Posts by Cassius

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.

Quote from Cyrano

But for the problem you produced for me I have a simple solution. I need only make the minutest change in my article: I'll merely add a question mark to the title

I was thinking of asking you to do that and I appreciate you did it without asking! :-). Your good humor is very welcome!

Quote from Martin

Materialism and monism should be compatible. According to Epicurus, the soul is closely associated with the body. This is monism, too, in my understanding. There may be other aspects of monism which are not directly related to Epicurus' philosophy.

Yes it would be useful to get a clear fix on Epicurus and monism. While Epicurus would appear to clearly hold that the soul/spirit is physical, this group of "monists" below is far from Epicurean. It is tempting to say that while both have materialism in common, Atomism is the OPPOSITE of monism, with many and varied implications of that difference. Might it be possible that an equal or better case could be made that Spinoza was among the greatest STOICS of them all?

Monistic philosophers

Pre-Socratic[edit]

While the lack of information makes it difficult in some cases to be sure of the details, the following pre-Socratic philosophers thought in monistic terms:^[25]

• Thales: Water
• Anaximander: Apeiron (meaning 'the undefined infinite'). Reality is some, one thing, but we cannot know what.
• Anaximenes of Miletus: Air
• Heraclitus: Change, symbolized by fire (in that everything is in constant flux).
• Parmenides: Being or Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided.^[26]

Post-Socrates[edit]

• Neopythagorians such as Apollonius of Tyana centered their cosmologies on the Monad or One.
• Stoics taught that there is only one substance, identified as God.^[27]
• Middle Platonism under such works as those by Numenius taught that the Universe emanates from the Monad or One.
• Neoplatonism is monistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent god, 'The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations. From The One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche), and the World (Cosmos).

I will have to check into Vardoulakis so thank you. In the meantime I skimmed through Wikipedia, and rather than saying that Spinoza was among the greatest Epicureans of all, I have to begin to question whether Spinoza should be considered an Epicurean at all. Before I go further, nothing I am about to write takes away from my praise of your writing or the benefit that discussing this brings to us here in the forum. Distinguishing others who did not claim forthrightly to be Epicurean from those who did helps us understand the differences in ideas much better. Right now I don't know what Spinoza said himself about Epicurus, but the best way to attack these questions is to lay out the ideas of Epicurus and see how many of them and to what extent Spinoza (or anyone else) agreed. Here's a start:

I will work on updating this when I have more time to go through some of the source materials, but if Spinoza's main resemblance to Epicurus was that he was a "materialist" (and a monist, not an atomist, at that) then I am inclined to think at the moment that a good case could be made that on most core issues of philosophy, Spinoza may not have been an Epicurean at all.

We'll see, but I want to repeat that going through philosophers like this and examining how they compare to Epicurus on points of doctrine is a very helpful exercise.

I am sure the first drafts of this chart will need massive revision as my background in Spinoza is close to zero other than being aware of his name. I will update the chart as I have time and as others may provide cites.

Welcome, and can we look forward to reading your thesis at some point?

As always your writing is excellent Cyrano, and that was very enjoyable to read!

Do we have specific commentary by Spinoza about Epicurus? Not every materialist qualifies as an Epicurean, as the Epicureans displayed in the criticism of Democritus. Where would Spinoza fit in relation to Democritus in terms of skepticism and determinsim, two anathemas to Epicurus? I am certainly aware of Spinoza's reputation but have never studied him closely.

Welcome ataraktosalexandros

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Pacatus and others -

Let me talk to the other moderators about this and until then please conduct the investigative part of this discussion in private conversations or email or the SofE website or Facebook page. If we get too far into comparing the details of the organizations then we are bound to end up with some negativity one way or the other that won't advance the goals of our discussion forum. Perhaps at some point the moderators can get together and talk about how to present this, but til then let's hold off the public comparisons.

It has seemed to me for a long time - and still does - that the differences between the two approaches are very obvious. All one really has to do is review that 2019 thread as we linked above, and read our FAQ entry, or glance through Hiram's "Tending the Epicurean Garden." Some people will find themselves more comfortable with the eclectic and Humanist/Buddhist-friendly approach they find at Society of Epicurus, and some will reject that and be more comfortable with the approach we spell out very clearly here. Perhaps at some point the FAQ will bear a little more expansion to make the differences easier to find, but negativity from either side is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

One thing that might change my mind is if I heard someone say "Gee I wasted a lot of time that you could have saved me." But that hasn't been raised as an issue yet, and in fact being confronted with the differences oneself is a very educational experience in sifting through the nuances of what Epicurus really taught.

Pacatus it would not be appropriate for me to speak for her or about Elayne's reasons for leaving other than to say that she posted about pursuing her own initiatives, and to say that she would always be welcome back. You are right to point out that her positions in that thread to which you pointed (which is linked in our FAQ on the Society of Epicurus) were very well made.

As per what Nate said, both he and Hiram and others of the SofE are reachable directly to discuss any points of interest there. As Don said, I too receive Hiram's newsletter and find it useful. Beyond that I think it still makes sense to refer to the FAQ entry I set up on this issue, and suggest that everyone with questions about this refer first to that and then explore the Society of Epicurus to see whether what they find works for them individually. Going through those details here at Epicureanfriends without first reading through the background would not likely lead to anything productive:

What Is The Society Of Friends of Epicurus and What is its Relationship to EpicureanFriends.com? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Quote from Don

Sensation, it appears, is literally touch: atoms touching the human body. That seems to serve for sensation, thought, memory, etc.

Is that what you're getting?

Yes I am looking for further ways to explain how they would have seen the term "pleasure" to cover everything that is not painful. If you view every sensation involving awareness of smoothness as sort of an ultimate-level explanation, the "touch" that is involved in all sensation might have been seen as the mechanism. Maybe this was a way they might have explained the nature of pleasure as a touch sensation regardless of whether the touching that is involved comes through stimulation or through regular functioning.

It's always seemed to imply something significant that "touch" would be singled out to be exclaimed with "blessed be the gods above!" (around line 444 of Lucretius Book 2)

For Touch, the Touch (blessed be the Gods above!) is a Sense of the Body, either when something from without enters through the pores, or something from within hurts us, as it forces its way out, or pleases, as the effect of venery tickles as it passes through, or when the seeds, by striking against each other, raise a tumult in the body, and in that agitation confound the Sense; and this you may soon experience, if you strike yourself in any part with a blow of your hand. It is necessary, therefore, that the Principles of Things should consist of figures very different in themselves, since they affect the Senses in so different a manner.

Don that "pro Divinum numina sancta!" looks like a candidate to consider supplementing your "By Zeus!"

Maybe better "For the Gods above are blessed!" ? or something else rather than "blessed be...."

Martin Ferguson Smith -- "For the holy gods are my witnesses that touch, yes touch, is the sense of the body......"

Also Bryan given your Latin what do you think of that sentence?

Rouse Loeb edition:

Maybe all these variations of "awareness" or "consciousness" are just coming from "sensation".... which would imply that they were thinking of sensation and awareness as exactly the same thing and would not accept a construction of something like a mind being aware only of itself or its thoughts - and therefore that awareness = sensation in every respect (?), and the word we use as "awareness" means nothing other than "sensation" to them. This issue seems to lurk behind a lot of issues that are regularly discussed, and would be why it is plain to Epicurus that death is total absence of sensation.

Similar discussion of awareness / experience in the context of pleasure:

I will look for others, but here's one citation to being "conscious" according to Rackham, but this may be an overlay of the translator: