Posts by Daniel188

Quote from Matteng

The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.

It simply doesn't work that way. It's impossible to completely "not worry" about certain basic needs. Their absence will always worsen the quality of life. According to the Stoics, theoretically, even if you were stranded on a lonely island, you would be "happy," but that's simply impossible. It will always lead to negative psychological consequences. To some extent, it is also impossible to choose to desire virtue exclusively. Fundamental desires are by their nature such that they cannot be removed by a simple change of judgment.

This argument about virtue only works if we define happiness in isolation from feelings of pleasure. It seems to me that defining happiness this way is rather inappropriate. If someone is in a state where they don't experience even a shred of pleasure, they will never say they are "happy". Intuitively, through introspection, one can see that happiness is largely related to pleasure.

The Stoics believe that pleasure has no significance. From this perspective, we can indeed acknowledge that happiness is possible when we focus solely on virtue. Since happiness consists solely in fulfilling our rational nature, and this rationality is within our power, we cannot experience any failures. Although there are some reservations in this respect as well. The aforementioned virtue is not solely dependent on us. To be guided by virtue, one requires a proper bodily state. To achieve this state, one must strive to fulfill desires that are not inherent in virtue.

An example of one such desire is the desire to eat. If you don't eat, your rational faculties will inevitably weaken in favor of your instincts. To engage in virtue at all, you must first have the material prerequisite. And this material prerequisite is not strictly within the individual's will. It is not dependent on our control. Hence, other philosophical schools, such as the Peripatetics, did not consider virtue to be self-sufficient.

Quote from Cassius

What are we supposed to do with it and why?

I believe that all concepts can be tested within the Epicurean worldview. In the sense that one can sometimes try to take a concept and adapt it to one's own purpose. In this particular case, I believe that the very idea of a dichotomy of control is useless in the pursuit of pleasure because it leads to the recognition of the superiority of reason over the body. Categorizing desires is much more sensible. Because categorizing desires directs us to reflect on desires in terms of their achievability, leaving much room for flexibility. It seems to me that this criticism may be useful in discussions with uneducated Stoics, because such Stoics often actually strive for mental peace, and not necessarily for what the ancients called "virtue". These Stoics often treat as sacred this principle of dividing dependent and independent things.

Greetings to all supporters of practical philosophy.

Surely everyone interested in the practical aspects of philosophy and inspired by the doctrines of the wise men of ancient Greece has become familiar with the dichotomy of control. Many modern Stoics take this as a fundamental reference for their lives (though they do not necessarily understand the meaning of the original doctrine). I have used this idea myself for a long time along with the rest of Stoic philosophy and I find that this doctrine is not as useful as it is made out to be. I will try to explain my position in this post and I am open to criticism of my positions.

1. Explaining what this dichotomy is.

So let's start by explaining what this dichotomy is. In fact, no ancient Stoic except Epictetus uses something like this. The popular dichotomy of control usually involves separating things that are within our control and those that are not. People typically group health, relationships, work, and so on into dependent things. But this doesn't constitute the true dichotomy of control promoted by Epictetus.

The dichotomy of control, as Epictetus perceived it, was that the only thing that depends on us is prohairesis. Prohairesis means the ability to make judgments. Thus, Epictetus states that relationships, health, or even the body do not fall into this category. The only thing that falls into this category is judgment. It's noticeable that Epictetus doesn't perceive "control" as we do. For him, it simply means something being free from external factors, from obstacles. It's not even control in the sense that we are able to freely shape our thoughts and judgments. According to Epictetus, we can only refine our judgments, but this doesn't mean complete control over this ability in the sense that we can do whatever we want with it. For example, when it's daytime, you can't fool yourself into thinking it's nighttime.

This view that only judgment matters is connected to the Stoics' general worldview, namely providential determinism. According to the Stoics, everything that happens is planned by providence, and we have a certain part of God within our minds (as described in Epictetus's Discourses). This part of God is the only one not subject to external limitations. Epictetus explains this by saying that fate can bring us all kinds of misfortunes, but it cannot force us to accept truth as falsehood.

