Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Ok maybe where I am going is back in the direction of "examples.". Is protecting oneself from a murderer something that comes under the heading of " justice " at all?

Quote from Cassius

I think most pple today would say that it does. Are you saying Epicurus would not (say that self-protection involving harm to the aggressor) because that does not fall under the category of justice?

To the first question:

Yes.

You are protecting yourself from being harmed. I believe Epicurus would say, if possible, make decisions that don't put yourself in a situation in which you can be harmed. But, if chance does put you there, it is natural for you to not want to be harmed.

Eschewing the word "justice", I would fall back on δίκαιος's sense of "civilized behavior." Self-defense is justified under "Neither βλάπτειν nor βλάπτεσθαι."

I guess that also sort of addresses question #2.

I think it's also significant that Epicurus does not use to wilful wrong (ἀδικεῖν)

In your scenario, the burglar has initiated an unjust act in going against the laws of the community (I'm assuming there are laws against burglary and murder in this hypothetical society especially if it's our own). The potential victim is protecting themselves from harm.

As for definitions of harm let's let Epicurus speak for himself. He says specifically in several KDs:

μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.

Neither βλάπτειν nor βλάπτεσθαι.

βλάπτειν

Infinitive of βλάπτω

to disable,to hinder

to harm, to hurt, to damage

βλάπτεσθαι

middle/passive infinitive of βλάπτω

which refers the action/benefit back to oneself

That's where the "don't be harmed" comes from.

Here's the LSJ for βλάπτω for full context:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=bla/ptw And http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…8:entry=bla/ptw

Mea culpa on the Atticus

I agree generally with your post; however, I think Epicurus's "don't harm; don't be harmed" is a "general rule" BUT only meaningful in context. It's not an absolute or Platonic ideal but it is a criteria against which to decide "just" actions for society... just like the Canon is a criteria against which to decide actions for the individual. As he says injustice is not bad itself but its effects are what are used to decide. Breaking society's agreement - at its most basic "don't harm; don't be harmed" - upsets the individual's ability to live pleasurably and upsets the community's ability to provide for an environment conducive to living pleasurably.

Quote from Cassius

When you say "the community needs...." you are making an observation that is no doubt true (organizations of any kind have a need to perpetuate their existence)

As far as perpetuation of an organization's existence, Epicurus himself made explicit arrangements for the continuation of the Garden in his will.

But I think the use of the word "organization" is wrong here. I would advocate consistently for terms like "community" "society" "civilization" that is the social medium/environment in which individuals live. Ancient Greeks were very concerned about how individuals lived in common. Those outside of common society were looked at with suspicion. That's why Greek ἴδιος idios meaning "private, separate, one's own" could give rise to the English word idiot. I think Epicurus is addressing these concepts in the last set of KDs.

Quote from Cassius

but I see nothing in the texts that indicate to me that Epicurus was in any way concerned with the needs of "organizations."

Hmm. I see KD 31-40 concerned about nothing else except the interrelation among individuals, community, and "justice." We talk about the contextual and relative nature of the philosophy. These last KDs are *all* about justice as a contextual principle concerning how individuals interact in a society. There is no "justice" apart from that context. I'm going back and re-reading the posts on KD 31-38 and then working on 39 and 40, but that's my take on them in recollecting.

Quote from Cassius

It seems to me that Epicurus was focused on the issues of feelings - pleasure and pain - and only individual human beings have those feelings.

Exactly. The majority of the KDs specifically focus on the individual, the use of the Canon, death (of the individual), etc., etc. But the individual doesn't exist in a vacuum. How do we live in community (whether it's Athens or the Garden)? Epicurus addresses this in 31-40. He set out an entire system from atoms to the cosmos and *everything* in between. Book V in Lucretius addresses the rise of humans and civilization and so this discussion of what justice is seems to fit right into that.

Quote from Cassius

Now he might have been referring to organizational concepts as a part of showing how they are obstacles to pleasure, as he referred to false religions and false philosophies, so it is a possibility that he was singling out "justice" for attention given its status as one of the classic "virtues" which are elevated to ends in themselves.

Bingo (in part)! If your community has no justice and is just "red in tooth and claw" or even "nasty, brutish, and short" you're going to have a hard time living a pleasurable life. I think this is why your fav Atticus could justify his resistance to developments in his society. He felt that direction didn't provide for the context of living a pleasurable life and so fought to restore peace and safety/stability.

To your second point, I think Epicurus was singling out justice because it was/is necessary for living a pleasurable life. That's why he can say living justly, wisely, and nobly is living pleasurably and vice versa. If we get along with our fellow members of our community and feel safe, we have a better chance of living pleasurably. Therefore, "not doing harm and not being harmed" are the most basic "natural" definition of justice. It's not imposed by a god or even Nature but is the foundational agreement among individuals upon which civilization itself is built.

Quote from Godfrey

Don would you consider Ehrman some sort of Epicurean? Maybe of the Gassendi variety? He seems to have adopted Epicurus' physics to some extent, but I'm curious what his ethical ideas are like.... He does sound quite interesting.

I think he's "Epicurious" in that he's accepted a material worldview and doesn't believe in an eternal, supernatural life after death. He started out Christian fundamentalist and now considers himself agnostic I believe. This is the first time I've seen him explicitly use Epicurus and Lucretius by name although I was explicitly doing a Google search for that this time.

His professional work has been on the history of Christianity and specifically on the textual history of the Bible. All his books are both scholarly and highly readable.

Speaking of Dr. Bart Ehrman, I found this interesting:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/is-ame…heaven-and-hell

Quote

[Ehrman] maintains as well that he has fewer problems with non-existence than he once had, in part because he has internalized the teachings of Epicurus and Lucretius.

Just checking KD 31-38... The word pleasure ηδονή or its synonyms or variants do not appear in them, which makes sense. Like I said above, pleasure has to do with individual humans. I am coming to the idea that "justice" "civilized behavior" has to do with providing individual human beings the most conducive environment in which to live the most pleasurable life. An environment - a community - which allows humans to make the choices and rejections that lead to a pleasurable life based on the Canon. The community must uphold the criteria of "not being harmed and not doing harm": the most basic agreement for a just/civilized community no matter the size: a band of Neanderthals living in a cave to a nation like the US and so on. Acts between people must uphold that agreement. Acts between nations must uphold that agreement... Where that agreement exists! That's the tricky part of these KDs.

But the community needs to be peaceful and stable. Justice maintains this peace and stability. Unjust acts need to be punished to maintain that peace and stability. Epicurus seems to rely heavily on one's conscience to get the person to not engage in unjust acts for fear of getting caught and of punishment. But the last two KDs may also figure into this. So, that's where I'll be going next.

However, y'all feel free to comment on these thoughts, too.

I'm wondering if there is an analogy with "civil" and "criminal" offenses? I'm not a lawyer (but I know someone who is ), but it seems both of those arenas have to do with seeking justice for injured (harmed) parties. If either civil or criminal offenses go unpunished, that harms society as a whole as in those acts become sanctioned by not being punished and so are detrimental to the community.

What are your thoughts on that route?

Quote from Cassius

but the basic point you are making is that we should consider justice to be an entirely "civil" concept and maybe use words like "fairness" for strictly personal relations ?

Maybe... So, how do you define the difference between "justice" and "fairness" then? Is there any if we go back to the criteria of "not being harmed & not causing harm"? What are you thinking of as "strictly personal relations"?

So, my understanding is that "justice" is concerned with *interactions* between and among individuals as it affects the stability and peace of the community. As such, there are any number of interactions between two people that would fall under that purview.

Quote from Cassius

. By this point, there is no "justice" in the actions between two individuals alone.

I wouldn't go that far.

Scenario: If someone kills someone else, that's "only" an interaction between two people, but it has ramifications for the community as a whole. Party A caused harm to party B, therefore - under this criteria of justice -, that is not an act of civilized behavior, it is not δίκαιος, and so is worthy of punishment.

To jumpstart this discussion again, I had the following thoughts on my way to work today:

Pain and pleasure, the senses, and the prolepses are the criteria for making personal decisions on what is choice-worthy and what is not.

Justice is not concerned with the personal but the community. Civilization/society/community is not a person or being. Therefore, "it" does not have access to the Canon.

Therefore, pleasure and pain on a personal level doesn't enter into the criteria of what is just or righteous.

The criteria for justice is "not being harmed or not causing harm" which of we wanted a metaphorical civilized Canon *could* equate to "pleasure" (not being harmed) and "pain" (not causing harm) with the understanding that this is only a metaphor.

Therefore, the personal pleasure or pain that the individual experiences has no bearing on whether an action is just or not.

Discuss...

Quote from Cassius

more aggressive than even Thomas Paine on religion.

Wow! Okay, you've piqued my interest!!

Oh

Quote from Cassius

I'm afraid Don is going to be a little disappointed though, if he thinks there's going to be a lot on Plato.

it's okay, I didn't expect Plato. I'm a fan of Bart's from way back.

I find the parallels between the original Jewish teaching and Epicurus's philosophy somewhat surprising. I was just reading the Lucretius text for next week's podcast, and he speaks about the soul and mind not being able to exist outside the body. That seems to be what Ehrman is saying about Jesus's beliefs. Now, Epicurus didn't believe in any possibility of a resurrection, but that whole "the soul ceases to exist after death" is reminiscent of Epicurus.

We have to be careful about the Jewish and Roman responsibility for Jesus's execution. The Romans became increasingly "exonerated" when it became increasingly necessary to court Roman favor or at least tolerance of Christians. The Jewish Sanhedrin would have had no power to execute. And the Romans had no interest in intra-religious doctrinal squabbles. Rome was all-powerful. Jesus appears to have been, in their eyes, a rabble-rouser and, and if the episode with the money changers in the temple and his entrance into Jerusalem can be believed, a danger to the social order. He got arrested - probably for sedition and disturbing the peace, got tortured and whipped as per Roman custom, and got summarily executed and left to rot on the cross as an example to others. "Don't be going around talking about the coming destruction of the world - OUR Roman world, by the way - and expect us to look the other way. This is how you'll end up! Got it?!"

Quote from Godfrey

From today's paper, an op-ed about how Christians came to believe in an immortal soul, from a professor of religious studies. (Spoiler alert: it has roots in Plato's deception and trickery....) Personally, I was unaware of how late it came about.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/…eaven-hell-soul

Oh! It's by Bart Ehrman! I have great respect for his work. His books are very readable and still scholarly. He has a wonderful informal delivery in his talks as well. Looking forward to reading the article!!

Quote from Godfrey

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6L…_cD0xMDE2?ep=14

LOL! You beat me to it, Godfrey ! I just listened to this the other day. Fascinating!

Quote from Cassius

You know, this part of the discussion reminds me that I intentionally entitled the thread "With examples of Just and unjust" and I am not sure we've made much progress on that

Oh, it's coming Be patient.

For example, I'm assuming there were rules governing social interactions in the Garden of Epicurus so there could be "just" and "unjust" actions there... unless the rules governing social interactions there were those of the larger polis of Athens especially in light of Epicurus's embrace of taking part in the civic religious celebrations of the city-state.

Quote from Cassius

you're thinking that while we use the word "just" or "justice" to describe some types of dealings between any two people in most any context, Epicurus was limiting it to a more "organized society" context?

I'll have to think about that, but I do think the social component is very important in the philosophy. And where do your two hypothetical people exist? Are they members of a community? What "rules" or "laws" govern their interaction?