Posts by Cassius

It's certainly hard to disagree with the view that in fact people often make a mess of things! No doubt even if the Epicurean wave had continued to build after Cicero's time (and maybe in fact it did) lots of people would have found a way water it down for their own lesser goals. But I think we ought to also appreciate the approach of Diogenes of Oinoanda in erecting his wall and speaking publicly in favor of a future time when more people saw that Epicurean philosophy can help them reconcile their apparently-conflicting interests.

I analogize this in my own mind to the function of the Epicurean gods and the respect to be paid to people who are truly wise. The Epicurean gods couldn't care less about us, and the same goes for Epicurus and the other Epicureans we read who are now long dead and can't receive our appreciation.

But visualize the life of a blessed being helps us to work toward that ourselves, and thinking about what Epicurus would do or say if he were watching us also helps to improve our actions. And likewise I'd submit that visualizing a world in which the name of Epicurus doesn't evoke blank stares, but comes to be seen as a central part of Western traditions that everyone knows about, also helps us think about how we can move in the right direction in our own lives and with our own circles of friends.

The people in the AI efforts I get look vaguely gothic or otherwise a little scary, but I guess this one deserves inclusion:

A parallel world seasonal greeting card:

My "photoshopping" skills are abysmal - that hardly looks a picture frame hanging on the wall but it's the best I can do on short notice.

Maybe some of our creative people (perhaps with AI assistance) could do better to illustrate a theme of "how the world might have been if it had taken a better turn 2000 years ago" with people going about their normal affairs with the ancient images of Epicurus in the background in a place of honor, rather than other assorted historical characters.

This would be sort of pursuing the theme of Nietzsche's line: "Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean."

Which is an excerpt from the full section 58 of "The Antichrist"

Quote from Nietzsche's "AntiChrist"

58.

In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an "eternal" social organization,—Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight… That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism—those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world", which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another—and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters…

The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future… Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,—overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,—this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!—This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things—the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption—against Christians… These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality—this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls", step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride.

The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but "Christianity", which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.—Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared… Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world", in the flesh and inspired by genius—the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence… What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God on the cross", all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. "Salvation is of the Jews."—Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the GreatMother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself.

His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth—he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand… This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome—that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme.

Started 12/23/23 ---

Remember that you are mortal, and you have a limited time to live, and in devoting yourself to discussion of the nature of time and eternity you have seen things that have been, are now, and are to come. Vatican Saying 10 (paraphrased, sometimes attributed to Metrodorus)

I now have my printed copy of Nate's new book and I want to second the praise in the posts above. The images included with the book (Nate's wife art plus the timeline and map) are a great bonus. It's well organized and has a very good introductory essay. This is quality work and it's great to see Nate take the initiative to do this!

This whole post is sort of tongue in cheek but let's see if it sets up a useful discussion: It seems to be a classic joke that holiday meals which bring together scattered family members or acquaintances of different viewpoints are ripe for all sorts of disputes when people have a few too many drinks or otherwise drop their normal veils of diplomacy. I gather that can especially tend to happen when out-of-town house guests overstay their welcome!

The running gag most of the time is that people have their worst falling outs over politics and religion. The former is not within our forum scope of discussion, but the latter is, especially if we brush past the narrow sectarian disputes and go to the heart of the issue.

So here's my proposed list of "Issues Worth Fighting Over During Holiday Meals" for an Epicurean confronting disputatious non-Epicurean acquaintances. Most of time here on the forum or in the real day-to-day world we approach these issues diplomatically rather than saying "you're full of bunk if you believe that!" -- but if a family member drinks too much over the holidays and gets in your face, these issues stand out in my mind as non-negotiable and "worth fighting over." If you have to alienate your brother-in-law forever, at least make it an issue worth fighting over, like one of these:

1. There are no supernatural gods. ("Your god doesn't reign, buddy!")
2. There is no life after death. ("You only go round once, buddy!")
3. Some things in life are knowable with certainty. ("Your radical skepticism is bunk, buddy!")
4. Some things in life are under our control. ("Your hard determinism is bunk, buddy!")
5. The feeling of pleasure and pain, properly understood, is the guide of life. ("Your absolute morality is a fantasy, buddy!")
6. Virtue is not its own reward but is a tool for achieving a pleasurable life. ("Your "virtue" is the handmaiden of pleasure no matter what you say, buddy!")

