Posts by Cassius

Main page of resources on Paul Thyry / Baron D'Holbach / Mirabaud:

Baron d'Holbach

So the Epicurus "riddle" appears in D'Holbach's "Good Sense:"

§57. When we ask, why so many miserable objects appear under the government of a good God, we are told, by way of consolation, that the present world is only a passage, designed to conduct man to a happier one. The divines assure us, that the earth we inhabit, is a state of trial. In short, they shut our mouths, by saying, that God could communicate to his creatures neither impossibility nor infinite happiness, which are reserved for himself alone. Can such answers be satisfactory? 1st. The existence of another life is guaranteed to us only by the imagination of man, who, by supposing it, have only realized the desire they have of surviving themselves, in order to enjoy hereafter a purer and more durable happiness. 2ndly. How can we conceive that a God, who knows every thing, and must be fully acquainted with the dispositions of his creatures, should want so many experiments, in order to be sure of their dispositions? 3rdly. According to the calculations of their chronologists, our earth has existed six or seven thousand years. During that time, nations have experienced calamities. History exhibits the human species at all times tormented and ravaged by tyrants, conquerors, and heroes; by wars, inundations, famines, plagues, etc. Are such long trials then likely to inspire us with very great confidence in the secret views of the Deity? Do such numerous and constant evils give a very exalted idea of the future state, his goodness is preparing for us? 4thly. If God is so kindly disposed, as he is asserted to be, without giving men infinite happiness, could he not at least have communicated the degree of happiness, of which finite beings are susceptible here below? To be happy, must we have an infinite or divine happiness? 5thly. If God could not make men happier than they are here below, what will become of the hope of a paradise, where it is pretended, that the elect will for ever enjoy ineffable bliss? If God neither could nor would avert evil from the earth, the only residence we can know, what reason have we to presume, that he can or will avert evil from another world, of which we have no idea? Epicurus observed: "either God would remove evil out of this world, and cannot; or he can, and will not; or he has neither the power nor will; or, lastly, he has both the power and will. If he has the will, and not the power, this shews weakness, which is contrary to the nature of God. If he has the power, and not the will, it is malignity; and this is no less contrary to his nature. If he is neither able nor willing, he is both impotent and malignant, and consequently cannot be God. If he be both willing and able (which alone is consonant to the nature of God) whence comes evil, or why does he not prevent it?" Reflecting minds are still waiting for a reasonable solution of these difficulties; and our divines tell us, that they will be removed only in a future life.

Here's an interesting article tracing Epicurean ideas from Epicurus to Jefferson through several French philosophers including Rousseau (who I have certainly heard of but am not very familiar with) and Burlamaqui (who I am not sure I have ever heard of before). Other than some discussion about Gassendi I don't think we have developed in the past to what extent these influential French thinkers embraced and accepted or deviated from Epicurus, or what they thought of Epicurus at all. Apparently this Burlamaqui was particularly influential in some of his phrasing, and might be the place Jefferson picked up "Pursuit of Happiness" as a phrase. I've only started to read the article but if anyone (particularly Charles) has insights into this I would like to begin to get a fix on whether we should consider some of these prominent Frenchmen to be pro-Epicurean or outside of the main line of Epicurean thought.

https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/files/seh/2013_2/156-182.pdf

Couple of interesting comments:

Quote

All the references showing Jefferson's interest in Epicurus' philosophy known to me date back exclusively to this much later period in his life. This makes it unlikely, but not entirely impossible, that Epicurus' philosophy played a major direct role in Jefferson's thinking in July of 1776.

Also, sounds like D'Holbach's "System of Nature" is important for its anti-religious nature. Another German, Martin....

Looks like we may eventually need a separate thread on D'Holbach, especially if we can find him directly commenting on Epicurus.

Well this "System of Nature" certainly seems important. We'll need a link to an English translation....

A questionable paragraph!

Translation: http://www.ftarchives.net/holbach/system/0syscontents.htm

We also need "Christianity Unveiled' also by D'Holbach. Another reason for Martin to look further in D'Holbach!

Christianity Unveiled - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christianity Unveiled

Quote from Bryan

Just as an experiment, I wanted to see how well GPT could automatically break the text into smaller sections and produce a vocab list. I ran the letter to Herodotus through it and added some translations for comparison

That looks very interesting! You have a couple of versions of each sentence joined with a sort of "nodictionaries.com" word by word definition? I can't tell from my phone layout but depending on how arranged on a page definitely has possibilities as a study aid.

Welcome @UFO !

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 just realized that I don't think my preferred description is in the poll options. I would opt for "serious" and would see that as having a different connotation from "stern" or "disapproving." I generally see Epicurus as happy and upbeat, but if one single image had to be preserved for all time, it would probably be a look of seriousness at confronting what a mess the standard philosophers and religions had made of the world, and an earnest desire to change it.

Last week we ended before fully addressing this passage below. It's wording is a bit complicated, so might be worth comment here in the thread. Cicero appears to be saying that it is not the fact that the crowd may think a thing moral that makes it moral, but the intrinsic beauty of the thing that would make it moral regardless of whether the crowd recognized it or not. Seems like this might be a variation of the Euthyro dilemma that Joshua mentioned in the last episode-- with this variation saying it's not the crowd (rather than god) that judges morality to be beautiful, but that morality is a beautiful thing in itself regardless of whether the crowd recognizes it (?)

Quote from Cicero

A famous philosopher, by whom not only Greece and Italy, but even all foreign nations have been thrown into excitement, declares that he does not understand what morality means, if it does not lie in pleasure, unless perhaps it be some qualities extolled by the babble of the crowd. But I hold such qualities to be often actually immoral, and if at any time they be not immoral, they are then not immoral when the crowd extols what is essentially in its own nature right and deserves to be extolled; yet it is not called moral for the reason that it is applauded by many men, but because it is of such a nature that even if men knew nothing about it, or had even been struck with dumbness, it would deserve to be extolled for its inherent loveliness and beauty.

Welcome to Episode 206 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 through Section XV and into XVI, starting roughly here:

Do you not see how extensive is this disagreement? A famous philosopher, by whom not only Greece and Italy, but even all foreign nations have been thrown into excitement, declares that he does not understand what morality means, if it does not lie in pleasure, unless perhaps it be some qualities extolled by the babble of the crowd. But I hold such qualities to be often actually immoral, and if at any time they be not immoral, they are then not immoral when the crowd extols what is essentially in its own nature right and deserves to be extolled; yet it is not called moral for the reason that it is applauded by many men, but because it is of such a nature that even if men knew nothing -about it, or had even been struck with dumbness, it would deserve to be extolled for its inherent loveliness and beauty. So again, yielding to nature, which cannot be withstood, he makes in another passage the statement which you also put forward a little while ago, that an agreeable life is not possible, unless it be also a moral life. What does he now mean by moral? The same that he means by agreeable? So this is it, that a moral life is not possible, unless it be also a moral life? Or, unless it accord with the talk of the multitude? He declares then that without this he cannot live agreeably? What is more immoral than that the life of a wise man should depend on the conversation of those who are no wise men? What is it then that in this passage he understands by moral? Assuredly nothing but what can with justice be extolled in and for itself. Since if it be extolled for the pleasure it brings, what kind of merit is that which can be bought in the meat- market? Seeing that he assigns such a place to morality as to declare that without it an agreeable life is impossible, he s not the man to adopt the kind of morality which depends on the multitude, and to declare that without that an agreeable life is an impossibility, or to understand anything else to be moral except what is right in itself and worthy of eulogy for its own sake, in its own essence, unaided, and by its own constitution.

XVI. So, Torquatus, when you stated how Epicurus cries aloud that an agreeable life is not possible, unless it be a moral, a wise, and a just life, you yourself seemed to me to be uttering a vaunt. Such energy was breathed into your words by the grandeur of those objects which your words represented, that you seemed to grow taller, and sometimes ceased your walk, and gazing at us almost deposed as a witness that morality and justice are sometimes eulogized by Epicurus. How well it became you to take these words on your lips, for if they were never uttered by philosophers, we should not care to have any philosophy at all! It is from a passion for those phrases which are very seldom employed by Epicurus, wisdom, I mean, courage, justice, temperance, that men of preeminent ability have devoted themselves to the pursuit of philosophy. Our eyesight, says Plato, is the keenest sense we have, yet it does not enable us to descry wisdom. What passionate affection for herself would she inspire in us! Why so? Because she is so crafty that she can build the fabric of the pleasures in the most excellent manner? Why is justice praised, or whence comes this saying so hackneyed from of old, a man you may play with in the dark? This proverb, though pointed at one thing only, has this very wide application, that in all transactions we should be influenced by the character of our actions and not by the presence of witnesses. Indeed the arguments you alleged were insignificant and very weak, I mean, that unprincipled men are tortured by their own consciousness within them, and also by the fear of punishment, which they either suffer, or live in dread of suffering at some time. 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.

Episode 205 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we address Cicero's criticisms of Epicurus based on Cicero's view of the nature of morality.

Yes Don's post get's right to the point. If you are the type of person who values the longer-term "satisfaction" that comes from your actions, then what you are talking about is just a different name for the feeling that you get from that work.

The real heart of the matter is whether the Platonists and others were right to label only agreeable immediate sensory stimulation as pleasure and disagreeable immediate sensory stimulation as pain. Epicurus goes right to the heart of the matter and says that it is the *feeling* that is the ultimate way to decide, not your "intellectual" assessment of it by some abstract logical standard.

And it is equally important to say that we aren't playing simple word games with "pleasure." Sometimes it can sound like that because we have first-world attitudes privileges that lead us to think that rearranging our kitchens and our recipes to produce maximum eating pleasure is all we need to worry about.

Epicurus was a *philosopher*, not a cook or a medical doctor. The big issues that drive the world in his time and in ours are the ultimate questions of whether (1) there are supernatural gods, (2) whether there is life after death with reward or punishment, (3) whether there are logical absolute ideals, or (4) whether there is only what Nature gives us directly by which we should live.

Epicurus held that if we want to deal with reality then (1), (2), and (3) are out of the question, as they simply do not exist given the nature of the universe. That leaves us with (4) which resolves down to "feeling" and it ultimately makes sense to realize that there are really only two types of feelings, those that are agreeable (Pleasure) and those that are disagreeable (Pain).

We're talking in this thread in very precise medical terms as if Epicurus were standing over our shoulder pointing out specific things to do and not to do, even though he lived 2000 years ago and had no idea of the technology we have and the way we live today. Certainly he had specific pieces of advice to the effect that seeking unlimited power, unlimited money, unlimited fame, or to live forever are unattainable and will be damaging if we make them our goals. We can derive a lot of useful "life coach" information from what he had to say.

But if you skip over the ultimate philosophical war in favor of the clinical details then you never understand the big picture. The big picture is FIRST that these false guides of life do not exist. That in itself is a very heavy lift for most people. The flag that Epicurus raises is indeed called "Pleasure" but that's a generic term for agreeable mental and bodily feelings, and those do exist, and they stand in the same rank and compete with the alternatives of supernatural gods and ideal forms and "logic" and "virtue" and things like that which either do not exist or are at best tools for something else.

In the end it's very possible to reconcile "satisfaction" and "worthwhile things" etc etc with "pleasure," and if you spend time with Epicurus you will see how he does that.

What's *NOT* possible to reconcile with Epicurus is supernatural gods, and ideal forms, and essences and logical abstractions and any other sort of absolutist things or principles that can tell us what to do.

The title of Lucretius' Poem is generally translated as "The Nature of Things" -- but Rolphe Humphries translates it as "The Way Things Are" and I'd say also something like "The Nature of Reality" are more indicative of what is really at stake.

Atoms and void and all the theories that come from them give us ways to come to terms with reality, and that's the first and most important goal. Once you orient yourself to the reality that the only guide you have is the physical pleasure and pain that Nature gives you, it's relatively easy to come up with a rational pleasure and pain analysis of all the rest. But the nature of reality is the place to start -- the ethics follow from that.

Welcome smithtim47 !

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!

Braintobeing - I am driving so this is brief but others can expand. Epicurus advised exactly what you are doing. The issue is the definition of pleasure, and Epicurus used a much more sweeping definition of pleasure than just immediate sensory stimulation. Your longer term goals are just as much under pleasure (because you find them desirable) than immediate satisfaction.

I also want to spend more time on what Tau Phi is saying but I suspect I differ with (or would say differently) what I am reading as "more or less" pleasure and pain. I think the weighing of relative pleasures and pains is essential to Epicurus. That's what allows us to agree that putting aside short term pleasures, or even accepting pains, is worthwhile in terms of the ultimate greater pleasure and lesser pain.

But the big issue here is the definition of pleasure, and Epicurus says life is desirable and that if the experience of life that we are talking about is not a pain, then whatever the experience is and no matter how removed it may be from immediate bodily sensory stimulation, it still deserves to be called pleasure.

This is readily observable in reading Cicero's on ends. What Cicero objected to is that everyone calls agreeable immediate bodily stimulation "pleasure," but Epicurus innovated and extended the word pleasure to all non-painful experiences of life.

That extension is what Cicero objected to but it is how the ancients were reading Epicurus when he wrote PD03 and "By pleasure we mean the absence of plain."

Thank you for your work in producing this Kalosyni! Since it's a just a brief video for use on the front page of the channel it's not extremely detailed, but it sure is a lot better than what was there before, and having a "regular person" sound adds a lot too. In the future I would like to see us do a lot more multimedia like that since it generally produces much longer lasting benefits than just text. Even short and simple videos can have a big impact.

Sounds reasonable as a general priority, but I would question whether it is really that easy to segment things. Death as an example of things that cannot be changed in the long run can still be affected by planning for the time and manner you encounter it. So even as to things beyond your control you still plan for them (for example life insurance is sometimes appropriate).

