Posts by Cassius

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

I agree there is probably more going on here too. Isn't there a parallel reference somewhere (Lucretius?) to different birds using different types of calls? I could see potentially some context of discussion of language or even the "frank speech" issue being involved here too. I would generally expect a deeper philosophic point than Bailey seems to be accepting in order for a passage to make the cut into a collection.

Yes Don it sure looks like Bailey is trying to claim a higher status for philosophy because he is disposed in that direction.

It in fact looks at least as much that they were concerned about asserting how some pleasures come as a result of excitement or stimulation (eat and drink and sex) while others accompany the natural functioning (of body or in this case the mind) even when stimulation or excitement is absent.

Given the nonstandard manner of speaking I could well imagine that from start to finish the Epicureans were regularly coming up with illustrations of how to think of pleasure as *every* experience of life which is not painful. That's not the normal way of thinking, but if you do take that attitude then it transforms the vocabulary and leads to all sorts of new constructions.

It's pretty easy to see that pleasure has to arise coincidentally with the activity in many cases (but not all) for this approach to work.

Quote from Kalosyni

Perhaps this list could be made into a pamplet, or something good for new forum members to read.

Yes I suspect that ww have earlier threads on this, perhaps linked in the FAQ, so the challenge here is not only to come up with a list but make it findable and curated with new additions over time.

Thank you for these commentaries Don!

Pacatus in the book Dr. Boeri and Dr Aioz go into detail analogizing the development of justice and the development of language, which they believe (I think correctly) are both related to prolepsis. I don't recall a lot of detail to offer more than that, but what I think is a part of their analysis is that justice and language emerge naturally, without being handed down by gods or dictated by a few "great men," or existing as a result of Platonic ideals, and so there are going to be differences in conceptions of justice just as there are differences in language.

I am not exactly sure if or how that relates to your second paragraph but I think it probably does.

As you know I asked Dr. Boeri to clarify what he meant, as I figured I was not the only one who was unsure. I took his answer to mean much what Lucretius references in DRN -- constantly standing for electoral office and running time after time even after defeat after defeat. For us oldersters out there, there was someone who used to run for president year after year. I don't think I am thinking of Lyndon Larouche, or even Pat Paulson, but someone else (?)

(Edit - Maybe I am thinking "Harold Stassen" but I am skirting near the no politics rule so I'll stop there )

Thanks very much for those links, Don. Adding them to the Youtube version.

Before I forget, special thanks to Onenski for his assistance with setting up this episode and conducting the interview. Scheduling issues prevented most of our regular podcasters from attending, but Onenski stepped in and did a great job. Thank you!

There's a lot more to learn from Frances Wright too. There are several good articles in her collections of works that were published after "A Few Days In Athens," some of which I review briefly in the section here on the forum devoted to her. I don't think we can call her 100% Epicurean, but she's pretty close to 100% fearless!

Well once you get your priorities in order and finish the game, I think you'll be very pleased with Dr. Boeri has to say!

Youtube version for easier sharing and greater discovery:

Our interview with Dr. Boeri is now live!

Quote from Titus

while also granting enjoyment of pleasure as long as the enjoyment doesn't collide with freedom from pain

Looking at that from Torquatus' perspective, that is like saying "as long as the enjoyment of pleasure doesn't collide with pleasure."

And that's the problem with those who aren't willing to straightforwardly identify freedom from pain as pleasure and see that the overall goal is not some kind of definition of "freedom from pain" that conflicts with or is superior to pleasure, but "pleasure" itself.

Deferring to Cicero and Plutarch and others who insist that "freedom from pain" is not a term that is identical to "pleasure" makes this paradox forever unintelligible. But I wager that is what the "humanists" will always do, because like Cicero they insist on seeing "being human" as something higher than pleasure. They refuse to take the next step andsay that "being human in the absence of pain" IS pleasure.

We may have a little "live-action" reporting in this episode. Martin will be calling in today live from the Gottingen Architectual Museum where he is visiting the artifacts relating to Epicurus. Anyone who is reading this shortly after I am posting it is welcome to post questions or picture requests to Martin!

Quote from Kalosyni

Regarding "freedom from pain is the height of pleasure" - I would say this is a kind of remedy which is similar to "death is nothing to us". Without a thorough contemplation and using the mind to reason through them, then both of these do not appear to make sense - so it takes thinking in order to see the application of these two points.

YES that is the key part. It takes proper thinking to recognize this pleasure. Maybe that is similar to how it takes a movement of the will to summon up a happy memory, which is there and is always pleasurable when you reflect on it, but which requires that act of reflection to experience. You have to practice this perspective or you don't profit from it and if you don't the competing pains can override it.

