Posts by Todd

The Full Vessel

This one doesn't make sense to me.

I've always liked this example, and I think it was useful to me when I was first learning about Epicurus.

My understanding of the cup model (which could be incorrect):

The cup represents us or our life at any given time. The liquid is pleasure. The unfilled volume is pain. The point is once the cup is full, all pain has been removed, and there is no more room to add pleasure.

This article seems to imply that the cup can only be full or empty - but why? A cup can obviously be partially full.

Maybe it's trying to make a different analogy, and I'm confused because I'm used to the usual one?

Quote from Cassius

"pleasure" and "absence of pain" can be interchangeable

Are they though?

It seems more correct to say complete absence of pain is perfect / complete / the limit of / the fullness of pleasure.

Or you could say a reduction of pain is an increase of pleasure. Or a given sensation is either pleasant or painful.

But by treating those terms as equivalent you could easily give people the idea that you only experience pleasure if you are completely free from pain, which is obviously not what Epicurus said.

I think there is a technical sense in which they are interchangeable. The problem is that "absence" suggests complete absence, while "pleasure" by itself just suggests some pleasure.

Nice.

Cassius, I came across this old post of yours:

Quote from Cassius

According to Wikipedia, Hieronymous of Rhodes lived from c. 290 – c. 230 BC, while Epicurus lived from 341–270 BC. That means that Hieronymous lived after Epicurus, and had Epicurus' works to reference, but Epicurus was no longer around to respond to Hieronymous. If indeed Epicurus had taken the position that "absence of pain" is a correct and full statement of the goal of life, why would Hieronymous have had to deviate from Epicurus, and why would Cicero have had to set them up as opposites?

To me, this is a strong argument against the absence of pain view. I'm not sure if others would find this as persuasive, or if it would fit well in the article though. There is also this quote from Cicero in the course of the discussion you're referring to:

Quote from Cicero, De Finibus, 2.6.18

[Epicurus] might have confined the name of pleasure to this state of freedom from pain, and despised pleasure as Aristippus understands it; or else, if he approved of both sorts of pleasure, as in fact he does...

The quotes you have from Cicero are good too, but you can't get much more clear than this.

Also a minor nitpick:

Quote from Blog article

It transforms a vigorous, life-affirming system into something that looks, in practice, indistinguishable from the Stoic, Buddhist, or ascetic counsels that Epicurus directly opposed.

Obviously it is the counsels that Epicurus opposed. But it could also be read as Epicurus opposing those schools, which is not true. Especially that word "directly". I would suggest re-wording this somehow.

Quote from Cassius

I don't know that it is limited to England by any means, but I'd say that England seems to produce the highest concentration of it.

I wasn't aware of that, but if true, I would say it is an example of a more general phenomenon that is not specific to scholars of Epicurus.

Ever since the vernacular languages displaced Latin as a common language for intellectuals, there have been numerous instances of significant ideas developed on the continent that the English-speaking world was oblivious to.

That obliviousness often lasted for decades, and by the time the English-speakers became aware, their own thinking had progressed in different directions, making the ideas of the continental thinkers seem, well, foreign, and maybe threatening.

Quote from Todd

To summarize my understanding of DeWitt

To elaborate a bit more (still following DeWitt here)...

The two most well-known only positive examples of anticipations from Epicurus himself are justice and the gods. Do we get a prolepsis of justice from repeatedly seeing examples of it (maybe arguable, but seems like a stretch). Do we get a prolepsis of the gods by repeatedly seeing gods?

Quote from Cassius

Anticipations are the generalized pre-concepts and pattern-recognitions that the mind builds from repeated sensory experience.

This is the thing that jumps out at me.

To summarize my understanding of DeWitt, the anticipations must anticipate something. That something can only be experience. To say that they result from past experience removes them as an independent criterion.

I've noticed in this article, and at least one of your previous ones, you (or the AI) are treating *prolepsis* as preconceptions, following DL, and contra DeWitt.

I assume you must have seen this and chosen to let it stand. Have you changed your views on this issue?

I think there is a simple answer to the meaning of natural/unnatural. It refers to the criterion provided by nature: the feelings.

A natural desire is one that is likely to result in net pleasure if fulfilled.

An unnatural desire is one that we only imagine as likely to produce pleasure, but in fact is likely result in net pain. Also referred to as "vain and empty". The first definition that comes up when I search "vain" is "not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless" - the desired outcome being pleasure. Empty means empty of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

The point is that we can use

desire = the object of desire

and we can also use

desire = choose

While I acknowledge that these are common usages, I disagree with both of these equivalencies when discussing Epicurean philosophy. For the sake of clarity, we should not redefine common words, but we also can't just allow a given word to have any of several different meanings in a given context.

In my opinion, and I believe this to be consistent with Epicurus' usages...

A desire is a state of mind: a belief regarding a potential future state.

More specifically, a desire is a belief (maybe false) that pleasure could be increased in the future (maybe the very immediate future) by substituting one state of affairs for another.

To say, "I desire a car," is to describe your mental state. You are stating your belief that your future pleasure would be increased if you had a car. You have not "chosen" a car until you have performed some action toward the end of acquiring one. In fact, by failing to act on your desire, you are implicitly choosing "not-car" (unless doing nothing is somehow expected to lead to you acquiring a car).

Plenty of people go through life desiring things that they never choose.

Also...nice to see many you here again after my long hiatus.

If anyone is interested, I found the Bignone text that Bailey refers to, but it's in Italian.

Full text of "Epicuro, opere, framenti, testimonianze sulla sua vita"

Search for "1095"

Here's a very rough Google translation of the Italian:

Quote

Whether they are public shows (including religious) is clear from PLuT., Contr. Epic. beat., 13, 1095 C, where it is said that according to Epicurus The sage more than any other enjoys the auditions and representations Dionylons- Siache; cf. also PHiLop., συ. ed., 76,1: Usener, p. 258.

Kochalsky instead interprets ἐν θεωρίαις as being the wise, that would be too obvious a truth.

— After these words there has been a shift in the text, of which there is clear evidence.

The Usener fragment he references is U386.

It continues on...but I can't tell if his discussion of the shift in the text is related or not.

My take on the 2nd part of the Plutarch quote in U20:

Epicurus' point was probably something like: most rulers would probably prefer to discuss military strategy and laugh at coarse humor. If that's the kind of dinner conversation that gives you pleasure, then that's the kind of conversation you should have.

He's arguing for authenticity over pretense.

That's pure speculation of course.

Based on this from Usener, it seems like DL's source is probably Epicurus' Problems, which he does cite as a source for another saying (per Don's website).

With this additional context, I'm now leaning toward "festivals".

(I'm assuming this is what the Bailey footnote referencing Bignone was referring to.)

Quote from Usener

U20

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 13, p. 1095C: The absurdity of what Epicurus says! On the one hand, he declares in his Problems that the Sage is a lover of spectacles and yields to none in the enjoyment of theatrical recitals and shows; but on the other, he allows no place, even over wine, for questions about music and the inquires of critics and scholars and actually advises a cultivated monarch to put up with recitals of stratagems and with vulgar buffooneries at his drinking parties sooner than with the discussion of problems in music and poetry. [cf. U5]

I forgot the decisive factor: as a wise man, I tend to enjoy contemplation more than festivals. QED.

Your analysis seems pretty thorough. You have my vote.

Since either translation is plausible, and there is no other context to go on...I would say the presumption should be in favor of consistency with the other occurrences of the word in DL. Since he is drawing from disparate sources, that weakens the argument, but what else do we have?

Have you checked if any of the "festival" translators offer a justification for their choice?

Quote from Joshua, quoting Epictetus, quoting Epicurus (supposedly)

"Be not deceived; be not seduced and mistaken. There is no natural tie between reasonable beings. Believe me. Those who say otherwise mislead and impose upon you."

Speculating about this from another angle...

A possible kernel of truth here could be that maybe Epicurus did say something about society not existing apart from the individuals that make it up, similar to how justice does not exist apart from agreements that serve the ends of real people.

This supposed quotation could be taking out of context an argument Epicurus was making in support of that idea.

Quote from Don

I'm thinking it might be more advantages to *describe* the condition we want to be free of rather than use a single word (since that's my modus operandi when I translate from ancient Greek ). By "free from anxiety" I mean...

Free from incessant, nagging doubt or worry of whether past actions were the right ones to take, whether present circumstances are the right course to take, and whether the future is to dreaded.

That's just a first draft for conversation!

The condition I've been focusing on is, I think, accurately described by "anxiety" or "worry". But if you want a more verbose description, I would call it "fears about the future that are not connected to any immediate threat"

I'm not saying that is the ONLY condition we need to avoid. I was specifically focusing on anxiety because that was the term Austin and others in this thread were using.

Rather than focusing on what we want to avoid, though, it is probably more useful to focus on the pleasant mental state we want to cultivate.

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

What? "Rumination" is not generally a negative word, is it?

LOL. I've never had a positive connotation associated with ruminate

To me, it's chewing over something in your mind over and over without getting anywhere.

I'm with Cassius on this one.

Ruminate was always more or less neutral to me. I could certainly imagine myself relaxing by a gentle stream, ruminating about some ideas I'd recently encountered.

It has only been in the last few months/years that I've seen it used in this kind of clinical way to refer to negative thoughts. Maybe it has always been used that way...just saying I was not aware of it until relatively recently.

Quote from Kalosyni

Maybe for our purposes here in what we understand as Epicurean teachings, instead of anxiety we could use the word "worry"?

I think of worry and anxiety as basically synonyms. Anxiety is more precise, clinical; worry is more natural, vernacular. But I think they refer to the same mental state.

Quote from Kalosyni

But then I wonder, should everyone try to live a worry-free life? Is it even possible? Would a worry-free life be worth living? What would you have to sacrifice to live completely worry-free?

This is exactly why we pursue pleasure, not ataraxia!

Should everyone try to live a worry-free life? All else being equal, of course; but everything else is never equal. Everyone should try to live a life with as much pleasure as possible. But no one can expect to live a life completely free of pain (or worry/anxiety). Sometimes we will make choices that we expect to lead to more worry or anxiety, but we do so for the sake of an even greater pleasure. (I'm thinking particularly about having children here.)

I couldn't read the article - it seems to be behind a paywall. But here are my initial thoughts.

My gut reaction: Fear/anxiety is an extremely powerful emotion, and is a very effective tool for manipulating people. If I see someone telling me it's good to feel anxiety, I'm immediately suspicious.

Quote from Cassius

I agree with that but I am not sure something does not need clarifying. "Anxiety" seems to be used by some people to cover a very wide range of things, including "anger."

I would not consider anger a form of anxiety. If you want a definition, I'd say anxiety is fear about the future. It suggests chronic fear about the more distant and uncertain future, but since all fear is ultimately about the future, that seems like merely a matter of degree.

Quote from Cassius

I think we can say confidently that there are times when "anger," at least of a type, is indeed appropriate in response to certain circumstances. We've had a recent thread I think with some material from Philodemus on that.

I agree, but I think some clarification is needed. Anger (or sadness, or even fear) can certainly be an appropriate feeling in a given situation. Those are non-rational reactions - we can't choose to feel or not feel them. My point is that actions based solely on those emotions are unlikely to maximize our future pleasure. We need to choose our actions prudently, and consider what will be the result if I do this thing, and what if I do not. Actions are most effective when chosen rationally, and a state of ataraxia is best for doing that.

Quote from Kalosyni

“The emotion of anxiety and the underlying physiological stress response evolved to protect us,” Wendy Suzuki, a neuroscientist and the author of “Good Anxiety,” said."

True, but I feel like this is leaving out some important context.

Fear and the associated stress response evolved in animals prior to humans, and prior to the development of the pre-frontal cortex.

When animals experience fear, they are reacting to an immediate, present danger. Animals can't imagine hypothetical future states to worry about. Humans can, and do.

Animals don't imagine what other animals might be thinking about them, and worry about that. Humans can, and do.

Animals (including humans) evolved to default to fear when encountering something new. This makes sense for self-preservation in a largely hostile environment. It doesn't work as well in the mostly safe environment that humans have been able to create for ourselves.