Posts by Pacatus

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.

Onenski and Don :

This rendering -- clearly based on the Greek text -- is dramatically different from our received English translations (which seem to command continual spouting of philosophical dicta)! And I think Martin is right in terms of contradictions. All in all, I think, a much more congenial understanding -- as well as, apparently, more true to the original.

Thank you, Fernando! And Don, for your confirmation.

Similar to comments above by Cassius and Kalosyni , I question the relevance of "pity" here -- especially with regard to the deceased. Grief (sadness) for the loss, and compassion for other grievers -- absolutely. But I don't know how "pity" comes into it (and I agree with Kalosyni's take on pity, generally).

On listening to Part 1 of the Emily Austin podcast interview, I looked up and read her paper “Epicurus on the Politics of Fearing Death,” which she referenced. (It can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/14801045/Epicu…f_Fearing_Death.)

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 … .)

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

With that said, I thought that discussion of Dr. Austin’s views in this paper might just be interesting.

Confession: I’m generally not a podcast kind of guy – unlike many people, I find it harder to absorb information aurally. But, after listening to the Lucretius Today interview with Dr. Boeri, I decided to listen to the ones with Dr. Emily Austin. (And will likely do more.)

I had to pause briefly because Cassius just gave me my laugh-out-oud line of the day (in the context of how our culture seems to affirm pain rather than pleasure as virtuous/good) with his tongue-in-cheek: “Thank you, Puritans, for establishing what we call American culture!”

To which Dr. Austin responded: “Those people were weird!”

Quote from Don

So, it appears Democritus uses terpsis, not Epicurus.

By Ἡδονή! I think you've got it!

(And I agree with your better wording for the thread title. )

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.” Isaac Asimov

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin

“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.” Christopher Hitchens

“If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can’t be very important gods.” Arthur C. Clarke

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

That last (Clarke) quote seems quite in the Epicurean spirit.

Came across this headline in the Washington Post today: “A plurality of Americans believe God created humans without evolution.”

I’ll provide the link for those that want to read the political analysis pertaining to this, but won’t comment on that – only adding this more specific quote from the article: “Polling released this week by Suffolk University for USA Today indicates that this comports with the views of nearly 4 in 10 Americans – more than say either that human evolution was steered by God or that humans evolved without any divine intervention.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…evolution-poll/

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but my initial reaction was a dismayed “Oh my!”

The Wikipedia article gives this as the source for terpsis: Warren, James (2002). Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Warren is also the editor for The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. I'm going through some of his articles on academia.edu -- but that will take awhile.

Calling Don (Our linguistic El Greco!)

The following is a quote from the Wikipedia article on Hedone:

“In the philosophy of Epicurus, hēdonē is described as a pleasure that may or may not derive from actions that are virtuous, whereas another form of pleasure, terpsis, is always virtuous. Another Epicurean reading, which distinguished hēdonē from terpsis, referred to it as a feeling of pleasure that is episodic and might or might not be beneficial. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Epicurus uses hēdonē in reference to only physical pleasures.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedone

Wiktionary has terpsis (τέρψις) as “full enjoyment, delight, gladness, pleasure” from a proto-Indo-European term meaning “fulfillment, satisfaction.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE…2#Ancient_Greek

In the cited Stanford Encyclopedia, there is no reference to terpsis, rather to khara (χᾰρᾱ́) – joy or exultation: “There are also positive states of mind, which Epicurus identifies by the special term khara (joy), as opposed to hêdonê (pleasure, i.e., physical pleasure).” [There follows a commentary on kinetic versus katasematic pleasures, the latter being (according to the author) associated with the pleasure of well-being (eudaimonia) as such.] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi

Are there sources in the Greek, among the Epicurean corpus, for τέρψις and/or χᾰρᾱ́? And a distinction from Ἡδονή?

(If this has already been the subject of previous threads, just send me there. On a very cursory skim of some other threads on pleasure, I didn't see anything. )

I said "No" -- though it's a mixed bag. I was never on Twitter or Instagram; I weaned myself from Facebook, deleted my account. In the end there was more stress than pleasure, even though I restricted my account to family and friends. I'm on the internet a lot, though I try to limit my exposure to a few news sites (especially market-related news)-- and don't find a forum like this one to be obtrusive.

LATE EDIT: I also play some chess online.

Eikadistes This is beautiful (the other one also)! I just ordered the large one from Etsy. There is a big blank white wall in front of my desk, where it will hang!