Posts by Cassius

Seems appropriate on the topic that it's a constant struggle -

Lucretius 6 / 43 (Munro)

[I have willed at the same time] to explain all the other things which mortals observe to go on upon earth and in heaven, when often they are in anxious suspense of mind, and which abase their souls with fear of the gods and weigh and press them down to earth, because ignorance of the causes constrains them to submit things to the empire of the gods and to make over to them the kingdom. For they who have been rightly taught that the gods lead a life without care, if nevertheless they wonder on what plan all things can be carried on, above all in regard to those things which are seen overhead in the ethereal borders, are borne back again into their old religious scruples and take unto themselves hard taskmasters, whom they poor wretches believe to be almighty, not knowing what can, what cannot be, in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep set boundary mark; and therefore they are led all the farther astray by blind reason.

[68] Now unless you drive from your mind with loathing all these things, and banish far from you all belief in things degrading to the gods and inconsistent with their peace, then often will the holy deities of the gods, having their majesty lessened by you, do you hurt; not that the supreme power of the gods can be so outraged that in their wrath they shall resolve to exact sharp vengeance, but because you will fancy to yourself that they, though they enjoy quiet and calm peace, do roll great billows of wrath; nor will you approach the sanctuaries of the gods with a calm breast, nor will you be able with tranquil peace of mind to take in those idols which are carried from their holy body into the minds of men as heralds of their divine form. And what kind of life follows after this, may be conceived.

Another recent link - same topic --

Lava letters: Inside the race to virtually unwrap 2,000-year-old papyri

A $1 mn global challenge is inviting creators in various fields to help digitally unroll scrolls charred in the Mt Vesuvius eruption. On the cards: New views…

www.msn.com

The passage immediately before:

Quote

Every disturbance and unprofitable desire is removed by the love of true philosophy. Vain is the word of that philosopher who can ease no mortal trouble. As there is no profit in the physician's art unless it cure the diseases of the body, so there is none in philosophy, unless it expel the |50 troubles of the soul. These and other like commands are laid on us by the law of our nature.

Would Epicurus go so far as to say that?

Clearly, before the passages right in the section starting at 29, there is a LOT of Platonist / religionist inspiration that is incompatible with Epicurus, so you have to wonder even where the lines are closest to Epicurus whether there are other influences on the wording chosen.

Not that what Frances Wright thinks is determinative of anything, but in this quote below, what position is she taking as to (1) "inability to help our belief" and (2) "inability to help our actions"?

Is she saying that we cannot choose to disbelieve what our senses reveal to us, but we can choose to decide how we act upon what the senses reveal? Is she then saying that pleasure and pain are given to us by nature and cannot be second-guessed, but that we can choose to act on other than pleasure and pain? Would she then be disagreeing with the view that "everyone is a psychological hedonist?"

The "with reason" causes me to say that, but then as she continues on it does not seem like she is following up with a clear position. Seems to me that this is a similar question as to what LittleRocker is discussing.

Quote from Frances Wright / A Few Days In Athens

“Does the human mind possess the power to believe or disbelieve, at pleasure, any truths whatsoever?”

“I am not prepared to answer: but I think it does, since it possesses always the power of investigation.”

“But, possibly, not the will to exercise the power. Take care lest I beat you with your own weapons. I thought this very investigation appeared to you a crime.”

“Your logic is too subtle,” said the youth, “for my inexperience.”

“Say rather, my reasoning too close. Did I bear you down with sounding words and weighty authorities, and confound your understanding with hair-drawn distinctions, you would be right to retreat from the battery.”

“I have nothing to object to the fairness of your deductions,” said Theon, “But would not the doctrine be dangerous that should establish our inability to help our belief; and might we not stretch the principle, until we asserted our inability to help our actions?”

“We might, and with reason. But we will not now traverse the ethical pons asinorum of necessity — the most simple and evident of moral truths, and the most darkened, tortured, and belabored by moral teachers. You inquire if the doctrine we have essayed to establish, be not dangerous. I reply — not, if it be true. Nothing is so dangerous as error, — nothing so safe as truth. A dangerous truth would be a contradiction in terms, and an anomaly in things.”

So my preliminary answer to the question in the thread title would be:

How would you respond to an existentialist who says

1 - "You Epicureans have chosen pleasure as your meaning but it's not universal"

Yes, I can agree that not everyone chooses to hold pleasure to be the meaning of life.

2 - Do Epicureans hold that pleasure is the universal Good?

That requires being clear about what "universal good" is supposed to mean. Epicurus held that Nature has given us only pleasure and pain for determination of what to choose and to avoid. If you accept "universal good" to mean "Nature's directive to all living things" then yes "pleasure" fits that bill. If you want to suggest that there is some other definition of "good" other than the directive Nature gives to all living things, then you've got an entirely different ballgame of persuading that your definitions of "good" and "universal good" are correct.

Edit: In my answer I am attempting to parrot Torquatus, as I am becoming more and more persuaded that the parts Cicero gave to Torquatus to say are probably among the most highly developed statements of Epicurean philosophy that exist. I would see whatever Cicero's source was as along the same lines as Lucretius, representing 200 years more work since the time of Epicurus to refine these formulations:

[30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet, no one of which facts are we bound to support by elaborate arguments; it is enough merely to draw attention to the fact; and there is a difference between proof and formal argument on the one hand and a slight hint and direction of the attention on the other; the one process reveals to us mysteries and things under a veil, so to speak; the other enables us to pronounce upon patent and evident facts. Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?

Quote from Little Rocker

We just don't have the freedom to choose to act on something other than what we consider most pleasant.

That reminds me of this from Chapter 14 of A Few Days In Athens:

Quote from Frances Wright / A Few Days In Athens

“Does the human mind possess the power to believe or disbelieve, at pleasure, any truths whatsoever?”

“I am not prepared to answer: but I think it does, since it possesses always the power of investigation.”

“But, possibly, not the will to exercise the power. Take care lest I beat you with your own weapons. I thought this very investigation appeared to you a crime.”

“Your logic is too subtle,” said the youth, “for my inexperience.”

“Say rather, my reasoning too close. Did I bear you down with sounding words and weighty authorities, and confound your understanding with hair-drawn distinctions, you would be right to retreat from the battery.”

“I have nothing to object to the fairness of your deductions,” said Theon, “But would not the doctrine be dangerous that should establish our inability to help our belief; and might we not stretch the principle, until we asserted our inability to help our actions?”

“We might, and with reason. But we will not now traverse the ethical pons asinorum of necessity — the most simple and evident of moral truths, and the most darkened, tortured, and belabored by moral teachers. You inquire if the doctrine we have essayed to establish, be not dangerous. I reply — not, if it be true. Nothing is so dangerous as error, — nothing so safe as truth. A dangerous truth would be a contradiction in terms, and an anomaly in things.”

“But what is a truth?” said Theon.

“It is pertinently asked. A truth I consider to be an ascertained fact; which truth would be changed into an error, the moment the fact, on which it rested, was disproved.”

“I see, then, no fixed basis for truth.”

“It surely has the most fixed of all — the nature of things. And it is only an imperfect insight into that nature, which occasions all our erroneous conclusions, whether in physics or morals.”

Display More

I have to say my mind is not settled on this. I think I agree with the point that we do not have the freedom to second-guess the senses, and to find for example that sugar is not "sweet" or snow "white" just by trying to do so by willpower.

But is it correct to say that we don't have the freedom to "act" on anything other than what we consider is most pleasant?

My preliminary thought is that the feelings of pleasure and pain are like the senses, and we can't by thinking overrule the judgment of pleasure and pain. But do we not have the freedom to "act" differently than what our feelings tell us? Is that not why we sometimes choose pain rather than pleasure?

At this point, to repeat, I don't have a firm position on this, and I am irritated at Frances Wright that in my reading she is bringing up the question without answering it!

Quote from Don

I would say my decision making process has definitely changed.

And I can see all sorts of other aspects that could change as well. Once you are really confident that you don't have to face eternal punishment in hell for violating the dominant orthodoxies, I can see that changing a person pretty profoundly.

Especially the implications of a view like this:

[125] For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living.

Quote from Don

There seem to be quite a few.

This is reminding me of something else. I can't believe even the staunchest ancient Epicurean really thought that **everything** Epicurus said was blindingly unique. We all know much of what Epicurus taught he learned from starts others had made, such as Democritus. So it's only natural that smart people do regularly hit on similar thoughts. The uniqueness of Epicurus comes through in certain particular ways, and it's probably most helpful for us to think about those particular ways and the reasons for them. That's the obvious way to sniff out when someone who's talking - for example - about "virtue" is speaking as an Epicurean or Stoic or whatever. Surely Usener had a lot of experience and ought to have been good at it, but we (or at least I) don't know Usener's own views. This is where we regularly think that DeWitt goes to far in identifying parallels to Christianity, but starting out looking for parallels to Stoicism or Plato is going to create the same issue.

