Posts by Cassius

It looks like courtesy of Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis the world is about to get a reminder of the Cataline Conspiracy.

I don't know that we have any direct references to anyone accusing Cataline of being an Epicurean, but anyone who is accused of being a reprobate by Cicero is a candidate for looking into their backgound. At present the closest connection I can think of so far is that, in opposing the Death Penalty for some of the Catalinian Conspirators, Cicero accused Julius Caesar of showing Epicurean tendencies. We'll have to see if any hint of that sidelight shows up in the movie.

And we'll also need to be careful in discussing divisive politics to the extent that modern political issues are really the point of the movie.

But I thought I would post this as a place to comment since we might find that renewed discussions of Cataline afford an opportunity to talk to others about Epicurus.

Quote

What’s Megalopolis about?

Megalopolis stars Adam Driver as Cesar Catilina, a visionary architect who wants to build a utopian version of the sci-fi version of New York that’s on the brink of collapse, à la the Roman Empire.

However, Catilina is facing resistance from the corrupt Mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito), who is less into creating a sustainable future and instead wants to pave paradise with a parking lot — or, in this case, a casino. The mayor’s daughter Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel) complicates matters by falling for Catilina and struggling with her own alliances.

As indicated I would suggest comparing that excerpt from Cicero to Chapter 15 of A Few Days In Athens.

“But is not the existence of a first or creating cause demonstrated to our senses by all we see, and hear, and feel?”

“The existence of all that we see and hear and feel is demonstrated to our senses; and the belief we yield to this existence is immediate and irresistible, that is, intuitive. —The existence of the creating cause, that you speak of, is not demonstrated to our senses; and therefore the belief in it cannot be immediate and irresistible. I prefer the expression “creating” to “first” cause, because it seems to present a more intelligible meaning. When you shall have examined farther into the phenomena of nature, you will see, that there can be as little a first as a last cause.”

“But there must be always a cause, producing an effect.”

“Certainly; and so your cause, — creating all that we see and hear and feel — must itself have a producing cause, otherwise you are in the same difficulty as before.”

“I suppose it a Being unchangeable and eternal, itself unproduced, and producing all things.”

“Unchangeable it may be, — eternal it must be — since every thing is eternal.”

“Every thing eternal?”

“Yes; that is, the elements composing all substances are, so far as we know and can reason, eternal, and in their nature unchangeable; and it is apparently only the different disposition of these eternal and unchangeable atoms that produces all the varieties in the substances constituting the great material whole, of which we form a part. Those particles, whose peculiar agglomeration or arrangement, we call a vegetable to-day, pass into, and form part of an animal to-morrow; and that animal again, by the falling asunder of its constituent atoms, and the different approximation and agglomeration of the same, — or, of the same with other atoms, — is transformed into some other substance presenting a new assemblage of qualities. To this simple exposition of the phenomena of nature (which, you will observe, is not explaining their wonders, for that is impossible, but only observing them,) we are led by the exercise of our senses. In studying the existences which surround us, it is clearly our business to use our eyes, and not our imaginations. To see things as they are, is all we should attempt, and is all that is possible to be done. Unfortunately, we can do but little even here, as our eyes serve us to see but a very little way. But, were our eyes better — were they so good as to enable us to observe all the arcana of matter, we could never acquire any other knowledge of them, than that they are as they are; — and, in knowing this, that is, in seeing every link in the chain of occurrences, we should know all that even an omniscient being could know. One astronomer traces the course of the sun round the earth, another imagines that of the earth round the sun. Some future improvements in science may enable us to ascertain which conjecture is the true one. We shall then have ascertained a fact, which fact may lead to the discovery of other facts, and so on. Until this plain and simple view of the nature of all science be generally received, all the advances we may make in it are comparatively as nothing. Until we occupy ourselves in examining, observing, and ascertaining, and not in explaining, we are idly and childishly employed. — With every truth we may discover we shall mix a thousand errors; and, for one matter of fact, we shall charge our brain with a thousand fancies. To this leading misconception of the real, and only possible object of philosophical inquiry, I incline to attribute all the modes and forms of human superstition. The vague idea that some mysterious cause not merely precedes but produces the effect we behold, occasions us to wander from the real object in search of an imaginary one. We see the sun rise in the east: instead of confining our curiosity to the discovery of the time and manner of its rising, and of its course in the heavens, we ask also — why does it rise? What makes it move? The more ignorant immediately conceive some Being spurring it through the heavens, with fiery steeds, on wheels of gold, while the more learned tell us of laws of motion, decreed by an almighty fiat, and sustained by an almighty will. Imagine the truth of both suppositions: in the one case, we should see the application of what we call physical power in the driver and the steeds followed by the motion of the sun, and in the other, an almighty volition followed by the motion of the sun. But, in either case, should we understand why the sun moved? — why or how its motion followed what we call the impulse of the propelling power, or the propelling volition? All that we could then know, more than we now know, would be, that the occurrence of the motion of the sun was preceded by another occurrence; and if we afterwards frequently observed the same sequence of occurrences, they would become associated in our mind as necessary precedent and consequent — as cause and effect: and we might give to them the appellation of law of nature, or any other appellation; but they would still constitute merely a truth — that is a fact, and envelope no other mystery, than that involved in every occurrence and every existence.”

“But, according to this doctrine,” said Theon, “there would be no less reason in attributing the beautiful arrangement of the material world to the motion of a horse, than to the volition of an almighty mind.”

“If I saw the motion of a horse followed by the effect you speak of, I should believe in some relation between them; and if I saw it follow the volition of an almighty mind —the same.”

“But the cause would be inadequate to the effect.”

“It could not be so, if it were the cause. For what constitutes the adequacy of which you speak? Clearly only the contact, or immediate proximity of the two occurrences. If any sequence could in fact be more wonderful than another, it should rather seem to be for the consequent to impart grandeur to the precedent — the effect to the cause, — than for the cause to impart grandeur to the effect. But in reality all sequences are equally wonderful. That light should follow the appearance of the sun, is just as wonderful, and no more so, as if it were to follow the appearance of any other body — and did light follow the appearance of a black stone it would excite astonishment simply because we never saw light follow such an appearance before. Accustomed, as we now are, to see light when the sunrises, our wonder would be, if we did not see light when he rose : but were light regularly to attend the appearance of any other body, our wonder at such a sequence would, after a time, cease; and we should then say, as we now say, there is a light because such a body has risen; and imagine then, as we imagine now, that we understand why light is.”

“In like manner all existences are equally wonderful. An African lion is in himself nothing more extraordinary than a Grecian horse; although the whole people of Athens will assemble to gaze on the lion, and exclaim how wonderful! while no man observes the horse.”

“True — but this is the wondering of ignorance.”

“I reply — true again, but so is all wondering. If, indeed, we should consider it in this and in all other cases as simply an emotion of pleasurable surprise, acknowledging the presence of a novel object, the feeling is perfectly rational; but if it imagine anything more intrinsically marvelous in the novel existence, than in the familiar one, it is then clearly the idle — that is, the unreasoned and unreflecting marveling of ignorance. There is but one real wonder to the thinking mind: it is the existence of all things; that is the existence of matter. And the only rational ground of this one great wonder is, that the existence of matter is the last link in the chain of cause and effect at which we can arrive. You imagine yet another link — the existence of a power creating that matter. — My only objections to this additional link, or superadded cause, are, that it is imagined, and that it leaves the wonder as before; unless, indeed, we should say that it has superadded other wonders, since it supposes a power, or rather, an existence possessing a power, of which we never saw an example.”

“How so? Does not even man possess a species of creating power? And do you not suppose, in your inert matter, that very property which others attribute, with more reason it appears to me, to some superior and unknown existence?'”

“By no means. No existence, that we know of, possesses creating power, in the sense you suppose. Neither the existence we call a man, nor any other of the existences comprised under the generic names of matter, physical world, nature, &c., possesses the power of calling into being its own constituent elements, nor the constituent elements of any other substance. It can change one substance into another substance, by altering the position of its particles, or intermingling them with others: but it cannot call into being, any more than it can annihilate, those particles themselves. The hand of man causes to approach particles of earth and of water, and, by their approximation produces clay; to which clay it gives a regular form, and, by the application of fire, produces the vessel we call a vase. You may say that the hand of man creates the vase, but it does not create the earth, or the water, or the fire; neither has the admixture of these substances added to, or subtracted from, the sum of their elementary atoms. Observe, therefore, there is no analogy between the power inherent in matter, of changing its appearance and qualities, by a simple change in the position of its particles, and that which you attribute to some unseen existence, who by a simple volition, should have called into being matter itself, with all its wonderful properties. An existence possessing such a power I have never seen; and though this says nothing against the possibility of such an existence, it says every thing against my belief in it. And farther, the power which you attribute to this existence — that of willing every thing out of nothing, — being, not only what I have never seen, but that of which I cannot with any distinctness conceive — it must appear to me the greatest of all improbabilities.”

That sounds reasonable. The mice eating Plato's Republic reflects "negatively" on the state of the commonwealth, so the mice eating "On Pleasure" reflects negatively on pleasure - and the price of grain going up might account for the pleasure of people being affected negatively.

But is it clear that "the mice becoming obsessed with the pleasure of the belly" is a clear connection? Did the mice become obessesed with politics by eating the Republic, or is just an "indication" sent by the gods or something?

Anyone else see any different possibilities? Otherwise I think Don's probably makes the most sense.

Seems to me that this statement by Atticus, included in Cicero's "On The Law" is a good citation to support the observation that the feeling of pleasure is personal to he who feels it, and not something universally "objective." It's also useful for combating the allegation that there was no freedom of thought in the Epicurean school (an absurd suggestion but one you sometime hear):

Only time at the moment to connect a couple of references that relate to Epicurus views on causation and what (if anything) is "causless," which relates to attacks that some make against Epicurus when they allege that the swerve, being "uncaused," is ruled out of court.

Below is a Ciceronian discussion of Epicurus' views. I would suggest at some point we compare this to the way Frances Wright discusses Epicurus' view (responds to this argument?) in A Few Days In Athens:

This is a Yonge translation of Cicero's On Fate - a section that mentions Epicurus' views:

We are going to need to find a way to incorporate references from Cicero's "On Divination" in this series of episodes as well. For example, here's a good explanation of the boundlessness argument, and I did not know that about Ennius sounds pretty close to Epicurus on the gods:

This reference from Cicero's "On Divination seems fairly funny, and it might not even be demeaning to Epicurus, as Cicero can often be. But I bet there is more to the reference of "corn rising on the market" than is immediately obvious to me, so I thought I would post and maybe over time we can consult the Latin and track down a more precise meaning. As it is, this translation reference to corn (I think by Yonge) seems a little broad, so probably there's some subtlety to be dug out of it. I was just scanning over this looking for references to Epicurus and it's not immediately clear to me whether this is Cicero speaking for himself, or someone else speaking...

Agenda For This Episode

1. Did Epicurus Argue That Infinity Alone (given eternal time and boundless space, anything can happen, and anything includes life) is sufficient explanation for life in the universe? We'll respond to this argument as mentioned in this recent article, especially since this Wikipedia article suggests that this argument will appear later in "On The Nature of The Gods."
2. These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?
3. It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?
4. Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?
5. XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.
6. Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.
7. Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?
8. Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.
9. Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

I've been reminded recently that our podcast is often the first point of contact that people have when they hear about EpicureanFriends, and that in the early months of the episode we used a longer introduction to each episode to address those new listeners.

Over time I shortened that just for the sake of time, but in this episode and probably for the foreseeable future we'll go back to a revised version of the old one for the sake of those new listeners. Regulars can skip over the first two minutes if they prefer, but I think the tradeoff is worth it for the sake of new people who decide to take a chance on the podcast, just like we include similar points for those who sample the front page of the forum.

The revised opening will be something like this:

Welcome to Episode 229 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, 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. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean.

For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

First: The opinions stated here are those of the people making them. Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which is often not the same as presented by many modern commentators. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and one of the best places to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts will shows that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.

Quote from TauPhi

I guess making shopping lists wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

A ha! A major confession! Tau Phi is not a LISTMAKER!

I begin over the years to think that some form of habit of listmaking or outlining is a requirement of being a "good Epicurean!"

Quote

[Letter to Herodotus 36] Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered, if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail.

Right the mind's direct reception of images is the really interesting aspect of the theory. I don't have a strongly preferred interpretation but I don't write it off as nonsense either.

Lots of good material there I want to think about. In the meantime as to whether the ancients saw gods, my general suspicion is that Epicurus probably didn't think they did either, and the images theory was a more general outgrowth of atomism, meant to explain the way the senses work, rather than focused on excusing hallucinations - I suspect if someone came to Epicurus in 300 BC and told him they had seen a god in their front yard that Epicurus would have considered that person just as unreliable as if someone told me that today.

Those are good questions and this following is a truncated answer. Aspects of all four are probably true, but with major qualifications in my own mind as to each one. For the time being:

1. There can never be another Epicurus, but there can be separate "schools" in all sorts of institutional forms, formal and informal, and they will want to (have to, to remain organized) spell out their own lists of important principles and understandings of Epicurus for the sake of their own clarity of association.

