Quote from Cassius

it remains fascinating, even later in life, to explore the parallels [between Christianity and Epicureanism]

Oh, I would include myself as someone who finds that topic interesting. I've just never seen any parallels (with maybe one exception - see below) that convince me of anything other than convergent evolution. I could maybe see Catholic confession as a perversion of frank criticism, but even that may only be superficial without my knowledge of the wider ancient cultural context.

I've seen a lot of proof texting and applying an almost Rorschach Testing to these topics. It seems people, scholars included, see what they want to see.

Quote from Cassius

I do think "you only live once" when properly understood is Epicurean, and I do think it is pretty much the primary message.

Fully agree with "properly understood." I was referring in my post the popular YOLO acronym.

YOLO (aphorism) - Wikipedia

Quote

The word was criticized for its use in conjunction with reckless behavior, most notably in a Twitter post by aspiring rapper Ervin McKinness just prior to his death, caused by driving drunk at 120 mph (193 km/h)

Quote from Peter Konstans

This is a very interesting discussion and there is much to discuss here.

I would agree that this is an interesting discussion from an intellectual perspective; however, I'm beginning to ask what the practical benefit is. And I say this in reference to the current discussion and to DeWitt's penchant for uncovering Epicurean origins of Christian practices and doctrine. While I remain unconvinced and skeptical of much of these alleged connections among Epicureanism, Judaism, and Christianity, I also don't see why it should be important other than for historical curiosity. It's not as if we who find value in Epicurus's philosophy will suddenly see the light, so to speak, and convert to Christian or Jewish practice.

You have included a voluminous amount of information and commentary in your post no. 26 so I do not have time at this moment to respond to it all. Below is merely a start and not meant to comprehensively reply in any way. I'll try to come back to it later, but you raise some interesting points, not all of which I agree with.

Quote from Peter Konstans

For now I will focus on the claim that Epicureanism is about 'living your life to the fullest instead of being a victim on the cross'. This ignores the fact that 'living your life to the fullest' was not the easiest thing to do in antiquity.

I would quibble with the formulation "living your life to the fullest," although I realize that's a popular way of phrasing it. From my perspective, Epicurus's philosophy is about experiencing the available pleasure at every moment of our lives, every moment of our existence. My perspective on the mention of "bread and water" in the Letter to Menoikeus and elsewhere is about taking pleasure in quotidian experiences like a simple meal we may eat every day. "Living life to the fullest" sounds too much like the skydiving, popular culture "carpe diem" "fear of missing out" "you only live once" idea. While those experiences may be part of Epicurus's philosophy, it's not the primary message.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Mary Beard and Vaclav Smil

For those unfamiliar with Beard and Smil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beard_(classicist) 

Vaclav Smil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Peter Konstans

If you oppose luxury you have to embrace minimalism and if you are skeptical toward political ambitions you have to embrace the modesty of a life with limited public exposure within the confines of a small community of friends.

From my reading of the extant texts, I do not see Epicurus opposing luxury when it is available nor do I see him advocating an embrace of minimalism. Additionally, Epicurus did not sequester himself nor his students within the walls of the Garden. His house was inside the city walls of Athens. He took part, and encouraged his students to do the same, in the rites and festivals of his city. As one example of one who has confronted this "minimalist" Epicurus idea, Dr. Emily Austin's recent book does an excellent job of putting the myth of Epicurus's ascetism/minimalism to rest.

That's all I have time for right now. More to come later possibly.

I went through quickly in Philodemus's work to try and pull out some quotes and to add some commentary of my own. Please keep in mind this is quick and dirty but I didn't want to leave you waiting for a response:

1. At what point does frank speech come across as rude, harsh, or insensitive?

Philodemus states that the one using frank criticism has to tailor it to the individual. If the person is amenable to correction, one can apply kind, reassuring words to set them back of track. If the student is arrogant, etc., a harsher treatment may be required to get them to listen.

Frank criticism seems very context specific in the way it is applied, by whom, and for whom. The teacher has to be skillful and to be aware of how they think the student will respond to the criticism, or feedback if you will. Even so, the practice appears to have been considered essential.

Fr. 40: ...for it is necessary to show him his errors forthrightly and speak of his failings publicly. For if he has considered this man to be the one guide of right speech and [action], whom he calls the only savior, and {to whom}, citing the phrase, "with him accompanying {me}," he has given himself over to be treated, then how is he not going to show to him those things in which he

needs treatment, and [accept admonishment]?

2. Is the phrase "frank speech" ever used to justify harsh speech? What is harsh speech and when should we avoid it?

To answer the question directly: No, frank speech is not just a synonym for being harsh to someone. I think Philodemus covered some topics like that in On Anger but I don't have ready access to that book.

Fr. 7: ...and toward those stronger than the tender ones and those somewhat more in need of treatment, he intensifies [frankness}, and toward the strong who will scarcely change {even} if they are shouted at, he will also employ the harsh form of frankness.

It seems "harsh speech" used simply because someone is angry or wants revenge on someone is completely out of bounds. There has to be a good reason to use "the harsh form of frankness" where the word harsh in Greek conveys "falling upon, attacking, assailing" in other words, going on the offensive. Contrast that with "sharp frankness" below.

Fr. 60: ...and [some] have judged it right to speak frankly [to] such people, but [moderately], given that sharp frankness bears a similarity to insult, as if insulting indeed out of ill will. Men who are charlatans, too, divert many, seizing them after some stress and enchanting them with their subtle kindnesses.

So, selfishly buttering someone up with kindness is as bad as insulting someone with sharp frankness. The word used for "sharp" there is pikros: bitter, hateful; embittered, angry, hostile; relentless, spiteful, vindictive

3. what kinds of word choices appear to have a domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude? When is frank speech just an expression of anger and a kind of punishment?

It doesn't seem to me that skillful frank criticism would have any of traits of being "domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude?" For example:

Fr. 60: ...and [some] have judged it right to speak frankly [to] such people, but [moderately], given that sharp frankness bears a similarity to insult, as if insulting indeed out of ill will. Men who are charlatans, too, divert many, seizing them after some stress and enchanting them with their subtle kindnesses.

Philodemus appears to acknowledge some aren't skillful in frank criticism and, indeed, some do it for base reasons:

Col. Ia: ...[to distinguish] one who is frank from a polite disposition and one who is so from a vulgar one. It is indeed possible to [distinguish [the nature] of one who practices frankness from a polite disposition and that of one who in turn {does so] from a base one. And some...

Col. Ib: ...[from a polite one], everyone who bears goodwill and practices philosophy intelligently and [continually and is great in character and indifferent to fame and least of all a politician and clean of envy and says only what Is relevant and Is not carried away so as to insult or strut or show contempt [or] do harm, and does not [make] use of insolence and [flattering arts].

Col. IIIb: [And] {not}, as in the case of those who train choruses [skillfully], in philosophy: both that one {teacher} is irascible and snappish toward everyone, as certain others are in turn, while another is always mild; and that one speaks frankly about everything in a good way, but another does so deficiently on some matter. For all {wise men} both love {their students} alike in accord with the worth of each and see their faults alike and, through [frankness], the...

It's important to remember that frank doesn't mean rude. It doesn't give license to be a bully or to speak disparagingly or to insult. The dictionary gives "honest, especially in a manner that seems slightly blunt; candid; not reserved or disguised." It's basically saying something that has to be said for the good of the person hearing it. We may not like constructive criticism but sometimes it's necessary to hear of one wants to improve on their behavior at work or in living.

Quote from Kalosyni

Some questions to consider (and if anyone wants to reply):

At what point does frank speech come across as rude, harsh, or insensitive? Is the phrase "frank speech" ever used to justify harsh speech? What is harsh speech and when should we avoid it? And, what kinds of word choices appear to have a domineering, shaming, or power-over (controlling) attitude? When is frank speech just an expression of anger and a kind of punishment?

Those are all excellent questions, and I believe Philodemus addressed most or all of them in Peri Parrhesias (Concerning Frank Speech). Voula Tsouna also addresses the topic in her The Ethics of Philodemus. If I get a chance soon, I'll try to find some specific citations.

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:

Thread

Best Source For Analysis of Surviving Portions of Philodemus On / Against __ ??__ - PHerc 1005

As best I can tell as I type this we don't have a good source for a translation of surviving fragments of this work, and analysis of what the work is about. Please post suggestions for that in this thread. Thanks!

Cassius

December 12, 2020 at 9:08 AM

Thread

The Tetrapharmakon - Sound Epicurean Doctrine, or Oversimplification?

[Admin note: This discussion began as a response by Don to a comment made by Charles in this Lucretius Today podcast thread: RE: Episode Forty-Seven - Death is Nothing To Us . It deserves to stand alone, so was cut from there and placed here. The thread now shows as started by Godfrey due to the way it was moved, but this post by Don was in fact the thread-starter.]



In light of this week's episode, I have to stand up for the Tetrapharmakos. I don't expect to change Charles's mind but I…

Don

December 6, 2020 at 7:09 PM

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

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

www.academia.edu

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

Quote from Peter Konstans (with numbers added)

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”).

Quote from Titus

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:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius 10.19-23, 85

"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.

Display More

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.

Parenthood

From Epicurus Wiki

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.

Quote from Peter Konstans

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:

Ancient Epistolography Network - School of Arts, Languages and Cultures - The University of Manchester

Letters and Communities: Studies in the Socio-Political Dimensions of Ancient Epistolography – Bryn Mawr Classical Review

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.

Post

Epicurean Parenting

Should be an interesting discussion.... proceed

Don

September 30, 2023 at 8:39 PM

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.

Quote from Godfrey

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?

Quote from Godfrey

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.