Posts by Kalosyni

At yesterday's Twentieth Zoom, I gave a short presentation on aspects of the symposium, and this was a slide, with further info.

We don't know exactly what occurred at historical Twentieth gatherings...but here is some speculation:

There was either a large gathering at the Kepos gardens (perhaps no more than 50 people, and not as a "symposium") and/or there were small gatherings at various private homes which may have been up to 12 attendees plus their hetairai (female companions, as was the ancient Greek custom) and which followed the cultural format of a symposium.

Here is a bit more from yesterday's presentation:

Written records and literary accounts of symposia in Hellenistic Athens do exist, though they are largely fragmentary and frequently preserved as quotes within later Roman-era texts. While the most famous complete accounts of the Athenian symposium come from the Classical period (most notably the works of Plato and Xenophon), prominent Hellenistic philosophers, playwrights, and historians continued to write about and record the evolving nature of these drinking parties in Athens.

The Fragmentary Symposium of Epicurus: The most notable native written record from Hellenistic Athens is the lost Symposium written by the philosopher Epicurus. While the original text has not survived intact, extensive fragments and descriptions are preserved by later authors:

• Athenaeus of Naucratis provides critical commentary on Epicurus' work in his encyclopedic text, the Deipnosophistae ("Doctors at Dinner"). Athenaeus notes that Epicurus broke traditional conventions by featuring a dialogue composed entirely of philosophers (pejoratively dubbed "atom prophets") and skipping traditional structural preliminaries like formal libations to the gods.

• Plutarch also explicitly references Epicurus' Symposium, noting that the dialogue moved away from political theory to debate the physiological and scientific effects of wine and sex.

Kraters were central to the symposium both literally and culturally. The Krater or "mixing bowl," used for mixing wine and water, was placed at the center of the room. The Symposiasts, or the participants, reclined on their couches around the krater. Their couches were placed along the wall of the room, and this limited the number of men attending to between eight and twelve. Tables on which the wine and food was served, were slightly lower and placed in front of the couches.
The symposiarch would oversee the symposium. The main focus of his job was the dilution of the wine. It was up to him to decide how strong the wine would be depending on the type of discussion or entertainment that was expected for the evening Kraters were quite large, so they were not easily portable when filled. Thus, the wine-water mixture would be withdrawn from the krater with other vessels, such as a kyathos, an amphoreus, or a kylix.

Before dilution, wine in ancient Athens typically had an alcohol content of 9% to 15% ABV (alcohol by volume), though some sweet or concentrated varieties could reach up to 16% to 18% ABV.
Dilution and Consumption • Ancient Athenians almost never drank wine neat. Drinking unadulterated wine was considered a barbaric habit fit only for ruining one's mind or health. Wine was mixed with water in a large vessel called a krater before being served.

• Common Ratios: Typical mixing ratios ranged from 3 parts water to 1 part wine (3:1) to 5 parts water to 2 parts wine (5:2).

• Final Alcohol Strength: This heavy watering-down meant the actual cup of liquid consumed during a symposium or meal had a much lower alcohol content, usually resting around 2% to 5% ABV- similar to a modern light beer or cider.

• Athenians enhanced their wine to balance or mask off-tasting flavors, using three primary methods: Infusion during fermentation - herbs like thyme, oregano, or mint were bundled into porous linen cloths, weighted down, and submerged in the grape must. Amphora linings and sealants of sticky pine resin from the Aleppo pine were used. And when needed they also added fresh herbs or floral perfumes directly into the krater shortly before consumption.

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

Since this is a specific thread on AI, and I keep succumbing to it's siren song, just a bit more...regarding this by ChatGPT, which fessed-up with this phrase: "It would be misleading to give you a precise age."

Also of interest is that it suggests a different (and seemingly much better) translation of the last line, but I'll need to double check that. ( Bryan you might be interested).

Quote

1. You said:

   is the following poem really written by philodemus of gardara or is it by someone else? If by Philodemus, how old was he when he wrote it? What does the part "cast your eyes on me" mean? Poem: "To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."

2. ChatGPT said:

   Yes. The poem is generally accepted as an authentic epigram by Philodemus of Gadara, and it is preserved as Greek Anthology 11.44 (also numbered 27 in David Sider's edition of Philodemus). The attribution is not merely a modern guess: the Greek Anthology itself identifies Philodemus as the author, and modern reference works and editions treat it as one of his poems. A

   

   Anthologia Graeca+2

   When did Philodemus write it?

