Posts by Don

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

I would emphasize that ataraxia is not dependent on external circumstances.

I would venture to say that ataraxia depends upon safety and security. Resilience is something different which would be the ability to cope during high stress.

I agree that resilience and ataraxia are different things, but I don't see ataraxia being dependent on external circumstances. Ataraxia is the stable pleasure achieved when the fears and anxieties have been rooted out. For example:

In the Letter to Herodotus (10.82):

mental tranquillity (ataraxia) means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

In the Letter to Menoikeus (10.128):

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 (ataraxia) 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, 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...

In the Letter to Pythocles:

[85] 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 (confidence, assurance, guarantee, trust < πίστις).

[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).

The characteristic of the sage that "Additionally, once the sage has become wise, they will no longer fall back into ignorance." (Hicks: Moreover, he who has once become wise never more assumes the opposite habit, not even in semblance, if he can help it.)

From my reading, all of these point to ataraxia being the result of rooting out incorrect beliefs and the fears and anxieties that arise from them. Once those are abandoned, they don't grow back, regardless of external circumstances. I believe Epicurus could still experience ataraxia even in his last days precisely because it doesn't rely on external circumstances.

I agree that resilience - what I would interpret as self-reliance - is a part of Epicurean philosophy, but I think it's different than ataraxia. Ataraxia is the stable state of the mind once the anxiety, fears, and disturbances have been eradicated, rooted out, and abandoned. That is precisely what gives it its stability.

I agree with Kalosyni 's post.

I would emphasize that ataraxia is not dependent on external circumstances. It is a stable state of mind that arises from getting rid of false anxiety-producing ideas about death, divine retribution, fate, and so on. The stable peace of mind that results will then be the default position from which one experiences the world.

Quote from waterholic

Someone as pompous and unappealing as Cicero going to such lengths to criticise seamingly sensible ideas? It was worth a read.

Quote from Pacatus

Not because Epicurus said so, but because the arguments he presented conform to the most reasonable (to me) assessment of the evidence from nature and science

Well put!!

Fully agree, Pacatus!

I go back to the characteristic of the sage usually translated as "Hicks: He will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic." People take that "dogmatist" in the modern sense of the word and see it as a fault in the Epicureans. But juxtaposed against the "sceptic," it means something more nuanced.

Here's my page on my site that talks about that from my perspective:

I really like your pie chart... but that's a looooot of text to have on the screen. That said, I realize you want the textual citations to back you up, but putting the ideas there "in everyday language" might be better for a general audience?

GREAT first draft!!

Philodemus and Epicurean Philosophy: Changing Perceptions

This paper focuses on the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (c. 110 BCE to c. 40 or 35 BCE), who lived and worked in Italy during the late Roman…

www.academia.edu

A paper looking at Epicurus's philosophy in general and Philodemus's contribution in particular.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Journey to read the Herculaneum Scrolls

The Herculaneum scrolls are among the most iconic and inaccessible of the world’s vast collection of damaged manuscripts. Burned and buried in the eruption o...

www.youtube.com

This *may* be a repeat of a previous post, but never hurts to check it out again. Still very exciting stuff!

Quote from Cassius

If I recall correctly Thomas Jefferson picked up that line and put it in his outline:

That was an incredible display of recall, Cassius . Well done!!

I was curious to check out the Oxford English Dictionary to see what definition Jefferson would have been working with (as well as maybe those translators):

From 1603-1723: † Insensibility or indifference to pain; want of feeling. Obsolete.

From 1656-1751: Freedom from pain; a state of rest or ease, in which neither pain nor pleasure is felt. Obsolete.

Quotations (This definition actually uses quotes about Epicurus):

1656

Indolence, which Epicure held, they esteem not pleasure, nor want of pleasure,..for Indolence is like the state of a sleeping man. (T. Stanley, History of Philosophy vol. II. iv. facing p. 5)

1702

D'you know, said I, what Hieronymus Rhodius has allotted for the Summum Bonum? I know, said Torquatus, he resolves it into Nihil dolere, Mere Indolence. (S. Parker, translation of Cicero, Five Books De Finibus ii. 56)

1713

I cou'd rather call it an Indolence. It seems to be nothing more than a Privation of both Pain and Pleasure. (G. Berkeley, Three Dialogues Hylas & Philonous i. 14)

