Posts by Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

"Sum, sentio, cognosco", or something along those lines? The idea here is that we exist, and we work from that basis. No ergo involved. Maybe add "I act" to the end: sum, sentio, cognosco, ago.

Yes I an thinking too possibly Godfrey that Epicurus might not like the "ergo." But I presume at times (lots of them) Epicurus did use the equivalent of "ergo" so the issue is more subtle than I can process right now.

Quote from Don

Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo

Good point that we know that one. So I definitely think "sum" is correct and the issue is what short Latin makes sense to precede it as evidence, plus what "connector" makes sense ( ergo?)

For some reason it occurs to me today that it might lead to some useful observations to consider whether any disagreements among Epicurus and Aristippus arise from physics or epistemology, or from something else. I consider starting at physics and epistemology, on which Epicurus is pretty clear, to be the gold standard for resolving questions about Epicurus's likely meaning when there is any doubt, so I went looking today back at Diogenes Laertius on Aristippus which is here:

Lives of the Eminent Philosophers/Book II - Wikisource, the free online library

Aside from an incredibly interesting collection of quips, the section is largely devoid of anything approaching epistemology or physics. In fact I don't see anything there at all on first glance. Maybe there are other sources that would clarify whether Aristipus believed in gods or life after death.

But passages like this seem to me to be disagreements as to the prudent way to pursue pleasure, not anything that would derive from physics or epistemology:

Quote

88. Particular pleasure is desirable for its own sake, whereas happiness is desirable not for its own sake but for the sake of particular pleasures. That pleasure is the end is proved by the fact that from our youth up we are instinctively attracted to it, and, when we obtain it, seek for nothing more, and shun nothing so much as its opposite, pain. Pleasure is good even if it proceed from the most unseemly conduct, as Hippobotus says in his work On the Sects. For even if the action be irregular, still, at any rate, the resultant pleasure is desirable for its own sake and is good. 89. The removal of pain, however, which is put forward in Epicurus, seems to them not to be pleasure at all, any more than the absence of pleasure is pain. For both pleasure and pain they hold to consist in motion, whereas absence of pleasure like absence of pain is not motion, since painlessness is the condition of one who is, as it were, asleep. They assert that some people may fail to choose pleasure because their minds are perverted; not all mental pleasures and pains, however, are derived from bodily counterparts. For instance, we take disinterested delight in the prosperity of our country which is as real as our delight in our own prosperity. Nor again do they admit that pleasure is derived from the memory or expectation of good, which was a doctrine of Epicurus. 90. For they assert that the movement affecting the mind is exhausted in course of time. Again they hold that pleasure is not derived from sight or from hearing alone. At all events, we listen with pleasure to imitation of mourning, while the reality causes pain. They gave the names of absence of pleasure and absence of pain to the intermediate conditions. However, they insist that bodily pleasures are far better than mental pleasures, and bodily pains far worse than mental pains, and that this is the reason why offenders are punished with the former. For they assumed pain to be more repellent, pleasure more congenial. For these reasons they paid more attention to the body than to the mind. Hence, although pleasure is in itself desirable, yet they hold that the things which are productive of certain pleasures are often of a painful nature, the very opposite of pleasure; so that to accumulate the pleasures which are productive of happiness appears to them a most irksome business.

So the question I am asking would be something like: If there is nothing in Epicurean physics or epistemology that would lead to the conclusion that Aristippus was wrong in general about the pleasure being the ultimate good, then might Epicurus not say to Epicurus "It's up to you in your personal preference to decide which pleasures to value most"?

In other words is the difference between Aristippus and Epicurus on the relative value of bodily vs mental pleasure and short-term vs long-term pleasure merely a difference of personal preference?

If it is an physics or epistemological difference, where is the difference found?

Thinking about this would help I think focus on how much of Epicurus' advice on how to pursue pleasure is generalized "rule of thumb" advice and personal preference, and how much is something deeper that the physics or epistemology would establish on a wider scale.

And in turn that would help us in understanding to what extent minimalism and asceticism is (as some allege) truly an inseparable part of the philosophy as opposed to contextual depending on the person and circumstances.

Nate how close do you think that is to something Epicurus would say? Not knowing the details of what Gassendi was complaining about, I don't really think the issue if any would be "is there an 'I'?" If there is an issue, there might be something along the lines of some logical objection, analogous to not admitting that Metrodorus must be alive or dead tomorrow. Maybe he would have a concern about the "ergo" or maybe the whole basis of the discussion would be questionable (does our thinking or our feeling really answer the question? Don't we still exist even when asleep or unconscious?

But in general I think I could see Epicurus endorsing "sentio, ergo sum" especially in the context of a debate with Descartes.

Quote

Descartes's statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.

One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".^[5]

It's interesting that Gassendi, notable fan of Epicurus, is listed there as having an objection. Would be interesting to know what else Gassendi thought about Descartes

You know, even in a shared community (monks in a monastery) there are no doubt degrees of "friendship." You can have all the shared values in the world and still in the end not "click" with someone. So I would think that aspect of friendship would have to be considered in these discussions too.

