Posts by Cassius

Today we switched the "hero" box on page one of the forum to VS63 -a tremendously important and very clear statement, and a very potent retort against those who advocate a "minimalist" or "ascetic" interpretation of Epicurean philosophy.

Despite its usefulness, I don't think we have done a "deep dive" into the Greek wording or anything else we know about it from the Vatican list. I hope we can remedy that in this thread. For the time being, we have at least the following:

Bailey translation -

Here is the Bailey version of the Greek -

And Bailey's footnote -

From Bailey's "Epicurus - The Extant Remains" available here - (page 115-116)

If we can develop alternate translations we will add them to the Lexicon here:

VS63 - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Started January 28, 2023:

VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

Simple, but so important. This one may need to stay at the top of the page for the whole of 2023 - or longer!

As we return to our regular podcasting schedule and get back to Chapter 7 (The Canon, Reason, and Nature) I am editing this episode 158 and find that I have to apologize for some rough recording quality for the first six minutes or so of this episode. It should be very listenable when complete, but we'll work to improve the sound quality in the future.

Yes, that's a lot more words, but all of them keyed directly to pleasure. The further we get from "pleasure" the more the danger lurks, I think.

Rather than edit let me restate something from the last post. Not "both" but -

ALL FOUR of the perspectives that I listed in the start of post 16 can be perfectly valid and useful, depending on the context of the discussion.

What I see as a big problem is that "normal people" want to be given a definition so they can know exactly what to do. If we tell them that the goal is "happiness" (or flourishing or eudaemonia or some esoteric or fancy-sounding type of pleasure) then they will inevitably ask: "What does 'happiness' mean? And that's the rub - there is no good way to exhaustively define what it means to be happy to all people all the time. It looks like the Epicureans thought that the best way to define happiness is "a life of pleasure" but that doesn't satisfy someone who is looking for an elaborate definition.

So people who ask that question have to come to understand that what they are looking for does not exist in a Platonic ideal conceptual form. There is no single definition that applies to everyone of what it means to be "happy" other than "a life of pleasure" -- and they themselves are the only judge of what pleasure feels like to them.

I have to think that a lot of the difficulty in discussions of Epicurus' views comes from failure to explain that "happiness" as a concept does not have a single precise definition. And if we try to skate around the issue by substituting other high-sounding words - if we don't make clear that "happiness" means nothing more conceptually than "a life of pleasure" - then we are back on the slippery slope to Platonic idealism.

Quote from Joshua

When I looked at the bibliographies of Hicks, Yonge, and Mensch, I noticed this; Yonge spent most of his translating time working on Latin texts, and he uses the word θεωρίαις in the Latin sense of contemplation. Hicks and Mensch, on the other hand, spent most of their time working on Greek texts, and they use festivals.

I am out of my league too but potentially a great observation Joshua. I haven't checked back on Dewitt's commentary on this but I am pretty sure that he uses festivals, and I gather that he too was probably more into Greek than Latin - because I've looked through most of his published articles and they are almost always on Greek subjects more than Latin. I seem also to recall that DeWitt often cited Bignone favorably. But it's hard to make firm comments on how much time these guys spent on each language.

Before I comment much more myself in this thread I would very much like to hear what others think. In the meantime, though, I have supplemented an earlier thread which may become relevant here.

I think i will add to this old thread to extend the conversation on the distinctions between:

1 - "Happiness" as a concept to be defined in words.

2 - "Happy" as a mental feeling.

3 - "Pleasure" as a concept to be defined in words

4 - "Pleasure" as a feeling

Someone called to my attention this illustration from Diogenes Laertius which might be useful as a means of illustration:

Quote

Even on the rack the wise man is happy. He alone will feel gratitude towards friends, present and absent alike, and show it by word and deed. When on the rack, however, he will give vent to cries and groans.

I would say that that is a use of "happy" as a concept. The wise man on the rack may be able to summon up a pleasurable feeling from a good memory of the past as a part of his overall experience, but the overwhelming immediate bodily and mental feelings are almost surely going to be mostly painful, so that he gives rise to cries and moans. This would be an instance in which (if the quote is accurate) Epicurus is using "happy" as a "concept" standing perhaps in the place of some abstract sum or description of the man's total life experiences, but not as a present-moment desirable and conscious state.

That's all well and good and highly useful in conceptual debate, However in more immediate and practical terms, we have many instances where "happiness" or "happy" does not seem to be the word of choice to describe the ultimate objective, but "pleasure":

- Diogenes of Oinoanda - "If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end."

- Torquatus: This being so, it is plain that all right and praiseworthy action has the life of pleasure for its aim. Now inasmuch as the climax or goal or limit of things good (which the Greeks term telos) is that object which is not a means to the attainment of any thing else, while all other things are a means to its attainment, we must allow that the climax of things good is to live agreeably.

