Posts by Cassius

I would think you can quickly summarize the precise answers to all those questions in no more than twenty minutes at most!

Welcome to Episode 222 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 you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

This week we will pause in our reading of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends to take stock of recent conversations, as Joshua is away this week and we have with us our friend Don from the EpicureanFriends.com forum. Don has spent a lot of time looking into the various Roman and Greek words used by the ancients to discuss happiness and pleasure, and we will try to bring that to bear on the logical sparring such as the one we focused on last week, raised by Cicero at the beginning of Section XXXII. Here's the way Cicero put it:

XXXII. But to return to our theme (for we were speaking about pain when we drifted into the consideration of this letter) we may now thus sum up the whole matter: he who is subject to the greatest possible evil is not happy so long as he remains subject to it, whereas the wise man always is happy, though he is at times subject to pain; pain therefore is not the greatest possible evil.

...

Cicero continues:

But when you maintain that the mental pleasures and pains are more intense than those of the body, because the mind is associated with time of three kinds, while the body has only consciousness of what is present, how can you accept the result that one who feels some joy on my account feels more joy than I do myself? But in your anxiety to prove the wise man happy, because the pleasures he experiences in his mind are the greatest, and incomparably greater than those he experiences in his body, you are blind to the difficulty that meets you. For the mental pains he experiences will also be incomparably greater than those of the body. So the very man whom you are anxious to represent as constantly happy must needs be sometimes wretched; nor indeed will you ever prove your point, while you continue to connect everything with pleasure and pain.

So what we are going to do today is drop back and see if we can do what Torquatus is not allowed to do by Cicero - to "prove our point" that Epicurus' positions on the basics of happiness, pleasure, and pain make much more sense than those advocated by Cicero and the non-Epicurean schools of the classical world.

Some of the questions we will talk about today include:

1. Did Epicurus hold that Pain is properly thought of as the ultimate or Chief Evil, and how do we make sense of that statement? Is there a particular type of Pain that is the Chief Evil?
2. Did Epicurus hold that the Happy Man can still be Happy while experiencing tremendous pain while at same time holding that pain can be the chief evil? If so, how do we make sense of that?
3. Is it Happiness which is being described by Torquatus when he said earlier that the wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation? ([62] XIX. But these doctrines may be stated in a certain manner so as not merely to disarm our criticism, but actually to secure our sanction. For this is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man as continually happy; he keeps his passions within bounds; about death he is indifferent; he holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread; he has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course. Furnished with these advantages he is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains. For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present; he is also very far removed from those defects of character which I quoted a little time ago, and when he compares the fool’s life with his own, he feels great pleasure. And pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation.)
4. Can we look to Epicurus on his last day as an example that is equivalent to the wise man being tortured, and are they both to be considered Happy? If so, why?

If we have time, we will probably incorporate into the discussion a number of the other excerpts we have been reading recently, including:

