Welcome Thomas Karion!

    Welcome Thomas Karion!

    Thomas tells us:


    Thank you for registering at EpicureanFriends.com, and for writing to us about your background and interest in Epicurus. We look forward to hearing more from you!

    As a reminder, all posts are subject to our Community Standards, Rules, and Terms of Use.

    Welcome to EpicureanFriends!

    Hello,

    I have a question. I’m not sure if this is the right forum, or even if I’m in the right section of the forum. I hope you’ll forgive me if that’s the case.

    My question is this:

    What do you think Epicurus would write about today if he were alive in our time?

    I’ve calculated that Epicurus wrote mostly on physics, particularly in his work *On Nature* (37 books, according to Diogenes Laertius), and then about (or for) his many friends (especially in his numerous letters). He also wrote on ethics and on the Canon (if we separate it from physics, contrary to common practice, I believe). Finally, I don’t think he wrote much (if at all) on politics.

    “[Epicurus] wrote (…) some three hundred books, and he never quoted other authors—every word they contained was Epicurus’s own.” (Diogenes Laertius)

    Here is a rough summary of the books written by the Epicureans of Epicurus’s time:

    - On and for friends (22 books out of 93, or 25%): Chaeredemus / Neocles, dedicated to Themistus / Eurylochus, dedicated to Metrodorus / Aristobulus / Timocrates, in three books / Metrodorus, in five books / Antidorus, in two books / Callistolas / Anaximenes / Polymers / Hegesianax / Letters / Collections of Letters (H) / On the Disciples (H) / Exhortation to Study Philosophy / Principal Doctrines

    - On the Canon (5 books out of 93, or 6%): On the Criterion, or the Canon / On Sensory Perception / On Vision / On the Sense of Touch / On Images / On Sensations (M)

    - On Physics (39 books out of 93, or 44%): On Nature, in Thirty-Seven Books / On Atoms and the Void / On the Angle of the Atom / Summary of the Books for Physicists

    - On Ethics (19 books out of 93, or 22%): On the Ultimate Goal / Theories on Diseases [and Death], Dedicated to the Mithras / On the Gods / On Holiness / On Choices and Avoiding Evil / On Gifts and Gratitude / On the Course of Life, in Four Books / On Fair Treatment / Symposium / On Music / On Justice and the Other Virtues / On Fate / On Kingship / On Love / On the Passions, Against Timocrates / On Magnanimity (M) / On Epicurus’s Weak Constitution (M) / On the Path to Wisdom (M) / On Change (M) / On Wealth (M) / On Nobility (M)

    - Others (3 books out of 93, or 3%): Against the Megarians / Problems / Prognosis / Against the Physicians, three books (M) / Against Timocrates (M) / Against the Dialecticians (M) / Against the Sophists, 9 books (M) / Against Democritus (M) / On Empedocles, twenty-two books (H) / Against Plato (H) / Against Aristotle (H)

    image.png

    Furthermore, Maxime Capitale 11 states: “If doubts about celestial realities did not trouble us at all—nor those concerning death, which we fear may one day have something to do with us—or even the fact that we do not fully understand the limits of pain and desire, we would have no need to study nature. ”

    Physics (particularly concerning nature)

    If I were to attempt an approximate and unsatisfactory answer myself, I would begin by saying that, these days, most people seem to me to be less troubled by what he calls celestial realities (particularly the gods) and death. Because of this, I imagine that if Epicurus were to write books about nature today, it would be primarily to fully understand the limits of pain and desire (especially in the capitalist society of overconsumption in which we live). Furthermore, Epicurus would write about the Canon.

    Friends

    Furthermore, I think that if Epicurus were alive today, he would, of course, write a great deal about and for his friends.

    Ethics

    Regarding ethics, I think (if I were to revisit his ancient writings) that Epicurus would write about pleasure, of course, as well as about illness, choices and what to avoid, gifts and gratitude, life journeys, fair treatment, music, justice and other virtues, love, passions, wealth, and so on.

    Gemini

    I asked Gemini what it thought about this. It replied that, in light of our 21st century, Epicurus would focus his reflections on the following areas:

    - The tyranny of algorithms and the attention crisis (endless scrolling, the quest for validation through “likes,” etc.)

    - Overconsumption and capitalism

    - New forms of anxiety (eco-anxiety and AI)

    - Modern loneliness and the redefinition of friendship

    - Quantum physics and neuroscience

    That’s my modest contribution—and that of the AI. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this question:

    What do you think Epicurus would write about today if he were alive in our time?

    Thank you!

    Welcome to the forum and that's a very interesting question.

    Quote from Thomas Karion

    If I were to attempt an approximate and unsatisfactory answer myself, I would begin by saying that, these days, most people seem to me to be less troubled by what he calls celestial realities (particularly the gods) and death. Because of this, I imagine that if Epicurus were to write books about nature today, it would be primarily to fully understand the limits of pain and desire (especially in the capitalist society of overconsumption in which we live). Furthermore, Epicurus would write about the Canon.


    I suppose it would be necessary to evaluate the context in which one might imagine Epicurus appearing and how he would arrive.

    If you were to literally have a time machine and transport the literal Epicurus, he would have a lot to do to pick up where he left off and decide how to evaluate what had happened in the intervening 2000 years. And if you allowed him time to investigate the history of the intervening time, I suspect he would be very unhappy about how society and social structures had developed during that time.

    When he left, Epicurean views were young and gaining popularity, as they did for hundreds of years after he died. The views that the espoused on most major issues of life were well respected and even opposition was within reasonable limits. Much of what has happened since that time represents a setback for those views, however, and I suspect that first and foremost he would want to know "why" and "what happened" to prevent the continuing development of his nature-based viewpoint.

    So in the most general terms I think "catching up" and then diagnosing "what happened and why" would probably be his first step. Then depending on what circumstances you placed him in, you'd probably have his attention drawn according to those circumstances (rich, poor, peaceful, at war, etc).

    That's only a general initial answer but thanks for your post and welcome to the forum!

    Thinking further about this question - even if we stick to "ethics," we know Epicurus' own approximate ranking of problems when he left:

    1 - People life hoping for divine assistance or trying to escape divine punishment for their actions, thinking that there is divine influence on our lives. Is that a problem that has gone away over the last two thousand years? Maybe in terms of raw superstition, but in more "respectable" terms (the major religions) I would say those problems are every bit as bad today and then - and arguable much worse.

    2 - People live thinking that they will somehow survive death and will be either punished or rewarded for their actions after death. Is that something that has gone away over the last two thousand years? Again I would say that the instances of that are at least as widespread as then, and probably worse.

    3- People live thinking that they should follow "virtue," or "reason," or "piety" rather than pursuing happiness through pleasure. Is this something that people have improved on in the last two thousand years? If I had to debate both sides of that issue I'd think I was on the much stronger team if I were arguing "no."

    4 - People have all sorts of concerns about pain arising from disease or wars or poverty or numerous other things, and as a result they panic and do all sorts of stupid things. Is this a problem that has gotten better or gone away by people realizing that pain is manageable? Again I would say no.

    And we could go down the rest of the principle doctrines one by one and ask if they have gotten better, or if people understand that the world is wholly natural and not run by arbitrary gods, or if people understand that there are rational ways to be confident in making difficult decisions (rather than being wholly skeptical or nihilistic. At the time of Epicurus' death he might well have thought that the future looked better. But if were transported to the Athens of today via time machine, I suspect that any respect he might have for modern technology would be outweighed when he discovered that the problems that he campaigned against then are just as bad today - or worse.

    Cassius this phrase is way too vague, and so I personally wouldn't state the following:

    Quote from Cassius

    People live thinking that they should follow "virtue," or "reason," or "piety" rather than pursuing happiness through pleasure.

    We see in PD16 the following:

    PD16. "In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain."

    So...a possible alternative would state:

    Because of pleasure we choose virtue/just actions (which are not to harm or be harmed) and this leads to the pleasure of experiencing the most pleasant life. ---> This is virtue/just actions as a tool that leads to a pleasant and fullfilling life.

    Compare these two scenarios: 1) God decrees that one should not kill one's neighbor (and then that person goes ahead anyway --> This is virtue/just actions as a blind rule that is not fully understood) --vs-- 2) Reasoning and remembering that killing one's neighbor won't lead to a most pleasant life, and in fact will bring about many bad consequences (unless done as a clear act of self-defence) ---> a fully developed moral understanding that leads to a happy life.

    Of course there is an additional layer of moral development, which comes from the full understanding of pain and the full understanding of conscious experience of all animals (including humans) incorporating awareness of "self and other". ---> And which I would venture to say is a newer and further development of civilization beyond Epicurean philosophy. ---> And this also leads to a pleasant and fulfilling life (which is the goal of Epicurean philosophy).

    Quote from Kalosyni

    this phrase is way too vague, and so I personally wouldn't state the following:

    That's in the context of:

    Quote from Torquatus in On Ends Book One

    We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows:

    Reason, piety, and virtue are means to the end of pleasure, not ends in themselves, and that's a real key to Epicurean philosophy clarifying how things are prioritized.

    Quote from Thomas Karion

    I’m not sure if this is the right forum, or even if I’m in the right section of the forum. I hope you’ll forgive me if that’s the case.

    Yes, entry level (Level 1) is granted posting permissions only in their Welcome thread.

    Quote from Thomas Karion

    My question is this:

    What do you think Epicurus would write about today if he were alive in our time?

    To add to what Cassius wrote, I would say "free will vs determinism".

    I have a second question.

    In his third important maxim, Epicurus says that the removal of all suffering is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures.

    Now, I am not experiencing any fear, physical pain, or mental distress at this moment.

    However, I am not feeling any pleasure right now.

    From an Epicurean perspective, can you explain why?

    Thomas that is definitely an issue to to pursue til you understand the reason for Epicurus' position, so let us know as you read further about it. Epicurus' definition of pleasure is wider than the normal view, and his philosophy can't really be understood - nor can you decide whether you agree with it or not, without examining why Epicurus held that there are only two classes of feelings. Keep reading and asking until you are satisfied. You may not agree with the point but you can't be sure til you see it.

    Additional quotations here:

    Epicurean Ethics - Epicureanfriends.com
    www.epicureanfriends.com
    Quote from Thomas Karion

    Are you perhaps referring to “pleasures in motion” and “catastematic pleasure”?

    These are very deep subjects, especially getting into the details of "katatestematic" pleasure, which I do not personally recommend you try to do at the beginning.

    The place to start is that Epicurus held that there are only two categories of feeling - pleasure and pain - and that if you are not feeling one you are feeling the other.

    The justification for that classification scheme is the issue, because it widens the nature of pleasure into both being stimulated from the outside (the standard view of pleasure) plus all other awareness that you have of being alive, which can also be viewed as pleasure.

    There are all sorts of debates about "the highest pleasure" and exactly what is meant by "katastematic" and what is meant by pleasures in motion and at rest, but those are not the first hurdle.

    The first hurdle is exactly what Cicero raised in objection to Epicurus, and that is the question of whether it is acceptable usage to consider all non-painful feeling to be pleasure.

    You haven't said much about your level of past reading and how far you're comfortable reading the academic articles. We can point you to all sorts of resources depending on your level of interest, so let us know what you might be interested in.

    There is one academic article in particular that makes this point plain - David Sedley's "Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics" where he discussed the parallel between dividing all of the universe at large into matter and void and dividing all feelings between pleasure and pain.

    But you are right to focus on this question at the very start, because it is a logical basis of how Epicurean ethics work.

    Also Thomas:

    I personally find most discussions of katastematic pleasure on the internet to be worth very little. They seem to think that repeating "Epicurus said the highest pleasure is absence of pain" is self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration or defense. Or maybe they think that statement can't be explained satisfactorily. I do not believe most of those discussions are helpful at all, and I don't believe an adequate answer can be given without digging into the details of Epicurean physics and canonics which most websites do not explore. or make an effort to explain their connection to ethics.

    We can come back later to the question of in what sense it is proper to think of absence of pain as the "highest" pleasure.

    The initial question to establish is whether and in what sense absence of pain qualifies as "a" pleasure at all. If one doesn't accept that first point, it makes no sense to get caught up in the second question.

    Also I suspect others here will have things to say about this so I hope they will. You have raised the issue in a very clear way:

    Quote from Thomas Karion

    I have a second question.

    In his third important maxim, Epicurus says that the removal of all suffering is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures.

    Now, I am not experiencing any fear, physical pain, or mental distress at this moment.

    However, I am not feeling any pleasure right now.

    From an Epicurean perspective, can you explain why?