1751

That tranquility of mind, and indolence of body which he made his chief ends. (Earl of Orrery, Remarks Swift (1752) 113)

From the Historical Thesaurus entries for this definition:

non-feelingness 1650 Absence of sensation.

indolence 1656–1751 Freedom from pain; a state of rest or ease, in which neither pain nor pleasure is felt. Obsolete.

dispassion 1690– Freedom from passion; dispassionateness; †apathy.

dryness 1748 figurative. Absence of emotion, feeling, or fervour; lack of cordiality; coldness of feeling; distance of manner.

dispassionateness 1842– A dispassionate condition or quality.

passionlessness 1867– The state or condition of being or appearing passionless.

emotionlessness 1873– The quality, state, or condition of being emotionless.

(My Note: Those all sound more Stoic than Epicurean!)

Finally, definition from 1710-

The disposition to avoid trouble; love of ease; laziness, slothfulness, sluggishness.

Quote from Cassius

We are doing what we can to maximize pleasures of all kinds, and we are doing what we can to minimized pleasures of all kinds,

...minimize pains of all kinds...right?

I agree with everything you wrote in post no. 20, Cassius . Well put.

Quote from Cassius

The issue is more that the Doctrines are presuming an Epicurean understanding of so many key terms and concepts, and without that background understanding the simple words are generally taken to mean something much different than intended. It's not "simplification" of wording that is needed, it's more "additional" wording that explains the use of the terms.

Agreed. On that note, it's important to emphasize that all the epitomes, letters, Principle Doctrines, even The Sayings of Epicurus contained in the Vatican manuscript are summaries of voluminous teachings of the Epicurean school. They were literally - even explicitly, in the case of the letters - designed to remind the student of the larger body of teachings. They weren't an end in and of themselves. They were a useful means to an end. Even the Tetrapharmakos itself *needs* the full context of *all* the teachings and is meant as a memory aid not as an evangelism tool. So, "simplifying" them further is pointless if the wider doctrines and teachings aren't being pointed back to. If you try to use a summary to remind you of the content of just a larger summary, you're missing the reason for the initial summary in the first place.

As for evangelism and "spreading the word," we have Cicero complaining that the common people understood Epicurus's philosophy enough to be considered (by him, at least) members of the school. At it's most basic, Epicurean philosophy IS easy to understand. Let me take a stab:

1. Pleasure feels good. Pain feels bad.
2. Some pleasurable activities lead to pain.
3. Use your judgement to do more activities that bring long-term pleasure and avoid pain.
4. Take a second when you're just feeling good to notice that it feels good. You're not worried (at the moment). Your body feels good, too. That's what we mean by pleasure, too!
5. Make some friends to help you make better choices.
6. Don't worry about life after death, because you're not going to be aware that you don't exist!
7. Don't worry about being "in the hands of an angry god," because there's no reason any gods should concern themselves with you.
   1. Stick around to learn more about those last two if you want. For now, trust that we have good reasons to say them!

You can spend a lifetime (however long that is) studying, learning, discussing, internalizing the finer points; but those seven basics might be why Cicero was so angry about the hoi polloi being Epicureans. It's not that hard to "get started." And, no, I didn't mention physics, nor the details of how to choice and reject, nor a myriad of other things. But agreeing with those seven things doesn't seem a bad place to start for someone, in my opinion.

It could be instructive to see how modern neuroscience explains the pleasure/displeasure aspect of affect. Because it seems to me that's what we're trying to communicate here.

Quote from Cassius

In English "pleasure" can go up and down in intensity, duration, location (at least).

To say that "absence of pain" is "the same as" pleasure" would imply that it too can go up and down.

Agreed. And that's implied in the Epicurean texts since:

PD3: The limit of pleasure (hedone) is the removal of all pains (algos). Wherever and for however long pleasure (hedone) is present, there is neither "algos" nor "lupe."

I'm purposefully leaving those Greek words to express the all-encompassing nature:

algos: "pain (of either mind or body), sorrow, trouble, grief, distress, woe."

lupe: "grief, sadness; pain (of mind or body), suffering, affliction, distress"

But PD3 implies that both pleasure and pain "go up and down," to the limit where all distress, trouble, grief, sadness, suffering has been eliminated in both body and mind. And it is the "limit" of pleasure! Which, again, implies there's pleasure all along the spectrum, from being completely overcome by suffering and pain to being completely filled with nothing but pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

But to then state that "absence of pain" is "the highest" or "most intense" pleasure indicates that it is at a fixed position (at least to my way of reading).

