Posts by wbernys

A happy hog in the herd of Epicurus.

Thx again to Bryan for his gift.

Yeah you all have convinced me, I was already a little unsure about posting this.

But yeah I'm probably letting the societal praise of virtue ethics cloud my view of these texts. To be honest the main reason I liked Epicurus was that I felt he was the only one who could ground virtue in anything real, unlike Stoics and Aristotle who I liked but couldn't accept their view of virtue in of itself, and probably letting that overemphasize how important virtue is for Epicurus.

If any of you have seen the PhilSurvey, it asks a question about whether your normative ethics is consequentialist or virtue ethics or deontology. I think it's fair to say he's surely not deontology. But i struggle between putting him as a consequentialist or virtue ethicist.

Obviously i know these are modern categories which may not fit Epicurus entirely but i personally think of him more as a Virtue ethicist rather than a strict consequentialist in large part because of the Letter to Menoceus.

He says "And he considers it better to be rationally unfortunate than irrationally fortunate, since it is better for a beautiful choice to have the wrong results than for an ugly choice to have the right results just by chance." (Peter Saint-Andre). This seem to pain the picture of personal intentions mattering more than actual consequences.

Along with Diogenes of Oenoanda saying "The sum of happiness consists in our disposition, of which we are master."

I'm obviously not trying to say he is part of the Stoic "virtue in of itself" but he seems to stress personal character so much, even to the point of disregarding external consequences as seen above, that it feels wrong to consider him just a consequentialist, and perhaps listed as both a virtue ethicist and consequentialist together. Curious for other people's thoughts.

However he is noticeably critical about how much the modern self helped overplays the whole idea of eudaimonia versus Enjoyment or pleasure tho, which is nice.

Quote from Don

I see the guest is coming out with a new book:

I saw too. Nice to hear. All around a pretty good interview. Got off topic a lot though but I love how he pointed out how the Stoic worldview of virtue in of itself being good makes no sense without the logos despite modern Stoics saying otherwise.

He does still tread on the idea of the highest pleasure being the absence of pain, which is a shame, I can already hear Cassius blood pressure rising from that. Still, if Stoics have to deal with Andrew Tate, we can deal with a (very sympathetic) misunderstandings.

I waa about to get upset at Alex o'connor making a video about Stoicism but not us. Thankfully he's interviewing an Epicurean now. Alex is pretty good so i hope this help. Wanted to share this video, pretty good so far.

An Ancient Guide to Happiness - Epicurus on How to Live Well

Get all sides of every story and be better informed at https://ground.news/AlexOC - subscribe for 40% off unlimited access.For early, ad-free access to video...

youtu.be

Quote from Matteng

What is the difference between mental aponia and ataraxia ?

I don't think there really is distinction, I suspect they are just synonyms without definition. Like Joy and Delight. I suspect when Epicurus used these words they were basically stand ins for what we today call Serenity and Tranquility.

A basic translation to catch the idea from the fragment in Diogenes is "Aponia (Serenity) and Ataraxia (tranquility) are pleasures chacterized by a state of rest, whereas Chara (Joy) and Euphrosune (Delight) are pleasures characterized by Motion or activity". Two synonyms for each thing used commonly.

As i've looked more into this i think i've agreed more with Cassius that Kinetic and Katastematic distinction has been heavily overplayed by modern commentators.

Important note I recently looked into which I think some people may not know, Epicurus thinks pleasure is a complete perfected unity, which is always in it's perfect state and never mixes with pain to form like "80 percent pleasure, 20 percent pain", as Usener 421 explicitly says "since Epicurus does not believe that pain is mixed with pleasure, nor indeed the bad with the good"

Furthermore, PD3 is explicit that "whenever pleasure is present, as long as it is uninterrupted, there is neither pain in body or mind, or both together". In PD4 as well he doesn't comfort us against disease by saying pleasure can mix with the disease, but that disease allows more periods of pleasure (a perfect compete feeling) than pain (an alien bad feeling)

Serenity, Tranquility, Joy, and Delight, are thereby equal variations of pleasure, but not increases, which just take different shapes and I think Kalosyni idea that Joy should be seen as the goal, not pleasure, is misleading for this reason, for this would suggest we should prioritize moments of joy even if they lead to losses of tranquility in more moments. Since it wrongly thinks Joy is an increase and not merely a variation of the same perfect unity of pleasure.

Welcome Stas! Good to have a non-American buddy on here. For practical living the best one I could always recommend is Emily A. Austin's "living for pleasure", you could possibly translate it using Kindle if no version in your own language is available. I imagine there are Russian/Ukrainian versions of Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus and Vatican Sayings though.

It is indeed sad how little of Epicurus work remains, but thankfully not so little we can't appreciate his wisdom.

Welcome Morgan. You're definitely right to like Epicurus as a fundamental revolutionary of his time. The main revolution i would put with him is his fundamental optimism about everything! I think it's his best quality.

Take a look at Plato and the Skeptics, they thinks philosophy shows we can't trust anything around us and need to trust in either a higher power or nothign at all.

Many Cyrenaics teach that a wise man is fundamentally unhappy and that pain and death destroy happiness, Hegesias says happiness is impossible and the woes of life destroy it, making death as good as life, and Theodrous that friendship is proven to be foolish and the wise man can't have friends nor believe in conventional morality.

Aristotle, he says chance can destroy our happiness by bad luck and that we need glory and political power to be truly "flourishing".

Democritus, that we are not in control of our choices and are subject to the iron grip of fate.

Epicurus by contrast is a complete optimist, and i think it's the reason i like him so much, he says that philosophy is fundamentally liberating from our false assumptions and how easily happiness is acquired and pain endured, how we can trust what's around us, that we are not subject to fate or to the gods, and we have no need of great glory for flourishing.

Quote from Eikadistes

I'm curious about the phrasing you got. I might have it wrong and need to review.

Hmm. Odd. You're right. I asked ai for grammar help and it may have f'd up the greek. Can't edit my original post to change it though for some reason.

For what I've seen the point still stands, relied on Cyril Bailey who translates it as "evil-doer" and "one who acts in secret contravention" with present tense. And Tim J. Young in classic caves translation does the same.

Hello all,

I’ve been thinking about PD 35 and Vatican Saying 7, A common interpretation (especially in modern discussions) is that even a single unjust act results in ever-lasting fear or instability until death, since one can never be certain of escaping detection. But I’m wondering whether that overstates the claim and may be a strawman to knock down Epicurus more by imagining that Epicurus says that someone who stole a DVD as a kid 10 years ago will still live in constant fear. To be clear he's absolutely against all injustice for it's anxiety but i wonder if the points on it destroying happiness are more about a single act or a persistent trait or lifestyle.

Both texts use present participles (e.g. ὁ λάθρα τι ποιοῦν, ἀδικοῦντα), in Vatican Saying 7 it is "A wrongdoer (someone who is persistent in wrongdoing)" and in PD35 it is "One who secretly violates the pact (a persistent trait)" which might suggest not merely a one-off action but someone engaged in injustice as an ongoing practice or disposition.

My main question is as follows: Did Epicurus claim that any single act of injustice (no matter how small) ruins a life through constant anxiety unless caught or turning oneself in, or is he primarily targeting those who engage in injustice as a recurring pattern or stable trait being filled with fear because they constantly violate the pact?

I’d be especially interested in how people read the Greek participles here, perhaps people like Don and Bryan could help in clarifying whether Epicurus’ point is meant to apply universally to even a single unjust act, or more specifically to injustice as a way of life or permanent trait.

Thanks!

For what it's worth i also heard it's just hype. It's based on one study which says that among church going people, young people attend 1.9 times a month compared to 1.8 times compared to millennials (wow such a huge increase /s) and a bunch of poor "opt-in" surveys, which are almost always worthless.

All the actual stats seem to show Gen Z still being very irreligious. It's hard to tell from my own experience but generally i see a few religious people being very religious but in general all the older folks being the ones with constant Jesus merch and talking about God, not younger people. But still i live in Florida, which it pretty conservative to begin with so it's hard to say if even this is overblown.

I tend to agree it's overblown. My intuition is that about 50 percent of young people don't bother thinking about religion much and just identify with what ever (some Christian, some spiritual, and some irreligious but mostly irreligious), 20 percent are actively irreligious and another 30 are actively religious (to varying degrees of reading Facebook posts or actual going to church). That's my own read.

If anyone knows Genetically Modified Skeptic (Not Alex O'Connor), he made a good video about this. He basically thinks it's just media companies try to please their religious investors who really want a religious revival like in the 40's to turn people against progressivism. Basically they've been pushing religion hard but haven't seen the big push they've wanted and so are just lying about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Y-AF-Zt0Y&t=1126s

See 10 minute mark for the whole 1.9 times claim. It's actually funny how much it's been misrepresented.

Quote from Cassius

It is worth pausing on Hawley’s implicit comparison — between our moment and the troubled times that preceded the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Josh Hawley in my view is a typical guy like Plutarch, trying to frighten people with a "meaning crisis" and "decaying moral values" to make people believe in superstition and go back to the good ol' dark ages. All while ignoring that actual root that causes misery which Christianity cannot solve, our cowardice in making friends (which in modern society is not so much because it's hard to make friends but people simply don't want the effort put in), our own reckless desires, fear over things that are not to be feared, and ingratitude for what we have and instead always chasing something new.

Quote from Aeneadum

Has any one here used Epicurus as their Higher Power in a 12 step setting, or know of anyone who has?

Nope, sorry. My father has quit cigarettes after a long time though. I think the first tenet that we are powerless over out addiction would be completely rejected and is actually harmful. Recognizing that we do have power over our lives is fundamentally important.

I believe the most important part is the recognition that we have allowed our lives to be controlled for something unnecessary, and this this recognition be more appreciated and not taken for granted. Helping those in addiction actually feel more appreciated for actually trying when many don't.

