Posts by Cassius

Thanks for that question and that helps let us know where you are in your reading.

We have some initial introductory material on pages like this -- https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/new-user-page/

- but we really need better summaries of the core material.

All of the books and material we have listed in your "Welcome" message are good, and where you start depends mainly on your particular interests. The videos and other intro material on Youtube and elsewhere generally focus on the "ethics" questions and they can leave people bewildered if they don't understand some of the basic worldview issues first.

It would be of great help to us if you would give us feedback on what you find to be clear and what you find to be confusing as you read further into Epicurus. We use information like that to make the website better and to decide what kind of new materials to produce.

Quote from ThinkingCat

I do know that Epicureans believed in gods who had put things in motion but then removed themselves from our affairs and sat completely detached from humans

I am sure others will chime in but if by "things" you mean the entire universe, then this is not correct -- that is the "deist" view but not the Epicurean view. In the Epicurean view the universe is eternal and was never created by any gods or other supernatural forces. In whole and in total (not particular planets or solar systems or galaxies, but truly 'in whole') the universe has always existed and always will exist. That is why the phrases "nothing from nothing" and "nothing to nothing" are so foundational.

As far as the rest of your paragraph yes that would be correct. There is absolutely no "supernatural" dimension -- no heaven, no hell, no afterlife of any kind.

I want to add a comment/question that occurs to me because of the podcast that we recorded today:

I think most of us would agree that it is healthy functioning for the human body to feel pain when it is exposed to something painful.

So the question is: Should we view the Epicurean gods (real OR ideal, either way), as being painless because they are *incapable* of feeling pain, or because they have so arranged their affairs and circumstances that they are never exposed to anything that is painful?

I ask because this might have a relationship to the original question of the gods feeling gratitude. Are they capable of feeling gratitude but do not because they have nothing outside themselves to be grateful for? Are they not grateful for their companionship with their companion gods?

I am thinking the answer would be that the gods are capable of feeling pain, but do not because they have so arranged their affairs so as never to be exposed to it, and in that way of looking at things they would serve as a model for we as humans to also in our own ways arrange our affairs.

But again the usefulness of this at the extreme may be more of a logic game than anything else. It seems obvious that we all, at whatever stage of development, wish to arrange our affairs so as to have no need to experience unnecessary or "un-worthwhile" pain.

In case some are not familiar with it, I would submit for your consideration (a Rod Serling phrase there) one of the most well-thought-of episodes of the 60's Twilight Zone episodes --- "A Stop At Willoughby."

Here is its Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Stop_at_Willoughby

And here's a link where it currently can be viewed: https://odysee.com/@Ntv:3/Twiligh…At-Willoughby:0

The reason it comes to mind is that the thrust of the episode is that the lead character envisions his own version of a "paradise" situation in which: "He learns that this would be a place that is "peaceful, restful, where a man can slow down to a walk and live his life full measure."

This definitely involves slowing down and getting off the rat race of a modern competitive and commercial life, but for purposes of the current analysis I would focus on the fact that his "paradise" vision does not involve being a corpse or asleep, but living a "normal" life full of "normal" activities (band concerts, fishing, etc). This is in contrast to his boss who tells him to "push, push, push" and his wife who drinks herself to death while worrying about her peers and the country club.

As usual with Twilight Zone the issue is more submitted for consideration rather than suggesting a practical response (not to spoil the plot, but the lead character ends up dead). However the imagery of how the best life involves action, rather than being simply a floating disembodied mind, is useful for our purposes, I think.

A full measure life would include all the things that Epicurus said he experienced and without which he would not have known the good:

“I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.”

– Diogenes Laertius, Book X

If you haven't seen this one it is 30 minutes well spent.

A Stop at Willoughby

"A Stop of Willoughby" is the thirtieth episode of the The Twilight Zone. "This is Gart Williams, age thirty-eight, a man protected by a suit of armor, all…

twilightzone.fandom.com

Push! Push! Push! The lead character's boss reminds me of Zeno pointing an accusing finger at Epicurus on the side of the Bosoreale cup:

As to the issue of Plato arguing that pleasure has more limit, here is the argument in Philebus which seems to me even more clear than what Dewitt cited --- followed by the same argument in Seneca:

Philebus 27e, link to full copy of Philebus (Wikisource) (Gutenberg

SOCRATES: I omit ten thousand other things, such as beauty and health and strength, and the many beauties and high perfections of the soul: O my beautiful Philebus, the goddess, methinks, seeing the universal wantonness and wickedness of all things, and that there was in them no limit to pleasures and self-indulgence, devised the limit of law and order, whereby, as you say, Philebus, she torments, or as I maintain, delivers the soul. — What think you, Protarchus? …

SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

PHILEBUS: They belong to the class which admits of more, Socrates; for pleasure would not be perfectly good if she were not infinite in quantity and degree.

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now — admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite — in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question. …

SOCRATES: And whence comes that soul, my dear Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains elements like those in our bodies but in every way fairer, had also a soul? Can there be another source?

PROTARCHUS: Clearly, Socrates, that is the only source.

SOCRATES: Why, yes, Protarchus; for surely we cannot imagine that of the four classes, the finite, the infinite, the composition of the two, and the cause, the fourth, which enters into all things, giving to our bodies souls, and the art of self-management, and of healing disease, and operating in other ways to heal and organize, having too all the attributes of wisdom; — we cannot, I say, imagine that whereas the self-same elements exist, both in the entire heaven and in great provinces of the heaven, only fairer and purer, this last should not also in that higher sphere have designed the noblest and fairest things?

PROTARCHUS: Such a supposition is quite unreasonable.

SOCRATES: Then if this be denied, should we not be wise in adopting the other view and maintaining that there is in the universe a mighty infinite and an adequate limit, of which we have often spoken, as well as a presiding cause of no mean power, which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may be justly called wisdom and mind?

PROTARCHUS: Most justly.

---

We can find the same point made by Seneca in the following:

Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVI: This also is a saying of Epicurus: “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.” Nature’s wants are slight; the demands of opinion are boundless. Suppose that the property of many millionaires is heaped up in your possession. Assume that fortune carries you far beyond the limits of a private income, decks you with gold, clothes you in purple, and brings you to such a degree of luxury and wealth that you can bury the earth under your marble floors; that you may not only possess, but tread upon, riches. Add statues, paintings, and whatever any art has devised for the luxury; you will only learn from such things to crave still greater. Natural desires are limited; but those which spring from false opinion can have no stopping point. The false has no limits.

Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect."

On page 227 DeWitt writes:

---

To the youthful Menoeceus Epicurus writes: "Plain-tasting foods bring a pleasure equal to that of luxurious diet when once the pain arising from need has been removed. and bread and water afford the very keenest pleasure when one in need of them brings them to his lips:' 22

This is the fixed ceiling for pleasure. which he endeavors to establish in opposition to Plato. who compared the appetitive part of the soul to "a many-headed beast" and held to the opinion that desires increase endlessly and that pleasure defied the fixing of a limit. 23

---

The footnotes under 23 are from Plato's Republic:

Plato, Republic, Book 9, section 585e

[585d] that the kinds concerned with the service of the body partake less of truth and reality than those that serve the soul?” “Much less.” “And do you not think that the same holds of the body itself in comparison with the soul?” “I do.” “Then is not that which is fulfilled of what more truly is, and which itself more truly is, more truly filled and satisfied than that which being itself less real is filled with more unreal things?” “Of course.” “If, then, to be filled with what befits nature is pleasure, then that which is more really filled with real things [585e] would more really and truly cause us to enjoy a true pleasure, while that which partakes of the less truly existent would be less truly and surely filled and would partake of a less trustworthy and less true pleasure.” “Most inevitably,” he said. “Then those who have no experience [586a] of wisdom and virtue but are ever devoted to1 feastings and that sort of thing are swept downward, it seems, and back again to the center, and so sway and roam2 to and fro throughout their lives, but they have never transcended all this and turned their eyes to the true upper region nor been wafted there, nor ever been really filled with real things, nor ever tasted stable and pure pleasure, but with eyes ever bent upon the earth4 and heads bowed down over their tables they feast like cattle, [586b] grazing and copulating, ever greedy for more of these delights; and in their greed1 kicking and butting one another with horns and hooves of iron they slay one another in sateless avidity, because they are vainly striving to satisfy with things that are not real the unreal and incontinent part of their souls.” “You describe in quite oracular style,3 Socrates,” said Glaucon, “the life of the multitude.” “And are not the pleasures with which they dwell inevitably commingled with pains, phantoms of true pleasure, illusions of scene-painting, so colored by contrary juxtaposition [586c] as to seem intense in either kind, and to beget mad loves of themselves in senseless souls, and to be fought for,1 as Stesichorus says the wraith of Helen was fought for at Troy through ignorance of the truth?” “It is quite inevitable,” he said, “that it should be so.”

AND

Plato, Republic, Book 8, section 562a

[562a] “Shall we definitely assert, then, that such a man is to be ranged with democracy and would properly be designated as democratic?” “Let that be his place,” he said. “And now,” said I, “the fairest1 polity and the fairest man remain for us to describe, the tyranny and the tyrant.” “Certainly,” he said. “Come then, tell me, dear friend, how tyranny arises.2 That it is an outgrowth of democracy is fairly plain.” “Yes, plain.” “Is it, then, in a sense, in the same way in which democracy arises out of oligarchy that tyranny arises from democracy?” [562b] “How is that?” “The good that they proposed to themselves1 and that was the cause of the establishment of oligarchy—it was wealth,2 was it not?” “Yes.” “Well, then, the insatiate lust for wealth and the neglect of everything else for the sake of money-making was the cause of its undoing.” “True,” he said. “And is not the avidity of democracy for that which is its definition and criterion of good the thing which dissolves it3 too?” “What do you say its criterion to be?” “Liberty,4” I replied; “for you may hear it said that this is best managed in a democratic city, [562c] and for this reason that is the only city in which a man of free spirit will care to live.1” “Why, yes,” he replied, “you hear that saying everywhere.” “Then, as I was about to observe,2 is it not the excess and greed of this and the neglect of all other things that revolutionizes this constitution too and prepares the way for the necessity of a dictatorship?”

The section we discuss today has some material I have not reviewed closely, including this as a footnote reference to a writer named Koerte from a work I have not seen:

Koerte: A. Koerte. Metrodori Epicurei Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1890

That's a reference for this from Epicurus:

"Each individual is physically constituted from the very beginning of his being for a definite span of life, so that, while he cannot live a longer term, he may live a shorter."

I am adding to this thread becaues the "lathe biosas" issue is coming up tomorrow in our book review of the Emily Austin "Living for Pleasure."

I wanted to add this link where the primary source for this phrase as being Epicurean is recorded - in Plutarch:

Plutarch's Moralia in sixteen volumes. Vol.14: 1086C-1147A [Loeb 428] : Plutarchus / Plutarch (46 - ca. 122) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Source: https://archive.org/details/moraliainfiftee14plut

archive.org

The essay is "Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?" and it begins on the page at this link:

Plutarch's Moralia in sixteen volumes. Vol.14: 1086C-1147A [Loeb 428] : Plutarchus / Plutarch (46 - ca. 122) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Source: https://archive.org/details/moraliainfiftee14plut

archive.org

Welcome to Episode 174 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we continue our discussion of Chapter 12, entitled "The New Hedonism."

• The True Nature of Pleasure
  • Pleasure, he declares, is cognate and connate with us, and by this he means not only that the inter- connection between life and pleasure manifests itself simultaneously with birth and by actions that precede the capacity to choose and understand; he means also that pleasure is of one nature with normal life, an ingredient or component of it. and not an appendage that may be attached and detached; it is a normal accompaniment of life in the same sense that pain and disease are abnormal.
• The Dualistic Good
• The Natural Ceilings Of Pleasure
• Pleasure Not Increased By Immortality
• The Fullness of Pleasure
• The Unity of Pleasure
• The Root of All Good
• Pleasure Can Be Continuous
• Continuous Pain Impossible
• The Relation of Pleasure To Virtue

This episode mentions Eudoxus. A separate thread has been created to carry forward that conversation in more detail:

Thread

Eudoxus - Precursor to Epicurus and More Like Him Than Aristippus?

