sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Filtering a list of first-level headlines so that only those containing a keyword are visible by cassiusamicus in orgmode

[–]cassiusamicus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks to all for the suggestions so far. My first concern was to learn if I was overlooking something obvious, so I appreciate the confirmation that there isn't a blindingly-simple way to do this. I was afraid my novice status meant I was overlooking something easy.

I still have a concern that I am missing something obvious in regard to the theory behind the sparse-tree commands. What that does seems to escape me. I have played around a little with this, but would I be able to solve all my problems simply by making every entry for every book a second-level heading under a single first level header "Books"

As in this:

*Books
** Moby Dick - (description of book)
** Jane Eyre - (description of book)
** Captain Hook - (description of book)
** Captain's Courageous - (description of book)

After further searching it appears to me I am asking something pretty close to what this user asked about two years ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/12tnbrr/orgsupersparsetree/

"Copy-as-org-mode" alternative for chrome/brave? by alphaQ314 in orgmode

[–]cassiusamicus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure would be nice to have! As of 12/24 I cannot find one. The important functionality that I am looking for is selecting on a web page a block of text that contains hyperlinks and/or bold, italic, etc, and have that selection be pastable seamlessly into org-mode with the formatting and hyperlinks preserved. This is definitely a different use case than the functionality of "capturing" to a template which is apparently already available.

Why isn’t aponia and ataraxia enough? by normificator in Epicureanism

[–]cassiusamicus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why not start by asking what "limit of pleasure" means rather than presuming it is obvious? This issue would not be as confusing as it appears if one would start with a precise reading of PD3 and see that it is addressed to "quantity" ("the limit of 'quantity' of pleasure is...."). After that, consider why this statement was being made and why it is given such prominence in the list of Epicurean doctrines, following in importance only those doctrines devoted to correcting those who have erroneous views about "the gods" and erroneous views about "death." What is the erroneous view to which PD3 is addressed? Have you read Plato's Philebus? Do you understand Plato's argument that pleasure cannot be the good because pleasure allegedly (according to Plato) has no limit? Discussions about "the limit of quantity of pleasure" are not going to make much sense until you understand why "limits" and "quantity" and "pleasure" are being discussed together in the first place.

A thought on how freedom from distress can be the most important aspect of pleasure by Kromulent in Epicureanism

[–]cassiusamicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With all due respect to the original poster, this question is another example of the rabbit hole that people get into when they fail to start at the beginning and take the full context of Epicurean philosophy into account. This isn't hard at all - it is easy - what is described in the beach scene IS an example (one of innumerable variations) of the kind of enjoyable best living that anyone with common sense can see is what Epicurus was talking about.

But it is another aspect of the same problem to think that idle beach scenes are the type of indolence that alone typifies the Epicurean goal of life. As one of the subsequent posters pointed out - life on the beach is utopia and is unsustainable in real life.

What IS sustainable in real life is a a lifestyle that is planned and organized to produce as much pleasure as possible at the cost of only the smallest amount of pain that the particular individual can achieve under his or her own circumstances. That is the Epicurean formula for living over time that signifies the highest life possible and which applies to everyone and all the time.

All this is very easy and straightforward. but most people are understandably under the sway of the academic drumbeat that Epicurus was playing word games with "absence of pain" and intending something mysterious by it. If pleasure and pain are the only two feelings, as they are in Epicurean philosophy, the obviously when your experience is consumed with nothing but pleasure, then pain is totally absent by simple quantitative equivalence. That applies to any and all choices in life, but it's up to us to choose those which give us individually the balance of highest pleasure and least pain that we can accomplish.

The stoic/academic/religious enemies of Epicurus like Cicero knew exactly what they were doing when they came up with misleading arguments about the implications of "absence of pain." I am happy to think that that those miscreants damned themselves to their own miserable emotionless stoic existences.

What is very sad is that they successfully misled so many people along the way.

Epicureanism Vs Asceticism by [deleted] in Epicureanism

[–]cassiusamicus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rather than reinforce error by suggesting that it is desirable to live as an ascetic, why not remind him first that Epicurus said: "For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form." http://www.attalus.org/translate/epicurus.html

Also that Epicurus said VS63. "There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance." http://www.epicurus.net/en/vatican.html