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.
Yeah, I admit I still think it's 'the pleasures that lie in consumption,' but now I'm intrigued to look at other uses.
That's the weird thing to me on the grammar. The pleasure phrase "in enjoyment, in pleasure" is between the definite article τας and κειμενας. So, paraphrasing your line, it seems to me like it's "those that lie in pleasure" and not "those X that lie in consumption". The preposition is attached to pleasure/enjoyment.
I can't seem to let this go. I searched this morning for other uses of κείμενας in Diogenes Laertius plus I found 2 uses of the specific phrase τας κειμενας in Demosthenes and Diogenes Laertius:
τὰς κειμένας
1. (those) deposited (Demosthenes, Against Olympiodorus 48:17)
2. (those) deposited (Diogenes Laertius 5:3:64)
ἐν ᾧ κείμενα θεωρεῖτα
"where they are seen to be." (ie, stars) (Diogenes Laertius 10:112; letter to Pythocles)
τὰ αὐτὰ δίκαια κείμενα, (Diogenes Laertius 10:153; PD38)
"for the same things *as they are*" (see http://wiki.epicurism.info/Principal_Doctrine_38/)
And ἐν ἀπολαύσει consistently means "in pleasure"; "enjoyment" whether in Ancient Greek pagan texts or Biblical references.
In that light of day, I don't know if I'm as persuaded by Little Rocker 's conjecture. (Sorry) Although I may now be more confused than before!
I do think some translators skip over the ambiguity of the line and simply put it what they want to see or expect to see with their preconceptions of Epicurus's philosophy.
Not to lead us astray here, but is it possible this could be a reference to sex? I mean, if we did follow the idea that we're talking about the kinds of things a person might enjoy while lying in bed.
Ah!! Maybe the other translations "sensual" was a circumlocution for sex! That *is* food for thought! Well done, Little Rocker !
FYI
Original text
Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν,
Saint-Andre
131: So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, ...
Don
131: Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal [and those who are lying about in enjoyment] like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; [NOTE: Still working on mine!]
Mensch
[...] But when we say that pleasure is our goal, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the self-indulgent, as the ignorant think, or those who disagree with or misinterpret our views. [...] (page 535)
Hicks
"When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or wilful misrepresentation.
Elli
"So when we say that pleasure is the end of life, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the profligates and those in the enjoyment (that lie out of limits).
Epicurus Wiki
"we do not mean the pleasure of debauchery or sensuality,"
Bailey
"When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality,"
When we say that pleasure is the goal, we are not talking about the pleasure of profligates or that which lies in sensuality, as some ignorant persons think, or else those who do not agree with us or have followed our argument
badly; rather, it is freedom from bodily pain and mental anguish (source)
So when we say that pleasure is the goal we do not mean the pleasures of the profligate or
the pleasures of consumption, as some believe, either from ignorance and disagreement
or from deliberate misinterpretation, (source)
Pamela Gordon
[So whenever we say that pleasure is the telos [the fulfillment or end], we do not
mean the pleasures of degenerates and pleasures that consist of physical enjoyment, as some assume (out of ignorance and because they disagree, or because they misconstrue our meaning), but we mean the absence of pain in the body and the absence of distress in the spirit.]
I'm leaning towards an interpretation of Epicurus making a contrast between the frenzied pleasures of profligates and lazy indolent (maybe "self-indulgent") pleasures... Maybe?
To me, upon further reflection, this seems to echo the contrast in VS11:
τῶν πλείστων ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὲν ἡσυχάζον ναρκᾷ, τὸ δὲ κινούμενον λυττᾷ.
For the majority of people, to be at rest is to be bored stiff; but to be active is to be raving like a rabid dog.
(My translation)
A profligate would lough with this conversation, since his enjoyments are not sleepy, they are the awaken, and are those that are costantly in motion
From my reading, The two phrases joined by και are describing two different misunderstandings that Epicurus is trying to refute.
And I do not see how you're going from the feelings (enjoyments) and intepret them - metaphorically - to getting them onto the bed because they are sleepy!
The construction of the two phrases is very similar:
1. τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς
καὶ "and"
2. τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας
which Epicurus seems fond of doing in pairs.
τὰς ἡδονὰς "the pleasures"
τῶν ἀσώτων "of the prodigal"
τὰς κειμένας "the lying down (to lie idle, to rest, to lie still)
ἐν ἀπολαύσει "in enjoyment"
The second phrase to me implies lethargic inactivity while the first, the profligate one, implies wild activity. Epicurus is saying both are wrong understandings of his philosophy.
Just for the record too, I guess we could consider asking Peter St Andre directly about his thoughts. I have never had any communication with him in the past so I am not aware whether he is reachable or not.
I'll be happy to email him even though the Epicurus texts were posted on 2011. Hopefully he'll remember 
PS: Emailed.
Epicurus is writing about two mistaken ideas about his philosophy here: he does not mean the pleasures of the profligates *nor* τας εν κειμένας απολαύσεις. He is refuting two mistaken understandings of his philosophy. He could very well to my eye be contrasting the mistaken views that Epicureans indulged the wild pleasures of the profligate *and* the exact opposite of indolence or laziness.
<τας εν κειμένας απολαύσεις> = <those that lie in enjoyments> [ those enjoyments that are out of limits] and this is what Epicurus means.
I still don't see how you're going from <those that lie in enjoyments> to getting [ those enjoyments that are out of limits]. That seems to me to be reading meaning into the words that isn't there from what I can see. To me, Epicurus wrote what he meant and meant what we wrote. I'm not seeing that meaning in the literal words.
Epicurus uses a related word (κεμαι with a prefix) in Fragment 207:
Fragment 207. Better to lie serene upon a bed of straw than to be full of troubles on a golden chair at an overflowing table.
κρεῖσσον δὲ σοι θαρρεῖν ἐπὶ στιβάδος κατακειμένῳ ἢ ταράττεσθαι χρυσῆν ἔχοντι χλίνην καὶ πολυτελῆ τράπεζαν.
It seems to me that Saint-Andre was generally correct in using the meaning of "lie down to rest, repose."
Thank you for that, Elli .
To be clear, I completely agree with you that Epicurus taught that we should enjoy pleasure within certain limits. He talked about limits and boundaries a lot.
I'm just unclear how you're saying this one phrase <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> in the ancient text can be translated as "those enjoyments that lie out of limits" when I'm just not seeing any "out of limits" in the actual words.
Let me go back to the text. Using my translation of the letter, I get:
Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal and <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. [132] For it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.
Epicurus *could have* talked about "those enjoyments that lie out of limits" there but there are other slanders from "those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly" that he could have wanted to emphasize.
I'm just trying to understand how you can interpret those specific words <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> the way you did. If I could ask Bailey and others how they interpreted them the way they did, I would. 
You just happen to be in the forum.
And I don't think I'm using some Platonic dialectical method. Epicurus advocated using words with their natural meaning, as I understand it, not to hide meaning or redefine words like Socrates/Plato did. Toward that end, I don't see "out of limits" expressed by <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> but I can see a natural literal meaning like Saint-Andre's "the enjoyment of sleep."
Elli : I'm curious where you're getting the meaning of "limits". I don't see that sense in LSJ:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , κεδρ-ίς , κεῖμαι
I'm getting the sense of lying down in one place.
I do see this in the Homeric dictionary at Perseus:
3 sing. κέσκετο, fut. κείσομαι: lie, be placed or situated, of both persons and things, and often virtually a pass[I've]. to τίθημι, as κεῖται ἄεθλα, prizes ‘are offered,’
Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary, κεῖμαι
but I don't see any sense of "limit" in τίθημι either:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, τίθημι
I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment you're expressing, but I'm not seeing how you get from <τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας> to "those enjoyments that lie out of limits". Just trying to learn and understand.
I highly recommend going to the source material which Nate listed above.
Agreed. An early read through the actual texts was my introduction after discovering Epicureanism through mentions in Stoic material (like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca) and in neo-Stoic materials. Also Alain De Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy. I don't recommend those, that's just where I heard about Epicurus.
For me, I moved directly into Diogenes Laertius 's book 10 devoted to Epicurus as my entry to the philosophy. Then Lucretius...etc. Let Epicurus and the Ancient Epicureans speak for themselves, then move into commentary.
That said, Emily Austin's book is the most accessible short introduction to the philosophy available now in my opinion.
Wow, these responses are very inspiring, a treasure trove! I’m off to read dewitt!
If you haven't read Dr. Emily Austin's book yet, I'd suggest that one as the first book. That is a very approachable introduction. DeWitt is a good introduction but he comes across as more academic even though he's writing for a popular audience. You can tell he's a professor writing in 1954.
I'd have to think about me, but I seem to remember DeWitt writing about Epicurus's connection to Apollo.
And Philodemus throws in the occasional "By Zeus!" into his prose.
And, of course, we have the literal Hymn to Venus from Lucretius.
I don't think they'd necessarily fall under a "personally chosen or preferred god" or not, but those individual gods peppered throughout Epicurean texts are intriguing.
I had an idea, if you were asked “what does it mean to you personally to be epicurean in 30 words or less?”, what would your response be?
I'll take that challenge and it was more difficult to keep to <=30 words than I thought!
With pleasure as my North Star, I choose and reject paths leading onward. I am grateful for all my pleasurable memories, those I have now and those to come.
On p. 240, DeWitt quotes "What, in a word, is to be said of a philosophy that begins by regarding pleasure as the only positive good and ends by emptying pleasure of all positive content?"
This is from Paul Elmer More's Hellenistic Philosophies (Princeton University Press, 1923). You can read the full context of More's quote at the Internet Archive (click this link).
Welcome aboard, @Blank_Emu43 !
(Till the Inquisitors show up, anyway
– but then, Epicurean philosophy, as I see it, is really not amenable to any Inquisition.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE EPICUREAN INQUISITION!
LOL I keep wanting to respond to the questions myself!
PS. Just to say explicitly: That just goes to the thoughtfulness of the questions.
