Posts by Don

Quote from Titus

Quote from Onenski

Here's a Spanish version of the text cited by Ciceron (and supposedly found in Herculanum), the APOKARTERŌN:

https://www.mainlanderespana.com/single-post/ap…esias-de-cirene

I was able to find the English original, to which the Spanish version refers.

The Apokarteron

Thanks for this. The only caveat is that this is "a speculative reconstruction." It appears that it's not the actual text of Apokarteron but an attempt to construct what it could have been using other ancient texts and filling in a dialogue format. For example, Hegesias is not listed in the available authors at Papyri.info, and there appears to be no P.herc.1913 & 1914 as mentioned in the 2nd footnote. Papyri.info only lists up to P.herc. 1824. So the citation is meant to provide verisimilitude to the fictional reconstruction, like Tolkien saying The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were translated from Bilbo's and Frodo's Red Book of Westmarch (with later additions by Sam Gamgee).

Not saying the article isn't interesting, but it shouldn't be taken as an ancient text.

See also

PN Search

THV – Würzburger Zentrum für Epikureismusforschung

Back to the topic of the thread:

Quote from ThinkingCat

Anyway my colleague is willing to do cocaine and will go through the come down afterwards because he argue’s that the pleasure outweighs the pain. Of course at some point, he might become addicted to cocaine so the pain factor would kick in then. But he argues that he doesn’t have an addictive personality type and only does cocaine on special occasions. It could be argued in this scenario that he is being Epicurean?! Thoughts!

Right off the bat, I can't say whether your colleague is "being Epicurean" or not. Just saying you're doing something for the "pleasure" of it strikes me as being more generally "hedonistic" than strictly Epicurean. Around here at least, that capital-E Epicurean brings along a lot more than simply doing something for the pleasure it provides.

On a deeper level, Cassius (& others here) and I have had some "knock-down drag-out fights" over the years concerning the interpretation of PD10 as well as the section in the Letter to Menoikeus about "the pleasure of those who are prodigal." I have refined my views on that Principal Doctrine thanks to those "discussions."

I maintain that it's not an activity, in and of itself, that is objectionable to Epicurus's philosophy but the consequences. It is of paramount importance to *always* adhere to VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?  Eikadistes 's mention of symmetresis (Great word, btw!!) is a nice one-word summary of that process. One "weighs together" the "What if's?" against each other. Questions for your colleague to ask themselves would include, but not be limited to:

• Does the activity negatively affect his life? Positively affect?
• Are they willing to accept the physical damage to their body?
• What happens if they don't do the drug in the social setting?
• Are friendships damaged if the drug is not partaken of? If partaken of? If so, which of those friendships are important to your well-being?
• As Nate points out: Are you concerned about being caught using an illegal substance? (whether one agrees with the justice of the laws or not, it's still illegal)

And so on...

Epicurus's position seems to me that you can't have a blanket statement *against* a specific activity. Epicurus is all about context. That said, I continue to assert that Epicurus thought it was *better* in the long run to not indulge all the time in "sex, drugs, and rock & roll." Those behaviors and activities have been shown to not be conducive to an overall pleasurable existence due to health and social concerns. He's not laying down a prohibition from on high. He's saying, "Okay, if that's what you want to do. Report back to me on how it's going later, and we'll talk." But, as I pointed out in post #5 above, Epicurus wrote in his Symposium (lost except for fragments now ) , of which it appears he was a participant in the dialogue, that it was the behavior *arising* from getting drunk that was the problem, not the drinking of wine itself.

ThinkingCat : You have definitely earned your screen-name. Not only are you obviously thinking yourself; you're getting the rest of us to think as well! Thanks!

I have thoughts on the thread topic but wanted to reply to the quote..

Quote from Nate

"The wise man will never indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet." (Wise Man Saying 13)

My translation: Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly.

Hicks: Nor will he drivel, when drunken: so Epicurus says in the Symposium.

Yonge: Nor will he ever indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet,

Mensch: He will not talk nonsense when drunk.

Is the emphasis here on the drunkenness or the "drivel" (to talk stupidly or carelessly)?

Let's check the original text:

οὐδὲ μὴν ληρήσειν ἐν μέθῃ …

• ληρήσειν "be foolish or silly, speak or act foolishly"
• ἐν μέθῃ "when drunk" (literally, "in strong drink, in drunkenness")
• "Nor, truly, will they act or speak silly in drunkenness…"

So, technically, the wise one can get drunk, but they need to be careful how they act. The fact that this characteristic is an excerpt from Epicurus's Symposium (Συμπόσιον) which is a banquet or drinking party, is interesting. Chances are attendees were getting drunk and acting silly. To me, Epicurus is saying, "Go ahead and drink, but, Paian Anax, don't act the fool!" (According to Normal DeWitt, Epicurus liked to pepper his writings with names of the gods, Paian Anax "Lord Apollo" was one of his favorites.)

Welcome, χαίρε, and salve, Randall Moose and thank you for the heartfelt introduction to yourself and your path here.

I fully agree with you about the value of the podcast. It has been my honor and pleasure to contribute to those efforts intermittently, but I enjoy listening to every episode. The freewheeling, informal style established at the very beginning by Cassius, Martin and the others makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping on a conversation. And to be a part of that conversation is *always* a pleasure when I drop by.

Quote from Randall Moose

I do believe that my life has improved since I began my studies.

Completely agree with you in my life as well!

Quote from Randall Moose

I have always been shy online and I am still studying the basics, so please be patient with me. It took me some time to discover this forum. It has been a wonderful resource....

Going forward, I want to be active on the forum. I really shouldn't be this anxious about it, but I am.

I look forward to your activity on the forum. I, too, was anxious about engaging online. Your comments inspired me to go back and reread my very first post to the forum on Feb. 25, 2020. I "lurked" for some time before registering an actual account. I used an alias and fully expected to mostly read and only occasionally comment. Now, 3+ years in , I use my given name, written three articles, am an occasional podcaster, and made connection with wonderful people. I fully agree this forum is a unique and valuable corner of the Internet, and I greatly appreciate Cassius 's (and more recently Kalosyni 's) efforts in maintaining it, both the software and content.

Welcome aboard our little boat!

VS78 came up in the episode:

The noble soul is devoted most of all to wisdom and to friendship — one a mortal good, the other immortal.

ὁ γενναῖος περὶ σοφίαν καὶ φιλίαν μάλιστα γίγνεται, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι θνητὸν ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον.

This Vatican Saying puzzled me for a long time, and I don't know whether I read this somewhere (probably) or it hit me.

I looked at the words usually rendered mortal and immortal: θνητὸν - liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος literally "un-dying"

Wisdom σοφίαν is mortal because it dies with us. Our own wisdom, what we know, dies with our mind.

Friendship φιλίαν exists after our death in the memories of our friends.

That's how I interpret this saying now.

Quote from ThinkingCat

my ‘online friends’ as opposed to my ‘real life friends’

For what it's worth, we're real, too.

Quote from ThinkingCat

Also didn’t Epicurus only eat water and bread and sometimes a little cheese?

That's a common misconception. Here's my commentary on that in my letter to Menoikeus translation:

Quote

These are two important words: μᾶζα, ὕδωρ. A number of commentators point to these two words to insist that Epicurus and all those who lived or studied in the Garden ate only “bread and water.” I have always been curious about which kind of bread was being referred to. It turns out its μᾶζα (maza) which was an ancient Greek barley-cake or a thick barley porridge as opposed to ἄρτος (artos), a cake or loaf of wheat bread. Maza could be a quick, hearty, simple meal all by itself. Pass the Flamingo (a website on ancient recipes and food) has an interesting article on it which includes a recipe.

It’s important to point back to verse 126c at this point. The idea of eating “only” bread and water seems Spartan (pun intended) and ascetic to us, but bread and water (or, probably more commonly, wine) *was* a meal in ancient Greece. A simple meal of maza with a cup of water, without all the extra dishes that made up ὄψον, would not have been an uncommon meal. Epicurus isn’t advocating an ascetic lifestyle here. He’s pointing to the simple, everyday meals that many Athenians took for granted. You don't need an extravagant, ten-course feast to experience pleasure. Slow down, appreciate what's in front of you, take delight in the everyday pleasures - like that meal you don't give a second thought to. But Epicurus will have more to say about this soon.

FYI... Acts 17:18-34 (NRSV)

The word "babbler" is actually σπερμολόγος (spermalogos) "idle babbler, gossiper"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σπερμο-λόγος

Quote

18Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.

22Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26From one ancestor[i] he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God[j] and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,

‘For we too are his offspring.’

29Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

32When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33At that point Paul left them. 34But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Quote from ThinkingCat

ok great, so I promise I will go away and do some reading but could anyone briefly summarise why Christianity was a problem for Epicurus - obviously Christian’s believed in a personal god but how would Christianity have helped portray Epicureanism as excess?

Christians did not like (to put it mildly) that Epicureans did not believe in an immortal soul that could be punished or rewarded in an afterlife. The Christians also didn't like that Epicureans did not believe "god" intervened in the world and human affairs. There were a number of "disagreements" but those are the main ones.

Epicureans are actually mentioned in the Bible at Acts 17:18.

Quote from Nate

TAΓAϴON seems to have a similar application, in that the word popularly connotes a perfect, transcendental principle, but also literally refers to that objects that create pleasurable feelings, or pleasure itself.

I'm not sure if I agree with the definition there.

Nicomachean Ethics starts out with:

“Every art and every investigation, and likewise every practical pursuit or undertaking, seems to aim at some good: hence it has been well said that the Good is That at which all things aim.”

This sets up the difference between “some/a good thing” ἀγαθοῦ and The Good Thing τἀγαθόν.

Quote from Cassius

SOCRATES: I omit ten thousand other things, such as beauty and health and strength, and the many beauties and high perfections of the soul: O my beautiful Philebus, the goddess, methinks, seeing the universal wantonness and wickedness of all things, and that there was in them no limit to pleasures and self-indulgence, devised the limit of law and order, whereby, as you say, Philebus, she torments, or as I maintain, delivers the soul. — What think you, Protarchus? …

I admit I need to read Philebus in full, but, just riffing on the above excerpts + Seneca, it seems to meet that Plato (via "Socrates") is conflating (on purpose) pleasure and desire. The *desire* for pleasure is infinite; and the things (mental and physical) from which we can derive pleasure are probably innumerable. But pleasure, as a feeling, is limited to the point where there is no pain, when the body is satiated. Full satisfaction is the limit of pleasure. I think Epicurus had that absolutely correct. The other philosophers took for granted (from *their* perspective!) that pleasure was bad, base, inferior and then designed their philosophy around that "a priori knowledge." Epicurus started from the ground up to investigate where pleasure came from, and decided it was nature's natural "stop and go" signals, then began to philosophize how we interact with pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

And it may also be exactly the same point as with the "greatest good" which exists only in Platonic ideal status.

Νο. No, no, no.

"The greatest good" did not only exist in "Platonic ideal status." Epicurus was more than happy to discuss - to proclaim - "the greatest good" on the same terms as his rivals and predecessors but his declaration was rooted in the real world of experience, of feeling. Epicurus declared that The Good was not some ethereal ideal form. It was pleasure, the feeling of pleasure.

The word in ancient Greek that Aristotle uses, that they all use when talking about "The Good," is ταγαθον (tagathon). ταγαθον literally means "The Good Thing" or just "The Good." That is the exact word Epicurus uses when saying:

Quote

[It is observed too that in his treatise On the Ethical End (Περὶ τέλους Peri telous/telos) he writes in these terms:] "I know not how to conceive the good (τἀγαθόν), apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form."

"Οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθόν, ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς δι᾽ ἀφροδισίων καὶ τὰς δι᾽ ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς."

The "greatest good" is the reason - the final reason, the end reason, the goal, the limit, the telos - of why we do what we do. It is the reason left at the top of the heap after we answer every other question "Why do you do what you do?" The "greatest good" is that toward which every other good thing aims.

Epicurus also used the word in one of Cassius' favorite sayings:

Like unto this is that of Epicurus, where he saith: The very nature of The Good (τὴν τἀγαθοῦ φύσιν) arises from the escaping of bad, and a man's recollecting, considering, and rejoicing within himself that this hath befallen him. For what occasions transcending joy (he saith) is some great impending evil escaped; and in this lies the very nature and essence of "good" (ἀγαθοῦ), if a man attain unto it aright, and contain himself when he hath done, and not ramble and prate idly about "good" (ἀγαθοῦ). (Source with my edits)

τἀγαθόν is also the word used by Philodemus and/or the later Epicureans in the Tetrapharmakos for “The Good (τἀγαθόν) is easy to obtain.”

Quote from Cassius

maybe that's exactly why Epicurus recommended against walking around obsessing over the meaning of "good."

