Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 351 is now available: "Heap Big Trouble For The Stoic-Platonic Approach To Knowledge"
Yes absolutely Robert - the validity or usefulness of the term happiness (or any other term?) is dependent upon the criteria or standard or definition being given to us. And opposing philosophies and religions are giving happiness a completely different definition.
As Don will often stress the root of eudaimonia appears to be good demon or evoking blessedness which itself implies a standard of the best possible life, as in worthy of the gods. I see all those terms as just superlatives indicating "the best" or "as good as possible" but every adjective like that just requires further explanation. The one thing that doesn't require explanation is 'pleasure' because that is a feeling we experience directly. But even pleasure can be used as a concept so we always have to be clear what we are talking about.
But ultimately if we are going to look at things through an Epicurean framework we have to take into account the phrasing of Epicurus in the letter to Menoeceus, and there he references both happiness and pleasure as terms that he's finding useful. So if we were to apply a blanket decision that divergent uses of the word happiness render it useless as a word we would be ignoring Epicurus' own choices. Even the errors involved in the terms "god" and "virtue" did not prevent him from specifying his meaning and using the terms.
Welcome to Episode 351 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Section 16 and 17 of Book Two.
Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This week, Lucullus names two objections to trusting what is evident 2:XV
- For this is the first obstacle, that men do not sufficiently exert and fix their minds upon those things which are evident, so as to be able to understand how great the light is with which they are surrounded.
- The second is, that some men, being deluded and deceived by fallacious and captious interrogatories, when they cannot clear them up, abandon the truth.
As we proceed through the end of Academic Questions, these are the topics we expect to cover:
24. Lucullus's Extended Rebuttal of the Academic Doctrine, and His Concluding Appeal to Cicero (2:XIII)
25. Cicero Begins His Reply (2:XX)
26. Cicero Lays Out the Syllogism About Assent and Opinion (2:XXI)
27. Cicero Turns to Antiochus's Own Inconsistency (2:XXII)
28. Cicero Defends His Citation of the Ancient Philosophers (2:XXIII)
29. Cicero Adds Chrysippus and the Cyrenaics, Then Returns to Arcesilas and Zeno (2:XXIV)
30. Cicero Returns to Attacking the Senses (2:XXV)
31. Cicero Presses the Sun's Size and the Limits of Trained Perception (2:XXVI)
32. Cicero Turns the "Art" Argument Back on Lucullus (2:XXVII)
33. Cicero Multiplies Examples From Madness (2:XXVIII)
34. Cicero Attacks Reason and Dialectics: The Sorites Paradox (2:XXIX)
35. Cicero Presses the Liar Paradox (2:XXX)
36. Cicero Presents Carneades's Own Positive Doctrine of Probability (2:XXXI)
37. Cicero Distinguishes the Academic Position From Epicurus's (2:XXXII)
38. Cicero Defends Probability Against the Charge That It Cannot Support Memory or Action (2:XXXIII)
39. Cicero Answers the "Self-Refuting" and "Two Incompatible Propositions" Objections (2:XXXIV)
40. Cicero Broadens the Argument Beyond the Stoics (2:XXXV)
41. Cicero Reflects on His Own Position Among the Competing Schools (2:XXXVI)
42. Cicero's Survey of Disagreement Among the Natural Philosophers (2:XXXVII)
43. Cicero Presses the Problem of Providence and the Limits of Physics (2:XXXVIII)
44. Cicero's Survey Continues: The Soul, the Antipodes, and the Motion of the Earth (2:XXXIX)
45. Cicero Asks Which Natural Philosopher He Would Even Choose to Follow (2:XL)
46. Cicero Turns to Ethics: Even the Gods Are Disputed (2:XLI)
47. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part One (2:XLII)
48. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part Two (2:XLIII)
49. Cicero Weighs Zeno Against Antiochus on Virtue and the Happy Life (2:XLIV)
50. Cicero Catalogs the Stoic Paradoxes About the Wise Man (2:XLV)
51. Cicero's Climactic Debate Between Pleasure and Honor (2:XLVI)
52. Cicero Turns to the Canon of Truth, and Zeno's Hand (2:XLVII)
53. The Dialogue's Close (2:XLVIII)
I've been a little distracted but here are my thoughts on the comments since I posted previously:
There are lots of different views on what happiness means, in part because the word happiness can be used as both a feeling and a concept, just like pleasure. We can point to pleasure as a feeling and feel confident because we like the feeling, and all of us will probably agree that we know what it means to "feel happy."
But neither Epicurus nor any of the other Greeks used the word "happiness" so we have to consider both the question of whether we are translating "eudaimonia" accurately and even if so what it really means.
For purposes of this post I'll take it for granted that "happiness" is a good English equivalent of "eudaimonia."
That still leaves the ultimate question of "what is happiness?" And my first step in giving a short answer is that happiness is the word being used to describe the "best life" or "most desirable life." I will assert that for Epicurus, a life of happiness is a life in which pleasures predominate over pains. I see this as firmly established in the letter to Menoeceus in the discussion of pleasure being the beginning and end of a blessed life, in Torquatus where he explains more than once that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure, and by Diogenes of Oinoanda where he goes to the extreme of "shouting" that the questions is not what is the means of happiness but what is happiness and concludes that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure.
Given this background it is absolutely appropriate for Epicureans to talk about happiness by explaining as did Epicurus what a life a happiness is, which is a life of pleasure.
There's nothing we can do about the fact that Aristotle and the Stoics and virtually everyone else uses the word that we translate "happiness" as meaning entirely different things, whether it's "virtue" or "piety" or "reason" or whatever. All we can do is explain what WE mean by happiness, and give the reasons why.
This doesn't make happiness an "illiusion" in any way whatever, and that's the main problem I have with the coarseness of the articles under discussion. That whole way of talking is a rejection of the Epicurean viewpoint that what the senses , anticipations, and feelings reveal to us are in fact our reality, and if "illusion" means anything I presume it refers to a distortion of reality or something that is unreal.
So "happiness" is neither an illusion nor unreal, but if you don't spend the time to take a firm position on what the word means then it might as well be. And this is where I think the best position to take is to argue strongly for the Epicurean view and against the contrary views, rather than just musing about how interesting it is that people take such different positions.
Being spectator to life is part of living, but someone who is only a spectator is absolutely not following the example of the ancient Epicureans.
Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius would probably not take kindly to the notion that they were just virtue-signaling.
And this is one situation in which I would agree with them. Doesn't help anything for me to restate it, but this is where I find the whole deterministic-laced idea of psychological hedonism a very unproductive path and something I too do not take kindly to.
(Traditional) Buddhists get out of bed in the morning because they believe there is no escape from samsara (and thus no way to eliminate suffering) except via the "noble eightfold path."
Which Is why I would never look for common ground with Buddhism - life as slavery to suffering which not even death can extinguish is -- from my point of view -- about the worst possible way of looking at life.
Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 350 is now available: "Addressing A Listener Question On The Flux And Real Life"
I like challenging articles like these; they allow one to examine and defend—or rethink—one’s own ideas and attitudes, as well as to develop more well-founded arguments and viewpoints.
That’s why I think it’s so great that you analyze Cicero’s criticism on the Lucretius Podcast.
Yes I agree that it is very helpful to engage with criticisms, and that's why we do the podcast the way we do. HOWEVER I would stress this -- we never intentionally raise an opposing argument without presenting the Epicurean response in the same presentation. There are plenty of people who are motivated to be "the devil's advocate" and argue against Epicurean positions. Epicurus has all-too-few advocates for the Epicurean posiiton, so we need to cultivate the positive and firm Epicurean position whenever we bring up the challenges.
For me, a key point is the reduction of suffering. One can criticize the pursuit of happiness in various ways, but ultimately, choosing one's own harm and suffering is self-contradictory and self-destructive. Furthermore, uncovering and dispelling illusions ultimately serves the goal of a happier life.
I will continue to suggest that this "reduction of suffering" is an essentially negative half-glass-empty approach that is ultimately self-defeating. You can reduce sufferering to zero quite easily if you choose too - but Epicurus specifically argues against that alternative and it makes no sense to entertain it except as a logic problem - such as we are doing right now. The goal is a life of pleasure, not "reduction of suffering."
Overall, however, I believe that Epicurean philosophy offers many good answers to the criticism and would even agree on certain points (e.g., the limits of pleasure and pain, the concept of happiness, opposition to Cyrenaic notions of happiness, and non-prudent or non-virtuous approaches to pleasure/happiness).
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.
Robert thank you for your comments there. I felt sure when I was reading through those articles that there was a point to be dealt with despite the off-putting language. Your analysis of the article seems to track what parts I did follow as I was reading it, and your take makes a lot of sense. So the articles do have a point that's worth understanding so it can be refuted, even though (in my view) it's buried under obnoxiousness. I'm glad you straightened that out because I did not want Matteng to think that my overall negative view of the articles meant that they shouldn't have been posted. I'm glad Matteng posted them and glad you took the time to provide an informed response.
Just for what it's worth, The final paragraph of the second article:
The pursuit of happiness is one of the cornerstones of western culture. It is so thoroughly enmeshed with our social, economic, and political lives it is hard, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves from it. But I think we should extricate ourselves from it, no matter how difficult and counterintuitive it might be, because it’s bullshit.
As with this final paragraph, my reading of both articles is mostly that they are coarse. There's no positive message here in this last word, just coarseness for the sake of coarseness. There are lots of ways to express the need to examine what happiness really means, but simply saying "because it's bullshit" doesn't strike me as a very persuasive of Epicurean way to go about it.
Today we are spending much of the episode discussing Patrikios' comments here:
Welcome to Episode 350 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Section 16 of Book Two.
Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This week, Lucullus names two objections to trusting what is evident 2:XV
- For this is the first obstacle, that men do not sufficiently exert and fix their minds upon those things which are evident, so as to be able to understand how great the light is with which they are surrounded.
- The second is, that some men, being deluded and deceived by fallacious and captious interrogatories, when they cannot clear them up, abandon the truth.
As we proceed through the end of Academic Questions, these are the topics we expect to cover:
24. Lucullus's Extended Rebuttal of the Academic Doctrine, and His Concluding Appeal to Cicero (2:XIII)
25. Cicero Begins His Reply (2:XX)
26. Cicero Lays Out the Syllogism About Assent and Opinion (2:XXI)
27. Cicero Turns to Antiochus's Own Inconsistency (2:XXII)
28. Cicero Defends His Citation of the Ancient Philosophers (2:XXIII)
29. Cicero Adds Chrysippus and the Cyrenaics, Then Returns to Arcesilas and Zeno (2:XXIV)
30. Cicero Returns to Attacking the Senses (2:XXV)
31. Cicero Presses the Sun's Size and the Limits of Trained Perception (2:XXVI)
32. Cicero Turns the "Art" Argument Back on Lucullus (2:XXVII)
33. Cicero Multiplies Examples From Madness (2:XXVIII)
34. Cicero Attacks Reason and Dialectics: The Sorites Paradox (2:XXIX)
35. Cicero Presses the Liar Paradox (2:XXX)
36. Cicero Presents Carneades's Own Positive Doctrine of Probability (2:XXXI)
37. Cicero Distinguishes the Academic Position From Epicurus's (2:XXXII)
38. Cicero Defends Probability Against the Charge That It Cannot Support Memory or Action (2:XXXIII)
39. Cicero Answers the "Self-Refuting" and "Two Incompatible Propositions" Objections (2:XXXIV)
40. Cicero Broadens the Argument Beyond the Stoics (2:XXXV)
41. Cicero Reflects on His Own Position Among the Competing Schools (2:XXXVI)
42. Cicero's Survey of Disagreement Among the Natural Philosophers (2:XXXVII)
43. Cicero Presses the Problem of Providence and the Limits of Physics (2:XXXVIII)
44. Cicero's Survey Continues: The Soul, the Antipodes, and the Motion of the Earth (2:XXXIX)
45. Cicero Asks Which Natural Philosopher He Would Even Choose to Follow (2:XL)
46. Cicero Turns to Ethics: Even the Gods Are Disputed (2:XLI)
47. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part One (2:XLII)
48. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part Two (2:XLIII)
49. Cicero Weighs Zeno Against Antiochus on Virtue and the Happy Life (2:XLIV)
50. Cicero Catalogs the Stoic Paradoxes About the Wise Man (2:XLV)
51. Cicero's Climactic Debate Between Pleasure and Honor (2:XLVI)
52. Cicero Turns to the Canon of Truth, and Zeno's Hand (2:XLVII)
53. The Dialogue's Close (2:XLVIII)
Wasn’t Diogenes reminding us that we must not let the complexity of the underlying motion—whether it be the ancient "flux" or modern quantum indeterminacy—blind us to the reality we experience? We should assemble, acknowledge and understand the truth of our lives—the reality of pleasure, pain, and friendship—even if the underlying atomic or quantum structure is in constant, swerving motion.
Yes I think that's exactly the point, and while it seems so easy to understand that flux shouldn't cause us to turn to nihilism, it seems like on occasion that's exactly what happens.
Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 349 is now available: "Navigating Questions of Knowledge With Ships And Heaps”
[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/74871778/media
Alternatively, (more than) a millenium later, are Erasmus and Gassendi crypto-Epicureans who are using Christianity as their cover?
Or are they more Christians who understand the weakness of their own logic using Epicurus' more compelling logic for cover?
This is where it all comes back to Diogenes of Oinoanda's point - what IS happiness? If you redefine the meaning of pleasure and happiness to refer to another world beyond this one then you turn everything upside down.
If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.
No specific discussions come to mind at the moment. I know we've mentioned many times that in regard to Menoeceus it makes a big difference that the recipient would have been a student who understood the basics, and therefore did not need to have EVERY basic stated, which would give context to ideas that are left out of the letter. But I don't think there is much information as to who Menoeceus really was or whether Epicurus drafted them with a wider purpose, other than the statements contained within the letters themselves, such as the Herodotus and Pythocles letters do in referring to the usefulness of the information to others.
(I don't think I have noted before that the Herodotus and Pythocles letters have these references at the beginning, but the one to Menoeceus (which is shorter and a less complete treatment of its topic) does not.
I've just learned of this new time line published at the Twentiers website, and it looks very good.
PS - I realize that we have had several threads i the past about Time Lines, but they are not easy to find. I am going to move several of them here (in this subforum) along with this thread. If someone comes across others that need to be here, please let us know.
And I'm also interested in how Christianity may or may not have appropriated aspects of Epicureanism--this is something I recall DeWitt writing about in the later chapters of his book
Have you also read his "St Paul And Epicurus"?
Which would certainly strike many as an appealing idea.
I certainly agree I can see that that would be attractive to pursue - if it were true. I agree that what you're talking about probably happened to a degree, but like Lucian mentions in Alexander the Oracle Monger the authentic Epicureans who followed the full philosophy were probably the most resistant to it. And this is a caution against those who do nothing today but stress the "happiness" aspect of it -- if you don't also explain the nature of the universe and how to be confident about your conclusions then you'll fall prey to exactly the kind of thing you are talking about.
And I can't think of any better way to mistakenly prepare the ground for conversion to Christianity-like religion than to reduce Epicurean philosophy to nothing more than a version of don't fear god, don't fear death, what's good is easy to get and what's terrible is endurable.
Those who think that Epicurean philosophy boils down to nothing more than that are going to be the first to line up for the tent revivals of every charlatan who wanders into town because every aspect of that can be claimed to be delivered by Christianity.
Welcome to Episode 349 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Section 15 of Book Two.
Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This week, Lucullus names two objections to trusting what is evident 2:XV
- For this is the first obstacle, that men do not sufficiently exert and fix their minds upon those things which are evident, so as to be able to understand how great the light is with which they are surrounded.
- The second is, that some men, being deluded and deceived by fallacious and captious interrogatories, when they cannot clear them up, abandon the truth.
As we proceed through the end of Academic Questions, these are the topics we expect to cover:
24. Lucullus's Extended Rebuttal of the Academic Doctrine, and His Concluding Appeal to Cicero (2:XIII)
25. Cicero Begins His Reply (2:XX)
26. Cicero Lays Out the Syllogism About Assent and Opinion (2:XXI)
27. Cicero Turns to Antiochus's Own Inconsistency (2:XXII)
28. Cicero Defends His Citation of the Ancient Philosophers (2:XXIII)
29. Cicero Adds Chrysippus and the Cyrenaics, Then Returns to Arcesilas and Zeno (2:XXIV)
30. Cicero Returns to Attacking the Senses (2:XXV)
31. Cicero Presses the Sun's Size and the Limits of Trained Perception (2:XXVI)
32. Cicero Turns the "Art" Argument Back on Lucullus (2:XXVII)
33. Cicero Multiplies Examples From Madness (2:XXVIII)
34. Cicero Attacks Reason and Dialectics: The Sorites Paradox (2:XXIX)
35. Cicero Presses the Liar Paradox (2:XXX)
36. Cicero Presents Carneades's Own Positive Doctrine of Probability (2:XXXI)
37. Cicero Distinguishes the Academic Position From Epicurus's (2:XXXII)
38. Cicero Defends Probability Against the Charge That It Cannot Support Memory or Action (2:XXXIII)
39. Cicero Answers the "Self-Refuting" and "Two Incompatible Propositions" Objections (2:XXXIV)
40. Cicero Broadens the Argument Beyond the Stoics (2:XXXV)
41. Cicero Reflects on His Own Position Among the Competing Schools (2:XXXVI)
42. Cicero's Survey of Disagreement Among the Natural Philosophers (2:XXXVII)
43. Cicero Presses the Problem of Providence and the Limits of Physics (2:XXXVIII)
44. Cicero's Survey Continues: The Soul, the Antipodes, and the Motion of the Earth (2:XXXIX)
45. Cicero Asks Which Natural Philosopher He Would Even Choose to Follow (2:XL)
46. Cicero Turns to Ethics: Even the Gods Are Disputed (2:XLI)
47. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part One (2:XLII)
48. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part Two (2:XLIII)
49. Cicero Weighs Zeno Against Antiochus on Virtue and the Happy Life (2:XLIV)
50. Cicero Catalogs the Stoic Paradoxes About the Wise Man (2:XLV)
51. Cicero's Climactic Debate Between Pleasure and Honor (2:XLVI)
52. Cicero Turns to the Canon of Truth, and Zeno's Hand (2:XLVII)
53. The Dialogue's Close (2:XLVIII)
[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/74871778/media
do otherworldly philosophies such as Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Christianity hold an appeal because, under some circumstances and for some people, the idea of an eternal divine realm is pleasurable?
No doubt but you are right - it is certainly pleasurable to think you are going to live forever, and that is a major attraction of religion. And I suspect this would be why Epicurus suggested it would be better to live by a false religion than by a theory of hard determinism.
I think this is where we have to bite the bullet on PD10 - If pleasure is the goal, then anything that actually gets us there is compatible with that standard. So if religion actually in a particular case leads to a more pleasurable / happier life - as Epicurus specifically suggested when compared to hard determinism - then religion is the better choice.
But if we are allegedly devoted to reason as the best path to pleasure/happiness rather than pure luck (as again Epicurus says to Menoeceus) then we don't put our eggs in a basket we should know to be faulty and unlikely to get us to where we want to be. Thereefore for most people in most instances, we ditch the idea of getting to pleasure/happiness through religion like we ditch the idea of jumping off of cliffs thinking that we might fly.
I think that's probably the best answer to this very appropriate question. Happiness as a life of pleasure IS the goal, so we must embrace every implication of that conclusion. Again, I think that's exactly what PD10 is intended to emphasize so what you've posed is not just a possible question, but core Epicurean doctrine.
This thread is for discussion of the article:
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.