Elli this question may need your attention too, when you get time!

Well I did not intend to start another text deep dive, and we can give credit to EricR for this. But this does indeed call for caution as to Usener. I've never really known anything about Usener himself or his opinions about Epicurus, so maybe we need to look into his own views as an indicator of his reliability as well.

I seem to remember that there are other issues in that letter to Marcella as well that have caused me to be cautious, so maybe this thread will be productive to review both Usener and the letter.

Edit; A quick scan back over the link in my first post leads me toward the view that Porphyry was a strict Neo-Platonist (as the title of the article indicates). I can't recall now what we've said about this letter in the past but I could see coming to the conclusion that any resemblance to Epicurus is coincidental at best.

Welcome tent dweller -

Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "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!

I was talking to EricR this morning and trying to remember the source of this quote. In tracking it down it seems to come from Porphyry's letter to Marcella -- but do we really know this is attributable to Epicurus? Usener seems to think so, but why? Anyone recall?

U221

Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 31, [p. 209, 23 Nauck]: Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.

Porphyry, Letter to his wife Marcella.  London: Priory Press (1910)

Lowri834 for what it is worth, the system is generating messages that update emails to you are bouncing because of your spam filter. Probably no harm done but wanted you to know. If you'd like to see the full message we are getting from the spam rejection, just send me a message here on the forum and I will send it to you privately.

Glad to have you SabinoAz!

Welcome to Episode 178 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy." This week we begin our discussion of Chapter 13, entitled "The True Piety."

Chapter XIII - The True Piety

• Knowledge of the Gods
• The Proper Attitude Or Diathesis
• Existence of the Gods
• The Form of the Gods
• Gradation In Godhead
• Incorruptibility And Virtue
• Isonomy And the Gods
• The Life of the Gods
• Communion And Fellowship
• Prophecy And Prayer

Welcome SabinoAz

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "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!

Thanks for responding Joe! 35 years is a long time.

I am still thinking through the implications, but at this point it seems absolutely clear to me that if you tell me:

"Titus is alive and pain-free."

The proper Epicurean response, without knowing anything else whatsoever about what Titus is doing, thinking, or feeling, is to take those words as "saying what they mean and meaning what they say" and conclude:

"Titus is in a state of pleasure, and in that the fullest possible.

The fact that you can make that deduction with total confidence and without reservation has virtually nothing to do with neurology or psychology or biology, but is essentially a reasoned deduction you draw from the understanding and definitions (informed by neurology and psychology and biology and all sorts of science) that you have applied to the words "pleasure," "pain," and "alive."

More thoughts:

Quote from Godfrey

To my understanding, there is a case to be made that the fundamental description of Epicurus’ ethics is “the faculty of pleasure and pain is the guide to life” and is a much better description than “pleasure is the goal (or the greatest good)”.

Why is it a much better description?

I would say something like: "It is better because it places the focus on the normal healthy pain-free operation of the organism, which involves both pleasure and pain. Until a person re-orients his thinking to consider any kind of pain-free life to be pleasurable (rather than just active stimulations from the "outside"), a normal person is going to think that there are three "states" (pleasure, neutral, pain) and he is going to think that it is appropriate to reserve the word "pleasure" for times of external stimulation. This leaves large floating blocks of time in which neither pleasure nor pain are presumed to be relevant.

Once you accept the view that life is pleasurable whenever you are not experiencing pain, **and no matter what you are doing** you see that "pleasure" is the appropriate term for the state you wish to be in all the time, and you see that it is very fair to use "removal of pain" and "pursuit of pleasure" interchangeably.

This is the way you establish the overall correct perspective that "Pleasure" is the correct mental orientation to have toward life, and you can therefore say that you do everything for the sake of pleasure, rather than for the sake of "The God" or for the sake of "Virtue." This provides a simple and coherent worldview that wins out over the logical attacks of Plato et al against the use of "Pleasure" as the watchword of life. "Pleasure" is ice cream and cotton candy and rest and relaxation (and everything that is not painful) but for philosophic discussion purposes it is a placeholder "Flag" that we wave in response to "Rationality" or "Virtue" or "Piety."

This orientation endorses the view that life can be lived "full measure," and it says absolutely nothing that would lead one to believe that the best life is the most minimal or the most ascetic or best achieved by emptying your mind of thought or your body of sensation.

Yes that is a very good letter and we need to highlight it here. I thought we already had a thread but if not we will set one up