Posts by Cassius

looks like it is here:

HOMER, ODYSSEY BOOK 4 - Theoi Classical Texts Library

I had never heard of that passage. Is there any more context or discussion about it?

March 29, 2023

So, the one who exhorts, on the one hand, for the one who is young to live nobly; and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed but also because the practice of living well, nobly, and beautifully and the practice of dying well, nobly, and beautifully are the same. But far worse is the one who says, on the one hand, it is well not to be born; or, on the other hand, "failing this, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible." On the one hand, if what they say is persuasive, how does one not depart from life? For this is readily at hand, if indeed one was to resolve oneself steadfastly to this. If, on the other hand, this is in jest, one is foolish for making fun of things which do not admit of this. Epicurus to Menoeceus Translation by Don Boozer.

Seems to me you're right. In the distant past I read some into the Essenes in regard to the Dead Sea scrolls and so forth. I don't recall whether the Essenes were into life after death or against it (was that the Sadducees?) but that would seem to be another potential point of crossover influence.

And of course I personally really don't buy into the argument that the Epicureans were significantly into "monastic" style living, so I don't agree with DeWitt's point for that reason too. I certainly don't see evidence of that in the Romans, in part because I don't see libraries as necessarily associated with monastic lifestyle, and I think if the Roman Epicureans were into that we'd see more evidence of it from Cicero or Atticus or Lucretius or any number of sources. I like to surround myself to the extent possible with friends, but that's just common sense, and doesn't make me dedicated to a monastic lifestyle.

Good point. Sometimes I think what is going on is clearly manipulation from the outside, and that has to be seen through to get past it and defeat it.

But other times we do it to ourselves based on "mood" or "frame of mind" or "attitude" or something like that.

And concern about attitude reminds me of this point:

And in regard to habit, this Vatican Saying:

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

Wecome @Sheldon !

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!

Episode 167 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we complete Chapter 9 of the DeWitt Book with a discussion of issues involving motion.

Quote from Joshua

what we emphasize in life colors our perception of what life amounts to while we live it.

That's a good one joshua, and reminds me of the "glass half full or half empty' analogy, but I can't think of a good dramatization of that one.

Quote from Don

For the record, I agree.

And that's a huge point. For the record also, I would like to think that David Sedley agrees too, but I am sorry that he and a significant number of other commentators seem to think that Epicurus would not and may statements implying or stating otherwise.

That's probably a litmus test by which I would personally evaluate whether I wanted someone as my life coach. If the advisor ultimately sees life as worth living due to the pleasure we can gain from it, then all the details about how to proceed are reconcilable. If they ultimately equivocate (or even state explicitly that escape from pain is their number one goal), then I would at least say that they aren't a very good teacher of Epicurus.

Quote from Don

Epicurus could say each person chooses their own pleasure, but he was not above saying that this or that choice would not end well and guiding someone to make a "better" choice.

I agree with that - it's kind of like the comments Emily Austin makes about the differences in being a philosopher vs a "life coach." Life coaches better have a philosophy or they won't be making much sense with their advice. But even the best life coaches are dependent on what their students really want to do. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink." No matter how much we think that the choice for the other person is "better," it's ultimately up to them what they choose to do.

And it's also interesting to think that this relates to the other issue that Epicurus was so strong on - determinism. There would be nothing so dispiriting and discouraging than to give in to the idea that we *don't* have the choice about what to do with our lives.

But even as we debate this practical angle, the ultimate philosophical point remains and I think we all agree on it -- that in the end life is a balance between pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, but while we sometimes choose pain in order to pursue pleasure, we never set "avoiding pain" as the primary overriding purpose of life.

So that's the reason that this thread is important: as a philosophic matter the starting point is the overall focus of life, and what gives it whatever enjoyment and meaning it has, is "pleasure" and not "avoiding pain."

Yep we will have to disagree on that. I would say that Epicurus as a philosopher gives us the analysis and the formula but not a mandate for the application. It's all a matter of what happens to us if we choose one course versus another, and there is no magic formula by which we can say that one persons view of pleasure is absolutely preferable over another person's view of pleasure. We're all entitled to our own choices, and we reap the rewards or pay the price accordingly.

Edit: The real issue to me would revolve around the details of Evel Knievel which takes us into the issue of how hard it is (and how without standing we are) to judge the decisions of other people. We can put ourselves in their position mentally, and we can talk about general rules of how to analyze things, but to me it is a bright line that I think we should hesitate to cross to pass sweeping judgments since we are not in the shoes of the people involved. If it were easy, or if there were any "absolute" standard, by which we could do that, then we'd have another situation, but I don't think life works like that, and I suspect that is why Epicurus himself did not generally (or ever?) make sweeping statements about precise things to do and not to do.

We can conceptually say "Follow Pleasure" and "Avoid Pain" but it seems to me that the precise steps to attain that are going to be contextual, and I don't see how it can be any other way in a universe structured without central authority or absolute moral rules.

I did not realize that Evel Knievelsurvived all his jumps and lived to die of diabetes and pulmonary fibrosis at age 69. So he apparently was prudently planning his jumps and thought it to be worthwhile and did not have a death wish at all.

Now I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon of philosophy because his statements apparently tend toward a view that people will interpret as Stoic:

But just as many people observe, including I think Emily Austin in her articles on Stoicism, someone who thinks that "keeping your word" is a prime value is virtually indistinguishable in reality from "I get great pleasure from knowing that I keep my word."

So I could see Evel Knievel as entirely Epicurean.

Especially since he apparently started framing things in terms of Christianity only at the end of his life:

Not all of us are going to rank the pleasures of risk and danger as highly as Knievel did, but since there is no absolute standard of how you *should* rank your pleasures, I would say Epicurus would have no issue with Knievel's choices, at least on an abstract level.

Quote from Kalosyni

And that means that Epicureans are not going to be daredevils like Evel Knievel. So the sensory pleasure of flying through the air and the "vain" desire to be able to say you successfully jumped a wide ravine will be set aside, and we would choose to pursue wiser pleasures.

I think the example of Evel Knievel is a good one but the conclusion that "Epicureans are not going to be daredevils like Evel Knievel is much too broad. We'd have to drill down into Evel Knievel and see if he had a death wish, or whether he rationally thought that he could make his jumps and succeed, because if he did, then he calculated that the pleasure he gained from the experience was worth the risk, and in my view that is *exactly* the correct calculus under the Epicurean scheme.

We also have the example of our departed friend whose picture we feature on the front page of the forum, who died in an ultralight crash. No doubt he thought that the pleasure he gained from ultralight flying was worth the risk, and so that would similarly be a choice very compatible with Epicureanism.

It's in fact the "I'll never take any risk that might bring pain" attitude that I think is so damaging and in fact UN-Epicurean.

More on the story of Amrinder Singh:

Due to a recent message of a statement by David Sedley as to "The primary goal should be the absence of pain" I am wondering if we can come up with some imagery that would help crystallize this issue. Since for me as a boomer all things resolve to scenes from Star Trek the Original Series, one of the first images that comes to mind is the constant tension between Captain Kirk demanding "more power" from the engines while Engineer Scott would say "it's going to blow" unless you let off.

That example would lead me to compare Kirk's demand for "power" (pleasure) to Scot's warning of impending disaster (pain). BOTH are required for proper operation of the starship, but I would contend that never in a million years would a deep-thinking person reverse the roles and place Scott in charge of the operation of the starship, except in extreme circumstances. The original nature and goal of the starship entails using the engines and the power that is available to them to further the mission, which inherently involves danger and difficulties, which the ship is constructed and improved to overcome to the best of its ability.

I am sure that others ( Eikadistes ? ) have better ideas for illustrating this, but it seems to me that there can never be too many ways of arguing and showing that the undisturbed pursuit of pleasure is ultimately why we seek to avoid pain, not the other way around.

And yet one of the primary living authorities on Epicurus can read all the texts available and still conclude that in the end and as his ultimate conclusion, Epicurus held "the primary goal should be the absence of pain."

Here's one clip illustrating how we subordinate risk and danger and sometimes choose pain in the pursuit of pleasure/avoidance of worst pain, but i want one where Scot says that the engines are going to blow:

MorePower!

scotty08.mp3

scotty12.mp3

https://www.barbneal.com/wp-content/uploads/scotty08.mp3

https://www.barbneal.com/wp-content/uploads/scotty12.mp3

Yes and I want to start another thread on "imagery" for this question of Sedley's statement in that article: "The primary goal should [instead] be the minimization of pain."

I have an idea I want to ask Eikadistes (because i know he is good with memes to help with

Thread here:

Post

Imagery On The Interplay Between "Pursue Pleasure" and 'Avoid Pain"

Due to a recent message of a statement by David Sedley as to "The primary goal should be the absence of pain" I am wondering if we can come up with some imagery that would help crystallize this issue. Since for me as a boomer all things resolve to scenes from Star Trek the Original Series, one of the first images that comes to mind is the constant tension between Captain Kirk demanding "more power" from the engines while Engineer Scott would say "it's going to blow" unless you let off.

That…

Cassius

March 28, 2023 at 9:09 AM

That Sedley article I just linked looks like a very good basic text on Epicurus:

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epicureanism/v-1

However in pointing to it I see that Sedley includes a stark version of the conclusion that I think is most damaging to all who don't dig deeper - he carries the modern kinetic/katastematic interpretation trend to its logical conclusion - that "THE PRIMARY AIM SHOULD BE THE MINIMIZATION OF PAIN."

He writes that statement even though he started the same paragraph by writing "IN ETHICS, PLEASURE IS THE ONE GOOD AND OUR INNATELY SOUGHT GOAL, TO WHICH ALL OTHER VALUES ARE SUBORDINATED."

