Posts by Cassius

Here is a strong, and even witty at the expense of the Stoics, hint from Dr. Glidden as to how he thinks the Epicureans responded:

In our review of the work of David Glidden on Epicurean "anticipations," we see a topic that Dr. Glidden has mentioned that goes by the name of the "eristic paradox."

Quote from Author Unknown, From "Educheer"

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

Below is a brief description of the issue from a website called "Educheer." (probably not the best source but the first I can find that seems relatively clear). It would seem almost certain that Epicurus was aware of this argument and fashioned his own philosophy of knowledge (especially "anticipations") in a way as to show how Plato/Socrates were wrong. Therefore in this thread let's discuss what Epicurus would have seen as wrong with Plato's assertions and how Epicurus responded. (The eristic paradox, and Epicurus' likely position in response, are discussed in Dr. Glidden's articles.)

The Erisitic Paradox and The Slave Boy

Quote

Throughout history, philosophers have sought to understand the nature of true knowledge and how to achieve it. Most believe that true knowledge is acquired empirically, and not latent in our minds from birth. In Plato's Meno, Socrates argues in favor of the pre-natal existence of knowledge, the opposite of this proposal: that knowledge is essentially latent, and is brought to light through questioning.

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

One consequence of this view is Plato's rejection of empiricism, the claim that knowledge is derived from sense experience. However, when one examines the scene in the Meno between Socrates and the slave boy in greater depth, one can see the flaws in this paradox. Plato uses Socrates' experiment, in which he draws one of Meno's slaves out from the gathered crowd and proceeds to demonstrate the theory of recollection using geometry; however, this experiment's purpose tests the credulity of the reader; and in some cases Socrates' questions are blatantly leading. Socrates merely places obvious propositions in front of the boy that can be immediately recognized.

<>Also, contrary to what Plato asserts, knowledge can be obtained by other means, and not exclusively through intellectual inquiry and questioning. It is far too difficult to dismiss, as Plato does, any and all claims or assertions about the physical or visible world, including both common-sense observations and the propositions of science, as mere opinions. Furthermore, the interpretation of the experiment with the slave boy can be expanded to suggest yet another position: that Plato is demonstrating the flawed nature of sophistry by showing that what on the surface appears to be Socratic dialectic is really Sophistic practice. In light of all of these factors, it becomes clear that the eristic paradox is, in fact, flawed. In the experiment, Socrates guides a slave through a series of geometric proofs in an effort to illustrate that the slave already possessed this knowledge and, therefore, that learning is not acquisition but recollection. Plato maintains that the slave is simply recalling knowledge learned in a former incarnation.

Source: https://educheer.com/essays/platos-…ristic-paradox/

Nate I think you are right that Kalosyni's comment are calling up what you are saying: There are different levels of "absoluteness" going on here.

In physics, as in the letter to Herodotus, we are being "absolute" -- NOTHING exists eternally the same except atoms and void. That doesn't change for anyone no matter what their circumstances. Implicitly death is the same way - we all die.

But in the letter to Pythocles Epicurus points out that we don't have clear vision at a distance, so in regard to taking opinions about the skies and stars we have to keep open multiple possibilities if all of them comport with the evidence and none are contradicted.

Then further in distinction to physics, where we are at times talking about unchanging properties and sometimes talking about emergent qualities, in ethics questions of "how to live among other people" was are ALWAYS talking about emergent and changing qualities, and ALL our statements are contextual. This section of the Fish article "Not All Politicians Are Sysiphus" points that out very well I think (underlined section):

This kind of contextual nature is probably a good idea to add to sort of an introduction, and then discuss in relation to each quote to develop the context.

I suggest that, of course, only for consideration when you have unlimited time, because you've already sunk a lot of time into the collection, and context will determine how much more time makes sense and how to spend it!

I REALLY like that last underlined sentence, and I think we need to find ways to highlight that on the forum:

Quote

The Epicureans had advice for both kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promised to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances.

The only way it appears to me to make that sentence better would be to generalize it by saying "ALL" instead of "BOTH."

or maybe for our current usage:

"The Epicureans have advice for all kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promises to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances."

Thank you Don! This is such a recurring question that I am going to redo the FAQ on "Engagement with Society" based on the material in this article, and also add Dr. Fish to the list of people that would make potential good interviewees on the podcast.

So Torquatus was fighting with the remains of Pompey's Senatorial forces, against Caesar?

No doubt that would have endeared him to Cicero, if true.

There is a lot of discussion in this article about Philodemus' "On The Good King" but I do not recall that we have discussed it here much in the past.

We need to find the best available translations / reconstructions of what is left and start a thread on that under Ethics:

Cropped and OCR'd version of this article is now here:

File

Jeffrey Fish - Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus - What Roman Epicureans Were Taught About Politics

Well researched presentation of the argument that Epicurean philosophy can embrace, in proper circumstances, prudent participation in political affairs. I think this document is likely to become one of our key references on "engagement with society."

Cassius

March 6, 2023 at 10:43 PM

This is a fact of history that is new to me -- I was not aware that the historical Torquatus of Cicero's time had died as a hero in battle only a few years before De Finibus was written. Not sure exactly the implication of that but it strikes me that Fish is correct that this would have been a factor in Cicero choosing to use him as the Epicurean spokesman - presumably indicating Torquatus' good standing in Cicero's mind.

Serendipity strikes again, and on the same day I changed the header to refer to a Torquatus quote, Don finds posts a very relevant article which references the same Torquatus material --

Post

Paper On Epicurean Engagement With Society - Jeffrey Fish - "Not All Politicians Are Sysiphus"

https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/97369395

Don

March 6, 2023 at 9:37 PM

Well I am just starting this article but it is already clear that Don wins the coveted "Article Most Likely To Win Cassius' Approval" Award for the day!

Started March 6, 2023:

"Holding as I do this theory, what reason should I have for fearing that I may not be able to bring our Torquati into accord with it? ... I shall maintain this, that if they performed those actions, which are beyond question noble, from some motive, their motive was not virtue apart from all else. He stripped the foe of his necklet. Yes, and he donned it himself to save his own life. But he faced a grave danger. Yes, with the whole army looking on. What did he gain by it? Applause and affection, which are the strongest guarantees for passing life in freedom from fear." Torquatus from Cicero's On Ends, line 34 (Reid Translation)

Abbreviated for space reasons from this:

Quote

[34] Holding as I do this theory, what reason should I have for fearing that I may not be able to bring our Torquati into accord with it? You a little while ago shewed at once your copious memory and your friendly and kindly feeling for me by quoting their examples; yet you neither perverted me by eulogizing my ancestors nor made me less vigorous in my reply. Now I ask, what interpretation do you put upon the actions of these men? Do you believe that they attacked the armed foe, or practiced such cruelty towards their own children and their own flesh and blood, absolutely without giving a thought to their own interest or their own advantage? Why, even the beasts do not act so as to produce such a tumult and confusion that we cannot see the purpose of their movements and attacks; do you believe that men so exceptional achieved such great exploits from no motive whatever?

[35] What the motive was, I shall examine presently; meanwhile I shall maintain this, that if they performed those actions, which are beyond question noble, from some motive, their motive was not virtue apart from all else. He stripped the foe of his necklet. Yes, and he donned it himself to save his own life. But he faced a grave danger. Yes, with the whole army looking on. What did he gain by it? Applause and affection, which are the strongest guarantees for passing life in freedom from fear. He punished his son with death. If purposelessly, I should be sorry to be descended from one so abominable and so cruel; but if he did it to enforce by his self-inflicted pain the law of military command, and by fear of punishment to control the army in the midst of a most critical war, then he had in view the preservation of his fellow-countrymen, which he knew to involve his own.

Ok I am still not sure which particular passages you think are apt to misinterpretation. Could you begin to list some and we go through them? Maybe what you are saying is that such a list would be better with commentary.

Quote from Kalosyni

To illustrate further, I would only trust something which has a feeling of compassion toward feelings and emotions, and not an authoritarian tone of "right/wrong" -- if there is even the slightest sense of something suggesting: "Shut up and stop crying" then I would not use it even if purported to be said by Epicurus.

On second reading, I am now thinking that Kalosyni's issue is not so much with Nate's formatting as it is with Epicurus' content

I think it would be very helpful for Nate's compilation and for our understanding to pick out any of the cites that are included that seem problematic and then we deal with each one.

All probably in the context of Diogenes Laertius writing that Epicurus said that the wise man will"dogmatized" and not perpetually be in doubt.

I want to hear lots of perspectives on what Kalosyni just wrote from NVC, but I have one already:

Quote

“The cause of anger lies in our thinking – in thoughts of blame and judgment.”

– Marshall B. Rosenberg, PhD.

If that is supposed to mean that I should view anger as something to eliminate, I don't want to do that and I don't think Epicurus did either. I want to be sure my anger is directed at the proper objects, and then I want to work as hard as I can to resolve that problem clearly and directly, even if the other person or people disagree. Where warranted, you act forcedly and even angrily because the goal of life is not suppression of anger, or any other kind of pain, as an end in itself, but only toward the highest goal, which is living pleasurably. Everything is always judged by consequences, not by a priori commitment to any virtue - not even "nonviolence."

So at a very basic level I don't think Epicurus has any problem with "violence" or any other tool that is necessary under the circumstances to live pleasurably.

I see that entailed as far up in the PDs as PD06.

"Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good."

Great idea and looking forward to seeing it developed - but at first look it's already a great start!

Welcome @admintrav !

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!

Welcome @Lucie !

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!

Sounds very good please keep us posted!

That one is new to me - thanks Don.

Root304 I agree with Martin's comments. You are certainly welcome to refer people here and use our material - that is what we are here for.

As for books that is something I continue to think a lot about. There many categories of people who might be your target audience and you need to pick your text according to your group. I agree Living For Pleasure is the best general introduction for new readers but if your group is "advanced" enough in philosophy then Dewitt still might be more appropriate, or even "A Few Days In Athens" or something else - even Lucretius or Diogenes Laertius.

For example, if your group is heavily weighted toward former or partial Stoics who were attracted to Stoicism because they wanted to "live like an emperor" I would possibly suggest starting with Lucretius - but you will need to give them a good clear translation and lead them through it so that they don't get bogged down.

I would be interested to hear more about what you think of your group's interests. If they are into "lifestyle improvement" then definitely Living for Pleasure. If they are into technicals of philosophy and the decline and fall of western civilization, then that is another approach where we can make other recommendations.

This discussion makes me think we need a "Study Guide to Lucretius."