Might be interested in this
Happy 20th!
I've always thought of (US) Thanksgiving as the Epicureanest of traditional holidays with the Founder's emphasis on gratitude.
Although I, of course, have issues with Plutarch, I've always enjoyed his Sayings of the Spartans. For example:
Someone on seeing a painting in which Spartans were depicted being slain by Athenians, kept repeating, ‘Brave, brave Athenians.’ A Spartan cut in with, ‘Yes, in the picture!"
Philip wrote at the time when he entered their country, asking whether they wished that he should come as a friend or as a foe; and they made answer, ‘Neither.'
A man who was visiting Sparta stood for a long time upon one foot, and said to a Spartan, ‘I do [p. 401] not think that you, sir, could stand upon one foot as long as that’; and the other interrupting said, ‘No, but there is not a single goose that could not do it.’
Leonidas:
When someone said, ‘Because of the arrows of the barbarians it is impossible to see the sun,’ he said, ‘Won't it be nice, then, if we shall have shade in which to fight them ?’
That site is a great resource! Thanks for sharing.
182 is pretty good:
Ὁ αὐτὸς ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἀριστίππου τί αὐτῷ περιεγένετο ἐκ φιλοσοφίας εἶπε· „τὸ πλουτεῖν μηδὲ ὀβολὸν ἔχοντα.“
[Diogenes], having been asked by Aristippus what he got as the result of his philosophy, said: “To be wealthy without having an obol.”
Don , You and I have disagreed on this before. I have thought of eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” I continue to do so, as I still think they are related. A disagreement among friends
: and one that itself may depend on context.
Maybe disagreement is a little strong 
I had to go back and see where we discussed this previously (Nothing dies on the internet 
) and found one of our threads:
So, I do agree with you that everything is contextual. I do think it is nigh impossible to look at someone and say "Well there goes a happy person!" Without having access to their inner life, we can't objectively say if someone's happy or not... or experiencing well-being, for that matter. Feelings and emotions are, by definition, subjective to the individual.
And I would agree that the Venn diagrams of "happiness" (writ large) and "well-being" intersect. I'm still not quite ready to completely embrace an expansive "definition" of happiness, but depending on how we're defining it or - maybe better - using it, I can accept talking about happiness as a sense of well-being which both equate to feeling pleasure about your life and the direction it's headed.
And, just to be clear, we're talking about a 2,300 year old philosophy originally taught in a language other than English which had its own semantic issues... evidenced by the fact that the people of Epicurus' and Philodemus' time argued with them about the Epicureans' use of the word ἡδονή (hedone) to encompass the fulll spectrum of what Epicurus saw as "pleasure."
living being
LOL 
Don't get me started on "living being," but that's a topic for another thread.
I hesitated to weigh in on this thread, but let's dive in...
the argument equating happiness with materialism and that consumerism leads to unhappiness, etc.
The word "happiness" needs to be defined...because it is both the transitory feeling that arises when human needs are met/fulfilled, and also the feeling of being okay with (or satisfied with) how one's life is unfolding.
I would say that the decision to seek "meaning" rather than happiness is directly related to buying in, or being browbeaten, into thinking that pleasure and happiness are disreputable goals.
These are exactly the reasons I personally dislike using the word "happiness" itself. In modern Western culture, this is what happiness means for most people: a fizzy, effervescent quality that many people see as inherently short-lived. "Are you happy?" means, it seems to me, to most people to convey a bubbly, giddy feeling. Of course, you're not feeling like that all the time. To recalibrate people's idea of "being happy," I would prefer using a different word for the overall direction of one's life. This sentence from a paper available through the National Library of Medicine illustrates my point:
the term “happiness” has been used to refer to momentary assessments of affect as well as to overall life evaluations. This absence of precision precludes understanding of the complexities known to coexist. For example, a person who is engaged in stressful or difficult activities, such as working toward an education or a job promotion, may find substantial meaning or satisfaction with life overall; a person who is generally suffering or lacking hope may experience temporary reprieve in an enjoyable moment.
Although it sounds clinical, "subjective well-being" (which I would maintain is a decent translation of ancient Greek eudaimonia) is a better word/phrase to use. I realize it's not going to catch on, but SWB is a common acronym for it in the academic literature now it seems. Again, I'm not advocating replacing "happiness" with SWB, but that's one of the reasons I tend to use well-being and not happiness when this comes up.
"meaning" is just a tool for the increase of our pleasure and the decrease of our pain... Though I understand where it comes from, I still think this is not a helpful tool.
That's pretty well put.
"Meaning" means many things to many different people. To me, it has the same problems as "happiness." "Meaning" can mean almost anything you want it to mean. It expands to fill any semantic field you want. "Happiness" is transitory and tied to materialistic culture; I'll just say "I live for meaning." No, you're just transposing one for the other.
I think we are all striving for "subjective well-being," a sense of satisfaction with our lives, a feeling that we're headed in the right direction, even though we will, of course, be faced with pain, hardship, loss, and so on, but inwardly we can face those things within an overall disposition of mental fortitude and satisfaction with the way we live and the way we decide to approach life. If I'm going to dedicate myself to the idea that "the wise man has more reasons for joy than vexation" that's a choice I make to maintain my "subjective well-being." I will face the day looking for moments of joy, pleasure, kindness, and reasons to have a positive affect and approach to life *without* any Pollyanna-rose-colored-glasses. I won't be a pushover or a milquetoast doormat. But I will also not be a sad sack with a dark cloud hanging over my head my whole life.
"The Universe" does not imbue our lives with "purpose" or "meaning." There is no "ultimate meaning." Your "life's purpose" is not "revealed" to you. If one wants their life to have "meaning," that's self-imposed. And, to me, "meaning" is simply that which gives you pleasure and a sense of well-being in your own life. Your purpose and meaning may hold no meaning for me. We can't tell anyone "your purpose is wrong" or "you're pursuing the wrong meaning to life."
Monty Python's film The Meaning of Life ends with this: "It's nothing very special, really. Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
I think I've mentioned this before in this thread, but to update:
The apparent innate ability in psychological experiments of babies and animals to identify fairness seems to me to be connected with the idea that there is a prolepsis of justice or just behavior.
PD31 through PD33 have always seemed to me to emphasize the fact that the book Principal Doctrines was not divided into tidy "sayings" but rather topical sections. 31-33 to me have always read as one unit (Saint-Andre translation with my own edits):
31. Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to neither willfully harm one another nor to be willfully harmed. With regard to those animals that do not have the power of making a covenant to neither harm one another nor to be harmed, there is neither justice nor injustice; similarly for those peoples who have neither the power nor the desire of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed. Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another nor to be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place.
τὸ τῆς φύσεως δίκαιόν ἐστι σύμβολον τοῦ συμφέροντος εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν ἀλλήλους μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι. ὅσα τῶν ζῴων μὴ ἐδύνατο συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν ἄλληλα μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι, πρὸς ταῦτα οὐθὲν ἦν δίκαιον οὐδὲ ἄδικον· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὅσα μὴ ἐδύνατο ἢ μὴ ἐβούλετο τὰς συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι. οὐκ ἦν τι καθʼ ἑαυτὸ δικαιοσύνη, ἀλλʼ ἐν ταῖς μετʼ ἀλλήλων συστροφαῖς καθʼ ὁπηλίκους δήποτε ἀεὶ τόπους συνθήκη τις ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν ἢ βλάπτεσθαι.
To me, there is an inherent connotation of willful harm being done to or by people. I realize that's maybe common sense but Epicurus is not saying we should never come to harm, either by chance or accident or neglect or something else. Δίκαιος to me conveys the need for intentionality by either party involved within a social context. If a wild animal attacks you, there is no justice or injustice. If you are hurt in a hurricane, there is no justice or injustice. However, if a person lies in wait or plots hurting you and carries that out, that's when Justice can be brought into the discussion.
As I understand, both Lucretius and Epicurus believed that true, correct understanding of the gods *was* pietas / εὐσέβεια. Does it seem Lucretius was more concerned with pietas than religio, the inward correct understanding than the outward visible practices? If the inside was correct, the practices could reflect that inward understanding.
I did a quick search in Perseus' Latin Lucretius and found 11 instances of religio:
However, I found no results, zero, when searching superstitio! I tried a couple permutations and nothing.
Luke Ranieri's latest video on Classical Attic pronunciation. A great intro to pronouncing ancient Greek words.
Dopamine and Endorphin systems
I continue to recommend the book Dopamine Nation for some interesting insights:
because of the desirability of life
As always, I think the original text brings even greater nuance to this. Living is not just desirable, it is to be welcomed! The word used there is:
ἀσπαστός (aspastós) = welcome (whose arrival is a cause of joy), a thing for which to be grateful
PS. It is directly related to the verb ἀσπάζομαι (aspázomai)
Possibly related to a verb meaning to draw toward oneself.
An addendum I'd add to my post #5 above is:
Positive feelings (ie, pleasure) can be categorized as "positive" because they are conducive, favorable, helpful, or beneficial to life or living.
Negative feelings (ie, pain) can be categorized as "negative" because they are unfavorable, unhelpful, detrimental, contrary to, or damaging to life or living.
Negative feelings are inevitable for living, mortal beings and those feelings are valuable by signaling what to avoid or flee from. But we need not embrace or glorify them. And yes, some negative feeling/pain is sometimes necessary for achieving positive feelings/pleasure by one's future self. My go to example is exercise. Those who claim to glorify pain as in "no pain, no gain" are actually saying that they will willingly experience pain but you know what... They leave out the gain, which is taking pleasure in the results of their action!
Here's my take:
I am literally in the middle of going through the fragments and texts and putting together a list of all the foods that the Epicureans were said to "limit" themselves. Lentil stew, anyone?
The reason I post here is the word Οἰνίδιον "small wine, poor wine" from Diogenes Laertius X.11
"at all events they were content with half a pint of thin wine"
The -ιδιον is a diminutive. Personally, it would make sense to me if this referred to young wine, low in alcohol, like "small beer."
even as you bore down to lower levels there's still "something" there(?)
That's been my perspective all along. There is never nothing. There's always something - in the widest sense - out of which things - in the widest sense - arise.
The gate to the garden is always open, Eric. Stop back anytime!
Good point
For me, whether I'm technically correct or not, I've been using sophistry to mean someone, or an argument that, uses clever unnecessarily complex language to sound smarter and more erudite than they actually are. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs."
