Posts by Cassius

It appears to me that these two may be among the very best interpreters of Epicurus active today, and they appear to be on a campaign to refute the conventionalist attitudes of Epicurus as a passivist and isolationist that date back 2000 years. They dare to call "cliches" the labels of "live unknown" and "do not participate in politics"? Yes they do. Here's the opening:

Quote from Cicero And His Clamorous Silences

The opponents of Epicureanism in antiquity successfully established a cliché that has remained to this day: the theoretical and practical disinterest of Epicurus and the Epicureans in political communities. The best proof of their success is the transformation of the expressions «live unnoticed» (λάθε βιώσας) and «do not participate in politics» (μὴ πολιτεύσεσθαι) into famous Epicurean slogans. It is worthwhile, however, to note two well-known facts that cast doubt on this cliché. On the one hand, the Epicurean Lucretius’ poem On the Nature of Things constitutes, as Strauss has underlined, one of the best and most influential documents of the conventionalist theory of justice. On the other hand, Epicureanism underpins one of the foundational works of modern political philosophy, Hobbes’ Leviathan. Before Hobbes, Pierre Gassendi had also viewed Epicurus’ philosophical project with sympathy. In fact, Hobbes and Gassendi had at their disposal the same Epicurean texts as did opponents of Epicureanism such as Cicero, Epictetus, and Plutarch (though the ancients also had access to works that have not been preserved). But while Hobbes and Gassendi found valuable considerations of political philosophy in Epicureanism, neither Cicero, Epictetus nor Plutarch refer to these ideas in their anti-Epicurean writings. The treatment by Cicero, Epictetus, or Plutarch of Epicureanism was not doxographical; it was part of the philosophical diatribes of antiquity (i.e., the usual debates among the schools). These undoubtedly included some relevant testimonies and criticisms, but some of their usual techniques were the omission of the adversary’s views, simplification, exaggeration, and even the use of an overly melodramatic tone.

CICERO AND HIS CLAMOROUS SILENCES

CICERO AND HIS CLAMOROUS SILENCES

www.academia.edu

There's a lot more to comment on but for the moment here is some that catches my eye. I am sure there is much more:

Epicurus stresses that the circumstances constitute a fundamental ingredient of the Epicurean sage’s decisions. In fact, none of the Key Doctrines offers categorical rules of conduct and, not for nothing, Epicurus places prudence at the top of the doctrine (LM 132).

We really need to try to interview these guys for the Lucretius Today podcast and I will look into that further.

Started 9/24/23:

Torquatus laughed. Come, that is a good joke," he said, "that the author of the doctrine that pleasure is the End of things desirable, the final and ultimate Good, should actually not know what manner of thing pleasure itself is.!" " Well," I [Cicero] replied, either Epicurus does not know what pleasure is, or the rest of mankind all the world over do not."

- Torquatus in Cicero's "On Ends" Book Two III:1 (Rackham)

"A theistic interpretation of Epicureanism is entirely possible."

What? Where does he get that?

Happy Twentieth to everyone!

Youtube link:

Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has read this and has any comments. It is still on my reading list.

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

There's a lot in this Chapter 16 that people might want to discuss. I felt compelled to put in the caveat that Frances Wright doesn't seem to be entirely following Epicurus on the nature of the "real gods," but I don't think that should overshadow what I think was a brilliant job of denouncing supernatural religion. This is really a powerful presentation and I hope my amateurish version will inspire some of the real "voices" here to consider recording their own versions. The writing in Chapter 16 pretty much stands on its own, and it deserves a lot more attention and one of the best full-bore arguments against supernatural religion anywhere.

Episode 192 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available! Most of our regular podcasters were away this week, so Cassius fills in with a reading of Chapter 16 of Frances Wright's - A Few Days In Athens. This Chapter is devoted to a fictional presentation of a speech given by Epicurus on the subject of the evils of supernatural religion. We'll be back next week to resume our series of episodes on Cicero's "On Ends."

Welcome to Episode 193 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 One and Two of Cicero's On Ends, which are largely devoted to 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.

This week we continue in Book One, and we will cover from XIII to the end of the chapter. 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

Due to schedule conflicts with two of our podcasters, this week our podcast may instead feature a special recording on an alternate topic. We will return back to "One Ends" the following week.

Just to reiterate the automatic notification, happy birthday Bryan, and it's been good to have your presence back more frequently in recent months!

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

Thanks for the link to the paper on "Criticizing Love's Critic."

It gives me the chance to play the role of Don questioning DeWitt!

I'm glad for anybody to bring up Lucretius or Epicurus in any context, but it makes me a little uneasy to suggest that anyone who uses frank criticism or repetition in any communication is channeling Epicurus.

So I find myself in the position of Don's concerns with some of Dewitt's claims of parallels to or references in Christianity to make too strong a claims that "frank criticism" has an Epicurean trademark on it. There are too many things that do have Epicurean trademarks on them to jeopardize one's credibility by stretching when a comparison isn't necessary, and I agree with Don that this is a blemish on what I consider to be deWitt's other highly creditable work.

As to frank criticism, if this comparison were easy to establish, then I would have to conclude that when I was much younger I came across many unknowingly Epicurean teachers in my decidedly un-Epicurean schooling.

So the context in this particular is Kalosyni's questioning of Philodemus' possible deviations from Epicurus, I don't see much deviation in Philodemus - as to "frank criticism" I see that as largely common sense and totally consistent with Epicurus' emphasis on clarity and honesty.

Quote from Kalosyni

I am wondering if perhaps during Philodemus' time there may have been less emphasis on natural physics/science and more emphasis on ethics...but yet I don't know if that is true or not.

Well taking Lucretius as an example it would appear that the physics and epistemology was as front and center as ever around 50 BC. From that, one might deduce that until it became politically impossible to discuss the physics and epistemology with the rise of Abrahamic monotheism, those subjects were considered to be the core Epicurean curriculum with the ethics being a creative and important but pretty much common sense deduction. It's always been the denial of providence and immortality that's much more the truly explosive center, rather than the practical advice on being happy. I don't mean to slight the ethics, but you won't get yourself killed standing on the streetcorner saying "don't you want to be happy?"

And given that the ethics flows from and is dependent on the physics and the making of proper deductions from it, I would expect that to be the case all the way through. I would likely argue too that the demotion of the physics and epistemology explains many of the issues that have arisen in interpreting the ethics.

I want to take that list in post 17 and make sure it's findable in the future, so please let me know if there are similar quotes to be added. There are definitely some quotes from Menoeceus that could be added, especially from the opening about the health of the soul, but they are more on the order of "if you want to be happy study philosophy" rather than an explicit statement of the harm that comes if you don't.

But please suggest any that you think would be good for the list to be entitled something like "Epicurean Reasons To Study Philosophy."

or

"Epicureans Reasons Why You Are Unlikely To Live A Happy Life By Freelancing On Your Own"

Quote from Kalosyni

But my point is that I now think that a much larger portion of the time was spent on natural physics/science

I would say you are right and what you are largely referring to is what is covered in the letter to Herodotus - which includes a proper "logical" framework for deducing big picture conclusions from the science. My point there being that we have much more raw data today and yet most people are less advanced in processing the implications of it than we're the Epicureans. Without the analysis framework the data is worthless or even harmful, as both Epicurus and Lucretius state explicitly.

I will post a couple of quotes to support that statement:

Lucretius:

[Book 1 Bailey 146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.

[Book 2, Bailey, 40] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

[ Book 3, Bailey, 74] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

[ Book 6, Bailey 30] And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course; he showed what there is of ill in the affairs of mortals everywhere, coming to being and flying abroad in diverse forms, be it by the chance or the force of nature, because nature had so brought it to pass; he showed from what gates it is meet to sally out against each ill, and he proved that ’tis in vain for the most part that the race of men set tossing in their hearts the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.

Epicurus PD12. A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.

There are several others and we need to post this list somewhere. I know I am missing one in Epicurus (Pythocles I think) and one in Lucretius about those who learn a little about the stars having it worse for themselves if they don't also know the answers --- I will keep looking but if anyone posts them first I will thank you!

Addendum: This one is close but not the one I am thinking about:

Pythocles 88 - Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth.

Also close but not it:

Pythocles 97 - And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness. For if this principle is not observed, the whole discussion of causes in celestial phenomena is in vain, as it has already been for certain persons who have not clung to the method of possible explanations, but have fallen back on the useless course of thinking that things could only happen in one way, and of rejecting all other ways in harmony with what is possible, being driven thus to what is inconceivable and being unable to compare earthly phenomena, which we must accept as indications.

I suspect I was thinking of these from Herodotus (primarily 79) - now I just need to find the same statement in Lucretius:

[78] Furthermore, we must believe that to discover accurately the cause of the most essential facts is the function of the science of nature, and that blessedness for us in the knowledge of celestial phenomena lies in this and in the understanding of the nature of the existences seen in these celestial phenomena, and of all else that is akin to the exact knowledge requisite for our happiness: in knowing too that what occurs in several ways or is capable of being otherwise has no place here but that nothing which suggests doubt or alarm can be included at all in that which is naturally immortal and blessed. Now this we can ascertain by our mind is absolutely the case.

[79] But what falls within the investigation of risings and settings and turnings and eclipses, and all that is akin to this, is no longer of any value for the happiness which knowledge brings, but persons who have perceived all this, but yet do not know what are the natures of these things and what are the essential causes, are still in fear, just as if they did not know these things at all: indeed, their fear may be even greater, since the wonder which arises out of the observation of these things cannot discover any solution or realize the regulation of the essentials.

OK here's the extra Lucretius:

[Book 5:55 Bailey] For those who have learnt aright that the gods lead a life free from care, yet if from time to time they wonder by what means all things can be carried on, above all among those things which are descried above our heads in the coasts of heaven, are borne back again into the old beliefs of religion, and adopt stern overlords, whom in their misery they believe have all power, knowing not what can be and what cannot, yea and in what way each thing has its power limited, and its deep-set boundary-stone.

Quote from Don

I sincerely doubt anything resembling Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would exist in Surupice's world, maybe some form of Buddhism with its concentration on consciousness and awareness (not the Tibetan variety but a basic early form).

Of course this invites the question, "Then why do those exist in our world?"

In reference to my Hedea comment, from Chapter 12 of A Few Days In Athens:

Quote from Hedea from A Few Days In Athens Chapter 12

“Judging from me as a specimen, you mean. And trust me now, father, I am the best. Do I not practice what you preach? What you show the way to, do I not possess? Look at my light foot, look in my laughing eye, read my gay heart, and tell — if pleasure be not mine. Confess, then, that I take a shorter cut to the goal than your wiser scholars, aye than your wisest self. You study, you lecture, you argue, you exhort. And what is it all for? as if you could not be good without so much learning, and happy without so much talking. Here am I — I think I am very good, and I am quite sure I am very happy; yet I never wrote a treatise in my life, and can hardly listen to one without a yawn.”

And as for Frances Wright not having Epicurus or the other leaders criticize Hedea forcefully:

“You would make a strange world, were you the queen of it,” said Hermachus, laughing.

“Just as strange, and no stranger, than it is at present. For why? I should take it as I found it, and leave it as I found it. ‘Tis your philosophers, who would rub and twist, and plague and doctor it, and fret your souls out, to bring all its heterogeneous parts, fools, wits, knaves, simpletons, grave, gay, light, heavy, long-faced, and short-faced, black, white, brown, straight and crooked, tall, short, thin and fat, to fit together, and patiently reflect each other, like the acorns of an oak, or the modest wives and helpless daughters of the good citizens of Athens; ’tis you, I say, who would make a strange world, were you kings of it — you who would shorten and lengthen, clip, pull, and carve men’s minds to fit your systems, as the tyrant did men’s bodies to fit his bed.”

“I grant there’s some truth, my girl, in thy nonsense,” said the master.

“And I grant that there is not a philosopher in Athens, who would have granted as much, save thyself. You will find my young hero,” turning to Theon, that my father philosophizes more sense, that is, less absurdity, than any man since the seven sages; nay! even than the seven sages philosophized themselves. He only lacks to be a perfectly wise man ––”

“To burn,” said the master, “his books of philosophy, and to sing a tune to thy lyre.”

-----

To keep comments together I will repeat that while Frances Wright does not (to my observation) criticize Hedea's position more directly, Hedea is the only character in the book who almost gets herself killed and has to be rescued by the others. I think that's probably a significant aspect of the role given to her in the book.

Kalosyni's question starts at about 46:20 in the podcast.