We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Hard to overstate how critical this paragraph is:
As Sedley says, Epicurus rejects "reductionist atomism," in favor of the common sense perspective: "that there are truths at the microscopic level of elementary particles, and further very different truths at the phenomenal level; that the former must be capable of explaining the latter, but that neither level of description has a monopoly of truth.'
This is a particularly clear statement by Sedley of Epicurus' core argument:
Underlying this chapter is an issue that David Sedley covers extremely well in "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism:
It is in this article that Sedley says that the swerve of the atom was likely not deduced from its necessity in cosmos-building but from its use in combating determinism:
A famous text we will likely include tomorrow: Cassius to Brutus:
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
More enticement to read this book, from the introduction:
As aforementioned, chapters 4, 5 and 6 are more ‘informative’ and ‘doxographical’ in character, although, as will be seen, they provide historical and doctrinal data that help reinforce our view that the Epicureans were not indeed averse to political life. Chapter 4 faces a well-known subject: how Epicurus and Epicureanism were received already in antiquity. There we dispute the reading that three prominent ancient writers made of Epicurus and his followers. Our struggle is against the interpretive procedures employed by Cicero, Plutarch and Lactantius – who were very hostile to Epicureanism – while examining Epicurean views. Our purpose is to show how decisive these ancient writers were in forging the traditional negative image of Epicureanism, as well as how their version of Epicureanism contributed to demoting Epicurean political reflection. These writers share several characteristics that demonstrate clearly their destructive intentions as well as the harmfulness of their account of Epicurus: (i) the reconstruction of Epicurean views drawing from the absolutization of decontextualized or mutilated slogans, or through the omission of certain views; (ii) the consideration of Epicurean assertions based on the supposed ‘germs of danger’ they contain and their repercussions at the level of social practice; and (iii) the banalization of Epicurus’ hedonism. Indeed, these are the three interpretive resources most frequently used by Cicero, Plutarch and Lactantius when disparaging Epicureanism. At any rate, the important point in chapter 4 is that if our knowledge of Epicurean philosophy depended exclusively on people like Cicero or Plutarch, we would practically be unaware of the political component of the Epicurean study of nature, and of its contribution to the grounds of the Epicurean way of life.
Thank you Fernando looks like a great find!
Welcome to Episode 168 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 10, entitled "The New Freedom."
It's hard to avoid hearing the news of the world, and I think Epicurus would want us to pay as close attention as necessary to ensure our safety and happiness. Many of the principal doctrines are devoted to justice and other social issues that have major political ramifications.
However for the good of our work in the promotion of Epicurean philosophy in general, as opposed to our own personal application of it, we have a rule against postings that cross the admittedly difficult-to-discern line into "partisan politics."
We have had very little issue with needing to moderate posts in the pasts, and opening up political discussions from one side or another would invite responses that would likely result in polarization over issues that are not essential to our purpose here.
We have an intelligent group of moderators here who have devoted a lot of time and effort in the past into the community we are building here at EpicureanFriends, and we will have continue to review our rules as time goes by.
Until such time as any changes are announced in our policies, we ask that posters continue to abide by this forum rule as they have done in the past. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation!
For those who may miss it, DMTaylor posted this on her wall:
Hi, I'm Diane. Thanks for the welcome. I am not a scholar. I'm a retired RN, age 71 years spanning rejection of Calvinist Sunday school, early adulthood of psychedelicized youth, liberal education, strong work ethic, all the while knowing that pleasure was my principle. My philosophical reading and studies were in Eastern traditions. In a book club, I read Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve, How the World Became Modern, with a chapter on Lucretius; the first time I learned of Epicurus and his philosophy. Instant resonance! I'm here to learn more.
I read Emily Austin's article on Aeon website, which led me here.
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/user/516-dmtaylor/#wall/comment453
----
Welcome Diane!
Wecome @DMTaylor !
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.
