Posts by Cassius

I understand that Kalosyni may make this topic a part of our "First Monday* zoom for 3/4/24.

In addition to what has already been stated in the thread, I wonder if people can think of passages from the main Epicurean texts which support the point.

After thinking for a while without coming up with anything, I wonder if we should not include the "Romantic Intoxication" passage in Lucretius Book 4 as almost exactly on point. Is not a major part of that passage the goal of showing that looking for a "perfect" romantic partner can get in the way of finding a "good" romantic partner?

Anyone agree or disagree with that, or have other suggestions of passages that illustrate the point?

Welcome to Episode 217 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.

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.

Last week we focused on why Epicurus said that time does not make pleasure better. This week pick up further along in Section XXVII, where Cicero charges Epicurus with inconsistency in saying that pleasure is the root of happiness, when pleasure requires things external to us which are subject to fortune and not under our own control.

REID EDITION

XXVII ....

Oh, but our philosopher is subject to pain as well. Yes, but he sets it at nought; for he says that, if he were being roasted, he would call out how sweet this is! In what respect then is he inferior to the god, if not in respect of eternity? And what good does eternity bring but the highest form of pleasure, and that prolonged for ever? What boots it then to use high sounding language unless your language be consistent ? On bodily pleasure (I will add mental, if you like, on the understanding that it also springs, as you believe, from the body) depends the life of happiness. Well, who can guarantee the wise man that this pleasure will be permanent? For the circumstances that give rise to pleasures are not within the control of the wise man, since your happiness is not dependent on wisdom herself, but on the objects which wisdom procures with a view to pleasure. Now all such objects are external to us, and what is external is in the power of chance. Thus fortune becomes lady paramount over happiness, though Epicurus says she to a small extent only crosses the path of the wise man.

Quote from Godfrey

You must think completely outside of (discard?) the Platonic worldview in order to fully understand Epicurus, even though Epicurus does the work to refute the Platonic worldview

I would say that definitely you do not have to be restricted by the bounds of the box set by Plato, but I do not think it is a good idea to "discard" knowledge of Plato's worldview, because i think we see that Epicurus was in many cases responding to an argument of Plato, so you have to know that the argument came from Plato in the first place, and at least understand its outline, so you can understand why Epicurus is addressing the issue.

I think most of us would say that the argument that a thing cannot be the good unless it can be contained within definite limits (nothing is straighter than straight) is a relatively absurd argument. And yet it seems in Epicurus' time it was a huge issue, huge enough to rank third in attention behind the first two principal doctrines.

And yet because we today don't keep in mind the Platonic/Cicero/Seneca argument, we presume that Epicurus must be saying something else that is profound, and so a simple statement that pleasure also has definite measurements, and can therefore be grasped and attained, becomes transmuted into a call to live like a monk on bread and water in a cave!

I don't mean to sound too frivolous in that last paragraph. I think that's exactly what has happened, and why so many Epicureans today are in thrall of "simplicity" and "minimizing desires" and the other assorted corruptions that so attract those of Buddhist or Stoic mindset.

And it is also safe to say that there would be a lot of resistance by the same crowd to updating their viewpoint on what PD03 and Absence of Pain are all about, but that's exactly what is needed from my point of view.

Quote from Don

"Therefore the power and the greatness of virtue cannot rise to greater heights, because increase is denied to that which is superlatively great. You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate. 9. Every virtue is limitless; for limits depend upon definite measurements. Constancy cannot advance further, any more than fidelity, or truthfulness, or loyalty. What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect."

The closer you look at this the more clear it is, so we can thank Seneca in addition to Cicero.

Part of why this is complex to us is because of the multiple meanings of "limits", but Seneca makes it clear:

Every virtue is limitless; for limits depend upon definite measurements.

That's the sentence that shines the spotlight - what they are talking about when they are talking about limits is not "the highest" or "the best" but whether a thing can be measured with definite measurements.

Saying that "Absence of pain = pleasure" does not primarily refer to the "most intense" or "longest" or "widest scope of the organism" - it refers first and most importantly to a definite measurement which can be grasped and understood.

"Absence of pain" is important because it is a definite measurement of pleasure.