The total absence of pain *is* the "highest" limit of pleasure. That's by definition. No pain = maximum pleasure. Yonge has "Torquatus" say "painlessness is the greatest of pleasures which no other can possibly exceed." Which is Cicero's clever wordplay as far as I'm concerned using his new word. But "absence of all pain" is the "greatest" of pleasure simply because there is no more room for pain to exist, pleasure has completely filled the cup to the brim. That's why pleasure, when pain in gone, can only be varied.

That "highest notch" you refer to is just "the limit of pleasure" = "total absence of pain." It's not a special state, just the brim of the cup.

In reading (and re-reading and re-reading and..) that quote from Epicurus's On Choice, I don't necessarily think ataraxia and aponia are being given special status. The only "special" status given to the stable pleasures of "peace of mind" and "freedom from exertion" are that we just experience them. We don't have to "do" anything to experience the pleasure of them. We just have to notice that they're there. There a state of being, not a thing you do.

Quote from Cassius

It's that issue -- that you want the highest but will take what you can get - that I sense needs to be made more clear in order for the terminology and the system to be made as clear as possible.

Fair enough. Maybe that's why the "gods" are held up as an archetype or paragon of what that limit of pleasure, that total absence of pain, suffering, and exertion could look like. We mortals can never attain that. Epicurus certainly didn't experience that! He suffered physical pain and suffered, but he knew how to "play the game" (for lack of a better way of putting it) to fill his cup with the most amount of pleasure, both in his stable anxiety-free mind and in his choice of what active pleasures to pursue and which to reject.

As a curiosity, I wanted to see how Yonge translated that section of On Ends:

Quote from Cicero, On Ends: 2.3.9 & 2.4.11

but unless you are very obstinate, you must admit that pleasure is a perfectly distinct thing from mere freedom from pain. You will, however, said [Torquatus], find that I am obstinate in this; for nothing can be more real than the identity between the two. ...

IV. Is it possible, said [Torquatus], for anything to be more delightful than freedom from pain? Well, said [Cicero], but grant that nothing is preferable to that, (for that is not the point which I am inquiring about at present,) does it follow on that account, that pleasure is identical with what I may call painlessness? Undoubtedly it is identical with it, said [Torquatus]; and that painlessness is the greatest of pleasures which no other can possibly exceed.

For the heck of it and easy reference, here's the Latin:

Quote

[3.9] Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.

Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere.

Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; nam, ut paulo ante1 docui, augendae voluptatis finis est doloris omnis amotio.

Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; aliam vero vim voluptatis esse, aliam nihil dolendi, nisi valde pertinax fueris, concedas necesse est.

Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; dici enim nihil potest verius.

Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas?

Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?

Eademne, quae restincta siti?

Immo alio genere; restincta enim sitis3 stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit,4 illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est.

Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas?

Quid paulo ante, inquit, dixerim nonne meministi, cum omnis dolor detractus esset, variari, non augeri voluptatem? ...

[4.11] Immo sit sane nihil melius, inquam—nondum enim id quaero—, num propterea idem voluptas est, quod, ut ita dicam, indolentia?

Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest.

Quid dubitas igitur, inquam, summo bono a te ita constituto, ut id totum in non dolendo sit, id tenere unum, id tueri, id defendere?

Display More

So, Cicero asks "num propterea idem voluptas est ut ita indolentia?" "Is pleasure (voluptas) the same as "freedom from pain" (indolentia)?" Interestingly enough, indolentia, according to Lewis & Short (*the* Latin dictionary) is a word coined by Cicero! So, Cicero is literally putting words in Torquatus's mouth. And "Torquatus" then agrees that they are the same: Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. "Plainly the same, says he, and indeed the greatest, than which no greater can be done."

Again, I have to stress that Cicero is making Torquatus say what Cicero wants him to say. Cicero may be a d*ck, but he's a very intelligent, crafty, talented d*ck.

I *think* freedom from pain is usually aponia (απονια) or some form of that or algos (αλγος).

απονια is a "not/un-" + ponos

Ponos has a wider meaning that just "pain": stress, trouble, distress, suffering; hard work, toil; pain, esp. physical.

So, to me "aponia" goes beyond a surface reading of "freedom from pain" as I mentioned previously. It's freedom from exertion, toil, suffering, in body and maybe even in mind. That suffering part is important to me. We can experience pain without necessarily layering on suffering.

Algos encompasses "pain (of either mind or body), sorrow, trouble, grief, distress, woe."
So, when we see "freedom from pain" translated from Greek texts, it is an all emcompassing idea of freedom from exertion, sorrow, trouble, suffering, distress.

Cicero creates a new word "indolentia" and make it mean "freedom from pain, insensibility" from which we get "indolence" which used to mean "A state in which one feels no pain or is indifferent to it; a lack of any feeling." Then he has his Torquatus agree that pleasure is equated with painless indifference or lack of feeling. By definition, that's NOT an Epicurean equivalence... By definition "freedom of pain" is the feeling of pleasure.

This post has gotten a little long... let me stop here, regroup, read the rest of Cassius's post and Nate's and then ...I'll probably have more to say!

Quote from Cassius

"highest good"

The "highest good" is JUST pleasure. There's nothing mystical or woo-woo about the term "highest good." It's just "that to which everything else points" and "why we do what we do." "Attaining the highest good" makes it sound like some unattainable, woo-woo goal. Which is what some people want to make it mean. But that's not what it means.

Joshua 's "why" questions on the Hume posts over on the other thread seem applicable here. If you keep asking "Why do you do that?" the answer is going to be "because it's pleasurable." That's why it's the "highest" or last good standing.

Quote from Cassius

If the foreign word has a clear equivalent that might or might not resolve all the questions.

Ah! There's the rub. There can be more or less precise "equivalents" from one language to the other. Yes, a rose is a ῥόδον is a rosa... but even there, A ῥόδον usually referred to a Rosa gallica whereas when I think of a "rose" (in English) I'm most likely thinking a red hybrid tea rose. Same with imagining "a cat in a hat." I'm going to imagine a much different image than if I read "a cattus in a pīleus." So, of course, translation is possible. One just has to be wary.

But I digress, as I *think* I see more clearly where you're going now. That last post of yours helps a lot! Thanks!

Quote from Cassius

"Are there degrees of ataraxia and aponia?"

I would have to say, "Yes." If we look at Epicurus's definition of stable and active pleasures, he sort of implies that, from my perspective:

Epicurus in his work On Choice : "Ataraxia (Peace of mind) and aponia (freedom from effort or struggle in the our physical body) are pleasures are stable pleasures; khara (joy) and euphrosyne (delight) are seen to consist in motion by means of activity."

ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἱρέσεων: "ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."

We are not constantly in a state of joy and delight. Those come and go through means of our own activities.

Ataraxia and aponia are more "stable" by definition (per Epicurus and the Epicureans) but they can obviously ebb and flow. Epicurus could in no way be described as being in a state of aponia during his final illness. He could barely move from the pain. Maybe when he was younger, he felt that state of aponia where his body worked effortlessly. He was "in the zone." Our bodies can be more or less prone to effortless movement and struggle. When we're not thinking about our bodies' and their pains and aches, then, I think, we can be said to be in a state described as aponia. That's going to come and go.

With ataraxia, I'm more inclined to say that that state of "peace of mind" is more long-lasting, maybe throughout one's life, once the anxiety and fears of gods, death, etc. are eradicated through reasoning through the physics and understanding the "way things are". I do think Epicurus can be said to have had a state of ataraxia, "peace of mind," during his final illness... and, in fact, this is exactly allowed what him to concentrate on his "active" pleasures of recalling pleasurable memories of time spent with his friends.

This may not be the mainstream academic opinion, but that's where I'm coming down... as of 3:03 pm on a Tuesday afternoon.

Quote from Cassius

Is ataraxia and aponia and "highest good" something that is attainable in reality for any length of time?

Yes, to answer your question. For the reasons I shared above.

Cassius : I may be misinterpreting where you're going, and I think I agree with the direction I think you're headed. So, with those caveats, I'll add the following:

I agree it does no one any good to use jargon and technical terms (in this case, Ancient Greek words) in a context meant to be understandable by "the average person" who speaks/reads English in an attempt to explain ideas to them. Likewise, someone who wants to explain philosophical or scientific ideas should be able to do so at a number of levels, jargon-free and aimed at a particular audience. I'm thinking specifically of videos I've seen online like The Flame Challenge (explaining complex science to children, judged by children: 2014 Winner "What is Color?") or WIRED Magazine's "Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty." It's an application of the Feynman Technique. Or as Kurt Vonnegut writes in Cat's Cradle: Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.

So, using words like katastematic, ataraxia, prolepsis, etc. can be a helpful shield in protecting someone who really doesn't understand - or *thinks* they understand - what those terms mean but knows how to bandy them around to sound erudite or at least make it sound like they know what they're talking about. Full disclosure: I **firmly** include myself in this camp from time to time. I *think* I know what they mean. BUT, if so, I should be able to explain them in "plain English."

One issue is that these terms are convenient shortcuts, both for good and for less good purposes. If I have to say every time "a mind free from anxiety and fear of the gods and death" versus "ataraxia," that eats up a lot more words. And is "a mind free from anxiety and fear of the gods and death" really enough? Maybe I need to include "fear from anxiety about what happens after you die as well as fear of the gods retribution after you die as well as anxiety about fate and destiny and predestination and..." Or just say "ataraxia." It's a powerful pull toward just *using* the word... but then we're back to square one. Same for katastematic. Same for prolepsis. Same for (fill in the blank).

That said, by only using regular English words, one obscures what the ancient writers are talking about. As an example, where translators may use happiness, well-being, joy, pleasure... you look at the ancient texts and lo and behold, it's the SAME word in all those places. Using regular English words can be as objuscating to the meaning of the subject as using the Ancient Greek words.

Have I resolved anything? Of course not! But I think a case can be made for explaining topics jargon-free but also at some point, the actual Ancient Greek words have to be understood. They are a very convenient short-hand AFTER the topics are explained.

Quote from Cassius

Can't Catholics (to take one example) not find joy in memories of past times and friends?

If a Christian of any stripe is **convinced** in their bones that they'll be livin' with Jesus after they die (albeit erroneously, may I add), maybe we could describe them as being free from the anxiety of death.

Maybe I should extend my remarks and say that freedom from fear and anxiety and pleasurable memories of friends (to use two specific examples) are complementary and reinforcing but can also occur independently of each other.

Katastematic and "kinetic" pleasures are complementary. From my perspective, Epicurus was able to "offset" his physical pain with the "kinetic" pleasure of memories precisely because he had cultivated his katastematic pleasure of a mind free from anxiety and trouble. If he had been worried about what happens after he dies, would the gods punish him for some transgression, would be become a shade in the underworld... He wouldn't have been able to find joy in memories of past times with friends. Likewise, he didn't - by definition almost - have aponia in his last days. His body was not free from pain or working effortlessly and without struggle or suffering (which I think is a better way to think of aponia rather than just "freedom from pain"), but he could still have ataraxia. Ataraxia and aponia do not arise together. You can have one without the other.

Another interesting online resource is Textkit:

Textkit Greek and Latin Forums - Index page

It's both a forum and a resource for learning Ancient/Koine Greek and Latin. There are some valuable discussions about books and other things but also in-depth grammar discussions. I haven't spent much time there myself (maybe I should?), but I think it's a good resource to be aware of.

All this online discussion is not to say your shouldn't look at good old books. I think Textkit uses some old books on Internet Archive to learn Greek and Latin like http://www.cloviscorp.com/collegium/gram…se/grammar.html

but there's also

Athenaze

The JACT Reading Greek series (see my bookshelf image above)

Teach Yourself Ancient Greek

Etc...

However, some of those stick to the grammar-translation method which isn't necessarily the best way to go about it. Comprehensible Input (CI) seems to be more in favor now, but it seems to me both have their place. Both Luke Ranieri and Carla Hunt are big proponents of the CI approach and have GREAT content to back it up.

Here's more Latin CI content:

Latin - Bryce Hedstrom - Comprehensible Input Materials & Training

Here are the best links to comprehensible input-based language instruction.

www.brycehedstrom.com

Launching a new Ancient Greek YouTube channel

As I’ve been making more Ancient Greek language videos on my Latin channel, it has become increasingly clear that it is best if these Greek videos have their…

foundinantiquity.com

That's enough for now!

I encourage others to share their experiences and favorite (or least favorite!) learning resources.

I am not a fan of AI generated artwork for various reasons. Using "tools" is one thing. Plugging in text and getting AI to spit out an "original" artwork is something else.