Posts by Cassius

Ontologix I take it your first language is German so this question may not apply, but as you are a Latin teacher, do you have a favorite English translation of Lucretius?

Quote

Care Cassi

i have been an admirer of Epicure for over 60 years. His teachings changed my life.

I am a retired teacher of Latin and am familiar with Titus Lucretius Carus.

Years ago I attended a seminar on Epikuros at the university of Munich. Petrarca's essay on Epikuros was unknown to the organisers.

I had found it somewhere in the internet. It is in Latin and about a page long. Petrarca correctly outlines some principles of Epicure's teachings. At the end however he felt obliged to state that all this was wrong. Well, he obviously had to.

The essay is in Latin and i translated it into German. But this was long ago.

It seems to me that Petrarca was the first rediscoverer of Epikuros after the dark ages.

Thank you for running this admirable page.

Display More

Welcome nkulinka

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome ontologix

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Martin

"Engaging In Discovery" should be changed to "Making a Discovery" or similar because the path to a discovery is more or less painful, as expressed in quotes attributed to Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein on the ratio of inspiration to perspiration. We can skip the "Great" because the pleasure I had with my small discoveries was certainly not less than the great physicists had with their great ones, in analogy to the "Great Physicist" and the lion.

Martin --

I've changed "Engaging" to "Making," However at the moment I've left the "great" because I suspect that Raphael considered it a significant part of the hypothetical that the person making the discovery was Albert Einstein as opposed to a generic physicist.

However as in the discussion of all hypothetical questions, pinning down the key presumptions is important, so it may well be that the identity of the physicist is an important part of the question Raphael is posing, and that's part of what should be discussed.

TauPhi is this ok?

Quote from Cassius

In response, TauPhi disagreed that the pleasure of the one might be evaluated as "greater" than the pleasure of the other.

In today's Sunday Zoom a question to the effect stated in the title of this thread was posed by Raphael Raul.

In response, TauPhi disagreed that the pleasure of the one might be evaluated as "greater" than the pleasure of the other.

We'll continue this discussion next week as part our next Sunday Zoom, but I'm setting up this thread to allow for further discussion in the meantime.

My summary of the issues is doubtlessly superficial but hopefully this is enough to preserve the sense of the discussion.

Thank you Don!

This is my favorite part:

Quote

Has joy any survival value in the operations of evolution? I suspect
that it does; I suspect that the morose and fearful are doomed to quick
extinction. Where there is no joy there can be no courage; and
without courage all other virtues are useless.

Joshua can you please add the frog quote here?

Loeb Edition, Tusculan Disputations, Page 272

Welcome to Episode 297 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we return to our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint.

After two weeks looking at Plutarch, today we are back in Part 3 of Cicero's book, addressing much the same issues within the framework of anger, pity, envy, and other strong emotions. When we were last together we were in Section Section XVIII, and we will regroup today in Section XIX on topics related to Absence of Pain, and then continue as Cicero proceeds further.

Since we've been away from this material for two weeks, let's go back to the end of XVII where Cicero gave his most recent summary of Epicurean ethics, and then move forward from there:

Quote

But you are for bringing my thoughts over to pleasure. What pleasures? pleasures of the body, I imagine, or such as are recollected or imagined on account of the body. Is this all? Do I explain your opinion rightly? for your disciples are used to deny that we understand at all what Epicurus means. This is what he says, and what that subtle fellow, old Zeno, who is one of the sharpest of them, used, when I was attending lectures at Athens, to enforce and talk so loudly of; saying that he alone was happy who could enjoy present pleasure, and who was at the same time persuaded that he should enjoy it without pain, either during the whole or the greatest part of his life; or if, should any pain interfere, if it was very sharp, then it must be short; should it be of longer continuance, it would have more of what was sweet than bitter in it; that whosoever reflected on these things would be happy, especially if satisfied with the good things which he had already enjoyed, and if he were without fear of death, or of the Gods.

III-XVIII.¶

You have here a representation of a happy life according to Epicurus, in the words of Zeno, so that there is no room for contradiction in any point.

Episode 296 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today our episode is entitled: "Ancient Criticisms Of 'Absence of Pain' Echo In The Modern World"

You know something else i would add to this argument harks back to what Plutarch cited. In arguing that the animals do not stop activity after they are no longer hungry or thirsty, but proceed to play and fly and swim and engage in other activities solely for enjoyment, Plutarch reminds us of Epicurus' core argument. Epicurus takes as the gold standard what the young of all species do before they are corrupted. And while there are many statements about absence of pain that are regularly twisted to imply that we are different, and we as humans should go comatose after we reach a subsistence level of "absence of pain," I am not aware of many surviving statements for the reverse position. The major one I can recall is that of Torquatus in On Ends where "Looking to the young of all species" is specifically stated to be Epicurus' proof that pleasure is by Nature desirable.

Given that we can all see that the young of all species engage in play, and that Epicurus would have seen the same thing, yet Epicurus never said that he would reject "play" from life, this seems to me a strong argument against the Plutarch "absence of pain is a stated of anesthesia" position. If Epicurus had meant for us to reject the "play" of young animals, he would have said so specifically and not used their conduct as the basis of his philosophy.

Is anyone aware of other less familiar citations that we can use to bolster this argument (the young of all species pursue active pleasures and therefore so should we) beyond Torquatus?

Quote

Epicurus places this standard in pleasure, which he lays down to be the supreme good, while pain is the supreme evil; and he founds his proof of this on the following considerations.

[30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion.

Quote from Rolf

my imagining of that scenario probably says more about what absence of pain looks like to me than an objective path to such. I do lean a little more Dude than Caesar

I do lean a little more Dude than Caesar

It seems like perspectives on the best life are like a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other, at least in terms of mass popularity. But both ends of the swing have their place, and the pendulum doesn't stay in balance and keep swinging without both.

Probably could create a "sorites" question about a pendulum by stopping it with your hand and asking "At what point on it's path is the string and the weight acting as a pendulum?" You can isolate points all day long but no single point on the path of the pendulum captures what it means to be a pendulum.

It's interesting to see even this stated so "backhandedly."

So that's Philodemus writing about Metrodorus in the context of "Property Management"..... There's got to be more to be derived from the overall context of how these issues are being balanced. Clearly the more you have the more you have to worry about, and on the other extreme if you don't have enough you're clearly going to be confronting certain types of pains as a result. Presumably they were wrestling with the right way to express these issues just like we are.

Great finds, Eikadistes! Right on point as to why we sometimes choose pain for the sake of pleasure, and pretty directly contrary to that statement of Horace we've discussed recently.

Quote from Don

My vision of the jar is oil and water. They don't mix.

Yes I agree that's a key part of it.

Quote

I’m imagining someone laying down on a sun lounger, hands behind their head, saying “it doesn’t get better than this”.

To push back even harder on this point: All experiences of pleasure are real experiences of pleasure, but every time we say "for example" and imply that our example will impress another person as being a "highest good," we risk giving the impression that the person listening should immediately agree that this experience would be FOR THEM TOO the same kind of "absence of pain." No individual tree constitutes the forest, and singling out one example is always going to risk confusing the two levels that are being discussed. Forests exist. Trees exist. But the two are not the same, and a single maple tree is no more indicative of a forest than is a single pine or a single oak.

Many of us are so fed up with worthless abstractions that we think all abstractions are worthless, but that's not the case, and abstractions such as are involved in visualizing the best life are essential. We can't hope to reach a target without visualizing the target, but everyone's target is going to look different.

The "Dude's" lifestyle is no more or less necessarily indicative of the Epicurean concept of a best life than would be that of Julius Caesar. The concept of the best life is broad enough to include these two extremes and any number in between. Trying to tie down the best life into a single example isn't possible, and the idea that it might be possible can be very damaging, because trying to do so ignores the Epicurean viewpoint about the nature of the universe and the absence of absolute forms.

The Epicurean texts don't describe "the best life" in any but very general mental and bodily terms, culminating in the description of 100% pleasure 0% pain, which we ought to recognize is the best terminology that by definition can be achieved.

Quote from Rolf

I’m imagining someone laying down on a sun lounger, hands behind their head, saying “it doesn’t get better than this”.

I think that is *one* possible interpretation, certainly. But I'd push back on this example simply because it seems to be the default example that everyone jumps to suggest -- that the best experience in life is "taking it easy" and I don't think that is a healthy attitude. Aren't you in your 20's? At that age you have your whole life ahead of you, and would normally be making plans for what you want to "do" with your life, rather than the way you will "relax" during those times you are resting. I'm not trying to be too specific but I presume you know what I mean. "Resting" at the end of a journey is certainly a good thing, but so is the journey itself. Epicurean circles which perpetuate the notion that "rest" is the goal of life are playing right into the hands of CIcero and Plutarch and anyone else who for reasons of their own want to pigenohole Epicureans into a "wallflower" category.

