Posts by Pacatus

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"?

Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone? It’s for questions like these that I am loath to call myself an Epicurean (or a/an anything along those lines). I prefer just “Epicurean” – as an adjective, and even that with some reservation.

In the end, I try to fit the philosophy to my life, so far as it seems reasonable, true and helpful (Epicurean philosophy just seems to provide that, generally, better than others). I do not try to bind my life (thoughts and behavior) to the demands or protocols of a philosophy in order to call myself a [ … ]. {Procrustes’ bed comes to mind. }

In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay.

Quote from Joshua

The meaning of this 'meaning of life' is as elusive as the claims of the snake-oil salesman, because that's exactly what it is; an imaginary cure to what is not, in fact, a disease. The 'disease' is explicitly atheism and hedonism, and to sell the cure one must first sell the idea that the disease is real and shameful. When they tell you that your life without gods is without meaning, they are you telling you to feel ashamed.

Don't.

Boom!

Quote from Cassius

What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?

Even a simple, bite-by-bite imbibing of Epicurean principles can (in my opinion) be helpful in getting one’s life together (just as in many therapies). A deep, time-consuming dive into scholarship or even popular sources (such as Emily Austin) is not necessary – and for many people may not be possible. This site is a very good resource for those people, who can tap in as they need and wish. It has been for me.

[This question could merit a whole thread of its own – as could some of the others no doubt.]

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

VS 27 (Bailey version): "In all other occupations the fruit comes painfully after completion, but, in philosophy, pleasure goes hand in hand with knowledge; for enjoyment does not follow comprehension, but comprehension and enjoyment are simultaneous." Effective therapy (in my experience) does the same: once, when I was going through a really rough time, I went into my first meeting with a therapist (who later became a friend) scared, anxious and depressed – I left laughing. Was that the end of it? No. But that was the process that kept me coming back for some time.

Same for here.

Quote from kochiekoch

The science shows everyone IS a psychological hedonist , and the science is what is empirically known. He or she may deny the science, like a creationist denying evolution, but that's what's actually true.

Or the Stoic denying that feeling pleasure at her accomplishments (a good self-pat on the back?) guides her pursuit of virtue?

“I lay open the mysteries of science; I expose the beauties of art; I call the graces and the muses to my aid; the song, the lyre, and the dance. … I grant that I do not look to make men great, but to make men happy.”

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

The welcoming, freeing and encouraging therapy of the Garden, wherein perfect adherence to some set of self-binding rules is not requisite – versus the duty- and rule-binding severity of the Stoa, wherein even taking pleasure in one’s accomplished virtue is suspect. (And its heir, the duty-based Kantian morality I I so deeply imbibed.)

The Stoa: “First be ‘good’.”

The Garden: “First be well.”

I’ve been thinking lately about the sequential nature of this: What if I indulge in a pleasure now that may result in some pain after – but calculate that the resulting pain (say, feeling over-full after a delicious meal) will be less than the pleasure indulged (say, the taste-pleasure of the meal – one more bite of delicious fare)? Does the pleasure/pain calculus only run one way sequentially?

Welcome.

Quote from Cassius

So somehow we have to set some terms on what is meant at a basic level. Are we talking something short term or much longer?

Both. Behind my bad joke is the point that there are different shades of happiness: like pleasure/pleasantness (on which I think happiness is based – my Epicurean view), it can be both “kinetic” and “katastematic.” And I think we can identify those for ourselves experientially pretty readily, and I associate them with well-being as opposed to ill-being (though we can find happiness in mental pleasure/well-being, even with bodily ill-being – as Epicurus was able to do on his death bed).

For me, then, the problem is one of philosophical parsing (in order to communicate philosophically – not to imply that is a small matter) of something that does not seem problematic at all (to me) experientially. And that is where I think folks like Cicero get lost: they elevate (their) philosophical apparatus over plain experience, and then struggle to fit plain experience into that philosophical apparatus. Epicurus, it seems to me, takes the exact opposite (and natural, reality-based) tack. And that Epicurean tack seems far more relatable to everyday living – and finding eudaimonia therein.

Are we to “Fifty Shades of Eudaimonia” yet?    

Don

To be unhelpfully repetitive, I translate as "happy well-being" -- if I translate at all.

"We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content." (Vatican Saying 48)

Of course, that one I'd hit on right away! (Though, in deference to Don, I might change "happy" to "cheerful".)

ADDENDUM to previous posts: Maybe my thin thread of Jewish heritage (not enough to be a “halachic” – Torah approved – Jew, but enough that could well have sent me to Dachau*) explains my tendency to want to argue multiple possible alternative points to any side. But I think that Epicurus’ insistence on multiple possible causes for any effect ( with the possibility of “over-determination”) goes a long way to cover that …

[* My great grandfather on my paternal side married a Catholic woman: and so all their offspring became de facto Catholic. Not me, though ...]

Rabbinical Judaism is almost radically dialogic. When I was participating in the weekly Talmud study, I early on (because I can’t quite bite my tongue) said about some passage that I disagreed with what someone else in the class had said. I blushed, and apologized – saying something like, “Sorry: I’m a guest here.” To which one of the other students, wagging a finger at me, said: “No, no, no! That’s what you’re supposed to do: argue!”

There is a scene from the film “Yentl”, in which Yentl (in her disguise as a male in order to study Talmud) and her study partner are speaking sotto voce, when the rabbi comes around and asks: “Are you agreeing or disagreeing?” Response: “Oh, we’re disagreeing, Rabbi. We’re disagreeing!” Several Jewish commentators I once read said that whole scene was an accurate reflection of Torah study.

Some of this is based on the highly polysemous nature of classical (Torah) Hebrew. The Talmuds (there are two: the Bavli – Babylonian Talmud – and the lesser Yerushalmi – Jerusalem Talmud) are essentially a history (up to a point) of Rabbinical argument, and commentaries on the original arguments (the Mishnah). Sometimes the arguments appear to be resolved; sometimes not – and sometimes might give the appearance of resolution by truncation. But the Rabbis continue the process …

There is a saying in the Talmud (going from memory): “The real Torah is not complete until you have added your [personal] torah to the Torah.” Thus, there is a dynamic open-endedness that derives from a certain hermeneutical freedom. But there is always argument – and you’re expected to make yours. (“Torah,” here, could almost be translated as “Tao” – as I understand the Greek Logos is rendered in Chinese Bibles. There is the received written Torah – the biblical texts; the expanded interpretive Torah – the Talmuds and Midrash; and the ongoing Torah.)

[Note: I doubt that I would have been welcome in a strict Orthodox congregation. My background, experience – and interpretations – are personal. I spent some years, on my own, delving into various aspects – and Hebrew (though mostly how that language works: never proficient, though I could recognize a few words if I was reading “pointed” text). It was a great pleasure. But I couldn’t find a home there.]

Quote from Don

That almost sounds Epicurean in that they take part in the rituals of the community but don't ascribe to the supernatural elements.

Apikorsim. Although Judaism, historically and broadly, is generally more orthopraxic than orthodoxic.

I had an acquaintance who was a Humanistic Jew. I made the slip-of-tongue (quite innocently) of Saying "atheistic Judaism" -- he just laughed and said, "Yeah, pretty much."

Godfrey

Just quickly, off the top of my head: Generally, Conservative Jews keep kashrut -- but, unlike Orthodox Jews ordain women, and have other liberal positions. Reform Jews generally reject the need to keep kashrut, take more of the Torah symbolically or metaphorically. An outward example: in the synagogue I was involved in, Conservative Jews tended to wear the kippah (skull cap/yarmulke) all the time, and maybe the fringed garment (tzitzit); Reform Jews donned the yarmulke only during services, and didn't wear the tzitzit at all. They used different prayer books (siddurim). Theologically, there might not be many real differences -- although Reform Jews (like some neo-Hasidim) seemed to tend more toward some versions of pantheism. Humanistic Jews might reject the notion of a supernatural creator God (or any God) altogether, but still keep some of the Torah-traditions as a community-bonding practice.

That is really simplistic, but the best I can do to give maybe a picture. Wikipedia probably has articles, but these observations are based on my personal experience.

For those who might be interested in pursuing this topic further, I stumbled on this book in Amazon: Epicurus & Apikorsim: The Influence of the Greek Epicurus and Jewish Apikorsim on Judaism Hardcover – August 15, 2007

https://www.amazon.com/Epicurus-Apikorsim-Influence-Jewish-Judaism/dp/9659115113/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.d7u4ebcpoEF2VZBVZbkrscVAMrzSSzxdETHHR7Z2rr8dYFlLCmf00RyBBS5RGGVx.zHMcZrk595kS0YXy2_l75ucghtz4z7wwStB0q9avuDs&dib_tag=se&keywords=Epicurus+and+Apikorsim&qid=1711310233&s=books&sr=1-1

One of the commentators mentions Humanistic Judaism as a strain that would be apikorsim. In the months I participated, as a graciously welcomed guest, in a local mixed-congregation (Conservative and Reform) synagogue, I got the strong impression that many of the Conservative members viewed Reform Jews pretty much as apikorsim – even as they were often good friends.

I’ve decided to write a poem on Leontion, which will take some painstaking time (as always). The first stanza thus far (in very rough draft, and subject to radical revision):

Leontion, your treatises are lost
and we are left with mere hints of your wit:
a woman scorned for her acuity,
an affront male ego could not acquit.

As I go, I keep doing what research I can on this “lost philosopher,” some quotes from which I am likely to include in my author’s notes. Here is what I’ve got so far, for those interested:

“Leontion was a follower of Epicurus, a renowned philosopher whose school welcomed the unlikeliest of sorts: foreigners, slaves, and—almost more surprisingly—women.”

Leontion: The Lost Woman Philosopher - Philosophy News

Lost but not completely forgotten. It is beyond doubt that the paragons of philosophy’s history, so recalled for their wondrous scholarship, were in custody of…

philosophynews.com

“Leontion’s criticism of a male thinker left her open to charges of impertinence, but was also viewed as an inspiration by later female writers. On one point everyone seems to have agreed: even the most critical portrayals of Leontion were obliged to acknowledge her intelligence.”

Leontion, 'Little Prostitute' or 'Great Philosopher'

Followers of our Twitter account may remember an image we posted a few months ago on #InternationalHugAMedievalistDay, showing a woman being interrupted from…

blogs.bl.uk

“Leontion did the unthinkable. She criticized the celebrated and unassailable philosopher, Theophrastus, the pupil of Plato and the chief assistant of Aristotle. She was audacious, confident and able to match the great philosopher in a debate.”

“Though all of Leontion’s work is now lost, she is still remembered to this day thanks to her convincing arguments against the famous philosopher Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor.”

Leontion – Folia Magazine

Your virtual eye on illuminated manuscripts, rare books, and the stories behind them. By Franco Cosimo Panini Editore.

www.foliamagazine.it

Quote from Cassius

for most important uses I skip over all the poetic versions

Actually, I don't really disagree even though I prefer the poetic versions, and have used both A.E. Stallings (though at times I find her rhymed fourteeners cumbersome) and Frank O. Copley's blank verse version. After all, Lucretius had his own poetic flourishes. But for clarity, I'll refer to Martin Ferguson Smith.

From Joshua 's "spoiler": "Nature is not an abstract capacity, but a generative mother, bringing forth everything that exists. We have, in other words, entered the Lucretian universe."

Natura naturans: "Nature naturing" -- though not necessarily in accordance with Spinoza's philosophical understanding.