It is only by recognizing that "absence of pain equals pleasure" that we can conceptualize a definite amount of pleasure, and that applies regardless of whether we are talking about a length of time, a part of the body, a measure of intensity ---- or an entire lifetime.

Somewhere along the way the Stoics apparently took this to the ridiculous extreme exhibited in Hermotimus that a moment at the top of the mountain of virtue would be worth a lifetime of effort. That makes no more sense than arguing that a moment of "pure pleasure" is worth a life time of effort.

But along the way, the observation that a definite measurement is possible allows you to talk about a goal and to see that no matter how long you live, the experience of pleasure never gets 'better" than before - it only varies. And yes more experiences of pleasure are desirable, so it is desirable to live longer, but you can die knowing that you have not missed pleasure that was "better" than what you actually experienced while you were alive.

This perspective also fits along well with Martin's example of the set level of temperature which we have discussed a number of times and which Onenski brought up last night.

Quote from Cassius

This does in fact place pleasure in the same category of "completable" or "graspable" things as virtue, which as Joshua stated in the podcast, could be a concern --- but the concern isn't a problem when you see that the main issue is not that the perfect is being made the enemy of the good, but in fact the perfect is a "concept" that is being used as a guide toward the good, never to be confused with our actual experience. That's another application too of "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." Neither the words "virtue" nor "pleasure" exist as entities out in the universe on their own - they are just conceptions of the human mind, but when viewed properly they are very useful conceptions.

Given that Joshua stated his concern very eloquently in the podcast episode that there was a danger in viewing pleasure as the stoics apparently viewed virtue, this issue deserves further comment.

Joshua was essentially affirming the hazards of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Joshua stated that it would be very self-defeating and would lead to all sorts of frustrations and other negative consequences if you allow perfectionism to prevent you from achieving the "good enough." We see that all the time in real life, when people get obsessed with perfection. We run into the problem than an friend once mentioned in the form of a question: "You know what happened to the man who kept searching for the perfect woman? He found her but couldn't keep her, because she was searching for the perfect man!"

It seems to me that Joshua's concern is very close to what has happened to many modern Epicureans. In thinking that "absence of pain" means that they must drain every ounce of pain from their lives, which they frequently think is best done through "simple living / asceticism," they obsess over their goal just like a stoic obsesses over virtue. Wen they fail to achieve a pleasurable life, which they always fail to do (PD25. If on each occasion, instead of referring your actions to the end of nature, you turn to some other, nearer, standard, when you are making a choice or an avoidance, your actions will not be consistent with your principles) they either stay frustrated or give up on the philosophy completely or just compartmentalize it as just another impractical philosopher's dream.

If, in contrast, we follow the lead of Torquatus' statements and see that the primary meaning of Epicurus' doctrine is that pleasure is absence of pain and absence of pain is pleasure, then we see that the terms are interchangeable and mean nothing more of less than each other. Seeing that, we don't fall for the trap of pursuing frugality or luxury as the way to a happy life of pleasure. We can see that since pleasure is absence of pain then we can spend our time on whatever combination of pleasures that result from "outside stimulation" or "inner appreciation of living" that we ourselves find most suited to our conditions and our preferences and our personalities.

We need to be "extraordinarily obstinate" on this point: On Ends Book Two, 9 : Cicero: “…[B]ut unless you are extraordinarily obstinate you are bound to admit that 'freedom from pain' does not mean the same thing as 'pleasure.'” Torquatus: “Well but on this point you will find me obstinate, for it is as true as any proposition can be.” Which is basically the same, but more starkly clear given the surrounding conceptual argument, as Epicurus saying in the letter to Menoeceus that ”By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.“

Getting confident on this issue is going to mean getting confident in seeing why Torquatus was right in saying that this formulation is as true as any proposition can be. It seems very similar to using the same reasoning which leads someone to say "You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate" to also conclude that "there is nothing more pleasurable than pleasure."

Quote from Don

Epicurus answers that by saying pleasure cannot rise to greater heights than the absence of all pain, therefore, pleasure cannot be added to once it has replaced all pain.

Still thinking about this, and to repeat a point from post 23, I think a danger in emphasizing this "pleasure cannot be added to once it has replaced all pain" part of the perspective is that the superficial point overwhelms the deeper point. While it is true that once "all pain is removed no more pleasure can be added," that situation is effectively limited only to "the gods." If we obsess over the goal of eliminating "all pain" then we are trying to duplicate Zeus, which we can never fully do.

