Posts by Cassius

Very good! Sounds like you wrote this for another context - it might even be the text of a youtube video or something similar, like your Cyrano presentation?

Quote from BrainToBeing

And, it is not my intent to be a disruptive iconoclast.

I don't think that anyone here thinks you are a disruptive iconoclast. It's a pleasure and a privilege to communicate with professionals like yourself about your areas of expertise. You have already pointed up a series of important questions on which we need to be able to think through Epicurus' positions and better shape our own. If you are able to find the time to talk with us further after you read some of the core "philosophy" through DeWitt, I am sure your commentary would be even more beneficial to the forum than what you've already brought.

I don't recall seeing that from Hegel previously -- thanks for posting!

Salisuhassan - Could you please respond to your welcome thread -

These last several posts deserve a thread of their own, and I think the best place for this (and the thread about what things have changed in the last 2000 years) will be the "Epicurean Philosophy vs Scientism" subforum. So moving there now....

Quote from BrainToBeing

The leaders in EpicureanFriends have devoted great time to the study of perspectives derived 2000 years ago. So, the question: How does this devotion lead you to life perspectives for today that you could not derive from similar effort to examining the world today?

This is not meant or intended to be a challenge. It is not that at all. Rather, it is a question about how the philosophical frameworks of two millennia ago are the same or different from today.

I'm listening to episode 200 of the podcasts. And, I've gotten "On The Nature of Things". And, I am ready to dive into The Letter to Menoeceus. But, before "going down the rabbit hole" I'm wondering if any of you can reflect on this issue of bringing "then" to "now". Thanks to any who wish to jump in. ( Joshua You referenced the concept of such application in Episode 200).

BrainToBeing I completely accept that you do not intend this to be a "challenge." However I think the way you are conveying this question indicates something important about the way you are approaching the entire question. Of what necessary relevance is it to the question of whether a particular idea is correct whether it is 2000 years old or 2 minutes old. If you are being frustrated by the lack of connection on your questions and answers, I think the frustration stems in part from that: philosophy does not generally base its view of whether something is correct based on how long the idea has been around.

I grant you in clinical practice times change fast, and one day's scientist is often the next day's quack. But the general definition of "what is a quack" does not change by year.

It appears to me that you have done little reading so far into either the texts themselves or to the well-reasoned commentaries (DeWitt, primarily, in this context, though I would include Austin as well).

You seem to be evaluating solely on the basis of "what is the latest science" which is totally understandable for a clinician, but is not "philosophy."

If I am in a car accident and I need surgery for broken bones, then I want the best clinician with the latest medical information that I can find.

But if I am suffering from an existential crisis of anxiety over whether I am going to hell when I die or whether a supernatural god will punish me for being "evil" or whether there are ideal absolutes by which I should live, a "clinician" is going to be of no use whatsoever. Certainly at some times certain people struggle with such issues because they have biological or chemical issues, and a clinician is needed to being their functioning ability back to "the norm." But in the general cases that we are dealing with, where bodily health issues are not in questions, a clinical approach is never going to answer the questions that we really want to know.

My strong advice is that rather than reading any of the letter or the more specific material, you get into the DeWitt book, and let him introduce you to the full spectrum of issues that Epicurus was addressing. DeWitt is exactly tuned toward addressing the "big picture" that you are looking for so you can accept or reject it.

Epicurus' starting point was that he wanted to understand how the world could have come into being from nothing, and he rejected the idea that his teachers - the "clinicians" of his day - taught him.

You may or may not personally profit from Epicurus' approach, and if you don't need it then I applaud you for being so unaffected by the deeper philosophical issues. But the clinical approach can't resolve these questions for the ordinary man on the street, and the general direction toward addressing them has to come through a philosophy that deals with issues of what "should be" (which Epicurus holds should be based on what "is"), and not on an arbitrary selection of a goal through a clinical approach that never gets to the heart of what "should be" in the first place.

