Posts by Cassius

Thanks to Don for this very helpful article: Epicurean Prolepsis by David Glidden.

I am reading that article now and it shoots at a lot of what seems generally accepted about anticipations. I read Glidden to agree with DeWitt in being very critical of Diogenes Laertius, but he is also critical of Cicero, on the grounds that both of them have too much Stoic influence. I like what I am reading so far.

For example:

Quote

Consequently I see no foundation for the most common interpretation, that Epicurean prolepsis is some kind of conceptual device. The most popular version of this thesis has been that prolepseis are the meanings of individual words, as they might also have been for the Stoics, individual concepts which when strung together in the appropriate way would provide meaning to sentences, constituting lekta· Now I have argued against this interpretation in "Epicurean Semantics,” where I pointed out that we should take the evidence of Plutarch and Sextus seriously, that there is nothing in Epicureanism comparable to what the Stoics claimed was the significance ( t_o semainomenon ) of voiced sounds. The Epicureans made do with just voiced sounds, or utterances, and the events happening in the world which those utterances referred to. Attention to everything which the Epicureans say about the origin and character of language suggests that utterances label states of the world, or else they are vacuous sounds. The prolepseis, then, are not vehicles of meaning, but conveyances of evidence making claims on the world, not making sense of our vocabulary.

Some would maintain that nevertheless prolepseis are mental representations, though what they represent are complex ideas about the world. This too seems unlikely. The authority of perception and the authority of our feelings would be called into question, with disastrous consequences for Epicurean empiricism, were it the case that what it iswe see or how it is we feel were somehow dependent upon our own subjective perspective and viewpoint· The Epicureans were adamant on the mechanical, automatic character of perception and feeling, which somehow guaranteed the information we received from our senses was information about the state of the world, as opposed to our state of mind· The purely referential character of what it is we perceive and the pleasure and pain we feel is what guarantees the epistemic authority of aisthesis and pathe.

Welcome to Episode 163 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're 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."

Sensations

Epicurus Not An Empiricist

Anticipations

The Account of Laertius

The Element of Anticipation

Evidences From Specific Context

Later Evidences

Feelings

This week we continue in Chapter 8 with "Anticipations."

This may not seem like a lot in comparison to Facebook or other locations, but I wanted to note that I don't think I have ever seen our "Online in the Last 24 hours" count fill up three whole lines and most of a fourth. Almost certainly we have lots of lurkers as well, but this represents participating "users" who have taken the step of creating an account so they can fully engage. Thanks again to everyone who is participating, because the more input and interaction we have the more we all get out of this.

Episode 162 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue in Chapter 8 of the DeWitt Book and begin our discussion of anticipations. Unfortunately Joshua is not with us this week so we go slow and set the stage for more detailed discussion next week - and we hope to have Don join us next week as well.

Welcome @lusan !

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.

Welcome to the forum!

•  Edit

Charles I am thinking this is more in your department?

We will miss you Don! Hope to see you Saturday.

Welcome @deniz.karakullukcu

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.

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Adrian

I find the concept of a space outside the universe for the universe to expand into difficulty to conceive since all space is surely within the universe?

And to me this is an issue of word-play as much as it is of anything else. If we are defining the "all" as everything, then it seems to me the only way you end up with these seemingly-conflicting positions is by ignoring the definition issue. If, like Lucretius and his javelin, the universe is "expanding" - then whatever it is expanding into would seem to be by definition part of the universe.

I can't help but being suspicious that there is something more behind these formulations than good-faith science. Every time I have tried to dig deeper into these questions it seems to me I have found that the issue is that those who are postulating some kind of weirdness are fudging that they are considering the universe as a whole to be "what is observable as of now" which is NOT the definition of "the all" traditionally meant as the definition of "the universe."

A very good observation on the "mole." The Epicurean gods are invulnerable (apparently) but we are not. And as long as we have vulnerabilities then the ability to sense something to worry about is extremely valuable. I suppose we have discussed that too but while it seems appropriate to reduce our experience of pain to as close to zero as possible, we would not want to "eliminate" the sense of pain itself, as it serves effectively as a requirement of human life.

