Posts by Don

Thanks, Eikadistes !

It makes sense that there was a demarcation point in ancient Greece and Rome when someone declared themselves a member of the Garden and declared themselves an Epicurean and follower of Epicurus's philosophical School. There are numerous examples in the texts - Cicero and elsewhere - of people deciding to join or leave the Epicurean School. So, there had to be something "official" to mark the point in time when one joined the school, "forsaking all others" as the traditional marriage vows say.

It also strikes me that, since the Garden was open to all to attend lecturs, there could have been any number of casual Epicurean-adjacent folks.

The schools did function as membership organizations and schools vied against each other for "converts" so to speak.

That said, we don't have any authorities or hierarchies or apostolic succession now. It seems to me that one could make a personal commitment to "obey Epicurus, according to whom we/I have chosen to live..." And the Philodemus does use πειθαρχέω "obey one in authority." This doesn't mean "blind faith" to me. It seems to me that that gets at the ideas that "I believe Epicurus knew what he was talking about." As modern Epicureans would not accept without testing against reality, the best findings of science, but to also withhold judgement if multiple explanations were available... Like how the universe came into existence or if it's eternal or eternally cyclical or... And so on.

I realize I've strayed is far from the main topic! Feel free to branch this discussion off to another thread. But I find this thread very interesting.

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus.

The more I think about this, I think it could be possible to be an "accidental Epicurean." There are so many "common sense" beliefs today with science and all that one could maybe carry on a substantially Epicurean lifestyle and outlook without thinking of oneself as "being Epicurean."

That said, I think it highly unlikely that one could be an accidental Christian or accidental Jew or accidental Muslim. Maybe an accidental Buddhist - at least secular Buddhist maybe?

Or not? Thoughts?

This conversation between Dawkins and Dennett hits, probably inadvertently, a number of Epicurean themes. This seems to dovetail with the thread on what Epicurean philosophy offers in April 2024. We live in a time when Epicurus is present more often than not, often unacknowledged.

There have been some great responses to your original list of questions, Cassius . Here's my take fwiw:

Don't you have to be rich to be an Epicurean?
No, but... It seems to me you have to have your basic needs met. You don't need to be "rich" (however one defines that), but you can't be starving, homeless, in fear for your life or for when your next meal might be to be living with eudaimonia. If we look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or the revision of Maslow by Diener and Tay, we find there are some basic needs that need to be met, but (as Diener and Tay show in their research) you can also be working on fulfilling different needs at the same time and still experience well-being (or subjective well-being - SWB - as they term it).

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"? There are several people on this forum who have expressed that they were living an "Epicurean" life before they knew about Epicurus. Epicurus posited that an "Epicurean" life was a natural life, informed by one's natural state of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. There are details and more, of course and no doubt, that constitute an Epicurean life (e.g., material universe, indifferent gods (if one wants to say they exist physically), no afterlife, etc.) but you can be living "like an Epicurean" without maybe even realizing it.

Epicureanism doesn't offer anything "positive" like Stoicism or Buddhism offers. What do you offer to compete with those?
I think Eikadistes said it well: "Epicurean Philosophy offers freedom. It champions choice and rejects fate. It liberates us from turmoil by rejecting superstition. It offers a worldview that recognizes friendship as the greatest pleasure in life, and also, our surest source of security." That all sounds pretty positive to me!

What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?
Again, I would stress that Epicurus calls one to a "natural life." You don't need to immerse yourself in the philosophy to understand the basics and to reap benefits. It is natural to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It is natural to want an untroubled mind in a healthy body. Question your choices: Will what I'm doing lead to more pain or more pleasure? Realize that you have control over your life, you are responsible for your life. You are the captain of your own little boat... and seek out friends who can help, assist, support, and guide you.

That said, if you're life isn't "together" to the extent that you need professional counseling or medical assistance, seek out the counseling or medical attention!

Epicurus's advice to Menoikeus says it well: One is never too young or too old to love and practice wisdom. It is never out of season or untimely to seek well-being. The time for you to seek happiness is now, here.

Why don't you ever discuss "meaningfulness" because I've been convinced that's what I should want out of life?
What convinced you of that, and what do you mean by "meaningfulness" or "purpose". There is no meaning to life other than to pursue pleasure in all its multiplicity. Monty Python said the "meaning of life" was "try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." Not bad, as far as it goes for a comedic film. The Universe does NOT provide a "meaning" for each individual life or for itself. There is no Great Meaning behind it all. To me, that is freeing! We make our own "meaning" when we decide what impact we will have, what we will focus on, how we treat others and in turn how we want others to treat us, and so on. Pursuing well-being by pursuing pleasure and avoiding unnecessary pain is a purpose.

How do you expect me to understand Epicurus when he approaches so many things so differently than what I am familiar with at church or in the workplaces?

Maybe a fresh perspective is necessary. What do you believe you get of value from the approaches at church or the workplace? It sounds like you may be finding those things unsatisfactory if you're still seeking answers. The Christian church is built on a foundation of Greek philosophy anyway - mostly Stoic and Platonic principles. It pays lip service to Jesus's apocalyptic message, but the ancient Greek influence is strong. So, you're already following a philosophy if you're taking your cues from church.

I would again point to Eikadistes 's list of things you already understand from an Epicurean perspective. By and large, we live in an Epicurean world now. Epicurus was a prelude and precursor to science, an acceptance of a material world, a curiosity about extraterrestrial life, and more.

Epicurus also taught the importance - the vital importance - of friendship. Friendship is like dancing in a chorus, clasped hands, twirling round and round. Each dancer supports the other. Epicureanism is a philosophy of friendship linked with personal responsibility for one's life, a life lived in a material world free from the fear of gods and free from anxiety about death. That sounds life a pretty good alternative to the "common knowledge" found in church and in the workplace.

Here's the beginning of the text from Xenophon:

Xenophon, Memorabilia, Book 2, chapter 1, section 21

Quote from Cassius

I can't help thinking that this is the reason why Lucretius seems to me to be saying the same thing over and over in various passages, just using different words, as if that's not just poetry but the way to triangulate on precise meanings:

Do I remember correctly that Lucretius specifically writes about having difficulty translating Greek words/ideas into Latin... Or am I thinking of Cicero?

Quote from Cassius

I would be "confident that I had made the best choice among the agreeable (or less disagreeable) available alternatives." I can make peace with using "content" in that context as part of the overall picture ("I am content that I did the best I could to choose among the available alternatives"), but I think in the current intellectual environment it probably makes sense to be clear about the full meaning of "content."

Well put. I can go with that, and that is the idea that I was getting at. I purposefully did not want to use "happy" because I don't want to use "happy" for eudaimonia. But your explanation shows how thorny of a problem it is trying to translate ideas across languages using a single word.

I would agree that a term like "psychological hedonism" is only helpful up to a point. The "truth" - if we want to call it that - to me remains that...

All living beings move toward those stimuli that produce positive/pleasurable/growth-enhancing effects move away from stimuli that produce negative/painful effects.

• "Pain is different from pure nociception, the process of being able to detect and move away from a toxic stimulus. But pain doesn’t simply register in our awareness as a marker or sign of things we should avoid out in the world. It is an experience in itself, something that we subjectively feel." (Source)

Which leads me to ponder: Epicurus used the term pathe to refer to pain and pleasure (per Diogenes Laertius) - Πάθη δὲ λέγουσιν εἶναι δύο, ἡδονὴν καὶ ἀλγηδόνα. They say the feelings (pathe) are two: pleasure (hedonen) and pain (algedona).

Pathe, at its most basic, is simply "what is done or what happens to a person." There is no evaluative feature, at its most basic, involved in pathe. It is literally "what is done or what happens to a person."

Which leads me to ask: Is Epicurus talking about basic nociception when he refers to pain? "Nociception provides a means of neural feedback that allows the central nervous system (CNS) to detect and avoid noxious and potentially damaging stimuli in both active and passive settings. The sensation of pain divides into four large types: acute pain, nociceptive pain, chronic pain, and neuropathic pain." (Source)

I don't think so, at least not quite. We've talked before on this forum about pre-cognitive/pre-rational/pre-evaluative nature of the Canon, including pathe/feelings. I get the idea from reading the Epicurean texts that pleasure and pain come unbidden. We "experience" these feelings. They happen to us without our volition. We "experience" pleasure whether we want to or not. We "experience" pain whether we want to or not. That is the "truth" that Epicurus and the Epicureans are working with. The natural well-functioning of a living being is to feel positively/pleasure when something pleasant happens to us and to feel negatively/pain when something "noxious or potentially damaging" is happening to us.

Now, that doesn't mean we don't suffer from pain, but suffering is separate from the experience of pain. Experiments have been done where subjects can endure the "pain" of their hand in an ice bath longer if they're allowed to swear, curse, yell, howl, etc. If they're silent, they can't endure the pain as long. They "suffer" less if they're allowed to have agency in their behavior.

Furthermore (agreeing with Cassius above), humans have the unique ability to obfuscate and obstruct and corrupt the normal, well-functioning of the body and mind with rationalizations, dogmatic assertions, twisted ideals, empty unlimited desires, etc. It seems to me that Epicurus calls humans to get rid of all those obfuscations, obstructions, and corruptions and return to a normal, natural, healthy, well-functioning state.

That's where I come down on seeing pleasure as the telos/summum bonum/highest good. Everything a natural, well-functioning being does moves it away from "pain" and toward "pleasure." The motion is always - ultimately - toward positive stimuli, positive effects, and positive outcomes and away from "noxious or potentially damaging" stimuli, effects, and outcomes. Humans (and some animals) can "choose" to undergo hardship or pain in order to move - ultimately - to pleasure. Even a parent "choosing" to undergo pain or even death to protect their children is choosing pleasure in that they may find - even in their imagination - the prospect of not doing everything to protect their child unbearable. In fact, running into a burning building to certain death to try to save your child may very well be an application of "even on the rack, the wise one is content."

