Posts by Cassius

Nate my reading of your last two comments is consistent with the views taken in that A. A. Long article, and by Sedley as well in his article on Determinism, and I am pretty strongly convinced of the correctness of that position. I think it's especially important to always be thinking about the implications of the eternal universe issue, as you are doing, and to never allow implicitly or explicitly for a time "before" in our thinking about the universe as a whole. Whatever is happening now has been happening, or at least was possible to happen, eternally into the past, and any kind of "first" collision, even or especially a single one, did not bring the universe as a whole into being from something different that existed beforehand.

Yes I agree Don, and especially I want to pick out your comment on her tone of voice. She sounds friendly but firm, and I think the firmness is what we find often to be lacking. I am reminding of Charleton Griffin's Audible version of Lucretius, which was very influential on my own thinking about Epicurus. Griffin also uses a very firm voice, and while sometimes he probably goes over-the-top with sarcasm in conveying the times when Lucretius attacks other positions, I do think that firmness of tone goes right along with taking firm positions on so many controversial topics. It's even appropriate to be firm, and double down even, on firmly presenting how important it is to "wait" when the evidence doesn't support a single conclusion.

Almost as much as I appreciate what I think is her proper perspective the relationship of "pleasure" to "tranquility" without descending into minimalism or asceticism, I look forward to her at some point in the future specifically diving into the canonics/epistemology issue. None of us are comfortable with endorsing words like "dogmatism" given the baggage those words carry, and yet getting comfortable with the idea that there is a legitimate line between radical skepticism and "knowing" anything at all is not territory with which most of us are familiar in dealing with. The firmness of her tone of voice encourages me to think that she's going to be able to tackle that issue successfully too.

Quote from Todd

Is this really a big issue?

Yeah I am still channeling the AA Long article and the Sedley article on the swerve deriving from free will rather than physics.

1. Anything more than the slightest deviation would play into the hands of those saying that an unstable universe needs a superintending God, and

2. Is anything more than the swerve of a single atom at a single moment in time necessary to start the chain of collisions needed to bring everything into existence?

Quote from Joshua

I've never been able to reconcile a 'primordial' downward movement with the concurrent claim that there was no beginning

Isn't it even harder to accept that there *was* a beginning?

Here at this link is a new presentation by Emily Austin of several major points from her "Living for Pleasure" book.

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life

Emily Austin shares 5 key insights from her new book, Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life.

nextbigideaclub.com

As I think most of you here at the forum know, Dr. Austin has agreed to sit for an interview with our "Lucretius Today" podcast, and we hope to set that up and record in over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, I think you'll agree with me that this is a very good presentation not only of points from her book but good food for thought that those of us who are Epicurus enthusiasts would give to an audience that's not already pretty familiar with Epicurean philosophy.

So with the knowledge that we'll probably have Dr. Austin herself reading this thread at some point in the future, let's talk about our thoughts on what she picked out as significant about Epicurus, how she presents the topics, perhaps in what order they are presented, and any other thoughts you have on how to give a "first impression" of Epicurean philosophy to others.

I know myself that every time I start out talking to someone new I approach the subject in a different way, not only because my thoughts change but because I want to fine-tune what I say to the person who is listening. It's really interesting to think about how to make presentations as persuasive as possible. Do we start out with "hooks" to draw people in on terms they recognize? Do we start with the most controversial issues, or do we save those for later? One thing I noticed in this presentation is that there's not a specific item devoted clearly to "epistemology / canonics"? Is that an advanced topic that isn't best as part of a first impression, or is it something that should be addressed earlier in a talk. Should that be incorporated with the physics like the ancient Epicureans are reputed to have done? How much of an issue should be made in a first talk, and when in the presentation, is it best to bring the issues of supernatural gods and life after death into these discussions.

Lot's to think about here, but I want to repeat that I sense that even where I might quibble with certain choices she makes, I get a real sense that Dr. Austin's viewpoint is much superior to most other modern writers. Even in this presentation she doesn't shy away from negative remarks about the Stoics, and that's one of the best indications to me that she's on the kind of quest we are on - to get to the heart of Epicurean philosophy without adulteration from viewpoints that undercut the conclusions.

I agree that the contrast shown by the different options is a useful way to think of the big issue, which appears to be at least in part that the question is how "much" of a deviation occurs.

Oh one more thing. By stopping at "there is no supernatural god ....", you really set yourself up for disappointment, disillusion, and despair when the hard times inevitably come.

More so than saying "there is not..." you need to be able to say with confidence what "there *is* ...."

Sounds good to me!

Quote from Don

After reading my post from last night in the light of day, I can still feel my visceral reaction to that Stoic article. However, I ask the forum: Am I being too harsh?

Epicurus certainly didn't spare his barbed words for people he disagreed with, but he also said it's better to believe in the gods than it is to accept hard determinism.

To me, though, it seems like accepting one's Fate decreed by Providence is combining *both* the gods *and* determinism and trying to sit that fence must surely be uncomfortable in the end. But if they find pleasure in "believing" that, am I to point out the precariousness of their position?

It seems to me that Epicurus also held that the best way to live was to understand how the universe actually works in reality.

Thoughts welcomed (at the risk of hijacking this thread).

This thread is becoming a catchall for everything it seems, but I realized this morning I had another comment on this post from Don.

This kind of reaction to supernatural religion is exactly the kind of reaction I think Epicurus had, and I suspect that Epicurus thought that *this* was actually his main "calling in life" for his philosophy. Yes the goal of pleasure and the mechanics of reaching it are very important, but they come *after* one has first rejected the supernatural / providential / "idealist" nature of the universe. And one does that - one gains confidence in rejecting the supernatural / providential / idealist viewpoint - through the epistemology and the physics.

That's the focus of Lucretius' manner of presentation to Memmius, that's the focus of what appears to be the *first* letter of Epicurus (to Herodotus), and I strongly suspect it was the focus the school as a whole. In addition, I think that also needs to be "our' focus on Epicureanfriends as well. We don't need to lessen the importance of pleasure-seeking or anxiety-avoidance, but we need to keep them in their place, which is the path we take *after* we first establish the shared groundwork of a natural universe.

So to repeat the point of posting this, I think we begin to see our way to having an impact in real people's lives the more we see reactions like Don had to the Fisher article. The "modern atheists" attack religion and then stop, or else they veer off into "humanism" / idealism. Epicurus was pointing to a different path, and that's the one I think we can accomplish a lot by working to reconstruct and support with modern presentations.

Quote from Premster

I look forward to learning more from the experts

I don't know how many "experts" we have here but I think I can confidently say that you'll find a supportive group of people sincerely interested in exploring Epicurus sympathetically, so welcome aboard!

Just FWIW I see that the Long article I cited is the source for this comment that I remembered about the comparison of DeWit's and Clay's list.

And why twelve fundamentals of physics (if that is the correct classification), but not a numbered list of anything else?

Quote from Nate

I am still curious if Epicurus proposed 12 because the 13th item on the listed was vastly less significant than the first 12, or, if, like the 40 ΔOΞAI, the 12 was a changing list based on the perceived needs of his students.

Yes, why Twelve, of all numbers?

While we are talking about this article I have another recurring gripe to mention and to combine with a praise:

Quote

The chasm between the providentially ordered cosmos of the Stoics and the random atomic universe of the Epicureans was deep and wide, and it could not be bridged.

This gives me the opportunity to plug one of my favorite articles, A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism." I never like to use the word "random" and I don't think emphasis on that concept is consistent with Epicurean views of the universe. Better words would include "unordered" or anything that conveys the lack of central control, while "random" carries connotations that go beyond that and imply to many ears that some force of randomness (sort of like Fortune as a goddess). As Long argues in detail, most events in the universe operate mechanistically, and the swerve/wiggle/whatever does not 'break through" to our level of perception except in relatively rare instances (such as "free will" in higher animals. The great majority of things, and the reason science allows us to make repeatable observations, operate purely mechanistically and not subject to "random" variation.

I highly recommend the Long article for his full argument.

Link

Did you guys read Donald Robertson's reply? I will save you the effort as this is the conclusion:

Quote from Donald Robertson

Overall, I would say that the literature of ancient Stoicism suggests that Marcus Aurelius and perhaps also Epictetus believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life. What I haven’t attempted to do here is to argue at length for the philosophical consistency of an agnostic (or atheistic) form of Stoicism. However, in this regard, I would begin by pointing to the argument that the central principle of Stoicism, that the only true good is wisdom (the cardinal human virtue or excellence), acceptance of which arguably does not require belief in God, and from which other Stoic principles may derive without the need for belief in God as an additional premise.

I see this as totally and transparently unsatisfactory. Why is wisdom a good?

And he doesn't even see the need to argue for philosophical consistency?

I just clicked through to read the article and see what Don was reacting about. I completely agree with Don. My comment about Chris Fisher deserving credit for consistency was aimed at my appreciation for the fact that he stands with those who consistently are honest about the roots of Stoicism in the theistic world. Absent a foundation as to the nature of the world, nothing else in a philosophy is going to make sense, and at least Fisher is honest that Stoicism is grounded in a theistic worldview, just like Plato and just like Aristotle.

Of course I completely disagree with Fisher, but at least when you're honest about your worldview you aren't justifiably accused of misrepresentation about what you really believe. This isn't the time or place for a rant about "modern stoicism" but it's interesting to think about how likely it is that Aurelius and all the ancient stoics, who understand what their philosophy is based on, would probably be as upset at the "modern stoics" as they were at Epicurus - and probably more so. The ancient Stoics thought Epicurus was dead wrong, but at least they generally credited Epicurus about being honest about what he believed. And for that I can have more respect for ancient stoicism than for the modern variety that tries to avoid the issue.

The only other comment I want to make right now is about this sentence from the article:

Quote

For the Epicureans, acceptance of providence invited the gods into the lives of humans, and this they believed was a primary source of psychological distress.

This kind of formulation is bad enough coming from a stoic, but it's even more irritating to me because it probably is an accurate reflection of much modern writing about Epicurus - even from those on "our side." Yes, providence is a primary source of "psychological distress." But it's much more than that, and this is far downstream of the main issue.

The whole providence argument is just *false,* and that's the starting point of the analysis. If providence were *true* even though painful, then it would be easy to reconcile it with Epicurean philosophy, because we often choose pain in order to avoid worse pain or obtain greater pleasure. The problem with "providence" is not that it is painful, but that because it is false it has no persuasive claim to be the foundation of the "best" life. The reason Epicurean philosophy is convinced of this conclusion is rooted in the physics and epistemology, not because Epicurus was fixated on avoiding "psychological distress" or any other kind of pain as an end in itself.

That's why I think all of these various positions - the Fisher position, the modern Stoic position, and even some allegedly "friendly-to-Epicurus" positioning - is so damaging. If Epicureans were convinced that providence were true, there would be no more enthusiastic providentialists than Epicureans. It's because Epicurus had a theory of knowledge under which it's possible to be confident of what is "true" and what is "false" in important issues of life like this that Epicurus concluded that neither providence nor idealism nor anything else can supersede the faculty of pleasure that Nature gave us as the guide of life.

Chris Fisher is if I recall one of the traditional Stoics. I give him credit at least for consistency over the "modern" stoics with whom he spars.

Welcome Premster

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!

In this episode - and likely for several weeks at least - we're going to be talking about some of the most important but least discussed aspects of the philosophy - canonics / epistemology.

We only scratched the surface this week but I hope everyone who is at leat remotely interested in the topic will help is through this.

We have the PDs in the mid-twenties to go by, plus comments in the letter to Herodotus and in book four of Lucretius. The really ambitious might want to help us try to incorporate some of Philodemus' On Signs / On Methods of Inference.

But at the very least when we are through I hope we can clearly draw lines between Epicurus and skepticism of all kinds - from the radical skepticism of Pyrrho to the idealistic skepticism of Plato and even to the views of Aristotle which Diogenes of Oinoanda criticized.

This is really basic and important and controversial stuff.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Fifty-Five 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'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll 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."

This week we continue in Chapter Seven - The Canon, Reason, and Nature

• The Dethronement of Reason
• Ridicule
• Nature as the Norm
• Priority of Nature over Reason