Letter to Menoikeus translation by Peter Saint-Andre

I am sure that *I* am more confused so I am glad you have not let it go. Looking for the word in other settings would seem to be the best approach.

Yeah, I admit I still think it's 'the pleasures that lie in consumption,' but now I'm intrigued to look at other uses.

Quote from Little Rocker

Yeah, I admit I still think it's 'the pleasures that lie in consumption,' but now I'm intrigued to look at other uses.

That's the weird thing to me on the grammar. The pleasure phrase "in enjoyment, in pleasure" is between the definite article τας and κειμενας. So, paraphrasing your line, it seems to me like it's "those that lie in pleasure" and not "those X that lie in consumption". The preposition is attached to pleasure/enjoyment.

Quote from Don

The construction of the two phrases is very similar:

1. τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς

καὶ "and"

2. τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας

which Epicurus seems fond of doing in pairs.

Just some speculative thoughts:

κεῖμαι has apparently also been used to mean “ to lie sick / lie in misery / lie in ruins” – in context that could refer to the profligate, who take pleasures beyond the limits, and [καὶ] as a result lies in misery. That would support Elli’s interpretation. But, since the profligate would already be understood as one "in the enjoyment of pleasures out of limits”, that particular phrasing would seem redundant.

Both in light of fragment 211 and the pleasure that I take in a sweet afternoon nap, I would not take to κεῖμαι simply meaning the enjoyment of sleep!

Quote from Pacatus

Both in light of fragment 211 and the pleasure that I take in a sweet afternoon nap, I would not take to κεῖμαι simply meaning the enjoyment of sleep!

If we do interpret it with the "sleep" connotation, I take that as a dig against the Cyrenaics who equated the state between pain and pleasure as merely sleep or death. And κειμαι has both the sleep and death connotations. And Epicurus was adamant that there was only pain and pleasure and included the pain free state as pleasure.

Quote from Don

That's the weird thing to me on the grammar. The pleasure phrase "in enjoyment, in pleasure" is between the definite article τας and κειμενας. So, paraphrasing your line, it seems to me like it's "those that lie in pleasure" and not "those X that lie in consumption". The preposition is attached to pleasure/enjoyment.

Granted, I'm just eyeballing it, so I should take some time to give it closer attention, but I'm reading the second τὰς as a reference back to τὰς ἡδονὰς, with the ἡδονὰς understood, so taken together 'the pleasures of profligates or the [pleasures] lying in consumption.'

I'm trying to figure out the difference between hedone and apolausis and just found this:

Will try to find a better scan! From Henri II Estienne — 1572

Running the last part through Google translate:

"Unless one prefers απολαύσιν to be interpreted as Pleasure (Oblectationem) or Delectation (Delectationem), as it is sometimes translated."

Delectation is "great pleasure, particularly of the senses."

Okay, last thoughts for today...

I continue to suspect that the phrases in question τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς και τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας are digs at the Cyrenaics but not for the reason I said earlier (the being dead/asleep part). With the Latin synonyms of απολύσει being Oblectatio and Delectatio, and those being based, it appears, on delighting *primarily* in the senses, in sensual pleasures; I think Epicurus is still talking about the Cyrenaics' only accepting "kinetic" sensual pleasures as pleasure. They don't include the mental, katastematic pleasures in their definition of pleasure. They are "those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly." The prodigals are "those who are ignorant." So, the whole section could be something like:

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal **and those who are lying in sensual delight* like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind.

He's talking in those last lines about aponia and ataraxia. ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν "troubles the mind" uses tarattesthai which is related to a-taraxia.

Don I really like your last idea about the Cyrenaics. Epicurus could, indeed, be addressing them in this passage. Your post got me wondering if I could come up with something that simultaneously captures most of the arguments and translations in this thread:

• the Cyrenaics who trapped themselves in a nightmare of a limitless pursuit due to their failure of capturing the substance of pleasure

• Peter Saint-Andre's 'the enjoyment of sleep'

• @Elli's 'those in the enjoyment (that lie out of limits)' - which I personally agree with

• Pamela Mensch's 'the self-indulgent' - which I personally find the simplest and best translation

• multiple translations of 'sensuality'

• Don's latest attempt of 'those who are lying in sensual delight'

My proposition is rather more poetic than literal translation; more in the style of Lucretius than Epicurus and purely for entertainment purposes.

Here it is: 'those who are sleepwalking in boundless, sensual indulgence'.

The issue/concern I have with the limits notion is that, from Epicurus's perspective, the Cyrenaics were limiting their pleasure too much by not accepting mental pleasure into their definition.

The prodigals were giving into unlimited desires.

The Cyrenaics were limiting their sources of pleasure.

And yet, finally, the translation by Bailey is right "τας εν απολαύσει κειμένας" Epicurus means "sensual pleasures" because he has to clarify: " when we are speaking for pleasures we do not mean the "sensual pleasures" as the slanderers accuse us e.g. like Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus that accused Epicurus that "he used to vomit twice a day in consequence of his self-indulgent";

Moreover, when we say pleasures we do not mean the Cyrenaic pleasures, those pleasures in motion and as they are the same that do not have empathy (i.e. the narcissistic pleasures); and as today there is a new greek idiom: "whatever we eat and drink today, and we do not give a damn for tomorrow, and for the feelings of others" or as the english say with an idiom: "eat, drink, and by merry".

So, Epicurus clarifies: When we are speaking about pleasures we do not mean that we suffer of ............. [chose the right english word as prurience or salacity or carnality or lubricity].

Epicurus clarifies finally: that epicureans, based on their philosophy, they have acquire such prudence that is able to measure the LIMITS of ALL pleasures for reaching the qualified pleasures with the highest psycho-spiritual state: the joy, the bliss and calmness of the body and soul that Epicurus tells us about, ending his letter to Herodotus. In Lucretius also the word "voluptas" has a range of semantics: from physical pleasure to the most ecstatic divine pleasure.

Doctrine 3. The limits of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body nor of mind, nor of both at once.

Doctrine 20. The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time: but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short in any way of the best life.

Quote from Kalosyni

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean over-indulgence or indolence, as is believed by those who are ignorant, who don't understand correctly, or who oppose our school.

Dear Kalosyni Ηello and Joy !

IMO that "OR" between over-indulgence /indolence leads to aristotles' logic with the excluded middle and dilemmas of "either this or that". In this paragraph Epicurus puts the word "KAI" ["AND"] that means he speaks for one and the same issue.

Translation by Bailey : When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates AND those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind.

Translation by Norman DeWitt : When therefore we say that pleasure is the end we do not mean the pleasures of profligates AND those that consist in high living, as certain people think, either not understanding us and holding to different views or willfully misrepresenting us; but we mean freedom from pain in the body and turmoil in the soul.

Well, we forgot the translation by the great Norman DeWitt that I find it more accurate and clear!

"high living" means: a luxurious lifestyle involving lots of fine eating, drinking, parties, etc

Just putting one proper word i.e. "high living" and now see HOW DeWitt connects these two paragraphs by Epicurus as he explains what means "οι ηδονές των ασώτων ΚΑΙ τας εν κειμένας απολαύσεις" : "For it is not protracted drinking bouts and revels nor yet sexual pleasures with boys and women nor rare dishes of fish and the rest – all the delicacies that the luxurious table bears – that beget the happy life but rather sober calculation, which searches out the reasons for every choice and avoidance and expels the false opinions, the source of most of the turmoil that seizes upon the souls of men".

I'm using my translation with addition of "those situated in sensual pleasures" but I'm not 100% sold on that phrasing. I just had to get it in there. Still working on a revision of the full document before uploading a new version.

I wanted to break this down into its embedded phrases to see, and I am proposing this is how the argument goes when its all disentangled and re-arranged:

"Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say (1) the pleasure of those who are prodigal and (2)those situated in sensual pleasures like (A) those who are ignorant, (B) those who don't agree with us, or (C) those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. [132] For it is not (i) an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and (ii) not taking advantage of slaves and women, (iii) nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble."

Breaking it down:

Those ignorant or opposed to the philosophy of Epicurus:

(1) those who are prodigal

(A) (are) those who are ignorant

(2) those situated in sensual pleasures

(B) (are) those who don't agree with us

(C) (and) those who believe wrongly

Activities of those ignorant or opposed:

(i) endless strings of drinking parties and festivals

(ii) taking advantage of slaves and women

(iii) extravagant tables of fish and other things

What does Epicurus mean when he says "Pleasure is the telos"?

...whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind, bringing forth a sweet life, and self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble.

Quote from Don

Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that "pleasure is the τέλος," we do not say (1) the pleasure of those who are prodigal and (2)those situated in sensual pleasures like

Dear Don hello and joy!

Does "sensual pleasures" by Bailey is the same wording with "high living" by DeWitt" ?

I do not think so.

With this "sensual" we're going against to this which says: ALL pleasures are good (and those that are kinetic and the spiritual ones which, the spiritual, are just more intense).

I found to my english lexicon: sensual pleasure (physical, sensuous enjoyment). And an example in a sentence: "He often experienced a sensual pleasure when eating a chocolate cake". It is not an evil thing eating a chocolate cake i.e. the kinetic pleasures lead to the spiritual ones and vice versa. So, all pleasures are good!

Let's see again two photos with two phrases by Epicurus in which we realize that he agrees on the issue for the "sensual pleasures" that are the kinetic pleasures, the pleasures in motion. So, for this, in my previous comments I used to say for "the enjoyments/pleasures that lie out of limits".

Quote from Elli

With this "sensual" we're going against to this which says: ALL pleasures are good (and those that are kinetic and the spiritual ones which, the spiritual, are just more intense).

I found to my english lexicon: sensual pleasure (physical, sensuous enjoyment). And an example in a sentence: "He often experienced a sensual pleasure when eating a chocolate cake". It is not an evil thing eating a chocolate cake i.e. the kinetic pleasures lead to the spiritual ones and vice versa. So, all pleasures are good!

I agree: All pleasures are good. The problem is when people like the Cyrenaics limit themselves to *only* the pleasures experienced from the senses. They are denying themselves the "spiritual" ones, as you call them.

Of course, it's not evil to eat chocolate cake! I'll be the first to agree to that. However, it would be unfortunate to deny that the memory of that chocolate cake is pleasure, too.

I don't see any justification for DeWitt's "high living" other than if we take it to be a paraphrase of *only* taking pleasure in "endless strings of drinking parties and festivals, only taking advantage of slaves and women, and only eating at extravagant tables of fish and other things." Epicurus calls us to the FULL spectrum of pleasure, including those of the senses AND those of the mind/soul/spirit.

Activities of those ignorant or opposed:

(i) endless strings of drinking parties and festivals

(ii) taking advantage of slaves and women

(iii) extravagant tables of fish and other things

there is also a fourth that is very important:

(iiii) spreading around false opinions i.e. spreading myths and absolute imaginative ideas (that is the source of most of the turmoil that seizes upon the souls of men).

The forth is a real polemic against Plato. Plato is to blame for all the ignorants that are moving/acting among two things either they are ascetics or they are profligates. Between "either this or that" there is the third (tertum datur) which is US THE EPICUREANS.

As someone totally ignorant of Greek I will just interject here that in my view, since no pleasure is bad in itself, the emphasis should always be on the "limitless" or "without limit" aspect in a discussion of why a particular pursuit at a particular time might be ill advised. I personally do not think the words fame, power, money, or any of the similar types of pleasures where it is tempting to pursue them as ends in themselves would ever be labeled as negative in and of themselves by Epicurus.

I would expect him *always* to say that the issue in any pursuit is whether that pleasure is pursued as an end in itself, without limit. The reason (and only reason) that the unlimited pursuit of an activity, even virtue, is the problem, is that when we do so we take our eye off of pleasure itself and therefore suffer pain or less pleasure than we would otherwise.

ANY activity in human life is to be praised if it indeed leads to more pleasure than pain. So I personally would judge my confidence in any translation as whether it reinforces that view, and if a translation tends to indicate that there is a "type" or category"of pleasure that is to be avoided in itself, I would say that is wrong. The issue seems to me to always be in the "unlimited" pursuit of that pleasure.

And I would say this with the same confidence (even dogmatism) as I would say "the absence of pain is pleasure" or "the total absence of pain is the greatest pleasure" without a thought as to the specific activities involved, because I know from the premises with which we started out that "true reason" compels this to be the case, and therefore I do not *need* to know the particular desires or circumstances involved. And yes I know that Cicero will say that, like Velleius, I sound like I just visited the intermundia.

Quote from Cassius

no pleasure is bad in itself,

... Yes, but some pleasures are not choiceworthy.