Posts by Cassius

And to add to the mix, Lucretius, in the Brown edition, which uses "events" rather than exclusively "accidents" -

449] All other things you'll find essential conjuncts, or else the events or accidents of these. I call essential conjunct what's so joined to a thing that it cannot, without fatal violence, be forced or parted from it; is weight to stones, to fire heat, moisture to the Sea, touch to all bodies, and not to be touched essential is to void. But, on the contrary, Bondage, Liberty, Riches, Poverty, War, Concord, or the like, which not affect the nature of the thing, but when they come or go, the thing remains entire; these, as it is fit we should, we call Events. Time, likewise, of itself is nothing; our sense collects from things themselves what has been done long since, the thing that present is, and what's to come. For no one, we must own, ever thought of Time distinct from things in motion or at rest.

[464] For when the poets sing of Helen's rape, or of the Trojan State subdued by war, we must not say that these things do exist now in themselves, since Time, irrevocably past, has long since swept away that race of men that were the cause of those events; for every act is either properly the event of things, or of the places where those things are done. Further, if things were not of matter formed, were there no place or space where things might act, the fire that burned in Paris' heart, blown up by love of Helen's beauty, had never raised the famous contests of a cruel war; nor had the wooden horse set Troy on fire, discharging from his belly in the night the armed Greeks: from whence you plainly see that actions do not of themselves subsist, as bodies do, nor are in nature such as is a void, but rather are more justly called the events of body, and of space, where things are carried on.

I think as usual Epicurus is getting to what is really important for us to understand about time as a natural phenomena of human life, as opposed to how we can twist ourselves into pretzels of logic or mysticism trying to dissect and define time.

Probably that segment could be made a lot more clear to us by approaching it in that manner and looking more closely at the Greek to see exactly what he is contrasting his own view against.

Why should we NOT look to time as a "general conception?" (Is that or is that not referring to an anticipation?)

What other possible "predicates" should we avoid attaching to time, and who is doing that and why?

And again in the last sentence we have use of "accident" which might be better thought of as "incident" or "event" (which removes the 'chance' connotation but still considers time as a "quality") rather than an eternal unchanging attribute like atoms have.

Letter to Herodotus:

72] Moreover, you must firmly grasp this point as well; we must not look for time, as we do for all other things which we look for in an object, by referring them to the general conceptions which we perceive in our own minds, but we must take the direct intuition, in accordance with which we speak of “a long time” or “a short time,” and examine it, applying our intuition to time as we do to other things. Neither must we search for expressions as likely to be better, but employ just those which are in common use about it.

Nor again must we predicate of time anything else as having the same essential nature as this special perception, as some people do, but we must turn our thoughts particularly to that only with which we associate this peculiar perception and by which we measure it.

[73] For indeed this requires no demonstration, but only reflection, to show that it is with days and nights and their divisions that we associate it and likewise also with internal feelings or absence of feeling, and with movements and states of rest; in connection with these last again we think of this very perception as a peculiar kind of accident, and in virtue of this we call it time.

Also there is this that is probably related:

VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied.

note Martyo also posted this on my wall, which is also public, but which many might not see so I am reposting here:

martyo26 20 hours ago

Cassius, thank you for for your warm welcoming message. I recently came across Epicurean philosophy while I was reading a survey of Greek and Roman philosophy. I immediately found myself wanting to learn more and found this site. Clearly, I have much to learn. Following your advice, I have ordered the DeWitt book. I also found your 5-Star summary of Epicurean teaching very helpful in getting me off to a good start

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Fifty-Three 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'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll 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're 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 are going to speed through the early development of the school before we turn to detailed treatment of individual philosophical topics:

Chapter VI - The New Education (Part 2)

• The Use of The Epitome
  • It is customary to classify Epicurus as an empiricist, because of his alleged reliance upon the sensations. To do so is to misunderstand the function of the Canon and to ignore the manifest procedures of his reasoning. One of his epitomes was devoted to the Twelve Elementary Principles of Physics. Since the procedure was to begin with these and to commit them to memory, it follows that the method was deductive throughout. These principles became major premises. Ideas arrived at by deduction from these were called epinoai, which by etymology means "inferential" or "accessory" notions. For instance, the third principle declared: "The universe consists of solid bodies and void." From this was deduced, on the principle of the excluded middle, the inferential idea that the soul is corporeal. Again, the fifth and sixth principles declared the infinity of the universe. From this was deduced, on a principle called isonomy, the existence of gods. Unless perfect beings existed somewhere in addition to imperfect beings, the universe would not be infinite; infinity applies to values no less than to space and matter. The function of the Sensations as part of the Canon is to test the correctness of the inferences drawn from the Twelve Principles. These Principles themselves were not based upon the evidence of the Sensations; the truth of them was demonstrated by a deductive syllogism, as will be shown in the chapter on the New Physics.
• The New Textbooks
  • The dogmatic writings comprised a series of textbooks on the Canon, Physics, and Ethics. Most of them were by Epicurus himself. The outstanding example was the thirty-seven on Physics.The refutative writings comprised a series belittling and refuting the teachings of all rival schools, especially the Platonists. An outstanding example was the letter of Epicurus entitled Against the Philosophers in Mytilene. The memorial writings consisted of sympathetic and eulogistic biographies of deceased members of the school. An example is the memoir of Epicurus on his brother Neocles. These three classes were logically integrated with the whole body of doctrine. Since Epicurus was convinced that his teachings were "true philosophy," the vera ratio of Lucretius, it followed that dogmatic textbooks were the requirement.
  • (1) Since Epicurus was convinced that his teachings were "true philosophy," the vera ratio of Lucretius, it followed that dogmatic textbooks were the requirement.
  • (2) Again, since the teachings of Epicurus were "the truth," it followed that all others were "false opinions" and "defilements." It followed likewise that the minds of novices must be kept pure from these and that the minds of converts should be purged of false doctrines already imbibed. To accomplish this second purpose was the aim of the refutative writings. These were not strictly controversial. They were not published with the idea that adversaries should reply in kind and be answered again. Satire was a frequent ingredient, such as the ridicule of the irony of Socrates.
  • (3) The nature of the memorial writings has been completely overlooked but they belong no less logically in the scheme than the two previous classes. One of their aims was to confer a new kind of immortality upon deceased members of the circle. It was the teaching of Epicurus that happiness was attainable; it was possible for mankind within the limits of mortal life to approximate all but completely to the happiness of the gods. This happiness embraced two elements, blissfulness and incorruptibility. Although the soul of man was corruptible, it was still possible for the memory of him to be made imperishable in the records and in the rites of the Epicurean brotherhood. It was with the aim of securing this new kind of immortality for himself and his associates that Epicurus established during his lifetime the regular celebration of the twentieth in each month and provided for its perpetuation in his will. These celebrations were memorial sacraments and the memoirs of deceased members are comparable to the Acts of the Apostles and the Lives of the Saints in the Christian church. A number of specimens are extant in the usual fragmentary condition among the Herculanean papyri.

I just clicked through to

ΑΘΗΝΑΪΚΟΝ ΕΤΟΣ

Αρχαίες πηγές Μελετήματα Έρευνα Πάτρια Ελλήνων θεοί

athenianyear.wordpress.com

That's quite a website!

Elli that would be great! Please tell him to visit this link:

Post

RE: Epicurus' Birthday 2023 - (The Most Comprehensive Picture Yet!)

Hello to all epicurean friends,

I was late to answer at this thread and on the issue, as has been studied and written by our friend @Don , and discussed with the rest of us, because I had a private communication with a greek person named Orestis Pylarinos who keeps everyday and with responsibility the ancient Athenian Calendar with the customs and celebrations of ancient greeks.

Orestis Pylarinos is a mathematician, he speaks both the greek and english language, as he has studied in the US…

Elli

December 16, 2022 at 12:06 PM

When he does he will see the REGISTER button on the right side of the screen (or the top if he is on a telephone)

At present we let everyone register regardless of their personal philosophy, and if you will just ask him to identify himself in a post as being your friend, we will make sure that he is well taken care of.

Thank you and let me know if I need to do more to help get him in!

No worries. You are right that a conversation has to "flow." At the same time, sometimes the flow can be so fast an even unexpected that we don't end up covering some of the main points that need to be covered. I am particularly thinking of myself and how I would like to zero right in on what I consider to be controversial issues after years of reading. As satisfying as that might be to me, it will make no sense to a general listener, and for the sake of accomplishing as much as possible as fast as possible and in a limited time, I need some guard rails to make sure that we connect with the widest reasonable listenership.

I am thinking part of the way we will address that issue will be for there to be several questioners and then maybe have follow ups to each answer, and then only when the conversation seems to ebb to flow on to the next question. A lot of any unevenness can be ironed out in editing.

Yes I agree and intend to do that, but unless we have a set list to have as a reference things can tend to get messy.

2022 has been a very good year for the EpicureanFriends forum, with many new participants and lots of good new content generated. As a new project for 2023, it appears that we have good reason to hope that we might be able to do a series of "interviews" of significant people involved in Epicurean philosophy. I am hopeful that we might in the future to be able to gain access to writers like Emily Austin, Haris Dimitriadis, and perhaps others like Catherine Wilson. In addition, it strikes me that we could probably produce interesting interviews with people like Elli Pensa, and Christos Yapijakis, and Michele Pinto, who have been involved in Epicurean activism in Greece and Italy. (Simply have the connection of saying "I live in Greece" or "I live in Italy" is interesting enough for me personally. )

Anyway to get the project going we need to talk about a few logistics, and the first one that comes to mind is that it would be good to develop a list of standard questions to ask each interviewee to be sure that we hit the most important points we want to bring out. In the case of the writers we want to help promote their books, but we also want to keep in mind the ultimate goal of "promoting Epicurean philosophy," so we will want to think about what questions interest us the most that we would like to ask anyone who is prominently associated with Epicurus. Here's an example of a consideration: While it might be most interesting to us to spend an hour discussing the controversies around katastematic pleasure, or Epicurean gods, or the nature of anticipations, we probably want to limit the time we spend on some of those in-depth questions so that the interview presents the most positive first impression possible to newer or relatively new listeners. We can always go back for a special session on some of the details later.

I will keep a master outline of questions here in this first post, and update it with suggestions, but please use the rest of this thread to suggest more, and we will keep this first post up to date as a master list. Thanks for your assistance!

(I am setting this up with just a few questions for examples and we'll greatly expand this as we go forward.)

1. Tell us about yourself? In what part of the world do you live and what do you do when you're not studying Epicurus?
2. How did you first become interested in Epicurean philosophy?
3. Before we get into some of the controversies that surround it, how would you yourself summarize what you think is most important about Epicurean philosophy?
4. What aspects of the philosophy are most significant to you personally?
5. To what extent do you think Epicurus' message is as valid today as 2300 years ago?
6. What made you decide to take your interest in Epicurean philosophy to the new level of writing a book about it?
   
7. It seems that today Stoicism is much more popular than Epicurean philosophy. What are the most important ways you see Epicureanism as different and superior to Stoicism?
8. What misunderstandings do you think exist as to Epicurean philosophy and which are the 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?
9. Do you have any regular routines that you find helpful in applying Epicurean philosophy in your life?
10. Aside from reading your book , what suggestions would you give to people who want to learn more about Epicurus?

This article might also be relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_(ancient_Rome)

I wonder if I am just misremembering something, but it sure does seem like Epicurean momentum fell off a cliff around this time.

Quote

from hence I might infer that no heroic poem can be writ on the Epicurean principles,

Infuriating.

Thought not giving poetry at the time, Torquatus specifically refutes this in describing his ancestors, and even Cicero had to admit that the example of Cassius showed that there was much more vigor in Epicurean philosophy than Cicero had imagined.

[15.16] Cicero to Cassius [Rome, January, 45 B.C.]

3 But of this later on. I am only sounding you now to see in what spirit you take it. For if you are angry and annoyed, I shall have more to say, and shall insist upon your being reinstated in that school of philosophy, out of which you have been ousted "by violence and an armed force." In this formula the words "within this year" are not usually added; so even if it is now two or three years since, bewitched by the blandishments of Pleasure, you sent a notice of divorce to Virtue, I am free to act as I like. And yet to whom am I talking? To you, the most gallant gentleman in the world, who, ever since you set foot in the forum, have done nothing but what bears every mark of the most impressive distinction. Why, in that very school you have selected I apprehend there is more vitality than I should have supposed, if only because it has your approval. "

Started December 15, 2022

“That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about, prating meaninglessly about the good.” - Epicurus, as cited in Usener Fragment U423

From Anderson's collection of Usener material:

U423

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 7, p. 1091A: Not only is the basis that they assume for the pleasurable life untrustworthy and insecure, it is quite trivial and paltry as well, inasmuch as their “thing delighted” – their good – is an escape from ills, and they say that they can conceive of no other, and indeed that our nature has no place at all in which to put its good except the place left when its evil is expelled. … Epicurus too makes a similar statement to the effect that the good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil and from your memory and reflection and gratitude that this has happened to you. His words are these: “That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”

Ibid., 8, p. 1091E: Thus Epicurus, and Metrodorus too, suppose {that the middle is the summit and the end} when they take the position that escape from ill is the reality and upper limit of the good.

I just discovered that I'm not as late in talking about this as I thought. It appears that Haris has just recently updated the book on Amazon, and I am finding that when I try to read it they still have the old version rather than the second edition.

I have messaged Haris about this and he tells me he is working on it -- -I will update here when fixed.

Shamelessly cutting and pasting a post that Joshua just made, here is his quote from the fallen Horace:

"Once I wandered, an expert in crazy wisdom, a scant and infrequent adorer of gods, now I’m forced to set sail and return, to go back to the paths I abandoned. For Jupiter, Father of all of the gods, who generally splits the clouds with his lightning, flashing away, drove thundering horses, and his swift chariot, through the clear sky, till the dull earth, and the wandering rivers, and Styx, and dread Taenarus’ hateful headland, and Atlas’s mountain-summits shook. The god has the power to replace the highest with the lowest, bring down the famous, and raise the obscure to the heights. And greedy Fortune with her shrill whirring, carries away the crown and delights in setting it, there."

--Horace, Ode 1.34, Translated by A. S. Kline

________________

This, this it is, O Memmius, to see through

The very nature of fire-fraught thunderbolt;

O this it is to mark by what blind force

It maketh each effect, and not, O not

To unwind Etrurian scrolls oracular,

Inquiring tokens of occult will of gods,

Even as to whence the flying flame hath come,

Or to which half of heaven it turns, or how

Through walled places it hath wound its way,

Or, after proving its dominion there,

How it hath speeded forth from thence amain,

Or what the thunderstroke portends of ill

From out high heaven. But if Jupiter

And other gods shake those refulgent vaults

With dread reverberations and hurl fire

Whither it pleases each, why smite they not

Mortals of reckless and revolting crimes,

That such may pant from a transpierced breast

Forth flames of the red levin- unto men

A drastic lesson?- why is rather he-

O he self-conscious of no foul offence-

Involved in flames, though innocent, and clasped

Up-caught in skiey whirlwind and in fire?

Nay, why, then, aim they at eternal wastes,

And spend themselves in vain?- perchance, even so

To exercise their arms and strengthen shoulders?

