We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Just to provoke Cassius (in the friendliest way possible ), I continue to maintain that Epicurus taught that ataraxia (translated as one wishes: tranquility, calm, a mind free from disturbance, etc) is necessary but not sufficient alone for living a pleasurable life, described as eudaimonia.
There, I got *two* untranslated Greek words in there in one post 
For reference from previous threads:
but I… 
You raise some valid points, Cassius; but...(you knew that was coming )
I agree that *leading* with the Tetrapharmakos or discussion of kinetic/katastematic categories for the general reader is not the best route. I also agree that those are what get played up by many popular resources (read: Wikipedia, Reddit, etc) as well as academic discussions. They appear many times to also be interpreted through a Stoic/Platonic/Buddhist lens which colors the discussion as well out there in the world.
Problematic? Without a doubt.
That said...
The Tetrapharmakos is an authentic memory aide used by ancient Epicureans and documented by a classical Epicurean scholar . That's rare and I'm never going to advocate getting rid of it or burying it because some people misunderstand or misuse it. I've used it myself when I'm sick to remind me pain is fleeting. I also get frustrated by bad translations of it too. Whether Philodemus was approving of it or not is also up for debate, but there's no doubt Epicureans were using it. Having that connection to the ancient school is priceless as far as I'm concerned.
As for kinetic/katastematic pleasure, that's a way of thinking about the breadth of pleasure available to us as necessary and natural help us think about desires available to us. Is k/k discussion good for beginners? No, not necessarily. Is it a favorite academic rabbit hole. Absolutely, because you can read all kinds of things into it and open it up for various (incorrect, in my mind) interpretations. I still think it's a valuable distinction for many reasons, but it needs to be in context, which is often missing.
Sedley's paper on On Nature Book 28 addresses some of that about language and definitions
Plus see:
[ U258 ]
Erotianus, Glossary of Hippocrates, Preface, [p. 34, 10 Klein]: For if we are going to explain the words known to everybody, we would have to expound either all or some. But to expound all is impossible, whereas to expound some is pointless. For we will explain them either through familiar locutions or through unfamiliar. But unfamiliar words seem unsuited to the task, the accepted principle being to explain less known things by means of better known things; and familiar words, by being on a par with them, will be unfamiliar for illuminating language, as Epicurus says. For the informativeness of language is characteristically ruined when it is bewitched by an account, as if by a homeopathic drug.
[U92]Scholiast on Dionysius Thrax {"Dionysius the Thracian"}, The Art of Grammar, [p. 660, 25 Bekk.]: And although Epicurus always made use of general outlines {of the senses of words}, he showed that definitions are more worthy of respect by using definitions instead of general outlines in the treatise On Nature; for he used definitions when he divided the totality {of existence} into the atomic and the void, saying that "the atomic is a solid body which has no share of void included in it; void is an intangible nature," i.e., not subject to touch.
[U352] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, VII.3.5: A man who denies that god is a "spirit diffused through all the parts of the world" {a Stoic definition} would not be saying that it is mistaken to call the world divine, as Epicurus would, for he gave God human form and a place in the spaces between worlds.
[ U451 ]
Antiochus of Ascalon, by way of Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies II.21 p. 179.36: These Cyrenaics reject Epicurus’ definition of pleasure, i.e., the removal of pain, calling that the condition of a corpse; because we rejoice not only on account of pleasures, but companionships and distinctions; while Epicurus thinks that all joy of the soul arises from previous sensations of the flesh.
For comparison, here is a selection of the citations in full from the excerpt above:
1. study for its own sake
(NOTE: From my reading of the extant texts, Epicurus does not advocate study "for its own sake." One studies the texts and nature to alleviate ignorance, fear, anxiety about death and gods, etc. There is always a practical application of study. For example: "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this" (Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus)
Vatican fragment 45
The study of what is natural produces not braggarts nor windbags nor those who show off the culture that most people fight about, but those who are fearless and self-reliant and who value their own good qualities rather than the good things that have come to them from external circumstances.
Avot 6:1
The sages taught in the language of the Mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching. Rabbi Meir said: Whoever occupies himself with the Torah for its own sake, merits many things; not only that but he is worth the whole world. He is called beloved friend; one that loves God; one that loves humankind; one that gladdens God; one that gladdens humankind. And the Torah clothes him in humility and reverence, and equips him to be righteous, pious, upright and trustworthy; it keeps him far from sin, and brings him near to merit. And people benefit from his counsel, sound knowledge, understanding and strength, as it is said, “Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, strength is mine” (Proverbs 8:14). And it bestows upon him royalty, dominion, and acuteness in judgment. To him are revealed the secrets of the Torah, and he is made as an ever-flowing spring, and like a stream that never ceases. And he becomes modest, long-suffering and forgiving of insult. And it magnifies him and exalts him over everything.
2. acquisition of a companion
Letter To Menoeceus, end
Meditate day and night then on this and similar things by yourself as well as together with those like yourself.
Avot 1:6
Yose ben Yochanan (a man) of Jerusalem used to say: Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household. Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife, how much more [does the rule apply] with regard to another man’s wife. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom.
3. diet of bread and water
Bailey, fr. 37
I am thrilled with pleasure in the body, when I live on bread and water, and I spit upon luxurious pleasures not for their own sake, but because of the inconveniences that follow them.
(NOTE: I've also addressed the "bread and water" issue in my translation to the letter to Menoikeus. Epicurus doesn't call us to have a life of "privation"... See Avot 6:4 below)
Avot 6:4
Such is the way [of a life] of Torah: you shall eat bread with salt, and rationed water shall you drink; you shall sleep on the ground, your life will be one of privation, and in Torah shall you labor. If you do this, “Happy shall you be and it shall be good for you” (Psalms 128:2): “Happy shall you be” in this world, “and it shall be good for you” in the world to come.
4. avoidance of public office
NOTE: We're fairly familiar with the "avoidance of public office" trope in current and former discussions here on the forum. A number of papers shared here have called that idea into question with respect to the ancient Epicureans.
Avot 1:10-11
Shimon ben Shetach used to say: be thorough in the interrogation of witnesses, and be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie.
Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.
Those four will do to illustrate my point. The citations have the most superficial similarities. The Epicurean "bread and water" sentiment especially has nothing to do with the living a life of privation. They could all be the result of convergent evolution. The statement "Agreements, however, both in content and literary form, between rabbinism and Epicureanism" does not deliver on its claim to be "striking." Your assertion that the Jewish movements (which it appears you're including Christianity under that name) copied aspects of Epicurus's philosophy doesn't seem to be substantiated by what I've seen
Are we in agreement that (1) Epicureanism was the first major cult that spread its message chiefly though the medium of epistolography and (2) the first major school that envisioned a community of equals and friends without the mediations of poltical authority?
Unfortunately, I don't think we're in agreement on those two points. "Spreading its message chiefly through the medium of epistolography" doesn't strike me as quite accurate. One issue is that Epicurus had to communicate with his far-flung communities by letter during his lifetime. That was the means of communication, both for him and for Paul. They used similar media in similar circumstances. That doesn't mean Paul was inspired by Epicurus. I'm not sure how many letters we have from Epicurus's successors. It seems from the lists and extant texts, especially from Philodemus, that the Epicureans were much more interested in writing treatises than letters. Epicurus seems to have written as many treatises/books as letters, especially considering On Nature is 37 books itself.
On point 2, I'm not sure what you mean by "without the mediations of poltical authority." I wanted to also ask when you refer to the "community of equals and friends" are you referring to Epicurus's inclusion of women and enslaved people in his community, or the relative equality of students (of all kinds) in the Garden? Because I get from some of the texts that there was a definite hierarchy of teachers and students within the Garden for purposes of Epicurean education while they also thought of themselves as friends in time of need (and at other times as well).
I agree that Epicureanism was a potent, vital, active school of philosophy in the ancient world with communities from France (Gaul) to as far away as the area of modern Turkey in Oenoanda. But I maintain that similar strategies does not require inspiration or copying. Superficial similarities can simply be that religions and philosophies came up with similar solutions to similar problems.
I'll do my best to respond in more depth later; however, for now I'll simply say that I am not impressed with the parallel citations in the excerpt from the virtual Jewish library. They seem to have only a surface similarity with each other (Epicurean vs Jewish) at most for the majority, and some seem to have less than that. At best for any similarities, I'd posit a case of convergent evolution with no necessary connection for the most part.
