Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19

Quote from Elayne

I am uncertain about Philodemus' accuracy in representing Epicurus.

I am going to comment on several of the above posts but this comment I want to highlight. I agree that skepticism toward Philodemus is warranted for a number of reasons, but there is one reason that I want to highlight, and that is: Many of his works are in such a bad condition that much of what we are reading as the work of "Philodemus" is often little more than informed speculation based on reconstruction of words and passages so much out of contact that it is hardly possible sometimes to tell whether Philodemus is talking about Epicurean positions or "enemy" positions.

(And that's especially a problem because it's normal in a philosophical writing to quote the position you are attacking before you attack it. What if the part that survives is the quote from the position being attacked?)

And that fragmentary and out-of-context state means that scholars -- in many cases very contemporary scholars who have drunk deep from the Stoic-friendly interpretations of Philodemus - are making speculative reconstructions of what they *expect* Philodemus to have been saying, when what they "expect" is not what an ancient Epicurean would really have written.

I think some very valuable information can be gleaned from what we have on Philodemus, but it has to be done very carefully, and I agree with Elayne that I do not trust anything that we have from Philodemus that would carry any implication that cannot also be supported from Lucretius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, or other more faithful and less fragmentary sources.

OK as to the points raised in the other posts by Elayne and Elli in the last 24 hours: there is a lot of background context to this discussion which may not be appropriate to explain further for this thread. On the other hand it "may" be appropriate, too, depending on whether one of the participants or someone reading it wants to discuss and learn from the details for more than just an unproductive desire to air unpleasantness. I can address any details as appropriate.

For now I think the basic point I want to make is that my reading of the history is consistent with Elli's and Elayne's interpretation of it. Elli goes almost as far back with Hiram as do I, so she has watched the situation over the years and knows it clearly. Elayne brings a fresh and quickly insightful perspective to evaluating where we are. It is clear to me that she expresses a justifiable frustration with the situation because as we have advanced in clarity over the years of study, the contradictions that might not have been quite so apparent years ago are now much more visible and easy to see. Elayne sees the contradictions and is working vigorously to deal with them, as we all should, regardless of pre-existing relationships.

Those of us who are committed to promoting Epicurus as he was understood "classically," as a mortal enemy of Stoic emotionlessness and Platonic idealism, are in a distinct minority. It is necessary for us to stick together cooperatively wherever and whenever possible. And that means that watering down the philosophy for the sake of appealing to its enemies, which we do when we compromise with the many variants of humanism, is a very negative thing that needs to be called out as such.

What rumbles beneath the surface here is a continuing struggle against humanism / idealism / stoicism that isn't going to go away, and isn't going to be fixed by finding some kind of middle ground or papering over the canyon between the opposing perspectives.

Walls

With no consideration, no pity, no shame,

they have built walls around me, thick and high.

And now I sit here feeling hopeless.

I can't think of anything else: this fate gnaws my mind -

because I had so much to do outside.

When they were building the walls, how could I not have noticed!

But I never heard the builders, not a sound.

Imperceptibly they have closed me off from the outside world.

The Windows

In these dark rooms where I live out empty days,

I wander round and round

trying to find the windows.

It will be a great relief when a window opens.

But the windows aren't there to be found -

or at least I can't find them. And perhaps

it's better if I don't find them.

Perhaps the light will prove another tyranny.

Who knows what new things it will expose?

The above are two of the top poems by C.P. Cavafy about the trapping that characterizes many people's lives and of course his own. A life of loneliness and sadness, with the feeling of being unsatisfied with the poet's wanderlust, who seeks diligently the reasons that led him to this point. The poem “The windows” symbolize the reasons sought by the poet for the state of his life. While his poem “Walls” are being built by others, we see that “windows” are combined with the concept of light and what the poet wants is to illuminate the dark spots of his life so that he can understand how he came living his life with many restrictions and oppressions. How he lost control of his life over the years and ended up spending his days in the dark - in ignorance - and in solitude.

This wondering of the poet expresses the concerns of many people who have gradually found themselves far from their original goals and the pursuit of happiness i.e. the pure pleasure as we, the epicureans, are saying. A web of habits and obligations, the attempt of man to live as others require for him without him, and a society that traps its members in a prescribed course, often alienate to the human removing from him whatever he wishes for his life.

