Posts by Don

Coming from the world of planning library programs, 7 is great! I would be thrilled with that number of attendees at a book discussion. Congratulations!

There's also Paint.net that's a stripped down GIMP alternative... Although as I understand GIMP is much more robust.

Can't wait to see it!

Here's a post I did last year about DeWitt's "summum bonum fallacy" and the thread includes a link to DeWitt's paper dedicated to the topic, too:

Post

RE: From The "Golden Mean" to tbe "Summum Bonum" - Useful or Deceptive Frames of Reference?

Here are my thoughts on Norman DeWitt’s “Epicurus: The Summum Bonum Fallacy” (1950).

Overall, I’m unimpressed with DeWitt’s aim of using a linguistic quirk between Greek and Latin to make a larger philosophical point. Numerous languages get by with no definite article and can convey as complex and nuanced as any language with a definite article: “Linguists believe the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, Proto-Indo-European, did not have articles. Most of the languages in this…

Don

February 13, 2022 at 7:27 PM

On Joshua's mention of feral children:

Feral child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Welcome aboard our little boat, Sonderling

Here's the person Ehrman references about the forged letters:

Diotimus the Stoic - Wikipedia

According to that report, Diotimus was put to death as a result of the lawsuit of Zeno the Epicurean. Ouch! Too bad there aren't more details on all that.

PS

Who Is Diotimus? An Introduction To The Man Who Made An Extraordinary Mistake

INTRODUCTION Of the Ancient Stoics, we know the least about Diotimus. He lived sometime around the early-first-century BC, and he might have known the…

dailystoic.com

I'm getting a similar vibe from humanist vs Humanist as epicurean vs Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

make sure no one gets a "this thread is too old to post in now" message

Fully realizing this thread is almost 2 years old, I've decided to post here since it appears to the most relevant (and to have context that seems applicable to my current question). I thought I'd use the quote from Cassius's post to illustrate why I'm "bumping" this thread instead of starting a new one.

Quote from Joshua

I understand humanism (lowercase) in the strictest sense to be not a philosophy, but an orientation of interest or inquiry. Art can be humanist; it needn't have anything to do with philosophy at all

Agreed and important.

Context: I've been watching some atheist and secular humanist videos on YouTube recently, and it struck me to ask myself: "Am I just a secular humanist and not really an 'Epicurean'? What these people are saying makes sense."

I seem to have come around to the idea that I'm definitely secular (or even secularist) and could be small-h humanist without being capital-H Humanist. To define terms:

secularist: Cambridge gives this definition: 'someone who believes that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country". So, yeah, under those definitions, I would consider myself a secularist.

humanist: Cambridge is a bit less helpful when it comes to "humanist" -" a person who believes in humanism (= the idea that people do not need a god or religion to satisfy their spiritual and emotional needs)" That seems a fairly loose definition of "humanism" but, if that was the definition, I would consider myself a "humanist" under that definition.

So, up to here, yeah, I think I could consider myself a secular humanist... but am I a Secular Humanist.

As shown above there are several Humanist Manifestos including the Amsterdam Declaration to clearly delineate what capital-H Humanists declare as their worldview. There's also the Humanist Manifesto III. This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. If you look at the Amsterdam Declaration (link above), some of their "declarations" align with Epicureanism (and I provocatively use the -ism form there on purpose) and others do not. Here is the Amsterdam Declaration excerpt of their 7 tenets for easier reference. I've taken the liberty to highlight some issues that do not seem to me to alight with Epicureanism and added some Notes:

Quote

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. [NOTE: Really? This Declaration seems just a little dogmatic from my perspective.] It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. [NOTE: Set sail in your own little boat free from indoctrination!]

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Display More

As Cassius pointed out in the thread above, Humanists "declare" certain principles to be universal or to put forward ideals... possible admirable ideals... but what are those ideals based on other than dogmatic assertions.

So, I appreciate your indulgence in my stream of consciousness here. I had to talk this out... So, it appears I can comfortably think of myself as a secular humanist and a "practicing" Epicurean and not be in conflict in my own mind. However, I don't think I am (currently) a Humanist with a capital H.

Thoughts welcomed!

Welcome, Lowri834 !

(mentioned in this episode)

“Although many of us think of ourselves as thinking creatures that feel, biologically we are feeling creatures that think”

— Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, Neuroscientist and author of My Stroke of Insight.

My stroke of insight

Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion,…

www.ted.com

Start At 25:16

Bart Ehrman mentions the forged letters of "Epicurus" that tried to slander him.

Dr. Ehrman mentions earlier in the podcast that the biblical book of Ecclesiastes relied on Epicurean philosophy! I think DeWitt claims the same thing. I may have to dig into that a little more now.

Full disclaimer: I'm a big fan of Bart Ehrman's from way back.

Quote from TauPhi

the presenter standing in a car park in Athens

Around the 8 min mark

I welcome feedback on the article and what's said in the video. I hope they spark some discussion.

I just took a look at the link Kalosyni provided. That definitely is a more in depth article. Right off the bat I saw:

Quote

Epicurus founded his school in 306BC in Athens, just five years before Zeno would branch out from his studies with the Cynics and Megarians to establish the Stoic school in 301BC.

And I'm more than happy to pick nits with the Stoics, so *technically" Epicurus bought the property for the Garden in Athens in 306. He had been teaching for several years prior to that in Mytilene and Lampsacus before that. The 306 and 301 dates make it appear that Epicurus and Zeno started teaching within 5 years of each other whereas Epicurus had a longer head start.

There are plenty of other nits (and larger bugs) to pick with that article but not a good start.

Just so I don't seem too critical of Cassius 's rebuttal to the Daily Stoic commentary:

Quote from Cassius

** They believed in thermodynamic entropy (it’s easier to destroy arrangements of atoms than for the arrangements to be made, thus the universe is ageing towards a state of complete disorganization). <<<< I don't believe this is correct from the texts. Yes decay takes place in parts of the universe, but in other parts the atoms are coming together, and this offsets the decay, so in total the different parts of the universe remain constantly cycling, not decaying overall.

I fully agree with your response to that. Just because there is decay in one part of the universe don't necessitate decay in all parts of the universe.

Quote from Cassius

** It’s a certain medieval christian bias that led to the interpretation of Epicureanism as the pursuit of sensual pleasure. <<<< No, this is not true, because Epicurus DID advocate the pursuit of sensual pleasure. The inaccuracy is that he advocated the pursuit of ALL KINDS of pleasure, including mental / emotional, and not ONLY sensual.

Fully agree again. This was Epicurus's big innovation, separating his philosophy from the Cyrenaics.

Quote from Daily Stoic

** What is important is the Greek term Eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness, but has little to do today with what we call happiness (the bubbly, pleasurable sensation that accompanies agreeable outcomes and events). Perhaps a better translation would be “Flourishing of life.” <<<

See above. Plus, I continue to advocate for a translation of "well-being" for eudaimonia. "Flourishing" doesn't strike me as conveying the right tone... it's hard to explain, but I'm sticking with "well-being."

Quote from Cassius

** Accordingly, the Epicureans advocated moderation in things, and a balanced, “agreeable” life that pursued the “higher pleasures” of fraternity, self improvement, and freedom from the fear of death, which they thought would result in the freedom of all fear. <<<< False in several respects. Again, "moderation" is Aristotle - there is no advocacy of "moderation" in Epicurus. In fact it is the opposite, pleasure is the goal, and it should be pursued with all the vigor possible, but that means prudently so that in fact the pleasure is maximized, not run amuk and creating needless pain. Also, there are no "higher" pleasures ranked by Epicurus. Friendship is one of the greatest tools for achieving pleasure, but it is given no "ranking" as superior kind of pleasure - nor is any other type of pleasure-- pleasure is pleasure.

I would concur that moderation is Aristotle. His doctrine of the mean did not impress me. On the other hand, I would contend that Epicurus advocates for a simple life, one in which one lives within their means, while at the same time taking pleasure in "extravagances" when they become available. And yes, there are not "higher" and "lower" pleasures; but I would contend that there are pleasures in which we can be more confident and less confident.

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus focused on PLEASURE as the guide of life. Eudaimonia and flourishing are terms associated with Aristotle and other Greeks, not the Epicurean perspective.

I agree with Little Rocker that Epicurus had every intention of engaging in the debates that were roiling through ancient Greek culture and philosophical debate for some time. Epicurus was more than happy to meet on the "field of (philosophical) battle" so to speak and to attempt to set the philosophical aright (as he saw it). I see parallels with his arguments for pleasure being the telos. Plato's Philebus tries to argue against pleasure; Epicurus tried to show how the argument in that work was fallacious. The Cyrenaics had one view of pleasure; Epicurus engaged with them to show how they were wrong.

Same with eudaimonia. Epicurus included eudaimonia as one of the results of living a pleasurable life. Eudaimonia was part of Epicurus's vocabulary and he had no issue including it in his philosophy. I found 6 instances of his use of the word eudaimonia itself plus one use in the commentary of Diogenes Laertius discussing Epicurus's philosophy in a cursory search of his texts:

PD33. The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for **happiness.**

σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ **εὐδαιμονίας** μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]

Fr. 548. **Happiness** and bliss are produced not by great riches nor vast possessions nor exalted occupations nor positions of power, but rather by peace of mind, freedom from pain, and a disposition of the soul that sets its limits in accordance with nature.

τὸ **εὔδαιμον** καὶ μακάριον [happiness and blessedness] οὐ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲ πραγμάτων ὄγκος οὐδʼ ἀρχαί τινες ἔχουσιν οὐδὲ δυνάμεις, ἀλλʼ ἀλυπία καὶ πραότης παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις ψυχῆς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὁρίζουσα.

Letter to Menoikeus

[122] Μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν, μήτε γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστιν οὔτε πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον. ὁ δὲ λέγων ἢ μήπω τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπάρχειν ἢ παρεληλυθέναι τὴν ὥραν ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ λέγοντι πρὸς **εὐδαιμονίαν** ἢ μήπω παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτ’ εἶναι. ὥστε φιλοσοφητέον καὶ νέῳ καὶ γέροντι, τῷ μὲν ὅπως γηράσκων νεάζῃ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς διὰ τὴν χάριν τῶν γεγονότων, τῷ δ᾽ ὅπως νέος ἅμα καὶ παλαιὸς ᾖ διὰ τὴν ἀφοβίαν τῶν μελλόντων. μελετᾶν οὖν χρὴ τὰ ποιοῦντα τὴν **εὐδαιμονίαν,** εἴ περ παρούσης μὲν αὐτῆς πάντα ἔχομεν, ἀπούσης δέ πάντα πράττομεν εἰς τὸ ταύτην ἔχειν.

[122] Neither must one who is young delay in loving and pursuing wisdom; nor should one who is old grow weary of loving and pursuing wisdom; because it is neither out of season nor untimely for the health of the psykhē. And one who says either the season to love and practice wisdom is not yet arrived or the season has passed by is like someone who is saying either the proper time has not arrived or is no more for **eudaimonia.** Therefore, both the young and old must love and pursue wisdom. On the one hand, the old can be young by means of gratitude for the pleasures which have happened; on the other hand, the young can be as if they are old in years by means of the fearlessness of facing what is intended to be done or what is to come. You must study and meditate upon that which produces **eudaimonia.** For if indeed that is present, we have everything; if that is not present, we do anything to have it.

[127] ... Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί, καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον· τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς **εὐδαιμονίαν** εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.

And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for **eudaimonia;** then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself.

Letter to Pythocles

[116] οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ζῷον, κἂν <εἰ> μικρὸν χαριέστερον εἴη, ἡ τοιαύτη μωρία ἐμπέσοι, μὴ ὅτι εἰς παντελῆ **εὐδαιμονίαν** κεκτημένον [aquire, possess, own].

"Ταῦτα δὴ πάντα, Πυθόκλεις, μνημόνευσον:

[116] For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect **eudaimonia.**

"All this, Pythocles, you should keep in mind ;

Laërtius commentary not Epicurus: DL X [121]

Τὴν **εὐδαιμονίαν** διχῆ νοεῖσθαι, τήν τε ἀκροτάτην, οἵα ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν θεόν, ἐπίτασιν οὐκ ἔχουσαν: καὶ τὴν <κατὰ τὴν> προσθήκην καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν ἡδονῶν.

Μετιτέον δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

"Ἐπίκουρος Μενοικεῖ χαίρειν.

[121] Two sorts of **happiness** can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

We must now proceed to his letter.

"Epicurus to Menoeceus, greeting.

Quote from Cassius

Reference to Chrysippus vs Epicurus in writing, and to the statue in the Ceramicus - plus the meaning of Chrysippus' name!

That etymology is for the pun on his name: Crypsippus That's not bad!

(That cryp.. in the pun is the same as the "crypto..." in cryptography etc)

Quote from Cassius

Don has agreed that if he is able to attend that he will give us a presentation on his new "Location of the Garden" article so that is additional incentive to attend!

FYI

File

Where was the Garden of Epicurus? The Evidence from the Ancient Sources and Archaeology

While we will probably never know the exact location of Epicurus’s Garden in ancient Athens, we can take a number of educated guesses.

Don

April 19, 2023 at 11:10 PM