Happy Birthday, Eikadistes
I love how you have helped organize and explain much of the Epicurean texts. I appreciate having a printed copy of Hedonicon. I’m working on making it as full of highlighted text and dog-eared pages as my previously studied 60 year old King James. I appreciate the multiple references included:👍
I find it fascinating that the ancient debate between Aristotle and Epicurus continues today in modern medicine—particularly in positive psychology's focus on Eudaimonia (Aristotle) vs Hedonia (Epicurus). Interestingly, several studies suggest Hedonia may offer more tangible mental health benefits—such as reduced anxiety, depression, and improved sleep—especially in times of stress.
Welcome to, dlippman
I too was a longtime LT podcast listener. So it’s an extra treat to see the faces on Zoom calls of the voices you’ve listened to from Cassius , Joshua , Kalosyni , and many others on LT recordings.
Regarding the different usages of the term “eudaimonia” by Aristotle and Epicurus, you should enjoy reading some of the papers by Christos Yapijakis (active medical professor teaching in Athens).
In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle of Stagira, son of physician Nicomachus, used the observation method of clinicians and spoke plainly about the unity of body and soul, grounding his ethical theory in human biology and becoming the first philosopher to speak extensively of eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία, a blissful, prolonged, imperturbable state of happiness). Following the empirical observation method and the biological ethics of Aristotle, Epicurus the Athenian in the beginning of the 3rd century BCE considered philosophy as a means for a dynamic healing of the soul aiming at developing eudaimonia and dealt with the psychosomatic balance of human beings, which he called eustatheia (εὐστάθεια, stability) of the flesh and soul. While for Aristotle eudaimonia was the emotional action of a virtuous person, for Epicurus eudaimonia was a pleasurable condition in which there is no mental agitation (ἀταραξία, ataraxia) and no corporeal pain (ἀπονία, aponia). It is worth mentioning that Aristotle believed that the eudaimonic life is pleasant, because the virtuous person enjoys acting virtuously,8 while Epicurus proposed that a happy life cannot be achieved without virtue.9
Epicurean Stability (eustatheia): A Philosophical Approach of Stress Management
C. Yapijakis & G. P. Chrousos
Conatus 7, no. 2 (2022): 173-190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.31769
Christos Yapijakis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
E-mail address: cyapi@med.uoa.gr
George P. Chrousos
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
E-mail address: chrousge@med.uoa.gr
By struggling in an effortful way, one is adding an unnecessary level of pain. Sure, we choose pain sometimes for greater pleasure. My go to example is always exercise
Is effort always painful? (I don't think so myself).
Vatican Saying 41 hints at putting effort into things:
"We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy."
Thanks Don and Kalosyni for your perspectives on effort & pain.
While there can be pain in the effort to learn a new skill or a new exercise, there may come a time where the effort produces no pain, but joy in accomplishment. In some cases for those who have learned their skill well, doing yoga or even playing golf, is a joyful (not painful) effort. As one teacher said, “if you are feeling pain, you’re doing it wrong.”
In other words, if one could achieve maximum pleasure with no effort, then there would be no reason to put in any effort. But since this is seldom, if ever, the case, my answer is “as much effort as it takes”.
I think that Epicurus was trying to give us the lessons for how to master the art of living well, by staying attuned to the nature and natural flows and movements.
So, how much effort does it take to be present in the moment, to live like a god, to live a life of wellbeing (eudaimonia)? Maybe a lifetime of daily, joyful effort, which reminds me of T.S. Eliot’s words.
“Quick now, here, now, always-
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)”― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets
If prolepsis is a PRE-conception, I would describe it more as "the ability to recognize that an issue is involved."
Cassius ,
I can readily agree that the proleptic pattern recognition matching capability is innate in humans.
So is the proleptic recognition of an issue, also based on that individual’s experience as to whether the issue is good, bad or indifferent to them?
How different humans react differently to the same situation or external stimulus is based on an automatic response that is a product of their different life teachings and experiences in addition to our automatic fight/flight reaction. Those life experiences are the data that the proleptic pattern matching uses. It would seem to me that each human’s proleptic response will differ for concepts like ‘justice’, ‘gods’, etc.
Additionally, why is prolepsis necessary for us to know certain things? Isn’t it possible that we simply learn them from experience?
Rolf ,
I love the questions you bring to this topic of prolepsis. As I understand from Bryan list of English translations of the Greek prolepsis, included ‘comprehension’. Experience is essential to learning, but leaves out the other capabilities nature gives humans to achieve deeper levels of understanding & comprehension..
As a senior struggling through many years of experience, trying to become wise, I have come see prolepsis as enabling a ‘whole-body comprehension’ of whatever objects or concepts. The pattern recognition matching occurs across all sensory data that links together myriad related information. I first read of this type of learning in Robert Heinlein’s ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ - where he learns to “grok” something or someone.
”To grok it, understand it so thoroughly that you merge with it and it merges with you. “
“Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed — to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science and it means as little to us as color does to a blind man.”
Grok - Wikipedia
So, it maybe Heinlein’s grok appears to describe some aspects of proleptic comprehension.
For modern times, my idea is that the "spirituality of Nature" would be a kind of "return to sensing Nature" and as a way of increasing good health and pleasure.
Thank you, Kalosyni .
I like to think of ‘Divine Nature’ as being the guide to good health and pleasure.
Thanks for the helpful discussion in this podcast on managing pain. In II-XXI.
The whole, then, consists in this, that you should have command over yourself. I have already told you what kind of command this is; and by considering what is most consistent with patience, fortitude, and greatness of soul, a man not only restrains himself, but somehow or other mitigates even pain itself.
These admonitions from Cicero reminds me of the quote from “Lawrence of Arabia”.
"The trick is not minding that it hurts...”
But this was more a display of stoic behavior.
[linkdb][/linkdb]
As might be expected, Cicero spends a lot of time talking about facing down pain in wartime, but at XXV he turns to the topic of dealing with pain in peacetime.
As I’ve been following these discussions on pain, I too find PD-04 difficult to fully comprehend; especially as it relates to the natural pains (in mind & body) .
During the podcast, Joshua made these excellent comments.
“Nothing could be added to the pain that he's experiencing right now. That is the definition of superlative. But, because the mind acts as a kind of force multiplier for pleasure, if you use it correctly, he says, I set over and above it all the pleasure of the memory of our past friendship.”
I recalled a paper that gave some insight into how to ‘use the mind correctly’. In his paper, “Epicurean Stability (eustatheia): A Philosophical Approach of Stress Management”, Dr. Yapijakis states:
These comments seem to imply that Epicurus and his schools might have taught the “arts” of pain management (recollection, oblivion), as part of learning how to implement PD04. This viewpoint from Yapijakis (& others?) may have been discussed on this forum before, but re-reading Yapijakis in the context of PD04 does help my understanding of the value in learning & practicing such eustatheia skills.
This VS-47 might also apply to why we should learn to withstand pains.
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And I will not give myself up as captive to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for me to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who vainly cling to it, I will leave life crying aloud a glorious triumph-song that I have lived well.
Do others see this viewpoint that Epicurus was teaching pain management techniques, in order for his disciples to become ’wise’ in using the mind, and live a “blessed life”?
If I recall correctly DeWitt thinks that this was a direct jibe at Plato, who held that you have to be able to know geometry in order to be a philosopher. I'll look for a cite for that.
Thanks for the insight. I just finished reading the last chapter today which, includes how DeWitt describes Plutarch’s attempt to defend himself.[Epicurus & His Philosophy, Chapter XV, p 351)]
The result is labored but it possesses merits: it preserves much valuable information and it shows how the proud Platonists writhed under the shafts of Epicurean ridicule, a weapon to which pride is especially vulnerable.
Plutarch is an outright Platonist in his attitude toward Epicurus, and his writings should remind us that the original quarrel was between the Academy and the Garden.
In Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy, I found this interesting quote. This is in Chapter XIV: The New Virtues, in the section on Hope. DeWitt quotes Vatican Saying 33.
"The cry of the flesh is not to hunger, not to thirst, not to surfer cold, because, possessing these and expecting to possess them, a man may vie with Zeus himself in respect of happiness."
Then while discussing how hope is 'confident expectation', DeWitt cites this quote:
“The stable condition of well-being in the flesh and the confident hope concerning this means the height of enjoyment and the greatest certainty of it for those who are capable of figuring the problem out."
The footnote reference is :
Any thoughts from our more learned friends as to what was meant by, and who are "those who are capable of figuring the problem out" ?
I'm still trying to figure this problem out 
Thanks
In other words, modern science hasn't changed the basic principles underlying the Epicurean approach, but it has expanded the applicability--and, in so doing, made the competing supernaturalist approaches less plausible.
Modern science now has tools to better examine and correlate mental states with our feelings, using enhanced bio-feedback tools.
There is an interesting organization that is conducting rigorous research into the sphere of noetics. The Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) conducts scientific research into understanding the power of the human mind. They are also testing theories of how the human mind can gain extraordinary knowledge thorough ‘natural’ means (e.g. clairvoyance, esp), using scientific methods.
