Hello From C. Florius Lupus

    I have found the e-books of Cassius Amicus the most valuable resources for Epicurean philosophy in the Internet. So I am happy to be allowed to join this forum.

    Here are my thoughts about the aforementioned topics:

    Existence of supernatural gods

    Nothing, which is relevant, is beyond empirical investigation. Because if something has an effect on us, then it can be empirically investigated. And if it has no effect on us, then it is irrelevant. Therefore the gods cannot be supernatural. They are either natural, i.e. subject to empirical investigation, or irrelevant.

    Pre-birth or post-death existence of souls

    The state after death is the same as before birth. And since we cannot remember anything before birth, it is probably not important.

    Existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe

    Ideals are concepts of our mind. They have no independent existence apart from their usefulness for our thinking.

    Whether knowledge is possible

    We can know everything that we need to know. If something affects us, then we have plenty of information at our disposal to form our theories about it. If something affects us only a little, then we have little information to form a theory, but it is also of little concern to us. If something does not affect us at all, then we have no information about it to form any theory, but it is also of no concern to us.

    Absolute truth is irrelevant. Knowledge is only relevant as far as it is useful for our life.

    Role of reason, the senses, anticipations, and feelings in knowledge

    Knowledge is based on observations (senses) and logical deductions from them (reason).

    Anticipations are the tools that our mind uses for logical reasoning.

    And feelings (positive or negative qualia) tell us what to seek and what to avoid, which is the purpose of all logical reasoning.

    I generally agree with Epicurus with the exception of Epicurus' assumption that there is no pleasure beyond the avoidance of pain. There is positive pleasure. Therefore withdrawal from society and a passive life to avoid any unpleasant adversities is not the ultimate goal of happiness.

    This is the summary of my views of Epicurean philosophy.

  • Cassius January 18, 2019 at 8:39 AM

    Changed the title of the thread from “Introduction to Epicurean Philosophy - General Thread” to “Hello From C. Florius Lupus”.

    Thanks for the kind words C. Florius! I didn't see this before I posted the "welcome" message just a moment ago.

    I bet you know what I will say to this part: "I generally agree with Epicurus with the exception of Epicurus' assumption that there is no pleasure beyond the avoidance of pain...." ;) I will repeat what I say all the time -- that I don't think Epicurus thought that at all, and that the problem is the meddling of anti-Epicurean commentators. I hope you will join me in the quest to redeem Epicurus from the misinterpreters -- you and I see that this point is obvious, so I feel sure Epicurus did too, and the opposite interpretation is just misrepresentation - mostly intentional.

    And of course I completely agree with this: "Therefore withdrawal from society and a passive life to avoid any unpleasant adversities is not the ultimate goal of happiness."


    Have you read the Boris Nikolsky and the Wentham articles in the files section here? Or the excerpts from Gosling & Taylor? Or the DeWitt book?

    I have been collecting the cites I have found supporting the view of pleasure we are discussing here:

    https://newepicurean.com/foundations-2/…pleasure-model/

    Wow I have just learned that C. Florius Lupus is a published author in LATIN! Thanks Elli for pointing this out to me! And I just realized it is on Amazon!

    I was joking before about Latin names but now I see I am in the presence of a real expert. My two years of Latin in high school and two courses in college pale in comparison -- So that leads to all sorts of interesting possibilities to talk about --

    1) How should we address you - Caius? Florius? I've never understood how the Romans parsed their full names into familiar forms.

    2) You're much studied in philosophy than most of us here (including me, at the very least). I don't want to ask you to go into details you'd prefer not to give, but can you tell us more about your book and your current thoughts? Is your current interest in Epicurus new, old, or come after wide and long study of the overall topic? I am sure many of us here would be interested to know more about your background and journey to today. (I see you just published these in the spring of 2018 so you have been busy!)

    thanks!