Posts by Pacatus

I was just rereading some of Jean-Marie Guyau, The Ethics of Epicurus, and found that his second chapter is “Fundamental Pleasure: the Stomach.” (The translator notes that the French word Guyau uses – ventre – is a broader concept than “stomach;” Wiktionary gives “belly.”)

In the chapter, he says:

“The pleasure of the stomach supports all sensible life, and consequently, following the Epicurean doctrine, is the ground of all good.”

I don’t think this adds any real content to the discussion here – it’s just an aside.

Quote from Don

I'll admit discussions of AI can raise my hackles.

I’ve been thinking about this (actually it’s been festering in my brain – along with Eikadistes’ plea to not use AI generated “art”). Really, it sometimes more than “raises my hackles.”

To call AI-generated “art” art is, to my mind, a lie. It’s not the notations on paper (or a screen) that makes Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony art: it’s the human genius that produced it. The poetry of, say, William Butler Yeats, is only art because of the complex human mind that produced it. The most perfect AI-generated painting in the style of a Picasso is still just – a forgery.

Although I think that online friendships between real people can be real friendships, the notion of being “friends” with a Siri or an Alexa or such is a delusion. A philosophical Garden “populated” by AI bots is a “brave new world” I wouldn’t want to be part of. A basketball game whose moves and outcome are AI generated, with CGI “players” – instead of the to and fro of real players – is not a game I would want to watch.

I’m not a total Luddite with regard to AI, as I noted. But I think we need to recognize that there are certain dehumanizing potential uses.

(I also would consult a real, live research librarian before relying on AI. )

Maybe that’s all crudely put, but I wanted to get it off my chest …

Quote from TauPhi

The book is archaic not only in language but the contents as well.

It is fun to read the cadences and phrasing of that 17th century English, as well as the contents.

Early Modern English - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I recall Hiram Crespo also using the word suavity in his book (Tending the Epicurean Garden).

Yes, unlike, say Plato or Aristotle, Epicurus’ ethics are derived from a proper understanding of nature. I might put it thus:

Φῠ́σῐς (φῠσῐολογίᾱ) ⇒ συμπερασματολογία [?] (logical inference*) ⇒ ἠθῐκός (ethics).

Nature as a whole (and our place in it) is the guiding ground, rather than human reason abstracted therefrom. And that natural sequence may be part of what the canon is about?

_____________________

* By “logical inference” here, I mean that Epicurus – as opposed to other schools – seems to have employed a kind of precursor to modern inductive reasoning (e.g., regarding atoms and the void), whereas the Stoics – e.g. Chrysippus – seem to have thought that their deductive syllogisms could yield empirical truth.

Bryan Wow!

Don : But isn’t the standard tripartite division physics, ethics and canon? What am I missing?

Quote from Cassius

n the case of Epicureans, I'd maintain you have to go all the way back to the classical period to find advocates for Epicurus whom the ancient Epicureans themselves would truly recognize as being part of their own school.

Just for my own edification, when (or with whom) does the classical period end? (No argument with your point.)

Quote from Cassius

The only reason why happiness or blessedness or anything else is desirable in the first place is BECAUSE is is a state or condition of pleasure.

I associate happiness exactly with pleasurableness/pleasantness (kinetic or katastematic experience). And I suspect most people really do, though they might not use those words. In philosophical discussion, I think it’s not difficult to point that out to them – unless they have some stubborn objection (is that not what even most Christians think they will experience in heaven?)

The question (or at least a question), I think, is the purpose of engaging, philosophically, with “the rest of the world” – or anyone for that matter. Perhaps some hints (and recognition of limits) –

As Epicurus has been said to have put it: "Vain is the word of that philosopher by which no malady of mankind is healed. For just as there is no profit in medicine unless it expels the diseases of the body, so there is none in philosophy either, unless it expels the suffering of the soul." [My italics. I think there is some question as to that attribution, though DeWitt accepts it?] That seems to me to be a pretty clear expression of purpose and intention, beyond just defending a particular philosophical corpus (“beyond,” not “to the exclusion of”) …

That does not mean compromise, as per VS29: “For I would certainly prefer, as I study Nature, to announce frankly what is beneficial to all people, even if none agrees with me, rather than to compromise with common opinions …”

And VS79: “The man who is serene causes no disturbance to himself or to another.” I know that I need to strive for a more “contagious” serenity in philosophical (and other) discourse – something that I have failed at too many times in the past, as my old argumentative tendencies rear their heads (from some self-defensive fear?).

