It appears that I can't find a video of Elena Nicoli's presentation re Nussbaum. Here is another video that is also good, but if anyone knows of a video that goes with the Nussbaum material please post:
Posts by Cassius
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
-
-
I had not visited this issue in a while and now I see Elena Nicoli collected some of the best/worst Nussbaum quotes:
-
This is one place in Nussbaum's "Therapy of Desire" where she makes similar assertions about Epicurus being authoritarian, which I think are simply not a fair reading of the texts, and far too pro-Stoic. Comments like these (and for many other reasons where I think she gets Epicurus wrong) are why I don't recommend her book, no matter how well regarded it is in other quarters.
:
Elena Nicoli has written against Nussbaum's interpretation as per here:
More criticism of Nussbaum's interpretations here:
-
Thanks for the post Waterholic because it raises important points. Just a few comments on point 1, because I think point 2 first is likely the much more significant one.
DeWitt's comparisons of Epicureanism to Christianity are pretty much neutral in terms of what they say about Epicurus, and I see them as much more reflective of DeWitt's own speculations about how they compare. In fact I was thinking about this point the other day and I believe it deserves to be emphasized when we discuss this topic: As frequent as DeWitt's comparisons are in the book, ask yourself: "Do those comparisons really state that Christianity is correct or did anything other than borrow procedures from Epicurus?" Yes he goes overboard in his parallels, but to what result? It's not like he is saying that Christianity is right, just that they were perceptive enough to borrow certain perspectives from Epicurus. If he goes overboard, and I think he does, it's on a topic that really doesn't touch Epicurus himself, and just shows that DeWitt's parallels are stretched too thin, because what he's saying they picked up from Epicurus they could have picked up anywhere, because the friendliness and charity and honesty etc are just largely common sense.
Compare DeWitt's comments to Gibbon's in his "Fall of the Roman Empire." Gibbon uses sarcasm and false-sounding praise of Christianity to make his derogatory points about the influence of Christianity. DeWitt's comments seem sincere, but thenever to my memory rise to a level of saying "the Christians were right!" He's basically just drawing attention to parellels that some will find - and do find - extremely interesting, while others won't.
On point 2 I think the issue is much more important. When you say " Is this a problematic tangent of NDW or am I missing something?" I don't think this is something specific with DeWitt.
The characterization you use does remind me of what Martha Nussbaum says in her "Therapy of Desire," but I don't recall DeWitt being nearly so negative about it. Epicurus clearly thought it was important to combat skepticism, and he thought it important to state firmly what he thought was correct, and there is plenty of evidence in the texts to support that being an accurate characterization. But as far as being "a despotic figure with a strong will to dominate feeble minded and expand his influence by any means necessary, including missionary work," I would say yes he had strong will but never tried to "dominate feeble minded" people or expand his influence by "any means necessary." I do think that the term "missionary work" is probably a fair characterization, though it's hard to say how organized it really was.
I see I've already written a lot and only really set the stage for this, with my main points being (1) that the Christianity parallels are a tangent of Dewitt that some find interesting and some don't, but no reason for worry, and (2) the issue of "dogmatism" vs "skepticism" in Epicurus is definitely there, and dedicated skeptics are definitely going to have a problem with Epicurus. Given that I believe Epicurus' position on skepticism is a correct one, that doesn't personally cause me any problem at all, and makes him more valuable to me. But that's the issue that we will want to discuss in much more detail and I feel sure others will weigh in on as well.
On the parallels with Christianity you're indeed struggling with DeWitt. On the issue with "dogmatism," you're struggling directly with Epicurus, though I think you'll eventually decide that your wording of Epicurus' position is significantly too strong.
-
As soon as we wrap up the series on DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," the next project the podcast will tackle will be the full sections of Cicero's "On Ends" devoted to discussing (attacking) Epicurean philosophy - Books One and Two. In this work Cicero has summarized and preserved what are probably the most important objections to Epicurus collected from across the ancient world in the prior two hundred years, so this work gives us both a wealth of knowledge about Epicurus combined with extremely intelligent criticisms. Cicero skimps on the time he gives the Epicurean Torquatus to respond, so we can formulate for ourselves what we think are the best full responses.
We have previously discussed the Torquatus Narrative in Episodes 93-111 (Torquatus narrative of Epicurean Philosophy). As a result we will review that section only briefly, and in only enough detail to keep the flow of the full discussion of Book One.
The text we are covering can be found in three editions at Archive.org:
- Cicero - On Ends - Reid - 1883 Link At Archive.org
- Cicero - On Ends - Rackham - Link At Archive.org
- Cicero - On Ends - Parker - Link At Archive.org
As before when we went through Torquatus in detail, we will use the Reid version as our main text, but compare frequently with Rackham. We favor Reid because he seems to be both more readable and more literal than Rackham. However many of us are more familiar with the more recent wording of Rackham, so we will often use both on important passages.
We will therefore suggest that those who are following along grab a copy of the Reid version at the link above, and then you will be able to follow any references we make to page or line numbers.
We expect to start this series as soon as September 3, 2023, so if you have comments, suggestions, or questions, please let us know!
-
It is interesting to me to see that Julian was also happy to see the works of Pyrrho to be hard to find. I would almost agree with him on that point, as it seems that Julian was aware of the problems with skepticism. I'd definitely like to spend some time reading what's left of Julian's work.
-
Episode 188 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!
In my unreletenting quest to be positive and upbeat I always encourage everyone to read everything they can. It's been a long while since I first read "Marius the Epicurean" but I think I recall being profoundly disappointed in it.
I hope the experience of others is more positive, but I better throw this into the mix - I will see if I can find my prior posting and perhaps link it here. But by all means I do encourage everyone to read whatever strikes their attention, because it will add to the fullness of your perspective whatever conclusion you reach about it! 
Here's the earlier thread with some of my comments. It seems I remember being much more negative, either on Facebook or in private discussions.
What I seem to remember most today is that I believe I came across this about the time that I came across Francis Wright's "A Few Days In Athens." I read Frances Wright first and was blown away by the depth of her presentation of Epicurus. Then I read Marius, and the contrast was - to say the least - striking. And in the balance of the two, "A Few Days In Athens" is by far the better quality work for understanding Epicurus. But that's just the balance of the two, and reading Marius produced very beneficial results for me -- in making me realize how disappointing something can be even though it has "Epicurean" in the title.
Your mileage may vary!!!
Looks like we need a place to discuss basics of NeoPlatonism:
Neoplatonism is a version of Platonic philosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background of Hellenistic philosophy and religion.[1][note 1][note 2] The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".[2]
Neoplatonism began with Ammonius Saccas and his student Plotinus (c. 204/5–271 AD) and stretched to the 6th century AD.[3] After Plotinus there were three distinct periods in the history of neoplatonism: the work of his student Porphyry (3rd to early 4th century); that of Iamblichus (3rd to 4th century); and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]
Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of Western philosophy and religion. In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers.[5] In the Islamic cultural sphere, neoplatonic texts were available in Arabic and Persian translations, and notable philosophers such as al-Farabi, Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and Moses Maimonides incorporated neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.[6]
Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had direct access to the works of Proclus, Simplicius of Cilicia, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he knew about other Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, through second hand sources.[7] The German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328) was also influenced by neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God. Neoplatonism also had a strong influence on the perennial philosophy of the Italian Renaissance thinkers Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and continues through 19th-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism.
ALSO:
Neoplatonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The term “Neoplatonism” refers to a philosophical school of thought that first emerged and flourished in the Greco-Roman world of late antiquity, roughly from the time of the Roman Imperial Crisis to the Arab conquest, i.e., the middle of the 3rd to the middle of the 7th century. In consequence of the demise of ancient materialist or corporealist thought such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, Neoplatonism became the dominant philosophical ideology of the period, offering a comprehensive understanding of the universe and the individual human being’s place in it. However, in contrast to labels such as “Stoic”, “Peripatetic” or “Platonic”, the designation “Neoplatonic” is of modern coinage and to some extent a misnomer. Late antique philosophers now counted among “the Neoplatonists” did not think of themselves as engaged in some sort of effort specifically to revive the spirit and the letter of Plato’s dialogues. To be sure, they did call themselves “Platonists” and held Plato’s views, which they understood as a positive system of philosophical doctrine, in higher esteem than the tenets of the pre-Socratics, Aristotle, or any other subsequent thinker. However, and more importantly, their signature project is more accurately described as a grand synthesis of an intellectual heritage that was by then exceedingly rich and profound. In effect, they absorbed, appropriated, and creatively harmonized almost the entire Hellenic tradition of philosophy, religion, and even literature—with the exceptions of Epicureanism, which they roundly rejected, and the thoroughgoing corporealism of the Stoics. The result of this effort was a grandiose and powerfully persuasive system of thought that reflected upon a millennium of intellectual culture and brought the scientific and moral theories of Plato, Aristotle, and the ethics of the Stoics into fruitful dialogue with literature, myth, and religious practice. In virtue of their inherent respect for the writings of many of their predecessors, the Neoplatonists together offered a kind of meta-discourse and reflection on the sum-total of ideas produced over centuries of sustained inquiry into the human condition.
As a natural consequence of their insistence on the undiminished relevance of the past, the Neoplatonists developed their characteristically speculative brand of philosophical enquiry in which empirical facts tended to serve as illustrations rather than heuristic starting points or test cases. Today, the Neoplatonic system may strike one as lofty, counterintuitive, and implausible, but to dismiss it out of hand is difficult, especially if one is prepared to take seriously a few fundamental assumptions that are at least not obviously wrong and may possibly be right.
The most fundamental of these assumptions, which the Neoplatonists shared with the majority of intellectuals of the ancient world, including most pre-Socratic thinkers as well as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their followers, is that mindful consciousness (nous, often translated as thought, intelligence, or intellect) is in an important sense ontologically prior to the physical realm typically taken for ultimate reality (Mind over Matter). There existed a dispute between Plato and Aristotle over whether or not the objects of mindful consciousness (abstract concepts, Platonic or otherwise, numbers, geometrical properties, and so forth) are also ontologically prior, but the Neoplatonists regarded this fact as a matter of inconsequential detail. And so, following a venerable and abiding tradition of Mind over Matter, Neoplatonism inevitably turned out to be an idealist type of philosophy.
The second assumption, which the Neoplatonists shared with the Stoics and the Hermetists (an influential group of Egyptian religious thinkers that predate the rise of Neoplatonism), was that reality, in all its cognitive and physical manifestations, depended on a highest principle which is unitary and singular. Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”. Since it is reasonable to assume, as the Neoplatonists did, that any efficient cause is ontologically prior to, and hence more real, than its effect, then, in the hierarchy of being, the first principle, whatever it is, cannot be less “real” than the phenomena it is supposed to explain. Given the veracity of the first assumption (the ontological priority of intelligence and consciousness), it follows at once that the first principle must be a principle of consciousness. In consequence, the fundamental challenge all Neoplatonists struggled to meet was essentially the following: How are we to understand and describe the emergence of the universe, with all its diverse phenomena, as the effect of a singular principle of consciousness? In particular—and in this regard Neoplatonism shares certain concerns with modern cosmology—how is it possible to understand the emergence of the physical, material universe from a singularity that is in every sense unlike this universe? Their answer to this question was entirely new, and went far beyond any prior cosmic aetiology, including that of Plato’s Timaeus, in elegance and sophistication.
What is the Best Translation of PD08 To Feature At EpicureanFriends.com?
The following post is one of a series so that we can get our collection of the main list of Principal Doctrines under the "Texts" section in better shape. Although this thread will include a "poll" in the next post, what we are really looking for is the "best" combination of faithfulness to the original combined with clarity in modern English. I will get with a collection of the Level 3 participants here to work on editing the final list, but the full discussion should be open to everyone to consider, so that's what we will do here. The results of the poll won't control what is featured on the text page but will definitely influence in and probably at least result in a footnote to this thread.
The English translation of PD08 currently featured here in our Texts section is our normal Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:
PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.
We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:
“No pleasure is intrinsically bad: but the effective causes of some pleasures bring with them a great many perturbations of pleasure.” Yonge (1853)
“No pleasure is evil in itself, but the objects productive of certain pleasures may lead to annoyances many times greater than the pleasure.” Wallace, Epicureanism 150 (1880)
“No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Hicks (1910)
“No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Hicks (1925)
“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself: but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.” Bailey (1926)
”No pleasure is evil in itself but the practices productive of certain pleasures bring troubles in their train that by many times outweigh the pleasures themselves.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)
“No pleasure is evil it itself; but the means by which certain pleasures are gained bring pains many times greater than the pleasures.” Geer (1964)
“No pleasure is something bad per se: but the causes of some pleasures produce stresses many times greater than the pleasures” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)
“No pleasure is evil in itself; but the means of obtaining some pleasures bring in their wake troubles many times greater than the pleasures.” O'Connor (1993)
“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. But the things which produce certain pleasures bring troubles many times greater than the pleasures.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)
“No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but some pleasures are only obtainable at the cost of excessive troubles.” Anderson (2004)
“No pleasure is a morally bad thing in itself. But the agents that produce certain pleasures bring about vexations that outnumber the pleasures themselves.” Makridis (2005)
“No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Saint-Andre (2008)
“No pleasure is bad in itself. But the things that make for pleasure in certain cases entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Strodach (2012)
“No pleasure is intrinsically bad; but the means of producing certain pleasures may entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” Mensch (2018)
“No pleasure is in itself anything bad; but some pleasures are produced by things that bring along troubles many times greater than those pleasures.” White (2021)
---
Which of the above, or which with changes you would suggest, should be featured here in the main list? In the interest of space the poll will not include every option, so please add a comment in the thread if you would suggest a variation not listed.
Here are our topics for this week:
1 - The Vatican Sayings:
VS24. Dreams have no divine character nor any prophetic force, but they originate from the influx of images.
Prior Discussions: VS 24 - Dreams have no divine character nor any prophetic force...
VS25. Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth, but unlimited wealth is great poverty.
Prior Discussions: VS 25 - Poverty, when measured by the natural purpose of life...
2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time
Open Night.
Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.
Just a quick note here to memorialize that Onenski points out that Aristitle discusses friendship in Books 8 and 9 of Nichomachean Ethics and that Epicurus is quite likely making comments that are relevant to Aristotle's views.
So we are supposed to be saying KIKERO?
Here's a new thread for Celsus. General Bio of Celsus and the Possibility that the Celsus Who Wrote "The True Word" was not the Celsus who was friend of Lucian
As Joshua points out in this episode, DeWitt comes down on the side that the two people are the same, and says that the questioning arises from the view that the writer is too smart to be an Epicurean. This is an instance where I am not so sure DeWitt is right, because it seems in my (long ago) reading I too thought that the writer seemed to be talking about gods being actively involved in human affairs, and if so I would think that would mark him clearly as non-Epicurean.
But it was years ago when I read that and I may not at the time have appreciated some of the subtleties of the Epicurean position that people do benefit from having proper opinions about the gods, so perhaps I was reading Celsus too narrowly. Whichever is the case, Celsus seems to be regarded as among the first anti-Christian writers, so he deserves our attention for many reasons, even if he was not fully orthodox Epicurean. No doubt there is a lot of stuff in Celsus that it would profit us to talk about, just like there is in Lucian's anti-Christian "Death of Peregrine"
The Death of Peregrine | De Morte Peregrini [The Lucian of Samosata Project]
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
Celsus (/ˈsɛlsəs/; Hellenistic Greek: Κέλσος, Kélsos; fl. AD 175–177) was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity.[1][2][3] His literary work, The True Word (also Account, Doctrine or Discourse; Greek: Hellenistic Greek: Λόγος Ἀληθής),[4][5] survives exclusively in quotations from it in Contra Celsum, a refutation written in 248 by Origen of Alexandria.[3] The True Word is the earliest known comprehensive criticism of Christianity.[3] Hanegraaff[6] has argued that it was written shortly after the death of Justin Martyr (who was possibly the first Christian apologist), and was probably a response to his work.[6] Origen stated that Celsus was from the first half of the 2nd century AD, although the majority of modern scholars have come to a general consensus that Celsus probably wrote around AD 170 to 180.[7][8]
THIS points out that there may be more than one Celsus, and there is confusion as to whether the anti-Christian Celsus was in fact an Epicurean:
Philosophy[edit]
All that is known about Celsus personally is what comes from the surviving text of his book and from what Origen says about him.[9] Although Origen initially refers to Celsus as an Epicurean,[10][11][12] his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonic tradition, rather than Epicureanism.[10][13][12] Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency,[10] but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all.[10][11] Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian.[11] Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of The True Word and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic.[11] Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it even easier to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.[11]
As editing proceeds on this week's episode, we have some typical pronunciation questions which I probably butchered, so I will beg forgiveness and see if there is a consensus on correct pronunciation.
In the great debate between the Christian Origen and the possibly Epicurean Celsus, how do we pronounce those names?
Does Origen rhyme which "origin," or where is the emphasis, and is there a hard or soft "g"?
As to Celsus, it seems I hear both hard "C" and soft "C" pronunciations. In the recording I went with the hard C, but we don't use a hard "C" with "Cicero," so I probably got it wrong.
Thoughts?
Edit -- we need a thread or subforum on Celsus so I will add him
Here are our topics for this week:
1 - The Vatican Sayings:
VS22. Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason. [9]
Prior Discussions: VS 22 - Same as PD 19.
VS23. Every friendship is worth choosing for its own sake, though it takes its origin from the benefits. [10]
Prior Discussions: VS 23 - All friendship is desirable in itself, though it starts from the need of help.
2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time
Open Night.
Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.
Based on recent discussions I think we are probably moving to the idea that the best option is a mix of approaches, with one of them being having an opt-in email list so they of the forum does happen to go down for an extended period that we have a way to reach out to regulars with an explanation and ETA for fixing any problems that do arise. Thankfully there has not proved to be a pressing need for this, but over time it makes sense to harden the backup systems.
For the moment the most likely event would be a technical mishap with our host that keeps the forum offline for a period, and for that we now have in place backup.epicureanfriends.com as a first line place people can check for updates.
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.