Posts by Cassius

It's looking great, Twentier. You do excellent work.

Great video and comments Julia.

Very interesting Pacatus! To extend my comparison from post 22 above, here is the first paragraph from Chapter one of "Epicurus and the Pleasant Life." I note that this is a total rewrite from the first edition"

"If we were to describe the Epicurean Philosophy in a single word, it would be "pleasure." And if we were to sum it up in a sentence, it would be this excerpt from the letter of Epicurus to Menoeceus: "Pleasure is the beginning and the end of the happy life." With this simple statement, Epicurus establishes the emotion of pleasure as both the means and the purpose of life, in contrast to all other philosophies that introduce rational means and ends such as achievement, success, wealth, morality, social justice, and so on."

From here I am going to move or copy these over into a thread on Haris' book so we can continue this. Based on what I am seeing I might want to affirm that this would be my third suggestion for new readers.

I'll combine it with this thread too:

Thread

Second Edition of Haris Dimitriadis' "Epicurus And the Pleasant Life" Now Released

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3135/

It has just come to my attention that Haris has released a second edition of his "Epicurus and the Pleasant Life." His detailed preface is available on his website here. The following is an excerpt:

[…]

I have been an appreciative fan of Haris for the many years that I have been in (unfortunately sporadic) communication with him over at Facebook. In fact we have at least one article from him featured here on Epicureanfriends:

…

Cassius

December 15, 2022 at 9:13 AM

Yes I agree Pacatus - of the books I recommend I would probably rank his as third as well.

I know in my case you are pointing out an oversight I am making personally. I have a copy of Harris' first edition, but I understand it has been updated and improved significantly since that edition. When the upgrade came out, for some reason my Kindle edition did not update, and I don't think I have seen the new edition.

You post is going to motivate me to fix that.

Even given my current memory, I do agree that I would rate this highly. How would you compare it to the Catherine Wilson books?

I see that our friend Eikadistes has launched a brand new website where he collects much of his outstanding research into many aspects of Epicurean Philosophy. I have not had a chance to go through it yet so I can't comment on specific sections, but I thought I would go ahead and post this link for those who might be on the internet on Memorial day. I'm sure it will be excellent quality.

Here's the link:

Twentiers

Hogs from the Herd

twentiers.com

I am glad you posted further to give me a chance to clarify a few things:

Quote from Don

I agree that Dewitt was a "fanboy" of Epicurus, but I don't see that as necessarily a negative.

Actually i predicted to someone else here on the forum that that would be exactly your take on it! And of course I agree. "Reverence" for the sage is of great help to those during the "reverencing."

Quote from Don

He obviously gave them lots of thought, but it seems he didn't feel her could write them as part of his academic career.

It occurs to me that that observation applies not only to DeWitt, but I suspect it has very personal application to someone we've had the privilege to interact with on the podcast - Emily Austin - who may undertake other work on Epicurus in the future. Becoming known as a defender of Epicurus could get your head chopped off some recent centuries ago, it was a guaranteed way to fail to win friends and influence people in the last century, and it's entirely unclear to me what the future holds. Anyone who undertakes that job could be forgiven for thinking that have decided to emulate Don Quixote.

Quote from Don

To TauPhi 's assertions...

There's always some tension between what needs to be said in context and what might be misunderstood by new readers who skim over threads. TauPhi is a longstanding and respected member of the forum who attends many of our zoom meetings, and as a result those of us who know him know him to be extremely constructive and helpful. I would not normally have responded quite so directly, but we just had an exchange with recent member @Josh about books to read, so I wanted to make an important point.

Since writing that post, I've thought of a better way to make the point.

Here's one way to decide whether someone should read "Living for Pleasure" first or DeWitt's book first (in my estimation anyway).

