Posts by Cassius

While Don and Elli are posting substantive material on translating Greek, I am posting UFO stories or debunkings of them.

I gather we are entering a season that for some reason possibly unrelated to the actual evidence the topic of UFOs is becoming more popular. I still fully expect extraterrestrial life to be found at some point in our lifetimes, but sounds like it may be in the form of fossils or underground on Venus or Mars before higher forms are found. And while the religionists will dismiss the findings as irrelevant to their faith, the finding will be major an opening with the more fair-minded ones.

Red Flag: Alien spacecraft 'whistleblower' has never seen actual evidence of UFOs, and all of his sources are anonymous

Zero evidence. Zero non-anonymous sources. Zero credibility.

www.dossier.today

yep - allegations that are maybe from more credible sources than usual, but still just allegations.

I don't vouch for the credibility of this site so if anyone thinks not worth considering please post. On first glance seems better documented than the usual story.

Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin - The Debrief

In a Debrief exclusive, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean report that a former official says the U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin.

thedebrief.org

Also I think we have a category for this so will move when I find it.

That actually sounds like a more interesting book than Greenblatt's, since he spent a lot of time on what I would call church history and this one sounds more like mostly philosophy.

Now that our book review is complete let me thank all who participated, and especially Emily Austin who joined in our final session. We'll plan a new program soon and we'll rotate back to "Living for Pleasure" in the future.

One comment I wanted to make about the discussion in the final session was a point that Godfrey raised. The question that he raised was rather it would be possibly more effective - at least in certain situations - to organize the presentation around "feeling" (feeling of pleasure and pain) rather than strictly and immediately pleasure.

I agree with that point and maybe Godfrey or I can start a new thread to extend it.

Cicero's taunt to Torquatus was that you can't go in front of the Senate and People as a leader and call for the pursuit of "pleasure," and I think one way of meeting that charge and actually doing so is to point out that what Epicurus was really advocating was the following of Nature - through the faculty of feeling pleasure and pain. I think at least as a rhetorical strategy that makes a lot of sense, and I read that into what Cassius Longinus was saying back to Cicero in his letters,. that the officers like himself and Pansa were following both pleasure and virtue (justice) in what they were doing, which is something that people can understand, when the call to "virtue" alone doesn't really mean anything understandable. The subtext is that the emotional attachment to what they were fighting for is the feeling of pleasure, properly understood, that can motivate just as easily, or more so, than the call to "virtue."

We will move this to a aubforum but for now:

It Turns Out Parrots Love Videoconferencing

A recent experiment showed that parrots seem considerably enriched by the ability to video call other parrots. It’s important that the activity be done in a…

hackaday.com

You're welcome. Nikolsky himself credits Gosling and Taylor in their "Greeks on Pleasure" for his inspiration, and I see that Emily Austin in "Living for Pleasure" footnotes that she sides with Gosling and Taylor as well. So other than DeWitt, who mentions the issue but does so mostly in passing, credit probably goes to Gosling and Taylor for blazing the modern trail on this.

G&T marshal the evidence for why the Ciceronian / modern interpretation that elevates katastematic pleasure / tranquility as the true end is wrong, and Nikolsky advances the case of how the problem got accentuated due to the editing choices of Diogenes Laertius in organizing his comments along the division of Carneades (if I recall correctly).

Thanks for those excerpts Joshua. Both are great, and I bet can tease more meaning out of Horace if we eventually figure out exactly the context in which Horace was making his point.

I probably will have to apologize for a second week for my conduct on the podcast. Last week I was congested and painful to listen to; this week I had read too much Cicero from book two and the last book of Tusculan Disputations, and I got carried away wanting to argue with him.

We missed Don in this episode but are hoping to have him back next week.

Quote from Don

That doesn't make them "better" just more readily available.

Yes, and having a type of pleasure that is "readily available" is essential to Epicurus being able to maintain that the wise man who pursues pleasure can always find it and thus be able to say that he is happy.

I wish you good health and quick writing with all those books in the hopper! Please don't save Epicurus for last!

Thank you Peter. I don't have nearly the reading background (or processing power)in Rand that you have, but I see that your article is largely based on the widely held premise that Epicurus values katastematic pleasures higher than kinetic ones. If I thought that was correct I would have a major problem with Epicurus, and I would probably have dropped him long ago. I perceive this to be similar to why Nietzsche ultimately backed away.

But for me, this problem is overcome by arguments stated at length by Boris Nikolsky and Gosling and Taylor, who allege that this widely held premise is not correct, and that Epicurus did not hold katatastemic as higher than kinetic, or place "tranquility" at the center of his philosophy rather than pleasure, as is attributed to him.

I doubt this thread is the place to elaborate on that for the moment, but I wanted to note that I think there is a lot to be gained in comparing and contrasting Rand with Epicurus, just as we do the Stoics and the others. It has been so long since I read those Shelton articles that I hardly remember them, but tracing out the reasons why Rand does not ultimately land on "pleasure" but on some version of "reason" (at least in common perception) is to me a fascinating subject.

Good finds. I have a modern print of the Bailey three volume set and there's tons of detail in his notes and commentary - but so long since i glanced through it that I hardly remember any of it.

I was just about ready to post a cautionary warning about referencing Greg Sadler (as he is a leader in modern Stoicism) but then:

1 - I checked the artice linked, and yes it is indeed a good comprehensive list of the surviving texts, and

2 - How can I criticize someone who writes?

So yes Greg Sadler's article is a good list of sources - I just don't recommend you follow him too closely on his views on Stoicism.

And our participants here who would like to know more about st peter could do a lot worse than look here, which is the site I myself came across many years ago:

Peter Saint-Andre

I see the smiley face and I would expect nothing less than a book on Aristotle from someone who has written so eloquently about Howard Roark!

Good to have you Peter! Just to clarify the "edit" in the post, I removed the "color" attribute in the text so that it would be readable on dark themes.

Gosh this seems otherworldly! Welcome ST. PETER!

But all of us here know him as the owner of one of the best set of translations of Epicurus on the internet!

Welcome stpeter !

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!

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between desire and choice and avoidance and pleasure and it's probably time to go back into that subject, because I am not sure we ever clarified it, and I agree that would help. How does "desire" differ from "choose to pursue" or even just "choose?"

Quote from Don

... Yes, but some pleasures are not choiceworthy.

I would say yes, but that is a subsidiary point, and should never be used to dilute the effect of the prior more fundamental statement that "no pleasure is a bad thing in itself." Just as Epicurus did, you start with the basic that no pleasure is bad in itself, and then state that sometimes some pleasures bring more pain than pleasure, and that *for that reason alone* some pleasures are not choiceworthy. You lead with the theorem and then give an application of it, but to me it's essential to hammer home the theorem since that is what everyone wants to fight about, and it chokes in the mouth of the Platonists and Stoics.

Let's make them choke again: "Choiceworthiness" means ONLY that it brings more pain than pleasure.

As usual I think we are in agreement