Posts by Pacatus

Don :

So you are suggesting that my choices are always determined -- not by simple preference in the moment (an economist would say "at the margin"), but by unconscious elements? That seems both unnecessarily speculative and close to determinism, even if the determining causes are ones we are not (and perhaps cannot) be aware of.

+++++++++++++

I also want to add:

At some point, too much variety can cause anxiety over choice (“OMG, which among these thousands of toothpastes do I choose?!”), but to have some variety seems preferable to me – and on what basis could it be preferable other than it enhances pleasure? (Re the above: unless my preferences are determined.) Just as spice enhances the flavor of food – even if plain bread and water will assuage my pain. (“Variety is the spice of life.”) And sometimes pondering and choosing itself can be pleasurable.

The whole thing might hinge (just thinking “out loud”) on necessary versus unnecessary desires?

Quote from Don

Does the choice between pleasures hang only on whether a pleasure might bring some disturbance." Yes.

I am hungry. In the moment, I can choose to assuage that particular hunger with either a piece of grilled fish or a slice of roast chicken (examples chosen randomly). If neither choice is likely to cause me any real pain, and it seems to me that either will assuage my current pain just as well, and if tasting food is a pleasure (as well as eating to assuage hunger) then on what possible basis – other than one seeming more pleasant to me in the moment – would I make a choice?

In such a case, I think that fish-or-chicken choice represents the variety of pleasures. But that’s not something that I just shrug over and say “Meh. Either one.” I choose based on which taste I prefer (would enjoy the most) at that moment. To talk about “disturbance” in this case seems to me a bit complicated and clunky, and my initial response would be “Huh?”.

There are many kinds of meditation/contemplation – and they need not be mutually exclusive. I especially liked Kalosyni ‘s “enjoying the breath,” for example: it helped me move from an effortful “focus on the breath” to feeling the pleasure of just breathing.

With that said, Eoghan Gardiner has recently mentioned doing “lectio divina” using Epicurean texts. That might be similar to Don using the tetrapharmicon (in Greek).

Another is the Eastern Orthodox use of icons for visual meditation/contemplation. I think people have used images and busts of Epicurus for a long time. But, for me, Genevra Catalano’s artwork provides a new dimension in that regard. For example, I am using a copy of her “Elder Epicurus” on my computer screen (I hope that’s okay Eikadistes). But the one I’m really looking forward to is the larger version of her “A Day in the Garden” – a framed version of which (when it arrives) will hang on the wall in my “office,” facing where I sit every day. RE: "A Day In The Garden: Epicurus, Hermarchus, Leonteus, Themista, Hippoclides, Polystratus, and Alexandria" by Genevra Catalano (2023)

I have a copy on my computer as well, and I find that contemplating it brings me a feeling of peace/serenity. It will be the first thing that I see every day (after the coffee pot). And it will be available to me throughout the day – for nonverbal meditation/contemplation.

Far be it from me to ever disagree with Cassius!

I think Elemental Epicureanism is still sufficiently current as a next-step, and continuing, resource – and for reading off-line.

As for updating, I always thought that your Ante Oculos is worth updating for sure – and maybe moving it from just an e-book (which, for technical reasons, I have more difficulty reading these days) to a Kindle format. (Not trying to promote Kindle here – just that it is my most easily readable format these days.)

There’s pretty widespread agreement here about Emily Austin’s book as a fine introductory text for modern readers, and respect for Catherine Wilson’s efforts despite cogent criticism. And Hiram Crespo’s book, though perhaps more so-called “neo-Epicurean” (or “Epicurean/Humanist”?) I think is also a good modern introduction.

But where to go next among modern writers – a next step into a more intermediate-level book? DeWitt, I guess. But I want to suggest two for newer Epicureans who want to take that next step (in no real order):

Dimitriadis, Haris. EPICURUS and THE PLEASANT LIFE: A Philosophy of Nature Kindle Edition – November 30, 2022 - Revised and Expanded 2nd Edition.

And Cassius Amicus, ELEMENTAL EPICUREANISM: The Core Texts of Epicureanism, 2013.

Both are available on Kindle, and Cassius’ book, especially, can be a continuing resource.

Quote from Cassius

In that context I would say you want to explain the differing aspects of "Pleasure" as fully as possible in understandable everyday English without use of foreign or very technical words.

Agreed. And I think both your and Don's posts could be slightly altered and combined to use just English instead of words like atarxia, aponia, kinetic, katastematic and the like (using such as tranquility/serenity, bodily ease and health, active pursuit of pleasure and lingering/stable enjoyment, etc. – though those might not be the best: just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head).

Anyway, your post really triggered a kind of “Aha!” moment in me – slow and stubborn learner that I am!

(But I still think my pulley metaphor was pretty good … )

Cassius: Your post #16 above is a powerfully well-crafted and articulate homily on pleasure, in response to Eoghan’s question – so much so that I’ve bookmarked it for myself.

The niggling concern I would have with stopping there, though, is that without the kind of “fleshing out” in Don ’s post #21 (which I’ve also bookmarked), especially the part I quote below, your post #16 could almost have been written by an Aristippian Cyrenaic* (even with your opening point that “tranquility and ataraxia are fully contained within the word pleasure, but ‘pleasure’ is not fully contained within tranquility or ataraxia”). Unless I glossed over something in my reading (not enough coffee yet ) …

Don: “The health of the body and the tranquillity of the mind *is* katastematic pleasure. The "normal" functioning of freedom from pain in body and mind that has been discussed *is* katastematic pleasure. "Absence of pain" in the mind is literally ataraxia which Epicurus gives as an example of *a* katastematic pleasure. No matter what else is going on in our lives, we always have access to that health of the body and tranquility of the mind IF we allow it to happen, IF we have banished those fears, anxieties, worries that Epicurus taught stand in the way of experiencing *pleasure** in its all-encompassing joyful, delightful, calm, exciting, tranquil variations.”

Add Don ‘s statement, or something like it, to your homily (I mean that as a positive characterization!), and I think you have a pretty complete brief “epitome” – or at least a powerful opening summary – of the Epicuran telos.

++++++++++++++++

* At least of the kind Kurt Lampe discusses in his The Birth of Hedonism, where he attempts to correct some of the cruder interpretations of the Cyrenaics.

As so often seems to be the case, Kalosyni coined a particularly apt phrase for me: “A thought-changing way …” Yeah, well, it’s been that – to my benefit. And I relate it to Martin 's comment about perfection as opposed to the movement. And Cassius 's closing comments on pleasure and the normal state of being.

But big thanks to all!

What a helpful podcast all round! Itself a good place for a beginner to start. Kudos to all!

Just an immediate specific reaction:

I have heretofore found Lucretius a slog [and I generally don’t – as a mostly lyric poet – relate well to long didactic (or epic, narrative) poetry]. I’ve pretty much read most of Lucretius now – albeit in a slapdash, patchwork way, and with less memetic absorption than would be desired. But I found Joshua's commentary on the poem encouraging (and he knows far more about poetry per se than I ever hope to).

Welcome!

This is how I currently sort it:

Pleasure and pain are like opposite ends of a rope on a pulley: as one goes up, the other goes down. There is no neutral state.

The opposite of physical pleasure is ponos (pain, however mild or strong); the opposite of mental pleasure is tarache (disturbance). Aponia is the absence of pain; ataraxia, the absence of mental disturbance/dis-ease (e.g., anxiety).

Pleasures can be kinetic (e.g., orgasm) or katastematic (e.g., the lingering, contented afterglow). In the mental realm, suppose I suddenly conclude that an important check bounced: anxiety (tarache); then I realize that was an error and my finances are all in order: I relax, the anxiety abates, I rest in the satisfied realization (ataraxia).

So, on the one hand, I think that ataraxia can be episodic with tarache; on the other hand, I think a more enduring ataraxia can be cultivated – perhaps as a stable equanimity, rather like the Zen calm of a warrior in the turmoil of battle.

But it is not the apatheia of the Stoics: ataraxia is felt -- at least as a background felt-sense.

Don:

And "the beginning and the end" has a taint of "the alpha and omega" from Revelation.

Alpha and Omega - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At last, a rendering of Epicurus that shows wry good humor (and a twinkle in the eyes)! Bravo!

I do intermittent fasting: try to get 14-16 hours for two or three days, then have a light breakfast for a day or two. It’s comfortable for me because I’m not a big morning breakfast eater anyway. I start at bedtime, have just black coffee in the morning on fast days, and break my fast with a light snack midafternoon. And I try to get enough water (I aim for 64 fluid ounces).

I am also trying to follow more of a Mediterranean diet, and limit bread, pasta, pizza, etc. because I have a mild gluten response and those foods put on the weight fast. But it’s a battle because I love breads, pasta, etc. I try to eat more intact grains. Leafy greens are a tough one for me because I don’t like them a lot: salads work best with a light olive oil vinaigrette (with either vinegar or lemon juice, some garlic and herbs).

But I don’t follow any strict regimen. I know when I’ve eaten badly because I feel it right away.

Welcome!

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Slanderous man, I wonder how many millions (billions?) of people's happiness he destroyed with the doctrine of Original Sin?

I grew up with the following words in the Confession: "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean." Year after year after year ...

On the notion that sex carries no benefits

++++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Austin quotes Vatican Saying 51:

“I hear from you that the movement of your flesh is abundantly disposed toward sexual intercourse. As long as you do not break the laws or disturb noble and settled customs or vex any of your neighbors or wear out your body or use up the things necessary for life, indulge yourself in any way you prefer. However, it is impossible not be constrained by some one of these things. For sex never profits, and one must be content if it does not harm.” [Translation by Kelly E. Arenson in Austin, Emily A.. Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life) (p. 175). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.]

Two possible translations from Diogenes Laertius

In the below-cited paper, the author examines two translations of Diogenes Laertius 10.118 on the subject:

“In D.L. 10.118 we read: [Greek text would not copy-paste] There is also a version of this text in the Vatican Sayings (VS 51), differing only by the omission of the Kai. Translators have traditionally rendered the version with Kai along the lines of: They say that sex is never beneficial, and you are very lucky (or, "it is surprising," or "it is marvelous") if it does not do harm as well.”

And an alternative by Jeffrey Purington: “[They] say that sex never benefits, but it is desirable, provided that it does not harm.”

After examining other texts, the author concludes: “Until very weighty evidence is brought forward to the contrary, it seems to me that we should feel confident that the traditional translation is the right one: sex is never beneficial, and you are lucky if it doesn't actually harm you-by implication, it usually does.”

https://philarchive.org/archive/BREEOS

+++++++++++++++++++

Now we know that sex does carry positive health benefits, provided it is enacted in ways that also cause no harm. So the claim that sex is never beneficial is just wrong. I tried to do some research on what ancient physicians thought about the benefits/dangers of sex, and found little – most resources dealt with gender roles (with the strong androcentric biases that were prevalent) and what ancient physicians thought about the differences between male and female bodies (and procreation). The following sparse quotes might be indicative (and I vouch not at all for the sources):

“The ancient Greek physicians have not failed in their studies to indicate the beneficial role of sexual activity in human health. They acknowledged that sex helps to maintain mental balance. Very interesting is their observation that sex may help mental patients to recover. Nevertheless they stressed emphatically that sex is beneficial only when there is a measure in it, so they believed that sexual abstinence or excessive sexual activity affect negatively the mental and physical health of man. … Therefore they believed that the loss and the exchange of bodily fluids during sex help body's humors to maintain their equilibrium which in turn will form the basis for the physical and mental health.” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26480224/]

“People who worked as doctors in Ancient Greece suggested sex as a way to combat diseases such as: depression, dyspepsia, icterus, lower back pain, weak vision etc. Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, supported that unrestrained intercourse could cure dysentery.” [https://greekreporter.com/2013/11/16/sex…ancient-greeks/]

A bit later:

“Galen knew that sex, perhaps even more than bathing, was pleasurable, but he argued that balance was necessary with this activity too. He believed that sexual release was healthful (and the retention of semen deleterious), and that intercourse was necessary for the continuity of humanity. However, he also warned that it was bestial to be preoccupied by sex.” [https://exploregalen.com/project/activity]

++++++++++++++++++++

The above is not much, I know – but my eyes were starting to cross.

Cassius No, I think the perhaps contentious examples were just examples.

From the article Cassius linked in the opening post:

“Your example of homosexuality is a case in point. I agree that the main reasons for thinking it is wrong are linked with outmoded ways of thought. But the way you put it, it is because science shows us that homosexual behaviour "is completely natural", "has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts", is "biologically based" and "not harmful" that we can conclude it is "not innately 'wrong'". But this mixes up ethical and scientific forms of justification. Homosexuality is morally acceptable, but not for scientific reasons. Right and wrong are not simply matters of evolutionary impacts and what is natural. There have been claims, for example, that rape is both natural and has evolutionary advantages.”

This gets at the crux: the “is to ought” question. For someone to say that a given action has been shown to be biologically natural and prolific across populations is an “is” statement (empirical). To say that that also dictates an “ought” (or “ought not”) moves from the empirical to the normative – turning facts like biologically natural and prolific across populations and not harmful into the proper norms for ethics. But that itself is a philosophical move. It may not be wrong (Epicurean philosophy draws upon what is natural and not harmful) – but it is no longer science.

Quote from Don

Just to clarify: As I understand it, there really isn't ever "something from nothing."

Me too: Energy and energy fields and forces are not "nothing." (But I have no background in any of this.)