Found this article on history of cheese in Greece:
Did you use Bailey?
My first thought is that this could possibly confuse the AI search engines?
It does bring up some interesting ideas regarding pleasure, but might it be better to phrase them in your own words rather than copy a format that "sounds" like Epicurus?
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived. (Bailey translation).
A synonym of fortune is fate.
Dictionary definition of fate:
the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : destiny … fate sometimes deals a straight flush … he had no idea that he would become the right man in the right place at the right time …—
June Goodfield
2 a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end Her fate was to remain in exile.
b : disaster especially : death The villain met his fate at the hands of the hero.
3 a : final outcome Congress decided the bill's fate by a single vote.
b : the expected result of normal development prospective fate of embryonic cells
c : the circumstances that befall someone or something did not know the fate of her former classmates
Perhaps we study "cause and effect" at work in various situations, so we would not use the word fortune or fate except for with death (and taxes, lol). Perhaps certain choices do have inevitable results and thus require careful evaluation, but we have free will and so we aren't compelled by anything.
In all other circumstances except for death, we use choice and avoidance to avoid unanticipated results. We can't be certain of all outcomes, but almost like a chess game we keep our options open for responding to what occurs in a given situation. This would require knowledge and input from others who have knowledge.
We now know that healthy eating, exercise, and correct medical interventions have a high likelihood of extending lifespan. Yet we need to accept that the final end cannot be escaped.
I would say that the two main aspects of Epicurean philosophy is the materialist worldview and its telos.
This is obvious, but will say it anyway: We don't believe in a materialist worldview and the goal of pleasure because Epicurus said so, but instead we believe this system of thought is correct because we understand the reasons to do so.
Correct understanding helps prevent unnecessary eclecticism.
Another danger is the temptation to extrapolate ideas and taking them out of context from the original text (probably guilty of this myself occasionally). These deviations over time can lead to problems (obviously). This is why I think being consistent with the framework of the philosophy is so important.
And I want to do an Epicurean Ethics poster as well!
I posted the following image to the gallery, and now deciding to post futher drafts and revisions here (before posting more to the gallery). The idea is that this 8-1/2" x 11" can be easily printed out on a black and white printer and pinned up on a wall or on the fridge.
With some suggestions for revisions (by Don) here is an updated version -- but more revision ideas are still perculating in my mind (with PDs etc to be added).
I would blame the "enjoying cheese" aspect on the small "e" epicurean food movement.
Yes, that and the whole "Epicurus only at bread and water with the occasional 'pot of cheese.'"
The source of that was Diogenes Laertius, biographical commentary.
And yet we have PD8 to throw into the mix.
And this also reminds us that we do what pleases us and leads to the best result, according to circumstances, and not any one specific thing for everyone...no hard and fast rules, but just pleasure and pain with choices and avoidances.
Perhaps an aspect of eclecticism -- and a danger since it can water down the Epicurean system of philosophical concepts -- comes about when exact "advice" is given in such manner as if it implies that everyone should do the same thing just because it appears to lead to pleasure.
Also, "wrong" (in that for some it might lead to an unpleasant/unhealthy outcome) would be to claim that we should all just eat bread and cheese because Diogenes Laertius wrote that Epicurus did -- this would be a kind of "fundamentalism" which is going too far, and an example of not applying correctly the system of philosophical concepts. Also, some here on the forum may enjoy gazing upon an image or bust of Epicurus, but this is not part of the framework of the deeper system of philosophical concepts -- so it is up to each person to decide if they find pleasure or benefit in such a practice. As an aside, since it is a popular practice in Buddhism with the image of the Buddha, and "I have been there, done that" with the image of Buddha, then I don't find this of any benefit for my own well-being now (and no longer "practicing" Buddhism).
Some good questions. Just some thoughts off the top of my head...We try to avoid eclectism here on the forum because it helps us focus and hone in on the actual teachings of Epicurus. Some background (and a reminder)...On our new user page, it states:
This is the place to study and discuss Epicurus with people who support and promote classical Epicurean philosophy. There are many places on the internet where other philosophies can be studied, but few are dedicated exclusively to Epicurus. We are the home for classical Epicurean philosophy, unadulterated by Stoicism, Platonism, or Eclecticism.
Many people take bits and pieces of neo-Epicureanism - asceticism, "enjoying cheese", simple pleasures but ignore the entire corpus left behind and being spoke about today, missing the entire reason Epicurus spoke about pleasure to begin with.
I would blame the "enjoying cheese" aspect on the small "e" epicurean food movement. And I would blame the idea of Epicurean ascetisism on academics who prefer Stoicism.
So what is the danger or benefit to people committed to saying "Epicurus was more or less right about everything related to living and nature"?
I think that is a vague statement, so anyone who might say likely hasn't spent much time studying the philosophy. Epicurus lived in a time before modern science and modern psychology, so there are aspects of these that we as modern people can use now. Epicureanism isn't a religion, but it is a philosophical worldview. And I agree with Cassius when he said:
But having said that, there is a general issue that everyone faces of putting together one's own life from whatever elements are available, and it's great to discuss in general how to go about thinking of the meaning of consistency and when fo deviate from it.
I would say that the two main aspects of Epicurean philosophy is the materialist worldview and its telos. If you can't agree with those two things, then you are either "not Epicurean" or you are "eclectic". But there isn't anything that says you have to declare yourself an Epicurean to benefit from the philosophy.
There may be some individuals who feel that they need some "supernatural" or "mystical" ideas in there thoughts and their worldview. This would be inconsistent with a materialist understanding of life.
The dangers of eclecticism is losing track of what was actually taught by Epicurus, or claiming that Epicurus said something that he did not say.
Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 46 & 47. Please join us. (Post here in this thread if you have never attended one of these sessions as we do have a vetting process for new participants.)
VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.
(Alternate translation by Saint-Andre: "We cast off common customs just as we would do to wicked men who have been causing great harm for a long time".)
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.
Update...My food diary and reduction of calories was working (down 2 lbs)...until I went out to eat at a restaurant, and also bought some sweets (dessert items)...which brought up the calorie intake.
Nature evolved us to get pleasure from eating, but modern civilization has made high caloric foods easy to obtain...so then that leads to health problems (I can imagine that obesity is not a pleasant feelling).
Both of my parents are thin, and most of the times that I have gone for a visit I've ended up losing weight. They don't go out to eat very often, and my mom cooks her food without spices and very little salt. She serves up very small portion sizes, and also snacks are often apples, oranges, or other kinds of fruit, or small portions of healthy natural whole grain snack bars or crackers. Oatmeal or bread for breakfast with yogurt, or cottage cheese, or soft boiled egg. Lunch is often vegetable soup with bread or crackers, or a sandwich (egg salad, chicken salad, or peanut butter). Dinner is a small green salad, steamed potatoes, a cooked vegetable, and meat (chicken or pork, and occasionally beef, fish or legumes.)
the main thing is being happy when you feel hungry and saying to yourself "I am losing weight".
Yes! Sometimes we take on some pain in order to realize a greater pleasure in the future.
From Letter to Menoeceus:
"This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of a completely happy life. For we recognize it as the primary and innate good, we honor it in everything we accept or reject, and we achieve it if we judge every good thing by the standard of how that thing affects us. And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains. So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good." (St-Andre translation)
Raphael Raul welcome to the forum!
The best pleasures are those which occur without pain, and when we are in a state of being without pain we come to appreciate it as being a pleasure.
Pleasure is the global term; tranquility and ataraxia are fully contained within the word pleasure, but "pleasure" is not fully contained within tranquility or ataraxia. There are pleasures which do not involve tranqulity or calmness or any other similar term. Are those other pleasures less "worthy" than calmness?
I wonder if the idea of "mixed" pleasure might need some further examination because it seems that there may be pleasures which are mixed with a tinge of mental uncertainty. There are times in life when you chose pleasures in which you are uncertain what the final result will be (mental pain or a minor problem may result but you are fairly confident that you won't end up physically wounded or dead).
And thought that came to me regarding "pleasure is the absence of pain" is that this is simply a guide or a tool to find moderation...rather than arbitrarily deciding "I will only eat one heaping full plate of spaghetti" then if you use the phrase "pleasure is the absence of pain" to decide to stop eating when you aren't feeling hungry anymore.
So it is moderation based on sensation and not on abstractions.
Is this a reference to beginning and the end... does this mirror 'alpha and omega' in letter to Menoeceus?
This website helps visualize calorie intake, plus has meal planning ideas:
For men:
For women:
***********
Edit note: Athough, I would suggest swapping out grains and instead eating root vegetables for carbs, since grains can increase the hunger hormone ghrelin. Here are some recipes: https://www.foodandwine.com/vegetables/roo…getable-recipes
Naive calorie restriction is difficult because when carbohydrates are consumed every few hours, the fat-burning mechanisms are not utilized to a sufficient degree to signal the body to develop them. When glucose runs out, even though there may be stored body fat available, the fat-burning mechanisms aren't capable of meeting the body's demands, and the body demands more glucose, like an addict.
It is important to eat protein with carbs. Otherwise insulin spikes too high with carbohydrate only consumption, and then will have a sudden crash (blood sugars can suddenly fall too low), which brings on food cravings for more carbs (eating oatmeal for breakfast always does this to me). So I think Todd is on to something about the body not being able to access fat stores.
I've also eaten less at meals, eat big salads to fill me up with low calorie-high volume foods, and ensure I get quite a bit of protein. It's also what I call lazy Mediterranean since I just get olives, feta and goat cheese, and Italian dressing or Balsamic vinaigrette
I do think that eating less calories at meals is very important for weight lose. Increasing the amount of vegetables is also great as Novem shared. Also not snacking between meals unless you are absolutely certain that you are actually hungry. How and what we eat is all about habits we develop (good or bad)...and it is just a matter of thinking through what is the best thing to do (and what leads to happiness and health of the body). Instead of snacking one could drink tea or go for a short walk. Also, I've observed that the pleasure of food is best (most intense) when I eat when truly hungry. And that was one reason I stopped using a keto diet, because I lost all interest in food. I realized that I rather feel the pain of hunger so that I could truly savor the food that I was eating.
In the past two years I've been eating more calories than I needed, and gained 10 lbs. One thing that happens is that when I go out to a restuarant I tend to over-eat. Also snacking on nuts (which are high in calories! Plus I have a "sweet tooth" lol ). My goal is to lose 10 lbs. and I have a food diary (which I started a week ago) to keep track of what I eat and then I can really see what I am eating. I also estimate the calorie content as well, and I will use a scale to weigh myself to see if I am making any progress.
******
Edit note: My goal for weight loss is to aim for 1200 calories per day, which should give a slow reduction of weight over the next few months.
nothelpfuldoug welcome to the forum!
PD26 - "The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm." (Saint-Andre translation).
My comments regarding this:
This Principal Doctrine helps an individual determine which desires to pursue, in a given situation:
-- If I do not achieve xyz, will it bring pain or a bad result?
-- If I do achieve xyz, will it bring pain or a bad result?
-- Is it very difficult to achieve xyz such that the chances of achieving it are very slim or attempting to achieve it will keep me from achieving something else equally important?
And at the same time we remember PD8: "No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves." (Saint-Andre translation).
So as I see it, we only label something as "unnecessary" dependent upon a specific person in a specific situation.
I am off to learn about absolute virtues now.
You have likely found this part of the forum, which explains "no absolute virtues":
Faria Dantes welcome to the forum! 
