Posts by Cassius

I think that something like "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" is a good topic for continued discussion as I am very interested in doing some preparation myself. I spend a lot of time in a rural area subject to possibly weeke-long interruption in power from ice storme and hurricanes, so this is of practical interest.

Kalosyni we should look at moving this into a new topic under the lifestyle section, and revising the "personal posting" in general to a more specific name that reflects how even these posts are topical.

I think that something like "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" is a good topic for continued discussion as I am very interested in doing some preparation myself. I spend a lot of time in a rural area subject to possibly weeke-long interruption in power from ice storme and hurricanes, so this is of practical interest.

In this case I have "copied" (rather than moved) the last several posts into a new forum here:

Thread

Dealing With Electric Grid Disruption

Admin Edit - This thread was split off from the Solar Flare Discussion Started HERE.

---

[…]

I've been down this trail of thoughts – let me give you my travel notes, as they might simplify your journey through this rabbit hole

Why blackouts can happen anytime, anywhere:

• There is no advance warning: Back in 2006, when the European grid was still in quite good condition, one operator negligence in northern Germany split the entire grid into three segments (an automatic fail-safe procedure), in the

…

Julia

May 11, 2024 at 4:49 AM

Please try to pursue the discussion of "self-sufficiency in time of crisis" in that forum, and in this one let's keep the specific issue of solar flares and the like.

I am going to try to keep a running list of Velleius' arguments against the existence of supernatural gods. The full list will be here. Below are the new ones we will add in Episode 288:

1. What were the world-building gods doing for an eternity of time before they made the universe?
   1. "But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence. What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an ædile, to illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon. But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been without it so long.
2. Who benefited from the creation of the universe? If for the wise, that's a very small number. If for fools, why?
   1. Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly? Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or to bear when they are come.
3. Those who assert that the world itself is a god make no sense, because a round world hurtling through space cannot be a god.
   1. They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion, the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore, should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are parts of the world, some of the Deity’s limbs must be said to be scorched, and some frozen.
      

Welcome

to Episode 228 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.

We are now discussing the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," and this week we continue with the argument of the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning in Section 9.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of Velleius' arguments against the existence of supernatural gods will be here.

Today's Text

IX. But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence. What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an ædile, to illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon. But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been without it so long.

Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly? Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or to bear when they are come.

X. They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion, the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore, should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are parts of the world, some of the Deity’s limbs must be said to be scorched, and some frozen.

These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?

It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?

Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?

XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.

Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.

Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?

Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.

Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Today the Lucretius Today Podcast continues in the Epicurean section of Cicero's On The Nature of The Gods with Velleius beginning his attack on traditional views of the gods.

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

Very creative - thank you! Having intelligence without becoming corrupted over time is a very attractive character trait.

Glad to hear that you are OK Cyrano!

I find this to be a fascinating subject so thank you for those details Twentier and please keep adding them as you come across them.

Thanks Golbach for joining us at the meeting last night. It is always interesting and fun to hear about how people get interested in Epicurus and we look forward to your joining us again.

So far, it's Greek to me!

Today I saw someone at Reddit post that the video I am going to reference here is "A Great Introduction to Epicurus' Four Part Cure For Happiness." I know in the past I have seen this and I may have posted about it earlier, but it bears repeating how off base some (not all, but a significant part!) of this video is:

As a first comment I would ask "Why can't this person actually find a picture of Epicurus rather than use a false drawing of a bald Epicurus that is totally unlike what the ancients used?"

Then I would point out that never does Epicurus himself ever state that these four short statements are his "capital doctrines:" There is *one* occurrence of a formulation similar to this, in a Herculaneum scroll, and no other ancient source contains this formulation. Yes it's arguable that the actual doctrines can be construed to say something similar, but they say much more, with much different connotation.

But this next clip is the real reason I made this post:

This is the real heart of the problem. This slide and the audio overlay state that these are the two kinds of pleasure that Epicurus promoted, and this is simply not correct.

The true division of Pleasure into two kinds that characterizes the heart of Epicruean ethics is:

(1) Agreeable stimulation (for which sweet is a fine additional word if you want to use it to make things clear)

(2) All other awareness in life which is not painful.

This second type is NOT limited to a "tranquil, satisfied, self-sufficient, and self-assured stated." All of those adjectives are fine, as they are *parts* of pleasure, but the implication of this formulation is that "tranquility," "satisfaction," "self-sufficiency," and "self-assurance" (which I will now refer to as "TSSS") are somehow the *only* types of experience other than agreeable stimulation that are counted as within pleasure.

Even worse is to state or imply that this second category of TSSS describe a "higher" or "true" type of pleasure, for which agreeable stimulation is only a tool for achieving TSSS, and which can be dispensed when this TSSS is achieved (as if it can be achieved and maintained without the agreeable stimulation, which it can't, but that's an argument for later).

Once you read past these presentations of the "tetrapharmakon" into Epicurus' own letters, and into Diogenes Laertius, and into Cicero's summaries, you see that the key to the real picture is that Epicurus held there to be only two kind of feelings, pleasure and pain, and that every experience which is not painful should be considered as pleasure, and vice versa. Citations for this are here.

There is much more to say about this video, but I have circled in this next clip one particularly irritating way in which this viewpoint leads people astray:

Knowing that there is a limit to suffering definitely DOES remove fear of being dead, and other fears as well, but it does not removed "Longing for more life." The rest of Epicurean philosophy (which is butchered in this video by the restrictive definition of pleasure) does indeed remove the longing for an *unlimited* life span, because "PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure."

But Epicurean philosophy not only does not teach that there is no need to wish for "more" life, it teaches that life is desirable, because life is absolutely necessary for the experience of pleasure. Life is so desirable, and so important, that every aspect of life which is not specifically painful is worthy to be considered pleasurable.

One of the worst distortions of Epicurus that comes from Stoic and Buddhist eclecticism is that there is somehow no need to be concerned about staying alive, because you're part of the universal divine fire and should be happy to return to it if you're a Stoic, or because life is suffering and you should be happy to escape it if you're a Buddhist.

There are many people who are vulnerable to the idea that their lives are unimportant and that they should not do everything they can to lead the best life possible while they are alive. That's a point I think we need to hit home as frequently and persuasively as possible.

Time for a status update to see if anyone is having any issues or if there are things which need improvement:

1. Anyone have any problems to report in their use of the forum?
2. Any issues on desktop or mobile sizes?
3. Any issues with the themes?
4. Any features you would like to see added?
5. Any other general comments or suggestions?

I have to say that I think things are operating pretty smoothly at the moment, and I am not aware of any major issues. Seems like for me sometimes the notifications don't take me to the most recent new post, a problem that was reported earlier and may not yet be fully resolved. But generally things seem to be operating smoothly.

Can't promise to be able to address all suggestions immediately, but can't even consider them if we don't know what they are. So please feel free to let us know if there are any issues and we will see what we can do to address them over time.

Thanks for your participation at EpicureanFriends.com!

Hello Golbach ! We will provide the link tomorrow as we get closer to the time for the meeting. In the meantime can you introduce yourself in our welcome thread?

Thread

Welcome Golbach!

Welcome Golbach !

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…

Cassius

May 5, 2024 at 9:37 AM

Welcome Golbach !

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!

Wow that is an incredibly impressive story Julia.

Next to that any response is going to seem inadequate, but I do want to repeat what I think is the heart of Epicurean philosophy - that all this talk of absolute virtue and Platonic ideals and rewards after death is just a pipe dream. Your own life is the most valuable thing you have, and that it is short and you have to make the best of it, and that finding the way to make the best of it is the most important thing anyone can do. It sounds like you're making great progress, and no matter how many detours along the way it sounds like that when you get to the end (which is hopefully very far away) you'll be able to say that you too have lived well. That's all anyone can do, and it sounds like you've done more self-reflection about your situation than most. You can be proud no matter what else happens that you took charge of your life and you didn't give in to the kind of wishful thinking about your situation to which so many people seem to surrender.

Quote from Don

Wow! There is so much wrong in that chart!

And the commentary that he spoke while it was on the screen was even worse!

To give him credit, he started out the video saying that most of what he says in his discussions of Epicurus is negative, so I wouldn't look to a devoted Stoic for a fair presentation. When I reviewed it I was driving and listening to the audio so I may have missed some subtleties in the graphics, but it very much reminded me of many of the positions Cicero took while arguing against Torquatus.

As we get into Velleius' opening in the episode we record tomorrow, I plan to comment on this Stoic-based chart which, thanks to a new participant, I found today. Since we've so recently gone over "Virtue" and "Pleasure" in "On Ends," we will probably mention those too, but I especially want to focus on what this chart has to say (in my view, inadequately) about The Gods, Superstition, and Divination.

Here is our current collection of Nietzsche quotes on Epicurus relating to Stoicism, including the "fraud of words" quote:

Post

Collection of Nietzsche Quotes Relevant To Epicurean Philosophy

The collection at NewEpicurean.com is here.

I will work on expanding the list at the EpicureanFriends Wiki here.

To carry forward the point of the significance of Nietzsche just a little, here i think is the root of N's problem with Epicurus, in Antichrist Section 30:

--------------------------

"The instinctive hatred of reality: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation—so great that merely to be "touched" becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound.

The…

Cassius

March 21, 2019 at 8:57 AM

Beyond Good And Evil

(Gutenberg edition, translated by Helen Zimmern ) Chapter 1, section 9

You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima.

Beyond Good And Evil, (Gutenberg edition, translated by Helen Zimmern) Chapter 5, section 188

In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against “nature” and also against “reason”, that is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness are unlawful What is essential and invaluable in every system of morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the constraint under which every language has attained to strength and freedom—the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm.

Beyond Good And Evil, (Gutenberg edition, translated by Helen Zimmern) Chapter 5, section 198

All the systems of morals which address themselves with a view to their “happiness,” as it is called—what else are they but suggestions for behaviour adapted to the degree of DANGER from themselves in which the individuals live; recipes for their passions, their good and bad propensities, insofar as such have the Will to Power and would like to play the master; small and great expediencies and elaborations, permeated with the musty odour of old family medicines and old-wife wisdom; all of them grotesque and absurd in their form—because they address themselves to “all,” because they generalize where generalization is not authorized; all of them speaking unconditionally, and taking themselves unconditionally; all of them flavoured not merely with one grain of salt, but rather endurable only, and sometimes even seductive, when they are over-spiced and begin to smell dangerously, especially of “the other world.” That is all of little value when estimated intellectually, and is far from being “science,” much less “wisdom”; but, repeated once more, and three times repeated, it is expediency, expediency, expediency, mixed with stupidity, stupidity, stupidity—whether it be the indifference and statuesque coldness towards the heated folly of the emotions, which the Stoics advised and fostered; or the no-more-laughing and no-more-weeping of Spinoza, the destruction of the emotions by their analysis and vivisection, which he recommended so naively; or the lowering of the emotions to an innocent mean at which they may be satisfied, the Aristotelianism of morals; or even morality as the enjoyment of the emotions in a voluntary attenuation and spiritualization by the symbolism of art, perhaps as music, or as love of God, and of mankind for God’s sake—for in religion the passions are once more enfranchised, provided that…; or, finally, even the complaisant and wanton surrender to the emotions, as has been taught by Hafis and Goethe, the bold letting-go of the reins, the spiritual and corporeal licentia morum in the exceptional cases of wise old codgers and drunkards, with whom it “no longer has much danger.”—This also for the chapter: “Morals as Timidity.”

Julia -

Thank you for posting that Vox Stoica link. I had not heard that before and am glad I am now aware of it.

I find it to be very inaccurate as to Epicurus but very typical of Stoic interpretations that center on fear and on tranquility, as if Epicurus were not concerned with "pleasure" at all. It starts off on the wrong foot, talking as if Epicurus did not value *both* stimulating and non-stimulative pleasure, and gets worse from there.

If you have heard our Lucretius Today podcasts over the past year you have likely head us discuss these issues, and it is for many reasons that I share Nietzsche's contempt (i regret so strong a word but it is accurate) for Stoicism. The quote to which you linked does not emphasize it nearly as well as the one in which Nietzsche calls Stoicism a "fraud of words."

The true Stoics of the ancient world generally held Epicurus in contempt, and I give them credit for understanding the depth of the issues involved, rather than glossing over important differences and looking for an eclectic blend as does this commentator.

These are fascinating issues and very worth discussing so thank you for linking to that. I will likely start another thread on that episode at some point and I am tempted to record a point by point response to it.

If I thought that this commentator's interpretation of Epicurus were correct, I would have nothing to do with Epicurus, nor would I recommend Epicurus to you or anyone else! To be clear, I think he is flat wrong in asserting that Epicurean philosophy is all about running from pain, and I am happy to defend Epicurus from the false praise of someone who can apparently see him only through Stoic eyes.