This is very unfortunate terminology. The first underlined sentence is explicitly stated in Epicurus and is beyond doubt Epicurus' ultimate viewpoint. The second statement is not explicitly stated in Epicurus, and that formulation is an inference drawn largely from Cicero and the kinetic-katestematic controversy that we've discussed extensively elsewhere (for new readers see Boris Nikolsky's "Epicurus On Pleasure" which derives from Gosling and Taylor.

On this I think Emily Austin's viewpoint in her footnote in Chapter 4 of Living for Pleasure is very helpful:

Both cite Gosling & Taylor who have probably the most extensive analysis.

Thanks Don! Even a quick look at that article shows what a detailed issue is involved, and surely Epicurus had a position that either adopted, rejected, or modified Aristotle's view.

Looks like there is commentary by Sedley here:

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epicureanism/v-1/sections/motion

I cannot recall reading any direction comparisons of Epicurus to others on this but I would fully expect it to lead to some important practical distinctions about the nature of things if/when we eventually have time to pursue it.

At the very least I would like to have a thumbnail sketch of how Deists like Thomas Paine - who otherwise was so aggressive in his viewpoints against supernatural influence, seems to have had a problem with this issue.

I am in the process of getting this week's podcast ready for release and therefore came again upon the issue of Thomas Paine's argument that motion can be used as a proof of the existence of a supernatural god setting everything in motion - as discussed in Paine's article referenced two posts above.

1 - Does anyone know if this is an argument from Aristotle or another Greek source?

2 - It would be good to trace this down and be very clear for future reference. Does a deist like Paine conclude that motion is a proof of god because he thinks that motion is not a property of atoms and has to come from some where else, or is the issue an epistemological point that it is improper to speculate as to a condition that we never see exist from what does exist? Both? Neither? Or is the difference in reasoning between Paine and Epicurus something else entirely?

Not exactly a pressing issue that needs immediate resolution but something that would be useful to articulate.

Joshua brought up Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" and that might address that point, but I have not read it.

I relate this in my mind to the idea that pleasure is "smooth motion" -- which if I recall correctly is in Diogenes laertius under the chapter on the Cynics rather than under Epicurus. But it seems reasonable to think that Epicurus would have been sympathetic to that view too.

I think I see where you are going and it makes sense that mental pleasures would also be related to smoothness or ease of fit with existing structures. And the whole question of images/simulacra and how they allegedly affect his obscure. But I can see the analogy and the opposite -- how "cognitive dissonance" and the pain that accompanies it would be the result of conflicting atomic structures.

At some point (hopefully soon) we should set up a separate post to highlight the different approaches between Pater's "Marius The Epicurean" and Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens." Both books are devoted in part to pointing out problems with Stoicism, but in much different ways. {Two prior threads on Marius the Epicurean here at EF are here and here.)

The Wikipedia article on Marius says "In particular Pater is careful in the novel to distinguish between 'hedonism', as usually understood, and Marius's cerebral, ascetic version of Epicureanism."

This is really the source of the problem with Pater's book -- he does not appreciate the distinction that Emily Austin expresses well in her book and articles that, as Diogenes Laertius said - "[Epicurus] differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest, but only that which consists in motion. Epicurus admits both; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene."

In contract to Marius, France Wright's A Few Days In Athens focuses very strongly on the actual doctrines of Epicurus and explains how prudent hedonism does not lead to asceticism, but to a complete understanding of how the pursuit of pleasure fits into a philosophy in which happiness is the acknowledged goal, rather than wrestling endlessly with the essentially theistic view of life. Also from the wikipedia article on Marius:

"His epiphany in the Sabine Hills, where he sensed a "divine companion" and the existence of a Platonic "Eternal Reason" or Cosmic Mind, is not a prelude to religious faith, though it continues to comfort him."

In the case of Pater's view of Epicurus, "...the novel remains open-ended, leaving us with a provisional ideal of 'aesthetic humanism' while bringing Marius, intuitively if not intellectually, to a Christian end."

In the case of Frances Wright's view of Epicurus, the novel ends with a strong and unwavering attack on the religious supernatural perspective as essentially the ultimate source of evil in the world.

Quote from A Few Days In Athens

“Under all these forms and varieties of the external and internal man, still, with hardly an exception, I have found him unhappy. With more capacity for enjoyment than any other creature, I have seen him surpassing the rest of existences only in suffering and crime. “Why is this and from whence? A master error, for some there must be, leads to results so fatal — so opposed to the apparent nature and promise of things? Long have I sought this error — this main-spring of human folly and human crime. I have traced, through all their lengthened train of consequents and causes, human practice and human theory; I have threaded the labyrinth to its dark beginning; I have found the first link in the chain of evil; I have found it — in all countries — among all tribes and tongues and nations; I have found it, — fellow-men, I have found it in — RELIGION!”

So reading and comparing Marius to "A Few Days In Athens" can be eye-opening.

http://www.Afewdaysinathens.com