Posts by Don

Quote from Godfrey

Don do you see homeostasis as being a helpful idea in sorting out this conundrum?

I do think "homeostatis" is helpful, but... I've come to understand that the concept of "homeostasis" has been somewhat replaced by "allostasis." Ex.: "Clarifying the Roles of Homeostasis and Allostasis in Physiological Regulation" (2014)

BUT when I talk (colloquially) about "homeostasis," I'm going to say that I mean an awareness of the well functioning of the body and mind accompanied by a state of satisfaction and contentment.

*That* I think is helpful, and what I believe I would call "ataraxia."

One thing I want to emphasize, too, is that I do not think there are only two katastematic pleasures, e.g., ataraxia and aponia; just like I don't think there are only two kinetic pleasures, e.g., khara and euphrosyne. Those are the four pleasures that Epicurus provides as his examples... but there is no way that those are the only four pleasures that Epicurus believed existed.

Little Rocker's point about katastematic pleasures being always there, always available to perception is exactly right (in my opinion). Ataraxia is always available to be sensed (IF you're body and mind are working right with correct attitudes toward the gods and death etc.) BUT, from my perspective, we also always have access to our memories, to our anticipations (in the colloquial sense not the Epicurean canonic sense). That availability to access and/or generate a particular mental state is what I think katastematic pleasures are. They are not dependent on outside circumstances or chance or fortune.

Quote from Little Rocker

This is a minefield

LOL! Well, that hasn't stopped us before!

Pleasure appears to be a "feeling," since it is canonically defined as one of the two feelings of the canon.

Is "feeling" a sensation? I would have to say yes, in the sense that every feeling is a sensation in the sense of PD2, but interestingly, Saint-Andre doesn't use sensation but awareness there:

Death is nothing to us; for what has disintegrated lacks awareness, and what lacks awareness is nothing to us.

We are *aware* when we are *feeling* pleasure...therefore, it seems to be that feelings = sensations.

Or we may just be splitting hairs to no purpose:

αἴσθησῐς (aísthēsis)

• Perception from the senses, feeling, hearing, seeing
• Perception by the intellect as well as the senses
• That which is perceived: scent
• Ability to perceive: discernment
• Cognition or discernment of moral discernment in ethical matters

Quote from Little Rocker

So for what it's worth, I'm inclined to think the difference is that katestematic pleasure is always there, always available to perception. I can call it to mind and experience it wherever I am. 'Kinetic' pleasure comes and goes.

Now, *THAT* I agree 100%! To continue on my soapbox/hobby horse: That's why we can be more confident in katastematic pleasures: They are always available to us. We can enjoy kinetic pleasures, but they are dependent on circumstances external to ourselves.

I realize I still need to again read G&T (Why do I read that "gin & tonic"??) but then I think... do I? I need to back and read Epicurus and what's left of the Epicureans first, I think.

FWIW...

Post

RE: Do Pigs Value Katastematic Pleasure? ( Summer 2022 K / K Discussion)

I will continue to soapbox the fact that katastematic and kinetic come directly from Epicurus in On Choices and Avoidances:

[…]

I will continue to soapbox that Metrodorus stated there were pleasures of activity and those of "rest/states/stability":

[…]

This, to me, points to the "source" - "the sound state of the flesh" (to sarkos eustathes *katastema*) - being a more confident source -- according to Metrodorus himself -- of pleasure than "objects" (kinetic pleasure) outside of ourselves. It does…

Don

October 19, 2022 at 9:19 PM

Quote from Cassius

If in fact Farrington's position reduces to "generated from within" vs "generated from without" that would at least have the virtue of being clear and understandable, whether it's agreeable or not.

there's something to be said for "clear and understandable"

Good questions, Cassius. I'll have to dig into Farrington... But, in all honesty, I agree with him because he agrees with my interpretation not the other way around.

I've never been overly enamored of G&T's interpretation anyway IF I remember it correctly.

As a further explanation of my perspective:

Katastematic is derived from καθιστημι (kathistēmi) which, among its many definitions, is "bring into a certain state; come into a certain state, become" LSJ references PD13 specifically.

It is useless to be safe from other people while retaining suspicions about what is above and below the earth and in general about the infinite unknown.

οὐθὲν ὄφελος ἦν τὴν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ἀσφάλειαν παρασκευάζεσθαι τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑπόπτων καθεστώτων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ.

I believe the word there is talking about bringing into the state of viewing something with suspicion

καθίστημι - Wiktionary

Quote from Godfrey

Even though the anticipation or recollection of eating are "inner" pleasures, they are very kinetic.

How?

And I realize typing that as a one word question *looks* combative or defensive. It's not meant to be. I'm just curious to hear your thinking behind how you'd characterize the anticipation or recollection as kinetic.

I'm getting my train of thought from Farrington's The Faith of Epicurus:

Kalosyni Thanks for the thoughts.

From my perspective:

The pleasure derived from the activity of eating is always kinetic.

The pleasure derived from the anticipation of eating or the recollection of eating is always katastematic.

One more...

Quote from Cassius

The issue I have is with the modern implications of "tranquility" as being "at rest" or "inactive" or similar words circling the drain of "nothingness.

Agreed.

I maintain (and I think we agree) that activity can be undertaken with a calm, tranquil mind.

For example, if I ever found myself in a foxhole, I would want a commanding officer who approached the mission with a clear eye and calm mind rather than some screaming, yelling lieutenant.

Quote from Cassius - Admin Note

ADMIN NOTE: This thread was originally a part of a discussion of the translation of the Letter to Menoeceus by Peter St. Andre started here. This first post below was near the start of the tangent that led to the split-off, but you may need to read several posts before you get an idea of how the new thread title applies. -- Cassius

Quote from Bryan

Hello Don,

What about taking the second τὰς back to τὰς ἡδονὰς?

Quote from Little Rocker

Granted, I'm just eyeballing it, so I should take some time to give it closer attention, but I'm reading the second τὰς as a reference back to τὰς ἡδονὰς, with the ἡδονὰς understood, so taken together 'the pleasures of profligates or the [pleasures] lying in consumption.'

I address that elsewhere in my translation commentary, but, briefly, even if that's the course taken, I would still stand by something like "those (pleasures) stuck in the enjoyment of (only) those things from outside ourselves."

My take is that this is a direct swipe at the Cyrenaics.

Okay, here is a sneak preview of my Menoikeus update. I still have a lot to do before posting the revision, but I thought this would stir up some controversy so here it is

Quote

I am now of the opinion that τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας should be interpreted as "those who are stuck in enjoying (only) those things which provide enjoyment from outside themselves." To me, this is a direct reference to the "incorrect" beliefs of the Cyrenaics and others in relation to pleasure. And, yes, the reader is correct that I'm referring to the kinetic and katastematic pleasures that Epicurus mentions. I realize this is considered controversial by some, but I believe this best explains Epicurus's being able to use ἀπολαύσει in both positive and negative senses.

Epicurus is on record for including both kinetic and katastematic pleasures within his definition of "pleasure." I have come to understand kinetic pleasures as those arising from factors and circumstances outside of ourselves; katastematic pleasures are those arising from within ourselves (such as tranquility, pleasurable memories, etc.). While Epicurus conveys (along with Metrodorus and Philodemus) that we can be more confident in katastematic pleasures, he clearly says that we should continue to "delight" in kinetic pleasures when they are available. It is the exclusivity of "getting stuck in" only seeing kinetic pleasures as pleasure that Epicurus is objecting to here with τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας.

PS. I am MORE than happy to entertain other ideas. This one is the one (so far) that makes the most sense to me.

Quote from Cristiano Luchini

Pleasure is cultivating the virtues so as to be serene and live a pleasant life.

By Zeus! They're trying to make Epicurus a Stoic!

Here are some notes of mine I had on VS9

This is a clever bit of writing from Epicurus. The original Greek reads "κακὸν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλʼ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη ζῆν μετὰ ἀνάγκης." Note those three occurrences of ἀνάγκη/ἀνάγκης. The word itself means force, constraint, or necessity; so a literal translation would be something like "An evil, necessity (is); but (there is) no necessity to live in the midst of necessity." This retains the clever wordplay but is honestly a little clunky in English. To get the import of the statement, a paraphrase may be better. Consider what he is saying. Being constrained in your choices is an evil. If you have only one choice - or feel you only have one choice - that is an evil. However, we have free will, so we are not required to live having our choices curtailed and constrained. Even if we make choices we don't want to make, we are exercising our free will. "I don't want to go to work today, but I have to." No, you don't. You could quit. But are you ready to face the consequences of quitting your job? You can consciously decide today is not the day I quit. I make the decision to get up and do the work. Likewise, maybe getting a new job is the right decision. Weigh your options. Exercise your faculty of choice and rejection. You are not forced to be forced to do something. Make your choices and rejections. Practice well!

FYI I'm in the process of creating a revised edition of my Menoikeus translation & commentary... More hopefully soon.... Of course, I have additional thoughts on απολαυσεις etc in 131 & 132. Stay tuned...

Like this?

And scanning exercise into the details!

Quote from Cassius

So the second of those two videos is using the double slashes to indicate separations while the first video does not seem to use such separations when reading(?) Is one more clearly correct than the other?

Dactylic hexameter - Wikipedia

That double bar is a caesura. It's there whether it's marked or not. Luke Ranieri just didn't mark the scansion. Ranieri's is more fluid, but the the second is just emphasizing or demonstrating the meter far more. They're both "correct." :

"Almost every hexameter has a word break, known as a caesura /sɪˈzjʊərə/, in the middle of the 3rd foot, sometimes (but not always) coinciding with a break in sense. In most cases (85% of lines in Virgil) this comes after the first syllable of the 3rd foot, as in ca/no in the above example. This is known as a strong or masculine caesura."

See also:

Scansion | Dickinson College Commentaries

Help with Latin texts: Introduction to scansion

Although we now approach ancient texts primarily through the written word, they were originally meant for performance. Poetry in particular was probably…

libraryofantiquity.wordpress.com

If you're interested at all in Latin and Ancient Greek, I **highly** recommend Ranieri's YouTube channels Scorpio Martianus and PolyMathy (and now there's a PolyMathy+).

PS. I also just realized that the first, Ranieri's, is using the Classical pronunciation while the second is using the Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Note the difference in those as you're listening. Personally, I prefer the Restored Classical pronunciation.

Nicely done, Bryan! You've inspired me to think again about going back and trying to record the Philodemus epigram of the invitation to Piso to join in the 20th!

You might be interested in these, too:

Thought this may be of interest, too:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

LOL! He uses an image of Seneca to illustrate Lucretius.

The medieval Christians were "properly" curious.

To use the Barron's words: "C'mon, give me a break!"

Thanks for sharing, Joshua!

btw, just because I think he defined what the summum bonum is accurately doesn't imply I agree with anything else he says! A broken clock is right twice a day.

PS.:

Sorry, can't let this go. I also freely admit that it's been quite awhile since I read Greenblatt's book, so this is more a response to Barron then a defense of Greenblatt's work.

Barron brings up Bocaccio's Decameron. This is from Bocaccio's Wikipedia article: "he challenged the arguments of clerical intellectuals who wanted to limit access to classical sources to prevent any moral harm to Christian readers. The revival of classical antiquity became a foundation of the Renaissance, and his defense of the importance of ancient literature was an essential requirement for its development."

"Chaucer's attitudes toward the Church should not be confused with his attitudes toward Christianity. He seems to have respected and admired Christians and to have been one himself, though he also recognised that many people in the church were venal and corrupt." (Wikipedia)

If Barron is dismissive of Greenblatt's thesis, Barron seems a little free and easy with his interpretation of medieval Catholicism, too.