My stance regarding calumny is that I would want to believe that Epicurus would not have said what Diogenes Laertius wrote, because Epicurus focused on what the senses perceive. This means that any criticism would have been spoken in this way: X said "xyz" which is incorrect because of such and such Epicurean physics, etc. ---- or X is wearing his toga with red stains of the wine we saw him spill last night (this is just a hypothetical example of specific observations). So he would not have used abstract ideas which are vague categories which pigeon hole a person as forever having the same character (branding someone as a permanent cheat, etc.) and which would be very Aristotilian and much like something that Aristippus of Cyrene would have said.

On the other hand we can't know for sure about all this.

Quote from Cassius

I gather that you're saying that developing calumny into an "art" might not be a good idea, rather than that all calumny is a bad idea, since Epicurus himself was apparently regularly engaged in it!

I have a hard time believing that Epicurus would have said all that, because it doesn't fit with the Principle Doctrines. The source for all that is Diogenes Laertius, and what he wrote was what was said by Timocrates,

(the brother of Metrodorus, who was his disciple and then

left the school.)

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)

On the subject of the "art of calumny" -- I will simply say that it would not fit well with PD5:

"PD5: It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."

Also, I found this very interesting painting:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumny_o…les_(Botticelli)

and which has an interesting write up.

I feel the sense of "domination" of all of history, and the undercurrent of Christianity continues with the use of BC/AD. I would say we all need to stand up for freedom from religion by using neutral year signifiers. Unfortunately "HE" may be too big of a shift for many people, and of course Christians would not go for it at all. (although I can image that people of other faiths would support it).

And there at times seems to be little use of BCE and CE -- Wikipedia doesn't use it.

Quote

Style Guides on Religious Neutrality

The choice may be up to you and your style guide. The 17th edition of the "Chicago Manual of Style (published in 2017) suggests that the choice is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community are being violated:

Quote

"Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so."

In terms of secular journalism, the 2019 version of the Associated Press Stylebook uses B.C. and A.D. (using the periods); as does the fourth edition of the UPI Style Guide, published in 2004. The use of BC and BCE is commonly found in articles concerning academic and lay historical research—including ThoughtCo.com—but not exclusively.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the entire BBC has not dropped the use of AD/BC, but its Religion & Ethics department, which prides itself on providing religion-neutral stories, has:

Quote

"As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians. In line with modern practice, B.C.E./C.E. (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to B.C./A.D."

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-to-use-ad-or-ce-116687

(Anyway, just had to throw this in).

Don, looking forward to reading your notes on Nichomachean Ethics!

I saw this too, a different article, yesterday which said that a nose was broken off one (but don't remember what it said about the other one).

This article suggests that the person had a mental heallth problem and randomly grabbed one, and the second one fell while he was trying to escape the scene.

Seems like they should put them behind glass protectors, or they need to more securely mount them.

Thank you Titus for your feedback. I decided not to use "natural but unnecessary" category to see if I could create something very direct and usable. Something only becomes "unnecessary" if it causes much pain or trouble -- so the prediction of the end result determines the decision to say that something is "unnecessary".

And this also means that there is not any absolute labels of a specific activity. This means that if someone chooses to run for a political office, then their choice to do so is because it will bring them more pleasure than pain. (Perhaps it was much more dangerous back in Epicurus' time, compared to now.)

Quote from Don

It seems to me the three are more editions of the same text rather than thinking of them as three different "versions."

Thank you Don for clarifying that

A recent thread diving deeper into Principle Doctrines 26 and 30, had me thinking again to investigate if it is possible to categorize desires, so here is my attempt (suggest changes or additions please):

The "Epicurus in Lycia" source says three different versions of KD's !!!

Welcome to the forum Ben!

Quote from Don

By Zeus! "Bitter gift" shows up everywhere!!

Quote from Don

Although "gift" sets up the idea that there's a giver so that's a bit problematic.

I have to say it is not necessarily "everywhere".

I think it may be an attempted smear campaign, because it is on a few Christian websites. But it is very upsetting that it is on the wikipedia website (and this wikipedia is poorly/incorrectly written).

Maybe Joshua has some insights, as I see a reference to "bitter gift" from an Ancient Greek tragedy Hippolytus by Euripides ("bitter gift" of Poseidon):

The Greek Plays

books.google.com

This morning a song came to mind. When I was a teen I went to private singing lessons and my teacher had me practice Broadway hits. One song that stuck with me is from Oaklahoma (and since back in time I had no idea of the story line from this play it has a kind of simplicity for me).

