Posts by Cassius

Welcome to Episode 200 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 present you a retrospective of our past work and where we plan to go in the future

Episode Topics:

• Starting January 11, 2020
• Episodes 1-51 were devoted to a line-by-line reading of Lucretius' "On The Nature of Things."
• Starting January 2, 2021
• Episodes 51-92 were devoted to a line-by-line reading of Lucretius' "On The Nature of Things."
• Episodes 93 -104 were devoted to a reading of the Torquatus narrative of Epicurean Philosophy from Cicero's "On Ends."
• Starting January 7, 2022
• Episodes 104 -111 were devoted to a reading of the Torquatus narrative of Epicurean Philosophy from Cicero's "On Ends."
• Episodes 112 -125 were devoted to Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus.
• Episodes 127 -133 were devoted to Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles.
• Episodes 134 -140 were devoted to Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus.
• Episodes 141 -144 were devoted to Diogenes of Oinoanda.
• Episodes 145 - 154 were been devoted to a book review of Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy."
• Starting January 2, 2023
• Episodes 155 - 189 were been devoted to continued review of Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy."
• Episodes 156 -157 were devoted to an interview of Dr. Emily Austin, author of "Living For Pleasure."
• Episode 166 of was devoted to an interview with Dr. David Glidden on Epicurean Prolepsis.
• Episodes 190 through the present have been devoted to a detailed review of Cicero's On Ends Books One and Two.
• Episode 197 was devoted to an interview with Dr. Marcello Boeri, co-author of the book "Epicurean Political Philosophy - Theory and Practice."

I think the topics you suggested earlier don make the most sense.

I'll introduce the session as a retrospective of this being our 200th episode and then we can discuss much of what you suggested:

• Opening thanks to all podcasters and listeners and those who participated by asking questions and leaving comments on the forum
• We'll looking back at the different series that we undertook
  • Lucretius
  • Letters of Epicurus
  • Diogenes of Oinoanda
  • The Torquatus narrative
  • Book Two of On Ends
  • The Dewitt Book
  • The Interviews
    • Emily Austin
    • David Glidden
    • Marcello Boeri
  • A Few Days In Athens (not official part of the podcast series but closely tangential)
  • Our recommendations for sequence of reading
  • List of controversial philosophical issues that still need exploring ways to state them better
    • The proper perspective on reason and propositional logic
    • The proper perspective on "length of life" issues (how long to live?)
    • The proper perspective on whether there is any objective way to rank or decide among pleasure ( including katastematic and kinetic) or is it all purely personal?
    • The proper meaning of "absence of pain" (all feelings which are not pain are pleasure?)
    • Others?
  • Challenges
    • Keeping the focus on big picture issues and not pursuing too many rabbits too far down their holes.
    • Accommodating people who are just beginning to read Epicurus while also holding interest of those who are experienced
    • Avoiding eclecticism and combination with Stoicism, Buddhism, "Humanism," etc.
    • Deferring and diverting to other places divisive local (partisan political) issues that are not truly part of the core philosophy (applying a "no politics" rule to discussions while also acknowledging that individual action in "local" issues is a necessary part of life)
    • Avoiding Frances Wright burnout / shooting star syndrome
  • Future plans
    • Supporting an ongoing "scheme of contemplation" in the form of a structure of daily reading or other participation that reinforces good habits
    • Organizing access to hard-to-find texts and fragments
    • Encouraging wider personal participation by those who wish to pursue it
    • Sustaining the effort over time as older participants retire or pass away
    • Interesting people in Epicurus at a younger age
    • "Advertising" or getting word of the project out beyond our current audience
    • Use of Facebook or other social media and other options.

We're planning a special episode for our 200th podcast, to be recorded on November 5, 2023.

In the meantime, here's an amateurish video put together before we started, in October of 2019. Maybe in the future we can do a better one.

I bet some of you didn't realize that our theme song has a middle section!

Those look great!

Welcome to Episode 199 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 Books Two of Cicero's On Ends, which are largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. "On Ends" contains important criticisms of Epicurus that have set the tone for standard analysis of his philosophy for the last 2000 years. 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

We are using the Reid edition, so check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

As we proceed we will keep track of Cicero's arguments and outline them here:

Cicero's Objections to Epicurean Philosophy

This week we continue in Book 2 at Section VII, with Cicero continuing to insist that "Freedom From Pain" is something different from Pleasure, with Torquatus responding again and again that they are the same.

VII. Lest you should suppose that the words only differ, I say that the things denoted are also two. Freedom from pain is one thing, possession of pleasure another; you attempt not merely to compound out of these two things, diverse as they are, one single term (for I should find that easier to endure) but to roll the two things into one, which cannot possibly be done. Your philosopher, who approves both things, was bound formally to adopt both, as he does in fact, without distinguishing them in words.

Quote from Blank_Emu43

I don’t have any social media or many online accounts in general.

I totally respect that - and makes me remember to say we appreciate your making an exception for this forum!

I think it's really important to acknowledge how good people are going to differ on this, and that this decision doesn't have a right or wrong answer that fits everyone.

Quote from burninglights

One thing I'm not clear on with katastematic pleasure being "a permanent condition as produced by practice" is whether this implies that the practice must be ongoing for the permanence to remain.

Is Don or anyone saying that Epicurus classified katastematic pleasure as "permanent?" Are we beginning to tread on "once saved always saved" theology?

Quote from Godfrey

Is there a neutral state allowed in this poll?

If you mean is it allowed to say that you have a perfectly balanced overall sum, in which the net pains vs net pleasures seem to perfectly offset each other? - YES that's allowable, because in that case your overall opinion about a situation is like a pair of scales perfectly balanced between pleasure and pain.

If you mean is it allowed to say that you have no feeling about some individual aspect of social media that has been brought to your attention but that you feel neither pain nor pleasure about it? NO.

Because if you admit to an awareness of some aspect of it in particular, and that awareness of that aspect is not painful to you, then by saying "that awareness of that aspect is not painful," you are saying it is pleasant.

What say you to that?

I answered "yes" because on balance the pleasure it brings outweighs the pain that it brings. There are certainly pains involved, but I find them worth it given that I am convinced engagement (especially with friends) is necessary at least for me in my own circumstances. I talk to people at times in "real life" who would definitely not fit the same profile, and for whom it's a net negative, but it seems to me that the inability to manage one's experience is a strong limiting factor on the likelihood of being secure and happy in the world today.

Quote from Don

In any case, just saying "kinetic vs katastematic" masks a whole lot of stuff going on under the surface.

That's my thought too, and that's why I also think that the ultimate crux of the issue is that Epicurus is extending the word "pleasure" to cover both the exciting/stimulative type of activities that everyone acknowledges to be pleasure, plus what I would call - if I were German - EveryOtherExperienceOfLifeThatIsNotPainful.

It's the sweeping inclusion of normal everyday healthy non-painful existence (which is what is being referenced in response to Chysippus' hand argument) under the word "pleasure" that is the revolutionary issue and which makes "a life of pleasure" an attainable goal.

Within that sweeping overall term there are all sorts of pleasurable experiences, including (referencing Don above) "ataraxia ... the tranquility of mind that results from ridding one's mind of fears of death and the gods and obtaining a proper understanding of natural phenomena, and so on." Within that big picture framework I can see the usefulness of discussing k/k matters as a means of being sure we understand every detail. But the big picture is not established by the k/k detail, and any valid interpretation of a k/k distinction is going to have to fit within the big picture that all non-painful life experience is "pleasure."

I think we're all in agreement as to the importance of the Epicurean focus on the importance of freedom from fear of the gods and fear of death. What I don't know that we are all together on is that (1) if there are only two feelings, and (2) if someone is alive they are aware of feeling something(s), and (3) each and every one of those feelings is *either* pleasure or pain but not both in the same part of the person's body or mind.

I actually think most all of us *are* together on that last paragraph, but we're not together on the ramifications of what that last paragraph means. Cicero wouldn't accept that pleasure can embrace both stimulative pleasures and normal ordinary healthy feelings of proper functioning, and I am not sure that we (like Cicero) are all together in accepting it either. It would be surprising if all of our readers here, new and old, *were* all together, because it's a dramatic redefinition of the normal use of the word.

Let's suppose that the issue we are really discussing were the difference between "excited" or "stimulated' experiences, such as riding a rollercoaster or running for the touchdown, vs experiences of daily normal experience that do not involve pain (so we are going to label them pleasurable) but that also do not involve that "rush of excitement" or "rush of stimulation."

Here's one of the problems that you run into unless you are careful, because while these words may be the reverse of excited, most (except for calm and maybe a few others) carry negative connotations that no one but a Stoic would endorse.

Episode 198 of Lucretius Today is Now Available! This week we return to our coverage of "On Ends" Book Two, and we summarize several aspects of where we are in the discussion.

Quote from Titus

The thing to be careful about is, not to go in the opposite direction and even begin to embrace katastematic for the sake of reaching a "nirvana-like state of ataraxia".

That's the way I see it, and I also see no reason at all to ever associate "katastematic" with "a nirvana-like state of ataraxia." But I think that's exactly what a lot of people outside this forum are doing.

Quote from burninglights

So I go to the shop of the best basket weaver in town. He's not in, but there's a pile of wicker on the floor and a note that reads, "there's warp and there's woof." I have no idea that means, but I'm pretty sure it's gonna be helpful in some way.

As you know and agree, Don has a list of citations supporting his position. If you have not read it, you can read the Boris Nikolsky article on this website which builds on the Gosling & Taylor analysis and takes a different position. All I can tell you is to read the articles to the extent you are interested and form your own opinion. In the end, I would suggest the best approach is to look at the reality of what is in the wicker basket, and what you can feel for yourself in your own mind and body, and label according to the reality you can observe.

Quote from burninglights

But I also wanna feel the most pleasure from the least effort

That describes me precisely!

A generally very positive review, but this comes from England, so be prepared for a little criticism.

Quote from From the Review -

Aoiz and Boeri (hereafter ‘A&B’) have written an important contribution to the study of Epicureanism and ancient political thought. Epicurean political theory has been a topic of increasing interest in recent years (see esp. G. Roskam, Live Unnoticed [2007]), and many scholars are increasingly inclined to reject interpretations of the school that rely on clichés paraded by hostile ancient commentators that portray Epicureans as apolitical, antisocial parasites. A&B not only summarize these scholarly trends but offer what is probably the most up-to-date and comprehensive interpretation of Epicurean political theory, along with discussions of the political activities of actual historical actors in Greece and Rome for whom there is evidence of Epicurean sympathies. The result is a monograph that will be required reading for specialists in Epicurean philosophy and of great interest to scholars of ancient philosophy and political thought more generally.

Note:

The reason for my comment about England comes from Norman DeWitt's book, which I am personally expanding on by "joking" that most English writers seem to drink too deeply from Stoicism and inhale negativity about Epicurus. I don't expect the next wave of pro-Epicurean philosophers to come from England, but rather from outside that island (and isn't it interesting that Epicurean social engagement is not being defended by someone from England, but from two professors who hale from below the equator):

I would say for example that the reviewer displays his British reserve when he says that ""One also wonders about the reasons for Epicurus’ sometimes provocative and bombastic language (e.g. fr. 512 Us.: ‘I spit on to kalon’), which seems to have given his opponents rather easy targets to attack."

I suspect Epicurus would say that it is better to give your opponents material to attack than to be less than forthright in speaking the truth.

Austin Sun-News:

"The Epicurean Life Revealed: Politics and Security"

The Epicurean Life Revealed: Politics and Security – SUN NEWS AUSTIN

Please follow this link:

Post

Episode 197 -LucretiusToday Interviews Dr. Marcelo Boeri

Welcome to Episode 197 of the Lucretius Today Podcast. Today we are very privileged to present to you an interview with Dr. Marcelo Boeri, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Dr. Boeri is originally from Buenos Aires, and after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Salvador in 1995, he has worked extensively in the field of Ancient Greek philosophy ever since, lecturing at many distinguished universities around the world.

We are greatly…

Cassius

October 22, 2023 at 7:36 AM

I expect this book to generate discussion for years to come, and I expect to cite it as the preferred interpretation of Epicurean engagement in society. That means it deserves a forum of its own, so some of the posts about the book (but not this thread in its entirety, as it applies to the podcast) will be moved here:

Theory And Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Javier Aoiz and Marcelo Boeri

Quote from burninglights

But, since I do tend to take the distinction as legitimate, it does make me wonder what, exactly, it means though!

Someone is eventually going to wade through the texts and the scholarly commentaries that parse the vocabularies and give examples of how all these words are used. I tend to think that the Gosling & Taylor book is exhaustive, but there are many many more.

As for here on the forum, I tend to think Don is your man who will eventually do that!

In the meantime I would just advise caution in getting too wedded to a particular position, along the lines of the "waiting" idea in Diogenes Laertius.

And part of the reason I advise that caution is that if someone gets too caught up in the wording, that focus could tend to distract away from more common sense analysis you are trying to pursue. I think you are right in your direction, and that's all there is too it. On the other hand, *many* people seem to have decided to themselves: "Epicureans were constantly dropping the name "katastematic" as a synonym for "absence of pain," and so therefore I will set my sights on "katastematic pleasure" as "absence of pain," and I'll write the whole world of kinetic pleasure out of the equation."

"Absence of pain" is the key to the analysis. If you conclude that "absence of pain" means "pleasure" then you will conclude that "absence of pain" can refer to **any** kind of pleasure, meaning **any** kind of mental or physical activity which is not painful. And that opens up the full spectrum of non-painful human activity as being desirable, which is a great deal more liberating than thinking that you need to go back to graduate school and learn detailed Greek vocabulary before you can understand Epicurus.

If you conclude that absence of pain means "katastematic pleasure," then I think you lose the benefit of what is being said on very face of the quotes I included above. You then turn against not only what Cicero's Epicurean speaker insists on repeatedly, but you turn against Epicurus himself "By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.") and what Diogenes Laertius said that Epicurus valued "both" types of pleasure.

If you suspend this analysis until you get a graduate degree to unwind the Greek, you'll lose appreciation for the pleasure-maximizing viewpoint that "if I am not in pain I am in pleasure," and you'll constantly go looking for something else (probably through asceticism).

To repeat I am not saying that you personally are running afoul of that problem, but I would wager a lot of money that many of the commentaries are doing exactly that, and that is what leads to a lot of confusion.

Quote from Kalosyni

Here is a tough question: Can the killing of a another human being ever be justified under Epicurean philosophy? Thoughts?

Quote from Don

It's all about context. Self-defense? To prevent them from killing others? Etc etc etc.

Don gives a very short answer - almost as if he is implying that the question isn't "tough" at all!

Actually I agree that the question as worded is not very difficult, and the answer is "yes," as illustrated by Cassius Longinus' decision to act in regard to Julius Caesar even as an avowed Epicurean.

But there is a lot of toughness that comes in as Don says when he says "it's all about context." And also that's another way of saying "Justified to whom?" Justified to the police or the courts? Justified to the dead man's family? Justified to god? Justified as not being a breach of some contention of absolute justice? Justified to Epicurus as a person? You'd have to know more facts to be able to give a thorough opinion on whether the deed was "justified" in the sense that you will reward and honor and respect the killer in the future, or whether you will hold him in disrepute and disrespect and want nothing to do with the killer in the future.

And I think that's the real question Kalosyni is asking. If we reword it as "Is there a "flat" rule against killing another human being in all circumstances?" It seems to me that that pretty clearly is answerable under Epicurean philosophy as "No - there is no flat absolute rule against all killing of human beings in all circumstances." Then you have to get into all the details of the repercussions in terms of punishment and regret and remorse (if any) after that, where the issues are very tough.

Quote from burninglights

Here, he seems to expresses the idea that grateful recollections have played an important role in the old man having 'come to anchor' in life, suggesting again that by way of gratitude one can find peace of mind.

But before I go off to much further on the details, re-reading your original post I presume what you are doing is looking to identify pleasures that are accessible and longer-lasting and looking at ways to cultivate those rather than moment to moment stimulations and excitements. Just thought again I would be clear and say that that is a very desirable search and something to explore and write at length about, no matter what labels we put on it.

Quote from Don

PS. I should have read further down before replying You raise some interesting points.

Another part of the problem is that "stable" implies "good" while "transitory" implies "less good than stable."

But if the word kinetic means anything at all, is it not associated with "motion" or "moveo" / movement in Cicero's wording? Yes you can have motion that is "smooth," and long-lasting, and surely that is a more desirable kind of pleasure than a pleasure that last less long and is more "rough." I would think all of us probably agree that a pleasure that is smooth and longer-lasting is more desirable than a pleasure that is not.

Is that all that is in issue? Then we could just say "a pleasure that is smooth and longer-lasting is more desirable than a pleasure that is not."

Is something else in issue? If it is, then I'm not yet convinced I have a clue as to what that issue is, because it's surely not a distinction between mental vs physical, which is another point on which I think all of us agree. Maybe there is some issue of "confidence" that is "unshakeable" and stays with us for a really long time due to our philosophical conclusions, but if so, again, I'd assert that everyone would be better off being clear about that in one's own language.