Now we can approximate Zeus figuratively, and I think that's what Epicurus is talking about as "competing with Zeus" and "living as a god among men." But that distinction between literally eliminating all pain and becoming a Zeus, vs figuratively eliminating as much pain as possible so you can run with Zeus for a while, is very important.

What I think a lot of writers about Epicurus are doing is saying that your literal goal is to be Zeus by draining every drop of pain from experience, and they imply the best way to do that is live on bread and water in a cave. When living ascetically fails to satisfy us, as it always will, we set ourselves up for disappointment and thus fail to be as happy as we could otherwise. So from that perspective wanting to be Zeus would be a natural but unnecessary desire - unnecessary because while the variation is desirable, we can live approximately like Zeus while we are alive and say we have tasted the same thing. Frustration at not being perfect doesn't become an enemy of living a good pleasant life.

So to repeat what I think is the main point that needs center stage:

You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate -- and you will also find nothing more pleasurable than pleasure.

This does in fact place pleasure in the same category of "completable" or "graspable" things as virtue, which as Joshua stated in the podcast, could be a concern --- but the concern isn't a problem when you see that the main issue is not that the perfect is being made the enemy of the good, but in fact the perfect is a "concept" that is being used as a guide toward the good, never to be confused with our actual experience. That's another application too of "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." Neither the words "virtue" nor "pleasure" exist as entities out in the universe on their own - they are just conceptions of the human mind, but when viewed properly they are very useful conceptions.

Thank you Don for the extra Seneca because that ("You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate") does make the point more clear.

I think we are on the same track but for perhaps the final sentence:

Quote from Don

Epicurus answers that by saying pleasure cannot rise to greater heights than the absence of all pain, therefore, pleasure cannot be added to once it has replaced all pain.

If pleasure IS absence of pain, as Torquatus insists to Cicero multiple times, then the same analysis applies to pleasure as to virtue. There is no "rising" or "moving" involved in the analysis at the level we are talking about. "You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate." It's easy to extend that to "You will find nothing more pleasurable than pleasure."

The important point would be NOT that it is essential to remove all pain in life before we can experience pleasure. Only "the gods" can do that, and that is the lever that Cicero is using to argue that Epicurus makes no sense. Cicero is saying that Epicurus himself does not even experience pleasure because what he in fact experiences is a mixture of pleasure and pain, which is not pleasure.

The important point would be that WHEREVER pleasure exists, pain is absent, which means that anytime we experience pleasure we are in fact experiencing pleasure in the full and complete sense of the term. Nothing is more pleasurable than pleasure.

If this were not so, then we would never be able to experience pleasure at all, because what we would be experiencing would be some incomplete pleasure, some mixture of pleasure and pain, which from this perspective is not pleasure at all. A "mixture" is not the same thing as a "thing in its pure form."

So this "pleasure is the absence of pain" is necessary to comprehend that it is possible to experience pleasure at all.

This would be the "mental" part of the perspective, the part that the mind has to do in order for the person to understand that what his body feels when it feels pleasure is not lacking something, but which is in fact complete.

And since I think it is fair to say that Seneca is even more derivative as a philosopher than is Cicero, we are going to find this same point argued in other forms in other philosophers of the Platonic-Stoic line. But at the moment, this particular passage from Seneca stands out for its clarity.

We had some interesting discussion in the Zoom tonight, with most of the comments being relatively consistent with what has been discussed already.

My own thoughts are not likely to be satisfied without more clarity (citations) on what exactly the non-Epicureans were arguing about about the nature of the "limits" argument (which I perceive to be likely another way of stating Plato's "class of the infinite" argument).

For me, the most clear statement at the moment of what I perceive to be the "limits" argument remains that of Seneca. I wonder that the next-to-last sentence in this translation could be made more clear, and I would like to see this more precisely stated using the word "limit" in the sense of edge or "definition" (in the sense of high-definition photo) but i think this helps a lot:

Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.”

It's the last sentence that seems to me to be most revealing. I wonder if the meaning of "perfect" here is not "perfect in the sense of best" but rather "perfect in the sense of perfected / finished / sharp."

In other words, an incomplete / imperfect jar is not really a jar at all - it is something else that is in the process of becoming a jar, but it is not a jar at all.

If that is the direction of the argument, then incomplete or unfinished pleasure is not really pleasure at all, and the drift of the argument from Seneca's / Plato's / Cicero's perspective is that "pleasure" cannot really be experienced at all, because it is always accompanied by pain of some sort, and that the experience is mixed and not the same as pleasure.

From Epicurus' perspective, this argument (that it is impossible to experience pleasure at all because it is always mixed with pain) is solved by showing that what we are experiencing anytime we feel pleasure in some part of our experience. In other words, there is no such thing as "incomplete" pleasure, because if you feel pleasure you know it is pleasure because it does not feel painful.

This interpretation would place the emphasis on understanding from a conceptual perspective that pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain and they can exist in *different* parts of the body and in different amounts of duration and different intensities, but that these differences do not mean that what is being experienced at any moment of pleasure is not pleasure.

This interpretation would also mean that what is being discussed is not the "best" or the "highest" pleasure at all, but whether "pleasure" itself can be said to exist as a certain thing that can be experienced, or whether it is always (like a gas or liquid) something that can never be grasped and is always "slipping through our fingers."

Were it not for the understanding that every experience of pleasure is "complete in itself," then one would never be able to experience pleasure at all.

It seems to me that that might be an interpretation of PD03 that would explain how it fits in parallel along with PD01 and PD02 as an antidote (ok, a "remedy" if you like) for a major error that has to be refuted. The three are:

(1) The error that a "god" would concern himself with us is refuted by the position that a god is complete in itself,

(2) the error that the state of being dead is a concern for us is refuted by showing that where life is, death is not (life is complete without needing any aspect of death) and

(3) the error of thinking that pleasure can never be attained is refuted by establishing that pleasure too is complete in itself. All pleasure is complete in itself because given that there are only two feelings, whenever what we are feeling is not painful it is pleasurable - pleasure is complete wherever pleasure exists. The life that contains some pain does not fail to contain pleasure, it is just the life of a human being, in contrast to the life of a "god," which has attained the ability to never expeience pain.

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

Nothing here would then be intended to imply that "absence of pain" should be understood to describe is the most intense pleasure, the longest pleasure, or the pleasure covering the most numerous parts of the body. Nor would it imply at all that you need not concern yourself with continuing to stay alive, because you do in fact want to experience more pleasure by staying alive. The main point would be that since pleasure is complete whereever pleasure exists, the consideration of "pleasure" to be a proper goal of life does make sense, because it is in fact possible to experience pleasure. You're not doomed to be always drowning an inch below the surface never able to breathe - you do in fact figuratively "break through to the surface of the water and escape drowning" every time you experience any pleasure at all.

It would be very desirable to see if there are other surviving texts (such as the Seneca quote, or the statement in Hermotimus) that will make clear that this aspect of completeness was what was being argued by the non-Epicurean philosophers. Finding statements even more clear than Seneca's would help nail down this perspective and keep us from going around and around being frustrated that Plato's Philebus argument was not as clear as we would like it to be asking: SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

Understanding and being able to explain clearly to an ordinary person why asked that question, and why Epicurus' answer would differ from that of Plato, is key.

I will run the current state of the discussion past the Zoom group tonight and we can assemble the circular firing squads again after that

Godfrey I agree with all your conclusions in Post 16, but I also have to say that ....

Quote from Godfrey

Simply put, to my understanding the longer life of pleasure is more pleasant than the shorter life of pleasure.

... with which I also agree, would appear to most people to contradict PD19 (PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure) unless we clearly explain why that contradiction does not exist in a way that normal people can grasp.

I think there are ways to do that, but those ways are going to -- as you say and as I agree - make clear that living a longer life of pleasure is better than a shorter life of pleasure, and that's going to conflict with a lot of modern orthodox interpretation. He who isn't satisfied with enough will never be satisfied! ... It doesn't matter to me if I die today! And all that....

Before I go further I looked back at Torquatus' initial presentation of the ethics and this is really the only part I see that touches on PD19 at all:

Quote from On Ends Book One

[38] Therefore Epicurus refused to allow that there is any middle term between pain and pleasure; what was thought by some to be a middle term, the absence of all pain, was not only itself pleasure, but the highest pleasure possible. Surely any one who is conscious of his own condition must needs be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. Epicurus thinks that the highest degree of pleasure is defined by the removal of all pain, so that pleasure may afterwards exhibit diversities and differences but is incapable of increase or extension.

I think we can productively ask why Torquatus's summary of Epicurean ethics *apparently* does not contain more explanation of this -- or maybe it does and we are just not seeing it. Rather than concluding that Cicero stacked the table and just omitted the explanation, I think we can infer that Cicero's interpretation of PD19 as meaning that time doesn't matter - which is probably the interpretation that prevails in Epicurean circles today -- is where the error lies.

Torquatus never says that time doesn't matter, and the common senses position is that time DOES matter. Maybe the (limited) point being made is that the experience doesn't get any "better" -- but that word "better" is where the devil resides in the details. I think we should look to the argument people seem to be making about virtue being complete in itself for a clue as to how pleasure can be complete in itself.

It would be perverse to interpret Epicurus as saying that it doesn't "matter" to us how long we live, and yet that interpretation prevails.

It seems clear that "the highest degree of pleasure" as stated by Torquatus in interpreting the "no greater degree" in PD19 is being given a limited technical meaning that is absolutely not intended to wipe out a common sense understanding that a longer life of pleasure is generally going to be preferred to a shorter life of pleasure.

Clue from Cicero in Section XXVIII:

The pleasure, he says, that is obtained from the cheapest things is not inferior to that which is got from the most costly. To say this is to be destitute not merely of intelligence, but even of a palate. Truly those who disregard pleasure itself are free to say that they do not prefer a sturgeon to a sprat; but he who places his supreme good in pleasure must judge of everything by sense and not by reason, and must say that those things are best which are most tasty.

Quote from Godfrey

is in many ways a matter of materialism v idealism.

Another point:

While I personally am quick to throw around the "materialism" vs "idealism" contrast, I think we need to be clear what it means. Epicurus doesn't hold that things need to be "material" in order to be felt -- he says mental feelings are stronger than physical ones. So "idealism" can certainly cause pleasure and pain, I would presume, and that makes idealism at least as "real" as dreams in that idealism can affect us.

This gets blurry as well in asking "are we talking about concepts vs things that have a material existence?

I think we need to be clear in what respect saying that something is "idealism" means something. "Capitalism" and "communism" may not exist as independent entities, but they do exist as "concepts" or "ideals," and a lot of tears have been shed over "capitalism" and "communism" just the same, so they are certainly "real" in that they can cause pain or pleasure.

Quote from Godfrey

So one's goal is to prudently maximize one's pleasure, which is limited by one's lifespan. Cicero's argument is about the larger issue of materialism v idealism.

I think this is a helpful direction, Godfrey, but I think it will need further explanation to be clearly understandable.

Is Epicurus in fact saying that a longer life is not more pleasant than a shorter life, or is he only comparing the limited human span (whatever it is ) to an unlimited span? Cicero is arguing that Epicurus said that length of time adds nothing to pleasure. Did Epicurus in fact say that? If that is the case, then the position applies to no matter how long or short that the human life is, not just that it is "limited." If complete pleasure can be experienced the first day we are born, and nothing more is needed and we are indifferent to living longer, than we should say so explicitly. I do not think that is what Epicurus meant.

As to materialism vs idealism, I suppose I am not sure that materialism is the opposite of idealism. Maybe it's the opposite of spiritualism or supernaturalism, but is "idealism" the same thing as those two? Were the Stoics really that obtuse as to think that there is something called "virtue" that if grasped only for a moment is all that one needs to be satisfied? It seems they said so, but I don't think we can clearly discuss what they were saying without more reference material / citations that establish what they were thinking.

As we asked in the episode, is it not clear to anyone that it would be "better" to be virtuous for a year than for a day? Maybe the question is defining "better," but if some limited or special definition of "better" is the issue, then we need to know what that is so that we can see if Epicurus was applying that same definition to pleasure.

This is a good time to try to hash through some of these questions so we can add a substantive entry to the FAQ and/or other places on the website, because I don't think we are anywhere close to a persuasive explanation of what Epicurus was really saying.