- Torquatus - If then a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure is the ultimate good.

- Torquatus - f then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on pleasure, whereas pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure.

- Lucretius - "Dia voluptus, dux vitae"

This may be more relevant to another thread currently underway, but I also want to put this here as a means of crosslinking the discussions.

I am thinking the take-home point is that BOTH perspectives are valid, but that we must be careful and clear how we are using these words and in what context they are being used. Otherwise we easily make the mistake that Diogenes of Oinoanda is shouting against: that of putting some abstraction (in which "happiness" becomes like "virtue") in place of real-world practical experience by which to guide our lives.

I have just recently received an email from Christos Yapijakis indicating that he has read through this thread. His comments that I am pasting below were drafted as a private communication to me, rather than as an exhaustive commentary on the various points raised above, so please understand that they are written in that context. I asked him for permission (which he granted) to repost these so as to include them in the discussion.

It has been some time since this thread started and I have not read back through it with an eye toward adding additional commentary myself as I add Christos' notes into the thread. The main thing I want to restate is that I appreciate all the effort and scholarship Christos has put into his work, and also the effort involved by those who have commented here, all of whom I am sure have written in good faith and with constructive intent to help all of us in the pursuit of Epicurean philosophy. From here on in the thread is Christos' comment, minus his personal introductory and closing thoughts. Christos is very busy and may not check in with additional comments anytime soon, but I should make clear that I am posting this not to end the conversation but to encourage additional constructive commentary on these very important subjects.

---

... I know all that discussion comes from a friendly perspective towards both Epicurus and myself, so let me clarify some points:

1. The paper "Philosophical Management of Stress based on Science and Epicurean Pragmatism: A Pilot Study" describes a program for the general public and is written for the general experts in philosophy, psychology etc. Therefore, it is written in an objective, emotionless, generalized manner so that people all over the world to be convinced that there are some significant scientific findings using the Epicurean approach. it is not about the Epicurean philosophy per se and that is why we speak about happiness (ataraxia/aponia) and not about pleasure (the paper on Epicurean eustatheia on the other hand describes more in depth the Epicurean philosophy).

2. The tripartite brain is still a sound model in neurobiology (I am an expert in neurogenetics and George Chrousos is an expert in stress neurobiology). Of course the brain is more interconnected and more complicated than that, but that simple model is useful philosophically for the lay people to grasp the main characteristics of human potential. This is the most Epicurean approach possible. Epicurus was not interested for the little details as much as the big picture of things. The details are for specialists, the big picture and the first principles are for everyone to grasp to avoid confusion and fear of the unknown.

3. Regarding pleasure and happiness, just see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-We aim to happiness (eustatheia of katastematic pleasure/pleasurable state)

-We do not need pleasure unless our body is in pain lacking it

"He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquility of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a happy life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained lacking pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure".

4. Regarding useful and harmful pleasures, again see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-Although pleasure is naturally akin to us, some pleasures lead to greater annoyance than pleasure

-Useful pleasures=those that appease pain or vary our enjoyment of life (the second ones we don't need necessarily)

-Harmful pleasures=those that result in more pain than pleasure

"...we do not choose every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is worthy of choice, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. ".

All three papers I authored in that special issue of Conatus-Journal of Philosophy on "Philosophical Management of Stress" (the first ever such issue of an international philosophical journal and I was invited to be the Editor) promote Epicurean philosophy, although they do that in a more subtle, "politically correct" and objective way discussing other philosophical approaches too, which by comparison are barely useful for a very short period of time until reality prevails.

I hope I have made my point to you. I rest my case, as you say in court.

---

NOTE: In a subsequent followup, Christos included the following, which I think is relevant to the same discussion:

Always remember that the pursuit of pleasure is the path to eustatheia and happiness (katastematic pleasure or pleasurable state) for Epicurus and not a goal by itself as Aristippus or 'prodigals' think (see letter to Menoeceus DL 131-132).

All the best wishes.

Quote from Todd

I would say the presumption should be in favor of consistency with the other occurrences of the word in DL. Since he is drawing from disparate sources, that weakens the argument, but what else do we have?

Following up on this, which one do we expect is the most consistent not only with other uses of the word, but with what we expect Epicurus to have more likely said?

Seems like a lot of people want to link the "public festivals" to comments about Epicurus' piety and his affection for Greece. That seems reasonable, but he obviously also found his greatest pleasure in study of nature and in pursuing his philosophy.

I tend to think the most "likely" thing for him to have said is the latter, with the reference being to the study of nature rather than pure "rumination." (How's that for a reference to our current discussions? ). That wouldn't take away from his 'piety' or his affection for Greece, but it would make him less chargeable with patronizing religious ceremonies with which he pretty clearly would have disagreed.

