Posts by Kalosyni

Patrikios

Just thinking that seems like this forum might be a good place to speak up when seeing anyone who has written articles and is saying or implying that "Epicurus said to do XYZ" when there isn't any textual evidence.

Quote from Kalosyni

Now, here is where this seems to be a phrase that seems to be a kind of remedy -- when we are genuinely hungry we will feel pain, and when we no longer feel that pain from hunger then we no longer need the pleasure of eating.

I think that this remedy is only for those who need it, and also worth remembering that the letter mentions that it is not the pleasures of the profligates that are being referred to as pleasures.

Also, we can anticipate that the pleasures of eating, although transitory, they are reoccuring and "easy to get".

Some thoughts on a practical application of the phrase: "...but when we do not feel pain, we no longer need pleasure."

The following is Bailey translation:

[128] "The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure."

I've been thinking about how the ending of this paragraph pertains to eating food. When I was a kid and teen, and also in my 20's, food to me was very "unimportant". Growing up my family rarely went out to restuarants, and my mom often did not use spices or salt in her cooking, and there were very few snacks kept on hand. In my 20's living on my own, I cooked very simple food and sometimes skipped lunch just because I was too busy. Then approx. in my early 30's I started shopping at Trader Joe's (lived in California at that time)... and this was for me a beginning of a California "foodie" culture (healthy, sometimes organic, but also special cheese and specialty snacks.) And I think as time went on the American culture also really amped-up the concept of "food enjoyment" through various products and advertizing for restuarants.

Now what do you do when when the quanties of food available are so great, and eating becomes a desire for experiencing various tasty things... "just one more bite" or "just one more taste of this or that"...and suddenly you are carrying around 10 extra pounds of "love-handles" or a "muffin-top" belly that you can't seem to get rid of (and eating too much brings on a bloated feeling or lethargy) -- all of which is not conducive to living well and most pleasantly.

Now, here is where this seems to be a phrase that seems to be a kind of remedy -- when we are genuinely hungry we will feel pain, and when we no longer feel that pain from hunger then we no longer need the pleasure of eating.

Quote from Patrikios

In "Choosing to Remember and to Forget," Hiram Crespo speaks of nuktos meleta, the evening practice that Epicurus himself prescribed.

A word of caution here, that the writings by Hiram that are referred to in the above post can be characterized as unique interpretations of Epicurean philosophy that: at times incorporate elements and ideas from external sources -- and at times are speculative in nature (do not come from direct textual evidence).

Quote from Patrikios

Did we accomplish what we set out to do? Did we treat others with the kindness and fairness we expect for ourselves? Where did we fall short, and what might we do differently tomorrow to move closer to ataraxia?

If we look directly at the Letter to Menoeceus we see at the end of the letter this paragraph:

"Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself; and with a companion like to yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like unto a mortal being."

It says that the time to practice is "night and day" so this instead refers to doing it all the time (not just at night). And we see no mention of striving for a "perfect" ataraxia (by analysis of how we might have fallen short). The Letter to Menoeceus doesn't mention "treating others with kindness and fairness", but it does talk about dealing with the fear of death and also making good choices and avoidances.

So the best way to determine what Epicurus taught is to read the ancient extant texts, and I highly recommend doing so.

Coming up this next Sunday...is Fourth Sunday Zoom, open to forum members!

And a special invitation to our new members: EdGenX  D Campbell  jcblackmon  Daniel188  Creative Air  wbernys (and anyone else I may have missed listing).

Well be basing our discussion on the article by Emily Austin (linked in the previous post in this thread). Reading the article is optional -- I'll give a brief summary of the article before the discussion, and I'll frame the discussion questions so that everyone will have a chance to participate.

Please RSVP here in this thread (anyone who hasn't previously attended a Sunday Zoom)...so that we can add you to the private Zoom link conversation which goes out the day before the meeting.

(P.S. Depending on how many new people attend, the meeting may run slightly longer than usual to accommodate full participation and any questions).

Welcome to the forum jcblackmon !

Welcome to the forum D Campbell !

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

Quote from Daniel188

My intention wasn't necessarily to demonstrate that Seneca could offer any useful philosophical advice for Epicureans. Rather, I'm aiming to distill the specific exercise itself. In this case, regularly reviewing everyday events in order to learn from them.

In fact, I could have omitted Seneca's quote from this post altogether. I included it more as a curiosity that some ancient people used something like this.

I didn't see this post till after posting my reply.

But it is ending up as a fun "compare and contrast". (Hopefully fun, lol).

Here is the first part of the quote above, which has a different goal than in Epicurean philosophy:

"All our senses should be educated into strength: they are naturally able to endure much, provided that the spirit forbears to spoil them. The spirit ought to be brought up for examination daily. It was the custom of Sextius when the day was over, and he had betaken himself to rest, to inquire of his spirit: “What bad habit of yours have you cured to-day? what vice have you checked? in what respect are you better?”

I seems to suggest that a "perfectly virtuous" person will live a pleasant life, however it is also brings with the suggestion that this can only be done through the subjugation of emotions. This is not Epicurean, as we need emotions to see what is pleasurable and what is painful. The only people who need to subjugate their emotions are those who are pursuing empty/vain desires (great wealth, high status, etc) - since these are are difficult and painful to pursue.

There are times that anger is helpful, which is talked about by Philodemus. So that is an added layer that isn't covered here.

I would suggest doing internal self-reflection only on an as needed basis (and not nightly), when one feels internal distress. One could examine what is going on and think about how to make better choices in the future. Self-harm from over-indulgence (food or alcohol) results in physical discomfort, and the Epicurean takes note of bad results and thinks about what to do differently next time. Also, the Epicurean naturally understands that any time one causes harm to another human being that there will be consequences -- mental uneasiness and disturbance will result and the person harmed will seek restitution or retribution, lawfully or otherwise (or their friends or family will seek restitution or retribution) -- or if minor harmful actions are done then their reputation and trust will be lost.

Quote from Daniel188

We reflect on what we've accomplished from our planned tasks. We appreciate ourselves for completing them and allow ourselves to feel satisfied with our goals.

We reflect on what we didn't achieve and why. Was it due to a lack of desire, fatigue, or perhaps something that happened during the day that caused us to lose motivation? We don't rely on first impressions, which are often misleading, caused by regret or irritation. We try to calmly find the real cause of our failure.

The words here seems to point toward something that ought to be reflected on when starting ones day at an office or job -- a professional work issue -- and possibly the need to implement good time management skills.

Instead of thinking about work at the end of the day, it seems like an Epicurean might be more focused on all the pleasant things that happened - practicing gratitude for ones friends and family and reliving any happy/fun/pleasurable events that happened earlier in the day...anything that one appreciates.

So now thinking... an Epicurean might like to create a nightly habit of practicing gratitude and appreciation, and happy recollections on a nightly basis.

Also, adding in from Usener fragments...

48. It is better for you to be free of fear lying upon a pallet, than to have a golden couch and a rich table and be full of trouble.

Which could be shortened to: -------> A calm mind free from disturbance is more valuable than external riches.

Quote from Eikadistes

I'm fond of our Golden Rule, which might be a candidate (KD32):

μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι

neither harm nor be harmed

Though, that's just the formula for justice. The formula for an ethics of pleasure also includes being "noble" and "prudent", in addition to being "just" (KD5). At least, KD32 is a nice line I like to dispense.

Thanks! ...all of that needs to be included in a list of Epicurean ethics.

We are in the process of revising our member level designations, and we will eventually post these in a more prominent place. These levels have evolved over the years to designate different things, and they will likely evolve in the future.

Participant Levels are maintained in order to ensure a high quality experience for our regular members. Our intent is to eliminate participation by "bots," "trolls," and those who clearly hold views of Epicurean philosophy which are fundamentally incompatible with the goals of our forum. For review of those, please consult our Community Standards, Posting Policies, and 'Not Neo-Epicurean but Epicurean" statement.

Individual circumstances vary greatly and will be taken into account in level assignment decisions as we become aware of them. All level assignments, promotions, and changes are made at the discretion of the forum moderation team.

Level 01 - Introductory Member - All new registrants are automatically assigned to this level. This level will be granted limited posting privileges after contacting an Admin to complete the registration process, which involves providing a brief statement of the participant's background and interest in Epicurus.

Level 02 - Member - Level one participants are promoted to Level two after they have demonstrated by regular posting a sincere level of interest in ongoing study of and compatibility with Epicurean philosophy. Promotions to this level take into consideration: 1) contributing to the forum through useful posts (thoughtful questions or helpful comments): and/or 2) demonstrated adequate participation at a "Fourth Sunday Zoom" or other meet-and-greet events.

Level 03 - Established Member - Level two participants are promoted to Level three after demonstrating on-going support for the goals of the forum through regular participation on the forum and/or regular Zoom meeting attendance.

*****

Edit note: The contents of this post were edited and approved by the Forum Admin.

Here is an example of what I am thinking regarding definitions, however these could depend on subjective understanding of Epicurean ethics. This just a starting point, as I will have more. Then after the definitions, the summarized principals could follow.

I do see that this could create debate, as everyone uses words differently, so very subjective...but will give it a try anyway. (These will likely be subject to change as I develop this further).

*****

pleasure - both physical and mental enjoyment of "all of life".

all of life - past, present, and future.

eudaimonia - well-being; and the same as the enjoyment of all of life.

the highest pleasures - contain no pain and do not lead to future painful states.

variation of sensation - a type of temporary physical pleasure that occurs after pains of the body are removed.

In last night's Zoom an interesting idea came up regarding science and our understanding of the universe...that once it is understood that everything is natural and that observation is the basis, then the principals are revealed again and again, so that though likely that some modern thinkers/scientists read Lucretius, it is also likely that they could develop their ideas without having known of Epicurus or his natural physics, simply because of clear understanding and observation of the natural world.

If anyone at last night's meeting can expain/say this better, please do TauPhi  Joshua  Bryan

Here is an excerpt from an old post regarding DeWitt's 12 point summary:

Quote

1. Matter is uncreatable. << Meaning that at NO point did any supernatural force create the universe. The universe operates by natural principles, and by natural principles alone.

2. Matter is indestructible. << Meaning that the universe as a whole is always going to be here, and it isn't going to mutate into "heaven" at the whim of any god. And nothing other than matter IS indestructible. There is no realm of "ideal forms" of which what we see around us is a poor reflection. What we see is what we get.

3. The universe consists of solid bodies and void. << Meaning that there is no supernatural spirit, no divine fire, no First Cause, no Prime Mover - just elemental matter that operates according to its own properties.

4. Solid bodies are either compounds or simple. << Meaning that what we see around us is a combination of elemental matter and void, and that the properties of what we see derive from those combinations, and not from the whim either of a supernatural god or some whim that we ourselves wish to see. Nature is king, queen, and all that there is.

5. The multitude of atoms is infinite. << Meaning that we here on Earth don't sit here at the center of the universe with everything revolving around us, and God nodding approvingly on the "outside." There is no "outside" the universe.

6. The void is infinite in extent. << Meaning that just as there is no limit to matter there is no limit to the void. The universe is limitless in extent and the Earth is not some playground of the gods.

7. The atoms are always in motion. << Meaning that change is the only constant, and that only a fool who ignores nature would think that he or she can come to rest in the arms of God or in "heaven," or be punished in "hell." So long as we live motion is constant around us and in us, and it is up to us to manage our lives according to Nature; after that our consciousness comes to an end along with the other qualities of the atoms which combined to become our bodies and minds.

8. The speed of atomic motion is uniform. << Meaning that at the level of the ultimate essence of the universe everything is moving according to its own properties, whether we can see and observe it or not.

9. Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds. << Meaning again that regardless of what we can see with our eyes, at the atomic level motion is constant even in those combinations of matter that appear to us to be at rest.

10. Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time. << Meaning that our minds are not billiard balls where all our decisions and actions have been predetermined with mathemetical precision and no alteration from the beginning of time, which the Determinists and the followers of Fate would have us believe; it is possible for human beings to have real effect on the course of their lives.

11. Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size. << Meaning that the atoms have properties which we can discover and on which we can rely to predict the nature of the atoms and the combinations they form, which means that we have the ability to explore nature through science and improve our lives with the knowledge we gain.

12. The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable. << Meaning that there are limits to the properties of matter which gives rise to the combined bodies that exist in our own experience, and that as a result we can observe Nature and derive ideas about how Nature operates that will assist us in living - we are not faced with a chaotic and random universe in which no knowledge is possible, as alleged by the skeptics.

Display More

You can read the original post and thread: over here.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Kalosyni

Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.

So what you are exploring are 'formats" such as timeline vs spreadsheet vs venn diagram -- methods of presenting or visualizing data?

That could be good for the natural physics principals.

But I am thinking that would not work for ethics, because defining words could require several long sentences. I started a new thread to discuss development of a new list of Epicurean ethics (click to go to that thread).

I've been wondering if it is possible to summarize Epicurean ethics into shorter statements, in much the same manner as DeWitt came up with 12 points of natural physics.

But the mental world is different than the physical world -- you can point to physical objects and observe their behavior, but you can't physically point to internal states of pleasure and pain since they are internal and subjective.

And I am wondering if this is possible to do for Epicurean ethics, but because of word usage such as "pleasure" "gods" etc. it would be difficult to do. Much of ethics can't be boiled down to single short phrases without introducing ambiguities and the attempt to do so has been the origin of incorrect interpretations (such incorrect interpretations as ataraxia being more important then eudaimonia) -- one error in reasoning causes incorrect conclusions.

Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.

Also we need to have all the text on ethics layed out and then work toward creating the list.

Cassius has already done much on this in introductory material and videos, yet I believe that there are some points which haven't been added yet, and also I'd like to see them said in a more direct (simple) manner.

I've been thinking about how the following quote from Herodotus was said with regard to Epicurean natural physics -- but not with regard to ethics.

So each of the Epicurean natural physics principals could be summed up in one phrase (or short sentence)-- and which DeWitt gathered from Lucretius into the 12 principals.

Here is the quote I am referring to.

"For we have frequent need of the general view, but not so often of the detailed exposition. Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail."

I am wondering if this isn't possible to do for Epicurean ethics because of word usage such as "pleasure" "gods" etc. -- so therefore it would be difficult to boil down much of the ethics to single short phrases -- and the attempt to do so has likely been the origin of incorrect interpretations (such incorrect interpretations as ataraxia being more important then eudaimonia) -- one error in reasoning causes incorrect conclusions.

Perhaps one way to deal with this could be similar to how in our time we have legal documents which often have a long list of word definitions given before the main part of the legal explanation.

Also to consider how the physical world is different than the mental world -- you can point to physical objects and observe their behavior -- but you can't physically point to internal states of pleasure and pain since they are internal and subjective.

I'm starting a separate thread regarding the idea of defining and summarizing Epicurean ethics over here.

Particularly this week, is another prime example of Cicero's use of rhetoric to twist and bend an argument.

I found this interesting article, which mainly talks about Cicero.