Below is the first paragraph from the first chapter of both books, and the difference gives you an excellent hint of what to expect:

---

Living For Pleasure, Chapter One, Paragraph One: "Imagine yourself on vacation. Not everyone enjoys beaches, and some people would rather eat sand than sleep in the woods. Maybe you prefer to vacation in your living room. Now that you've figured out where you are, who's there? You, obviously, but people rarely want to be entirely alone for all that long because we're social creatures. You might be with your romantic partner, or maybe your children or some close friends. Maybe you're there with George Clooney because why not?"

Epicurus And His Philosophy, Chapter One, Paragraph One: "This book attempts to present for the first time a fairly complete account of the life and teachings of Epicurus. At the very outset the reader should be prepared to think of him at one and the same time as the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Graeco-Roman world."

---

If that doesn't help someone pick which book to start first, I don't know what will.

BOTH approaches are legitimate and important, but they appeal to two entirely different segments of readers. BOTH segments are important to and well represented on this forum, and we want to be responsive to the interests and friendship desires of both. And i have both books and recommend them both, sometimes in one order and sometimes in another, depending on what I know about the person who is asking for a place to start.

I would say both are "best in class" for (1) the generalist reader who may be entirely new to Epicurus, and (2) the reader who probably already knows a considerable about about Epicureanism, Stoicism, and other classical philosophy, and who wants to begin to learn more about where Epicurus fits into that picture.

Episode 230 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available, with Velleius attacking misplaced ideas of divinity expressed by other philosophers.

Joshua does what Don posted joggle your memory?

Also as a reminder as we proceed with this episode, around the 30 minute mark Joshua mentions a disciple of Pythagorus who asserted that the number 10 was of special significance to the geometric forms. During the podcast we weren't able to recall this person's name but if we come across it we can add it into thjs episode's notes.

Quote from Don

If there's only one infinite being, by definition there would be nothing exterior to itself with which to interact with it

I agree that sounds reasonable. Does that leave the question of whether it could be aware of itself? Does it leave additional questions anyone can think of about why an infinite being could not be aware of itself. Does "infinity" contradict the idea of being "a being"?

Addendum: I should note in addition to criticizing Xenophanes on this "infinity can have no sensation" argument that Velleius had raised essentially he same point shortly before, in the same section, against Anaxagorus:

Quote

XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.

So this argument appears to be something that the Epicureans considered very significant, and presents an issue that we need to understand about the issue of infinity.

Quote from TauPhi

However, when someone invests any time in the study of Epicureanism, it becomes very clear very quickly that DeWitt wrote his book not as a scholar but more as a fanboy of Epicurus. With all due respect to his work, he doesn't seem to have problems drawing conclusions out of thin air to make Epicureanism what he wants Epicureanism to be instead of presenting it for what it was, to the best of available resources.

There's no need for us to "take a poll" or line up likes and dislikes on this point, but since I have and will continue to recommend "Epicurus and His Philosophy" as one of the two best starting points for someone who wants to get an overview of the entire philosophy, I don't want people reading this thread in the future to see it without a response from me, because i strongly disagree with this characterization of the DeWitt book. No other academic writer has had the courage to break from the negative prevailing consensus about Epicurus as thoroughly as DeWitt, and no one else comes close to presenting the entire sweep of the philosophy in a sympathetic and approachable way. Some may disagree with some of this conclusions, but he deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished, and indeed his attitude that the prevailing texts have been mistranslated and unappreciated is very close to the same observation that brought up the subject in this thread.

The other book I rank at the same level of usefulness is "Living for Pleasure," but that has a different target market, and makes no effort to cover many of the details that you will find brought together in one place only in DeWitt.

The two books go well together, with "Living for Pleasure" as a very well written "self-help" book to get people who might not otherwise think about Epicurus started in reading about him, and "Epicurus and His Philosophy" providing many additional background details and explanatory analysis about many other important aspects of his philosophy.

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat this because I fully recognize, and it's important to understand, that DeWitt's book is not universally appreciated in the world of Epicurean writing, the best evidence of which is that it is rarely if ever cited as a source in most Epicurean commentary over the last 50 years.

Regardless of how opinions divide, one fact I can state with confidence is that were it not for DeWitt's interpretations and explanations, which cast Epicurus in an entirely different light than most, this forum would not exist.

In this episode one criticism made by Velleius is I think particularly interesting (and difficult), in that involves infinity, which is one of the subjects to which Epicurus said to pay special attention. Here is the quote, from Book One section XI, this translation by Rackham:

Quote from Velleius in On The Nature of The Gods XI

Next, Xenophanes endowed the universe with mind, and held that, as being infinite, it was god. His view of mind is as open to objection as that of the rest ; but on the subject of infinity he incurs still severer criticism, for the infinite can have no sensation and no contact with anything outside.

My interpretation of this, as stated in the podcast (if it survives editing) is that Epicurus would say that "infinity" is a concept that itself "can have no sensation and no contact with anything outside [itself?]. I suggested that there might be a parallel here in the argument made by Socrates/Plato that the greatest good cannot be pleasure because pleasure can be made better (by adding more) and thus something that can be made better is itself not perfect or complete. Analogously, is there an argument that a divinity cannot be infinite because that means the divinity is not complete (or "perfect" in the sense of completed)?

That's just my first thought, but I wanted to add this to the thread because it seems that Velleius (and therefore probably Epicurus) took the position that a divinity cannot be infinite "for the infinite can have no sensation....."

Thoughts?

Over at facebook today someone asked about this same quote, and Holly expressed questions. Elli gave an answer worth recording here:

Holly hello and joy! In the above fragment, I smell the bad smell of platonism and stoicism.

The above fragment 221 in greek language is: "κενὸς ἐκείνου φιλοσόφου λόγος, ὑφʼ οὗ μηδὲν πάθος ἀνθρώπου θεραπεύεται· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἰατρικῆς οὐδὲν ὄφελος μὴ τὰς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων ἐκβαλλούσης, οὕτως οὐδὲ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μὴ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος".

First of all, and as Epicurus suggests in his LTH, is to grasp quickly the meaning of the words. Here in our situation we grasp the meaning of the greek word "πάθος" [pathos].

In my opinion this above fragment 221 comes from Porphyrs' platonic mind, and not from the mouth of Epicurus. Why I say that? Because...

Please look how controversial is with the following saying by Epicurus "on the wise man" by Diogenis Laertius. Since, when Epicurus uses the greek word "πάθος" [pathos] or in plural "πάθη" [pathi] he means the feeling (s) and not any "suffering".

For Epicurus the word for "suffering" is given usually and frequently in his writings with the word "πόνος" - PAIN (for the body) and "λύπη" SAD (for the soul) or "ταραχή" [agitation]. Also for the word "πόνος" [PAIN] Epicurus uses another synonym greek word that is the "άλγος" [algos]. For "algos", see the drugs that remove the pain, and we call them as analgesics.

The saying "on the wise man", by Epicurus - which is controversial with that fragment 221 by Porphyrs - in greek is : "O σοφός <<πάθεσι>> μάλλον συσχεσθήσεσθαι ουκ αν εμποδίσαι προς την σοφίαν".

In english: "The wise man will be more deeply moved by <<feelings>> than others, but this will not prove to be an obstacle to his wisdom".

Moreover, Epicurus in his letter to Pythocles, he uses again this word "παθών" [pathon] with the same meaning. The greek text is "ἔτι δὲ κριτηρίων καὶ <<παθῶν>> καὶ οὗ ἕνεκεν ταῦτα ἐκλογιζόμεθα"· And means "and also of the criteria of truth and of the <<feelings>>, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things".

And finally, please, think also and another english word that is the word "empathy" that includes the greek word "πάθος" [pathos-passion] and means something very important that is : the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation.

Conclusion: The neoplatonists, along with stoicism, the only that they have in mind is to remove, expel, uproot all the feelings [πάθη-pathi] from the human being.

