Posts by Pacatus

Welcome!

Cassius

Thank you for distilling so well my meandering thoughts! (Not the first -- nor surely the last -- time!).

And especially:

Quote from Cassius

how the many types of pleasures and pains are not interchangeable

A critical insight, it seems to me.

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

~ ~ ~

Onenski

I think a lot hinges on that “If”. But I don’t think it is that simple – dipping my imaginative toe into water where I really don’t want to: if my dear wife died, I cannot imagine taking such a drug to assuage my grief – if it also caused me to forget our years together.

~ ~ ~

Let me share a personal (real) story – since that is, in the end, all I really have to offer:

I was on a business trip, as a passenger in a small plane that was trying to land in strong cross-wind gusts. The pilots had left the curtain between the cabin and cockpit open, so I could see clearly (as well as feel) how the plane was violently tossed about on each failed attempt at approach.

I was truly convinced that I was going to die (not the first time). I remember thinking: “What do I want in my mind at the end?” And I conjured up the image of my dear wife’s face, and just held it there – ignoring everything else. I was not aware when the plane did, eventually, land and taxi to the terminal. I had lost myself, as it were, in that reverie – and had to be shaken out of it to disembark.

~ ~ ~

I wonder if that experience is not akin to Epicurus in his final, painful, days. Assuaging the physical pain (as I did my fear) by remembering in his imagination pleasures with dear friends?

So, yeah – I fell into your thought experiment anyway. 😉 After all, the (at least implied) premise is “what we choose?” – not “what would we have chosen?” if we knew some other unspecified stuff. And how our Epicureanism might inform that. Not? In my case, it would lead me to make the same choice … (I hope.)

Kalosyni

Great stuff!

My many-years-ago therapist (who also later became a friend) thought that happiness was definitely a choice that one could practice. (I doubt that he ever read Epicurus.)

His formula was that what he called joy was when his mind, body and environment were in harmony. If your relationship to your environment is out of whack, you can use your mind and body to correct (e.g., change your environment). If your body is the issue (e.g. an injury or illness), you can seek relief via your environment (e.g. restful quiet or seeking healthcare) – and/or via the mind (e.g., meditation or contemplation of something enjoyable). If both the body and environment are at issue, you still have the power of your mind – and techniques to practice. Etc., etc.

For example, when I was once compelled to put my body in a very stressful environment, he said: “Remember, the only thing you need to place there is your body. Beyond that no one can compel you to participate. You can go anywhere you want in your mind – maybe imagine and visualize an island vacation.” Something like that.

But practice is required – preferably before those situations arise – just like any other activity (like a sport): he gave me the belief, taught me some techniques, and encouraged me to practice. And practice that was enjoyable in itself (no Stoic teeth-gritting). I have many times allowed myself to get out of practice – and then I have to remind myself.

Thanks for this thread, Kalosyni. It is such a reminder. 😊

_______________________

EDIT: I also thought of your reference to the possibility of a "therapy of pleasure."

I just want to add that nagging anxiety over “choosing correctly” is itself a detraction from hedone and ataraxia (and I tend to react negatively that way – with a kind of emotional clutch – every time I hear the phrase “hedonic (or Epicurean) calculus” or the like; that’s just me personally, from my own personal history – and I never enjoyed math 😉). But the answer to that cannot be some cookie-cutter rote set of rules – as it becomes for some religionists, for example. (And I think Cassius emphasizes that point). I am also reminded here of Kalosyni’s felicitous phrase: “tools, not rules.”

I am also reminded of a slogan popular in 12-Step rooms: “Easy does it.” Depending on how you inflect that, it can be taken to mean “take it easy” – or “easy [really] does do it,” as opposed to stress-based “sturm und drang.” And some people really seem committed (even addicted) to that kind of stress, and constantly worrying over whether they (or someone else) will “get it wrong.”

Pleasure and pain are experiential: therapy (philosophy) can help guide us out of our ruts – but we make the choices however we make them. And we live with the experiential results (some of which may not have been well-anticipated). And, hopefully, we keep learning as we go. And, for me, ataraxia involves adopting an underlying serenity about all that – even in the face of uncertainty.

And so, when I feel that reactive emotional clutch, I tell myself: “Easy does it.” 😊 And, for me, that is part of (the attraction of) the Epicurean way – as opposed to say, the Stoics.

Welcome to a safe and enlightening place!

Welcome.

Welcome.

I note that, under the heading "Links and Books" she provides a link to this site, with the comment: "A wealth of open-access Epicurean texts and resources are available at EpicureanFriends.com, an online community committed to Epicurean study and practice. The materials are open to all, but posting to message boards requires a free registration and commitment to shared purpose and norms of civility." Cool!

Very important insights, Kalosyni! Thanks for posting it.

~ ~ ~

My wife and I were both victims of abusive first marriages (in my case emotional/psychological, in hers the added fear of physical abuse). We became best friends before we ever considered getting married again (or even becoming romantically involved) – and remain best friends after 28 years of marriage. That – friendship – became for us the lodestone of the relationship. (And we know each other’s “warts” very well! 😉.)