2. Practical criticism

We can immediately see that this entire doctrine is based on a providential order. Judgments are dependent on us, while everything else is not. This leads to the conclusion that virtue should be the goal of life, because the Stoics interpreted virtue as a form of knowledge (Socratic ethical intellectualism). As we well know from our Epicurean education, concepts such as virtue are ambiguous and difficult to define. Therefore, this can lead to consequences that are detrimental to our happiness. For example, someone might conclude that it is virtuous to always obey one's father because providence placed him in that role. Even if this father harms you or causes you pain, you might conclude that feelings should be ignored in the name of virtue (Epictetus would say that judgment causes suffering, not the event). As the Stoics themselves assume, pleasure and pain are indifferent.

A consequence of this is the view that mind is superior to matter. Stoics will assume that through changes in judgment, you can generally control your state and thus always be virtuous. But even to truly pursue "virtuous actions" in some way, you must satisfy your needs. Reason is highly dependent on the body. Even bacteria in the stomach can influence the judgments we make. Therefore, Stoics who say that prohairesis is the only thing dependent on us are making a mistake. Even if we accept the view that virtue is crucial in life, the capacity for it is so dependent on the body that it cannot be said that all other things are indifferent.

3. Summary

So, moving on to the practical Epicurean perspective, we can conclude that this idea is largely unhelpful. Simply changing our judgments will prevent us from achieving pleasure, as the body is inextricably linked to the mind. Of course, there are certain judgments that, if changed, will affect our state. Examples include the judgments and attitudes we hold toward the gods and the afterlife. But we cannot fill our bellies simply by thinking.

A person who adheres to the dichotomy of control will avoid planning their life and exerting control over their environment. If someone insults them, rather than severing contact with them, they will assume that it is better to simply change their judgment. This can lead to unnecessary pain. A more practical doctrine is Epicurus's categorization of desires. Epicurus points us to the things that are easiest to achieve and that will give us the most pleasure. At the same time, by categorizing desires, we avoid devaluing our feelings and can achieve true happiness.

Quote from Patrikios

Because it is a 'necessity' that we study and meditate daily; most of us need to plan, set-aside times for this type of deep meditation/reflection. So, while we can/should sing and repeat Epicurean quotes throughout the day; I usually need to set aside 15 to 20 minutes in the evening for a rigorous reflection, a nuktos meleta, the evening practice that Epicurus himself prescribed. My meditation usually follows reading/studying texts and articles for a couple hours earlier in the day .

And in order to meditate on how to train my 'divine spirit' (daimonia) to be more benevolent, I reflect on how well I treated others throughout the day, and identify areas of improvement. Then I engage in deep meditation, while reflecting on impressions of "blessed and immortal beings", so I can better envision how to 'adjust my course' in order to be 'steering ourselves toward tranquility and flourishing'.

I completely agree. It's worth having such a regular practice, if only because it reminds us of philosophy and teaches us to analyze daily life through its lens.

Quote from Cassius

Yes I agree with your comments Don. And this is is a good example of being careful about the goal of techniques before they are used. Is your goal as to emotions to "let them pass" or "listen to what they are telling you and take appropriate action"?

Here we have an example of the hidden philosophical assumptions behind meditation practices. Buddhist teachers often refer to the doctrine of anatta, the doctrine of non-self. Therefore, they recommend observing sensations and their transience and impermanence in all practices. They want people to recognize that sensations are not theirs and develop indifference to them. This is in clear contradiction to Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Bryan

Pulling these definitions of Zuowang from the wikipedia article:

"oblivious of oneself and one's surroundings; free from worldly concerns" - Liang Shih-chiu & Chang Fang-chieh
"oblivious of one's surroundings, free from worldly concerns" - Lin Yutang
"to be oblivious of oneself and one's surroundings, to be free from worldly concerns" - John DeFrancis

This doesn't really seem like a good goal for reflective practices. I've read Hiram's book, and he listed various techniques there, but in my opinion, any meditation techniques focused on calming the body and mind are of limited use.

For example, let's look at meditation practices (popular ones associated with Eastern doctrines). We have practices like focusing on the breath, sitting quietly, body scanning, etc. These are good methods for relaxation, but beyond relaxation, they don't really offer much.

Such practices can't offer increased awareness. If we just sit and do nothing, ignoring all thoughts, we feel relaxed, but this doesn't bring awareness to daily habits or generate new ideas.

The situation is different if we regularly try to recall our actions and various situations that happen to us in order to increase our agency. This is a form of engaging in deliberate reflection. Meditation techniques focus more on disengaging from thinking.

Quote from Cassius

1. You appear to me the type of person to whom the DeWitt book would appeal and be very valuable. If you don't have it I hope you will get it.

I will try to get this book. Thank you.

Quote from Cassius

The sentence or phrase "pleasure characterized by ataraxia or freedom from pain" I would say will need lots of elaboration because I would argue that all pleasure "is" absence of pain and placing " ataraxia in a central role without elaboration can lead to very dangerous tangents. Nature gives us only pleasure and pain, not ataraxia.

I agree. My perspective is that you can't have ataraxia without pleasure. In his letter to Menoiceus, Epicurus states that there are only two feelings: pain and pleasure. If we eliminate pain, we automatically achieve pleasure. Pain is then the body's demand for pleasure. For example, if our head itches, we feel the pain of desire, which tells us to scratch it. By eliminating this pain by scratching, we automatically derive pleasure from it.

Quote from Cassius

Same comment as above. Abstractions formed properly are very important and even necessary. Epicurean philosophy itself is an abstraction. It's probably more a question of how the abstractions is formed than the fact of being an abstraction.

I actually hadn't thought this through. I was more referring to abstract goals that aren't grounded in feelings. Let's look at virtues in the Stoic sense, for example. It's really difficult to figure out what "virtuous action" means specifically without considering some hard touchstone, like pleasure. An Epicurean essentially arrives at these things on their own because they know exactly how they feel. Feelings are subjective, so to a large extent, different people can lead happy lives in different ways. This doesn't bother an Epicurean because they don't see their lifestyle as something absolute to which everyone must conform, but as something personal.

The situation is different for people who choose, for example, virtue as a goal. If virtue is a goal, then one can assume that one should act in some objectively determined way, determined by logic, and everyone should act accordingly. And this is where conflicts arise between different groups, arguing about how to act in accordance with virtue. If you're someone who takes such a goal seriously, you must consider all opinions and try to think them through so as not to accidentally stray and pursue vice instead of virtue. In such a case, you can be left confused and unsure whether you're doing good or bad.

An Epicurean has a clear goal and can easily measure it through their feelings. If the result of their actions is pleasure, they're certain they're doing good; if the result is pain, they know they're doing bad and don't need to spend much time pondering theoretical definitions of virtue or abstract good.

Quote from Cassius

As indicated above I would now say that the better term for the goal is happiness or eudaemonia or Felicity and not ataraxia or even aponia. One of the most clear examples to use to consider that is that Epicurus said his last days were among his happiest but he was not without pain or disturbance. And if he has held "absence of disturbance" to be his primary directive he would have stayed home and tended a fig garden instead of leading a revolutionary philosophical movement that challenged every power structure of his day.

I'll have to think about this. What you're saying sounds reasonable. It's probably more accurate to talk about happiness or eudaimonia. Thank you for your answer.

Hello everyone!

I'm writing this post to correct some of my views on Epicureanism. I'll list some of my interpretations here and hope that others will look at them and critique them to point out any errors. I won't claim to have a thorough understanding here, as I haven't read much yet. My vocabulary may also not be necessarily precise, as English is not my first language.

I'll list my basic thoughts so far:

1. According to Epicurus, we acquire knowledge through our senses; prolepses and sensations are the criteria for cognition.

2. Sometimes it may seem that your senses are wrong. For example, being far from a building, we will think it is much smaller than it actually is. But this doesn't change the fact that what we see is "real." Every such impression is true, but our interpretation may be incorrect.

3. Prolepses are preliminary concepts that we develop based on repeated impressions. When we repeatedly experience a given phenomenon (e.g., fire), our mind creates a lasting image of it(prolepsis). I believe the Epicureans believe that some prolepsis is innate, meaning it doesn't stem solely from experience but is naturally built into human beings.

4. Feelings concern pleasure and pain. They serve to evaluate what to strive for and what to avoid.

5. We can only obtain relatively reliable knowledge using these categories. This implies that when we study the world, we should study it "as it is" without adding ideas that we cannot observe using these three categories of knowledge.

6. Other philosophical schools also used logic in their theories of knowledge. However, logic itself does not accurately reflect the real world. Logic can examine coherence, but words are not reality. They can describe reality, but only if they describe something confirmed by the canon. Nature takes precedence, and reason is secondary.

7. In his studies of nature and during his education with various teachers, Epicurus concluded that these criteria were true, and this led to his support for atomism.

8. According to Epicurus, the universe is composed of atoms and the void. This is contrary to, for example, Stoic concepts.

9. Epicurus's physical theories imply that there is no possibility of supernatural Gods existing, nor that the world is intentionally controlled in any way.

10. Since Epicureanism is an old philosophy and Epicurus himself did not have access to modern research tools, he may have been wrong about some things, but I will leave this topic aside for now as it is not my strong suit. For example, I do not understand the concept of "deviation."

11. The idea that there are no supernatural Gods in our world and the ideas of the canon of knowledge have their consequences.

12. One of these consequences is Epicurus's recognition that Gods exist, but they exist within the material world and are material. They are not the creators of the universe. According to Epicurus, the gods are higher beings who, because they are in a state of perfect ataraxia (a state of undisturbed pleasure), are not interested in what humans do.

13. Assuming that the gods are interested in humans would be impious, as it would imply that lower beings could somehow anger the gods or influence them.

14. It is also impossible for what we call "soul" to survive death. Since everything is material, "soul" is also material and is, in a sense, a body. There is no duality between spirit and body, there is no ghost in the machine. Therefore, death is the end of consciousness and all sensation.

15. Considering this, a useful thing we can do is simply recognize the gods as models of a pleasant life and accept our own mortality without fear. We have nothing to fear because after death, we will feel no pain. What we should do is make the most of this short time of life and spend it pleasantly.

16. Epicurus places pleasure as the goal of the good life. Pleasure characterized by ataraxia, or freedom from pain.

17. One reason that pleasure should be a goal is that we choose pleasure for its own sake. We don't need to logically justify the pursuit of pleasure. That it is good for us simply follows from our natural constitution, just as pain is bad.

18. Some might argue that pleasure cannot be a goal and might set as a goal something abstract, such as virtue or some ideal unsupported by pleasure.

19. Such ideals are in themselves subjective and vague. They exist only in the sphere of human thought, but do not exist tangibly in nature. They can be accepted, but their justification is no higher or nobler than taking pleasure as a goal. This is because the world is morally neutral. There are no Platonic ideals of objective goodness that we can discover.

20. Since such idealistic ideals are vague and essentially subjective, just like pleasure, it's better to choose pleasure. By choosing pleasure, we can at least be sure that we won't end up badly because pleasure, by its very nature, makes us feel good, while idealistic ideals can lead us to pain that has no value. This way, we can waste our lives. Furthermore, pursuing pleasure makes it easier to calculate our actions, as opposed to pursuing abstractions, because by focusing on abstractions, we don't have such a hard criterion.

21. By focusing on abstractions, we become bogged down in logical and dialectical considerations, never achieving certainty. This is evident in how people can argue passionately about whether someone is "good" or "bad." Two different people can have two different perspectives on what is "virtuous," and if we ourselves strive for virtue, we must take these considerations into account since we treat virtue as an absolute. Ultimately, we will have trouble determining what to do.

22. So, pleasure is the goal. Pleasure, understood very broadly. Epicurus categorized all sensations as either pleasant or painful.

23. But of course, we know well that not every pleasure should always be chosen. Every pleasure is good, but some are not worth choosing because of their consequences.

24. In this case, Epicurus distinguishes a certain virtue, which is a tool for pursuing this goal. This virtue is prudence. Prudence consists of skillful calculation when making decisions. It consists of the ability to recognize the consequences of our choice, in the sense of whether it will bring us more pleasure than pain. This virtue is even more important than philosophy itself, because it leads to a happy life.

25. The doctrine of ataraxia is also useful in thinking about pleasure. Ataraxia is a state of undisturbed well-being, free from physical and mental pain. It is useful because it allows us to examine our state and shows the limits of pleasure. It allows us to examine our state by directing us to reflect on what causes us pain. If we know which desires cause us pain (that is, interfere with our ataraxia), we can satisfy or suppress them depending on the circumstances and the nature of the desire.

26. In striving for ataraxia, categorizing desires is useful, indeed crucial. Epicurus divided desires into natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary.

27. Categorizing desires can probably be explained as a technique for placing desires on a spectrum. A spectrum that measures how necessary and easily achievable specific desires are to achieve a state of ataraxia. One end of this spectrum are natural and necessary desires. These are desires that cannot be suppressed and are most effective in alleviating pain. At the other end of this spectrum are unnatural and unnecessary desires, which are unattainable because they have no limits and cannot alleviate pain.

28. Right in the middle between these two categories are natural and non-necessary desires, which are largely more luxurious versions of natural and necessary desires. These can be chosen if the option is available and not associated with negative consequences(or when these negative consequences are acceptable), but when planning one's life, it's worth ensuring the possibility of satisfying these natural and necessary desires. Because natural and necessary desires are what most reduce pain, they should be prioritized.

29. Which category a desire falls into depends on the context and individual preferences. Typically, however, to significantly minimize pain, one needs food, water, shelter, friendship, and safety. If an individual is able to fulfill these basic needs, they have already largely eliminated pain.

30. Epicureanism also has something to say about interpersonal relationships. Epicurus said that one cannot live pleasantly without living justly.

31. Justice, according to Epicurus, is not absolute and is simply a covenant not to harm and not to be harmed. Depending on the circumstances, what is just can change.

32. Being just is beneficial because it allows us to develop friendships and live in community with others without fear. Epicurus also notes that by engaging in unjust actions, we can always be detected and exposed to retaliation. This creates fear and disrupts ataraxia. Therefore, it is usually better to adhere to the law and avoid harming others.

33. It is also worth noting that harming others is often done to satisfy unnatural and unnecessary desires. For example, people may harm others to gain wealth, glory, or power. These are desires without limits, where appetite grows with eating. These desires do not minimize pain and are generally easy to suppress.

34. It's also worth noting that when striving for ataraxia, we often have to choose pain to obtain pleasure. We shouldn't fear all pain. For example, friendships will often involve some form of pain, but usually there are far more pleasures, and the impact on overall mental well-being can be profound. Relieving the pain of loneliness is worth the pain of some short-term inconveniences resulting from interpersonal relationships.

Quote from Cassius

I'd put the Seneca quotation in a category similar to what I think Don (?) has cited in the past about Cicero exploring techniques for improving memory such as the "walk-through-the-house" (?) method. Nothing wrong with posting about that kind of thing at all.

That's basically what I had in mind when writing this post. These types of techniques can be used for various purposes. Cicero's technique for improving memory can also be usefully applied to Epicurean matters. For example, you can memorize basic doctrines in this way, so you always have them at the back of your mind and within reach.

I'm betting that the ancient Epicureans probably had their own set of various practices. One need only look at the organization of Epicurean gardens and the various ritual practices they employed to perpetuate their philosophy and maintain communal bonds. But we probably don't know about many of these things because the texts haven't been preserved. In fact, hostile actions were directed against the Epicureans to erase their teachings.

My intention wasn't necessarily to demonstrate that Seneca could offer any useful philosophical advice for Epicureans. Rather, I'm aiming to distill the specific exercise itself. In this case, regularly reviewing everyday events in order to learn from them.

In fact, I could have omitted Seneca's quote from this post altogether. I included it more as a curiosity that some ancient people used something like this.

Quote from Cassius

First of all in suggesting this, have you thought about what the Epicurean telos is and how it relates to setting a goal of developing self-awareness?

The Epicurean telos is pleasure. Self-awareness is useful in pursuing this goal because it allows us to recognize habits that are harmful. When I think of harmful habits, I mean those that cause more pain than pleasure in the long run. Without any regular introspection, we often resolve to do things but are unable to stick to them. While this is useful, it is only one possible trick and is not necessary. Self-awareness is not a goal in itself.

Quote from Cassius

How would you explain that to someone who came across this post on the forum and thought to themselves: I thought this was an Epicurean forum, not a Stoic forum?

I would explain it this way: you can draw from any tradition. What matters most is the effect. If something helps you achieve your goal, it doesn't really matter what the tool is. If the Stoics claimed that 2+2=4, we don't have to reject that particular knowledge just because the Stoics advocated it.

Quote from Cassius

Since you are new here and others don't know "where you're coming from" in suggesting this, before we go too far with it there are fundamentals to examine. First, we should examine the thought process in how and when we can look to Seneca or to any other Stoic for anything other than gross philosophical malpractice and perpetuating the wrong approach to the nature of the universe and to living.

I apologize if I sounded arrogant. My intention was simply to try to convey something that helps me personally and can be adapted for various purposes. I find such a suggestion rather harmless. As for the issue of Seneca himself and his philosophical views, I assume that most people here understand the errors of Stoicism. I think this is an appropriate post for "Epicurean Life Strategies for Modern Times." Critiques of Platonic absolutes and providential order would fit into other categories.

Hello everyone!

Today I'd like to present a method for developing self-awareness that I originally learned from the Stoics. I believe this method can be used to pursue the Epicurean telos. First, let me quote the source from which I originally got this idea:

Quote

All our senses should be educated into strength: they are naturally able to endure much, provided that the spirit forbears to spoil them. The spirit ought to be brought up for examination daily. It was the custom of Sextius when the day was over, and he had betaken himself to rest, to inquire of his spirit: “What bad habit of yours have you cured to-day? what vice have you checked? in what respect are you better?” Anger will cease, and become more gentle, if it knows that every day it will have to appear before the judgment seat. What can be more admirable than this fashion of discussing the whole of the day’s events? how sweet is the sleep which follows this self-examination? how calm, how sound, and careless is it when our spirit has either received praise or reprimand, and when our secret inquisitor and censor has made his report about our morals? I make use of this privilege, and daily plead my cause before myself: when the lamp is taken out of my sight, and my wife, who knows my habit, has ceased to talk, I pass the whole day in review before myself, and repeat all that I have said and done: I conceal nothing from myself, and omit nothing: for why should I be afraid of any of my shortcomings, when it is in my power to say, “I pardon you this time: see that you never do that anymore? In that dispute you spoke too contentiously: do not for the future argue with ignorant people: those who have never been taught are unwilling to learn. You reprimanded that man with more freedom than you ought, and consequently you have offended him instead of amending his ways: in dealing with other cases of the kind, you should look carefully, not only to the truth of what you say, but also whether the person to whom you speak can bear to be told the truth.” A good man delights in receiving advice: all the worst men are the most impatient of guidance. (Seneca, On Anger, 3.36)

This is one of the exercises I've been using daily for a while now, and I've noticed it can be useful for improving my performance and emotional control. It can be used for a variety of purposes. Now I will try to describe more or less how this can be done and integrated with the Epicurean goal.

1.Preliminary steps

A key factor in the effectiveness of this exercise is its consistency. It should be performed regularly and consistently. You should set aside approximately 5 to 20 minutes in the evening for this exercise. I recommend finding a quiet and peaceful spot, but you can also go for a walk and reflect while walking. Before you begin, you can calm down a bit, perhaps using a meditation technique or anything else that helps you relax.

2. Keeping your distance from yourself

The point isn't to relive or engage with emotions that surfaced during the day. The goal is to approach the situation more objectively. We should try to perceive everything as if we were observing a friend to whom we wanted to offer valuable advice, without becoming emotionally involved in what happened.

3. Reflection

At this point we move on to reflect on the course of the day and the general feelings associated with it.

We reflect on what we've accomplished from our planned tasks. We appreciate ourselves for completing them and allow ourselves to feel satisfied with our goals.

We reflect on what we didn't achieve and why. Was it due to a lack of desire, fatigue, or perhaps something that happened during the day that caused us to lose motivation? We don't rely on first impressions, which are often misleading, caused by regret or irritation. We try to calmly find the real cause of our failure.

We reflect on whether our behavior throughout the day was consistent with what we expected of ourselves and whether we made the most of the day. Perhaps we said something we later regretted? Or perhaps someone acted in a way that hurt us, and we spent a long time analyzing the situation. We recall such moments and assess what we can do in similar situations in the future.

Or perhaps we managed to break a certain pattern today and acted exactly as we intended in a difficult situation? We analyze the situation, looking for the key moment that allowed us to behave in a way we consider desirable.

After completing this reflection, we can consider the day complete. Now we can forgive ourselves for any shortcomings and unfulfilled tasks. We now have a complete analysis of why something didn't work out, so we promise ourselves that next time, using this knowledge, we will try to act in a way that will be more effective for us. We can also express gratitude for certain things at the end.

Benefits

Thanks to this exercise, I've managed to overcome some habits that were harmful to me. For example, I've managed to improve my social skills, limit my alcohol consumption, reduce some of my anxiety, and avoid making unwanted mistakes over and over again. It seems like a good way to develop self-awareness. In our hectic daily lives, sometimes things slip by if we don't reflect on them calmly.

This exercise doesn't have to be used to pursue "virtue." It can be developed specifically to improve prudence. For example, you can consider various actions using hedonistic calculus. Depending on the telos we adopt, this can be used in various ways.

What do you think about all this?

