Posts by Cassius

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.

Like last week as to Idealism vs realism I will work together to put together an outline of topics to cover. In the case of "Fate," I'd like to be sure we spend enough time talking about the real-world / psychological aspects of accepting there is such a thing as "fate," rather than spend all the time on the swerve and how Epicurus rejects determinism. I think there's a lot of "connection" we need to draw in the harmful psychological aspects that we don't normally talk about as much as we should.

Here is first draft of the raw outline. I will fill it in with sources and other topics as we proceed toward Sunday's recording.

Lucretius Today Episode 257 - Fate, Necessity, Determinism

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

Too bad it doesn't mention Epicurus, but the sections "Anger as Morally Virtuous" and "Creative Anger" seem very good to me.

In preparation for this episodes I put together a page of notes about the Realist v Idealist question in a format which may be useful even in a preliminary form.

Here's a link where it can be found:

Lucretius Today Podcast - Epicurean Gods: Real Or Ideal?

Links to the sections of the Rackham translation:

• Paradox 1 - Only What Is Morally Noble Is Good -
• Paradox 2 - The Possession of Virtue Is Sufficient For Happiness
• Paradox 3 - All Transgressions Are Equal And All Right Actions Are Equal
• Paradox 4 - Every Foolish Man is Mad
• Paradox 5 - Only The Wise Man Is Free, and Every Foolish Man Is A Slave
• Paradox 6 - The Wise Man Alone Is Rich

Thanks Tau Phi! I had heard of the Downloebables website but not that one.

From the Rackham edition intro - this is interesting - I have read the slashing and burning attack on Stoicism in the latter parts of On Ends - so what explains the discrepancy, and what was Cicero's true opinion?

Quote

This book consists of six short essays setting out the most striking ethical doctrines of the Stoic school of philosophy : that virtue is the sole good, and the sole requisite for happiness; that all good deeds are equally meritorious and all bad deeds equally heinous; that folly is insanity and slavery, wisdom the only freedom and the only riches. In other writings Cicero criticizes these doctrines as extravagant and pedantic — see especially De Finibus iv. 74-77 and Pro Murena 60-66 ; but in his preface here, § 4, he expresses his warm acceptance of them.