I suppose we could also consider things like "The sun is the size it appears to be!" or "All sensations are true!" but those might require a little more concentration than an obnoxious or inebriated relative could muster. And only a few would get stirred up if you call Aristotle a "Debauchee" or Democritus a "Judge of Nonsense!"

I think this list is a good start, but I may be missing some, so please remind me if there are others.

Welcome to Episode 207 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only 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 XVI 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!)

XVI. ... It is not proper to imagine your bad man as a coward or a weakling, torturing himself about any- thing he has done, and frightened at everything, but rather as one who craftily judges of everything by his interests, being keen, shrewd and hardened, so that he readily devises means for cheating without detection, without witnesses, without any accomplice. Do you think I am speaking of Lucius Tubulus ? He, having presided as praetor over the court for trying murderers, took bribes in view of trials with such openness, that in the following year Publius Scaevola, the tribune of the commons, carried a bill in the popular assembly directing an inquiry to be made into the matter. Under this bill the senate voted that the inquiry should be conducted by Gnaeus Caepio the consul; Tubulus went into exile at once, and did not venture to defend himself; the facts were indeed evident.

XVII. 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.

Episode 206 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue to address Cicero's view of the nature of morality.

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

I think I (and if I recall we have here in the past) analogized this to the argument that was used to prove the motion is impossible.

If a particular logical argument seems to lead you in the direction of a position that you are absolutely sure of based on your senses and feelings and prolepsis is correct, then what you throw overboard is that logical argument, not your sensations and your feelings and prolepsis.

No need for hand-wringing -- you *must* trust your natural faculties in order to be able to continue to live. Anything that would lead you in another direction should be rejected out of hand.

Quote from Pacatus

Under strict determinism, those who (for example) follow Epicurus and those who follow (say) the Stoics are simply determined to do so – without any actual choice based on study and reflection.

Right -- and Epicurus says exactly that:

VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

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.

So as I read and interpret his position, it is very important to be very firm: Hard determinism is bunk!

Let me add to the conversation that through all my years of reading Epicurus I have never failed to see how difficult this issue is for those who really want to explore its logical complexities.

At the same time, I've become more and more comfortable taking the position that I am not especially overwraught about the people who want to explore all its logical complexities.

It seems to me that Epicurus was focused on developing a "real-world" frame of reference that can help most every normal person live a better life. From that point of view, there are definitely things that are within our control, while some other things are clearly not. There's a common sense line that doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out.

While we haven't developed the analogy too far yet, that seems to be also what Epicurus was doing with his "canon of truth." What is "real" in life to us is what are feelings and five senses tell us is real (and of course I'll include prolepsis in that as soon as we can be clear what it is). Now of course that kind of point of view is going to leave intellectuals aghast at the logical implications, but that's what matters to the normal person in life, and frankly the elaborate intellectual theories are of little or no use to normal people in unraveling those realities.

I've been thinking about some more general posts on this subject as we end the year but this is a good place to make the same point.

Speaking only for myself here (but that colors the way I work on and write about Epicurus) I think Epicurus' main focus was on helping regular people of normal intelligence be confident of a reasonable framework that addresses the major "big picture" questions of life and therefore helps them live most happily. Chasing down ever rabbit trail toward total logical completeness was not a major aspect of his project, and in fact the further you chase those issues down the more clear it becomes that it's actually damaging to look at and live life that way.

The two biggest practical starting point positions that outweigh all other considerations by far is (1) there's no gods or ideal forms to tell you what to do or punish you for doing wrong, and (2) when you're dead your dead forever and there will be no future life of reward or punishment or rebirth or anything else. You get one shot at living life, and you want to live it as happily as you can. That's what Epicurus helps us do.

Quote from Onenski

For example, contemporary proponents of free will skepticism (such as Derk Pereboom) recognize the elimination of desert and, therefore, the absence of justification of punishments, rewards, guilt, resentment, gratitude and pride (which I honestly consider positive for human societies).

