Posts by Cassius

Added under the second bullet point of the Canonics section:

Diogenes Laertius 31: "Thus in The Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and anticipations and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind." Direct perceptions of the mind (phantastikai epibolai tes dianoias) are mentioned in the Letter to Herodotus [51] and Principal Doctrine #24, but the remaining texts are unclear as to how direct perceptions of the mind relate to the sensations (aistheseis), anticipations (prolepseis), and feelings (pathe).

Thanks Tau Phi.

Great suggestion and I will add that in!

Here is a link to the Pie Chart Presentation mentioned in the episode:

Thread

A Draft of A Pie Chart Presentation of Basic Concepts In Epicurean Pleasure

I took a detour from editing the podcast because I have been wanting to put together a presentation on pleasure using a pie chart format.

Here's a first draft of that. Not nearly what it should be, but maybe it will inspire someone to do better:

Please turn on close captions for best effect.

youtu.be/dTjFycUd3L4

Cassius

November 30, 2023 at 2:21 PM

Episode 204 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

Quote from BrainToBeing

Is that enough?

Very helpful on that big philosophical issue of whether we're born "blank slate!"

Quote from Godfrey

What are examples of "bootstrap" behavioral programs?

Sounds like almost a computer reference as well, an allusion to bootloaders and other more basic software (maybe the kernel) that are loaded prior to the full operating system, which is itself loaded before the "application programs" and any data which has been fed into those.

Quote from Don

Some of us here have settled(?) on the idea of prolepseis as being the ability of the human mind to recognize patterns of significance in the flood of sense data that pours in. That's the very basic idea we've hit upon.

Prolepsis / Anticipations was the focus of our interview with Dr. David Glidden .

Blog Article

Lucretius Today Interviews Dr. David Glidden on Epicurean Prolepsis

In Episode 166 the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. David Glidden, professor emeritus from the University of California - Riverside, about his articles "Epicurean Prolepsis" and "Epicurean Thinking.

The podcast version and discussion is here:

Episode 166 - The Lucretius Today Podcast Interviews Dr. David Glidden on "Epicurean Prolepsis" And the episode can be played on Youtube here:

youtu.be/xz201PEnNQc

Cassius

March 23, 2023 at 5:28 PM

One of the big issues in debates about what Epicurus meant was whether prolepsis refers to a logical process of "concept-formation after repeated exposure to certain things," or whether (as seems more likely) Epicurus was constructing a theory of how what we refer to as concepts are developed "intuitively" with less reliance on logical syllogisms and the like.

You'll find that some of the most interesting debates about Epicurus revolve around his attitude toward "logic" -- and how he at the same time both elevated "reasoning" while deprecating syllogistic logic. Prolepsis seems to be at least in part the mechanism by which he was approaching how humans learn and think without being reliant on syllogistic logic.

Quote from BrainToBeing

This is much fun!

And that is among our top goals, and something we've been discussing recently so that expectations are proper for all of us. No cult-building or religion-building here; the best we can provide is friendship and help to those interested in Epicurus.

Out aim isn't to out-scholar the scholars but to provide a community where people interested in Epicurus can interact. Hopefully in the future there will be enough people for live local meetings and other engagement, In the meantime we can use technology to emulate in virtual space what an ancient Epicurean community might have provided in terms of friendship and engagement with like-minded people who are working in parallel on a similar path.

Quote from Don

You're also not the only one here that finds that topic of less interest, so you're certainly not alone in that sentiment.

Thanks for that reply Don as it pointed out to me that I had misread the post about the gods (I corrected mine in response!)

Quote from frank1syl

I have listened to all of the Lucretius Today podcasts on De Witt's book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy".

Wow that's great! It's always good to hear that someone is listening because it's hard to tell from the "statistics" whether the listens/downloads we see are real people or just computers talking to themselves

It's good to have you and we look forward to discussing any topic (even the gods as needed!) with you.

Thanks for saying hello and let us know if you need anything with which we can help.

Joshua has commented that today (December is Horace's Birthday:

Birthday of Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Called Horace (Thu, Dec 7th 2023-Fri, Dec 8th 2023) - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

As Don said, great first post and thanks for taking time to talk with us.

Quote from BrainToBeing

Rather, in my opinion, it gives us insight into what may be concluded based on the information they had, versus what can be concluded based on the information we have. And, it puts into focus the importance of education which is focused on perspectives rather than just small facts.

Yes it's amazing to follow their thought processes and realize that they were able to reach so many good conclusions based on the limited information that they had.

To me Epicurean philosophy is particularly interesting due to its "materialist" perspective that looks for answers in understandable phenomena rather than abstracted "logic" that frequently gets divorced from the reality of the biological organism. One example we've been discussing recently is the question of the relationship of the "senses" to the feeling of pleasure and pain (as well as to the mechanism of prolepsis/anticipations that Epicurus also considered). Cicero attacked Epicurus alleging that Epicurus was relying solely on the senses to conclude that "pleasure" is the goal of life, but given that the Epicurean standard of what is true and real includes not only the five senses but also the faculty of pleasure/pain and the faculty of anticipations, it seems like there was much more to Epicurus' analysis than the simple contention that eyes or ears themselves - without further connections - judge what is pleasurable or painful.

Anyway that's just one recent discussion. Thank you for dropping in, and though our community isn't huge we have good number of sincere people who are interested in these discussions, so feel free to post whenever you see or think of something interesting.

As per some comments in the thread for Episode 203, in 204 we return to the discussion of whether it was accurate of Cicero to allege that Epicurus relied *solely* on the senses for his deduction that pleasure is the highest good.

Joshua points out in this current episode that what Torquatus really said in book one was (note the underlining):

Quote

IX. I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.

Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature.

What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance? Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason. Accordingly they declare that the perception that the one is to be sought after and the other avoided is a notion naturally implanted in our minds. Others again, with whom I agree, observing that a great many philosophers do advance a vast array of reasons to prove why pleasure should not be counted as a good nor pain as an evil, consider that we had better not be too confident of our case; in their view it requires elaborate and reasoned argument, and abstruse theoretical discussion of the nature of pleasure and pain.

Based on the underlined parts I think we have a clear line that "the senses alone" are not really the end of the story for Epicurus. Here's a couple of questions;

1. What does "at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict' really mean? Isn't it a given of Epicurean theory of the senses that the senses themselves simply report what they receive 'without evaluation'? Well, isn't deciding whether something is pleasing or painful an "evaluation" of at least a sort?
2. "For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident." -
   
   1. Doesn't both "notice" and especially "reminder" indicate something more than a present sense impression? "Reminder' seems to evoke memory, and if I recall correctly somewhere else it is stated that the senses themselves have no memory.
3. The line "as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them" contains at least two relevant aspects:
   1. Aren't "hot," "white," and "sweet" evaluations of a sort? Certainly those terms as words are concepts.
   2. Isn't drawing "attention" to them something that involves more than just the operation of the senses?
4. "Can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason" might not be a reference to a logical proof, but the action of the consciousness to grasp something that involves prolepsis or whatever the separate faculty of pleasure/pain really is.
5. "Accordingly they declare that the perception that the one is to be sought after and the other avoided is a "notion" "naturally implanted in our minds."
   1. This phrasing ("notion" and "naturally implanted") seems pretty clearly to evoke the likelihood that prolepsis is involved.

Now this last item 5 seems to belong to a list that Torquatus is not attributing to Epicurus himself, but I think that there's ample reason even in what Torquatus has said to think that Cicero was overstating his case to say that Epicurus was relying *only* on the five senses.

We didn't spend an overly long amount of time talking about this but I think it's an important point worth further thought.

I am pretty sure Joshua that the forum does an excellent job handling movement of the posts. I have not seen issues arise with unfulfilled redirections after moving things around. If anyone *does* observe that at any point, let us know here, but the forum software is set up to allow exactly the kind of thing Kalosyni is doing.

Kalosyni's recent post about doing some forum reorganization is a good time to point out that we're always going to need multiple ways to access information so it can be found quickly. Recently we implemented the "Navigation Map" on the front page, and of course the "Forum List" is itself an organized structure for filing things. We don't make an extensive use of "Tags," but that feature is available in addition to the "Search" page. It's also possible to search the forum using google (or any other search engine) and combine EpicureanFriends.com as one of the search terms.  Here's an example of such a search.

For my personal use, I always continue to work on a personal outline with the aim of quickly being able to zoom back and forth between the big picture and the individual details, including citations. The latest version of this outline is here, and I am happy to release it for public use and comment. I intend to continue working on this format to increase the level of detail and improve the citations, some of which are not yet finished at all, so I welcome comments in this thread that I can use to improve it.

I frequently move back and forth between software programs as to how to make this more effective, and I'll probably take the same data over time and release it in other formats. In the meantime this format is probably going to look best on a cellphone/tablet "portrait" format, rather than a wide-screen computer display. I think the purpose of an outline like this is consistent with the idea of using it mainly on a portable device, so this format should work well for that screen size. Over time we can fiddle with the html if desired and make it more attractive.

Here's a direct link:

Epicurean Philosophy Navigation Outline

Basic Aspects of Epicurean Philosophy.

handbook.epicureanfriends.com

Here's a version where a word-search on the page works much more easily. The collapsible version now has a link at the top of the page which will take you to this "alternate" page view.

To repeat: additions, subtractions, clarifications, suggestions, etc., are welcome, especially as to citations to include under each bullet point. This will always be a "work in progress."

This program was pointed out to me today and it's worth a link. It's apparently seven hours long and there's no way I am going to watch much of it, but I already see a very useful aspect of it.

If you'll check out the link starting at 7:23 you will see a fiveminute long dramatic reading of Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus. Seems to me that watching this is really good for helping it sink in how utterly anchored Stoicism is in a theistic world-view. In the Stoic framework Zeus gives orders to nature in every bit as sweeping way as any Abrahamic religion ever dreamed of. In my view it's only in this kind of framework that Stoicism makes any kind of sense at all -- and if you once reject the theistic base, the rest falls away quickly too.

Listening to this reading helps dramatize that a world-view of nature that rejects such ideas is at the core of Epicurus' philosophy. Pleasure as the goal is where you end up when you realize that "Zeus" doesn't have other plans, but you first have to deal with the mindset expressed here. Casual readers of Stoicism need to see this and understand what really divides the schools.

Welcome BrainToBeing !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

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

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

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

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

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

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

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the forum!

I don't know that I would consider it a "rules based standard," but I think we have to all face the question and answer for ourselves whether different types of pleasure are in fact interchangeable, or whether they differ in at least intensity, duration, and location.

And are those three considerations the *only* distinctions? I think probably not.

What I see us discussing here is that while all pleasures are not reducible to atomic "pleasure units," it is still essential to confront and answer for ourselves whether our rankings of them are totally subjective whims of the moment, or whether they are linked to repeatable and regular bodily or mental phenomena that can usefully be described in repeatable observations, or what.

I do think that it is useful exercise to at least in our individual capacities examine how we want to answer those questions.

My bright line is drawn that I think it's totally inappropriate to take "my" measurements of relative values of pleasure, and presume that my own measurements apply to other people, or that there's any natural design to "maximize pleasure units for all" -- that kind of thing. "The greatest good for the greatest number" has always seemed to me to be a prescription for total monotheism / authoritarianism.

But short of that, I think the exercise we're engaging in is useful, at the very least in that it emphasizes this bright line where I gather that (apparently) the Benthamite utilitarians went far afield.

Frank -- Thanks for joining us here on the forum. I just posted a "Welcome" message to you -- please be sure to take a look at that.

As for your question, the first and primary source that comes to mind on this topic is the statement from Torquatus as recorded in On Ends Book One section XVII -- see item (3) below

De finibus bonorum et malorum : Cicero, Marcus Tullius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Latin and English on opposite pages

archive.org

Welcome frank1syl !

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!