Posts by Don

Quote from Rolf

Quote from Bryan

The current dominant interpretation in theoretical physics is far closer to Heraclitus’ flux

Fascinating! Does this mean that we as Epicureans would be wise to align ourselves with modern scientific understanding, adopt this view as the most probable explanation, and ditch the Epicurean view on static atoms and void?

Both are true. Neither don't necessarily adequately fully describe our lived experience.

There certainly appear to be such things as atoms and subatomic particles.

There certainly appear to be such things as quantum fluctuations in quantum fields.

My take on the "Epicurean perspective" has always been simply: We live in a physical, natural, material universe governed by knowable laws (well, eventually knowable!) that needs no supernatural intervention to come into being or to function.

Whether one focuses on the quantum level or the atomic level or the biochemical level, the Epicurean perspective holds.

FWIW

https://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/do-not-go-gentle/overview/

And here's a dramatic performance of the poem from Thomas' fellow Welshman, Michael Sheen

Dylan Thomas' poem is not that long, so here it is in its entirety:

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Quote from Cassius

we are establishing that drinking unmixed wine was known thought to be very dangerous

Fixed it.

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus would have known at the least that it might be fatal.

I'm not willing to agree to that.

Quote from Cassius

At present I am mainly willing to say that there can come a time (mostly cases of clinically certain terminal highly painful disease combined with advanced age) when it can be a rational assessment to conclude that future pleasure is not worth the cost in pain.

I'm not arguing against that, but that's exactly what I'm trying to get across. My primary position is against taking "extraordinary" measures to preserve life "at all costs" when death is imminent or there is no viable way to ameliorate constant, severe pain. I see a difference in actively taking one's life and not prolonging one's life. I don't believe VS47 nor the episode with Epicurus' drinking unmixed wine and taking a bath are talking about suicide.

(PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT making any moral argument against suicide or those who take their lives. This is an extremely complicated topic, including people dealing with deep mental health issues, including celebrities like Robin Williams and Anthony Bourdain. This is not a topic to be taken lightly or flippantly, and I don't want anyone to take this discussion that way.

I would say Epicurus' and the school's general advocacy of cultivating gratitude comes close to a modern idea of positivity.

However, don't be lured into the trap of toxic positivity either:

Toxic positivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Bryan

"[Arcesilaus] died in a fit of madness, as Hermippus says, after drinking a good deal of unmixed wine, he had by then reached the age of seventy-five, and no man was more highly regarded by the Athenians."

Hicks translates that section as (my emphasis): He died, according to Hermippus, through drinking too freely of unmixed wine which affected his reason; he was already seventy-five and regarded by the Athenians with unparalleled good-will.

Quote from Bryan

"My own verses about him run as follows: Why, Arcesilaus, did you draw unmixed wine so unsparingly as to take leave of your sense? I pity you not so much for your death..."

And Hicks in 4.45 (again my emphasis): [45] I have written upon him as follows: Why, pray, Arcesilaus, didst thou quaff so unsparingly unmixed wine as to go out of thy mind? I pity thee not so much for thy death as because thou didst insult the Muses by immoderate potations.

There's also Diogenes chapter on Chrysippus:

Quote

On one occasion, as Hermippus relates, when [Chrysippus] had his school in the Odeum, he was invited by his pupils to a sacrificial feast. There after he had taken a draught of sweet wine unmixed with water, he was seized with dizziness and departed this life five days afterwards, having reached the age of seventy-three years, in the 143rd Olympiad. This is the date given by Apollodorus in his Chronology. I have toyed with the subject in the following verses5 :

Chrysippus turned giddy after gulping down a draught of Bacchus ; he spared not the Porch nor his country nor his own life, but fared straight to the house of Hades.

[185] Another account is that his death was caused by a violent fit of laughter ; for after an ass had eaten up his figs, he cried out to the old woman, "Now give the ass a drink of pure wine to wash down the figs." And thereupon he laughed so heartily that he died.

Drinking unmixed wine is certainly frowned upon since it brings on giddyness and takes away reason, but I'm still skeptical of seeing it as a metaphor for committing suicide, although it was deemed dangerous it appears. Barbarians were known to drink unmixed wine which is one reason they were "barbaric." There is an interesting article I found online:

Quote

Yet more dramatically, Alexander himself – according to one account – brought on his early death at 32 by drinking a separate toast to each of his twenty dinner guests one by one, and then finishing off a twelve-pint pitcher of unmixed wine.

...

Unmixed wine was deemed dangerous: many a Greek poem lamented it as the cause of an untimely death. Even Cleomenes (died 490 BC), the hardman King of Sparta, couldn’t handle wine “in the Scythian fashion”, i.e. without water, instead tippling his way into lunacy. Given such risks, unmixed wine was reserved only for drinking forfeits.

...

So next time you find yourself knee-deep in unmixed wine, toast the drink of the uncouth and ungodly – and steel yourself for the madness that must follow…

Unmixed wine brought on dizziness, lunacy, etc., but it was also a potent remedy to feeling pain. That would be my suggestion as to why Epicurus called for akraton "unmixed wine" on his last day. He was in severe pain, not to hasten his death. He knew his death was already imminent from the amount of pain he was in.

Additionally, I continue to maintain that VS47 is not talking about suicide. As a reminder for anyone:

Vatican Saying 47 - Epicurus Wiki

Epicurus Wiki does a good job of giving a literal translation of Metrodorus' saying: "...shall we give ourselves in surrender but when that which is necessary extracts [us] (from life)..."

When death comes eventually for all of us, we should not "rage against the dying of the light" but look back on life with satisfaction and not cling like fearful superstitious children, wishing for immortality or a life after death.

I did something similar to the m Epicurus' nicknames for others in Diogenes Laertius a couple years ago:

Post

RE: Epicurus' Favorite Insults

Okay, done! That was fun! I didn't do Plato since @Joshua did a good job above.

Enjoy!

Nausiphanes:

‘The mollusk,’ πλεύμονά (pleumona "lung-fish, jellyfish"> related etymologically to English "pleurisy")

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ry%3Dpleu%2Fmwn

Hicks note: Cf. Sext. Emp. Adv. math. i. 3 νῦν πλεύμον α καλῶν τὸν Ναυσιφ άνην ὡς ἀναίσθ ητον; Plato, Phil. 21 c ζῆν δὲ οὐκ ἀνθρώπο υ βίον ἀλλά τινος…

Don

May 28, 2022 at 7:55 AM

Quote from Adrastus

about savoring a pleasure, and not growing disgusted by or otherwise ruining a pleasure

VS35. Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for. οὐ δεῖ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ παρόντα τῶν ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐπιλογίζεσθαι ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα τῶν εὐκταίων ἦν.

The word translated here as "ruin" (λυμαίνομαι) means, at root, to mistreat. The implication is that not honoring the good things you have achieved is a sign of disrespect and shows a lack of appreciation.

~ Saint-Andre, https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html#n35

Quote from Cassius

I agree Don....

Quote from Don

Cicero seems to equate pathē with ταραχή (tarakhē) "disturbance of mind; dis-ease" which is the opposite of αταραξία (a-taraksia) "lack of disturbance."

Which is not to say that Cicero was wrong as to the general usage of the term, if indeed that is what the other philosophers besides Epicurus were doing. I gather Cicero was correct about that, unless there is some reason in other literature to disbelieve him (?)

Agreed. As Joshua pointed out in the episode, there are two general connotations for that word. Cicero doesn't like Epicurus' expansive use of the word pleasure (ηδονή hēdonē) as pathē and so just defaults to his (ie, Cicero's) preferred connotation of pathē from πάθος (páthos "pain, suffering") instead of the general more basic sense from pắskhō, “I feel”.

For me, there is no doubt that Epicurus used πάθη (pathē) in the sense from πᾰ́σχω (pắskhō, “to undergo”) +‎ -η (-ē): "(in neutral sense) what is done or what happens to a person"

*Everything* that we experience falls under one of two pathē: pleasure or pain. All other "feelings" fall under those broad categories of pleasure or pain.

Cicero seems to equate pathē with ταραχή (tarakhē) "disturbance of mind; dis-ease" which is the opposite of αταραξία (a-taraksia) "lack of disturbance."

Quote from Eikadistes

try A. E. Stallings. I like his flavor.

"Her"

A. E. Stallings - Wikipedia

Reasonings About Philodemus’ On Anger | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Philodemus on the Therapy of Vice

Philodemus on the Therapy of Vice

www.academia.edu

Philodemus and Seneca on anger - ORA - Oxford University Research Archive

Welcome aboard!

Quote from Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus

[51] "For the presentations which, e.g., are received in a picture or arise in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind or by the other criteria of truth, would never have resembled what we call the real and true things, had it not been for certain actual things of the kind with which we come in contact. Error would not have occurred, if we had not experienced some other movement in ourselves, conjoined with, but distinct from, the perception of what is presented. And from this movement, if it be not confirmed or be contradicted, falsehood results ; while, if it be confirmed or not contradicted, truth results. [52] "And to this view we must closely adhere, if we are not to repudiate the criteria founded on the clear evidence of sense, nor again to throw all these things into confusion by maintaining falsehood as if it were truth.

Quote from Cassius

A test of "truth" cannot and I would say therefore does not mean a test of "absolute" or "true for everyone" truth...Absolute Platonic idealist truth does not exist and it is a false standard to act as if it does.

While I agree "idealist truth" doesn't exist in the form of some Platonic ideal, truth as in the truth of existing things does exist. I would call that objective truth. The difference is "Is it true pigs exist?" Vs "Is it true that ice cream tastes good?" The first is the objective truth Epicurus was concerned with in using his Criteria. The second is subjective and contextual. If one starts questioning the truth of the existence of pigs, one rapidly devolves into a Socratic nightmare: "What do you mean by a 'pig'?" To my understanding, Epicurus stands on it being true that there is an objective reality with which we interact with our sensations.

From my perspective, those last two posts from Patrikios and Cassius blur the line between the objective truth conveyed by reality to us through our senses and canonic faculties and the relative "truth" of subjective opinions and concepts derived from the objective truth of reality.

Along those lines, I offer my commentary on dogmatic vs skeptic:

Quote

With those two options available, being a dogmatist or being a skeptic, it seems to me that the significance is that one path leads to declaring that knowledge can be known, that it is possible to "take a stand" on what can be known about reality. The other path leaves one "puzzled," "in want of knowledge.," or simply letting problems remain without resolving them or at least proposing solutions. The second path implies that we can't really know anything. Epicurus was opposed to this idea wholeheartedly.

Welcome (back) aboard!

Can't vouch for the quality of the translations, but FWIW (link to several volumes in English translation on Internet Archive):

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

Ulfilas Welcome aboard!

If you haven't read it yet, my personal (and others') recommendation these days is Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure: https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/livin…bookbite/38534/

Your journey mirrors a number of us who found our way here. Look forward to your contributions to our discussions!

Quote from Cassius

Now again - not everyone is bothered by the claims of philosophical skepticism or sees the immediate relevance to them. If they are not so bothered, then more power to them, but we likely would not have Epicurean philosophy to talk about in the first place if Epicurus and Metrodorus and Hermarchus and Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and Philodemus had not been bothered by them.

In light of this excerpt above and others' reactions to my post, I feel I need to define my position a little more.

Do I feel that having a strong argument against radical skepticism (and superstition and religion and other anti-Epicurean positions) is important? Absolutely! This is one of the through-lines from the establishment of Epicurus' school down to the present day. Epicurus didn't wall himself away from the world. He vigorously engaged with the ideas circulating in his day, and modern Epicureans are called to the same.

Religion, skepticism, superstition, et. al. do a terrible amount of damage, both to individuals and to society in general. Am I bothered that many of the hoi polloi are in the grip of superstition, ignorance of natural science, etc.? Of course!!

And this little corner of the Internet - Our little boat of the SS EpicureanFriends - is one way to make authoritative material available "out there" in the market of ideas and to welcome passengers aboard.

What I don't want to get uptight about are the details of 2,000+ year old physics.

Is Epicurus onto something with his Canonics, his Theory of Knowledge? Absolutely! Otherwise, I wouldn't be on this forum or be thinking of myself as an "Epicurean." Is it necessary to have confidence in the truth of a REAL existing physical world with which we can interact in a meaningful way and not believe it is some pale reflection of a Realm of Ideal Forms or the "proving ground" for an after-death existence or some other lesser-than existence? Absolutely! And Epicurus' grounding the truth of our reality - our existence - in the use of our natural physical and mental senses/sensations and feelings provides a bedrock, fundamental ground on which to stand. There IS an external physical universe with which we interact. There are a number of modern philosophies dressed up as science that need to be counteracted today, including "we live in a simulation" "we are constantly hallucinating" etc. As modern Epicureans, I firmly believe we need to understand the workings of the mind to be able to counteract these philosophies. Do I have a good grasp of their arguments? No, no I do not. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to read everything I want to read and do everything i want to do. But should I get anxious and frustrated and be in pain? Nope. I'll do what I can do. That's one reason I like the accessible style of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's popular books and those of others.

Epicurus was brilliant in his devising possible causes for vision, for memory, for hearing, for constructing mental pictures in our minds, for applications of "atomic" theory, but he was a human being living 2,000+ years ago with a brilliant mind but limited access to information. Understanding HIS arguments against radical skepticism and superstition should fully inform the style of our own arguments and inspire modern Epicureans to combat ignorance and superstition and religious dogmatism in our own day as he did in his.