Philosophy discussion

Hi all

newbie question..My high school daughter has to do a "creative" presentation to class mates on Epicurus..Here's how she has thought about doing it...

You bring to school two empty jars, and some coloured ping pong balls. Of these, a few are green, some are white, and some are reds.
You place one green ping pong ball into the jar, and you call this the "objective of desire" - be it a new set of clothes, a new phone or a new Smart watch.
You then ask your class mates that the aim of the game is to minimise the pain that you need to experience in order to get to the object of desire.
If some pain is bearable - for example having to get an extra job, or selling something - add the white ball to the jar that has the object of desire.
if the pain is unbearable - for example not being able to face your peers, or feeling worthless - then add a red ball to another jar.

The answer (no right or wrong) will be arrived at by looking at the number of balls in the jar that has the green ball. If this number is greater than the number of red balls, we believe we can live a life in accordance to Epicurean principles. If there are more red balls, then we are living a life that is driven by materialistic things, and we will forever be living with the pain that this brings.

Does that sound right, as an example of Epicurus's teachings?

Thanks

Vince

There's a fine line between pleasure and pain.

Epicurus --of all philosophers, perhaps second only to Nietzsche--is one who's teachings lend themselves the most, to modern misinterpretation. His school of thought is almost absurdly over-simplified in most modern conversations --in spite of its best aims. It's as if everyone just wants to categorize Epicureans as doltish, naive, party animals.

p.s. But just by the way, what I'm saying in the above remark has no reflection on anyone's statement so far in this thread. I'm just ruminating 'in general'.

Stoicism is stupid beyond measure.

To exist in pain is stupid, and suicide is just more pain.

You're a true fount of pithy bon-mots. Stupidity to the left of us, stupidity to the right of us. 'Stupidity, stupidity everywhere ...stupidity, stupidity, ubiquitous'. Rampant stupidity everywhere except in your mouth, is that how you figure it, Sirrah? It runs riot in so many others ...but not you, is that it?

G. wrote: "Stoicism is stupid beyond measure."

Hello troll.
Try a reasoned argument

Bye troll.

Feliks wrote: "You're a true fount of pithy bon-mots. Stupidity to the left of us, stupidity to the right of us. 'Stupidity, stupidity everywhere ...stupidity, stupidity, ubiquitous'. Rampant stupidity everywhere..."

I'd rather be dumb than overclever.

Gerard wrote: "G. wrote: "Stoicism is stupid beyond measure."

Hello troll.
Try a reasoned argument

Bye troll."

Stoics believed in the gods, and so must you.

The ultimate conclusion of Epicureanism is atheism.

G. wrote: "Stoics believed in the gods, and so must you."

Well not being a stoic myself I can't see how you can make that statement. But then you don't try to make reasoned statements do you troll.

G. wrote: "I'd rather be dumb than overclever..."

Oh. Oh, the irony! The willing self blindness.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

You sir, combine both in heroic measures.