Epicurus saying that "Knowledge of sin is the beginning of salvation" (Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 28). Philodemus makes the same point in On Frank Criticism where he says "For how is he going to hate the one who errs, though not desperately, when he knows that he himself is not perfect and reminds himself that everyone is accustomed to err? (On Frank Criticism, fragment 46) Recognizing that we have made mistakes but what matters is trying to fix our mistakes as important first steps worthy of celebration is extremely important to me.

Secondly, i think the emphasis on community is the best part of the 12 step program. We need to learn to cut out those bad motivations and "friends" who encourage unhealthiness, envy, and bad habits and truly find friends who actually look out for us. Emily A. Austin makes this point in "Living for Pleasure" of mutual goodwill and trust being the most important parts of Epicurean friendship. We need to learn to cut out those "friends" who only bring out the worst in us and seek a community of those who wants what's best for us and is happy with our success and efforts at improvement.

With my father i always encouraged and congratulated him for taking steps to end his cigarette addiction and congratulated him for trying to stay off it. I think that helped him finally kick it after a long struggle.

Reviews like this are why i don't bother reading anything critical of Epicurus anymore, NOT because i think their CANNOT be good criticisms of Epicurus, but because they always state something that is direct opposite of what he says in his doctrines multiple times.

And they basically do the Richard Wolff meme about Socialism where by "materialism is when nihilism happens, and the more nihilism happens the more materialistic it is, and when it's really nihilistic, it's Epicureanism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw (Hope this doesn't violate politics rule)

Quote from Cassius

"if small things don't matter, nothing does"

Gee, if only there a certain natural metric that humans had in order to determine what matters and what we should naturally pursue and avoid, like i dunno pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

the physical consequences of Epicurean insignificance extend not just to seminar attendance but to "your marriage and family, your kid's first birthday, your parents' burial, your contributions to science or literature, your ancestry, your entire civilization, your species and your planet. Small, small, small.

Aw yes because the Epicureans were famous for not bothering with caring about anything in their culture, except for you know...

Epicurus serving in military service for Athens.

The Epicureans celebrating their community and friendship on the twentieth of every month.

Epicurus calling for his father and brothers to be honored.

Hermarchus guarding Epicurus bones.

Epicurus making provisions for the children of Metrodorus.

Lucretius trying to preserve Epicurus home from Memmius

Diogenes of Oenoanda writing for foreigners and future generations.

Longinus assassinating Caesar for the good of his country.

Quote from Cassius

citing Einstein's ability to predict stellar phenomena from earthly reasoning as evidence that "some parts of our minds are structured not just in response to our local environment, but in conformity with the scaffolding of all things."

Jesus...this is so stupid. He claims a trained scientist with advanced tools and extremely complicated mathematical observation theory based on observation problems, being able to predict phenomena that hasn't even been thought of until recently in human history is proof of ...a divine mind somehow.

I genuinely think this is just another article saying the same thing as many before. If the universe is only material it would just be really depressing so that's not right. Statements said by pathetic people who can't appreciate life without some mythical friend in the sky.

Quote from Eikadistes

Someday, I would like to fatten-up The Hedonicon with the works of Philódēmos

Certainly would be awesome. I mainly want Torquatus (And Velleius) speech included and some of the english to be more clear and a little less archaic (PD6 in hedonicon is a example where i struggled to understand it). Got the best of Epicurus by classic caves. Like that the most.

Plutarch says much the same. Albeit out of his ignorance and desire to slander Epicurus he doesn't understand how one can enjoy spectacles so much but not spend their life obsessed with nonsense questions with no relevance.

[U20]

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 13, p. 1095C: The absurdity of what Epicurus says! On the one hand, he declares in his Problems that the Sage is a lover of spectacles and yields to none in the enjoyment of theatrical recitals and shows; but on the other, he allows no place, even over wine, for questions about music and the inquires of critics and scholars and actually advises a cultivated monarch to put up with recitals of stratagems and with vulgar buffooneries at his drinking parties sooner than with the discussion of problems in music and poetry

Quote from ReiWolfWoman

What do you think Epicurus would have thought of going to the moon?

Personally think he would consider it freaking awesome. It's important to remember one of Diogenes Laertius sayings about the Epicurean wise man, which people who like to imagine Epicurus as ascetic always love to ignore.

"He will care more than other men for public spectacles." (Bailey)

Something as cool as going to moon would surely qualify. We love those spectacles more than others because we truly delight in all pleasures more than other men.

Quote from m.dango

I finished "Living for Pleasure" and it was a joy to read!

Damn straight! Best book on Epicurus in my view. If i may recommend, I would personally recomendding Torqautus speech, this and Austin is what really made me love the philosophy.

Here's a video link (uses ai voice, if that bothers you, you can read it in the sidebar): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t1wOqLHzOw&t=1744s

Quote from m.dango

(I may have later questions regarding phantom pain and the body transfer illusion).

This to me is decently easy to explain. With these experiments it doesn't actually cause a true sharp pain but we instead just feel fear and all of the discomfort that fear brings out of the false belief that our hand has been struck and injured. Same sort of deal with how people can become afraid because they think the Gods are angry at them or that we see a sleep paralysis demon in our sleep and think we're being held down. Sensation is "true" but it can cause the false opinion that lead to fear.