Hey in terms your question on how I pick topics (which I mistakenly removed) I have no methodology, I just choose topics that interest me and do topics that are requested by others.
@@mysigt_ some men would die of boredom or hang themselves or kill each others in places where turkeys fly around already roasted, Where lovers find each other without delay And keep one another without difficulty. What is difficult? Ignoring the truth- It is called ignorance.
It's 2020 and look at that, I enjoy and learn from this video as well as I do with your current channel. What a journey! Thank you for producing all this high quality content. May your channel keep on growing!
I was mixing/merging terms of hedonism, Epicureanism, and Cyrenaic(ism?). This video has given me many keywords to use as VIP access to rabbit holes I didn't know existed. Thank you!
It’s funny to hear two philosophical schools of thought from the 4th century BC argue about pleasure. What the hell did they know about pleasure they didn’t even have TikTok videos.
@@triggerwarningtruthjustfor5433 buddha was talking about psychological rebirth. 500-700 years of oral transmission is suceptible to unwanted deviations from what he might have taught.
@@triggerwarningtruthjustfor5433 Those are Hindu concepts, the Buddha in effect taught to disregard all concepts, including desires. That is the only difference between him and Epicurus, since his renounciation went even farther.
Everyone makes fun of Epicurean philosophy as being hedonistic. Little do they realize that it is foundationally the same as minimalism or being a monk.
material pleasure is shallow and it pushes us away from our soul. as we get trapped in the worldly things, we get far far away from the soul. the actual us! because these materials pleasures are mortal and short termed.
While Epicurus talked a great deal about pleasure, he was not a hedonist. He believed that the ultimate good/life goal is ataraxia, or tranquility. He only spoke of how the pursuit of your pleasures would affect your ataraxia. He seemed pretty neutral on topic of pleasure.
In the beginning you say 3 types of goods are virtue, happiness, pleasure. But when reading those ideas -- and not taking them at face value -- it really says virtue, virtue, virtue.
I would argue that the “unnatural and unnecessary desires” that were exemplified (“...the desire for power, fame, extreme wealth, social acceptance...”) could be interpreted as natural, and sometimes even necessary, desires. Especially social acceptance. It’s rooted into our brains by our ancestors. Early humans were more likely to survive as a community. Those that got outcasted by their community most often died and did not reproduce. Thus, for primal reasons, we’ve had a desire for social acceptance of some kind because it helps insure our survival.
I think you're right because if someone isn't accepted at all in a society, he won't live long on his own by being exiled. But I feel like he talked more about doing everything to fit in, to be in the norm to feel socially accepted.
I'm a little confused as to why you say Kant considers virtue to be "the greatest good"? Doesn't he explicitly state in the Grounding that virtue cannot be the greatest good, and that in fact a good will is the only thing that is good in itself?
Cool! Seems I've been an Epicurean for years. It's where I ended up after leaving Christianity. I'd just like to take this moment to express a special thanks to Terence, Michael, Timothy, Albert, and Aldous for helping me find the way..
@@danielpoot5705 'cause I figured out it's a load of bollocks. Religion; mumbo, jumbo & bollocks. Lots of people mumbling about a great, big everything and having an unhealthy obsession with other people's naughty bits..
if possible all things in moderation may be the best way to live but society will have a big influence on this decision unless we can ignore societies insistence that we join them in gross overindulgence
For politicians, power is pleasure, for the bankers, money is pleasure, for the fighter and soldier, fighting and war is pleasure, for the genius perversions and inventions are pleasure, for the physical beauty things and objects are pleasure.
it is just a derivate religion from god being good satanism concludes that satan is good and god is bad botom line is this all religions are bullshit . no religion will give you the truth usualy you will find and hear from a religion , you will hear what you want to hear...
Pleasure that has nothing to do whith moral, getting drunk ,freedom of the body and living happy loveing , to control your body and mind , all desires are taught to humans in childhood, love from Greece love them all the philosophers new the meeaning of life, and the end of life, when the soul is white and the body deos not control your mind its a level up when you dont follow the herd when you hear nature when you dont give pain to other living souls ,slowly you may see what others can not, love from Greece
I think Pierre Hadot kinda missed the point.. I don't think that's what somebody who wanted to maximise plesure wanted to say. Otherwise your just starting to live like a monk or a retreated yogi.. the reason Epicurus created the garden is so that he can hangout with likeminded people and avoid people that are chasing phantomes. That was just a practicle application of his philosophy relative to his circumstances. He never said you should live in retreat.. untherwise im sure Epicurus would have said it that way himselfe..
This is ok, not exemplary. The turn to ethics descends also into murk. And here, you make statements I deny. The essential unspoken question is scale. You suggest most untrained opinions believe pleasure is the ultimate end. Yet, surely most any novice will distinguish immediate gratification from longer-term goals. If not, we would observe far different levels of death from extreme experience. The fact of note regarding Epicurus is that he stands apart from a growing philosophy that will become Christianity. Indeed, Epicurus stands in contradiction to Platonism generally. Epicurus is a materialist: the last influential materialist before the West descends into 2 millennia of bizarre Idealism. Or rather, before the consummate impact of Platonism lures our culture into the Darkness from which few have yet chosen to emerge.
@@humanwannabe573 its not really wrong but he put ideas before the reality, the idealism. Its interesting but as we know the world is not made of ideas, molecules really exists they are not ideas, so the ppl after him in the middle age were mislead
@@humanwannabe573 It certainly does have to do with ethics and morality. If I may begin by pointing out my beef, what motivated my original post, is the blurring of alternative world views, as though the Western presumptions are necessary. I came to this video because I wanted to know of Epicurus; I was annoyed to find Epicurus described in terms of Plato. Surely, annoyance is my personal failing. However, George Orwell was similarly troubled, as was Nietzsche, and even the Apocalypse Of John reads, "So then because thou art lukewarm...I will spue thee out of my mouth." Secondly, @cornemou explains the issue you raise, responds to your question, "What's wrong with Platonism?" I think it was Sartre who brought this to my attention: Do I do good things because I am good, or am I good because I do good thing? Essentialism or existentialism? Being or becoming? Hubert Dreyfus asks a parallel question: Is it good because God loves it, or does God love it because it is good?... There is much that can be said of this issue. I am principally concerned that Platonism leads to a kind of blindness--like not being able to see that filicide is an important issue in the story of Abraham. And here we come to this present post, Platonism and ethics. Upon what foundation do we build our ethic? As Plato's (step-)children we are taught "this world is an illusion" and to "believe in Ideas" that defy refutation. Bill Maher puts it, "I don't know it for a fact--I just know it's true," to comic effect. Michael Sandel asks, "Justice: What's the right thing to do?" And the quantum physicist Steven Weinberg quips, 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes [Platonism]."
That's is far off from Truth. Epicurian Hedonism is the mind which has Wisdom. The intense of the bodily pleasure has nothing to do with the flesh of the 7 heads or mountains on which the woman sits. Pak oburkaxte konzite neshto. Phylosophy is speech in Proverbs. Prestanete da se fantaziraite. Read 1 Kings 2:42-45 but it won't help you. For its PROVERBS. And scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. But I charge the daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the does of the field and Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases.
Hey in terms your question on how I pick topics (which I mistakenly removed) I have no methodology, I just choose topics that interest me and do topics that are requested by others.
A good life is a simple life.
Simple is beautiful.
satnamo boring
Boring plaid boring
@@mysigt_ some men would die of boredom or hang themselves or kill each others in places where turkeys fly around already roasted,
Where lovers find each other without delay
And keep one another without difficulty.
What is difficult?
Ignoring the truth-
It is called ignorance.
I realized simple can also be more complex than being intentionally complex. Idk if that makes sense
It's 2020 and look at that, I enjoy and learn from this video as well as I do with your current channel. What a journey! Thank you for producing all this high quality content. May your channel keep on growing!
Not immediately but the Stoics are definitely a topic we will devote a lecture to in the future!
I appreciate the perceived lack of agenda in your videos. Keep it up!
I was mixing/merging terms of hedonism, Epicureanism, and Cyrenaic(ism?). This video has given me many keywords to use as VIP access to rabbit holes I didn't know existed. Thank you!
This made me understand so much of the way I feel about certain desires and guilts.
I love the crystal-clear content of this channel.
It’s funny to hear two philosophical schools of thought from the 4th century BC argue about pleasure. What the hell did they know about pleasure they didn’t even have TikTok videos.
Funny how eastern and western philosophers come to the same sort of views.
Shows that they're onto the right thing
Epicurus and Buddha would have agreed on a lot by the looks of it.
Cliff Hanley I think Buddha believed in minimising suffering by giving up desires. Epicurus would agree with that.
Mike Crump and also disagreed on plenty (Previous lives, Karma, Maitreya etc).
Oh dang, that is a big no
@@triggerwarningtruthjustfor5433 buddha was talking about psychological rebirth. 500-700 years of oral transmission is suceptible to unwanted deviations from what he might have taught.
@@triggerwarningtruthjustfor5433
Those are Hindu concepts, the Buddha in effect taught to disregard all concepts, including desires.
That is the only difference between him and Epicurus, since his renounciation went even farther.
I am so glad this channel exists.
Everyone makes fun of Epicurean philosophy as being hedonistic. Little do they realize that it is foundationally the same as minimalism or being a monk.
thanks, yes Epicurean philosophy is so practical that you need it even NOW in 2021.
material pleasure is shallow and it pushes us away from our soul. as we get trapped in the worldly things, we get far far away from the soul. the actual us! because these materials pleasures are mortal and short termed.
In my village , elders tought me " Simple living, thinking high"
🙏🙏
Plot twist: Thinking high was afterwards sadly misinterpreted.
While Epicurus talked a great deal about pleasure, he was not a hedonist. He believed that the ultimate good/life goal is ataraxia, or tranquility. He only spoke of how the pursuit of your pleasures would affect your ataraxia. He seemed pretty neutral on topic of pleasure.
He redefined pleasure to tranquility. He believed that over indulgence is not pleasure and leads to confusion and discomfort.
Now I realise that 14 yo me was a cyreneaic without knowing
Sa
In the beginning you say 3 types of goods are virtue, happiness, pleasure. But when reading those ideas -- and not taking them at face value -- it really says virtue, virtue, virtue.
I would argue that the “unnatural and unnecessary desires” that were exemplified (“...the desire for power, fame, extreme wealth, social acceptance...”) could be interpreted as natural, and sometimes even necessary, desires. Especially social acceptance. It’s rooted into our brains by our ancestors. Early humans were more likely to survive as a community. Those that got outcasted by their community most often died and did not reproduce. Thus, for primal reasons, we’ve had a desire for social acceptance of some kind because it helps insure our survival.
I think you're right because if someone isn't accepted at all in a society, he won't live long on his own by being exiled. But I feel like he talked more about doing everything to fit in, to be in the norm to feel socially accepted.
Live a minimalist life, a life of contemplation. Too many desires and wants gets you in trouble.
You explained that really well. I liked the depth to this video as well as the others I have watched. Keep up the good work!
+Jonathan De wet Thanks for watching!
+Jonathan De wet Thanks for watching!
thanks for this wonderful video! epicurus remains a great wise man!
Thank you for this.
This made it clear for me that I'm defo not an Epicurean, even though I do agree to an extend with some of his points.
The mind may persue high ideals, but the body has all the fun.
I think is was a clear understanding of Hedonism, and it helped me out.
Thanks
I'm a little confused as to why you say Kant considers virtue to be "the greatest good"? Doesn't he explicitly state in the Grounding that virtue cannot be the greatest good, and that in fact a good will is the only thing that is good in itself?
Dustin Stoddart he should have stated the stoics
Cool! Seems I've been an Epicurean for years. It's where I ended up after leaving Christianity. I'd just like to take this moment to express a special thanks to Terence, Michael, Timothy, Albert, and Aldous for helping me find the way..
Why did you leave Christianity?
@@danielpoot5705 'cause I figured out it's a load of bollocks. Religion; mumbo, jumbo & bollocks. Lots of people mumbling about a great, big everything and having an unhealthy obsession with other people's naughty bits..
@@yevrahhipstar3902 Christianity is beautiful. I always see that Stoicism can help me live a good christian life.
Please post more videos about Aristotle and Epicurus and Presocrstics
I see a correlation with Buddhism here
"At least I don't drink to avoid the hurt, we call that Champaign."-Logic
GREAT series! well done
I think the formula of simple life is good life, and the control over our desires, connects us to the concept of minimalism as well...
i like to think of ethics of the study of the preferred method of living
In a discussion of what is Ethics, it would have been useful to state what is not too. Hey thank you for your great work I enjoy your clips.
He answered that.
Epicurus thought that the unethical things are pain and unnecessary pleasure.
if possible all things in moderation may be the best way to live but society will have a big influence on this decision unless we can ignore societies insistence that we join them in gross overindulgence
Are you going to do Stoicism next?
For politicians, power is pleasure, for the bankers, money is pleasure, for the fighter and soldier, fighting and war is pleasure, for the genius perversions and inventions are pleasure, for the physical beauty things and objects are pleasure.
+Gemeral dis that was absolutely beatiful...i wet my pants.
I don't think soldier enjoy fighting or war pleasurable. Especially the conscripted privates.
J. Tan that's because they are not naturally chosen but commercially bred on the basis of some formal or religious basis of army definiyion
We'll said
I think you should talk about Satanism and/or Luciferianism and maybe even the entire Left Hand Path.
it is just a derivate religion from god being good
satanism concludes that satan is good and god is bad
botom line is this
all religions are bullshit .
no religion will give you the truth
usualy you will find and hear from a religion ,
you will hear what you want to hear...
why is there no transcript?
I listen to some of these philosophers and wonder why they themselves thought nobody else knew that basic ass shit?
Sounds like a great way to be plowed over in the labyrinth by the bull! How to understand and articulate something that is not here yet . . .
Richard Taylor ignores the suffering joy of a hangnail.
Pleasure?
Pleasure that has nothing to do whith moral, getting drunk ,freedom of the body and living happy loveing , to control your body and mind , all desires are taught to humans in childhood, love from Greece love them all the philosophers new the meeaning of life, and the end of life, when the soul is white and the body deos not control your mind its a level up when you dont follow the herd when you hear nature when you dont give pain to other living souls ,slowly you may see what others can not, love from Greece
A Canadian narrated this.
I think Pierre Hadot kinda missed the point.. I don't think that's what somebody who wanted to maximise plesure wanted to say. Otherwise your just starting to live like a monk or a retreated yogi.. the reason Epicurus created the garden is so that he can hangout with likeminded people and avoid people that are chasing phantomes. That was just a practicle application of his philosophy relative to his circumstances. He never said you should live in retreat.. untherwise im sure Epicurus would have said it that way himselfe..
life is very complicated and I thing that everyone need some luck to live acordind to osephilosofers
Live your life the way it pleases you. That's it tho lol
This is ok, not exemplary. The turn to ethics descends also into murk. And here, you make statements I deny. The essential unspoken question is scale. You suggest most untrained opinions believe pleasure is the ultimate end. Yet, surely most any novice will distinguish immediate gratification from longer-term goals. If not, we would observe far different levels of death from extreme experience.
The fact of note regarding Epicurus is that he stands apart from a growing philosophy that will become Christianity. Indeed, Epicurus stands in contradiction to Platonism generally. Epicurus is a materialist: the last influential materialist before the West descends into 2 millennia of bizarre Idealism. Or rather, before the consummate impact of Platonism lures our culture into the Darkness from which few have yet chosen to emerge.
exactly !
I'm not too knowledgeable in ancient philosophy but what's wrong with platonism?
@@humanwannabe573 its not really wrong but he put ideas before the reality, the idealism. Its interesting but as we know the world is not made of ideas, molecules really exists they are not ideas, so the ppl after him in the middle age were mislead
@@cornemou Thanks for replying, I initially though that it had to do with something about ethics or morality. Anyways that makes good sense. :)
@@humanwannabe573 It certainly does have to do with ethics and morality.
If I may begin by pointing out my beef, what motivated my original post, is the blurring of alternative world views, as though the Western presumptions are necessary. I came to this video because I wanted to know of Epicurus; I was annoyed to find Epicurus described in terms of Plato. Surely, annoyance is my personal failing. However, George Orwell was similarly troubled, as was Nietzsche, and even the Apocalypse Of John reads, "So then because thou art lukewarm...I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Secondly, @cornemou explains the issue you raise, responds to your question, "What's wrong with Platonism?" I think it was Sartre who brought this to my attention: Do I do good things because I am good, or am I good because I do good thing? Essentialism or existentialism? Being or becoming? Hubert Dreyfus asks a parallel question: Is it good because God loves it, or does God love it because it is good?... There is much that can be said of this issue. I am principally concerned that Platonism leads to a kind of blindness--like not being able to see that filicide is an important issue in the story of Abraham.
And here we come to this present post, Platonism and ethics. Upon what foundation do we build our ethic? As Plato's (step-)children we are taught "this world is an illusion" and to "believe in Ideas" that defy refutation. Bill Maher puts it, "I don't know it for a fact--I just know it's true," to comic effect. Michael Sandel asks, "Justice: What's the right thing to do?" And the quantum physicist Steven Weinberg quips, 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes [Platonism]."
[ viewing ]
The David Koresh of Ancient Greece.
Fortnite
Yeah.though Gautama was Epicurus on steroids .
good english.
Every time you say "ascribe", you actually mean to say "subscribe".
That's is far off from Truth.
Epicurian Hedonism is the mind which has Wisdom. The intense of the bodily pleasure has nothing to do with the flesh of the 7 heads or mountains on which the woman sits.
Pak oburkaxte konzite neshto.
Phylosophy is speech in Proverbs. Prestanete da se fantaziraite. Read 1 Kings 2:42-45 but it won't help you. For its PROVERBS. And scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge.
But I charge the daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the does of the field and
Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases.
U I
it is a way of life
i chose not to go that way
Money=good life. The end.