New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
We're about to release this special episode of Lucretius Today, with Don's talk on the myth of Epicurean asceticism. I'm pleased with this format and think you'll enjoy it. It works well to have a shorter format on a single topic, and we'll do more of these in the future. These are a good complement to our longer-format shows on key doctrines of Epicurus that we are in the process of preparing now.
And after this episode Don may be forever-after known as "The Great Debunker!"
So these "Fellows" are who?
And I see - you are saying that because the statement is interpreted as a demeaning reference to other human beings (outsiders to the religion?), there was a reluctance to attribute it to Jesus (?)
Ha!
Good reminder of these lines - hard to find better practical Epicurean advice than this:
Latin
inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras
omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum:
English (Loeb Classics)
Amid hopes and cares, amid fears and passions,
believe that every day that has dawned is your last.
Also: just as the title of this thread was abbreviated to "pearls before swine," I realize now that I tend to completely forget that that is only 50% of the allusion.
As to the second part, people seem to be acclimated to accept unthinkingly that pigs are "unworthy" creatures. Aside from that being an extremely debatable assumption in general, in my most recent encounter with two large pigs running wild I found them to be friendly and totally unthreatening.
But as to the mostly-forgotten first part, they've largely lost the war on that one. Dogs are almost universally beloved at least here in the West, and dogs' perceptiveness as to the true value of the "sacred" seems to me to be a lot better reasoned than that of many humans.
From now on I will be remembering the "dogs" part as much or more than the "swine" part.
Prior discussion took place here:
Prior discussion of this interview took place here:
Discussion of our interviews with Dr. Austin occurred In Episodes 156 and 157 of the Lucretius Today Podcast.
You can access the original podcasts and show discussions in the following links:
Related Thread (this video originally appeared in post 39 of this thread:
Prior Thread is here:
Very interesting thought. In my experience actual animals don't find stone-like objects of any kind to be particularly interesting one way or another, so I wouldn't expect them to take much notice of pearls.
So is this a figurative slam at Epicureans and Cynics rather than actual pigs and dogs?
I'm not aware that there was a significant body of Cynics active during the times this statement was allegedly made, but I definitely think that's worth consideration, especially since I gather that the attitude toward dogs and pigs among the Judeo-christians of the time was generally negative.
I have never felt that what I understand to be Cynicism is attractive at all, but to the extent there is a core of affinity between their attitude and the honesty and forthrightness of dogs, then since I like dogs more than many people, I would find that to be the best attribute of "Cynicism."
Seeing the phrase not as a focusing on the obvious truth that it's not good to throw away valuable things, but as more focused on slamming "undesirables" like dogs and pigs, and connecting that with Epicureans, does make sense to me.
Over time I will be adding additional references to this presentation and continuing to revise the text, so always look for the latest version of the text here:
Feel free to post here about this video version, and also see the discussion of the podcast version here: