I'm asking this in complete ignorance on the subject, but is it possible that ancient Greek wine was made through a different process than today's French and California wines? Some type of extremely strong retsina? Something that needed water mixed in just to be palatable as well as safe to drink?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_G…fore%20pressing.
https://www.badancient.com/claims/ancient…oman%20cultures.
https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/09/why-ancient-greeks-mixed-wine-with-seawater/
And it is of course Cinco de Mayo... bottoms up!
I believe that in the Voula Tsouna article, "Philodemus and the Therapy of Vice", it's mentioned that an Epicurean vice is a type of action which generally results in pain.
I just ran across this article, which is interesting but probably only peripherally pertinent. Haven't made it to the exhibition, so I'm not aware of its focus. It does have a catalog, though, for any digital design geeks 🤓 
Intensity, location, duration 
Might Elayne's article from several years ago be pertinent? She used the term "fancy pleasure" to elucidate the trouble with the common take on katastematic pleasure as I recall.
For me, a way that is is much more useful than kinetic-katastematic in thinking about various pleasures is in terms of intensity, duration and location. This can be found in the PDs, although not without some effort. Another practical way to examine particular pleasures and pains is to look at whether you can expect them to result in net pleasure or net pain, and act accordingly.
And he didn't say "Ever since I was 50 and reached a complete understanding of my philosophy I have never felt any pain" or anything like that. He acknowledged his pain but held that his pleasures far outweighed them and that he was happy to be alive to experience that day.
It's been some time since I read Gosling and Taylor, but if I recall correctly, they consider the understanding of philosophy to be something of a one-and-done pleasure and they call it katastematic. But as you say, that by no means implies an end of pain. Pains and pleasures still come and go (for some reason an image of swirling around comes to mind) but the stable pleasure of correct philosophy can outweigh most, if not all, of the pains.
A motto refers to a guiding principle, whereas a slogan is more of a pithy phrase, although it, too, can reference a guiding principle.
Don't overthink it. Do less than you want to. Approach practice as indulgence instead of work. Choose what is self-reinforcing. Old age is not for the faint of heart... These are some of my current favorites; I find them useful based on circumstances, but to others they may certainly be trite or even meaningless. Basically I use them as pointers. And sometimes they just make me chuckle.
Personally, I'm using "slogans" these days. Many of the best ones are ones that I just make up to fit my current situation, some aren't Epicurean but are compatible with the philosophy, depending on what I keep in mind when thinking about them. I put one on the home screen of my phone and think about it throughout the day. Then after a couple of days I switch to another one.
A model for this is the Buddhist lojong slogans. Depending on the translations, some of those are applicable. Of course, those refer back to Buddhist concepts, but I just happily bastardize them to my own ends.
PD09: If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.
Pleasure can be examined in terms of intensity, location and duration. If you really look at your present experience at any time, you may find that you're happy even though you just stubbed your toe. Or that your toe feels intense pain, but your belly is pleasantly full. As to mental pleasures of the bittersweet variety, I think of them as comparable to multitasking. Current neuroscience (to my understanding) has found that multitasking is in actuality just rapid task switching. In the same way, I would posit that bittersweet is actually bitterthensweetthenbitterthensweetetcetc. The pleasant memory prompts the pain of loss, which might then be replaced by a pleasant memory and so on. Or a pleasant memory may prompt the pain of loss, and the pain of loss lingers. Or vice versa.
An experiment that I occasionally do is when I feel like I'm in a neutral state, I try to really examine how I'm feeling. I always find that I'm experiencing pleasure and/or pain: it's just that the intensity may be very low, or a pleasure somewhere is offsetting a pain elsewhere. We are constantly experiencing pleasure/pain, both as a complete organism and in our various parts. Some of these concepts need to be felt as well as reasoned out, which is part of the point of the Epicurean canonic.
As to the physical pleasure of not stubbing your toe... Physically, not stubbing your toe is a non-event, since it didn't happen. Assuming that you have no other pain in your toe, your toe would have an absence of pain and thus pleasure.
Speaking as a man of a certain age, if my whole body had no physical pains, I would be in a state of great pleasure!
Quote from CassiusWhile it's a certainty in Epicurean philosophy that there is life elsewhere in the infinite and eternal universe, and it seems likewise a certainty that we as humans are the best and the brightest,
Cassius did you mean to say "we as humans are not the best and the brightest"? That would be my understanding....
Well that's quite the juicy question, and a subject of debate since long before this forum! We have several threads on this very topic, but here's an overly brief synopsis:
The academics have basically divided into two camps on this subject, while I and I think some others have a hybrid view. One view is the realist view, which is that the gods exist (or at least Epicurus believed they exist) as he has described them. The other view is the idealist view, which is that the gods are an ideal culmination of Epicurean philosophy, and an ideal to strive for even though they don't exist.
Some things to examine:
- Epicurus has described the gods as material, in a way that follows the overall logic of his materialism. This can be compared to his description of sight, of memory and of other phenomena in terms of atoms and void and nothing supernatural.
- My knowledge of the culture of Athens of his day is sketchy, but I also think that he saw some value in festivals and worship, as long as one kept in mind that there is nothing supernatural. There are various pleasures to be had in celebration and in being part of a community, and I think that he wanted to make use of these.
- Then there's the fact that science has advanced in the last 2300 years. Epicurus was a philosopher, not a scientist. Much of his thinking was remarkably prescient, but we also have far more information than he had access to. So, on the one hand we need to consider his ideas in light of modern science. But on the other hand we need to do our best to follow his reasoning and motivations, which is extremely difficult given the limited quantity of his extant texts.
I'm giving it a spin, as well.
I haven't yet read the article, but the term "Epicurist" is interesting in that it seems to avoid being confused with the foodie implications. It co-opts the co-opting of "Epicurean."
Rule #1:
Whenever there is a conflict between Cicero and other sources, don't trust Cicero.
Quote from Julia
Only when I ask "Name the satisfaction/relief this will bring" am I forced to actually think about the consequences, and because they're positively framed, it also motivates me to follow through:
Quote from
This is going beyond the scope of what we have available from tKalosynihe extant texts of Epicurus
VS71. Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?
Quote from Julia…whatever you Choose or Avoid will bring satisfaction and/or relief, won't it?
Not necessarily. For example, a bowl of ice cream at 9 in the morning might bring an excess of pain over pleasure. This could be in the form of anything from indigestion to self-self-loathing. For this reason, this choosing is a place where one can examine the category of desire being addressed. A prudent choice would then theoretically lead to a preponderance of pleasure, and an imprudent one to a preponderance of pain.
This brings to mind a previous thread discussing the best words in English for "choice" and "avoidance". I don't think any agreement was reached at the time, but in the current context it becomes apparent that a third word is needed which describes the act of reasoning/intuition that leads to a choice or avoidance. There may be such a word in the Greek, but that's beyond me. My offering at the moment is "weigh" for the act of reasoning/intuition, and "select" or "reject" for the intention resulting from said "weighing". After the intention comes the performing of the resultant action.
Looking at it in this way, it becomes a three step process: 1) weighing, 2) selecting or rejecting, and 3) doing. Further, as I'm thinking of it currently, 3) isn't "doing or not doing", it's actually doing one thing or doing another thing. Rejecting eating the 9am bowl of ice cream doesn't result in doing nothing but in moving on to another endeavor, be it active or passive. So in this way selecting isn't either/or, it's actually choice and avoidance. In selecting one thing, you reject another, and vice versa. This relates to the idea that there's no neutral state: just as we're always experiencing either pleasure or pain, we're never doing nothing unless we're dead. At any moment, we've chosen to do one thing and are avoiding myriad other things.
It would be interesting to know if the Greek supports this interpretation of and v or in any way.
