Posts by Cassius

New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius  

  • Episode 331 - EATAQ 13 - Conclusion of Book One of Academic Questions - Not Yet Recorded

    Welcome to Episode 331 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 start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will focus on Section 12. and transition to Book Two, where we will begin with Section 7

    Our text will come from
    Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

    XII.

    And when he had spoken thus — You have, said I, O Varro, explained the principles both of the Old Academy and of the Stoics with brevity, but also with great clearness. But I think it to be true, as Antiochus, a great friend of mine, used to assert, that it is to be considered rather as a corrected edition of the Old Academy, than as any new sect.

    Then Varro replied — It is your part now, who revolt from the principles of the ancients, and who approve of the innovations which have been made by Arcesilas, to explain what that division of the two schools which he made was, and why he made it; so that we may see whether that revolt of his was justifiable.

    Then I replied — Arcesilas, as we understand, directed all his attacks against Zeno, not out of obstinacy or any desire of gaining the victory, as it appears to me, but by reason of the obscurity of those things which had brought Socrates to the confession of ignorance, and even before Socrates, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and nearly all the ancients; who asserted that nothing could be ascertained, or perceived, or known: that the senses of man were narrow, his mind feeble, the course of his life short, and that truth, as Democritus said, was sunk in the deep; that everything depended on opinions and established customs; that nothing was left to truth. They said in short, that everything was enveloped in darkness; therefore Arcesilas asserted that there was nothing which could be known, not even that very piece of knowledge which Socrates had left himself.

    Thus he thought that everything lay hid in secret, and that there was nothing which could be discerned or understood; for which reasons it was not right for any one to profess or affirm anything, or sanction anything by his assent, but men ought always to restrain their rashness and to keep it in check so as to guard it against every fall. For rashness would be very remarkable when anything unknown or false was approved of; and nothing could be more discreditable than for a man’s assent and approbation to precede his knowledge and perception of a fact. And he used to act consistently with these principles, so as to pass most of his days in arguing against every one’s opinion, in order that when equally important reasons were found for both sides of the same question, the judgment might more naturally be suspended, and prevented from giving assent to either.

    This they call the New Academy, which however appears to me to be the old one, if, at least, we reckon Plato as one of that Old Academy. For in his books nothing is affirmed positively, and many arguments are allowed on both sides of a question; everything is investigated, and nothing positive affirmed. Still let the school whose principles I have explained, be called the Old Academy, and this other the New; which, having continued to the time of Carneades, who was the fourth in succession after Arcesilas, continued in the same principles and system as Arcesilas. But Carneades, being a man ignorant of no part of philosophy, and, as I have learned from those who had been his pupils, and particularly from Zeno the Epicurean, who, though he greatly differed from him in opinion, still admired him above all other men, was also a person of incredible abilities…

    The rest of this Book is lost.

  • Episode 330 - EATAQ 12 - In Contrast With Epicurus, The Stoics Opt For Virtue At Any Cost And Make Controversial Claims About The Senses

    In this episode we begin a general overview comparison of Epicurean vs Stoic views of obtaining knowledge. Our theme will revolve around the different views and uses of the senses between the two schools, with the Stoics asserting that there are some sensations that are so strong that they essentially reveal self-evident truth. We're going to be looking for help from the usual sources (Long & Sedley, etc) to analyze this material as we go forward to finish Book One next week and dive deeper into the Stoic assertions beginning around Section Seven of Book Two. in the meantime, here is a Claude summary of the stituation which seems likely to provide the outline we are looking for:

    Sedley's Work on Epicurean Canonics vs. Stoic Epistemology

    Sedley has addressed this comparison across several publications rather than in a single dedicated article. The most directly relevant pieces are:

    "Epicurus' theological innatism" (2011), in Jeffrey Fish and Kirk R. Sanders (eds.), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, Cambridge University Press, pp. 29--52. This is where Sedley engages most directly with the concept of prolepsis and compares the Epicurean and Stoic treatments of it. You can find bibliographic confirmation of this piece on his publications page at:

    Articles and chapters - David Sedley

    "Zeno's definition of phantasia kataleptike" -- listed on the same publications page, in Scaltsas and Mason (eds.), The Philosophy of Zeno (2002). This addresses the Stoic side of the comparison directly.

    The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 353--411 -- Sedley contributed the epistemology chapter, which covers both schools comparatively and remains the standard scholarly treatment.

    Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1987) -- Chapter 17 covers Epicurean epistemology and Chapter 40 covers Stoic epistemology including the cataleptic impression. The parallel structure is deliberate and the commentary volumes (Vol. 2) make the comparisons explicit.

    The Core Comparison: Prolepsis vs. Cataleptic Impression

    Here is the substantive picture drawn from Sedley and the related scholarship:

    The Epicurean prolepsis (preconception) is a general concept formed by the accumulation of repeated sense-experiences of the same kind of thing. It is entirely empirical in origin -- built up from sensation, not innate, not implanted by reason or God. When you have seen enough humans to recognize an unfamiliar one as human, you have a prolepsis of "human being." Epicurus and Zeno had different epistemological agendas: the core of Zeno's epistemology was the phantasia kataleptike, while prolepsis was at the centre of Epicurus' epistemology. For Epicurus, prolepsis is one of the three criteria of truth alongside sensation and feeling -- and crucially, it derives its authority entirely from sensation rather than operating independently of it.

    The Stoic phantasia kataleptike (cataleptic or cognitive impression) is a very different animal. The main Stoic epistemological theorist was Zeno of Citium, who developed his ideas in response to a series of challenges from the Academic sceptic Arcesilaus. His key term is katalepsis -- "apprehension" or "cognition" -- the infallible grasping of some truth, usually by use of the senses. The key distinguishing feature is the Stoic claim that certain impressions carry their own mark of truth -- they are so vivid and so clear that they cannot be wrong. Katalepsis is infallible, in that it successfully applies a simple guaranteed cognitive mechanism shared by virtually all human beings: the truth stares you in the face, and you assent to it without the slightest possibility of being wrong.

    The Epicurean objection to this is direct: the claim that certain impressions are self-certifying -- that their vividness alone guarantees their truth -- is exactly the kind of philosophical overreach that the Canon rules out. For Epicurus, no impression certifies itself. Every impression must be tested against other observations. Vividness is not a truth-criterion.

    The question of innatism is where the comparison gets particularly interesting for Sedley. Chrysippus obviously borrowed prolepsis from the Epicureans, while, in the second generation of Hellenistic philosophers, Cleanthes had elaborated his own views on the ennoia of the gods. How did the two schools conceive prolepsis? What do they have in common and how and to which extent do they differ or influence each other? WorldCat Sedley's 2011 essay on theological innatism examines the specific case of the concept of the gods: Epicurus says that the prolepsis of the gods -- the concept of beings who are blessed and immortal -- is universal among humans, but he grounds it empirically (through dreams, through analogical reasoning from human happiness enlarged). The Stoics pushed prolepsis in a more rationalist direction, treating certain preconceptions as implanted by nature or reason in a way that gives them a status closer to innate ideas. Sedley argues this is a significant departure from the Epicurean framework.

    The practical upshot Sedley draws out -- most clearly in the Long and Sedley volumes -- is that the two schools represent opposite strategies for securing human knowledge against skepticism. The Stoics found their security in the self-certifying character of the cataleptic impression: when reality strikes you with sufficient force and clarity, you cannot be wrong. The Epicureans found their security in the cumulative reliability of sensation itself: not any single vivid impression, but the consistent testimony of the senses across repeated observations, which no argument can overturn without also overturning the foundation of all knowledge.

    In epistemology, all Stoics agreed that there is a kind of infallible grasp which they call the cognitive or cataleptic impression. Although there were many variations on how that could best be defended against skeptical attacks, it remained an article of faith. The Epicureans take the absolutely opposite position that the world is an unorganized, or self-organizing but irrationally structured, collection of atoms, and any values are ones which have come out of it in an unplanned way.

    The best single freely accessible starting point for the comparison is the podcast interview with Peter Adamson at the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, where Sedley discusses exactly this contrast in plain language: https://historyofphilosophy.net/stoics-sedley. The Long and Sedley Hellenistic Philosophers volumes are the indispensable scholarly reference and are widely held in university libraries.

  • Plato's Ladder of Beauty from his Symposium

    What does Plato find admirable in Beauty if not the pleasure it brings?

  • Epicurean Mockery of Opposing Philosophers and Schools

    I am bumping this old thread because in tonight's Zoom meeting we started going through this list as part of reviewing Bryan's Usener material. I personally had not focused on the fact that there is a list in both Diogenes Laertius and in Plutarch, and that to get full picture there are several sources that have to be brought together. Bryan's work here is valuable because beyond the colorful nature of the descriptions we get insight into the particular aspects of other philosophies that he found to be worth criticizing.

  • Plato's Ladder of Beauty from his Symposium

    I know I am not familiar with this aspect of Plato but it has obvious implications to many aspects of Epicurus, so I am starting my review with this below from Grok. Aside from contrasting it with Epicurus saying that he would spit upon the beautiful if it does not bring pleasure, this ladder analogy apparently illustrates aspects of the Ideal Form theory.

    So this is apparently what Jefferson was criticizing in his letter to Peter Carr (see underlined section):

    Quote

    – Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 This letter is famous for Jefferon’s advice to his nephew on religion, but it also contains much of interest regarding philosophy. As discussed elsewhere on this site, Epicurus held that Nature endows men with the capacity to discern truth through three faculties: (1) the senses, (2) the pain/pleasure mechanism, and (3) the “Anticipations.” Epicurus’ works describing the third faculty in detail are lost, but here we see Jefferson making a point that is similar to the description of Epicurus’ theory of Anticipations as reconstructed by Norman DeWitt. Jefferson wrote: “He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.”