I understand that there are all sorts of ways to frame questions of how to get from what "is" to what "ought to be" in our own lives. Epicurus gives us one coherent approach that we can accept and reject, but in Epicurus' case his opinions being 2000 years old are a feature - because they have stood the test of time - rather than a fault.

Tonight while doing some recreational video surfing I came across an old Twilight Zone episode which does a good job of expressing the problems that arise from "Divination." First, here are some selected quotes, followed by a link to the video:

U395

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, X.135: Elsewhere he rejects divination entirely, such as in the Small Summary.

Aetius (Plutarch), Doxography, V.1.2 [p. 415 Diels]: Xenophanes and Epicurus dismissed the art of divination.

Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, II.65.162: Prediction of future events is a favorite target for the wit of Epicurus.

Cicero, On Divination, I.3.5: All the rest, except for Epicurus, who spoke nonsense about the nature of the gods, endorsed divination.

Ibid., II.17.40: Hence, while [Epicurus] takes a roundabout way to destroy the gods, he does not hesitate to take a short road to destroy divination. [cf. Ibid., I.39.87; 49.109; II.17.39; 23.51]

Scholion on Aeschylus, Prometheus, 624: Epicureanism is the doctrine that abolishes divination; indeed, they say “Given that destiny rules all, you have procured pain ahead of time; predicting instead something positive, you have wiped out the pleasure of its realization. On the other hand, they also say “That which must happen, will still happen.”

Origen, Against Celsus, VII.3, [p. 343 Hoesch.]: In regard to the oracles here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages to show that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who utterly discredited the oracles which were recognized and admired throughout the whole of Greece.

Cf. Lucian, Alexander the Oracle Monger, 17: It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by skepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.

Ibid., 25: Well, it was war to the knife between [Alexander] and Epicurus, and no wonder. What fitter enemy for a charlatan who patronized miracles and hated truth, than the thinker who had grasped the nature of things and was in solitary possession of that truth? ... The unmitigated Epicurus, as he used to call him, could not but be hateful to him, treating all such pretensions as absurd and puerile.

Sounds very interesting - thank you EW!

Cassius wrote a new article:

Article

Interview With Dr. Emily Austin: "Living For Pleasure"

In Episodes 156 and 157, the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. Emily Austin, author of 2022's "Living For Pleasure."

Cassius

January 9, 2024 at 10:26 AM

Quote

In Episodes 156 and 157, the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. Emily Austin, author of 2022's "Living For Pleasure."

Glad to have you Eggplant Wizard! Many people were touched by the work of Erik Anderson and it is good that someone was able to get his site back online at https://epicurism.info!

BraintoBeing I apologize for not being able to follow this thread more closely - I have been traveling on business and extremely short of time. Here's a place where I will hop back in:

Quote from BrainToBeing

Therefore, I'm smart enough to know I don't know everything and cannot exclude the possibility of God. In my journey I simply leave the issue as undecided.

...And if that position works for you, and you feel no stress or strain in your life by "leaving the issue as undecided," then I say more power to you!

And while I expect that Epicurus would likely tell you something similar (that what doesn't bother you is of no concern), the project Epicurus was on as a philosophical and moral reformer was that of developing a full "worldview" that could be of help to those people Lucretius described as "hearts in darkness" or Diogenes of Oinoanda described as "lost sheep." I would wager that you as a science professional have developed knowledge and capabilities that only a very small fraction of the world has ever or will ever duplicate, and Epicurus was addressing his philosophy to those ordinary people for whom these questions of life after death and supernatural gods are of great immediate concern. Epicurus' position, with which I would agree, is that it is necessary to deal forthrightly with those critical issues and not remain in "doubt" (which is itself a pain) on these subjects. There has been and probably will always be a continuing tension between a philosophical approach to questions of epistemology vs a "clinical" approach where someone is comfortable taking the position "this is all I know" and stopping. Observation alone is not going to get someone past that question of how to deal with what cannot be observed. There's lots of good material out there on the debates between philosophers and scientists, and in the end the bigger questions of life that people must act upon are in the realm of philosophy, which (when you are a part of the Epicurean school) leads to the rejection of radical skepticism as a tenable position.

I haven't been able to read this thread closely enough to tell where you are on those issues other than to observe that you are dedicated scientist, and in the end "science" is not the same as "philosophy." I'm not sure I can adequately define the difference, but maybe that is something that needs to be addressed in this conversation.

Wow that is great! When you get it in the form where you are ready for us to feature it as a resource on the page please let us know. Looks like you have made a lot of progress!

Glad to have you! If you are an engineer then the level of detail presented in DeWitt's book may indeed appeal to you, and you'll find that he stays away from "jargon" as well. I have to say I find "jargon" very off-putting too, and I'd like to think that our site here keeps that to a minimum. Please let us know any thoughts or questions you have as you read through the site.

Quote from Martin

Pleasure is not limited to immediate pleasure. More often than not, the Epicurean way means taking action which involves direct pain and results only much later in increased pleasure as compared to not have taken that action.

Not only is it not limited to "immediate," but time is only one of the factors involved. The much more profound aspect is that when Epicurus says that there are only two feelings, and that what is not pain is pleasure, then he is referring to experiences that most people do not think of as immediate sensory pleasure at all.

Sorry I have not been keeping up recently but this is what I would say in summary after reading the exchanges. Most everything that I see BraintoBeing describing as motivating him does not fit in either of the categories of physical pain or physical pleasure, although those sensations accompany certain aspects of all he is describing. if I read what BTB is saying correctly, he says that he finds "satisfying" and emotionally "the right thing to do" all sorts of things that are not immediate sensory pain or pleasure. Those aspects of awareness which are not perceived as painful Epicurus is considering to be pleasure.

So most of BraintoBeings' issues with "pleasure" as i read them continue to revolve around the limited definition he (and most people) give to the word "pleasure."

That is why it is important to study what the Epicureans actually said and wrote and not rely on the superficial definition of pleasure that the anti-Epicureans argued in the ancient world and that continues to prevail today. If someone is interested in digging into those details then they will find a lot to work with in what Epicurus wrote. If someone isn't interested in digging into that level of detail then they will find Epicurean formulations nothing but frustrating and they will go on hitting their heads against the wall until their heads give way and they go on to something more productive for them.

We see this over and over and over again. People see certain things that they like in Epicurus, but they don't get engaged in the details of what the ancient Epicureans really taught, and they spend their time churning their wheels over why they think Epicurus just really didn't go far enough in limiting his perspective to "pleasure." It's all very frustrating both for them and for those who actually **do** read into the details of Epicurus. And what I'm describing is probably 90% plus of the internet discussion of Epicurus.

This is much like the problem with humanism - they reject a theological basis for morality but then proceed to embrace exactly the same morality with only a few changes around the edges that the theologists embrace. Epicurus went much deeper to challenge the very definitions of good and evil in a very Nietzsche-like "beyond good and evil" way.

So I think this is a productive conversation so far, but to ever bring any kind of resolution to the issues the question of the definition of pleasure has to be addressed, and then after that it has to be made clear whether the "pleasure" being referred to is as Epicurus described it or as the rest of the world insists on describing it.

Not an easy thing to do but otherwise we just talk past each other forever.

Welcome thatchickinpa !

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 presume one place to start is to collect some links to where his original works (hopefully translated) can be found. I haven't had time to start looking into what's available on the internet on him or their translation state. And it would be good to hear from Charles as to whether he knows anything on this topic.

If he was a student of Gassendi then one would think that he most definitely had something to say about Epicurus at some point.

I just reviewed the presentation to the end. You deserve a lot of credit for putting together such a good slideshow. We need to take yours as an example and set something of similar format up on Epicurus himself.

I was not aware of much of that background at all. So are there texts by Cyrano mentioning Epicurus specifically.

If you have time could you summarize what he had to say (if at all) about Epicurus and Lucretius?

I think we should tag this presentation for Joshua to be sure he sees it:

That presentation looks very impressive Cyrano! I haven't had a chance to watch it all but it looks very creative! And I remember the jose ferrer movie with great affection.