Posts by Cassius

Very good point. Reid has it that way, so the Latin may support it, i was about to go further and say it's so far off as to be unusable, but really as I think twice this may actually be accurate. Maybe this is affirming what is apparently the true Epicurean position, analogous to reverencing the wise man, that we benefit from reverencing even though the wise man man may not be directing his activities toward us at all.

There's a passage in Lucretius about not being able to approach the temples of the gods without fear unless you have a proper understanding of them (but I can't find it right now).

This definitely calls for parsing the Latin

I am afraid that listing the "being steadfast" part as a separate item just is not really supported by the Latin. Especially when looking at the Reid translation, seems to me that there are really only five major things going on. This version follows Reid most literally:

1. Set as your goal to live among pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them, while at the same time:
2. Be confident that death is apart from sensation,
3. Be confident that pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance.
4. Be free of awe of the influence of the gods;
5. Be never forgetful of the pleasures of the past, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Varying translation choices between Rackham and Reid:

When we reviewed this material in the podcast, we chose the REID translation because it seemed more literal than Rackham. Here is Reid's version of this same passage:

[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. [41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

So going by this one the description of the best life is "the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them. "

Comparing that to Rackham (The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: ) and looking back at the Latin, it appears that the "undisturbed" has crept into Rackham without good justification. I think we can all speculate as to why he would be tempted to use that term even though it is not in the text.

It's pretty easy to read "impede" in the sense of delay (or thward) for as Reid does, plus the "impending" rings of "threaten" also per Reid, which agrees with my Cassell's Latin dictionary for Impendeo. That rings well with the reference at the beginning of book 1 as Epicurus standing up against the threats of the gods and breaking the bars of the gates of nature.

Here is the latin from the LatinLibrary.com:

Quote

[40] Extremum autem esse bonorum voluptatem ex hoc facillime perspici potest: Constituamus aliquem magnis, multis, perpetuis fruentem et animo et corpore voluptatibus nullo dolore nec impediente nec inpendente, quem tandem hoc statu praestabiliorem aut magis expetendum possimus dicere? inesse enim necesse est in eo, qui ita sit affectus, et firmitatem animi nec mortem nec dolorem timentis, quod mors sensu careat, dolor in longinquitate levis, in gravitate brevis soleat esse, ut eius magnitudinem celeritas, diuturnitatem allevatio consoletur. [41] Ad ea cum accedit, ut neque divinum numen horreat nec praeteritas voluptates effluere patiatur earumque assidua recordatione laetetur, quid est, quod huc possit, quod melius sit, accedere? Statue contra aliquem confectum tantis animi corporisque doloribus, quanti in hominem maximi cadere possunt, nulla spe proposita fore levius aliquando, nulla praeterea neque praesenti nec expectata voluptate, quid eo miserius dici aut fingi potest? quodsi vita doloribus referta maxime fugienda est, summum profecto malum est vivere cum dolore, cui sententiae consentaneum est ultimum esse bonorum eum voluptate vivere. nec enim habet nostra mens quicquam, ubi consistat tamquam in extremo, omnesque et metus et aegritudines ad dolorem referuntur, nec praeterea est res ulla, quae sua natura aut sollicitare possit aut angere. [42] Praeterea et appetendi et refugiendi et omnino rerum gerendarum initia proficiscuntur aut a voluptate aut a dolore. quod cum ita sit, perspicuum est omnis rectas res atque laudabilis eo referri, ut cum voluptate vivatur. quoniam autem id est vel summum bonorum vel ultimum vel extremum -- quod Graeci telos nominant --, quod ipsum nullam ad aliam rem, ad id autem res referuntur omnes, fatendum est summum esse bonum iucunde vivere.

This may be our most plain and simple detailed statement of the most desirable life left from the ancient Epicurean writings:

Constituamus aliquem magnis, multis, perpetuis fruentem et animo et corpore voluptatibus nullo dolore nec impediente nec inpendente,

To me, a drive for clarity (or to banish improper connotations) is an embodiment of VS46 -

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

Improper inferences from words like "tranquility" (and of "easy" in 3 and 4 of the T) have long done us great harm!

So we don't need to jettison them completely, just be clear in our use of them.

I don't think I use the word "precision" twice in a year, but I see that Dewitt uses the word at least 39 times in his book, such as:

(and the word "precise" 29 more times)

So a better choice of words for 2 (firmness might work too, but steadfastness works):

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess steadfastness of mind,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Yes firmitatem is an interesting word choice -- not "strength" of mind in the sense of "virtus" but the words Don suggests, indicating steadfastness, stability, constancy.

Words that very much play into our analogies to bodies of water, except that the point clearly would seem to me to imply "undivertable motion toward a goal" like the powerful Mississippi River flowing downstream, rather than just a small current in a tiny stream which is easy for beavers to divert.

(How's that for mixing metaphors from recent discussions?)

Quote from waterholic

Great list, like very much the six, except the "strength of mind". I don't understand why, but it "sounds stoic".

Agreed that it sounds Stoic to me too, but this might be an overreaction on our part.

Just because the Stoics may say the sun rises in the east that doesn't make it false

It looks to me like "Firmitatem animi" is a key phrase:

Again thinking that "strength of mind" is worth emphasizing for its own role as the means to the goal (which is indeed how I would see "tranquility," as a part of the means to to the goal of Pleasure, and not the goal in itself):

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess strength of mind,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Thinking back to Don's "strength of mind" emphasis, here's back to Six -

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess a strength of mind that is proof against (resistant to?) all fear,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

If we wanted to stick to four, that's easily done as well:

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain by understanding that death means complete unconsciousness, and pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
3. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
4. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

As usual there is lots of room for varying the wording of the translation from the Latin:

No we are not done at all, but in the meantime Don has inspired another thread:

Thread

Five Doses That Trump Four Every Time - The "Five-Part Cure"

[Edit: Originally posted as "Six-Part" Cure, consolidated to five for reasons stated in post 16 below.]

My issues with the tetrapharmokon have been frequently stated. What would I suggest is a much better summary that is better documented in the texts? Instead of the "four-part cure" I think we can look to a much better-stated "Six-part cure" as stated by Torquatus in "On Ends" (which means it was taken from the best handbooks available in about 50 BC by Cicero, who also had access to the…

Cassius

February 9, 2023 at 9:04 AM

[Edit: Originally posted as "Six-Part" Cure, consolidated to five for reasons stated in post 16 below.]

My issues with the tetrapharmokon have been frequently stated. What would I suggest is a much better summary that is better documented in the texts? Instead of the "four-part cure" I think we can look to a much better-stated "Six-part cure" as stated by Torquatus in "On Ends" (which means it was taken from the best handbooks available in about 50 BC by Cicero, who also had access to the best Epicurean teachers of his time, and who was subject to the sanction of some of his best friends if he got it wrong).

I need to look further at the Latin and variations of the translations, but lets take this from Rackham as a starting point:

Quote

The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

I can see it dividing this way:

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain;
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Some may divide it differently, and suggestions are welcome.

This post is just my first thought on the subject, but it covers the same points as the first two of the "T" while stating the other key fundamental points of the philosophy in much more clear fashion. Someone might want to say that point one is not a "dose" but the definition of health, but I think it's probably essential to keep it in the list given that the absence of such a statement is a major contributor to the ambiguities of the "T"

And this is a list that comes with some of the best possible documentation from the ancient world, not from a fragment of Greek of which we have next to no context with which to judge its subtleties, and about which we really do not even know for sure that Philodemus endorsed.

(Thanks to Don for inspiring this post.)

Aside from this cite which indicates something other than "calmness" (can you sing along a glorious triumph-song calmly?) , is there not another about the wise man WILL cry out while on the rack?

Quote

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

Here it is from Diogenes Laertius:

Quote

And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament.

So there is my explicit license from the texts: When I am on the rack I will not "keep calm and carry on" like nothing significant is happening!

As Don said at the start I don't think he and i are far apart at all.

We are in agreement that ataraxia / tranqulity is not THE goal that supercedes all others, and that is virtually the entire thrust of my point.

What i think is perhaps worth talking about further is this point which I am not sure i have seen Don make before:

Quote from Don

but it is pleasure that is always available to us

Quote from Don

I continue to "soapbox" that my reading of katastematic pleasures, including ataraxia, are those that arise from within ourselves and that these are the only pleasures in life that we can be confident of at all times.

Frankly that is a new assertion to me and i am not sure that I am aware of textual citations to support it, nor do i think it is obvious that this is true. Are not examples such as waterholic referenced, such as grief at the death of a child, not an example of why that is not "always" available, or even appropriate?

If there is any difference between Don and I it is that as he says, I want to banish every last drop of any implication of "passivity" or "acceptance of things which could be changed" as a connotation of "ataraxia" or "tranquility." I perceive Don to be= focusing on the "strength of mind" aspect with which I surely agree.

"Strength of mind" is certainly something I would always cultivate and hope to have, and arguably might be always availeble, but as to whether the word "tranquility" is a term that we should cultivate so as to have in every situation, i see that as a horse of a different stripe.

And in the end that is a large part of what we are talking about here: the best word to describe what we think Epicurus would be describing as highly valuable. "Strength of mind" - absolutely yes ----- but that is not the primary definition of tranquility as I understand the use of the word.

Strength of mind to keep one's mind focused on what needs to be done at all times - even in times of peril - is surely a top priority of Epicurus. But is "calmness" a complete synonym for that? I would not say so.

I know the Brits like to "keep calm and carry on" but that slogan has never impressed me as the best way to look at things. The "stiff upper lip" seems to go along with Stoicism to me.

Quote from Nate

Here, I think Epicurus is explicitly referring to the technical stimulation of sensory organs (or, rather, the lack thereof).

Nate do you agree that he means to include within these words everything that we might consider ourselves to be "conscious" of? Is this an implication that there is nothing going on in our experiences in life that is not brought within this category of the sensory organs?

Because if we can experience pain and pleasure apart from the sensory organs (at least in the way we are talking about it here), then PD2 doesn't give nearly the protection against fear of death as it would otherwise.

I am thinking that however this is interpreted, the end result must be in a way that is consistent with lack of sensation including all consciousness whatsoever. Pleasure absent sensation would imply pain without sensation and if those exist then the whole argument about death being the end of sensation would miss the mark that seems clearly intended for it.

Quote from A_Gardner

My current understanding is that it is more of a "fruit" that comes from following the tree of pleasure and Epicurean teachings.

Yes, a fruit, or a side benefit, or just one of many other aspects of how pleasure can be enjoyed in life. Most certainly not some special state, the achievement of which everything in life, and every other goal in life, is subordinate.

Once again it's a matter of whether the term is being used as normal people might use it. I have no issues with it in a broad or loose way, in regular conversation, or even in a technical sense if someone wants to define the best life as a jar of beans in which every last pain bean has been removed and replaced with a pleasure bean (which is what I think "the limit of pleasure" really was intended to reference). But the problem is the sense in which it is batted around in much discussion of Epicurus by professional commentators, as the be-all and end-all of life, which gives rise to the kind of question you ask such as:

"How can I do X if it will be disturbing?"

The answer to which, I would suggest, is just the way Epicurus said, that you sometimes choose pain (even the pain of disturbance) in order to achieve a greater PLEASURE. If there were no greater way to look at pleasure than "absence of disturbance" then I would agree, and why would you ever get out of bed in the morning at all?

And if someone says "But I have to get out of bed because if i don't go to work I'll be disturbed even more!" Then I would say to them "If 'being calm and undisturbed' is the best way you can think of to spend your 75 years on earth, I feel very sorry for you. You are surely a natural-born Stoic."