I find it hard to accept that a religion that uses Epicurus's name as a designation for an apostate or skeptic is looking to the same philosophy for inspiration:
apikoros From Hebrew אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס ('epikóros, “heretic”), from Ancient Greek Ἐπίκουρος (Epíkouros, “Epicurus”), but later associated with Aramaic אַפְקֵר (ʾap̄ḳēr, “to abandon”).
DeWitt is extraordinary, because he investigates the writings of St. Paul under the light of Epicureanism. He offers new translations and new ways of how to interpret.
I'll need to go back and read some of Dewitt's writings on this topic at some point, but I remain skeptical. His use of reading Paul with an Epicurean filter and coming up with "new translations" has struck me in too many instances as proof texting or seeing what he wants to see instead of what's there. I agree with Dewitt is extraordinary, but I'm not convinced of his assertions in many of these Christian areas.
Thoroughly enjoyed your post, @Root304 .
As a point of departure for further posts on this thread, I tried to find specific references to children or child-rearing in the extant texts:
Epicurus's will and other citations in Diogenes having to do with child rearing and their education:
"And let Amynomachus and Timocrates take care of Epicurus, the son of Metrodorus, and of the son of Polyaenus, so long as they study and live with Hermarchus. Let them likewise provide for the maintenance of Metrodorus's daughter, so long as she is well-ordered and obedient to Hermarchus; and, when she comes of age, give her in marriage to a husband selected by Hermarchus from among the members of the School ; and out of the revenues accruing to me let Amynomachus and Timocrates in consultation with Hermarchus give to them as much as they think proper for their maintenance year by year.
[20] "Let them make Hermarchus trustee of the funds along with themselves, in order that everything may be done in concert with him, who has grown old with me in philosophy and is left at the head of the School. And when the girl comes of age, let Amynomachus and Timocrates pay her dowry, taking from the property as much as circumstances allow, subject to the approval of Hermarchus...
[22] And when near his end he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus :
"On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. .... But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."
...
[85]Many others besides you will find these reasonings useful, and especially those who have but recently made acquaintance with the true story of nature and those who are attached to pursuits which go deeper than any part of ordinary education (ἐγκυκλίων). So you will do well to take and learn them and get them up quickly along with the short epitome in my letter to Herodotus.
VS62
62. If parents have cause to be angry with their children, of course it is foolish to resist, and thus not try to beg for forgiveness. But if they do not have cause and are angry without reason, it is ridiculous to make an appeal to one who is irrationally opposed to hearing such an appeal, and thus not try to convince him by other means in a spirit of good will.
εἰ γὰρ κατὰ τὸ δέον ὀργαὶ γίνονται τοῖς γεννήσασι πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα, μάταιον δήπουθέν ἐστι τὸ ἀντιτείνειν καὶ μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι συγγνώμης τυχεῖν, εἰ δὲ μὴ κατὰ τὸ δέον, ἀλλὰ ἀλογώτερον, γελοῖον πᾶν τὸ πρὸς ἔκκλησιν <ἐκκαλεῖν> τὴν ἀλογίαν θυμῷ κατέχοντα, καὶ μὴ ζητεῖν μεταθεῖναι κατʼ ἄλλους τρόπους εὐγνωμονοῦντα.
While Epicurus was evidently a devoted and thoughtful son to his mother, and charitable towards his friends' children, the paucity of sources does not allow for a fully developed understanding of his views on parenthood in general. Some minimal, practical advice is offered in Vatican Saying 62, although it is always questionable whether this text (like others in this collection) is an authentic, first-hand expression of Epicurus' own views on the matter.
As with marriage, Epicurus approved of parenthood, in certain circumstances.
Reflecting the standard mores of Roman society, Lucretius unfolds more elaborate concerns about children, parents, and the relationship between the two in De Rerum Natura; he also reveals a warmer attitude towards parenthood in the broadest sense, as he waxes poetic on parental relationships throughout the animal world.
Lucretius 5.1011
. . . . . .
Were known; and when they saw an offspring born
From out themselves, then first the human race
Began to soften. For 'twas now that fire
Rendered their shivering frames less staunch to bear,
Under the canopy of the sky, the cold;
And Love reduced their shaggy hardiness;
And children, with the prattle and the kiss,
Soon broke the parents' haughty temper down.
Then, too, did neighbours 'gin to league as friends,
Eager to wrong no more or suffer wrong,
And urged for children and the womankind
Mercy, of fathers, whilst with cries and gestures
They stammered hints how meet it was that all
Should have compassion on the weak.
Remember that Christianity did copy something from Epicureanism. Spreading your creed in the form of epistles and the early Christian vision of an 'agapetic community' were definitely inspired by Epicureanism
I'm skeptical of attributing Paul's and other early Church fathers' use of epistolography to an Epicurean source. There was a robust tradition of letter writing throughout the ancient world, including in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Greek and Latin. It was even used as a literary form. The letters of Seneca to Lucilius, Ovid's Heroides, Cicero's and Pliny's voluminous letters, and so on are examples of this tradition.
See also:
I also remain skeptical of attributing the early Christian agapetic community to Epicurus's influence as well. From my perspective, there are any number of models the early Christians could have looked to, including Essenes, mystery cults, etc.
Epicurus's philosophy was antithetical to Christian beliefs. Dr. Bart Ehrman recently posted an essay to his blog contrasting Epicurus and Paul. I'll respect his pay wall and not repost the full essay here (He donates all proceeds from the blog to worthy charities in his local area.) However, this is his conclusion:
"In short: for Paul true life meant living the life of the crucified victim. For Epicurus it meant living anything but the life of a crucified victim. Two billion people in the world today consider themselves devotees of Paul, but many (most?) of them actually agree with Epicurus."
Within that context, I find it hard to square that with Paul and other early Christians adopting Epicurean structures, strategies, and tactics. **Maybe** to counter the popularity of the philosophy? However, there were so many other similar structures, strategies, and tactics to draw from, I find it unnecessary to attribute Christian ones to Epicurean sources.
I'll start (although my kids are older (32 & 22) so my mistakes are baked in)...
We didn't raise them in a church although we attended a Unitarian Universalist church for a little while.
We went to museums to instill a fascination with science and the natural world.
We went on hikes in the woods and collected fossils when the opportunity arose.
We had family dinners every night and asked (and still ask) "What was your most exciting thing today?"
They've grown up to be decent human beings with empathy and be able to take joy in life.
I think we did okay.
PS. That all may not sound "Epicurean" and, yes, I didn't discover Epicurus until well after our children were raised. Does that mean I had an "Epicurean" approach, unbeknownst to me? What does it mean to parent one's children "Epicureanly"? That's what I hope we explore in this thread.
Epicurean Parenting thread created...
@Root304 : please feel free to "expound and contest" in that thread
Should be an interesting discussion.... proceed
I'm the middle of listening and wanted to add...
My perspective is that mental pleasure (both kinetic and katastematic) are not higher or nobler or better. It's that we have more ready access to those pleasures, that we can have more confidence in having those than we can in physical, fleeting pleasure. We should enjoy both mental and physical pleasure, but we can just access the mental ones with more confidence.
All this is not to say that I can't plan ahead by imagining how a particular pleasure will feel to me if and when I were to experience it, and compare that to how another imagined pleasure will feel to me. This is pretty much a necessary exercise in all sorts of situations. But the appropriateness of my comparison can only be accurately assessed during and after actually experiencing the pleasure.
Hmmm...I may be misinterpreting what you're saying. Your saying that you "can't plan ahead by imagining how a particular pleasure will feel" seems to negate the idea of choosing and rejecting which pleasure to follow and which pains to reject. Can you expand on what you're saying there?
One thing that strikes me about this picture, Don , is that it seems very similar to descriptions of the effects of meditation that I've read. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems to me to be somewhat limiting when it comes to pursuing pleasure.
I could see that similarity, but it seems to me that meditation (especially mindfulness meditation) is sometimes seen as an end in itself instead of a tool in a toolbox. However, whereas I see meditation as a tool to quiet one's busy mind (which is not a bad thing in itself), the Epicurean context is the necessary elimination of false and damaging beliefs and mental habits and similar impediments to well-being. Studying, meditating on the teachings "by yourself and with similar people," is a necessary step in freeing one's mind from unnecessary fears, anxieties, and negative mental habits, ripping these "empty" beliefs and habits out by the roots so they don't come back. If one wants to engage in meditation as a tool to help with day to day overthinking or being anxious, I think that has value. But the big storms and pollution that need to be eradicated in my (admittedly off the cuff) analogy are the existential fears of death, divine retribution, feelings of "I am a worm in the eyes of God," etc.