Of course I invite anyone to propose a full statement reconciling these issues including the contrast with the Stoics!

I posted this following quote over in another recent thread but it also belongs here. I am strongly dissatisfied with how hard it seems to be to balance this time issue in many of our discussions. Yes, it's not necessary to live a longer time in order to experience "complete pleasure," because once you are complete it never gets more complete. But if life is desirable, as Epicurus also says, then "living" contains a time element, and so a longer pleasant life is still more desirable than a shorter pleasant life, even though the pleasure never gets more "complete," it only varies.

Both are true - the pleasure never gets more complete, but a longer time is also desirable. This language in Menoeceus needs to be parsed closely: "And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant." I will leave it to the Greek experts to expound on the Greek, but to be consistent with the rest of what he is saying it seems to me that Epicurus has to be saying that both points are true -- length of time experiencing pleasure is in fact an aspect of experiencing pleasure (it is one among many, but the three primary are time, intensity, and part of the organism involved, per PD09), but another aspect of experiencing pleasure is that once you experience "complete" pleasure then pleasure never gets more "complete."

We're seeing in many discussions strong implication that length of time is not relevant to pleasure at all, and to me that would be like saying that manner of death or time of death is not relevant at all. That's patently not true - it is preferable to die a painless death rather than painful death, and it is preferable to live a longer happy life than a shorter happy life.

The need to work further on expressing this better, including finding the sources that explain the warped Stoic view that Lucian is ridiculing here, and this is a much more important issue than many that we often discuss.

Quote from Lucian's Hermotimus

Lycinus. You must be of good cheer and keep a stout heart; gaze at the end of your climb and the Happiness at the top, and remember that he is working with you. What prospect does he hold out? when are you to be up? does he think you will be on the top next year—by the Great Mysteries, or the Panathenaea, say?

Hermotimus. Too soon, Lycinus.

Lycinus. By next Olympiad, then?

Hermotimus. All too short a time, even that, for habituation to Virtue and attainment of Happiness.

Lycinus. Say two Olympiads, then, for an outside estimate. You may fairly be found guilty of laziness, if you cannot get it done by then; the time would allow you three return trips from the Pillars of Heracles to India, with a margin for exploring the tribes on the way instead of sailing straight and never stopping. How much higher and more slippery, pray, is the peak on which your Virtue dwells than that Aornos crag which Alexander stormed in a few days?

Hermotimus. There is no resemblance, Lycinus; this is not a thing, as you conceive it, to be compassed and captured quickly, though ten thousand Alexanders were to assault it; in that case, the sealers would have been legion. As it is, a good number begin the climb with great confidence, and do make progress, some very little indeed, others more; but when they get half-way, they find endless difficulties and discomforts, lose heart, and turn back, panting, dripping, and exhausted. But those who endure to the end reach the top, to be blessed thenceforth with wondrous days, looking down from their height upon the ants which are the rest of mankind.

Lycinus. Dear me, what tiny things you make us out—not so big as the Pygmies even, but positively groveling on the face of the earth. I quite understand it; your thoughts are up aloft already. And we, the common men that walk the earth, shall mingle you with the Gods in our prayers; for you are translated above the clouds, and gone up whither you have so long striven.

Hermotimus. If but that ascent might be, Lycinus! but it is far yet.

Lycinus. But you have never told me how far, in terms of time.

Hermotimus. No; for I know not precisely myself. My guess is that it will not be more than twenty years; by that time I shall surely be on the summit.

Lycinus. Mercy upon us, you take long views!

Hermotimus. Ay; but, as the toil, so is the reward.

Lycinus. That may be; but about these twenty years—have you your master's promise that you will live so long? Is he prophet as well as philosopher? Or is it a soothsayer or Chaldean expert that you trust? Such things are known to them, I understand. You would never, of course, if there were any uncertainty of your life's lasting to the Virtue-point, slave and toil night and day like this; why, just as you were close to the top, your fate might come upon you, lay hold of you by the heel, and lug you down with your hopes unfulfilled.

Hermotimus. God forbid! these are words of ill omen, Lycinus; may life be granted me, that I may grow wise, and have if it be but one day of Happiness!

Lycinus. For all these toils will you be content with your one day?

Hermotimus. Content? Yes, or with the briefest moment of it.

Lycinus. But is there indeed Happiness up there—and worth all the pains? How can you tell? You have never been up yourself.

Hermotimus. I trust my master's word; and he knows well; is he not on the topmost height?

Lycinus. Oh, do tell me what he says about it; what is Happiness like? wealth, glory, pleasures incomparable?

Display More

Quote from Titus

In this episode I learnt that I don't have to listen to the approximately 200 episodes I've missed so far to experience the maximum of this pleasurable podcast

You don't have to listen to the old episodes to experience "maximum pleasure" from the podcast, but since he who counsels the old man to make a good end is foolish ... because of the desirability of life, and also because ... much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but ‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’.... it will be pleasant and desirable also if you end up having the time to listen to the previous 200!

DavidN it appears to me that your wording that Nate quoted might be a little unclear, and not just as to needing "their" rather than "there" and lack of an apostrophe. I think your point is understandable but for others reading could you check that wording?

(I say this as the King of Typos myself but this is important enough to be clear on )

I am thinking the sense of what you are saying is something like:

If gods are supposed to be perfect, as an Epicurean should you not look to the Epicurean gods for their utility in steering your own movement towards perfection?

I am posting this as a forum thread to be sure it gets the attention it deserves, as posts in the "Files" section don't always come up in regular searches. Also, I am including in this post Elli's initial comments on some of the names mentioned:

"First Generation" Epicureans - Epicureanfriends.com

Greetings, all! I created a document that organizes a list of "First Generation" Epicureans (with citations). As always, I hope you find it to be useful. Let…

www.epicureanfriends.com

Elli Pensa wrote:

This is an outstanding work. Bravo, my friend Nathan!

Nathan wrote [...Khairédēmos of Sámos - Kathēgētḗs; Brother of Epíkouros; named for their mother (DL X.3, 27)...]

Τhe name of Epicurus' mother was "Khairestráte" and thanks to the name of mother, her son would be named as "Khairéstratos".

Since, another name is Khairédēmos and another name is Khairéstratos.

- Khairéstratos means the joy of army or the greetings to the army.

- And Khairédemos means the joy of démos or the greetings to démos.

- We have the epicurean Philódemos that means the friend of démos. From the word Dēmos comes the word "Demokratēa"(Democracy) and the word "demṓtis" that means the one who was registered in the registers of a démos (municipality) of ancient Athens.

And as the ancient greek names have a meaning thas is connected with the characteristics/character of a man/woman that are following all of his/her life, and till the end. Since we see what is the end of someone to understand how all of his/her life was. Because we (epicureans) say it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well.

Thus now, we have to examine the names of "the three caballeros" and "Saludos ex Amigos"

Nathan wrote: [..."Ex-Phíloi" (φίλοι) or Ex-“Friends” / Former Associates of Epíkouros.

*Hēródotos of Lampsakós - Recipient of the famous letter; left for Platonism (DL X.4-5)

Metródōros of Stratoníkeia - A disciple of Epíkouros who “went over” to Karneádēs (DL X.9)

*Timokrátēs of Lampsakós - Brother of Metród., Batís, and Mento.; left for Platonism (DL X.4-5)...]

- Hēródotos means the one that is given or assigned to the goddess Hera...but after Herodotus rejected the epicurean philosophy and left for platonism, he remains as a given/assigned to the goddess Hera. And in the end what does his name mean? Stupid!

- Metródōros means the one that is a gift to his mother... but after he rejected epicurean philosophy and left to Karneades, he remains a gift that is under the skirts of his mother. And in the end what does his name mean? Stupid!

- Timokrátēs means the power of honor or simply to hold your honor...but, after he rejected the epicurean philosophy and left to Platonism, he remains just to hold his honor... but honor - without prudence and justice - does not lead to a pleasant life. And in the end what does his name mean? Stupid!

If you have problems finding this in the future you can also find it in the List of Special Resources page here:

- Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

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

Episode 216 of the Lucretius Today Podcast Is Now Available. Today we address an important but frequently questioned doctrine of Epicurus - Why did he seem to say that length of time does not contribute to pleasure? (PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure.)

Gonna be out soon later tonight, but one comment first - as sometimes is the case you may need a dictionary for some of Joshua's comments -- unless you are familiar with the word "mickle" already!