The term “Noetic” comes from the Greek word noēsis/noētikos that means inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding.
“At the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), we are inspired by the power of science to explain phenomena not previously understood, harnessing the best of the rational mind to make advances that further our knowledge and enhance our human experience.
The mission of the Institute of Noetic Sciences is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery.”
I found some of their research articles helped understand what Epicurus taught to have mental focus (ebole).
Epicurus could easily be saying, and apparently did say, that:
1. Pain is always "evil," because it is undesirable in itself.
2. But "infamy" is not always "evil." - An Epicurean could say that he doesn't care at all what the crowd thinks, if he thinks what he is doing is the correct thing to do, but he would care if the crowd takes action to inflict pain on him because of it.
For Sunday June1st discussion.
For an Epicurean (“wise man”) who is trying to live prudently, honestly, justly and pleasantly; wouldn’t an unkind, untrue, or manufactured accusation that caused public infamy, also bring mental pain to the wise man? Thus there can be mental pain from untrue infamy, right?
Hi, Patrikios--I just finished reading the paper on epibole--thank you for suggesting it! A quick reaction (assuming I understood Tsouna's line of argument) is that it sheds some light on why memorization of the teachings is important. It seems to form part of a mental training that leads first to epibole about specific topics and ultimately to the cosmic-level view that Lucretius and Philodemus both attribute to the the Epicurean sage. Does this seem correct to you?
Robert , yes, you summarized my current understanding of the practical applications of epibole and prolapses to the Epicurean education process. After reading those papers by Voula Tsouna, I found that studying the Key Doctrines in short groups of 3 or 4 related doctrines was more beneficial to focus on a key topic. But I was having trouble just memorizing each KD, so I found by also reading different translations and when I allowed the words to generate feelings, those sensations brought up images or recollections related to the doctrine. In this way, we are programming our unconscious (the RAS, etc.) by employing the epibole to begin focusing the full mind which then correlates the words with feelings and images that are meaningful from your personal experience.
Would you call this immersive or whole-brain learning that was being taught in Epicurean schools?
The thought is that we need a regular series for those who mainly want to get "introduced" to the basics of the philosophy
We've done several series in the past on the Principal Doctrines, the Vatican Sayings, Frances Wright's Book, DeWitt's book, and Emily Austin's book.
I like the idea of the Sunday meeting being more of an interactive study group with reading material ahead of class. Consider scheduling for 90 minutes with full class participation.
While DeWitt said there is very little info on how the Epicurean school classes were conducted over the 800 years of existence, are there some educational practices we should be learning? Is there a learning process we can incorporate into a study session like this, if there are others with similar interests?
The First Monday sessions are good for an intro to key doctrine and welcome to meeting new faces.
The Wednesday sessions appear to be for more advanced practitioners.
The Sunday sessions could oriented towards grappling with some of the more complex principles, and those that address how to apply Epicurean principles in our daily lives.
As for topics to consider:
What was meant by the knowledge of gods comes from receiving images of god via prolepsis?
What, if any, preconceptions (prolepses) are innate?
While it is great to hear our leading minds discuss key topics on the Lucretius Today podcast, and some of these topics get text interactions online, but having live Q&A helps to understand the nuances of applying Epicurean principles daily.
Thanks for all the thoughts and time that goes into making these Zoom sessions productive!
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
According to Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus (37-38), students were instructed to actively focus their minds (epibolē) on the "indemonstrable starting points" (the core doctrines) so they could properly apply these principles in daily life. This mental focusing helped reinforce the preconceptions (prolēpsis) that developed naturally through experience.
What is fascinating is that Epicurus understood the functioning of our brain's reticular activating system (RAS). The RAS does indeed function similarly to how Epicureans described epibolē working. The RAS acts as a filtering system that brings relevant information to consciousness based on what we've programmed ourselves to consider important.
I find this comparison aligns remarkably well with Epicurean teaching methods.
1. The RAS, like epibolē, actively filters incoming information based on what we've trained ourselves to consider significant
2. When we consciously focus on Epicurean principles through epibolē, we're essentially programming the RAS to notice related patterns
3. The brain's "predictive mind" function works similarly to how Epicureans described the interaction between epibolē and prolepsis.
Do others here have a similar understanding of how to apply the principles of epibolē and prolēpsis to create a more pleasurable Epicurean practice?
Why is this? If the absence of pain is pleasurable, then shouldn't the absence of pleasure be painful, by necessity? When pleasure simply fades away, what are we left with if not pain?
We can and should through reason and logic affirmatively identify the healthy normal functioning of the mind and body (even when they are not being "stimulated") as pleasure.
Rolf , I too had a hard time understanding that Epicurus did not allow for a neutral third state; only pleasure or pain. What I have come to learn from all these Epicurean writings is that if there is no pain (body aches or mental anxiety), there is always pleasure present. You just have to tune your mind in to the small pleasures that your body is experiencing when it is just operating normally. This is also what has been described as your body operating in homeostasis, or in eustatheia (psychosomatic balance).
When sitting, standing, or walking in a neutral state, your mind can find many pleasures, just by tuning into your body's senses. The practice of "being present" is a good way to acknowledge natural pleasures; feel a soft breeze, hear a bird signing, see a beautiful photo.
Secondly, I was reading Voula Tsouna's chapter on Epicurean "therapies" (in her book on the ethics of Philodemus), which got me thinking about how we might view Epicureanism as a set of practices, as opposed to (simply) a set of views.
@Eikadistes, I'm reminded of this distinction when you write that Epicurean teachings aren't "passing curiosities" but "practical guidance so we can confidently respond to the obstacles that characterize daily life." Also, your comments on memorization/recitation dovetail with what I just read in Sorabji's chapter (in Emotion and Peace of Mind) on Hellenistic spiritual exercises, as well as Hadot's discussion of same (in Philosophy as a Way of Life). Both authors point to memorization as a characteristic Epicurean practice.
Robert , have you read Voula Tsouna's paper on epibole, where she talks about the process of how we should study and pay attention to the words and meanings of Epicurus writings.
https://www.bsa.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Tsouna_310321_ABSTRACT-HANDOUT.pdf
In her paper on prolepsis, she emphasizes the role of mental focus in learning Epicurean concepts.
“For what I label the Lockean view typically involves the idea that preconceptions are formed passively, without any movement of thought, whereas what I call the Kantian view is accompanied by the contention that epibolē, a mental focusing, is an integral component of the formation of basic concepts.”
I find that understanding these concepts of prolepsis and epibole are key to better understanding how to integrate the simple, but powerful, practices of living prudently, pleasurably, and pleasantly.
Thank you Don for that. The title looks promising.
One would like to think (since we admire Epicurus' thinking on his subject) that others would be logically drawn to the same conclusion, whether or not they have ever heard of Epicurus. So it shouldn't be surprising for us to find people who agree without mentioning Epicurus. I hope we will find that she has an affinity for Epicurus, but the disappointing thing in life is that so few seem willing to say what she seems willing to say.
It appears from this interview with Hossenfelder, that she does read philosophy. Might be interesting to just ask her about her views on Epicurus focus on natural science.
Horgan: Do you find philosophy useful?
Hossenfelder: Sometimes. I find philosophy useful to understand what it is that we really do in science, or at least the different ways to think about it. I would classify myself as an instrumentalist, but not all my colleagues are. And it’s good to know what their attitude is because it helps me put their motivations and interests into context.
I'm pondering this question today (again)...of which there are two sides...1) "what would make me Epicurean"
Kalosyni , thank you for this simple question.
First, I don’t think of being an “Epicurean” as a noun, a label. Rather, I see being a Friend of Epicurus as a life-long process of learning, applying, and re-learning the basic principles taught by Epicurus. I have learned to reject the use of labels to categorize myself (or others), as I could never live up to the expectations of others who applied specific criteria to their label more vigorously.
For me, the key qualities that outline my Epicurean journey include:
- Pursuing rational pleasure while avoiding excess
- Valuing friendship and community
- Embracing natural explanations over supernatural ones
- Seeking tranquility (ataraxia) as a highest good
- Practicing practical wisdom (phronesis) in daily life
Through the help of contributors on this website, I gain a better understanding of how to implement an Epicurean philosophical practice that leads to a life of wellbeing (eudaimonia). 😊
The way I understand the quote, there is a lot in between - I take it to mean that there are people who can experience pleasure, but lack the “physical constitution” to be truly wise and prudent due to circumstances outside of their control. There are many people with chronic physical or mental illnesses that can be mitigated but not removed - would Epicurus say that these people lack the “physical constitution” to be wise?
As I see it, Epicureanism still offers valuable guidance for everyone, even if the highest levels of wisdom might be harder to achieve in certain circumstances.
Consider these points:
1. Everyone can work towards reducing unnecessary fears and anxieties
2. Basic Epicurean principles about friendship and simple pleasures are universally accessible
3. The pursuit of wisdom exists on a spectrum, not as an all-or-nothing proposition
Does this seem meaningful?