That certainly is impressive research. Were you able to track down what Bailey said about Bignone's reasoning?

Ok -- As usual it looks like you're doing great work Don.

Great question, but it seems to me every translator (Bailey? Yonge? Others?)use some variation of festival.

I'd like to see what Elli thinks of this too!

As time goes by and we have a larger number of participants with more technical background, we're getting more and more discussions of translation issues involving particular passages. There are several ways to organize those, but also over time it would be good to see them collected somewhere they are more easily found rather than just through the search function. Therefore as people think of new questions, or come across old threads that would logically fit better under a general "Translations" heading, please remember that we have this forum below:

Texts With Translation Or Corruption Difficulties

If any moderator sees an existing thread that should be moved there, or anyone reading an old thread sees one that should be moved, please flag it to a moderator and we will move it. We have lots and lots of things under 'General Discussion" that over time (as they get older)should be moved to subforums.

Thanks!

Welcome and you're not rambling at all - this kind of information is very helpful. One of our goals here is not to simply be disembodied typists but - over time - to get to know each other better, and backgrounds like this are a good start. Thanks!

Quote from kochiekoch

Dang! You beat me to it. LOL!!! I thought I had a new article to post!

Thanks for checking and backing us up!

Just finished listening to the full thing. I concur with Godfrey. Emily does a great job.

Perhaps the one new item I think I caught in this interview is around the 45 minute mark where there is an exchange relating to ambition, which again I think was handled very well by Dr. Austin,

So if I were rating the interviews she has given (other than ours ) I would say that this one has the "pro" that the interviewer is very positive about the book and about the superiority of Epicurus over Stoicism. The only reason I might tell someone to listen to one of the other interviews first is that this interviewer is so talkative about his own views that it seemed to me that he didn't give Emily nearly enough time to talk for herself.

But this is definitely a podcast that has a very positive total effect. I gather there are a lot of people who like the "next big idea" approach, and I suspect their audience will really like what they hear in this interview. And in the end that's what it's all about, so I give it a thumbs up.

Poster:

Things you learn in life, but are never explicitly taught.

All relationships are mutually beneficial. If they aren’t, it is entirely one sided and can become almost parasitic with one person always taking. This applies to marriages as well. Both friends must bring benefit to the relationship for it to be mutually beneficial. Even just the confidence of knowing a person will always have your back brings about peace. It is so critical to know who your true friends are. In times of trouble the true ones always rise to the occasion.

Elli:

First of all it would be better to be focused to the epicurean saying 44. And then let's read the following excerpt that is from Pericles epitaph by Thucydides. It's not a coincidence that Thucydides had the same origin with Epicurus, since both were from the old prominent "house" of Philaides.

The excerpt: <<We make friends by doing beneficial deeds to others, not by receiving the same benefit from them. This makes our friendship all the more reliable, since we want to keep alive the gratitude of those who are in our debt by showing continued goodwill to them: whereas the feelings of one who owes us something lack the same enthusiasm, since he knows that, when he repays our kindness, it will be more like paying back a debt than giving something spontaneously. We (the Athenians) are unique in this. When we do beneficial deeds to others, we do not do them out of any calculations of profit or loss: we do them without afterthought, relying on our free spirit>>.

------------------------------------

The free spirit is doing beneficial deeds without any calculations or afterthought of profit or loss! Like the flowers that offer to Nature all of their beautiful colors and perfumes without any consideration and hesitation! Like the sun when it sets is offering the most beautiful gold colors making the poor fishermen to feel wealthy.

Free spirits are doing beneficial deeds to others without considering what they will get afterwards. Free spirits are so strong, because they don't let any bitterness to force them even to think for one moment that what they gave was ultimately in vain or waste of time. Free spirits focus to the journey and what they’ve gain as experiences rather than the final destination of the journey. Free spirits are wealthy of feelings and powerful all the time, because they are the prodigal-prudent, and to be prodigal and at the same time prudent it is not a schema oxymoron. Because to give all you have of your genuine thyself and at the same time to remain prudent is bliss and whoever is blissful is free and whoever is free is brave (this is by Thucydides too). These are the real/genuine men!
Some inferior men are crying with bitterness saying that whatever they gave was without to get, for this reason are considered by nature weak and insecure.

This book and this writer in her interviews is conducting the most aggressive and rigorously pro-Epicurean and non-Stoic campaign in public in a very long time. This is all very interesting and welcome.

The idea of her saying good things about Epicurus but also bad things about the Stoics at the same time is probably blowing the minds of 80% of these podcast audiences!

Welcome @Bibi !

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!