2. Sure I would think that cultural recognition in popular discussion would be an inevitable outcome of increased Epicurean activity.

3. Yes but I personally have never accepted that Epicureans lived in "communes." It's only natural and consistent with the last several PDs that people of like mind would want to live near each other for mutual support. Online is the starting point and then later should come geographic closeness. Until positions clarify as to more precise lines of what "Epicurean" means, it doesn't make sense to talk about anything closer than online. I've indicated before and still hold that many who claim to be of Epicurean attitude (but which I consider to be "quietist" or "tranquilist") I would personally want nothing to do with, just as I am sure that they would not want to associate with me. This issue is something that to me precedes in importance all the other questions and has to come first.

4. That would not be my idea of a major short term goal, and my favored governments would not be in the business of granting favors or privileges to religions, but similar to answer 2 in some circumstances I do think it should be normal for people to consider themselves as "Epicurean" and to be proud of that label.

That's a great summary and consistent with my experience too, and good advice, especially the part about making sure when you buy a phone that it's compatible with an alternative ROM, because otherwise vendors like Verizon tend to lock them down so they cannot be modified.

I have found basic knowledge of Linux to be invaluable, and though I am by no means an expert, "By the way I use Arch" is a worthwhile nerdy joke if you can find the time to invest.

First - I agree with most of that, so that's my primary comment ***but*** :

Quote from Don

They were all swept up in a world not of their making and hostile to their teachings. To paraphrase Star Trek's Borg "Resistance was futile."

NEIN!

Captain Kirk would ha e found a way! (That's why I stopped watching after TOS - that confident and positive spirit - which Cicero denounced in Velleius, and Lucian mentioned in Alexander the Oracle Monger, and.which I strongly associate with Epicurus - seemed missing.)

Quote from Don

I've said elsewhere that we will never reconstruct The Garden. We don't know enough to reconstruct the administration

No it won't be recreated exactly - but it can be recreated in spirit and in new and even better ways if capable and dedicated people come along to work hard enough. All the primary elements survive and they provide the keys to reconstruct the rest

To take the attitude that failure is inevitable would be to give in to a fatalistic determinism that Epicurus was right in rejecting.

I use Newpipe on Android and Freetube on Linux because there's no way I am going to watch all those Youtube ads!

Several years ago I ran Cyanogen on my cell phone but I haven't done that recently - need to get back to it.

Lot's of good stuff on F-droid, and I favor free open source software whenever possible.

Quote from Don

During Epicurus's lifetime,

My impression (just an impression) is that in Epicurus' time he wasn't facing organized region-wide central opposition from opposing radically intolerant schools (religions) of his day, and that the final submersion of the school coincides with the rise of that centralized and radically intolerant religious authority. So in fairness to Epicurus and the early leaders, they didn't have much reason to expect the rise of opposing and intolerant forces that couldn't be dealt with, even in an extreme situation, simply by moving to another city or region.

The successful emergence of Judeo-Christianity as a "worldwide" force of intolerance, and the institutions that that it set up to enforce compliance, weren't yet on the horizon in 250 BC. So any "failures" to adapt (and I am not trying to be critical of any individuals, just noting that it occurred) was something that happened significantly later. Apparently through as late as 40 or so BC in Cicero's time, and probably later, an argument could be made that Epicureanism and organized teaching of it was still very successful. So fingering the critical time period and the critical inability to adapt / respond in some way (even by moving to another region in rough analogy to Mormonism) would come much later than the founding period.

Adding these:

12 - All meetings will be conducted primarily in English. We will regularly discuss the translation of Latin and Greek words, but the majority of our participants are primarily or fluently English-speakers, so efficiency and consideration requires that we communicate primarily in English.

13 - It is not necessary to attend every session in order to attend any sessions. Participants are welcome to attend as their schedules allow. Participants should, however, familiarize themselves with the published agenda of the meeting they attend so that they can interact appropriately and on topic with other participants.

This is a great project Joshua and very worthy of continuing!!!

Quote from Joshua

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

I presume there are all sorts of ways to come at the overall argument, but I wonder if the very first assertion ("by definition") does not already set the tone of the entire problem. The assertion that our placing a label on something creates a physical reality seems to me a possible place to start.

"Definition" seems to me to be an apparent word game, and it probably ought to be seared into everyone's mind from an early age that words may be used to describe reality but do not constitute reality -- the "map is not the territory" observation that we have discussed many times before.

But no doubt there are many ways to get at the problems here and I hope you will continue.