Posts by Cassius

As for me, my answers are:

Quote from Peter Konstans

According to modern cosmology atoms did not exist forever. They were created through the process of nucleosynthesis. Are we in agreement that modern cosmology is correct in this?

I am definitely *not* in agreement with that. The purpose of this forum is to research and apply Epicurean philosophy, not "modern cosmology," especially on issues that are highly contentious and conflict with logical reasoning as to whether the universe as a whole had a beginning or is eternal. As for my personal views they are absolutely with Epicurus on this one. There are at some level particles that have been around eternally, whether "atom" is the right word for those particles is going to be a question of terminology.

Quote from Peter Konstans

According to Epicureanism gods exist between the intermundia, i. e. between the infinite cosmoi. Are we in agreement that this doesn't go against any Epicurean position?

We are in agreement that the Epicurean gods exist in theintermundia, which is hypothesized to be between the "worlds." I am not sure what you refer to when you say "this" however. The first part of your statement as to the gods existing in the intermundia is no doubt what the Epicureans held.

Quote from Peter Konstans

The existence of Epicurean gods raises the question where they came from. The logical answer to that would be that they emerged from a single divine source.

No, we would not be in agreement here either. The logical answer to any recurring process in a universe that is eternal and had no beginning is that these processes have been going on forever, and that there was never a "first." And to the extent your "divine" is intended to imply "supernatural" we were certainly not be in agreement.

I see Don and I posted simultaneously on almost exactly the same points.

Point 1

Quote from Peter Konstans

Atoms themselves were forged in stellar explosions but where exactly the raw physical energy that set the universe alight ultimately comes from is unknown. Since the universe can't have just 'popped up' as the late Hawkings believed we must assume that it actually has divine roots.

Point 2

Quote from Peter Konstans

We must then suppose that the universes emanate from the energies of divine entities that dwell in a realm beyond time and space that we cannot observe.

Point 3

Quote from Peter Konstans

Just as the Epicureans prayed to the gods not to request favors but to contemplate them and receive some of their divine essence, it can be assumed that the gods contemplate the One and that this contemplation results in a burst of creative energy that perpetually generates finite universes.

OK then Peter I presume then that these are your personal viewpoints and you are not representing them as consistent with Epicurean philosophy. Fair enough if you think those positions could be supported by "modern science," but not Epicurean viewpoints, as I understand your statement of them.

Because certainly in Epicurean terms:

1 - Atoms are eternal and were never created at any point in time from energy or anything else.

2 - I guess you're basing that on point one, but it's definitely not the Epicurean position.

3 - I see no Epicurean reason for thinking that gods contemplate "The One" any more than we contemplate "the one," because Epicurean are atomists and there is no "the one."

Also for example : I am presuming that in your scenario you are not presuming that at any step of the say that something was created from nothing, as that would violate an established Epicurean position.

Welcome Samsara? Are you familiar with michelepinto 's yearly Epicurean festival in Italy?

Lots of food for thought in that post Peter, thank you.

No doubt an obvious rejoinder is that Lucretius said that the universe could not have been created by the gods because they had no pattern to go by.

How would you incorporate that?

Regardless of your answer it is worth considering the question of how to get from where we are to where we would like to be, even if the first step is not the final step, and I can see how your suggestion could make sense if it can be reconciled as one alternative that both agrees with the available evidence and does not conflict with it.

Does it survive the test of not conflicting with the available evidence in Epicurean terms?

Welcome SamSara

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!

Good question. I will make sure that they are and link back here.

Looks like the Answer is yes.

Here is the main forum link and I will be sure both are linked within that one. I don't think we have the 1970's update to the DeLacey book however!

Philodemus On Methods of Inference

And yes this thread contains the key links, thanks in large part to your former self:

Thread

"On Methods of Inference": Notes For Review And Discussion (Including David Sedley Article: "On Signs")

[EDIT BY CASSIUS: Here is a link to theDeLacey Translation including the DeLacy Appendix which gives a lot of background on the epistemology issues.]


