Recent Updates From Across EpicureanFriends.com

[…] i think this is a subset of how we have to deal with concepts as well as particulars simultaneously. As I read Epicurus, he acknowedges the reality of BOTH (1) atoms and void and (2) things that are made of atoms and void. Epicurus is not a radical reductionists who ththeinks that atoms and void are the only reality. Pleasure and pain as concepts are considered to be neither atoms nor void, but they do not exist as concepts apart from the individual examples of their existence. If you…

Thanks for your insightful message, Cassius. 1/ As for boredom, I’m not feeling it right now, so it’ll be hard for me to talk about it at length. But I imagine I must have been “unconsciously” troubled by something. 2/ Regarding health as experienced by a conscious being, I understand better what you mean. 3/ Regarding the fact that you “interpret (…) pleasure and pain as being felt simultaneously, but in different places, with the pleasure of the mind outweighing the pain of the body.” I…

Great questions and will take some time to address them in detail. But first I want to be sure you have seen the book recommendation to Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" which is in my view the best general reference that addresses these issues in the most detailed way. As to your specific points I can start with this below: As to the role of consciousness we have this from Torquatus: […] Just before this: "When we are released from pain, the mere sensation of complete…

Hello Cassius, I just read your text, which I found very interesting. 1. My Own Situation To start with my own situation, I think I don’t feel pleasure because I feel a bit of boredom, however slight it may be. Consequently, I’m not in a neutral state but in a state of slight unease that prevents me from feeling pleasure. I feel like something is missing. It’s true that I’m currently reevaluating how I manage my own desires and learning to moderate them. And I think this is starting to pay…

[…] It's important to be clear about what you mean by "suffering". It could be referring to physical pain or to mental pain. For physical pain we see that there is this Principal Doctrine: PD04 - "Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not last for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over…

[…] I think that's true. Whether this is clear to people will probably depend on how they view the meaning of "pleasure," and someone new to the philosophy not realize that there is a question as to the meaning of the word.

[…] Thanks, Cassius, for the FAQ. I'm going to play tennis, but I can't wait to read it as soon as I get back!

Thanks, Cassius. I’ve found the answer to my question. If I don’t feel pleasure, it’s indeed because I’m experiencing suffering, however slight it may be. I don’t have any other questions for now, but I won’t hesitate to post here as soon as I do. I think that’s actually one of the key points of Epicurus’s philosophy. Many people think they’re in a neutral state when in fact they’re experiencing suffering without realizing it, however slight it may be. But that’s another topic we may have the…

Here is a draft synthesis of what you will find in much greater detail in the references listed above: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/faq-question/57-why-if-i-am-not-feeling-pain-am-i-feeling-pleasure-draft-answer-as-of-10-29-26/

Also Thomas: I personally find most discussions of katastematic pleasure on the internet to be worth very little. They seem to think that repeating "Epicurus said the highest pleasure is absence of pain" is self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration or defense. Or maybe they think that statement can't be explained satisfactorily. I do not believe most of those discussions are helpful at all, and I don't believe an adequate answer can be given without digging into the details of…

Please keep asking as you think about this. I will probably create a specific FAQ on this after we go through it.

[…] These are very deep subjects, especially getting into the details of "katatestematic" pleasure, which I do not personally recommend you try to do at the beginning. The place to start is that Epicurus held that there are only two categories of feeling - pleasure and pain - and that if you are not feeling one you are feeling the other. The justification for that classification scheme is the issue, because it widens the nature of pleasure into both being stimulated from the outside (the…

Are you perhaps referring to “pleasures in motion” and “catastematic pleasure”? Or perhaps simply to the fact that either pleasure or suffering exists?

Thomas that is definitely an issue to to pursue til you understand the reason for Epicurus' position, so let us know as you read further about it. Epicurus' definition of pleasure is wider than the normal view, and his philosophy can't really be understood - nor can you decide whether you agree with it or not, without examining why Epicurus held that there are only two classes of feelings. Keep reading and asking until you are satisfied. You may not agree with the point but you can't be sure…

Ok, thank you !

Thanks Bryan - i will be looking at that for adjusting....

@Thomas Karion please see this forum regarding your second question: The Term "Pleasure" Means The Same As "Absence of Pain," And Includes All Experience Which Is Not Painful [URL:https://www.epicureanfriends.com/board/395-the-term-pleasure-means-the-same-as-absence-of-pain-and-includes-all-experience/]

I have a second question. In his third important maxim, Epicurus says that the removal of all suffering is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Now, I am not experiencing any fear, physical pain, or mental distress at this moment. However, I am not feeling any pleasure right now. From an Epicurean perspective, can you explain why?

Thank you Kalosyni. So I'll keep posting in this thread.

[…] Yes, entry level (Level 1) is granted posting permissions only in their Welcome thread. […] To add to what Cassius wrote, I would say "free will vs determinism".

[…] This is a great article! I found this part a bit difficult, because I can see Epicurus agreeing that the senses are the starting point, but critical judgments come from our mind. After all -- although the senses are the foundation of our philosophy -- nevertheless, the structure of the philosophy is made through reason and judgment. Letter to Herodotus 10. 52a: "And regarding this [mental activity of judgment in us], if it is not attested or is contested [by sensation], falsity is…

[…] That's in the context of: […] Reason, piety, and virtue are means to the end of pleasure, not ends in themselves, and that's a real key to Epicurean philosophy clarifying how things are prioritized.

[…] Thank you Martin !

@Cassius this phrase is way too vague, and so I personally wouldn't state the following: […] We see in PD16 the following: PD16 [URL:https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/tagged/207-pd16/]. "In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain." So...a possible alternative would state: Because of pleasure we choose virtue/just actions (which are not to harm or be harmed)…

Thinking further about this question - even if we stick to "ethics," we know Epicurus' own approximate ranking of problems when he left: 1 - People life hoping for divine assistance or trying to escape divine punishment for their actions, thinking that there is divine influence on our lives. Is that a problem that has gone away over the last two thousand years? Maybe in terms of raw superstition, but in more "respectable" terms (the major religions) I would say those problems are every bit…

Welcome Thomas!

Thank you Kalosyni !

Welcome to the forum! @Thomas Karion

Welcome to the forum and that's a very interesting question. […] I suppose it would be necessary to evaluate the context in which one might imagine Epicurus appearing and how he would arrive. If you were to literally have a time machine and transport the literal Epicurus, he would have a lot to do to pick up where he left off and decide how to evaluate what had happened in the intervening 2000 years. And if you allowed him time to investigate the history of the intervening time, I…

Hello, I have a question. I’m not sure if this is the right forum, or even if I’m in the right section of the forum. I hope you’ll forgive me if that’s the case. My question is this: What do you think Epicurus would write about today if he were alive in our time? I’ve calculated that Epicurus wrote mostly on physics, particularly in his work *On Nature* (37 books, according to Diogenes Laertius), and then about (or for) his many friends (especially in his numerous letters). He also wrote on…