Posts by Don

Quote from Kalosyni

"What is my goal in life?" -- I would add more such as well-being, satisfaction, peace of mind, and pleasant abiding...in addition to pleasure (enjoyment) and happiness.

I would tend to concur with you, Kalosyni . My only tangent or adjacent thought on that is that all those (well-being, satisfaction, peace of mind (ataraxia?), and pleasant abiding) are, in fact, ALL pleasure per "absence of pain = pleasure" and "the feelings are two." So, the "goal of life" is pleasure, writ large.

The problem that enters in is that there are so many ways to define pleasure above the "pleasure/pain" dichotomy. I think that's why Epicurus can write (paraphrased) "the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind is the goal (telos) of a blessed life" and "pleasure is the goal (telos)" and "if indeed eudaimonia is present, we have everything; if eudaimonia is not present, we do anything to have eudaimonia."

Quote from Cassius

One thing I will say about it is that it strikes me that there is a connection between thinking it is a good idea to (1) categorize all feelings into two categories and (2) categorize all desires into four categories.

Another insightful idea! You are on a roll, my friend! I like that direction.

Quote from Cassius

The only way it would make sense to conclude that you would never pursue anything other than natural and necessary desires would be to believe that as a matter of natural law or some other necessity or flat guarantee, that pursuing anything other than natural and necessary desires is guaranteed to lead to more pain than pleasure

That is very insightful and something I've certainly never thought of! Well done.

Quote from Cassius

Don .... and anyone else fluent in Greek

I appreciate the vote of confidence!!

Quote

Could better evidence be cited to prove that Epicureans were pamphleteers?

Uh, yeah. That's the "evidence" for Epicureans being "pamphleteers"?

Here's the context of the Horace quote:

Quote

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE EPISTLES OF HORACE.
EPISTLE I.

TO MAECENAS.

The poet renounces all verses of a ludicrous turn, and resolves to apply himself wholly to the study of philosophy, which teaches to bridle the desires, and to postpone every thing to virtue.

Maecenas, the subject of my earliest song, justly entitled to my latest, dost thou seek to engage me again in the old lists, having been tried sufficiently, and now presented with the foils? My age is not the same, nor is my genius. Veianius, his arms consecrated on a pillar of Hercules' temple, lives snugly retired in the country, that he may not from the extremity of the sandy amphitheater so often supplicate the people's favor. Some one seems frequently to ring in my purified ear: "Wisely in time dismiss the aged courser, lest, an object of derision, he miscarry at last, and break his wind." Now therefore I lay aside both verses, and all other sportive matters; my study and inquiry is after what is true and fitting, and I am wholly engaged in this: I lay up, and collect rules which I may be able hereafter to bring into use. And lest you should perchance ask under what leader, in what house [of philosophy], I enter myself a pupil: addicted to swear implicitly to the ipse-dixits of no particular master, wherever the weather drives me, I am carried a guest. One while I become active, and am plunged in the waves of state affairs, a maintainer and a rigid partisan of strict virtue; then again I relapse insensibly into Aristippus' maxims, and endeavor to adapt circumstances to myself, not myself to circumstances. As the night seems long to those with whom a mistress has broken her appointment, and the day slow to those who owe their labor; as the year moves lazy with minors, whom the harsh guardianship of their mothers confines; so all that time to me flows tedious and distasteful, which delays my hope and design of strenuously executing that which is of equal benefit to the poor and to the rich, which neglected will be of equal detriment to young and to old. It remains, that I conduct and comfort myself by these principles; your sight is not so piercing as that of Lynceus; you will not however therefore despise being anointed, if you are sore-eyed: nor because you despair of the muscles of the invincible Glycon, will you be careless of preserving your body from the knotty gout. There is some point to which we may reach, if we can go no further. Does your heart burn with avarice, and a wretched desire of more? Spells there are, and incantations, with which you may mitigate this pain, and rid yourself of a great part of the distemper. Do you swell with the love of praise? There are certain purgations which can restore you, a certain treatise, being perused thrice with purity of mind. The envious, the choleric, the indolent, the slave to wine, to women—none is so savage that he can not be tamed, if he will only lend a patient ear to discipline.