(Note: these are my personal notes. Not all of these notes are from the book; some are from Google to help me further understand the basic ideas, and some are my"notes to self".)

Signs: what you see or what you think about

"All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learnt by means of signs. I now use the word “thing”…

Godfrey

August 26, 2021 at 1:51 AM

Quote from Don

Maybe your revisitation will spur me to try digging into it.

A result much to be desired!

I think that we've made some progress in bringing out the importance of the "logical sparring" between Epicureans and the Stoics/Platonists, but there's much more to do. Philodemus' "On Signs" is an important part of what remains so we can dig further into the canonics.

The caution I think anyone tackling this needs to remember is that the authorities seem to agree that the opening material that survives is not discussing the Epicurean viewpoint but the Stoic viewpoint, so if you don't know from the beginning which is which, then it can be super confusing to figure out what is arguing for and what is being arguing against.

And you have the central issue "contraposition" which needs an explanation before you can get very far as well.

But there's a lot of good background in Sedley's articles and in the appendices to the DeLacy book "On Methods of Inference" (even though they don't always agree with each other).

Don do you know how that happens? Seems like I remember it being $50 plus very recently. Limited time perhaps?

It looks to me like "Epicurus in Rome" has changed status and is now available for free download directly from Cambridge.org. Can someone verify?

Epicurus in Rome

Cambridge Core - Ancient Philosophy - Epicurus in Rome

www.cambridge.org

This thread was taking a strong turn into discussion of hierarchy in social structures, so that part of the discussion has been split to the link below. Let's keep the discussion of "Pro's and Con's of Considering Epicurean Philosophy as a Religion" here, and let's move the more general "social and societal" aspects of hierarchical structures here to the link below.

In both threads, let's remain aware of the "no partisan / contemporary politics" rules of the forum.

Thread

Epicurean Views On Hierarchy In Social Structures

[…]

What was so special about the social and environmental conditions in the centuries when Epicureanism was popular as opposed to those when it declined? Nothing much really. It was the same old agrarian society. In any case Christianity and Islam have survived plenty of devastating social shifts and the same should be demanded of any successful creed aiming at the hearts of as many people as possible.

I agree that modern (and ancient) forms of social organization are not compatible with…

Peter Konstans

March 13, 2024 at 9:19 AM

From "Epicurus In Rome" - Part 1, Chapter 5 - Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death ----

Scholars have often pointed to and that concerns Caesar’s attitude to death. According to Epicurus, of course, fear of death is – together with fear of the gods – the main obstacle to attaining a happy life, and a person cannot achieve ἀταραξία without having internalized the truth that “death is nothing to us” (ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, KD ). Whatever his other philosophical beliefs may or may not have been, Caesar on a number of occasions displayed a contempt for death that might be seen as at least Epicurean-inflected. Passing over his well-attested physical courage and death-defying acts during his military campaigns, I will concentrate in what follows on a few attested utterances, which combine to allow perhaps some insight into Caesar’s views on life and death.

The first is an argument Caesar reportedly made in his speech on
December 5, 63 BC, when the senate debated the fate of the convicted
Catilinarians. After the consul-designate Silanus had proposed the death penalty and the subsequent speakers had seconded his motion, Caesar suggested instead lifelong imprisonment without the possibility of parole. While the greater part of his speech as reconstructed by Sallust in his War against Catiline is concerned with cautioning the senators against approving a measure of questionable legality, Caesar also offers a striking argument against the death penalty itself (Sall. BC 51.20):

de poena possum equidem dicere, id quod res habet, in luctu atque miseriis mortem aerumnarum requiem, non cruciatum esse; eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere; ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum esse.

About the punishment I can speak according to the facts: in sorrow and
misery death is a relief from grief, not a torture. It dissolves all human ills, and beyond it, there is place for neither care nor joy.

While Sallust is not quoting Caesar verbatim, he presumably availed
himself of the senatorial archives in reconstructing the speeches, and the historicity of the remarks on death is confirmed not only by the fact that Sallust’s Cato, in responding to Caesar, refers back to them, but crucially also by Cicero’s own summary of the discussion in the fourth speech Against Catiline. As for Cato, he begins his attack on Caesar’s proposal as follows (Sall. BC 52.13):

C. Caesar a little while ago gave this order a well-phrased and well-
structured lecture on life and death, apparently deeming false what is said about the underworld, namely, that divorced from the good, the wicked inhabit horrid, desolate, foul and fearful places.

Cicero, finally, paraphrases Caesar’s views on death as follows (Cat. 4.7-8):

The other speaker understands that death was not created by the immortal gods for the sake of punishment, but is either a necessity of nature or freedom from toil and misery. Thus wise men have never undergone it unwillingly, and brave men have often even willingly sought it ... He leaves only life to the criminals. If he had taken that away, he would have removed with one single pain many miseries of mind and body as well as all punishments for their crimes. Therefore, in order that there be some fear left in life for wicked men, those men of old maintained that there were some punishments of this sort set for the impious in the underworld—since of course they understood that without them, not even death would have to be feared.

Even though Caesar’s and Cato’s words are filtered through Sallust, and it is unclear to what extent Cicero is distorting or embellishing Caesar’s
argument, there still emerges a reasonably clear image of what Caesar must have said. Apparently, he claimed that the death penalty was not a suitable punishment because death constitutes the absolute endpoint for human experience beyond which a person will be affected by neither good nor ill – and certainly not the punishments of the traditional underworld. As a result, death is not to be feared (non esse mortem ipsam pertimescendam, Cic. Cat. 4.8).

I need to check my sources on the accusations against Caesar resulting from this speech. I think I have read that Cicero made them, but in Sallust here is what comes from Cato;

13 "In fine and finished phrases did Gaius Caesar a moment ago before this body speak of life and death, regarding as false, I presume, the tales which are told of the Lower World, where they say that the wicked take a different path from the good, and dwell in regions that are gloomy, desolate, unsightly, and full of fears.

In addition to the above quotes I think we can include the statements made by Julius Caesar, as a result of which he was accused of being an Epicurean, that the Cataline Conspirators should not be sentenced to death, but to prison, because death is a relief from punishment. Here is where Caesar says this as recorded by Sallust:

LacusCurtius • Sallust — The War With Catiline

15 "For my own part, Fathers of the Senate, I consider no tortures sufficient for the crimes of these men; but most mortals remember only that which happens last, and in the case of godless men forget their guilt and descant upon the punishment they have received, if it is a little more severe than common. 16 I have no doubt that Decimus Silanus, a gallant and brave man, was led by patriotism to say what he did say, and that in a matter of such moment he showed neither favour nor enmity; so well do I know the man's character and moderation. 17 Yet his proposal seems to me, I will not say cruel (for what could be cruel in the case of such men?) but foreign to the customs of our country. 18 For surely, Silanus, it was either fear or the gravity of the offence which impelled you, a consul elect, to favour a novel form of punishment. 19 As regards fear it is needless to speak, especially since, thanks to the precautions of our distinguished consul, we have such strong guards under arms. 20 So far as the penalty is concerned, I can say with truth that amid grief and wretchedness death is a relief from woes, not a punishment; that it puts an end to all mortal ills and leaves no room either for sorrow or for joy.

I was talking to Kalosyni earlier today and it is my understanding that she is going to post regardin the topic for our discussion on the 20th zoom that will be relevant to our discussion of pain, including how Epicurus frees us from the fear of eternal pain. Here are several relevant quotes:

Lucretius Book 1: [102] You yourself sometime vanquished by the fearsome threats of the seer’s sayings, will seek to desert from us. Nay indeed, how many a dream may they even now conjure up before you, which might avail to overthrow your schemes of life, and confound in fear all your fortunes. And justly so: for if men could see that there is a fixed limit to their sorrows, then with some reason they might have the strength to stand against the scruples of religion, and the threats of seers. As it is there is no means, no power to withstand, since everlasting is the punishment they must fear in death.

Nietzsche "Antichrist" Section 58: "The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but "Christianity", which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation."

