Posts by Kalosyni

DaveT

The updated "Forum Navigation Map" is now added to the dropdown menu under "Forum".

We now also have an updated "Forum Shortcuts" (I'll be making a few more adjustments to that). Also found in the dropdown menu under "Forum".

Quote from Raphael Raul

Hello Kalosyni, thanks for sharing the link to the 2010 interview with Ludwig Minelli.

I just now read that interview (which was linked within the quoted text)...I had been focusing on the main article about his death (linked in the big box above the quote.)

Thank you Raphael Raulthe additional article on David Goodall is also good to read.

Two types of situations here: 1) those with a terminal illness and who want assistance; 2) those who are old and have poor quality of life, but haven't been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and yet want assistance.

The "death with dignity" is so much better than having to come up with one's own method.

I thought it might be good to post this, since we have talked about "death with dignity" here on the forum. Here is a news article about him:

Ludwig Minelli: Dignitas founder dies by assisted suicide aged 92, group says

Ludwig Minelli founded the group in 1998, which has since helped thousands of people to die.

www.bbc.com

Quote

Across his life, he campaigned passionately for the right to die, giving Dignitas the slogan "dignity in life, dignity in death".

In a 2010 interview with the BBC, he said: "I am persuaded that we have to struggle in order to implement the last human right in our societies. And the last human right is the right to make a decision on one's own end, and the possibility to have this end without risk and without pain."

Quote from Cassius

Joshua is right to point to this one, which is relatively clear. And I think he's right to say that the test is not limited to "bodily" - unless someone is speaking in the sense that everything is "bodily" in the end - but that's not the sense being discussed as far as I can tell.

I think Torquatus makes clear and there's no reason to doubt him that mental pains and pleasures can often be more significant to us that bodily pains and pleasures.

The problem with including both bodily and mental pain, is that mental pain can arise from false views of reality. Lucretius warns about the pains that come from intense romantic infatuation. And there are other false views which can give mental pains...such as thinking that the stomach "needs" unlimited filling by variations of taste. So that means that using mental pains to determine when something is necessary doesn't always work.

And that is why I think we need a list of things that are necessary for the happiness of the soul. If you didn't have a single friend you could survive and your life would be very quiet, but you would lack a feeling of joy (joyousness/rejoicing).

Quote from Cassius

How do I know what desires fall into the various categories of natural and necessary desires, and are there hard and fast rules about how to apply the resulting categorization of a particular desire I am considering?"

Cassius Perhaps reformulating the question for clarity?

How do I know what desires are 1) natural and necessary; 2) natural but unnecessary; 3) unnatural and unnecessary ? And are there any rules on how to apply the categorization onto each particular desire I am having? Are there any additional methods or tools for making good choices and avoidances?

Then, can also include aphorisms such as: VS71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?

Quote from Cassius

You can't treat your projection as applicable to anyone else or even to yourself at a later time. A moment by moment analysis is all that is possible,

A thought experiment that can help clarify things is asking yourself:

For any given choice, ask: Will what I do and the outcome matter to me next week, in one month, in a year, or 10 years from now?

What you choose to eat for breakfast hardly matters (unless it is really unhealthy). But some choices absolutely matter in the long term.

Quote from Joshua

The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If pain results, the desire is necessary. If pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.

Joshuawould you want to add the word "bodily"?

So it would be:

The test of whether a desire is necessary is in determining whether a feeling of bodily pain results if that desire is not satisfied. If bodily pain results, the desire is necessary. If bodily pain does not result, the desire is unnecessary.

But where does this leave us with regard to health and happiness of the soul?

Quote from Kalosyni

• natural and necessary - desire for something for survival, for health of the body, for happiness of the soul
• natural yet unnecessary - desire for something which is difficult to get or causes much more pain
• unnatural and unnecessary - desire for something which is an "empty" concept which has no limit, and does not contribute to a happy life - such as power, great wealth, or immortality.

I'm just re-reading over this list and each definition, and realizing that things like cream-puffs and rootbeer floats would fall into the first category if they are easy to get, but they would fall into the second category if they were unavailable for you to make/purchase. (And if rootbeer made you breakout in hives it would also fall into the second category).

So then in essence this list has slightly different definitions than what has been said in other places on the forum, and it is also different from what is in Austin's book "Living for Pleasure"....

Thoughts?

How do I know what desires fall into the various categories of natural and necessary desires, and are there hard and fast rules about how to apply the resulting categorization of a particular desire I am considering?"

• natural and necessary - desire for something for survival, for health of the body, for happiness of the soul
• natural yet unnecessary - desire for something which is difficult to get or causes much more pain
• unnatural and unnecessary - desire for something which is an "empty" concept which has no limit, and does not contribute to a happy life - such as power, great wealth, or immortality.

This works as a type of remedy, by reasoning through one's desires. It is common sense to know what is necessary for survival and health of the body. For happiness we must rely on the knowledge and experience of wise people (elders) and likely Epicurus gave clear guidance in his writing (which we no longer have). We do see in the Principal Doctrines that friendship is necessary for happiness.

