Posts by Cassius

Ok I cannot resist getting started. Thompson seems very admiring of Lucretius, and his extended discussion of how Lucretius is using the deductive method about atoms that have been and never will be seen by the unaided eye emphasizes the point that DeWitt makes, that Epicurus and Lucretius were not strict "empiricists" as that term is often used.

Quote

Now, the point I make, and would insist upon, is, that these were not lucky guesses or coincidences of Lucretius, but results of the deductive method to which scientific materialism is compelled to do homage by its own discoveries. But remarkable as are these correspondences of experimental physics and chemistry with the atomic theory, the atom itself is simply assumed. It never has been, and never can be, brought within the range of the senses.

The atomic theory is evidenced by experiments as to atomic weights, volume, heat, and combining capacity, and as to isomerism, and chemical molecules and homogeneity; but the theory is still stoutly contested by some, and the very existence of the atom is disputed by others.3) Yet we are called upon to accept the materialistic doctrine of the universe, and to receive nothing as knowledge which does not come to us through the senses, while forsooth the foundation of this sensible universe lies utterly beyond the senses, is not at all a physical fact that any one has seen or handled, but a theoretical deduction, an assumption of the mind to explain facts that are seen. Let the atomic theory have all due acceptance as an ingenious and subtile theory, but let it not be thrust upon us as a dogma by a hierarchy of physicists —— which, in the name of human freedom, is as much to be resisted and detested as an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Most heartily and gratefully do I welcome all facts ascertained by physical science; nor do I see, upon theistic grounds, any solid objection to the nebular hypothesis, the atomic theory, the doctrine of the correlation of forces, or of natural selection. But should all these be established upon the physical basis of experimental observation, I pray men of science to be honest enough to own that it was not physics but Metaphysics that first suggested and sought to demonstrate them, each and all. Materialism can not repudiate its own parentage; can not steal the name of Lucretius and scorn his method. Materialism was begotten not of Nature, but of Mind through metaphysics.

Thank you Don! that looks to be fascinating! i am not going to be able to read it tonight so if others get a chance before I do please let us know if you think it is a worthwhile read!

In the process of editing this episode I want to call out an interesting aspect of the discussion:

Joshua makes the point that, like Justice, friendship arises through natural experience over time. We brought that up initially on the point that some Epicureans argued that friendship arises from advantages, but changes over time. However I want to pursue another aspect of the analogy, insofar as it may shed light on the question: From the Epicurean perspective, does "friendship" necessarily mean "to the death"? We need to consider not only the question as to whether every friendship should mean that we should die for that friend (most of us would probably say "of course not"). But we also need to consider the general question: "Is it ever appropriate to terminate a friendship? Under what conditions?

PD37 and PD38 go on at great length to explain how, when circumstances change and mutual advantage no longer exists, justice itself no longer exists. Should we take by analogy that when mutual advantage of friendship no longer exists, that friendship also can or should terminate?

I think we tend to underestimate the implications of PD37 and PD38, as we find it very hard not to "deify" justice and think that justice has a life of its own and should never be terminate or violated, despite what PD37 and PD38 say.

Do we have the same problem with friendship? Are we seduced by Cicero's examples of Orestes and others that if we are not willing to die for a friend then we are not true friends at all?

This possibility of terminating friendship when advantage changes seems to be at the heart of Cicero's attacks on Epicurean friendship, so attractive as Cicero's romantic notions might be (as to both friendship and justice) is Epicurus telling us to be ruthlessly practical and not to consider either justice or friendship to exist when the mutual advantage is no longer there?

I think we have here a very interesting question to unwind. Our discussion in the episode should be helpful, but is by no means the last word.

Quote from Kalosyni

...the areas of active pleasure in my body have been limited to specific places and to specific times. Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure.

My response to that would be that your view of pleasure is incomplete. If you are alive and aware of anything at all, what you are aware of is pleasure or pain. Stimulative pleasure is only one type of pleasure, and all other experiences of life which are not stimulative and not painful are also pleasure.

So when you say "Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure," what you are saying is that most of the time most parts of your body are not feeling either pain or stimulative pleasure. But you have not completed the description: it is right and proper to label what those parts of your body *are* feeling at those times as pleasure.

