Dopamine Nation by Dr. Anna Lembke

Quote from Don

Possibly a more apt metaphor is the old Western movie set where there appears to be a main street of the town, but it's only a line of facades. The facades may be indistinguishable from actual buildings, but walk through them and you're in the desert. There's nothing there. I

Yes that is probably a better analogy, but not one that I would associate with the word "empty." There IS something there, the false front is there.

I don't say that to be disagreeable, though, but only to emphasize the height that will be necessary to climb.

Carry on as I am looking forward to this! That's what "gods among men" are supposed to do - talk about things like this!

Quote from Don

Yes. The desire exists. There's just nothing to back it up

Yes that emphasizes how I do not think this terminology makes sense. If you want to say that the type of desire cannot be definition be filled for some reason, then that's one thing, but the word "empty" seems to me to have nothing to do with the discussion.

If we feel the desire, it exists. Maybe the issue is in the definition of desire. I consider a desire to be a feeling, not concept. I "feel a desire" - I don't "feel a concept."

If I can feel something, then it exists, and the word "empty" comes dangerously close to asserting that the feeling does not exist, which would almost certainly be inconsistent with the rest of Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Don

He's the one who decided to use the same word to describe both the structure of the universe (atoms and *void*) and a category of desires. Just saying.

I strongly agree that Epicurus' employment of an inflection of the ancient Greek word for "spatial void" to signify "groundless desire" is significant. I see this stylistic device, among few others, as an unmistakable, poetic signature of a unique mind who re-appropriated tired, traditional connotations for the sake of providing fresh observations.

While he re-defines "pleasure", it was not such a drastic leap for the Hellenistic mind to make (unlike, herein, I argue, is the case with "kenos" / "kenon" / "kenen") because "hedone" still referred to "pleasure", just a more stable, fulfilling type of "pleasure" than they may have been used to supposing. Herein, Epicurus is completely re-defining the idea of a "destructive desire". It's not just [1] a "distraction", "addiction", "obsession", "self-destructive pursuit", or "wasted energy", rather, it is [2] "void", "space", "NULL", "literally, within the category of those things which do not exist". The former meaning [1] connects the notion of a "destructive desire", inherently, with desire, itself; with "pleasure". Desire, necessarily, was seen as being a destructive thing. Thus, from an Epicurean vantage point, the word one [2] should describe a destructive desire differently than the pleasure that entices desire, itself, and, rather, needs to be re-defined within a larger context. The destructiveness of desire has nothing to do with the feeling of desire, but rather, with the intellectual vacuity to which by which it may be motivated. If a desire has no natural meaning, no healthy purpose, then it cannot be connected with the natural canon, with raw sensation, honest feeling, and natural anticipations. It must be connected with some kind of fallacious "Logic" that have been mistaken for those original apprehensions impressed upon the mind.

In an Epicurean dictionary, the only word that could exist (since all Epicurean observations refer to real objects that host real existence, as opposed to imaginary speculations) to refer to an idea that was acquired from somewhere besides nature is, literally "the infinite spatial void of nothingness". Epicurus recognizes that the most FRANK description of a "delusion", "illusory opinion", "vain excuse", was, truly, "empty space". A proposition that does not correspond with the Kanon of raw, external stimulations, internal emotions, and pre-rational mental impressions can neither be considered, nor is it worth consideration, like void, which can neither act, nor be acted upon. It is the least "real" "thing" there is.

It's also a good way to arm yourself with a vocabulary to call your opponent's argument as ZERO, rather than, as American media has shown me, waste your time giving your moronic opponent's utterly vacuous statement the benefit of being a real idea worthy of consideration and genuine reflection. A Skeptic could write a thousand books refuting the most moronic ideas that have ever been proposed by the least functional, least observant people who have lived; a more prudent philosopher would see no need to refute utterly vacuous ideas, and only consider those that currently hold dominion over people who are susceptible to such manipulation. If all "ideas" are void, and only gain substance if they connect with pre-existing natural impulses, then we don't have to waste time supposing that we live in a cave of ideas ... we live in reality and we assume reality to be real, and an idea that does not comport to this reality cannot have come from the substance of the reality, itself, rather, it comes from nothing, void. It is a consequence of a person directing their attention toward something that literally does not exist. Otherwise, they would be engaging a real thing with real consequences. In this case, they are accepting a vain hypothesis as being as definite as the heat of a flame, and it is obvious to everyone who has not swallowed the intellectual kool-aid of "the Logic".