As in the poem "The Walls" Cavafy raises the question of the restrictions that have been put on his life and states that he never understood when and who trapped him inside them, in the poem “The Windows” Cavafy appears to ignore the reasons why his life has come to be so limited and depressing. And despite his efforts to find the "windows", he fails to appear as if they were not even there or as if he were unable to locate them. The truth is, after all, that in order to be able to identify the reasons why he does not have the life he desires, he must seek responsibility not only in others and in society, as he says in the first poem entitled "Walls", but also to himself, which is not always easy.

That is why the poet thinks it may be better that he cannot find the windows – which are the causes that has to search and deepening in them – because, as he says, he may then be confronted with issues that he would rather not to know or has not to realize. Perhaps, the poet says : to find windows, to be finally a new state of the feeling of pain, and the truth that he wants so much to find, to be the cause of a crucial battle with himself, and this may, instead of rescuing him, it will bring him a greater agitation.

The poet's hard days are a result of not only the restrictions the society places on him, but also the restrictions he places on himself. The responsibility for the grief of the poet - and every human being like the psychosomatic of the poet - lies not only on others but also on himself. And this is our subjective truth that we are not always ready to handle, which is why the poet concludes that it may be better not to find the windows…. And that’s why the majority of people choose the STOIC anesthesia and apathy that is given with that known : <<pleasure is the absence of pain>> !

Quote from elli

That is why the poet thinks it may be better that he cannot find the windows – which are the causes that has to search and deepening in them – because, as he says, he may then be confronted with issues that he would rather not to know or has not to realize. Perhaps, the poet says : to find windows, to be finally a new state of the feeling of pain, and the truth that he wants so much to find, to be the cause of a crucial battle with himself, and this may, instead of rescuing him, it will bring him a greater agitation.

I think this gets very close to an ultimate issue that divides people who interpret Epicurus differently. I can certainly understand that there are times and circumstances where the pain of life is just so overwhelming that it seems like nothing is worth doing other than escaping agitation. But as bad as I feel for such people, I don't think that such a worldview is necessary for everyone in every circumstance, and I think Epicurus was part of the segment of humanity who sees life in Jefferson's phrase - "the greater part of life is sunshine." We can't measure the sunshine part in terms of length, or in any specific terms at all, other than that we FEEL that part to be why we are alive and how we want to spend our lives.

Those of us who see the world that way bear no ill will against anyone else who wants to focus on the dark side and the escape to what they want to call "tranqulity." But that doesn't seem to be a two way street, because many people who are focused on escaping from pain see those who are not so focused as an affront to themselves, and so they work very hard to invent all sorts of ways to "prove" that pleasure is an impractical guide to life, and that there are things in their minds that are so much more "worthy" than the pleasure of themselves and their friends.

To me it is no coincidence that both Nietzsche and Liantinis saw something important in Epicurus. I don't think either of them developed the connection deeply enough, but both of them express the depth of feeling that is (to me) the end result that is compelled by the Epicurean worldview.

Hiram, I preferred not to go into a bickering level of detail, mostly bc it seems pointless. Elli and I have long ago developed a friendship. Our initial difficulties resulted from a misunderstanding-- she thought I was a humanist/idealistic, and I was offended at someone thinking that about me, because it is the opposite of who I am. After I saw how much trouble the FB site had from people pushing other philosophies on there, I totally understood what happened. Elli turns out to be one of the warmest and kindest people I have met.

The reason I express admiration and agreement with Cassius and Elli is that I am joyful at finally finding people who understand life the way I do. It is not for flattery-- it is deep appreciation, and relief that I am not alone. Epicurus talked about the importance of finding like-minded friends to study philosophy and share life with.

I actually had already been using the Canon to assess reality before I read it, although mine was less organized. It is how I evaluated Epicurus' words for truth-- it is how I evaluate Philodemus or anyone else. I think what you, Hiram, are not understanding is that I am testing what anyone says, living or dead, by the Canon. So I don't care who it is that says a thing or how long they've done it for-- if it doesn't line up with reality, it won't fly for me.

I was startled to find a philosopher I agreed with, on almost everything. I would have just called it my own philosophy, because it is, but that would be plagiarism since he said it first.

I consider myself a fundamentalist only in regards to reality. Epicurus shared my perspective on that. If someone else doesn't, then _that_ is why I disagree, not because of some weird cult thing.

