Letter to Menoikeus translation by Peter Saint-Andre

All of these use some form of ἀπολαύσεις, and, from my perspective, have to have similar connotations among themselves. I've used the English gloss "enjoy" but am not satisfied with that as any kind of best solution. I've also added some inline commentary, basically thinking out loud...

Letter to Menoikeus 124

A correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life ἀπολαυστὸν (enjoyable).

(We enjoy all that life has to offer, we are grateful for the benefit we gain from being alive.)

Letter to Menoikeus 130

firmly persuaded that those who need luxury the least ἀπολαύουσιν (they enjoy) it the most,

(They can get enjoyment from having the benefit of partaking in luxuries)

Letter to Menoikeus 131

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people and those in ἀπολαύσει κειμένας (lit., those lying in enjoying),

(I find the 'lying in repose in enjoyment' intriguing, but I'm still not entirely sold. Especially now in light of the other uses. "those embedded in enjoying..." I don't know.)

Letter to Menoikeus 132

and ἀπολαύσεις (enjoying) boys/slaves and women

(enjoying the benefits of boys/slaves and women??)

VS27

Whereas other pursuits yield their fruit only to those who have practiced them to perfection; in the love and practice of wisdom, knowledge is accompanied by delight; for here ἀπόλαυσις (enjoyment) does not follow learning; but learning and ἀπόλαυσις (enjoyment) occur at the same time. (A more literal translation)

It's also instructive to see where Epicurus uses the word positively and where he gives it a negative connotation:

LM124, 130, and VS27 are positive statements (i.e., απολαυσισ should be pursued)

LM131 and 132 are negative statements (i.e., απολαυσισ should be avoided)

Why is απολαυσισ not what Epicurus means by pleasure when it's paired with κειμενας?

What is negative about ἀπολαύσεις with boys/slaves and women?

Per LSJ: απολαυω has the connotation of "enjoy," but more specifically "have enjoyment of a thing, have the benefit of it"

Also, I remain unconvinced that παίδων necessarily refers to "boys." In the plural, it can mean "children" in general but is also a common word for "slave." Enslaved people and women were members of Epicurus's school, in contrast to other philosophical schools. I need to resolve the ambiguity of ἀπολαύσεις before I'll be satisfied with simply accepting the translation sense of "having sex with boys and women." That sounds anti-sex, and Epicurus couldn't comprehend "The Good" without the pleasures of sex, etc.

P.S.: I may have to accept the ambiguity... but I'm not willing to throw in the towel quite yet. Although, I recognize this has taken on a slight tinge of obsession here.

Quote from Don

P.S.: I may have to accept the ambiguity... but I'm not willing to throw in the towel quite yet. Although, I recognize this has taken on a slight tinge of obsession here.

Dear friend Don, hello and joy!

Please, if you would like to permit me to eliminate your pain saying to you this known “follow the money” and then, maybe, you’ll realize what Epicurus meant for the enjoyment with “boys” and “women”. In this passage of his LTM for having the enjoyable company with boys and women, Epicurus means simply: spending your money for sleeping and having intercourse with them, and nothing else. In the opposite, having company with boys and women and be united with them as friends and members of your school-Garden, you do not spend your money, but if and whenever your spend some of your money for offering to them their natural and necessary, indeed, your do not spend you money in vain, and "scattering them to the five winds", as a newgreek idiom says too.

Since, for the wise man when he has accommodated himself to straits knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered. Thus for Epicurus - above all -is friendship, and friendship is a value without value, it is an invaluable value, it is a precious and of high quality value! And Epicurus always speaks for high quality values and as he calls them immortal goods. So simple is the issue, I suppose.

Quote from Don

Letter to Menoikeus 132

and ἀπολαύσεις (enjoying) boys/slaves and women

(enjoying the benefits of boys/slaves and women??)

Well, please replace the word "benefit" with the word "self-interest" and you will conclude what is going in such kind of relationships, and what Epicurus had in mind, as this issue is timeless (see my epilogue as a conclusion).