I wonder whether it's not more practical to line things up in order of significance in terms of pain and pleasure, and then to deal with them in that order (considering whether they can be changed or not as part of the analysis)?

Yes that's the lettter to Menoeceus:

[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

[135] He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance. [1]

Quote from frank1syl

In other words, the things in our power are mental abilities and capacities.

While I would agree with that generally there's also a limit to that: Diogenes Laertius X-117: "But before considering it let us explain what he and his followers think about the wise man. ... He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom. A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation."

Quote from frank1syl

But, taking my cue from the Stoics, the way to lessen mental pain is to realize that this is an area in which we have considerable power, and to focus on our mental capacities and abilities, rather than external events or circumstances, is the best way to approach mental pain

I'd agree that certainly the way to deal with mental pain is to focus on the cause of the mental pain and to work as hard as possible to fix the conditions that led to it. The problems with the Stoics is that they seem to focus on simply by force of will convincing yourself that the pain is not significant, or is a matter of indifference, and that approach can conflict with working to to change the condition that caused it. In the case of two of the most significant pains of life, fear of the gods and fear of death, Stoic physics is an absolute barrier to arriving at what Epicureans consider the truth to be -- that neither are a cause for fear or concern in the first place.

What this reminds me of is the constant interplay between Stoics and Epicureans as to virtue. Epicureans do not deprecate the virtues, such as prudence and wisdom and all the rest. Epicureans simply see the virtues as tools to an end and not an end in themselves.

In the example your giving about focusing on what is within control vs outside control I see the same issue. Yes it's obvious to everyone that some external events are beyond our control, but it should be equally obvious that some ARE within our control, and the first step of proper action would be to make that distinction and act on the ones that can be acted on, not fixate on the fact that those within our total control (our minds) are all that is important.

As in many of these comparisons you can seem to end up in a similar place at time, but the Stoic worldview if followed consistently would never get you to a pleasurable life, because no matter how the modern stoics work to water it down, true Stoicism holds pleasure in contempt and values nothing but "virtue" as the proper end.

I think a lot of people tend to look for the commonalities and then stop because they don't want to go further, as they sense the ultimate issue. Just like we're discussing in the podcast right now, the question of pleasure vs virtue underlies everything else:

Quote from Cicero in On Ends Book 2

So setting aside the systems of ail the rest, there remains a contest not between me and Torquatus, but between virtue and pleasure: a contest of which Chrysippus, a man both shrewd and careful, does not think lightly, for he considers that the entire decision about the supreme good is involved in the opposition between these things.

Quote from BrainToBeing

And, I was wondering if, particularly in this era of the planet, we can really say that searching for "a happy life" is going to save us all from the ecological and technological dilemmas we are creating.

Somehow I missed this part of the discussion earlier today so that's why I didn't comment already. Godfrey and Don answered it well but this sentence gives an opportunity to point out that most of us would probably say that saving ourselves and future generations would indeed be a major concern in looking to live a happy life -- unless we like the idea of living on a polluted and ecologically devastated planet! No doubt there are some contrarians who would say that they wouldn't care about that, but that's the kind of attitude that simply refuses to see that virtue is not its own reward, and that we want out of life is the broad kind of "good feeling" that ultimately resolves to falling under the term "pleasure."

I realized that a limitation of the outline generator I am using that looks best in "portrait" mode (for phones) is that the text on the page is not easily searchable if the outline is not expanded. 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.

This is *definitely* a question of great interest. Many people come to Epicurean philosophy thinking he is focused on "bodily" pain, and it's a surprise to find that he puts equal or really greater stock in the mental side.

I file sure anything you'd offer on pain would be of great interest here so thanks for offering!!

• Wednesday, December 13, 2023
• Please join us. (Post here in this thread if you have never attended one of these sessions as we have an approval process for new participants.)
• Vatican Sayings 52 and 53
  • VS52. Friendship dances around the world, bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.
  • VS53. We must envy no one, for the good do not deserve envy, and the bad, the more they prosper, the more they injure themselves.
• Old Matters from last week
• New Matters for Agenda this week or next week.

Just for what it's worth I've reached a sort of milestone today of getting at least one citation in the outline for each of the major bullet points. In most cases I have several, but there's definitely a lot more to add.

After stops and starts through the years this version of the outline has built on past efforts and on contributions of citations from lots of people, and I'll work to continue to expand it and make it available in different formats.

Thanks for the contributions so far as I think this will be very useful over time.

Epicurean Philosophy Navigation Map

On my list of things to do is to figure out how to add what I think is a "meta" tag that will provide a link to a "snapshot" picture of the outline, so that when the above link is shared those browsers that know how to it will provide a snapshot (maybe it's called a card view or something like that) rather than a raw URL.

Seems to work now on Twitter and Facebook but not here yet --