I'm not familiar with Derk Pereboom or the general reference you're making. My personal view I'll admit is more "superficial" from the point of view of how an "average" person would look at it. My general view would be that a regular person would conclude that If there's no impact you can have on something, then it makes no sense to try to change it. To a regular unsophisticated person that would be a very damaging attitude to take.

Very interesting Joshua! What do we know about Fabricius?

My best effort at understanding this is that he is referring to Epicurus' comments about one's reputation and esteem of one's neighbors (such as Torquatus had himself referred to in regard to the reasoning of his ancestors for at least part of their heroic deeds). Epicurus saw being esteemed as a friend as an important tool toward living a pleasurable life, just like friendship itself, so he focused on the actual views of the people around us rather than simply looking at their number.

But just like any other tool toward pleasure, circumstances can make it useless or even harmful (eating too much ice cream can make ice cream harmful) and so Epicurus would have distinguished the benefits of the good regard of the crowd when they are acting as friends from the detriment of the foolishness of the crowd when the crowd is acting negatively.

So when Cicero says (rightly) that Epicurus held virtue to be necessary for a happy life, Epicurus wasn't saying that it's the judgment of every single crowd that gives worth to acting virtuously, but that the good feeling of any number of people (who can hold you in esteem even when they sometimes disagree with you, or with whom you can separate if they become no longer your friends) is the part that's not possible to live well without.

Quote

No, — Epicurus, who esteems Moral Worth so highly as to say that it is impossible to live pleasantly without it, is not the man to identify 'moral' (honourable) with 'popular' and maintain that it is impossible to live pleasantly without popular esteem; he cannot understand 'moral" to mean anything else than that which is right, — that which is in and for itself, independently, intrinsically, and of its own nature praiseworthy.

So I think i'd extend what I commented last week in regard to the dilemma as to whether the gods love the good because it is good, or the good is good because the gods love it. Both of the important premises in that analysis are incorrect - there are both no supernatural gods to whose judgment we should defer, and there is no absolute good. Neither exists, and talking about them together just makes things more confusing.

And in questioning whether the crowd's esteem is valuable because it is always good, or whether the good is what the crowd esteems (both of which Cicero rejects), I'd say that Epicurus is focusing on the practical and saying that acting virtuously will gain us the esteem of our friends, which is always going to be desirable, but that the esteem of the crowd is something that may or may not be desirable (just as we don't want to share in the crowd's views of the gods, but we do want to share our like-minded friends' views of the gods).

Cicero is trying to bluster his way through this and make Epicurus look bad by insisting on the absolute nature of "the good" and "the crowd" rather than on Epicurus' position that nothing is ultimately good if not based on pleasure, and that our attitude toward the crowd isn't determined by counting their numbers but by their positions and their attitude toward you. (Of course there are times when things are practically speaking pretty clear -- a murderous crowd outside your front door is going to be undesirable most of the time, but a crowd politely telling you that the sun revolves around the earth but otherwise respecting you may not be a problem at all.)

And always in the background in evaluating the final meaning is that Cicero is not allowing Epicurus to define "pleasure" to include the normal healthy condition of body or mind. When you factor in the Epicurean aspect of pleasure that does not involve "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll then things look significantly different.

Edit: I made some significant edits while writing this post and I'm not sure these formulations are final either

Welcome Kasprowy! As sometimes happens, our new guests post before their "Welcome" thread was started, so their initial posts show up in time sequence in this thread as the first post. The forum software doesn't allow changing the posting time so it will remain out of sequence, but please continue this thread in the normal fashion anyway

Welcome Smithtim47 and thanks for the introduction!

Welcome kasprowy!

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!

Last comment in this series:

This "Table of Contents" of "Good Sense" is a very strong list of important statements on its own. It's hard to see how Epicurus would disagree with any of them except 80-85 as to free will (but unfortunately that's a big exception). The list is much longer than my clip of the first part below, so it's worth clicking through to skim it.

Baron D'Holbach - Good Sense - Contents