Posts by Kalosyni

Welcome to the forum LAMAR__44 ...here are my thoughts to give some correction and guidance:

Quote from LAMAR__44

pleasure is the sole good, and pain is the sole evil, everything else that we should pursue has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pleasure, and everything we avoid has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pain. This helps significantly in judging what is worthy of pursuit and what isn’t.

I think that your wording here makes for an incorrect understanding and application -- the meaning of the word "sole" = only. This sets you up for a big problem, because sometimes we do what is needed for good health and for long-term happiness. If you think with the word "sole" the error could be that your pleasure has to be sensory oriented or somehow a big pleasure. And it is important to understand that anything that we do that doesn't contain painful sensations is also labeled "a pleasure". We also see in the letter to Menoeceus: "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided."

Quote from LAMAR__44

it’s hard for me to think of this with relationships. I think it makes sense to evaluate before starting a friendship or romantic relationship whether there will be net pleasure or pain, but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

Your error here is in thinking too abstractly (net pleasure vs net pain). I think most people wouldn't tolerate a friend who seems to criticize all the time or who is impatient or unkind - we all know how to instinctively avoid these people. Even if the person is a family member (sibling, etc) then we make sure to keep our distance (for self-protection). So as soon as we sense that a potential friend has those characteristics, we should have no qualms in steering clear of making friends with a person like this.

Quote from LAMAR__44

I must say that there is no intrinsic value in my relationships with my loved ones, they only have value in so that they’re instrumental to my pleasure, but in doing this, I lower my experience of pleasure within these relationships. But that would result in less net pleasure then if I decided to disbelieve in hedonism, so to live according to hedonism, I need to disbelieve in hedonism.

First, regarding your cognition of "pleasure" in relationships -- if you think too abstractly then perhaps that is why you may be for some reason not feeling enjoyment. Joy is a feeling, and it has concrete and specific causes. All relationships are about about a type of "inter-dependence"...meaning that we "inter-are" and we experience things based on what all the people in the relationship do. Pleasure not only comes from what my loved ones do, but pleasure also comes when I give pleasure to my loved ones.

You don't choose your family, but you choose your friends -- so potentially your friends will be bringing more love and acceptance into your connection and interactions (for example, since in friendships there won't be any conscious or unconscious sibling rivalry that could occur in family relationships).

Regarding your idea of "no intrinsic value except through being instrumental for pleasure" -- there is an error of thinking here also -- because you are again stuck in a concept and have forgotten your heart. The sense of our heart contains the emotions and feelings together with breath of the body and the feelings of aliveness. All of this is the reason why it says in the Principal Doctrines: PD27. "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship."

Here is an interesting Q & A, but looks like the main article is behind a paywall.

Quote

Tell us a bit about your article.

My article explores Frances Wright’s defense of Epicurus in her A Few Days in Athens (1822). Epicurus was an ancient Athenian philosopher and a materialist, who argued for the senses and pleasure as the best gauges of virtue. Controversially, he also welcomed women as well as enslaved people to his school. Through her work on Epicurus, Frances Wright developed her own understanding of the relationship between pleasure and virtue, and this served as the basis for her feminist philosophy.

Despite its popularly in the nineteenth century, A Few Days in Athens has been hard to place in feminist philosophy and history. It’s generically uncertain; in places, it reads like a philosophical dialogue, but it also borrows tropes from the novel. In addition, pleasure remains difficult to discuss within feminism because of its association with sex and the body. My article grapples with Wright’s attempt to make pleasure central to living a virtuous life.

You can read the full Q & A here:

Q&A with JoEllen DeLucia: 'Frances Wright’s A Few Days in Athens' - Edinburgh University Press Blog

Frances Wright redefines feminist philosophy through Epicurus's ideals of pleasure and virtue in her 1822 novel.

euppublishingblog.com

This very short video may be relevant:

Here's a fun and short travel video in Greece (and they have done other places in the world too).

Eikadistes Thank you for your work on the Philodemus text! I see over at your link (the Twentiers website), there is this symbol used in the text:

[...]

...which is used when parts of the text are missing. Does the source text give any indication of how many words or lines are missing at each of these points?

And in general regarding Philodemus texts, are there differences of whether this is addressed or not, to be found depending on the text or the source?