  • Welcome Alexandriaplatz!

    Welcome Alexandriaplatz!

    This new participant tell us:

    I am a current graduate student working in ancient epistemology. I've been interested in Epicurus for about a year now mostly focussing on his relationship to Democritus, although more recently my work has focussed on textual transmission. Looking forward to many discussions on eidola theories!

  • Welcome Alexandriaplatz!

    Welcome alexandriaplatz !

    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!

    4258-pasted-from-clipboard-png

    4257-pasted-from-clipboard-png


  • Nietzsche Agreeing With Epicurus That The Senses Do Not Lie

    From Twilight of the Idols:

    2 With the highest respect, I except the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic folk rejected the testimony of the senses because they showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because they showed things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed--they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie.
        
    3 And what magnificent instruments of observation we possess in our senses! This nose, for example, of which no philosopher has yet spoken with reverence and gratitude, is actually the most delicate instrument so far at our disposal: it is able to detect minimal differences of motion which even a spectroscope cannot detect. Today we possess science precisely to the extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses--to the extent to which we sharpen them further, arm them, and have learned to think them through. The rest is miscarriage and not-yet-science--in other words, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology--or formal science, a doctrine of signs, such as logic and that applied logic which is called mathematics. In them reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem--no more than the question of the value of such a sign-convention as logic.

  • Aristarchus calculation of the "size" of the sun

    The full video may explain this but if someone doesn't want to watch that Wikipedia says that Aristarchus' calculations led him to conclude that the sun was 18-20 times larger than the moon. It's not clear to me whether he had a size for the moon or whether he stopped at the relative size.

    Quote

    Aristarchus also reasoned that as the angular size of the Sun and the Moon were the same, but the distance to the Sun was between 18 and 20 times further than the Moon, the Sun must therefore be 18–20 times larger.

  • Welcome ReiWolfWoman!

    I think that's a very good question and the answer isn't obvious at all.

    To me, some of what you're commentin on is a variation of the "psychological hedonism" argument which goes - everyone does what they think brings them pleasure, even pursuing virtue as a stoic, so in essence we're all hedonists and we should just all go have a beer because everyone acts for what they think is their own pleasure.

    I personally don't like to argue that way and don't think it's a very attractive or persuasive position to take, but we have differing opinions about it here on the forum. If I recall correctly it appears in the "Living for Pleasure" book too.

    To the extent that's what Socrates is talking about, he's seeing through that argument and saying that you shouldn't pursue virtue for the sake of pleasure, because virtue is itself its own reward and any consideration of pleasure tarnishes virtue.

    As to this specifically

    Quote from ReiWolfWoman

    The philosopher’s virtue has to do with the heart and mind, with transcending and mastering fear and desire”

    I think that's an accurate statement of the true stoic virtue-based position. They do in fact wish to suppress emotion and desire, and of course I think Epicurus would say to that view that it is against nature and not a good idea to do at all. But the stoics are being consistent - they don't want anything to do with pleasure, even as a reward for being virtuous.

    Those are preliminary comments and you may be thinking in a different direction, but part of your comment does remind me of those issues.

    Quote from ReiWolfWoman

    Or perhaps an argument to be made that Epicurus’s own philosophy does value a higher good in its definition of pleasure, primacy of friendship and his own time spent in self-awareness and philosophical analysis?

    Here i think your question and the answer is pretty clear. Epicurus values nothing higher thatn "pleasure," but the key to the analysis is that he has a very wide definition of what pleasure means, to inciude anything whatsoever that we find desirable. So the words that people like to use such as nobility and meaningfulness all come within the term "pleasure." If we feel that something is desirable in body or mind then we do so because it brings us the feeling of pleasure.

  • What would Epicurus have thought of going to the moon?

    Quote from Eikadistes

    This is one of the primary differences in the flavors of ancient Epicurean Philosophy versus contemporary Utilitarianism, both being hedonistic, but with different emphases on the happiness of an association of friends versus the collective happiness of the masses

    And I would not hesitate to say that this is both (1) an example of regression in philosophy over 2000 years and (2) why I would be cautious about endorsing Bentham or applying the label of "hedonism" to Epicurus overbroadly. Epicurus was firm that there is no supernatural basis for considering everyone the equivalent of a brother and sister, or reason to ignore that in reality many people hate each other. No one wins any points in heaven or anywhere else for getting themselves killed in the name of abstract notions of the brotherhood of all men. Rather, just as almost happened to the Epicurean in Lucian's Alexander story, it is very easy to get oneself killed unnecessarily if you ignore the realities of your context. In the meantime while we work for better contexts it pays to pay attention to the reality of how far your circle of friends really extends.

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

Here is a list of suggested search strategies:

  • Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
  • Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
  • Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
  • Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
  • Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.