Posts by Cassius

Thank you for introducing yourself! A large part of my recent thought revolves around how I am thinking that no matter how good the written resources, there is just no substitute for "personal" interaction with people of the same mindset. For the first few years when we started this site I was convinced that they key is finding and developing better written material, and of course I still see that as critical.

But no matter how good the book is, or how many scrolls are newly found at Herculaneum, what good are any of them if we don't internalize them and put them into practice? As Dewitt says in one of his lines, pleasure (and pain) have no meaning except to the living, and what we should be looking for is not some formulation that miraculously saves us like some kind of incantation. It seems to me the key is experiencing life to our best ability every minute, and Epicurean philosophy gives us the best approach toward understanding how to do that.

So thanks for mentioning that you have been lurking. I think (and hope) that there are probably a lot of people who do that, and it's good for you to be an example to others in posting.

Look forward to hearing more from you!

Yes and thank you to everyone who has participated in EpicureanFriends.com in 2022, and let's make 2023 even better!

Thank you for all those Nate!

(and that's Elli's Happy New Year Graphic at Facebook! )

Quote from Don

I still think Epicurus (and Metrodorus and Philodemus) did use those categories; however, I think much ado has been made of them by later commentators.

But that's a conversation for another thread

Yes the important issue you've brought up here is how so much of what was recorded doesn't seem to be just a random list of what Epicurus was focused on, but an attempt to lay the philosophies against one another so the reader can compare and contrast them. So that when we find something significant in Epicurus we're likely to find the same issue discussed in Aristotle or Plato or the other previous schools, and if we go looking for those that will help us give context and meaning to what Epicurus was saying.

I've never bothered to read this before from Wikipedia:

Carneades (/kɑːrˈniːədiːz/; Greek: Καρνεάδης, Karneadēs, "of Carnea"; 214/3–129/8 BC^[2]) was a Greek philosopher^[3] and perhaps the most prominent head of the Skeptical Academy in ancient Greece.^[3] He was born in Cyrene.^[4] By the year 159 BC^{[citation needed]}, he had begun to attack many previous dogmatic doctrines, especially Stoicism and even the Epicureans^[5] whom previous skeptics had spared^{[citation needed]}. As scholarch (leader) of the Academy, he was one of three philosophers sent to Rome in 155 BC where his lectures on the uncertainty of justice caused consternation among leading politicians.^[6][7][8] He left no writings.^[9] Many of his opinions are known only via his successor Clitomachus. ^[10] He seems to have doubted the ability not just of the senses but of reason too in acquiring truth. His skepticism was, however, moderated by the belief that we can, nevertheless, ascertain probabilities (not in the sense of statistical probability, but in the sense of persuasiveness)^[11] of truth, to enable us to act.^[12]

^{Carneades is known as an Academic Skeptic. Academic Skeptics (so called because this was the type of skepticism taught in Plato's Academy in Athens) hold that all knowledge is impossible, except for the knowledge that all other knowledge is impossible}

^{German Wikipedia has more detail:}

Divisio Carneadea

Another method is what Cicero called it Divisio Carneadea ("Classification according to carnades"). It consists in the collection and classification of not only all the solutions to a problem that have been expressed so far, but also all possible solutions. Cicero illustrates this using the example of Goods theory. The individual arts or. Techniques such as medicine (healing art) or navigation (helmsman's art) have reference points for which they are studied and practiced (health or. safe seafaring). Reason is "art", the point of reference of which is "life", that is, according to Hellenistic understanding, the right life. Eudaimonie (Bliss, happy life, Latin vita beata). The nature of Eudaimonie and thus the way to it is controversial among the philosophers. First of all, there is a division of the teaching of goods according to the different views on the nature of eudaimony. Some seek eudaimony in experiencing pleasure, others in a state of painlessness, others in realizing the natural. Another principle of division that is combined with the first is the distinction according to the type of goal sought. Either the goal is something desired (for example, pleasure), the attainment of which is to bring about eudaimony, or the striving itself also contains the goal in itself, so that eudaimonia is realized even if there is no final success. For example, the Stoics see the pursuit of the natural as a goal in itself. The combination of both divisions results in six possible Eudaimon teachings. Additional possibilities arise if virtue is included as something sought.^[32] The variety of the possibilities put together should lead to the relativization of all teachings and thus to the insight that none of them may claim generality.

Very interesting and thank you Don! It is almost as if Diogenes Laertius was working from a list of questions that he wanted to address as to every philosopher, and that almost everything that he recorded about Epicurus comes from a desire to add in Epicurus' views to this list of topics that he wanted to cover. And that we could learn a lot by looking at what Diogenes Laertius records from that perspective.

