Posts by Kalosyni

Here is a current news write-up on Halloween. I think that adults aren't exactly "immune" to mental concepts of things or their correlate actions -- they do affect us in some way...as evidence shows in this news article about a fake house fire, and other unintelligent things.

Quote

Halloween has gotten more intense over time, from horror enthusiasts decorating their homes with fake bloodstains to animatronic ghouls in costume stores scaring the daylights out of kids. Some parents are worried — is Halloween too scary for kids?

Family visits to Spirit Halloween stores have become “a seasonal tradition,” a company spokesperson tells TODAY.com, adding, “Our animatronics offer varying levels of scare.”

On TikTok, parents are sharing videos of their children shrieking and falling to the floor in abject terror as towering mechanical monsters pop out at them.

Sometimes, people get so carried away with Halloween decorations that the authories get involved.

A South Carolina family has installed special effects that looks like a “house fire,” with smoke and flames bursting from windows. ...

Is Halloween getting too scary for kids?

If your kid is freaked out, they're not alone. Here's how to handle it.

www.today.com

"First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many.

[124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien.

*****

What other textual evidence do we have, from Lucretius etc.?

PD 01 doesn't use the word "gods".

Also, we'll need to cross-reference anything on the prolepsis of the gods (I'll see what I can dig up and post here soon).

Thinking that this coud be a thread for discussion of Halloween, and how modern Epicureans can make sense of it. I am noticing that the popularity of Halloween seems to increase more and more, (in area of the US that I live in). There are Halloween type public events occuring even now (the first I saw just happened on this past Thursday night), which is crazy because Halloween is not till October 31st. And there are numerous events happening on the two weekends coming up (the weekend before Halloween and then on Halloween which is on a Friday).

Many downtown shopping city areas put on events...and it looks like over 20 churchs or more (throughout the area of where my sister lives and some also in my area) are holding events called "Trunk-or-Treat" for children to dress up and get candy (people decorate the trunk of their cars and hand out candy to children as they walk around the parking lot).

I can't help but think that perhaps the Christian religion is "needing" to promote Halloween since anything that represents "supernatural" (and promoting the idea that the spirit of humans exists separately from the body...and therefore there are ghosts and "life after death") ...is just the other side of the same coin (where would Christians be without the devil?).

I think that modern Epicureans should consider how to apply PD 01 to our current situation with Halloween.

PD01: "The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak."

Of course there are many aspects to Halloween, and children have a different and much more simple understanding of it, compared to teenagers and adults.

For adults who succumb to or have "supernatural belief tendencies", Halloween ends up reproducing a somewhat similar supernatural mythos as compared to ancient Greek mythology, but with a twist -- there are powerful forces, and some people (like in the "Harry Potter mythology") know how to harness the powers or subdue the evil powers - in the end you have powers that do your bidding if you know how to interact with them. But this modern mythology ends up reinforcing both ideas of the existence of a "supernatural realm" and also "supernatural good and evil".

Welcome to the forum Zarathustra

You might like to watch this overview video created by Cassius (if you haven't already).

Quote from Cassius

We ought to note for the record that the one on the right is a creative alteration, and not authentic!

Yes, thank you for making that clear (I have now added an edit note to that post (in post 5 above).

It is interesting to think about how smiles can hide inner emotions (such as in the dying warrior smiling) but perhaps a scowling expression appears like there is less emotion being covered up.

Here is the photo to which Martin was referring to in post 6 above:

Quote

The following is from a posting made by forum member Martin:

...Gypsum copy of a statue of a dying (and smiling!) Greek warrior (Copies of this statue in other museums include the arrow in his chest which he appears to grab.)

"The smile features predominately on Archaic Greek statues from about 570 to 480 BC...

There have been many theories as to why this very distinct smile was depicted in Archaic sculpture."

Quoted from: https://ancientart.tumblr.com/post/111696494…e-how-does-this

Later statues usually do not show a smile.

The smile on the dying warrior might indicate a philosophy which did not see death as terrible at a time well before Socrates and then Epicurus came up with not to fear death.

Display More

Quote from Cassius

Yes a good topic, and something to correlate with the observation that to my knowledge none of the statues of Epicurus or any other Epicurean shows them smiling, but rather more serious or, in the case of Epicurus, intense.

We've discussed this elsewhere (will need to find the link)...there is a time and a place for everything...