Part of the lyrics:

Oh, what a beautiful mornin'
Oh, what a beautiful day
I've got a beautiful feelin'
Everything's goin' my way

And further thoughts -- that there are so many variations of feelings, and sometimes thinking about them makes it even better!

But I would say that the consideration of happiness is very important, and any kind of furtherance of Epicureanism will depend upon how we present our ideas of happiness, what happiness is, and how to increase happiness.

Quote from Cassius

How do you set up an outline of Epicurean happiness without ever mentioning "pleasure"?

But after laughing out loud it really make me mad, or better stated, resolved to do as much as possible to improve the situation.

Right! And so how would we list The Factors of Happiness?

-- the study of philosophy (and right understanding of death/God/choices & avoidances, etc.)

-- good friends

-- the daily fullness of pleasure

-- ?

-- ?

Welcome to the forum Sid

Instead of tranquility or mindfulness, how about clear-mindedness and ease...lots of other possibilities?

Mindfulness sometimes could end up being too focused inward or on inner sensations.

Quote from Pacatus

“For ataraxia, ultimately and simply, is a physical undisturbedness.” [That is, not simply a mental state.]

Well now, this got me thinking about when the startle reflex is activated -- heart-rate, blood pumping, adrenaline all amped up and that is the "fight or flight response".

Quote from Don

"Metrodorus, in his book On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects, says: 'What else is the good of the soul but the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?'"

And also, this brings up the firm belief that an Epicurean would not choose to be employed in any kind of high-risk/high-adrenaline enterprises -- or anything which disturbs the physical body or threatens its continuance.

Just this last Saturday there was an afternoon/evening event in a nearby little town, in honor of Oktoberfest (but chose not to partake for various reasons, one of which was no designated driver). Also, the US, breweries often celebrate with a new release of some kind. Anyway, lately I've got beer on my mind (haven't had any in many months). I really can only drink about a half pint at a time, otherwise it hits me too hard. Perhaps I will choose to imbibe just a little on my birthday. Something with a chocolate/coffee finish

Quote

Oktoberfest is a German tradition known around the world for its beer, delicious food, and celebration of German culture. It’s a chance to put aside differences, raise a glass, and shout, “Prost!” (That’s “Cheers!” in German.)

Given the name, one would think that it would also be a chance to celebrate the great month of October. And it is. What’s shocking, though, is that this festival’s namesake month barely gets to take part in the festivities.

That’s right—the majority of Oktoberfest takes place in September, which makes Oktoberfest seem like one of the biggest misnomers we use all the time. The entire festival runs 16-18 days, depending on the year, and most of them are in September. For example, the 2019 dates were September 21–October 6. Sadly, the 2020 festival was canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, when Oktoberfest began in 1810, it did take place entirely in October, from the 12th to the 17th.

The first Oktoberfest was a celebration of the marriage between Bavarian Crown Prince Ludwig and Princess Therese von Sachsen-Hildburghausen. It lasted five days, during which the citizens of Munich were invited to eat and drink to their hearts’ content while listening to live music and watching parades. The party ended with a horse race at the edge of town. Learn more about the origins of Oktoberfest—and why it’s not all about beer.

https://www.rd.com/article/oktoberfest-starts-september/

Quote from Godfrey

Are you saying that desires add in pleasures? Or that desires equate to pleasures? Or desires are additional to pleasures and pains?

There are some desires for adding in experience of sweetness and enjoyablenes, and there are some desires which are to stop the experience of pain. Eating chocolate cake is a desire which brings in extra stimulation beyond just the removal of hunger -- and if it was just for removal of hunger then we could eat bread instead of cake. If we eat too much cake we may start to feel overly full, and so we then stop eating cake to stop the discomfort. But there are other desires for additive pleasures besides just eating cake.

And some people may be more oriented (motivated) to stop pain rather than seek pleasure. For example a person who calls up a friend to talk because they feel lonely (and want to remove the pain of loneliness) vs a person who calls up a friend because they enjoy telling jokes and laughing together (desire for adding in fun).

Quote from Godfrey

Since the purpose of the inscription was evangelism, saying that we've excised and minimized pains is much more appealing to the average passersby than saying we've excised and minimized desires. Working with desires is a way that pain can be minimized, but that detail can come later.

lol -- this made me laugh, and yet there could be truth to it. But of course this brings up the whole "tranquility problem" -- which for me seems unresolvable. To be tranquil or not to be tranquil - perhaps we have to move beyond the "either/or" -- because sometimes we will take on pains if future pleasures will be greater.