Quote from Kalosyni

Is psychological hedonism the same as saying "motivated by your own self-interest"?

I don't necessarily think working for one's self-interest is bad; however, I also don't see "psychological hedonism" as being defined that way. At least in my mind.

I would see it as closer to the Britannica definition: "the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain." That's what makes pleasure the summum bonum and the telos. It's at the end of every series of questions asking "Why did you do that?" To make up a contrived example:

• A: Why do you get up in the morning to go to work but still complain about your job (from time to time)?
• B: If I don't get up and go, I'll be fired.
• A: Why do you care if you get fired?
• B: If I get fired, I won't have a job and no money.
• A: Why do you want money?
• B: To buy what I need, like even the basics, food, shelter, and all that.
• A: Why do you need all that?
• B: Well, I'll be out on the street and hungry.
• ....and so on... Until B admits that it feels good to be without the pain of hunger and to have the pleasure of security.

We may not be conscious of every action's motivation ultimately lying in pleasure (positive affect to use the psychological emotional circumplex: Pleasant affect = what Epicurus calls pleasure Unpleasant= what Epicurus calls pain), but the human urge to seek out pleasure/positive affect and avoid pain/negative affect/ is present in ALL life forms, even plants move toward sunlight and food sources and amoebas seek out food and avoid dangers to their existence. Humans have just done a better job of hiding that most basic drive away and covering it over with justifications, rationalizations, etc.

Someone who says they do something because it's virtuous ultimately has to admit ... LOL, well they don't have to admit it... that it makes them feel good... it's pleasurable to them... to act virtuously. And so on.

The "self-interest" part can be selfish altruism. If I treat others well, I hope in turn that they will treat me well. And treating people well and kindly gives me pleasure; results in positive affect. If I treat others poorly, I will experience negative affect... I may be paranoid or anxious that someone will "get even" and so on.

See also:

The Selfishness of Altruism

Embracing the essence of helping.

www.psychologytoday.com

"there really is no such thing as a completely “selfless” act."

The Selfishness of Altruism

Here's why you try to "help" whether or not it helps.

www.psychologytoday.com

Frontiers | Healthy Selfishness and Pathological Altruism: Measuring Two Paradoxical Forms of Selfishness

Selfishness is often regarded as an undesirable or even immoral characteristic, whereas altruism is typically considered universally desirable and virtuous. ...

www.frontiersin.org

Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The whole article (which it appears was written by Guido Santini) might be interesting in translation or anyone who can read Italian:

Studi storici v.8 (1899).

For those looking for the original Latin text of Raimondi 's letter:

Studi storici v.8 (1899).

The Biblical Definitions Of The Pursuit Of Happiness

How should we construe the right to pursue happiness? The problem is that the words "happy" and "happiness" are used today in variety of interrelated but…

www.huffpost.com

Not exactly scholarly but...

Quote

In the modern period, "happiness" is the customary translation for eudaimonia in classical Greek ethics (beatitudo in Latin): the perfection or realization of a person's function as a human being, which is presumed to be the ultimate human good, the goal of goals.

...

Boethius uses two terms usually translated today as "happiness": beatitudo and felicitas. When Geoffrey Chaucer translated this work into English in the 14th century, he did not translate either term as "happiness." I doubt whether the idea would have crossed his mind. Instead, he rendered felicitas as "felicitee" (which was already available), and he coined a felicitous new word for beatitudo: "wellfulness."

Beatus

Perfect passive participle of beō (“make happy”).

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, bĕo

Felicitas

"From fēlīx (“happy; blessed, fortunate, lucky; fertile, fruitful; prosperous; auspicious, favourable”) +‎ -tās (ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *dʰeh₁(y)- (“to nurse, suckle”))." - Wiktionary

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, fēlīcĭtas

Beatus , if I remember, is the word most often used by Cicero that gets translated "happy."

To my understanding, beatus is best understood as the Latin for μακάριος (makarios) "blessed"... Although, I suppose, a case can be made that it translates ευδαιμονία (eudaimonia). I suppose the same case can be made for felicitas.

It would be helpful if we could find a direct ancient Latin translation of a Greek text.

The last few interviews I've seen with him, I thought he was looking rough. That is sad news. I found his ideas thought-provoking and continue to wrestle with his views on free will. I found him compelling, common sensical, approachable, and down to earth. His voice will be missed, but his writings and videos will remain.

Well lived, Dr. Dennett.

τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου the whole/entirety of life

μακαριότητα makariotēta "most, highest blessedness" - the superlative of the same word used in PD1 to describe the gods

See also

DCLP/Trismegistos 63149 = LDAB 4353