Quote from Cassius

Right and I see that your thread title is "bad habits and urges." But it seems clear that Stoicism and other aspects of Greek thought deemed all emotion as bad, and I wanted to get that point out front in the discussion. Once it's clear that emotion itself is not a bad thing, I would think the next question would be why the emotion has arisen and whether it is justified. I think it's well documented that Epicurus held that there are times when anger are both well justified, and I don't see how you can proceed without first evaluating the facts that led to them. As for "fear" in general, there's nothing terrible in life for those who understand that there is nothing terrible in not living, but that doesn't mean that particular situations aren't going to generate natural reactions of fear that should be heeded (e.g. standing at the end of a canyon looking down).

So I'm still thinking that the first thing to do is examine whether the feeling is justified. If it is justified, the first step is to take appropriate action. If it's not justified, then there's a problem in how the person is processing reality, and often there you've got the false framework that is at the root of stoicism and much religion, that of thinking that there is some other or higher reality that is more important than this one.

Well, the title is probably inappropriate because I used the word "bad" as if such things were somehow supernaturally evil. But I was referring more to useless habits or emotions that harm a person. How can we practically get rid of them? For example, we know that reaching for unhealthy foods is harmful in the long run. How can we plan to change such habits? What are some effective strategies? That intrigued me.

As for the rest, I agree. You can't reject an emotion without considering whether it's useful or not. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that all other philosophical schools completely rejected emotions. The Stoics, for example, completely rejected anger and fear, but often used strictly technical definitions of these emotions. For example, they criticized fear, but considered caution to be eupatheiai. Therefore, emotions "in accordance with reason" were also recognized. Another example is Aristotle, who refers to the doctrine of the mean. He essentially viewed all emotions as beneficial when integrated with reason.

Quote from Cassius

My first response would be that Epicurus would never look at life from this perspective. Life is all about feeling and Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus held that the wise man will feel his emotions more deeply than will others, and this will not be a hindrance to his wisdom.

I would start by listening to the emotions and making sure you know what they are telling you, and being glad that you have them.

I understand what you're saying, and looking at various studies on people, they show that a lack of emotion usually results in an individual being unable to make decisions. But sometimes, certain strong emotions can also be harmful.

For example, fear can lead to discouragement from engaging in a specific activity. Anger can lead to unnecessary harm and hostility.

From an Epicurean perspective, I would say that in some cases, certain emotions cause no more pleasure than pain.

Hi, I'd like to ask you about the methods the Epicureans taught for improving our habits and avoiding unnecessary emotions.

Surely, each of us is sometimes influenced by an impulse that, if acted upon, leads to bad consequences (for example, eating junk food, smoking cigarettes), or we experience emotions that cause us to do something we shouldn't.

In such cases, the Stoics recommended working on judgments because they believed that all emotions are the result of individual judgments. But what did the Epicureans think about this, and what can we think about it when we combine it with modern scientific research?

Quote from Kalosyni

Pytam tylko dla jasności... czy miałeś na myśli epikurejską fizykę naturalną czy epikurejską etykę opartą na naturze/tym, co jest naturalne?

What I mean is that Stoic physics is based on providence. Essentially, according to the Stoics, the world is harmoniously and rationally ordered. This is something intentional.

Epicureans approach physics from an atomic perspective and do not recognize providence. I think they are closer to what modern science is talking about in this regard. The Epicureans were also the first to discuss natural selection.

Regarding ethics, I have some doubts here, but I'm adopting the Epicurean perspective on this forum. I also know that the Stoic idea fundamental to Stoic ethics (oikeiôsis) is a bit of a stretch.

Hello philosophy lovers!

My name is Daniel and I'm from Poland. I became interested in philosophy a few years ago, and the first practical philosophy I learned was Stoicism. I was primarily drawn to Stoicism by reading Arrian's notes on Epictetus's lectures and academic works on the subject. I also used various exercises aimed at improving my ethical conduct, such as examinations of conscience.

As I delved deeper into Stoicism, I also began to learn more about Stoic metaphysics. At some point, I also encountered Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura." This was my first encounter with Epicurean philosophy. For a long time, however, I considered this philosophy inferior and lost interest in it.

Eventually, however, my interest returned and I began comparing Stoic and Epicurean physics, and I've come to the conclusion that Epicureanism probably better represents what nature is.

I hope to gain more knowledge through this forum.