Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

Wednesday June 5th Zoom will have this agenda:

• Wed, 06/05/2024
  • Welcome And Greeting
  • New Topics:
    • To Be Determined
  • Updated Epicurea PDF: (With Lines) EPICUREA 5.13.pdf
    • Starting Point for Tonight, PDF Page 19,
      • Arrian, Discourses on Epictetus, Πρὸς Ἐπίκουρον 1 - 10: Even Epicurus perceives that we are by nature social, but having once placed our good in the husk [in the body] he is no longer able to say anything else. For again, he strongly says that "it is necessary to not marvel at nor accept anything appart from the property of the good" and he is right in maintaining this.

This meeting is open to new attendees:

For Level 03 (Established Members) who haven't yet attended a Wednesday night meeting, please send me a private message and I'll get the Zoom link to you.

For Level 01 (Introductory Members) who haven't yet attended a Zoom, message me to get the moderator team approval process started.

Wednesday June 26th Zoom will have this agenda:

• Wed, 06/26/2024
  • Welcome And Greeting
  • New Topics:
    • To Be Determined
  • Epicurea - Starting Point for Tonight, PDF Page 83, U25
    • Again he repeats this in the first [book] and in the 14th and 15th of the work On Nature and in the Larger Epitome "Some objects are composites – and others [are objects] out of which composites are made.

This meeting is open to new attendees:

For Level 03 (Established Members) who haven't yet attended a Wednesday night meeting, please send me a private message and I'll get the Zoom link to you.

For Level 01 (Introductory Members) who haven't yet attended a Zoom, message me to get the moderator team approval process started.

Wednesday July 10th Zoom 8pm, will have this agenda:

• Welcome and Greetings
• New Topics:
  • To Be Determined
• Usener's Epicurea Discussion

This meeting is open to new attendees:

For Level 03 (Established Members) who haven't yet attended a Wednesday night meeting, please send me a private message and I'll get the Zoom link to you.

For Level 01 (Introductory Members) who haven't yet attended a Zoom, message me to get the moderator team approval process started

Yes we do need to make more progress in the Epicurea.

As a progress report for those who miss sessions, I will keep this thread up to date on where we are in the Epicurea material.

• Last night we completed U41 (Exhortation to Study Philosophy.
• On August 7 we will pick up with U42 (On Rhetoric)

Among the things we discussed last night (briefly) was the role of Eudoxus in the arguments about Pleasure at the time of Aristotle and Epicurus. This is discussed in Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure" starting page 157.

Thanks Cassius !

On August 7 we started with U42 on page 136 of the Epicurea PDF by talking generally about what was known about Philodemus' and Epicurus' writings on Rhetoric, and we attempted to get a fix on the different positions taken by Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus on the issue.

The entire debate about Rhetoric can seem obscure to many of us, and this is a topic worth clarifying in the future.

One version (by Hubbell) of the remaining parts of Philodemus' Rhetoric is available here:

Philodemi Rhetorica (trans. Hubbell) OPTIMIZED : Hubbell : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Philodemus - On Rhetoric - Translated by Hubbell BEST COPY

archive.org

On August 14 we will pick up with Usener's fragments on the topic.

Keeping in mind that rhetors called their own instruction books "technai" "technical [manuals]" -- questioning to what extent rhetoric is an "art / techne" cuts to the base of the whole profession because it asks: to what extent do these "technical manuals" actually have any repeatable and teachable technique ("art / techne") at all?

Some Epicureans in Rhodes argued that Epicurus thought that no form of rhetoric was an art, but Philodemus and Zeno of Sidon argued that Epicurus thought the study of the principles of composition is in fact an art (but they all agreed that Epicurus did not think forensic and deliberative oratory are arts).

Rhetoric (Aristotle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From Bryan's article in Wikipedia :

Quote

Aristotle identified rhetoric as one of the three key elements—along with logic and dialectic—of philosophy. The first line of the Rhetoric is: "Rhetoric is a counterpart (antistrophe) of dialectic."^[1]: I.1.1According to Aristotle, logic is concerned with reasoning to reach scientific certainty, while dialectic and rhetoric are concerned with probability and, thus, are the branches of philosophy that are best suited to human affairs. Dialectic is a tool for philosophical debate; it is a means for skilled audiences to test probable knowledge in order to learn. Rhetoric is a tool for practical debate; it is a means for persuading a general audience using probable knowledge to resolve practical issues. Dialectic and rhetoric partner to form a system of persuasion based on knowledge instead of upon manipulation and omission

Given that Epicurus had strong criticism of at least two of these categories (dialectic and logic) it's easy to suspect that he saw reason for strong criticism of Rhetoric as well.

The main problem I perceive is how to describe in day to day terms what the essential issue really is. Both logic and dialectic seem to be to have a more clearly defined nature as something graspable - logic involves reducing ideas to definitions and relationships as a means of establishing truth, and dialectic, while less clear, involves back and forth discussion of points and counterpoints. Both are fairly easy to grasp as possible ways of establishing truth or wisdom.

But rhetoric seems to be much less easy to accept as even a tool for establishing truth or wisdom in the first place. It seems outside the category level of the other two, and I don't see why it would be viewed even as a part of philosophy parallel to the other two.

I can see saying "Let's use logic to figure out this problem." Or "Let's use dialectic to figure out this problem." But I can't see saying "Let's use persuasion to figure out the problem." That last is more like saying "Let's use a nuclear bomb to figure out this problem."

I've taken it that Epicurus held rhetoric that obfuscated and makes clever, confusing arguments (like Socrates) to be opposed to his manner of teaching:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius, 10.

[13]...The terms he used for things were the ordinary terms, and Aristophanes the grammarian credits him with a very characteristic style. He was so lucid a writer that in the work On Rhetoric he makes clearness the sole requisite.

