Posts by Cassius

Welcome to Episode 304 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we wrap up our discussion of Part 3 with Section XXI and push forward into Part 4, after which we will devote our final episodes devoted to Tusculan Disputations by examining Part 5 on whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.

Episode 303 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Is It Truly Impossible To Advocate For Epicurus In The Public Sphere?"

Elli's comment on Facebook:

Quote

Dear epicurean friend Cassius, your comment is invaluable - not merely insightful, but absolutely necessary. The image of Epicurus as a “drunken rogue” is not just a misunderstanding; it is a historical distortion. And no matter how humorous or technically polished the presentation may be, the essence remains: what is being promoted is a caricature that insults the philosophy of the Garden.

This video, however “well-made” it may be, reproduces a Buddhist-Stoic version of Epicurus, stripped of his active stance toward pleasure, pain, and life. Epicurus #was #not #a #passive #ascetic who “wants nothing so as not to suffer.” He was a philosopher of choice, evaluation, and presence. His phrase “I would not know the meaning of the good without the stimulating pleasures” is not rhetorical flourish; it is an ontological position. And its omission from the video is not innocent, it is misleading.

So I ask: Who created this video? What is its intended purpose? Why choose to portray Epicurus as ridiculous, weak, and inconsistent? Why omit his clearest statements about pleasure, pain, and active living? Why reproduce a stereotype that even his ancient opponents did not dare to use?

Cicero and Plutarch, despite their disagreements, knew that his thought was coherent, radical, and dangerously compelling. In contrast, today we see “admirers” portraying him as a toga-party dropout spouting nonsense and collapsing from excess. That is not Epicurus. That is an insult.

And yes, as you said, the solution is not to reject the video outright, but to use it as a prompt to return to the texts, to the real experiences of life and to conscious choices. Because Epicurus was never “simplistic.” He was clear, very clear. And his clarity is not deprivation, it is fullness without fear, leading us - with his philosophy - to genuine pleasure and freedom!

Despite my own past reading in this subject I've never opened a forum on this comparison, but it's probably time to do so and should lead to all sorts of points of disagreement, especially in ethics but also (or especially) in canonics. Please remember our forum rules and confine this dscussion to philosophical issues rather than the political issues with which she is commonly identified. it may also be appropriate here to talk about "Libertarianism," but again focusing on its philosophical roots and not on its political implementation.

Years ago I wrote this article at NewEpicurean about Objectivism, but there may be people here on the forum who would like to explore the philosophical (rather than political) aspects of this topic.

Objectivism: The “Worst and Most Dangerous” Philosophy In America – NewEpicurean

Given Rand's emphasis on Aristotle and her in her own writing (to my knowledge) stiffing Epicurus from even any mention, I think there are important philosophical problems in Objectivism that would be worthwhile to discuss.

Feel free to comment here in this thread or open your own thread in this section.

Bailey uses lots of "whits" which are likely much better rendered in modern English as "bits."

Similarly, "needs be" is much better as "necessarily be" and "aught" is better as "anything"

Also:

forsooth -> indeed

perchance -> perhaps

thou and thee -> You

verily -> truly

must needs -> must necessarily

There are no doubt many other examples where Bailey can be improved. We can't hope for perfection but before we invest a lot of effort in a text to speech version we might as well start with a version that doesn't perpetuate the worst of the possible poor word choices.

Another rendering by Bailey that has always bothered me is this one at Book 2:37:

But if we see that these thoughts are mere mirth and mockery, and in very truth the fears of men and the cares that dog them fear not the clash of arms nor the weapons of war, but pass boldly among kings and lords of the world, nor dread the glitter that comes from gold nor the bright sheen of the purple robe, can you doubt that all such power belongs to reason alone, above all when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness?

I don't find this one as objectionable as my first example, but the phrase "belongs to reason alone" is easy to misinterpret if someone isn't aware of Epicurus' views on logic and the priority of the senses, and "when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness" is easy to read in a negative way that Lucretis is implying that the whole of life IS and HAS TO REMAIN a struggle in darkness.

Munro does better with his "withal" to indicate that the whole of life does not have to be a struggle in the dark:

how can you doubt that this is wholly the prerogative of reason, when the whole of life withal is a struggle in the dark?

And Dunster doesn't make it so easy to misinterpret the Epicurean position on reason by saying "want of sense":

Do you doubt but all this stuff is want of sense, and all our life is groping in the dark?

So here I would combine Dunster and Munro to improve that final statement.

If you are aware of particularly problematic sections of Lucretius where some translations seem better than others, please point them out. Here's one example:

At Book 1:449, Bailey renders "eventum" as "accidents," which I think is exactly the wrong implication in modern American English. "Accident" today has more of a meaning of "chaotic" or "truly accidental," and implies that any particular moment anything can happen. The real sense seems to me to be rather that what happens is simply "without intention," but in fact what does happen is not chaotic or "accidental" at all, but in fact a necessary result of the properties of the atoms as they move through the void. Rather than "accidental," most things are in fact closer to be "determined" rather being the result of a universe in which "anything" can happen.

Dunster does better by leaving the main word as "event" rather than introducing "accident." "Event" is a more neutral term in English that just conveys "it happens" rather than implying that things happen chaotically. So in this section I'll make the "modern American version" follow Dunster rather than Bailey:

Lucretius Side-by-Side

I'm posting this in the "News And Announcements" section to keep this post readily visible on the forum for the foreseeable future. This is a highly desirable project that is now readily doable combining (1) our past work on compiling versions of Lucretius with (2) readily-available good quality AI text-to-speech generation.

Thread

Preparing A Public Domain Audio And Text Version Lucretius In Modern American English

The title of the post states the goal: I want a freely accessible good quality audio version of Lucretius rendered into modern American English based on the best translations currently available. This goal is going to take quite a while to accomplish and it will require several steps:

1. We need a text that has been prepared from the best public domain versions available, "conformed" into a mashup-edition that avoids archaic or over-academic constructions but still highly accurate and as literal

…

Cassius

October 16, 2025 at 2:42 PM

The title of the post states the goal: I want a freely accessible good quality audio version of Lucretius rendered into modern American English based on the best translations currently available. This goal is going to take quite a while to accomplish and it will require several steps:

1. We need a text that has been prepared from the best public domain versions available, "conformed" into a mashup-edition that avoids archaic or over-academic constructions but still highly accurate and as literal as possible. That will require the version be in prose rather than poetry.
2. We already have three side-by side public domain translations that can be used to compile a revised version. They can be viewed here on the web.
3. I created a Google Doc with the Bailey edition as a base and we can use that to make changes based on better word choice in the other editions. As set up now anyone can view the latest version at that link. I will grant commenting permission to anyone here on the forum who asks, and I will appreciate as many people as possible making editing comments. We can discuss those proposed changes in the comments and I will then incorporate into the body of the text. At regular intervals I will export to markdown and we'll add this version back to the side-by-side page where it can be selected or deselected along with the other three translations.
4. After we have an improved text we will want to create a text-to-speech version and export to MP3 where we can make this publicly available for download. In order to accomplish that we'll need to do the following:
5. Find an affordable AI text-to-speech generator with a very professional voice. I suspect we want standard Mid-West style accent that is serious but not overly dramatic. I'm forever indebted to the Charlton Griffin version available at Audible.com, but I find it overly dramatic and even pompous in tone at places, and I don't think that's the right tone. The most widely useful version would likely not sound like Biblical/Apocalyptic tone, or even "Thus Spake Zarathustra, but rather serious and insistent without sounding like an eccentric fanatic.

Steps where you can help:

1. Keep prompting us to move this forward when things seem to slow down for a period of time.
2. Make suggestions for consolidating better language from other translations to substitute for issue with the Bailey version.
3. Make suggestions for AI text-to-speech generation. That includes going through the many website offerings to find the best mix of affordable (preferably free, but at last reasonable cost) that will produce output recordable and usable in the public-domain. This will also likely mean generating a "prompt" that will give instruction as to the way the voice should read the text. For example as a start
   1. "Render the following text in a very professional voice with Mid-West American accent that is serious but not overly dramatic. The voice should never be pompous or fanatical but rather serious and insistent while always being friendly."

Comments and suggestions for how to proceed are welcome. I am sure there are versions already available, and there will be more in the future, but I'd like to see one that will forever be public doman, and is based on a revised and "conformed" copy of the best texts, and that won't happen anywhere else but here.

Glad to have you Zarathustra. All of the topics you mentioned are of great interest here. I personally am among those most interested in the Nietzsche relationship, but I'm no expert on Nietzsche so I'm of limited use other than in being convinced that there's a fascinating relationship. I think I'll tag Elli in Thessaloniki in this comment as I know she has shared my interest in that for many years. She introduced me to a Greek writer by the name of Liantinis who is related to this interest.

If you run into any issues in using the forum let us know.

This is a first draft of an entry on this topic for the FAQ section.

I consider the heart of what needs expansion not to be the discussion of natural and necessary, but - after we have obtained what is necessary, and once we have identified that unnatural desires have no limit and should not be pursued - how we personally answer the question of how to decide from among the options that that are available to us.

We hitting in other places and will establish elsewhere that (1) pleasure IS the guide/goal of life, and that (2) we should NOT engage in the unlimited pursuit of any desire that is otherwise fine when kept within limit (even power, fame, money).

So those are addressed here but not as the exclusive focus of the answer.

What I think needs further expansion is the discussion of what factors to consider in choosing among options AFTER we are agreed that (1) and (2) are correct starting points.

When you have a chance please look over the text here and add your comments and suggestions to this thread so we can revise the existing version over time.

After I Identify Pleasure As The Guide of Life, Which Pleasures Should I Pursue? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Below is the version when first posted. I will be regularly revising this as we go forward, so check the link above for the latest updates.

• 1. We will generally focus on Epicurus' division of the desires into natural and necessary classifications, but first, before anything else, we have to realize that these categories are contextual and cannot be described or implemented in absolute terms.
  • 1.1. "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided." Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. "[Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 129]
• 2. Generally we will prioritize pursuing pleasures that are necessary for life. Therefore the first step at any particular moment of life is to confirm that you can expect your future life to be more pleasurable than painful. In almost every instance this is true, and in general it is a very small person who has more reasons for ending his life than living it. But this is not always true, as sometimes you will choose death, when the alternative of living on would be worse
  • 2.1. "[The lofty spirit] is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us."[ Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends, I:XV]
• 3. After confirming that it makes sense to live on, first obtain those pleasures which are necessary for continued life. These are presumably the basics of life such as air, food, water, shelter, and the like.
• 4. After obtaining the pleasures necessary for life, and after confirming that you can expect your remaining time of life to make available more pleasure than pain, consider whether the additional pleasures you choose to pursue are natural, in that they have a limit, or are unnatural, in that by their very nature you can never achieve them (such as unlimited amounts of time, fame, power, riches). This analysis allows you to forecast whether the pursuit of a pleasure is likely to lead to more pain than pleasure.
  • 4.1. The principle of the natural and necessary classification is as follows: "Nothing could be more useful or more conducive to well-being than Epicurus's doctrine as to the different classes of the desires. One kind he classified as both natural and necessary, a second as natural without being necessary, and a third as neither natural nor necessary; the principle of classification being that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered."
• 5. At this point when you know that it makes sense to continue to live, and you secure the pleasures that are necessary to life, and you identify what will likely be many options for pursuing desires that will lead to more pleasure than pain, you choose from among those options to pursue the most pleasant life according to the following considerations:
  • 5.1. Remember that the "most pleasant" does not equate either to the largest quantity or the longest time.
    • 5.1.1. "And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant."[Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 126
  • 5.2. Remember that all pleasures are not identical and interchangeable, because they do not all have the same intensity, last the same period of time, or affect the same aras of the body and mind.
    • 5.2.1. "PD09. If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted, and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another."
  • 5.3. Remember that what others tell you is the most desirable or undesirable life is not the ultimate test of what is in fact most pleasant to you.
    • 5.3.1. PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.
  • 5.4. The ultimate test of what to pleasure pursue is reality - whether it in fact leads to the most pleasant life.
    • 5.4.1. VS71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?
• 6. Other Reference Material:
  • 6.1. EpicureanFriends Forum On Pleasure As The Guide of Life
  • 6.2. EpicureanFriends Forum on Natural and Necessary Desires

This is an old topic but it comes up regularly, and we need a summary of where we are on this. At the time of this writing (and I will update this pinned post) probably the best existing handouts in PDF form suitable for printing are:

1. AxA's general brochure in PDF
2. Kalosyni's general brochure
3. Al Hakiim's general brochure

I know that we have others, and i need to go through the older posts in this forum and find them and add them here. We need many more than one option, so they can be selectively used according to circumstance. If you know of one that needs to be highlighted here please post in this thread and I'll update this pinned post.

Welcome Zarathustra!

To our existing forum members: Zarathustra is very well educated in all sorts of things, including philosophy and psychotherapy, but he has let me know that he doesn't have much experience with Epicureanism but became more intrigued with it recently after having to write a book chapter on Hellenistic philosophies and psychotherapy.

So in that spirit I've told him that we have lots of people who enjoy talking about all sorts of issues including psychology matters of all kinds, and we're happy to have him here with us.

Welcome Zarathustra

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 24 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 and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and 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 already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

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!

It occurs to me that our forum members might know of examples of this topic that I'm not aware of, and I find these to be very fun. This post comes from a "Magnetism" post in which I mentioned these magnetic spinners that levitate while turning.

It seems like I remember long ago when I first read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" that he mentioned "orrerys" as useful teaching tools, in the same context of how it would be much better if church buildings were schools of science.

I know there are lots of examples of these besides orrery's and spinning magnetic tops but that's all the time I have for this at the moment. I was going to link to EdmundsScientifics, which used to be my go-to source for these (such as my Crooke's Radiometer), but it looks like Edmunds is long gone....

I was looking for a place to post the article referenced below, and then I realized that we do not have a subforum devoted to magnetism. We know more about Epicurean theory of magnetism than we do about Epicurean theory on a lot of other issues, given the treatment that we have in Lucretius. Did you realize that we have over a THOUSAND lines explaining magnetism?

So this thread will serve as a starting point for future discussion. I see that we also dealt with this in episodes Ninety and Ninety-one of Lucretius Today.

This was obviously a topic Lucretius considered to be important. Why? Possibly because it is a dramatic, immediate, and visible challenge to what we ordinarily see so as to make some wonder if it is not supernatural? That probably makes it a useful tool for discussion. For many years I have had a wooden version of this. (Perhaps we need another thread for "science toys that illustrate unseen forces".)

Quote

[6:906] For what follows, I will essay to tell by what law of nature it comes to pass that iron can be attracted by the stone which the Greeks call the magnet, from the name of its native place, because it has its origin within the boundaries of its native country, the land of the Magnetes. At this stone men marvel; indeed, it often makes a chain of rings all hanging to itself. For sometimes you may see five or more in a hanging chain, and swaying in the light breezes, when one hangs on to the other, clinging to it beneath, and each from the next comes to feel the binding force of the stone: in such penetrating fashion does its force prevail.

[6:917] In things of this kind much must be made certain before you can give account of the thing itself, and you must approach by a circuit exceeding long: therefore all the more I ask for attentive ears and mind.

[6:921] First of all from all things, whatsoever we can see, it must needs be that there stream off, shot out and scattered abroad, bodies such as to strike the eyes and awake our vision. And from certain things scents stream off unceasingly; even as cold streams from rivers, heat from the sun, spray from the waves of the sea, which gnaws away the walls by the seashore. Nor do diverse sounds cease to ooze through the air. Again, moisture of a salt savour often comes into our mouth, when we walk by the sea, and on the other hand, when we behold wormwood being diluted and mixed, a bitter taste touches it. So surely from all things each several thing is carried off in a stream, and is sent abroad to every quarter on all sides, nor is any delay or respite granted in this flux, since we perceive unceasingly, and we are suffered always to descry and smell all things, and to hear them sound.

[6:936] Now I will tell over again of how rarefied a body all things are; which is clearly shown in the beginning of my poem too. For verily, although it is of great matter to learn this for many things, it is above all necessary for this very thing, about which I am essaying to discourse, to make it sure that there is nothing perceptible except body mingled with void. First of all it comes to pass that in caves the upper rooks sweat with moisture and drip with trickling drops. Likewise sweat oozes out from all our body, the beard grows and hairs over all our limbs and members, food is spread abroad into all the veins, yea, it increases and nourishes even the extreme parts of the body, and the tiny nails. We feel cold likewise pass through bronze and warm heat, we feel it likewise pass through gold and through silver, when we hold full cups in our hands. Again voices fly through stone partitions in houses, smell penetrates and cold and the heat of fire, which is wont to pierce too through the strength of iron. Again, where the breastplate of the sky closes in the world all around \[B-6:the bodies of clouds and the seeds of storms enter in\], and with them the force of disease, when it finds its way in from without; and tempests, gathering from earth and heaven, hasten naturally to remote parts of heaven and earth; since there is nothing but has a rare texture of body.

[6:959] There is this besides, that not all bodies, which are thrown off severally from things, are endowed with the same effect of sense, nor suited in the same way to all things. First of all the sun bakes the ground and parches it, but ice it thaws and causes the snows piled high on the high mountains to melt beneath its rays. Again, wax becomes liquid when placed in the sun’s heat. Fire likewise makes bronze liquid and fuses gold, but skins and flesh it shrivels and draws all together. Moreover, the moisture of water hardens iron fresh from the fire, but skins and flesh it softens, when hardened in the heat. The wild olive as much delights the bearded she-goats, as though it breathed out a flavour steeped in ambrosia and real nectar; and yet for a man there is no leafy plant more bitter than this for food. Again, the pig shuns marjoram, and fears every kind of ointment; for to bristling pigs it is deadly poison, though to us it sometimes seems almost to give new life. But on the other hand, though to us mud is the foulest filth, this very thing is seen to be pleasant to pigs, so that they wallow all over in it and never have enough.

[6:979] This too remains, which it is clear should be said, before I start to speak of the thing itself. Since many pores are assigned to diverse things, they must needs be endowed with a nature differing from one another, and have each their own nature and passages. For verily there are diverse senses in living creatures, each of which in its own way takes in its own object within itself. For we see that sounds pass into one place and the taste from savours into another, and to another the scent of smells. Moreover, one thing is seen to pierce through rocks, another through wood, and another to pass through gold, and yet another to make its way out from silver and glass. For through the one vision is seen to stream, though the other heat to travel, and one thing is seen to force its way along the same path quicker than others. We may know that the nature of the passages causes this to come to pass, since it varies in many ways, as we have shown a little before on account of the unlike nature and texture of things.

[6:998] Wherefore, when all these things have been surely established and settled for us, laid down in advance and ready for use, for what remains, from them we shall easily give account, and the whole cause will be laid bare, which attracts the force of iron.

[6:1002] First of all it must needs be that there stream off this stone very many seeds or an effluence, which, with its blows, parts asunder all the air which has its place between the stone and the iron. When this space is emptied and much room in the middle becomes void, straightway first-beginnings of the iron start forward and fall into the void, all joined together; it comes to pass that the ring itself follows and advances in this way, with its whole body. Nor is anything so closely interlaced in its first particles, all clinging linked together, as the nature of strong iron and its cold roughness. Therefore it is the less strange, since it is led on by its particles, that it is impossible for many bodies, springing together from the iron, to pass into the void, but that the ring itself follows; and this it does, and follows on, until it has now reached the very stone and clung to it with hidden fastenings. This same thing takes place in every direction; on whichever side room becomes void, whether athwart or above, the neighbouring bodies are carried at once into the void. For indeed they are set in motion by blows from the other side, nor can they themselves of their own accord rise upwards into the air.

[6:1022] To this there is added, that it may the more be able to come to pass, this further thing as an aid, yea, the motion is helped, because, as soon as the air in front of the ring is made rarer, and the place becomes more empty and void, it straightway comes to pass that all the air which has its place behind, drives, as it were, and pushes the ring forward. For the air which is set all around is for ever buffeting things; but it comes to pass that at times like this it pushes the iron forward, because on one side there is empty space, which receives the ring into itself. This air, of which I am telling you, finds its way in subtly through the countless pores of the iron right to its tiny parts, and thrusts and drives it on, as wind drives ship and sails. Again, all things must have air in their body seeing that they are of rare body, and the air is placed round and set close against all things. This air then, which is hidden away deep within the iron, is ever tossed about with restless motion, and therefore without doubt it buffets the ring and stirs it within; the ring, we may be sure, is carried towards the same side to which it has once moved headlong, struggling hard towards the empty spot.

[6:1042] It comes to pass, too, that the nature of iron retreats from this stone at times, and is wont to flee and follow turn by turn. Further, I have seen Samothracian iron rings even leap up, and at the same time iron filings move in a frenzy inside brass bowls, when this Magnesian stone was placed beneath: so eagerly is the iron seen to desire to flee from the stone. When the brass is placed between, so great a disturbance is brought about because, we may be sure, when the effluence of the brass has seized beforehand and occupied the open passages in the iron, afterwards comes the effluence of the stone, and finds all full in the iron, nor has it a path by which it may stream through as before. And so it is constrained to dash against it and beat with its wave upon the iron texture; and in this way it repels it from itself, and through the brass drives away that which without it it often sucks in.

[6:1056] Herein refrain from wondering that the effluence from this stone has not the power to drive other things in the same way. For in part they stand still by the force of their own weight, as for instance, gold; and partly, because they are of such rare body, that the effluence flies through untouched, they cannot be driven anywhere; among this kind is seen to be the substance of wood. The nature of iron then has its place between the two, and when it has taken in certain tiny bodies of brass, then it comes to pass that the Magnesian stones drive it on with their stream.

[6:1065] And yet these powers are not so alien to other things that I have only a scanty store of things of this kind, of which I can tell—things fitted just for each other and for naught besides. First you see that stones are stuck together only by mortar. Wood is united only by bulls’ glue, so that the veins of boards more often gape than the bindings of the glue will loosen their hold. The juice born of the grape is willing to mingle with streams of water, though heavy pitch and light olive-oil refuse. And the purple tint of the shellfish is united only with the body of wool, yet so that it cannot be separated at all, no, not if you were to be at pains to restore it with Neptune’s wave, no, nor if the whole sea should strive to wash it out with all its waves. Again, is not there one thing only that binds gold to gold? is it not true that brass is joined to brass only by white lead? How many other cases might we find! What then? You have no need at all of long rambling roads, nor is it fitting that I should spend so much pains on this, but ’tis best shortly in a few words to include many cases. Those things, whose textures fall so aptly one upon the other that hollows fit solids, each in the one and the other, make the best joining. Sometimes, too, they may be held linked with one another, as it were, fastened by rings and hooks; as is seen to be more the case with this stone and the iron.

Display More

Here's the article that prompted this:

Levitation Breakthrough: Scientists Create Levitating Disk That Requires No External Power

In a levitation breakthrough, scientists have created a virtually frictionless, macroscale levitating disk that requires no external power.

thedebrief.org

I just posted an excerpt from something Joshua said in Episode 302 about pleasure ethics from Thomas Moore's Utopia, and another quote comes to mind which is on a related topic and which responds to Cicero's allegation that an Epicurean should not boast about doing everything for his own benefit. (That were it ever so true, that a wise man regards nothing but the body; or, to express myself with more decency, never does anything except what is expedient, and views all things with exclusive reference to his own advantage; as such things are not very commendable, they should confine them to their own breasts, and leave off talking with that parade of them.)

A part of what I would include in responding to that would be to point out how much emphasis Epicurus places on friendship, and placing the interest of our friends as important to us as our own. As Torquatus said about his ancestor, we are strongly motivated to do unpleasant things for the safety and benefit of our friends country as that is our own strongest assurance of safety. I would suggest that this kind of wider concern equates at least roughly with one's friends, at least for someone in public office in the sense of Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears....

The quote that comes to mind to support the view that this kind of concern for our friends is natural, and would be fully sufficient for someone to proclaim to the public, even on taking an office as to the principle on which he would act while in office, is the following from Nietzsche which I've cited before, from The Gay Science. Nietzsche doesn't seem entirely happy about it, but he's making a point I think most of us can very much appreciate:

Quote

How is it possible to keep to one’s own way? Constantly, some clamor or other calls us aside; rarely does our eye behold anything that does not require us to drop our own preoccupation instantly to help. I know, there are a hundred decent and praiseworthy ways of losing my own way, and they are truly highly “moral”! Indeed, those who now preach the morality of pity even take the view that precisely this and only this is moral—to lose one’s own way in order to come to the assistance of a neighbor. I know just as certainly that I only need to expose myself to the sight of some genuine distress and I am lost. And if a suffering friend said to me, “Look, I am about to die; please promise to die with me,” I should promise it; and the sight of a small mountain tribe fighting for its liberty would persuade me to offer it my hand and my life . . . All such arousing of pity and calling for help is secretly seductive, for our “own way” is too hard and demanding and too remote from the love and gratitude of others, and we do not really mind escaping from it . . . while I shall keep silent [verschweigen, i.e., hide, conceal, keep secret] about some points, I do not want to remain silent about my morality which says to me: Live in seclusion [Lebe im Verborgenen, i.e, live secretly, discreetly, in hiding or concealment] so that you can live for yourself. Live in ignorance about what seems most important to your age. Between yourself and today lay the skin of at least three centuries. And the clamor of today, the noise of wars and revolutions should be a mere murmur for you. You will also wish to help – but only those whose distress you understand entirely because they share with you one suffering and one hope – your friends – and only in the manner in which you help yourself."

(GS 338)[37]

(the source from which I originally got this quote appears gone, but i see this link on archive.org.)

So I would argue that Nietzsche is pointing out something that is very natural: that we want to help the people we consider to be our friends, and we are often motivated to do that with more enthusiasm than when we act for our own sake.

I might also combine this with an allusion to the common idea that if we were marooned on an island or another planet with no company at all we would soon either go crazy or lose the will to live or both - sort of how we might feel if we were the only survivor of a nuclear war.

So there are lots of ways to stand up in public and say that because you in fact value your own interest, and that you identify your own happiness with that of your friends, just as Epicurus advised, you are not only as trustworthy as anyone else, you are more trustworthy because you place your actions on a strong practical foundation and not on a make-believe supernatural god or ideal morality.

In this episode, one of the arguments that Joshua raised from Thomas Moore's "Utopia" in defense of Pleasure-based ethics deserves to be remembered. I'm therefore pasting this excerpt from the transcript with the important point underlined so it is easier to find in the future. Talking about Thomas Moore, this is what Joshua said:

Joshua: He's working through this stuff in his own mind, and now he has a safe way to explore these ideas without committing to them. On the subject of the chief Good and on pleasure, Thomas Moore says this. He says,

Quote

The Utopians say that the first dictate of reason is the kindling in us of the love and reverence for the divine Majesty to whom we owe both all that we have and all that we can ever hope for. In the next place, Reason directs us to keep our minds as free from passion and as cheerful as we can, and that we should consider ourselves as bound by the ties of good nature and humanity, to use our utmost endeavors to help forward the happiness of all other persons.

For there has never been a man who was such a morose and severe pursuer of virtue, such an enemy to pleasure, that though he set hard rules for men to undergo much pain, many watchings, and other rigors, yet did not at the same time advise them to do all they could in order to relieve and ease the miserable, and who did not represent gentleness and good nature as amiable dispositions. And from this the Utopians infer that if a man ought to advance the welfare and comfort of the rest of mankind, there being no virtue more proper and peculiar to our nature than to ease the miseries of others, to free from trouble and anxiety, in furnishing them with the comforts of life in which pleasure consists. Nature much more vigorously leads us to do all of these things for ourselves. A life of pleasure is either a real evil, and in that case we ought not to assist others in their pursuit of it, but on the contrary, to keep them from it.

All we can as from that which is most hurtful and deadly. Or if for life of pleasure is a good thing, so that we not only may, but ought to help others to it, why then ought not a man to begin with himself? So we have that question first of all. If virtue means, at least in part, easing the misery and pain of others, why is it not virtuous to ease our own misery and pain?

This is in Thomas Moore's Utopia. This is how they get to pleasure, and he expresses it even more clearly than this. He says:

Quote

Since no man can be more bound to look after the good of another than after his own. For nature cannot direct us to be good and kind to others and yet at the same time to be unmerciful and cruel to ourselves. Thus, as the Utopians define virtue to be living according to nature, so they imagine that nature prompts all people on to seek after pleasure as the end of all they do.

Joshua: Now, that is not at all a bad starting place if you're interested in identifying the chief good And you could imagine reading some of this directly out of Torquatus or something that virtue means living according to nature, and nature prompts all people on to seek after. Pleasure is the end of all they do. That's why pleasure is the chief good. And moreover, since virtue means to ease the pain and hardship of others, it's also must be virtuous to ease our own pain and hardship.

Excellent thank you Joshua and Kalosyni! For anyone glancing through this thread, the link to Kalosynis post is an important one to follow.