Which Epicurus would you want at your Birthday party or Twentieth Celebration?

****

Edit note: Oct. 9th, 2:12pm - the above graphic is digitally altered to highlight different emotions.

There was a lot going on during the Archaic period:

Wikipedia: Archaic Greece

Thanks Adrastus for bringing this up. The Wikipedia link you included shows a few examples of sculptures, and really piques my interest.

Welcome to the forum wbernys !

Martin maybe you can give a good answer to the question in the above post.

Also:

VS79. The man who is serene causes no disturbance to himself or to another.

The following Principal Doctrines help to determine what an Epicurean does and doesn't do -- not abstract ideals (such as asceticism or minimalism).

PD24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

(The way to evaluate mere opinions and arrive at what is true, is to observe sensations and feelings).

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

(Something is determined to be "bad" only when the consequences bring much worse sensations of pain).

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

(Something is considered genuinely pleasurable when it isn't accompanied by pain).

In study of Philodemus, this may be of use:

"Horace an Epicurean Sage: The Influence of Philodemus on Epistles I", by Ryan Migliore - a dissertation...

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/199343/rmiglior_1.pdf

Excerpt (pg. 28)

Quote

1.5 Roman Epicureanism in the 1st century BCE

So far, I have attempted to represent, in general terms, Philodemus’ practice of Epicureanism as more flexible and open to new ideas but no less Epicurean. It must be remembered that for a philosopher like Philodemus, these characteristics are not signs of deviation from orthodoxy but a natural result of separation from Epicurus, contact with Roman culture, and his own experiences. He is not altering core Epicurean tenets but filling in gaps and 112 Asmis (1995) 21-22. 28often providing logical arguments like the ones needed by Cicero’s Torquatus. This flexibility and openness are two aspects that can be traced in the practice of Epicureanism in the late Republic. Recently, there has been excellent work on the Epicureanism of Piso, Atticus, Vergil, and even Julius Caesar, a brief consideration of which further reveals how flexibility and openness were part of the philosophy’s appeal.113 In discussing the extent of the philosophical convictions of these historical figures, I hope to show not only what might be considered the philosophy’s more orthodox practice at Rome, but also the surprising presence of “Epicureanlight” ideas that pervade the Roman ethos. Alongside this discussion, I want to suggest what I believe is a more proper way of understanding professions of Epicureanism: that we should not evaluate such professions against a monolithic conception of the philosophy but rather accept them and seek to understand how Roman adherents applied the philosophical doctrines to improve their lives.114

This Vatican Saying comes up:

VS54. We must not pretend to study philosophy, but study it in reality, for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health.

I always interpret this as a combination of both physical and mental health.

And this could be applied to Buddhism as well...even if someone sits in meditation, and appears to be doing well, what is actually going on inside their minds?

Epicureanism helps one make sense of death and desires, and that leads toward liberation without the need for years and years of long meditation sessions. You drop your mental worries because you have arrived at a sense of true personal sufficiency - through a combination of putting effort into setting up your life and lifestyle to be conducive to personal well-being and developing specific attitudes/understandings toward pleasure & pain and life & death.

Quote from Robert

Since Soto is so meditation-centric ("sit down and shut up!" as one teacher puts it), you must have spent much time on the zafu. What are your thoughts on integrating a meditation practice into Epicureanism?

I never considered myself an "intense" meditator. Some of the people attending the Buddhist group would be meditating every day for 40 minute sessions, at home.

For me it might have been just 5 or 10 minutes at home, but on Sundays I would attend the public group that had 40 minute zazen, and also weekend retreats (just a few times), and also mid-week class which had 40 minutes, and then over several years it starts adding up (lol).

But I feel like the meditation process which is based on sitting still, is training a certain part of your brain that is different than the part of your brain that is active when you are moving around doing stuff or talking to people. And you are still left with solving all the real-life issues that require a thinking, rational mind that needs to make choices and take action. If you are lacking in certain basic needs of modern life (work, monetary resources, friends, etc), then no amount of meditation will solve those problems. In fact it could end up causing you to "let go" too much, such that you aren't properly doing what you need to do to solve those life issues.

As for Epicureans, if it gives you pleasure and doesn't cause any longterm problems then meditation gets a thumbs-up.

Quote from Robert

I still feel gratitude towards Buddhism; I learned a lot from it and it was my entry into philosophy.

Yes, same here.