[31] They reject dialectic as superfluous ; holding that in their inquiries the physicists should be content to employ the ordinary terms for things.

So, he wasn't opposed to clear, concise rhetoric (since he wrote a book on the topic), so it's clearly in the scope of Epicurean philosophy to learn how to clearly convey one's points to make them readily understandable to an audience or readers. Not something I always adhere to btw

Quote from Don

So, he wasn't opposed to clear, concise rhetoric (since he wrote a book on the topic), so it's clearly in the scope of Epicurean philosophy to learn how to clearly convey one's points to make them readily understandable to an audience or readers.

The problem is I get this nagging feeling that the part I underlined above (equating rhetoric with the art of clearly conveying one's points to make them readily understandable to an audience or readers) is not an accurate description of what "rhetoric" was perceived to be about.

It's not yet clear to me whether Epicurus was rejecting the "misuse" of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, or whether he was rejecting them as "disciplines worthy of study on their own" or whether he was rejecting something even more basic. He clearly wasn't rejecting in total the concepts of words, discussion, and communication (if we use those as loose approximations of the three terms), but it begins to sound like "logic," "dialectic," and "rhetoric" were being used to imply specific theories about words, discussion, and communication which Epicurus may have been rejecting totally.

And if that is the case then it would be useful to have clear working definitions of these terms that highlight what Epicurus was objecting to.

For example Epicurus wasn't objecting to all use of discussion, but he was objecting apparently to something specific that traded under the name of "dialectic." If we don't define what "dialectic" is very clearly, so that the objectionable part is made clear, then we continuously talk in ambiguities and never make clear the real defect and objection.

Same for "Logic" and "rhetoric."

And of these, the defective and objectionable part of "rhetoric" is probably the most obscure to most people today. "Rhetoric" has a negative connotation, but it's not entirely clear why, other than that there is an implicit "...but not concerned about truth of the matter asserted" that seems to go with it.

I'd like to add a wiki entry (under "Canonics"?) a brief description of each of these three terms -- giving a description of what the term meant to Epicurus, and why he objected to it.

Actually my last comment clarifies my real problem: I can see Logic and Dialectic as topics easily fitting under "Canonics" or epistemology -- but does "Rhetoric" fit there? Doesn't rhetoric mean more than "communication" and even if it doesn't, "communication" doesn't really come under "Canonics" does it?

EpicureanFriends Wiki - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Quote from Cassius

And if that is the case then it would be useful to have clear working definitions of these terms that highlight what Epicurus was objecting to.

Take a look at these articles as they explain what these terms meant in Ancient times.

We Use Rhetoric All the Time. What Is It?

Modern theories of oral and written communication remain heavily influenced by the basic rhetorical principles introduced in ancient Greece.

www.thoughtco.com

Definition and Examples of Dialectic in Rhetoric

Dialectic is the practice of arriving at a conclusion by the exchange of logical arguments, usually in the form of questions and answers.

www.thoughtco.com

Diogenes Laertius, 10.118

Hicks: The wise man will not make fine speeches.

Yonge: They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory.

Three simple words in original: οὐδὲ ῥητορεύσειν καλῶς. (oude rhetoreusein kalos) Nor will they be public speakers "beautifully", practise oratory "in a fine way."

ῥητορεύσειν (rhetoreusein) is a verb form of the word ῥητορικός (rhetorikos) "rhetoric, oratory" Note that Diogenes modifies "rhetoric" with the adverb form of kalos "fine, beautiful, etc." So it doesn't say that the Epicurean sage will not engage in any oratory at all, but specifically goes after the flowery, beautiful, speechifying. He says elsewhere that Epicurus, in his own work On Rhetoric ( Περὶ ῥητορικῆς), that "he makes clearness the sole requisite." No clever turns of phrase, no impressive word choices, etc. Clarity and clarity only is necessary in rhetoric.

Quote from Don

No clever turns of phrase, no impressive word choices, etc.

Well i am still working on improving clarity, but I'll already lay claim to being absolutely proficient at "no clever turns of phrase" and "no impressive word choices"! My phrasing is never very clever and my word choices are invariably unimpressive!

From some of the resources others have been posting, it seems to me one of the goals of dialectic is to give the student the ability to argue both sides of any argument. That is something Epicurus would have been vehemently against! He advocated clarity in rhetoric, but I can understand why he rejected dialectic if that's the case.

It gets confusing fast and stays that way. Aristotle compares dialectic and rhetoric (in the sense that both can apply to non-professionals), but he assumes a fundamental distinction before he starts discussing different types of rhetoric. It seems Epicurus at least experimented with dialectic, in his "Symposium."

On the other hand, rhetoric, for example in the hands of Protagoras, was in many ways what we would just call "grammar" -- and in a way the study of grammar can be scientific.

Philodemus says Epicurus defended one of three types of rhetoric (although the schools also did not agree even on the divisions) the study of the principles of composition, but that Epicurus saw no value in forensic & deliberative oratory specifically, or political "science" generally. Of course Epicurus was engaged in private education, and he did say the wise should learn to read and write, in his "On Gifts and Gratitude." (ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι τοῖς σοφοῖς μανθάνειν γράμματα.)

Also he did write books that could be considered Epideictic (for example in his work "Themísta" which was about and praising Themista or his works pointing out the errors of "great men" of the past, such as Epameinondas, in his "On Kingship."

Just as a marker on where we are in the Epicurea reading, tonight (August 28) we completed Section 43 of U56, so next week we will start with 44. Symposium on page 143 of the PDF.

On September 11 we will start our Epicurea discussion at U61, which is on page 147 of the Epicurea PDF.