Another topic briefly mentioned in Episode 173, and someone else we need to spend more time exploring - EUDOXUS:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus



Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics,^[11] attributes to Eudoxus an argument in favor of hedonism—that is, that pleasure is the ultimate good that activity strives for. According to Aristotle, Eudoxus put forward the following arguments for this position:

1. All things, rational and irrational, aim at pleasure; things aim at what they believe

…

Cassius

May 12, 2023 at 7:51 PM

Quote from Nate

The gods are grateful to Nature, for, without the eternal atoms, they would not enjoy pleasant lives.

Great question. On the face of it I would think that that meaning of grateful *would* apply to the gods. If the gods take pleasure in their own existence and circumstances - and I think that would be true - isn't that Nature?

Maybe we are in another one of those many definition searches.

Quote from ThinkingCat

I’d really like to know how being Epicurean got to be twisted on its head i.e being a person who is into fine and luxurious foods.

Most of the comment so far focus on the intentional warping.

There is also the fact that there is a "grain of truth" in that if you are thinking that Epicurus was "only" into simple pleasures, then that too is not true.

Epicurus was into "pleasure" and that can come in many ways, simple and luxurious, and the trick is to maneuveur through your personal context to focus on pleasures that do not cause you more pain than you are willing to experience for the sake of those pleasures.

The standard translation of VS63 is: VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

Further in the letter to Menoeceus:

130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equal to a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips.

So there is both the "intentional misrepresentation" and the "grain of truth" that can be seen when you dive into the specific meaning of the words involved.

Welcome to the forum! This and many other similar questions are very deep so we always like to discuss them.

Welcome ThinkingCat !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be 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 173 of the podcast is now available!

In fact it would be fun to compare and contrast: Who was closer to Epicurus, Aristippus or Eudoxus? What do we know about their respective physics and epistemology that we might use to say that Epicurus thought of himself as being closer to one than to the other?

Quote from Cassius

Any other good that you can think of would be better if pleasure were added to it, and it is only by good that good can be increased.

Of all of the things that are good, happiness is peculiar for not being praised, which may show that it is the crowning good.

Both of these seem very creative! The first makes perfect sense, and and the second is ---snarkily convincing??

Another topic briefly mentioned in Episode 173, and someone else we need to spend more time exploring - EUDOXUS:

Eudoxus of Cnidus - Wikipedia

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics,^[11] attributes to Eudoxus an argument in favor of hedonism—that is, that pleasure is the ultimate good that activity strives for. According to Aristotle, Eudoxus put forward the following arguments for this position:

1. All things, rational and irrational, aim at pleasure; things aim at what they believe to be good; a good indication of what the chief good is would be the thing that most things aim at.
2. Similarly, pleasure's opposite—pain—is universally avoided, which provides additional support for the idea that pleasure is universally considered good.
3. People don't seek pleasure as a means to something else, but as an end in its own right.
4. Any other good that you can think of would be better if pleasure were added to it, and it is only by good that good can be increased.
5. Of all of the things that are good, happiness is peculiar for not being praised, which may show that it is the crowning good.^[12]

Sorry for the delay in posting this week's episode, but it will be up "soon."

Just a note while editing is underway:

Joshua observes in this episode that Lucretius mentions pleasure many times, but "bonum summum" only once. We didn't comment on it in the episode but it seems to me that that in itself is significant in terms of the priority (or lack thereof) that an orthodox Epicurean like Lucretius placed on discussing the two topics: much attention to "pleasure" but not so much to "the greatest good."

Quote from Don

I've taken that, in part, as once you pull up your empty ideas about death, fate, etc., you won't fall back into error.

Yep. Whenever I think about things like that, however, I think of the "once saved, always saved" issues in Christianity, and I really can't see Epicurus himself (for example) claiming to never make a mistake. But certainly in those key areas you mention you would think that such errors would be very unlikely.

Looks like a well organized and well funded group.