Posts by Cassius

Almost two years ago I made a post which included this song reference, but it was included in a larger "music" thread, and I would like to pull our the idea for more emphasis. For me, there is no way that Epicurean philosophy can be understood properly without always keeping in mind this core idea: that we are mortal and that we need to "live like we are dying" - because we are.

Below are the original cites I included in the first post, but now I have an additional one to add, from Lucretius Book 3:

[B-3:1053] If only men, even as they clearly feel a weight in their mind, which wears them out with its heaviness, could learn too from what causes that comes to be, and whence so great a mass, as it were, of ill lies upon their breast, they would not pass their lives, as now for the most part we see them; knowing not each one of them what he wants, and longing ever for change of place, as though he could thus lay aside the burden. The man who is tired of staying at home, often goes out abroad from his great mansion, and of a sudden returns again, for indeed abroad he feels no better. He races to his country home, furiously driving his ponies, as though he were hurrying to bring help to a burning house; he yawns at once, when he has set foot on the threshold of the villa, or sinks into a heavy sleep and seeks forgetfulness, or even in hot haste makes for town, eager to be back. In this way each man struggles to escape himself: yet, despite his will he clings to the self, which, we may be sure, in fact he cannot shun, and hates himself, because in his sickness he knows not the cause of his malady; but if he saw it clearly, every man would leave all else, and study first to learn the nature of things, since it is his state for all eternity, and not for a single hour, that is in question, the state in which mortals must expect all their being, that is to come after their death.

I'll repeat my earlier caveat that I don't particularly care for much "country" music, and this song has a line in it implying that we will be around for an eternity thinking about how we spent his life, which is wrong. And this clip brings in a Bible picture which is totally off (I need a better version of the video with the text without the religious reference.)

But if you excise those references, the rest comes into harmony: it is your state for all eternity that you need to consider as the basis for how you spend your time. Not everyone is going to want to spend their time "skydiving" or in the kind of activities the song includes, although many of the examples do follow more standard Epicurean advice. Regardless of what activities float your boat, mental, physical, or a combination, you better take advantage of the time that you have and pursue what brings you pleasure, and not run around mindlessly confused about how much time you have and how you want to spend that time.

It's mainly because of this position that I have such little patience with the "ascetic" interpretation of measuring pleasure as the absence of pain. At this point in my reading of Epicurus (Torquatus makes this crystal clear), I see an obvious common sense interpretation of this idea. Once you accept the position given the dearness of life that every experience of life should be considered to be pleasurable unless it involves some specific mental or bodily pain then you explode any implication of asceticism or esotericism or mysticism or darkness in these words. Cicero can employ his rhetoric to insist that pleasure is limited to "sex drugs and rock and roll," but that is the opinion of a theist or virtue signaler who wants to put you in a box of complying with his morality. When you open up the definition of "pleasure" to include the privilege of being alive - to all experiences mental and bodily which are not specifically painful -- then you get a direct "live like you are dying" attitude where you cherish and appreciate every moment of life that you have, and you find ways to put up with every kind of pain which isn't truly unendurable. And add to that that there is no necessity to tolerate anything truly terrible or unendurable when you see that there is nothing terrible or unendurable in no longer being alive.

If someone truly wants to spend the short time that they have "minimizing" their experiences, living in a proverbial desert and detached from the world and all the many pleasures that are possible, and they truly enjoy that, then more power to them. I have no right and would never attempt to substitute my judgment for theirs on how they should spend their time. It's entirely possible that some people are born that way and truly want to spend their lives that way from start to finish.

But from my point of view, as to the way I read the Greek and Roman Epicureans, that attitude is totally foreign to the way Nature leads every other living being to conduct itself, and thus that view is counter to the thrust of Epicurean philosophy. Does it really make sense that someone who truly accepts that they exist for a relative moment, and that they will not exist for an eternity after death, wants to spend their lives detaching and minimizing their engagement in life? To each his own, but that is not for me - we can leave that to the Stoics and to the religionists who think that they will find their reward elsewhere.

So while we don't seem to spend too much time here emphasizing a "You Only Live Once" attitude, but I think we should spend more on it. I don't think there is any more important core attitude to have given the nature of the way things are.

• Live like you are dying (because you are).
  1. Song possibilities
     1. "live like you were dying" (Tim McGraw)
        1. Edit: This is a better version of the lyrics where it's easier to imagine that the "good book" is Lucretius:
  2. Texts:
     1. PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.
     2. VS10. Remember that you are mortal, and have a limited time to live, and have devoted yourself to discussions on Nature for all time and eternity, and have seen “things that are now and are to come and have been.”
     3. VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied.
     4. VS30. Some men, throughout their lives, spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.
     5. VS47. "I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived."
     6. VS60. "Every man passes out of life as though he had just been born."

For this I offer a standing ovation to the writers:

Quote from Cicero and His Clamorous Silences

To make our point clearer, we think that Cicero and other writers (such as Plutarch) «absolutize», so to speak, the slogans «do not participate in politics» and «live unnoticed» as if they were principles of conduct of the Epicureans. However, they do not dedicate a single line to the specification of which text of Epicurus it comes from and what its original context was. Diogenes Laertius (10, 119) states that «do not participate in politics» was contained in the first book of On Ways of Life but offers no further information. The case of the slogan «live unnoticed» is even more significant and, to some extent, more intriguing, since Plutarch devoted to it an entire treatise (Live Unnoticed) which does not contain the slightest information about its meaning or the text of Epicurus from which it comes. From this perspective, Plutarch’s opusculum is especially disappointing, although very illustrative of how some topics in ancient thought were formed. Plutarch, in fact, not only does not provide any indication about the context of the expression λάθε βιώσας but almost makes it the appropriate motto for a hidden way of life by emphasizing its perversity (Live Unnoticed 1128d-e). These are undoubtedly characteristic rhetorical procedures in the philosophic diatribes of antiquity that require caution regarding the absolutization of the motto «live unnoticed». In fact, none of the Key Doctrines (hereafter KD) offers categorical rules of conduct and, not for nothing, Epicurus places prudence at the top of the doctrine (LM 132). As we will show in this paper, the testimonies about Epicurus do not paint a picture of a person shut away in the Garden and isolated from the life of Athens, but of someone who, while refusing to participate actively in politics, respected the laws and institutions of the city, participated in its worship and piety, integrated family relationships into the exercise of philosophy and cultivated friendships and philanthropy.

(underlined emphasis is mine)

It appears to me that these two may be among the very best interpreters of Epicurus active today, and they appear to be on a campaign to refute the conventionalist attitudes of Epicurus as a passivist and isolationist that date back 2000 years. They dare to call "cliches" the labels of "live unknown" and "do not participate in politics"? Yes they do. Here's the opening:

Quote from Cicero And His Clamorous Silences

The opponents of Epicureanism in antiquity successfully established a cliché that has remained to this day: the theoretical and practical disinterest of Epicurus and the Epicureans in political communities. The best proof of their success is the transformation of the expressions «live unnoticed» (λάθε βιώσας) and «do not participate in politics» (μὴ πολιτεύσεσθαι) into famous Epicurean slogans. It is worthwhile, however, to note two well-known facts that cast doubt on this cliché. On the one hand, the Epicurean Lucretius’ poem On the Nature of Things constitutes, as Strauss has underlined, one of the best and most influential documents of the conventionalist theory of justice. On the other hand, Epicureanism underpins one of the foundational works of modern political philosophy, Hobbes’ Leviathan. Before Hobbes, Pierre Gassendi had also viewed Epicurus’ philosophical project with sympathy. In fact, Hobbes and Gassendi had at their disposal the same Epicurean texts as did opponents of Epicureanism such as Cicero, Epictetus, and Plutarch (though the ancients also had access to works that have not been preserved). But while Hobbes and Gassendi found valuable considerations of political philosophy in Epicureanism, neither Cicero, Epictetus nor Plutarch refer to these ideas in their anti-Epicurean writings. The treatment by Cicero, Epictetus, or Plutarch of Epicureanism was not doxographical; it was part of the philosophical diatribes of antiquity (i.e., the usual debates among the schools). These undoubtedly included some relevant testimonies and criticisms, but some of their usual techniques were the omission of the adversary’s views, simplification, exaggeration, and even the use of an overly melodramatic tone.

CICERO AND HIS CLAMOROUS SILENCES

CICERO AND HIS CLAMOROUS SILENCES

www.academia.edu

There's a lot more to comment on but for the moment here is some that catches my eye. I am sure there is much more:

Epicurus stresses that the circumstances constitute a fundamental ingredient of the Epicurean sage’s decisions. In fact, none of the Key Doctrines offers categorical rules of conduct and, not for nothing, Epicurus places prudence at the top of the doctrine (LM 132).

We really need to try to interview these guys for the Lucretius Today podcast and I will look into that further.

Started 9/24/23:

Torquatus laughed. Come, that is a good joke," he said, "that the author of the doctrine that pleasure is the End of things desirable, the final and ultimate Good, should actually not know what manner of thing pleasure itself is.!" " Well," I [Cicero] replied, either Epicurus does not know what pleasure is, or the rest of mankind all the world over do not."

- Torquatus in Cicero's "On Ends" Book Two III:1 (Rackham)

"A theistic interpretation of Epicureanism is entirely possible."

What? Where does he get that?

Happy Twentieth to everyone!

Youtube link:

Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has read this and has any comments. It is still on my reading list.

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

There's a lot in this Chapter 16 that people might want to discuss. I felt compelled to put in the caveat that Frances Wright doesn't seem to be entirely following Epicurus on the nature of the "real gods," but I don't think that should overshadow what I think was a brilliant job of denouncing supernatural religion. This is really a powerful presentation and I hope my amateurish version will inspire some of the real "voices" here to consider recording their own versions. The writing in Chapter 16 pretty much stands on its own, and it deserves a lot more attention and one of the best full-bore arguments against supernatural religion anywhere.

Episode 192 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available! Most of our regular podcasters were away this week, so Cassius fills in with a reading of Chapter 16 of Frances Wright's - A Few Days In Athens. This Chapter is devoted to a fictional presentation of a speech given by Epicurus on the subject of the evils of supernatural religion. We'll be back next week to resume our series of episodes on Cicero's "On Ends."

Welcome to Episode 193 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.

This week we continue our discussion of Books One and Two of Cicero's On Ends, which are largely devoted to Epicurean Philosophy. "On Ends" contains important criticisms of Epicurus that have set the tone for standard analysis of his philosophy for the last 2000 years. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.

This week we continue in Book One, and we will cover from XIII to the end of the chapter. Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition

We are using the Reid edition, so check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.

As we proceed we will keep track of Cicero's arguments and outline them here:

Cicero's Objections to Epicurean Philosophy

Due to schedule conflicts with two of our podcasters, this week our podcast may instead feature a special recording on an alternate topic. We will return back to "One Ends" the following week.

Just to reiterate the automatic notification, happy birthday Bryan, and it's been good to have your presence back more frequently in recent months!

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

Thanks for the link to the paper on "Criticizing Love's Critic."

It gives me the chance to play the role of Don questioning DeWitt!

I'm glad for anybody to bring up Lucretius or Epicurus in any context, but it makes me a little uneasy to suggest that anyone who uses frank criticism or repetition in any communication is channeling Epicurus.

So I find myself in the position of Don's concerns with some of Dewitt's claims of parallels to or references in Christianity to make too strong a claims that "frank criticism" has an Epicurean trademark on it. There are too many things that do have Epicurean trademarks on them to jeopardize one's credibility by stretching when a comparison isn't necessary, and I agree with Don that this is a blemish on what I consider to be deWitt's other highly creditable work.

As to frank criticism, if this comparison were easy to establish, then I would have to conclude that when I was much younger I came across many unknowingly Epicurean teachers in my decidedly un-Epicurean schooling.

So the context in this particular is Kalosyni's questioning of Philodemus' possible deviations from Epicurus, I don't see much deviation in Philodemus - as to "frank criticism" I see that as largely common sense and totally consistent with Epicurus' emphasis on clarity and honesty.

Quote from Kalosyni

I am wondering if perhaps during Philodemus' time there may have been less emphasis on natural physics/science and more emphasis on ethics...but yet I don't know if that is true or not.

Well taking Lucretius as an example it would appear that the physics and epistemology was as front and center as ever around 50 BC. From that, one might deduce that until it became politically impossible to discuss the physics and epistemology with the rise of Abrahamic monotheism, those subjects were considered to be the core Epicurean curriculum with the ethics being a creative and important but pretty much common sense deduction. It's always been the denial of providence and immortality that's much more the truly explosive center, rather than the practical advice on being happy. I don't mean to slight the ethics, but you won't get yourself killed standing on the streetcorner saying "don't you want to be happy?"

And given that the ethics flows from and is dependent on the physics and the making of proper deductions from it, I would expect that to be the case all the way through. I would likely argue too that the demotion of the physics and epistemology explains many of the issues that have arisen in interpreting the ethics.

I want to take that list in post 17 and make sure it's findable in the future, so please let me know if there are similar quotes to be added. There are definitely some quotes from Menoeceus that could be added, especially from the opening about the health of the soul, but they are more on the order of "if you want to be happy study philosophy" rather than an explicit statement of the harm that comes if you don't.

But please suggest any that you think would be good for the list to be entitled something like "Epicurean Reasons To Study Philosophy."

or

"Epicureans Reasons Why You Are Unlikely To Live A Happy Life By Freelancing On Your Own"

Quote from Kalosyni

But my point is that I now think that a much larger portion of the time was spent on natural physics/science

I would say you are right and what you are largely referring to is what is covered in the letter to Herodotus - which includes a proper "logical" framework for deducing big picture conclusions from the science. My point there being that we have much more raw data today and yet most people are less advanced in processing the implications of it than we're the Epicureans. Without the analysis framework the data is worthless or even harmful, as both Epicurus and Lucretius state explicitly.

I will post a couple of quotes to support that statement:

Lucretius:

[Book 1 Bailey 146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.

[Book 2, Bailey, 40] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

[ Book 3, Bailey, 74] For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

[ Book 6, Bailey 30] And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course; he showed what there is of ill in the affairs of mortals everywhere, coming to being and flying abroad in diverse forms, be it by the chance or the force of nature, because nature had so brought it to pass; he showed from what gates it is meet to sally out against each ill, and he proved that ’tis in vain for the most part that the race of men set tossing in their hearts the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.

Epicurus PD12. A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.

There are several others and we need to post this list somewhere. I know I am missing one in Epicurus (Pythocles I think) and one in Lucretius about those who learn a little about the stars having it worse for themselves if they don't also know the answers --- I will keep looking but if anyone posts them first I will thank you!

Addendum: This one is close but not the one I am thinking about:

Pythocles 88 - Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth.

Also close but not it:

Pythocles 97 - And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness. For if this principle is not observed, the whole discussion of causes in celestial phenomena is in vain, as it has already been for certain persons who have not clung to the method of possible explanations, but have fallen back on the useless course of thinking that things could only happen in one way, and of rejecting all other ways in harmony with what is possible, being driven thus to what is inconceivable and being unable to compare earthly phenomena, which we must accept as indications.

I suspect I was thinking of these from Herodotus (primarily 79) - now I just need to find the same statement in Lucretius:

[78] Furthermore, we must believe that to discover accurately the cause of the most essential facts is the function of the science of nature, and that blessedness for us in the knowledge of celestial phenomena lies in this and in the understanding of the nature of the existences seen in these celestial phenomena, and of all else that is akin to the exact knowledge requisite for our happiness: in knowing too that what occurs in several ways or is capable of being otherwise has no place here but that nothing which suggests doubt or alarm can be included at all in that which is naturally immortal and blessed. Now this we can ascertain by our mind is absolutely the case.

[79] But what falls within the investigation of risings and settings and turnings and eclipses, and all that is akin to this, is no longer of any value for the happiness which knowledge brings, but persons who have perceived all this, but yet do not know what are the natures of these things and what are the essential causes, are still in fear, just as if they did not know these things at all: indeed, their fear may be even greater, since the wonder which arises out of the observation of these things cannot discover any solution or realize the regulation of the essentials.

OK here's the extra Lucretius:

[Book 5:55 Bailey] For those who have learnt aright that the gods lead a life free from care, yet if from time to time they wonder by what means all things can be carried on, above all among those things which are descried above our heads in the coasts of heaven, are borne back again into the old beliefs of religion, and adopt stern overlords, whom in their misery they believe have all power, knowing not what can be and what cannot, yea and in what way each thing has its power limited, and its deep-set boundary-stone.

Quote from Don

I sincerely doubt anything resembling Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would exist in Surupice's world, maybe some form of Buddhism with its concentration on consciousness and awareness (not the Tibetan variety but a basic early form).

Of course this invites the question, "Then why do those exist in our world?"