I do not see myself arguing against what you guys are saying. I see this as an issue similar to use of the term "gods" which does not in American English convey the meaning and definition that Epicurus held to apply to gods.

We cannot use the term "God" without explanation any more than we can use the word "empty" without explanation if we expect people to understand us.

So I see myself as agreeing with your conclusion as long as you are annexing to your conclusion the explanation that you are providing here.

So I would say that "Empty" in American English does not convey the meaning we are wishing to convey. I don't see that you are yet suggesting a short phrase or combination of words that does the job, but that should be the goal, so that the word "empty" does not confuse people just like an unexplained use of the word "gods" confuses people

In both situations, clear speech and meaning requires explanation, just like we cannot throw the original Greek words at Americans and expect them to be understood.

Quote from Marco

8. If a desire appears to be insatiable, it is likely because a person is otherwise unhappy or because the desire is for something impossible.

9. When a person is focused on an impossible desire, such as to live forever, the poor fit of substitute pleasures makes them feel their ordinary desires are insatiable.

(This quote by Marco was originally from Elaine)

I've joined in here a little late...but wanted to say that this really makes sense for me.

Here a helpful analogy from Marshall Rosenberg (originator of Nonviolent Communication):

...Don't go to the hardware store if you want to buy eggs.

So by "empty" we actually mean impossible to fullful.

So much of mental suffering comes when we try to pursue "empty" desires. Some people have stronger habits around pursuing things that are "empty" and are unable to reason what is "empty" and what is real.

About the word "empty" - both the same usage in English and Greek - the word can appy to physical objects or to mental ideas.

Objects that can hold things (boxes, cups, etc.) can at times be empty.

Ideas that can hold things (truth, validity, reason, accuracy) can at times be empty.

Quote from Kalosyni

Objects that can hold things (boxes, cups, etc.) can at times be empty.

Ideas that can hold things (truth, validity, reason, accuracy) can at times be empty.

I picked K's comment to quote largely at random, but the point I think is important is there.

I think this is important because I get the idea that in conjunction with discussions (us I mean, not Epicurean necessarily) which reference "empty" there it is also frequently implied that certain types of desires are ALWAYS "empty." That may be as much of my problem with this phrasing as anything else.

Is anyone thinking that there is a list of desires that is "ALWAYS" empty? I am thinking of the classic fame, power, riches, etc. Those may strike me as always dangerous, but NOT always "empty" and some degree of fulfillment of those is generally necessary in life.

So what I am suggesting as part of this discussion that we make clear the "relative nature" and "subjectivity" of these issues, because if we cross the line into saying "XXXX desire is ALWAYS empty" I have a feeling we are on that slippery slope to Platonism. That may apply to "I want to live forever" which is physically impossible for humans, but I am not aware of too many such desires that might be physically impossible to at least get some benefit from pursuing.

There's a lot of subtlety here to be considered.

Well what you are saying there is that the desire for anything other than pleasure itself is just a means to something else, but again power, money, and fame do all have their legitimate uses , I would argue, even under the strictest Epicurean analysis.

You can say that the desire for UNLIMITED amounts of those things are "empty" as impossible to obtain, but if t hat is what you are saying then to be clear you are saying that it is the UNLIMITED aspect which is impossible to attain and therefore "vain" "delusive" or "whatever words you'd like to use.

But none of that is self-explanatory just by using the word "empty"

I noticed in the text from Torquatus while editing this week's podcast:

Quote

[60] There is also death which always hangs over them like the stone over Tantalus, and again superstition, which prevents those who are tinged by it from ever being able to rest. Moreover they have no memories for their past good fortune, and no enjoyment of their present; they only wait for what is to come, and as this cannot but be uncertain, they are wasted with anguish and alarm; and they are tortured most of all when they become conscious, all too late, that their devotion to wealth or military power, or influence, or fame has been entirely in vain. For they achieve none of the pleasures which they ardently hoped to obtain and so underwent numerous and severe exertions.

Don I presume this ("entirely in vain") is pretty much the same sentiment we are discussing? If so maybe we can find some points of comparison with the Latin from this section.

Quote from Don

Maybe desires that come to nothing instead of "empty" desires

I am not wedded to any particular formulation but yes I do think that has a more meaningful ring to it. So we could be talking about an "idiom" here that explains the awkwardness I am sensing in the single word "empty"

I haven't thought of that "idiom" word lately in our context here, but I was just using it in another context earlier this week about someone who was raised overseas and who expressed confusion over the meaning of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Maybe our lexicon or FAQ ought to include a list of actual or probable Epicurean "idioms"