IF there is a self-interest without the existence of a common enjoyable benefit....that is in this enjoyment there is only one EGO who is NOT united with another EGO essentialy and in the basis of human values, and this means also that both use each other in the basis only of the self-interest, i.e. the one uses/manipulates the other one for the purpose to gain something, and both believe that this is enjoyable...but, this enjoyment is not real and pure pleasure, it is not eudaemonia, it's just ephemeral, fake and illusionary enjoyment, indeed.

Since when the self-interest is lost any relationship is lost too and any enjoyment. And this is something that brokes also and the social coherence.

So Epicurus in a way, in the basis of his ethics, yes, he is doing and politics. Because he makes us wondering: who are those that approaching each other in the basis of a self-interest? Only STRANGERS that the mean among both of them is the money or things, and not real feelings of friendship or any kind of virtues. So the prudence that is the root of all virtues does not exist between such kind of relationships as well as any pure pleasure does not exist.

In the opposite "παίδες" as "boys" or slaves as you name them, and women as "hetairai" were maintaining and some strong bonds with their masters i.e they became as friends, since and between them the human values were existing and these feelings were exist after the familiarity. And this is what Epicurus wants to point out too OR to remind to Menoeceus to not loosing his credence in the real relationships/friendships OR whatever he saw in his society as an invasion of strangers maybe (?) why not since after the great Alexander, the invasion of strangers was a real fact.

However, imo Epicurus does not want to speak disparagingly for persons i.e. boys as "slaves" and women as "hetairai", but for situations that is the exploitation of man by man, when there is only a self-interest and the mean is - in the majority of these relationship - is the money, the waste of money and a mania for high-living.

So dear friend Don, yes, we do not disagree actually, but keep also in mind, that the relationships that Epicurus points out here is in accordance with the motive which is: "the sexual intercourse", and the gun which is: "the money" and the offender that is: "the profligate".

Since Epicurus has not any interest to mess up with the laws, and the masters, because he was a master too. As he had "παίδες", boys i.e. servants and women "hetairai" who lived next to him all of their life in the Garden. So, the only thing that he mentions here is the consequence of a choice that is "ασωτεία" i.e. "debauchery". Since, he speaks for the one that he is not the master of himself, and if someone is not the master of himself, he has no self-temperance or self-sufficiency, so he is the one that does not deserve to have servants and hetairai or a woman as a real companion in life, and real friendships in general.

Conclusion: So, here Epicurus describes a situation - as a choice - out of limits. He describes the opposite of prudence, self-sufficiency and sober reasoning. He describes situations of the powers and such kind of leaders, in the basis from historical facts (see the passage with Demetrius the Besienger). He describes what means to have an ephemeral "enjoyment" with boys and women and spending money for having company and sleeping i.e. have intercourse with them due to the fears. Since making sex (and not love/eros) in such a way is when someone wants to cover his fear of death. So, again here, the great Epicurus points out the cause of the causes that is fear of death. And of course Epicurus thoughts hide and politics, because he describes common affairs/relationships and narcissistic phenomena that exist in our era, which are timeless and painful.

Dear friend Don, my sincere thanks because, you gave me inspiration for making more fruitfull thoughts on what exists between the lines and Epicurus thoughts in his LTM.

The specific activities Epicurus calls out in the letter as saying he doesn't mean these when "we say" pleasure are:

(i) endless strings of drinking parties and festivals

(ii) απολαυσεις of slaves/boys and women

(iii) extravagant tables of fish and other things

Unfortunately, I don't see anything about paying money to have sex with those two groups. There's not necessarily money involved in the other two activities, it's the attendance at endless parties, festivals, and feasts that appears to be the problem.

PS. I cross posted with Elli, so I didn't have a chance yet to read her post directly above. On a first glance, there looks to possibly be some good topics brought up. I'll respond later. Promise.

ES 54. We must not pretend to study philosophy, but study it in reality, for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health.

ES 74. In a philosophical discussion he/she who is defeated gains more, since he/she learns more.

With frankness of speech: All these days, I read again and again this passage 130-131 from LTM, and as I read again all of our comments, I've realized clearly that I am the one that I was defeated, so that I'm the one that I learned more, and especially from our friend Don!

Epicurus with the phrase “enjoyments with boys and women" does not speak for “sexual pleasures” indeed!

When he speaks for “paides”, he does not speak for “paiderasty”.

When he speaks about "women", he does not simply speak for them as “hetairai” that having sexual intercourse with men. He speaks clearly for those enjoyments of a self-interest person who takes advantage from the labor of another person.

Epicurus speaks clearly for <<the exploitation of man by man>>.

So that in this passage with the word “paides” Epicurus means “slaves” and is proved that is against <<slavery>>. Because, for Epicurus when a man had the misfortune for living as a slave and when that slave becomes THE FRIEND and member of his school, so then, this man is not considered as slave anymore for Epicurus.

Moreover, Epicurus with the word "women" points out the situation of women in general, and how men had considered them as low level human beings and in his era (see Hesiod, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon et.al). So, Epicurus in this passage, is proved that he is against <<patriarchy>> and he is proved as a feminist and the harbinger of that movement that is called as <<feminism>>, though I have to note (as woman) here, that when I say “feminism”, I mean that woman who enjoys her advantages of her sex and her important role in a society. And that means she is next to a man in terms of equality and complimentary to each other, and not of that "feminism" that wants woman to be transformed and behave as man and vice versa.

Conclusion: Epicurus is a genuine rebel of his era, and YES, he DOES POLITICS.

A fruitful rebellious politics that is considered timeless

Yes indeed, Epicurus is the Master of all masters in politics that - as every political idea has in its basis a way of thinking – i.e. a philosophy, the epicurean philosophy is connected with REALITY, and has nothing to do with imaginative “ideas”.

Epicurean philosophy cares for the “eudaemonia” of the Human being in reality of life, and it points out all the timeless phenomena of life as (social, political, religious, finance etc etc) that are against humans' eudeamonia, and pleasurable living. Epicurean philosophy is real as it gives and real solutions on every issue that concerns every real relationship among the people.

Long live Epicurus ! (*)

And again: my sincere THANKS to our friend Don! Frankly Don, for me and from now on, you are such a precious, genius and inspirative epicurean friend !

36. Epicurus’ life when compared to other men’s in respect of gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend.

(*) Diogenis Laertius book X - Epicurus

[9] But these people are stark mad. For our philosopher has abundance of witnesses to attest his unsurpassed goodwill to all men--his native land, which honoured him with statues in bronze ; his friends, so many in number that they could hardly be counted by whole cities, and indeed all who knew him, held fast as they were by the siren-charms of his doctrine, save Metrodorus of Stratonicea, who went over to Carneades, being perhaps burdened by his master's excessive goodness ; the School itself which, while nearly all the others have died out, continues for ever without interruption through numberless reigns of one scholarch after another;

[10] his gratitude to his parents, his generosity to his brothers, his gentleness to his servants, as evidenced by the terms of his will and by the fact that they were members of the School, the most eminent of them being the aforesaid Mys ; and in general, his benevolence to all mankind. His piety towards the gods and his affection for his country no words can describe. He carried deference to others to such excess that he did not even enter public life. He spent all his life in Greece, notwithstanding the calamities which had befallen her in that age; when he did once or twice take a trip to Ionia, it was to visit his friends there. Friends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden.

You are too kind, Elli. This discussion continues to be both pleasurable and enlightening for me as well.

From Aristotle on his treatise "for animals": "Of molluscs the sepia is the most πανουργιότατον (that means the most: clever, invetive, ingenious, and resourseful) only species that employs its dark liquid for the sake of concealment".

The words as "περιμήδης/πανούργος, πολύτροπος & πολυμήχανος" were the characteristics for Odysseus by Homer, that means the ingenious, invetive, and resoursful. So, Epicurus for greeks could be considered invetive like a sepia, and like the man Odysseus, or as the english say : "a sly old fox" (?)

In this passage from LTM Epicurus writes a letter (only to one person Menoeceus) but in the same time he is throwing his dark liquid - ink- to all of his rivals and leaving them aside, like a sepia. And they, as ignorants, think that he speaks about "the sexual enjoyments" and the like. Actually the fact is that Epicurus speaks for them so disparagingly and called them all as "profligates" that means also "frauds" and "dishonests".

Εpicurus is not an ideologue and a dreamer that wants to be the leader of crowds and the mobs for leading people to a revolution with blood and strife. Epicurus is invetive on how to blind that great monster called as Polyphymus.

For this, Epicurus is adressed to each person one by one exhortating how to live free and be the real master of him/herself in every era. Epicurus hits slowly like the sea water on the rock that has the power to tranform the shape of rock, and in every era.

In this phrase, it is like hearing him: Hey, hypocrites, when we say pleasure we do not speaking of what you have in your mind and what you are doing all the time and this is the reason that you accuse us epicureans.

P.S1. And even that great DeWitt did not take a clue what Epicurus point out in this passage.

Bravo Don that is a really good catch that is done by you on the translations. You make me so happy!

PS2 And now, this good catch has to become known to our greek epicurean friends.

- Dear Greek epicurean friends, what does Epicurus mean with the phrase "enjoyments with paides and women"? HA

The translation of the text in the photo that is circulated on the internet is as follows:

Philodemus "on wealth":

You write, Xenophon, that the slave's procreation is a sign of loyalty to his master. Are there no other reasons for procreation?

Is the slave's loyalty to the master the only reason? And why should it be the loyalty to the master and not some uncontrollable love passion?

Hesiod you write that in order for the house to prosper I must marry a woman who must be a virgin. Why definitely a virgin? Are the virgins better at financial management than others?

In financial management, Aspasia was "more scientific" than Socrates. None of you is able to compete Aspasia (for whom we don't know if she was definitely a virgin - my comment - George Kaplanis).

What is the appropriate way to call a waiter in a restaurant?

The french say: "garçon" that means literally "boy" and this has a bad meaning if we read the etymology of the word:

Garcon (n.) c. 1300, "a boy, a youth" (early 13c. as a surname), from Old French garçun "menial, servant-boy, page; man of base condition," ["in jocular use, 'lad'" - OED]; objective case of gars (11c.; Modern French garçon "boy, bachelor, single man; waiter, porter"). This comes, perhaps via Gallo-Romance, from Frankish *wrakjo- or another Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *wrakjon (source also of Old High German recko, Old Saxon wrekkio "a banished person, exile;" English wretch). From c. 1400 as "young male servant, squire, page." Meaning "a waiter" (especially one in a French restaurant) is a reborrowing from 1788.

How the greeks do call a waiter in a taverna?

The greeks call a waiter in a taverna as "paidi"/boy...

- Paidi, would you bring me another glass of wine please? oh my goodness, greeks call the waiters as slaves!

How the english do call a waiter in a restaurant ?

An english speaking person gave the following answer:

catching the waiter’s eye and smiling

politely saying “Excuse me” when he is nearby or “Excuse me, when you have a moment” if he is busy with another table

Raising my hand an nodding or smiling if he is some way away.

What I do not recommend is what my brother-in-law’s father did in a fancy French restaurant in London: snapping his fingers and bellowing “Garçon!” - eliciting the response: - “Monsieur, I am not a dog!”

Another english speaking person gave this answer:

It depends on where you are and what the service is actually like. In the West a polite beckoning motion may have the appropriate effect, do that in Thailand and you will probably get punched... that beckoning motion? It's very rude in Thailand. In China the expected form is simply to bellow for a server something which would probably get you punched in America. I would tend to observe what others around me do and follow their lead if I were unsure.

