Posts by Cassius

Anothe Facebook exchange in this thread:

Greg Anastasi : This is an excellent thread! I've spent a lot of time looking at Stoicism. And I'm circling around to Epicureanism. so I'm still "getting the vibe".

Cassius:

Welcome Greg!

I suspect you're using "vibe" informally, but it is a good word to think about. Epicurus rejected the idea of there being a "harmony" of the spheres (Lucretius specifically addresses that) because such ideas presume some kind of supernatural creative and guiding force behind the universe. Ultimately and regardless of how the modern stoics try to rebake the cake, Stoicism makes sense only if you take the position that there is an ultimate divine force that justifies the pursuit of "virtue" as the ultimate goal.

That's why I think when you drill down to brass tacks, and you eliminate concerns about the supernatural as Epicurus did, you then realize that everything worth having is going to come to you - if at all - in this life, because there is no other.

One of the most difficult hurdles to overcome is that of seeing that the Stoics and others are misrepresenting Epicurus in accusing him of equating "pleasure" with "sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

Epicurean philosophy is very clear that if you are alive and experiencing anything at all, what you are experiencing should be viewed as either pleasure or pain. That means that all experiences of life which are not explicitly painful fall within the term "pleasure," and that includes everything worthwhile and meaningful in life, not just sensual pleasure, but all the art and literature and wisdom and nobility that the Stoics want to claim for themselves but which they at at same time hold to consider merely preferable or to be indifferent about, all for the sake of the ambiguous word "virtue."

Epicurean philosophy incorporates the benefits of stoicism (including appreciation of calmness of mind and the need for work and exertion and reason-based action) by recognizing that we sometimes choose pain in order to obtain a greater pleasure. In sum, Epicurean philosophy provides what some see as the benefits of stoicism, but explains the reasoning and full analysis properly, in terms of all of the desirable aspects of life as constituting pleasure, which provides a sound basis for a complete approach to life that is consistent with a totally natural universe.

Much of our podcast discussion of Epicurus' opposition to both Necessity and Skepticism is going to turn on Dr. Sedley's article "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism."

I'd like to note here that one insight that I think we're going to take away from that article is that Dr. Sedley believes (with good reason I think) that Epicurus' primary grounds for objecting to determinism was not "the swerve," which is not mentioned in the letter to Menoeceus.

The primary and very interesting basis that I think we'll find has lots of applications is that Epicurus was objecting to reasoning by infinite regression. This is the basis for

VS40. The man who says that all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize one who denies that all things come to pass by necessity: for he admits that this too happens of necessity.

... and it's implicit also in VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

As Dr. Sedley its also the basis for the defense of the senses as in Book 4 of Lucretius and in DIogenes of Oinoanda Fragment 5:

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find? Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

We need to discuss the implications of the infinite regression objection, but I think one of the primary take-aways is that the argument amounts to pointing out that an infinite regression proves nothing. If it proves nothing, what then are we left with? We are left with what we can observe through the senses, the feelings, and the anticipations.

We perceive through the canonical faculties that we *can* know some things, and that we *can* make some decisions that affect the future on on our own. Since nothing can be more reliable than these faculties (they are the test of truth of everything) then neither arguments by infinite regression nor on any other basis which cannot be validated through them should be accepted as persuasive.

Sedley seems to me to be saying that this kind of logical argument is the real basis for Epicurus' reasoning on the critical issues of skepticism and determinism, and i think he's right. As for the swerve, it makes sense, but as Lucretius himself says, it is impossible for us to observe the swerve in action, and as Sedley says, the swerve is not really logically needed to explain how the atoms first came together to create worlds - and thus it is not included in the letter to Herodotus.

(This is not to say that the swerve isn't significant at all, but does indicate that we should not place excessive reliance on it in basic discussion, especially since Epicurus didn't mention it to either Herodotus or Pythocles.)

Only the wise can judge the wise... therefore we should all be skeptics?

Here is the Meno problem stated another way, In Cicero's Academic Questions (the person speaking is Cicero himself, speaking as an Academic Skeptic, if I read this correctly):

Quote

Nor is there any difference between ourselves and those who think that they have positive knowledge except that they have no doubt that their tenets are true, whereas we hold many doctrines as probable, which we can easily act upon but can scarcely advance as certain ; yet we are more free and untrammeled in that we possess our power of judgement uncurtailed, and are bound by no compulsion to support all the dogmas laid down for us almost as edicts by certain masters. For all other people in the first place are held in close bondage placed upon them before they were able to judge what doctrine was the best, and secondly they form judgments about matters as to which they know nothing at the most incompetent period of life, either under the guidance of some friend or under the influence of a single harangue from the first lecturer that they attended, and cling as to a rock to whatever theory they are carried to by stress of weather. For as to their assertion that the teacher whom they judge to have been a wise man commands their absolute trust, I would agree to this if to make that judgement could actually have lain within the power of unlearned novices (for to decide who is a wise man seems to be a task that specially requires a wise man to undertake it) ; but granting that it lay within their power, it was only possible for them after hearing all the facts and ascertaining the views of all the other schools as well, whereas they gave their verdict after a single hearing of the case, and enrolled themselves under the authority of a single master. But somehow or other most men prefer to go wrong, and to defend tooth and nail the system for which they have come to feel an affection, rather than to lay aside obstinacy and seek for the doctrine that is most consistent. Academica II iii Lucullus

These comments were part of a recent conversation on the costs of food and other items. I'm pasting them here as they might be usable to others in the future.

1 -

I wonder if there is anything to the idea that the diet in the garden was simple most of the time, perhaps largely home-grown, but then they went all-out once a month. Spending a mina on a dinner party is quite a lot, even if they had 100 guests.

A mina was equivalent to 100 drachmas. A drachma was about 4.3 grams of silver and was an average daily wage for average labor and had the purchasing power of around $30 during Epíkouros lifetime. A full meal with meat, cheese and wine could easily cost a drachma. Epíkouros probably only spent so much on special occasions when hosting many people.

2 - Is it clear from the text that they're referring to a unit of currency rather than a measurement of weight? 1 Mina is either a lot of money or about 15 ounces. 15 ounces is a typical ribeye steak.

3 - Yeah, we'll have to figure this out together! I dont think a mina was ever in coin form, 15oz of silver (which was worth 100 drachma, and would be worth about $350 today), would probably just be in the form of a small ingot/bar. But 15oz held more value in the past, and would have felt more like $6,000 at the time... but I could be missing something.

• IMG_4953.jpeg

4 - I guess the question is whether drachma, mina, etc were only used for the weights of precious metals or not. A dram (itself derived from drachma) is variously 1/16th or 1/8th of an ounce.

It looks like it's Plutarch's Lives to the rescue once again

Quote

[2] συνήρχοντο δὲ ἀνὰ πεντεκαίδεκα καὶ βραχεῖ τούτων ἐλάττους ἢ πλείους. ἔφερε δὲ ἕκαστος κατὰ μῆνα τῶν συσσίτων ἀλφίτων μέδιμνον, οἴνου χόας ὀκτώ, τυροῦ πέντε μνᾶς, σύκων ἡμιμναῖα πέντε, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰς ὀψωνίαν μικρόν τι κομιδῇ νομίσματος: ἄλλως δὲ [p. 238] καὶ θύσας τις ἀπαρχὴν καὶ θηρεύσας μέρος ἔπεμψεν εἰς τὸ συσσίτιον. ἐξῆν γὰρ οἴκοι δειπνεῖν ὁπότε θύσας τις ἢ κυνηγῶν ὀψίσειε, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ἔδει παρεῖναι.

[2] They met in companies of fifteen, a few more or less, and each one of the mess-mates contributed monthly a bushel [medimnus] of barley-meal, eight gallons [χοῦς] of wine, five pounds [mina] of cheese, two and a half pounds [half-mina] of figs, and in addition to this, a very small sum of money for such relishes as flesh and fish. Besides this, whenever any one made a sacrifice of first fruits, or brought home game from the hunt, he sent a portion to his mess. For whenever any one was belated by a sacrifice or the chase, he was allowed to sup at home, but the rest had to be at the mess.

[bracketed text is mine]

That settles the question as far as I'm concerned. They're talking about the weight of the food, not the weight and value of the silver that was traded for the food.

5 - If there are 15 messmates, and every month each messmate brings five mina of cheese and two and a half mina of fruit (figs perhaps), that's 112.5 mina of food for the mess each month, which comes out to 3.75 mina per day per messmate not including the barley and wine, and, less frequently, meat.

Going by Wikipedia, a medimnus of barley was ~31 kg, and an Attic mina weighed ~0.4366 kg (nearly one pound)--71 mina per medimnus of barley. 35.5 mina of barley per messmate per day. That's clearly an absurd amount of barley, so I'll have to go deeper. The following two paragraphs are also from Wikipedia;

Quote

Sparta's agriculture consisted mainly of barley, wine, cheese, grain, and figs. These items were grown locally on each Spartan citizen's kleros and were tended to by helots. Spartan citizens were required to donate a certain amount of what they yielded from their kleros to their syssitia, or mess. These donations to the syssitia were a requirement for every Spartan citizen. All the donated food was then redistributed to feed the Spartan population of that syssitia.[143] The helots who tended to the lands were fed using a portion of what they harvested.

Quote

It is believed that an active adult male in the sixth century BCE would have needed to consume about eight medimnoi per year, with a typical female consuming a slightly lower amount. From these figures, it can be estimated that a young family including a father, a mother and three children would have consumed approximately 25 medimnoi every year. The payment required to receive a very high rank, therefore, would feed approximately 20 families.

If instead of trying to convert the medimnus to mina (likely a fool's errand) I just use this paragraph as a guide, it tracks with the amounts listed by Plutarch. Each messmate eats a half-medimnus of barley per month, which would make 6/8ths=3/4ths of his diet at the mess barley, with the remainder of his diet being cheese, fruit, wine, and meat.

Edit; then again, even that would be 3.75 (cheese and fruit) + 11.25 (barley) = 15 mina per day of food. Roughly 4 to 5 times the usual amount by weight, but not out of the ordinary for a modern Olympic athlete during training (8000-10000 calories per day).

6 -

This is all good, helpful stuff, but a mina was definitely a unit of commerce during Epicurus' lifetime, whether coinage or not, because:

[redacted]

While we will probably never know the exact location of Epicurus’s Garden in ancient Athens, we can take a number of educated guesses.

April 19, 2023

Quote

Source 2: The Testimony of Apollodorus the Epicurean (2nd century BCE via 3rd century CE)

Source 2 Text: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book 10.10-11.

Friends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden (ἐν τῷ κήπῳ). This is stated by Apollodorus, who also says that he purchased (πρίασθαι) the garden for eighty minae (ὀγδοήκοντα μνῶν); and to the same effect Diocles in the third book of his Epitome speaks of them as living a very simple and frugal life…

Also remember the context of the "spending a mina" on meals was in the slanderous book of Timoctates entitled Εὐφραντός ("Merriment"):

Quote

Again there was Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who was his disciple and then left the school. He in the book entitled Merriment asserts that Epicurus vomited twice a day from over-indulgence, and goes on to say that he himself had much ado to escape from those notorious midnight philosophizings and the confraternity with all its secrets ; [7] further, that Epicurus's acquaintance with philosophy was small and his acquaintance with life even smaller ; that his bodily health was pitiful,12 so much so that for many years he was unable to rise from his chair ; and that he spent a whole mina daily on his table, as he himself says in his letter to Leontion and in that to the philosophers at Mitylene.

My response to the Facebook post:

Good use of a chatbot! Of course I disagree with it, because it doesn't consider the nuances of the reason for the post or the subtlety of Epicurean philosophy, but it's helpful to draw out the issues.

It also systematically reveals the standard non-Epicurean perspective on Epicurus common among those who are primarily Stoic or Humanist or do not take the time to read the texts closely enough and take Epicurus seriously. Here are a few responses:

1 - Yes friendship is important, but friendship is not an end in itself. Friendship is desirable because it is among the most important tools to obtain pleasure. Friendship and community are subservient to pleasure, not the other way around. That's a thread of error that runs through the entire AI analysis.

2. Same for the AI positions on katastematic and kinetic pleasure and tranquility. Those are aspects and types of pleasure, but not the goal in itself. Pleasure is the goal, not some single type of pleasure or tranquility. Epicurus says that PLEASURE is the alpha and omega of a blessed life, not tranquility.

3. Communal living is also a "tool" and not an end in itself. Epicurus in fact specifically is recorded to have held that community holding of money is not appropriate, because holding money in common is not the way friendship operates. The AI bot is misinterpreting the issue of individualism vs collectivism as if collectivism or community or friendship were the goal of Epicurus. The goal of Epicurus is pleasure - which includes the pleasure of your friends, because the welfare of your friends is pleasurable to you - and there are times when you will even die for a friend. But every random stranger is not your friend, and you have no duty or obligation to them except to the extent that other people contribute to your goal of pleasure.

4. Same with necessary and unnecessary desires. The principle of the classification, as Torquatus explains, is that by considering these factors you can estimate the amount of pleasure and pain that will arise from certain choices and avoidances. But it is clearly established that you will sometimes choose pain in order to obtain a pleasure that is greater than the pain. Once again, this analysis is a tool, not an end in itself. Many tools are possible, but no tool - especially the tool of "virtue"- is an end in itself, nor is any tool choiceworthy unless it leads to pleasurable living.

A response from Facebook:

This is written with the help of Claude 3.5:

Let me analyze this interpretation of Epicurean philosophy point by point. While there are some accurate elements, there are also some oversimplifications and potential misunderstandings.

Accurate elements:

- Points 1 and 2 broadly align with Epicurean thought, though it's more nuanced. Epicurus didn't deny the existence of gods but argued they were distant and uninvolved in human affairs.

- Points 3 and 4 capture Epicurus's views on free will and determinism fairly well. He believed in a form of libertarian free will within atomic determinism.

- Points 8-10 about death and the afterlife are largely consistent with Epicurean teachings.

Areas needing refinement or correction:

- Points 5-6 significantly oversimplify Epicurus's complex theory of pleasure. He distinguished between:

* Kinetic pleasures (active pleasures)

* Katastematic pleasures (static pleasures, like peace of mind)

He emphasized that the highest good was not maximizing momentary pleasures but achieving ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (absence of physical pain).

- The text presents pleasure too individualistically ("agreeable to you"). Epicurus emphasized friendship and community as essential to the good life. He ran a philosophical school called "The Garden" where communal living was central.

- Point 11 contradicts Epicurus's emphasis on friendship and community. He would say that the opinions of our friends and philosophical community matter greatly.

- Point 12 frames things too individualistically. Epicurus would say the question is how to live wisely in accordance with nature and in community with others to achieve tranquility.

Key missing elements:

1. The importance of philosophy in achieving happiness

2. The role of friendship and community

3. The distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires

4. The emphasis on moderation and self-sufficiency

5. The therapeutic aspect of Epicurean philosophy - its role in relieving anxiety about death, gods, and fate.

(I decided to post this on Facebook and Twitter just to keep up Epicurean conversation over there. There's nothing new here that we don't frequently dscuss on the forum, but I'll post it anyway as another formulation of what we often discuss.)

I see the teachings of Epicurus as coming down mostly to this:

Whether you like it or not, and regardless of what anyone tells you, the following things are true:

1. There are no supernatural gods or forces.
2. Nature has no absolute standards of right and wrong to which you must conform.
3. Some things that will happen to you in your life will happen by chance, some will happen by choice, and some will happen by necessity.
4. While some things happen by necessity, there is in Nature no force which has the power to force you to think and act in a particular way.
5. Nature gives you only the feelings of pleasure and pain by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid.
6. If you are wise you will consider Pleasure to include everything in life that is agreeable to you, and Pain to include everything in life that is disagreeable to you.
7. All too soon you will be too old to do the things that you can do when you are young.
8. All too soon you will die and forever after cease to exist.
9. At death your consciousness will come to an end, and you will then never again have any consciousness or experience anything whatsoever.
10. After death there will be no reward and no punishment for what you do in life.
11. At the end of your life the only opinion that matters as to how you spent your time is your own.
12. The question you must confront every moment of your life is: Given these truths about the way things are, how do you want to spend the time that is available to you?

This is something I was not aware of until today -- that during the period of 100 BC- 100 AD (a prime Epicurean period), there was an interest among the rich elite in "fishponds." Cicero in particular seems to have been critical of them as an extravagance, according to this article:

Piscinae: Roman Fish Ponds

I'm not aware of anything linking these to Epicureans, but as this is new to me I thought I would note it and perhaps references to fishponds will pop up to us in the future if we become aware to look for them.

Presumably what's going on here is that they were raising fish to eat, rather than just as an amusement(?) If that's the case I doubt that aquariums in our own living spaces would quite accomplish the same thing. But that's another data point -- anyone here find aquariums or fish particularly enjoyable to observe? What function do those Japanese fishponds that we hear about serve?

Quote from Don

Where does he get "pale"? Did I miss a text? Maybe from Epictetus? I'll have to dig around unless someone knows and shares.

As to "pale" (unless someone knows a more explicit reference) I presume he's indulging in the common consensus that Epicureans are snowflake wallflowers. Many of Cicero's accusations against the Epicureans seem to follow a similar accusation.

And yet at the end of his life it was Cicero who was on the sidelines leaving it to the Epicurean Cassius (and other Epicureans Cassius cites in his letter to Cicero) to fight the war that Cicero was too retiring to fight himself.

Quote from [15.16] Cicero to Cassius [Rome, January, 45 B.C.]

...so even if it is now two or three years since, bewitched by the blandishments of Pleasure, you sent a notice of divorce to Virtue, I am free to act as I like. And yet to whom am I talking? To you, the most gallant gentleman in the world, who, ever since you set foot in the forum, have done nothing but what bears every mark of the most impressive distinction. Why, in that very school you have selected I apprehend there is more vitality than I should have supposed, if only because it has your approval. "How did the whole subject occur to you ?" you will say. Because I had nothing else to write. About politics I can write nothing, for I do not care to write what I feel.

Quote

But it is not so. Stoicism is not asceticism and a Stoic is not a monk. In fact, it is the school of the pale Epicureans that is closer to the ideal of abstemiousness. The Stoic proposal is far broader and it extends far beyond the narrow passage of the ascetic way. The history of transmission of Stoic ideas, the piercing lack of many ancient sources and some intricacies of the doctrine account for the popularity of the ascetic misinterpretation. And yet, the time has come to disavow it.

He can claim and disavow asceticism all he wants, but protests don't change what is in the philosophy, and it's far from "intricacies of doctrine" that lead to the common understanding - from the past to the present - that Stoicism embraces asceticism and all other ways of escaping from the temptations of "pleasure."

As I read the article it is a series of assertions almost entirely devoid of citations to authoritative Stoics to support his position. This weak statement by Seneca that he'd rather wear a toga than walk around naked is about the best he offers.

Quote

These points don’t exhaust all that I have to say against the ascetic misinterpretation. Yet, I hope they provide an outline of my anti-ascetic stance. For the record, I’m tempted to mention, as a closing argument, that the ancient Stoics themselves provided a wide array of explicit suggestions that they didn’t have any harsh ascetism in mind. As Seneca put it “I prefer to display the state of my soul clad rather in the toga and shoes than showing naked shoulders and with cuts on my feet” (On the Happy Life, XXV.2).

One thing I would take away from reading this is is something to consider when you're making an argument against an existing consensus (whether the consensus is that Stoicism is all about asceticism and virtue or that Epicureanism is all about retirement and tranquility). If you want to be taken seriously t's generally a good idea to (1) reinforce even a basic introduction with some clear citations that support your position, (2) deal quickly with the citations that appear to undercut your position.

Happy Birthday to Tgonzalez3790! Learn more about Tgonzalez3790 and say happy birthday on Tgonzalez3790's timeline: Tgonzalez3790

Thanks Tau Phi - Corrected to make it more generic. This one is going to be a long work in progress.

I have prepared an outline for the discussion of the universe being infinite and eternal and without gods over it.

Feel free to make suggestions for additions, etc:

The Universe Is Infinite And Eternal And Has No Gods Over It

I have updated the discussion outline at the link below. We'll be recording this on Sunday the first of December so if anyone has any thoughts or additional cites to add, please let us know.

Lucretius Today Episode 257 - Fate, Necessity, Determinism

That would be interesting to pursue -- I wonder what crimes beyond the likely murder etc carried the death penalty in ancient Greece.

Lucretius Today Episode 256 is now available: "Epicurean Gods: Real, or Ideal Thought Constructs?"

Happy Birthday to Taverne! Learn more about Taverne and say happy birthday on Taverne's timeline: Taverne

I agree with Kalosyni but thanks for posting it Tau Phi! It's a recent attempt at a general presentation on Epicurus by a professor, and he's honest that he doesn't represent himself to be presenting Epicurus favorably. It's good for us to see these and think about how they could be done better.

One initial thought I have is that he is clearly aware of On Ends Book One and how Torquatus sets up the issue (asking what is the highest good) but instead he just cherry picks some points (the natural and necessary division and friendship) and as a result of losing their context what he picks out seems incoherent.

And he never once says (as far as I picked up) that Epicurus advised that we will sometime choose pain in order to achieve a pleasure that is worth more to us than the pain that is involved.

So "Luck" likely falls under this as well, right?

I added that to the outline and if you have recommendations as to the Latin, please do....

Thank you Don! Added.