There is a hubris here in thinking that everything that humans imagine can eventually be technologically created...the hubris is in the idea of going beyond Nature, and the nature of things ("atoms/void").

Regarding the word hubris:

Quote

English picked up both the concept of hubris and the term for that particular brand of cockiness from the ancient Greeks, who considered hubris a dangerous character flaw capable of provoking the wrath of the gods. In classical Greek tragedy, hubris was often a fatal shortcoming that brought about the fall of the tragic hero. Typically, overconfidence led the hero to attempt to overstep the boundaries of human limitations and assume a godlike status; in response, the gods inevitably humbled the offender with a sharp reminder of human mortality. Take, for example, the story of Phaethon, a mortal son of the sun god Helios. In his hubris, Phaethon drives his father's sun chariot into the heavens but loses control of its horses. The chariot begins to scorch the earth, and Zeus strikes Phaethon down with a thunderbolt.

Source

Quote from DaveT

The sooner we accept that death means nothing to us, the more satisfying everyone's life will be, as limited at it is.

I think that there is a difference between saying that "death i s nothing to us [me]"...vs..."death means nothing to us [me]".

Maybe I am splitting hairs here...but...

The first one is a simply way of saying that you can't think about or experience death once it has occurred, and therefore for this reason we should not spend time worrying about it. The second one is seeming to say that the concept of death is empty of meaning, but this isn't true because we need to be able to think about the concept of death so that we don't procrastinate in living our lives to the fullest.

Quote from DaveT

Respectfully, aside from the use of vast computing power that virtually no one will be able to use even if it became possible, the hubris of those who create such a capability is laughable

This popped into my mind...having recently re-watched the movie "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", and there is a scene in which they return to the supercomputer that is working on "the question" and having been left to her own devices she is busy watching television.

Hi all! I'm excited to share that I started a project to improve website navigation, and no doubt that Cassius will implement these ideas in the best manner as he sees fit. I'd like to eventually see changes in the drop-down menu in the future, but in the meantime we'll be adding this "Website Overview" as a page (as well as adding it to the homepage) ...It will have clickable links and more of a "bird's eye view" of what we have to offer. This is still a work in progress, as Cassius will be adding the code to the website to create the card view (boxes).

Table of Links:

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

During last Sunday's Zoom meeting I mentioned the newly posted book by Gassendi-Bernier.

Here is an excerpt relevant to food:

Quote

We have hitherto treated of Pleasure, as it is generally understood: We shall now speak of that particular specifick Pleasure unto which a Wise Man confines himself, as being in its own Nature not only very easie to be obtain’d, but also most lasting and free from Repentance. In a word, that Pleasure that we before called the Tranquility of the Mind, and the exemption of the Body from Pain, now we have great Reason to call it most Natural; for at this sort of Pleasure Nature seems chiefly to aim, as not having regard to other Pleasures, which are always shifting and in a constant Motion, any otherwise than to make them useful in the obtaining this; as for Instance; It hath appointed the Pleasure of Tasting, to make the action of Eating more grateful, and by that means to oblige us to the Act, whereby to satisfie our Hunger, which is that pain we feel, and caused by the cravings of an empty Stomach. But in reference to the satisfaction and tranquility of Mind which we enjoy when Hunger is appeas’d. This Nature hath reserv’d as her last End, and designed it as her chief Good: We have great reason to say, that it is very easie to be obtain’d, because it is in every one’s Power to moderate his Desires, by supplying himself with things necessary for his Body, whereby to free it from Pain, and thereby render his Mind calm and easy. I say, That it is very lasting, because other Pleasures pass away in a Moment, and free from us, whereas this continues the same, unless it be interrupted and perish by our own Miscarriages. Lastly, I describe it to be very free from Repentance; for all other Pleasures may be attended by some Evil, whereas, this is altogether innocent, and draws upon us no such Mischief. - pg. 113

Here is the link to "Three Discourses of Happiness, Virtue, and Liberty".

Also, I'm posting a video which explains how certain foods spike the release of insulin, which causes fat storage, but also certain foods greatly increase food cravings because of how quickly they are digested.

So it is important to see all the causes regarding cravings and over-eating - that food choices affect us greatly.

Here are the slides that I presented in today's Zoom:

From Horace, to Philodemus writing to Piso, to the Vatican Sayings - we've got quite a few passages on the topic of food, desire, and pleasure within Epicurean philosophy...which I will be bringing up in the short presentation tomorrow, and which may lead to more philosophical discussion questions!

Quote from Cassius

It's the Epicurean who really understands the virtuous / honorable position on these issues.

Could the word "wise" be used here instead? ...It's the Epicurean who really (or correctly) understands the wise position on these issues.

It's also likely that we will want to discuss the category of desire "natural/unnecessary" which some people like to label as "extravagant".

Here is the video recommended to watch before Sunday's meeting:

Post

Bread And Water - Debunking The Myth of Epicurean Asceticism - By Don Boozer

youtube.com/watch?v=NYyjUkkC1fk

Cassius

January 21, 2025 at 6:20 PM