How the japanish do call a waiter in a restaurant?

A person who been living in Japan for about 20 years now... he points out the attached photo :

the japanish just press a button! LOL

"Garçon" is nonsense taught in obsolete French lessons.

Decades ago, this word was already considered as impolite to call a waiter in France.

To all epicurean friends, have a nice day!

Those are great Elli!

I see those as very similar to:

The sun IS the size that it appears to be!!

Dear epicurean friends hello and Joy!

"Enjoyments with paides and women...and fish".

For our epicurean issues, this good catch that was done by Don, it has to be considered as the first really quite a find!

Dear friend Don , I found more material in the basis of the etymology of the greek words, and for the further strengthen on your argument on what the above sentence means really, and as is written by Epicurus.

1. The word “paides” does not mean “boys” indeed. It means “slaves”.

Epicurus in his last Will (which was an official document and it had to be written according to official terms) writes and ending it with the freedom of his slaves:

Ancient Greek text: <<ἀφίημι δὲ τῶν παίδων ἐλεύθερον Μῦν, Νικίαν, Λύκωνα· ἀφίημι δὲ καὶ Φαίδριον ἐλευθέραν.>>

Translation: And of my slaves, I hereby emancipate (or I set free) Mys, and Nicias, and Lycon: I also give Phaedrium her freedom (or I set free Phaedrium).

2. And now, my dear epicurean friends, stand up from your chairs, your sofas and your beds to see clearly what means the word “women”, as used by Epicurus! 😊

Ancient Greek text: Δημοσθένης, Κατὰ Νεαίρας  [122] Τὸ γὰρ συνοικεῖν τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὃς ἂν παιδοποιῆται καὶ εἰσάγῃ εἴς τε τοὺς φράτερας καὶ δημότας τοὺς υἱεῖς, καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἐκδιδῷ ὡς αὑτοῦ οὔσας τοῖς ἀνδράσιν. Τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ᾽ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν θεραπείας τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν.

The above passage is from Demosthenes “against Neaira” (that was a Hetaira) and was one of his speeches for use in private legal suit inside a court. The translation was made by Norman W. DeWitt and his son Norman J. Dewitt.

Demosthenes was a politician and a lawyer and of course some of his speeches were presented to judges inside the court and in the city of Athens. Demosthenes died 19 years before Epicurus was born. So, the words that used by Demosthenes had same meaning and in the era of Epicurus. Thus, we read in this paragraph something that is remarkable, and the translation in English as follows:

Translation by Norman W. DeWitt and his son Norman J. DeWitt, [122] “For this is what living with a woman as one's wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one's own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our person, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.

My translation [122] : “Because this is what living with (a woman) is – to have children (by her) and to introduce the sons to the members of the phratry (i.e. brotherhood or kinfolk) and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one's own. Because, we have the hetairai/courtesans for the sake of pleasure, the concubines for the daily care of our body, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.(*)

(*) My note: And that is because we, the greeks - and not only greeks- we have them ALL (hetairai/courtesans, concubines and women i.e. wives) for our enjoyments taking advantage from them as to be subjects and things. Please, remember the phrase by Epicurus in LTM : “enjoyments with slaves and women... and fish”!

Thus, it is not a coincidence “why”, greeks, made such wars among them. Because, for maintaining and having at the same time not one, not two, but (3) three women with children (legitimate or not legitimate) in their life, they have to be rich! How else?

So that Epicurus when he writes “women” he means literally “wives”. Women that have to be pathetic accepting this kind of choices of their husbands, and treating them ALL as to be subjects without free will! Τhat’s how so οpressed were women in ancient Greece and in the basis of what is called “patriarchy” that this word means: man in the house was the alpha man, the “pater” i.e. “father” that means a Despotic and a Ruler who decided for all the issues concerning in the house and in the city! And are same narcissistic-despotic behaviors and phenomena that exist in our era too!

