Welcome to Episode 193 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.
This week we continue our discussion of Books One and Two of Cicero's On Ends, which are largely devoted to Epicurean Philosophy. "On Ends" contains important criticisms of Epicurus that have set the tone for standard analysis of his philosophy for the last 2000 years. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.
This week we continue in Book One, and we will cover from XIII to the end of the chapter. Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition
We are using the Reid edition, so check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.
As we proceed we will keep track of Cicero's arguments and outline them here:
Cicero's Objections to Epicurean Philosophy
Due to schedule conflicts with two of our podcasters, this week our podcast may instead feature a special recording on an alternate topic. We will return back to "One Ends" the following week.
Just to reiterate the automatic notification, happy birthday Bryan, and it's been good to have your presence back more frequently in recent months!
Happy Birthday to Bryan! Learn more about Bryan and say happy birthday on Bryan's timeline: Bryan
Thanks for the link to the paper on "Criticizing Love's Critic."
It gives me the chance to play the role of Don questioning DeWitt! 
I'm glad for anybody to bring up Lucretius or Epicurus in any context, but it makes me a little uneasy to suggest that anyone who uses frank criticism or repetition in any communication is channeling Epicurus.
So I find myself in the position of Don's concerns with some of Dewitt's claims of parallels to or references in Christianity to make too strong a claims that "frank criticism" has an Epicurean trademark on it. There are too many things that do have Epicurean trademarks on them to jeopardize one's credibility by stretching when a comparison isn't necessary, and I agree with Don that this is a blemish on what I consider to be deWitt's other highly creditable work.
As to frank criticism, if this comparison were easy to establish, then I would have to conclude that when I was much younger I came across many unknowingly Epicurean teachers in my decidedly un-Epicurean schooling.
So the context in this particular is Kalosyni's questioning of Philodemus' possible deviations from Epicurus, I don't see much deviation in Philodemus - as to "frank criticism" I see that as largely common sense and totally consistent with Epicurus' emphasis on clarity and honesty.
I am wondering if perhaps during Philodemus' time there may have been less emphasis on natural physics/science and more emphasis on ethics...but yet I don't know if that is true or not.
Well taking Lucretius as an example it would appear that the physics and epistemology was as front and center as ever around 50 BC. From that, one might deduce that until it became politically impossible to discuss the physics and epistemology with the rise of Abrahamic monotheism, those subjects were considered to be the core Epicurean curriculum with the ethics being a creative and important but pretty much common sense deduction. It's always been the denial of providence and immortality that's much more the truly explosive center, rather than the practical advice on being happy. I don't mean to slight the ethics, but you won't get yourself killed standing on the streetcorner saying "don't you want to be happy?"
And given that the ethics flows from and is dependent on the physics and the making of proper deductions from it, I would expect that to be the case all the way through. I would likely argue too that the demotion of the physics and epistemology explains many of the issues that have arisen in interpreting the ethics.
I want to take that list in post 17 and make sure it's findable in the future, so please let me know if there are similar quotes to be added. There are definitely some quotes from Menoeceus that could be added, especially from the opening about the health of the soul, but they are more on the order of "if you want to be happy study philosophy" rather than an explicit statement of the harm that comes if you don't.
But please suggest any that you think would be good for the list to be entitled something like "Epicurean Reasons To Study Philosophy."
or
"Epicureans Reasons Why You Are Unlikely To Live A Happy Life By Freelancing On Your Own"
But my point is that I now think that a much larger portion of the time was spent on natural physics/science
I would say you are right and what you are largely referring to is what is covered in the letter to Herodotus - which includes a proper "logical" framework for deducing big picture conclusions from the science. My point there being that we have much more raw data today and yet most people are less advanced in processing the implications of it than we're the Epicureans. Without the analysis framework the data is worthless or even harmful, as both Epicurus and Lucretius state explicitly.
I will post a couple of quotes to support that statement:
Lucretius:
[Book 1 Bailey 146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.
[Book 2, Bailey, 40] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.
[ Book 3, Bailey, 74] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.
[ Book 6, Bailey 30] And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course; he showed what there is of ill in the affairs of mortals everywhere, coming to being and flying abroad in diverse forms, be it by the chance or the force of nature, because nature had so brought it to pass; he showed from what gates it is meet to sally out against each ill, and he proved that ’tis in vain for the most part that the race of men set tossing in their hearts the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.
Epicurus PD12. A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.
There are several others and we need to post this list somewhere. I know I am missing one in Epicurus (Pythocles I think) and one in Lucretius about those who learn a little about the stars having it worse for themselves if they don't also know the answers --- I will keep looking but if anyone posts them first I will thank you!
Addendum: This one is close but not the one I am thinking about:
Pythocles 88 - Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth.
Also close but not it:
Pythocles 97 - And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness. For if this principle is not observed, the whole discussion of causes in celestial phenomena is in vain, as it has already been for certain persons who have not clung to the method of possible explanations, but have fallen back on the useless course of thinking that things could only happen in one way, and of rejecting all other ways in harmony with what is possible, being driven thus to what is inconceivable and being unable to compare earthly phenomena, which we must accept as indications.
I suspect I was thinking of these from Herodotus (primarily 79) - now I just need to find the same statement in Lucretius:
[78] Furthermore, we must believe that to discover accurately the cause of the most essential facts is the function of the science of nature, and that blessedness for us in the knowledge of celestial phenomena lies in this and in the understanding of the nature of the existences seen in these celestial phenomena, and of all else that is akin to the exact knowledge requisite for our happiness: in knowing too that what occurs in several ways or is capable of being otherwise has no place here but that nothing which suggests doubt or alarm can be included at all in that which is naturally immortal and blessed. Now this we can ascertain by our mind is absolutely the case.
[79] But what falls within the investigation of risings and settings and turnings and eclipses, and all that is akin to this, is no longer of any value for the happiness which knowledge brings, but persons who have perceived all this, but yet do not know what are the natures of these things and what are the essential causes, are still in fear, just as if they did not know these things at all: indeed, their fear may be even greater, since the wonder which arises out of the observation of these things cannot discover any solution or realize the regulation of the essentials.
OK here's the extra Lucretius:
[Book 5:55 Bailey] For those who have learnt aright that the gods lead a life free from care, yet if from time to time they wonder by what means all things can be carried on, above all among those things which are descried above our heads in the coasts of heaven, are borne back again into the old beliefs of religion, and adopt stern overlords, whom in their misery they believe have all power, knowing not what can be and what cannot, yea and in what way each thing has its power limited, and its deep-set boundary-stone.
I sincerely doubt anything resembling Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would exist in Surupice's world, maybe some form of Buddhism with its concentration on consciousness and awareness (not the Tibetan variety but a basic early form).
Of course this invites the question, "Then why do those exist in our world?" 
In reference to my Hedea comment, from Chapter 12 of A Few Days In Athens:
“Judging from me as a specimen, you mean. And trust me now, father, I am the best. Do I not practice what you preach? What you show the way to, do I not possess? Look at my light foot, look in my laughing eye, read my gay heart, and tell — if pleasure be not mine. Confess, then, that I take a shorter cut to the goal than your wiser scholars, aye than your wisest self. You study, you lecture, you argue, you exhort. And what is it all for? as if you could not be good without so much learning, and happy without so much talking. Here am I — I think I am very good, and I am quite sure I am very happy; yet I never wrote a treatise in my life, and can hardly listen to one without a yawn.”
And as for Frances Wright not having Epicurus or the other leaders criticize Hedea forcefully:
“You would make a strange world, were you the queen of it,” said Hermachus, laughing.
“Just as strange, and no stranger, than it is at present. For why? I should take it as I found it, and leave it as I found it. ‘Tis your philosophers, who would rub and twist, and plague and doctor it, and fret your souls out, to bring all its heterogeneous parts, fools, wits, knaves, simpletons, grave, gay, light, heavy, long-faced, and short-faced, black, white, brown, straight and crooked, tall, short, thin and fat, to fit together, and patiently reflect each other, like the acorns of an oak, or the modest wives and helpless daughters of the good citizens of Athens; ’tis you, I say, who would make a strange world, were you kings of it — you who would shorten and lengthen, clip, pull, and carve men’s minds to fit your systems, as the tyrant did men’s bodies to fit his bed.”
“I grant there’s some truth, my girl, in thy nonsense,” said the master.
“And I grant that there is not a philosopher in Athens, who would have granted as much, save thyself. You will find my young hero,” turning to Theon, that my father philosophizes more sense, that is, less absurdity, than any man since the seven sages; nay! even than the seven sages philosophized themselves. He only lacks to be a perfectly wise man ––”
“To burn,” said the master, “his books of philosophy, and to sing a tune to thy lyre.”
-----
To keep comments together I will repeat that while Frances Wright does not (to my observation) criticize Hedea's position more directly, Hedea is the only character in the book who almost gets herself killed and has to be rescued by the others. I think that's probably a significant aspect of the role given to her in the book.
Kalosyni's question starts at about 46:20 in the podcast.
I would presume that "speaking in oracles even though understood by none" is intended to mean: "I will speak carefully and accurately and precisely in a way that conveys the truth to those who are capable of understanding," with the point being that I am going to speak the truth whether the people who are hearing me are capable of understanding it or not.
What's generally wrong with Oracles? Not that they are speaking with certainty and sounding profound, but that they are speaking with certainty and sounding profound about things that they cannot and do not know.
The things that Epicurus is stating are things that he maintains he can and does know.
Ultimately while we can do our best to speak clearly and in understandable terms, we have no way to compel the listeners to understand, or to give them the power to understand when they are under the spell of false ideas or otherwise incapable of understanding. All we can do is speak the truth frankly and let events follow as they will.
An important caveat as is stated by Lucian in Alexander the Oracle Monger -- we have no "duty" to speak to everyone, especially those where speaking will end up getting ourselves killed while accomplishing nothing.
Episode 191 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!
Hey, if Cicero said it, it has to be right! (I'm mainly referring to the "life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures," according to this translator. Cicero is using a negative slant in all this but I would say that he seems at least to be acknowledging that that there are two issues in the "pleasure" part, and the two go hand in hand.)
Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.
Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 30 & 31. Please join us. (Post here in this thread if you have never attended one of these sessions as we do have a vetting process for new participants.)
VS30. Some men, throughout their lives, spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.
VS31. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us, mortals alike, dwell in an unfortified city.
No "Wednesday Night Vatican Sayings Zoom" this week - we will use this time slot for the Twentieth observation instead. Next of these will be Wednesday September 27.
Spurn all delights; any joy that is purchased with pain will be harmful.
Wow that's hard to reconcile with Epicurus. Apparently Horace has to be handled with care and I know I have not taken the time to follow the changes that took place in his views.
Tonight at 8pm, we will cover Vatican Saying 28 & 29, please join us. (Post here in this thread if you need to get the Zoom link).
VS28. We must not approve either those who are always ready for friendship, or those who hang back, but for friendship’s sake we must run risks.
VS29. For I would certainly prefer, as I study Nature, to announce frankly what is beneficial to all people, even if none agrees with me, rather than to compromise with common opinions, and thus reap the frequent praise of the many. [12]
I'd like to ask for input on this question about the opening of book six of Lucretius involving the "vessel" analogy. The text is below, but here's the question:
It appears that Lucretius is separating out two aspects of the defects in the "jar" - (1) the jar is leaking and cannot be filled due to leaks caused by the holes, and (2) that the jar tainted all that it took in as with a foul odor.
As to (1) It seems to me that the leaks can be pretty well identified with the analogy of the Danaides, and it's pretty easy to draw a lesson that we are not able to achieve the full amount of pleasure that we otherwise could obtain without the leaks.
But what of (2) as to the jar tainting what it takes in with a foul odor. Does anyone know if this is a reference to another Greek story? Or does anyone have reasonable speculation on why Lucretius chose this second aspect of corruption to include? What does the "tainting" action of the jar add to the illustration?
Other than the opening of book one where Epicurus is breaking the chains underneath the glowering face of the gods, as was used in the artwork by David Baldone that we feature on the front page, I am thinking that this "Vessel" picture gives us a very appealing image to illustrate the limits of pleasure issues. So if indeed the vessel analogy is ripe for use in new Epicurean artwork, it would help to flesh out what references attracted Lucretius to use this illustration.
[Bailey-6:09] For when he saw that mortals had by now attained well-nigh all things which their needs crave for subsistence, and that, as far as they could, their life was established in safety, that men abounded in power through wealth and honours and renown, and were haughty in the good name of their children, and yet not one of them for all that had at home a heart less anguished, but with torture of mind lived a fretful life without any respite, and was constrained to rage with savage complaining, he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it was tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in.
Here's the Munro version for comparison. And here's Rouse with the Latin.
Thank you Nate, and very appreciated, coming from you!
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:
- First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
- Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
- Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.