Coming up this next Monday night, at 8pm ET, is our First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion and meet-and-greet!
This month we have one new member looking to attend, and if there are any other introductory members (or established members who have never attended) interested please let us know and we can add you to the Zoom link list (link goes out the day before the meeting).
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Happy Birthday Cassius !
Hmm... I'm still struggling with the hypothetical, even in light of your revision.
I'll need to think about if it is possible to revise it (and add in the element of how much money would be available for the hypothetical "vacation"...and that there is also the option that it could be a "stay-cation").
To me, that finality has more to do with being content with the idea of dying right now.
There is the aspect of accepting death when the time arrives, and there is also the aspect of making choices during a lifespan.
Of course in the real world, we need to work and do household upkeep so that we can have suffiency and a certain level of comfort...so there is the necessity of procuring the necessities for the continuation of life.
If your memories are solely your own with no one who experienced them with you?
Ultimately we each have a unique vantage point on reality which gives rise to our subjective inner experience - so much of what we experience is held subjectively. After we die it won't matter if we sat on the butt our whole life or if we were a globe trotter. But the quality of either choice does matter - was the moment to moment unfolding experience of sitting on the butt "okay"? Or was the moment to moment unfolding experience of globe trotting "okay"? (and did unwanted consequences come about from aquiring the wealth which was required to be a globe trotter?) By "okay" I mean that it was satisfactory and not painful in some way.
For the thought experiment, I should state that during that one year, everything including your memory functions as normal. It would be only after the one year is over that your memory is erased.
Looks like more explanation is needed... ( Don this is not about dementia, but I see how you might have thought that).
After you die, you won't be around to know that you can't remember anything that happened during your life.
But by running through the thought experiment, my idea was that we can recreate a portion of what the lack of knowing would be like. As the body dies our consciousness also disperses (dies), and we won't remember anything because there won't be a brain to remember. This thought experiment is to help step outside of our "business as usual" frame of mind which has trouble cognizing the state of death.
So here is again, what I wrote for the scenerio:
Set-up:
You must take a year-long vacation, but your memory of it will be erased, all your photos and notes to yourself will be lost or deleted, and anything you buy during that time will also be taken away at the end. In essence it will be as if it never happened, except for the people that you talked to during that time will still remember.
Question:
Given the above scenario, what do you do during that one year time?
Set-up:
You must take a year-long vacation, but your memory of it will be erased, all your photos and notes to yourself will be lost or deleted, and anything you buy during that time will also be taken away at the end. In essence it will be as if it never happened, except for the people that you talked to during that time will still remember.
Question:
Given the above scenario, what do you do during that one year time?
SillyApe I would say there are differing views amongst forum members about "risk assessment" and "risk avoidance".
In the opening of Book 2 of Lucretius ' De Rerum Natura, we read:
Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
'Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife
Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains,
Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught
There is more goodly than to hold the high
Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise,
Whence thou may'st look below on other men
And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed
In their lone seeking for the road of life;
As far as space travel of any kind, my own feeling is to watch others do it rather than do it myself. Zero gravity is very hard on the human body, and there is the potential for mission mishaps and failures. I find it amazing that anyone even chooses the risk. It is just a hobby of mine to read up about what is happening.
As far as the above Lucretius quote, I would take it to mean that you just can't stop war (or space travel), but you can be happy when you yourself are safe and free from the troubles that accompany those endeavors.
Welcome to the forum SillyApe 
Just to avoid confusion ("to come up with" can be: invent or find/remember), the numbered sentences are all historic (CIL is the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum).
Thanks and editing my above post 
Here is a very long way of saying it (lol):
For an eternity I did not exist, but then I was born.
I died, and now for an eternity I will no longer exist.
Nothing of me remains to be concerned about this.
If I may add:
olim non fuimus, nati sumus unde, quieti nunc sumus, ut fuimus, cura relicta (CIL 8.4840) [This one is a bit long]
non fui, fui, non sum, non desidero (CIL 6.38506) [Too Buddhist for me…]
non fui, et sum, non ero, non mihi dolet (CIL 6.9258) [Too Stoic for me…]
non fui, deinde fui, modo non sum (CIL 2.404) [Getting closer]→ "Non fui, nunc sum, non ero"
Seeing various collected versions and also the very last, brings up wanting to try out a version myself. (Edit 12:29 ET)
I put it all into Google translate and this is what I got:
once we were not, whence we were born, now we are at rest, as we were, care left (CIL 8.4840) [This one is a bit long]
I was not, I was, I am not, I do not miss (CIL 6.38506) [Too Buddhist for me…]
I was not, and I am, I will not be, it does not hurt me (CIL 6.9258) [Too Stoic for me…]
I was not, then I was, but I am not (CIL 2.404) [Getting closer]
→ "I was not, now I am, I will not be"
Plus this article:
This morning I saw a headline in the Washington Post about libraries loaning out ghost hunting kits. 
Here is the USA, as we head into the "Halloween Season" time of the calendar (which seems to get longer and "bigger" each year) I have been thinking about how important it is to be grounded in a realistic worldview of matter and phenomenon having natural causes. Back in the September first Monday Zoom, we discussed what this worldview should be labeled, and the concensus in that meeting was the label "materialism". However I see a problem with that label because it has a double meaning (the belief that money and material possessions are the most important thing in life - which is not what Epicureans believe at all) and wondering if we could come up with a better label. I think that the "philosophical materialist worldview" is a very important aspect of Epicurean philosophy for many reasons.
I found this article about a poll of 1000 people in which 41% said that they believe in ghosts. Here is an excerpt:
Never before in history have people recorded so many ghost encounters, thanks in part to mobile phone cameras and microphones. It seems there would be great evidence by now. But scientists don't have it.
Instead, there are lots of ambiguous recordings sabotaged by bad lighting and faulty equipment. But popular television shows on ghost hunting convince many viewers that blurry images and emotional reactions are proof enough.
As for all the devices ghost hunters use to capture sounds, electrical fields and infrared radiation – they may look scientific, but they're not. Measurements are worthless without some knowledge of the thing you're measuring.
You can read more about it:
Here is the thread that I created on meaning:
Figures on social media platforms, such as john vervaeke
I had to look him up because I don't know anything about him. I found this summary of some of his ideas.
The idea that the loss of religion is causing a "meaning crisis"...my first reaction is this: "correlation does not equal causation".
Perhaps (and this just an idea) the "meaning crisis" is that people neither feel a sense of belonging with people within their immediate surroundings AND the people all around them have such vastly differing worldviews (and political views)...which makes the development of a sense of belonging very difficult. So I am thinking it is not so much what exactly people believe but that everyone is believing differently from one another. (And even family members can hold vastly differing views). Add in to that, that there are so many varying hobbies and interests in life, so that finding someone to talk to with who has the same interests (and who has time to talk) can be difficult.
Feeling a sense of isolation can create a crisis for human beings, as we have evolved within family and community.
How would you as an Epicurean answer this meaning crisis? Do you even accept the terms of things needing "meaning"? I have my own thoughts which I'll add later.
I think I started a thread on meaning not too long ago (will need to see if I can dig it up). And there are other threads and places that meaning is discussed.
"Things needing meaning"?
-- the meaning of life? (I'd say this question comes from "religious salesmen")
-- feeling like what you do is meaningful? (worthwhile, pleasurable, gives good results in the long-term, brings happiness)
-- making meaning for yourself? (having a method for choosing the things that you do)
-- that your life matters? (feeling a sense of connection with others, and that they care about you and you care about them)
I have not studies much about Aristotle, and I found this interesting (and fun) video:
As far as I understand, the difference between Epicurus and Aristotle is that Aristotle ends with moderation and the middle ground, rather than an individual's specific experience of pleasure and pain (and for Epicurus the choice and avoidance will vary depending on circumstances). So Aristotle's goal ends with virtue, rather than pleasure.
Just a "fun-fact" ...according to Wikipedia, this time of year (August/September) would be the time in ancient Greece for the Metageitnius Apollo festival.
Metageitnia (Ancient Greek: Μεταγείτνια, μετά + γειτονία literally change of neighborhood) was an Ancient Greek festival held in Athens during the month Metageitnion (August/September) in the honor of Metageitnius Apollo.[1][2] The month of Metageitnion was named after the festival Metageitnia, which celebrated the migration of Theseus from Melite to Diomeia.[3] The celebration of the festival itself declined over time and was replaced by the Apaturia.[4] The festival evolved into a celebration of migrations, immigrations, departures, and colonizations among the Ionians - Metageitnius Apollo presided over the metoikia (the abode).
The Metageitnia is also mentioned by Plutarch in the treatise On Exile in Moralia.[5][6]
Source: Wikipedia
And, in Epicurus' will he requests the rememberence of the day of Polyaenus during the month of Metageitnion.
Happy Twentieth Everyone!
The drive is stronger than the actual pleasure. Seems that regarding sex, we are wired to seek and want it more than be satisfied by it.
This perhaps depends on one's attitude and practice with regard to observing sensory experience.
A comparison can be made to eating food. There is hunger, but if the food is eaten too quickly then that can result in less satisfaction. If the meal is carefully planned and savored, and eaten slowly with an attitude of observation of every sensation, then that can result in greater satisfaction.
U489
489. Nature teaches us to think nothing of what fortune brings, to understand that when prospering we are unfortunate and when not prospering we are fortunate, to receive undisturbed the good things that fortune brings and to stand ready for its seeming evils. For what is good or evil to most people is fleeting, and wisdom has nothing in common with fortune.
Don ...this sounds "stoic"...and it is from: Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 30 [p.209.12 Nauck].
While parts of it are okay, other parts do not sound Epicurean to me. Porphyry is not quoting Epicurus, but instead he is giving his own thoughts on Epicurus.
Epicurus recommends gratitude for what is good. (There is a Vatican Saying on that, if I recall.)