Yes indeed, Epicurus was a real liberator for his era and for every era. A real savior and a healer that gave the remedy to mankind. And as Norman DeWitt points out somewhere:

[..."I prefer to agree with Plato and be wrong than to agree with those Epicureans and be right," wrote Cicero, and this snobbish attitude was not peculiar to him. Close to Platonism in point of social ranking stood Stoicism, which steadily extolled virtue, logic and divine providence. This specious front was no less acceptable to hypocrites than to saints. Aptly the poet Horace, describing a pair of high-born hypocrites, mentions "Stoic tracts strewn among the silken cushions." Epicureanism, on the contrary, offered no bait to the silk cushion trade. It eschewed all social distinction. The advice of the founder was to have only so much regard for public opinion as to avoid unfriendly criticism for either sordidness or luxury. This was no fit creed for the socially or politically ambitious. Yet this similarity is apt to be obscured by more conspicuous differences.

[...(Εpicureanism allied itself instead with the lonian tradition of medicine, which was philanthropic and independent of political preferences. Just as all human beings, men, women and children, slave and free, stand in need of health, so all mankind, according to Epicurus, stands in need of guidance toward the happy life. This view of things tinged his philosophy with the color of a gospel and bestowed upon it a pragmatic urgency, which is lacking in Socratic thought. With the leisurely meanderings of dialectic he had no patience. Truth, he believed, must possess immediate relevance.

[..."Love goes dancing round and round the in habited earth,crying to all men to awake to the blessedness of the happylife." About the identity of this Love there can be no doubt; it is the Hippocratic love of mankind, which to true members of that craft was inseparable from the love of healing. In this teaching Epicurus displayed his originality.His new design for living was applicable everywhere, irrespective of country or government. He had emancipated himself from the obsessions of his race, political separatism and the exclusive faith in political action.The whole world was a single parish. It is mere justice that other original features of the new philosophy should receive recognition.

[...Cicero, a crafty trial lawyer, in his last years employed the tricks of the courts to discredit Epicureanism with his contemporaries and with posterity. Among other false charges he upbraided Epicurus for neglecting methodical partitions of subject matter, classifications and definitions. Yet the pragmatic partition of knowledge that was standard in Cicero's own day and through out the greater part of ancient time was the invention of the despised Epicurus. His division was three headed:The Canon, Physics and Ethics...]

I'm glad Elli brought up Diogenes Laertius (DL) 10.21. I had been meaning to check that line. This is where Epicurus himself also uses the word παίδων and where it explicitly means "slave" because he is freeing Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and Phaedrium:

DL 10.21.b, Epicurus's Will: παίδων = "slaves" (male and female enslaved people)

ἀφίημι δὲ τῶν παίδων ἐλεύθερον Μῦν, Νικίαν, Λύκωνα: ἀφίημι δὲ καὶ Φαίδριον ἐλευθερίᾳ.

Of my slaves, I manumit Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and I also give Phaedrium her liberty.

Epicurus also uses the word to mean girl and children (girl & boy) in his Will. Nowhere does he use the word to mean exclusively "boys" as most translators want to do in the Letter to Menoikeus, DL 10.132. I see no compellig reason to require the "having sex with boys and women" route there.

DL 10.20, Epicurus's Will: παιδίῳ = "girl" (female child)

τὴν δὲ προῖκα τῷ θήλει παιδίῳ, ἐπειδὰν εἰς ἡλικίαν ἔλθῃ, μερισάτωσαν Ἀμυνόμαχος καὶ Τιμοκράτης ὅσον ἂν ἐπιδέχηται ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἀφαιροῦντες μετὰ τῆς Ἑρμάρχου γνώμης.

And when the girl comes of age, let Amynomachus and Timocrates pay her dowry, taking from the property as much as circumstances allow, subject to the approval of Hermarchus.

