LOL it's still weird - but rewarding - to see my work quoted and referred to. I'm glad it continues to be of service.
Well I and others are hoping your editorial output will continue in 2026 so that you will find many more opportunities for rewarding moments in the future! 
Very interesting thread. I don't have much to add at the moment but I want to make a couple of comments:
1 - i seem to remember that there might be some relevant material in Diskin clay's article "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament"
2 - As this thread proceeds, please everyone be sure to keep the commentary general and not take argumentative positions on current-day issues of immigration / migration. Those are extremely important and even critical issues for everyone in modern life. I urge everyone to pay attention to those issues and take positions and relevant actions in their personal lives. There is going to be strong disagreement, however, on what those positions should be, and this forum is not the place to argue such positions.
3 - Another quote to factor into the mix would be what Diogenes Laertius records here as to what Epicurus said about the Cynics in the list of Epicurus' statements about other philosophers: "...Democritus Lerocritus (‘judge of nonsense’), Antidorus he called Sannidorus (‘Maniac’), the Cynics ‘Enemies of Hellas,’ the Logicians ‘The destroyers,’ and Pyrrho ‘The uneducated fool.’"
I'll admit the Buddhist practice is to notice those feelings then let them pass; however, becoming more attuned to what your body is telling you rather than ignoring or lying to oneself is in line with an Epicurean life. Training oneself to tune into your body's feelings is the first step in deciding what really causes you pain and pleasure.
Yes I agree with your comments Don. And this is is a good example of being careful about the goal of techniques before they are used. Is your goal as to emotions to "let them pass" or "listen to what they are telling you and take appropriate action"?
That's a huge difference, and I would expect that the diverging purposes probably also plays in the actual practices themselves. I'd very likely approach things that I wanted ultimate to ignore much differently than thinks that I want to understand, appreciate, and learn from.
Plus, in the context of the stress that Epicurus places on the pleasure that we can take from good memories of the past, from the Epicurean point of view we want to preserve the good memories in our minds as clearly as possible so as to draw upon them in the future.
Also as to "forgetting" there are obvious common sense aspects to choosing what you focus on. Beyond that, I would consider'. Are there any specific Epicurean texts that suggest practicing forgetfulness? I tend to focus on the specific statement in Diogenes Laeetius that the wise man will fell his emotions more deeply than will others.
Also as another general consideration I think it's a very bad idea to continue using terms from other languages without being specific as to how they translate. Obviously any analysis starts with exploring the etymology, but after that, continuing to use untranslated terms can lead to more confusion than light. We should work for clarity above all, and continuing to fail to translate can imply a kind of insider jardon or esoteric truth available only to a few that is a turnoff to those who are sincerely looking for practical benefit.
For those who might be interested in a starting point to research the evolution of the concepts from eudaemonia to felicitas to "happiness," I have asked Claude to summarize the major points and produce a bibliography of references to check. Take this for what it is worth - as a starting point only. Writing up a study of this would make a great project for anyone who had the time and inclination to do so.
I'll add to this that while it is certainly a first step to determine what is meant by the word eudaemonia/felicitas/happiness, I personally think it is almost and even more urgently a question as to whether we SHOULD PURSUE eudaemonia/felicitas/happiness as our central goal, or whether we should be pursuing PIETY (religion) or RATIONALITY (logic or something like it). Neither of those are particularly easy to define either, but we have to live NOW, and we therefore we're making a choice every minute of our lives whether we admit it or not. We can't and don't postpone making a commitment until we've read 50 books and obtained our doctorates in philosophy or religion.
In other words we can't wait forever debating "what does happiness mean." We have to decide NOW whether our goal is happiness, or obeying the gods, or being "rational," or being a "good person," or whatever. So I think it's a mistake to think that we have to know all there is to know about the etymology of happiness before we decide how to organize our lives.
The concept of happiness as the ultimate goal of human life has undergone a profound transformation over more than two millennia. What ancient Greeks understood as eudaimonia and Romans as felicitas differs markedly from our contemporary notion of "happiness." This essay traces the etymological, philosophical, and cultural evolution of this central concept, demonstrating how a term once rooted in divine favor and good fortune has transformed into a psychological state and, in modern times, an expected entitlement.
The Greek term eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) derives from two components: eu (εὖ), meaning "good" or "well," and daimōn (δαίμων), meaning "spirit" or "deity." The composite literally suggests "having a good spirit" or being favored by benevolent divine forces. This etymology reveals the ancient understanding that happiness was not merely a subjective emotional state but rather an objective condition of living well—a state of being watched over by favorable spiritual forces.
The daimōn in ancient Greek thought represented a guiding spirit or one's personal divine guardian. Thus, eudaimonia etymologically implies living in accordance with one's true nature or divine purpose, a conception far removed from modern notions of subjective pleasure or contentment.
Aristotle's treatment of eudaimonia in the Nicomachean Ethics represents the most influential ancient philosophical account. For Aristotle, eudaimonia is not a feeling or temporary state of mind but rather "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue." It is both the highest human good and the ultimate end (telos) of human action—the only thing desired for its own sake rather than as a means to something else.
Critically, Aristotle distinguished eudaimonia from hedone (ἡδονή, pleasure). While pleasure might accompany virtuous activity, eudaimonia consists fundamentally in the excellent performance of characteristically human functions—particularly the exercise of reason in accordance with moral and intellectual virtues. This requires:
moral excellences such as courage, temperance, and justice wisdom, understanding, and practical judgmentAristotle emphasized that eudaimonia is an achievement requiring sustained effort throughout a complete lifetime. As he memorably stated, "one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy."
A crucial feature distinguishing eudaimonia from modern "happiness" is its objective character. Aristotle held that one could possess eudaimonia without knowing it, and conversely, one could feel subjectively happy while lacking eudaimonia. For example, a person might feel content while their children secretly harbor malicious intentions toward them—such a person would experience subjective pleasure but lack genuine eudaimonia, which requires objectively good relationships.
This objectivity extended to Aristotle's conviction that only those capable of philosophical contemplation (theoria)—the highest expression of human rationality—could achieve the fullest eudaimonia. The contemplative life represented the most godlike human activity and thus the supreme form of flourishing.
While Aristotle's eudaimonism became canonical, other Greek schools offered distinct interpretations:
The Latin felicitas derives from felix, meaning "fruitful," "fertile," "fortunate," or "happy." The root connects to concepts of productivity and divine favor, originally associated with agricultural abundance and successful outcomes. The Romans personified Felicitas as a goddess representing good fortune, prosperity, and fertility.
While felicitas served as the Latin translation of Greek eudaimonia, it carried distinctive Roman connotations:
The goddess Fortuna complemented Felicitas, governing chance and fate. The Romans recognized that while virtue mattered, external fortune significantly influenced human happiness—a more pragmatic perspective than Stoic or Platonic idealism.
With Christianity's rise, Latin transformed Greek makarios (μακάριος, "blessed") into beatitudo. This concept, particularly in Augustine's and Aquinas's theology, relocated perfect happiness from earthly life to the afterlife vision of God (visio Dei).
Thomas Aquinas distinguished:
This theological development profoundly altered Western conceptions of happiness, subordinating worldly flourishing to otherworldly salvation.
The English word "happiness" reveals a strikingly different origin from its Greek and Latin predecessors. It derives from the Middle English hap, meaning "chance," "luck," or "fortune," borrowed from Old Norse happ with identical meanings. The Proto-Germanic root *hampą and ultimately Proto-Indo-European *kob- meant "to suit, fit, succeed"—emphasizing fortunate circumstances rather than inner virtue.
This etymology is shared across Indo-European languages:
The suffix -y simply means "characterized by," so "happy" originally meant "characterized by good hap/luck"—essentially "lucky" or "fortunate." The noun "happiness" thus meant "good fortune" or "favorable circumstances."
The evolution of "happiness" in English demonstrates a remarkable semantic transformation:
This shift from objective external circumstances (being lucky) to subjective internal experiences (feeling pleased) represents a fundamental reconceptualization. By the early modern period, "happiness" increasingly denoted a mental state of pleasure, contentment, and satisfaction—a meaning quite distinct from Aristotelian virtue-based flourishing or Roman prosperity and divine favor.
The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed a dramatic transformation in happiness discourse. Several developments proved crucial:
1. Secularization: Happiness migrated from theological frameworks to philosophical and political discourse, becoming an earthly rather than heavenly goal.
2. Individualization: The locus shifted from communal or civic happiness to individual psychological well-being and personal fulfillment.
3. Rights discourse: Perhaps most revolutionary, the American Declaration of Independence (1776) proclaimed "the pursuit of Happiness" as an inalienable right. This marked a watershed: happiness transformed from divine gift or virtuous achievement into a human entitlement.
4. Utilitarian calculus: Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism mathematized happiness as pleasure maximization, proposing "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" as the foundation of morality and legislation. This "felicific calculus" reduced happiness to quantifiable pleasure units—a far cry from Aristotelian contemplative virtue.
5. Psychological turn: Enlightenment thinkers increasingly understood happiness as subjective experience rather than objective flourishing. David Hume, John Locke, and their contemporaries located happiness in feelings, sensations, and mental states.
1. Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
2. Duration and Scope
3. Activity vs. State
4. Virtue Requirement
5. Divine vs. Human Agency
The transformation from eudaimonia to "happiness" involves both losses and gains:
Losses:
Gains:
Ironically, late 20th and early 21st-century psychology has witnessed a partial return to eudaimonic concepts:
1. Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Well-being: Researchers distinguish:
2. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan): Proposes that genuine well-being comes from fulfilling psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness—echoing Aristotelian emphasis on self-actualization.
3. Meaning and Purpose: Viktor Frankl, Martin Seligman, and contemporary positive psychologists argue that meaningful engagement, not mere pleasure, produces lasting well-being.
4. Virtue Ethics Revival: Philosophers like Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, and Alasdair MacIntyre have revived Aristotelian virtue ethics, challenging modern utilitarian and deontological frameworks.
Darrin McMahon and other scholars have noted concerning trends:
The evolution from eudaimonia and felicitas to modern "happiness" reveals not merely etymological change but profound shifts in Western civilization's understanding of human nature, society, and the good life. Where ancient Greeks and Romans saw happiness as objective flourishing through virtue, divine favor, and public prosperity, modernity has emphasized subjective psychological states, individual choice, and personal fulfillment.
The word "happiness" itself, rooted in "hap" (chance/luck), betrays this transformation. Once denoting fortunate circumstances and external conditions, it now primarily signifies internal feelings and mental states. This shift reflects broader movements: secularization, individualism, democratization, and psychological introspection.
Yet the contemporary revival of eudaimonic concepts in psychology and philosophy suggests dissatisfaction with purely hedonic or subjective accounts. We seem to recognize, as the ancients did, that genuine human flourishing requires more than pleasant feelings—it demands meaning, virtue, relationships, and engagement with purposes beyond ourselves.
Perhaps the deepest lesson from this history is that "happiness" contains irreducible complexity. It encompasses both feeling and flourishing, pleasure and purpose, subjective experience and objective achievement. The challenge for contemporary individuals and societies is integrating these dimensions: honoring subjective well-being while recognizing that lasting fulfillment comes from virtuous action, meaningful relationships, and contributions to communal good—insights the ancients understood profoundly and that modern happiness research gradually rediscovers.
The pursuit of happiness, far from being a simple or settled matter, remains what it has always been: the central question of how to live a human life well.
