Posts by Cassius

I am extending this thread since it concerns the same writer of the article with which we started. I posted this on Facebook a few minutes ago:

Thanks to Aaron Smith - one of the two key interviewees in this youtube video - for sending this link to us. As the title indicates, the discussion is focused on Stoicism and distinguishing it from Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but Epicurus is mentioned several times, and I think the content is of enough interest to our understanding of the problems with Stoicism - especially it's deterministic aspect - that the video deserves to be in our Epicurean timeline here.

We have previously discussed Aaron's very good article "The False Promise of Stoicism," and this video gives him and his like-minded friend (Greg Salmieri) a chance to elaborate on those points in a way that I think will help everyone understand the point better.

Alert Epicurean readers will recognize that they are disagreeing with Stoicism from an Aristotelian/Randian point of view with which Epicurus would have significant issues. They mention pleasure and pain, but they speak from Rand's position that the ultimate standard of the good is "man's life," and the Randian and Aristotelian emphasis on "rationality" takes precedence over "pleasure" in a way that fails to get to the heart of Epicurus' argument. For now we can leave that debate (pleasure vs "man's life") for another day, and in the meantime I think this video will help our Epicurean-friendly audience better see the pitfalls of Stoicism, and the video is very worthwhile for that reason.

'

Here's the video:

and Here's the facebook post:

Great notes - thank you Joshua!!!

Welcome HsiehKW and thanks for posting "Hello" on your wall -- you therefore appear to be real and not a bot!

If you get a chance please introduce yourself here too. Glad to have you.

Welcome HsiehKW

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.

Click HERE for a full list of our community standards. 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!

Here is DeWitt's footnote as to Horace describing Virgil, Plotius, and Varus as candid men. I see there is a reference to Mark Antony here too, as well as the memorable line: "While I am in my senses, nothing can I prefer to a pleasant friend."

HORACE - SATIRE V.

He describes a certain journey of his from Rome to Brundusium with great pleasantry.

Having left mighty Rome, Aricia received me in but a middling inn: Heliodorus the rhetorician, most learned in the Greek language, was my fellow-traveller: thence we proceeded to Forum-Appi, stuffed with sailors and surly landlords. This stage, but one for better travellers than we, being laggard we divided into two; the Appian way is less tiresome to bad travelers. Here I, on account of the water, which was most vile, proclaim war against my belly, waiting not without impatience for my companions while at supper. Now the night was preparing to spread her shadows upon the earth, and to display the constellations in the heavens. Then our slaves began to be liberal of their abuse to the watermen, and the watermen to our slaves. "Here bring to." "You are stowing in hundreds; hold, now sure there is enough." Thus while the fare is paid, and the mule fastened a whole hour is passed away. The cursed gnats, and frogs of the fens, drive off repose. While the waterman and a passenger, well-soaked with plenty of thick wine, vie with one another in singing the praises of their absent mistresses: at length the passenger being fatigued, begins to sleep; and the lazy waterman ties the halter of the mule, turned out a-grazing, to a stone, and snores, lying flat on his back. And now the day approached, when we saw the boat made no way; until a choleric fellow, one of the passengers, leaps out of the boat, and drubs the head and sides of both mule and waterman with a willow cudgel. At last we were scarcely set ashore at the fourth hour. We wash our faces and hands in thy water, O Feronia. Then, having dined we crawled on three miles; and arrive under Anxur, which is built up on rocks that look white to a great distance. Maecenas was to come here, as was the excellent Cocceius. Both sent ambassadors on matters of great importance, having been accustomed to reconcile friends at variance. Here, having got sore eyes, I was obliged to use the black ointment. In the meantime came Maecenas, and Cocceius, and Fonteius Capito along with them, a man of perfect polish, and intimate with Mark Antony, no man more so.

Without regret we passed Fundi, where Aufidius Luscus was praetor, laughing at the honors of that crazy scribe, his praetexta, laticlave, and pan of incense. At our next stage, being weary, we tarry in the city of the Mamurrae, Murena complimenting us with his house, and Capito with his kitchen.

The next day arises, by much the most agreeable to all: for Plotius, and Varius, and Virgil met us at Sinuessa; souls more candid ones than which the world never produced, nor is there a person in/the world more bound to them than myself. Oh what embraces, and what transports were there! While I am in my senses, nothing can I prefer to a pleasant friend. The village, which is next adjoining to the bridge of Campania, accommodated us with lodging [at night]; and the public officers with such a quantity of fuel and salt as they are obliged to [by law]. From this place the mules deposited their pack-saddles at Capua betimes [in the morning]. Maecenas goes to play [at tennis]; but I and Virgil to our repose: for to play at tennis is hurtful to weak eyes and feeble constitutions.

It would be interesting to trace the history of these three and see what DeWitt is alluding to in referring to them as "a trio still Epicurean at that date."

The section on Honesty which will be our focus in this episode contains some very interesting commentary and footnotes by DeWitt.

One example is that DeWitt infers that Philodemus may have been a partisan of Mark Antony in the Civil Wars, which would apparently be different than the position taken by Atticus.