Just a passing thought this morning. We've discussed several times on the podcast the famous statement by Descartes, and I see that in 2017 I set up a primitive graphic:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3460/

It hasn't occurred to me to ask:

(1) How closely do we think Epicurus would endorse Jefferson's formulation? and

(2) If we were looking for an Epicurean Latin response to cogito ergo sum, what would be the best formulation of Jefferson's first sentence? (maybe it should be considered whether to use ______ ergo sum vs _______ ergo ___(exist)____

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Thanks - it is good to know the issues involved with the phrase.

I can see the possibility of "elegance in simplicity" being stretched to have a similar meaning as "limit of frugality" but I do not see Epicurus praising "elegance" elsewhere .

In fact if we were sure the word were elegance I would be inclined to see a negative implication, such as a variation of Lucretius' embroidered blanket, which we have no need of because it does not keep us any warmer than the rough one.

Without context or another example of it I guess we will always have to keep this limit in mind on the translation.

Concerns have been expressed to me that the posts since RE: Welcome ResponsiblyFree! may violate more than just the 'No-politics" rule.

Also implicated are our rules against promoting non-Epicurean philosophies, as well as the possibility that the term "Creative Withdrawal" violates the general position of the forum that Epicurus did not advocate asceticism or "living in a cave."

I think best for the time being that it's best to leave the thread but close it except for admin edits while we take further review steps. This is a good opportunity for us to review forum rules and try to be sure that we apply them evenhandedly.

Those are linked in the statement sent to all new members:

Quote

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.

EDIT 030123: For the same reasons mentioned above I have moved several posts on my wall from RF to this location, where they will all be together. Please remember that the following statements and links are those of Responsibly Free and are not endorsed by me or this forum.

Cassius, I just read your last comment in our thread on my posts inviting all to attend our Tutorial Session 13.Epicurus and Ethics (Creative Withdrawal), to quote:

“The possibility that the term “creative withdrawal” violates the general position of the form that Epicurious did not advocate asceticism or “living in a cave”.”

You are misunderstanding Chapter one “The Refuge Of Philosophy— Epicurus And Friends” from the book “A Harmony Within-Five Who Took Refuge” by William A. Reinsmith, if you interpret this to mean “asceticism or living in a cave”. Reinsmith clearly does not mean anything like that when writing on Epicurus. Please go read it and you will correct this misunderstanding. Hope to see some of you on Fri, Sat, or Sun.

Oh, forgot. Here are the 3 videos we will watch, part or all of, so you can view them ahead to see if they are acceptable:

Here are our videos in the order we will view them:

1.PHILOSOPHY – Epicurus The School of Life. 5:24

2.The Philosopher of Pleasure | EPICURUS Einzelganger 11:11

3.Epicurus and the Good Life The Academy of Ideas. 8:07

ALSO:

Hello Cassius and all Friends of Epicurus, this is Jack Carney in New Zealand, a member of your community who does not visit often and who is a friend of an active member, Martin Huehne.

I present a free, and hopefully, freeing Tutorial, The Philosophy of Responsible Freedom on an online, ongoing basis weekly (Fridays and Saturdays 9PM; and Sundays, 9AM—New Zealand time), which Martin attends. I use videos from the Academy of Ideas and our Session 14 is Epicurus and Ethics

I extend an invitation to all here to join us on any or all of the 3 offerings as I would value having the comments of your community.

Go here for Zoom joining URLs and details:

My email: responsiblyfree@protonmail.com

You do not have to email me to join.

Please pass this invitation on to all members as the more the merrier.

I look forward to your contributions as we enter the Tumbler Of Great Ideas.

“It is good to rub and polish our brain against that of others.” Montaigne

Jack

I see copying this post to a new thread did not indicate that it is new today. Here's a part from the "Court Canons" that seems particularly on point (and it will bump the date of the thread). It seems to me that some or a lot of this makes good sense in construing the works of any philosopher who claims to promote reason and clarity and consistency:

Quote from ResponsiblyFree

I am hoping you can trust your community to maturely self-control to the extent of being able to discuss what writings of Epicurus would support

Yes I think we are able to handle it -- and just to be clear, I personally think that everyone should take a personal interest in and even to a degree engage in contemporary politics, given how much it affects our daily lives. The issue for the forum is mainly practical -- we have a huge job to do to help reconstruct and resurrect the key points about our place in the universe, and issues of politics are so divisive that we set up the forum with the idea - and have continued it over time - that the bigger issues have to come first, and if we get individually divided on modern politics we'll never succeed in dealing with the more "transcendent" issues. There are too few of us as it is to risk division on subjects that aren't absolutely necessary to the understanding of the key doctrines. Understanding them is hard enough -- applying them to politics needs to be more individual if we are to achieve our mission.

I am not sure I can promise to be able to attend these specific meetings but if I can I will and I would encourage anyone here on the forum who is interested to do the same. I had better state the caveat that I have read enough to be comfortable with how you would present Epicurus yourself, but the part of the presentation from a "conservative, christian" viewpoint I couldn't recommend unless someone were specifically interested in pursuing debates about that. But I don't mean that too negatively - it's just a matter of budgeting time. Some of my best thoughts about Epicurus come when I am hearing someone with whom I disagree.

This issue of checking the meaning of a passage, even where text des not appear corrupt, against the wider scope of the philosophy is huge:

For example if someone reads this passage from Menoeceus without any reference to the rest of what Epicurus said, then the entire philosophy is pure minimalism and asceticism:

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

[128] The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure.

Because standing alone this would appear to mean at least these two things:

1. Escape from pain is the prime and overriding directive. You would never choose any course of action that produces any pain at all. ("For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. ")
2. You don't need pleasure at all for its own sake, just to escape pain.

But if someone were to reach those conclusions then they would not only miss the heart of the philosophy, they would in fact stand it on its head.

Epicurus said that words should be clear, but words mean something only in context, and have to use reasonable rules of construction in everything we interpret.

This is a difficulty of language that is just unavoidable, just as waterholic is talking about in a nearby thread as to "friendship." The work can't stop with our choice of the most common usage of a word in a dictionary. I wish it could!

Yep I was just remarking in another thread that we can't hold ourselves to a standard of omniscience, and we just have to do the best we can with what is available.

Quote from Don

That's a slippery slope. Where does one just ignore the manuscripts and substitute whatever, one wants to be there?

Very definitely a big question. And I think the answer has to be something like taking some texts as more certain than others, and then holding those where there is a question to a test of "Is it something that is consistent with the rest of Epicurus said?" and "Did other ancient critics (of whom there were many who had lots to say) point out an alleged inconsistency?" But in the end there is no way to be omnisciently "certain" on these questions than any other, and we all have to do the best we can.

Quote from waterholic

The detailed analysis why living an Epicurean lifestyle is not selfish and can be virtuous at times misses the point, sounding nearly apologetic.

Rhetorical question, not limited to this book: "Isn't that (sounding apologetic) a problem of just about every book and article written about Epicurus in the last 2000 years?"

I definitely agree that "sounding apologetic" is a big problem in general, and I wish I could point to books or articles that I think are free of that problem. I will say that this is one reason for my appreciation of Norman DeWitt - if there is a book on Epicurus that is largely free of "sounding apologetic" about Epicurus, it is that one.

So I do agree with your comment as written, but at the same time I will quickly add that I think "Living for Pleasure" is probably one of the least apologetic books on Epicurus I have read in a long time, which is why I like it so much.

I wonder if you (or others) can think of books which are less apologetic?

As for the definition of friendship I think that's a great question. The points you raise point out the problem - what do we (or Epicurus) really mean by "friendship"? I gather there are some specific references to what it means in Aristotle, but I am not sure about other writers. I wish that parallel to Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks on Pleasure" there were a similar book with similar research on "The Greeks on Friendship."

Outstanding work Don.

I presume that where we end up depends in large part on the connotations of the English word "elegance," which carries a positive connotation. The standard / Bailey translation, which as you state would fit a pattern of Epicurus to use contrasts, would be to use a word like "limit" to imply that exceeding or approaching a negative floor "on the bottom" is being contrasted with a negative ceiling "on the top." So what it comes down to me is whether the first part of the balance is best served by a word with positive connotations, such as "elegance" or one that is more implicitly negative, or at least realistic, like limit.

So you've proved to at least my own personal satisfaction that there is no "horror" in what St. Andre for example proposes. However the strain being put on general usage by the word "elegance" would not cause me to change from the Bailey/Usener version, in that a negative assessment seems more clear and consistent with the overall tone of the passage and the philosophy. E picurus talks a lot about limits in his philosophy, but not so much - as I recall - about "elegance." If there were other instances in which Epicurus praises "elegance" I would see more of a chance of that being an acceptable word here. However we know that Epicurus spits upon beauty unless it bring pleasure, and I would think he would do the same with "elegance," at least in the way we use that word today:

St Andre on fragment 512:

So to me this ends up like "marriage" -- the relevant text appears clearly awkward so as to indicate corruption, but one translation seems to be more consistent with the most general perspective as stated in other places. To me, that overall and overriding general perspective seems to be VS71: "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"

And that means to me that the implication is that there is a time for luxury and a time for simplicity depending on circumstances. Menoeceus: [130] "Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equal to a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips."

Has anyone suggested that VS71 is corrupted or open to question?

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.

Post

RE: Diving Deep Into The History of The Tetrapharmakon / Tetrapharmakos

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.

…

Cassius

February 1, 2023 at 11:49 AM

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

Quote from Little Rocker

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.