Stoics and those who are willing to hypothecize the superiority of some "other world" are probably naturally drawn to eliminate all feeling of all kind, but in THIS world, feeling both good and bad is a necessity.

Ha - another question: If anxiety must be avoided and never accepted at all costs, would anyone ever choose to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, or get married, or have children?

Unfortunately Joshua was not able to join us for this episode, so it is shorter than usual and will serve mainly as a short introduction to the topic. We'll grapple with it in much more detail when Joshua is able to rejoin us, which will hopefully be our next episode. Editing should be complete and the episode released by mid-week.

I had time to come back and make another comment:

When I refer to the conflation of tranquility and pleasure as "one of the most dangerous" ideas I don't mean "dangerous" in the sense of evil or something malicious in and of itself. I mean dangerous in the hands of those who aren't thinking through the implications.

What I think I observe is that there is a great tendency in the non-Epicurean intellectual world to do everything possible to take the focus off of "pleasure." I don't think that is because such people dislike the experience of pleasure themselves, because of course they do. What they see - and what I think Epicurus saw - is that this question is a subtext for the deeper and more volatile question of "their" (again referring to non-Epicurean intellectuals) desire to maintain control of the narrative over others. If "they" can keep the focus on ideal forms, or essences, or virtue, or tranquility, or frankly *anything* other than pleasure itself, then "they" can define the narrative of how to life, and "they" can keep control over others who disagree with them.

I think Epicurus saw that, but I think it's always been a problem that people of good will are often slow to recognize that this tension exists. Some of them want to maintain the same power to define "the good" that Plato and similar wanted to keep for themselves, but some of them (especially in relatively good times) just don't find it in themselves to understand how important these questions are, and how "others" can use this issue to manipulate them. If someone doesn't have a manipulative personality then the desire to manipulate can be hard to understand. "I just want to be left alone to live my own life - doesn't everyone?" Unfortunately the answer to that is "No, everyone doesn't just want to be left alone."

We've noticed before that many of "us" tend to be introverts, and it's just not in our nature to want to spend our time scheming about ways to manipulate other people. That's very consistent with Epicurus' advise not to make a career in politics / control over others. But that is pretty much what "organized religion" is, whether it's in the form of the most super-primitive Christianity of the "west" or the most ultra-"enlightened" eastern viewpoints. I think that's one reason why those of us who only want to live our own lives find it appealing to pick and choose elements in other viewpoints that we think are desirable, while charitably glossing over or ignoring the negative elements in those viewpoints.

So of course that is not what I am thinking you are doing at all, but I do think that the overall massive tendency of the great majority of intellectuals in the last 2000 years has pushed in that direction. They think that if they can define the goal for other people as something other than the sense of pleasure and pain that Nature implanted in everyone then they have a leg up on controlling the narrative and controlling society. And I think that technique does work, and it has been very successful for them, which is why they identify pleasure in general and Epicurus in particular as such an enemy.

Don, for an Epicurean god, perhaps, but for a human being?

I can see why you would be tempted to take that position due to the passages which focus on how particular fears can be reduced or eliminated through particular means, but I see "anxiety" as a subset of the overall pleasure-pain doctrine and not as something unique in itself.

And in fact I would see the temptation to consider it to be unique is one of the most dangerous aspects of the way some people elevate tranquility to be the goal rather than pleasure.

It seems to me that this is one of the ways in which we should see Epicurus as building on the Cyreniacs rather than refuting them. If the Cyeniacs really wanted to deprecate the wide variety of mental pleasures that exist, then they were wrong, but I have a very difficult time thinking that they were so narrow in focus. Epicurus, as Diogenes Laertius says, recognized *both* active and non-active pleasures, and in so doing he tightened up the logic of the prior advocates of pleasure and made the theory stronger as against the Platonists and the others who advocated other versions of "the good." If the good is pleasure, then that includes all kinds, and Nature doesn't tell us "pursue pleasure, but of all the pleasures, pursue tranquility the most" -- At least I don't personally understand Nature as doing so, nor do I observe that in the young of all species, which I gather is the ultimate observational test.

Quote from Don

Pain, yes. Anxiety, no.

Is not anxiety just a subset of pain?

Happy Twentieth of February 2023 to everyone. This post is kind of disorganized but some random thoughts:

• Remember our open-to-all meet and greet Zoom targeted to the European time zone for those who have difficulty with our regular US Eastern time meetings- this coming Saturday at 2:00 PM
• Let us know in this thought any general thoughts you'd like to share to everyone on the forum.
• We've had a lot of good discussions on many topics lately and just wanted to say "thank you" to all who participate here!

Quote from waterholic

But to get back to my first post: a stoic take on it would be that there should be no anxiety, since by remaining true to virtue, one has nothing to fear irrespective of the environment (loss of job, shelter etc. - so all is good in the community).

Yes I think this is an important point, and we keep circling around the same issue: If we are going to indulge in the game of attempting to articulate clearly intermediate and ultimate goals, and if we are going to reduce that goal to one word, then the word is "Pleasure" and the reason that is the one word is that that is the single faculty that Nature has given us to decide what to choose.

We are essentially taking the position that we are good with Nature's choice, and we are going to follow Nature's choice, and individual speculations about other choices be damned -- damn the torpedos, we are on Nature's side, and we're not going to stray off onto another course.

"Tranquility" or any other specific type of pleasure is an individual matter of choice. Nature hasn't written "Tranqulity" or "Fame" or "Riches" or "sex" or anything else as a single absolute goal for every person at every time.

This is where I think we have to parse Epicurean texts and look for the big picture, because there are specific texts that when read separately point in separate directions, and at times focus on certain aspects like tranquility, and at some times focus on concepts like "happiness" and all sorts of tools that are or can be pleasures themselves (friendship, philosophy, to name just two.)

As I see it the answer to most of the confusion is to realize that individuals like atoms have changing contexts and at times some types of pleasures are more important than others. The only thing that connects the pleasure of tranquility with the pleasure of skydiving is that our faculty of pleasure identifies both of them as pleasurable in some circumstances. Sometimes it's appropriate to seek safety with a few friends in a cave, and sometimes it's appropriate to jump out of an airplane and hope anxiously that the parachute is going to open.

The only rational way I can see to explain all this is to always go back to (1) "Pleasure" --the faculty given us by nature and then (2) the Epicurean worldview (no supernatural, no life after death, no eternals except the properties of atoms, etc). That's the tribunal to face in every situation, and then from those each individual has to evaluate their situation and follow the guide of nature, which cannot be more abstractly defined than to "pursue pleasure."

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

I wasn't able to reply earlier but here is another angle on the question that goes along with what Kalosyni wrote:

As I see it, the core of Epicurean philosophy that gives life to all the rest of it is the "worldview" of how the world operates without supernatural forces, how there is no life after death, and so on. Those are things that don't change no matter what circumstances you may be in.

The ethics, while it is what we use to make day to day decisions, is much more -- totally in fact -- contextual, and how to apply it is based on the circumstances you are in.

What I think waterholic is correctly noting is that social relationships have changed dramatically in 2000 years. The people we live right next door, even in the same building, are often not our closest friends or even known to us in many cases.

So when we talk about "the importance of friendship" it is natural that how we interact with the people who we consider to be our closest friends is going to be a lot different than the way people related in the past. The benefits we get from friendship may be the same, but the way we interact has changed dramatically.

My point in this short post is that this should not be seen as a limitation of Epicurean philosophy as it is part of its flexibility -- the goal is PLEASURE - of which tranquility is hopefully a large part, but which we may have to dispense with for long periods if our circumstances require change.

So to echo Waterholic, how I choose and interact with my friends may be entirely different than the way it was done 20 years or 200 years or 2000 years ago. But the insight is Epicurus is that the goal is pleasure in a life that is all too short, and in which there are no divine gods or fate or ideal absolute virtues. If we start with that - which is the heart - then we can adapt Epicurus' suggestions as to how to live prudently to fit our own circumstances.

Thank you Kasolsyni!