By pleasure: I mean the feeling that comes when tasting honey or the feeling that comes while drinking water when thirsty.
By happy: I mean the feeling that comes with pleasant sensations and pleasant thoughts.
By happiness: I mean the evaluation of the last month as having been filled with many pleasurable moments.
And one could define everything this way?
So to be more clear perhaps we could say:
By pleasure we mean the feeling that comes when tasting honey or the feeling that comes while drinking water when thirsty.
If found this on "anticipations" from another thread:
The passage : <<First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words ((important note : CONCEPTS ATTACHED TO WORDS)), in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning ((important note : we have to be CAREFUL NOT USING WORDS DEVOID OF MEANING)).
There is a whole lot of interesting ideas and questions coming up in this thread, starting with questions on understanding the canon. (But also includes other issues in post 11. Cassius then adds in a few more good questions about the goal of life according to Epicureanism, which gets me wanting to comment on that too, but first wanting to deal with the canon.)
For myself, I need to first understanding the meaning of "anticipations" -- where is that in the Letter to Herodotus? How do you more clearly define it? Are "anticipations" what we see/imagine in our mind's eye? Or am I incorrect on thinking that?
Some very good ideas from an article on fun:
psychologist Mike Rucker makes the case that pursuit of fun experiences may be even more valuable than seeking the sometimes abstract goal of happiness.
"Happiness is a state of mind," Rucker writes. "But fun is something you can do. It doesn't require education, money or power. All it requires is intentionality. If happiness is a mirage, fun is your backyard oasis."
*****
"Happiness is really an evaluation," ... You are constantly asking yourself what is going right and what is going wrong. It can become a trap,..."
I found this very good article on increasing fun, which has practical tips.
Real fun usually involves sensory experiences and, often, interactions with other people.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/04/1150518287/fun-play-happiness-stress-reduction
Diogenes of Oinoanda doesn't help to clear up things for me, because it doesn't saying what it means by happiness.
Thinking further on this, off the top of my head:
-- "happiness" is a feeling of enjoyment that comes when we experience pleasure, and this feeling comes and goes depending on the situation.
-- "happiness" can also be thought of as something encompassing a longer period of time (for example looking back over the past year and also projecting onto future months) -- when you feel pleased and when things are going well in your life. (And so I still stick with the idea of it being an internal story (basically if you tell yourself if you are satisfied and generally enjoying how your life is unfolding).
According to Diogenes of Oinoanda, the virtues are the means to find happiness in life:
If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado.
-----So now, I would say that this actually isn't the whole picture and is missing things which are in the Principal Doctrines -- a happy life (which entails more pleasure than pain), requires prudence in choices, and also other factors (a secure future, freedom from fears of death/God, supportive friendships, and self-sufficiency (which I would apply now in modern times as being having a good job in which you are free to make the needed choices to do what you need to do. I have read that not having freedom to make decisions in the workplace can be very frustrating).
This leads me to the thought that happiness is, perhaps, a static mental pleasure.
It does seem that everyone has their own subjective idea about what happiness is.
I'd say physical health and pleasure aren't necessarily necessary for happiness,
Chronic pain can lead to depression. Pleasure is a natural by-poduct of activities such as eating food, regardless of feeling "happy". So happiness is something else beyond pleasure.
and Torqatus thought there were talking to when they ended up emphasizing almost the exact words of "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure."
I was just thinking about how there is something in that "On Ends" which says that Epicurus was the masterbuilder of the life of happiness.
There's an answer for us to how to balance these terms, but why is there an issue with other people not understanding that they go hand in hand and are not in conflct? Why do people see a conflict between happiness and pleasure? And what's the most direct way to get them to see that they are mistaken in presuming that there is a conflict? What's the key to unwinding that perceived discomfort?
The conflict is about what does the word "pleasure" mean, and what does the word "happiness" mean. It may not be possible to have everyone agree about what these words mean.
If I understand correctly, Kalosyni 's quote above is related to Don 's description of a background state of happy homeostasis.
Hmmm...I wasn't thinking about homestasis when I wrote my post earlier (and need to go back to see what Don said about that).
Is there a "recipe" for how to make happiness? (the following things are needed for happiness):
--Both physical and mental pleasures
--Assurance of security in the future (basic necessities and safety)
--Freedom from fear of death and God(s)
--Physical health
So...this means that pleasure is easier to get than happiness.
In fact, I was thinking that the Tetrapharmakos should be this:
Don't fear God
Don't worry about death
Pleasure in life is easy to experience
Pain in life can be endured through the addition of pleasure
Riffing on some ideas coming up after reading previous comments.
Happiness can be an internal story you are using to explain the meaning of the pleasures you are experiencing.
Yet, happiness is also considered a feeling -- when it is vicerally felt in the the body as an extention of relief or pleasure.
A happy life is assumed to be a life full of good experiences, and we would assume that there is a great number of pleasurable experiences (both physical and mental) that happen in a happy life.
Consider the following questions and any likely situations when these questions are asked:
"Are you happy?"
"Are you enjoying yourself?"
"Does this feel good?"
A happy life can still feel happy even when immediate pleasure isn't occuring, and I think that it really points to "happiness" being mostly an internal story about whether or not we are feeling pleased about the way our life is currently unfolding.
Is it true that: You can't have a happy life without pleasure, but you could can have pleasure even if you aren't having a happy life?
It seems that we need both pleasure and happiness.
We have this from Epicurean Philosophy:
"Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness." PD 52
And this PD can work as a visual definition of happiness.
(visual as in before the internal eyes)
I dance therefore I am.
ou want to find a good dentist, parking spot, decent job, a cemetery plot, resolution to a business conflict, even a legal dispute - you simply need friends. And your friends know this. This means your daily routine is to collect and dish out favours.
That situaltion is very interesting (and I would wonder perhaps people were not very close friends). And doesn't sound very fun.
Here in the US when I lived in Oregon, I was part of a Buddhist Zen group. It was through knowing people there that I found a studio apartment (converted garage in a house). And a few other things with which I got help, just by mentioning my problem, people gave good suggestions. So being part of a religious community has a benefit, founded on mutual support arising from common religious beliefs, and others become a kind of second family. So I think it could have been somewhat like this for Epicureans back in the past.
Even if we find the accurate description of what social dynamic Epicurus implied in his definition of friendship to conclude that it is an essential element of a pleasant life, chances are, that social dynamic is no longer replicable in modern times. There is still academic benefit in researching the meaning of friendship in antiquity.
I actually envision it to be very similar to what I experienced in the Buddhist community that I was a part of. The problem was that I came to realize that Buddhist philosophy didn't work anymore for me, so it didn't make sense for me to continue with the community.
The community had a core group who did much of the work of making things run efficiently (a board of directors, teachers, and Zen priests/trainees). And then two other levels of involvement which I would call intermediate/dedicated students. And then the newer students or occasional attendees. And there were times to study together and times to celebrate with community meals and movie nights.
Well, it comes down to where you decide if you're going to trust the manuscript and use λεπτότητα "elegance" or whether you're going to correct the scribe like Bailey and Usener and substitute λιτότης "limit".
This got me wondering about the history of the manuscript, and I found this on Wikipedia:
There are many extant manuscripts of the Lives, although none of them are especially old, and they all descend from a common ancestor, because they all lack the end of Book VII.[25] The three most useful manuscripts are known as B, P, and F. Manuscript B (Codex Borbonicus) dates from the 12th century, and is in the National Library of Naples.[a] Manuscript P (Paris) is dated to the 11th/12th century, and is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.[27] Manuscript F (Florence) is dated to the 13th century, and is in the Laurentian Library.[28] The titles for the individual biographies used in modern editions are absent from these earliest manuscripts, however they can be found inserted into the blank spaces and margins of manuscript P by a later hand.[29]
There seem to have been some early Latin translations, but they no longer survive. A 10th-century work entitled Tractatus de dictis philosophorum shows some knowledge of Diogenes.[30] Henry Aristippus, in the 12th century, is known to have translated at least some of the work into Latin, and in the 14th century an unknown author made use of a Latin translation for his De vita et moribus philosophorum[30] (attributed erroneously to Walter Burley).
Welcome to the forum Adrian 
Wow, Don amazing investigation and translation work.
In an above post I quoted a Greer translation, and I should mention what Greer says in his prologue -- that he used the translations of others: Bailey, vod der Muehll, Usner, and Hicks, and that is it "not so much a translation as a paraphrase".
So we probably should be careful with "translations" like this?
VS63: "There is also a limit to frugality. The man unable to consider this suffers a similar end as the man who indulges in excess." --Eugene O'Connor
VS63: "There is also a limit in simple living. He who fails to heed this limit falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance." --Russel M. Greer
**********
I have (on loan from a friend) "The Essential Epicurus" by O'Connor.
And found "Letters, Principle Doctrines and Vatican Sayings: Epicurus" by Greer -- on Archive.com
The quote in post 58 above: "The tripartite brain is still a sound model in neurobiology".
I found this interesting article for people who want to dive into the details:
And for further commentary:
Ths interesting comment from the psychology.stackexchange:
There isn’t a new model, exactly, since as the poster stated, the brain doesn’t operate as a model and earlier versions of brain structures simply modify themselves to evolve— it’s one brain. Meaning, one’s “lizard brain” is actually just a mammalian brain now. The new model perhaps is The Human Brain? But given that the Triune model was most popularized by lawyers needing it for defense against emotional (irrational) behavior and psychologists adopted it for explanation of emotional dysregulation, then likely the best replacement is theory about emotion. Emotions are not well understood, and there are several theories about them, but the latest and most provocative development is the Theory of Constructed Emotion. See Barrett-Feldman et al.
Welcome to the forum ScottW
We are starting a monthly Friday Night Epicurean Happy Hour and it is open to new members. We haven't set a date yet, but you can read about it here.
Also, if you haven't already had a chance to listen to one of our podcasts, here is a good one to try.
Hi Everyone! We will be having our next Epicurean Happy Hour sometime soon, and if you are interested in attending please let us know here in this thread. It will be on a Friday night at 8pm ET (or 8:30pm ET depending on if we have folks on the west coast), some time in February. This meeting is open to all forum members and is especially geared toward Level 1 and new members. If we get at least two Level 1 members who are interested in attending, we will move forward and schedule a meeting.
If you are interested in attending or have any questions, please post here is this thread, thank you
It seems to me they're using "anxiety" to mean several different things because the word attracts attention.
It looks like it is very important to define the words we use, otherwise it all gets very muddy.
Maybe for our purposes here in what we understand as Epicurean teachings, instead of anxiety we could use the word "worry"?
But then I wonder, should everyone try to live a worry-free life? Is it even possible? Would a worry-free life be worth living? What would you have to sacrifice to live completely worry-free?
Should questions like these remain a personal exploration, so there is no right or wrong or absolute answer that applies to everyone or to every time and place? Or is this a helpful line of discussion amongst friends? (Or is it making things more confusing than they need to be?)
There is basically no situation in which anxiety is more useful than a calm presence of mind.
An excerpt from a New York Times article has this to say:
"Having some anxiety — especially when faced with a stressful situation — isn’t necessarily bad and can actually be helpful, experts say."
The article goes on to say:
"Anxiety is an uncomfortable emotion, often fueled by uncertainty. It can create intense, excessive and persistent worry and fear, not just about stressful events but also about everyday situations. There are usually physical symptoms too, like fast heart rate, muscle tension, rapid breathing, sweating and fatigue.
Too much anxiety can be debilitating. But a normal amount is meant to help keep us safe, experts say.
“The emotion of anxiety and the underlying physiological stress response evolved to protect us,” Wendy Suzuki, a neuroscientist and the author of “Good Anxiety,” said."
And this:
"A certain degree of anxiety can help people anticipate obstacles, remain cautious and stay organized, said Ellen Hendriksen, a clinical psychologist in Boston and the author of “How to Be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety.”
Read the full article here:
