Posts by Cassius

It was partly but not entirely light-hearted. I do not think that humans will be limited to this planet much longer, and after that the solar system, and eventually the galaxy, will be left behind. And it will be entirely reasonable to leave our Sun behind when it eventually seems likely to terminate in some way.

I don't see that viewpoint as any different from the actions of Nature / Venus / Pleasure cited in the opening of book one of Lucretius in spurring all living things on to continue their species. Nature calls us to pursue pleasure as long as we are able, and life is necessary for pleasure.

Of course you are right that this is not a personal immortality for you or me or any particular person, even though I would expect lengthening of life span to go along with the technology of space travel. Not does a longer life mean "greater" pleasure. The theoretical maximum of "complete" pleasure is not made more complete by added time, but that does not mean that continued life and variety are not desirable.

Complete pleasure cannot be made more complete, but variety is pleasurable, pleasure is desirable, and pleasure requires life. All four observations are true, and none negate the others.

To me this gets back to the issue of "how long we should seek to live." I have always maintained that what Epicurus is saying is that life and variety are desirable, and the problem with worrying too much about them is that we do not have the ability to maintain them indefinitely. The hard limit is not 50 or 60 or 70 years but the "indefinitely" which is the logical hard limit that we have to accept.

But if we can expand healthy life to 100 years or 150 years or more there is no reason not to do so, and I think it would be foolish not to. This is why I usually kick back at the "I am satisfied that I have lived long enough" sentiment, because in my view Epicurus is saying that life is always desirable when it can be lived with more pleasure than pain, and that point when pain predominates is a practical one of circumstance, not a theoretical or logical limit which is fixed by God or fate or even nature itself. If healthy life span can be extended by technology, anc we have already made strides in medicine to do so, it seems non-controversial to me than an Epicurean would do so. If Epicurus has had the technology, he would have cured his kidney issues and continued on leading his school til some other factor intervened.

To me the question of life span is a subset of the ultimate question of "what happens to me if I make such and such a choice?". If the result of the longer life span, which is available in some technological way, is more pleasure than pain, then that choice is fully proper.

I think my attitude here is why I have no issue with the Epicurean gods being real. I see no issues at all with Epicurus being comfortable with space travel any more than he would have had an issue with human flight. A logical extension of the infinite and eternal universe, and insomnia, is that infinite numbere of species of human-like beings, of "infinite" technological advancement, have existed for an "infinite" time into the past, and will so exist into the infinite future. Their technology would naturally be expected to be far more advanced than ours, and they would be able to maintain themselves essentially indefinitely in what we would consider to be a perfectly happy state. And that's a goal worthy of emulation.

I think Epicurus would say that what is real to us is controlled by what we sense, feel, and anticipate, but we have to keep an open mind that advances in technology over time will expand what we ourselves find to be possible to sense, feel, and anticipate. No one 500 years ago could reasonably expect the details of our technology today.

I can't imagine Epicurus taking the position that "if God had meant men to fly he would have given them wings." What we do know is that nature has provided pleasure as a driving force, and one of the ways nature expresses pleasure is in the continuation of species, and the desire to continue to live where more life affords continuing pleasure. This is not far at all from Lucian's space travel story.

So I would consider it non-controversial from an Epicurean point of view that future generations of humans would act to continue their species in the face of any and all threats, including the end of our solar system, just as all other living things do.

Quote from Julia

I suggest we agree on “Time will tell, and until then, let's agree to disagree.” I will read your reply, but I won't reply in-turn to keep in line with the “no contemporary politics” rule; I feel like I've already overstepped the mark on that.

This sounds like a good plan. I don't know that the discussion has already gotten over the line of the "no contemporary politics" rule, but we'll all be better off if we talk mostly about the immediate personal dangers posed by potential emergencies and how to respond to them, rather than the policy issues that may lead to those issues.

Most of what would be productive to discuss could just as easily be attributable to "normal" acts of mother nature as much as anything else.

I do suggest at some future point that Epicureans consider getting together to produce an escape plan when the final end of the earth appears imminent (as Lucretius discusses will occur at some point) but unless some of us are extremely well positioned in a space program, we probably are just as well off leaving that for another day as well.

As noted above these posts were split off from the Solar Flare discussion.

The topic of self-suffiency in times of crisis is a subset of "Ethics" or "Lifestyle," and independent, but equally or more important, than the "prediction" aspect.

So let's post about the "dealing with" aspects of solar flares in this subforum, where it is nearby with other "disaster scenario" threads, and keep the "prediction and extent of" aspects in the other thread in the Physics section.

Julia if you would like to tweak the first post or the thread title in this subforum please feel free to do so.

I think that something like "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" is a good topic for continued discussion as I am very interested in doing some preparation myself. I spend a lot of time in a rural area subject to possibly weeke-long interruption in power from ice storme and hurricanes, so this is of practical interest.

Kalosyni we should look at moving this into a new topic under the lifestyle section, and revising the "personal posting" in general to a more specific name that reflects how even these posts are topical.

I think that something like "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" is a good topic for continued discussion as I am very interested in doing some preparation myself. I spend a lot of time in a rural area subject to possibly weeke-long interruption in power from ice storme and hurricanes, so this is of practical interest.

In this case I have "copied" (rather than moved) the last several posts into a new forum here:

Thread

Dealing With Electric Grid Disruption

Admin Edit - This thread was split off from the Solar Flare Discussion Started HERE.

---

[…]

I've been down this trail of thoughts – let me give you my travel notes, as they might simplify your journey through this rabbit hole

Why blackouts can happen anytime, anywhere:

• There is no advance warning: Back in 2006, when the European grid was still in quite good condition, one operator negligence in northern Germany split the entire grid into three segments (an automatic fail-safe procedure), in the

…

Julia

May 11, 2024 at 4:49 AM

Please try to pursue the discussion of "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" in that forum, and in this one let's keep the specific issue of solar flares and the like.

I am going to try to keep a running list of Velleius' arguments against the existence of supernatural gods. The full list will be here. Below are the new ones we will add in Episode 288:

1. What were the world-building gods doing for an eternity of time before they made the universe?
   1. "But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence. What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an ædile, to illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon. But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been without it so long.
2. Who benefited from the creation of the universe? If for the wise, that's a very small number. If for fools, why?
   1. Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly? Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or to bear when they are come.
3. Those who assert that the world itself is a god make no sense, because a round world hurtling through space cannot be a god.
   1. They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion, the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore, should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are parts of the world, some of the Deity’s limbs must be said to be scorched, and some frozen.
      

Welcome

to Episode 228 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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.

We are now discussing the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," and this week we continue with the argument of the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning in Section 9.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of Velleius' arguments against the existence of supernatural gods will be here.

Today's Text

IX. But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence. What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an ædile, to illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon. But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been without it so long.

Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly? Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or to bear when they are come.

X. They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion, the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore, should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are parts of the world, some of the Deity’s limbs must be said to be scorched, and some frozen.

These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?

It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?

Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?

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.

Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.

Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?

Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.

Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Today the Lucretius Today Podcast continues in the Epicurean section of Cicero's On The Nature of The Gods with Velleius beginning his attack on traditional views of the gods.

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

Very creative - thank you! Having intelligence without becoming corrupted over time is a very attractive character trait.

Glad to hear that you are OK Cyrano!

I find this to be a fascinating subject so thank you for those details Twentier and please keep adding them as you come across them.

Thanks Golbach for joining us at the meeting last night. It is always interesting and fun to hear about how people get interested in Epicurus and we look forward to your joining us again.

So far, it's Greek to me!

Today I saw someone at Reddit post that the video I am going to reference here is "A Great Introduction to Epicurus' Four Part Cure For Happiness." I know in the past I have seen this and I may have posted about it earlier, but it bears repeating how off base some (not all, but a significant part!) of this video is:

As a first comment I would ask "Why can't this person actually find a picture of Epicurus rather than use a false drawing of a bald Epicurus that is totally unlike what the ancients used?"

Then I would point out that never does Epicurus himself ever state that these four short statements are his "capital doctrines:" There is *one* occurrence of a formulation similar to this, in a Herculaneum scroll, and no other ancient source contains this formulation. Yes it's arguable that the actual doctrines can be construed to say something similar, but they say much more, with much different connotation.

But this next clip is the real reason I made this post:

This is the real heart of the problem. This slide and the audio overlay state that these are the two kinds of pleasure that Epicurus promoted, and this is simply not correct.

The true division of Pleasure into two kinds that characterizes the heart of Epicruean ethics is:

(1) Agreeable stimulation (for which sweet is a fine additional word if you want to use it to make things clear)

(2) All other awareness in life which is not painful.

This second type is NOT limited to a "tranquil, satisfied, self-sufficient, and self-assured stated." All of those adjectives are fine, as they are *parts* of pleasure, but the implication of this formulation is that "tranquility," "satisfaction," "self-sufficiency," and "self-assurance" (which I will now refer to as "TSSS") are somehow the *only* types of experience other than agreeable stimulation that are counted as within pleasure.

Even worse is to state or imply that this second category of TSSS describe a "higher" or "true" type of pleasure, for which agreeable stimulation is only a tool for achieving TSSS, and which can be dispensed when this TSSS is achieved (as if it can be achieved and maintained without the agreeable stimulation, which it can't, but that's an argument for later).

Once you read past these presentations of the "tetrapharmakon" into Epicurus' own letters, and into Diogenes Laertius, and into Cicero's summaries, you see that the key to the real picture is that Epicurus held there to be only two kind of feelings, pleasure and pain, and that every experience which is not painful should be considered as pleasure, and vice versa. Citations for this are here.

There is much more to say about this video, but I have circled in this next clip one particularly irritating way in which this viewpoint leads people astray:

Knowing that there is a limit to suffering definitely DOES remove fear of being dead, and other fears as well, but it does not removed "Longing for more life." The rest of Epicurean philosophy (which is butchered in this video by the restrictive definition of pleasure) does indeed remove the longing for an *unlimited* life span, because "PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure."

But Epicurean philosophy not only does not teach that there is no need to wish for "more" life, it teaches that life is desirable, because life is absolutely necessary for the experience of pleasure. Life is so desirable, and so important, that every aspect of life which is not specifically painful is worthy to be considered pleasurable.

One of the worst distortions of Epicurus that comes from Stoic and Buddhist eclecticism is that there is somehow no need to be concerned about staying alive, because you're part of the universal divine fire and should be happy to return to it if you're a Stoic, or because life is suffering and you should be happy to escape it if you're a Buddhist.

There are many people who are vulnerable to the idea that their lives are unimportant and that they should not do everything they can to lead the best life possible while they are alive. That's a point I think we need to hit home as frequently and persuasively as possible.

Time for a status update to see if anyone is having any issues or if there are things which need improvement:

1. Anyone have any problems to report in their use of the forum?
2. Any issues on desktop or mobile sizes?
3. Any issues with the themes?
4. Any features you would like to see added?
5. Any other general comments or suggestions?

I have to say that I think things are operating pretty smoothly at the moment, and I am not aware of any major issues. Seems like for me sometimes the notifications don't take me to the most recent new post, a problem that was reported earlier and may not yet be fully resolved. But generally things seem to be operating smoothly.

Can't promise to be able to address all suggestions immediately, but can't even consider them if we don't know what they are. So please feel free to let us know if there are any issues and we will see what we can do to address them over time.

Thanks for your participation at EpicureanFriends.com!

Hello Golbach ! We will provide the link tomorrow as we get closer to the time for the meeting. In the meantime can you introduce yourself in our welcome thread?

Thread

Welcome Golbach!

Welcome Golbach !

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…

Cassius

May 5, 2024 at 9:37 AM

Welcome Golbach !

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!

Wow that is an incredibly impressive story Julia.

Next to that any response is going to seem inadequate, but I do want to repeat what I think is the heart of Epicurean philosophy - that all this talk of absolute virtue and Platonic ideals and rewards after death is just a pipe dream. Your own life is the most valuable thing you have, and that it is short and you have to make the best of it, and that finding the way to make the best of it is the most important thing anyone can do. It sounds like you're making great progress, and no matter how many detours along the way it sounds like that when you get to the end (which is hopefully very far away) you'll be able to say that you too have lived well. That's all anyone can do, and it sounds like you've done more self-reflection about your situation than most. You can be proud no matter what else happens that you took charge of your life and you didn't give in to the kind of wishful thinking about your situation to which so many people seem to surrender.

Quote from Don

Wow! There is so much wrong in that chart!

And the commentary that he spoke while it was on the screen was even worse!

To give him credit, he started out the video saying that most of what he says in his discussions of Epicurus is negative, so I wouldn't look to a devoted Stoic for a fair presentation. When I reviewed it I was driving and listening to the audio so I may have missed some subtleties in the graphics, but it very much reminded me of many of the positions Cicero took while arguing against Torquatus.