Description: The definitive historical account tracing happiness from ancient Greece through the Enlightenment to contemporary times. McMahon demonstrates how happiness evolved from divine gift to natural human entitlement, examining philosophical, theological, and political dimensions across two millennia. Key contributions:
Description: Contemporary philosophical examination of how classical Stoic and Aristotelian eudaimonism applies to modern life. Russell argues that happiness is fundamentally about having a life of meaningful activity. Key contributions:
Description: Accessible treatment of Aristotelian ethics and eudaimonia for contemporary readers, arguing that ancient philosophical insights remain relevant to modern happiness. Key contributions:
Description: Comprehensive academic compilation of theory and empirical research on eudaimonic well-being from psychological, philosophical, and historical perspectives. Key contributions:
5. Gåvertsson, Frits. "Eudaimonism: A Brief Conceptual History"
6. de Heer, Cornelius (1969). Makar, Eudaimon, Olbios, Eutychia: A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
7. Kraut, Richard (2018). "Aristotle's Ethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
8. Champeaux, Jacqueline (1982-1987). Fortuna: Recherches sur le culte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain. 2 vols. Rome: École Française de Rome.
9. Personifications of Eudaimonia, Felicitas and Fortuna in Greek and Roman Art
10. Lee, Jong Hyun (2017). "Christianity and Happiness"
11. McMahon, Darrin M. (2004). "From the Happiness of Virtue to the Virtue of Happiness: 400 B.C.–A.D. 1780." Daedalus, 133(2), 5-17.
12. D'Onofrio, Francesco (2015). "On the Concept of 'Felicitas Publica' in Eighteenth-Century Political Economy." Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 27, 449-471.
13. Deci, Edward L. & Ryan, Richard M. (2001). "On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being." Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
14. Huta, Veronika & Waterman, Alan S. (2014). "Eudaimonia and Its Distinction from Hedonia: Developing a Classification and Terminology for Understanding Conceptual and Operational Definitions." Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1425-1456.
15. Kashdan, Todd B., Biswas-Diener, Robert, & King, Laura A. (2008). "Reconsidering Happiness: The Costs of Distinguishing Between Hedonics and Eudaimonia." Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219-233.
16. Annas, Julia (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Heintzelman, Samantha J. (2018). "Eudaimonia in the Contemporary Science of Subjective Well-Being: Psychological Well-Being, Self-Determination, and Meaning in Life." In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of Well-Being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
18. Lomas, Tim (2021). "A Global History of Happiness." International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(3), 68-87.
19. Lauriola, Rosanna (2006). "From Eudaimonia to Happiness: Overview of the Concept of Happiness in the Ancient Greek Culture with a Few Glimpses on Modern Time." Revista Espaço Acadêmico, No. 59.
20. Bruni, Luigino & Porta, Pier Luigi (Eds.) (2005). Economics and Happiness: Framing the Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Bruni, Luigino & Sugden, Robert (2007). "The Road Not Taken: How Psychology Was Removed from Economics, and How It Might Be Brought Back." The Economic Journal, 117, 146-173.
22. "Eudaimonia." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
23. "Happiness." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
24. "Philosophy of Happiness." Wikipedia (for general orientation, not academic citation)
25. Rabbås, Øyvind, Emilsson, Eyjólfur K., Fossheim, Hallvard, & Tuominen, Miira (Eds.) (2015). The Quest for the Good Life: Ancient Philosophers on Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Glatzer, Wolfgang, Camfield, Laura, Møller, Valerie, & Rojas, Mariano (Eds.) (2015). Global Handbook of Quality of Life: Exploration of Well-Being of Nations and Continents. New York: Springer.
