Posts by Cassius

A lot has been lost but the essentials are still there. When you get a chance tell us what you've read and that will help us make recommendations.

Welcome Hyankinthos --- What have you been reading so far?

Here's an example from this weeks' podcast text. In this section of Tusculan Disputations Cicero says, referring to Stoics and those of similar viewpoint who hold that the condition of the mind is all that is important: What may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

• Quote

  Nor did he take any trouble to provide himself with those remedies which might have enabled him to bear pain; such as firmness of mind, a shame of doing anything base, exercise, and the habit of patience, precepts of courage, and a manly hardiness: but he says that he supports himself on the single recollection of past pleasures, as if any one, when the weather was so hot as that he was scarcely able to bear it, should comfort himself by recollecting that he was once in my country Arpinum, where he was surrounded on every side by cooling streams: for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils. But when he says that a wise man is always happy, who would have no right to say so if he were consistent with himself, what may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

The context here is that Cicero is irritated at Epicurus for saying that the wise man is happy even while under torture, because Cicero thinks that Epicureans care about nothing except the pleasures of smooth motion.

It's true that Epicurus doesn't care about anything that does not bring pleasure, but it's not true that Epicurus is happy even while under torture solely because he has the right "attitude" and has learned an intellectual lesson like A + B = C.

Epicurus is happy under extreme kidney disease because he actively focuses his attention on a set of pleasures that means more to him (his friends and his pleasure at the study of nature) and this gives him something real to say that he can withstand pain X because he has pleasure Y.

This is more than simply the intellectual knowledge that "when I die I cease to exist." There's nothing intrinsically pleasant about that knowledge at all. If you aren't now or haven't in the past pursued pleasures of mind and body that you do or have enjoy, you have nothing to set against pain.

I think that most people reading this here will agree with this viewpoint, but those who value the mind as divine - like Cicero is saying everyone should - disparage the active pleasures of the mind and body - because all they care about is "not being disturbed." And when you elevate "not being disturbed" to the goal of the philosophy then you've lost the entire thread of why "pleasure" is important.

The dead are "not disturbed" but that's not the point of life and it's a huge mistake to make it so, but that is implicit on those who can't articulate a good reason to stay alive, which is what Emily Austin is saying some of our most famous modern writers are doing in discussing Epicurus.

There is a section in this weeks text that might be of special interest to Don, since i recall him mentioning the issue several times.

In this section of Tusculan Disputations Cicero is sharply critical, but I find particularly interesting the "for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils" as that is a direct challenge for us to explain the common reference in Epicurus to using the pleasures of the past to "offset" or "array against" current pains.

Quote

Nor did he take any trouble to provide himself with those remedies which might have enabled him to bear pain; such as firmness of mind, a shame of doing anything base, exercise, and the habit of patience, precepts of courage, and a manly hardiness: but he says that he supports himself on the single recollection of past pleasures, as if any one, when the weather was so hot as that he was scarcely able to bear it, should comfort himself by recollecting that he was once in my country Arpinum, where he was surrounded on every side by cooling streams: for I do not apprehend how past pleasures can allay present evils. But when he says that a wise man is always happy, who would have no right to say so if he were consistent with himself, what may they not do, who allow nothing to be desirable, nothing to be looked on as good but what is honourable? Let, then, the Peripatetics and old Academics follow my example, and at length leave off muttering to themselves; and openly and with a clear voice let them be bold to say, that a happy life may not be inconsistent with the agonies of Phalaris's bull.

Additional citation relevantto smoothness / smooth motion:

From Tusculan Disputations at Part 5 section XXVI

Quote

A. What, when in torments and on the rack?

M. Do you imagine I am speaking of him as laid on roses and violets? Is it allowable even for Epicurus (who only puts on the appearance of being a philosopher, and who himself assumed that name for himself,) to say, (though as matters stand, I commend him for his saying,) that a wise man might at all times cry out, though he be burned, tortured, cut to pieces, “How little I regard it!” Shall this be said by one who defines all evil as pain, and measures every good by pleasure; who could ridicule whatever we call either honourable or base, and could declare of us that we were employed about words, and uttering mere empty sounds; and that nothing is to be regarded by us, but as it is perceived to be smooth or rough by the body?

Hyakinthos tells us:

This is to confirm my request for a new account.

Hey! I'm actually fairly new to Epicureanism but have studied other
philosophy before, especially Taoism. In fact I actually found Epicureanism
through studying Yang Zhu (a Taoist contemporary to Epicurus) and while I
do love Taoism.
The ethics and logic of Epicurus really spoke to me. I've never understood
why so many religions and philosophies shun the idea of pleasant living in
favor of some abstract concept, such as relationship with God, or mystic
nirvana.
So far even in the 2 months I've been studying Epicurus, I've found his
doctrines to actually be helping me improve my life and my outlook on life,
which is more than any religion has ever done.
Anyways, I'm also a huge history and mythology nerd. That's about it.

Thanks so much for having me, I'm really excited to be here, and really
excited to learn more!

Welcome Hyakinthos

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!

