Posts by Pacatus

Quote from Cassius

Query: Does it make sense for a normal person to "empty the contents first" if there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain? Is emptying even possible or desirable?

Here is the passage from Ferguson-Smith:

“Then he realized that the cause of the flaw was the vessel itself, which by its own flaw corrupted within it all things, even good things, that entered it from without. He became convinced of this, partly because [20] he saw that the vessel was leaky and riddled, so that it could never possibly be filled, and partly because he observed that it contaminated with a foul flavor everything it had taken in.”

In footnotes, MFS says that the vessel is a metaphor for the mind, and that the leaky vessel is a metaphor for the mind that cannot be satisfied.

In an old thread on this (The Vessel Analogy At The Opening of Lucretius Book Six ) , Don said: “So it all comes back around to our recent thread on ataraxia and the work of removing fear, anxiety, the darkness and torments of the mind, and instead freeing our minds from the "gloomy sea of troubles" so we can float on the calm ocean of ataraxia and surf the waves of delightful kinetic pleasures!”

So (it seems to me), “emptying” would be limited to those “torments” (e.g. fear of the gods) via application of Epicurean philosophy – and not some Buddhistic “empty mind.”

As Don says later in the thread: “The image of cleaning and repairing the vessel as a metaphor for learning and internalizing the teachings of Epicurus with the resulting clean pot filled with clean liquid symbolizing the calm waters of ataraxia shows that ataraxia is not a sudden epiphany. It takes work to achieve and maybe even maintain.”

Does ἡ παιδεία (for Epicurus) refer to education in general (beyond certain technical matters, like grammar or, per Philodemus, household economics) – or to the particular programmatic content of what passed for a “proper education” for Greeks of the time (e.g., Homer)?

I asked Google the difference, if any, between Google AI and Gemini. Here, for anyone interested (who didn;t already know, as I didn’t), is the reply from Google AI (I didn’t inquire further):

“Gemini is the ‘brain’ (the AI model), while Google AI Mode is a feature (an enhanced search experience) inside Google Search that uses Gemini to answer your questions.Here is how they differ:

“Gemini (accessed via Google Gemini) is a standalone AI chatbot and large language model. It is designed for deep, multi-step tasks, long conversations, and writing assistance.

“Google AI Mode is an interface built directly into the Google Search bar. Instead of just giving you a list of links, it uses Gemini in the background to browse the live web, synthesize answers, and let you ask follow-up questions. It also acts dynamically, building custom interactive layouts or calculators right in your search results.

In short: You are chatting with Gemini when you use Google AI Mode, but AI Mode is specifically tuned for fast web research and live information.”

__________________________

I usually do not restrict myself to the AI mode when using Google (though I don’t alwaysI disable it with the -ai command). Then, at least, I can compare the AI response to other sources. I sometimes use Gemini on my phone for quick questions: e.g., “Who did Miguel Amaya play for before the Cubs?"

Haris Demitriadis discusses a range of modern psychology in his book Epicurus and the Pleasant Life: A Philosophy of Nature – from Freud to existential psychology to cognitive psychology – to the positive psychology of, especially, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Chapter 7: “The Psychological Approaches to Happiness”). On “positive psychology,” he comments: “Positive psychology focuses on the achievement of a pleasurable life, rather than on treating mental illnesses.”

In his Preface he says: "This book seeks to reintroduce pleasure as our innate guide to living a healthy and happy life. A simple yet powerful assertion based on empirical data, which stands up to the strictest scrutiny." (He also has an early chapter on the biology and chemistry of brain function and consciousness.)

I wouldn’t say “should” (or “shoudn’t”). For some it might be helpful.

Quote from Cassius

Peace and love to all!

Backatcha!

Quote from Don

foreigners = ξένους (xenous)

That also lends perhaps some semantic emphasis to the anti-xenophobic point of Diogenes.

And perhaps also his distinguishing between geography (γης) as determining the borders of one’s ancestral home (πατρίς) – and the whole world of humanity (κόσμος), which, according to Wiktionary and Liddell-Scott, κόσμος can also refer to.

As I am reading MFS’s latest translation of Diogenes of Oinoanda (linked above by Don ) I was struck by this (pp. 47-48):

“ … and not least we did [this] for those who (II) are called foreigners, although they are not really so. For, while the various segments of the earth give different people a different country, the whole compass of this world gives all people a single country, the entire earth, and a single home, the world.” [My italics]

That is as strong a statement of cosmopolitanism as any Stoic. One might also be bold enough to say (perhaps with an eye to global environmental concerns): “a single Garden, the entire earth.”

For anyone interested, MFS also has an autobiography – titled Martin the Epicurean – that was just released by Amazon on April 15th. Here is the link:

Martin the Epicurean

Martin the Epicurean

www.amazon.com

Quote from Cassius

We are all pursuing the study of Epicurus as we see best, and it's my strong opinion that we're all making better progress pursuing out individual threads than we would be if we were constantly "turned off" by the approach of people who are friends but who see things differently.

This makes sense also for those of us who, as individuals, do explore different lines of thought re Epicurean philosophy, and even (as Martin notes) other schools of philosophy – where that seems helpful to us. For example, I often find stuff on Hiram’s site helpful – though it represents viewpoints different from the project here.

But it is not helpful to spend our time on any one forum bickering about the differences, though it may be sometimes helpful to look at and acknowledge them – and then let it go. (I know that occasionally I have crossed the line, but I do try not to. )

Quote from Kalosyni

This illustrates an on-going problem with speaking about "Epicureanism" -- how it is understood, what does it represent, what is "Epicureanism" and what isn't "Epicureanism" and who do we consider as "being Epicurean" - these questions will be answered differently depending on whom you ask. And the only way to begin to deal with this is to start labeling all of the common varying interpretations.

Your “no cookie-cutter” comment in another thread is certainly spot on, and I like the approach you’re suggesting here.

As a – likely beyond-the-pale whimsical* – metaphor, perhaps we could think in terms of a philosophical “clade”:

“In biology, a clade (/kleɪd/) (from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch'), also known as a monophyletic group or natural group, is a group of organisms that is composed of a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Clades are the fundamental unit of cladistics, a modern approach to taxonomy adopted by most biological fields.

“The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, or a species (extinct or extant). Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan") groups.”

Clade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example, bees: “Bees are winged insects that form a monophyletic clade Anthophila within the superfamily Apoidea of the order Hymenoptera, with over 20,000 known species in seven recognized families.”

Within that bee clade, are a variety of behavior characteristics: “Some species – including honey bees, bumblebees, and stingless bees – are social insects living in highly hierarchical colonies, while over 90% of bee species – including mason bees, carpenter bees, leafcutter bees, and sweat bees – are solitary.” But all bees (as opposed to, say, wasps) “are herbivores that specifically feed on nectar (nectarivory) and pollen (palynivory), the former primarily as a carbohydrate source for metabolic energy, and the latter primarily for protein and other nutrients for their larvae.”

Bee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recent research suggests that even hive bees – at least bumblebees – also, as individuals, play.

___________________________

* By way of apology, I might be reacting to this from Emily Austin that I read yesterday: “Our ability to live a good life does not rise or fall with cultural refinement or rarified intellectual skills, and sometimes it’s just more fun to clown around.” It reminded me of something Alan Watts once said to the effect that being sincere is not the same thing as being hyper-serious. As Epicurus said, we must also laugh – even whilst doing philosophy. Then again, the metaphor of a “philosophical clade” might be constructive …

Quote from Cassius

I don't think Epicurus viewed it as helpful to see things in such black and white terms

Totally agree, with all of this post.

“Most of the empirical claims Epicurus made about the world – some fundamental to his system, others peripheral – have since been falsified. … So it is not surprising that the philosophical system of Epicureanism has no adherents today.” (!?) [Tim O’keefe, Epicureanism; 2014, Routledge.]

