I took the time to make several comments about the article, which I posted here where they can be better found for the future, In general I found the article to be very good, but it has caused me to take the time to update an older thread with more comments about its choice to focus on the tetrapharmakon. I am hoping this will give us an opportunity to bring some new eyes to bear on the history of that text.
I note that the material forwarded by ResponsiblyFree referenced here uses the Tetrapharmakos as an organization model. I am adding this post to an earlier thread to expand discussion.
The article under review correctly cites the Tetrapharmakos as coming from Philodemus. It's not - as I need not repeat, but will - stated in this form by Epicurus himself, or by Metrodorus, or by Hermarchus, or by Diogenes of Oinoanda, or by Lucretius, or by any other recognized authority on Epicurus.
Further, to the extent the Tetrapharmakos appears to be included in a Herculaneum reconstruction of a work by Philodemus, it is (1) a fragment without clear context as to the point of its inclusion, and (2) contained in a work in which Philodemus is also campaigning against failure to pay proper attention to the original texts - in which I would suggest it would be natural to include inadequate summaries of the original texts (such as I would label the "Tetrapharmakos") as an example of what to avoid, not to follow.
Here is the way it is framed in the article we're discussing:
There are a couple of points I want to make about this presentation:
First, I don't consider the 'non-involvement" to be Epicurus' "masterstroke." The masterstroke was to develop Democritus' atomism into a full-blown conclusion that the universe is eternal, entirely natural, was never created by, and is not supervised by, any supernatural beings. That aspect is the foundation of the gods' non-involvement, because if we ever admitted the possibility that the gods created the universe originally, or supervise it now, then their lack of concern or involvement would be entirely reversible at any moment. And whether you want to skip over the issue that Epicurus "first" concern was to get at the truth, and not to justify a pre-ordained conclusion that relief from anxiety is desirable, then it's important not to leave the issue hanging: the reason that the gods won't decide to revoke their supernatural intervention in the future is that they have never in the past been capable of it, nor are they now or will they ever be.
The writer gets a lot of it right from my point of view, but his attitude continues to imply that Epicurus was fudging the truth by being "wise in not denying their existence" for reasons that are at the very least unattractive and not an appropriate assessment of the full impact of his work:
As for the section on death I see most of it as acceptable, but it always seems to me that going too far in comparing Epicurus to Buddhism is a bad idea, given the strikingly different assessment they make of the nature of life:
As to the "good is easy to get" we have a good treatment of the sweeping nature of the term pleasure, but coupled with the typical narrowing to exclude sensual pleasures - which Epicurus did not do when his philosophy is read in full:
And this comes very close to reversing the proper perspective of wisdom as a tool for pleasure, rather than wisdom being a goal in and of itself as the Stoics allege:
And we also get "the simple life of frugality is the best" stated as an absolute, rather than contextually:
As to the "terrible is easy to endure" we go through the familiar apologies for the wording:
So in summary:
There is some documentation that the ancient Epicureans discussed this formulation, but there is slender if any good reason to expect that the ancient Epicureans held this up as the climactic expression of their philosophy. There is equal if not more reason to think that Philodemus was critical, rather than supportive, of the formulation, given his criticism of failure to read the original texts, of which the "four part cure" is but a serious amputation of the first four principal doctrines.
The tetrapharmakos does provide an a shorter version of the first four doctrines, but at the cost of adding ambiguity, obscurity, and the possibility for ridicule (especially as to the latter two). It is not clear, it is not unambiguous, and it is not an accurate summary of the philosophy.
Yes it has its uses, but it has at least as much use for explaining what Epicurean philosophy does not claim as what it does claim.
And thus my point in this post is this not to endlessly criticize but to ask: Do we really need to endlessly hold up the tetrapharmakos as the supreme statement of Epicurean philosophy? Neither Lucretius nor Diogenes of Oinoanda nor Epicurus himself expressed the philosophy in this truncated this way. Why should we?
Note: I see from the earlier posts in the thread that this was started back before we had some of our best current researchers. I hope that we can add this topic into our sights and target it for much deeper investigation. What is the true and accurate context of this formulation? Did anyone else beside Philodemus cite it? Do we even know that Philodemus approved of it?
Thank you for your posts ResponsiblyFree. I suspect a significant number of users here would find these materials to be of interest, so thank you for posting them. I feel obliged to post a caveat here that I haven't read them and this is not an endorsement of them. We don't want to let modern politics create division within the forum, so please everyone keep that proviso in mind. Discussion of commentary on Epicurus by historical figures such as Marx, Nietsche, assorted libertarians, and other figures who may also have a political side are generally ok, but arguments that imply that Epicurean philosophy would provide general support for specific political positions of today's left, right, or middle are beyond the scope of what we are here to discuss.
I agree with Charles' comments. I tend to look to Bailey first myself. I have links to various archive.org versions at https://newepicurean.com/library
And, like O'Keefe says, she doesn't try to make too much of the evidence we have
That's a constant temptation and a good warning. Aside from checking alternate translations and commentaries to compare different readings, it seems to me that another basic category of check amounts to what Lucretius says in book one about starting from the observational basics about the universe. Taking those observations you then - like a hunting dog or using the light of one step to enlighten another- you sniff out and deduce for yourself what can be supported as unchanging vs what is a matter of opinion that changes with circumstance. I have to think that is what Epicurus himself would say that he was doing.
When we find something that changes as a matter of context we should clearly label it so. That doesn't make it less important to us individually, but it cautions us that we are not a supernatural "God" or "Nature" ourselves. Then we take that into account as we decide what we think is "true" or "right," and what we choose to do about it.
That section in Lucretius about eternal properties of atoms vs accidents/events/emergent properties of bodies, and how they relate to the Trojan War, needs a lot more attention than it has been given.
Diels was definitively a friend of Epicurean Philosophy.
Presuming you are right about that (and I have no reason to doubt!) then it would be really interesting to read Diels' commentaries on Lucretius in particular or Epicurus in general. Anyone who spends the time to translate the entire poem has to be dedicated. There's a great deal of interesting commentary in Munro's translation, and the same thing for Bailey (although I don't trust Bailey's views as much as I trust Monroe's).
Do you think any of that is available?
I wonder if it would be worth going from German to English to pick up any twists that Diels might have seen in some of the key passages, such as around line 62 in book one. Is it worth a look to try to track things like this down:
Humana ante oculos foede cum vita iaceret 62
in terris oppressa gravi sub religione,
quae caput a caeli regionibus ostendebat
horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, 65
primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra
est oculos ausus primusque obsistere contra;
quem neque fama deum nec fulmina nec minitanti
murmure compressit caelum, sed eo magis acrem
inritat animi virtutem, effringere ut arta 70
naturae primus portarum claustra cupiret.
ergo vivida vis animi pervicit et extra
processit longe flammantia moenia mundi
atque omne immensum peragravit mente animoque,
unde refert nobis victor quid possit oriri, 75
quid nequeat, finita potestas denique cuique
qua nam sit ratione atque alte terminus haerens.
quare religio pedibus subiecta vicissim
opteritur, nos exaequat victoria caelo.
Welcome to Episode 160 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."
This week we begin our discussion of Chapter Eight - Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings
At the opening of this episode I referenced in support of Epicurus' position against dialectical logic a letter from Seneca. Seneca was a Stoic, but he repeatedly quoted Epicurus approvingly, and this time in a lengthy and scathing attack on the misuse of logic and syllogisms. In my view this is Seneca again expressing a position of Epicurus, and it seems to me that this is very helpful in explaining the point being made in this Chapter 7:
(Seneca’s Letters – Book II Letter XLVIII) (Original with Latin is here
In answer to the letter which you wrote me while traveling, – a letter as long as the journey itself, – I shall reply later. I ought to go into retirement, and consider what sort of advice I should give you. For you yourself, who consult me, also reflected for a long time whether to do so; how much more, then, should I myself reflect, since more deliberation is necessary in settling than in propounding a problem! And this is particularly true when one thing is advantageous to you and another to me. Am I speaking again in the guise of an Epicurean?
But the fact is, the same thing is advantageous to me which is advantageous to you; for I am not your friend unless whatever is at issue concerning you is my concern also. Friendship produces between us a partnership in all our interests. There is no such thing as good or bad fortune for the individual; we live in common. And no one can live happily who has regard to himself alone and transforms everything into a question of his own utility; you must live for your neighbor, if you would live for yourself. This fellowship, maintained with scrupulous care, which makes us mingle as men with our fellow-men and holds that the human race have certain rights in common, is also of great help in cherishing the more intimate fellowship which is based on friendship, concerning which I began to speak above. For he that has much in common with a fellow-man will have all things in common with a friend.
And on this point, my excellent Lucilius, I should like to have those subtle dialecticians of yours advise me how I ought to help a friend, or how a fellowman, rather than tell me in how many ways the word “friend” is used, and how many meanings the word “man” possesses. Lo, Wisdom and Folly are taking opposite sides. Which shall I join? Which party would you have me follow? On that side, “man” is the equivalent of “friend”; on the other side, “friend” is not the equivalent of “man.” The one wants a friend for his own advantage; the other wants to make himself an advantage to his friend. What you have to offer me is nothing but distortion of words and splitting of syllables. It is clear that unless I can devise some very tricky premises and by false deductions tack on to them a fallacy which springs from the truth, I shall not be able to distinguish between what is desirable and what is to be avoided! I am ashamed! Old men as we are, dealing with a problem so serious, we make play of it! ‘Mouse’ is a syllable. Now a mouse eats its cheese; therefore, a syllable eats cheese.”
Suppose now that I cannot solve this problem; see what peril hangs over my head as a result of such ignorance! What a scrape I shall be in! Without doubt I must beware, or some day I shall be catching syllables in a mousetrap, or, if I grow careless, a book may devour my cheese! Unless, perhaps, the following syllogism is shrewder still: “‘Mouse’ is a syllable. Now a syllable does not eat cheese. Therefore a mouse does not eat cheese.” What childish nonsense! Do we knit our brows over this sort of problem? Do we let our beards grow long for this reason? Is this the matter which we teach with sour and pale faces?
Would you really know what philosophy offers to humanity? Philosophy offers counsel. Death calls away one man, and poverty chafes another; a third is worried either by his neighbor’s wealth or by his own. So-and-so is afraid of bad luck; another desires to get away from his own good fortune. Some are ill-treated by men, others by the gods. Why, then, do you frame for me such games as these? It is no occasion for jest; you are retained as counsel for unhappy men, sick and the needy, and those whose heads are under the poised axe. Whither are you straying? What are you doing? This friend, in whose company you are jesting, is in fear. Help him, and take the noose from about his neck. Men are stretching out imploring hands to you on all sides; lives ruined and in danger of ruin are begging for some assistance; men’s hopes, men’s resources, depend upon you. They ask that you deliver them from all their restlessness, that you reveal to them, scattered and wandering as they are, the clear light of truth. Tell them what nature has made necessary, and what superfluous; tell them how simple are the laws that she has laid down, how pleasant and unimpeded life is for those who follow these laws, but how bitter and perplexed it is for those who have put their trust in opinion rather than in nature.
I should deem your games of logic to be of some avail in relieving men’s burdens, if you could first show me what part of these burdens they will relieve. What among these games of yours banishes lust? Or controls it? Would that I could say that they were merely of no profit! They are positively harmful. I can make it perfectly clear to you whenever you wish, that a noble spirit when involved in such subtleties is impaired and weakened. I am ashamed to say what weapons they supply to men who are destined to go to war with fortune, and how poorly they equip them! Is this the path to the greatest good? Is philosophy to proceed by such claptrap and by quibbles which would be a disgrace and a reproach even for expounders of the law? For what else is it that you men are doing, when you deliberately ensnare the person to whom you are putting questions, than making it appear that the man has lost his case on a technical error? But just as the judge can reinstate those who have lost a suit in this way, so philosophy has reinstated these victims of quibbling to their former condition. Why do you men abandon your mighty promises, and, after having assured me in high-sounding language that you will permit the glitter of gold to dazzle my eyesight no more than the gleam of the sword, and that I shall, with mighty steadfastness, spurn both that which all men crave and that which all men fear, why do you descend to the ABC’s of scholastic pedants? What is your answer? Is this the path to heaven? For that is exactly what philosophy promises to me, that I shall be made equal to God. For this I have been summoned, for this purpose have I come.
Philosophy, keep your promise! Therefore, my dear Lucilius, withdraw yourself as far as possible from these exceptions and objections of so-called philosophers. Frankness, and simplicity beseem true goodness. Even if there were many years left to you, you would have had to spend them frugally in order to have enough for the necessary thing; but as it is, when your time is so scant, what madness it is to learn superfluous things! Farewell.
Welcome to Episode 159 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."
This week we complete our discussion of Chapter Seven - The Canon, Reason, and Nature
The Dethronement of Reason
Ridicule
Nature as the Norm
Priority of Nature over Reason
Episode 158 is now available. This week we continue in Chapter Seven, and next week we finish it.
This book comes highly recommended (as in the podcast with Emily Austin) but I am sad to say that I have only skimmed it in the past and am not able to discuss it in detail. It definitely sounds like we need to have some discussion of it, and I don't think we have a previous thread on it. (If someone finds one please let me know and I will merge.)
In addition to general commentary it looks like we are going to find some specific unexpected nuggets that we don't see elsewhere, so I hope we can help save some time by pointing those out to be sure we don't miss them.
Glad to have you with us Adrian!
Welcome Adrian !
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.
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!
I never tracked it down further - it has just seemed that everybody who is anybody in the world of Epicurus cites Usener.
Don: It occurs to me that in my one long past attempt to refer to Usener directly that I realized that he has not been translated directly into English and therefore access to it is barred to me.
Do I recall correctly that Usener wrote in German? I presume that now given our internet reach we have the ability to ask Martin and possibly others as well for assistance in understanding Usener's own notes on these issues?
Or are you already able to consult Usener?
Oooh - Long and Sedley go in the Monadnock direction - interesting.
Given the apparent contrast that is being set up between the first and second parts of the sentence, seems to me that the direction stated by Bailey and the majority make the most sense.
Of course I readily admit that I am "expecting" to see Epicurus say something like that given his devotion to pleasure in what appears to be the ordinary sense of the word.
With all due respects to the ascetic viewpoint, it will never make sense to me that Epicurus would have held that the most important thing to do in the brief interlude between an eternity of nothingness before birth and an eternity of nothingness after death would be to emulate that same state by denying oneself pleasure in the ordinary sense of the word while alive.
I therefore don't think Epicurus did that, nor do I think he could possibly have taken the Greek and Roman worlds "by storm" if he had. Where texts appear on uncertain on the role of pleasure and asceticism, I would accept the more likely as the one that more clearly reflects the shortness of life and the central place of pleasure, given that we are looking at the statements of a man who claimed to value reasonableness and consistency and - above all - clarity of expression in his statements.
Elli's Response:
Nathan Bartman hello my dear friend. IMO Camus wrote a philosophical essay with the Myth of Sisyphus and not Sartre. Camus saw Sisyphus as an example of the universal struggle of human beings held with the responsibility of caring for their existence in an otherwise meaningless world.
The world would have no meaning if the FEELINGS of pleasure and pain did not exist. And these feelings along with the senses are the dowry given by Nature to us and all the beings. If feelings would not exist, yes indeed, we will act like the robot machines, and the world would be meaningless. And this is what epicureans answer to both Camus and Sartre - for whom, I hope, would had enjoy both their life - otherwise their essays on philosophy were in vain!
Moreover, IMO Lucretius does not give rightly the meaning with the myth of Sisyphus. The myth of Sisyphus is not connected entirely with political power, since it could be also connected with a struggle to gain much more wealth. For Epicurus power and wealth are not the goal, these are just means to the goal of pure pleasure. For Epicurus the power is the knowledge of thyself with your next others that is connected with freedom and security, as well as Metrodorus suggests that if you have wealth it is wise to share it with friends (sharing with friends any wealth i.e. feelings and goods, it is also connected with freedom and security that friendship give us) or wealth means also to create, as a free entrepreneur, in your society, jobs, service and goods OR for an artist wealth means to create art. So, for both Metrodorus and Philodemus, having a wealth is as much as for living a life without troubles and in harmony.
In conclusion: We epicureans always are measuring all the means if they bring to us pure pleasure, if they do not bring pleasure this also means that we have made any means and in our case: the power and wealth, as a covering blanket to cover what? The fear of death !
The remembrance of the existence of the fact of the death, and this is the meaning of the myth with Sisyphus, because death had punished Sisyphus to carry the huge rock all of his life. And as Metrodorus remarks in the following sayings, it’s not wise to forget that we are mortals and one day we will die. And even the fact to know that we are mortals, for epicureans, gives a big advantage to consider that our life is unique, and there is not a second time, so that we enjoy our life to the fullest and this also gives us the huge meaning to our existence in the Cosmos - that for Greeks the word Cosmos - has the meaning of a beautiful and sparkling JEWEL. And that's the whole point IMO.
The sayings by Metrodorus are:
ES 30. Some men throughout their lives spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.
ES 31. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us mortals alike dwell in an unfortified city.
Wow great work Don!
Happy Birthday to Forest! Learn more about Forest and say happy birthday on Forest's timeline: Forest
This episode mentions the Tyndal address from Belfast (discussion here).
We also started talking about Ionian science, so I will link the Carl Sagan Cosmos episode here too: Carl Sagan's Cosmos Episode Seven "Backbone of the Night" - Good Summary of Problems with Plato