   There is an important limitation: we cannot date this particular epigram precisely, so we cannot say with certainty, for example, "Philodemus wrote it when he was 47."

   Philodemus is generally dated to approximately 110–40 BCE (some scholars give a slightly later possible death date). David Sider, whose major scholarly edition of the epigrams is still fundamental, places his birth at about 110 BCE. O

   

   OUP Academic+1

   The poem is addressed to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the Roman statesman who became consul in 58 BCE and was Philodemus' patron. O

   

   OUP Academic The poem therefore belongs to the period when Philodemus was established in Italy and associated with Piso, but we don't have a secure year for its composition.

   So, if we assume the usual dates:

   • Philodemus was born: c. 110 BCE
   • Piso became consul: 58 BCE
   • Philodemus' poem is associated with his relationship with Piso
   • Therefore, he was probably an adult, perhaps middle-aged, when he wrote it, but his exact age cannot be established.

   It would be misleading to give you a precise age.

   There is another clue, however. In another epigram, Philodemus says:

   Quote

   "Seven years added to thirty are gone already..."

   That poem indicates that he was about 37 when he wrote that particular poem. A

   

   Attalus But there is no evidence that the Piso invitation was written at exactly the same time.

   What does "cast your eyes on me" mean?

   This is the most interesting part of the poem, because the English translation can make it sound more mysterious or romantic than the Greek necessarily is.

   The Greek is:

   Quote

   ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων
   "But if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso..."

   The important expression is ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα — literally something like "your eyes toward us." The verb στρέψῃς means "turn," "turn toward," or "direct." The same passage is translated by another modern rendering as "if you ever turn your gaze on us too." A

   

   Anthologia Graeca+1

   So "cast your eyes on me" does not necessarily mean "look at me lovingly" or "fall in love with me." It's essentially an idiomatic invitation:

   Quote

   "If you will turn your attention toward us and actually come to our gathering..."

   or, more naturally:

   Quote

   "If you honor us with your presence, Piso..."

   That makes much more sense in context.

   The joke in the final line

   The whole poem is actually a little piece of Epicurean social humor.

   Philodemus is essentially saying:

   Quote

   "Come to my humble little dinner tomorrow. I don't have the expensive food and Chian wine that you're accustomed to. But you'll have good friends and pleasant conversation. And if you actually decide to come, your presence will make our humble celebration a splendid one."

   The final couplet says:

   Quote

   "But if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso,
   we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."

   The contrast is between λιτή (litē), "simple/frugal," and πιοτέρην (pioterēn), "richer/more substantial." A

   

   Anthologia Graeca

   In other words, Piso himself is the "richness."

   That's particularly witty because Philodemus is supposedly inviting his wealthy patron to a modest Epicurean meal. Piso doesn't have to bring the feast; his presence transforms the feast into a rich one.

   And what is "the twentieth"?

   This is important to understanding the poem.

   "The Twentieth" refers to the Twentieth day of the month, an important recurring Epicurean celebration associated with Epicurus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy specifically identifies this poem as an invitation to Piso to an Epicurean dinner celebrating Epicurus' birthday on the twentieth. S

   

   Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   So the situation is roughly:

   Philodemus:
   "Dear Piso, tomorrow is our Twentieth. Come to my humble place at about 3 p.m. I know you may be accustomed to fancy food and Chian wine, but you'll have good friends and delightful conversation. And if you actually come, it'll be a splendid celebration despite our humble circumstances."

   There's also a lovely Homeric joke in the reference to the Phaeacians. In the Odyssey, the Phaeacians are famous for their lavish hospitality. Philodemus is saying that although his dinner won't compete with the Phaeacian banquets, the conversation will be sweeter than anything found in that legendary land. D

   

   dokumen.pub

   One small translation issue

   I'd actually translate the final sentence a little differently from the version you quoted:

   Quote

   "And if ever you turn your eyes toward us too, Piso, we shall celebrate a richer Twentieth instead of a simple one."

   That makes the social meaning clearer than "if you ever cast your eyes on me."

   "Cast your eyes on me" in English can sound flirtatious or even erotic. The Greek doesn't require that interpretation. It is much closer to "turn your attention/gaze toward us" — i.e., come and join us.

   So, in short: yes, this is Philodemus; it is Greek Anthology 11.44; its exact date is unknown; and we cannot reliably calculate his age when he wrote it. The "cast your eyes" phrase is basically an elegant way of saying "if you will turn your attention toward us / honor us by coming." A

   

   Anthologia Graeca+1

   If you'd like, I can also go through the original Greek line by line and show exactly what each Greek word means, including why ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα is better understood as "turn your gaze toward us" than "cast your eyes on me."

Display More

Here and there, I've done research on the ancient Greek symposium, and since we would guess that Epicureans were prudent and serious-minded folk, then we could speculate that they made sure to dilute their wine sufficiently, and thereby allow the philosophical discourse to continue longer into the evening.

As for research, found this but access requires purchase:

Chapter 9 The Hellenistic Symposium as Feast

https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/35911

Quote

This paper will focus on drinking and dining at Athens using ceramic evidence from the excavations of the Athenian Agora to explore the shift from wine-soaked Archaic and Classical symposia to food-rich Hellenistic banquets and possible explanations for the change.

(A lot more to discover and post in the future).

I find this to be an interesting development regarding AI search results talking about its own use of evidence (it said that its first response overstated the evidence), as well as talking about the lack of reliabilty of a particular source (in this particular case, SoFE).

Of course, there are still errors as you will see that it says "cup" when Epicurus asked for cheese. And the idea that there was only bread to eat all of the time, but that may have only been during a time of food shortages.

Quote

Query: was Epicurus' twentieth gathering a large feast or a small symposium

DuckDuckGo Assist:

Epicurus' twentieth gathering could not be confirmed; however, the Society of Friends of Epicurus describes the Kepos as a communal non-profit organization that fed strangers monthly, suggesting larger feasts rather than small symposia.

Follow-up Query: what evidence is there that large feasts happened at the kepos

GPT-5.6 Luna: There is no good evidence that large feasts took place at Epicurus’ Garden (the Kepos). My earlier answer overstated the evidence.

The strongest ancient evidence points in the opposite direction:

• Diogenes Laërtius says Epicurus and his associates lived simply, drinking water and eating plain bread. He preserves a letter in which Epicurus says that, although he normally wants only bread and water, he would like a cup so that he could have a feast when he wished. This suggests occasional, modest special meals—not regular large banquets. Attalus
• Diogenes also says that friends came from many places to live with Epicurus in the Garden. That supports the existence of a sizable community, but it does not establish that they gathered for large feasts. Attalus
• Epicurus’ will provided for his birthday to be celebrated annually and his memory monthly. These commemorations may have involved communal meals, but the surviving evidence does not specify their size, menu, or location. Encyclopedia Britannica
• Modern descriptions of the Garden generally characterize it as a private household and philosophical community; they do not provide archaeological or textual evidence for large-scale dining events. University of Tennessee at Martin

The claim about the Garden “feeding strangers monthly” appears to come from a modern Epicurean organization’s interpretation, not from evidence for ancient events at Epicurus’ Kepos. “Feast” in Epicurus’ own usage can simply mean a better-than-usual meal, not a large symposium.

So the cautious conclusion is: the Kepos was a communal household with shared philosophical and social life, and probably occasional commemorative meals, but there is no secure evidence for large feasts. A small symposium—or even an ordinary communal meal—is better supported than a mass banquet.

Display More

I am a bit out of the loop on this thread, but just some quick reactions off the top of my head, to focus on "what Epicureans would do"...

Quote from SillyApe

For example, one trains really hard in the gym in order to get the pleasure of being admired, or of proving themselves capable, or of living healthy lives, etc.

"being admired" -- I don't think that Epicureans (those that truly follow the philosophy of Epicurus) spend too much time on this, because they are surrounded by good friends who value them for other reasons.

"proving themselves capable" -- I don't think that Epicureans would spend much time on this one either...because the main focus would be for concrete benefits that result such as feelings of good health.

"living healthy lives" --

Quote from SillyApe

Basically, they live pursuing pleasure, while also condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure and praising the thinkers who would call these people's pursuits petty or futile.

I'm unclear on the paragraph, likely because it is refering to a much older post...

"Basically, they live pursuing pleasure"

"condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure" -- I assume you are refering to the stoics here.

I'm adding here something further with regard to the introduction of the article on the Determinents of Happiness mentioning Aristotle's definition of happiness ("Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim, and the end of human existence.”- see post 2 above). Most people haven't been educated about Epicurus' take on happiness, (and if they are, their understanding is often over-simplified). Letter to Menoeceus says: "We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it." Perhaps Epicurus had other succinct definitions (perhaps in his book "On Life Courses" which is lost to us). But we do have the Cicero's Torquatus section and the Wall of Diogenes of Oinoanda.

There are a number of threads discussing what is happiness, such as this one as well as whole sub-forums. These may all need to be sorted and refreshed, and then I'll add more links so that we can all clearly reference Epicurus' take on happiness.

More from the above article:

Quote

...the three key categories of happiness and their underlying determinants. Health: a complete state of mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Hope: the highest degree of a well-founded expectation of goal achievement, personal, and economic growth. Harmony: a state of being in alignment with aspects of social, familial, cultural, religion, and environmental.

Here is a comparison between the subcategories found in the above article, and Epicurean philosophy -- this is really a for fun and loose comparison, and brings up some interesting food-for-thought.

(Article subcategories on the left, Epicurean textual quotes on the right. Please note, that these textual quotes are not in any way part of the article).

(There may be other textual quotes that could further be added, but these are it for now. Please post any others if you wish).

Quote from DaveT

Do you mean classical skepticism? How so.

No, just loosely in that if someone observes the world and starts labeling various things as "an illusion" then it creates ideas such as: "we just can't know much about the world because it is all just an illusion".

Quote from DaveT

I intended to indicate anxiety and happiness can be described as illusions, not pain or pleasure.

I apologize that I'm a bit unclear regarding whether you were making remarks regarding the article or whether you we saying what you yourself think is true. (We're all entitled to our own opinions, but the emphasis here on the forum is "what would Epicurus say" )

As for myself, I believe that the experience of emotions and feelings such as anxiety are not an illusion. Yet for a small population of people the cognitions and beliefs that generate those emotions/feelings are. (Here is an article on phobias and disorders).

As for happiness being an illusion, I would venture that perhaps there are greater numbers of people feeling like they can't get the "goods" that lead to a happy life, and they then say "oh well, happiness is just an illusion". But this is cynicism, and the opposite of what Epicurus taught. We would of course would need to compare what exactly all the modern masses of people think that happiness actually is.

In the opening paragraph of the Letter to Menoeceus it says:

"We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it."

The article on the Determinents of Happinss mentions Aristotle's definition of happiness in the introduction:

Quote

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim, and the end of human existence.” The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said these words more than 2000 years ago, and they still ring true today. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, happiness is described as the human good that we all aim for its sake alone, and Freud emphasized that happiness is something we strive towards, desire to attain, and maintain throughout our lives [1,2,3]. The 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence states that all men have a right to “the pursuit of happiness,” where the notion of happiness is equated to the attainment of a worthy life [4].

Moreover, the concept of happiness is gaining increasing popularity within and across cultures [5,6,7], so much so that in recent years, there has been a shift in measuring economic production to measuring happiness as an indicator of social development and individual welfare across nations [8].

There is a graph with text which shows the three categories of the article's focus, and sections have a (+) for positive influences and a ( - ) for negative influences.

This link goes to that page:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Integrated-Model-of-the-Determinants-of-Happiness-Note-Figure-3-depicts-the-three-key_fig3_368527437

As for comparing this to Epicureanism, we can roughly see that there are "goods" which lead toward well-being. Also, Epicurus has his own set of "goods" as compared to Aristotle's goods (though there are overlaps). Perhaps we need a table of comparision on that.

I'll be posting more on this article again.

Quote from Cassius

And I always advise caution in looking too broadly for "agreement on certain points." To use a religious analogy, the devil probably agrees that ice cream tastes good, but most religious people see clearly that it is not a good idea to look for areas in which the devil agrees with you. I don't think Epicurus was any less rigorous in seeing the folly of such an approach to philosophy specifically or life in general. When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing. If I get a direct message from the Pope of Rome or the Rabbi of Jerusalem or the Ayatollah or the Dalai Lama that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow that's more of a reason to look up at the sky and make sure nothing has changed than it is to feel confident about it.

I would guess here that the issue has to do with Platonic philosophy, and most of the time religious ideas are built on ideas of striving for absolution perfection. So the word of caution is to be wary when you are agreeing with anything that holds "idols" of perfection, and especially those which have nothing to do with actual embodied life experiences.

Quote from Robert

Quote from DaveT

The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.

Dave, my thoughts exactly. Except you've expressed them far more succinctly!

I think that what is being said here in this paragraph is swinging a bit too far into skepticism. And I have quite a bit of trouble with the word "illusion"...as anything that is labeled an illusion is assumed to actually not exist.

You still are going trust your feelings of bodily pain and pleasure, and just because pain and pleasure is subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion.

As for mental pains and pleasures, I wouldn't classify those as illusions and there is something there that needs to be acknowledged to exist. But if at the root of mental pains you are holding onto "empty desires" and those are in turn leading you toward feeling anxieties, then I would label that as "stories that are untrue"...and therefore "empty".

I just posted an article over in this other thread, which in my opinion is a more contructive take on key Epicurean questions: what is happiness, and what are the things which are needed to produce it.

Thread

A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness (Article)

I found this article (which may possibly already be on the forum in another thread) and thought it might be good to discuss. (Published February 2023)

Excerpt:

[…]

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9963575/

I would recommend to not let the author's word choice of "hope" be an issue, as for myself I could imagine other labels used such as "anticipations".

It is worth reading for anyone…

Kalosyni

September 9, 2026 at 8:12 AM

I found this article (which may possibly already be on the forum in another thread) and thought it might be good to discuss. (Published February 2023)

Excerpt:

Quote

The aim of this study was to review the literature on what constitutes happiness across cultures and countries to advance scholarly knowledge on the happiness construct. A systematic review was conducted to examine the determinants of happiness in samples across cultures and countries. ...

...Myriad determinants of happiness were found that were placed into three broad categories labeled Health, Hope, and Harmony. The predominant happiness determinants were mental, emotional, and physical well-being, a purposeful holistic work–life balance, nurturing social relationships, caring for self and others, and being in harmony with one’s culture, traditions, community, religion, and environment. This study engendered an “Integrated Model of the Determinants of Happiness” to provide a universally applicable conceptualization of the happiness construct. By examining studies on determinants of happiness across the globe in the past 90 years, this review uncovered that happiness constitutes multiple determinants that fall under three major categories: ‘Health’, ‘Hope’, and ‘Harmony’.

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries - PMC

I would recommend to not let the author's word choice of "hope" be an issue, as for myself I could imagine other labels used such as "anticipations".

It is worth reading for anyone interested in development of happiness, and he both provides a definition and the determinants, however there is also mixed in the scientific methodology so you'll need to read past that to get to the heart of it.

I need to see if there are further summaries or writings based on this. Will post more on this soon.

Quote from Robert

Relatedly, he seems to define happiness mainly in terms of event-specific moments of enjoyment--eating pizza, getting a promotion, driving out of the dealer lot in your new car, or achieving temporary bliss during meditation. This emphasis aligns with the "guessing-game" model he advances in his essays, and he's almost certainly right that habituation diminishes the pleasurable impact of such events. It's a rather Cyrenaic view of happiness, though, and he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being.

Just some free-roaming thoughts:

Regarding habituation...Pizza...I don't think he (the author) is taking into consideration that eating pizza when genuinely hungry will almost always bring a certain amount of pleasure. Also, if a person enjoys driving places, then it doesn't matter what kind of car it is or if it is brand new, the experience of skillfully driving (usually faster highway driving ) can bring enjoyment. And when a person learns how to enjoy yogic breathing then it will, most often than not, bring an experience of pleasure.

As far as: "he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being"...

....I think we need to always define what we mean when we say the word "happiness". For me it seems that the best way to think about it is whether or not I am generally feeling in "good-spirits" most of the time. There will be occassions when something is disappointing or irritating, but if I can recover from those situations fairly quickly and return to feeling in "good-spirits" then my sense of well-being is going well. (I think that a large portion of well-being is the right diet, the right level of exercise, and the right amount of sleep, and the other parts are "goods" such as friendship and a sense of security, etc.)

I recommend this book, for anyone interested in increasing their optimism and positivity:

First off, I think that this blogger has a hidden agenda, when he uses the word "bullsh*t". And his choice of words hints that he is basically an unhappy person looking for why he isn't feeling happy in life. It makes it hard for me to want to even spend any time analyzing what he actually wrote.

I started with the second article, and from an Epicurean standpoint I think he is unknowingly focusing on the "natural but unnecessary" things in life:

Quote

The goal of Happiness Is Bullshit was not merely to show that happiness is bullshit (in the sense of being unattainable), but to give a plausible theory for what happiness is—how it evolved, how it works, what function it serves. I tried to convey the gist of the theory with an analogy: the “getting warmer” signal in a guessing game. The function of happiness is to improve our predictions about how good things are going to be. I described the theory in technical language in a footnote. At last, I can unbury the footnote and put it right here:

Quote

The brain computes, using evolved and learned priors, which of various outcomes have the highest expected value (in terms of fitness proxies). The higher the expected value of an outcome, the greater the motivation—i.e. the amount of attention and energy mobilized—to pursue it. “Happiness” is triggered by a positive prediction error. We feel happy when the actual value of an outcome turns out to be greater than its expected value. This error causes us to rapidly mobilize energy (if more energy is needed), rapidly relax (if energy is no longer needed), attend to (i.e., “savor”) the outcome, simulate it in working memory, determine which features were counterfactually unique to it, upweight those features’ expected value, and encode them in long-term memory. As a result, those unique features will appear more valuable to us (i.e. more energizing, more attention-grabbing) the next time we encounter them. This is just another way of saying that we are “positively reinforced”—i.e., the features that were counterfactually unique to the outcome now have a higher expected value than they did before. The more frequently we experience the outcome, the better we get at predicting its value (i.e. the prediction error decreases), and the less “happy” we feel when we experience it (i.e., the less attention and reinforcement is needed). Eventually, after many repetitions of this process, we stop “liking” the outcome while still continuing to “want” it: that is, we continue to value and pursue it but are no longer surprised by it, attentive to it, or further reinforced by it. This model is an amalgam of the prediction error theory of dopamine and the internal regulatory variable theory of motivation.

I think he is describing the experience of novelty and surprise, but we don't always need those to feel happy.

Also, one's attitude in life (whether one is optimistic) greatly affects happiness levels, and the feelings.

When one satisfactorily achieves the "goods" in life (friendship, wisdom, etc.) they will continue to bring a pleasant and happy feeling, and for the wise a sense of gratitude.

And from an Epicurean standpoint, happiness equals a life filled with more pleasures than pains. It takes both wisdom and effort to learn how and to cultivate a full Epicurean life.

From the article in post 14:

Quote

flipping the usual Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition: basically, we’re attached to pain, not pleasure, and are much better at suffering than at having a nice time, so what we need to learn is wellbeing and enjoyment.

Buddhism says life is suffering, but here the author of the article is saying something that really prompts me to contemplate more: the idea that humans are hooked on obsession over suffering. And related to that then would be mental suffering: fears and anxieties. Which then in comparison, brings up the Epicurean removal of fears and anxieties, and that the removal is so that people can better enjoy life. So then the Epicurean purpose is for a pleasant and pleasurable life.

Thank you, Matteng ...he mentions Epicurus!

Here are some quotes from the article:

Quote

• The Buddha of the early texts was a refined hedonist who, like Epicurus, valued pleasure (sukha) as the highest good, inseparable from notions of wisdom and liberation.
• His critique of sensory pleasures is precisely that they don’t provide enough good feelings, in the same way that a barista repudiates bad coffee—not because she doesn’t like coffee, but because she does.
• While the go-to downside of pleasant feelings you’ll hear about in dharma talks is impermanence—that they don’t last and therefore disappoint us—the early texts highlight instead how their pursuit leads to harmful behaviour, for oneself and for society.

For the third bullet-point I would bring up a comparison to the the Letter of Menoeceus about "not the pleasures of the profligate"...and more pains than pleasures.

Quote

In my own practice and dharma teaching, I call the approach that emerged from all this ‘The Dharma of Pleasure’, which is about flipping the usual Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition: basically, we’re attached to pain, not pleasure, and are much better at suffering than at having a nice time, so what we need to learn is wellbeing and enjoyment.

Although, this article will make more sense to those who have studied Buddhism.

Matteng My hunch is that for an Epicurean the "pain" isn't quite as painful compared to the Stoic, since there is an anticipation on the future well-being and pleasure that will result. The Epicurean is sensitive to the body and isn't in competition with anyone else, so maybe takes a little longer to achieve goals, yet does so without causing injury.

