Posts by Cassius

"It is important to remember, in this context, that for Epicureans all virtues—like moderation and justice—are defined not absolutely, by an independent objective standard. They are instrumentally valuable because they contribute to a pleasurable life, and so what counts as virtuous in a case depends on what in fact produces happiness (Ep. Men. 132)."

Definitely a paper I want to read. That simple statement has profound implications, and I think is very difficult to appreciate without working on a drastic overhaul of the way we think. The same action that we normally see as courageous becomes in fact foolhardy in the wrong circumstances. The action isn't just "courageous, but sadly turned out wrong" but in fact no longer meets the definition of courageous in the first place.

At least in my mind that is very hard to appreciate. My mind wants to say courage is courage is courage and place the blame for a bad result somewhere else (luck? fate? gods?) rather than think that courage has no set definition that applies at all times and places.

But that seems to be exactly what Epicurus is saying, and he hammers it home apparently in his own words in those statements about "justice" at the end of the PDs.

Quote from Godfrey

he interprets Epicurus one way, but understands Epicureanism another way

Can you summarize his view of the difference?

Thank you Pacatus that gives me more incentive to read this book.

Much as with the other words like "tranquility," I obviously have no problems with the desirability of "serenity," but I continue to think there is something missing when someone seems to be seeking to wrap up in a single word -- which to me constitutes at most an "adverb" (such as "I am living serenely") -- without explicitly stating that the act of "living" in such a way entails all sorts of physical activities that are the true heart of what is going on.

I will eventually get this book so I can see how my concerns compare to Guyau's explanation of the topic. Perhaps many years ago my concern would be out of place, and it would go without saying that the praise of absence of pain was not intended to elevate a state of mind to a self-contained objective. Paraphrasing a Platonist who DeWitt cites in his book, I don't think Epicurus expected that naming "pleasure" the guide of life could ever be interpreted as a call for the draining of all active physical and mental pleasures from life .

But I definitely think in today's intellectual mix this cannot be left unexplained, and I would like to see where Guyau fits into this.

Thanks to those who have attended our first two book review sessions. We have had seven or eight people each night and we are looking forward to our next session on chapters nine through twelve. Further updates to come as we get closer to the next session.

Quote from Nate

... given all of this, I am wondering: what is unique about the employment of kharisi in KD1 that contradicts these other usages

Presumably that a "god" would be so self-sufficient that it would never experience an emotion of receiving something that it lacked previously?

I would see this as tending to show how the human conception of a god is probably constructed logically as an expectation (based on isonomia and similar observations extrapolated out) as much as a subject of particular observation.

In my mind that would not diminish the sincerely of the statement or the expectation of reality that gods do exist, but would parallel other things I see as logical constructs. For example that is how I see "absence of pain" as being the "limit of pleasure" (there are only two so they are defined as the opposite of the other) rather than as a specific positive description of a particular feeling.

So I would see putting a characteristic that is very beneficial to humans in a negative light in relation to the gods as stemming from a similar logical construct. Even pain has actual benefits to us in our world (though we define the best life as having none), but pain would have no benefit to a being living in a perfect state.

Just preliminary thoughts....

Welcome to Episode 173 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 continue our discussion of Chapter 12, entitled "The New Hedonism."

• The “Summum Bonum” Fallacy
• Pleasure Identified As the Telos

Episode 172 of the podcast is now available!

OK ok I had to look it up: anyone who writes "quotidian" rather than "everyday" or "commonplace" has some interpretive issues of his own to sort out! It's almost as if that note were written by two separate people.

The part I struck out in red represents everything wrong in modern Epicurean commentary.

This illustrates my love-hate relationship with the Epicurus Wiki at Epicurism.info: Two excellent paragraphs followed by immediate schizophrenic retraction -- as if "Oh NO Epicurus can't be in favor of a full life -- that would contradict our orthodox view of him! "

And of course it includes the trope that those poor stupid ROMAN Epicureans just didn't understand what Epicurus was all about! Which of course fails to account for why the Romans would be so stupidly interpreting Epicurus when they had ALL his texts with a complete explanation and 200 years of examples of people applying it, while the writer of this note has access only to a small fraction of that information.

NUTS TO ALL OF THAT!

Vatican Saying 41 - Epicurus Wiki

Quote from Don

To my eye, Metrodorus looked younger - more youthful - than either Hermarchus or Epicurus.

Which is interesting too because Metrodorus died first, if I understand the will correctly.

I guess I was aware of it but I have not focused much on the apparent fact that we have bust of Colotes.

Maybe this book page that Onenski has posted above can be worked over with image enhancement and/or adjusting software to make better copies of all of them for future use. I gather there might be one or two other busts available too? Polyaneus maybe?

We probably have not spent nearly as much time as we should fleshing out what we know about the details of each of these. We at least know their book titles to indicate their areas of interest, plus there are other anecdotes, and we know something of Colotes from Plutarch's response to him.

Now that I see more clearly that many of these guys got together and essentially invaded Athens as a team, the "team" seems to me to be more worthy of highlighting.

Which is important to observe - that the Epicurean school was not at all a one-man project, but required teamwork, just as teamwork is required today.

Quote from Don

Hermarchus's eyes also seem more "sad" (droopy) while Epicurus seems to have a more intense gaze with his brow furrowed in the center.

Yes I can see the somewhat droopy eyes as a signature of Hermarchus, but for some reason I can't gt't a similar fix on something unique about Metrodorus.

Maybe my problem is that the sketch I posted earlier in the thread seems to not be as a close a match to the actual sculpture as is the sketch for Hermarchus and Epicurus (?)

Tonight in our Wednesday meeting Fernando brought this up, and I did not remember that we had discussed this one and had Don's commentary already.

Seems like this is one that bears on the question "What are we doing while we are tranqull / calm / serene?"

Don what about Metrodorus? Do you have good images of him and a good fix on his face?

Godfrey --

I relate this issue in my mind with a passage I read years ago in section of Wikipedia which criticized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I had to go back into the old versions to find this as it seems to be no longer on the current page:

To be clear, I am not now talking about CBT in any substantive sense, I just want to echo a criticism of ANY approach that it should first define and present what healthy normal human action looks like, and THEN present diagnosis and recommendations on how to proceed from any existing current point to get to that goal.

Of course I think Epicurus does that - there are many passages remaining, and I feel sure there were many more, about how healthy normal people should spend their time while alive. I do not mean in the sense of recommendations as to careers or other specifics, but in the sense that the underlying presumption of the Greek experience to which Epicurus is in agreement is that one should live a normally active and healthy and full physical and mental life. I cannot imagine that they thought that any healthy normal person would take their statements as a prescription to go live in the proverbial cave on bread and water and stare at a candle.

Yet in the world we are in today it is my contention that the person who is normally educated and acclimated to prevailing cultural and educational advice is apt to take just that approach when hearing "the goal of life is the absence of pain." For two thousand years we've been subjected to religious absurdities that imply that our treasure is in heaven or somewhere else and that the best we can hope for is to shelter in place from pain while we wait for our Redeemer to come pick us up. In this context it's just not a good idea to expect someone who may be under the influence of such absurd views of the ideal state to take for granted that "living without pain" really means LIVING without pain in normal and healthy human ways, and not like a monk or a lama sitting cross-legged with palms up waiting to absorb the vibrations of the universe (or some such thing).

It is our lot as modern fans of Epicurus that Epicurus has been lumped in with those who preach quietism and pacifism and similar views, and that means that many people who come here, or who are alert to seeing Epicurean discussion on facebook or the internet, may think that we too here hold and promote such views.

And that presents an interesting environment in which we need to find ways to make very clear, from the beginning, that the point of Epicurean philosophy is how to LIVE, and not how to while away or time immobilized and fearing the next pin to drop while we wait for death to deliver us to some better world and away from this one which is alleged to be fated to be nasty, brutish and short.

If we aren't clear on why it is better that we have been born than that if we had not been born at all, we haven't even started to understand how to live.

And so in answer to that criticism of CBT I underlined above -- I agree with it -- we need to be sure we are being clear about the details of the goal that Epicurus was presuming - I would argue - that we would all understand. That doesn't mean that we have to get involved in every specific of life, but it means we need to find a way to be clear that living means enjoying life fully and not ascetically.

Quote from Godfrey

If we were to do nothing but seek serenity and avoid pain, then this category would be nonsensical.

And if we were to imply that this category is to be frowned upon or minimized, then we would truly have a prescription for minimalism and asceticism that would totally contradict what we know about the facts of life and endeavors of every authentic ancient Epicurean who ever existed. There are literally zero examples of Epicureans who lived that way, and it is only the speculations and rumors surrounding ascetic interpretations of lines like we "could" compete with zeus for happiness with only bread and water and similar anecdotes that allow people to make these arguments. And this isn't just a "Roman Epicureans weren't good Epicureans" thing either - the will of Epicurus and his property holdings at death are only part of the evidence that he lived a normal life.

Again - presuming "serenity" means what most people interpret it to m\be, as largely denoting mental and physical inactivity. No one generally says "I want to live a serene life" and expects the listener to understand a normal healthy active life.

For some reason I think I can picture Hermarchus in my mind based on the statue and picture how he looked, but there is something about the Metrodorus statue that makes it harder for me to get a grip on his features.

Quote from Godfrey

Where I get uncomfortable (in a good way ) is with his narrowing the goal to a single focus of serenity

This is something I wanted to expand on before I saw your last post. I have the same issue with "homeostatus" or any similar words which leaves open the possibility that a human being might decide that his or her best life is sitting crosslegged on a floor staring at a candle.

I think this is behind the ambiguity of Chrysippus' hand analogy too.

We have to start with an understanding of what the normal healthy living thing does with its time so that we can understand what is presumed to be the result when all pain is eliminated.

I know in my case (and I suspect I am far from alone) any construct of the ultimate good or goal must convey as essential a view of what it means for the organism to function at peak performance. While I reject the view that "man is the rational animal" and therefore the exercise of reason is the highest way to spend ones time, I do think we can derive from our nature that we have a full set of bodily and mental faculties to exercise as part of a normal and healthy life, so that any generalization of a life of total pleasure with zero pain is going to incorporate in it the exercise of those capacities.

I am out of time to continue but this is the direction I would carry this, and it is my main complaint about the whole issue of using "absence of pain" as if it were a full and complete statement of the goal. The positive side of the exercise of mental and bodily functions to experience pleasure is the issue that can no longer (if it ever could) be left to unstated implication.

Since we are talking about the founders of the school, I have to admit that I have trouble myself identifying between Hermarchus and Metrodorus. Does everyone agree with the labeling here? And in turn do we agree that the book about which Godfrey recently posted has Hermarchus on the cover?