Posts by wbernys

Quote

He (sc. Metrodorus) [writes] that, although he likes the idea that the [best] life is the one that is [accompanied by tranquillity], peace, and cares that cause minimal trouble, it does not seem that this goal is achieved at least in this way, namely, if we avoid all those things over which, if they were present, we would sometimes experience difficulties and distress.

I originally awnsered yes but I think I would change my awnser to the third option. I think Philodemus's quote of Metrodorus best exemplifies the Epicurean viewpoint on this qoute. Essentially An Epicurean would wish that that statement was true, and should tty to apply it as best we can for a fuller life of pleasure, but sadly it in fact it isn't entirely true, as there are just some things which we will be pained by no matter how much we lower our expectations or how much wisdom we have (namely bodily pain).

Unfortunately I seemingly always work these times on Sunday. Hopefully I can eventually go, or maybe schedule something. Hope to see you all at some point.

Quote

He taught him, that any single study, however useful and noble in itself, was yet unworthy the entire employ of a curious and powerful intellect; that the man who pursued one line of knowledge, to the exclusion of others, though he should follow it up to its very head, would never be either learned or wise; that he who pursues knowledge, should think no branch of it unworthy attention; least of all, should he confine it to those which are unconnected with the business, and add nothing to the pleasures of life

Frances Wright for the win!

I wonder if another reason he potentially didn't try to refute poetry so much was because of the extreme religious diversity in ancient Hreece with some having very different views on Homer, who was not really seen as central to proving their religion to be true. (Zeno of citium interpreting it metaphorically for example) unlike today where the bible or Quran are seen as the proofs of religious faith, with various bad arguments.

Didn't really know where to put this thread.

So before I became a full fledged Epicurean I was quite addicted to academic study of the Bible and Quran. Not for religious reasons but to be confident in my own opposition to religion. When I saw things like the "minimal facts" argument about Jesus empty tomb or ressurection or the Quranic scientific miracles I looked to various sources in order to be confident in refuting them.

Would Epicurus approve of this, or would he think simply looking toward nature was enough and trying to refute obviously nonsense texts was a waste of time? I know he apparently disliked the study of Homer, seeing it as a waste of energy but I wonder if the field of modern apologetics would cause him to change his outlook if he were around today.

Quote from Martin

From an Epicurean perspective, a guilty conscience may be considered a preconception if it has arisen from socialization in one's group and not from religious indoctrination. Such a preconception may be more efficient than fear of punishment.

Can you elaborate more on this? Is the preconception (I prefer basic grasp from Inwood and Gerson) something like "I naturally care about the people I am socializing with". I recall Torquatus mentioning some Epicureans who took the view that friendship comes from familiarity and when why we die for them, is your view similar to that, we have a preconception of naturally caring about people we socialize with?

Quote from Godfrey

The underlined part of this quote is, for me, the key point. Guilt is experienced as pain. In evaluating the pleasures v the pains in any particular activity, if there is the potential for feeling guilt we would need to include that in our analysis.

VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

This is probably the best way to look at it. If I fufill a desire to say become a murderer I may feel scared, isolated, or filled with regret but if I don't do those those things I simply have a minor pain of want which is easily dissolved.

Quote from Cassius

More central would be - as you mention - the falsity of the religious / divine reason context of "guilt." I don't think Epicurus would embrace something he knew to be false regardless of its alleged practical benefits.

Agreed but with that said do you think a "feeling of guilt/disgust/shame" is something an Epicurean can hold as a genuine reason for virtuous activity or is it inheritantly reliant on a fallacy of "divine reason" or "fufilling our function", the same as how we would never accept claims about fearing offending God's will?

Unfortunately the great fallacy is that I feel disgust is both one of the major reasons people are good (most people are just genuinely disgusted at pedophilia for example, i think even Lucretius makes this point about children being one of the biggest reasons for law) but also it's also recognize it's of the biggest reasons (maybe the biggest reason) for why moral progress often takes so long, disgust or shame at the idea of breaking tradition, race mixing, irreligiousity, or not being "patriotic enough", making it a real double edged sword.

Epicurus was a very forward thinker in his analysis on the virtue of justice being beneficial mainly for the mind because you don't have to deal with the constant anxiety of getting caught and a wise person would have no need of injustice as seen in PD 1, 17, 34, and 35, instead of some absolute golden rule out there.

But did he or other Epicurean ever adress the more "guilt-driven" aspects of being moral (murders regret of killing) and would he (and others in this thread) approve of it as Epicurean, it is a noticeable absence from their discussion on justice and was wondering if the perhaps downplayed it because "guilt-driven" morality was mostly framed in a religious context like with Stoic and Platonist talk of violating divine reason and "feeling of guilt" not being universal enough for him (obviously psychopaths and masochists exist). Or perhaps I've missed it. Interested for any unconsted evidence of "guilty conscience" playing a role in Epicurean justice.

Interested for folks like Cassius and Don to give their takes on this.

Hey guys bad news. I actually now work a night shift on Monday so I can't attend. Sorry. Hope to see you all soon.

Paging Kalosyni and Cassius to ensure they know.

Thankfully I get off work from 4 on Monday so I'll be there. Be nice to meet you all! So what's the link or "RVSP"?

Thanks Cassius Just ordered Emily Austin's book. Read the sample and looks excellent! Off topic but do you know if she discusses free will in that book?

Yeah i agree that the debate is kind of pointless since the term "pleasure" would have to be so vague to allow for it even though i think it's true and most people think of "pleasure" as only bodily pleasure so it becomes a sophistry word debate, which i hate and i think Epicurus would too.

I'm become more interested in psychological hedonism (the thesis that all human actions are due to avoiding pain and increasing pleasure) and curious your guys thoughts on it.

I think i generally believe in it. There are some seemingly strong counter examples like a doctor staying by a sick child all night and a mother sacrificing for their child but even then i think that is done for the "pleasure" of feeling you are "doing the right, helping others, feeling virtuous, and being free of guilt" and the pains associated with this like when a mother loses a child is just the pain of grief and guilt overwhelming them like how when a thief can't cope with the anxiety of getting caught.

Do you all agree? Curious to find some philosophers on this but the wiki page mostly states people who disagree with this.

I've actually already read Gellar-Goad's article Don but sad to say I find it a little muddled and think we just need to accept the Epicureans we're wrong on this, they simply didn't have the tools we have. I think explanations of "real meaning" fall a little flat and remind me of how Christians explain Jesus failed apocalyptic predictions.

However, I want to make clear I'm not trying to demean them due to some antiqued science, everyone else in Antiquity got the size wrong as the article points out and as Cassius points out the Epicureans at least had reliable and good reasons for their beliefs unlike Platonic nonsense about Astral Gods or Aristotle's Aether or Pliny the Elder's "things tend toward their natural place" explanation for why antipodes don't fall off. They were wrong but had more integrity than most. That's what counts in the end.

I would also like to ask a question for those who don't mind on "atoms and void". From what i can tell science tells us that the space between atoms is not really "empty space" but more like energy (electromagnetic, gravitational energy, quantum waves) which provided no friction and has no form, thus allowing movement. Do you all consider this to be a kind of "Epicurean void" or do you still believe in the classical void that there's empty space in-between?

Thanks all.

Hello All, pleasure to meet some fellow Epicureans and thanks to Cassius for approval. I basically got into with an interest in ethics from a naturalist viewpoint. I am atheist (as i imagine most of you are) but wanted to find a proper system to base my life around. I tried Stoicism for a little bit and then Aristotelianism but found that neither worked out as it relied on nonsense about following the "natural order of the universe", "virtue in itself", or "fulfilling your function" with no proof these things are real let alone why he should care about them so i decided to check out Epicurus.

I ended up loving his philosophy in part because he never assumed more than was fair to assume and focused on helping people in a similar state as I (people needing help without reliance of religion and superstition) and i think a quote from Flint Dibble, an archeology communicator sums it up "we work from the known to the unknown" and within found a beautiful analysis of how to deal with fear of death and separate natural desires from vain and empty ones from a complete naturalist worldview.

I was immediately enthralled but didn't immediately accept all the principal doctrines (especially 3 and 18)and even was a Cyrenaic for a little bit because of this but as i understood his doctrine more fully (Shamefully with help from Chatgpt lol) and purchased a translation of his own works from penguin publishing (The Art of Happiness) along with a Lucretius translation by Humphries (The Way Things Are) i ended up understanding him more fully and now am a full Epicurean (except for you know antiquated scientific views like the size of the sun as most of you are i hope).

My favorite part of Epicureanism is probably the Tetra pharmakos "Fourfold Cure" (I know Cassius expressed a disliked for it, but i myself consider to be a nice summary of Epicurean philosophy). Can't wait to know you all more. Sorry if this is a bit winded lol.