Posts by Cassius

Just to clarify after my last post:

When I say that the three canonical faculties share the same level of fallibility / infallibility - and I say that the level is zero --- that is a reference to the fact that "Fallibility" and "infallibility" are terms that refer to conclusions: to ideas that are reached after a process of thinking and coming to an opinion. Fallibility and infallibility are terms generally used to refer to whether a set of opinions is correct or incorrect when compared with the "Truth" (which is another abstract conclusion or concept).

I think most of us are agreed that the three canonical faculties do not provide "opinions" or 'concepts" or "conclusions" at all: therefore it is not proper to consider them to be either fallible or infallible. The faculties don't represent to you that they are handing you completed idea. Instead, they are handing you raw data (sounds, sights, feelings of touch, pleasure, pain, etc.) that are neither "right" nor "wrong." They simply are what they are, and from them we have to take what they give us and reach any opinions or conclusions that we want to reach.

I think probably I am preaching to choir in writing this but I wanted to clarify in case any "newer" readers happened on my statement and were wondering how to interpret it.

Thanks to all of our participants here at EpicureanFriends for what I think has been a very successful 2023! I want to especially thank our moderating panel -- Kalosyni, Don, Joshua, Godfrey, Martin, and Elli, for all that you have done for the forum.

Let's make 2024 even better!

It seems to me that this problem of the unread link not jumping to the last post is intermittent, rather than happening every time. Anyone have it happening every time?

Quote from Peter Konstans

because peaceful co-existence with those faiths is impossible for us in the long run.

I would like us to be careful and avoid getting into modern politics, but in generic terms I think that this question falls under general issues of justice and is probably directly relevant to the ending of the ancient Epicurean school (and the ancient world in general).

The example you raise (religious aspects of marriage) could be a useful way of getting at the larger issue: Being free to pursue one's choices seems generally be conducive to pleasure, but enacting rules in a society can also be productive of the safety and ongoing pleasure of the society. Skepticism toward religious claims is a major aspect of Epicurean philosophy, but (being a philosophy rather than a political party) the philosophy gives you general principles to consider but doesn't tell you exactly which to pursue. I do think it's useful to discuss how far an Epicurean community would act on that religious skepticism, but it would probably be necessary to first be clear what kind of "Epicurean community" is being discussed. A regular nation in which many of the leading politicians were openly identifying as Epicurean? We might have an actual example of that in the Rome of 50 BC.

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

Quote from Godfrey

Another thing I'm noticing is that when I click on a link to a post in the Unread Posts list, it takes me to the top of the page that contains the unread post. Prior to the update it would go directly to the post, which is much more convenient when the threads get long.

I have noticed that too and will definitely investigate!

Welcome to Episode 208 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 we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.

Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

This week we move continue in Section XVII as Cicero begins a series of illustrations which he holds up as examples of moral worthiness (as if Epicurus' views do not embrace this conduct as well!)

VII. We are inquiring then not merely about an unprincipled man but about one who is both crafty and unprincipled, as Quintus Pompeius shewed himself when he disowned the treaty with Numantia, one moreover who is not afraid of everything, but, to begin with, sets at nought the consciousness that is within him, which it costs him no effort to suppress. The man whom we call secret and deep, so far from informing against himself, will actually produce the impression that he is grieved by another person's unprincipled action; for what does shrewdness mean, if not this? I recollect acting as adviser to Publius Sextilius Rufus when he laid before his friends this difficulty, that he was heir to Quintus Fadius Gallus, in whose will there was a statement that he had requested Rufus to see that the whole property passed to the daughter. This statement Sextilius said was untrue, and he might say so without fear, for who was to refute him? None of us believed him, and it was more probable that the falsehood lay with the man to whom it brought advantage than with him who had written that he had made the very request which it was his duty to make. The man said further that having sworn to observe the Voconian law he could not venture, unless his friends thought otherwise, to contravene it.

Quote from Matteng

In this subject the Stoics often seems to have the "better ethics" because they emphasize cosmopolitism, altruism, philantropy for all humans, not only friends.

As a defense I only know 2 aspects...

Matteng:

I agree with Joshua's response but I would also say this - that I do not not think that it is as all a given that the Stoic ethics is "better" for the reasons you state.

To what authority would someone check to see that "altruism" (which is generally defined as a flat "placing others above self" regardless of circumstances) is always a better course, or that I should as a rule show equal concern and actionfor "all humans" most of whom I will never know, rather than for my friends,who I do know. I would say that I would call into question anyone who claimed to be my friend who placed the interests of random strangers over those he or she has known for a long time.

I'm phrasing this kind of challengingly just to make the point that if you take the philosophy seriously and conclude that in fact there are no supernatural gods and no ideal forms, then indeed there is no authority to approve of "love of humanity" being superior to "love of friends." That leaves the decision between the two to be a purely personal one that varies according to circumstance.

So first and foremost I would dismiss the haughtiness of the Stoics on this (as on many other subjects concerning "virtue") as a lot of hot air. The Stoic view of the universe is nonsense from an Epicurean perspective, and without that Stoic supernaturalism there is no real-world basis for them to assert that their ethics is "better" in the first place.

The perceived irony (that Epicureans are more compassionate than many others) derives from that same commitment to reality. In the absence of high-minded and high-sounding calls to divine fire and the reward of absolute virtue, people operating from an Epicurean perspective have only what they perceive as the short space of time between birth and death to get all they are going to get out of life -- and that includes the emotional reward of benevolence toward others.

With the upgrade to the website we've had to replace the older FAQ software, and as a result the FAQ needs lots of updating and improvement. The goal is to have a discussion thread for each FAQ item, and those are already linked in just about every FAQ question. Please use this thread for general comments, suggestions, and questions about the FAQ, especially as to ways to improve it.

Great to have you Tariq! No, no mobile app, but the forum software is pretty well optimized to work on a cell phone screen format, so hopefully that will serve the purpose!

Thanks for the comments. Probably there are more bugs still to swat:

Tau Phi -

1 - There is something about the theme switcher I do not understand. I noted the behavior you mentioned and attempted to improve it but now the moon does not appear and the descriptions are still wrong. Will have to dig into that further but for now the sun goes back and forth.

2 - I think the problem on Recent threads when not logged in has been addressed.

Godfrey -

I am noting some issues with text input on a tablet too but I can't figure out how to address them. I will post about this on the software designer's site and see what we can do.

thanks again!

Woltab wrote a long article about the reasoning behind the changes to the text editor. You or anyone who uses formatting intensively may want to read this to understand the rationale and how this is supposed to help make it easier to move between programs and software:

New Features in WoltLab Suite 6.0: CKEditor 5 - WoltLab®

The third part on what’s new in WoltLab Suite 6.0 focused on the new WYSIWYG editor “CKEditor 5”.

www.woltlab.com

Quote from Pacatus

All of my poems (and those of others as well it seems) lost their formatting. I went through and fixed mine. We'll see what happens when new ones come up.

Oh no! I didn't notice one of them before you fixed them - if you see a sample that is not formatted correctly let me know so I can think about the implications. Perhaps line feeds were converted to hard paragraphs, or what?

Welcome tariq !

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 Joshua - we will get this fixed tonight!

Here's a feature I can imagine several of you liking: "PERSONAL NOTES"

Click under the Tools / Personal Notes top menu, or under the User icon/dropdown "Personal Notes" and it will take you to a page where you can keep a list of frequently used notes or text blurbs for easy reuse and pasting into new threads

Eikadistes it does look like the Bookmarks feature will come back, and hopefully if you have some stored those will come back too.

Also, there are lots and lots of themes/styles to replace the ones we lost. We'll get some dark/colored versions available soon.

Here's an example of a change. You'll note that some of the old editing functions are under the ... (three dot dropdown). They've replaced the color editor with "highlights" such as here:

You'll note that when you drop down you first get a "paragraph" choice for headers or normal text, and then TO THE RIGHT you'll see several other options that are also below the main editor line, and that's where the "highlighter" is. I totally missed seeing those the first time through.

At the moment there are only two STYLES, but hopefully they will cover most uses. There is a LIGHT style and a DARK style --- change it by going to the bottom right of a page where you will see:

CHANGE STYLE

There are LOTS of changes, to say the least, that we will need to work through.

One immediate downside especially for Eikadistes is that it looks like we lost the "BOOKMARK" function. I am still exploring whether we can get that back Nate!

We also lost the FAQ formatting from the older version. Until we can set that up again, the old FAQ material is available in a separate page.