Posts by Pacatus

Cassius: Yes, that’s the one – and I recall first hearing it.

But Kamahl’s voice in this one is hard to beat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYMcYrEUF8

Desiderata

(by Max Ehrmann)

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive God to be.

And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

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

My wife’s elder brother-in-law had this memorized, and could quote it verbatim at any time. He was a gentle, generous bear of a man. The cosmos was better for his being in it.

Quote from Nate

That also goes for Stoics, too.

The question is, when does open and appreciative discussion become toxic argument? (Well, I think you can tell in the instance.) My oldest son is very much a Stoic -- and it really comes out of his well-meaning concerns for other people's well-being and a sense of justice. We have always had the ability to argue hard -- and then laugh about it (while our wives are laughing at both of us!   ). But we do avoid the toxicity. I have no desire to convince him to be an Epicurean -- or anything else. But even that kind of argument has become distasteful to me. Time better spent in another kind of communion. Maybe Max Ehrmann had it right in his Desiderata: "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others ... ."

Quote from Kalosyni

There is the logistical hurdle of deciding where to have the meeting and how to advertise it.

Just a possibility: depending on where you live, the Unitarian Churches are generally very open to various groups (the one in my community has a Wiccan group that meets, and I have known of Zen roshis and Taoists being Unitarian ministers). They might be happy to provide meeting space, depending on their general schedule. (Also, they ight offer some advertising via the church bulletin.)

Don A few random thoughts --

I recall that Alan Watts (in his Behold the Spirit – his only Christian book, written while he was chaplain at Northwestern University, and accepted as the thesis for his M.Div. degree -- objected to a hard-edged distinction between agape and eros, which he attributed to Philip Nygren). I have also read Greek Orthodox writers who agreed. The general thrust is that agape includes, but is not limited by, eros -- agape having an added connotation of deep caring for the other.

In the Septuagint, agape is used to translate the Hebrew ahavah (love, generally) in the Song of Songs, where it at least seems to be tinted with the passion of eros. It might have seemed to Peter to be at least tinged with more than "unconditional" love.

And Ignatius of Antioch declared (regarding the Christ), "My Eros is crucified!"

Great find Godfrey! (I was for some years a member of the Poetry Foundation – no great shakes that: you pay a membership fee and you’re a member! )

Although the Foundation site does not appear to have Tennyson’s Lucretius, it can be found here: https://allpoetry.com/poem/8473099-L…d-Lord-Tennyson

Confession: I’ve never been really fond of epic poetry, as a matter of purely personal, ill-grounded prejudice – being mostly a lyric poet, I have never been able to sustain a poem of any real length. Nevertheless, I am trying to read De Rerum Natura as a poem more than as a philosophical treatise.

Joshua: Thanks for that link to Ian Johnston’s translation.

I have decided, to assuage my poetic embarrassment, to prioritize finishing Lucretius. I’ve started all over again from the beginning, using Frank Copley’s translation (on Kindle); his loose blank verse seems to flow well (far better than Stallings’ fourteeners) – and I really want to read the poem as a poem. Do you prefer Johnston’s? (I’ll try to do a running comparison – but really I just need to knuckle down and read the poem!)

I note that Johnston is very critical of prose translations, though he acknowledges some merit to Smith’s work.)

Thanks HsiehKW. I'll take a look at it.

But first, I have to assuage my poetic embarrassment by finishing Lucretius.

Quote from Cassius

I think that's what we're after here at EpicureanFriends too, and if there emerges from that a distinct flavor that separates this from other approaches, it's not adherence to DeWitt's conclusions that makes the difference. It's much more a shared approach of going after everything we can find that sheds light on what Epicurus may have been thinking, and trying to place it fairly but sympathetically to reconstruct the larger picture, that makes the difference.

I endorse that as well -- just from my personal experience on here. And, I confess, I have never finished DeWitt.

Don

What if I am not a list?

Okay, couldn’t help myself: just my mood today.

+++++++

With that crass distraction tossed in the trash, I’d point out that the original Hebrew texts of the Bible had no verse numbers, no line breaks, no sentence breaks – and more often than not, no word breaks (and no determinate vowels before the Masoretes’ inventions between the 7th and 10th centuries C.E.). That is what makes classical Hebrew such a radically polysemous language, which guided the highly hermeneutical approach of the Talmuds and subsequent rabbinical Judaisms (many rabbis at the time objected to the Masoretes’ project as arbitrarily limiting interpretation).

[Oh, and far more of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanach) is actually poetry than is often recognized.]

The same can be said for the earliest Koine Greek of the New Testament. Such things as verse numbers (which can far too often – in my opinion – be quoted without attention to larger context) – and even phrase breaks – were later (interpretive) additions.

And so, I think you may well be onto something here ... (Do we know the historical development of these texts? I had thought not.)

HsiehKW

I think you are very much into something here (though I am no scholar of either Epicurean philosophy or psychology) – especially relating to Epicurus’ reliance on aesthesis, pathe and prolpsis as the empirical basis for cognition (as I understand it).

BTW, have you read Lakoff and Marshall’s Philosophy in the Flesh? I put it in my Amazon wish list, but I hesitate that it might be too deep of a dive – and the usual free sample read is not available. Any thoughts?

I just wanted to add to the above that I do not think of “frugality” as some kind of idealistic virtue-discipline (ala, say, the Stoics) – but just as the simple practical virtue of “living well within your means” – where the double entendre with that word “well” is deliberate. And living well just means living as pleasurable, painlessly and stresslessly as possible.

+++++++++

HsiehKW

I’ve always been a natural introvert and even a bit reclusive at times (well, maybe more than a bit ). A few close friends matter a lot, but I would have a hard time living in a close community – even of like-minded folks. This is my Epicurean community.

I’ve shared before that my wife and I spent 15 years on 20+ acres in the country. Our cottage sat down a chert lane and across a small limestone creek (called Terrapin Branch), and against a high wooded ridge. We had goats and various fruit trees (my wife made tasty dry country wines from tart cherries and elderberries – and even parsley once). We had a kitchen garden that yielded enough tomatoes, bell peppers, onions and garlic – and herbs such as oregano, parsley and sage -- to last the winter. In the last years, we had a small greenhouse.

To do that, I had to retire early, and we cut our income by nearly half. Let’s say we lived those years in "rich simplicity."

Now we have lived for 10 years as townies in a small apartment. We only grow a few herbs on the deck. We do try to get a lot of groceries and produce from the local co-op. (During the pandemic we had nearly everything delivered – including wine from a discount wine club that supports up-and-coming independent vintners, including a number of women.) We eat out about once a week.

I am not by nature ascetic – quite the contrary! I do intermittent fasting for its health benefits (12 to 16 hours three or four times a week). All in all, as townies on fixed income, I would say that we live in “rich frugality.”

I looked up George Lakoff and realized that I read his book (with Mark Johnson), Metaphors We Live By, years ago. (Sadly, don't have it anymore. )

Joshua: That was how it was expressed in my Lutheran upbringing.

I will add that the lecture was very well received by the synagogue members in attendance (a mixed Reform and Conservative congregation).

Joshua

Re Onan: Some years ago I attended a lecture, at the local synagogue, by a university professor of OT, on the Onan story. He laid out in detail how it was really about controlling property: had Onan impregnated his sister-in-law, she would have controlled the property in question until it was inherited by her child. Onan wanted to keep the property for himself. The larger context was a patriarchal bias (of which, presumably, YHVH was -- again, in the context here -- disapproving). The professor's analysis was that this passage represented a more feminist trope in the Torah.

Note: YHVH, the tetragrammaton, is the name of God that cannot be pronounced. Interestingly, the half that is allowed to be pronounced -- YH: Yah (as in Hallelu Yah) -- is feminine in the Hebrew.

Thanks all.

Eikadistes: Yes, I like the simplicity of that.

Joshua: That's the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Cassius: I agree with your take. I think all "command moralities" are idealist, Kant no less than the Stoics or other "divine command" types.

Again, thanks all.

We all agree on the prohibitive (negative) formulation – and its importance. (And that is, apparently, the most common type of formulation – not only in ancient Greece but other cultures as well.)

There remains a twofold question:

Are there (in the classical Epicurean corpus) any similar affirmative statements on: 1) where reasonably possible, to prevent or stop wrongful harm from being done to another (particularly someone outside our immediate friendship circle); and 2) to foster social conditions that are conducive to maximizing the possibility for enjoyment/pleasure by most people (including those that may be on the socioeconomic margins)?

Of course, one can strive to do both without drawing on any school’s (or religion’s) ethical philosophy – e.g., as a matter of personal conscience. But I am still curious.

Note: in case 1) above, the perpetrator of harm would be someone who has not embraced the Epicurean social compact.

~ ~ ~

Note: I have some other things to attend to, but I’ll try to check in tomorrow. Thanks again, all.

Don: No problem!