I want to be sure my anger is directed at the proper objects, and then I want to work as hard as I can to resolve that problem clearly and directly, even if the other person or people disagree.
Exactly! And so understanding the difference between protective use of force vs punitive use of force is very important, and will lead to better future outcomes.
QuoteProtective use of force vs. Punitive use of force
Protective vs. punitive use of force (difference is in intention) protective force's intention protects from injuries or accidents or misuse of someone's rights and or loss of life. Punitive use of force has an intention to change the other person through punishment or reward, to teach how they "should" do.
...If the intention is only to protect my own need, then it’s justified. That’s the only time force is justified. I must have no desire to make the other person suffer.
https://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Prot…ve_use_of_force
And this would support: "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good."
On second reading, I am now thinking that Kalosyni's issue is not so much with Nate's formatting as it is with Epicurus' content
In this type of document things could be "taken out of context" (how many Christian preachers do this with the Bible?).
And we don't know in what manner Epicurus taught. All we have is what later people (after Epicurus) copied or wrote down, and it is impossible to rule out that they "re-interpreted" things.
Diogenes Laertius lived in the 3rd Century CE (Wikipedia)
Epicurus lived in 341 - 270 BCE -- here is a link to a graphic timeline comparing several other historical figures who wrote on Epicurean philosophy.
So...we must understand the foundations of Epicurean philosophy and then everything must be viewed in light of the very basic foundations -- and ask this: "Does it lead to pleasure, joy and happiness?"