1. Diogenes of Oinoanda Fr. 32 … [the latter] being as malicious as the former. I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now. If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.
2. Cicero On Ends 1:54 (XVI) RACKHAM - If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on pleasure, whereas pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure. REID: But if the encomium passed even on the virtues themselves, over which the eloquence of all other philosophers especially runs riot, can find no vent unless it be referred to pleasure, and pleasure is the only thing which invites us to the pursuit of itself, and attracts us by reason of its own nature, then there can be no doubt that of all things good it is the supreme and ultimate good, and that a life of happiness means nothing else but a life attended by pleasure .
3. Epicurus PD03 : ”The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once .“
4. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus : ”By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.“
5. Diogenes Laertius X-34 : ”The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined.“
6. On Ends Book One, 30 : ”Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?
7. On Ends Book One, 38 : Therefore Epicurus refused to allow that there is any middle term between pain and pleasure; what was thought by some to be a middle term, the absence of all pain, was not only itself pleasure, but the highest pleasure possible. Surely any one who is conscious of his own condition must needs be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. Epicurus thinks that the highest degree of pleasure is defined by the removal of all pain, so that pleasure may afterwards exhibit diversities and differences but is incapable of increase or extension.“
8. On Ends Book One, 39 : For if that were the only pleasure which tickled the senses, as it were, if I may say so, and which overflowed and penetrated them with a certain agreeable feeling, then even a hand could not be content with freedom from pain without some pleasing motion of pleasure. But if the highest pleasure is, as Epicurus asserts, to be free from pain, then, O Chrysippus, the first admission was correctly made to you, that the hand, when it was in that condition, was in want of nothing; but the second admission was not equally correct, that if pleasure were a good it would wish for it. For it would not wish for it for this reason, inasmuch as whatever is free from pain is in pleasure.
9. On Ends Book One, 56 : By this time so much at least is plain, that the intensest pleasure or the intensest annoyance felt in the mind exerts more influence on the happiness or wretchedness of life than either feeling, when present for an equal space of time in the body. We refuse to believe, however, that when pleasure is removed, grief instantly ensues, excepting when perchance pain has taken the place of the pleasure; but we think on the contrary that we experience joy on the passing away of pains, even though none of that kind of pleasure which stirs the senses has taken their place; and from this it may be understood how great a pleasure it is to be without pain. [57] But as we are elated by the blessings to which we look forward, so we delight in those which we call to memory. Fools however are tormented by the recollection of misfortunes; wise men rejoice in keeping fresh the thankful recollection of their past blessings. Now it is in the power of our wills to bury our adversity in almost unbroken forgetfulness, and to agreeably and sweetly remind ourselves of our prosperity. But when we look with penetration and concentration of thought upon things that are past, then, if those things are bad, grief usually ensues, if good, joy.
10. On Ends Book One, 62 : But these doctrines may be stated in a certain manner so as not merely to disarm our criticism, but actually to secure our sanction. For this is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man as continually happy; he keeps his passions within bounds; about death he is indifferent; he holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread; he has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course. Furnished with these advantages he is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains. For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present; he is also very far removed from those defects of character which I quoted a little time ago, and when he compares the fool’s life with his own, he feels great pleasure. And pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation.
11. On Ends Book Two, 9 : Cicero: “…[B]ut unless you are extraordinarily obstinate you are bound to admit that 'freedom from pain' does not mean the same thing as 'pleasure.'” Torquatus: “Well but on this point you will find me obstinate, for it is as true as any proposition can be.”
12. On Ends, Book Two, 11: Cicero: Still, I replied, granting that there is nothing better (that point I waive for the moment), surely it does not therefore follow that what I may call the negation of pain is the same thing as pleasure?” Torquatus: “Clearly the same, he says, and indeed the greatest, beyond which none greater can possibly be.” (Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Cic. Fin. 2.11)
13. On Ends Book Two, 16 : “This, O Torquatus, is doing violence to one's senses; it is wresting out of our minds the understanding of words with which we are imbued; for who can avoid seeing that these three states exist in the nature of things: first, the state of being in pleasure; secondly, that of being in pain; thirdly, that of being in such a condition as we are at this moment, and you too, I imagine, that is to say, neither in pleasure nor in pain; in such pleasure, I mean, as a man who is at a banquet, or in such pain as a man who is being tortured. What! do you not see a vast multitude of men who are neither rejoicing nor suffering, but in an intermediate state between these two conditions? No, indeed, said he; I say that all men who are free from pain are in pleasure, and in the greatest pleasure too. Do you, then, say that the man who, not being thirsty himself, mingles some wine for another, and the thirsty man who drinks it when mixed, are both enjoying the same pleasure?”
14. Epicurus to Idomeneus, Diogenes Laertius: On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could increase them; but I set above them all the gladness of mind at the memory of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your lifelong attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus.

Thank you for the extensive introduction! Given all the reading you have done i would recommend you add to that list at some point Norman Dewitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy." You will find it touches on many specifics of the philosophy not mentioned in the other books you listed.

SeashellCollector it is my understanding that you have asked to participate in the Wednesday night Zoom session on Usener. Before we accept new video participants we ask people to identity their background and interest in Epicurus. Could you tell us about that please?

