Posts by Cassius

Thank you as always for your work in coordinating the meeting!

Welcome Eggplant Wizard

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!

Welcome to Episode 209 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.

This week will be a special episode in which we feature our "Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy," a collection of excerpts based on the ancient Epicurean texts and rearranged in an order that covers the main aspects of Epicurean philosophy in one presentation.

As always we thank you for listening, and we invite you to join us on the EpicureanFriends forum to discuss this and all our podcast episodes.

And now we bring you "Foundations of Epicurean Philosophy.

This episode will be released on or about January 14, 2023, and then we will be back to our normal sequence continuing to cover Book Two of Cicero's On Ends.

I have edited the title of the thread to make it more clear that "Live Unknown" falls under the same label of "misunderstanding" as does 'tranquility" as being Epicurus' primary focus. Both are tools toward pleasure, not ends in themselves. Possibly over time we'll find news ways to indicate "Caution!" as to outside articles that we discuss.

Happy New Year! Episode 208 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we address Cicero's contention that only those who hold virtue to be the highest good can be truly good men, and we respond that Epicurus stands for truth rather than make-believe. An especially good closing statement by Joshua is included in this episode.

Here's a part of a new article from today in the "Irish Times". It's not terrible, and it contains some good material, but it spins "live unknown" (which as we've seen from our interview with Dr. Boeri is poorly documented and probably not a key Epicurean advice) as if it is the key to happiness, and once again emphasizes "tranquility" rather than Epicurus' wider view of pleasure:

Here’s the secret to happiness in 2024, according to a dead Greek philosopher: don’t get noticed

New Year’s resolutions can be hard work. Join a gym? Change jobs? Travel the world? It is exhausting just thinking of the options.

To make matters simpler for you, here’s a bit of advice from the Greek philosopher Epicurus: “Live Unnoticed.”

It’s a rule not just for 2024 but for life, according to academic philosopher Alex Moran. “The point of the slogan is to guide us towards living a tranquil and peaceful life.”

Currently based at the Université de Fribourg in Switzerland, Moran was formerly an Irish Research Council research fellow at Trinity College Dublin and is moving to Princeton in the United States next year in a whirlwind tour of scholarliness that sounds anything but tranquil. However, Moran stresses that to “Live Unnoticed” is not necessarily to quit your career or to let yourself go. Rather, it’s about letting go of the wrong sort of desires. “I think that Epicurus would say that the point of the dictum is not to rule out all activities that might get you noticed, but rather to insist that we need to avoid doing things for the wrong reasons.”

Moran, who hails from Southport in England and is an Irish citizen with some Co Offaly roots in his family, explains further as this week’s Unthinkable guest.

What did Epicurus mean by ‘Live unnoticed’?

“To live quietly or unnoticed, for Epicurus, is to live in peace, to live in tranquillity – and this for Epicurus is the only way to live a happy life. But to live tranquilly, in peace, one has to eschew certain things – certain ‘loud’ ways of living that involve chasing after power, fame and status, seeking to make a name for oneself, striving for riches well beyond what one actually needs, engaging in pointless conflicts, making sure one is well-regarded by all, and various other things of that nature.”

How did the motto fit into his wider philosophical outlook?

“Epicurus was a hedonist, who thought that pleasure is the only good. It is this commitment that often leads people to wrongly think of Epicurus as a kind of glutton, who thought that lavish dinners with expensive wines might somehow constitute the key to happiness. In fact, Epicurus thinks the only genuine pleasures are those he calls the ‘tranquil pleasures’.

“There are ways to object to this. Nietzsche, for example, famously wished upon his friends ‘suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities’, since, he thought, it is only through enduring suffering that one could say one’s life had any value. But that’s a radical idea, and many of us will agree with Epicurus that a tranquil, peaceful life is a good one.”

Alex Moran: 'Many of us will agree with Epicurus that a tranquil, peaceful life is a good one'
Some might see it as a shrunken or inferior existence. Why not live loudly since you’ve only one life?

“It’s a good question. To return again to Nietzsche, another of his famous claims is that one ought to live dangerously. A valuable and worthy life, he thinks, not only involves overcoming suffering, but also taking risks and meeting difficult challenges. But this is perhaps a far cry from striving to live quietly or unnoticed.

“There might be room for reconciling these outlooks. A more combative Epicurean response here, however, would be to insist – and not at all unreasonably – that since the good life is a life of pleasure and happiness, and since pleasure and happiness require tranquillity, Nietzsche is simply on the wrong track. Here it is useful to reflect on what kind of life one would wish for oneself: a life full of suffering and difficulty, or a life full of the enjoyment of tranquil pleasure?

“Epicurus agreed that we live only once, viewing belief in the afterlife as a dangerous myth. However, I think Epicurus would say that, especially because there is no afterlife, it is important that we spend our limited time on Earth wisely.”

What would Epicurus say about modern society?

“The question points to an important lesson we can learn from Epicurus. In our consumerist age, we tend to be very image- and status-obsessed. We buy things to make ourselves look good. We post on social media for the same reason. We care about our image and we can’t be happy unless the world thinks well of us. I think all this serves only to increase misery and stress.

“We’d all be mentally much healthier if, in Epicurean fashion, we cared a lot less about image and status. Instead, we should focus on our friends and families, and on activities that constitute sources of tranquil pleasure and which are valuable in and of themselves.”

Is political activism compatible with living unnoticed?

“One of Epicurus’s main philosophical opponents, the Roman orator Cicero, criticised Epicureanism precisely on the grounds that it encourages a problematic political quietism. But Epicurus was not against all forms of political involvement. He placed a great deal of value on friendship, and thought that building a community of like-minded people was essential to living well.

“For Epicurus, what we should be avoiding are the corrosive desires for power, fame, wealth and status, which produce anxiety and undermine tranquillity. It doesn’t follow that we must avoid all those activities that might lead to recognition, whether it be political activism, the production of great art or becoming excellent at sport. What matters is that we do things for the right reasons, so as to preserve tranquillity and peace.”

Today's end-of-year episode continues our discussion of Cicero's assertion that it is impossible to be moral without bowing to "virtue." Cicero wraps up virtue pretty tightly with religion where much the same argument applies: that you can't be a good person without being religious. On that point today I came across this Nietzsche selection which I think provides a very relevant response to that. (Caution - i don't know anything about the website; just that it provides this quote in nicely-formatted style):

Nietzsche on morality without God and English flatheads

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not…

www.danieljoachim.org

This is the first part:

Quote from Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females a la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.

We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth–it stands or falls with faith in God.

Just to clarify after my last post:

When I say that the three canonical faculties share the same level of fallibility / infallibility - and I say that the level is zero --- that is a reference to the fact that "Fallibility" and "infallibility" are terms that refer to conclusions: to ideas that are reached after a process of thinking and coming to an opinion. Fallibility and infallibility are terms generally used to refer to whether a set of opinions is correct or incorrect when compared with the "Truth" (which is another abstract conclusion or concept).

I think most of us are agreed that the three canonical faculties do not provide "opinions" or 'concepts" or "conclusions" at all: therefore it is not proper to consider them to be either fallible or infallible. The faculties don't represent to you that they are handing you completed idea. Instead, they are handing you raw data (sounds, sights, feelings of touch, pleasure, pain, etc.) that are neither "right" nor "wrong." They simply are what they are, and from them we have to take what they give us and reach any opinions or conclusions that we want to reach.

I think probably I am preaching to choir in writing this but I wanted to clarify in case any "newer" readers happened on my statement and were wondering how to interpret it.

Thanks to all of our participants here at EpicureanFriends for what I think has been a very successful 2023! I want to especially thank our moderating panel -- Kalosyni, Don, Joshua, Godfrey, Martin, and Elli, for all that you have done for the forum.

Let's make 2024 even better!

It seems to me that this problem of the unread link not jumping to the last post is intermittent, rather than happening every time. Anyone have it happening every time?

Quote from Peter Konstans

because peaceful co-existence with those faiths is impossible for us in the long run.

I would like us to be careful and avoid getting into modern politics, but in generic terms I think that this question falls under general issues of justice and is probably directly relevant to the ending of the ancient Epicurean school (and the ancient world in general).

The example you raise (religious aspects of marriage) could be a useful way of getting at the larger issue: Being free to pursue one's choices seems generally be conducive to pleasure, but enacting rules in a society can also be productive of the safety and ongoing pleasure of the society. Skepticism toward religious claims is a major aspect of Epicurean philosophy, but (being a philosophy rather than a political party) the philosophy gives you general principles to consider but doesn't tell you exactly which to pursue. I do think it's useful to discuss how far an Epicurean community would act on that religious skepticism, but it would probably be necessary to first be clear what kind of "Epicurean community" is being discussed. A regular nation in which many of the leading politicians were openly identifying as Epicurean? We might have an actual example of that in the Rome of 50 BC.

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

Quote from Godfrey

Another thing I'm noticing is that when I click on a link to a post in the Unread Posts list, it takes me to the top of the page that contains the unread post. Prior to the update it would go directly to the post, which is much more convenient when the threads get long.

I have noticed that too and will definitely investigate!

Welcome to Episode 208 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.

This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. 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.

Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition. Check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

This week we move continue in Section XVII as Cicero begins a series of illustrations which he holds up as examples of moral worthiness (as if Epicurus' views do not embrace this conduct as well!)

VII. We are inquiring then not merely about an unprincipled man but about one who is both crafty and unprincipled, as Quintus Pompeius shewed himself when he disowned the treaty with Numantia, one moreover who is not afraid of everything, but, to begin with, sets at nought the consciousness that is within him, which it costs him no effort to suppress. The man whom we call secret and deep, so far from informing against himself, will actually produce the impression that he is grieved by another person's unprincipled action; for what does shrewdness mean, if not this? I recollect acting as adviser to Publius Sextilius Rufus when he laid before his friends this difficulty, that he was heir to Quintus Fadius Gallus, in whose will there was a statement that he had requested Rufus to see that the whole property passed to the daughter. This statement Sextilius said was untrue, and he might say so without fear, for who was to refute him? None of us believed him, and it was more probable that the falsehood lay with the man to whom it brought advantage than with him who had written that he had made the very request which it was his duty to make. The man said further that having sworn to observe the Voconian law he could not venture, unless his friends thought otherwise, to contravene it.

Quote from Matteng

In this subject the Stoics often seems to have the "better ethics" because they emphasize cosmopolitism, altruism, philantropy for all humans, not only friends.

As a defense I only know 2 aspects...

Matteng:

I agree with Joshua's response but I would also say this - that I do not not think that it is as all a given that the Stoic ethics is "better" for the reasons you state.

To what authority would someone check to see that "altruism" (which is generally defined as a flat "placing others above self" regardless of circumstances) is always a better course, or that I should as a rule show equal concern and actionfor "all humans" most of whom I will never know, rather than for my friends,who I do know. I would say that I would call into question anyone who claimed to be my friend who placed the interests of random strangers over those he or she has known for a long time.

I'm phrasing this kind of challengingly just to make the point that if you take the philosophy seriously and conclude that in fact there are no supernatural gods and no ideal forms, then indeed there is no authority to approve of "love of humanity" being superior to "love of friends." That leaves the decision between the two to be a purely personal one that varies according to circumstance.

So first and foremost I would dismiss the haughtiness of the Stoics on this (as on many other subjects concerning "virtue") as a lot of hot air. The Stoic view of the universe is nonsense from an Epicurean perspective, and without that Stoic supernaturalism there is no real-world basis for them to assert that their ethics is "better" in the first place.

The perceived irony (that Epicureans are more compassionate than many others) derives from that same commitment to reality. In the absence of high-minded and high-sounding calls to divine fire and the reward of absolute virtue, people operating from an Epicurean perspective have only what they perceive as the short space of time between birth and death to get all they are going to get out of life -- and that includes the emotional reward of benevolence toward others.

With the upgrade to the website we've had to replace the older FAQ software, and as a result the FAQ needs lots of updating and improvement. The goal is to have a discussion thread for each FAQ item, and those are already linked in just about every FAQ question. Please use this thread for general comments, suggestions, and questions about the FAQ, especially as to ways to improve it.

Great to have you Tariq! No, no mobile app, but the forum software is pretty well optimized to work on a cell phone screen format, so hopefully that will serve the purpose!

Thanks for the comments. Probably there are more bugs still to swat:

Tau Phi -

1 - There is something about the theme switcher I do not understand. I noted the behavior you mentioned and attempted to improve it but now the moon does not appear and the descriptions are still wrong. Will have to dig into that further but for now the sun goes back and forth.

2 - I think the problem on Recent threads when not logged in has been addressed.

Godfrey -

I am noting some issues with text input on a tablet too but I can't figure out how to address them. I will post about this on the software designer's site and see what we can do.

thanks again!

Woltab wrote a long article about the reasoning behind the changes to the text editor. You or anyone who uses formatting intensively may want to read this to understand the rationale and how this is supposed to help make it easier to move between programs and software:

New Features in WoltLab Suite 6.0: CKEditor 5 - WoltLab®

The third part on what’s new in WoltLab Suite 6.0 focused on the new WYSIWYG editor “CKEditor 5”.

www.woltlab.com

Quote from Pacatus

All of my poems (and those of others as well it seems) lost their formatting. I went through and fixed mine. We'll see what happens when new ones come up.

Oh no! I didn't notice one of them before you fixed them - if you see a sample that is not formatted correctly let me know so I can think about the implications. Perhaps line feeds were converted to hard paragraphs, or what?