Ouch! I thought I’d take another look at O’Keefe’s introduction – but I think I’ll just shut it down there (though I’m sure there’s some good stuff in it as well). No ancient philosophy is unaffected by advances in empirical knowledge, but the core principles of Epicureanism remain intact. And O’Keefe’s claim about “no adherents” is just false – as this on-line Garden clearly demonstrates.

I revisit introductory texts from time to time – but I’ll stick with the likes of, e.g., Emily Austin and Catherine Wilson.

[Yes, I do tend toward a bit of eclecticism (I don’t know – for myself – how to otherwise personalize any of this stuff in my daily life, and keep an inquiring mind) – but, I think of Epicurus as the core (why I keep coming back to it), with a bit of eclecticism around the edges. Which I try not to impose on discussions here – sometimes I fail. ]

It seems to me that if the dichotomy of control (as in Epictetus) refers to whatever is completely within my control versus whatever is completely out of my control – then it is an idealistic abstraction, and not useful. (And I suspect that idealism is exactly how the Stoics saw it.)

For me, I think more in terms of likely effective agency – given the circumstances and my own abilities. That may be more “loosey-goosey,” but it’s also more pragmatic. What can I reasonably do in this situation? What can I reasonably choose? And what will be the likely outcome? (And the Epicurean trichotomy of desires comes right into play here.)

With regard to happiness, I equate it with pleasure (mental or physical, kinetic or katastematic). If I’m happy, I’m enjoying some pleasure. In that sense, I translate (for myself) eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” In that sense, I don’t find the word problematic, nor think of it solely as just an immediate “rush” of feeling (and I’m really not sure that most people do think of it only that way). But it is a term that needs to be unpacked (Emily Austin, it seems to me, does a good job of that).

To cast it all in a lighter, humorous frame, here is a cartoon I once posted elsewhere (especially the last two panels):

As I read through this, I had to remind myself that Cassius is using the word “dogmatic” in the sense that the Hellenistic philosophers such as Epicurus did – not the sense of “characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts.” [Merriam-Webster] I think his comments about contemporary legal standards of proof are illustrative.

Wishing a prosperous and pleasurable year for you all!

An article by Emily Austin that I don’t recall seeing on here:

Epicurus on the Politics of Fearing Death

Epicurus often serves as the standard-bearer for the view that we can and should use our rational capacities to eliminate our fear of death. Although Epicurus…

www.academia.edu

There have been lots of discussions on here about the nature of the Epicurean gods – including the “idealist” versus “realist” interpretations. But, under either interpretation, I have had trouble with the notion that all the gods are beings who exist only in some cosmic “intermundia” (Lucretius). Epicurus would surely have been aware of the very earthly Greek gods, such as Hestia and Demeter, as archetypal representations of earthly elements and functions – and especially Gaia as a divine personification of the earth itself.

In going back through some past discussions, I especially appreciated Elli’s post #12 here: RE: Epicureans and the Ancient Greek Gods (Imagery of "Gods" / "Gods Among Men")

So, anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone else has some ideas on this …

Quote from Cassius

who mind earthly things.

Oh the horror! That we should "mind earthly things"!? [/s]

Quote from Don

The word used for "belly" is indeed γαστρὶ. From whence we get words like gastric, gastroenterology, etc.

With the idea that γαστήρ actually referred to the whole digestive system, I remembered something about our gut as a “second brain.” Modern biology seems to offer new insights into the importance and multivariate role of our gut – including on such things as mood and feelings, and mental well-being generally.

What To Know About the Gut-Brain Connection

Find out what your brain and gut talk about all day, and how this friendship could affect your health.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Think Twice: How the Gut's "Second Brain" Influences Mood and Well-Being

The emerging and surprising view of how the enteric nervous system in our bellies goes far beyond just processing the food we eat

www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-brain-gut-connection

Happy Thanksgiving all!