Posts by Cassius

A key text which was mentioned in our Zoom last night involves the first sentence of the following quote which Usener catalogs as part of U67, from Athēnaîos, Deipnosophists, 12.67, 546E:

• And indeed Epíkouros, while not hiding himself, says loudly "I myself am not able to conceive the good – if I removed the pleasure from flavor, and removed the pleasure from Aphrodisian activities." For this wise man believes that even the life of profligates can be irreproachable – if It should be safe and favorable for one of them! Therefore, the Poets of comedy, who are perhaps disdainful of pleasure and intemperance, call out the Epicureans and Followers.

As stated, the first sentence will be our special focus, but the remainder of the quote illustrates how enemies of Epicurus combine it with PD10 and their general denunciation of pleasure for purposes of disparagement.

Find the full U67 on page 188 of Bryan's PDF version of Epicurea here:

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/4995-epicurea-9-11-pdf/

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

I am glad we reached this section before we do our special episode on the "real vs ideal" debate. This section contains some very interesting material on images, a subject that most seem to agree play into the question of prolepsis.

Welcome to Episode 249 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 we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 27 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. We will, in turn, respond to Cotta's particular and general arguments.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will eventually be put together here.

Today's Text

XXXVII. “They have nothing to do,” your teacher says. Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity.

But let it be as you would have it, that the Deity is in the form and image of a man. Where is his abode? Where is his habitation? Where is the place where he is to be found? What is his course of life? And what is it that constitutes the happiness which you assert that he enjoys? For it seems necessary that a being who is to be happy must use and enjoy what belongs to him. And with regard to place, even those natures which are inanimate have each their proper stations assigned to them: so that the earth is the lowest; then water is next above the earth; the air is above the water; and fire has the highest situation of all allotted to it. Some creatures inhabit the earth, some the water, and some, of an amphibious nature, live in both. There are some, also, which are thought to be born in fire, and which often appear fluttering in burning furnaces.

In the first place, therefore, I ask you, Where is the habitation of your Deity? Secondly, What motive is it that stirs him from his place, supposing he ever moves? And, lastly, since it is peculiar to animated beings to have an inclination to something that is agreeable to their several natures, what is it that the Deity affects, and to what purpose does he exert the motion of his mind and reason? In short, how is he happy? how eternal? Whichever of these points you touch upon, I am afraid you will come lamely off. For there is never a proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation; for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting.

XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion; but you term it “the approach and entrance of images into the mind.” Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say, in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that the Gods are happy and eternal.

Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected, yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of, or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect. For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore, can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells us that there never was such a person as Orpheus the poet; and it is said that the verse called Orphic verse was the invention of Cercops, a Pythagorean; yet Orpheus, that is to say, the image of him, as you will have it, often runs in my head. What is the reason that I entertain one idea of the figure of the same person, and you another? Why do we image to ourselves such things as never had any existence, and which never can have, such as Scyllas and Chimæras? Why do we frame ideas of men, countries, and cities which we never saw? How is it that the very first moment that I choose I can form representations of them in my mind? How is it that they come to me, even in my sleep, without being called or sought after?

XXXIX. The whole affair, Velleius, is ridiculous. You do not impose images on our eyes only, but on our minds. Such is the privilege which you have assumed of talking nonsense with impunity. But there is, you say, a transition of images flowing on in great crowds in such a way that out of many some one at least must be perceived! I should be ashamed of my incapacity to understand this if you, who assert it, could comprehend it yourselves; for how do you prove that these images are continued in uninterrupted motion? Or, if uninterrupted, still how do you prove them to be eternal? There is a constant supply, you say, of innumerable atoms. But must they, for that reason, be all eternal? To elude this, you have recourse to equilibration (for so, with your leave, I will call your Ἰσονομία), and say that as there is a sort of nature mortal, so there must also be a sort which is immortal. By the same rule, as there are men mortal, there are men immortal; and as some arise from the earth, some must arise from the water also; and as there are causes which destroy, there must likewise be causes which preserve. Be it as you say; but let those causes preserve which have existence themselves. I cannot conceive these your Gods to have any. But how does all this face of things arise from atomic corpuscles? Were there any such atoms (as there are not), they might perhaps impel one another, and be jumbled together in their motion; but they could never be able to impart form, or figure, or color, or animation, so that you by no means demonstrate the immortality of your Deity.

