Posts by Cassius

There is a recent post at Facebook with comments on Cristiano's interview with Tim OKeefe and a Vedanta advocate.

Thanks very much to those who commented especially the extended remarks by Elli and by Matt.

Here are a couple of highlights:

Matt Jax

Unfortunately, I cannot listen to the podcast right now due to my work browser blocking it. Interestingly enough, Vedanta was one of the original philosophies that I studied (and accepted for many years) when I first began my philosophical journey. A copy of the Upanishads and Prabhupada's sectarian Bhagavad-Gita As It Is....were my first textual introduction to philosophy. I will say that I sought out these Eastern philosophies due to my dissatisfaction with Christianity surrounding the death of a loved one. Vedanta painted a very specific worldview that was in many ways alien and foreign, and in some ways similar to what I was used to. The ideas of maya, moksha, dharma, karma etc. were unknown to me...as was Krishna, the avatara of Maha-Vishnu the Saguna Brahman...but it wasn't too long after spending years engaged with this, I realized there were obvious connections to to Greek philosophy in Neoplatonism and Stoicism. It is even possible that the founder of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, may have been significantly influenced by Indian philosophy and even had a possibly Indian mentor Ammonius Saccas (Sakya) in Alexadrian Egypt.

I do really want to listen to this because I cannot think of two more diametrically different philosophies. Epicurean philosophy would appear to be the antithesis of Vedanata in nearly all ways. From the idea that Epicurus posits the senses are "true" and that the Universe does not operate under the visage of an ordered intelligence and the gods are apathetic to human affairs, Vedanta posits that the universe is under the guidance of providence (and in fact God is the ground of all things) and that reality is an illusion. Epicurus posits that the "soul" dissolves at death, Vedanta posits that it's eternal. Epicurus tells us to trust our senses and hedonic calculus, Vedanta tells us to abandon the senses and embrace bhakti/jnana yoga or discipline. I cannot think of two more different philosophies!

I can't imagine there were too many commonalities.

Cristiano LuchiniAuthor
Matt Jax Try to listen here on Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/episode/1JlnuSzu7XJlvj8B6rkIgo... . Listening to Prof. O'Keefe will help you clarify so many aspects of Epicureanism that escape many people . . Above all the pursuit of pleasure, hedonism, which is something absolutely nonexistent in Epicurus' thought. Pleasure as understood by him is the absence of pain, not the pleasure of the senses. Pleasure is cultivating the virtues so as to be serene and live a pleasant life.

"It is impossible to live well without living sensibly, nobly and justly; and it is impossible to live sensibly, nobly and justly without living pleasantly."

(Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus)

I am sure that after listening to the podcast, you will have clearer ideas about both Vedanta and Epicureanism. You will listen to those who know better.

Matt JaxOk! I had a chance to listen to the podcast and I am now able to speak on it...

Yes, both philosophies are mutually exclusive.

Someone speaking about Vedanta will surely find a counterpoint in another philosophy, such as Neoplatonism...but as for Epicurean philosophy, it is a very different situation.

τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφʼ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν· εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά.

KD. 22

Epicurus says we must focus on the fundamental goal...that is living a pleasurable life and studying nature... to be able to find that serenity that is sought after. Otherwise we will find nothing but confusion. If our observations and philosophical conclusions are not aligned...we will have significant dissatisfaction. This is why it's important to have a strong understanding of Epicurean Physics, so as to remove any doubts about what Nature is composed of. If for example I accept Vedanta, I accept an idealistic principle that posits that Nature is not quite what it seems and illusory. This type of thinking is VERY helpful for someone positing that God or Brahman is the ground of reality and we are all part of a cosmic play or dance....and even we are Brahman as well. But what good is believing that the world is an illusion? How does that alleviate any fears of the unknown?

Epicurus wants us to study nature for what it is...and having a full understanding of it, helps us make decisions to lead a happy life.

Very nice thank you TauPhi!

For those who may be interested in a comparison of Vedanta and Epicurus, here is a Facebook thread where the "CosmicDancer" podcast episode interviewing Tim Okeefe is being discussed;

And here is a thread where Cristiano introduced his book:

Epicurean Philosophy | Epicureanism, one of the most important philosophical currents of antiquity, spread to Rome during the first century B.C., thanks to the work of maste...

Epicureanism, one of the most important philosophical currents of antiquity, spread to Rome during the first century B.C., thanks to the work of masters such…

www.facebook.com

The Posillipo Enigma: Virgil's investigation on a mysterious murder. by Cristiano Luchini - Books on Google Play

The Posillipo Enigma: Virgil's investigation on a mysterious murder. - Ebook written by Cristiano Luchini. Read this book using Google Play Books app on your…

play.google.com

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.