Godfrey How is your exercise regime coming along? The above article in post 1 mentions finding other people to help with staying on track (so that is why I am asking, but no need to reply at all if you don't want to). My own regime started well, but then because I haven't built the habit yet, I lost some of my momentum (I'm posting an article on that at the very end of this post)...so I need to set up "habit stacking).

But first here is something with regard to attention, focus, and concentration:

Quote

Focus, attention, and concentration are often used interchangeably but there are differences that help to be aware of if you're looking to improve in any of these areas.

Here’s an example: You've decided to improve your health by going to the gym. That is, you've chosen to focus on your health. Focus is about intention. It's what you're choosing to attend to. It's where decisions are made. You choose something (or some things) to focus on, and exclude others.

Focus can be very high level, like deciding to prioritize your health, but it can also be choosing which body part to focus on on a particular day at the gym.

So this is focus: choosing where to put your attention.

When you get to the gym for the first time, you notice a LOT going on. There's music playing, people everywhere doing all sorts of exercises you've never seen before, and everyone's really fit and attractive. In other words, there's a lot for the senses to take in and it feels overwhelming.

This is where attention comes into play. Attention is the spotlight of the mind. It's what enables your brain to hone in on some stimuli while excluding others. Without attention, we'd be paralyzed due to overstimulation.

So attention is more about the general capability to focus on something. It can be short-term, like watching someone do a specific exercise for a few seconds so you can try it yourself later, or it can be more sustained like when you paid attention to the person giving you the tour of the gym when you arrived.

In truth, you're always paying attention to something at any given moment. Sometimes it's for a second, other times it's for a lot longer. But attention is something we all naturally have.

Attention can be divided into several types, including sustained attention, selective attention, and divided attention. These types reflect how we focus on continuous activities, pick out specific details in a complex environment, or manage multiple tasks simultaneously.

Now you're finally getting set up at the squat rack. You've loaded weights onto the bar and you're about to start your first set. But as you begin the movement, your mind wanders to all the errands you have to do after the gym. In this moment, you've got focus, and you even have attention. But you're lacking something else: concentration.

Concentration is a subset of attention. It refers specifically to the ability to maintain focused attention on a task or activity over a period of time, resisting distractions and maintaining mental effort.

Fortunately, you notice your mind wandering and you're able to pull it back to the task at hand, only to find yourself at the bottom of a squat, unsure what rep you're on. Your attention was divided, not concentrated.

So you bring your attention back to the exercise, now giving it your full concentration. You are now completely present. Your mind isn't thinking about anything else other than what you're doing right now. You no longer hear the music in the background or see people walking around. There's zero distraction. Instead, you feel into your legs shaking and your heart pumping. You sense your facial muscles straining and can hear the grunting sound as you push through your final rep.

If you think back to the different types of attention, concentration falls under the sustained attention type. Concentration is the most concentrated form of attention. It is the foundational skill to learning, to creativity, to communication.

Sure, you can exercise without concentrating, but to get the most value from your time spent doing so, concentration is critical. It means being fully present and fully engaged in where you are and what you've chosen to focus on. And if you've chosen to be there, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not giving it your full, undivided attention.

Source: Reddit

Display More

*****

I found a good article on building new habits, and here is an excerpt:

Quote

Why Habit Stacking Works Better Than Motivation

Most people try to build new habits through motivation alone — and most people fail. Research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology found that it takes an average of 66 days for a new behavior to become automatic, with some habits taking over 250 days.

Habit stacking works because it solves the three biggest reasons new habits fail:

• The cue problem. Without a clear trigger, you forget to do the new behavior. Habit stacking provides a built-in cue — the habit you already do.
• The decision problem. Every time you have to decide when and where to do something, you create friction. Habit stacking eliminates the decision by embedding timing and location into the formula.
• The willpower problem. Willpower is a limited resource. By linking a new behavior to an automatic one, you reduce the cognitive load required to perform it.

A study in the British Journal of Health Psychology found that people who used implementation intentions (the formal term for "if-then" planning, which includes habit stacking) were 2-3x more likely to follow through on exercise goals compared to those who relied on motivation alone.

Habit Stacking: How to Build New Habits Using Ones You Already Have | Good Life Goals