27. Online Etymology Dictionary entries:
28. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) entries (subscription required):
29. Positive Psychology Resources
30. ERIC Education Resources Database
This bibliography includes:
For a comprehensive research project, prioritize:
From this podcast a discussion has developed as to several important aspects of happiness. To make that easier to find in the future I have split off that part of the thread into the Ethics forum where it will reside here:
In regard to the DeWitt book as you read around the forum you will find varying opinions about it. I don't agree with everything he has to say either, but the reason I recommend it is that he gives a sweeping overview of the full picture, especially as to how it relates to Platonism. Most of the other resources we have are much more narrowly focused, and while they are often superior on their areas of focus, they don't do as well at integrating the issues of physics and canonics that the books on ethics tend to omit.
It's really difficult to figure out what "virtuous action" means specifically without considering some hard touchstone, like pleasure.
Well said and I think very true.
Wow that is very detailed and well thought out. Thanks for posting. I have just a couple of initial comments on first reading:
1. You appear to me the type of person to whom the DeWitt book would appeal and be very valuable. If you don't have it I hope you will get it.
16. Epicurus places pleasure as the goal of the good life. Pleasure characterized by ataraxia, or freedom from pain
The sentence or phrase "pleasure characterized by ataraxia or freedom from pain" I would say will need lots of elaboration because I would argue that all pleasure "is" absence of pain and placing " ataraxia in a central role without elaboration can lead to very dangerous tangents. Nature gives us only pleasure and pain, not ataraxia.
18. Some might argue that pleasure cannot be a goal and might set as a goal something abstract, such as virtue or some ideal unsupported by pleasure
Yes. I have personally modified my terminology over time to place less negative connotation on "abstractions" but I do think it is valuable to think about in terms of what is "real".
21. By focusing on abstractions, we become bogged down in logical and dialectical considerations, never achieving certainty. This is evident in how people can argue passionately about whether someone is "good" or "bad." Two different people can have two different perspectives on what is "virtuous," and if we ourselves strive for virtue, we must take these considerations into account since we treat virtue as an absolute. Ultimately, we will have trouble determining what to do
Same comment as above. Abstractions formed properly are very important and even necessary. Epicurean philosophy itself is an abstraction. It's probably more a question of how the abstractions is formed than the fact of being an abstraction.
25. The doctrine of ataraxia is also useful in thinking about pleasure. Ataraxia is a state of undisturbed well-being, free from physical and mental pain. It is useful because it allows us to examine our state and shows the limits of pleasure. It allows us to examine our state by directing us to reflect on what causes us pain. If we know which desires cause us pain (that is, interfere with our ataraxia), we can satisfy or suppress them depending on the circumstances and the nature of the desire
As indicated above I would now say that the better term for the goal is happiness or eudaemonia or Felicity and not ataraxia or even aponia. One of the most clear examples to use to consider that is that Epicurus said his last days were among his happiest but he was not without pain or disturbance. And if he has held "absence of disturbance" to be his primary directive he would have stayed home and tended a fig garden instead of leading a revolutionary philosophical movement that challenged every power structure of his day.
Thanks for posting!
Lot of work there and will take some time to read but thanks for posting!