It is virtue, to fly vice; and the highest wisdom, to have lived free from folly. You see with what toil of mind and body you avoid those things which you believe to be the greatest evils, a small fortune and a shameful repulse. An active merchant, you run to the remotest Indies, fleeing poverty through sea, through rocks, through flames. And will you not learn, and hear, and be advised by one who is wiser, that you may no longer regard those things which you foolishly admire and wish for? What little champion of the villages and of the streets would scorn being crowned at the great Olympic games, who had the hopes and happy opportunity of victory without toil? Silver is less valuable than gold, gold than virtue. "O citizens, citizens, money is to be sought first; virtue after riches:" this the highest Janus from the lowest inculcates; young men and old repeat these maxims, having their bags and account-books hung on the left arm. You have soul, have breeding, have eloquence and honor: yet if six or seven thousand sesterces be wanting to complete your four hundred thousand, you shall be a plebeian. But boys at play cry, "You shall be king, if you will do right." Let this be a [man's] thus his forms? What does the poor man? Laugh [at him too]: is he not forever changing his garrets, beds, baths, barbers? He is as much surfeited in a hired boat, as the rich man is, whom his own galley conveys.

If I meet you with my hair cut by an uneven barber, you laugh [at me]: if I chance to have a ragged shirt under a handsome coat, or if my disproportioned gown fits me ill, you laugh. What [do you do], when my judgment contradicts itself? it despises what it before desired; seeks for that which lately it neglected; is all in a ferment, and is inconsistent in the whole tenor of life; pulls down, builds up, changes square to round. In this case, you think I am mad in the common way, and you do not laugh, nor believe that I stand in need of a physician, or of a guardian assigned by the praetor; though you are the patron of my affairs, and are disgusted at the ill-pared nail of a friend that depends upon you, that reveres you.

In a word, the wise man is inferior to Jupiter alone, is rich, free, honorable, handsome, lastly, king of kings; above all, he is sound, unless when phlegm is troublesome.

Display More

I didn't see any indication here of the "certain treatise" being an Epicurean one.

As for Cicero:

Cicero: In Pisonem (2)

[25.] L [59] But, since we cannot alter the past, why does not this mannikin, this Epicurus of mud and clay, hasten to instil these sublime and philosophical doctrines into that great and illustrious commander his son-in-law **? Believe me, it is fame that bids that great man soar; he burns, he is ablaze with desire for a splendid and a well-earned triumph. He has not learnt the lessons that you have learnt. Send him a tract ; nay, if at this stage you can contrive to meet him in person, meditate what phrases you can use to quench and stifle the flames of his desire....

"Send him a tract (libellum)"? That's it? That could easily refer to Principal Doctrines or a section of On Nature.

lĭbellus., a little book, pamphlet, esp. a book written in pages, and not in long rolls

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

It is of paramount importance to remember that the ancient world didn't have printing presses and didn't distribute broadsheets like in Colonial America. All texts were manuscripts. Copying existed, of course, often copied by skilled enslaved people. But they weren't using bulk mail to blanket a community with flyers or pamphlets.

Quote from Cassius

I wonder what the pamphlets that Cicero referred to in his day said at the end to address "Do You Want To Know More?"

I can never remember where that comes up in Cicero. Where is that?

As Eikadistes has shown, there were Epicurean communities throughout the ancient world. And those are just the attested ones in the surviving texts and archeological record. Chances are, from my understanding, if you were reading an Epicurean "pamphlet," you had known Epicureans in your city or town.

I just noticed that Pacatus was the one who asked me "How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?" Mea culpa. I thought that was Cassius. Let me address those questions first.

Quote from Pacatus

How do you think this might relate to past discussions on here about the “practical Epicurean” and the “philosophical Epicurean”?

