I would presume that "speaking in oracles even though understood by none" is intended to mean: "I will speak carefully and accurately and precisely in a way that conveys the truth to those who are capable of understanding," with the point being that I am going to speak the truth whether the people who are hearing me are capable of understanding it or not.

What's generally wrong with Oracles? Not that they are speaking with certainty and sounding profound, but that they are speaking with certainty and sounding profound about things that they cannot and do not know.

The things that Epicurus is stating are things that he maintains he can and does know.

Ultimately while we can do our best to speak clearly and in understandable terms, we have no way to compel the listeners to understand, or to give them the power to understand when they are under the spell of false ideas or otherwise incapable of understanding. All we can do is speak the truth frankly and let events follow as they will.

An important caveat as is stated by Lucian in Alexander the Oracle Monger -- we have no "duty" to speak to everyone, especially those where speaking will end up getting ourselves killed while accomplishing nothing.

Episode 191 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

Hey, if Cicero said it, it has to be right! (I'm mainly referring to the "life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures," according to this translator. Cicero is using a negative slant in all this but I would say that he seems at least to be acknowledging that that there are two issues in the "pleasure" part, and the two go hand in hand.)

Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 30 & 31. Please join us. (Post here in this thread if you have never attended one of these sessions as we do have a vetting process for new participants.)

VS30. Some men, throughout their lives, spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.

VS31. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us, mortals alike, dwell in an unfortified city.

No "Wednesday Night Vatican Sayings Zoom" this week - we will use this time slot for the Twentieth observation instead. Next of these will be Wednesday September 27.

Quote from Don

Spurn all delights; any joy that is purchased with pain will be harmful.

Wow that's hard to reconcile with Epicurus. Apparently Horace has to be handled with care and I know I have not taken the time to follow the changes that took place in his views.

Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 28 & 29, please join us. (Post here in this thread if you need to get the Zoom link).

VS28. We must not approve either those who are always ready for friendship, or those who hang back, but for friendship’s sake we must run risks.

VS29. For I would certainly prefer, as I study Nature, to announce frankly what is beneficial to all people, even if none agrees with me, rather than to compromise with common opinions, and thus reap the frequent praise of the many. ^[12]

I'd like to ask for input on this question about the opening of book six of Lucretius involving the "vessel" analogy. The text is below, but here's the question:

It appears that Lucretius is separating out two aspects of the defects in the "jar" - (1) the jar is leaking and cannot be filled due to leaks caused by the holes, and (2) that the jar tainted all that it took in as with a foul odor.

As to (1) It seems to me that the leaks can be pretty well identified with the analogy of the Danaides, and it's pretty easy to draw a lesson that we are not able to achieve the full amount of pleasure that we otherwise could obtain without the leaks.

But what of (2) as to the jar tainting what it takes in with a foul odor. Does anyone know if this is a reference to another Greek story? Or does anyone have reasonable speculation on why Lucretius chose this second aspect of corruption to include? What does the "tainting" action of the jar add to the illustration?

Other than the opening of book one where Epicurus is breaking the chains underneath the glowering face of the gods, as was used in the artwork by David Baldone that we feature on the front page, I am thinking that this "Vessel" picture gives us a very appealing image to illustrate the limits of pleasure issues. So if indeed the vessel analogy is ripe for use in new Epicurean artwork, it would help to flesh out what references attracted Lucretius to use this illustration.

Quote from Lucretius - Bailey

[Bailey-6:09] For when he saw that mortals had by now attained well-nigh all things which their needs crave for subsistence, and that, as far as they could, their life was established in safety, that men abounded in power through wealth and honours and renown, and were haughty in the good name of their children, and yet not one of them for all that had at home a heart less anguished, but with torture of mind lived a fretful life without any respite, and was constrained to rage with savage complaining, he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it was tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in.

Here's the Munro version for comparison. And here's Rouse with the Latin.

Thank you Nate, and very appreciated, coming from you!

Titus there is not strictly a high-definition version, but the two main versions (portrait and landscape) are SVG files that should be zoomable to whatever level you want.

Hmm after testing I find that it's not obvious how to download. Depending on browser and experience level I bet it is doable, but in the meantime I will send you the two files via private conversation.