Without eliminating those, we might experience pleasures but there's going to always be a sea serpent ready to rear its ugly head out of the water and capsize our boat.
Okay, so here is my revised nautical analogy for pleasure of the katastematic and kinetic varieties. Since I am still of the opinion that katastematic pleasures (especially ataraxia) are necessary *but not sufficient* for the pleasant life.
I'll use the sea as a metaphor for the mind which, in the end, senses all pleasurable sensations.. in fact, all sensations.
Imagine a sea that is polluted, churned up with mud, silt, and waste, with a surface whipped into whitecaps by winds and rains and storms.
The muddy, polluted, windswept, inhospitable waters are a metaphor for a mind under the influence of fears and anxieties of death, divine retribution, fear of one's neighbors, and all manner of ill-considered and false beliefs.
Cleaning the water and calming the storms brings calm, clear waters readily sailed in safety.
Only then does the clear calm water allows one to see with pleasure the bountiful life, colorful fish and other animals, the underwater corals, and the amazing sights under the water as well as to view, on the horizon, other shores that hold pleasurable experiences for one to sail to.
However, one must first achieve the calming of the storms and having clean water (katastematic pleasures) before all those other pleasures (kinetic pleasures) can be fully experienced.
I'm not saying you can't have some pleasure while rocking on a filthy, stormy sea if you batten down your hatches and sit in your cabin on your boat. But there is so much more available if you sail out of the storm and find clear waters.
Some of those storms - once you know the winds and can read the charts - can be avoided entirely. The Winds of the Fear of Death can be avoided. The Winds of the Fear of the Gods can be sailed around with assurance.
Some pain - winds, waves, etc. - is unavoidable living a human life, but one will also know the sea will calm and the waters will clear eventually.
This isn't a perfect analogy by any measure, but I think this might convey what's in my mind slightly better than the ocean and waves metaphor I've been sharing recently.
PS. I'm also going to refer back to the discussion from Summer 2022 on katastematic and kinetic (specifically my posts no. 149 and 150 at this link:
static v kinetic pleasures.
Don't take this as personal, but I still have issues with thinking of katastematic as "static" while acknowledging that some translations use that term. I really like the idea, that you helped me visualize Godfrey , of katastematic pleasure being the calm ocean and kinetic pleasure being the surfable waves. I don't see katastematic pleasure as static, which to me implies stagnant, stale, etc. I see it as a "ground of being" or being in a particular state of calm, ease, etc. through which one experiences other pleasure.
I also concur with the circumplex notion. I don't even think there can be a 0,0 point. It's sort of like BCE/CE (or BC/AD if you want). There is no 0 CE or 0 BCE. It's either one or the other. Same way with pleasure or displeasure. You're either experiencing one or the other.
8:15 Then I praised mirth, because there is no good for a man under the sun, but to eat, and drink, and be merry: and this shall attend him in his labour all the days of his life, which God has given him under the sun.
(Note: I don't go back to the Hebrew, but below are the Greek Septuagint translation and Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation)
8:15 καὶ ἐπῄνεσα ἐγὼ σὺν τὴν εὐφροσύνην, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον, ὅτι εἰ μὴ φαγεῖν καὶ τοῦ πιεῖν καὶ τοῦ εὐφρανθῆναι, καὶ αὐτὸ συμπροσέσται αὐτῷ ἐν μόχθῳ αὐτοῦ ἡμέρας ζωῆς αὐτοῦ, ὅσας ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεὸς ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον
8:15] laudavi igitur laetitiam quod non esset homini bonum sub sole nisi quod comederet et biberet atque gauderet et hoc solum secum auferret de labore suo in diebus vitae quos dedit ei Deus sub sole.
I found it interesting that the Septuagint uses εὐφροσύνην euphrosyne and its verb form, the feeling Epicurus identifies as a kinetic pleasure whereas Jerome decided to use two different terms. Although I know Lucretius uses gaude somewhere and possibly laetitia too.
Fascinating Wikipedia article:
That's a good one.
One of my favorite lines (in addition to Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum) is:
"Si falsum est, accingere contra."
"si tibi vera videntur, dede manus, aut, si falsum est, accingere contra"
if things seem true to you, yield to them; but if they are false, equip yourself against them (2.1042-1043)
I actually use that line on my PowerPoints when I'm teaching reference service to library staff.