Bryan your last comment is exactly what I just sat down to post about. Some people seem to have a problem with "absence of pain" because they refuse to separate out the parts of the body, which you just pointed out is important to consider. They want to say that "I" am in pain whenever their foot or their stomach hurts, as if there is some abstract "I" that is the sum of all the separate feelings from all the separate parts of the body and mind, and that they should ignore the entire rest of their mind and body that is not in pain.

While we do have a consciousness that can shift its awareness from one part of the body to another, or to multiple parts at once, when we are talking about pleasure and pain we are really talking about the parts of the mind or body that are involved, and we are considering the duration and intensity of those pleasures in the different locations.

We can have a headache, but our little finger at the same time is not in pain. Epicurus is telling us to think about the big picture but not to lose sight of the fact that you can do more than one thing at once. Just like Epicurus did at the end, you can offset the pleasures of thinking about pleasant things against the pains in other parts of the mind and body. You can't erase the pains from existence by doing so, and if they hurt bad enough then you're definitely going to feel it, but you can offset them against each other when evaluating your overall existence.

I would say that the point Epicurus seems to be getting at is that we are not some disembodied "unit" where we are either "in pleasure" or "in pain" as a unit. We are real living things with different parts of our minds and bodies, and just because our little finger is hurting that does not mean that our entire existence is controlled by that pain.

This comes to mind too because this is covered in why "absence of pain" is not a "fancy pleasure" (Elayne's term in her article). A peanut without salt is a peanut. Any specific pleasure without accompanying pain is still that same specific pleasure - not something new. When we stipulate that someone is experiencing life "without any pain," what we mean is that the person is experiencing life - the same combination of pleasurable experiences that existed before that last unit of pain was removed - not entering some kind of state of transcendental ecstacy or euphoria.

I think your bringing this up is extremely helpful both to the "Bursting the Gate" article and Elayne's "Pleasure Pain and Happiness" article. The Bursting the Gate article focuses more on what Epicurus/ Torquatus "were" saying, and the "Pleasure Pain and Happiness" which argues against "Fancy Pleasure" is focusing more on what Epicurus "was not" saying.

Both perspectives require this understanding that "absence of pain" doesn't mean the creation of some new type of experience. If I recall correctly, this is where Gosling and Taylor end up in their long article on katastematic pleasure in "The Greeks On Pleasure." There are definitely all sorts of mental and physical pleasures, but "absence of pain" does not constitute a pleasure of its own unique type. There are numberless types of pleasures and pains, but in the end we come back to the understanding that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain, and "absence of pain" is just another term for "pleasure." Epicureans reason by analogy from their own experience to those things which have not yet been observed by them, they don't let loose of reality and all of a sudden then that getting to 0% pain transports us to another dimension (as implied by those who talk in low voices about "absence of pain" in a Buddhist-like sense).

Both "pleasure" and "absence of pain" can be used to describe the same numberless set of ordinary agreeable experiences with which we are all familiar, and neither describe any separate and special experience that is outside the term "pleasure" and available only to the gods, or available only to the person who hypothetically reaches a state of "total absence of pain." As I think we've discussed on the forum before, there's no reason at all to think that there is a major change in condition between the person who is experiencing 99.9% pleasure / .01% pain and the person who is experiencing 100% pleasure and 00% pain.

Almost four years later, I still think this is one of the most useful articles on the website, so today I added it to the "Articles" section where it will be easier to find. I see this is one of the most-read articles on the website, and as I read it today it still strikes me as a very good summary of where I think most of us are on this topic.

I also added this note below to Elayne's footnote five. I would have to go back through this thread to see what I was thinking at the time, and so far I haven't been able to figure out whether we ended up agreeing after discussing the issues. But no matter where we ended up in the past conversations, I am footnoting the final article so it will be clear that I think Elayne was correct in the comment to which she notes me as objecting:

02/12/24 Admin Edit From Cassius: Today I am reposting this article to the "Articles" section, and in seeing this footnote it appears to me that Elayne is correct about this. I will go on record now that I think Elayne's comments here are correct, and that she is stating the Epicurean position based on what Torquatus explains in On Ends Book 2: If we are aware of anything at all, that awareness is either pleasurable or painful.

Quote from Kalosyni

I would like to propose that by thinking through the idea that "the highest pleasure is the absence of pain" will provide some insight into the sense of discontent that is at play in this situation and provide an opportunity to develop contentment rather than be driven by compulsion.

If that works for you I would say more power to you.

As for me, I see hypotheticals like that, no matter how intricate they are made, as all boiling down to questions that are solved by looking to VS71 and following this guidance: "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"

As far as "absence of pain" goes, for me that's mainly a statement that expands the definition of pleasure and tells me that the best I can hope for in life is as much pleasure accompanied by as little pain as possible. The pleasure that comes from eating chocolate is not necessarily more or less pleasurable than the extra time I might have laying in bed staring at the ceiling at the nursing home if I keep my blood sugar under control for a longer period. That may be an extreme example but to state it more neutrally, the pleasure of health that comes from eating low-carb/keto is not necessarily greater than the pleasure that comes from eating a more sugary diet.

Posing stark examples helps make the questions more clear. Is it necessarily so that living a longer number of years (which might occur if you eat a lean and hungry diety) always and for everyone better than living a shorter life while eating the "standard American diet"? Yes it's better in terms of the physical health of the body, if that is your *only* measure of "better," but I don't think anyone can persuasively maintain that Epicurus would say (or we should think) that the "health of the body" is the only thing in play. Would or should *everyone* choose to eat a "cave-man" diet in order to live a longer number of days?

I always turn back to the letter to Menoeceus for what I think is most persuasive on that point:

[126] But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. 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.

So yes I think that "absence of pain" is they key to a proper understanding of the full nature of pleasure, so that we understand that sensory stimulation is not all that we live for. But the expanded definition of pleasure still does not tell anyone which particular pleasures to pursue in life, so we have to decide what is our own best mix of mental and bodily experiences, based on what we find to be "most pleasant." And I don't think there is a universal right and wrong answer to the question of "what" is most pleasant, as that is something each person feels uniquely for himself.

Quote from Kalosyni

Some new ideas after reading this: "Absence of pain is the highest pleasure" is different than saying something like: "any pleasure without pain is the best kind of pleasure we can experience".

This is another point. I don't think it makes any sense given the rest of Epicurean physics and epistemology to conclude that when Epicurus spoke of "the highest pleasure" he was speaking of a single particular experience such as sex, or eating, or anything else that is a specific activity. Sex with whom? Eating what? Listening to what kind of music? Who other than ourselves is to say that listening to Bach is more pleasant to us than listening to Beethoven?

Epicurus talks about the man at the banquet choosing food that is "the most pleasant" rather than the greatest quantity. I think we can apply that reasoning to the entire subject. When we speak of pleasure we speak of agreeableness, but exactly what kind of agreeableness is going to be personal to the individual living thing that is experiencing it. There are no Platonic ideals in any other aspect of life, and I don't think there is a Platonic ideal of "the highest pleasure" that fits everyone exactly the same way. Pleasure is ultimately a feeling and feelings aren't abstractions that can be stated in a precise mathematical or verbal formula. To employ one of the phrases we posted about recently: All models are 'wrong,' in that they are not the exact equivalent of the reality that they seek to describe, but some models (like "absence of pain") are useful, in that they help us understand how to target a goal.

Both of these last comments by Kalosyni show to me how much there is to think through on these questions:

1 - *We* might consider that Cicero's choice of Torquatus as spokesman undermines Epicurus, but I would say that would mainly come from the preexisting mindset that we have, based on years of commentators drumming on "absence of pain" without explaining it the way Torquatus did. In the modern world they have created a drumbeat that Epicurus must have been a neoBuddhist, and anyone who says so is wrong -- even if the person who says so was taught by Epicurean teachers, had many Epicurean friends, was writing to a significantly Epicurean audience, and had a greater command of the source materials of Greek philosophy than we today will ever hope to have. Cicero likely felt just the opposite - that by using Torquatus as spokesman he was granting to Epicurean philosophy a vigor that he did not think that it had. These attitudes are a problem that can' be worked through overnight, and getting to the appreciation of how much Cicero knew in relation to how much we know takes a strong dose of humility.

2 - Many of these phrases have multiple meanings from multiple perspectives. What is stated here in (2) could be one of them, especially if you're stuck in a rut from failing to have properly understood and implemented Epicurean philosophy in the past. But if you've failed to the point where you are at such a point of desperation, you probably better question whether your latest insight is any better than the failed insights that got you where you are. Sometimes when you have dug yourself into a ditch of asceticism, the first thing to do might be to stop digging rather than seek justification for what you've already dug!

Quote from Kalosyni

I personally think every person should make their own substack. (I may create one, or may use another platform.) There must be a way to recommend other substack content, with a link.

