Posts by Cassius

Pacatus I figured you would get a reaction from Don in that exchange!

I agree with most everything that Don said, including this, but I will comment further:

Quote from Don

P.S. In some sense, we are *all* neo-Epicureans.

Because we do have a regular flow in and out of the forum it's good to cover this regularly. The main reason for the "Not-Neo" list and associated posting guidelines and other rules is that while there are many places on the internet to discuss philosophy in general, and especially to promote Stoicism, there are not many devoted to Epicurus. The experience I and others had at Facebook is that the sheer numbers and loudness of the Stoics quickly drives out and even "intimidates" people who are honestly interested in Epicurean philosophy from pursuing it. As a result this forum is first and foremost a place where people interested in an environment supportive of Epicurus will have an opportunity to talk in a supportive atmosphere without have to deal with overbearing opponents of the philosophy.

Don also mentioned the difficulties of agreeing on anything, and he's surely right about that. Luckily no one here is trying to be a guru or go for world domination or anything like that, so as for our rules, all they are geared toward is maintaining a friendly pro-Epicurean environment for discussion. If you are interested in reading the details of a discussion we had several years ago on ideas to set up more of an umbrella organization, you might be interested in this thread. Those discussions did more to illuminate the difficulties more than to come to any agreements, but I am sure that over time the "organizational" question will come up again and again. For now, I've limited myself to the still difficult but more attainable goal of "herding cats" in a discussion forum.

But you will be comforted to know that I take the subject of this thread to heart. I would like to meet my end like Epicurus surrounded by friends, but I am not sure I will attain that in real life. Unless I meet my end in a totally unexpected accident, I commit to taking steps before I follow Atticus and Cassius L. and Diodorus (many many years from now, hopefully) to be sure that there's a smooth organizational transition into the future for this forum.

PS - Pacatus due to the length of that older thread most people don't take the time to wade through it. If you happen to find it interesting enough to do so, please feel free to comment.

Yes thank you that is exactly the passage I was thinking about, but was not nimble enough to find and cite quickly! Definitely a hugely important element of Epicurean psychology relevant to many issues, and another example of how there are both changeable and unchangeable aspects that have to be considered:

Quote from Pacatus

I confess that any perceived hint of defining a “party line” that I must, no matter what, affirm or adhere to in order to be a “True™” anything triggers a visceral unease in me

Yes this is a very interesting subject on which we once had a zoom discussion alluding to "flags.". Allegiance to a flag or anything like that is troublesome. Yet there are times - if you slare in a war, for example, you are well advised generally to head for the lines of your countries flag rather than an enemy flag. So flags can be and are very useful, as long as their limitations are kept clear.

This is definitely a hard balance, but it seems to me that if we conclude that "flags are always bad" we are likely to be just as wrong as concluding that flags are always good. We have to always remember the basic situation that there are multiple levels of things going on and we have to be flexible enough to move nimbly between them.

Quote from Kalosyni

So it would in fact be unreasonable to strive for perfect tranquility

Maybe it is not unreasonable to strive for it in terms of using it as a guide and setting it as an image of the goal, but it surely unreasonable to expect to achieve it or to believe that it is in fact something we are going to reach and stay there. It seems perfectly clear that we change and have new experiences til the moment we die - which is essentially what PD2 says- so we are never going to reach a resting point and stay there.

I don't know who the other philosophers referenced in the article are. Their quotes sound correct to me, but it's hard to say. However I think the ones from Nietzsche are worth adding in here to the thread both for the content and for the sense of intensity that I see as similar to Lucretius:

“…the concept “the true world” insinuates that this world is untruthful, deceptive, dishonest, inauthentic, inessential—and consequently also not a world adapted to our needs.

Nietzsche, The Will to Power

“General insight: it is the instinct of life-weariness…which has created the “other world”…to imagine another, more valuable world is an expression of hatred for the world that makes one suffer…Does man not eternally create a fictitious world for himself because he wants a better world than reality?”

Nietzsche, The Will to Power

“The development of pessimism into nihilism…. – The repudiated world versus an artificially built ‘true, valuable’ one. Finally: one discovers how the true world is fabricated solely from psychological needs: and now all one has left is the ‘repudiated world’, and one adds this supreme disappointment to the reasons why it deserves to be repudiated. At this point nihilism is reached:…one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality… — but cannot endure this world…”

Nietzsche, The Will to Power

“I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.”

Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

1 - Don's point about the serene spirit is one I had not previously appreciated so well. I thought I remembered the Atticus illustration, but the Diodorus one was new to me (or it has been so long since I scanned the Warren book I had totally forgotten it).

2 - I appreciate too where Pacatus is coming from but I am trying to think why I hesitate. I think I hesitate because it's easy to go from one extreme to the other and lose appreciation for the usefulness of words at the same time that we acknowledge their limits. I think Don is right that we do have the ability to grasp that there is a generally identifiable meaning to the words Epicurean or Christian and that we need to identify those meanings (maybe that is akin to what Epicurus was saying about being able to assign an image to a word so we don't go on explaining forever) while at the same time we acknowledge that that image does not come from God or from a realm of forms or from an "essence" that exists independently of the examples. So that is similar to keeping in mind both that (1) suicide is a last resort only for extreme circumstances but also (2) that suicide can be a powerful tool and reassuring to know that it is in our toolbox if or when those circumstances do occur. It's not a matter of taking a middle ground or seeing some kind of compromise but of seeing that both are true at the same time. The atoms and the void do exist at the same time, and for another example at the same time (1) the bodies and qualities of our world do have a "real" existence to us even though (2) they themselves are ultimately composed of atoms and void. We don't fall into despair and nihilism just because both perspectives exist at the same time, nor should we label one perspective or world as "true" and the other as "false."

Which reminds me of the Oinoanda comment that there is a flux but it is not so fast that we can't comprehend it. All this also causes me to associate Epicurus' views with the "this world vs the 'true world'" imagery that apparently Nietzsche was using if that video posted elsewhere recently is correct. There's no "true world" beyond this one, which is the only one we have. So many issues seem to resolve themselves if we recognize how many ways have been invented to try to use wishful thinking and word games to get around that reality and construct false alternatives.

In the same way, many of the otherwise obscure sayings of Epicurus make much more sense when seen as targeted at making very close to the same point. Epicurus seems to use "anxiety" and "pleasure vs. pain" terminology while Nietsche and others may use words like "nihilism" vs "will" or "power," but the enemy of despair is pretty much the same, and it's Epicurus' formula for embracing life which really holds the best answer.

More from James Warren (same source):

it is the result of a calculation that the alternative would be a continued life of pain. Provided life has pleasure left in it,we will continue to live. And the Epicurean sage will be sufficiently schooled to continue to find pleasure in life under conditions which others would find unbearable—Epicurus' own example of composure in the face of terminal illness demonstrates this. 345 Seneca reports the suicide of an Epicurean named Diodorus. On this occasion it is not so clear whether or not he is acting in strict accordance with Epicurean teaching.

Diodorum, Epicureum philosophum, qui intra paucos dies finem vitae suae manu sua imposuit, negant ex decretoEpicuri fecisse, quod sibi gulam praesecuit. alii dementiam videri volunt factum hoc eius, alii temeritatem; illeinterim beatus ac plenus bona conscientia reddidit sibi testimonium vita excedens laudavitque aetatis in portu et adancoram actae quietem et dixit, quod vos inviti audistis, quasi vobis quoque faciendum sit, ‘vixi et quem dederatcursum fortuna peregi’ (=Verg. Aen. 4.653).

They say that the Epicurean philosopher Diodorus, who just recently ended his own life by his own hand, did not act according to Epicurus' doctrine because he cut his own throat. Some want this deed to be seen as madness, others as rashness. But he, happy and full of good understanding, bore witness to himself as he left life, praised the tranquility of a life spent in port at anchor, 346 and said something which you did not like to hear, as if you too ought to follow its advice: ‘I have lived, and finished the course which fortune dealt me’. Sen. De Vita Beata 19.1

Again, the accusation of un-Epicurean behaviour seems to be on the basis of Diodorus acting not out of a sound and rational consideration of the situation but out of either madness or temperance. Seneca, however, is keen to emphasize Diodorus' calm at the end, based not only on the appreciation of a tranquil life lived but also on the acceptance that that life had come to the end of its course. What is not clear from this description is just why Diodorus had decided to quit a pleasant life, and this is presumably the reason why some were suspicious of his motives

I see James Warren says ("Facing Death - Epicurus And His Critics):

Of course, the Epicureans do agree that suicide would be the end of these people's cares, but it is certainly not the preferred course of action. If only these poor souls would instead find out from the Epicureans that death is nothing to fear, then they would be able to manage their lives properly and find true pleasure in it. Suicide, therefore, is generally a sign of having seriously misguided opinions about the world. However, there are clearly occasions and circumstances when an Epicurean too would be justified in ending his own life. While extolling the virtue of courage, Torquatus allows that in the face of certain pains suicide might be acceptable:

sic robustus animus…ad dolores ita paratus est ut meminerit maximos morte finiri, parvos multa habere intervallarequietis, mediocrium nos esse dominos ut si tolerabiles sint feramus, si minus, animo aequo e vita, cum ea nonplaceat, tamquam e theatro exeamus.

A strong soul is so readied against pains that it remembers that the greatest are curtailed by death, the small ones are punctuated by long intervals of peace, and we are in control of those of a medium strength so that if they can be endured we endure them and if not we may leave life calmly if it does not please us, just as we may leave the theatre. Cic. Fin. 1.49

The message here is that someone properly schooled can endure even quite severe pains, but if even this ability is challenged by ongoing and unendurable distress then it is open to us to leave life. Importantly, this is done calmly and rationally (aequo animo);344

Thanks for that cite! It's hard not to smile when reading the almost snarkiness of lines like "you snore when awake...". . (I am not sure why I say "almost". - you "drunken wretch!)

Quote

Democritus, warned by ripe old age that the motions of his mind’s 1040 memory were failing, voluntarily went to meet death and offered him his life.88 Epicurus himself died, when the light of his life had accomplished its course—he who outshone the human race in genius and obscured the luster of all as the rising of the ethereal sun extinguishes the stars.89 Will you, then, be hesitant and indignant, when death calls? You, even while you still have life and light, are as good as dead: you squander the greater part of your time in sleep; you snore when awake; you never stop daydreaming; you are burdened with a mind disturbed by groundless fear; and often you cannot discover what is wrong with you, when, like 1050 some drunken wretch, you are buffeted with countless cares on every side and drift along aimlessly in utter bewilderment of mind

Unless Diogenes Laetius made any short comments I am not sure we know anything much about the death of other ancient Epicureans besides Epicurus and Atticus and Cassius Longinus? Anyone recall any other anecdotes?

For these purposes I suppose we can exclude Julius Caesar as -even if of Epicurean leanings - he did not choose his exit.

He had completed seventy-seven years in such a manner, and into extreme old age had advanced no less in dignity than in influence and fortune - for he obtained many inheritances exclusively by his own goodness - and had enjoyed such good health that he had not needed medicine for thirty years, then he fell ill. At the beginning neither he nor his physicians took it seriously, for they thought it was a gripping of the bowel [i.e. dysentery] for which swift and simple remedies were proposed. When he had suffered for three months in this condition without any pain except for those he experienced from the treatment, the disease burst so violently into his lower intestine that at the end ulcers full of pus burst through his loins.

And before this befell him, after he felt the pains increase daily and the fever grow, he gave orders for his son-in-law Agrippa to be summoned, and Lucius Cornelius Balbus and Sextus Peducaeus along with him. When he saw they had come, he leaned on one elbow and said: "How much care and attention I have devoted to restoring my health recently I do not need to tell at length, since I have you as witnesses. Since I have, I hope, satisfied you that I have left nothing undone that might serve to cure me, all that is left is that I now look after my own well-being. I did not wish you to be ignorant of my purpose: for I am resolved no longer to nourish the disease. For however much food I have taken in these last days, I have so prolonged my life as to increase the pain without hope of recovery. Thus I beg of you both to approve of my resolution and not to try to shake me by pointless dissuasion"

After giving this speech with such resolve in his voice and expression that he seemed not to be quitting life but moving from one house to another, Agrippa in particular embraced him in tears and begged him not to hasten his death over and above nature's compulsion, and, since even then he might survive the crisis, to preserve himself for his own sake and for the sake of those dearest to him, but Atticus quelled his pleas with silent obstinacy. So when he had abstained from food for two days, the fever suddenly abated and the disease began to be more bearable. Nevertheless he carried through his resolution undeviatingly and so died on the fifth day after he made his decision, on the last day of March when Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Sosius were consuls [March 31^st, 22 BCE]. He was carried to his burial on a modest bier as he had himself directed, without any funeral procession, but escorted by all men of substance and by very large crowds of the common people. He was buried by the Appian Way at the fifth milestone, in the tomb of his maternal uncle Quintus Caecilius.

Let's see if anything is here:.

Epicurus.info : E-Texts : The Life of Atticus

Yes, he starved himself to death after a long illness.

Quote from Don

I don't see textual evidence of that position.

for the time being we can just note our disagreement on that, because at least for me I do see that implication in the texts I cited. It's always difficult to know the subtleties but I see those phrases, and even the tone of "death is nothing to us" as implying an "in your face" attitude toward the view that we should be scared of things associated with death - sort of the aggressive attitude of "trampling religion underfoot" that a lot of commentators seme to think that Lucretius displays. And I am especially firm in thinking that Epicurean Philosophy points toward managing our circumstances of dying as much as managing our living.

That reminds me that there may be another useful example in the ancient bio of Atticus.

(And no I will never accept that the Roman Epicureans were not orthodox Epicureans. :-). )

Quote from Don

would even go so far as to posit that him laying down his life in a manner befitting a Roman may even have given him pleasure in the end.

That's exactly what I think, and that is an example how different people take pleasure in different thinks and the "subjectivity" of things - at least within rather wide limits.

Quote from Don

I will say that it seems to be that G. Cassius Longinus committed suicide because he was a Roman, first and foremost, not because he was an Epicurean.

I just realized an appropriate comment to this given our recent discussions:. There are not really any Ideal forms or essences of "Epicureans," only individual people who claim to more or less apply Epicurean views in their lives - and no matter how many doctrines we add or subtract from a person there is no essence or ideal form of an Epicurean for us to justify our labelling, or any moment when an Epicurean ceases to be an Epicurean due to a loss of sufficient Epicurean elements.

We have to always keep this in mind - our definitions and our calculations do not create reality or reflect knowledge from another "true world", our words just help us to describe our particular circumstances.

I never thought we were far apart on this and after further discussion I feel sure of it. If someone thinks there is a major difference in approach or that we have left something unresolved they should ask about it. Every situation is different, and for example Cassius Longinus had different considerations than we have today. I think we all agree there is no one size fits all rule, and I think we have covered the basic principles pretty well.

Quote from waterholic

But couldnt the same approach be applied to Gods? I don't see or touch pleasure, in the same way I don't see or touch Gods. Yet, I feel it. Who is to say that someone doesn't feel God, ergo she is as right as I am?

Who is to say? That answer I think would be just like any other question, and only you can answer it by evaluating the evidence that is available to you and making the best decision that is possible to you.

If someone tells me that they have direct evidence of God then I tell them I am from Missouri and I ask them to "show me." If they can't, then I place their claim in the category of many other claims that are made without evidence that I can verify or have good reason to accept, and which I therefore reject.

That's something I think Epicurus was trying to be clear about: There ultimately is no "final arbiter" of right and wrong. There is no center of the universe to stand in and say that this perspective alone is the "right" perspective. There is no divine god or anyone else who knows everything and can say "this alone" is right. There is no realm of forms or essences -- no "true world" outside of our own to which to look to as authority. This is not reason for despair but reason to saddle up and get back on the horse and ride life as aggressively as you can to manage all the evidence and all the decisions available to you.

Quote from waterholic

What this implies is that I am designed in a way that this balance is a natural state for me. In a simple example, if I am about to die, have only 3 minutes left and have an option for a great pleasure at the cost of great pain (possibly life) of another, it would be consistent with the Epicurean pleasure/pain calculus to forego the pleasure, because in those minutes the knowledge of harm to another would cause us pain. Why? Because we are built that way and we don't need virtue, belief in afterlife punishment or diety to act that way.

I think I am agreeing with your example, but only because ultimately it comes down to "you have to determine yourself what is the most pleasurable course for you given all your mental and physical reactions." When you say "because we are built that way" I sense that you are wanting to look for an absolute answer that says for everyone that "altruism" or "the interests of others" are always to be chosen over "selfishness" or "your own interests." I don't think the facts or Epicurus lead in that direction and I would urge people away from that conclusion, or any other conclusion that implies that there is a "universal good" other than the fact that living beings have faculties of pleasure and pain.

And to carry that last point to a conclusion, I don't think Epicurus was a Benthamite and suggested that pleasure is out there floating in the air and that we should try to maximize "pleasure in general" or "the pleasure of everyone" no matter who is feeling it.

I think Epicurus is clear that each individual has to make that decision for themselves and decide what pleasure and pain is relevant to them. We can choose to be "Mother Theresa" and say that the pleasure of everyone in the world, or any stranger, is every bit as important to god (and to me) as the pleasure of my own spouse and children. Or we can choose to be much more limited and say that in the end the pleasure of our families and friends and ourselves is paramount. But either way, neither god nor platonic forms nor essences nor absolute justice nor anything else exists to justify the conclusion that one "must" or even "should" be selected one over the other. In the end most people seem to end up looking to what nature puts in them - which I gather to be stronger feelings for that which is close and less strong feelings for that which is distant.

Ok I think perhaps our difference in perspective comes down to some of the same issues we have discussed in the past about hypotheticals --- I am willing to entertain them as thought exercises, and some people are less willing to engage in that.

It is easy for me to imagine hypothetical circumstances in which continuing to live would result in overwhelming pain with virtually no offsetting pleasure whatsoever. (The situation of Cassius and Brutus after Philippi being one example. So I would ask - "Do you think Epicurus would say that Cassius made a poor decision in committing suicide rather than handing himself over to Antony's men?")

That's only one example and maybe not even the best. The main issue is that I don't see a bright line saying "hang in there to the very last moment" that would apply to everyone in all situations. I see a theme in Epicurean philosophy of taking charge of things and managing every aspect of your life - and death - as aggressively as possible. How we do that would I think be a personal decision totally context-dependent, and not reducible to a formal test other than where we seem to be ending up, which is something like "never consider suicide lightly and always consider it to be a last resort but know that death is available to you as a relief from pain if in fact you judge the situation makes it the best choice."

Also to close this post it looks to me like much of the reason for the debate at the time was that the Stoics (and others?) seem to have taken a cavalier attitude toward suicide. And of course why not, if you think death is the doorway to paradise? Clearly Epicurus opposed that view, and I would follow Epicurus' original and fundamental position is that death is unconsciousness for eternity, and something that we generally want to postpone as long as possible. However just as in the letter to Menoeceus we don't choose the longest life but the most pleasant, we consider the management of our final moments to be part of the calculus to consider in living the "most pleasant" life.

Also I think this is one area where later Epicureans went wrong in deviating from Epicurus. They should have stuck to Epicurrus' original insight and contention that logical word games are not the proper test of truth.

Or, at the very least, if they decided to engage in those logical word games they should have been rigorously clear that those word games were just that - word games with strictly limited usefulness.

And in fact perhaps they did make that distinction, but in relaying them through later years the limitations and qualifications were dropped from the discussion by later carriers who did not appreciate the importance of those limitations. Given Cicero's hostility to Epicurus he might well have been an example of someone who would cherrypick from the discussions to leave the logical debates while deleting the limitations in which they were framed. In Cicero's case it seems that he at least preserved that Epicurus had objected to logical proofs in this area, but he had to add in his own editorial commentary that he himself (speaking through Torquatus) agreed with the need for logical proofs.

Also so as to be clear for others reading, what it seems Epicurus would reject is this question in itself -

Quote from waterholic

If I require my nephew to accept that "pleasure is the valid natural goal in life", I would need to provide a falsifiability test: is there a hypothetical argument that if proven correct, my statement would be false?

As best I can determine Epicurus would say that you indeed "would not need" to provide any abstract logical proof at all, because logical proof tests are not the tests of human reality. The tests applicable to human reality are the perceptions we receive from the sensations, anticipations, and feelings, which we accept as the basis for all our reasoning. All validation tests are judged using those, not using "logical" word proofs. Words are tools just like virtue or hammers are tools, and they are very useful but limited, and they are not truth in themselves.