Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from TauPhi

The act of finding them establishes interference, therefore whatever you have just found is definitely not Epicurean gods. Looking for such gods makes as much sense as trying to see an invisible elephant. If you see it, it's definitely not an invisible elephant.

There is nothing in Epicurean texts that says the gods are invisible.

Seeing "films" is not bodily contact (not interference).

Letter to Menoeceus says: "For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision."

This is just what the texts say. I think it is up to each person to decide if they "like" (or agree with) this or not. I personally consider myself an atheist, so this idea doesn't resonate for me personally (just for the record).

PD1: "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness)."

---> This seems to indicate that which is not a god. And would be saying that what everyone thinks are the gods, are not gods.

This year is the 50th Aniversary of the Getty Villa. We've likely already had posts about this in other threads, but here is the news about this:

50 Years of the Getty Villa Museum

As it evolved from a private estate to a vibrant hub for antiquity, the Getty Villa Museum became a beloved Los Angeles institution

www.getty.edu

m.repetzki and `all new members, and visitors...just a heads up on some recommended reading and on what to focus on...for what is best for studying the philosophy of Epicurus:

-- we recommend DeWitt's book and Austin's book, and also studying the extant texts: Diogenes Laertius' Book 10 (especially the three letters written by Epicurus, and the Principal Doctrines. Also, the Vatican Sayings, Cicero's Toquatus section, and the Wall of Oionanda -- you can read about these here.

Welcome to the forum m.repetzki !

Here is an interesting article:

I taught rats to drive a car, and it may help us lead happier lives

Teaching rats to drive a tiny car around a laboratory taught scientists a lot about the benefits of anticipating the joy brought by the things we love.

www.bbc.com

Quote from Joshua

I may be alone in this, but I continue to think that desire is a kind of pain. We feel it as pain because we feel it as dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is a kind of pain.

Every individual perceives things subjectively according to the given circumstances. And it seem that there are differing levels of intensity of desire (from just a low-level niggling feeling of dissatisfaction up to high-level stress, anger or hopelessness.)

There are some desires that when we know they will will soon be fulfilled, it is a pleasurable experience of anticipation. For example: feeling mildly hungry and arriving for Christmas, smelling the turkey just out of the oven, and the announcement for everyone to come sit down at the dining table.

When we desire something and believe we need it, but yet we don't know how to get it, that it when desire feels painful. (For example: feeling extremely hungry, arriving for Christmas, being told the the turkey just went into the oven, and noticing that there are no hors d'oeuvres).

I think as time goes on (and depending on circumstances) the sense of pain can shift to feel less painful, because we can learn to problem solve situations. (For example: remembering to always pack a small amount of food (nuts or protein bar) with you if you tend to have hypoglycemia episodes).

Hi All, and this is especially to new members and readers...you can check out our Featured Threads here:

Threads Tagged with “Featured Threads” - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

We'll keep this post "pinned" at the top of the list so people can easily find the link.

I've been thinking about how to express a response to incorrect statements that Epicureans were people who minimized their desires. Also behind this is the idea that having desires cause pain, and thus leads to the erroneous idea to try to remove desire rather than doing what needs to be done to achieve the goals of desire. But the goals of desire are pleasure and removal of pain. We've talked about this already in many other places on the forum in other threads, but...well why not again.

Since I am starting with theory (and quotes from the Principal Doctrines) to point to why this idea is incorrect, I decided to post in this forum rather than the Practical Applications Forum. But ultimately this needs to be applied in one's life, so I hope to write about practical applications as well (in later additional posts).

In the Principal Doctrines we see:

PD22: You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion. (Saint Andre translation)

PD25: If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony. (Saint Andre translation)

In the Torquatus narrative (section 30) we read:

"Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet..." (Reid translation)

Seeing that we are naturally drawn to pleasure just as we are naturally drawn to the sweetness of honey, let us now consider this question: What should we do when we want something but it is difficult or impossible to get?

PD26 says this: "The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm."

1) If a desire for something is easy to fulfill then it there is no problem with it unless it produces harm as a consequence. (see PD8)

2) The desires that bring pain when unfulfilled are the ones that are necessary (necessary desires) and so these are the ones to put time and effort into fulfilling. By pain = physical pain AND those things which when unfulfilled lead to depletion of strength/health of the body and the mind. (see Letter to Menoeceus).

PD30 says this: "Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind."

It is common sense that all animals (including humans) need to eat to live, and naturally become hungry (with a feeling of discomfort). This occurs daily and we easily know what to do when we are hungry - we eat!

It is important to think about what other "creature comforts" we are born to desire? These are the desires that occur over and over again, and when they are adequately fulfilled on an ongoing basis they lead to good health and happiness, plus the experience of pleasure arises when these desires are fulfilled. Unfortunately we don't have a specific list from the extant texts of Epicurus, but we do see that friendship (PD27) and self-sufficiency (achieving security of adequate skills/resources) are ones that are highlighted.

I hope this shows that Epicureans are actually embracing many desires by fulfilling desires, and that we need not fear the feeling of desire, but instead turn towards the ones that nature gives us with joy.

There is probably a lot more to add here, so I welcome further thoughts.

Welcome to the forum GnothiSeauton !

Here are some things you might want to check out if you haven't already:

Frequently Asked Questions - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

...and two YouTube videos by Cassius:

Overview of Epicurean Philosophy (Major Aspects)

11 Key Doctrines

Welcome to the forum Lua050904 !

Here are some things you might want to check out if you haven't already:

Frequently Asked Questions - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

...and two YouTube videos by Cassius:

Overview of Epicurean Philosophy (Major Aspects)

11 Key Doctrines

Cassius posted this over in another thread:

Quote

I wish we had some shorthand way of indicating a reasonable level of confidence for a particular passage of text. Maybe we ought to create a thread to explore some kind of ranking system that would include factors like:

....

Thread

Possibilties For Shorthand Rating System For Indicating Reliability Of Texts

I doubt that I will pursue this myself much further, but since I wrote this up as a comment to graphic I thought I would post it separately in case someone thought it was helpful for their own thinking. I'm not at all sure that such a thing would be practical, but thinking about the factors that would go into any such system is probably a good exercise:

I wish we had some shorthand way of indicating a reasonable level of confidence for a particular passage of text. Maybe we ought to create a…

Cassius

September 21, 2024 at 7:01 AM

Once again trying to do some filing of threads posted in General Discussion. If you were the originator of a thread and believe that it should have been filed in a different location, please let me know by private message.

Also, if you can't find a thread that was previously in the General Discussion, you might try Google search and type in:

-EpicureanFriends.com and the topic or title-

...(which sometimes works better than the forum search function).

Quote from Don

And that drachma line has A LOT of holes.

In all studies, when there are so many holes, I think it is important to categorize which texts are complete and can be trusted vs. which are incomplete and therefore not to be trusted. (I am saying this in regard to all found ancient texts).

Quote from Don

Call me a skeptic

If we don't have a complete text (ie we just have fragments with missing lines and missing words) then we should hold off on making judgements because the evidence is incomplete -- and an incorrect understanding of what was written could arise, because missing words change the meaning.

At most we can state a label of the subject matter.

Happy Birthday to Tgonzalez3790 !

More thoughts, and still thinking about creating an Epicurean heirarchy or wheel.

From the Letter to Menoeceus:

"Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness, some for physical health, and some for life itself. The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life." (Peter Saint Andre translation).

------> "serene" - calm and free from agitation, distress, fretting, restlessness, or irritability

------> "happy" - pleased and free from sadness, disappointment, hopelessness, or lethergy

------> The word "necessary" can be thought of as a human need.

We also see from the Principal Doctrines:

PD29 "Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion)."

PD30 "Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind."

------> necessary desires are relieved by nature -- desires that arise because of our animal nature can be relieved by simple and natural means.

------> but unnecessary desires can't be relieved by nature -- desires invented because of the consequences of wealth (the desire for continuous variations of sensation), power (the desire for protection by trying to find security against political violence or murder or by making unsavory alliances with unwise/tyrants against a greater enemy), or status (the desire to be admired or worshipped)

PD27 says: "Of all the things that wisdom provides for the complete happiness of one's entire life, by far the greatest is friendship." And in PD28 it says: "...security amidst the limited number of dreadful things is most easily achieved through friendship."

------> Friendship should be included in an Epicurean wheel of needs.

Coming up next Monday evening is our First Monday!

Agenda: Welcome and introductions, discuss current popular forum threads, discussion on topic, and time for questions.

The topic of discussion is the second major doctrine of Epicurean philosophy and here is a description as it is presented on our front page:

Once Epicurus determined that the universe results from atoms moving naturally through void, he reasoned that the universe could not exist if the atoms were infinite in number but space were limited in size. If that were so, everything would be close-packed and nothing could move. Likewise, the universe could not exist if the atoms were limited in number but space were unlimited in size, If that were so, the atoms would never combine into bodies, any more that debris floating on a vast ocean could ever come together to form solid objects. Epicurus therefore deduced that universe is infinite in size - both the number of atoms and the extent of space are infinite.

From this Epicurus concluded that there can be nothing "outside" the universe as a whole, and so everything that exists is a part of the universe if it exists at all. This conclusion eliminates the possibility of supernatural forces existing "over" or "outside" the universe, and it focuses our attention on the tremendous implications of infinity. Given the infinity of atoms and space, all combinations of atoms which are possible can be expected to come into existence an infinite number of times and places. This does not mean that "anything" is possible, because some combinations of atoms are physically impossible. We know, for example,that there are no "Centaurs," or "Supernatural Gods," because it is Nature itself which sets the limits between what is possible and what is impossible.

As Epicurus wrote to Herodotus: "These brief sayings, if all these points are borne in mind, afford a sufficient outline for our understanding of the nature of existing things. Furthermore, there are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. For the atoms being infinite in number, as was proved already, are borne on far out into space. For those atoms, which are of such nature that a world could be created out of them or made by them, have not been used up either on one world or on a limited number of worlds, nor again on all the worlds which are alike, or on those which are different from these. So that there nowhere exists an obstacle to the infinite number of the worlds." (Bailey, at 45).

Read about more about the topic in our forums here.

***

If you are interested but have not previously attended a First Monday, let us know so we can get the link to you. All others will receive link reminder as usual.

Also, any previous attendees who have been absent from the forum for some time or have not attended within the last 6 months, please send private message to be added back into the link conversation.

Quote from TauPhi

Accusation that he's cherry picking makes no sense. This lecture is exactly about cherry picking.

The antidote to cherry picking is making a personal outline AND that outline needs to be backed up with references to specific quotes in specific texts.

In this video he makes statements that are not backed up by specific quotes from the texts.

Every person should study the textual sources themselves rather than take anyone's interpretation (even a professor's interpretation).

Quote from TauPhi

It's about questions like: Can I take 3 types of desires as described by the philosophy and use this knowledge in everyday life successfully? Do I need something else or is it sufficient to make good decisions? Did Epicureans got friendship right? Should I change something in my approach towards my friends? What are the personal implications of acknowledging pleasure as the good?

These are good questions to include in a personal outline.