Quote from Bryan

On the original topic, I wanted to point out the fun connection that the word for "school" is the same as "leisure" -- and the word in question is the negation of leisure -- i.e., occupation. This is why the translations diverge a bit at this point.

Is this perhaps coming up because of the differences in ancient Greek language vs modern Greek language?

Also, could it imply "being busy and therefore not getting around to studying the true nature of things" and then coming to one's death without really "understanding" life...but perhaps I am tweeking this a bit too far. ???

Revisiting Vatican Saying 14 ...

...rushing around without considering that life has a finite length of time.

If what you do is always done with the thought that you have wisely chosen what you are doing and you know (and remember) that you only have a finite amount of time, then no matter what you do it will be more "meaningful".

And also adding in consideration of VS11, which speaks about doing things either in a state of stagnation (sleepy) vs. a frenzied state. Stagnation could be like automatic pilot, and just repeating the same slow actions.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about ancient philosophers (in the forward letter of his "Jefferson Bible"):

Quote

1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquility of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced indeed the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation; toward our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity, and love to our fellow-men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

Source: https://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

And it does seem that much of this could be said of Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Robert

Were you affiliated with a particular Buddhist school/tradition?

Started briefly with a Tibetan Buddhist group, then interspersed for a few times with a visit to a bay area Soto Zen Center, also once attended a Thai Forest Tradition short retreat for lay practitioners, and my main practice of several years of regular attendance was at a Soto Zen Temple.

Quote from Robert

An interesting question here about how philosophy and/or religion address this kind of suffering. Buddhism sometimes seems close to Stoicism in that it teaches us to overcome suffering by devaluing it

Later Mahayana (Zen and Tibetan) have added the Bodhisattva ideal, which brings in a bit more compassion for suffering, compared to Theravadin.

Quote from Robert

How should an Epicurean address it?

This is a very good question... so to state the question: how would an Epicurean think and act regarding: 1) one's own suffering; 2) other people's suffering - friends/family; community; strangers/unknown visitors/people living in distant lands.

***

Edit note: Oct.1, 2025, I have removed the website links which were originally embedded in this thread, but you can private message me with any further questions regarding specific Buddhist groups.

Quote from Robert

I see the incompatibilities as stemming from the fundamentally different premises of the two systems. Buddhism is predicated on the idea that conscious life doesn't end with the breakup of the body

There are within ancient Theravadin Buddhist texts - the Pali Sutta - certain passages which point to how conciousness is dependent on factors (Eye-consciousness: Arises dependent on the eye and visible forms. Ear-consciousness: Arises dependent on the ear and sounds. Nose-consciousness: Arises dependent on the nose and odors. Tongue-consciousness: Arises dependent on the tongue and flavors. Body-consciousness: Arises dependent on the body and tactile sensations. Mind-consciousness: Arises dependent on the mind and mental objects. (Theravadin Buddhism was the earliest form of Buddhism, and texts date back before Zen texts and Tibetan texts).

When studying and understanding this properly, then one can see that there actually is no rebirth. But the idea of rebirth is so entrenched culturally in countries which have Theravadin monastic groups, (and a few textual passages do speak of rebirth) so then this rebirth idea keeps going forward, taught by Theravadin teachers.

Quote from Robert

The idea is that such a person lacks insight into the nature of samsara

The idea of "samsara" is a very negative view of life, but yet certain people do have a lot of suffering depending on their circumstances (war, poverty, low wage-slavery, lack of sanitary infrastructure in third-world countries).

Then there are the "first-world" mental sufferings ......and we can see that Lucretius wrote about that in the De Rerum Natura -- the vessel analogy.

I believe that there are aspects Epicurean philosophy which can help relieve these "first-world" mental sufferings (and much more effectively than Buddhist teachings).

An major issue that I have with Buddhism is that it has an extremely "skeptic" take on the ability of the mind to understand things (as well as using skepticism as a method for how to overcome suffering through mental thought regulation rather than by taking actions). Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two). If a mentally unstable person practices this, it can have bad results (and likely bad results for a mostly mentally stable person also).

So a major difference is that Epicureanism takes a firm stand on things:

VS41 - "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy."

And also regarding the idea of rebirth:

VS14 - "We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied." (See this thread to read about what is implied by "occupied".)

(P.S. Robert I also studied and practiced Buddhism before discovering Epicurean philosophy).