Welcome Chryso !

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard 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 @Seashell collector 

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard 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!

You're welcome! Wanted to give everyone time to hear these two so we can prepare for our special episode with Don subbing for Joshua while he is watching the eclipse.

Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 221 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 28 - "Cicero Alleges Pleasures Of The Mind Cannot Offset Pain In Epicurean Philosophy" Is Now Available -

Given the significance of the subject of memory in this episode, I have set up a new section so we can carry that discussion into the future and see its importance as an Epicurean virtue:

Thread

The Art of Remembering

I the Lucretius Today podcast that we recorded today (Episode 221) we ran into a substantial passage where Cicero attacked Epicurus' stress on remembering the pleasures of the past as a means of offsetting pains in the present. Cicero went on at length questioning whether we can control our memories at all, and called into question both the possibility and the efficacy of the use of memories of past pleasures.



[…]

When combined with the regular meetings and birthday celebrations and use of…

Cassius

March 31, 2024 at 2:11 PM

I the Lucretius Today podcast that we recorded today (Episode 221) we ran into a substantial passage where Cicero attacked Epicurus' stress on remembering the pleasures of the past as a means of offsetting pains in the present. Cicero went on at length questioning whether we can control our memories at all, and called into question both the possibility and the efficacy of the use of memories of past pleasures.

Quote from Cicero's On Ends Book 2

XXXII. But to return to our theme (for we were speaking about pain when we drifted into the consideration of this letter) we may now thus sum up the whole matter: he who is subject to the greatest possible evil is not happy so long as he remains subject to it, whereas the wise man always is happy, though he is at times subject to pain; pain therefore is not the greatest possible evil. Now what kind of statement is this, that past blessings do not fade from the wise man’s memory, but still that he ought not to remember his misfortunes? First, have we power over our recollections? I know that Themistocles, when Simonides, or it may be some one else, offered to teach him the art of remembering, said: I would rather learn the art of forgetting; for I remember even the things I do not wish to re- member, while I cannot forget what I wish to forget. He had great gifts; but the truth is really this, that it is too domineering for a philosopher to interdict us from remembering things. Take care that your commands be not those of a Manlius or even stronger; I mean when you lay a command on me which I cannot possibly execute. What if the recollection of past misfortunes is actually agreeable? Some proverbs will thus be truer than your doctrines. It is a common saying: Fast toils are agreeable; and not badly did Euripides say (I shall put it into Latin if I can; you all know the line in Greek): Sweet is the memory of toils that are past. But let us return to the subject of past blessings. If you spoke of such blessings as enabled Gaius Marius, though exiled, starving, and immersed in a swamp, to lighten his pain by re-calling to mind his triumphs, I would listen to you and give you my entire approval. Indeed the happiness of the wise man can never be perfected, or reach its goal, if his good thoughts and deeds are to be successively effaced by his own forgetfulness,

But in your view life is rendered happy by the remembrance of pleasures already enjoyed, and moreover those enjoyed by the body. For if there are any other pleasures, then it is not true that all mental pleasures are dependent on association with the body. Now if bodily pleasure, even when past, gives satisfaction, I do not see why Aristotle should so utterly ridicule the inscription of Sardanapallus, in which that king of Syria boasts that he has carried away with him all the lustful pleasures. For, says Aristotle, how could he retain after death a thing which, even when he was alive, he could only feel just so long as he actually enjoyed it? Bodily pleasures therefore ebb and fly away one after another, and more often leave behind them reason for regret than for remembrance. Happier then is Africanus when he thus converses with his country: Cease, Rome, thy enemies to fear, with the noble sequel: For my toils have established for thee thy bulwarks. He takes delight in his past toils; you bid him delight in his past pleasures; he turns his thoughts once more to achievements, not one of which he ever connected with the body; you wholly cling to the body.

XXXIII. But how is this very position of your school to be made good, namely that all intellectual pleasures and pains alike are referable to bodily pleasures and pains? Do you never get any gratification (I know the kind of man I am addressing) - Do you, then, Torquatus, never get any gratification from anything whatever for its own sake? I put on one side nobleness, morality, the mere beauty of the virtues, of which I have already spoken; I will put before you these slighter matters; when you either write or read a poem or a speech, when you press your inquiries concerning all events, and all countries, when you see a statue, a picture, an attractive spot, games, fights with beasts, the country house of Lucullus (for if I were to mention your own, you would find a loop-hole, you would say that it had to do with your body) — well then, do you connect all the things I have mentioned with the body? Or is there something which gives you gratification for its own sake? You will either shew yourself very obstinate, if you persist in connecting with the body everything that I have mentioned, or will prove a traitor to the whole of pleasure, as Epicurus conceives it, if you give the opposite opinion.

But when you maintain that the mental pleasures and pains are more intense than those of the body, because the mind is associated with time of three kinds, while the body has only consciousness of what is present, how can you accept the result that one who feels some joy on my account feels more joy than I do myself? But in your anxiety to prove the wise man happy, because the pleasures he experiences in his mind are the greatest, and incomparably greater than those he experiences in his body, you are blind to the difficulty that meets you. For the mental pains he experiences will also be incomparably greater than those of the body. So the very man whom you are anxious to represent as constantly happy must needs be sometimes wretched; nor indeed will you ever prove your point, while you continue to connect everything with pleasure and pain.

When combined with the regular meetings and birthday celebrations and use of images and committing texts to memory, I think this highlights that the Epicureans likely *did* stress the importance of keeping a good memory of past pleasant experiences as a strategy for living happily.

And that means that the art of cultivating good memories is probably a very significant instrumentality that deserves its own section of the forum along with the other "virtues."

Joshua has noted that Cicero himself is identified with a memory technique involving associating items with places, and so it does seem there are records from the ancient world about the topic of cultivating the use of memory.

Let's use this thread (and this entire subforum) to discuss that topic.

Thanks Martin for pointing out to me that there is more to discuss here in terms of the empiricism aspect, which is also something to contrast to Epicurus (that he was not so extreme an empiricism.

Just for reinforcement the general topic we are discussing at the end of this epsisode contains all sorts of questions:

1. As Joshua brought up in the episode yesterday there are lots of subquestions, such as:
2. Is pain really the ultimate evil?
3. Can the wise man be happy while still experiencing the ultimate evil?
4. Is happiness being described by Torquatus when he said in book 1 that the wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation?
5. Was Epicurus on his last day equivalent to the wise man being tortured and are they both to be considered happy? If so, why?

image.png

Yes and earlier in the episode, if i recall correctly, i did the same thing to Joshua - finishing a thought that he started. What isn't heard in the final edit is the long pause that led to us completing the other person's thought.

I'd like to call attention to this question that we discussed at the end of podcast 220, because we will also pick it up again to begin episode 221, and anyone who has any comment on this is welcome to add to the discussion:

Is it a contradiction in Epicurean Philosophy for Epicurus to consider that Pain is the Greatest Evil, and yet to also old that the Happy Man will sometimes experience pain?

Here is the Reid translation from Section XXXII:

"XXXII. But to return to our theme (for we were speaking about pain when we drifted into the consideration of this letter) we may now thus sum up the whole matter: he who is subject to the greatest possible evil is not happy so long as he remains subject to it, whereas the wise man always is happy, though he is at times subject to pain; pain therefore is not the greatest possible evil."

Welcome to Episode 221 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 you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.

Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

Last week we started with the question raised by Cicero at the beginning of Section XXXII - Is it a contradiction in Epicurean Philosophy for Epicurus to consider that Pain is the Greatest Evil, and yet to also old that the Happy Man will sometimes experience pain? We will return to that question at the beginning of this episode and then proceed through Section XXXII:

XXXII. But to return to our theme (for we were speaking about pain when we drifted into the consideration of this letter) we may now thus sum up the whole matter: he who is subject to the greatest possible evil is not happy so long as he remains subject to it, whereas the wise man always is happy, though he is at times subject to pain; pain therefore is not the greatest possible evil. Now what kind of statement is this, that past blessings do not fade from the wise man’s memory, but still that he ought not to remember his misfortunes? First, have we power over our recollections? I know that Themistocles, when Simonides, or it may be some one else, offered to teach him the art of remembering, said: I would rather learn the art of forgetting; for I remember even the things I do not wish to re- member, while I cannot forget what I wish to forget. He had great gifts; but the truth is really this, that it is too domineering for a philosopher to interdict us from remembering things. Take care that your commands be not those of a Manlius or even stronger; I mean when you lay a command on me which I cannot possibly execute. What if the recollection of past misfortunes is actually agreeable? Some proverbs will thus be truer than your doctrines. It is a common saying: Fast toils are agreeable; and not badly did Euripides say (I shall put it into Latin if I can; you all know the line in Greek): Sweet is the memory of toils that are past. But let us return to the subject of past blessings. If you spoke of such blessings as enabled Gaius Marius, though exiled, starving, and immersed in a swamp, to lighten his pain by re-calling to mind his triumphs, I would listen to you and give you my entire approval. Indeed the happiness of the wise man can never be perfected, or reach its goal, if his good thoughts and deeds are to be successively effaced by his own forgetfulness,

But in your view life is rendered happy by the remembrance of pleasures already enjoyed, and moreover those enjoyed by the body. For if there are any other pleasures, then it is not true that all mental pleasures are dependent on association with the body. Now if bodily pleasure, even when past, gives satisfaction, I do not see why Aristotle should so utterly ridicule the inscription of Sardanapallus, in which that king of Syria boasts that he has carried away with him all the lustful pleasures. For, says Aristotle, how could he retain after death a thing which, even when he was alive, he could only feel just so long as he actually enjoyed it? Bodily pleasures therefore ebb and fly away one after another, and more often leave behind them reason for regret than for remembrance. Happier then is Africanus when he thus converses with his country: Cease, Rome, thy enemies to fear, with the noble sequel: For my toils have established for thee thy bulwarks. He takes delight in his past toils; you bid him delight in his past pleasures; he turns his thoughts once more to achievements, not one of which he ever connected with the body; you wholly cling to the body.

XXXIII. But how is this very position of your school to be made good, namely that all intellectual pleasures and pains alike are referable to bodily pleasures and pains? Do you never get any gratification (I know the kind of man I am addressing) - Do you, then, Torquatus, never get any gratification from anything whatever for its own sake? I put on one side nobleness, morality, the mere beauty of the virtues, of which I have already spoken; I will put before you these slighter matters; when you either write or read a poem or a speech, when you press your inquiries concerning all events, and all countries, when you see a statue, a picture, an attractive spot, games, fights with beasts, the country house of Lucullus (for if I were to mention your own, you would find a loop-hole, you would say that it had to do with your body) — well then, do you connect all the things I have mentioned with the body? Or is there something which gives you gratification for its own sake? You will either shew yourself very obstinate, if you persist in connecting with the body everything that I have mentioned, or will prove a traitor to the whole of pleasure, as Epicurus conceives it, if you give the opposite opinion.

But when you maintain that the mental pleasures and pains are more intense than those of the body, because the mind is associated with time of three kinds, while the body has only consciousness of what is present, how can you accept the result that one who feels some joy on my account feels more joy than I do myself? But in your anxiety to prove the wise man happy, because the pleasures he experiences in his mind are the greatest, and incomparably greater than those he experiences in his body, you are blind to the difficulty that meets you. For the mental pains he experiences will also be incomparably greater than those of the body. So the very man whom you are anxious to represent as constantly happy must needs be sometimes wretched; nor indeed will you ever prove your point, while you continue to connect everything with pleasure and pain.

Hence, Torquatus, we must discover some other form of the highest good for man; let us abandon pleasure to the beasts, whom you are accustomed to summon as witnesses about the supreme good. What if even beasts very often, under the guidance of the peculiar constitution of each, shew some of them kindness, even at the cost of toil, so that when they bear and rear their young it is very patent that they aim at something different from pleasure ? Others again, rejoice in wanderings and in journeys; others in their assemblages imitate in a certain way the meetings of burgesses; in some kinds of birds we see certain signs of affection, as well as knowledge and memory; in many also we see regrets. Shall we admit then that in beasts there are certain shadows of human virtues, unconnected with pleasure, while in men them-selves virtue cannot exist unless with a view to pleasure? And shall we say that man, who far excels all other creatures, has received no peculiar gifts from nature?

Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 220 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 26 - "Cicero Attacks Epicurus' End-Of-Life Decisionmaking" Is Now Available -

Quote from Peter Konstans

For Epicurus the ultimate pleasure ideal is a continuous mental state that we have to fully immerse ourselves in and then perpetually remain in it.

Quote from Peter Konstans

Do we have evidence that the Epicurean ideal of stative and permanent pleasure is attainable?

I don't have the time to respond at length at the moment but in my view the premises of these statements, while often stated by commentators, have to be approached very cautiously.

The thrust of the first one is that Epicurus held that there was in fact an "ultimate pleasure ideal" in the form of a "continuous mental state." My understanding of the epicurean texts is that Epicurus held the goal of life to be "pleasure," which can best be experienced without any accompanying pain, so that the correct expression of the limit of pleasure is the total absence of pain. The suggestion that this limit of pleasure is only or primarily mental would not be consistent with the thrust of the philosophy. Both mental and bodily pleasures and pains are important, and ultimately the mental pleasures are associated with the body as well

The thrust of the second statement is that Epicurus' goal of pleasure is "statiive" That might be an abstract way of talking about it but Epicurus' descriptions revolve around the *experiences* of various feelings of pleasure, rather than something that can be sufficiently described as a "state," and certainly not a mental-only state.

The example of Epicurus' last days shows that Epicurus viewed that it was possible for him to be happy even while experiencing intense physical pain, but those experiences were moment to moment and not the result of a "state" that is self-perpetuating.

Quote

The ideal life for the Cyrenaics consists in successfully chasing concrete experiences that cause direct pleasure.

For the Epicureans the ideal life consists in doing what's necessary to achieve a permanent state of pleasure and not allowing yourself to stray from it.

Epicurus too was experiencing "concrete experiences" on his last day. He held that his mental pleasures could be offset against his physical pains, and as Torquatus says the wise man is always going to find more reason for joy than for vexation.

I suppose that the "always" means that the net positive balance of pleasure over pain could be described as "permanent," but the implication of a "permanent state" is that it can never be lost once gained. I doubt that stressing the aspect of it being permanent, rather than stressing the aspect that it needs to be continually maintained, would be a very good idea.

So I don't mean this to be a flat disagreement, but I would say that the better way to describe the Cyreniac/Epicurean difference is more by focusing on Epicurus' expansion of the term pleasure to encompass every experience that is not painful, rather than by trying to consider the existence of a "plateau" that constitutes a state which, once attained, is never losable.

(Posted at Facebook on 3/26/24 by Elli )

What was the main cause of the causes that Hellenic-Roman Civilization was collapsed?

-But of course, the paralyzed stoicism (see also and Plato)!

For the paralyzed stoicism who was considered the main obstacle and red flag?

But of course, the Epicurean Man!

Claudius Aelianus ( c. 175 – c. 235 AD), commonly Aelian born at Praeneste, was a Roman author and teacher of rhetoric who flourished under Septimus Severus and probably outlived Elagabalus, who died in 222. He spoke Greek so fluently that he was called "honey-tongued" (μελίγλωσσος meliglossos); Roman-born, he preferred Greek authors, and wrote in a slightly archaizing Greek himself. Aelianus the “honey-tongued” was the one that once boasted that he had never been outside Italy, never been aboard a ship though he had seen the bull Serapis with his own eyes.