DL 10.21.a, Epicurus's Will: παιδία = "children" (girl and boy)

Ἐὰν δέ τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων περὶ Ἕρμαρχον γένηται πρὸ τοῦ τὰ Μητροδώρου παιδία εἰς ἡλικίαν ἐλθεῖν, δοῦναι Ἀμυνόμαχον καὶ Τιμοκράτην, ...

And if anything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus grow up, Amynomachus and Timocrates shall give from the funds bequeathed by me,...

DL 10.22, Epicurus's Will: παίδων = "children" (boy and girl)

σὺ δ᾽ ἀξίως τῆς ἐκ μειρακίου παραστάσεως πρὸς ἐμὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιμελοῦ τῶν παίδων Μητροδώρου.

But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."

DL 10.132, Letter to Menoikeus: παίδων (καὶ γυναικῶν)

οὐδ᾽ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν

I also find Elli's suggestion that we should take γυναικῶν as "wives" and not simply "women" intriguing as well.

I'm still working on the exact connotation of ἀπολαύσεις.

To review, Epicurus is saying in 10.132, that when he says pleasure, he does not mean:

• an endless string of drinking parties and festivals
• ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν
• an extravagant table of fish and other things

I remain leaning toward the sense of not taking advantage of slaves and women/wives, but now Elli has planted the idea in my mind that... Could the phrase means something like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" to go along with an ambivalence toward marriage and children. It seems to harsh, since Epicurus was obviously concerned with the well-being of the children of Metrodorus and was not averse to having children named after him. I don't *think* so... but I'm raising it here for discussion. This continues to be a very illuminating and enjoyable discussion. Would that we just had MORE of Epicurus's writings!!

PS. Even though I brought it up for discussion, I remain highly skeptical of a reading like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" as in not being a husband and father. It doesn't fit with the drinking and feasting that bracket ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν. I still find the possible connotation intriguing but not compelling. Wanted to get that in here.

For this Elli –

“Conclusion: Epicurus is a genuine rebel of his era, and YES, he DOES POLITICS. A fruitful rebellious politics that is considered timeless … Epicurean philosophy cares for the “eudaemonia” of the Human being in reality of life, and it points out all the timeless phenomena of life as (social, political, religious, finance etc etc) that are against humans' eudeamonia, and pleasurable living. Epicurean philosophy is real as it gives and real solutions on every issue that concerns every real relationship among the people.”

– I simply say, “Thank you!”

Quote from Don

remain leaning toward the sense of not taking advantage of slaves and women/wives, but now Elli has planted the idea in my mind that... Could the phrase means something like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" to go along with an ambivalence toward marriage and children. It seems to harsh, since Epicurus was obviously concerned with the well-being of the children of Metrodorus and was not averse to having children named after him. I don't *think* so... but I'm raising it here for discussion.

Hello and Joy to all the friends.

Frankly, dear friend Don, I do not like to plant such an idea that "enjoyments with paides as boys/children, and women" is an ambivalence of Epicurus toward marriage... this hypothesis is going too far since, it would be and against this: "The wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in treatises On Problems and On Nature, but only in accord with the circumstances of his life".

"enjoyments with paides/slaves and women...and fish"!

All these are considered as "things" i.e. beings without feelings and free will. All these have masters that decide on how those would live, since all these are not the masters of themselves to decide on how they live in freedom.

We have to understand and point it out of what Epicurus is against, and on what epicureans were accused/slandered by those that do not understand what means "pleasure" for EP. Of course, when speaking about pleasure we do not mean any mania for luxury and wealth, and as I said above: "Thus, it is not a coincidence “why”, greeks, made such wars among them. Because, for maintaining and having at the same time not one, not two, but (3) three women with children (legitimate or not legitimate) in their life, they have to be rich! How else?"

