New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Ex.
Fr. 49: ...that Heraclides is [praised] because, deeming the censures for the things that would be revealed to be less {important} than their benefit, he disclosed to Epicurus his errors. Polyaenus too was such a man, who indeed,
when A[polloni]des was remiss, [would go] to Epicurus...
Fr. 55: ...and they (present] for frank criticism what concerns themselves in the presence of the students, to be put before Epicurus and for the sake of correction.
Is it not true that we have no evidence of what was happening in the original Garden regarding special consultation or counseling?
Philodemus quotes Epicurus as well as uses specific examples of interactions in the Garden with Epicurus, Metrodorus, Leontion, Pythocles, etc. to illustrate the practice of parrhesia, frank speech. I see no reason to think Philodemus didn't know about the practice firsthand since he trained in the Garden in Athens before coming to Herculaneum.
A big part of classical Epicurean practice in the original Garden through the time of Philodemus and beyond to even Oenoanda appears to be the one on one consultation or counseling between student and teacher to correct mistaken views and actions. Philodemus outlines this practice and its implementation and importance in On Frank Speech. That is a major component that is lost in our current moment, not to say that we don't help each other hone our understanding, but there are no teachers with authority per se.
Some quotes from On Frank Speech:
Even if we demonstrate logically that, although many fine things result from friendship, there is nothing so grand as having one to whom one will say what is in one's heart and who will listen when one speaks. For our nature strongly desires to reveal to some people what it thinks.
Fr. 40: ...for it is necesssary to show him his errors forthrightly and speak
of his failings publicly. For if he has considered this man to be the one guide
of right speech and [action], whom he calls the only savior, and {to whom},
citing the phrase, "with him accompanying {me},"
he has given himself over
to be treated, then how is he not going to show to him those things in which he
needs treatment, and [accept admonishment]?
Fr. 45: ...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and
when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become
eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey
Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live, as even..
And so on.
Of course this invites the question, "Then why does it exist in our world?"
The vicissitudes and randomness of cultural evolution.
Surupice's world would no doubt have some weird ways of thinking that would make us scratch our heads... But don't scratch using your tail because according to Nomromism the tail is an outward sign of purity and must be tied in a knot and tucked in your hat... Or some other bs like that.
Not having read Wright, that quote above is very helpful! I'm obviously biased, but the character seems to have a point, especially in relation to Epicurus's philosophy.
Epicurus's whole point was to get rid of the indoctrination imposed by society and culture and reveal and practice the faculties provided by nature, use pleasure and pain as guides to living. Rejection of that indoctrination could conceivably occur naturally.
I've liked Ricky Gervais' take on science vs religion on Stephen Colbert (fast forward video to 3:40)
Again, I may be biased, but I could see something like Epicurus's philosophical path be recreated after everything was destroyed because in many ways he's relying on biology, psychology, physics, cosmology, etc (at least at the understanding he could have in 3rd c BCE Greece) to build the path he offered. I could see an alien Epicurus coming up with a similar path light years away, let's call them Surucipe. All biological organisms will have to experience pleasure and pain to exist. That's the first building block of the philosophy. Some details of Surucipeanism would differ from Epicureanism but they could still posit atoms, see the value in pleasure (what Surupice calls positive affect), etc. I sincerely doubt anything resembling Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would exist in Surupice's world, maybe some form of Buddhism with its concentration on consciousness and awareness (not the Tibetan variety but a basic early form). But this is the kind of thought experiment I can get behind 
Great episode. I really like the readings of the text interspersed with the discussion. That helps to keep things on track and keeps the text close to the commentary. Nicely done.
Some thoughts and additional resources:
For those who have the fortune to have NOT seen the bumper sticker that Joshua was talking about in the episode:
The discussion of death has prompted me to share some resources on the "death positive" movement - started in the 1970s - that tries to bring conversations about death and dying to wider audience:
(also has a page of resources)
(one of the well-known authors, speakers, and YouTube personalities of the movement)
(a way to engage conversations about the topic)
Great conversation at the end about the necessity of philosophy!
Is philosophy the love of knowledge or is it the love of wisdom?
This is a great question. Technically and etymologically, philosophy is literally "the love of wisdom" > philia + sophia
φιλία philia "affectionate regard, friendship"
σοφία sophia
So, technically, philosophy is having an affectionate regard, a friendship if you will, with wisdom in the sense of having sound judgement, and putting that 'wisdom' into practical use in being skilled in living.
I think I agree, in part, with both Joshua and Kalosyni . I do think people can be happy, or at least feel happy, without "studying philosophy." And I can see Joshua's hesitancy in trying to tell people they're not *really* happy, they just think they are. They *really* need XYZ to be *really* happy; otherwise, they're fooling themselves. That does seem condescending. I know better than you, so to speak.
However...
I think a lot of people don't even think about if they're happy or not if you would ask them the question "Are you happy?" "Sure, I'm happy." If you start asking them questions (IF they are amenable to questions being asked!), they might find that they have subconscious biases, fears, anxieties, etc., that are curtailing their potential happiness. I think there could be degrees of being conscious of one's happiness.
That's what the study of "a philosophy" (not just "philosophy") can provide: A framework within which to study one's preconceptions, to thing about big questions, to find ways of questioning or to find some answers.
I think people can become fondly acquainted with practical wisdom on their own and be happy... up to a point. And maybe that point works for them. I don't think we can second-guess people if they say they are feeling happy or content... But I also don't think we have to take people's verbal assurance at face value. Sometimes we have to ask, "Are you trying to convince me or yourself that you're happy?"
can we say that the goal in ancient times was to discover the best way to live a good life?
(And in comparison, that there are other goals in modern philosophy).
It seems to be that philosophical schools in ancient Greece worked a little like churches do nowadays. Schools had definite paths to follow, they "fought" with rival schools for "converts," you could "convert" from being a Stoic to being an Epicurean, and so on. Each thought they taught the best way to live and actively promulgated their doctrines ...believing that they had the best way to live!
Modern philosophy as an academic discipline is far removed from this mode, although more and more academics and practitioners are trying to get back to that old Greek way of thinking about philosophical paths... present company included!
What's generally wrong with Oracles?
My take was that oracles are often misunderstood by people because of their cryptic pronouncements.
"If you go to war, a great empire will fall" (Oh, it's my empire and not my enemy)
"Rely on your wooden walls!" (Oh, the Oracle means to rely on our ships!)
"Socrates is the wisest!"
I take it that Epicurus called it like he saw it but was often misunderstood by the hoi polloi. But he didn't worry about that but tried to be as frank as possible: Death is nothing to us! Oh he can't mean that there's no life after death. We don't like that.
Alternative translations:
29. To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many.
Epicurus.info : E-Texts : The Vatican Sayings
29) To be frank, I would prefer as I study nature to speak in revelations about what is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the scattered praise that is broadcast by the many.
Vatican Saying 29 - Epicurus Wiki
Analysis
A laud to frankness, the cardinal Epicurean virtue of parrhesia: it is best to speak of natural matters frankly (i.e. in a manner that is void of any superstition) than to cater to popular beliefs, however false those might be, in order to garner the applause that the multitudes are so ready to confer upon anyone who agrees with their prejudices.
The paradoxical argument is that this, rather anti-populist position the true philosopher ought to assume, ultimately is the one that is indeed beneficial to all people. It is better to speak in a manner that seems "oracular" and might not be understood by many, rather than to take the facile approach of consenting to all sorts of popular misconceptions.
Greek text:
παρρησίᾳ γὰρ ἔγωγε χρώμενος φυσιολογῶν χρησμῳδεῖν τὰ συμφέροντα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις μᾶλλον ἄν βουλοίμην, κἂν μηδεὶς μέλλῃ συνήσειν, ἢ συγκατατιθέμενος ταῖς δόξαις καρποῦσθαι τὸν πυκνὸν παραπίπτοντα παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἔπαινον.
FYI: χρησμῳδεῖν =
A.deliver oracles, prophesy, Hdt.7.6, Ar.Eq.818 (anap.), Pl.Cra.396d; τι X.Ap.30; τισι Pl.Ap.39c; “τὰ συμφέροντα” Epicur. Sent.Vat.29; “χ. ἐμμέτρως” Plu.2.623c:—Pass., “κεχρησμῳδήσθω” Pl.Lg.712a; “τὰ κεχρησμῳδημένα” Id.Ep.323c.
II. Pass., to be inspired, receive a divine revelation, Ph.2.384.
When Epicurus says he would prefer to speak in an oracular fashion and frankly ( VS29 uses παρρησίᾳ parrhesia "Frank speech") is he talking about the cryptic way in which oracles spoke? He prefers to convey his teaching on nature as he sees fit even if some don't understand and he doesn't "reap the showers of praise"?
Wasn't Epicurus's mother a purveyor of charms and oracles?
Here's Saint-Andre's note for VS28
[28] I have translated τοὺς προχείρους ("those who are ready", here in the sense of "over-ready") as "those who grasp after" because χείρ is the word for hand. There is also a play on words in the second clause, where χάρις (grace, fortune, pleasure) is used in the sense of "delight" and in the sense of "for the sake of"; to preserve the pun, I have translated both instances using the word "pleasure". I take the meaning as related to an idea from Principal Doctrine #8: we must pay for the long-term pleasures of friendship by venturing the possibility of some short-term pain ("risking some pleasure"); see also Letter to Menoikos, Section 129 and Vatican Saying #73. This is enlightened hedonism at its most social, if you will.
I wanted to add that I am coming to really like Lucretius's vessel metaphor.
The image of cleaning and repairing the vessel as a metaphor for learning and internalizing the teachings of Epicurus with the resulting clean pot filled with clean liquid symbolizing the calm waters of ataraxia shows that ataraxia is not a sudden epiphany. It takes work to achieve and maybe even maintain.
My only suggestion would be that vase 1 in the graphic needs some slime, muck, mud, or just nasty things clinging to the rim and sides and sliding into the liquid (pleasure), contaminating it.
For those who haven't seen the graphic from 2017, this seems to hold up pretty well:
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/59113/PDF/1/play/
RECURRENT IMAGERY AND DIDACTIC TECHNIQUE IN LUCRETIUS’ DE RERUM NATURA
by BRIAN P. HILL
Here's an entire paper on lucretius's use of the vessel or jar as a metaphor.
Current verses in question in Book 6 are on p.145.
Okay, so I'm going to use the Leonard translation from Perseus because it's easy to copy/paste, not because I'm a fan of Leornard:
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK VI, line 1
From my perspective, it's fairly straight forward to understand the vessel metaphor:
The verses start out with Epicurus's observation that everything was going pretty well from a material existence perspective for humankind. Almost everything which a person "most urgently required was ready at hand" (the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to achieve, Letter to Menoikeus and elsewhere). And humans had safety, men were lords in "riches, honour, praise" (See VS81)
One will not banish emotional disturbance or arrive at significant joy through great wealth, fame, celebrity, or anything else which is a result of vague and indefinite causes.
But humans still weren't happy with all that! Their minds were troubled:
they yet, O yet, within the home,
Still had the anxious heart which vexed life
Unpausingly with torments of the mind,
Epicurus is looking for why this should still be if their material needs were being met, and they had "riches, honour, praise." Aren't those things supposed to make one happy? Aren't they supposed to bring well-being? Epicurus observes they obviously do not!
Epicurus observes that the mind itself - the vessel - is the problem! The mind - the vessel - remains polluted and cracked with erroneous ideas, fears, anxieties, and the like!
Epicurus then teaches how to purge the vessel (the mind) and to repair the cracks so that we can fully experience pleasure! We need to repair the vessel before we can fill it up with pleasures!
The master, then by his truth-speaking words,
Purged the breasts of men, and set the bounds
Of lust and terror, and exhibited
The supreme good whither we all endeavour,
And so Epicurus teaches how to purge all those defects in the mind ("the breasts of men" since the mind is said to dwell in the chest) and to set bounds/limits to fears and desires (Leonard: "of lust and terror") and shows the way to experience pleasure, i.e., the "supreme good" (bonum summum). Stallings translates this as:
And thus with this truth-telling words he washed the heart all clear,
And set a limit to desire and an end to fear,
And showed what was the highest good, towards which we all strain,
And pointed out the route...The strait and narrow path...
Epicurus taught that we carry around too much worry, fear, anxiety, to be able to enjoy life! Riches, fame, and such aren't enough! We need to banish fear, anxiety, and other such things that are clogging up and cracking our minds - the vessel that wants to experience pleasure!
mostly vainly doth the human race
Roll in its bosom the grim waves of care.
So, I like this line because it goes with my new quickly-become-favorite metaphor. Epicurus calls us not to "roll in..the grim waves of care" but rather to "float on the ocean, and surf the waves." Stallings translates those lines:
...mankind in vain, for the most part,
Set the gloomy sea of troubles churning in the heart.
This terror that is experienced by a mind full of fear and anxiety can only be fixed by "nature's aspect and her law."
This terror then, this darkness of the mind,
Not sunrise with its flaring spokes of light,
Nor glittering arrows of morning can disperse,
But only nature's aspect and her law.
Stallings simply translates those last lines as:
The fear and shadows of the mind must be scattered away,
... by the look of Nature and her law.
So it all comes back around to our recent thread on ataraxia and the work of removing fear, anxiety, the darkness and torments of the mind, and instead freeing our minds from the "gloomy sea of troubles" so we can float on the calm ocean of ataraxia and surf the waves of delightful kinetic pleasures!
Spurn all delights; any joy that is purchased with pain will be harmful.
Wow that's hard to reconcile with Epicurus. Apparently Horace has to be handled with care and I know I have not taken the time to follow the changes that took place in his views.
Not sure if this helps, but here's the entire letter from whence that line comes from:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of THE WORKS OF HORACE, by C. Smart, A.M..
EPISTLE II.
TO LOLLIUS.
He prefers Homer to all the philosophers, as a moral writer, and advises an early cultivation of virtue.
While you, great Lollius, declaim at Rome, I at Praeneste have perused over again the writer of the Trojan war; who teaches more clearly, and better than Chrysippus and Crantor, what is honorable, what shameful, what profitable, what not so. If nothing hinders you, hear why I have thus concluded. The story is which, on account of Paris's intrigue, Greece is stated to be wasted in a tedious war with the barbarians, contains the tumults of foolish princes and people. Antenor gives his opinion for cutting off the cause of the war. What does Paris? He can not be brought to comply, [though it be in order] that he may reign safe, and live happy. Nestor labors to compose the differences between Achilles and Agamemnon: love inflames one; rage both in common. The Greeks suffer for what their princes act foolishly. Within the walls of Ilium, and without, enormities are committed by sedition, treachery, injustice, and lust, and rage.
Again, to show what virtue and what wisdom can do, he has propounded Ulysses an instructive pattern: who, having subdued Troy, wisely got an insight into the constitutions and customs of many nations; and, while for himself and his associates he is contriving a return, endured many hardships on the spacious sea, not to be sunk by all the waves of adversity. You are well acquainted with the songs of the Sirens, and Circe's cups: of which, if he had foolishly and greedily drunk along with his attendants, he had been an ignominious and senseless slave under the command of a prostitute: he had lived a filthy dog, or a hog delighting in mire.
We are a mere number and born to consume the fruits of the earth; like Penelope's suitors, useless drones; like Alcinous' youth, employed above measure in pampering their bodies; whose glory was to sleep till mid-day, and to lull their cares to rest by the sound of the harp. Robbers rise by night, that they may cut men's throats; and will not you awake to save yourself? But, if you will not when you are in health, you will be forced to take exercise when you are in a dropsy; and unless before day you call for a book with a light, unless you brace your mind with study and honest employments, you will be kept awake and tormented with envy or with love. For why do you hasten to remove things that hurt your eyes, but if any thing gnaws your mind, defer the time of curing it from year to year? He has half the deed done, who has made a beginning. Boldly undertake the study of true wisdom: begin it forthwith. He who postpones the hour of living well, like the hind [in the fable], waits till [all the water in] the river be run off: whereas it flows, and will flow, ever rolling on.
Money is sought, and a wife fruitful in bearing children, and wild woodlands are reclaimed by the plow. [To what end all this?] He, that has got a competency, let him wish for no more. Not a house and farm, nor a heap of brass and gold, can remove fevers from the body of their sick master, or cares from his mind. The possessor must be well, if he thinks of enjoying the things which he has accumulated. To him that is a slave to desire or to fear, house and estate do just as much good as paintings to a sore-eyed person, fomentations to the gout, music to ears afflicted with collected matter. Unless the vessel be sweet, whatever you pour into it turns sour. Despise pleasures, pleasure bought with pain is hurtful. The covetous man is ever in want; set a certain limit to your wishes. The envious person wastes at the thriving condition of another: Sicilian tyrants never invented a greater torment than envy. He who will not curb his passion, will wish that undone which his grief and resentment suggested, while he violently plies his revenge with unsated rancor. Rage is a short madness. Rule your passion, which commands, if it do not obey; do you restrain it with a bridle, and with fetters. The groom forms the docile horse, while his neck is yet tender, to go the way which his rider directs him: the young hound, from the time that he barked at the deer's skin in the hall, campaigns it in the woods. Now, while you are young, with an untainted mind Imbibe instruction: now apply yourself to the best [masters of morality]. A cask will long preserve the flavor, with which when new it was once impregnated. But if you lag behind, or vigorously push on before, I neither wait for the loiterer, nor strive to overtake those that precede me.
Godfrey 's reference cites Epicurus fragment 396:
[ U396 ]
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, VI.9:
For when he saw that whatever men’s needs demanded,
so far as may be, to keep their lives in safety,
was there at hand already for their use,
that men had all they could want in the way of wealth
and honor and praise, and pride in successful children;
Yet, at home each was perpetually disquieted
and the mind was enslaved by all its bitter complaints;
He understood that the trouble was in the container
and because of some flaw in it, everything would go bad
no matter how many excellent things were put into it:
Partly because there were holes and things flowed through them
and there was no possibility of filling it up,
And partly because what did get in was spoiled,
so to speak, by the nauseous taste there was inside.
The truth was what he used to purify hearts with
and he set a limit to fear as to desire;
He explained what it is that all of us really want
and showed us the way along a little path
which makes it possible for us to go straight there.
Cf. Horace, Epistles, I.2.54:
Jars left contaminated will carry their taint to any contents whatsoever.
Spurn all delights; any joy that is purchased with pain will be harmful.
Greed is forever unsatisfied – vow to keep definite limits.
Here is a section of Plato's Gorgias that talks about "leaky vessels"
For anyone who wants the "clickable" Latin, here is the link to Perseus:
Possibly for present purposes we are coming near to exhausting the ataraxia angle
Agreed... But have we answered your question about Epicurus?
the immediate issue of ataraxia not being a transcendant state of epiphany or a final destination that once achieved either justifies the effort to that point or describes a particular experience of a particular activity which can be equated to "seeing the Mona Lisa before you die" or something specific like that.
Agreed. Ataraxia is not some rarefied special "state of epiphany." I think I've outlined my position in this thread, but I would expand on that, however, to say that my interpretation is that Epicurus taught that we need both katastematic and kinetic pleasures for a complete life. I'm beginning to really like, if I may say, the formulation of something like "floating on the ocean, surfing on the waves" to convey that symbiotic relationship between katastematic and kinetic pleasures.
We've been concentrating on ataraxia but I wanted to add a word for aponia. To me, aponia is NOT "feeling no pain." To complement the sense of ataraxia as being taking joy in living with one's disturbance-free mind , aponia to me is taking delight in the smooth functioning of the body, being in the flow with your body functioning well. Taking this tack, I can see how katastematic pleasure can come and go. I certainly only have fleeting feelings of aponia. I'm better at experiencing feelings of ataraxia, albeit it's a work in progress.
I would agree that the common knowledge has become ataraxia is a special unique mystical state etc. Syncretism and conflation with other traditions is at play in my opinion. Additionally, I think Epicurus's philosophy is very practical and down to earth and open to all. People/academics don't want practical, down to earth. They want Ideal Forms, Essences, Prime Movers, the Logos, mystery, mysticism, and so on. Massie's paper gets us moving in a more practical, down to earth direction.