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 believe I was thinking about these words from Diogenes Laertius, which had me thinking in terms of an emphasis on judging things by comparison with other things that are none, in contrast perhaps to judging things against abstract definitions:
For all thoughts have their origin in sensations by means of coincidence and analogy and similarity and combination, reasoning too contributing something. And the visions of the insane and those in dreams are true, for they cause movement, and that which does not exist cannot cause movement.
So what are the literal definitions of that word. I can't imagine Don will be satisfied unless we have three or four synonymous usages!
Ok I see the dictionary version....
Seems I remember something similar in the Torquatus discussion about analogies and extensions perhaps.
That's pretty much the definition of what happens to one's feelings when one tries to dull the pain in one's life, isn't it? When you minimize your pain, over time, your pleasure goes with it.
Gosh -- how many times have I heard people who are under treatment for various disorders complain that seeking relief through medication that dulls the mind or the senses is not worth it to them? I feel sure they don't mind the dulling of the pain, but when the dullness also makes it impossible to experience joy, that's the rub. I feel the same way many times when I take too many antihistamines!
This exchange points out how important it is to emphasize that Epicurus was not about dulling the senses or emotions in general (sort of like the Stoics get accused of, whether rightly or wrongly) but instead increasing the one while decreasing the other.
So that's an important point in regard to dulling the senses from an overall perspective.
For purposes of debating the finer point, though, I suspect a different set of people, who would not themselves endorse dulling *all* the senses, would nevertheless be attracted by the idea of trading "joy" for "tranquility" because they have a definition of tranquility that to them does not imply dullness. So that's a somewhat different point. I'd like *both,* but if forced to choose between the two as part of some logic game, I would be more inclined to choose "joy" at the expense of "tranqulity."
So articulating how joy and tranquility fit together is an important part of articulating the Epicurean perspective, which of course reminds me of that passage from Torquatus:
[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. [41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?
or from Cicero:
Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.
Almost FOUR years later and I still haven't read this article in detail (that I can recall). However today I see (as Academia sends it to me for the 100th time) that it does have a very interesting first page showing divisions of philosophers and commenting how Democritus an Epicurus are not at all always in the same camp, and how Sextus apparently places Epicurus in the same camp as the Stoics and Plato on this point.
Symmetresis" is the word I prefer to use in the place of "hedonic calculus."
That post cries out for explanation, Nate! 
I am sympathetic too that neither word is one I like to use - Hedonism is too foreign-sounding to me, and "calculus" is especially a problem - it rings of just the kind of logic or mathematics that Epicurus warned against. It also implies a Benthamite-sounding view that pleasure and pain are easily measured and quantified and can be evaluated by logical units.
I know not everyone agrees, but to me "Hedonic calculus" is a label that rings of just the same kind of stoic-perspective reinterpretation of Epicurus that can be such a misleading problem. I use it sometimes in certain settings but I don't think it is the best way to approach non specialists.
Yes I think what Pacatus is emphasizing and is in the back of my mind is that we have to consider that there are many kinds of pleasures and pains, and the substitution of (1) certain types of pleasures that are less significant to us but that bring no pain, in place of (2) other pleasures that are greater but that also entail pain, would not be a good bargain.
This is a very good conversation for focusing on how the many types of pleasures and pains are not interchangeable. You could ask something similar: Would a pill that brings you "tranquility" at the cost of never experiencing "joy" be worth it?
I would certainly answer that "No."
Given that this passage is in Homer we can be almost certain that Epicurus was asked and addressed exactly this question you are asking.
I read from the beginning of the chapter and it reminds me how little I know of Homer. But I can see that perhaps the drug in that case must be evaluated in full as one of forgetfulness of past events that bring sorrow in remembering them, and from that perspective I think it is a very difficult and hazardous question as to whether forgetfulness of things past would be a wise choice for present or future happiness.
Possibly this points up the hazard of the unmentioned details that are inherent in all pleasure-machine hypotheticals. We are human and through experiments in which we are essentially not human are not likely to be productive.
That's my first impression.
