Posts by Cassius

In preparing for the podcast today I see this quote from Chapter 7 of A Few Days In Athens, which also seems relevant to recent posts in this discussion:

Quote from Statement By Frances Wright's Epicurus in A Few Days In Athens

Some few generations, when the amiable virtues of Epicurus, and the sublime excellence of Zeno, shall live no longer in remembrance or tradition, the fierce or ambitious bigots of some new sect may alike calumniate both; proclaim the one for a libertine, and the other for a hypocrite. But I will allow that I am more open to detraction than Zeno: that while your school shall be abandoned, mine shall more probably be disgraced. But it will be the same cause that produces the two effects. It will be equally the degeneracy of man that shall cause the discarding of your doctrines, and the perversion of mine. Why then should the prospect of the future disturb Epicurus more than Zeno? The fault will not lie with me any more than you: but with the vices of my followers, and the ignorance of my judges. I follow my course, guided by what I believe to be wisdom; with the good of man at my heart, adapting my advice to his situation, his disposition, and his capacities. My efforts may be unsuccessful, my intentions maybe calumniated; but as I know these to be benevolent, so I shall continue those, unterrified and unruffled by reproaches, unchilled by occasional ingratitude and frequent disappointment.”

This episode will be a good occasion to remember what Frances Wright has Epicurus say in his confrontation with Zeno (Chapter 7 of A Few Days In Athens). This is Epicurus answering Zeno's charge that Epicurean philosophy leaves an open door to vice:

Quote from A Few Days In Athens Chapter 7

“Zeno, in his present speech, has rested much of the truth of his system on its expediency; I, therefore, shall do the same by mine. The door to my gardens is ever open, and my books are in the hands of the public; to enter, therefore, here, into the detail or the expounding of the principles of my philosophy, were equally out of place and out of season. ‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’ This is the thrust which Zeno now makes at Epicurus; and did it hit, I grant it were a mortal one. From the flavour, we pronounce of the fruit; from the beauty and the fragrance, of the flower; and in a system of morals, or of philosophy, or of whatever else, what tends to produce good we pronounce to be good, what to produce evil, we pronounce to be evil. I might indeed support the argument, that our opinion with regard to the first principles of morals has nought to do with our practice; — that whether I stand my virtue upon prudence, or propriety, or justice, or benevolence, or self-love, that my virtue is still one and the same; that the dispute is not about the end, but the origin; that of all the thousands who have yielded homage to virtue, hardly one has thought of inspecting the pedestal she stands upon; that as the mariner is guided by the tides, though ignorant of their causes, so does a man obey the rules of virtue, though ignorant of the principles on which those rules are founded: and that the knowledge of those principles would affect the conduct of the man, no more than acquaintance with the causes of the tides would affect the conduct of the mariner. But this I shall not argue; in doing so I might seem but to fight you flying. I shall meet your objection in the face. And I say — that allowing the most powerful effects to spring from the first grounds of a moral system; — the worst or the best, — that mine, if the best, is to be so judged by the good it does and the evil it prevents, must be ranked among the best.

If, as you say, and I partly believe, the iron and the golden ages are past, the youth and the manhood of the world, and that the weakness of old age is creeping on us — then, as you also say, our youth, dandled on the lap of indulgence, shall turn with sickened ears from the severe moral of Zeno; and then I say, that in the gardens, and in the gardens only, shall they find a food, innocent, yet adapted to their sickly palates; an armor, not of iron fortitude, but of silken persuasion, that shall resist the progress of their degeneracy, or throw a beauty even over their ruin. But, perhaps, though Zeno should allow this last effect of my philosophy to be probable, he will not approve it: his severe eye looks with scorn, not pity, on the follies and vices of the world. He would annihilate them, change them to their opposite virtues, or he would leave them to their full and natural sweep. ‘Be perfect, or be as you are. I allow of no degrees of virtue, so care not for the degrees of vice. Your ruin, if it must be, let it be in all its horrors, in all its vileness; let it attract no pity, no sympathy; let it be seen in all its naked deformity, and excite the full measure of its merited abhorrence and disgust.’

Thus says the sublime Zeno, who sees only man as he should be. Thus says the mild Epicurus, who sees man as he is: — With all his weakness, all his errors, all his sins, still owning fellowship with him, still rejoicing in his welfare, and sighing over his misfortunes; I call from my gardens to the thoughtless, the headstrong, and the idle — ‘Where do ye wander, and what do ye seek? Is it pleasure? Behold it here. Is it ease? Enter and repose.’ Thus do I court them from the table of drunkenness and the bed of licentiousness: I gently awaken their sleeping faculties, and draw the veil from their understandings: — ‘My sons! do you seek pleasure? I seek her also. Let us make the search together. You have tried wine, you have tried love; you have sought amusement in reveling, and forgetfulness in indolence. You tell me you are disappointed: that your passions grew, even while you gratified them; your weariness increased even while you slept. Let us try again. Let us quiet our passions, not by gratifying, but subduing them; let us conquer our weariness, not by rest, but by exertion.’ Thus do I win their ears and their confidence. Step by step I lead them on. I lay open the mysteries of science; I expose the beauties of art; I call the graces and the muses to my aid; the song, the lyre, and the dance. Temperance presides at the repast; innocence at the festival; disgust is changed to satisfaction; listlessness to curiosity; brutality to elegance; lust gives place to love; Bacchanalian hilarity to friendship. Tell me not, Zeno, that the teacher is vicious who washes depravity from the youthful heart; who lays the storm of its passions, and turns all its sensibilities to good.

I grant that I do not look to make men great, but to make men happy. To teach them, that in the discharge of their duties as sons, as husbands, as fathers, as citizens, lies their pleasure and their interest; — and when the sublime motives of Zeno shall cease to affect an enervated generation, the gentle persuasions of Epicurus shall still be heard and obeyed. But you warn me that I shall be slandered, my doctrines misinterpreted, and my school and my name disgraced. I doubt it not. What teacher is safe from malevolence, what system from misconstruction? And does Zeno really think himself and his doctrines secure? He knows not then man’s ignorance and man’s folly. Some few generations, when the amiable virtues of Epicurus, and the sublime excellence of Zeno, shall live no longer in remembrance or tradition, the fierce or ambitious bigots of some new sect may alike calumniate both; proclaim the one for a libertine, and the other for a hypocrite. But I will allow that I am more open to detraction than Zeno: that while your school shall be abandoned, mine shall more probably be disgraced. But it will be the same cause that produces the two effects. It will be equally the degeneracy of man that shall cause the discarding of your doctrines, and the perversion of mine. Why then should the prospect of the future disturb Epicurus more than Zeno? The fault will not lie with me any more than you: but with the vices of my followers, and the ignorance of my judges. I follow my course, guided by what I believe to be wisdom; with the good of man at my heart, adapting my advice to his situation, his disposition, and his capacities. My efforts may be unsuccessful, my intentions maybe calumniated; but as I know these to be benevolent, so I shall continue those, unterrified and unruffled by reproaches, unchilled by occasional ingratitude and frequent disappointment.”

Quote from Bryan

When it is put so simply, it is easy to simply disagree with it.

Ultimately, Einstein throws away the void, and his "vacuum" is affected by gravity.

It's early in the morning and I am exhausted from the pace of Don's first video as i read this

But rather than just pass over that I'm not sure of the final impact of post 3, I want to be sure I grasp it since you took the trouble to edit it 10 times

Are (1) the illustration of dropping the penny from the train and (2) Einstein in this context, correct, or incorrect?

I mentioned in the episode that I would link to sections of Wagner's "Tannhauser" where the lead character sings that beauty should be touched and embraced rather than simply admired from afar in a "Platonic love" kind of way.

Here are the excerpts I posted in the past. I will update this post with the minute mark for where to find the specific part.

I have two clips - this first one is a "best of Defense of Pleasure" which focuses on the key defense of Venus /Pleasure arguments (and more up-tempo music).

In this clip, the discussion of embracing beauty starts around 3:40, but this shorter clip doesn't give the "Platonic" side to which he is reacting:

And in enjoyment alone do I recognize love!

This second is significantly longer and contains most of the dialogue that sets up the background issues of the conflict with Pleasure/Venus. Start at 14:38 and you will get the setup, including the "platonic" singers praising beauty but saying that it cannot be touched. Wolfram von Essenbach summarizes the "glamor" of virtue.... and then the second pro-virtue singer nails the "keep your distance" part.

Thank you for the great graphic and thank you for all your great work this year Kalosyni!

Just for reference in this episode I see that one sentence from Cicero is:

Quote

Pray do you think, Torquatus, that old Imperiosus, if he were listening to our talk, would find greater pleasure in giving ear to your speech about himself, or to mine, in which I stated that he had done nothing from regard for himself, but everything in the interest of the commonwealth; while on the contrary you said he had done nothing but what he did out of regard to himself?

I had to look up "Imperiosus" --- and I see that's one of he names given to one of Torquatus' ancestors:

Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus

Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.