In regard to the comment that has been referenced recently that Voltaire is recorded to have praised "On The Nature of the Gods" very highly, I've found this on wikipedia:

This work, alongside De Officiis and De Divinatione, was highly influential on the philosophes of the 18th century. David Hume was familiar with the work and used it to style his own Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.^[17] Voltaire described De Natura Deorum and the Tusculan Disputations as "the two most beautiful books ever produced by the wisdom of humanity".^[18]

De Natura Deorum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The footnote for that is:

'Les deux plus beaux ouvrages qu’ait jamais écrits la sagesse qui n’est qu’humaine' [Voltaire, "Cicéron", Dictionnaire philosophique (1764); Œuvres complètes (Garnier) 18:181]

Well the reason it may have sounded good to Usener (and LittleRocker and others) is that it does fit the upbeat mood that I think we agree the Epicureans were trying to capture. The truth about death being nothing to us is not a downer but the ultimate in liberation, and one way we can cheer up LittleRocker and others is to emphasize that we understand the point by making it clear that even if the line *didn't* end that way, it *could* have ended that way, and maybe even if Metrodorus or whoever wrote it had thought about the allusion, they *would* have ended it that way!

Quote from Don

Aristophanes ended his plays like that a lot.

A number of plays were ended explicitly saying "follow me singing triumph, triumph!" (??)

If so, then that helps further to understand Usener's point.

Earlier today I got a chance to review the video I posted above in post #2 and I want to expand my earlier comment. (Caveat: I listened to it, rather that watched it, so I didn't consider facial expressions or motions, so I don't know if those would detract from my otherwise favorable reaction)

I was VERY impressed with the discussion and I think it's well worth watching for most anyone, even if you're not listening to the current episodes of the podcast.

The subjects covered in OTNOTG appear to be much more broad and deep than I expected, so I think we're going to get as much out of it as we got out of "On Ends." This discussion does a good job of pointing out how important these issues are, and how much they turn on issues of physics and of epistemology rather than any narrow view of "religion."

I think over time this video may prompt discussion that will apply to much more than this Episode 230 of our podcast, so I will move it to a separate thread of its own and I encourage further discussion about it.

Anyone familiar with the reference to Aristophanes? The suggestion that there was an intentional reference to what happens at the end of it does seem something that is possible, so worth considering, if it is famous enough to be considered a common cultural reference.

Maybe in this case Usener is suggesting a reasonable possibility. At least it is good to know a potential basis for the suggestion.

I am finding that there has been a lot of recent activity around Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods."

In addition to the current series that Professor Greg Sadler is doing from a Stoic perspective, I see there is this video which is an interview with someone who did a new translation (last year) of the same work.

The translator is George J. Thomas (a lawyer who writes under the pen name Quintus Curtius) and Michael Fontaine, Professor of Classics at Cornell University.

I think it's pretty clear that neither of these gentlemen consider themselves to be Epicurean, but I was very impressed with their interest and enthusiasm of interest in Epicurus and in Cicero's work in systematizing a presentation of the major philosophical issues of his day.

Quite possibly the main reason I would suggest people watch this video is that it does a great job of discussing how "On The Nature of the Gods" is a very important work that deals with a lot more than just dry issues of "religion." One quote from the video is that apparently Voltaire said that this book "On The Nature of the Gods" was one of the two most important books ever written. Unfortunately they did not mention what he said the other book was.

They make lots of remarks in this video that are of great interest to our current series of Lucretius Today Podcast episodes, so this is separate thread that we can link to as time goes by.

Also I should say that I purchased a Kindle edition of the new translation, and i am very pleased with it. I also purchased the audio version on Audible, which I'll be frank and say that I am less pleased with, because I personally find the narrator's dramatic tone off-putting. But of course that's a purely personal take and your mileage may vary. I'll continue to look for a "neutral" voice in a free edition and I'll link it here if I can find one. There's a librevox version available, but I have to say I don't find that one to my taste either.