Don  Bryan

This very good article talks about "The 'Busy' Trap", written back in 2012, and perhaps relevant for some people still today. And this article helps shed some light on VS14, bringing a modern twist.

Happiness causes, which (according to the above article) are unique to each person, meaning that the specifics and the quantities are variable and different for each person - there is no "one-size-fits-all" prescription for happiness. And this also shines the light on how some people can be happy even when they do not have certain externals, because they have figured out how to compensate from other areas of their lives (either other externals or through internals).

External Causes of Happiness:

Having sufficient necessities, such as enough food to eat, adequate housing, and safety, etc.

Having good health

Having good friendships

Having good family and spousal relationships

Enjoyment of common pleasures: tasty foods, enjoyable scenery or living environments, enjoyable music and art, etc.

Enjoyment of intellectual pursuits or hobbies

Internal Causes of Happiness:

Good attitudes

Good feelings

Good thoughts

Good moods

*****

I think that Epicurean philosophy would say that happiness comes from a combination of both External and Internal causes.

I just found this interesting study:

Quote

Does happiness come from within, or is it shaped by external influences such as our jobs, health, relationships and material circumstances? A new study published in Nature Human Behaviour shows that happiness can come from either within or from external influences, from both, or neither — and which is true differs across people.

The Secret to Happiness Lies Within You, Or Society — Or Both

What is the secret to happiness? Does happiness come from within, or is it shaped by external influences such as our jobs, health, relationships and material…

www.ucdavis.edu

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

and

Happy Vernal Equinox!

These two Wikipedia entries seems relevant for this section of Lucretius:

Causal reasoning - Wikipedia

Inference - Wikipedia

Robert You made an interesting comment in last Sunday's meeting regarding inference, and if I recall it was something about the correct way or the steps for inference (though I don't remember if you went further saying what the steps were).

Also, thinking that we may want to see what Philodemus has to say about inference.

Here is a list of areas to reflect upon, for those who feel a need to increase happiness. This list can help guide your reflections, enabling you to identify specific areas that may be causing issues or need adjustment, and you can take your time with each aspect to gain deeper insights into your life.

Personal Well-Being

• Emotional Health: Assess feelings like happiness, anxiety, and sadness.
• Physical Health: Evaluate fitness levels, diet, and medical conditions.
• Mental Health: Consider stress levels, coping mechanisms, and mental clarity.

Relationships

• Family: Evaluate the quality of relationships with family members.
• Friendships: Reflect on the supportiveness and fulfillment of friendships.
• Romantic Relationships: Consider communication, intimacy, and satisfaction.

Career and Education

• Job Satisfaction: Analyze your fulfillment and engagement at work.
• Career Growth: Reflect on opportunities for advancement and professional development.
• Skills and Education: Evaluate whether your skills align with your career goals.

Financial Health

• Income: Assess whether your earnings meet your needs and desires.
• Spending Habits: Reflect on how you manage your expenses and savings.
• Debt Management: Consider the impact of any debts on your financial well-being.

Personal Development

• Hobbies and Interests: Reflect on whether you engage in activities that bring joy.
• Goals and Aspirations: Evaluate your short-term and long-term objectives.
• Skill Development: Consider opportunities to learn new skills or pursue interests.

Work-Life Balance

• Time Management: Assess how well you balance work, leisure, and responsibilities.
• Self-Care Practices: Reflect on the frequency and quality of self-care activities.
• Boundaries: Consider whether you maintain healthy boundaries in personal and professional environments.

Environment and Lifestyle

• Living Situation: Reflect on your home life and its impact on your well-being.
• Living Conditions: Evaluate noise, safety, and overall comfort in your environment.
• Social Environment: Consider the influence of your community and social circles.

Spiritual Life

• Beliefs and Values: Reflect on your core beliefs and whether your life aligns with them.
• Spiritual Practices: Consider whether you engage in activities that nourish your spirit, like meditation, art classes, etc.

Contribution and Impact

• Community Involvement: Reflect on your engagement with community services or volunteer work, as one possible method of creating connection with new people
• Legacy and Impact: Assess what kind of impact you wish to have on others and the world, and consider if you have skills that you can teach to others in your community.

Quote from DaveT

I see evidence that Epicurean teachings are far more widespread than many think it to be. Epicurus' name is not attached to the actions and beliefs of people, especially in western, educated, Industrialized, rich, democracies (WEIRD). Just listen to any marketing of medical providers and pharmaceuticals, and you hear reduction of pain and suffering as a goal that can be achieved.

Quote from DaveT

I see Epicurean beliefs as unstoppable.

I think that the term "Epicurean" can't be applied to someone who only has one single concept that they follow which might be considered "Epicurean". Epicureanism is a collection of specific concepts that guide one's outlook and choices.

This illustrates an on-going problem with speaking about "Epicureanism" -- how it is understood, what does it represent, what is "Epicureanism" and what isn't "Epicureanism" and who do we consider as "being Epicurean" - these questions will be answered differently depending on whom you ask. And the only way to begin to deal with this is to start labeling all of the common varying interpretations.

Here is an example: You could call something "Torquatian Epicureanism" or "Herodotian Epicureanism" or "PD08 Epicureanism" or "PD26 Epicureanism" etc, etc, (minimalists, maximalists, etc.)...depending on how things are interpreted.

Also, of importance is a list of "Epicurean beliefs", which would be within various outlines of Epicurean philosophy.

Regarding a lack of followers, as well as eclecticism...we are really just getting started with unpacking the system presented by Epicurus, based on the extant remains. And, a big challenge is updating the philosophy to make it compatible for modern thinkers (and science). There are many aspects of Epicurean philosophy that are greatly needed in our modern times. Religion has caused numerous problems for the world, and may end up causing the downfall of civilization, because of its harmful aspects -- mainly the refusal to see how making contracts for peace between countries is the only avenue of peace (but since they all are looking forward to something better in heaven then they give up on "Project Earth"). Also, the idea that God causes tests/trials of suffering so that people can "grow" (found in both Christianity and Islam) - this is harmful because it justifies causing suffering to others, since God himself causes suffering. The problem though, is that there is something about civilization that is struggling to "get past God". So Epicurean philosophy which holds that gods/God is not interactive with the world or listening to prayers may appeal to some, but not appeal to others.

And about eclecticism, I think it would be good to take a look at what people feel is missing in Epicureanism, and what they are looking for when seeking out "eclecticism" - in other words...Making a list of what of modern concerns (both psychological and philosophical) does Epicureanism cover, and what does it not cover.

Here are some areas to compare and contrast, and perhaps if we place them in a table of comparison it would become more clear:

-----Ancient Skepticism vs modern notion of skepticism, vs aspects of "skepticism" in modern science vs Epicurean canonics, AND for each one what level of "feeling" of "knowing truth".

Is it possible that there were differing takes on the sense of knowing (and level of belief vs faith) within various groups of Epicureans (just like there were likely differing takes on mental vs physical pleasures)...it wouldn't be right to assume that all ancient Epicureans were "cookie cutter" exactly the same (thinking/believing exactly the same), because human beings are complex, and you can see now (in our modern studies) how we have the "minimalist" Epicureans and the "maximalist" Epicureans - so perhaps there was also some differences between levels of dogmatism (plus also levels of belief in the gods).

Quote

The more successful people didn't have better willpower compared to those who were less successful. Instead, successful people set up their lives so they didn't need to use willpower frequently. They exposed themselves to fewer temptations.

...

..."Teach them how to choose situations that reduce the likelihood of doing things that aren't good for them. Teach them how to control the temptations," Wood says.

...

..."For example, parents can teach kids to leave their phone in another room when they're studying," Wood says, or to use apps that block distracting websites and games. They can teach kids how to keep sweets and ultra-processed foods out of the house and out of their backpack or car. In other words, parents can create times and places in children's life where distractions or temptations aren't an option at all — and show them how they can implement this strategy themselves.

...

..."Whether it's eating healthier food or going to the gym, if you make the activity more fun in the moment, then you're more likely to do it again," Milyavskaya says.

So if you want your child to love salmon, talk about how great it tastes with yummy garlicky soy sauce and wild rice. And how great it makes you feel right after eating it. Something that a frozen ultra-processed dinner won't do.

Display More

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5736553/fast-food-screens-kids-health

Here are my thoughts on this, by just using the wording of Bailey translation, first posting the PD, then directly following is my take.

PD.24: "If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong."

