Posts by Hiram

Quote from Cassius

Ok I don't understand you here at all. I AM addressing Epicurean doctrine, and taking the position that "natural measure of wealth" is no different that natural measure of courage or friendship or anything else.

well, I guess my initial reaction was that it sounded a bit dismissive. Maybe it was not. It seems to me that an argument for a natural measure of courage or friendship would have to be related to the canon (empirical / scientific studies) or to the concepts in LMenoeceus on our natural desires.

For instance, I argued that there's a natural measure of community, following the Philodeman and Metrodoran approach with wealth, and I based this on 1. studies on how isolation is bad for one's health (therefore friendship / relations seem to be natural and necessary for happiness and health), and 2. Dunbar's number (which shows that our brains are only able to process about 150 interpersonal relations).

Quote from Elayne

If Metrodorus thought there was such a thing as a "natural measure of wealth", I would say he was wrong. That's a silly idea, and it will get people obsessed with trying to assess and maximize some abstract quality called "natural", lol, instead of maximizing pleasure.

well, and that would be your view, not his

Quote from Cassius

... so if you take up this issue and make the fundamental point then I really applaud the effort.

I will have to do it because I seem to be the only one who sees the lacuna in Epicurean doctrine concerning economics and wants to fix it.

I think you should challenge yourself, though, on your unwillingness to address Epicurean doctrines. The points you mention can easily be mentioned along with the doctrine. The ancient Epicureans are never seen avoiding the discussion of any subject with the excuse that "this or that could be misinterpreted by XYZ". Instead, what we always see is that words are defined clearly according to nature (as we saw with Philodemus when he mentions the prolepsis of a good property manager), and the discussion moves on and the matters can be addressed.

Concerning "natural measure of wealth", this is mentioned enough times that it clearly serves an important purpose in our evaluation of how to manage our estate using Epicurean principles. There is no reason whatsoever to confuse "absolute" for "natural", just as we don't confuse the terms when we speak of natural desires (we don't say "absolute desires"). I believe Metrodorus used this in his critique of cynics, but also that this is a fundamentally Epicurean understanding of oikonomia, and if you notice what is meant by natural (for health, happiness, and life / safety) measure of wealth, you will see that this relates to the BODY. It's a materialist philosophical concept that separates the endless whims of culture from nature. Which is, again, an Epicurean way of understanding things and calling things by their proper name according to nature.

The danger of seeing "a danger" at every corner and avoiding delving into what EP says about economics or any other subject, is that it gives the impression that we are armchair philosophers and that our philosophy is an impractical retreat from reality and from pragmatic matters.

The matter of economics and against limitless desires (which = anti-consumerism and related anxieties and false opinions) is a huge point where Epicurean teachings give moral guidance that is urgently needed in the modern world, as the Uruguayan ex-president has said before.

Quote from Cassius

I also find these sections in red borderline ridiculous, and this emphasizes to me that it is useless and counterproductive to keep talking about "measure of wealth" without defining what we mean. How is this "measure of wealth" any different from any other measure of any other tool for happiness in the Epicurean perspective? I don't think it is, so why imply that there is some magic here? (talking to the writer, not to you, Hiram).

This is the importance of working with this material.

The conclusion says that we believe ( meaning, METRODORUS taught) that wealth is preferable to poverty. We should elaborate in our writings and commentaries on why that is.

Also we must never lose sight of the fact that Epicurean philosophy is a coherent system and all things refer to the first principles.

This natural measure of wealth is not arbitrary, it cannot be, its based on nature and corresponds to the natural and necessary goods which, in LMenoeceus, is what’s needed for life, health and happiness. The doctrine of the natural measure of wealth was central to Metrodorus economics and his emphasis on self sufficiency. To love pleasantly we need to secure these things and have the confident expectation that we will be able to secure them in the future. I think this is the core of Metrodorus’ theories about household management and economics.

Also the natural measure of wealth, by nature’s definition is not poverty, this is a mis interpretation by the commenter.

Also according to Philodemus, Metrodorus was highly critical of the cynics, so if we try to imagine what this consisted of, we can clearly articulate an Epicurean position against poverty and destitution, which is what the cynics represented.

(If we wanted to have fun with this, we COULD use the parody of foul-smelling Gryphon visiting the Garden in Few Days in athens, to illustrate what metrodorus would’ve been criticizing )

Is /ought is a fetish among logicians. And it mostly ends in pointless and self-defeating opinions. Because in the end we all MUST act on our moral intuitions. Not acting on them is a moral choice too.

Quote from Cassius

I note also that the third link does not work.

I did a search for it and this came up:

https://www.academia.edu/38083767/An_Ep…ace_Satires_1.1

Below is my latest updated version of my commentary on the scroll.

Also notice that there are two essays on Horace and how he writes about the “natural measure of wealth”. Keep in mind Horace was at Piso’s villa studying philosophy. So he was deeply familiar with these discussions, and even created a character Ofellus who embodied Epicurean teachings on economics and this might be worth studying to help us evaluate what beliefs and values Ofellus embodied.

——-

In this scroll, Philodemus makes frequent appeals to the authority of Metrodorus, one of the founders of the School, who promoted the idea that hedonic calculus must be employed in the management of one’s household and economic affairs, making the point time and again that we must run certain risks and go through certain inconveniences in order to avoid greater ruin and gain greater advantages.

He disagreed with the destitute life of the Cynics, and appears to have made this point while arguing against them and in favor of a doctrine of the natural measure of wealth. This corresponds to that which is needed to secure the natural and necessary pleasures, and to have the confident expectation that we will be able to secure them in the future.

Metrodorus argued that some things cause pain when present, but cause even more pain when absent and, therefore, shouldn’t be avoided. This is the case with health, which requires some work and some inconvenience to secure, but without it we suffer greatly. It is also the case with family members and friends who oftentimes are difficult to understand and to get along with, but whom we miss when absent.

Quote

Indeed, I think that the right management of wealth lies in this: in not feeling distressed about what one loses and in not trapping oneself on treadmills because of an obsessive zeal concerning the more and the less. – Metrodorus

Philodemus also advances the idea of expressing value in terms of social capital. He compares our investment of time, money and effort in our dearest friends with “those who sow seeds in the earth. From these things … it becomes possible to reap many times more fruits”. For this reason, he says that the philosopher who manages property will secure his natural measure of wealth, and use some of the surplus generously with his friends. This way, he will be able to count on his friends when in need, and they will also add to his happiness and security in the present. By comparison, a property manager who is not informed by Epicurean philosophy, will likely avoid spending time with friends, and will deprive himself of the enjoyment of their company and of the many other benefits that come from having good friends.

Philodemus was teaching philosophy to wealthy Romans, and in the scroll on the art of property management he helps his students to distinguish the good property manager from the good philosopher who happens to be a property manager. In other words, Philodemus concedes that a good property manager may be immoral or amoral, and may suffer from greed and other vices, and that the practice of philosophy among friends may lead to a shift in priorities that puts losses and gains aside to some extent. However, Philodemus maintains that a philosopher may still be a good property manager, and gives advice to help his students enjoy a life of pleasure while managing property.

Since, he says, “the philosopher does not toil”, some of his advice involves the delegation of tasks to assistants. Philodemus says that earning a living from teaching philosophy is the noblest profession. He also praises having a diverse nest egg, rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket, and so investing seems like a legitimate contemporary outlet for a philosopher.

Some of the professions available in antiquity–such as “equestrian”–as well as the practice of slavery, do not transfer into our modern reality, but Philodemus said that rental income is a dignified way to make a living, as is the gainful employment of others–so long as it’s not in a dangerous or demeaning activity, if we are to infer from Philodemus’ criticism of those who make their slaves work in mines.

The key takeaway of the scroll is that Metrodorus sought to demonstrate that the Epicurean methodology of hedonic calculus is highly practical when applied to how we manage our money, our business, and our property.

Quote

We believe that the tranquil administration of one’s property does not require great subtlety and that wealth is superior to poverty. At the same time we believe that it’s necessary to hand down a tradition of the most general principles and to outline many details in the treatises concerning the care and preservation of possessions.

Towards the end of the scroll, we learn that ancient Epicureans were instructing their students to keep outlines of Metrodorus’ doctrines on economics, saying that it was considered “necessary to hand down a tradition” of the general principles they were discussing. One of the goals of the study of this scroll is to plant the Epicurean conversation on economics and self-sufficiency firmly in the modern world so that the people of our day can relate to the teaching and more easily apply its prudent calculations to their lives. I have distilled the contents of the scroll into Seven Principles of Epicurean Economics. They are as follows:

1. There is a natural measure of wealth (as opposed to the corrupt, cultural measure of wealth), which is tied to natural and necessary desires. Understanding this will provide us with serenity and indifference to profit and loss.

2. There is social wealth in addition to the wealth of things and possessions.

3. Philodemus plainly stated it: the philosopher does not toil. However, we must always remember that toil is evil, not productivity.

4. Association is important in labor. We must choose our company prudently.

5. Our revenue must more than meet our immediate needs: it must facilitate a dignified life of leisure.

6. It’s always prudent to cultivate multiple streams of income, among which deriving fees from the Garden’s teaching mission, rental property income and business ownership, which includes gainful employment of others, have special priority.

7. It’s also prudent to have fruitful possessions. The various forms of ownership of means of production is another way to independence that can potentially relieve us of toil.

Further Reading:

Philodemus, On Property Management (Writings from the Greco-Roman World)

Horace, Ofellus and Philodemus of Gadara in Sermones 2.2, by Sergio Yona

An Epicurean measure of wealth in Horace

Re: the fragmentary nature of it, this is one of the most complete scrolls, but also we should not shy away from developing A MODERN oikonomia tradition, translating those conversations into relevant discussions of today on how to best carry out hedonic calculus on these issues today, like they were doing.

I think now that on this forum you have started podcasts and systematic studies of DeWitt and other sources, and are encouraging students to write outlines, it might be a good project to set aside some time to study this scroll and encouraging outlines of the economics, as well as having MODERN discussions of this content, since so much of it is relevant but we don't live in ancient Roman times and this needs updating.

Philodemus even mentions that people should diversify their nest egg. I mean, we have a pretty developed doctrine of economics.

Oh and I wanted to see if Vatican Saying uses the same word that Philodemus uses / oikonomia / so I checked the monadnock translation, which has the Greek next to the English. It does say "oikonomein". This means that the founders believed that the management of one's property and household is woven into how Epicureans should philosophize.

http://societyofepicurus.com/on-philodemus-…gement-part-ii/

I’m currently working on the audiobook, will include Philodemus writings and am re-reading some of them. While reading the closing paragraph of “Art of property management”, this grabbed my attention:

Quote

“We believe that the tranquil administration of one’s property does not require great subtlety and that wealth is superior to poverty. At the same time we believe that it’s necessary to hand down a tradition of the most general principles and to outline many details in the treatises concerning the care and preservation of possessions.”

I noticed here that the epicureans were being instructed to write Outlines of the Doctrines on Epicurean economics. This, like almost all else on this scroll, must have started with Metrodorus.

Also noticed that throughout this scroll Philodemus is constantly mentioning “Metrodorus said this, Metrodorus said that”. And he cites many works that had been written by Metro on the subject of economics that did not survive to our time, as well as he mentions that Metrodorus was a great manager of property.

This quote indicates that economics was an important and necessary part of the doctrine, but there seems to be very little interest in the subject among modern Epicureans except for myself. I’d like that to change.

Have others read the translation of On the art of property management?

https://www.amazon.com/Philodemus-Pro…/dp/1589836677/

I'm planning on discussing this actually in my Twentieth message. Lucretius wrote on the origins of compassion for the weak and for neighbors in the fifth book of De Rerum Natura, which is the most complete and fascinating discussion of Epicurean anthropology (it's generally assumed that he based his poem on Epicurus' books On Nature)

And when they saw an offspring born

From out themselves, then first the human race

Began to soften. For ’twas now that fire

Rendered their shivering frames less staunch to bear,

Under the canopy of the sky, the cold;

And Love reduced their shaggy hardiness;

And children, with the prattle and the kiss,

Soon broke the parents’ haughty temper down.

Then, too, did neighbours ‘gin to league as friends,

Eager to wrong no more or suffer wrong,

And urged for children and the womankind

Mercy, of fathers, whilst with cries and gestures

They stammered hints how meet it was that all

Should have compassion on the weak. And still,

Though concord not in every wise could then

Begotten be, a good, a goodly part

Kept faith inviolate- or else mankind

Long since had been unutterably cut off,

And propagation never could have brought

The species down the ages.

Lucretius, in De Rerum Natura 5:1015-27

(also, the book The Bonobo and the Atheist is an anthropological account of the origins of morality, for which I wrote a review

http://societyofepicurus.com/the-bonobo-and…st-book-review/)

well, during the times of the Scholarchs there seems to have been a healthy degree of "central direction", but in these days with the internet, maybe we need to form horizontal networks.

Either way, I would LOVE to have the exchanges with Catherine Wilson. I've reviewed her book, which generated some discussions here on the extent to which we may as Epicureans posit public policy based on PD's 31-38.

Plus we have one degree of separation, because I was invited to write the Epicureanism chapter for "How to live a good life" (which has opened the door to an audiobook and upcoming podcast interview) by Massimo (mentioned above) who is Stoic, and who has invited her as a guest blogger on his own personal blog in order to have someone present Epicurean replies to his criticisms. This means that she probably read "How to live a good life", and will likely have feedback for me also.

By the way, she's entered the fray by joining public discussions online between MODERN Epicureans and MODERN Stoics, so there is mutual advantage in us having her as we can all learn from each other to face contemporary objections, and I would argue there is even mutual advantage between us and the Stoics in having friendly, public debate to help students of philosophy to understand the differences between us and to learn the ways in which the two are not compatible, and the ways in which they are similar but not really the same.

Quote from Nate

Jefferson also spent the time to re-write the gospels in accordance with materialism – by no means would we consider him to be a Christian. His interest and appreciation of Stoic works does not make him a Stoic anymore than his interest and appreciation of the Beatitudes makes him a Christian. He is an Epicurean, through-and-through.

Right - the Christian theocrats are always trying to claim Jefferson and all the founding fathers also as Christian.

Quote from Cassius

Even the "natural/necessary" distinction is ultimately nothing more than a rule of thumb and we don't have any significant examples of the Epicureans dwelling on it as as bright line test. ...

THAT category helps to protect us from runaway, innumerable, limitless desires that run to infinity, and this is a crucial component of Epicureanism. If there is no satiation, if you're in a constant state of anxiety and of craving needless things, you won't be able to abide in pleasure. Diogenes on his wall includes limitless desires as one of the roots of all evils. So it IS kind of important to know that we don't need much and that what we need, we can easily procure. Everything over that is the cherry on top.

Quote from Cassius

So how are you construing it?

It's making me think of Epicurus' promise that we will be able to enjoy CONSTANT pleasures if we apply what he taught, for instance like when he says in Menoeceus "you will never be disturbed either when awake or in sleep". I feel like this needs to be connected with the logic behind "constant" pleasures considering that it is not in our constitution to be constantly expending large amounts of energy, so we need to mind our dispositions while idle and while active. That's how I'm tending to construe it for the time being.

This (as well as the "physicians" question) is arising as a result of my work on the audiobook, because it's bringing up sources that I've never before considered with attention. I have to write introductions to the writings, which is forcing me to think about them carefully.

The physicians--I relate this to La Mettrie, who worked with patients with venereal diseases and who made the claim along the lines of "physicians are the best philosophers", or something to that effect. This was interpreted by one author writing an essay on La Mettrie as meaning that the physicians are the best philosophers because they think about the body and soul merely in material terms, seeing the body as a machine, rather than interpreting things like the theologians or by convention.

So naturally I wanted to see if the anti-physician discussions by Epicurus and Metrodorus had something to say on this, but I do not think that we can take things from one ancient context and apply it to the Enlightenment context.

I understand if you insist on correcting what you see as an unEpicurean opinion, I'm simply pressing based on the need, once you correct an error, to come back to the writings and understand what the Epicureans were saying--because I have a hard time imagining that a Platonist sneaked into the Garden and added heretical notes to a scroll! It's more likely that the Epicureans were discussing these things and that the discussions belong to a legitimate line of reasoning, and that we owe it to ourselves to rescue that.

So that once we say: "passive pleasures are neither superior nor inferior to active ones", we have to consider what was being discussed in VS 11.

One of the possible things that comes to mind is that Epicurus has been cited as saying "I call you to constant pleasures", and that this line of reasoning is that passive and active pleasures both complete a lifestyle of constant pleasures. We can not be always active (or else we'd be exhausted) or constantly idle.

And if we fail to revisit VS 11 in good faith, or if we diss "idle pleasures" which are legitimate, we are missing an important component of our ethics.

Quote from Cassius

But may the most important thing to observe here is that what you appear to be doing is looking to take this statement, isolated by someone whom we know not, nor for what purpose, to bootstrap an argument that katastematic pleasure is somehow the highest good of life. That is explicitly the argument of Okeefe and others who opine about "ataraxia" as if it is something different from pleasure.

This is a huge error on your part, to suppose that this is what I'm implying or saying, or to over-interpret VS 11 in this manner even. Nowhere is there mention of "higher", "lower", "better", "worse", etc. Read VS11 again, and you will see. This is YOUR interpretation. The saying does not have to be interpreted in that manner.

Quote from Cassius

Are you saying that some doctrine is being suggested here other than simply pointing out that most men waste both their free and their active time?

The Epicurean doctrine / teaching.

Quote from Cassius

And finally, asked another way, is there really any purpose in discussing katastematic/kinetic distinctions other than as a way to promote "pleasures of rest" as superior to any other kind? I really can't think of any other purpose behind the distinction, and that seems to be how it developed and how it is used both then and now. And since elevation of one type of pleasure as intrinsically superior to other types of pleasure would violate core Epicurean principles, I can see the possibility that the subject captured in VS11 came up in an Epicurean argument against that assertion (against the assertion of katastematic pleasure as intrinsically superior).

I really don't think that the author of the Vatican Sayings made the argument that one is equal or superior to the other. You're jumping over the discussion, and questioning why this should even be in the doctrines.

VS 11 is there, so we should make a good-will effort to read it and see what it says. The recognition of the existence of both types of pleasure does not imply the superiority of one over the other.

So one way to look at this is: in what context, while discussing what issues, would Epicurus say something like: "For most men rest is stagnation and activity is madness"? What teaching was being imparted? And WHY did this matter enough for our happiness that it needed to be included in the VS?

The reason why this matters is that the doctrine is being offered here as an alternative to concrete ethical problems (boredom, stagnation, existential ennui, stress, madness, etc.).

Quote from Cassius

(2) I am not sure I really understand why you would take the phrase in the direction you are taking it: "VS 11 seems to be implying that philosophers should educate themselves to experience rest as pleasure rather than stagnation / ennui / boredom, and to experience action as pleasure rather than madness / stress."

Why not simply take it at face value? Which is something like "most people do not intelligently use either their periods of rest or their periods of activity in a way that maximizes their pleasure."

Right, but why is this an established doctrine? Why would the Epicureans make this worthy of memorization?

The saying does not say or imply that abiding pleasures are "superior" to dynamic ones, or anything of that sort. If this is being said by anyone, we should consider that a SEPARATE argument and put it in a thought bubble and address it separately, without losing the point being presented here, which is that there is a need to remedy both ethical problems.

I think VS 11 is pointing the finger at ailments / dis-eases that require medicine, and the way this ties to the teaching is that BOTH of these are problems for which philosophy has the remedy.

Quote

For most men rest is stagnation and activity is madness. - Epicurean Saying 11

I think it was Laertius who explained that the argument of how pleasure exists in both katastematic and kinetic forms (static and dynamic) is because Epicurus was critiquing the Cyrenaics, who believed that pleasure could only exist in the satisfaction of the senses here and now. Aristippus of Cyrene told people to practice "presentism", to be present to the pleasures of the immediacy. Epicurus, instead, told people that they could also reminisce about past ones and anticipate future pleasures.

Diogenes of Oenoanda elaborates on these arguments.

And I know that some of the modern Epicureans find this idea of kinetic/katastematic pleasures controversial, and I know Cassius has said that he believes these categories are not found in Epicurus' extant writings. We have record of a past dialogue here.

But we never considered this saying in discussing that. I think VS 11 does seem to name a problem that is being addressed by the kinetic/katastematic categories of pleasures, and I wonder if these Sayings can be traced back to the founders.

VS 11 seems to be implying that philosophers should educate themselves to experience rest as pleasure rather than stagnation / ennui / boredom, and to experience action as pleasure rather than madness / stress.