He lampooned the Peripatetics (Aristotle's school who "strolled around") for the kind of circular arguments and hair-splitting about what "good" means like Aristotle displays in his Nichomachean Ethics. The Epicureans, starting from Epicurus himself, felt that they had answered the question "what is ταγαθον 'The Good'?" once and for all. They answered "What is the good thing at which all other good things and our actions aims?" Epicurus and the Epicureans all used that word ταγαθον deliberately and purposefully to drive the point home that they had answered that question decisively, finally, and there was no need - had never been a need! - to "stroll around endlessly prattling on" about what "good" meant. You can FEEL The Good. It's right here, now, in our bodies and our minds. All good things point to The Good Thing which is pleasure. Pleasure is the only thing good in and of itself. We do all our actions for it, at their root. Keep asking "Why?" and the final answer, the final good thing at the root of it all is pleasure.

January 1, 2023 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1927 are open to all!

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdom…%20until%202062.

Quote from Cassius

That such a statement is even reasonable to entertain is an indictment of Buddhism.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...

Yes, Buddhism states life is dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactory, etc.) but at least it offers a way out of the suffering that doesn't involve committing suicide. Hegesias seems to have stopped listening at the Second Noble Truth.

Check through Internet Archive's Bailey Lucretiuses before you go to the trouble of scanning your copy. That said, I'm not sure if your exact edition is there, but no need to reinvent the wheel of it is.

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

There's also the Perseus Digital Library:

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Liber Primus, line 1

which has the address benefit of hyperlinking to the Latin dictionary.

Hedonism is overrated – to make the best of life there must be pain, says this Yale professor

The most satisfying lives are those which involve challenge, fear and struggle, says psychologist Paul Bloom

www.theguardian.com

This is an article - definitely not Epicurean! - by Paul Bloom that summarizes his recent book on the importance of suffering, challenge, and meaning in life. Pleasure isn't enough, he says.

I have real problems with his general thesis and wordplay.

He keeps using words like satisfaction and dances around Epicurus's notion of a pleasurable life.

Quote from Bloom

I argue that we don’t only seek pleasure, we also want to live meaningful lives– – and this involves willingly experiencing pain, anxiety, and struggle. We see value in chosen suffering.

But why do we "want meaningful lives"? Because we derive pleasure from that, I would say. Epicurus himself acknowledged that we will sometimes undertake pain for long-term pleasure. Bloom would call that "satisfaction" not pleasure. The Cambridge dictionary defines "satisfaction" as "a pleasant feeling that you get when you receive something you wanted, or when you have done something you wanted to do." Look at that! Pleasure!

So, I'd be curious to hear opinions from y'all.

Quote from Cassius

Yes I can definitely be harsh on the Stoics on occasion, but in reading a little more into Emily Austin's book tonight I came across a couple of relevant paragraphs from Chapter 15 that remind me to keep the pressure on due to the different approaches to dealing with what is and what is not in our control

Oh, I agree with your sentiment there, Cassius . We certainly have precedent for forcefully engaging with "our rivals" from the earliest students (and founder) of the Garden. The only caveat I'd offer is to make sure we're sticking to facts about their philosophy and not engaging in stereotyping. Not that you were doing that in #13 necessarily, but we have to be sure we're being frank about the real tenets of their philosophy so they can't accuse us of "not understanding" it. That's why Dr. Austin's regularly bringing up specifics is important. The Epicurean fact of "the way things are" that bad things that happen are just bad and painful and not part of a providential plan is so important. To a Stoic, the death of a loved one (if Stoics can even use that term), including a child, is of no consequence to one's happiness. Epicureans understand the "bite" of grief and provide ways to cope. Dr. Austin also brings up the Stoic idea that friends are there to allow the Stoic to practice virtue, but friends are just a "preferred indifferent" and aren't necessary to one's well-being. Those are the kind of specific "practices" and ideas that make Stoicism unsatisfactory and unsatisfying to me. She does a great job of laying those kinds of things out in that podcast episode... Right on the Stoics' own turf!

I have to agree with TauPhi in post #14 above.

To "Thrive in a World Out of Your Control" strikes me as an invitation to understand what is and is not out of one's control, and to learn to control what is... Or as TauPhi says:

Quote from TauPhi

I don't think Stoics wanted to gain control over things out of control. They rather focused on how to deal best (in their understanding of the word) with things in control and not to care too much about things out of control.

That said, the Stoics and Epicureans had very different ways of defining that concept and how to deal with it.

Emily Austin on Stoicism's Rival

A discussion on the Epicurean life.

stoameditation.com

For those who might miss my post of this in another thread, here's a link to Dr. Austin's appearance on the Stoic podcast.

As always, I think she did a great job. She remains, in my opinion, a wonderful spokesperson and advocate for Epicurus and his philosophy. Well done! Κῦδος!