Posts by Pacatus

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.)

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

The whole anti natalist thing reminds me of the greek hedonist who tried to convince people to self-delete, think he was a Cyrenaic..

Yes, Hegesias, a later Cyrenaic (at least he was so accused by Cicero).

Quote from Cassius

I personally have an extremely dim view of anti-natalist positions

I had to look up anti-natalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism.

That strikes me as extreme to the point of silliness. (While affirming the right of couples to choose not to have children -- I know a couple of wonderful couples who so choose. No one should feel ethically obligated to procreate -- which seems to be the position of some evangelical Christians I've come across.)

From the article linked by Kalosyni above:

“I’ve been really preoccupied with my studies, and I’m always stressed because of all the things I have going on,” she said. “My libido is always shot, and I don’t really ever think about sex.”

This seems certainly unhealthy – the stress, that is; not just substituting one good (study/education) for another (immediate sexual gratification). Sexual release might well have a beneficial effect, not just vis-à-vis the stress but also on the mental activity of studying. [No judgmentalism here: I tended to be stressed when I was a student, largely because I was older than most of the others – and the fact that I had to work fulltime while going to school. But. Looking back, I recognize that the stress (anxiety) was toxic.]

On the other hand (from the same article): “Maybe you don’t have to have sex all the time,” Rhodes said. “Maybe if you’re doing other things in your life, and you’ve got other priorities, or you just don’t feel like it, that can be a good enough answer.”

I just want to add that sexual stimulation and release are generally believed to be contributive to good health (for example, prostate health in men “of a certain age”). And there are non-relational means.

At bottom, though, Kalosyni is sure right: “One can only determine for themselves if they don't need sex -- so this is a subjective feeling that is up to each individual.”

It is probably best to consider me no more than a philosophical fellow-traveler for the time – a guest in the Garden so long as I am welcome, as long as I might be contributing rather than causing conflict or tearing down. I finally gave up the notion – or the perceived need – for some permanent (or even formal, let alone creedal) membership for myself in any group. The desire to belong was once a large shaping force in my life – it just isn’t anymore. (It’s likely natural, but I don’t find it necessary; and likely most people find it more helpful than I have.)

So I will not call myself “an Epicurean” – nor certainly something like a true or proper Epicurean. I generally try to be careful with my language in such things: “I think about myself and life now more in Epicurean terms, and try to make better decisions in my daily life accordingly” – or the like.

None of that is to say that I don’t find pleasure in the friendship here. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t walk along. None of that is to suggest that there is something wrong about seeking membership, or defining the terms of the same. Or forming a school of thought that does outreach. Not in any way. But I can only ever think of myself as “a fellow-traveler for the time”.

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

With regard to Epicurus merchandise, I do have one of these pendants that were put out by Hiram Crespo’s group (I’m not sure they are available anymore, but you can probably find out). I wear it as a reminder for myself (most often under my shirt), not for identification. (It hangs near my heart, which seems like a good place to touch it as that reminder.)

https://www.etsy.com/listing/917548910/epicurus-votive-charm-necklace-with?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details

I read the sample on Amazon: his writing style is pleasantly light-fingered, nondogmatic (in the modern conventional, generally pejorative, sense) and humorous.

When reading his comments on, e.g., Plato’s error in thinking that the propositions of a model (at least if internally coherent) must represent some idealized reality, I was reminded of a comment I read sometime back by a process philosopher about the silliness of many metaphysicians in acting as if every substantive (noun) in our language must represent some actual (even if idealized) substance (thing). Or that every existent must posess some innate real essence (e.g., “redness” must be a real substance, not just a color description on the spectrum).

It's a bit pricey for me now, but I put it in my Amazon wishlist for future consideration.

I posted this elsewhere, but since Godfrey seems on the same track, I'll repost here (re the Austin article posted above):

She argues cogently from the source material to the following conclusion – which she sums up thusly: “I have argued that Epicurus does not believe all forms of the fear of death are irrational and eliminable. At least one fear – the fear of violent death caused by others – is brute and must be managed politically.” And: “In sum, I argue that Epicurus believes there is a fear of death that does not disappear, which we can control with due care and with close attention to the social environs.”

My thought is that, from a modern point of view, we might distinguish between that “brute fear” – which is likely part of the evolutionarily inherited “survival response,” which is a natural response, of physiological/neurological nature, to an immediate perceived threat – versus “maladapted” fears (which I’ll call “anxiety”), which are both unnatural and irrational (e.g., that I won’t be able to afford that trip to Rome, or that my girlfriend will break up with me … .)

Welcome!

The more I think about (and we talk about) kinetic and katastematic pleasure, the more I am convinced that they are best described by example than by attempts at formulaic definition – and that descriptive definition ought to be treated only as aids to eliciting such experience in our personal lives (rather like the Zen concept of words as “fingers pointing to the moon”: let’s not get caught up worrying over the “fingers” – they are a useful, perhaps even necessary, pedagogical ploy, that’s all -- and enough).

A couple of illustrations:

1. I enjoy the kinetic pleasure of preparing and eating a meal (in terms of the aesthetic pleasure of preparing, the removal of hunger, and the gustatory pleasure of the taste – all of that). Afterward, I enjoy the lingering katastematic pleasure of satisfaction and contentment.

2. I enjoy the kinetic pleasure of a climactic sexual experience. Afterward, I bask in the lingering katastematic pleasure of contentment (often called “the afterglow”).

3. I enjoy the kinetic pleasure of a certain mental activity – such as playing a game of chess – and afterward enjoy the lingering memory (without necessarily trying to activate that memory: just letting it be).

Other than specific instances, I’d add a general feeling of good health and wellbeing as katãstema – as a lingering (more or less stable) background pathe of pleasure, no doubt the result of various kinetic pursuits of various pleasures.

At bottom, I think that hardline distinctions are not necessary – rather they can blend, one into the other. Anyway, that is the way I have come to think of it.

The print arrived today. It is more impressive than the pictures, with a fine visual texture. We took it to have it framed.