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

This is a new video which just hit Youtube today. Not sure how I came across it but I found it enjoyable to watch with many practical suggestions. I also don't detect many objectionable religious or philosophic overlays. He defines his outcome as "feeling a certain way."

In fact I read the video as emphasizing our inability to guarantee a result, but that it's still desirable to pursue rational steps toward a goal anyway. Given that we have lots of discussion about whether "being happy" makes sense as a goal, I think the discussion meshes nicely with Epicurus.

It's 30 minutes and even if you don't end up adopting any of the suggestions I think you'll find it time pleasantly spent.

Quote from TauPhi

Correct me if I'm wrong Cassius but I think it's widely accepted position that Hellenistic Philosophy was largely practical. And this applies not only to Epicureanism but to all main philosophical schools of that period. The main focus was how to live the Good Life and not how to think about the Good Life.

We are talking impressions here and I am sure everyone's will vary. What I would point to are the arguments that are contained in Tusculan Disputations and like works to the effect that "virtue alone" is sufficient for happiness. Part 5 of TD is entirely devoted to the topic, including the criticism of Aristotle as to the argument that anything can really be "good" other than virtue. This is not some quirk of Cicero either - I would argue that it is inherent in Stoicism and its popular interpretation that everything other than virtue is at best a preferred indifferent.

Now, no doubt general perceptions of philosophy are a moving target. Your comment gives me the opportunity to focus on what I see as the part of the target that needs focus here in the mid-2020's:

Epicurus is widely held in "intellectual" circles to hold that the goal of life is "absence of pain." Some (well represented here in this forum) tend to focus on physical aspects of that. However the "intellectual consensus" outside the forum in the words of prominent writers like Warren and Okeefe and others is that Epicurus was promoting a form of "therapy of desire" (the Nussbaum book title). They hold substantially that Epicurus was promoting the lowering of desires to a minimal possible level, which fits quite well into their argument that "absence of pain" does not include what people normally think of as pleasure at all. Their position is not that Epicurus considers mental / appreciation of life pleasures to be part of the Epicurean goal in addition to stimulative physical pleasures, they argue that stimulative mental and physical pleasures are not really a part of the Epicurean goal at all, except to the extent that they might occasionally be required (by eating and drinking for example) to obtain their non-active state of "absence of pain." Not everyone is going to agree with me, but that is exactly what I believe they mean when they stress "absence of pain" as the distinguishing feature of Epicurus. And I believe they especially mean that when they repeatedly use the untranslated Greek "ataraxia" instead of explaining what they really think Epicurus meant.

I agree with you that Epicurus himself would not have held that The main focus was how to live the Good Life and not how to think about the Good Life.

However, you can't understand what the good life is unless you can explain it in clear terms that lead to correct thought. What I accuse the majority of commentators other than Austin and DeWitt of doing is buying in to the Stoic argument that virtue is either all that matters or the most important thing that matters. In doing so they are implicitly or in many cases explicitly separating thought from action.

I want to make it a part of our conversations on the forum here in 2026 to make this point more explicit as it is leading in my view to some unnecessary confusion.

I think it is a shame that Emily Austin had to write this article, and I think Epicurus himself would be taken aback that something as fundamental as the desire to remain alive so as to experience more pleasure needs to be defended at all. I believe that explains the reaction some have that the article is confusing or poorly focused.

However I am convinced that the article definitely needed to be written, and more like it need to be written. In fact I read Austin's book as an enlargement on the point of the article, which is:

That Epicurean philosophy has been taken over by Stoicisers and synthesizers who do not primarily agree with Epicurus as to the absence of divine designers, as to the absence of life after death, and as to the focus on individual pleasure and pain (widely understood) as the correct ethical guide. These Stoicisers and synthesizers have rendered Epicurus' original focus almost unrecognizable,

That's why it's my number one goal to seek out and emphasize every argument from every source that identifies the core fundamentals of Epicurus and applies them to real life, and strips away all this incompatible overlay that I do not believe was there in the ancient world.

-----

As a closing note I'll say that I consider the Nussbaum book to be Exhibit #1 as an illustration of most of what is deeply wrong in modern analysis of Epicurus. I don't recommend anyone read it for assistance in understanding Epicurus at least until they have made themselves aware of the major issues, which is something DeWitt is especially good at explaining. After that it's easy to see why "Therapy of Desire" is one of the favored works of "modern Epicureanism."

Simply thinking about things and not taking any physical action is not going to address the problem of safety or many other problems of similar nature.

I am repeating that statement because I think much of the discussion in our meeting came from questions raised by those who think that this is such a common sense position that the article and its detailed arguments are unnecessary. Who could be so stupid as to ever advocate thinking alone without taking action to implement one's reasoning?

The reason I agree that the article was needed is that I perceive many articles about Epicurus by Academics in the last hundred years tend to go exactly in the direction of holding Epicurus to be trying to solve every problem by thought ALONE. That's the same attitude that praises Stoicism similar viewpoints which hold that the only thing that matters in life is virtue. For many of them, virtue is primarily a mental activity, so they argue either explicitly or implicitly that all we need to do is adjust our attitudes about things, and that real-world action is unnecessary.

There is good information about this in Dr Sedley's article "Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" as to the lack of participation by Stoics in taking action during their confrontation with Julius Caesar.

Quote from Kalosyni

According to the article by Austin, we need (and have a natural and necessary need) to feel safe from being violently killed by others and this can't be done through reasoning because it isn't caused by irrational ideas. It can only be done "politically" meaning through creating laws and ways to make society safe.

I think her point is that it cannot be done by reasoning ALONE. Every decision ultimately requires good judgment and that involves reasoning. As I see it the point she is making is that after we reason through the appropriate action to take, we must then take that action. Simply thinking about things and not taking any physical action is not going to address the problem of safety or many other problems of similar nature.

Yes we can resolve our fear of "being dead" by thinking about the problem based on observation of the way the world works, and in the case of something that is a wrong attitude you correct a wrong attitude by a correct attitude. But you don't keep yourself save from crime or invading armies by simply working on your "attitude" about them.

I think ultimately her article is about stressing the practical aspect of Epicurus that we are not just mental creatures, we are also bodily creatures, and living in the real world requires both thought AND action.

Happy Birthday to O2x Ohio! Learn more about O2x Ohio and say happy birthday on O2x Ohio's timeline: O2x Ohio

Welcome to Episode 314 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.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week after Section 26 of Part 5.

As we close in on Cicero's final arguments on virtue, we will focus on the very different view of virtue held by Epicurus. Two passages that reveal this difference are:

Quote

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.41—42 (Usener 67, 69)

[Epicurus On The End] 'For my part I cannot conceive of anything as the good if I remove the pleasures perceived by means of taste and sex and listening to music, and the pleasant motions felt by the eyes through beautiful sights, or any other pleasures which some sensation generates in a man as a whole. Certainly it is impossible to say that mental delight is the only good. For a delighted mind, as I understand it, consists in the expectation of all the things I just mentioned - to be of a nature able to acquire them without pain... ' A little later he adds: 'I have often asked men who were called wise what they could retain as the content of goods if they removed those things, unless they wanted to pour out empty words. I could learn nothing from them; and if they want to babble on about virtues and wisdoms, they will be speaking of nothing except the way in which those pleasures I mentioned are produced.' (Long & Sedley - Hellenistic Philosophers)

Quote

XII. The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

Suppose on the other hand a person crushed beneath the heaviest load of mental and of bodily anguish to which humanity is liable. Grant him no hope of ultimate relief in view also give him no pleasure either present or in prospect. Can one describe or imagine a more pitiable state? If then a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure is the ultimate good. In fact the mind possesses nothing in itself upon which it can rest as final. Every fear, every sorrow can be traced back to pain; there is no other thing besides pain which is of its own nature capable of causing either anxiety or distress.

Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.

Episode 313 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Diagnosing When Words Are Empty Of Meaning."

Happy birthday jcblackmon !

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

One additional thought to add to this is that I would recommend anyone interested in this issue to check out what Norman DeWitt has to say in emphasizing Epicurus' commitment to deductive reasoning.

While atoms are not abstractions, we don't have any direct ability to see or touch them directly, so the inferences we draw about them and how they operate are certainly abstract to a degree, and I think this is what the topic is largely about.

Are "abstractions" the same as "concepts?" If so, we certainly do conceptual reasoning all the time, and I think the question is whether those concepts are supported by evidence of the sensations, anticipations, and feelings (such as when we base our inferences about atoms on things we can see and touch and smell etc.)

This note will also serve as a reminder that after we complete Tusculan Disputations we're going to at least visit Philodemus' "On Signs/On Methods Of Inference" which is directly related to this topic.

One of our recent participants asked me about this topic and it well deserves a thread. I recall in our podcast years ago that I consciously pulled back from some earlier statements that were probably too sweeping in viewing abstractions negatively. My current view is that it's certainly not abstractions as a concept that are across-the-board suspect, but those abstractions which are formed without any connection to evidence from the senses, anticipations, and feelings. But we can probably do a lot better than that than clarifying a proper Epicurean attitude toward classes of abstractions.

Here's the question that was presented:

I'm interested in how we can determine whether a given abstraction is useful or not. For example, mathematics cannot be understood through the senses. It is abstract in a sense, but it is helpful in describing the world. I'm interested in the criteria for considering given abstractions valuable or not.

Anyone have thoughts to add to the conversation?

Yes I remember now thinking that the term "essentialism" probably applies more to Aristotle and "ideal forms" more to Plato. The concept appears almost the same with the main issue being "where" this metaphysical entity exists.

I suppose for the sake of exercise it would be good to try to state concisely what is Epicurus' answer to essentialism. No doubt the answer involves the way atoms move through void, but that's probably not complete without combining it with how those atoms interact with our senses, anticipations, and feelings. Without the full picture (and here I'm thinking about how Lucretius says that it's not by the rays of light themselves that we understand anything) I don't think we have a full picture of what it means to be "real" to us as humans.