Posts by Cassius

Ok if we are going to make any progress in reading up on what Cyrano had to say that is related to Epicurus, we need to find sources for his works. I can go back into the first post in this thread an insert a table of links to translations of his works.

Just to start somewhere, I will add this link to A Voyage to the Moon. If others will add to the thread more suggestions then we'll build a table, which i have started here: Cyrano de Bergerac

A voyage to the moon : Cyrano de Bergerac, 1619-1655 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

An edition by C.H. Page of A. Lovell's translation, published with title: The comical history of the states and empires of the world of the moon

archive.org

I think Eikadistes 's latest graphic is applicable to our discussion here. When Democritus implied or stated that there's nothing in "reality" except atoms and void he should have taken greater care to explain what he meant by reality. If your definition of "reality" requires an unchanging and eternal existence, then darn right, nothing has that except atoms and void. But if your definition of "reality" is of relevance to human beings, and includes the kind of reality that includes railroad trains that will mow you down if you stand on their tracks when they come through, then to say that nothing exists "in reality" except atoms and void is the height of stupidity. I feel sure Democritus wasn't stupid, and I hope he made that distinction in real life. But regardless of that it does sound like Democritus got caught up in skepticism and hard determinism, so maybe he was in fact adversely influenced by his own theories. Rather than corrupt his ideas as Cicero accused Epicurus of doing, Epicurus straightened them out in some very important aspects.

You have a good memory! I think what I would say today to expand on what you quoted would be to clearly explain a definition of "certainty." If the word is defined to mean "godlike" certainty in that you are omniscient and omnipotent and have a full view of the universe through time and space, then you can never be certain (in that way) of anything, and that's the false standard that is foolish to seek.

If being certain is being used to me "I know this as well as an human can know it" then that definition of certainty is practical and usable.

So I think that's what Epicurus was talking about when he was using his canon. He set forth a set of tools that you can use, and if you use them appropriately then it is appropriate for you to say that you are "certain" of your conclusion. If you're talking to a priest and he says that he is certain of something, or that you can never be certain of anything, then I'd reject that proposition.

But just like when you're talking to Epicurus about "pleasure" you have to understand that he's talking about more than sensory stimulation, you can use the word "certain" in the proper sense of a human-style of certainty and be using the word acceptably.

I'd have to go back and see what else if anything I wrote at the time to see if I provided that context, but that's the context I would give it now. All the important words in Epicurean philosophy seem to have their own subtleties of meaning, and "knowledge" and "certainty" would be right in there with "pleasure," "virtue," "gods" and the rest!

Quote from Pacatus

Confidence is necessary, but absolute objective certainty is only available in deductive logic and pure mathematics.

I'm not sure that we should accept that "objective certainty" has a meaning unless we limit the term, should we? So I think I would be concerned about granting to deductive logic or pure mathematics the status of "objective certainty" either. I wouldn't want to go around casually implying that I think mathematics or logic have "objective certainty" when "objective certainty" sounds like a term that normal people would think applies only to that supernatural omniscient god whose existence we are rejecting.

My comment here isn't strictly related to the first post, but recently some things came to my attention to add to the negative side of my assessment of Cromwell and the Puritans. I recall Emily Austin and particularly Don talking in our podcast interview about this subject, but I've never pursued it. Given the considerable deference that most Americans seem to pay to the Puritans, especially around Thanksgiving, I hope over time we can develop more material on the unsavory side of Puritanism and how it would therefore relate to Epicurean views. Knowing thine enemy is generally a good thing.

It just occurs to me to add this. I'd like to think that there were some people here who, before they started reading Epicurus, were radical skeptics or radical hard determinists, and after reading Epicurus decided to change their minds. But come to think of it, I don't think I can name anyone like that. I wonder if there are any!

BTB I hope you will do more of the reading you indicated because I think you will get a lot out of it. However as you already indicate, the bottom line is that Epicurean philosophy is not consistent with radical skepticism, and someone who takes that position isn't ultimately going to be comfortable with Epicurus. That's very similar to how someone who is committed to radical hard determinism ultimately isn't going to be comfortable with Epicurus.

It's almost like clockwork and it's almost like we need a sign on the front page warning skeptics and determinists about the hazard. But we don't do that and probably won't because from the point of view I would expect Epicurus to take, people have a certain freedom of choice in determining their own futures, and they can change their minds even on skepticism and dogmatism. Even further, I would expect the ancient Epicureans to have said that a large part of the reason that radical skepticism and determinism is a problem is because those ideas aren't solely errors innocently arrived at, they are pushed as agendas by very influential parts of society with ulterior motives. Many people are "taken in" by them, innocently enough, because they have never had the opportunity to be exposed to a reasonable alternative like Epicurus provided.

So yes I realize that even though I am trying to write this considerately and compassionately, there are people who are going to take great offense to what I am writing here. They are committed to the view that no one can ever be "right" on anything, and that no one is responsible for anything because everything in the universe is just the current positioning of billiard-balls on the gaming table. And those people think that it's the greatest of offensiveness to suggest otherwise.

But if you're going to take Epicurean philosophy to heart and accept its foundations, that's just the way things are. You can't make everyone happy, and if you set out trying to do so you're on a fool's errand. Certain people are going to thing you're the greatest thing since sliced bread, and others are going to think that you're talking like you just came down from the intermundia to deliver the wisdom of the gods.

Many of the questions you've raised BTB need to be the subject of FAQ entries, and so you've done us a favor by reminding us of how much work there is to do in explaining the Epicurean position.

Oh my gosh this conversation was only two years ago but I had completely forgotten about it! Thanks for linking to it Cyrano!

The likelihood is that the primary addition regarding pleasure is going to come this way, by addition after the existing line 29, in the canonics section rather than the ethics section:

...

30. Instead, the faculties which constitute our Canon of Truth are our five senses, our preconceptions, and our feelings of pleasure and pain, for it is by means of these that we test those things which are true, and we determine which are obscure and need confirmation. For only when those things which are clear to us are understood is it time to consider those things which are obscure. [(Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus)]

31. By "preconception" we mean an apprehension or right opinion or thought or general idea stored within the mind, that is to say, a recollection of what has often been presented from without, a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing, without which nothing can be understood or investigated or discussed. (Diogenes Laertius X:33; "On The Nature of the Gods" section___,)

32. By "pleasure" we mean the absence of pain, for there are two internal sensations, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and pleasure is akin to nature and pain is alien. There is no middle condition between pleasure and pain, so anyone who is conscious of his own condition is necessarily in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. (Letter to Menoeceus; Diogenes Laertius X.34: On Ends Book 2)

33. Whatever is free from pain is in pleasure, because wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once. And it is therefore as true as any proposition can be that "freedom from pain" and "the negation of pain" mean the same thing as "pleasure." (Principal Doctrine 3; On Ends Book 2:9-11)

34. So to he who asserts that there are vast multitudes of men who are neither in a state of pain nor a state of pleasure, but in an intermediate state between these two conditions, we say: "No, indeed, for all men who are free from pain are in pleasure, and in fact in the greatest pleasure." (On Ends Book 2:16)

35. And to he who asserts that if pleasure is the highest good every part of our bodies, even our hands, would constantly feel a longing for pleasure, we say that they feel no such longing because so long as they are free from pain they are in fact experiencing pleasure. (On Ends Book 1:39)

36. The wise man who understands these things will find that any pains he may encounter have never power enough to prevent him from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation, and he who is able to become completely free from all pain is experiencing the most complete pleasure that is possible to him. (On Ends Book 1:62)

37. Now, apply your mind, for a new question struggles earnestly to gain your ears, a new aspect of things is about to display itself. [(Lucretius Book 2)]

...

Note: To avoid overstressing this thread I will post interim revisions of the full text here:

Foundations Of Epicurean Philosophy

For the first time since 2015 I am about to undertake a significant update of this presentation. When I first put it together I did not think I had good enough quotations on "pleasure as the absence of pain" to include a clear meaning of that without perpetuating ambiguities, but I think now with the aid of our review of Book 2 of on ends I have sufficient succinct citations to include a brief explanation of that, probably inserting it right after item 100.

I also want to go through and try to add line numbers for as many citations as possible in addition to the general source reference already included.

But I am posting this note because of anyone has general editorial suggestions to make, this would be a good time to make them. Eventually we will do another multimedia version, including one with human voice and versions with and without background music. Also, importantly, a revised version ultimately needs much better graphics.

In the end the final result is deep and intense, and a lot to take in at one sitting, but hearing it all in context and clear progression I think makes for a very good reference point to check ones understanding of how everything fits together.

If you can tolerate the computer voice and the music (some hate it and some love it) I recommend this set of material as one of the most complete and well documented summaries of the philosophy that we have on the entire site.

There are many difficult decisions to be made in balancing understandability with keeping true to the texts, and I can't promise to address every suggestion, but all will be considered and appreciated.

Quote from Eggplant Wizard

Epicurean theology was dismissed by almost all the participants as a ruse to avoid persecution and attempts to talk seriously about it mostly ran into scorn.

As long as I am administrator of this group that (attempts to talk seriously about Epicurean theology running into scorn) will not happen here! If anything gets quashed, it's going to be insistence that Epicurean theology was a cop-out, because that's an insult to Epicurus personally and that's not something that "friends of Epicurus" should stand by and accept. No doubt it will pop up now and then especially with newer people, but if a gentle reminder to cut it out isn't sufficient then stronger action will be taken.

One thing we need to be able to agree on is that we are going to take seriously what the Epicureans discussed. We don't have to agree with all, but the forum isn't going to be a place for personal ridicule on theology or images or any other issue where we might disagree with the Epicureans. You can't understand what they were thinking as a whole until you take the parts seriously. They were doing the best they could, and they succeeded a surprising amount of the time. Even when they may have been in error, there is much to be learned from their thought process in getting to their position.

Quote from Eggplant Wizard

It was clearly important to the classical Epicureans.

It absolutely was, and by ridiculing they are foreclosing themselves from the benefits of understanding the full Epicurean point of view, agree with it or not.

Quote from BrainToBeing

For example, based on beliefs extant at the time, two thousand years ago humans sacrificed other humans, and many animals, "to the gods". I think it is important that we have a different view now.

Ah, there's an important distinction. NOT ALL humans two thousand years ago sacrificed other humans, only some of them did. And there are plenty of abuses going on today that people 2000 years ago could hardly have imagined. So it's not the time element alone, or even dominantly, that is the issue.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I think it is important to consider what we have learned philosophically in the last 2000 years.

Not many people are going to agree on what, if **anything** has been learned "philosophically" in the last 2000 years. Lots of ink has been spilled for sure, but has the conversation really progressed in substance since the Greco-Roman debates of 2000 years ago? I think a considerable number of people would argue that philosophy has *regressed* since that time. And that's the kind of question that needs to be addressed. Is spilling ink and chasing rabbits really progress showing that certain things have been learned? The big questions of life seem to remain the big questions of life from age to age.

As just to be clear, I think it is very helpful that you are posing these questions in the way you do. Not everyone is going to arrive at the same answers, but these are challenges that have to be considered and dealt with for any community to have confidence in its reason for being.

Cassius wrote a new article:

Article

Interview With Dr. David Glidden: "Epicurean Prolepsis"

In Episode 166 the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. David Glidden, professor emeritus from the University of California - Riverside, about his articles "Epicurean Prolepsis" and "Epicurean Thinking.

Cassius

January 11, 2024 at 8:22 AM

Quote

In Episode 166 the Lucretius Today podcasters interviewed Dr. David Glidden, professor emeritus from the University of California - Riverside, about his articles "Epicurean Prolepsis" and "Epicurean Thinking.

Cassius wrote a new article:

Article

Interview With Dr. Marcelo Boeri: Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy

In Episode 197 of the Lucretius Today Podcast, on October 19, 2023, we were privileged to speak with Dr. Marcelo Boeri, co-author with Javier Aoiz of Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility.

Cassius

January 11, 2024 at 8:20 AM

Quote

In Episode 197 of the Lucretius Today Podcast, on October 19, 2023, we were privileged to speak with Dr. Marcelo Boeri, co-author with Javier Aoiz of Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility.

I think that style would lend itself very well to a presentation encouraging people to look further into Epicurus. I'd probably expand it more in the direction of explaining some of Epicurus' / Lucretius' key positions (the only thing most people know seems to be to associate him with "pleasure"). Joshua seems to have a series of other good parallels that could be used to show the same ideas in both. A narrative like this over a series of slides, maybe even with background music, would be a very effective way of presenting those parallels. Probably the whole thing could wind up pointing to a place where we discuss a table of parallel Shakespeare/Epicurean references. I don't think we have a table anywhere do we Joshua ?

Very good! Sounds like you wrote this for another context - it might even be the text of a youtube video or something similar, like your Cyrano presentation?

Quote from BrainToBeing

And, it is not my intent to be a disruptive iconoclast.

I don't think that anyone here thinks you are a disruptive iconoclast. It's a pleasure and a privilege to communicate with professionals like yourself about your areas of expertise. You have already pointed up a series of important questions on which we need to be able to think through Epicurus' positions and better shape our own. If you are able to find the time to talk with us further after you read some of the core "philosophy" through DeWitt, I am sure your commentary would be even more beneficial to the forum than what you've already brought.

I don't recall seeing that from Hegel previously -- thanks for posting!

Salisuhassan - Could you please respond to your welcome thread -

These last several posts deserve a thread of their own, and I think the best place for this (and the thread about what things have changed in the last 2000 years) will be the "Epicurean Philosophy vs Scientism" subforum. So moving there now....

Quote from BrainToBeing

The leaders in EpicureanFriends have devoted great time to the study of perspectives derived 2000 years ago. So, the question: How does this devotion lead you to life perspectives for today that you could not derive from similar effort to examining the world today?

This is not meant or intended to be a challenge. It is not that at all. Rather, it is a question about how the philosophical frameworks of two millennia ago are the same or different from today.

I'm listening to episode 200 of the podcasts. And, I've gotten "On The Nature of Things". And, I am ready to dive into The Letter to Menoeceus. But, before "going down the rabbit hole" I'm wondering if any of you can reflect on this issue of bringing "then" to "now". Thanks to any who wish to jump in. ( Joshua You referenced the concept of such application in Episode 200).

BrainToBeing I completely accept that you do not intend this to be a "challenge." However I think the way you are conveying this question indicates something important about the way you are approaching the entire question. Of what necessary relevance is it to the question of whether a particular idea is correct whether it is 2000 years old or 2 minutes old. If you are being frustrated by the lack of connection on your questions and answers, I think the frustration stems in part from that: philosophy does not generally base its view of whether something is correct based on how long the idea has been around.

I grant you in clinical practice times change fast, and one day's scientist is often the next day's quack. But the general definition of "what is a quack" does not change by year.

It appears to me that you have done little reading so far into either the texts themselves or to the well-reasoned commentaries (DeWitt, primarily, in this context, though I would include Austin as well).

You seem to be evaluating solely on the basis of "what is the latest science" which is totally understandable for a clinician, but is not "philosophy."

If I am in a car accident and I need surgery for broken bones, then I want the best clinician with the latest medical information that I can find.

But if I am suffering from an existential crisis of anxiety over whether I am going to hell when I die or whether a supernatural god will punish me for being "evil" or whether there are ideal absolutes by which I should live, a "clinician" is going to be of no use whatsoever. Certainly at some times certain people struggle with such issues because they have biological or chemical issues, and a clinician is needed to being their functioning ability back to "the norm." But in the general cases that we are dealing with, where bodily health issues are not in questions, a clinical approach is never going to answer the questions that we really want to know.

My strong advice is that rather than reading any of the letter or the more specific material, you get into the DeWitt book, and let him introduce you to the full spectrum of issues that Epicurus was addressing. DeWitt is exactly tuned toward addressing the "big picture" that you are looking for so you can accept or reject it.

Epicurus' starting point was that he wanted to understand how the world could have come into being from nothing, and he rejected the idea that his teachers - the "clinicians" of his day - taught him.

You may or may not personally profit from Epicurus' approach, and if you don't need it then I applaud you for being so unaffected by the deeper philosophical issues. But the clinical approach can't resolve these questions for the ordinary man on the street, and the general direction toward addressing them has to come through a philosophy that deals with issues of what "should be" (which Epicurus holds should be based on what "is"), and not on an arbitrary selection of a goal through a clinical approach that never gets to the heart of what "should be" in the first place.

I understand that there are all sorts of ways to frame questions of how to get from what "is" to what "ought to be" in our own lives. Epicurus gives us one coherent approach that we can accept and reject, but in Epicurus' case his opinions being 2000 years old are a feature - because they have stood the test of time - rather than a fault.