And from MFS’s translation of Diogenes of Oinoanda:

“Moreover, we have set up this inscription not for our own sake, but for your sake, citizens, as a means of salvation for you, as we announced at the opening of the whole discourse. And we do not consider that it (i.e. the inscription) will be useful to certain people and not useful to certain people, but that it will be useful to all. … [A]nd we contrived this in order that, even while [sitting] at home, [we might be able to exhibit the] goods of philosophy, not to all people here [indeed], but to those of them who are civil-spoken; and not least we did [this] for those who are called foreigners, although they are not really so.” [My bolds and italics]

And MFS in the preface: “Diogenes, with his philanthropic and cosmopolitan attitudes and motives and his evident tranquillity in the face of illness, old age, and death, is himself a fine advertisement for the efficacy of the “medicines” he prescribes, and we should do well to pay attention to his message at this time when the pursuit of wealth and power is rampant in many quarters, while philanthropy and cosmopolitanism often seem in short supply.” [My italics]

Quote from Cassius

Query: Does it make sense for a normal person to "empty the contents first" if there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain? Is emptying even possible or desirable?

Here is the passage from Ferguson-Smith:

“Then he realized that the cause of the flaw was the vessel itself, which by its own flaw corrupted within it all things, even good things, that entered it from without. He became convinced of this, partly because [20] he saw that the vessel was leaky and riddled, so that it could never possibly be filled, and partly because he observed that it contaminated with a foul flavor everything it had taken in.”

In footnotes, MFS says that the vessel is a metaphor for the mind, and that the leaky vessel is a metaphor for the mind that cannot be satisfied.

In an old thread on this (The Vessel Analogy At The Opening of Lucretius Book Six ) , Don said: “So it all comes back around to our recent thread on ataraxia and the work of removing fear, anxiety, the darkness and torments of the mind, and instead freeing our minds from the "gloomy sea of troubles" so we can float on the calm ocean of ataraxia and surf the waves of delightful kinetic pleasures!”

So (it seems to me), “emptying” would be limited to those “torments” (e.g. fear of the gods) via application of Epicurean philosophy – and not some Buddhistic “empty mind.”

As Don says later in the thread: “The image of cleaning and repairing the vessel as a metaphor for learning and internalizing the teachings of Epicurus with the resulting clean pot filled with clean liquid symbolizing the calm waters of ataraxia shows that ataraxia is not a sudden epiphany. It takes work to achieve and maybe even maintain.”

Does ἡ παιδεία (for Epicurus) refer to education in general (beyond certain technical matters, like grammar or, per Philodemus, household economics) – or to the particular programmatic content of what passed for a “proper education” for Greeks of the time (e.g., Homer)?

I asked Google the difference, if any, between Google AI and Gemini. Here, for anyone interested (who didn;t already know, as I didn’t), is the reply from Google AI (I didn’t inquire further):

“Gemini is the ‘brain’ (the AI model), while Google AI Mode is a feature (an enhanced search experience) inside Google Search that uses Gemini to answer your questions.Here is how they differ:

“Gemini (accessed via Google Gemini) is a standalone AI chatbot and large language model. It is designed for deep, multi-step tasks, long conversations, and writing assistance.

“Google AI Mode is an interface built directly into the Google Search bar. Instead of just giving you a list of links, it uses Gemini in the background to browse the live web, synthesize answers, and let you ask follow-up questions. It also acts dynamically, building custom interactive layouts or calculators right in your search results.

In short: You are chatting with Gemini when you use Google AI Mode, but AI Mode is specifically tuned for fast web research and live information.”

__________________________

I usually do not restrict myself to the AI mode when using Google (though I don’t alwaysI disable it with the -ai command). Then, at least, I can compare the AI response to other sources. I sometimes use Gemini on my phone for quick questions: e.g., “Who did Miguel Amaya play for before the Cubs?"

Haris Demitriadis discusses a range of modern psychology in his book Epicurus and the Pleasant Life: A Philosophy of Nature – from Freud to existential psychology to cognitive psychology – to the positive psychology of, especially, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Chapter 7: “The Psychological Approaches to Happiness”). On “positive psychology,” he comments: “Positive psychology focuses on the achievement of a pleasurable life, rather than on treating mental illnesses.”

In his Preface he says: "This book seeks to reintroduce pleasure as our innate guide to living a healthy and happy life. A simple yet powerful assertion based on empirical data, which stands up to the strictest scrutiny." (He also has an early chapter on the biology and chemistry of brain function and consciousness.)

I wouldn’t say “should” (or “shoudn’t”). For some it might be helpful.

Quote from Cassius

Peace and love to all!

Backatcha!

Quote from Don

foreigners = ξένους (xenous)

That also lends perhaps some semantic emphasis to the anti-xenophobic point of Diogenes.

And perhaps also his distinguishing between geography (γης) as determining the borders of one’s ancestral home (πατρίς) – and the whole world of humanity (κόσμος), which, according to Wiktionary and Liddell-Scott, κόσμος can also refer to.

As I am reading MFS’s latest translation of Diogenes of Oinoanda (linked above by Don ) I was struck by this (pp. 47-48):

“ … and not least we did [this] for those who (II) are called foreigners, although they are not really so. For, while the various segments of the earth give different people a different country, the whole compass of this world gives all people a single country, the entire earth, and a single home, the world.” [My italics]

That is as strong a statement of cosmopolitanism as any Stoic. One might also be bold enough to say (perhaps with an eye to global environmental concerns): “a single Garden, the entire earth.”

For anyone interested, MFS also has an autobiography – titled Martin the Epicurean – that was just released by Amazon on April 15th. Here is the link:

Martin the Epicurean

Martin the Epicurean

www.amazon.com

Quote from Cassius

We are all pursuing the study of Epicurus as we see best, and it's my strong opinion that we're all making better progress pursuing out individual threads than we would be if we were constantly "turned off" by the approach of people who are friends but who see things differently.

This makes sense also for those of us who, as individuals, do explore different lines of thought re Epicurean philosophy, and even (as Martin notes) other schools of philosophy – where that seems helpful to us. For example, I often find stuff on Hiram’s site helpful – though it represents viewpoints different from the project here.

But it is not helpful to spend our time on any one forum bickering about the differences, though it may be sometimes helpful to look at and acknowledge them – and then let it go. (I know that occasionally I have crossed the line, but I do try not to. )

Quote from Kalosyni

This illustrates an on-going problem with speaking about "Epicureanism" -- how it is understood, what does it represent, what is "Epicureanism" and what isn't "Epicureanism" and who do we consider as "being Epicurean" - these questions will be answered differently depending on whom you ask. And the only way to begin to deal with this is to start labeling all of the common varying interpretations.

Your “no cookie-cutter” comment in another thread is certainly spot on, and I like the approach you’re suggesting here.

As a – likely beyond-the-pale whimsical* – metaphor, perhaps we could think in terms of a philosophical “clade”:

“In biology, a clade (/kleɪd/) (from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch'), also known as a monophyletic group or natural group, is a group of organisms that is composed of a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Clades are the fundamental unit of cladistics, a modern approach to taxonomy adopted by most biological fields.

“The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, or a species (extinct or extant). Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan") groups.”

Clade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example, bees: “Bees are winged insects that form a monophyletic clade Anthophila within the superfamily Apoidea of the order Hymenoptera, with over 20,000 known species in seven recognized families.”

Within that bee clade, are a variety of behavior characteristics: “Some species – including honey bees, bumblebees, and stingless bees – are social insects living in highly hierarchical colonies, while over 90% of bee species – including mason bees, carpenter bees, leafcutter bees, and sweat bees – are solitary.” But all bees (as opposed to, say, wasps) “are herbivores that specifically feed on nectar (nectarivory) and pollen (palynivory), the former primarily as a carbohydrate source for metabolic energy, and the latter primarily for protein and other nutrients for their larvae.”

Bee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recent research suggests that even hive bees – at least bumblebees – also, as individuals, play.

___________________________

* By way of apology, I might be reacting to this from Emily Austin that I read yesterday: “Our ability to live a good life does not rise or fall with cultural refinement or rarified intellectual skills, and sometimes it’s just more fun to clown around.” It reminded me of something Alan Watts once said to the effect that being sincere is not the same thing as being hyper-serious. As Epicurus said, we must also laugh – even whilst doing philosophy. Then again, the metaphor of a “philosophical clade” might be constructive …