Last week we had such a good discussion on Vatican Sayings 8 and 9 that we did not get to our special topic. So for tonight we are dividing time between:

1 - The Vatican Sayings:

VS10. Remember that you are mortal, and have a limited time to live, and have devoted yourself to discussions on Nature for all time and eternity, and have seen “things that are now and are to come and have been.”

VS11. For most men rest is stagnation, and activity is madness.

2 - Our Special Topic

Tonight I suggest we think about and discuss a continuing question: Is there anything in Epicurean philosophy that tells a particular person what particular pleasure to choose (or pain to avoid) at any particular time. In other words, this is a variation of the old question: "Is one pleasure better than another?" And the goal should be to come up with some kind of coherent analysis of how we would recommend a particular person at a particular time to proceed. Is all we can say is "It's contextual and up to you!" Or is there more for which we can find justification in the Epicurean texts?

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

For an up-to-date list of the current moderators at EpicureanFriends.com, please go here:

Moderator Team - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Tonight we are dividing time between:

1 - The Vatican Sayings:

VS08. The wealth required by Nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.

VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

2 - Our Special Topic

Tonight I suggest we think about and discuss a continuing question: Is there anything in Epicurean philosophy that tells a particular person what particular pleasure to choose (or pain to avoid) at any particular time. In other words, this is a variation of the old question: "Is one pleasure better than another?" And the goal should be to come up with some kind of coherent analysis of how we would recommend a particular person at a particular time to proceed. Is all we can say is "It's contextual and up to you!" Or is there more for which we can find justification in the Epicurean texts?

I am starting this thread after a couple of comments have come in already:

Godfrey wrote: " Lucretius writes in Book 3 about the fear of death. The desires and behaviors that he lists, to me, fall into the unnatural/vain/toxic desires category, which would apply to VS08. Things such as wanting statues of yourself, pursuing political fame and the like." (Primarily lines 59-93.)

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

I still can't get past in my mind that there ought to be a combination of meter and emphasis, because just like we read a poem with meaning by emphasizing certain words, does that not also apply to the Latin reading? Otherwise does it not come out as a "monotone?"

So the second of those two videos is using the double slashes to indicate separations while the first video does not seem to use such separations when reading(?) Is one more clearly correct than the other?

It would be nice to have audio versions of the openings of each of the six books!

Wow that is impressive thank you!

Happy to report that last night I heard from a long time forum member - Bryan - who was just staying in touch, as makes for good friends who have been in touch since older Facebook forum days.

I recall that Bryan recorded and posted some excellent readings in Lucretius from the original Latin, so I am hoping that we can get him (and perhaps others) to let us set up a thread with sample readings. The effect of these readings in Latin is very unique and worthwhile, so if any of our regulars who have studied how to do this have made any recordings, please post links to them here and perhaps we can compile a list of some of the more important passages.

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

Quote from Don

I think Epicurus scored the winning goal on that playing field.

Yes I think you are right but this is our task - to explain the reasoning to the "hearts in darkness."

Quote from Don

All the to'ing and fro'ing befuddles me to no end.

What do you do with that priest in the video when he reaches the "uncaused cause" part of his chain of reasoning, and suggests to you that that is "God?"

I suspect that you have a good answer to that, but I also expect that 95% of the world does not.

Quote from Don

We have to be alive - we have to exist! - to feel pleasure or pain.

And that's exactly why I would say that it makes sense to emphasize the "life" aspect as part of the equation, so that no one gets the idea that pleasure or pain are themselves disembodied forces or god or of nature or ideals that exist apart from the living being.

Quote from Don

I'd say by definition that feeling hungry is pain because it's not pleasure to feel hungry

I doubt there is a way to be sure of this question but for example sitting at dinner for thanksgiving and looking forward to the meal might be something I would consider to be a type of hunger that is pleasure.

However the big point to me is not to get lost in what I see as a detail in application, but to address the reason you posted the thread in the first place.

In the world of people who ask why about the world everyone is going to meet these pointy headed or religious intellectuals who reduce everything to an "uncaused cause" and say that it is a Prime Mover or a God or an Ideal Form, and an Epicurean has to be prepared to push back and call BS and say that there is no reason for such a fantasy, because "nothing comes from nothing" and the rest of the Epicurean physics and Epistemology established with confidence that the universe had no beginning or cause outside itself.

And within that natural universe using the same techniques of observation and reason we conclude that the feeling of pleasure is the positive guide which takes the places of gods or idealism. And if you are the type of person who cares about their logical arguments that pleasure can never be satisfied or completed, then you have Epicurus' explanation that the proper view of pleasure included all types of pain free mental and physical action.

You can then analogize the satisfied and complete life of pleasure as a mechanical engine operating in top condition and performance operating frictionlessly, or a fat and sleek and well kept hog rolling in the mud, or whatever analogy strikes your fancy, so long as it is an analogy of something operating in a healthy way and at peak capacity and without pain.

If you don't have that "healthy operation" analogy as a part of pleasure, then these priests and philosophers will ultimately convince you that Epicurus missed something when you get old or otherwise lose interest in stimulating excitement (sex drugs and rock and roll) .

But with pleasure viewed in this way the intellectual BS can be beat back and shown to be just the kind of manipulation that Lucretius described it as being in book one of the poem.

Yes the question is best viewed in terms of Don's original formulation

Quote from Don

Which is why I balk at Dewitt's "life is the greatest good" because it seems a tautology to answer why I do something as "because I'm alive."

I see this (I am going to pursue life actively because I am alive) as at the same level of analysis as saying that all animals at birth before they are corrupted pursue pleasure and avoid pain. We are making a generalization and deducing a goal from the fact that all living things are born that way, and while we live and are healthy our natural goal is to continue that way in a state of pleasure. And I really don't know that I think that natural cycles of developing natural and ordinary degrees of hunger or thirst should be considered to be "pain.". Seems to me that these are aspects of normal functioning and only situations where abnormal hunger or thirst develops would really be considered "painful.". That goes along with our earlier discussions where some argue that not every unfulfilled desire is a matter of pain.

My current thinking is that Torquatus' statement that the highest good is pleasure was by the book and correct, and that DeWitt's reformulation of the words is not the best way forward to explain the issue.

However I am thinking that Dewitt is sensing correctly that Epicurus was linking pleasure to life so closely that Dewitt is in fact correct to see that there is an important shift in perspectives going on which Cicero is not explaining. And moving toward "life" is a much more accurate and satisfying way forward rather than obsessing over "katastematic pleasure" or "pleasures of rest."

And that shift is something like --- Since life itself is to be considered pleasurable in so fundamental a way, as the healthy and active functioning of body and mind, it is more faithful to the meaning for us today to think "I am alive and therefore I am going to seize the day and pursue life and pleasure to the fullest" than it is to think "I am alive and today gives me another opportunity to pursue pleasure (if by pleasure we understand ice cream and only indulgence of the senses."

Everything turns on how wide a definition we can understand the word "Pleasure" to mean. Once we accept that everything which is not painful is pleasurable then we can be understood to refer to Pleasure, but til then steps have to be undertaken to emphasize that life itself is pleasurable.

Quote from Joshua

Whither? To pleasure

Right and I agree. But if your paradigm is that life (without pain) IS pleasure, then aligning ones perspective in that direction might result in major terminology shifts, such as when the Epicureans continued to use the word "God" to refer to beings that the people of the day construed as most ungodlike.

No doubt, like Cicero said, people don't normally talk that way. But I have to think that in insisting that as to a normal and ordinary "hand," and as to the equation of the pourer to the drinker, that they are all in the state of greatest pleasure, and as to holding dogmatically that all we need to know about someone to say that they are in the greatest pleasure is that they say they are without pain - in those examples something is being telegraphed to us that we may find unintelligible due to our perspectives today, but which indicates a resolution to much that seems puzzling about Epicurus.

Quote from Don

I don't think you can answer "Why did you do that?" with "Because I'm alive" and have it have any real meaning.

I agree that we can't do that today with our current connotations. I think DeWitt is asking, however, whether that was not the direction that Epicurus was going, and once one "thinks like an Epicurean" in equating life in the absence of pain to be pleasure, then equating "being alive" with "pleasurable experience" is a natural association, and a good way to think.

This is one of the paragraphs we recently covered in "the new hedonism" chapter:

Quote

The extension of the name of pleasure to this normal state of being was the major innovation of the new hedonism. It was in the negative form, freedom from pain of body and distress of mind, that it drew the most persistent and vigorous condemnation from adversaries. The contention was that the application of the name of pleasure to this state was unjustified on the ground that two different things were thereby being denominated by one name. Cicero made a great to-do over this argument, but it is really superficial and captious. The fact that the name of pleasure was not customarily applied to the normal or static state did not alter the fact that the name ought to be applied to it; nor that reason justified the application; nor that human beings would be the happier for so reasoning and believing.

Just thinking out loud at the moment but I think this drift of thought is probably the explanation for DeWitt's viewpoint on the summum bonum, and I am not sure he's not right.

And yes that is a good formulation starting at the 14:00 minute mark, to which the ultimate motivation or cause is pretty clear, and which they refuse to accept:

"And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."

"Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion."

"Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?"