This points out how it is necessary, when you are first beginning an evaluation of truth, to be sure you have included all of your observations (as per the senses), and then also it is necessary to distinguish between various types of evidence and assign levels of trustworthiness onto each type (see PD22) - and it must be done correctly at the basic starting level or else your later observations will be made in error. And so we see that there are: 1) observations as per the senses, 2) conclusions that already exist through earlier opinions on the matter, 3) new inferences generated by the newest observations. All of these must be distinguished (one from another) and no conclusions should be stated as true until there are adequate observations which clearly confirm the conclusion.

PD.22: "We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion."

It seems that PD 24 could have some relevance to the discussion here, and there are are a number of posts exploring the canon, etc, over in the thread linked below.

PD24 "If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong."

Thread

PD24 - Commentary and Translation of PD 24

Principal Doctrine 24 (PD 24) is one of the more convoluted doctrines with multiple phrases and conjunctions. I would like to provide some commentary and break the doctrine down into manageable words and phrases for everyone to get a more coherent understanding of what Epicurus was communicating. You may also want to take a look at this doctrine’s page on the Epicurus Wiki:

First the original text:

[…]

Now, let’s break it down before we put it all back together. I’ll provide a (mostly) literal…

Don

September 2, 2020 at 11:56 PM

Quote from Patrikios

See how a modern psychotherapist, who has studied ‘nature’s healing processes’ up close, describes what many of us civilized humans have lost.

Quote

In Western society, there is an overvaluation of the conscious, analytical mind and, with it, an atrophy of dozens of senses and abilities. Sojourns to the Amazon and the Serengeti have reminded me of the many skills that indigenous people have not forgotten—abilities that guide them safely through life’s inevitable challenges. I have met shamans who can look into another person’s body with their mind’s eye to diagnosis an illness, Hadza Bushmen who can “wire” messages long distances without the use of a cell phone or a letter, and Native Americans who can smell approaching changes in the weather. It is in the quiet of Nature that shamans can listen with their hearts, skin, eyes, and noses as well as their ears—a synesthetic talent that today is largely disbelieved or simply unknown outside of indigenous cultures.

[Awakening the Healing Soul, by Geral Blanchard]

"Wiring messages"......made me think about this:

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

I am curious if there is more to say about the use of indirect evidence which leads to inferred evidence - do we see this in the Letter to Herodotus or in Lucretius?

...especially dealing with the non-intervention of the gods

and also any other aspects.

I am copying here into the main forum, a few posts which were recently made in reaction to a past Wednesday night Zoom meeting discussion:

*****

Godfreyposted (on 03/05/26):

It occurred to me this morning in my fog of awakening that the practice of multiple explanations relates to the issue of skepticism v dogmatism.

It seems to me that multiple explanations are typically used by Epicurus to rule out the supernatural. Another way of looking at this is that they are used as a contrast to one particular theory, and that the explanations tend to be based on inferences from the available evidence.

It also seems that multiple explanations can be used to support a theory by ruling out the competing theories. In this case the "evidence based" explanations would be used to refute the many explanations, leaving one particular theory as the most probable.

I'm curious as to whether this has any relevance to our discussion last night....

*****

Cassiusposted:

I think so Godfrey. I would say that the point is that is not always possible to be sure which of several explanations might be the right one, so the multiple explanation approach reinforces that we aren't going to be dogmatic on a PARTICULAR solution when the evidence is insufficient. But as to basic issues such as nothing coming or going to nothing, or no supernatural gods, or no life after death, the positive evidence is abundant to RULE OUT those possibilities, so we dogmatically assert their falsity.

The two approaches - dogmatically rejecting that which is NOT possible, and suspending judgment between those which ARE possible - go hand in hand.

*****

Cassiusposted:

Also Godfrey I'd add that this is exactly what i see is the major reason for the Epicurean criticism of Socrates. if you think that physics can never lead you to any conclusions about the nature of the universe or of gods or the existence of life after death, then there would be no reason to study it.

Some consider it to be a criticism of Epicurus that he didn't seem interested in putting science to "practical" use - he didn't pursue technology - but I'd say he thought he was putting science to its most practical use first - that of establishing whether we are free agents or playthings of the gods or Fate or Fortune. Technology is far secondary to those issues.

*****

Martinposted:

The study of physics/nature may give us sufficient confidence about the non-interference of gods and no life after death that we get rid of fears about them. We should not wait until the evidence for this is conclusive because it will never be conclusive.

*****