If so, that would be entirely consistent with the Nikolsky article and his observation that by the time Diogenes Laertius was writing he (Diogenes) was influenced by the Division of Carneades. And that would lead to the conclusion that Diogenes Laertius was applying a method of analysis that was current to Diogenes' own time, but which was not necessarily reflective of the time of Epicurus):

Quote from Boris Nikolsky

If Epicurus did not divide pleasures into kinetic and static, the question arises where Cicero and Diogenes Laertius found this idea. We will be able to answer this question if we examine the context in which a classification of pleasures is normally proposed. Both Cicero and Diogenes speak about it when they wish to contrast Epicurus' doctrine with the Cyrenaics' views. According to them, the Cyrenaics recognized only one type of pleasure, pleasure in motion, whereas Epicurus admits two types - pleasure 'in motion' and pleasure 'in a state of rest.' Besides, it should be noted that in comparing Epicurus' and the Cyrenaics' ideas Cicero proceeds from a description of various ethic doctrines that goes back to Carneades and is related to Carneades' division of theories of the supreme good (divisio Carneadea): using the classification principle 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis', the author of this division contraposed the definitions of the supreme good as pleasure in motion, as the absence of pain, and Epicurus' view which he believed to synthesize both of these concepts. Probably, Cicero received this view of Epicurus' concept of pleasure through Antiochus of Ascalon, who, as Cicero himself reported, had often used the divisio Carneadea in his reasoning. Let us now look at the tradition upon which the text by Diogenes Laertius is based. .....

Two new questions being added to the list in the first post in this thread:

1. It seems that today Stoicism is much more popular than Epicureanism. What are the most important ways you see Epicureanism as different and superior to Stoicism?

2. What misunderstandings do you think exist as to Epicureanism that are most important to clarify? For example, is Epicureanism ultimately ascetic? Was Epicurus anti-science, or anti-progress, or anti-culture? Did Epicurus teach suppression of all ambition? Did Epicurus teach that the way to live is to totally withdraw from society and live in a cave on bread and water and cheese?

Happy Birthday to Ataraxmys! Learn more about Ataraxmys and say happy birthday on Ataraxmys's timeline: Ataraxmys

Welcome Plantpierogi !

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!

It's my understanding that in generic terms that would be exactly what Plato advocated, that the senses are insufficient to give us reliable information about the true world. And I would think in support of that you can cite Diogenes of Oinoanda saying that Epicurus agreed that there is a flux, as D of O attributed to Aristotle, but that Epicurus held the flux not to be so fast that our senses could not apprehend it.

Thank you Little Rocker! As I read the Hahmann article it seems to me to be largely consistent or at least compatible with the approach DeWitt takes in his article and book. As I read all three the key point seems to be something like that every impression strikes us as "real" from the perspective that it is in fact an impression received by a sense faculty, but that each impression has to be evaluated before our minds can judge any inference from that impression to be "true" or "false" to the full external reality.

Does anyone read these articles as going in significantly different directions?

I have made the changes Todd suggested and I bet that will fix the problem. If anyone has further problems with these or any other broken links, please report them. Thanks to Don and Todd for their help with this.

That makes sense and thank you Todd! Yes a couple of months ago I changed a setting in the forum software to tell it to start using "pretty" links as opposed to those with the PHP content. And Don has been around for so long he might have the old version cached. I will check those links again now.

Sorry to interrupt the chain of deep thought but this is a purely procedural post.

Don has reported that he is having trouble with most of the links being non-working in the box on the right side of the home page which looks like this:

(Note - the text needs rewriting but it still serves as a useful link to some key articles so I will defer a rewrite until later.)

The problem is that those links don't work for Don, but they do work for me and at least one other person who tried to access them. Could anyone who has time to check click on a couple of them and let me know if they report any "file not found" or other errors?

thanks very much.

Edit Note: The original post of the DeWitt article has been updated with cite added and some highlighting deleted. Thanks to Todd for catching that.

Joshua et al --- it looks like DeWitt updated and shortened his argument in the article and included it in his book starting on page 135 under "Epicurus not an empiricist."

It's been a long while since I read the article in full but I am expecting both Joshua and you Todd will find yourself in agreement with it. As DeWitt states in the summary, on it's face the statement is absurd, and since we don't usually expect Epicurus to be taking absurd positions, something else must be going on! As often is the case we might not all end up agreeing with DeWitt's precise phrasing, but I think points the way in the right direction.

Quote from Norman DeWitt

The aim of this article is to show reasons for believing that the statement in the heading is false as usually understood. It is absurd; the documentation is deficient, misleading, and from prejudiced sources; advocates of its validity go beyond their authorities. It is inconsistent with Epicurus' theory of perception, his terminology, his account of vision, his classifications, his treatment of the criteria in his Principal Doctrines, his account of heavenly phenomena in the letter to Pythocles, and his recommendations to students. Ancient proofs of it are polemical sophistries. Modern misinterpretations have arisen from the ambiguity of αληθής which has three meanings in Epicureanism: 1. real or self- existent; 2. relatively true; 3. absolutely true. Sensations have been confused with judgments.

Here is DeWitt's article focusing on the subject. I am having trouble getting the Greek word in the summary typed in - if any moderator has the ability to fix that in the description (where I have placed the ________) please do.

File

Norman DeWitt - "Epicurus - All Sensations Are True"

DeWitt's interpretation of the "all sensations are true" controversy.

Cassius

December 29, 2022 at 12:23 PM

Quote from Todd

If by "true", you mean, "corresponding to reality", I would have to say that statement is false.

"Corresponding to reality" is exactly the sense in which Dewitt says "true" is NOT meant in the formulation "all sensations are true.

His analogy is to a courtroom witness who is testifying "truthfully" as far as he or she was able to see, but due to perspective or some other issue that witness did not see the full big picture. They report without any intent to deceive the raw data that they observe, but they (the witness, or the sense) does not report any "opinion" about what they saw at all.

That's the essential issue and DeWitt's suggestion makes perfect sense to me

Here's one reference, but there is more. I also have an article he wrote I thought was already here but will upload again to be sure: