Wilson (Catherine) - "How To Be An Epicurean"

Quote from Cassius

Thank you Hiram!!!

Lots to comment on but sadly this immediately jumps out at me:

Rather than aiming specifically to maximise pleasure, the Epicureans concentrated on minimising pains, the pains that arise from failures of ‘choice and avoidance’. "

Argh!!!!!

You should pitch your own articles to publications like Partially Examined Life, etc. if you really want your own views and interpretations to be available.

Cassius, I liked Hiram's post in the most positive and encouraging way. You've created a remarkable amount of valuable content which could add a lot to the discussion. But taking that next step probably involves a lot of additional work and could be opening a can of worms; I respect your hedonic calculus in the matter!

Todd, although we have more of certain diseases, we've gotten the ability to treat or cure others, and on balance I think it would need proof to say we are overall sicklier. Cancer rates actually appear to be about the same now as in early humans-- wild animals get cancer-- but we can treat it now in many cases. There's evidence that infections are milder in developed countries partly because less virulent strains out compete the ones that kill you quickly. In less developed places, people are stuck going around with guinea worms, etc-- all sorts of parasites that make life wretched. There's a theory we've traded that for autoimmune dz and allergies, but I'll take a walnut allergy over a guinea worm any day. We can cure sexually transmitted diseases that used to result in chronic misery, like syphilis. Childbirth fistulas are rare now. It would be hard to set up a comparison, but her statement strikes me as extreme. Pet peeve of mine, professionally. Non medical people making extreme claims without citations. Lol

Schema oxymoron is a rhetorical play-trick. As we say "a prudent prodigal, "a fast turtle" "an ascetic hedonist" etc. Schema oxymoron is a rhetorical device that uses an ostensible self-contradiction to illustrate a rhetorical point or to reveal a paradox. A more general meaning of "contradiction in terms" is recorded by the οxford english dictionary in 1902.

"We live longer but in a sicklier fashion".

The above sounds to my ears as a schema oxymoron. Because, if we were lived in a sicklier fashion/way we won't manage to live longer than our ancestors.

But any way, and as our friend Elayne indicates through eras and periods in the history of medical science, and on the basis of environmental conditions, and molecular genetics there are diseases that appear and diseases that disappear. However, the efforts by the doctors on medical science are holding very well, till today, as are continuous, and especially in our era on molecular genetics, neurogenetics etc. Moreover, in a Nature of the multiple causes and multiple effects/results it is totally unscientific to draw such kind of conclusions as Mrs. Wilson does with the above phrase. But it is well known now, that in academician circles of philosophy, such kind of claims as conclusions have led to the confusion that means also that when someone does not have many sources of scientific studies and researches his/her claim/theory is foolishness.

"Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth". - Epicurus to Pythocles

My copy just arrived, I'll be reading it when I get home.

Edit: No I won't, my card keeps getting declined and I have to call the bank & wait a few days

The book is finally in my hands now. When my shift ends, I'll start reading it chapter by chapter.

It seems from what I've read here that she has a distorted view of Epicureanism common now. The view that we're sicklier now than in prior eras also seems highly questionable. We have our problems, but life expectancy (a concept often misunderstood) was lower because of greater unchecked diseases and injuries which could lead to it. I also think viewing wealth as a zero-sum game is usually fallacious (not that there are no issues with the income gap). From what I can tell also many people want to advocate Epicureanism for their purposes, unconcerned with (or unaware of) what the philosophy really says.

Regarding the wellness of Primitive versus Civilized Man, the relevant passage in Lucretius is V:988-1010. He contrasts the two using three specific examples. To summarize:

1. Primitive humans were on balance more likely to die by predation or festering wounds. Civilized humans are seldom devoured by beasts, but often die in droves at sea or on the battlefield.

2. Primitive humans suffered from a lack of food. Civilized humans, from overabundance ("penuria" vs "copia"). What the disease is that results from rerum copia is not specified; gout has long been thought of as a 'rich man's disease'.

3. Primitive humans unwittingly poisoned themselves. Civilized humans kill themselves [and, it is implied, each other] with deliberate skill.

There's no question that civilized humans today are much healthier than their primitive ancestors. But for a 1st century Roman the arithmetic was quite different. There's an amusing story in Caesar's De Bello Gallico about a Gallic chief who forbade the import of goods, especially wine, from Rome. He didn't want his hardy frontier tribe to succumb to the ills of Roman culture and civilization.

Quote from JJElbert

Regarding the wellness of Primitive versus Civilized Man, the relevant passage in Lucretius is V:988-1010. He contrasts the two using three specific examples. To summarize:

1. Primitive humans were on balance more likely to die by predation or festering wounds. Civilized humans are seldom devoured by beasts, but often die in droves at sea or on the battlefield.

2. Primitive humans suffered from a lack of food. Civilized humans, from overabundance ("penuria" vs "copia"). What the disease is that results from rerum copia is not specified; gout has long been thought of as a 'rich man's disease'.

3. Primitive humans unwittingly poisoned themselves. Civilized humans kill themselves [and, it is implied, each other] with deliberate skill.

There's no question that civilized humans today are much healthier than their primitive ancestors. But for a 1st century Roman the arithmetic was quite different. There's an amusing story in Caesar's De Bello Gallico about a Gallic chief who forbade the import of goods, especially wine, from Rome. He didn't want his hardy frontier tribe to succumb to the ills of Roman culture and civilization.

Very astute observations by Lucretius. I'm no expert on this, but that seems largely accurate. Of course, the life expectancy now is still greater than in his time. "Rich men's diseases" are also probably more common as a result of our prosperity. Even in his time however others might have occurred due to obesity etc.

Cassius, given what I've read here I'll probably just get it from the library (I've checked on that-it's available). That is a good idea often anyway, to see if you really like it enough to purchase later. I will read it at some point and comment about what she says. However, as you know far more about Epicureanism than I do any errors will be probably less obvious. We'll see.

Quote from Cassius

And that's part of the same issue. The "mainstream" places of discussion aren't just unaware of the DeWitt / Alternate argument -- they DISAGREE with it -- and if they have their way, they will also SUPPRESS it, which is why it can only arise *outside* and not *within* or even *with the encouragement of* the "mainstream" circles.

I think it's great that there's an open, wide market (agora?) of ideas out there and that people are openly disagreeing with us. That's not a reason not to engage people. I WANT to hear their disagreements. I've written for Partially Examined Life. I wrote a chapter for "How to Live a Good Life", together with 14 other people whose views are all at odds with mine. I've never experienced this exposure as scary in any way whatsoever, on the contrary. Philodemus, if you read most of his scrolls, was REACTING against the views and writings of others (Theophrastus, the mathematicians, etc.). This is how philosophy advances and grows and gains relevance and a wider audience.

But if you do not participate in public discourse, you forfeit the right to lament that your views are excluded. So you SHOULD participate.

Epicurus was highly successful in his time, and part of the reason is that he did not waste time debating opponents in the public square. By forming his own Garden, he was able to teach uninterrupted and to build a base from which outreach could occur. This strategy resulted in widespread adoption of his philosophy for centuries after his death. And that is what we are doing, following Epicurus' example of developing a strong, clearly defined hub from which to send our "leaflets" into the public space.

The success of competing philosophies does not rest only upon accuracy but upon many other factors, including power and timing. In that circumstance, it is critical to develop a strong nucleus, with a clear identity, and proceed carefully. Being more concerned with numbers than clarity at this stage only results in dilution of the philosophy and eventually an unrecognizable amorphous mess.

When powerful opponents are actively promoting interpretations of Epicurus which require the ignoring of some of his own writing and life, we are not forfeiting any right to lament their deplorable actions just because we've chosen to build our opposition carefully and in circles where they have less influence. That is an astonishing assertion.

When developing a non-violent resistance to tyranny, do you send 3 or 4 revolutionaries to yell at the established army? Instead of taking time to build a strong movement in places where the army hasn't bothered to frequent?