And now, from that “honey-tongued”, Aelianus, we read:

«There was a man named Euphronius, he was a miserable man who delighted in listening to the nonsense of Epicurus, and he got two evils from this nonsense. He became an atheist and an intemperate (1). In this wretched state, (Euphronius) did not forget that vile and godless treatise (2) which the man from Gargettus (i.e. Epicurus), as the seed of the seed of the Titans (3) he left as a stigma on people's lives. And that “honey-tongued” continues saying... the merciful Euphronius fell seriously ill and when he was on the brink of death his friends brought him to the temple of Asclepius (4). When he fell asleep, one of the priests appeared to tell him that there was only one way of salvation and only one remedy for his afflictions. To burn the books of Epicurus, to mix the ashes of godless, impious and effeminate books with melted wax and after spreading this patch on his stomach and chest to bind them around with bandages. Αnd then, Euphronius when he confessed to his household servants what he heard, they were filled at once with an excessive joy at not having expelled (the priests) a man who had been demeaned and dishonoured by the god (due to his studies of Epicurus and his philosophy). And after drawing some instruction from him they then imitated [him] with a view to [behaving] well and nobly>>

So, in the last paragraph and in a few words Euphronius became a noble master because, he was honored by a god. And when you honored by a god your servants are more obedient to behave to you well and nobly. Because when a master is honored by a god, so then he becomes wise, noble and just with his servants. So, the morality of a master comes from a moral code with a list that has been given by a god and his representatives the priests! No, this not a master, this is not a wise free man, and this is not an epicurean man. This is a stupid man, and I, as an epicurean, do not accept this tale of Aelian as absolutely true. Because this tale hides a deceitful purpose: To become the mega phronon (the high spirited, free, and proud man) as an obedient, humble man who fears god and death, and similar with the mob and all the stoic servants.

(1) Intemperate, possibly with the meaning of "a hunter of pleasures".

(2) Probably he means Epicurus’ treatise "on Nature" which has inspired Lucretius for writing his masterpiece DRN.

(3) This is very nice characteristic, Epicurus is not just Megas, he is a Titan, as we say something very Huge e.g. Titanic.

(4) Asklepiia as sanatoriums, were usually located at some distance from the cities, so as to ensure the required tranquility and comfort of space for the addition of new buildings to meet the needs of the patients. In addition, the sanctuaries had to be surrounded of pine grove which was associated with the healing process, as it seems that meditation and the self-submission achieved by the patient as he tried to communicate with the god played a big role in the healing. The main feature of most Asclepius’ healing temples was the existence of a spring, as contact with water was considered therapeutic. From an architectural point of view, most Asklepiia followed the models of Epidaurus and Kos. In addition to the sanctuary, which consisted of the main temple, in front of which several altars were usually erected, it also included one or more buildings (often two-storey), in which the patients and their accompanying family members were accommodated. There they were provided with medical care, so as to facilitate treatment, but also to recover from the fatigue of the journey to which they had been subjected. It was also necessary to rebuild a place of sleep, a type of a stoa, where the patient-believer came to sleep, often wrapped in the carcass of the animal he had sacrificed, in order for the god to show him in his sleep the way of his healing. In addition, the facilities of the Asklepiia were complemented by baths.

(5) From Aelianus and his "various history", we read: «Plato called Aristotle a foal: What is meant by that name is manifest: a foal as soon as it is satisfied with the milk of dam kicks at her. Plato therefore hereby signified some Ingratitude of Aristotle; for he having received the greatest seeds of Philosophy from him, and introduction thereto, as soon as he was replenished and satisfied with the best things thereof, revolted from him, and, getting his friends together, set up against him Peripateticism, professing himself Plato's adversary». (my note: That means for Aelianus things are absolute, unchanged, immovable and the same till the end of all times, as well as in life and philosophy beyond Plato, nothing should go further.)

Given what we have been reading Cicero say in the podcast, apparently it was a major position at the time that one can't be deemed happy until a life is over and in retrospect. That's pretty clearly different than the "upbeat feeling" I think most of us first default to with "happy" today.

So somehow we have to set some terms on what is meant at a basic level. Are we talking something short term or much longer?