We exclude that when Epicurus says "paides" does not mean sex with boys i.e. the paiderasty. It is a false notion that greeks were inclined to paiderasty and homosexuality in general. The love for the young man was inside the gymnasium or in the Academy of Plato, and that was something of a platonean love/eros i.e. more imaginative, and not the sexual intercourse itself. Since for ancient Athenians (and Spartans) - above all - was the production of children by their wives. With homosexuality and paiderasty there is no production of children.

But anyway, with the phrase "enjoyments with paides and women", we said that "paides" means "slaves" and women means "wives". Since we read on the wise man and this: "The wise man will not have intercourse with any woman whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus".

Laws did not forbid to a man having intercourse with a hetaira or a mistress, as those women were libertarians. imo laws forbid to have intercourse with a legitimate wife of someone else since this is called "adultery". Ιn ancient Athens the only reprehensible adultery on the part of the husband was the one he committed with the legal wife of another Athenian, and the reason was that by this act he wronged another citizen.

And again, from Demosthenes that is the general picture: "Because, we have the hetairai/courtesans for the sake of pleasure, the concubines for the daily care of our bodies, but women to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”.

Maybe Epicurus with this word "women as wives" had in mind the wife of Pericles Aspasia that was first as hetaira and Pericles made her as his legitimate wife.Please remember the photo I posted with Philodemus with Aspasia. So, that Epicurus maybe he says: we do not enjoy hetaira as a person without free will, but we can see her as a woman that is equal in rights with us, as she is educated same with us, and is able to be next to us, as any legitimate wife that - above all- she must have "parrhesia"/frankness of speech for all the issues concerning life.

The epicurean Leontion that was hetaira and the wife of Metrodorus is an example as Aspasia was for Pericles. in a few words, it is like Epicurus declares: In my Garden, all women are human beings, they can be educated, they are able to speak with "parrhesia/frankness of speech" for all the issues…and not as Plato who excluded them from his academy.

FYI I'm in the process of creating a revised edition of my Menoikeus translation & commentary... More hopefully soon.... Of course, I have additional thoughts on απολαυσεις etc in 131 & 132. Stay tuned...

Okay, here is a sneak preview of my Menoikeus update. I still have a lot to do before posting the revision, but I thought this would stir up some controversy so here it is

Quote

I am now of the opinion that τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας should be interpreted as "those who are stuck in enjoying (only) those things which provide enjoyment from outside themselves." To me, this is a direct reference to the "incorrect" beliefs of the Cyrenaics and others in relation to pleasure. And, yes, the reader is correct that I'm referring to the kinetic and katastematic pleasures that Epicurus mentions. I realize this is considered controversial by some, but I believe this best explains Epicurus's being able to use ἀπολαύσει in both positive and negative senses.

Epicurus is on record for including both kinetic and katastematic pleasures within his definition of "pleasure." I have come to understand kinetic pleasures as those arising from factors and circumstances outside of ourselves; katastematic pleasures are those arising from within ourselves (such as tranquility, pleasurable memories, etc.). While Epicurus conveys (along with Metrodorus and Philodemus) that we can be more confident in katastematic pleasures, he clearly says that we should continue to "delight" in kinetic pleasures when they are available. It is the exclusivity of "getting stuck in" only seeing kinetic pleasures as pleasure that Epicurus is objecting to here with τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας.

PS. I am MORE than happy to entertain other ideas. This one is the one (so far) that makes the most sense to me.

Hello Don,

What about taking the second τὰς back to τὰς ἡδονὰς?

Quote from Little Rocker

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.'

A series of post originall in this thread have been split into a new thread entitled:

Thread

Modern Neuroscience And The Katastematic / Kinetic Debate

[…]



[…]

I address that elsewhere in my translation commentary, but, briefly, even if that's the course taken, I would still stand by something like "those (pleasures) stuck in the enjoyment of (only) those things from outside ourselves."

My take is that this is a direct swipe at the Cyrenaics.

Don

June 29, 2023 at 2:14 PM