Quote from Rolf

And this is why simply absence of thirst/hunger etc. isn’t enough to definitively say someone has reached the limit of pleasure. Am I on the right track?

That's the way I see it. Just like in Plutarch's examples it make no sense to eat or drink a little just to the point of getting rid of thirst and hunger, and then sit comatose until the desires for food and drink come back again. An Epicurean wouldn't live to eat (or drink) any more than to pursue any other "virtue" - the purpose of eating and drinking is to keep your body healthy so that you can then do more with it. Unless, that is, a particular person wants to admit, "Yes, I think the life of a cow would be lovely, and I'd be more than happy to graze in the fields all day staring at the ground."

Again, I am not knocking the pleasures of eating and drinking. I am knocking the idea that Epicurus held that these are more important to life than the other pleasures that we pursue after we eat and drink our fill. These "other pleasures" of mind and body are the real battleground in the argument.

Yes you "can" compete with gods for at last a time with only bread and water. But is that really the way you want to confine yourself to doing it?

Quote from Rolf

As for Chrysippus’ hand: How can it be said that the hand had reached the limit of pleasure if a hand massage would’ve been even more intensely pleasurable than the healthy resting state?

The answer is the contrast between "limit" and "intensity." Those are not the same thing. We're defining the limit of pleasure as 100% pleasure - pure pleasure - the state of experience when there is no pain mixed in. That observation tells you nothing about the duration, intensity, or parts of the body affected by the particular pleasures you are engaged in, and those are very different. Your question about the jar full of water and the jar full of chocolate milk is right on point. Both are pleasurable, but on occasion one of them can be much more pleasurable than the other. PDO3 refers to the limit of "quantity" of pleasure, not the limit of intensity, or duration, or part of the body affected. if you stretch the analogy beyond the point it was intended to make you cease making a valid point and start making a terrible one. All pleasures are pleasure, but all pleasures are not equally pleasurable. The very idea of stating a specific set of pleasures that should be the goal of every human being is an upside-down and perverse way of looking at the question, but that's exactly the way monotheists want to proceed in everything. They want to think that there is a central power, a divine god, that sets out "one way" that everyone should follow. And that's just hogwash. Nature and the feeling of pleasure are not so restrictive as to conform to and comply with Abrahamic theology.

Quote from Rolf

If you could take a look at this when you get a spare moment, it would be a big help!

The reason I haven't responded to that already is I am not sure how to pick out pieces of what you're written. If you'd like to ask specifics I could more easily address them. For the moment I'd say that any time there is an implication that one pleasure is absolutely "better" than another for everyone, you've got an abstraction that is going to bite you just like "virtue" bites the Stoics.

Quote from Rolf

One jar full of water, the other full of chocolate milk. Both jars are full of pleasure: Water is great, it quenches your thirst! But chocolate milk is sure a lot tastier

Yes, as above, I think that's an example that helps flesh out where the jar analogy stops being useful and starts being harmful, if and when it is presumed that everyone has the same jar and wants to fill it in the same way. That's just not correct and not a part of the philosophic issue.

Quote from Rolf

Another question: Would you say that absence of pain as the limit of pleasure is more of a theoretical goal? In the same way that the gods can be seen as mental ideal? Or is it something we’re expected to achieve on a day to day basis?

It is a theoretical goal but that is not to say it is a useless abstraction, as we've been discussing. A starting point here is that everyone wants the "best" life. But what is the meaning of "best?" Think about it for very long and if you're not a monotheist you'll realize there is no single best for everyone. But even then the question remains, what can you say about "best" other than that there is nothing better than best? Yes it's wordplay, but it's a logical question. There's can't be anything better than best. And if you're going to suggest that "pleasure" is the best life, then you've got to have an answer to the question of "what's the best life of pleasure? " And the answer to that question is that the best life of pleasure is one that is completely full of pleasure with no portion of that life being pain. I don't think we'd be discussing "absence of pain" at all were it not for this question and the need to construct a logical answer to it. And this is not speculation, it's spelled out by Plato in Philebus and in other places by other people, including clear statements to this effect by Seneca, and the references we've been discussing that Cicero has preserved through Torquatus that make no sense in any other way.