DeWitt gives two footnote references; this is the second, from Cicero Phil. 2.17.42. : Philodemus is not named here but the references to someone instructing him on declamation in another man's villa -

Quote from Ciceo - Yonge

42Although the thing that struck me with most astonishment of all was, that you should venture to make mention of inheritances, when you yourself had not received the inheritance of your own father. XVII. And was it in order to collect all these arguments, O you most senseless of men, that you spent so many days in practising declamation in another man’s villa? Although, indeed, (as your most intimate friends usually say,) you are in the habit of declaiming, not for the purpose of whetting your genius, but of working off the effects of wine. And, indeed, you employ a master to teach you jokes, a man appointed by your own vote and that of your boon companions; a rhetorician, whom you have allowed to say whatever he pleased against you, a thoroughly facetious gentleman; but there are plenty of materials for speaking against you and against your friends. But just see now what a difference there is between you and your grandfather. He used with great deliberation to bring forth arguments advantageous to the cause he was advocating; you pour forth in a hurry the sentiments which you have been taught by another.

The other note is a reference to Antony's willingness to receive criticism:

Plutarch, Antony, chapter 24

DeWitt is referencing Philodemus' On Rhetoric and it looks to me like it would be necessary to be much more familiar with the fragments of Philodemus than I am to assess whether there are more specific connections to Antony.

Quote from Don

(Saving to forum to edit on laptop instead of phone be patient.... More to come)

Ha -i was gonna grumble that he never tells us what he thinks himself is the right translation

Welcome to Episode 183 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 14, entitled "The New Virtues."

Chapter XIV - The New Virtues

• Honesty
• Faith
• Love of Mankind
• Friendship
• Suavity
• Considerateness
• Hope
• Attitude Toward the Present
• Gratitude
• Gratitude to Teachers
• Gratitude to Nature
• Gratitude To Friends
• Fruits Of Gratitude

Episode 182 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

This week: Justice!

Episode will be posted soon. In the meantime, here is a quote from Cicero that I referenced as an example of the "absolute" form of justice which Epicurus rejected, and is almost the exact opposite of the viewpoint stated in the last ten Principal Doctrines.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment . . ."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Republic, The Laws,

Welcome @CailynKerr !

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.

(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!

Welcome MFlavia and thanks for posting!

Similar problem with "natural philosophers" in this line from the letter to Menoeceus. Don what did you choose as your own translation of this?

This version is Bailey from our texts section

Quote from Cassius

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation.

That's definitely another word that causes confusion. It's almost like any study of Epicurus for regular people needs to begin with an article that describes the different ways that Epicurus used terms such as -

- Gods

- Death

- Virtue

- Pleasure

- Physics / Natural Science

- Canonics / Epistemology

and probably many more

Quote from Onenski

That's why it seems circular: you can only become just (as a character trait) by acting justly continuosly (so that you get the habit to be just). In this way, it's established the way we have to take in order to be virtuous.

And that's a good way of stating the question, because it's not really so easy to see whether it IS circular or whether it just LOOKS circular. I don't personally see how it avoids being circular until you can break out to a clear position on what virtue "is" in the first place, and I don't see how you can do that without pointing to some external standard. I've never been able to figure out what Aristotle really points to other than "look at what other people do." On the other hand, looking to the pleasure or pain that is the result of an action does seem like something more tangible.

Thank you Michele! will post that at Facebook too if it is not there already.

Quote from Godfrey

On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".

I think I will second Godfrey's comment here. It might be best choice, but it does seem to introduce a detail (implication of water) that really is not a part of the thought being expressed. DeWitt's "dissolution" might even be a little better.

Quote from TauPhi

I strongly disagree with this statement. It's not our bodies, our bones nor our atoms. 'Our' ceases to exist the moment we die. Our death is nothing to us because we can't experience it.

Quote from Cassius

We can't modify the text to suit our liking, but explanations are helpful. Even if we end up just talking about explanations, is the issue under discussion "the state that our individual personalities are in after our bodies die"? Is it the definition of "us" that needs to be made clear?

I think we are in agreement that the definition of "us" or "our" is where the issue lies. But on the other hand that is not the angle from which this statement appears to be written, as if Epicurus had chosen to the sentence could easily have made that point itself.

We don't know the context of how this list or document was assembled, and it seems very possible that the form we have it in is not a final draft from the pen of Epicurus himself.

The considerations that Nate is mentioning are very true and Epicurus was certainly aware of them as we all are. We don't know the context or the target audience for this particular form, so we're left to guess about that.

So as usual it is good for us both to flesh out these considerations, while at the same time do the best we can to make sure that the translation is primarily literal but also uses word choices (where more than one can be justified) that seems most likely to match the intent.

All of these posts are very good points.

Quote from Don

Death IS literally nothing for us.

We do not exist.

We are not.

There is nothing for us.

And yet our bodies and our bones exist for a while, and our atoms never go away.

We can see "dead bodies" in front of us for quite a while. The body that was a few minutes ago animated and alive is still mostly there, it's the consciousness that is gone.

We can't modify the text to suit our liking, but explanations are helpful. Even if we end up just talking about explanations, is the issue under discussion "the state that our individual personalities are in after our bodies die"? Is it the definition of "us" that needs to be made clear?

Quote from Nate

I really think that "Death" to modern English-speakers needs to be replaced with "Afterlife".

Or "the state of being dead" or something that somehow makes clear that was is being referred to is the status of the soul after the body dies.

And again there is the issue with the definite article implying that "afterlife" does exist.

However it does seem that he wanted to be confrontational and use "death" so this maybe is another area where there is just no substitute for explanation, just like gods and virtue.....