Quote from Don

Agreed... But have we answered your question about Epicurus?

In terms of the original hypothetical question, I don't think we have answered that. I don't think there is an answer that applies to everyone except in general terms, but thinking through the problem does - in my view - help focus the mind.

I would think it is crucial for people to realize that the pleasures of the body (the shepherd in the field) don't always or even most of the time trump the pleasures of the mind (Epicurus). The difficult aspect is the amount of physical pain Epicurus was in, and that leads us to examine how we personally want to measure physical vs mental pains and pleasures.

The development of exercises to encourage people to focus on seeing how mental pleasures and physical pleasures combine to constitute the full goal of "pleasure" is probably a good idea. And in the meantime we can explain that, given there is no neutral state, if you are not in pain you are feeling pleasure, and if you truly are feeling "no" pain then you are feeling the most pleasure that is possible for you to feel.

So the sentence I included above about the dentist needs to be seen as not a word game, but indicative of an organizing perspective on everything in life:

Quote from Cassius

I think one of the real challenges is how to convey a mindset such that it isn't shocking to think that if you tell your dentist: "Doctor my tooth does not hurt," then your dentist should justifiably say in return: "Then your tooth is at the height of pleasure!"

Since "Pleasure'" is the flag that stands against religious superstition, idealism, nihilism, and the rest, it's important to think clearly about how sweeping a term pleasure is, and to then realize exactly how, and in what respect, "the absence of pain is pleasure." The wording is very defensible but cries out for further explanation, and if that explanation is not provided then under current circumstances very little is gained and even worse much is lost given the background static that distorts the message.

Once that perspective becomes understandable and not seen as a call to ascetic transcendentalism, then the common sense application of the desires and pursuing those that are natural and necessary and looking to what will happen to us as a result of our choices and all the other advice falls into perfect consistency and common sense.

Quote from Don

I would agree that the common knowledge has become ataraxia is a special unique mystical state etc. Syncretism and conflation with other traditions is at play in my opinion. Additionally, I think Epicurus's philosophy is very practical and down to earth and open to all. People/academics don't want practical, down to earth. They want Ideal Forms, Essences, Prime Movers, the Logos, mystery, mysticism, and so on.

Yes - very well stated. This is the foundation on which we move forward, and it needs to be understood as pretty much the "theme" of everything we are doing with EpicureanFriends.com. You've stated both sides that I think are important: (1) the common sense understanding that any person of normal intelligence can grasp Epicurean philosophy as a way of organizing the universe, and (2) the unpleasant fact that we're not just facing internal fears, anxieties, and understandings, but we're also facing an active, organized, opposition of which Cicero was not the first and definitely not the last. Cicero's opinion dominates today - maybe it always dominated, even in Epicurus's day. And today's Cicero's don't just have a limited audience of rich people for their opinions, they can broadcast them to everyone in seconds on Twitter and the like.

So in the modern world Cicero's perspective is probably even more dominant and more dangerous. Another example is that in this week's podcast Joshua makes the point that to the extent that people today no longer have the same familiarity with death in our daily lives, we are worse off than in the past in the amount of knowledge most people have.

Even though today most people have some basic knowledge of natural science, I don't believe that has translated at a mass scale into the fading away of religious superstition and fears of heaven and hell. The adoption of the position "God created the atoms" has anesthetized the majority into thinking they can have their cake and eat it too by blending superstition with "science." I think the key to counterattacking on that issue is already contained in the arguments in Herodotus and Lucretius, so we have plenty with which to work. That means not slighting the "physics" side of things on the mistaken idea that everyone understands atoms and void and that solves the problem.

So in general I'd say that the circumstances of today with technology and social media making it easier for peer pressure to suppress unwanted ideas require creative responses -- analogous to Lucretius stepping "out of the box" to produce his poem. With the two points you raised and I quoted above being central to moving forward.

Thanks Don. Possibly for present purposes we are coming near to exhausting the ataraxia angle, with the immediate issue of ataraxia not being a transcendant state of epiphany or a final destination that once achieved either justifies the effort to that point or describes a particular experience of a particular activity which can be equated to "seeing the Mona Lisa before you die" or something specific like that. i am gathering that we both agree with this formulation from Massie:

Quote

the little clause “as long as it is present” indicates that Epicurus does not posit the stability

of katastematic pleasures as everlasting; for this reason the pursuit of ataraxia does not aim

at a beatitude that would transcend our mortal condition. A state of supernatural

blessedness is not an option. It is true that Epicurean texts often invoke the calm bliss the

gods are said to enjoy, but for us the divine is a model, not a destination.

Quote from Don

I like that idea, and it bumps up against or is adjacent to DeWitt's "the greatest good is life itself" but avoids DeWitt's tautological conundrum since "If life is the greatest good, but the greatest good is that to which everything else points to, so life points to living,, etc."

And yes I agree too. I think Dewitt would have been better off saying 'life in the absence of pain is the greatest good" if he wanted to make a point that "pleasure" isn't the only way to describe the greatest good. If we are rigorously clear in defining and explaining how "life in the absence of pain" is pleasure, then we're all saying much the same thing.

However the ones who *aren't* saying the same thing are the ones - I would think - who imply that "life in the absence of pain" is some specific esoteric and unique experience (like seeing the Mona Lisa) which requires some kind of higher plane of consciousness to understand and does not fall under the umbrella of the term "pleasure" as ordinary people can understand it. And there I would criticize those who simply say "pleasure is the absence of pain" without explaining the issue that we are discussing. I don't fault Epicurus in the letter to Menoeceus because I think his readers of the time would have had reams of other material which make the point clear. And I now think that the point remained clear through Cicero's time given a full reading of what is included in "On Ends."

But over the last 2000 years Cicero's refusal to accept the terminology and his resulting argument that the framework makes no sense has won the day. The real fault is in us because we are so indoctrinated in a restrictive definition of pleasure that we can't see the wider point. So now we have to go back and explain how we got to where we are today and how everything fits together under an expansive definition of pleasure that is more than just "sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

(Which come to think of it is what Torquatus spends so much time doing in his narrative in on ends where he links the virtues to being productive of pleasure.)

I think one of the real challenges is how to convey a mindset such that it isn't shocking to think that if you tell your dentist: "Doctor my tooth does not hurt," then your dentist should justifiably say in return: "Then your tooth is at the height of pleasure!"

Yes it's true that most people don't ordinarily think that way, but that doesn't mean that they can't think that way, or that they wouldn't be better off if they did so.

To use a religious analogy, talking about "pleasure" in a truncated, restricted, narrow, and incomplete form (such as Cicero insists on doing) would be like a Christian talking about Jesus as a good carpenter.

Welcome to Episode 192 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 most of our podcasters are unavailable, so to prevent there being a gap in our release schedule, we are releasing this week a special reading of Frances Wright's Chapter 16, her concluding address (as a fictional statement by Epicurus) about the damage that arises from supernatural religion.

This episode comes with a caution: Frances Wright does not seem to agree with Epicurus' view of the benefits of thinking about how we are not alone in the universe, and how we benefit from the thought that there are indeed natural beings -- living deathless and painless but not supernatural lives -- not here, but far out in space. Epicurus states clearly in the letter to Menoeceus that non-supernatural beings do exist somewhere in the universe, but Frances Wright downplays this, and she instead focuses her attention almost exclusively on Epicurus' rejection of supernatural gods.

Most of the divergence I am describing can be reconciled, but everyone should read Epicurus and Lucretius and Philodemus for themselves to find out what the ancient Epicureans had to say about non-supernatural gods.

The main thrust of what Wright says about the damage that arises from supernatural religion seems entirely consistent with Epicurus' own views, and I hope this chapter spurs you to further reading yourself from the ancient Epicurean sources.

We are still several days from release of this episode but in early editing I see a comment I need to add:

On the issue of whether philosophy is "necessary" I talked about Frances Wright's character Hedea and how she seems to stand for the proposition that someone can possibly get along quite well without focusing a lot of time on the study of philosophy. I should have hedged a little on that, because now as I think about it, Hedea is the only character in the book who just about gets herself drowned, and maybe that in itself is an example that she might have profited from more study of "natural science."

My comment here will make more sense when the episode is released.

An additional benefit of Joshua's post, over and above its own merit, is that if gives me a new resource. The next time someone complains: "Cassius your posts are always too technical - I just want advice on being happy." I will say in response, "Check out the post entitled "Potential Hydrocarbons in the Constellation Leo."

And I will say: Man, you don't know what it means to be truly happy unless you understand the implications of hydrocarbons on other planets!"

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.

And I will remind them too that Cicero writes that nature was Epicurus' "chief boast" ("‘At the outset, said I, ‘in natural science, which is his chief boast, he is in the first place altogether unoriginal...)

Here's a particularly interesting passage comparing ataraxia to be a model, not a condition:

Kinetic pleasures for their part remain by definition incomplete for so long as the animal keeps drinking it is still thirsty. In kinetic pleasures one experiences the progressive lessening of pain - which presupposes that some form of pain or discomfort is still there in the first place. By contrast, katastematic pleasures are stable and they are so because they are fundamentally finite in the sense that they repel the infinite frustration of ordinary kinetic desires. “The removal of all pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, and as long as it is present, a
feeling of pain, a feeling of distress, or their combination is absent.” (D L 10, Maxim 3).
The little clause “as long as it is present” indicates that Epicurus does not posit the stability
of katastematic pleasures as everlasting; for this reason the pursuit of ataraxia does not aim
at a beatitude that would transcend our mortal condition. A state of supernatural
blessedness is not an option. It is true that Epicurean texts often invoke the calm bliss the
gods are said to enjoy, but for us the divine is a model, not a destination. The end of human
life must be compatible with the human condition but this condition entails being subjected
to needs and lacks, the awareness of which constitutes an experience of pain and their
satisfaction an experience of kinetic pleasure.

---

But first what could it be to experience ataraxia? The Epicurean ataraxia is not simply a
“state of mind” (pace Striker); it is a state of being that depends on the discovery of
another form of pleasure, the pleasure of being rather than the pleasure of possessing or
consuming. To pursue the arithmetical analogy, once could say that for all positive
numbers there corresponds a negative number; 0 however admits of no opposite. Of
course ataraxia is not a degree zero since, as we saw earlier, it is already pleasure and
Epicurus’ insistence on the idea that ataraxia is a form of pleasure rules out a common
objection according to which one who follows such an ethics would live a life of
indifference. Instead, ataraxia corresponds to the pleasure of being that comes from
knowing one’s limits.

----

(Unfortunately there is no real concluding paragraph that summarizes the entire article.)

Note: A very good line:

Quote from Article

but for us the divine is a model, not a destination.

Just by coincidence I see this article in my daily blast from Academia:

Ataraxia: Tranquility at the End

Pascal Massie

In their investigation of “eudaimonia” (happiness, human flourishing) Hellenistic
philosophers (i.e., members of the Epicurean, the Stoic, and the Skeptic schools) made
frequent use of terms that were relatively new in the philosophical lexicon; among others:
ataraxia (freedom from disturbance), hēsychia (serenity), tranquillitas and securitas
(Seneca and Cicero’s Latin translation of euthymia), eustatheia (stability), athambia
(quietness), adiaphora (indifference), and apatheia (the condition of being unmoved).

Even though most of them did not simply identify eudaimonia with ataraxia, it still remains
that the notion of happiness they proposed took on a new significance because of this
emphasis on ataraxia and related notions. At stake is not simply a particular development in
the history of ancient philosophy; the issue runs much deeper. It entails a transformation of
the very meaning of philosophy. When eudaimonia is determined in terms of ataraxia the
very purpose and meaning of philosophy also changes. To be a philosopher is first and
foremost a matter of conquering fears and desires and the esteem one should bestow upon
a philosophical school depends primarily on its ability to lead us to such an end. In other
words, the emergence of ataraxia at the core of ethical discourse is deeply rooted in a
renewed understanding of philosophy itself.

...