PD18. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures, and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.

PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure.

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

We are greatly appreciative of Dr. Boeri taking time from his busy schedule to talk with us today about his excellent new book, co-written with Javier Aoiz, entitled Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility. This book is an excellent addition to the field of Epicurean studies, and I would encourage everyone who has any interest in Epicurus' views on engagement with society to be sure to check out this extensively researched and very well argued book.

Dr. Boeri's academic background and contact information: https://filosofia.uc.cl/academicos-2/5…7-boeri-marcelo

To the extent a diagram like that is showing pleasure and pain to be on an opposite axis then it would be consistent and helpful to explain that the presence of one is the absence of the other.

However to the extent that the diagram implies that "excitement" is on a scale of its own that is unrelated to describing pleasure and pain, it probably detracts from the ultimate philosophical point that if a person is conscious and aware at all, he is feeling either pleasure or pain with no zero / neutral point.

Of course if you follow the descriptions around the circle the point is to read them together and you don't get confused.

I'd say that there's not only no 0,0 point, but none of the points at all marked by the vertical line. If the two lines are "X" and "Y" there's no 0,Y point up and down the circle.

Quote from Godfrey

This aligns with my intuition. But it's difficult to intuit the idea that the absence of pain is the greatest pleasure. It’s logically correct, but when I really dig into it, it's hard to wrap my head around. At first it makes sense at the macro level, but Eoghan Gardiner 's anecdote is at the macro level. After a while it makes my head spin!

Of course, what Cicero loved to do was to find rabbit holes and dig away...

And yep this is the issue, but (1) there is good reason to believe that the Torquatus portion was coming straight from Epicurean textbooks, and (2) it's essential to point out that the criticism that this perspective is a rabbit hole is the Ciceronian anti-Epicurean position.

It seems to me the key decision that every reader has to make is to choose from one of these two positions. Either: (1) Torquatus' formulation is a thorough misstatement of Epicurean philosophy, or (2) Torquatus' formulation is correct but appears foreign to our ears because Cicero does not allow Torquatus to include the full explanation of how "absence of pain is the greatest pleasure" arises from a necessary logical deduction, given the inverse relationship of pleasure and pain.

Somebody's going to do a better job than my chart here, but hammering this point is going to be necessary to stop one's head from spinning on what Torquatus is saying.

Words mean something. When you accept (1) that if you are aware of anything at all then what you are aware of is either pleasure or pain, and (2) someone has said that their life is "free from pain," then (3) the realization that what they have said is that they are at maximum pleasure follows like night follows day.

In Eoghan's case I see him following Cicero's wording, which I would discourage, if the implication is that pleasure is associated with excitement / stimulation alone. The wider perspective is that excitement / stimulation is not a required component of pleasure, so it is an incorrect deduction to hold that the level of excitement/stimulation has any relationship to the total percentage of pleasure being experienced.

Quote from Pacatus

I remain unconvinced that Epicurus thought that being a good Epicurean meant always refraining from political activity, or that he did not recognize the dependency of a society (the polis; Latin civitas) in which the Garden could flourish on politics. Although, Kalosyni's cautions on the matter are well-taken.

Pacatus I think you will be very pleased with the vigorous way Dr. Boeri argues the thesis of his book in our upcoming podcast with him. May be a few more days but should be released "soon."

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

I had this acutely after having a small procedure I was in basically a non state but then I remembered there is no non state it's always either pleasure or pain so the very absence of any pleasure DESPITE being completely pain free ended up being painful to me.

Eoghan I think I understand what you are saying, and I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but I wanted to throw this out there fore consideration: As I am reading Torquatus now, unless you are saying that you were "unconcious" in the condition you were in, I don't think the Torquatus interpretation of pleasure would allow someone to say that they were "completely free of pain" and not then - by virtue of those words - concluding that such a person was in a state of pleasure -- in fact, the highest state. Maybe you are saying you were unconscious, or numb (which is painful) but as I am reading the words now -- such as the quote which is currently at the top of the forum - it seems to me that the Epicureans were being rigorously logical in their word use: IF it is stated that a person is painfree, THEN - without any further need for information or deliberation - then that person is defined to be in pleasure, and in fact the greatest pleasure possible, since you are stating that they are "pain free."

I know this type of analysis is striking some people as impractical and unusual, and that's in fact exactly how Cicero was describing it to Torquatus. But if we take Torquatus at his word, and I think we can, then this seems to be the way the Epicureans were thinking. Cicero's crimes against Epicurus come mostly in the omission of important explanations, but in my view when he places a clear statement in the mouth of an Epicurean - and in this case he does this with Torquatus over and over and over again - I think it can be trusted that this in fact was the Epicurean position.