You don't know how you would interact with me if I don't follow Philodemus' rules? If you don't know how it is you've been rude to me-- primarily condescending-- I don't think a rule will help fix that. I prefer the spontaneous kindness of friends, who do not need rules to want each other to be happy. Even while following rules, people can be very unkind if they lack the underlying feeling. I see Epicurus' words on friendship more as descriptive-- this is what it's like to be friends-- not a fixed set of rules.

Like Epicurus, I am not overly quick to assess a relationship as a friendship.

Hiram Crespo said : You will continue to push away friends and the only people you'll attract who will remain here will be flatterers.

I have the impression that he confuses the enrichment of feelings of empathy, understanding, care, pleasure, and joy with the flattering.

Maybe he did not have a clue that we do use all the criteria of truth of the Canon for judging rightly who are those that produce to us pleasurable feelings and who do not.

Does he say that we are naive ? Who said that Cassius and Elayne did not accept frankness of speech from me or me from them or from other persons? Does he know what we do say in our private messages to each other or on the private group of friends ?

Does he say that Elayne who is a doctor needs medication or Cassius needs too? Concerning me he does not comment, he will open the can with worms! Does he mean that I am a worm ?

Sorry, I am not a brown-nose for kissing filthy pants of such people that proclaim idealistic-humanism just for the purpose to sell any book. And sorry that I am not a Buddhist that I have to eliminate my self and my desires for reaching Nirvana. From the beginning, I did not agree with him with all these and these are the fist causes of our differences.

And again I say that I did not speak to Elayne behind her back and I did send to her a private message to understand each other better. This case is closed for us, and we are very closed friends now. But really, does he think that he was the reason for that ? Did he feel that he had any ability to inspire me to any beneficial thing after his actions with the translation of his book and as I commented to my first comment here ?

But really who speaks for all these ? The one that does not accept frank criticism from the beginning and the only he does is to speak to other persons and for other persons behind their backs ? I admit he has a master degree in intrigue.

However, for the flattering issue, we have Epicurus and some fragments of his letters to his friends that are as follows :

Epicurus to Leontion : “O Paean and Anax Apollo, my dear little Leontion, with what tumultuous applause we were inspired as we read your letter.”

Epicurus to Themista, the wife of Leonteus: “I am quite ready, if you do not come to see me, to roll around three times on my own axis and be propelled to any place that you, including Themista, agree upon”.

Epicurus to the handsome Pythocles : “I will sit quietly and await with desire for your God-like coming”.

...and, as Theodorus says in the fourth book of his work, Against Epicurus, in another letter to Themista he thinks he preaches to her.

Epicurus corresponded with many courtesans, and especially with Leontion, of whom Metrodorus also was enamored.

----------------------------------------

You are a bad-bad man Epicurus it seems in your above words that you flattered all the persons in your Garden, and you did not speak to each other with Parrhesia as Philodemus said!

Epicurus asks: who is Philodemus ?

Elli responds to Epicurus : O, he is just like a small hair from your testicles, my dear teacher!

Quote from Oscar

to be as disorganized and chaotic as the universe it describes

We have certainly been successful in achieving that so far!

I should have said more about this, but I think I missed the point because my first reaction to Oscar's comment was that it was funny. More that being funny, observing that application may be "disorganized" is EXACTLY what I think. I think it's the nature of the universe that living things experience pleasure in ways that are both (1) broadly similar among species and (2) widely variable within those limits for individuals of the same species. And that means that there are going to be very many individual "takes" on how to apply Epicurean philosophy. I would like to think that we can bring a certain degree of organization to it, and that it definitely not be "chaotic" (at least under some definitions of that word) but there is no way everyone is going to see things the same way on everything.

And I see this as one of the major differences in perspective that is behind these discussions. I find myself regularly making the point that we should not expect everyone to come to the same conclusions about how pursue pleasure. I think part of the reason I find myself doing that because I get the impression from posts at Society of Epicurus seem to imply that everyone should pursue things in at least broadly similar ways (such as the "golden rule" comments).

I doubt I need to elaborate much further again because I have make the same point earlier in this thread, but that's why I don't want people to get too disconcerted over the disagreements they are reading in this thread. By trying to enforce rules against "politics" we can try to keep focused on higher-level issues that allow the widest possible big tent. But at the same time, real people have real feelings and specific interests that they want to talk about. The rub is that the more specific they get about controversial issues (as does Catherine Wilson or other "humanist" writing) then the more we're going to have disputes need to form separate initiatives.

