Posts by Don

Look forward to reading your efforts and seeing your translation decisions.

Quote from Cassius

... And that's exactly what I mean too when I say "the universe is all that exists." Any kind of terminology such as world systems or multiverses or anything else falls within "the universe is all that exists. " If it exists anywhere using any adjective, it's part of the "universe."

Oh, I completely agree that "the universe is all that exists" just to be clear. The only complication on that is possibly a differing view on what we mean by "world" and "universe." To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi. The planets were find orbiting other stars are part of our cosmos. If we want other cosmoi, we have to accept the multiverse, ie, other universes. All the universes together in modern cosmology make up The Universe, THE All. If one is trying to map Epicurean cosmology onto a modern paradigm, I contend that that's the only way to do it.

That doesn't in any way go against Epicurus' primary tenet that we live in a natural, material universe.

Quote from Cassius

I'd say your suggestions there are possibilities, but not really compelled at all by the texts. I would expect Epicurus thought of the universe as "all that exists."

Epicurus posited many world-systems in an infinite All (universe). That's exactly what the texts provide.

Quote from Cassius

I'd wager we are me no more than a couple of hundred years from that ability ourselves, at the outside.

By what means? Not being argumentative, just curious.

If I temporarily take the physical gods perspective...

If you want to go down the physics route translated into a modern paradigm, I'm going to posit that the intermundia refers to another dimension or another universe in the multiplicity of universes out in The All. Gods are material and natural, but reside outside our universe under a different physics than our own. We cannot see them with our eyes, because our universe doesn't overlap with theirs. They are not aliens living on planets in our universe. That's just an assertion on my part, granted. But that's the only way I could right now "accept" a corporeal divinity in an Epicurean theological context.

I find it much easier to think of the gods as what an ideal life would be like without the limits on mortal, corruptible bodies. The best I can do is to live "like a god". That doesn't mean identical to a god or equivalent to a god. It's a metaphorical divine existence.

column 24
P.Herc. 1148 col. 24
Sketched 1803-1803 by Carlo Orazi

[ἀ-]
γ̣απητ[ὸν] καὶ τοῦτ[ο], τὸ
δὴ πάντα τὸν συνε̣[χό]με-
νον̣ [ταῖς] τοιαύταις περι-
εργ[ε]ίαις ἔχειν οἱονὶ φάρ-
μακ̣ον δι' οὗ κα̣τα̣στάσεις
ἁ̣πλ[ᾶς ἔστι]ν ἐν τῆι περὶ φύ-
σε[ως θεωρί]αι ἀπαλλαγή-
σε[σθαι τῆς σ]υμφύτου ἑαυ-
τα̣[ῖς ταραχ]ῆς ἣ καὶ ὕσ̣τε-
10ρον̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ η̣πο ̣ ̣ σιτ ̣ ̣
γε [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὥστε ̣ ̣ ̣ υ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοιού̣[τοι]ς ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ον̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]

I just came across this quickly-escalating conversation and have thoughts.

I find myself aligned with TauPhi 's direction here as I read it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but paraphrasing his stance as I understand it (and Epicurean theology) with some of my own perspective mixed in:

The gods (whether thought constructs or physical beings) are not above or outside nature; they have no concerns for humans and do not bestow blessings or rain down punishment. Those seem to be the points of paramount importance to Epicurus. We have nothing to fear from gods (no matter how they exist).

The gods do not interfere with humans, have no need of humans, live in bliss, and are incorruptible.

Going from TauPhi's points with my own direction: The gods have no concern for humans; however, if humans were to try to contact gods or come into physical contact with them... the gods would necessarily be troubled by humans. This seems to me to be counter to Epicurean theology. If we wish to be "god-like" in an Epicurean sense, we should not bother the gods: "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness)." If we trouble or annoy the gods by going around poking them, prodding them, trying to contact them, by definition, we not acting as an Epicurean god. Leave them be, and admire their blessedness within our minds, contemplate their blessedness and incorruptibility.

On the Gods as Aliens...

I have no problem whatsoever thining that Epicurus would be interested to learn his idea of the universe was not as he had envisioned it. Knowing how the universe was put together and seeing other stars and worlds around those stars would further solidify his resolve that there was nothing to fear outside of the universe and that natural laws governed the universe and not a supernatural intelligence. He might even have been curious to entertain the multiverse/bubble universe concepts. If aliens contacted Earth, he would probably shrug and say, "I knew it would happen eventually." But those aliens are NEVER going to be Epicurean gods. By definition, if they concern themselves with humans, they aren't gods. "That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others."

For anyone curious about my general stance on Epicurean theology, listen to our recent podcast episode on the idealist vs realist god stances, or think of it as "thought-construct" vs "physical being" debate. I don't think the gods have a corporeal form, visible to the eye, able to be touched. I think they are mental constructions of the ideal existence put into a form by the mind to be able to comprehend and think about a blessed and incorruptible state.

I don't think astrobiology has anything to say about Epicurean theology.

I do think astrobiology has everything to do with Epicurus' theory that multiple worlds exist and that other beings exist on those other worlds. I do not think that Epicurus would say those other beings on other worlds are gods. Go ahead and contact the other beings, by all means. Teach them about Epicurus and learn from their "Epicurus." There could very well be an alien "Epicurus" since I could easily see "pleasure-seeking" a universal trait of life. But they're not gods.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Don

Case in point: I'll disagree with people who don't see the need for the Oxford comma!

Uh oh!

LOL! Bring it on!

I won't derail this thread any more, but one example: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/us/…trnd/index.html

Another paper:

And look at that, a different WP article!

Tetrapharmacum - Wikipedia

Not quite. Philodemus calls it the tetrapharmakos:

right there starting at the end of the first line in this clip: ΤΕΤΡΑΦΑΡ ΜΑ / ΚΟC (tetraphar ma / kos).

It appears to me that the idea of a four part mixture that resulted in something greater than its parts was a common idea in ancient Greece. The Epicurean one is simply the school's response to this idea.

According to the PhD dissertation linked below, it appears tetrapharmakos was a general idea among philosophers and physicians in the ancient world. The Epicurean one was likely a response to this.

Theory and Terminology of Mixture in Galen. 
The concepts of krasis and mixis in Galen’s thought: PhD Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von MA Claudia Mirrione

T2 Galen in Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. K. XV 32.1–11 Mewaldt 18.27–19.7

In fact, the four line verse found in Philodemus is not even brought up! This dissertation sheds a whole new light on how tetrapharmakos was understood in the ancient world. I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading the entire paper, but do a few searches for Epicurus or the word tetrapharmakos and skim the quotes. An unexpected find.

PS. It appears Dr. Mirrione got her PhD: https://www.klassphil.hu-berlin.de/en/avh-profess…-staff/mirrione

Welcome aboard, m.repetzki !

Quote from Cassius

This is exactly the kind of thing that infuriates me about DeWitt's book (not, notably, his academic papers). He'll throw out a statement like this with no citation or reference. And then he brings up the tetrapharmakos in other points of the book in an evidently positive light.

Quote from Cassius

Don aside from the papyrus we are talking about what citations can you provide for that? Possibly they are in the tread above and if so I will delete this post...

I'm not aware of any other than a possible paraphrase in Cicero and its similarity to the first few PDs.

My contention + and fondness for it as a link to the ancient members of our school and that it is of ancient Epicurean provenance is:

1. If Philodemus created it, he is a pivotal member of the ancient Epicurean school.

2. If Philodemus was critiquing its use among other Epicureans, they were obviously using it.

Quote from Cassius

This exchange may seem pedantic but I think there is a lot more going on here than just the two of us talking shop so I think it's very useful!

Oh, I can be guilty of being pedantic. Case in point: I'll disagree with people who don't see the need for the Oxford comma! But I digress...

Quote from Cassius

I would see that as an uncontroversial point and therefore unlikely to be the reason for its inclusion , and especially for its inclusion in the manner it is written.

See, here's a crux of our polite disagreement. And this goes waay back and I don't think either of us have budged I see PD10 as Epicurus planting a flag against the Cyrenaics specifically and other "pleasure seekers" of his day in general. I don't think it's an uncontroversial point. And the point I see him making in PD10/11/12 with all those If... Then's... is that if all these cases were, in fact, the case; we'd have no reason to study nature or learn the limits of pains and desires or even study philosophy. However, those if's, in fact, don't give us what we need to live a pleasurable life and so we then DO need to study nature and learn the limits of pain and desires.

I've always and continue to think you and others have tried to make this/these PDs do more philosophical heavy lifting than they need to.

Quote from Bryan

[Ad Contubernales]

Just a reminder that the papyrus only has ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ... We have no idea to whom Philodemus was addressing the treatise or who he was arguing against (in the title, he obviously had strong feelings expressed in the text itself).

Plus, even if Philodemus wasn't a fan (a for or against case can be made) of the "four line cure" it was definitely in use and in circulation among the wider Epicurean community. It's authenticity as an Epicurean "memento" verse is indisputable. That connection to the ancient members of the school is enough for me to continue to be a "fan."

Quote

As animals – human or otherwise – navigate the unpredictability of life, anticipating positive experiences helps drive a persistence to keep searching for life's rewards. In a world of immediate gratification, these rats offer insights into the neural principles guiding everyday behaviour. Rather than pushing buttons for instant rewards, they remind us that planning, anticipating and enjoying the ride may be key to a healthy brain. That's a lesson my lab rats have taught me well.

This finding dovetails nicely with Epicurus' contention that anticipating future pleasure IS pleasure. Fascinating article! Thanks, Kalosyni!

Quote from Cassius

But since one of our goals here is to be as clear as possible for ourselves and for others who are reading, we need to be clear: What really is the "general rule" that we are discussing?

Hmmm... The general rule I see in play here is "Overindulgence leads to pain."

Quote from Cassius

general rule is that pleasure is desirable because it is pleasure. That's a flat assertion with no exceptions whatsoever.

Yeah, here we are with different interpretations of "rule." "Pleasure is desirable because it is pleasure" is just a tautology. Nothing is defined there, and it doesn't advance the argument. "Pleasure is the supreme good" at least hammers home a philosophical stance, and I see that as stating an observed fact, not as a general rule.

Quote from Cassius

we're probably in complete agreement about the probabilities of what is likely to bring more pain than pleasure.

Agreed.

Quote from Cassius

Where Cicero and the majority of the rest of the world try to attack Epicurus is in conflating all these issues together and therefore asserting that "pleasure" is not the best term for the ultimate good. If we agree to that, then we invite in all sorts of logical problems that ultimately make it untenable to maintain that "pleasure" is the ultimate good or ultimate goal.

Agreed. Part of Epicurus' genius was hammering down that there were two, and only two, feelings: pleasure and pain. What wasn't one was the other. Boom. Therefore, to decrease the sorrow, pain, grief, anxiety, and, yes, indigestion in one's life is the path to follow along with, obviously, choosing activities that provide pleasure. And those things that lead to pleasure are indispensable tools that allow us to make progress on that path.

Quote from Cassius

I wanted to use both the like and the smile face.

Back at you...

Now we're getting somewhere.

Quote from Cassius

You mean there is doubt in your mind about that?

Yes, I suppose that's true. That could have been phrased better on my part.

Quote from Cassius

BUT - and this is a big point - the reason it's not proper to go further and say that choosing them will DEFINITELY bring more pain than pleasure is that there is no force of determinism in the universe that guarantees that result. Generally, even an overwhelming number of times, the result is predictable, but it's not always predictable, because there is no force of necessity which requires it to be so. When Epicurus wouldn't even admit it to be necessary that Metrodorus will necessarily be alive or dead tomorrow, he's not going to admit it to be necessary that any particular choice will necessarily lead to a precise result in terms of net pleasure or pain.

BUT - if one thinks they're going to be the exception to the general rule, they're usually disappointed. Does someone from time to time win the lottery? Sure, but how much money has been lost by innumerable people in getting to that win? This PD + 11 & 12 conveys to me the supreme importance of learning from nature, from what our senses tell us. We don't live a hypothetical existence. We live here and now in this material universe and in these mortal, physical bodies using our senses and our minds to make the most prudent decisions to live a life as imbued with pleasure as we are able.

I agree that Epicurus wouldn't entertain the Metrodorus question. He also didn't appear to like the paradox of the hooded father*. To me, Epicurus didn't like playing word games. He said what he meant and meant what he said. Our problem, often, is that he said it 2,300 years ago in ancient Greek.

*A person is presented with a person wearing a hood and is asked "Do you know this person?" Unbeknownst to the person being asked, it's his father under hood. This is supposed to show one can know and not know something at the same time.

Quote from Cassius

That's because I am pretty sure we agree that "sex, drugs, and rocknroll" are definitely desirable pleasures, and completely proper ones, when not "overindulged in" - which means essentially "to excess." Correct?

Correct, I think. "The pleasures of the prodigal" are, to my reading, by definition pleasures to excess. Luke 15:13 which uses ασωτως ( the adverb form of the word in PD10) is variously translated as:

• in wild living (NIV)
• with riotous living. (KJV)
• in dissolute living (NRSVue)
• in reckless and immoral living. (Amplified Bible)

To me, τὰ ποιητικὰ τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν "the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent" is very specific and carefully worded phrase. It doesn't say (and I'm guilty of implying it does) "the pleasures" themselves are the problem. The "the things that produce" the pleasures of the one who is overindulging are the main topic/subject of that phrase. So, we have two options to interpret that first part of PD10:

1. Are "the things that produce" the pleasures of the profligate referring to specific activities: possibly including drinking, gambling, dancing, sex, etc.,?
2. Are "the things that produce" the pleasures of the profligate referring to the overindulgnt , unlimited participation in those activities?

I think it has to be number two since Epicurus includes all activities that bring pleasure as defined as good. Therefore, if riotous, wild, reckless living and experiening every pleasure without limits did dispel fears and taught us about the limits of pain and desires, then we'd have no complaints against those who indulge in pleasure that way. But I believe he makes us ask the question: "Does riotous, wild, reckless living and experiening every pleasure without limits dispel fears and teach us about the limits of pain and desires?" The hypothetical (as you describe this PD) drives home the requirement to look at how we normally view pleasure. I think a large number of people today think "riotous, wild, reckless living" when they hear pleasure or hedonism. Epicurus, Philodemus, the whole Garden seem to have been confronting this same battle of both inadvertent and deliberate misunderstanding of their school. To me, it's both a philosophical point and practical advice, taken together with what has become PD11 and PD12.

Quote from Cassius

I completely agree with the emphasis on personal responsibility, unless you mean that wording to indicate that personal responsibility is more important than pleasure itself. I don't think you mean that, but in the context of the discussion I could see someone casually reading the post thinking that is what you mean. We live for pleasure, and personal responsibility is essential to ensure that we do not overindulge and end up with too much pain, but personal responsibility itself is just a "virtue" and therefore a "tool" for living pleasurably, and it is living pleasurably ("pleasure") that is the goal.

We definitely agree here.

To reflect on the title of this thread: "Why Minimizing All Desire Is Incorrect (And What To Do Instead)" - I would agree that we aren't called to "minimize all desire" or, to rephrase that, minimize pleasures that we experience down to a bare minimal number of allowed ones.

Epicurus wrote that "all pleasure is good." If we equate "the pleasures of the profligate" at all times and all places with every experience of "the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms," and avoid every experience of these (and other pleasures I'm sure we can think of), that's not the point. I continue to contend that it's the unlimited indulgence of any one pleasure that becomes an issue for Epicurus. Although, it's easier to avoid some to begin with if one knows the likely outcome beforehand. Nevertheless, if you indulge in "sex, drugs, and rock and roll"; Epicurus is going to be there afterwards shaking his head, giving you some frank speech, but no doubt welcoming you back to the garden if you want to sincerely learn about the "limits of our pains (of either mind or body) and desires" and to "study nature." He wrote a treatise set as a discussion among attendees (including himself) at a drinking party (Symposium, Συμπόσιον, number 18 on Diogenes Laertius' list) where they discuss, among other things, whether wine has warming or cooling properties and getting omens from indigestion.

Epicureanism has always been to me a philosophy of personal responsibility (tempered with an understanding of chance and circumstance). It's the outcomes of the choices that are made, NOT (necessarily) the pleasures experienced in and of themselves. I will continue to think that PD10-12 provides a beginning framework of why and how to understand the limits that we should consider to be prudent choice-makers.