean prolepseis nor modern brain as prediction machine working like that at all.

  • Prolepsis and the Epicurean Gods (discussion split from earlier thread started by Titus)

    Quote from Bryan

    Let me throw in some quotes as a jumping-off point, I may be misunderstanding.

    Thank you!! No, you are not misunderstanding... I just need to "get back to the books" to paraphrase Philodemus. I am woefully out of practice!

    What I was saying is that we don't have any extant texts from Epicurus himself placing the gods in the intermundia. You've demonstrated we have several secondary sources, including of course Cicero (he was the only one I remembered in my late night missive). However, allow me to be a litte cantankerous this morning ...

    Quote from Bryan

    "...that Cosmoi such as this are also infinite in number is able to be thoroughly comprehended, and that such a Cosmos also has the force to be produced both in a cosmos and in the intermundia [μετακοσμίῳ] – which we say is the separation intervening between cosmoi"
    [Epicurus to Pythocles, Lives 10.89a]

    I read this as still consistent with my point about there being no cosmoi within the intermundia by definition. There are innumerable "bubbles" of order - cosmoi - in the universe. We live in one of those areas of order. The space between them is the intermundia. In Epicurean cosmology, there are cosmoi and there is an intervening space between the cosmoi. A cosmos can be produced in the intermundia BUT that simply means there's a new cosmos that came together - setting itself off from the intermundia, a new ordered space that came together from the flow of the atoms through the intermundia which is now separated from other cosmoi. There's now separation - intermundia - between that new cosmos and the other cosmoi around it. It seems to me that the cosmos is to the intermundia as atoms are to the void.

    Quote from Bryan

    Saint Hippolytus of Rome (fl.c. 210 CE), "Philosophical Questions" (Refutation of all Heresies) 22.3

    I was ignorant of - or had forgotten - Hippolytus. Thanks for the reminder! If Hippolytus is right (writing about 400 years after Epicurus lived), then yes, Epicurus was positing the gods lived in the intermundia... but I still don't see how that works.

    Quote from Hippolytus

    the divine surrenders himself to pleasure, and takes his ease in the midst of supreme happiness) – and that neither has he any concerns of business, nor does he devote his attention to them."

    I will admit this description to me smacks of what I was taught as a child in church with dead people sitting in heaven playing harps in some ethereal cloud-city. And, yes, I'm being provocative a little. I can't even sincerely comprehend what that would be like, taking my ease in the midst of supreme happiness with no concerns at all. Even imagining a happiness that can neither be diminished or increased boggles my mortal mind. When I think I can grasp it, it wafts away like fog.

    Quote from Bryan

    Philodemus' On Piety makes a clear case for this -- the idea is that a process can be eternal -- just as if a waterfall was always fed it would never stop existing, and all waterfalls are impervious to bullets, swords, and other direct damage.

    Oh, that's a good explanation. So, it seems Philodemus (and Epicurus) then are emphasizing the existence of their gods as existing as an ever-lasting process of losing and replacing atoms. The waterfall is a good analogy and I had forgotten where that came from. Thanks!

    Quote from Bryan

    Worlds are closed systems, so the waterfalls in a world will eventually stop -- but between worlds there is no closed system and the flow of matter is infinite.

    (Smacks head with palm) Okay, NOW I think I get it. The gods HAVE to exist in the intermundia to have access to the infinite flow of atoms coursing through the universe. This makes sense then as to how ancient Epicureans could rationalize the physical existence of "gods." Unfortunately, this makes me even less likely to think there are beings like this. This is all wrapped up in ancient cosmology, and I do not see the universe actually working this way. This is beginning to make perfect sense given the cosmology and physics of the ancient Epicureans, but modern science is doing a better (not perfect, not complete) job of explaining natural processes which I believe a modern Epicurean would be a fan of - to understand the natural world as accurately as possible without getting bogged down in details. Epicurus' fundamental pivotal importance to me is, at its heart, the firm knowledge that the universe is material, governed by natural laws, not created by supernatural beings, and gods (which are NOT supernatural to him) have no interest in us. I don't need to believe in intermundia, cosmoi, gods, etc. to be an Epicurean living in the 21st century of the common era. It's good to understand what the ancients believed, but I think the foundations - the kernel - of what they taught are why a 2,500 year old philosophy can still be relevant.