Lucretius Today Episode 248 is now available: "Cotta Pushes The 'Argument By Design' Against The Epicurean View That All - Including Gods - Is Natural."

Thanks Don. Joshua's insight there at the end was worth the entire episode, and we tried to follow up on it in our recording this morning.

There's a lot more going on here beneath the surface beyond just "what gods would look like."

Welcome to Episode 248 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 we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 27 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. We will, in turn, respond to Cotta's particular and general arguments.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will eventually be put together here.

Today's Text

XXXIV. ... Therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how this chief of yours came to entertain these strange opinions. But you constantly insist on the certainty of this tenet, that the Deity is both happy and immortal. Supposing he is so, would his happiness be less perfect if he had not two feet? Or cannot that blessedness or beatitude—call it which you will (they are both harsh terms, but we must mollify them by use)—can it not, I say, exist in that sun, or in this world, or in some eternal mind that has not human shape or limbs? All you say against it is, that you never saw any happiness in the sun or the world. What, then? Did you ever see any world but this? No, you will say. Why, therefore, do you presume to assert that there are not only six hundred thousand worlds, but that they are innumerable? Reason tells you so. Will not reason tell you likewise that as, in our inquiries into the most excellent nature, we find none but the divine nature can be happy and eternal, so the same divine nature surpasses us in excellence of mind; and as in mind, so in body? Why, therefore, as we are inferior in all other respects, should we be equal in form? For human virtue approaches nearer to the divinity than human form.

XXXV. To return to the subject I was upon. What can be more childish than to assert that there are no such creatures as are generated in the Red Sea or in India? The most curious inquirer cannot arrive at the knowledge of all those creatures which inhabit the earth, sea, fens, and rivers; and shall we deny the existence of them because we never saw them? That similitude which you are so very fond of is nothing to the purpose. Is not a dog like a wolf? And, as Ennius says,

The monkey, filthiest beast, how like to man!

Yet they differ in nature. No beast has more sagacity than an elephant; yet where can you find any of a larger size? I am speaking here of beasts. But among men, do we not see a disparity of manners in persons very much alike, and a similitude of manners in persons unlike? If this sort of argument were once to prevail, Velleius, observe what it would lead to. You have laid it down as certain that reason cannot possibly reside in any but the human form. Another may affirm that it can exist in none but a terrestrial being; in none but a being that is born, that grows up, and receives instruction, and that consists of a soul, and an infirm and perishable body; in short, in none but a mortal man. But if you decline those opinions, why should a single form disturb you? You perceive that man is possessed of reason and understanding, with all the infirmities which I have mentioned interwoven with his being; abstracted from which, you nevertheless know God, you say, if the lineaments do but remain. This is not talking considerately, but at a venture; for surely you did not think what an encumbrance anything superfluous or useless is, not only in a man, but a tree. How troublesome it is to have a finger too much! And why so? Because neither use nor ornament requires more than five; but your Deity has not only a finger more than he wants, but a head, a neck, shoulders, sides, a paunch, back, hams, hands, feet, thighs, and legs. Are these parts necessary to immortality? Are they conducive to the existence of the Deity? Is the face itself of use? One would rather say so of the brain, the heart, the lights, and the liver; for these are the seats of life. The features of the face contribute nothing to the preservation of it.

XXXVI. You censured those who, beholding those excellent and stupendous works, the world, and its respective parts—the heaven, the earth, the seas—and the splendor with which they are adorned; who, contemplating the sun, moon, and stars; and who, observing the maturity and changes of the seasons, and vicissitudes of times, inferred from thence that there must be some excellent and eminent essence that originally made, and still moves, directs, and governs them. Suppose they should mistake in their conjecture, yet I see what they aim at. But what is that great and noble work which appears to you to be the effect of a divine mind, and from which you conclude that there are Gods? “I have,” say you, “a certain information of a Deity imprinted in my mind.” Of a bearded Jupiter, I suppose, and a helmeted Minerva.

But do you really imagine them to be such? How much better are the notions of the ignorant vulgar, who not only believe the Deities have members like ours, but that they make use of them; and therefore they assign them a bow and arrows, a spear, a shield, a trident, and lightning; and though they do not behold the actions of the Gods, yet they cannot entertain a thought of a Deity doing nothing. The Egyptians (so much ridiculed) held no beasts to be sacred, except on account of some advantage which they had received from them. The ibis, a very large bird, with strong legs and a horny long beak, destroys a great number of serpents. These birds keep Egypt from pestilential diseases by killing and devouring the flying serpents brought from the deserts of Lybia by the south-west wind, which prevents the mischief that may attend their biting while alive, or any infection when dead. I could speak of the advantage of the ichneumon, the crocodile, and the cat; but I am unwilling to be tedious; yet I will conclude with observing that the barbarians paid divine honors to beasts because of the benefits they received from them; whereas your Gods not only confer no benefit, but are idle, and do no single act of any description whatever.

Lucretius Today Episode 247 is now available: "Cotta Continues To Insist The Gods Are Supernatural And Not At All Similar To Humans."

I would expect any of our readers in GA or NC or DC or the Florida panhandle might be without power - at least that's our situation! But we have battery power and podcast editing continues. Gotta keep the responses to Cotta coming!

Production of this episode has been slowed down considerably by the impact of Hurricane Helene, but I hope to have it completed and posted by the end of today today.

Very good -- glad to have you SillyApe!

Thank you for responding SillyApe!

Your username is likely to raise some eyebrows, however.

Tell us just a little about your interest in Epicurus so we know you're a real person.....

Edit: I see this - very good - real person!

RE: What Would Epicurus Say To Someone Who Complains "The World Is Unjust / Life Isn't Fair"?

Quote from Kyle

He might disagree with the premise and instead argue we should be grateful and that Nature makes it easy to acquire the good and avoid the bad if we pursue natural and necessary desires.

Does that mean that if someone came up to an Epicurean and said "The World isn't just!" or "Live is Unfair" that a proper response would be. "You're looking at it wrong and you shouldn't see it that way...."

What if the person says further:

- What you're saying doesn't change anything about fairness or justice!

- So in fact you are agreeing with me: The World ISN'T just and Life ISN'T fair!

- That's what you're telling me?

Welcome SillyApe

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.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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!

Quote from Julia

Well, yes, but: What's the difference between this "modern orthodoxy" and "neo-Epicurean"?

I use those interchangeably, depending on whether I am in the mood to be charitable ("neoepicurean") or just want to refer to the groupthink aspect of it ("orthodoxy")

Yes Julia I need to be more clear and avoid irony / sarcasm in some formulations, and you are right that "orthodox" has confusing possibilities.

Most of the time I use the term I am referring to "modern orthodoxy," rather than an attitude of actually attempting to be true to the Epicurean views of 2000 years ago. In my experience "orthodoxy" has always had a very negative connotation, and that's why I tend to use it negatively and rarely if ever positively. But you are right, loose references are likely to be confusing, and I plan to work on avoiding the term unless I am very clearly spelling out the meaning I intend.

This is going to sound nit-picking but I'm just illustrating the limits of any single term.

"Physicalism," like "materialism," is a word that says nothing about:

(1) canonics - doesn't tell you anything much about the role of logic and reason and how to think.

(2) ethics - doesn't tell you anything about the role of pleasure vs virtue, and really doesn't say much even about the gods, because some (even the Stoics apparently) take the position that supernatural gods are physical.

(3) and it also doesn't tell you anything much, even in physics, about whether the universe is subject to "hard determinism" or whether there is any degree of free agency.

This kind of analysis can be done with probably any single word, because I'm not aware that anyone has come up with essentially the same (or even closely similar) combination of crucial elements that are combined into the philosophy of Epicurus.

Quote from Julia

Bit of a tangent, but I've been wondering for a while: Which adjective (like "orthodox") would best describe the Epicurean philosophy predominant here, on EpicureanFriends? Is there a list contrasting the main branches of Epicurean philosophy somewhere?

