The Neglect of Metrodorus’ Economics

On the above VS 45 there are also two greek words "περιμάχητον παιδείαν" [pron. perimachiton peadeian"] and is translated "the kind of education that is fought over by the many", although it literally means "the kind of education that is sought after by the many". That is to say, if you follow/study the marketable education that is based on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the like you will lose yourself/identity for becoming one of the mobs that follow blindly their leaders!

Elli are you aware of the word "moderation" or variations of it appearing in any of the core Epicurean texts?

Νο, Cassius the word "moderation" does not exist in the epicurean texts. Epicurus speaks often for limits that the person is able to set them through his/her personal hedonic calculus.

Quote from elli

Νο, Cassius the word "moderation" does not exist in the epicurean texts.

Given how often this "moderation" issue comes up, at some point it would be interesting to do a search for any appearances of forms of that word in anything in Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, Lucretius, or the key Epicurean sections of Cicero, just to be able to hammer this point home as persuasively as possible. And of course we can and should do the same with the Herculaneum fragments, though that will be much harder to evaluate.

But already Elli's comment is good confirmation that the concept of "moderation" is not consistent with how Epicurus thought or presented his philosophy. Given that he was so firm on rejecting "virtue for the sake of virtue" it would only make sense that he would reject "moderation" as a goal in itself. But we can count on this question coming up over and over in future discussions, since so many people think that "moderation in all things" makes sense. And in fact it makes sense that "moderation" like other bright line rules should run through so many of the Greek philosophers, given their theist / idealist / rationalist orientation - but not Epicurus.

Quote from Hiram

Your body needs warmth, safety, something to eat, something to drink, clothing, etc

Well, if warmth, safety, something to eat, something to drink, and clothing are all that is needed to be "wealthy" then the inmates at San Quentin are wealthy indeed!

Quote from Hiram

If you have all the natural needs met, you are wealthy.

The problem with these formulations is that they imply (rather clearly state, actually) that there is something wrong with wanting more than the bare necessities of life. Cue the disney song here, as others regularly do in this context.

But it is foreign to Epicurus to say that any set of facts is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, without linking them to the pleasure of the person involved.

Quote from Hiram

So This is the focus. If you have all the natural needs met, you are wealthy. But if you're trying to "keep up with the Joneses" and constantly working to impress strangers, you need to adjust your opinions to nature.

Nowhere in any of this Hiram are you linking any of this to the specific pleasure under the context being discussed? Why not? Are you looking for a formula that you can apply to everyone and say that Nature says that that person has enough? Why not look to the actual pleasure being experienced by the individual no matter what amount of money he has in the bank. You can be rich in pleasure with little money, or a billionaire full of pain and sorrow.

is THAT not the message here?

Are you suggesting that Epicurus is Phil Harris / Baloo singing to Mowgli to go only for the bare necessities of life? If not, how is what you are saying diffferent from Baloo?

This is a cute song, but it's a DEROGATORY CARICATURE, not what Epicurus really taught.

"Nature" is what has caused the phenomena of keeping up with the Joneses and working to impress others. It's not an artifact of civilization. Social status in human groups is a serious issue for health-- it's even an issue for less advanced primates. So nature won't help a person make those decisions, which are quite natural, unless the person has fully absorbed the primary lesson that pleasure is the goal. By taking pleasure as the goal, a person would avoid getting caught in unpleasant social competition but could engage in it strategically if necessary to serve pleasure.

When I go for a job interview, I make sure my clothes and typed CV are in condition to make a good impression on strangers-- for the pleasures I will use my income for. I'm aware of competing with others for the position. If it were necessary to do that "constantly" to gain pleasure and prevent pain, there are times that would be the wisest choice. It would only be unwise if there were more pleasurable alternative choices.

I think the real problem lies in our use of the word "wealth" as opposed to how Epicurus used it.

The conventional meaning of wealth is significant amount of resources while Epicurus seems to have used the word figuratively by saying that poverty is wealth.

If we define wealth literally, not figuratively, we will lose sight of the simplest message here by Epicurus.

As far as I understood, Epicurus seems to be telling us that the equivalent value of pleasure that we can find in a significant amount of material resources can also be found in poverty.

If that is the case, it is vain and unnecessary to desire a significant amount of material resources more than what poverty can equally offer.

This is why he said that wealth, if not limited, is great poverty.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

As far as I understood, Epicurus seems to be telling us that the equivalent value of pleasure that we can find in a significant amount of material resources can also be found in poverty.

If that is the case, it is vain and unnecessary to desire a significant amount of material resources more than what poverty can equally offer.

I would say that the "can" in the first sentence would need to be "may under certain circumstances" and that the "if that is the case" is the controlling aspect of the second sentence. And also that wealth and poverty are figurative terms, which means that they are relative and not absolute (literal).

Otherwise it is very easy to end up sounding like Epicurus is advising pursuit of only the "bare necessities" of life, which we know from many texts, not the least of which is the list of property which Epicurus left in his, is not the choice that Epicurus made for himself. In fact as far as I know there is not a single recorded instance of an ancient Epicurean being devoted to poverty and living as an ascetic.

Cassius Yes. That's the point. A happy person may either be someone who makes do with a living wage or someone who is a high-net-worth individual. But an anxious person may either be the one who is lacking or the one with excesses.

If so, our mindset, which is the product of our relative experience and circumstances, contributes a lot in our prudence.

For instance, a crippled man is happier to have a wheelchair to use than a car to drive, but we can't tell an Olympic runner that a wheelchair is what can truly make him happy.

In other words, everyone has his own need and mindset unique from one another.

Yes I think that's exactly it Mike. It makes no more sense to shoot for being a cave-dweller than it does to shoot for being a billionaire. Both can be "happy" and both can be miserable. And it's probably much more statistically sound from an Epicurean point of view to draw dividing lines on issues such as "What does the person think about "gods"? or "What does a person think about life after death?" rather than "How much money does the person have in their bank account?"

Definitely, it is not how much money that counts but how prudent a person is in recognizing how much is enough for him.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Definitely, it is not how much money that counts but how prudent a person is in recognizing how much is enough for him.

I think it is pretty clear that that is the case and I would think that most people familiar with Epicurus would agree with that if they think about it long enough.

It's almost a separate subject that takes us back to "virtue" and all the other issues of relative v absolute, but there's a STRONG tendency among people to want to take analysis that is essentially contextual (based on feeling) and want to make out of that analysis a "rules based" bright line that they think that they can apply to everyone.

It would seem to me almost beyond dispute that THAT problem - the tendency to want to idealize and rationalize into a universal rule - had to be the explicit reason why it was necessary to state what is stated in VS 63.

I think it would be highly productive to think about ways to dramatize and try to inoculate against that problem, and maybe taking familiar examples of the wrong position "The Bare Necessities" song, would be a good way to do that. Does Baloo Speak for Epicurus In the Song "Bare Necessities" from "The Jungle Book" Movie?

Mike are you familiar with that song / movie? It would be interesting for me to know who much an American song/movie like that has permeated world culture. Of course that movie is now 40+ years old so maybe it has faded from view or withdrawn from circulation for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the song/movie. But after listening to it from your link, it still sounds Taoist to me. Being one with nature means being as soft as water. This submission means literally relying on nature's bounty. Therefore, bare necessities are part of Yin virtue in Taoism.

That is very good for me to know Mike! As Elayne is commenting in the other thread, there are multiple things going on in that song and movie, all of which "bear" on what we are discussing. if we treat the song as being about "bear necessities" then we immediately see how the necessities and pleasures are contextual. If we treat the song as being about "bare necessities" then we have a totally different meaning. There's a lot to pull apart here, especially for those of a particular background and age group who are knowledgeable about the movie and have absorbed that song into their consciousness over a lifetime.

I remember when I was an existentialist, there was also a debate whether a certain song was existentialist or of Cynics. The song was "Let It Go" which is the soundtract of Disney's animation movie Frozen. Same here with "Bear Necessities."

Issues arising from popular songs and art is a very fruitful area to discuss. I will eventually move this thread to an "art" section.

ES 77. The greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom.

Because : «τὸ εὔδαιμον τὸ ἐλεύθερον, τὸ δ' ἐλεύθερον τὸ εὔψυχον κρίναντες». We are judging that bliss means freedom; and freedom means bravery and they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger ...

...And we have invented for ourselves many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the pleasure which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own. (Pericle's Epitaph, by Thucydides).

And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.

Sailings on the seas,

Tilling of fields, walls, laws, and arms, and roads,

Dress and the like, all prizes, all delights

Of finer life, poems, pictures, chiseled shapes

Of polished sculptures—all these arts were learned

By practice and the mind's experience,

As men walked forward step by eager step.

Thus time draws forward each and everything

Little by little into the midst of men,

And reason uplifts it to the shores of light.

For one thing after other did men see

Grow clear by intellect, till with their arts

They've now achieved the supreme pinnacle.

(DRN- Lucretius book V)

Ι've translated an excerpt from a work by George Kaplanis “on wealth”, and when in 2014 the participation at the symposium of Athens was by some genuine epicureans, and before the raid of the Aristotelian-Stoic academic-professors.

<<...Philodemus teaches the methodology of analysis (the Canon). The second field of epicurean philosophy is the field of Ethics. This work that I will present to you is a part of my initial work which includes both fields. I've presented this initial work at the Thessaloniki's Garden. We present all of our works for the Symposium in the Garden and we’re discussing them. And as my friend Panagiotis (Papavassiliou) said : we all together (as a team) wrote them (the works). Thus, the joy of the Symposium, for us from Thessaloniki, begins one and a half months before the Symposium and if we add the discussion/criticism to the works which are another month, that is, the whole story about the Symposium lasts two and a half months.

Anyway, to not make a long story short "on wealth". There are various questions that our friends ask us in everyday life. The katastematic pleasure (with astonishment and irony) does it make us indifferent to wealth? Once we have the katastematic pleasure what else do we want?

The Epicurean philosophy, as we are told, as an "ascetic" philosophy is not hostile to wealth? That is, not only to be indifferent but also to be hostile to wealth. How could someone that deals with something noble as the philosophy is, to deal with the wealth that is something completely banal? That is, engaging in wealth does not kill the spirituality? What is the viewpoint of the epicurean philosophy on wealth?

Here I will make an observation that some religious moralists, for example, the Christians or their descendants who belong to any ideology, but let's speak about Christians now, as they have a clear view on wealth. That is why people also ask us for our opinion. Because the opinion of Christians is clear, it is written in their sacred texts such as: "whoever has wealth will not enter the kingdom of heaven". So Christians and wealth are unrelated things (laughs). Let us the epicureans also say, like them, some blunt words. Philodemus says this: The philosopher must be interested in wealth (laughs). To be concerned with wealth or as Epicurus himself says (κτήσεως προνοήσεσθαι και του μέλλοντος) that is to say to take care for your properties and provide for the future. Maybe someone is still wondering since Epicurus can be happy only with bread and water, so why do you want wealth? I would personally say that poverty is not the cause of happiness. That is, it is not needed when we seek happiness to go for living in a poor neighborhood.

There is also the view of cynics who say: We limit our needs, we limit our desires so we do not have to worry too much and be bothered in our lives. And we live a tranquil and peaceful life. Of course, Metrodorus, here, in his work on wealth does not accept this and he strongly disagrees. No, he says, this life is not in harmony, this life of cynics i.e. to limit your desires and needs is not harmoniously regulated. A harmonious life is harmonious when it does not predetermine now that there will be later a need to beg and rent ourselves in order to survive. In the ancient era to go and working as an employee it was like a curse.

And while the cynics let the frugality to fall uncontrollably downward, Socrates defines this frugality precisely with an amount, saying that five minas are enough to satisfy the natural and necessary of our lives. We need nothing more than 5 minas. Someone that knows he told me, that the ancient amount of 5 minas is about 500 euros of today. In any case, it is a small stable amount, which you will have as a stable income throughout your life. And you will spend with this stable small income all your life... and you'll be pleased too. Personally, in such a life I would drink the hemlock (laughs).

Of course, I think that this image of the cynics and Socrates that are telling you to sit steady there all your life is a very static image. It is too static for it to be sustained by Epicurean philosophy which is structured to deal with a flowing and constantly changing reality>>.