When romance became part of it, we went to a counselor – both together and separately – to try to learn what behaviors and attitudes and social programming of ours had contributed to our being and continuing in those abusive relationships, so that we would never do that again – especially with each other. And we had other friends who supported us.

Because I am more an introvert (understatement! ), she has always had more outside friends – and that has never been a problem.

Again, thanks.

I recall posting this before somewhere: a facial reconstruction of Epicurus by Allesandro Tomassi.

Quote from Cassius

I don't know if I agree with myself from one day to the next, much less two years ago.

This I view as a virtue!

Here is Professor Wilson’s reply to my inquiry (I’ll just share it without comment):

Thank you for your interesting query about Epicurus and his girlfriends. I am not myself a classical scholar (I work only the later reception of Epicurus and Lucretius) but I found some useful articles (which have references to other useful articles...)

Catherine J. Castner, in "Epicurean Hetairai As Dedicants to Healing Divinities?." Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 23.1 (1982): 51-57, says: In addition, the literary sources list as living with Epicurus and members of his School the following women: Demetria (Phld., P.Hercul. 1005.v.16-17), Erotion (Timokrates in Diog.Laert. 10.7), and Leontion 00.4, and also, because of her intellectual prowess, in other writers).

(I pulled this as a PDF off the web).

Then there is Pamela Gordon in "Remembering the garden: The trouble with women in the school of Epicurus." Philodemus and the New Testament world. Brill, 2004. 221-243. She thinks the sexual freedom of the school might have been exaggerated by later Christian authors who wanted to portray it as utterly depraved.

In any case, the place of the hetairai ( educated, attractive, unmarried or unmarriageable women, usually foreigners, who were preferred company for educated men but needed financial support) is one of the most interesting topics in Greek social history.

With best wishes,

Catherine Wilson

Welcome!

Quote from Joshua

try as they might, lovers never can succeed in becoming two in one.

Rilke (going from memory here) defined love as “two solitudes that border and greet and protect one another.”

Agreed.

Quote from Don

A "romantic dinner" need not lead to "sexual passion"... or at least not until you leave the restaurant.

I have reached out to Professor Wilson via Academia.edu, asking her about supporting evidence for her claim. If I get a response, I’ll share it with all of you.

Quote from Don

To my mind, "feeling romantic" and "feeling sexual passion" convey two similar but distinct feelings.

I think sexual passion (in English now) can be felt in the context of a loving, romantic relationship, as well as in other (nonromantic) contexts. But I cannot say that what I sometimes feel toward my beloved should not be called sexual passion, shared in a loving relationship. That seems to me to be an unnecessary parsing.

Quote from Don

The verb ἔραμαι (of which ἐρασθήσεσθαι is a form) does mean "desire passionately, lust after; desire eagerly" so there's a connotation of over the top sexual desire and lust.

Well, here I go: leaping out where I should probably fear to tread—

First, it doesn’t seem to me that either the LSJ or Wiki entries for ἔρᾰμαι necessitate that connotation, except for regard to things (as opposed to persons); similarly for ἔρος. (I don’t know if it usually carries that connotation across the ancient literature, but it strikes me as something that is likely context-dependent.)

Even less so in other lexicons –

Slater: a. fall in love with, love c. gen. … b. desire.

Autenrieth: enamoured of, in love with.

Etymonline has this for “erotic”: 1650s, from French érotique (16c.), from Greek erotikos "caused by passionate love, referring to love," from eros (genitive erotos) "sexual love" (see Eros). Earlier form was erotical (1620s) –

And under the entry for eros, notes: "Ancient Greek distinguished four ways of love: erao "to be in love with, to desire passionately or sexually;" phileo "have affection for;" agapao "have regard for, be contented with;" and stergo, used especially of the love of parents and children or a ruler and his subjects."

Second, in order for sexual desire to have any per se negative connotation vis-à-vis Epicurus, it would have to fall into the category of unnatural desires, not a natural (albeit unnecessary) desire.

Third, a form of the same word, ἔρᾰμαι, is used in the DL quote affirming sexual pleasures as among those apart from which Epicurus would not know “how to conceive the good.”

“I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.”

~ ~ ~

At bottom, I do not see Epicurus denigrating sexual pleasures at all, simply cautioning care. The denigrating connotations – whilst they might be apropos (or even predominant) in other cultural, philosophical and religious contexts – seem to me the kind of thing that Epicurus might have tried to rectify, as he did for hēdone itself vis-à-vis, say, the Stoics.

Just to react generally and off-handedly thus far: there would seem to be a wide gulf between being "overwhelmed by sexual passions" and "selective sexual prudence." (Similarly between pederasty, which Joshua's posts are referencing, and any consensual adult homosexual relations.) But I'll wait on further elucidation ...

EDIT: Does eros necessarily imply being overwhelmed or carried away? Or just feeling romantic/sexual passion?