On the website I try to refer to it as "Classical Epicurean Philosophy" to distinguish it from the various brands of "neo-Epicureanism" that comes from the major commentators being much more Stoic or Buddhist friendly than down-the-line Epicurean. But that's just an approximation.

There really aren't many people devoted to reconstructing Epicurean philosophy in a pure form in the world today, so it's probably fair to draw the dividing line between those who make an effort to be across-the-board Epicurean, including in issues such as determinism and canonics, vs those who leave issues like that in the dust in favor of focusing on what "they" view as the central theme, which is to them "tranquility" / calmness, which usually boils down to a form of minimalism / asceticism which most any Stoic or Buddhist would be happy to embrace.

Given the open lack of desire of most commentators to embrace the whole sweep of the philosophy, "Classical Epicureanism" has seemed to be a workable label so far.

Quote from Julia

I used to not follow daily news at all. Through various ways, I slipped into this, and am now slowly, step by step quitting the vice again. The constant, instigated series of scandals and drama isn't worth my time and attention; it's just silly.

I think this is an area where it is very easy to go to unhealthy extremes. You're right there is a lot of silliness and total unproductiveness in following day-to-day politics. On the other hand I think it's important for everyone to have *some* idea of what is going on around them, because world events can definitely impact our daily lives, some of us more than others. And for those who are young enough and/or so inclined, I think there is plenty of evidence and precedent in Epicurean history to support just about any level of involvement that one wants to pursue in politics. The trick is knowing how much is productive and how much is not in your individual case, but contextual questions like that are always involved in all decisionmaking.

Your goal is to use your life and your time as productively as you can to live as happily as possible, and happiness involves both physical and "mental" pleasures. Only you can make the final decision on how far to get involved in following or participating in politics will enhance your overall mental and physical well-being / happiness / pleasure. Some will want nothing to do with politics, and some won't be able to live with themselves if they aren't "doing what they can."

Quote from Julia

Somehow, the group of thoughts which happen in that diagram remained unconnected to there being limited time only.

I think orthodox Epicurean focus is partly to blame for this. I don't think Epicurus was focused on running from pain like a frightened cat. He was setting the playing field so we can *begin* the analysis of how we spend our time, and after we discuss supernatural interference in PD01, there's really no reason to look back and continue worrying about heaven or hell or anything after death. The focus is on what we do during life!

Quote from Julia

I wonder how I might go about establishing that habit.

A number of years ago I worked in an office building right next to a very old cemetery, and many days at lunch we would walk through the cemetery to get to restaurants downtown. I miss doing that because looking and at reading the tombstones is one of the best reminders that we will be there someday too!

I am not prepared to say that this does or should work for everyone, but I know what works best for me. So in regard to this:

Quote from Julia

On some days, it is very tempting to give up, because the self-defeating backward momentum/pull to try less, work less hard, exert myself less is always there, and always easy – unpleasant results, but easy to do! – and the only reason I don't give up is because I know full well how painful things get down that road.

When I am in those moods, the thing that works best for me is to do something to remember that the clock is ticking (even something like looking at a clock!), that I will never get lost time back, that I have a very limited time to do what I want to do before I die. Some will say this increases anxiety and should not be done for that reason. I reject that assertion because I reject that Epicurus taught "tranquility" as the goal of life. I believe he taught "pleasure," which means a full life in which any pain is more than compensated for by the rest. Pain isn't always bad, and it's there for a reason, and in my case reminding myself of limited time may be temporarily painful, but it is the ultimate motivator.

So among the passages that I find most motivational in these circumstances are:

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us. (Which I do not interpret primarily as a relief from fear of hell, since I already know from PDO1 that any kind of supernatural hell is impossible. Instead, I see this primarily a reminder that after death there is nothing, so everything that I want to do has to be done in this life, before death.)

VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied. Note 14. The Bailey version ends "without allowing himself leisure."

VS10. Remember that you are mortal, and have a limited time to live, and have devoted yourself to discussions on Nature for all time and eternity, and have seen “things that are now and are to come and have been.”

VS30. Some men, throughout their lives, spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.

VS31. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us, mortals alike, dwell in an unfortified city.

VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

I am sure there are others but those come to mind first. And if I am missing some obvious ones please let me know!