    Quote from Bryan

    I am being cheeky at this point -- you know the term better than most! The “religious-based” affirmative of choice was:

    "νὴ Δία"

    ^^ (slaps forehead again) Not cheeky at all! I appreciate the reminder, by Zeus!!

    I'm running up against the clock to get ready for work, and I'll have other thoughts but I greatly appreciate the reply Bryan . Your grasp of the materials and deep knowledge of the subject are an inspiration. Thank you!!

  • Prolepsis and the Epicurean Gods (discussion split from earlier thread started by Titus)

    Quote from Cassius

    To supplement my brilliant humor, I am hoping that some of our "idealists" like Don will weigh in on the objection Tau Phi is raising to what Titus has suggested.

    This may not turn out exactly as you thought it might...

    I have the utmost respect for @TauPhi 's perspective and insightful comments in this thread and through the forum. Some of my responses below may be a little provocative, but they're not meant to be combative... and I sincerely hope they don't come across like that. My thinking on this topic of the gods has evolved a little over time, but we've been over this innumerable times on the forum, for example, here and here and here and here and here...to name a few.

    Quote from TauPhi

    , Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried.

    I certainly agree with that. Even Diogenes Laertius says "Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." As mortal beings, we will never ever - can never - achieve the happiness of the gods precisely because our existences are so different. So, what use do they serve for Epicurus? They didn't create the universe, they don't bestow blessings, they don't rain down curses, they don't respond to prayer or worship. Why does Epicurus consistently site a proper understanding of the gods as paramount to his philosophy AND vehemently deny that his philosophy is an atheistic philosophy? I wrestle with this idea and do NOT have a completely satisfactory response.

    Quote from TauPhi

    Ultimate excellence does not exist. It's nothing more but a turn into idealism. Epicurean philosophy is a turn away from idealism so the claim that this imagined ideal can be a guide towards happy life is a contradiction to the goal of the philosophy.

    Ultimate excellence does not exist for humans in the universe. Plus I fully agree that Epicurus rejected Platonic idealism, some Ideal Realm removed from our plane of existence from which emanates the essences of material things. Horse-ness resides in that Realm, we see only pale reflections of that Horse-ness in the animals we see.

    But I don't think that necessarily negates the possibility of imagining what it might be like to have a happiness that was complete, unceasing, and could neither diminish nor increased. No human is ever going to achieve that, but humans can extrapolate and image what this state of being permanently blissfully incorruptible might be like. So, I think there are Ideals (upper case) and ideals (lower case).

    The bigger issue for me is talking about "gods" "living" in the "intermundia". The intermundia is a utopia in its literal sense: it is No-Place. There would be by definition no worlds in the intermundia upon which a "god" could plant their anthropomorphic feet. BY DEFINITION, the intermundia or metakosmos is between world-systems/kosmoi. I don't remember Epicurus talking about the intermundia. I find it hard to believe Epicurus would advocate for giant humans with quasi-blood floating in a no-place without a world to inhabit. That almost sounds like the Ideal Realm of Plato and I would think he would reject that entirely.

    Quote from TauPhi

    Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. ... You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.

    That brings up an interesting take for me. Epicurus didn't posit the "gods" as being imaginary friends. We can NEVER be friends with the gods. We can never ask the gods for help. We must never expect them to be mad at us. They don't know or care about us. That to me is one of the stickiest of wickets with Epicurean theology. If the gods don't care, don't have power over the universe or us, why bother with them at all?? Why does Epicurus place SO much importance on "getting it right"?

    To me, ultimately, Epicurus primary concern is getting us to have a visceral gut-level unshakeable knowledge that (1) The universe was not constructed by the gods, (2) The gods have NO hand in governing the universe, (3) We have NOTHING to fear from the gods... in fact, less than nothing because "they" are not even aware of us.

    So why attend the festivals, make sacrifices, and be concerned about piety toward the gods? Because it seems Epicurus did all these things. To me, one possible answer is that it gave him pleasure. He enjoyed the music, the dances, and taking part in the communal life of the city. He felt pleasure taking part in the Panathenaic procession to the Acropolis and gazing on the statue of Athena in the dimly lit Parthenon and feeling awe wash over him. I've felt this in religious settings (setting foot inside Saint-Chappelle in Paris was awe-inspiring, and I'm no longer Christian... although I also felt this even stronger when viewing Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View) If doing this somehow made it easier to think about the idea (not ideal) of being able to somehow experience total happiness that couldn't be augmented or diminished, of "bringing before his eyes" the idea of a completely blessed and incorruptible state of being, maybe that was enough. I've heard (Sedley I think) that maybe each of us constructs our own idea of "god." I'm basically thinking out loud here, so take it with a grain of salt.

    Quote from TauPhi

    I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives

    THAT is a valuable contribution!

    Quote from TauPhi

    I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

    Amen (to use the religious term... still looking for a good Epicurean alternative).

    I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic nowadays. Epicurus tenets that gods don't bother with us makes me feel atheism is at least compatible with Epicurean philosophy even though Epicurus may differ. Epicurus isn't here to speak for himself, and we don't have enough texts to really understand his position. I can enjoy some hymns (I like Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing) and Christmas. But I see no need for the gods other than as historical curiosities... and some great stories!

    The unifying factor with the ancients as to why I can still consider myself Epicurean is the first line of the Tetrapharmakos: Nothing to fear from the divine.

    I have some thoughts on the initial topic of this thread. :) More on that later.... but it's late and I'm tired.

  • Ologies episode on Eudemonology

    Alie Ward released an episode of Ologies this month that complements this Eudemonology episode nicely:

    Awe Psychology (WONDER) with Dr. Dacher Keltner

    I've casually followed Dr. Keltner for a while and his book on Awe has been on my "to be read" list for since its release a couple years ago.

    One part I liked about this podcast episode was Keltner's point about taking time for remembering past experiences of awe. That sounded very Epicurean to me.

    Enjoy.

  • Epicurean Isonomy In The Context Of Statements By Balbus As To Gradations In Life In Book 2 of "On the Nature of the Gods"

    It appears 251 at the end of his entry refers to the page number in Book Three:

    https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-MONTAIGNE-00001-00004-00004/279

    So it appears to be referring to around DRN 3.860:

    For shouldst thou gaze

    Backwards across all yesterdays of time

    The immeasurable, thinking how manifold

    The motions of matter are, then couldst thou well

    Credit this too: often these very seeds

    (From which we are to-day) of old were set

    In the same order as they are to-day-

    Yet this we can't to consciousness recall

    Through the remembering mind. For there hath been

    An interposed pause of life, and wide

    Have all the motions wandered everywhere

    From these our senses.

  • Sadler Recommended Epicurean Reading List

    Reading Recommendations for Epicurean Philosophy
    which books and authors are key for studying this classical philosophical school?
    open.substack.com

    Dr. Gregory Sadler has posted a recommended reading list of Ancient Epicurean Texts. Some I had forgotten about, so it's handy to have in one place (although I realize all these are likely posted somewhere around here)

    I also posted a comment about the new MFS Oenoanda inscription text.

  • To Whom Was Epicurus' Last Letter Addressed?

    Quote from Bryan

    Here are both versions for ease of direct comparison. My guess is that either Cicero alone is correct, or Diogenes is also correct and multiple letters were sent out.

    Gedney noted (as you did) that the letter is addressed to υμιν "you all" (plural 2nd person), so the letter could have been addressed to the members of the school or the "governing board" if you will, which could have included both Hermarchus and Idomeneus. Cicero is closer in time to Epicurus than Diogenes Laertius, so maybe giving him the upper hand in authenticity is warranted??