However, during the Hellenistic era three new developments occurred: (a) It is
argued that one can measure a philosophical system by its ability to lead its disciples to
happiness. Thus, eudaimonia becomes a meta-philosophical criterion. Philosophy is
instrumental to happiness just as medicine is instrumental to health. But on this count (b)
both Plato and Aristotle have failed. Their followers are no closer to happiness than nonphilosophers. (c) The solution (if not in full, at least in a significant part) demands that the
requirements for happiness be reevaluated. For the Epicureans and the Skeptics
eudaimonia calls for the attainment of ataraxia. The Stoics held a rather similar view,
although they prefer the term apatheia.

568 What is striking in all these new terms (althoughnot perceptible in most translations) is that the determination of this requirement is, in its linguistic form, mostly negative (a-taraxia, a-patheia, a-diaphora). Happiness is not the achievement or the attainment of a human potential; rather, it is a release from worry, anxiety, and disturbance; a liberation that results from the therapeutic examination of our belief569. This new focus reveals that the inner conflicts of the soul have become the chief concern since they are now identified as the main obstacle to happiness. Thus, ataraxia seems to name an absence, a lack. Many, following Hegel’s pronouncement, have
diagnosed this aim of life as a sheer renunciation of the world and a withdrawal into selfsatisfaction.

So that would be an example of someone using ataraxia in a general sense, because he is saying that the Stoics could achieve their tranquility better through Epicurean views than through their own views. But doesn't that mean that ataraxia is being used as a generic term to refer to a general "peace of mind" rather than to a term that is uniquely Epicurean?

The point of my question here is that I can see a lot of reason why "ataraxia" can be translated into a generic "peace of mind" or "absence of disturbance" that could apply to most anyone of any philosophy or religion at any particular moment. In contrast, I don't see it to be a good idea to consider that "ataraxia" has a specifically Epicurean meaning that justifies elevating it in the way that many writers today tend to elevate it. It's that elevation that I think we see over and over and is what I would expect would be behind the statement by Luc Schneider:

In fairness to Luc I think this is the way you will often see the term ataraxia used, which would be consistent with the analogy you used to the effect of "once wise always wise." Is ataraxia something that which, once achieved, is not lost?

Or is ataraxia some particular point of achievement, like snatching a prize at the end of the race, that if achieved for a single moment, is worth all the other time and effort spent pursuing it?

I would see Epicurus' statement as targeted toward those such as Socrates who effect to be unwise in their discussion and I would not see wisdom as something that "once achieved" cannot be lost. Do not wise men often act unwisely, even if only by mistake?

And of course to bring this back to topic, I wouldn't think I would judge whether I wanted to be Epicurus or the shepherd for a week according to whether either one of them "had achieved ataraxia." Would you see that (whether the person as "achieved ataraxia" as a reasonable way to make that decision?

Edit: "Or is ataraxia some particular point of achievement, like snatching a prize at the end of the race, that if achieved for a single moment, is worth all the other time and effort spent pursuing it?" << I like this way of framing the question as I think this presumption is getting closer to the real issue.

Quote from Don

Ataraxia is experienced as a mind untroubled by fear of the gods, anxiety about death, trust in that you are treating people justly and can expect the same in return.

Ok so it does in fact seem you are using ataraxia to describe a specific type of being untroubled (about gods and death primarily, but maybe including a few other things), and that you don't include the trouble of the sharp pain of advanced kidney disease to be within the scope of the word.

Are you saying also that this was specifically Epicurus' use of the word, or that this use applies every time the word ataraxia occurs in ancient Greek?

In the case of the gods it seems we have specific statements from Epicurus that show he was using a modified definition of a common term. Do we have similar statements in ancient Greek? I gather that there is evidence the word was used by the Stoics and perhaps Pyrrhonists, so this would be another word where Epicurus had a specific definition?

It would be helpful if it were but I gather that ataraxia is not the word used here(?)

[22] When he was on the point of death he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus: ‘On this truly happy day of my life, as I am at the point of death, I write this to you. The disease in my bladder and stomach are pursuing their course, lacking nothing of their natural severity: but against all this is the joy in my heart at the recollection of my conversations with you. Do you, as I might expect from your devotion from boyhood to me and to philosophy, take good care of the children of Metrodorus.’ Such then was his will.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Ι, ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΟΣ