Posts by Cassius

Welcome carmelo.sebastian !

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

As part of the work that Kalosyni is putting together for "Epicurus Week," the first section is devoted to quotes of famous men *about* the significance of Epicurus.

I am surprised to say that I don't think we have put together such a list before, but I know that many of us have favorite quotes from figures in later history that we ought to include. We've started with just two, but please help us add to the list, as doubtless we will use it many times. I know there are other great quotes from Homer, Ovid, potentially Virgil, and many many others which are either outright admiring or at least grudgingly recognizing the impact that Epicurus had. Please help us add to this list and eventually we'll probably put it together in a Eikadistes style collection -- unless Nate himself has done so already and I have forgoten!

1. Thomas Jefferson - As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. Epictetus indeed, has given us what was good of the stoics; all beyond, of their dogmas, being hypocrisy and grimace. Their great crime was in their calumnies of Epicurus and misrepresentations of his doctrines; in which we lament to see the candid character of Cicero engaging as an accomplice. Diffuse, vapid, rhetorical, but enchanting. His prototype Plato, eloquent as himself, dealing out mysticisms incomprehensible to the human mind, has been deified by certain sects usurping the name of Christians; because, in his foggy conceptions, they found a basis of impenetrable darkness whereon to rear fabrications as delirious, of their own invention. These they fathered blasphemously on him who they claimed as their founder, but who would disclaim them with the indignation which their caricatures of his religion so justly excite. Of Socrates we have nothing genuine but in the Memorabilia of Xenophon; for Plato makes him one of his collocutors merely to cover his own whimsies under the mantle of his name; a liberty of which we are told Socrates himself complained. Seneca is indeed a fine moralist, disguising his work at times with some Stoicisms, and affecting too much of antithesis and point, yet giving us on the whole a great deal of sound and practical morality.” [Jefferson’s letter to William Short]
2. Friedrich Nietzsche - “The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,—this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!—This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things—the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption—against Christians… These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality—this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls", step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but "Christianity", which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.—Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared… Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world", in the flesh and inspired by genius....”’ [Nietzsche - AntiChrist]

I finally had a chance to look at that link in detail, and it is VERY impressive! Thanks for the link!

Welcome to episode 166 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you too find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

Today we are very pleased to bring you a very special interview with Dr. David Glidden, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at University of California, Riverside.

Dr. Glidden has written numerous articles of interest to fans of Epicurus, including "Epicurean Prolepsis," in the 1985 Oxford Studies in Classical Philosophy, "Epicurean Thinking," and many others related to Epicurus which we encourage our listeners to seek out.

Epicurean Prolepsis (or anticipations, or preconceptions, or whatever you prefer as the best word for the topic) is one of the three legs of the Epicurean canon and one of the most difficult subjects for many people to understand as they study Epicurus.

We think you are really going to enjoy hearing Dr. Glidden's unique and challenging take on the subject, and we think it is going to prompt many of us to take a new look at what the standard commentators, even Diogenes Laertius himself, have had to say about the subject in the past. Dr. Glidden's approach promises to lead to a much deeper and rewarding understanding of many aspects of Epicurus that are often overlooked today.

We can't thank Dr. Glidden enough for his time in talking to us about his work, and we hope to be able to talk to him again in the future, so if you have questions or comments please be sure to post them in the thread below.

Now, let's talk with Dr. Glidden:

UCR Profiles - Search & Browse

Post

RE: Dr. David Glidden's "Epicurean Prolepsis"

Here's another point of terminology: If some people are concerned that the word "recognition" in "pattern recognition" is too strongly evocative of Plato suggesting we remember true forms from before we were born, or that gods are writing in our minds, or that there are "essences" in the world that are their equivalent, those people might get the same result from calling this "pattern appreciation."

As I understand English, "appreciation" carries most of the same meaning in terms of being able…

Cassius

March 4, 2023 at 8:55 AM

Episode 165 of the Lucretius Today Podcase is now available. This week we begin our review of "The New Physics" (Chapter 9 of DeWitt's book).

Matteng in my view these questions get resolved through a common sense basic observation of all that we find to be desirable, mental or physical, it that way because the feeling of pleasure tells us it is so. There are no bright line categories that apply to everyone because the universe doesn't give us categories -those are in the mind - the universe just gives us the faculty of pleasure and pain by which to evaluate everything.

It is up to each one of us to decide what level of pain we are willing to accept in return for what amount of pleasure. All of us accept the pains of daily life in order for us to continue to live and experience pleasure.

The implicit presumption in some arguments that all pain is unacceptable is simply not what Epicurus taught. He said we explicitly choose pain at times in order to avoid more pain or attain greater pleasure.

It therefore seems to me that every discussion of choices needs to state that emphatically at the beginning.

Yes you want to minimize pain, but you also want to maximize pleasure, and how you choose to strike that balance has no rules except your own decision as to how to live your life.

Episode 164 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we complete Chapter 8 of the DeWitt Book with a discussion of the feelings as a criteria of truth.

Yes I agree that is a good test. I would say that any saying which might arguably be interpreted as leaning in a flat "commandment" direction (and I am not sure there are really any at all) would appear to do so (if they do) only by virtue of lacking context from the original setting.

For example "live unknown" as a flat statement would appear to be a flat "commandment" that on its face would override any other consideration. However we know both (1) from the wider view of the philosophy that Epicurus did not work that way - as if context did not matter, and (2) we don't have the full context of a statement from Epicurus himself actually saying that.

There are good references and arguments in support of this observation -- of how the ethical doctrines are contextual -- in the article recently posted here from Jeffrey Fish - (Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus).

Quote from Kalosyni

a certified therapist would be recommended for really difficult problems, since there are limits to Epicurean philosophy, and it is not a therapy, and thus cannot take the place of a certified therapist.

Ha the way that is worded makes me want to confirm also that "there are limits to certified therapy, and therapy is not a philosophy, and that cannot take the place of Epicurean philosophy."

If someone truly needs medical assistance then they definitely need clinical therapy. But I would ultimately judge the success of clinical therapy according to philosophy, rather than the success of philosophy by clinical therapy.

For example see "Philosophical concerns with CBT methods"

Cognitive behavioral therapy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meaning of "Eristic" -

In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to an argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."^[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.^[2]

Eristic - Wikipedia

What about a column for "Did something undesirable happen which I could have prevented but for some reason did not?"

Welcome to Episode 165 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we start Chapter 9, entitled "The New Physics."

Charles has mentioned several times Julien Offray de La Mettrie -

Julien Offray de La Mettrie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In recent reading in the work of David Glidden on Epicurean Thought and Anticipations, this reference to La Mettrie occurs:

I don't know much about La Mettrie at all, but Charles apparently does, so this is at thread to use to document how La Mettrie may deepen our understanding of what Epicurus was saying about the physics of thought.

And here is a section from Diogenes of Oinoanda that on its face seems to be directed more toward physics, but probably impacts the same question:

Fr. 4

... [as is supposed by] some of the philosophers and especially the Socratics. They say that pursuing natural science and busying oneself with investigation of [celestial phenomena] is superfluous and unprofitable, and they do [not even] deign [to concern themselves with such matters.]

Fr. 5

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Here is a strong, and even witty at the expense of the Stoics, hint from Dr. Glidden as to how he thinks the Epicureans responded:

In our review of the work of David Glidden on Epicurean "anticipations," we see a topic that Dr. Glidden has mentioned that goes by the name of the "eristic paradox."

Quote from Author Unknown, From "Educheer"

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

Below is a brief description of the issue from a website called "Educheer." (probably not the best source but the first I can find that seems relatively clear). It would seem almost certain that Epicurus was aware of this argument and fashioned his own philosophy of knowledge (especially "anticipations") in a way as to show how Plato/Socrates were wrong. Therefore in this thread let's discuss what Epicurus would have seen as wrong with Plato's assertions and how Epicurus responded. (The eristic paradox, and Epicurus' likely position in response, are discussed in Dr. Glidden's articles.)

The Erisitic Paradox and The Slave Boy

Quote

Throughout history, philosophers have sought to understand the nature of true knowledge and how to achieve it. Most believe that true knowledge is acquired empirically, and not latent in our minds from birth. In Plato's Meno, Socrates argues in favor of the pre-natal existence of knowledge, the opposite of this proposal: that knowledge is essentially latent, and is brought to light through questioning.

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

One consequence of this view is Plato's rejection of empiricism, the claim that knowledge is derived from sense experience. However, when one examines the scene in the Meno between Socrates and the slave boy in greater depth, one can see the flaws in this paradox. Plato uses Socrates' experiment, in which he draws one of Meno's slaves out from the gathered crowd and proceeds to demonstrate the theory of recollection using geometry; however, this experiment's purpose tests the credulity of the reader; and in some cases Socrates' questions are blatantly leading. Socrates merely places obvious propositions in front of the boy that can be immediately recognized.

<>Also, contrary to what Plato asserts, knowledge can be obtained by other means, and not exclusively through intellectual inquiry and questioning. It is far too difficult to dismiss, as Plato does, any and all claims or assertions about the physical or visible world, including both common-sense observations and the propositions of science, as mere opinions. Furthermore, the interpretation of the experiment with the slave boy can be expanded to suggest yet another position: that Plato is demonstrating the flawed nature of sophistry by showing that what on the surface appears to be Socratic dialectic is really Sophistic practice. In light of all of these factors, it becomes clear that the eristic paradox is, in fact, flawed. In the experiment, Socrates guides a slave through a series of geometric proofs in an effort to illustrate that the slave already possessed this knowledge and, therefore, that learning is not acquisition but recollection. Plato maintains that the slave is simply recalling knowledge learned in a former incarnation.

Source: https://educheer.com/essays/platos-…ristic-paradox/

Nate I think you are right that Kalosyni's comment are calling up what you are saying: There are different levels of "absoluteness" going on here.

In physics, as in the letter to Herodotus, we are being "absolute" -- NOTHING exists eternally the same except atoms and void. That doesn't change for anyone no matter what their circumstances. Implicitly death is the same way - we all die.

But in the letter to Pythocles Epicurus points out that we don't have clear vision at a distance, so in regard to taking opinions about the skies and stars we have to keep open multiple possibilities if all of them comport with the evidence and none are contradicted.

Then further in distinction to physics, where we are at times talking about unchanging properties and sometimes talking about emergent qualities, in ethics questions of "how to live among other people" was are ALWAYS talking about emergent and changing qualities, and ALL our statements are contextual. This section of the Fish article "Not All Politicians Are Sysiphus" points that out very well I think (underlined section):

This kind of contextual nature is probably a good idea to add to sort of an introduction, and then discuss in relation to each quote to develop the context.

I suggest that, of course, only for consideration when you have unlimited time, because you've already sunk a lot of time into the collection, and context will determine how much more time makes sense and how to spend it!

I REALLY like that last underlined sentence, and I think we need to find ways to highlight that on the forum:

Quote

The Epicureans had advice for both kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promised to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances.

The only way it appears to me to make that sentence better would be to generalize it by saying "ALL" instead of "BOTH."

or maybe for our current usage:

"The Epicureans have advice for all kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promises to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances."

Thank you Don! This is such a recurring question that I am going to redo the FAQ on "Engagement with Society" based on the material in this article, and also add Dr. Fish to the list of people that would make potential good interviewees on the podcast.

So Torquatus was fighting with the remains of Pompey's Senatorial forces, against Caesar?

No doubt that would have endeared him to Cicero, if true.

There is a lot of discussion in this article about Philodemus' "On The Good King" but I do not recall that we have discussed it here much in the past.

We need to find the best available translations / reconstructions of what is left and start a thread on that under Ethics: