Gassendi On Happiness

Almost offhandedly Robert wins the award for the day, probably the week, and possibly for the month for bringing something we've not discussed before to our attention. I highly recommend his link on Gassendi on Happiness. I suspect we're not going to agree with everything that Gassendi has to say but this is VERY interesting. Thanks Robert!

You'll probably want to start reading from page one, but i'm clipping the following just to show how it's directly on point with our discussions.

The opening section right at the beginning about how to judge the man who is roasted in the bull of Phalaris as still happy is an excellent extrapolation of Epicurus and right on point with our discussion in the Zoom today!

Possibly the best explanation of Happiness as I personally think Epicurus would define it that i have seen.

As should be expected, the usefulness of this is limited almost immediately into the discussion by Gassendi's insistence that there is both a Providential god whom we should worship and an eternal soul that survives death.

I see on page 10 that Gassendi holds that Epicurus did *not* hasten his own death / commit suicide. Note that Gassendi is denouncing the Stoics for allowing suicide, and he is praising the religious view that only God should determine the end of our lives.

Gassendi quotes Lactantius saying that Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Zeno killed themselves "in hopes of being instantly transported to heaven."

looks to me like he is referring to Stoicism when he says "this is a cursed and abominable doctrine which drives men out of their lives."

Thanks Patrikios!

Further, I am not clear whether this document is a translation, a paraphrase, or some combination of the two.

OMG -- On page 21 it seems that Gassendi is denying that Epicurus made the statement that Epicurus would not know the good but for the pleasures of taste, etc. And this PDF glosses over the entire argument with an aside which does not include the key material!

Reading through this section that deprecates active pleasures and seems to elevate an overly high estimation of Seneca makes me want to agree even more firmly with Karl Marx that Gassendi does not have all of his Epicurean philosophy correct.

I am still reading it fast and furiously but this document clearly merits Gassendi's reputation as a defender and transmitter of Epicurus. But I have lots of questions including:

1. When was it written?
2. To whom was it published?
3. When was it first translated into English?
4. Is this what Jefferson and others had access to which acquainted them with Epicurean arguments?
5. Lots and lots of questions in my mind about this document, not the least of which is:
6. Why hasn't this document been one of the centerpieces of discussion of Epicurean philosophy for the last 100 years?
7. Did DeWitt have this? Is this something that the well-known commentaries about Epicurus over the last 50 years have incorporated?
8. Who is Jonathan Bennett? Where has this appeared other than this website?
   1. I note: Copyright ©2010–2015 All rights reserved. Jonathan Bennett [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . . . . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported between brackets in normal-sized type. —This version is based on the French translation of the work by Gassendi’s friend François Bernier. When a passage by an ancient author is reported or quoted in French, Bernier usually gives it in Latin also; his French versions are pretty accurate, so the Latin will be passed over silently except where there is a reason to call attention to it. —For the other work by Gassendi presented on this website, see the final set of Objections to Descartes’s Meditations. First launched: March 2021

I doubt we've mentioned Maximus of Tyre at all here on this forum, or if we have we certainly haven't mentioned him much, and yet he bursts out of this article as having some of the best takes since Epicurus himself!

Gassendi even explains and defends Torquatus for defending his ancestor's execution of his son for violating the rules of battle --- this article is amazingly comprehensive.

Joshua is going to really enjoy all this detailed analysis of the story of Marcus Regulus around page 47.

Bryan you are among the most well-read of us here. Are you familiar with this work?

OK I finished it. The article tails off into an overly-long praise of frugality and simple living, even managing to finish with some praise of walking around naked and shoeless, but the lack of a rousing ending does not diminish what a generally interesting and helpful article this is.

I'd like to know what Karl Marx's criticism was to see how it comports with mine, but as I see it on first reading the defects are pretty limited but clear:

1- Gassendi won't abandon or examine the implications of the absence of a supernatural god.

2 - Ditto as to there not being an immortal soul.

3 - He doesn't seem to appreciate fully that the mental pleasures of rest that he praises are in addition to, and not solely for the sake of, his pleasures of rest. But he actually does catch himself and goes on relatively at length to insist that Epicurean pleasures do not entail inaction, so he's not as bad on that score as some.

In general, my summary would be that this is an essential article for anyone who wants to understand Epicurus and how we got to where we are today in appraising him.

There are lots and lots of anecdotal quotes that I've never seen referenced before.