I'm always stuck in the past with my word associations:
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/28a7f1e9-a647-42e6-8a48-a70269be58db
From Lucretius, Bailey translations:
| Book 1 after 80: sed casta inceste nubendi tempore in ipso hostia concideret mactatu maesta parentis, exitus ut classi felix faustusque daretur. tantum religio potuit suadere malorum. | but in the very moment of marriage, a pure victim she might foully fall, sorrowing beneath a father’s slaughtering stroke, that a happy and hallowed starting might be granted to the fleet. Such evil deeds could religion prompt. |
| Book 5-1194 O genus infelix humanum, talia divis cum tribuit facta atque iras adiunxit acerbas! | Ah! unhappy race of men, when it has assigned such acts to the gods and joined therewith bitter anger! |
From Jefferson's outline of Epicurus in 1819 letter to William Short, referencing both happiness and felicity:
Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus
| Physical | The Universe eternal. | |
| Its parts, great and small, interchangeable | ||
| Matter and Void alone. | ||
| Motion inherent in matter, which is weighty & declining | ||
| eternal circulation of the elements of bodies. | ||
| Gods, an order of beings next superior to man. | ||
| enjoying in their sphere their own felicities, | ||
| but not meddling with the concerns of the scale of beings below them | ||
| Moral | Happiness the aim of life | |
| Virtue the foundation of happiness | ||
| Utility the test of virtue. | ||
| Pleasure active and in-dolent. | ||
| In-dolence is the absence of pain, the true felicity | ||
| Active, consists in agreeable motion | ||
| it is not happiness, but the means to produce it. | ||
| thus the absence of hunger is an article of felicity; eating the means to produce it. | ||
| The summum bonum is to be not pained in body, nor troubled in mind | ||
| i.e. In-dolence of body, tranquility of mind. | ||
| to procure tranquility of mind we must avoid desire & fear, the two | ||
| principal diseases of the mind. | ||
| Man is a free agent. | ||
| Virtue consists in: 1. Prudence 2. Temperance 3. Fortitude 4. Justice | ||
| to which are opposed: 1. Folly 2. Desire 3. Fear 4. Deceit | ||
Feline is not related to Latin felix ("happy, fortunate, blessed").
It comes from a completely different Latin word: fēlēs (genitive: fēlis), which means "cat" or "wildcat."Etymology Comparison
| Word | Latin Root | Meaning of Root | English Descendants |
|---|---|---|---|
| feline | fēlēs / fēlis | "cat" | feline, felid, felinity, feliform, etc. |
| felicity etc. | felix (stem felic-) | "happy, fortunate, blessed" | felicity, felicitous, felicitate, etc. |
Key Points
Seems like I recall some variation of felicity being used by Jefferson but I'll have to look further (these two charts are chatgpt):
| English Word | Meaning in English | Connection to Latin felix |
|---|---|---|
| felicity | intense happiness; a state of blessedness or good fortune | Directly from Latin felicitas ("happiness, good fortune") |
| felicitous | well-chosen, apt, pleasing; producing happiness | From felicitas via French, meaning "fortunate" or "happy" |
| felicitate | to congratulate; to make happy (archaic) | From Latin felicitare ("to make happy") |
| felicitation | congratulations; an expression of happiness or good wishes | From felicitationem ("a making happy") |
| felice | (rare, archaic) happy, fortunate | Direct borrowing from Latin felix |
| felicific | (philosophy) tending to produce happiness | From felix + -fic ("making happy") |
| felicific calculus | Bentham's method for measuring happiness (utilitarianism) | Same root |
Episode 312 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: " Word Games Are No Substitute For Reality."
Also in this thread as to the proper interpretation of words like "happiness" let's not forget another famous example of a Latin word used in similar meaning: felix.
Presumably Virgil understood Epicurus very well, so it's interesting that his famous line used felix in this context:
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Wikipedia
Given modern association of felix with "feline" or cats I am not sure that helps much, but "Felicitations" appears to retain much of the same meaning, so it would be interesting to examine the Latin roots.
Welcome to Episode 313 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week at Section 40 of Part 5.
Last week one of the points made last week was that while a lot of philosophy can be viewed by non-specialists as a word game, there are deep differences in the foundations of the different schools that lead to dramatically different conclusions about how to live. The words can begin to blur together, and the definition-games can become tedious, but it is extremely important to know what is behind the analysis of any viewpoint in order to judge the ultimate result.
This issue of whether virtue is the only good, or whether virtue is sufficient for happiness, has tremendous practical implications. Who or what gets to decide what "good" is? Who or what gets to decide what "virtue" is? Who or what gets to decide what "happiness" is? Behind the Stoic / Platonic / non-Epicurean viewpoint is this idea that there are supernatural gods, or supernatural ideal forms, to which we should look to tell us what to do rather than the sense of pleasure and pain which Nature gives to each of us individually. The choice of school you choose to follow is therefore going to have tremendous implications on your life individually, socially, religiously, politically, and in probably every way imaginable.
Let's also in this context go back and quote the way Cicero quotes Epicurus as to the sorites syllogism we used last night and the full context of it.
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.41—42 (Usener 67, 69)
[Epicurus On The End] 'For my part I cannot conceive of anything as the good if I remove the pleasures perceived by means of taste and sex and listening to music, and the pleasant motions felt by the eyes through beautiful sights, or any other pleasures which some sensation generates in a man as a whole. Certainly it is impossible to say that mental delight is the only good. For a delighted mind, as I understand it, consists in the expectation of all the things I just mentioned - to be of a nature able to acquire them without pain... ' A little later he adds: 'I have often asked men who were called wise what they could retain as the content of goods if they removed those things, unless they wanted to pour out empty words. I could learn nothing from them; and if they want to babble on about virtues and wisdoms, they will be speaking of nothing except the way in which those pleasures I mentioned are produced.' (Long & Sedley - Hellenistic Philosophers)
We might want to repeat the "color gradient chart" to illustrate this.
When you playing with these Platonists and Stoics you're playing word games in which the dice are loaded and the games are stacked against you as much as any casino in Los Vegas or Atlantic City.
At some point we need to compare this to Rand's (Aristotle's) A = A A think is itself.
And let's also cite what Joshua mentioned from Lorenzo Valla:
I thought we already had a thread on this in the forum but it looks like I was remembering an old exchange I had back on Facebook in 2015 as to Freyr and his sidekick Gullenbursti. I'll set up this thread mainly as a placeholder to start.
I'll also see if I can reconstruct more of the past discusion but I see it referenced in a NewEpicurean post from 2015 with this:
Today’s post is brought to you in part by Freyr, the Nordic god of pleasure AND peace, and especially his sidekick golden boar, Gullenbursti, to whose contemplation today I owe to Jason Baker! Jason has also provided these links for further research on possible Freyr – Epicurean connections:
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…lse&h=PAQEDR7J2
Old Norse Religion in Long-term Perspectives
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…%2F&h=1AQEgTZCC
Roman Riches in Iron Age Denmark – Ancient History et cetera
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…lse&h=uAQG8cseL
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…%2F&h=DAQHxEuI_
A tentative comparison of Greek, Roman, and Norse myths by…
It's possible that this is the main thread I remember from Facebook:
Hmmmm I just noticed in posting that last link that that thread is "closed."
Not sure what happened there - probably the thread and the reason for closing it needs a revisit at some point! 
Ok I just scanned over that thread and now I expect that my subconsciously remembering it i part of the reason I responded to Daniel's initial post the way I did.
I'd put the Seneca quotation in a category similar to what I think Don (?) has cited in the past about Cicero exploring techniques for improving memory such as the "walk-through-the-house" (?) method. Nothing wrong with posting about that kind of thing at all.
If I'm remembering correctly most of the "concern' would probably be about pursuing certain specific "meditation" techniques such as are associated with eastern/buddhist ideas. I think Kalosyni and others know a lot more about issues there than do I.
At the moment however that doesn't seem to be the topic so we can defer those issues to another place and time unless/until someone wants us to open another thread on them.
i haven't closely studied issues involving meditation, but this discussion reminds me of that. I seem to recall we have one or maybe more threads with people talking about hazards of meditation at least in certain circumstances, so I will see if I can link one or more of those comments.
I'm probably thinking about this one from three years ago:
"Self-awareness" however is certainly something I agree is desirable, and I also know that I identify "lack of self awareness" as a huge problem.
An interesting and worthwhile discussion. Welcome aboard, Daniel188 !
Yes Don is right there are all many aspects of this discussion worth pursuing, so thank you Daniel for starting the topic!