That's natural and to be expected, just as Oscar implies, and need not be a source of personal animosity.

Hiram, I have no standard for "perfect people" or "perfect Epicureans" other than the degree to which people achieve pleasure. A perfect person would be exactly as Epicurus described his gods, beings experiencing continuous total pleasure without pain. So in that regard, I haven't met anyone who got that far, including myself, but I can say I have learned by experience how to enjoy my life more and more. And that for me it requires total rejection of idealism in favor of reality testing.

I also don't know what it means to have a right to have flaws. The only flaw I know of would be some kind of habit or characteristic reducing one's own pleasure, and I don't know why anyone would want a right to less pleasure. However, observation of biological reality does tell me, as I've said above, that we do get in our own way sometimes.

Your choice of that framing tells me you have a very different perspective from mine-- some other kind of way to define perfect or flaws. You asked for examples of idealism, and what you just said is one!

As far as friendship goes, I can't make decisions ahead of seeing behavior. I accept your apology, and I would need to see repeated, prolonged evidence of friendliness before I could make that kind of decision. More evidence than from a stranger who had not been unkind.

However, as long as you think in an idealist way and are actively promoting this as a way to view reality, that is going to be unpleasant to me. It wouldn't be a basis for friendship, because it would cause me pain and not mutual benefit of pleasure. I will feel obligated, for the benefit of my friends, to say that you are wrong and that I hope people don't listen to you.

If you changed your way of thinking such that you adopted a realist philosophy, even if you decided Epicurus wasn't a realist and therefore rejected him, it would be easy to be your friend, because our disagreement would only be about what Epicurus meant, rather than about truth itself.

Certainly I do not expect any friend to be a source of pure pleasure and no pain in my life, if that is what you meant by a perfect person. If someone is my friend, I have a strong feeling of love and loyalty to them which overrides many pains they cause me unintentionally, and even sometimes intentionally if they are sincerely sorry and make amends. A betrayal would need to be repeated and/or severe before it would break my love. Friendship is a deep bond of feeling. I don't enter into it lightly, because of that. To say you are my friend means that you love me so much that if I am in need of your help, you would drop everything and come to my aid, and I for you. And that we trust each other not to make those requests excessively, so as to cause each other pain. It can start from a less complete bond, but a mature friendship means the friend's pleasure and pain is entangled deeply with your own.

By that definition, which is described by Epicurus but which I developed by my own experience with beloved friends, you and I are not friends. But I will agree to leave that possibility open, depending on how you treat me and those whose pleasure is entangled in mine from here forward.

Hiram, I can understand your assertion that what you are saying is Epicurean, if it turns out Epicurus was not a realist after all, or if you are defining that as being what people who have called themselves Epicureans have said.

If neither one of us had ever read Epicurus, though, our baseline philosophies are different.

When you say "perfect person", what do you mean? What standard are you using? If it is not subjective pleasure, then it has to be something else, and what is that, for you? Based on your other writing, I assumed it was tied to some unfailing demonstration of a golden rule of some kind, which is idealist, assuming everyone agrees on how they want to be treated, rather than based on subjective experience.

But perhaps I have put words in your mouth. Can you tell me what you mean by perfect person without referring to any ideas you can't show me with perceptual examples? How do you define that?

Because our personal philosophies are strikingly different, I do not feel myself to be under the same tent with you, so far, any more than I am in Plato's tent. So it doesn't bother me that people would see us not considering ourselves to be in the same philosophy at all-- that's just accurate. The confusing part is calling it all EP.

This debate is bringing me to the point where I no longer want to discuss what Epicurus did or didn't mean unless it is also made clear whether my discussion partner is testing all philosophy against their own perceptions of reality and whether we have reached the same conclusions about the nature of reality. Then we can explore whether Epicurus got something right or not. We can test his words against the evidence of reality together. Anything else feels like a waste of time.

I'm happy to be called a "reality fundamentalist", and I will only agree with anyone's philosophy to the extent they can demonstrate their position to me, based on perceptions--senses, feelings, and innate intuitions (pattern recognitions).

Interim comment: There is a lot going on in these exchanges, which combine philosophical and personal points with many thing in one post. I am going to have to come back to this series to break it down, but I want to make a procedural comment:

We are writing these posts publicly and I do not think people should read too much into the "Likes" or "Failure to Likes" that get added to posts in a series like this. At least in my own case I am having to think about a series of points being made in each post before I decide how best to respond, and I don't want people to think that I am taking flat sides one way or the other by liking or failure to like individual posts. I feel sure that this observation applies to other people as well but I thought this was worth saying. The "like" system has its uses, but in complicated discussions like this one I think its usefulness breaks down.

The issues being discussed here are important on lots of levels so I hope people will free to comment on "parts" of these posts without fear of being misunderstood as endorsing or not endorsing someone's entire position.

Quote from Hiram

I still can't wrap my head around your categorization of "idealist" after six years of work in positing what Onfray calls "a counter-history of philosophy from the perspective of the friends of Epicurus and the enemies of Plato". Maybe you have considered my willingness at some point or another to consider other people's views as my agreeing with them? I just don't see what you're even talking about

I think one way of stating what I see as "idealism" is a pattern of leaping from what we as individuals find pleasurable to a wider position on social/political issues. This pattern is clear in the work of Catherine Wilson (and she admits it, I think) and certainly in the work of Robert Hanrott, but it is also inherent Hiram in many of the things I see you writing in the 20 tenets threads. For example you are taking the last ten doctrines on "justice" and extrapolating that a certain set of conclusions on social issues should be "the Epicurean position." Catherine Wilson does that repeatedly, and while I may agree with her (or you) on many of the positions you choose to take, it seems absolutely clear to me that you violate the spirit of what Epicurus was saying, in proclaiming "no absolute justice" and "no matter how depraved we think the person is...." if it ends in pleasure for that person then we have no reason to complain with that person's choices. This is very clear from you "mutual benefit" conclusion, in translating "not to harm or be harmed," which is a restraint of action rather than a command of action, and turning it into a categorical imperative that we seemingly have a duty to "benefit" each other -- and implicitly not only each other, but *everyone.*

I am no libertarian myself and I am not looking for libertarianism in Epicurus' work, nor am I looking for justification to argue that *any* particular set of policy conclusions should apply to everyone. But it is absolutely clear to me that if someone continuously asserts that one or a list of policy choices should be adopted by everyone, then they have failed to accept the basic underlying premise that the feeling of pleasure, which all of us experience *individually* is the guide, rather than an idealized version that they think applies to everyone.

That is the problem with "Humanism" and I do not see you even acknowledging the issue, much less taking the non-asbsolute position that Epicurus's doctrines would plainly call for.

Yes, I am not expecting everyone to agree with everything I am saying. I do want to say, though, that I don't view personal and philosophy issues as separate, because this philosophy include feelings. It applies to all parts of life, and in fact saying it applies to specific interpersonal disputes is part of what makes it different from other philosophies. That is why I don't think people need to shy away from having feelings about these recent discussions. The feelings involved are real.

If nothing else, readers can see how difficult it is to publicly endorse a philosophy of pleasure tied solely to material reality. You will be met with all kinds of opposition, and Epicurus was too. I have my pleasure reward in having finally met others who enjoy practicing pleasure as I do, and it was necessary to take risks to find them. I hope I have set at least some example of standing firm against idealism and that some of you will benefit, and that gives me pleasure.

Oscar, because my adult son has schizophrenia, I have a little bit of a different take on this. The most current research shows that schizophrenia is truly a neurologic condition. It may eventually even be possible to treat it as an immune disorder using medications designed for MS-- there's research with preliminary encouraging results.

So of course, they did do whatever they did. But if one day treatment can reliably remove the illness that caused the actions, it is possible they could be safely released. My son now that he consistently takes his medications is at no higher risk of harming someone than an average person. When psychotic and delusional, off medications, I had to have him committed, which is very hard to do.

Some of the work I have been doing is to implement evidence based commitment strategies-- outpatient commitment to f/u inpatient-- for people who have not committed a violent crime but are at risk of doing so. This is very effective at reducing violent acts. A major problem with schizophrenia is that the disease itself impairs reality testing and thus the person's ability to know they are sick is lost. They can think they are normal, so why take medicine? Commitment, if adhered to by the court and treatment team, provides that the person be re-committed to impatient care if they cannot manage to follow instructions outpatient.

For those who already have done violence, some need to be confined for life if we want to be safe, to protect our pleasure. However, I personally do not feel anger towards them, because now I really understand that the same person can be entirely different when sick and untreated.