Why suffer they the Father's javelin

To be so blunted on the earth? And why

Doth he himself allow it, nor spare the same

Even for his enemies? O why most oft

Aims he at lofty places? Why behold we

Marks of his lightnings most on mountain tops?

Then for what reason shoots he at the sea?-

What sacrilege have waves and bulk of brine

And floating fields of foam been guilty of?

Besides, if 'tis his will that we beware

Against the lightning-stroke, why feareth he

To grant us power for to behold the shot?

And, contrariwise, if wills he to o'erwhelm us,

Quite off our guard, with fire, why thunders he

Off in yon quarter, so that we may shun?

Why rouseth he beforehand darkling air

And the far din and rumblings? And O how

Canst thou believe he shoots at one same time

Into diverse directions? Or darest thou

Contend that never hath it come to pass

That divers strokes have happened at one time?

But oft and often hath it come to pass,

And often still it must, that, even as showers

And rains o'er many regions fall, so too

Dart many thunderbolts at one same time.

Again, why never hurtles Jupiter

A bolt upon the lands nor pours abroad

Clap upon clap, when skies are cloudless all?

Or, say, doth he, so soon as ever the clouds

Have come thereunder, then into the same

Descend in person, and that from thence he may

Near-by decide upon the stroke of shaft?

And, lastly, why, with devastating bolt

Shakes he asunder holy shrines of gods

And his own thrones of splendour, and to-breaks

The well-wrought idols of divinities,

And robs of glory his own images

By wound of violence?

-Lucretius Book VI, transl. William Ellery Leonard

Welcome martyo26

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!

Quote from Kalosyni

Would you define happiness differently now?

Ha probably I would define it differently every time I think about it

But surely the consciousness of the predominance of pleasure over pain, and not just in length of time, must be a major part of it.

Last night in our Zoom we discussed the apparent backsliding of Horace later in life from his earlier Epicurean views. Joshua talked about this in our most recent podcast and if I can find the quote he read then I will post it in this thread too.

As part of that discussed we mentioned but did not pursue that the environment after the defeat of Cassius and Brutus at Philippi was not favorable to the Epicureans.

I see in Haris Dimitriadis' preface to the second edition of his book he writes:

Quote

The development of Epicurean ethics: As far as Epicurus’s philosophy is concerned, we know that following the introduction of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was abolished by law, along with the other philosophical schools.

The "abolished by law" is what I have heard but have not researched. I thought I had read that Augustus closed all the schools, not just the Epicurean, and that would predate the Christian issue. Presumably this would have hurt all the schools, but if the Epicureans were "taking Italy by storm" as Cicero complained, then this would have been especially damaging to the Epicureans.

I don't have more to add at the moment other than to start this thread in hopes of future discussion about this point.

Another section of the updated preface worth highlighting:

Quote

A Comparison of Epicurean and Aristotelian Ethics

The root differences between the Epicurean views and those expressed by Aristotle concern the roles that reason and emotion play in decision-making and well-being. Epicurus, on the one hand, claims that the truth about happiness is revealed by nature because nature possesses the accumulated knowledge of existence.

Further, Epicurus asserts, human nature plainly shows that pleasure is the ultimate good in life, and the maximization of it is the purpose of one’s life. Aristotle, on the other hand, declares that the truth about happiness is revealed by one’s character and capacity for rational thinking.

Therefore, to be happy, one has to shape a virtuous character and excel in one’s capacity for reasoning. The virtuous character reveals the purpose and actions that would make one happy, and reason finds the most effective ways to serve the purpose and accomplish the associated actions. Pleasure and happiness, says Aristotle, are simply the natural consequence of succeeding in those actions.

Epicurus rejected this theory on the grounds that virtues are mental concepts that derive meaning through the definitions, interpretations, and practices society attaches to them. Taking into account that the beliefs and habits of society are mostly corrupt, it is evident that people’s desires and thoughts are likewise spoiled, with detrimental consequences to their well-being.