Posts by Pacatus

I grew up (and through my formative years) a certain kind of black-book Lutheran for whom the standard Sunday recited confession was "I confess that I am by nature sinful and unclean" -- week after week after week, year after year. (I don't think that harsh a language is still used, even in the most conservative Lutheran churches.) Again, despite rational rebellion, there can still be that Pavlovian residue, buried in the subconscious.

Eoghan Gardiner

Sounds right.

Eoghan Gardiner

Maybe his play "No Exit" (from long-ago memory) gives some clues about being with friends (in the Epicurean vein?) aa opposed to just "other people" who might see you as an object in their world?

Eoghan Gardiner:

What about "existential angst" and Sartre's "hell is other people"? (I'm sure you are far better read than I am here, and I don't intend these as argumentative questions.)

What the existentialists get right (in my view):

1. Existence precedes essence. That is, there is no “view from nowhere” (no “god’s-eye view”) from which anyone (e.g., Plato) can confidently declare some universal ideals.

Better called “perspectivism” perhaps, the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega-y-Gasset made this painstakingly clear in his (painstaking) lectures that made up his book What is Philosophy. His aphorism expressing this is “Yo soy yo, y mi circumstancia” – “I am I, and my circumstance (situation/existential reality).”

2. The universe does not disclose meaning, only evidence, facts and patterns. It was the expectation of finding such disclosed meaning, in the face of empirical/existential reality, that Camus labelled “the absurd.” (Though Camus later denied he was an existentialist.)

We are the ones responsible for deciding “meaning” – and that always within the limits of our existential perspectives.

Well, that’s it for me and the existentialists …

[EDIT FROM CASSIUS: I am copying this post into a new thread to address the topic now listed as the thread title: "How Does An Epicurean Feeling Overwhelmed Or Depressed Overcome That Feeling?" The first three posts are from another thread entitled "Does the Philosophy Change You?" but these posts set up the topic very nicely. We're not talking here about clinical depression or generalized anxiety but the normal ups and downs of everyday life, when the obstacles (real and not imagined) seem overwhelming. Maybe at some point we can set up a wiki-like summary - or I can just use this first post in that way - to bring together the major categories of responses, such as:

- Get back to / study Nature;

- Consult your friends for support;

We also need something to the effect that we're not talking "Pleasure" in the abstract as an antidote to pain, but the real feelings of pleasure that are particular to the individual concerned, such that we focus on seeking out things that are pleasurable to person feeling overwhelmed.

end of edit]

I was raised in a milieu of Christian/Stoical/Kantian “virtue moralism” that I liken to a Pavlovian programming that leaves an array of reactive triggers in your subconscious – that can grab you decades later (at least for me). All of that was in continual struggle with my inherent tendency toward hedonism (as opposed, here, to asceticism); and an unchecked, rebellious hedonism led to borderline addictive tendencies.

Unfortunately, all of the philosophical/spiritual avenues that I explored and studied seemed arrayed on the side of that latent moralistic programming. And so, life remained a struggle most days, well beyond my midlife years – even with help from friends and a wise therapist. (I am nothing if not stubborn! )

Epicurus has finally given me some ease in all that – with a rational therapy that goes beyond mere intellectual philosophy (in the modern academic sense) and offers the practical means for a healthier hedonism (without the old guilt). 1/

I still struggle: those subconscious triggers still rear their hooded heads. But the old reactions are short-lived. Life is easier, serenity is more readily available on a daily basis.

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

1/: I am reminded, in my random brain, of some lines by Rumi:

“As always, we wake anxious and afraid.

“Don’t go into the library!

“Take down your lute and play …”

I was raised in a milieu of Christian/Stoical/Kantian “virtue moralism” that I liken to a Pavlovian programming that leaves an array of reactive triggers in your subconscious – that can grab you decades later (at least for me). All of that was in continual struggle with my inherent tendency toward hedonism (as opposed, here, to asceticism); and an unchecked, rebellious hedonism led to borderline addictive tendencies.

Unfortunately, all of the philosophical/spiritual avenues that I explored and studied seemed arrayed on the side of that latent moralistic programming. And so, life remained a struggle most days, well beyond my midlife years – even with help from friends and a wise therapist. (I am nothing if not stubborn! )

Epicurus has finally given me some ease in all that – with a rational therapy that goes beyond mere intellectual philosophy (in the modern academic sense) and offers the practical means for a healthier hedonism (without the old guilt). 1/

I still struggle: those subconscious triggers still rear their hooded heads. But the old reactions are short-lived. Life is easier, serenity is more readily available on a daily basis.

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

1/: I am reminded, in my random brain, of some lines by Rumi:

“As always, we wake anxious and afraid.

“Don’t go into the library!

“Take down your lute and play …”

For this Elli –

“Conclusion: Epicurus is a genuine rebel of his era, and YES, he DOES POLITICS. A fruitful rebellious politics that is considered timeless … Epicurean philosophy cares for the “eudaemonia” of the Human being in reality of life, and it points out all the timeless phenomena of life as (social, political, religious, finance etc etc) that are against humans' eudeamonia, and pleasurable living. Epicurean philosophy is real as it gives and real solutions on every issue that concerns every real relationship among the people.”

– I simply say, “Thank you!”

"No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural, which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity."

Wow! Thanks for sharing that. ( Joshua, the depth of your erudition never ceases to amaze me -- especially in literature and poetry, but not limited there.)

In Praise of Mystery: A Poem for Europa

Arching under the night sky inky

with black expansiveness, we point

to the planets we know, we

pin quick wishes on stars. From earth,

we read the sky as if it is an unerring book

of the universe, expert and evident.

Still, there are mysteries below our sky:

the whale song, the songbird singing

its call in the bough of a wind-shaken tree.

We are creatures of constant awe,

curious at beauty, at leaf and blossom,

at grief and pleasure, sun and shadow.

And it is not darkness that unites us,

not the cold distance of space, but

the offering of water, each drop of rain,

each rivulet, each pulse, each vein.

O second moon, we, too, are made

of water, of vast and beckoning seas.

We, too, are made of wonders, of great

and ordinary loves, of small invisible worlds,

of a need to call out through the dark.

– Ada Limón, U.S. Poet Laureate

Quote from Don

I'm pinning my hopes on the Europa mission

“All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there.” (A Space Odyssey, 2010: The Year We Make Contact)

Quote from Don

The construction of the two phrases is very similar:

1. τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς

καὶ "and"

2. τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας

which Epicurus seems fond of doing in pairs.

Just some speculative thoughts:

κεῖμαι has apparently also been used to mean “ to lie sick / lie in misery / lie in ruins” – in context that could refer to the profligate, who take pleasures beyond the limits, and [καὶ] as a result lies in misery. That would support Elli’s interpretation. But, since the profligate would already be understood as one "in the enjoyment of pleasures out of limits”, that particular phrasing would seem redundant.

Both in light of fragment 211 and the pleasure that I take in a sweet afternoon nap, I would not take to κεῖμαι simply meaning the enjoyment of sleep!

This makes perfect sense, and I think is quite in sync with Epicurean tradition.

Don

One would think that Hedone/Voluptas would be natural options.

But -- you're Apollo all the way!

In Hinduism, there is the concept of “Ishtadevata”: your personally chosen or preferred god for devotion/worship/contemplation. Since the gods don’t tend to be jealous, that doesn’t mean you cannot honor other gods as well.

Given the Greek (and Greco-Roman) polytheism of Epicurus’ time – which really does not support relating to just an ambiguous, abstract notion of “divinity” (natural or supernatural) – and Epicurus’ encouragement to honor the gods … which might you choose as your “ishtadevata”? (Not that I think you have to be limited to the Greco-Roman pantheons.)

~ ~ ~

I am generally drawn to Dionysus: god of wine and song, dance and ecstasy (etc.).

But, on reflection, I think I’ll go with Gaia: goddess of the earth – a primordial Greek divinity that represents all the gifts of the earth in which we live. And, I think, a goddess who personifies the naturality (and nature) in which we exist. Perhaps not so distant as the gods that might dwell in the cosmic interstices of distant worlds …

As for some contemplative ritual or practice – I need to work on that.

Looking forward to seeing others’ thoughts …

Image of The Earth Goddess at the Atlanta Botanical Gardens.

A life of happy, harmonious well-being* and a pleasurable/pleasant life – in body and mind – are the same. Free from fear of gods or grave, I abide in simplicity and ease.

~ ~ ~

* My rendering of eudaimonia.

Quote from Cassius

We should begin to emphasis that again and keep at it!

It is a very helpful exercise -- and perhaps one that is never truly finished (at least mine is unlikely to be ).

Personally, I don’t have any problem with the variety of interpretations – which I suspect is inescapable in any milieu that does not stifle critical thinking.

I would be much more concerned about any sharp-edged, cookie-cutter definition about what a “True Epicurean™” must be and do. But, then again, I would not be much concerned about whether or not my understanding/interpretation of Epicurus fit the contours of that cookie cutter. (Till the Inquisitors show up, anyway – but then, Epicurean philosophy, as I see it, is really not amenable to any Inquisition. ) But, then again – again – I don’t mind being convinced that I am wrong, or at least would do well to rethink things (though I might be a bit stubborn along the way ).

After all, a hard rule-based (command-based, imperative-based) approach is more in line with Platonism / Stoicism / Kantianism – and strict creedalistic religions. I find an Epicurean outlook to be freeing from all that (and, in my case, has taken years to come to).

With all that said, there are certain lineaments of the philosophy that I think can be discerned (such as non-supernaturalism) – even as that discernment is advanced by continued study, and by dialectical discussion from multiple perspectives – as takes place on here every day. And, as my understanding has been thereby deepened (hopefully), I find myself more relaxed and at ease about it all.

~ ~ ~

Note: Perhaps my favorite portrait of Epicurus is Frances Wright’s fictional account in A Few Days in Athens – partly because of how she portrays him responding to issues like this one: robust reasoning, but always with graciousness and a kind of easy grace.

Do you think that Epicureanism is enjoying a resurgence of interest, as a scholarly topic, especially among women – such as yourself, Catherine Wilson and Pamela Gordon? If so (in your opinion), why?

Professor Austin, how did you yourself come to Epicureanism – both as a subject for your scholarship, and for your personal life?

(I know you fleshed this out a bit in the final chapter of your book.)