Lucretius Book 3 - [01] ... For as soon as thy philosophy, springing from thy godlike soul, begins to proclaim aloud the nature of things, the terrors of the mind fly away, the walls of the world part asunder, I see things moving on through all the void. The majesty of the gods is revealed, and their peaceful abodes, which neither the winds shake nor clouds soak with showers, nor does the snow congealed with biting frost besmirch them with its white fall, but an ever cloudless sky vaults them over, and smiles with light bounteously spread abroad. Moreover, nature supplies all they need, nor does anything gnaw at their peace of mind at any time. But on the other hand, the quarters of Acheron are nowhere to be seen....,

Lucretius Book 3 - [74] In like manner, often through the same fear, they waste with envy that he is powerful, he is regarded, who walks clothed with bright renown; while they complain that they themselves are wrapped in darkness and the mire. Some of them come to ruin to win statues and a name; and often through fear of death so deeply does the hatred of life and the sight of the light possess men, that with sorrowing heart they compass their own death, forgetting that it is this fear which is the source of their woes, which assails their honour, which bursts the bonds of friendship, and overturns affection from its lofty throne. For often ere now men have betrayed country and beloved parents, seeking to shun the realms of Acheron.

Lucretius Book 3 - [978] Yea, we may be sure, all those things, of which stories tell us in the depths of Acheron, are in our life. Neither does wretched Tantalus fear the great rock that hangs over him in the air, as the tale tells, numbed with idle terror; but rather ’tis in life that the vain fear of the gods threatens mortals; they fear the fall of the blow which chance may deal to each. [984] Nor do birds make their way into Tityos, as he lies in Acheron, nor can they verily in all the length of time find food to grope for deep in his huge breast. However vast the mass of his outstretched limbs, though he cover not only nine acres with his sprawling limbs, but the whole circle of earth, yet he will not be able to endure everlasting pain, nor for ever to supply food from his own body. But this is our Tityos, whom as he lies smitten with love the birds mangle, yea, aching anguish devours him, or care cuts him deep through some other passion.

There are probably other quotes on how Epicurus frees us from fear of eternal torment, so if others have similar quotes please add them here.

We will be continuing in this episode 219 with Cicero's criticisms of Epicurus' views of pain. This is a very challenging topic, so if anyone has any thoughts we should consider prior to the recording, please add them here.

Cicero's first criticism revolves this that is recorded from Diogenes Laertius:

[118] And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament.

Seemingly, exactly to the contrary, Cicero says: "There are certain maxims, and I might almost say enactments, concerning courage, which prohibit a man from being womanish in the midst of pain. So we must think it disgraceful, I do not say to feel pain (for that certainly is occasionally inevitable) but to make that old rock of Lemnus ghostly with the roarings of a Philoctetes, which, by echoing back the shriekings, cryings, groanings, sighings, dumb though it be, returns the sounds of lamentation.

It is really interesting how CIcero's criticisms track points that are also included by Diogenes Laertius some hundreds of years after CIcero's time, almost as if they were going by exactly the same sources of material despite the difference in time when they were writing.

The full text of Cicero's criticism is in the first post of this thread:

Post

Episode 219 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 26 -Cicero Continues His Attack On Epicurus' Position On Pain

Welcome to Episode 219 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…

Cassius

March 10, 2024 at 2:30 PM

Your translation and commentary is very useful, and I appreciate the effort that went into it. Bouncing ideas back and forth is a both enjoyable and very profitable for our project!

To follow up on the last comment I made, I am convinced that PD03 and similar statements about managing pain have to be read as "over a long period of time" and maybe even "permanently."

It's important to conclude that pleasure can predominate over pain continuously, but we have to recognize that we sometimes choose pain when it leads to greater pleasure or less pain down the road, so sometimes clearly we are going to experience pain that we can't wish away by mental focus on happier thoughts.

One implication of observing that pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation, is that you have to know that if you truly do run into some insurmountable awful and problem that is beyond your ability to manage, then you have to know that you can escape the grip of that problem in order to truly be confident and without fear of the future.