Posts by Cassius

Cassius wrote a new article:

Article

Interview With Dr. Emily Austin: "Living For Pleasure"

In Episodes 156 and 157, the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. Emily Austin, author of 2022's "Living For Pleasure."

Cassius

January 9, 2024 at 10:26 AM

Quote

In Episodes 156 and 157, the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. Emily Austin, author of 2022's "Living For Pleasure."

Glad to have you Eggplant Wizard! Many people were touched by the work of Erik Anderson and it is good that someone was able to get his site back online at https://epicurism.info!

BraintoBeing I apologize for not being able to follow this thread more closely - I have been traveling on business and extremely short of time. Here's a place where I will hop back in:

Quote from BrainToBeing

Therefore, I'm smart enough to know I don't know everything and cannot exclude the possibility of God. In my journey I simply leave the issue as undecided.

...And if that position works for you, and you feel no stress or strain in your life by "leaving the issue as undecided," then I say more power to you!

And while I expect that Epicurus would likely tell you something similar (that what doesn't bother you is of no concern), the project Epicurus was on as a philosophical and moral reformer was that of developing a full "worldview" that could be of help to those people Lucretius described as "hearts in darkness" or Diogenes of Oinoanda described as "lost sheep." I would wager that you as a science professional have developed knowledge and capabilities that only a very small fraction of the world has ever or will ever duplicate, and Epicurus was addressing his philosophy to those ordinary people for whom these questions of life after death and supernatural gods are of great immediate concern. Epicurus' position, with which I would agree, is that it is necessary to deal forthrightly with those critical issues and not remain in "doubt" (which is itself a pain) on these subjects. There has been and probably will always be a continuing tension between a philosophical approach to questions of epistemology vs a "clinical" approach where someone is comfortable taking the position "this is all I know" and stopping. Observation alone is not going to get someone past that question of how to deal with what cannot be observed. There's lots of good material out there on the debates between philosophers and scientists, and in the end the bigger questions of life that people must act upon are in the realm of philosophy, which (when you are a part of the Epicurean school) leads to the rejection of radical skepticism as a tenable position.

I haven't been able to read this thread closely enough to tell where you are on those issues other than to observe that you are dedicated scientist, and in the end "science" is not the same as "philosophy." I'm not sure I can adequately define the difference, but maybe that is something that needs to be addressed in this conversation.

Wow that is great! When you get it in the form where you are ready for us to feature it as a resource on the page please let us know. Looks like you have made a lot of progress!

Glad to have you! If you are an engineer then the level of detail presented in DeWitt's book may indeed appeal to you, and you'll find that he stays away from "jargon" as well. I have to say I find "jargon" very off-putting too, and I'd like to think that our site here keeps that to a minimum. Please let us know any thoughts or questions you have as you read through the site.

Quote from Martin

Pleasure is not limited to immediate pleasure. More often than not, the Epicurean way means taking action which involves direct pain and results only much later in increased pleasure as compared to not have taken that action.

Not only is it not limited to "immediate," but time is only one of the factors involved. The much more profound aspect is that when Epicurus says that there are only two feelings, and that what is not pain is pleasure, then he is referring to experiences that most people do not think of as immediate sensory pleasure at all.

Sorry I have not been keeping up recently but this is what I would say in summary after reading the exchanges. Most everything that I see BraintoBeing describing as motivating him does not fit in either of the categories of physical pain or physical pleasure, although those sensations accompany certain aspects of all he is describing. if I read what BTB is saying correctly, he says that he finds "satisfying" and emotionally "the right thing to do" all sorts of things that are not immediate sensory pain or pleasure. Those aspects of awareness which are not perceived as painful Epicurus is considering to be pleasure.

So most of BraintoBeings' issues with "pleasure" as i read them continue to revolve around the limited definition he (and most people) give to the word "pleasure."

That is why it is important to study what the Epicureans actually said and wrote and not rely on the superficial definition of pleasure that the anti-Epicureans argued in the ancient world and that continues to prevail today. If someone is interested in digging into those details then they will find a lot to work with in what Epicurus wrote. If someone isn't interested in digging into that level of detail then they will find Epicurean formulations nothing but frustrating and they will go on hitting their heads against the wall until their heads give way and they go on to something more productive for them.

We see this over and over and over again. People see certain things that they like in Epicurus, but they don't get engaged in the details of what the ancient Epicureans really taught, and they spend their time churning their wheels over why they think Epicurus just really didn't go far enough in limiting his perspective to "pleasure." It's all very frustrating both for them and for those who actually **do** read into the details of Epicurus. And what I'm describing is probably 90% plus of the internet discussion of Epicurus.

This is much like the problem with humanism - they reject a theological basis for morality but then proceed to embrace exactly the same morality with only a few changes around the edges that the theologists embrace. Epicurus went much deeper to challenge the very definitions of good and evil in a very Nietzsche-like "beyond good and evil" way.

So I think this is a productive conversation so far, but to ever bring any kind of resolution to the issues the question of the definition of pleasure has to be addressed, and then after that it has to be made clear whether the "pleasure" being referred to is as Epicurus described it or as the rest of the world insists on describing it.

Not an easy thing to do but otherwise we just talk past each other forever.

Welcome thatchickinpa !

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!

I presume one place to start is to collect some links to where his original works (hopefully translated) can be found. I haven't had time to start looking into what's available on the internet on him or their translation state. And it would be good to hear from Charles as to whether he knows anything on this topic.

If he was a student of Gassendi then one would think that he most definitely had something to say about Epicurus at some point.

I just reviewed the presentation to the end. You deserve a lot of credit for putting together such a good slideshow. We need to take yours as an example and set something of similar format up on Epicurus himself.

I was not aware of much of that background at all. So are there texts by Cyrano mentioning Epicurus specifically.

If you have time could you summarize what he had to say (if at all) about Epicurus and Lucretius?

I think we should tag this presentation for Joshua to be sure he sees it:

That presentation looks very impressive Cyrano! I haven't had a chance to watch it all but it looks very creative! And I remember the jose ferrer movie with great affection.

Welcome Cyrano !

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!

Thank you as always for your work in coordinating the meeting!

Welcome Eggplant Wizard

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to Episode 209 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

This week will be a special episode in which we feature our "Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy," a collection of excerpts based on the ancient Epicurean texts and rearranged in an order that covers the main aspects of Epicurean philosophy in one presentation.

As always we thank you for listening, and we invite you to join us on the EpicureanFriends forum to discuss this and all our podcast episodes.

And now we bring you "Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy.

This episode will be released on or about January 14, 2023, and then we will be back to our normal sequence continuing to cover Book Two of Cicero's On Ends.

I have edited the title of the thread to make it more clear that "Live Unknown" falls under the same label of "misunderstanding" as does 'tranquility" as being Epicurus' primary focus. Both are tools toward pleasure, not ends in themselves. Possibly over time we'll find news ways to indicate "Caution!" as to outside articles that we discuss.

Happy New Year! Episode 208 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we address Cicero's contention that only those who hold virtue to be the highest good can be truly good men, and we respond that Epicurus stands for truth rather than make-believe. An especially good closing statement by Joshua is included in this episode.

Here's a part of a new article from today in the "Irish Times". It's not terrible, and it contains some good material, but it spins "live unknown" (which as we've seen from our interview with Dr. Boeri is poorly documented and probably not a key Epicurean advice) as if it is the key to happiness, and once again emphasizes "tranquility" rather than Epicurus' wider view of pleasure:

Here’s the secret to happiness in 2024, according to a dead Greek philosopher: don’t get noticed

New Year’s resolutions can be hard work. Join a gym? Change jobs? Travel the world? It is exhausting just thinking of the options.

To make matters simpler for you, here’s a bit of advice from the Greek philosopher Epicurus: “Live Unnoticed.”

It’s a rule not just for 2024 but for life, according to academic philosopher Alex Moran. “The point of the slogan is to guide us towards living a tranquil and peaceful life.”

Currently based at the Université de Fribourg in Switzerland, Moran was formerly an Irish Research Council research fellow at Trinity College Dublin and is moving to Princeton in the United States next year in a whirlwind tour of scholarliness that sounds anything but tranquil. However, Moran stresses that to “Live Unnoticed” is not necessarily to quit your career or to let yourself go. Rather, it’s about letting go of the wrong sort of desires. “I think that Epicurus would say that the point of the dictum is not to rule out all activities that might get you noticed, but rather to insist that we need to avoid doing things for the wrong reasons.”

Moran, who hails from Southport in England and is an Irish citizen with some Co Offaly roots in his family, explains further as this week’s Unthinkable guest.

What did Epicurus mean by ‘Live unnoticed’?

“To live quietly or unnoticed, for Epicurus, is to live in peace, to live in tranquillity – and this for Epicurus is the only way to live a happy life. But to live tranquilly, in peace, one has to eschew certain things – certain ‘loud’ ways of living that involve chasing after power, fame and status, seeking to make a name for oneself, striving for riches well beyond what one actually needs, engaging in pointless conflicts, making sure one is well-regarded by all, and various other things of that nature.”

How did the motto fit into his wider philosophical outlook?

“Epicurus was a hedonist, who thought that pleasure is the only good. It is this commitment that often leads people to wrongly think of Epicurus as a kind of glutton, who thought that lavish dinners with expensive wines might somehow constitute the key to happiness. In fact, Epicurus thinks the only genuine pleasures are those he calls the ‘tranquil pleasures’.

“There are ways to object to this. Nietzsche, for example, famously wished upon his friends ‘suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities’, since, he thought, it is only through enduring suffering that one could say one’s life had any value. But that’s a radical idea, and many of us will agree with Epicurus that a tranquil, peaceful life is a good one.”

Alex Moran: 'Many of us will agree with Epicurus that a tranquil, peaceful life is a good one'
Some might see it as a shrunken or inferior existence. Why not live loudly since you’ve only one life?

“It’s a good question. To return again to Nietzsche, another of his famous claims is that one ought to live dangerously. A valuable and worthy life, he thinks, not only involves overcoming suffering, but also taking risks and meeting difficult challenges. But this is perhaps a far cry from striving to live quietly or unnoticed.

“There might be room for reconciling these outlooks. A more combative Epicurean response here, however, would be to insist – and not at all unreasonably – that since the good life is a life of pleasure and happiness, and since pleasure and happiness require tranquillity, Nietzsche is simply on the wrong track. Here it is useful to reflect on what kind of life one would wish for oneself: a life full of suffering and difficulty, or a life full of the enjoyment of tranquil pleasure?

“Epicurus agreed that we live only once, viewing belief in the afterlife as a dangerous myth. However, I think Epicurus would say that, especially because there is no afterlife, it is important that we spend our limited time on Earth wisely.”

What would Epicurus say about modern society?

“The question points to an important lesson we can learn from Epicurus. In our consumerist age, we tend to be very image- and status-obsessed. We buy things to make ourselves look good. We post on social media for the same reason. We care about our image and we can’t be happy unless the world thinks well of us. I think all this serves only to increase misery and stress.

“We’d all be mentally much healthier if, in Epicurean fashion, we cared a lot less about image and status. Instead, we should focus on our friends and families, and on activities that constitute sources of tranquil pleasure and which are valuable in and of themselves.”

Is political activism compatible with living unnoticed?

“One of Epicurus’s main philosophical opponents, the Roman orator Cicero, criticised Epicureanism precisely on the grounds that it encourages a problematic political quietism. But Epicurus was not against all forms of political involvement. He placed a great deal of value on friendship, and thought that building a community of like-minded people was essential to living well.

“For Epicurus, what we should be avoiding are the corrosive desires for power, fame, wealth and status, which produce anxiety and undermine tranquillity. It doesn’t follow that we must avoid all those activities that might lead to recognition, whether it be political activism, the production of great art or becoming excellent at sport. What matters is that we do things for the right reasons, so as to preserve tranquillity and peace.”

Today's end-of-year episode continues our discussion of Cicero's assertion that it is impossible to be moral without bowing to "virtue." Cicero wraps up virtue pretty tightly with religion where much the same argument applies: that you can't be a good person without being religious. On that point today I came across this Nietzsche selection which I think provides a very relevant response to that. (Caution - i don't know anything about the website; just that it provides this quote in nicely-formatted style):

Nietzsche on morality without God and English flatheads

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not…

www.danieljoachim.org

This is the first part:

Quote from Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females a la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.

We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth–it stands or falls with faith in God.