Posts by Cassius

I can name several prominent names that I would probably see as "negative indicators" on this topic (probably including Bailey), but I would definitely like to see if we can find some material on what DeWitt, David Sedley, and perhaps AA Long or other similar "luminaries" have to say about this topic.

There ought to be significant commentary out there on what we're talking about, which I think is pretty different from the general focus on "absence of pain," but more a comparison of this question of how can a man be "happy" while under torture / in great physical pain.

I don't mean to go round and round and round on the same topic!

Consistent with our goal here of not just "discussing" Epicurean philosophy but also promoting and trying to assist in reigniting interest in it, this seems to be one of those issues, right up there with explaining Epicurus' view of the meaning of "pleasure," for which we need something on the front page of the forum to illuminate the issue and prevent people from getting confused by the seeming implausibility that Cosma Raimondi is describing.

I think we're making headway on that with "pleasure," and "happiness" needs to be treated similarly.

Just like with "death is nothing to us" and "For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision."

We can help things a lot by working on a couple of sentences on happiness, so let's try to see what we can do on that. I am thinking this deserves an extended back and forth with many iterations before we can come up with something brief, then we can link to a longer discussion beyond that.

Quote from Bryan

My view is not that Diogenes Laertius is misleading but, as Don and Kalosyni have stated recently, that eudaimonia is not "happiness" but instead "(an enduring sense of) mental well-being."

So then the problem is in fact in the tendency of most all translators to use "happiness."

But Cosma Raimondi, depending on the Latin he is using, is not seeing the need to explain this terminology either, and everyone who reads these descriptions of happiness is totally afloat in a sea of ambiguity as to what is really being discussed, because I would agree with Cosma Raimondi that while in the process of being roasted I would not be feeling an "enduring sense of mental well-being" at that moment either.

I think we have a lot more to do to communicate the relationship between the feelings at any particular moment vs a term that appears to subjectively evaluate a conceptual sum of total experiences past, present, and future.

"Blessed" would probably still need much more explanation, but would seem less off-base to me at this point, because again, the issue that is being described is going to be something that may indeed apply in some way, but which is not going to prevent us from crying out in pain while we're undergoing the experience of the moment.

The whole ball game here is communicating the relationship between this evaluative term, whatever it is, and the pleasures and pains of the particular moment.

And I, for one, would not want to volunteer to undergo the wrack as an experiment to figure it out in real time! At this point I am much more comfortable taking an inventory of all my mental and bodily pleasures and pains at any particular moment and doing the best I can to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain.

Then if some philosopher wants to tell me that they have a different point to make when they are discussing the term "happiness," I will smile and nod and find it enjoyable to hear the discussion, but not for a moment accept that their evaluation overrides my own feelings.

Here is one place this is referenced in On Ends Book 2. Cicero is not letting Torquatus get in a word here, but the tone of the attack seems to indicate that in some way something is being maintained that would justify Laertius' statement -- though possibly not with "happy"

So is this an area where we think Diogenes Laertius is misleading? I seem to recall that this very conversation takes place with Torquatus in "On Ends" as well, so I need to compare that.

As several years pass by I tend to forget that I have done this before, so I'll post this as a reminder to myself as well as any use it might be for others.

In the same Cambridge book where the Cosma Raimondi letter appears, there are three other excerpts:

- Petrarch
- Francesco Filelfo
- Francisco de Quevedo

Now that I have reviewed these twice (having forgotten I read them some years ago) here's the reminder: All three of these other excerpts are somewhere between disappointing and very disappointing, in most cases devoted to arguing that Epicurus was consistent with Stoicism or Christianity. They may contain some interesting fact references, but in my view none of the others hold a candle to the Cosma Raimondi letter.

Your mileage may vary.

Bryan, but as to the first issue, that Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus thinks that the wise man will be happy even on the rack, while Cosma Raimondi thinks he will not be, what do you make of that?

So far I have not been able to track down the Latin text of the Raimondi letter to see if this is a translation issue or what.

#Cosma_Raimondi (testing the tagging feature)

Hopefully this comment by Martin Davies will lead to the Latin text:

For the Latin text of Raimondi's letter see my critical edition in 'Cosma Raimondi's defence of Epicurus', Rinascimento, 27 (1987), 123-39

Hicks definitely has the upper hand that on the rack the wise man will still cry out.

And pointing to the different connotations of eudaemonia/happy/blessed makes sense.

I wonder why Cosma Raimondi did not explain it that way, but to figure that out would require diving into the (Latin?) text.

Admin Edit: This thread was branched off from the Cosma Raimondi discussion at the link below. The purpose of this thread will be to discuss how to summarize the proper way to describe the wise man who is in the midst of torturing pain, and to come up with a summary to get people started on the distinction suitable for referencing on the front page of the forum.

Post

Cosma Raimondi's Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi

A Letter to Ambrogio Tignosi in Defence of Epicurus against the Stoics, Academics and Peripatetics

translated by Martin Davies (from Google Books)

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/4084/

I have very little leisure at the moment to argue my views on the subject which your letters raise, being taken up with more weighty and much more difficult matters. I do not mind saying that I am very much occupied with my studies in astronomy. But since I have always followed and wholly approved the…

Cassius

August 29, 2023 at 7:42 PM

One interesting aspect of Cosma Raimondi's letter is that it appears that he emphatically rejects the view that a man can be "happy" even under torture. (This starts at 4:22 in the recording.)

We've been discussing that issue recently, and it is interesting to consider whether Raimondi was familiar with Diogenes Laertius' statement on that subject and rejected Laertius' accuracy, or something else is going on.

Quote from Diogenes Laertius (Bailey)

[118] And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament. The wise man will not have intercourse with any woman with whom the law forbids it, as Diogenes says in his summary of Epicurus’ moral teaching. ...

Raimondi does not write as if he is disagreeing with Epicurus, but explaining and praising him, so this discrepancy with Laertius seems likely relevant to our discussions of the many shades of meaning of "happy," eudaemonia, "blessed," etc.

I do get the impression that Raimondi is embracing a sweeping view of pleasure that fully includes the health of the body and mind (therefore any experiences which are not painful), so I don't think Raimondi is off base.

To me, likely the key to resolving these issues lies in proper parsing and perspectives on the conceptual issue happiness. To my reading no one is arguing that the experience of being in Pharlaris' bull, or experiencing kidney disease, is not painful. The issue seems to reside in being able to articulate properly the definition of "happiness" as being based on "pleasure" but not requiring constant agreeable stimulation, just like the definition of "god" is based on "blessed" but not requiring omnipotence and omniscience and other similar errors.

Maybe there are other ways to explain this discrepancy.

Has anyone here ( Don ?) looked closely at the Greek which Bailey is translating in the quote above?

Today I added to the Lucretius Today podcast a special reading of the Cosma Raimondi letter. For several years we have had a computer-generated voice edition available, but this is hopefully a little more listenable.

Post

Episode 224 - Special Reading - The 1429 Letter of Cosma Raimondi

Happy Twentieth! To mark the Twentieth of April, here is a special episode of the Lucretius Today Podcast: Episode 224 - "Special Reading - The 1429 Letter of Cosma Raimondi - In Defense of Epicurus."

spreaker.com/episode/59564842

Cassius

April 20, 2024 at 5:09 AM

Happy Twentieth! To mark the Twentieth of April, here is a special episode of the Lucretius Today Podcast: Episode 224 - "Special Reading - The 1429 Letter of Cosma Raimondi - In Defense of Epicurus."

Thanks Steve!

One of the things we want to discuss too is how this applies to people like Plato or Aristotle or Cicero.

Is it fair to also label them "psychological hedonists?"

Does this label explain anything helpful to distinguishing between Epicurus and Plato?

Does the meaning of "hedonism," especially one's definition of "hedonism / pleasure," make any difference to the analysis?

If everyone is in fact a "psychological hedonist," does the label help in some way to answer questions about disputes when the opponent denies that he is acting for pleasure?

Welcome to Episode 225 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 move to section 35, the final section in Book Two of On Ends. We may finish the series today, or we may have a special section next week to review major takeway points for both Books One and Two of On Ends - we will see how the time goes.

Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

XXXV. Read the eulogies, Torquatus, passed not upon the men who have been extolled by Homer, not upon Cyrus or Agesilaus or Aristides or Themistocles, not upon Philip or Alexander; read those of our own countrymen, of your own family; you will find that no one ever was extolled in such language as to be styled a subtle artist in the acquisition of pleasures. That is not the witness of the inscriptions on the tombs; this for example at the city gate: Many peoples agree that he was a leader of the nation beyond compare. Do we imagine that many peoples agreed concerning Calatinus that he was a leader of the nation, because he far excelled others in the production of pleasures? Are we then to say that those young men give good promise and shew great ability, whom we believe likely to be slaves to their own interests, and to do whatever brings them profit? Do we not see how great a confusion is likely to ensue in all affairs, and what great complications? Generosity is at an end; gratitude is at an end, and these are the bonds of peace. Nor, though you lend a thing to a man for your own sake, must it be called generosity, but usury, and no gratitude appears to be due to one who has made a loan for his own purposes. If pleasure is set on a throne, the highest virtues must necessarily take a low place. There are many forms of dishonour concerning which it is not easy to allege a reason why they should not beset the wise man, unless morality possesses by the laws of nature very great power.

And, not to take in too many considerations (they are indeed countless) if virtue is adequately extolled, the approaches to pleasure are inevitably barred. Now do not expect any such eulogy from me; just examine your own mind yourself, and probing it with all possible deliberation question yourself whether you prefer to pass all your life in the thorough enjoyment of uninterrupted pleasures, in that calm of which you were continually talking, untouched by pain, with the proviso which your school are accustomed to add, though it is an impossible one, that fear of pain be absent, or rather, while rendering splendid service to the whole world, and bringing succor and deliverance to those in distress, to suffer even the dolours of Hercules? For in this way our ancestors designated his inevitable toils, using the most melancholy term dolours though he was a god. I should entice from you and even force from you a reply, did I not fear you would say that pleasure was the motive which induced even Hercules to achieve all that he did achieve by intense effort for the health of nations.

When I had thus spoken, Triarius [NOTE: Rackham says this is Torquatus] said, ‘I have friends to whom I can refer these questions, and although I might have made some answer myself, still I would rather look to men better equipped than myself.’ "I believe you mean our friends Siro and Philodemus, not only excellent men, but men of very great learning." "You understand me rightly," said he.

"Agreed, then," said I, "but it were fairer that Triarius should give some verdict about our disagreement."

"I reject him on affidavit," said Torquatus with a smile, "as prejudiced, at all events on this subject, since you handle these topics with some gentleness, while he persecutes us after the fashion of the Stoics."

Then Triarius remarked: "At least I shall do so hereafter with greater confidence. For I shall be ready with the doctrines I have just listened to; though I shall not attack you until I see that you have been primed by the friends you mention."

This said, we put an end at once to our walk and our debate.

I don't know that it is clear to me that there is a bright line between being aware of one's actions and being aware of one's condition, because I am not sure what "action" really means here. Our atoms are always in motion and the internals of our bodies are always in motion - is action the same as motion? Then as long as we are alive then we are in motion of one kind or another.

But what does seem clear is that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain, and that whatever you are aware of, whether it is an action or a condition or any number of other terms, that awareness is either painful or pleasurable. That means that if you are alive, unless you are specifically perceiving a pain, what you are perceiving is pleasure.

By seeing things that way you can always count on, if you are wise, experiencing more pleasure than pain.

But what *specific* pleasures you choose to experience, in all of the many ways they can be divided between parts of the body affected, intensity, and duration, as referenced in PD09, are going to be matters that you have to decide according to your context and your own evaluations.

There's no trophy waiting at the end of the road for anyone, no matter which choices they make on which pleasures to pursue. You can live low to the ground and eke out a life of 100 years on bread and water, or you can live 50 years mountainclimbing. No trophy either way, and I don't think Epicurus is telling us that the 100 years living low is better than the 50 years living high. In fact, he specifically says not to look at life solely in terms of time:

Letter to Menoeceus 126: "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."

In that context it seems to me that "most pleasant" is specifically intended to reinforce that we aren't gods who have unlimited time to do whatever we want, but human beings who have to make choices and go after what is most pleasant for us as best we can.

Today we upgraded the software to include a "PDF Embed" feature. I *think* what that means is that when you attach a PDF to a post it will automatically be rendered in a standard viewer in modern browsers, rather than just showing as an attachment.

If anyone has any problem with this feature please let me know!

Notes from developer:

Renders uploaded and included PDF files (attachments and media files).

This extension for WoltLab Suite 5.3 and newer allows you to embed PDF files (attachments and media files) directly into your content (e.g. articles or forum posts). Nothing changes for you in terms of handling, i.e. you insert the PDF files into your content as before and the extension does the rest.

For this purpose, all available options are used to enable the integration at any time and in any browser. In addition, Mozilla's integrated PDF.js library can help you display PDF files even in browsers or on devices that do not actually offer native support for PDF files (e.g. Android). If the integration of PDF files is not possible despite all efforts, the link behaves normally and leads directly to the PDF file.

The extension options allow you to specify how or when PDF files should be displayed: Directly on page load, or only after clicking on the link. In addition, you can also specify in the settings whether PDF.js should be used as a fallback or not.

What can this extension not do?

This extension is not designed for inconsistent display, i.e. it is not possible or not intended to change the display for individual PDF files with this extension. Included PDF files are displayed consistently across the entire WoltLab Suite by default.

Furthermore, it is not possible or intended to include external PDF files, because this is prevented by most servers and browsers.

Here is a good clip from that video linked above, showing Epicurus more young and vigorous as he would have looked when he was starting out with his school rather than after he grew older:

Today we opened a new Telegram channel for use in making announcements about the Forum.

Users of Telegram can find it at:

EpicureanFriends

Official Telegram channel for EpicureanFriends.com

t.me

At this point I don't see much reason to plan to use it other than for announcements such as "A new episode of Lucretius Today is now available," or "The forum is down but will be back up soon," etc.

The channel should *not* reveal to other users who is a member, but it is "public' so that anyone on Telegram searching for Epicurean should be able to find it.

If any users of Telegram decide to join it and have any suggestions on how best to set it up or use it, please feel free to offer ideas! No doubt like anything else it is subject to hacking and misuse, so if anyone sees issues with it please let me know and I will add those considerations to the "pinned" post at the top, which currently points out that the same posting policies applicable at EpicureanFriends.com also applies on the Telegram channel.

Yes, Welcome Aboard and thank you for telling us about yourself!

Welcome x7331 !

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!