Looks like we need a place to discuss basics of NeoPlatonism:

Thread

NeoPlatonism Basics Relevant to the Study of Epicurus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism is a version of Platonic philosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background of Hellenistic philosophy and religion.^{[1][note 1][note 2]} The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".^[2]

Neoplatonism began with Ammonius Saccas and his student Plotinus…

Cassius

August 24, 2023 at 8:57 AM

Neoplatonism - Wikipedia

Neoplatonism is a version of Platonic philosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background of Hellenistic philosophy and religion.^{[1][note 1][note 2]} The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".^[2]

Neoplatonism began with Ammonius Saccas and his student Plotinus (c. 204/5–271 AD) and stretched to the 6th century AD.^[3] After Plotinus there were three distinct periods in the history of neoplatonism: the work of his student Porphyry (3rd to early 4th century); that of Iamblichus (3rd to 4th century); and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.^[4]

Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of Western philosophy and religion. In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers.^[5] In the Islamic cultural sphere, neoplatonic texts were available in Arabic and Persian translations, and notable philosophers such as al-Farabi, Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and Moses Maimonides incorporated neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.^[6]

Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had direct access to the works of Proclus, Simplicius of Cilicia, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he knew about other Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, through second hand sources.^[7] The German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328) was also influenced by neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God. Neoplatonism also had a strong influence on the perennial philosophy of the Italian Renaissance thinkers Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and continues through 19th-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism.

ALSO:

Neoplatonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “Neoplatonism” refers to a philosophical school of thought that first emerged and flourished in the Greco-Roman world of late antiquity, roughly from the time of the Roman Imperial Crisis to the Arab conquest, i.e., the middle of the 3^rd to the middle of the 7^th century. In consequence of the demise of ancient materialist or corporealist thought such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, Neoplatonism became the dominant philosophical ideology of the period, offering a comprehensive understanding of the universe and the individual human being’s place in it. However, in contrast to labels such as “Stoic”, “Peripatetic” or “Platonic”, the designation “Neoplatonic” is of modern coinage and to some extent a misnomer. Late antique philosophers now counted among “the Neoplatonists” did not think of themselves as engaged in some sort of effort specifically to revive the spirit and the letter of Plato’s dialogues. To be sure, they did call themselves “Platonists” and held Plato’s views, which they understood as a positive system of philosophical doctrine, in higher esteem than the tenets of the pre-Socratics, Aristotle, or any other subsequent thinker. However, and more importantly, their signature project is more accurately described as a grand synthesis of an intellectual heritage that was by then exceedingly rich and profound. In effect, they absorbed, appropriated, and creatively harmonized almost the entire Hellenic tradition of philosophy, religion, and even literature—with the exceptions of Epicureanism, which they roundly rejected, and the thoroughgoing corporealism of the Stoics. The result of this effort was a grandiose and powerfully persuasive system of thought that reflected upon a millennium of intellectual culture and brought the scientific and moral theories of Plato, Aristotle, and the ethics of the Stoics into fruitful dialogue with literature, myth, and religious practice. In virtue of their inherent respect for the writings of many of their predecessors, the Neoplatonists together offered a kind of meta-discourse and reflection on the sum-total of ideas produced over centuries of sustained inquiry into the human condition.

As a natural consequence of their insistence on the undiminished relevance of the past, the Neoplatonists developed their characteristically speculative brand of philosophical enquiry in which empirical facts tended to serve as illustrations rather than heuristic starting points or test cases. Today, the Neoplatonic system may strike one as lofty, counterintuitive, and implausible, but to dismiss it out of hand is difficult, especially if one is prepared to take seriously a few fundamental assumptions that are at least not obviously wrong and may possibly be right.

The most fundamental of these assumptions, which the Neoplatonists shared with the majority of intellectuals of the ancient world, including most pre-Socratic thinkers as well as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their followers, is that mindful consciousness (nous, often translated as thought, intelligence, or intellect) is in an important sense ontologically prior to the physical realm typically taken for ultimate reality (Mind over Matter). There existed a dispute between Plato and Aristotle over whether or not the objects of mindful consciousness (abstract concepts, Platonic or otherwise, numbers, geometrical properties, and so forth) are also ontologically prior, but the Neoplatonists regarded this fact as a matter of inconsequential detail. And so, following a venerable and abiding tradition of Mind over Matter, Neoplatonism inevitably turned out to be an idealist type of philosophy.

The second assumption, which the Neoplatonists shared with the Stoics and the Hermetists (an influential group of Egyptian religious thinkers that predate the rise of Neoplatonism), was that reality, in all its cognitive and physical manifestations, depended on a highest principle which is unitary and singular. Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”. Since it is reasonable to assume, as the Neoplatonists did, that any efficient cause is ontologically prior to, and hence more real, than its effect, then, in the hierarchy of being, the first principle, whatever it is, cannot be less “real” than the phenomena it is supposed to explain. Given the veracity of the first assumption (the ontological priority of intelligence and consciousness), it follows at once that the first principle must be a principle of consciousness. In consequence, the fundamental challenge all Neoplatonists struggled to meet was essentially the following: How are we to understand and describe the emergence of the universe, with all its diverse phenomena, as the effect of a singular principle of consciousness? In particular—and in this regard Neoplatonism shares certain concerns with modern cosmology—how is it possible to understand the emergence of the physical, material universe from a singularity that is in every sense unlike this universe? Their answer to this question was entirely new, and went far beyond any prior cosmic aetiology, including that of Plato’s Timaeus, in elegance and sophistication.

What is the Best Translation of PD08 To Feature At EpicureanFriends.com?

The following post is one of a series so that we can get our collection of the main list of Principal Doctrines under the "Texts" section in better shape. Although this thread will include a "poll" in the next post, what we are really looking for is the "best" combination of faithfulness to the original combined with clarity in modern English. I will get with a collection of the Level 3 participants here to work on editing the final list, but the full discussion should be open to everyone to consider, so that's what we will do here. The results of the poll won't control what is featured on the text page but will definitely influence in and probably at least result in a footnote to this thread.

The English translation of PD08 currently featured here in our Texts section is our normal Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:

“No pleasure is intrinsically bad: but the effective causes of some pleasures bring with them a great many perturbations of pleasure.” Yonge (1853)

“No pleasure is evil in itself, but the objects productive of certain pleasures may lead to annoyances many times greater than the pleasure.” Wallace, Epicureanism 150 (1880)

“No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Hicks (1910)

“No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Hicks (1925)

“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself: but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.” Bailey (1926)

”No pleasure is evil in itself but the practices productive of certain pleasures bring troubles in their train that by many times outweigh the pleasures themselves.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)

“No pleasure is evil it itself; but the means by which certain pleasures are gained bring pains many times greater than the pleasures.” Geer (1964)

“No pleasure is something bad per se: but the causes of some pleasures produce stresses many times greater than the pleasures” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“No pleasure is evil in itself; but the means of obtaining some pleasures bring in their wake troubles many times greater than the pleasures.” O'Connor (1993)

“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. But the things which produce certain pleasures bring troubles many times greater than the pleasures.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but some pleasures are only obtainable at the cost of excessive troubles.” Anderson (2004)

“No pleasure is a morally bad thing in itself. But the agents that produce certain pleasures bring about vexations that outnumber the pleasures themselves.” Makridis (2005)

“No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“No pleasure is bad in itself. But the things that make for pleasure in certain cases entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Strodach (2012)

“No pleasure is intrinsically bad; but the means of producing certain pleasures may entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Mensch (2018)

“No pleasure is in itself anything bad; but some pleasures are produced by things that bring along troubles many times greater than those pleasures.” White (2021)

---

Which of the above, or which with changes you would suggest, should be featured here in the main list? In the interest of space the poll will not include every option, so please add a comment in the thread if you would suggest a variation not listed.

NOTE: If you are a new member who has not previously attended a meeting, click here for background information on how to attend and obtain the Zoom link.

Here are our topics for this week:

1 - The Vatican Sayings:

VS24. Dreams have no divine character nor any prophetic force, but they originate from the influx of images.

Prior Discussions: VS 24 - Dreams have no divine character nor any prophetic force...

VS25. Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth, but unlimited wealth is great poverty.

Prior Discussions: VS 25 - Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life...

2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time

Open Night.

Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.

Just a quick note here to memorialize that Onenski points out that Aristitle discusses friendship in Books 8 and 9 of Nichomachean Ethics and that Epicurus is quite likely making comments that are relevant to Aristotle's views.

So we are supposed to be saying KIKERO?

Here's a new thread for Celsus. General Bio of Celsus and the Possibility that the Celsus Who Wrote "The True Word" was not the Celsus who was friend of Lucian

As Joshua points out in this episode, DeWitt comes down on the side that the two people are the same, and says that the questioning arises from the view that the writer is too smart to be an Epicurean. This is an instance where I am not so sure DeWitt is right, because it seems in my (long ago) reading I too thought that the writer seemed to be talking about gods being actively involved in human affairs, and if so I would think that would mark him clearly as non-Epicurean.

But it was years ago when I read that and I may not at the time have appreciated some of the subtleties of the Epicurean position that people do benefit from having proper opinions about the gods, so perhaps I was reading Celsus too narrowly. Whichever is the case, Celsus seems to be regarded as among the first anti-Christian writers, so he deserves our attention for many reasons, even if he was not fully orthodox Epicurean. No doubt there is a lot of stuff in Celsus that it would profit us to talk about, just like there is in Lucian's anti-Christian "Death of Peregrine"

The Death of Peregrine | De Morte Peregrini [The Lucian of Samosata Project]

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

Celsus (/ˈsɛlsəs/; Hellenistic Greek: Κέλσος, Kélsos; fl. AD 175–177) was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity.^[1][2][3] His literary work, The True Word (also Account, Doctrine or Discourse; Greek: Hellenistic Greek: Λόγος Ἀληθής),^[4][5] survives exclusively in quotations from it in Contra Celsum, a refutation written in 248 by Origen of Alexandria.^[3] The True Word is the earliest known comprehensive criticism of Christianity.^[3] Hanegraaff^[6] has argued that it was written shortly after the death of Justin Martyr (who was possibly the first Christian apologist), and was probably a response to his work.^[6] Origen stated that Celsus was from the first half of the 2nd century AD, although the majority of modern scholars have come to a general consensus that Celsus probably wrote around AD 170 to 180.^[7][8]

^{THIS points out that there may be more than one Celsus, and there is confusion as to whether the anti-Christian Celsus was in fact an Epicurean:}

Philosophy[edit]

All that is known about Celsus personally is what comes from the surviving text of his book and from what Origen says about him.^[9] Although Origen initially refers to Celsus as an Epicurean,^[10][11][12] his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonic tradition, rather than Epicureanism.^[10][13][12] Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency,^[10] but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all.^[10][11] Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian.^[11] Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of The True Word and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic.^[11] Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it even easier to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.^[11]

As editing proceeds on this week's episode, we have some typical pronunciation questions which I probably butchered, so I will beg forgiveness and see if there is a consensus on correct pronunciation.

In the great debate between the Christian Origen and the possibly Epicurean Celsus, how do we pronounce those names?

Does Origen rhyme which "origin," or where is the emphasis, and is there a hard or soft "g"?

As to Celsus, it seems I hear both hard "C" and soft "C" pronunciations. In the recording I went with the hard C, but we don't use a hard "C" with "Cicero," so I probably got it wrong.

Thoughts?

Edit -- we need a thread or subforum on Celsus so I will add him

NOTE: If you are a new member who has not previously attended a meeting, click here for background information on how to attend and obtain the Zoom link.

Here are our topics for this week:

1 - The Vatican Sayings:

VS22. Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. ^[9]

Prior Discussions: VS 22 - Same as PD 19.

VS23. Every friendship is worth choosing for its own sake, though it takes its origin from the benefits. ^[10]

Prior Discussions: VS 23 - All friendship is desirable in itself, though it starts from the need of help.

2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time

Open Night.

Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.

Based on recent discussions I think we are probably moving to the idea that the best option is a mix of approaches, with one of them being having an opt-in email list so they of the forum does happen to go down for an extended period that we have a way to reach out to regulars with an explanation and ETA for fixing any problems that do arise. Thankfully there has not proved to be a pressing need for this, but over time it makes sense to harden the backup systems.

For the moment the most likely event would be a technical mishap with our host that keeps the forum offline for a period, and for that we now have in place backup.epicureanfriends.com as a first line place people can check for updates.

Great comments Burninglight and thanks for that suggestion as to materialism.

And I had never heard of that Horace quote but the litany of examples reminds me immediately of the list of misbegotten love interests in Lucretius Book IV. I wonder if there's any pattern or parallel there worth considering as to form of presentation, or if it is totally coincidental?

Quote from Lucretius Book 4 - Munro

For this men usually do, blinded by passion, and attribute to the beloved those advantages which are not really theirs. We therefore see women in ways manifold deformed and ugly to be objects of endearment and held in the highest admiration. And one lover jeers at others and advises them to propitiate Venus, since they are troubled by a disgraceful passion, and often, poor wretch, gives no thought to his own ills greatest of all. The black is a brune, the filthy and rank has not the love of order; the cat-eyed is a miniature Pallas, the stringy and wizened a gazelle; the dumpy and dwarfish is one of the graces, from top to toe all grace; the big and overgrown is awe-inspiring and full of dignity. She is tongue-tied, cannot speak, then she has a lisp; the dumb is bashful; then the fire-spit, the teasing, the gossiping turns to a shining lamp. One becomes a slim darling then when she cannot live from want of flesh; and she is only spare, who is half-dead with cough. Then the fat and big-breasted is a Ceres’ self big-breasted from Iacchus; the pug-nosed is a she Silenus and a satyress; the thick-lipped a very kiss. It were tedious to attempt to report other things of the kind.

Right. Other than for Lucretius' poetic version, we don't know when or if Epicurus' "On Nature" or even his letters or the sayings were translated into Latin in the ancient world, if at all. Greek may have been the language of the intellectuals but the common people would have eventually needed Latin, so "getting the texts into easily accessible form" has to always be a priority. Were they successful in doing so in the ancient world other than in the negative form of being included in Cicero's attacks?

So I'll add to the list: "Possibility that the texts were not translated into Latin or local languages in sufficient numbers to penetrate deeply enough into common culture."

As a shorter way of saying what I stated in that last post, below is a table I am setting up in the thread for the next podcast episode. For the table I am tweaking the title of Kalosyni's first post (which is already a little unwieldy) to try to bring a little more focus to what we want to talk about on the podcast. Even this tweaking still leaves a lot of ambiguity, but hopefully it helps.

For example, I really want to make the title "as a movement where people PUBLICLY identify their primary worldview as Epicurean," and that should be implicit in the discussion. However that brings in questions of "affiliation with a group," which is beyond the scope of this discussion, so let's try to separate the issue of an "official" identification from that of what a person in their own minds is doing.

So for example, let's consider the main issue not as counting numbers of avowed "public" Epicureans, but evaluating what it took from 50 BC to say 1700 AD for people in their own personal lives to consider their own worldviews to be primarily aligned with what Epicurus taught. No doubt many of those same factors extend to the present, but talking about the present implies more than we want to take on at the moment. What we'll address in the podcast is "factors" - not proposed solutions. "Solutions" is too big a topic to tackle in an hour long final podcast.

So the titles of the lists for the podcast will be:

A) Major Causes of the Decline of Epicurean Philosophy "As A Movement Where People Identify Their Primary Worldview as Epicurean" after Lucretius

B) Major Obstacles to the Revival of Epicurean Philosophy "As A Movement Where People Identify Their Primary Worldview as Epicurean" through Today

1. For many if not most modern American Christians, their beliefs about the Christian god are in fact one of their greatest sources of comfort and not distress (burninglights)

Let's keep the majority of the conversation here, but for purposes of the podcast as we near the date of recording we'll update the final list here: RE: Episode 189 - "Epicurus And His Philosophy" Part 41 - Chapter 15 - Extension, Submergence, & Revival 04 (Not Yet Recorded)

Kalosyni has started a new thread to help us with ideas for the final episode of this series of the podcast, to be recorded on 8/27/23.

Post

Let's Make a List of 1) Major Causes of the Decline of Epicurean Philosophy after Lucretius and 2) The Obstacles to its Revival Through Today

Next week for our final episode of our podcast series on Norman DeWitt's book we what to close with a discussion on the reasons the Epicurean movement crested around the time of Lucretius and began a long decline. We also want to cover the obstacles to the resurgence of an organized Epicurean movement in the intervening years up through today.

There are probably many causes of each, and we would like to know your thoughts so we can consider including them in the final episode.

Kalosyni

August 20, 2023 at 1:02 PM

That's where we should conduct the main part of the discussion, because the topic is a great one and separate from this episode. I will have to work to keep up but I will keep a running list of items here. I will fine tune the title of that post just a little - but note that the suggestions included are potential, and for discussion only as to whether we think the were factors:

A) Major Causes of the Decline of Epicurean Philosophy "As A Movement Where People Identify Their Primary Worldview as Epicurean" after Lucretius

1. Potential loss of livelihood, reputation, or life due to ostracism by those who advocate Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or other competing worldview.
2. Closing of organized schools reduced opportunities for collaboration or education of children(?)
3. Accepting the proposition that wagering on the possibility of life after death was worth the risk of acting on faith.
4. Accepting the proposition that one's beliefs about the Christian god are in fact one of one's greatest sources of comfort and not distress (burninglights)
5. Possibility that the texts were not translated into Latin or local languages in sufficient numbers to penetrate deeply enough into common culture.
6. Loss of confidence in Epicurean doctrine (?)
7. Possibility that if the focus of Epicurean philosophy becomes "having a good time" or even "helping people" then the proponents of the school lose the intensity of Epicurus or Lucretius in wanting to live according to the "truth" - the "way things are" -- as they believed the Physics and Canonics establish to be true. When you lose the zeal to pursue this "truth" for yourself and then to communicate this "truth" to others, then it becomes very tempting to compromise and go along with the submergence of the key doctrines for the sake of "getting along" and living for the pleasure of the moment, and slighting the mental pleasure involved in wishing to know and follow "the truth."

B) Major Obstacles to the Revival of Epicurean Philosophy "As A Movement Where People Identify Their Primary Worldview as Epicurean" through Today

(To the extent not included in A above)

Welcome to Episode 189 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. We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we complete our discussion of Chapter 15, entitled "Extension, Submergence, and Revival," and we reflect on the book as a whole as we close this series of episodes of the podcast.

Chapter XV - Extension, Submergence, And Revival

• The Epicurean Revival

Burning lights you are of course also raising the background question of what it is we are talking about in terms of decline and revival - whether the focus is on ethics primarily or the full picture.

It's definitely legitimate to talk about eclecticism especially as an entry point. However for purposes of the discussion let's presume that what we are talking about both in the past and in the intervening years would be the status of claiming "I am an Epicurean" and meaning by that that the person is making the point that he or she endorses the full philosophy of Epicurus - -- not necessarily every precise point of "science" at the atomic level, but including every major point of canonics, ethics, and the nature of the universe professed by Epicurus. Which is what you would expect an organized "school" would likely do.

Now of course that kind of standard applies more clearly to the intervening centuries than to 2023, but I think the basic point remains valid, and revolves around seeing Epicurus as the core organizing figure of a philosophy that he would clearly recognize as his own if he were alive at any point in the last 2000 years or even today.

For purposes of this exercise we aren't saying necessarily that we ourselves would take that path tomorrow. The main point here is analyzing the big picture in the abstract, sort of along the lines of Gibbon diagnosing the fall of Rome, for us to discuss in the podcast.

Any further ambitions beyond that should be reserved for another day. . Putting a period to this series of episodes of the podcast is the immediate objective. All comments so far have been great so we will hope for many more over the next week.

Good suggestions so far. In addition, before we go too far down the "current obstacles" road, it would probably help to be sure to include comments on factors in the ancient world that led to decline. Many of the "obstacles" we see today were present during the rise of Epicurean philosophy, and yet rise it did. What caused the rise to slow and reverse? Was Christianity really so persuasive intellectually? What other factors played a part? Especially since a decline seems to have set in even before Christianity rose?

Or did it? When did the decline really begin? Was Lucretius really the last powerful *explicit* Epicurean writer? We can say Diogenes of Oinoanda came later, but to some extent he seems to be a special case.

So please everyone keep going, and consider both time periods.

Thanks Burning lights. We will compile a table and include in one or both lists:

Quote from burninglights

I'd imagine that for many if not most modern American Christians, their beliefs about the Christian god are in fact one of their greatest sources of comfort and not distress

That is no doubt thought to be true in many cases. What to do in response to it is a separate question, and no doubt varies by personal context and goals. It's definitely something that many people believe in their own lives to be the case, and so something to consider in the mix.