I wouldn't use the modifiers "practical" and "philosophical," but I don't want to disparage one group over another. That said, I'd characterize these two groups as "browsers" and "researchers." Or maybe "surface" vs "deep." Or maybe Cliffs Notes vs encyclopedic Epicureans. Or maybe horizontal Epicureans vs vertical Epicureans, those who only need/want a surface understanding as opposed to those who want to delve deeply into one philosophy. Both are (hopefully) looking for practical applications - for a way to more fully live their life; however, the horizontal ones are skimming along the surface. The others not only want the "how" but the "why." Both groups undoubtedly come to Epicurean philosophy with preconceived notions (How can they not?), but the reason the skimmers tend to leave this particular forum is that those expectations and preconceived notions aren't borne out by deeper study. Those who think "I like Epicureanism because it validates my minimalism" or "Epicureanism sounds like Buddhism because he wants me to limit my desires to the bare minimum" don't get reinforced by further study. They retreat to a "surface" understanding of the philosophy because it's a safe place for them and satisfies their desire and basic curiosity. If someone is incurious for deeper understanding and wants a superficial understanding of the philosophy, we can't make them curious or make them study. We are working against a strong cultural headwind. They may just be looking for something to add to their eclectic cafeteria style of personal philosophy and may incorporate some personal understanding of Epicurus and move along to their next interesting philosophical topic.

Quote from Pacatus

how to offer a helpful (“therapeutic”) Epicurean practice toward daily life to the former group without undue simplification (my emphasis)? Or is that not possible? (If not, then Epicureanism seems destined to remain an option only for a fairly narrow segment of the general populace.)

Ah! So, the "former group" (what you called the "practical" Epicureans) has likely gotten what they want and moved on. It seems to me you're asking a bigger question: "What's in it (Epicureanism) for the person 'on the street'?" How can we make Epicureanism attractive to those not necessarily interested in "Philosophy"? Who could benefit from living for pleasure? Epicureanism will never appeal to everyone or maybe not even to a plurality of people. Even in the religion surveys, many people aren't "religious" but they still believe in an afterlife, a "higher power," and other supernatural ideas. They don't want to not believe in them, and Epicureanism is adamant that you can't be a supernatural Epicurean, either horizontal or vertical. So, our potential pool is limited. Now, If someone is genuinely curious and asked us "Why are you an Epicurean?" we should have a readily understood answer, succinct, clear, easy to understand.

Quote from Pacatus

What can we offer to the factory worker who labors overtime hours, or the farmworker bending her back to harvest our fruits and vegetables, or … ? Anything? If so … how? (If not ... then not.)

The factory worker and the farm worker are human beings. They're not special. They just may have never considered Epicureanism as a way of looking at the world. What do we have to offer? A life free from fear of divine wrath and punishment after death, a life focused on being in touch with how they're feeling and acting on that, a life where one's perspective focuses on happiness, satisfaction, being true to one's nature as a living being.

How would you see the factory worker or the farm worker or the body shop mechanic or the waitress or the check-out clerk at the grocery store or... name anyone... living their life differently if we successfully evangelized to them? For me, they would live it like anyone else trying to put Epicurean philosophy into practice. One's occupation doesn't define them as a living breathing human being.

That said, we are not evangelizers. We are not (I hope!) going to be out on street corners with sandwich boards or yelling at people. I've regularly passed people with giant signs and using bullhorns to tell me to "turn from your wicked ways." Maybe Epicureans would be on the street corner handing out leaflets? But where do we point them? It's not like there's a Epicurean Garden three miles down the street. To our forum? To AxA's meet-up in Canada? To the podcast? One big hurdle we as students of Epicurus have is there's no wider in-person support community. We don't have "places of worship." We don't have a pop culture ecosystem like the Stoics.

I agree that we DO need an "elevator pitch" for the philosophy. The Tetrapharmakos is too inside baseball. A good, solid reminder for students of the philosophy with some depth of understanding, but not an evangelizing tool. I'll try my hand from my perspective. Your mileage may vary...

Why are you an Epicurean? What does that even mean?

For me, the philosophy reinforces my conviction that we live in a material world and are not under the thumb or watchful eye of some god.

I take responsibility for my life and the choices I make. There are two choices I can make: I can choose to act in ways that are good for me in the long run, or I can act in ways that are going to be painful now or later.

From all available evidence, I believe this is the only life I'll have: from when I was born to the day I die. That's it. Any "afterlife" is only the memory of me that will live on in those that knew me.

Great questions, Cassius. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you post. I'm currently on the road for work, and your points deserve some thoughtful response. I'll cogitate on the way home and post something later today or tomorrow.

And I have thoughts. Too be continued...

Engaging conversation. At the risk of muddying waters, I'm not sure looking for the "logical" reasons behind Epicurus' categorization of desires is as fruitful as it may sound. My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people. Breaking down desires is a way of making sense of the mental landscape in which we move. Epicurus experimented from time to time in trying to only satisfy his most basic necessary needs, wants, desires, paring down his desires to see what would give him pleasure in the case that all other opportunities were unavailable. "What, at a minimum, do I need?" I categorically dismiss the idea that he lived like this the majority of the time like an ascetic. I see his categorization as a tool for us to assess our own mental landscape and the choices that arise. His categories flow naturally in many ways from just looking at the numerous desires living beings have.

For what it's worth, here's my translation of the pertinent section in the letter to Menoikeus:

127f. Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί,

• Ἀναλογιστέον "consider..."
• τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν "of the desires, yearnings"
  • "Consider then of the desires, on the one hand, are the φυσικαί "natural ones'
  • φυσικαί (physikai)
    • English physical, physics
  • on the other, the κεναί 'empty, fruitless, vain, void ones."
    • κεναί is also again the word used when Epicurus talks about atoms and void.

127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·

• "And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
  • ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"

127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,

• "then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;

Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.

127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

• ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
• σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
• σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"

“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”

There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.

I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.

PS. It's important to remember that this categorization tool deals with desires for something. I realize it's hard to distinguish between desires for specific pleasurable outcomes or activities and the pleasurable outcomes or activities themselves. I find it difficult myself. To provide a different way of reading that section with additional context adding in the word desires instead of just "ones" and "those":

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain desires.' And of the natural desires, on the one hand, are the necessary desires; on the other, the desires which are only natural; then, of the necessary desires: on the one hand, those desires necessary for eudaimonia; then, those desires necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those desires necessary for life itself.

Those are fascinating articles. Thanks for sharing, Godfrey . To directly respond to:

Quote from Godfrey

Something that needed water mixed in just to be palatable as well as safe to drink?

No, I don't see any evidence of that. One thing counter to that idea I've read in the past is about the symposiarch who ran the drinking parties (symposia, literally "together-drinking") being in charge of how much water to mix in the wine as the evening progressed to regulate the level of drunkenness.

Wine was a ubiquitous beverage with a wide range of qualities and flavors. But it was, from everything I've read, all potable. Granted, we may find some products less palatable ourselves but we're spoiled from modern stabilisation and consistency.

I found this intriguing in the one article:

Quote

Drinking wine that was not mixed with water (άκρατος οίνος) was considered barbaric. Such wine without water was used only as medicine for the sick or during travel as a tonic.

That Greek is the same word that showed up in our texts above.

For anyone curious about retsina:

Retsina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Bryan

could go (emphasis added)

Letter to Herodotus: "Furthermore, the atoms, which have no void in them--out of which composite bodies arise and into which they are dissolved--vary indefinitely in their shapes ..."

For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change, since, when the composite bodies are dissolved, there must needs be a permanent something, solid and indissoluble, left behind, which makes change possible...

For all these, whether small or great, have been separated off from special conglomerations of atoms ; and all things are again dissolved, some faster, some slower, some through the action of one set of causes, others through the action of another. [It is clear, then, that he also makes the worlds perishable, as their parts are subject to change. Elsewhere he says the earth is supported on the air.]

Quote from Cassius

Yes it seems that the battle of Philippi could easily have gone the other way, and it's fascinating to think of what might have changed if a devoted Epicurean (as opposed to Caesar, who may have been Epicurean to some extent but didn't seem so philosophically inclined) had become one of the most powerful men in Rome for a much longer time.

Oh, there's alternative history fiction I'd read

Before we go too far down the rabbit hole of questioning the authorship of the letter to Pythocles, that translation of mine is a translation from the French of Les Epicuriens which "fills in" a lot of conjecture.

Here's the relevant section of PHerc 1005.
[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩ ἐρχόμενον ἀκριβεί-]
αι πρὸ̣[ς τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν],
[πε]ρὶ πολλῶν ἡγ̣[εῖσ]θαι [τἀ-]
κε̣[ί]νοις ἀρέ̣[σ]κοντ' , [ἐκ] τ̣ῆς̣ ἀ̣[ρ-]
5χῆς ὑποψί[α]ν τινὰ̣ [λ]α̣μβά-
ν[ει]ν ὡς περί τινων ἐπι-
στολῶ̣ν̣ καὶ τῆς [Πρὸς Πυ-]
θ̣οκλέα περὶ̣ μ̣[ε]τεώρων
ἐπιτομῆς καὶ τοῦ Περὶ ἀ-
10ρ̣[ετ]ῶ̣[ν], καὶ τῶν εἰς Μητρό-
δωρον ἀναφερομένων
Ὑποθηκῶν καὶ τῶν Μαρ-
τυριῶν καὶ μᾶλλον [δ]ὲ̣
τοῦ Πρὸς τὸν Πλάτωνο̣ς
15Γοργίαν δευτέρου, καὶ τῶν
εἰς Πολύαινον τοῦ Πρὸς
τοὺς ῥήτορας καὶ τοῦ̣ Περὶ
σελήνης καὶ τῶν εἰς Ἕρ̣-
μαρχον· ἐξέλεξεν δὲ καὶ
20[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] γεγραμμένω̣[ν]

Sketched 1803-1806 by Giuseppe Casanova

Engraved 1844-1861 by Vincenzo Corazza

The idea that Zeno questioned the authorship of the letter to Pythocles is speculative at best, unnecessarily provocative to be provocative to be less charitable. I will say that, of I remember, On Piety (the famous Obbink translation one) is only ascribed to Philodemus on the basis of one initial Φ... in that papyrus and is conjectured to be written possibly by Phaedrus, the scholarch of the Garden.

Things get messy with old texts, but I see no good reason to question Epicurus as the author of the three letters in Diogenes Laertius at this time.

Quote from Bryan

he took his own life by drinking neat wine."

-- Pausanias, Description of Greece 10.23.12 (2nd century AD)

ἑκουσίως ἀφεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκράτου πίνοντα τοῦ οἴνου.

DL10.15 Hermippus relates that [Epicurus] entered a bronze bath of lukewarm water and asked for unmixed wine,

Ἕρμιππος ἐμβάντα αὐτὸν εἰς πύελον χαλκῆν κεκραμένην ὕδατι θερμῷ καὶ αἰτήσαντα ἄκρατον ῥοφῆσαι:...

Just had to check it was the same word. Sure enough. ἄκρατον

This is the word used in Epicurus' letter:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, τελευτ-αῖος

"Τὴν μακαρίαν ἄγοντες καὶ ἅμα τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τοῦ βίου ἐγράφομεν ὑμῖν ταυτί.

Why does he use ἐγράφομεν "we write"? 1st person plural?

I had to check the Greek:

ἑκουσίως ἀφεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκράτου πίνοντα τοῦ οἴνου.

Sure enough, it seems to be just wine unmixed with water. That's not fatal, last time I experimented myself... Just sayin'

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἄκρα_τος

Exactly, Bryan I'll just point back to what was said a year ago...

Thread

General Notes On Fundamentals of Nature

This thread is for discussion of the list of twelve fundamentals such as suggested by DeWitt or Clay here:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/twelve-fundamentals-of-nature/

Cassius

June 13, 2024 at 10:23 PM

Quote from Patrikios

“Of the Twelve Principles the most important was the third: "The universe consists of atoms and void."

There is no extant text by Epicurus called the Twelve Principles. DeWitt came up with those on his own and gave his list the name of a lost text. I'm not saying "the universe consists of atoms and void" isn't a fundamental principle, but there is no way Dewitt should be saying it's "the third." Sorry. This aggravates me every time it comes up.