Yes there are multiple ways to follow and share links, just like on other platforms. I am not sure I see a major difference between Substack and platforms that have come before it like Minds, or Medium, or many others. Maybe its unique strength is that it is set up for people to make money through selling subscriptions if they wish, which seems to be a "thing" nowadays. But substack seems to have a "buzz" around it, and everything I have seen so far indicates it has lots of features beyond that of past blogging platforms, so it's off to a fast start.

Elli's comment to the article at Facebook:

From Epicurus LTM we read (in parentheses are my comments to understand better what Epicurus meant):

"When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates (i.e. the addicted) and those that consist in sensuality (the addicted in sensuality e.g. those that want to make sex with whatever is moving and walking HA ), as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. FOR IT IS NOT THE CONTINUOUS drinkings (alcoholism) and revelings (orgies), nor the satisfaction of lusts (porno videos etc), nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table (a struggling to find the expensive and scarce things i.e. like the chian wine in the era of Philodemus) , (nor the cocaine, LSD and other drugs, nor the reading of books of stoicism ) are those things which produce a pleasant life, BUT SOBER REASONING, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit".

In the above excerpt Epicurus used one greek word that it has to be pointed out, it is the: "συνείροντες" that in english is given with the word "CONTINUOUS".

But really, with the above excerpt of LTM what Epicurus has in mind and what Epicurus had experienced-lived, and who are those that Epicurus photographed as profligates?

Historical facts :

In the same era of Epicurus lived Demetrius called as Poliorcetes = "The Besieger" the son of Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Stratonice. He was a Macedonian Greek military leader, and finally king of Macedon (294–288 BC). He belonged to the Antigonid dynasty and was its first member to rule Macedonia and Athens.

Demetrius the Besieger as the ancient Athenians told was he :

"Who abridged the whole year into a single month,"

and with reference to the quartering of the Parthenon:—

Who took the Acropolis for a caravansary,

And introduced to its virgin goddess (Athena) his courtesans."

Demetrius the Besieger was married five times:

- His first wife was Phila daughter of Regent Antipater by whom he had two children: Stratonice of Syria and Antigonus II Gonatas.

- His second wife was Eurydice of Athens, by whom he is said to have had a son called Corrhabus.

- His third wife was Deidamia, a sister of Pyrrhus of Epirus. Deidamia bore him a son called Alexander who is said by Plutarch to have spent his life in Egypt, probably in an honourable captivity.

- His fourth wife was Lanassa, the former wife of his brother-in-law Pyrrhus of Epirus.

-His fifth wife was Ptolemais, daughter of Ptolemy I Soter and Eurydice of Egypt, by whom he had a son called Demetrius the Fair.

- He also had an affair with a celebrated courtesan called Lamia of Athens, by whom he had a daughter called Phila. He demanded 250 talants from the Athenians, which he then gave to Lamia and other courtesans to buy soap and cosmetics.

From the Parallel Lives -The Life of Demetrius the Besieger, by Plutarch, we read :

<<So he (Demetrius) crossed the sea in safety with a great fleet, but as he was sailing along the coast of Attica he encountered a storm in which most of his ships were lost and a great number of men perished with them. He himself, however, escaped alive, and began a petty war against the Athenians. But since he could accomplish nothing, he sent men to collect another fleet for him, while he himself passed on into Peloponnesus and laid siege to Messene. Here, in an attack upon the walls, he came near losing his life; for a missile from a catapult struck him in the face and passed through his jaw into his mouth. But he recovered, and after restoring to their allegiance certain cities which had revolted from him, he invaded Attica again, got Eleusis and Rhamnus into his power, and ravaged the country. He also seized a ship laden with grain for Athens, and hung its supercargo and its master.

All other ships were thus frightened into turning back, and famine became acute in the city (of Athens), where, besides lack of food, there was dearth also of other things. At any rate, a bushel of salt sold there for forty drachmas, and a peck of wheat was worth three hundred. A slight respite was afforded the Athenians by the appearance off Aegina of a hundred and fifty ships which Ptolemy sent to assist them. Then numerous ships came to Demetrius from Peloponnesus, and many from Cyprus, so that his entire assemblage numbered three hundred, in consequence of which the ships of Ptolemy put off to sea in flight, and Lachares the tyrant abandoned the city and ran away.

Then the Athenians, although they had decreed death to anyone who should so much as mention peace and reconciliation with Demetrius, straightway threw open the nearest gates and sent ambassadors to him. They did not expect any kindly treatment from him, but were driven to the step by their destitution, in which, among many other grievous things, the following also is said to have occurred. A father and a son were sitting in a room and had abandoned all hope. Then a dead mouse fell from the ceiling, and the two, when they saw it, sprang up and fought with one another for it. 𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨, 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.>>.

As for Cicero... he was one of the most viciously and doggedly hunted among the proscribed. He was viewed with sympathy by a large segment of the public and many people refused to report that they had seen him. He was caught on 7 December 43 BC leaving his villa in Formiae in a litter heading to the seaside, where he hoped to embark on a ship destined for Macedonia.] When his killers – Herennius (a Centurion) and Popilius (a Tribune) – arrived, Cicero's own slaves said they had not seen him, but he was given away by Philologus, a freedman of his brother Quintus Cicero. Cicero about age 60, from a marble bust

As reported by Seneca the Elder, according to the historian Aufidius Bassus, Cicero's last words are said to have been:

Ego vero consisto. Accede, veterane, et, si hoc saltim potes recte facere, incide cervicem.

I go no further: approach, veteran soldier, and, if you can at least do so much properly, sever this neck.

He bowed to his captors, leaning his head out of the litter in a gladiatorial gesture to ease the task. By baring his neck and throat to the soldiers, he was indicating that he would not resist. According to Plutarch, Herennius first slew him, then cut off his head. On Antony's instructions his hands, which had penned the Philippics against Antony, were cut off as well; these were nailed along with his head on the Rostra in the Forum Romanum according to the tradition of Marius and Sulla, both of whom had displayed the heads of their enemies in the Forum. Cicero was the only victim of the proscriptions who was displayed in that manner. According to Cassius Dio, in a story often mistakenly attributed to Plutarch, Antony's wife Fulvia took Cicero's head, pulled out his tongue, and jabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin in final revenge against Cicero's power of speech.

Cicero's career as a statesman was marked by inconsistencies and a tendency to shift his position in response to changes in the political climate. His indecision may be attributed to his sensitive and impressionable personality; he was prone to overreaction in the face of political and private change.

"Would that he had been able to endure prosperity with greater self-control, and adversity with more fortitude!" wrote C. Asinius Pollio, a contemporary Roman statesman and historian.

--------------------------------

Finally for Cicero and any Cicero, Epicurus adds: To live well and die well is the same issue. Would that he (Cicero) had been able to study better the Epicurean philosophy for understanding perfectly when we (epicureans) speak for pleasure what we really mean... as well as to see clearly the causes of the details on the phenomena of his era, and where was the deepest causes of the decline of Roman Empire: 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐬' 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲-𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐒, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐬' 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞.

My view is that all of us who are motivated to do so should pursue each and every outlet that we can, so yes i would encourage everyone to open their own substack and blog and twitter and other social media accounts and publish their own work. Creative production like that is the best way I have found to internalize the philosophy.

Realistically though, not everyone is going to be willing or able to do that. It's easy enough to post here in a friendly environment without a lot of friction, and that will probably always make the most sense for the most people. But just the same, some of us will have the time and motivation to work on occasional longer articles, and if we bundle them together through an Epicureanfriends substack (and maybe similar venues, as they arise) then they can get more exposure than they would otherwise.

I doubt that most postings on substack will be as long and involved one as this first one on absence of pain, so they don't have to be novels, just stand-alone substantive pieces that fit the theme of what we're doing here.

First, I am glad I posted this on Super Bowl night - hopefully only a few people read it before I went through and made some more edits.

Second, ABSOLUTELY I would consider some "guest" articles, both at Substack and here as a backup.

I am going to try to work on producing one substantive article at least every week or two, and the best way to do that is likely to comment on what we're discussing here at the forum.

I seem to remember you (Don) had a list of projects in the hopper and it would be great to get them on substack. I am thinking that the relationship that makes the most sense is that we will always continue the primary ongoing discussion here at the forum in "forum" format, but as we talk through subjects we develop them into summaries that look more like "articles" which we can feature here and there.

Both formats have their uses, and of course that's what my first substack article was - a sort of master summary of ideas we've been talking about for months as we have gone through "On Ends."

I would welcome anyone here who is regular enough to be a level 3 or above to consider tacking "article-length" projects that we can publish outside the forum. Many of our regular posts are good enough already, and we just need to curate them and "push" them outside into the world of substack and beyond.

Of course it's easy for anyone to post their own articles at substack, but hopefully we will end up with some number of subscribers who find the "Epicureanfriends" stack, and we can certainly post there anyone's Epicurean articles that fit the format.

Oh I should be very clear! It is set to be a free account so there is no fee for the subscription required!

For quite a while I have wanted to explore the use of Substack, so I have opened a new account and written a longer-form article as my first post there. I have also posted the same article here, as this forum will always remain the primary place where I think we can make progress on understanding the philosophy of Epicurus.

For those of you using substack, the address of the new article is here:

A Gate To Be Burst: "Absence of Pain"

It is interesting to think about what Lucretius had in mind in Book One of “On The Nature of Things” when he spoke about Epicurus "yearning to be the first to…

epicureanfriends.substack.com

For those who would like to access it here, the link is:

Blog Article

A Gate To Be Burst: "Absence of Pain"

It is interesting to think about what Lucretius had in mind in Book One of “On The Nature of Things” when he spoke about Epicurus "yearning to be the first to burst through the close-set bolts upon the gates of nature." What kind of gates was he talking about? Who bolted them? How do those gates keep us from Nature?

I can't be sure which gates Lucretius had in mind, but I can suggest one "gate" that is particularly in need of bursting, as it stands directly in the way of a better understanding…

Cassius

February 11, 2024 at 6:20 AM

It's rather lengthy and though I have revised it several times already, it certainly could be improved. However I think it's ready to add to our efforts outside this forum, so it's going up now.

Thanks for reading!

Here is something that I think is closely related to this topic:

Nothing irritates me more than reading academics accuse Epicurus of hypocrisy in writing a last will and testament when supposedly death should have been "nothing" to him.

No community which does not provide for continuity, reproduction, rearing, and education of children and the institutions that support that (such as marriage and families and similar long-term extension of 'friendship') can possibly be self-sustaining over any length of time. It is simply not true that "everyone" does or can ever love everyone indiscriminately such as the monotheistic religions preach everyone as children of the same god. People naturally associate with people of similar disposition to themselves, and there are many different types of dispositions, and those of similar disposition can sustain themselves only by working together to do so.

It seems to me that Epicurus' will clearly establishes that he was well aware of these issues, and those who respect his example ought to be doing similar things.

As I see it there is far too much "consumerism" in Epicurean philosophy as well, which results in treating it as a sort of happiness pill that can be taken once or periodically and then go about your normal modern-world business as if what you have learned has no practical applications.

Ideas go hand in hand with action and one is useless without the other. Most of what would come under an "Epicurean religion" in my mind is just the practical application of Epicurean viewpoints to real life. Not smoke and mirrors and incantations and white gowns and untranslated words and incense and bowing and asceticism and minimization and zeroed-out minds and transcendental meditation, but clear-sighted active use of the time one has to make one's life the most emotionally satisfying (which means pleasing) it can be.

Such people are strong and independent and self-sufficient, but still recognize that there are things that bind them together with their friends that they cannot live happily without cultivating and working to ensure their continuity. If "res-ligio" is taken as a reference to things that bind, then our lives and societies require habits and practices and institutions to bind them together just like our bodies require ligaments to bind our bones and muscles and keep the body functioning. "Ideas" can't do that without action.

Quote from Godfrey

For me, reclaiming words such as "spiritual" is a valuable exercise.

Quote from Bryan

"which instead of ignoring or doubting it, I now think I see vividly.

Let me too try to engage on the precise issue, which I see as something like "describing the valid uses and meanings of the word 'spirituality'"

I see "spirituality" as validly describing a the experience of a very strong and clear feeling of respect and reverence and affection for something. I see it as validly describing an experience that at times is a strong feeling of respect and reverence is directed at other life forms, or at the stars or other "majestic" appearances of nature or other aspects of reality.

I see "spirituality" as invalidly used to describe an attitude of considering something as supernatural, or un-real, or wishfui thinking about things that do not exist.

A smell, for instance can trigger legitimate connections of memory with past good experiences or with particular people or places. Smells can also be used to induce reactions that are close to be psychotic.

A lot of this turns on the issue of whether the feeling being experienced heightens the senses and the thought processes in a realistic way toward greater effectiveness, or whether it deadens the senses and induces feelings of mechanical obedience and suppression of one's own mental activity in favor of some wished-for but not real un-real or un-worldly state of existence.

Experience of a deep and effective mental clarity and appreciation for the immensity of existence and the workings of nature, and of one's connectedness and appreciation for other living beings which enhances one's ability to participate in this universe is a very good thing, Experience of deadening and suspension of mental clarity and appreciation for reality for the purposes of inducing obedience and submission is a very bad thing.

I base all of this on the starting point that it is a core Epicurean perspective to see life as desirable and pleasure as "good," combined with the realization that life is short and for an eternity before our birth we did not exist, and for an eternity after death we exist no more. Further, there is no wishful thinking 'supernatural" justification for our existence - our existence needs no justification more than the sun or the moon need. If one keeps those kinds of perspective in mind then you don't fall into nihilism and you develop close and emotionally strong ties to the things that are most important in sustaining your existence and happiness.

And among the most important things that help you in sustaining that happy life are those who have taught you and supported you in sustaining that experience, among whom it is legitimate to consider both historic leaders such as Epicurus, such real people as you yourself have come into contact, and such mental expectations of reality that you experience in at least mental form in your ability to visualize a beings who are able to sustain this kind of existence in perpetuity while overcoming any obstacles it may encounter.

(In that last case I wrote plural "beings" because there is good evidence to believe that it was a core observation that "nature never makes only a single thing of a kind," and thus it would not be expected that there is a single "god" but instead numberless "gods" throughout the eternal and infinite universe.)

If a person does not take steps to develop habits and regular activities to exercise the mind in these directions, it is too easy to fall prey to discouragement and nihilism, just like it is too easy to start imagining that there are supernatural gods if one looks up at the night sky but dues not apply wisdom to start with "nothing comes from nothing" and to process in one's own mind the issues of beginnings and eternality and infinity. This is not dry "science" but the emotional appreciation of what it means to you as a person to be a part of this.

I would then project based on the above that Epicurus would have seen a proper "religion" as a set of institutions and habits and activities which reinforce the practical ability to keep strong one's experience of these perspectives.

Quote from Pacatus

Kudos to those who are still fighting the good fight over such things outside that Christian context, with other words. Kudos to you on that score (and others, like Don). But sometimes, my own baggage is such that I don’t feel the need. Better for me to move on.

It seems to me it is perfectly legitimate to have a "division of labor" and to recognize that some people are more comfortable with some approaches than others. But just because "some people" are uncomfortable does not mean that everyone has to do things the same way. These differences have to be respected and no one forced into anything they re not ready to agree to, but on the other hand there is plenty of room for those who want to go their own way to do so.

It's a fact that the Epicurean "movement" of 2000 years ago did not survive, and some part of the responsibility for that lack of survival has to be laid at their feet for failing to find ways to adapt to less favorable situations. I am not blaming them and I am sure they did what they thought was best, but the bottom line is that they failed to maintain an unbroken organizational trail, so those who pick up after them have to adapt to current circumstances, and also consider what might have been done differently in the past that might have contributed to the problems that occurred.

The decline and fall of the ancient world took a very long time and was not inevitable, nor was it brought about by supernatural powers.

OK I may have to moderate some of these comments but I don't think any offense was meant on any side so for now I am not. You guys are on the same path so let's work together for the greater goal of what I think we're all seeing are the benefits of working through the reconstruction of these ideas! We all need to be slow to anger when we are dealing with friends. Rather than promoting artificial ideas of universal brotherly love, I think Epicurus would approve the "no better friend, no worse enemy" way of looking at things. Certainly in life there comes a time when some people actually are enemies, and we have to realize that, as clearly stated in the principal doctines and a number of other places about people being well-constituted/disposed toward us. The people in this forum who have been promoted to level three are all on the same team or they wouldn't be level three (or remain for very long!) And just like friends don't hold money in communist form as that is not the way friends work, friends need to cut each other a lot of slack and be slow to anger and to take offense.

It seems to me that while Epicurus was willing to repurpose words with mixed definitions, he was not (or could not) have been unaware of the likelihood of confusion. I would think this is where we suffer from the missing of texts and we have to recreate what "must" have been there, which is the means of explaining the differences in the terms.

Given the way that Cicero was framing the dispute in 50BC I admit the possibility that maybe the ancient Epicureans did not pay sufficient attention to this, but I cannot conceive that they were unaware of the need to communicate clearly, given what Epicurus said in the letter to Herodotus and the presumption that Epicurus and the other Epicureans were considerate people and used good common sense.

We are going to need to recreate what "must have" existed to explain these issues.