Posts by Cassius

Wow that does sort of match the ring! Do we know anything about the background of that statue?

Seems like most of us are pretty comfortable with "corrosive."

The use of "extravagant" is a little more open to debate, as Emily herself says. I think in our podcast interview she indicated she liked variations of "enrich / enriching / enrichment" to indicate that they are not necessary but still desirable if available (presumably always understood to mean "available at a cost in pain that you personally find to be worth it).

Enrichment / etc is probably better, but the trick is to find something that clearly conveys that the desire is not "necessary" for a full life but that if available at a cost we find acceptable then it's a given that we would pursue it.

Yes a special happy birthday to @EricR. Eric has had an account here since 2016 and has been a good friend during that time, It's interesting how patterns tend to repeat, and I don't think Eric would mind my saying that he has always struck me as someone very similar to our Joshua -- similar "radio" voice, background in Buddhism, poetry, and very creative.

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

Quote from Charles

To be fair, Che Guevara does have a loose resemblance to Jesus.

And depending on the images of Jesus that you're used to, so does the bust of Epicurus itself!

Thank you Nate. I posted a couple of comments about those "Chepicurus" icons here:

Onenski I looked for a specific thread on the cultishness question and could not find one.

Maybe this on is closest: DeWitt's "Organization And Procedure In Epicurean Groups"

I see I did a graphic long ago:

It would be fine if you would like to start another one directly on point. It would probably be worthwhile to do so because this is another area where the criticism is easy to make and is superficially persuasive, but which I think there are many good answers in response.

Does one generally see one's father as being "authoritarian" when he gives "orders" to a child? At what age or mental capacity do we see orders to a child being improper? Is it proper to tell a dying person that they are dying when maybe there is a possibility that they will recover if they fight hard enough? There are lots of related questions as to when things are proper and when they are not, and it's as easy I think for a partisan against Epicurus to attack him as it is for a partisan for Epicurus to defend him. Probably the only way to proceed is to line up the possibilities openly and let each person decide for himself, and they will probably make their decision based on their general impression of Epicurus rather than on any one single factor.

Probably Don has better commentary on empty. I know we've discussed "vain and empty" before but I can't recall where we ended up. Those words just seem to me to be too ambiguous to be useful.

Quote from Don

Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

Yes it seems to me every time we do one of these analyses, that needs to be included, to emphasize that it is a subjective decision on what is or is not worth it to us.

Is that perhaps an echo of some of those O Henry stories (the gift?). Maybe I now interpret that differently than I used to

I think this is also where the word "empty" gets used, right? And I find that word also not up to the task of being clear.

Those look like good formulations to me (since you're really quoting the doctrines). So now the question for this graphic and context shifts to whether "groundless" is appropriate.

It would be good for you to read Bernard Frischer's book and look at his examples of the artwork and his theories about how they were used.

Your reaction to "hero worship" is very common, but ultimately I think that the concern is unjustified. Epicurean philosophy teaches you to question authority and demand answers based on evidence, and it doesn't lead in the direction of general cultism for anyone who thinks about it.

The issue of how to deal with younger and less "educated" people may be difficult, but the ultimate point is as in

VS32. The veneration of the wise man is a great blessing to those who venerate him.

Once you strip way the word choice issues (is "veneration" really the best English word?) you come back to an obvious point - that people learn by watching more experienced and wiser people and paying respect to them benefits the observer as much or more than the observed.

Quote from Cassius

Early Continental philosophy was largely oriented toward the works of Kant whose ethics and metaphysics heavily contract with atomism and hedonism.

Nate, should I presume that that should have been "contradict" rather than "oontract with" and make that correction in the post above?

[Admin Edit - This Facebook Exchange is far beyond me but Nate's answer looks so worthwhile that I thought we ought to preserve it.

Al Drea -

What do modern Epicureans think about the way ideas from ancient atomism (eg. Epicurus, Lucretius) are used in recent Continental philosophy? I mean writers like Althusser, Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, etc.

Nate -

Some of their ideas are on point, but most others are dissimilar. For one thing, there is much less of a focus (to the point of rejection) on physics in Continental philosophy. Early Continental philosophy was largely oriented toward the works of Kant whose ethics and metaphysics heavily contrasted with atomism and hedonism. Still, there are similarities. For example, I think Epicurus would have appreciated Derrida's analysis of the relationship between signifiers and that which they signify as well as his critique of "logocentrism". Deconstruction is an effective tool that Epicurus might have used in criticizing popular culture, but the objects of Derrida's focus were not of primary interest to Epicurus. Baudrillard's focus on nihilism is antithetical in tone to Epicureanism, though, his critique of popular culture would have been well received by Epicurus. I don't think that he would have agreed with Sartre's characterization of human life as being Sisyphean or Camus' framing of human existence as alienating and dissociative, though, both philosophers' emphasis on finding answers internally through responsibility and care reflects Epicurus' project. Deleuze's Kantian interest and focus on metaphysics generally floats at the other end of the philosophical pool; Althusser spends a lot of time juggling the Marxist dialectic, and "material" or not, the dialectic connotes Plato to Epicureans; still, the importance each places on the value of the individual in orienting a political narrative strikes me as being Epicurean in tone. Nietzsche is a key point of interest in that he shows no restraint in expressing unconditional admiration for Epicurus, though he later goes on to criticize him in later works. In general, I think we will find more overlap with Epicurean ideas in the modern Analytic tradition than the Continental.

Holly has been of great help to us at Facebook for years. Some day we've got to get her over here. She's a librarian. Seems like we have one of those already, but we could use another!

posted on Facebook along with a link to Don's article:

Virtually every aspect of the discussion in both part 1 and part 2 is good food for thought. Dr. Austin does a good job with it but as she says, this is new territory for all of us, to think about how best to express and defend the positions. Experience doing it will make us all better both in understanding and in communication.

I have been listening to this episode several times to try to think about how to expand on some of the details.

I think our serendipitous references "going to Rome" proved to be a good way of visualizing the question of how much pleasure to pursue in life. Dr Austin herself was reflecting on the word "enrich" as a way to look at it.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the usefulness of this analogy and the direction the discussion took.

How many times should we desire to visit Rome?

Lots of good thought there Todd. As to this one:

Quote from Todd

Weight loss requires a caloric deficit (aside from surgery). All the rest is just about ways of making a caloric deficit easier to sustain.

Many of the low-carb people (like Gary Taubes) seem to me to argue that weight gain or loss is driven significantly by "type" of food consumed - their argument is that the primary problem is that carbs drive insulin and insulin drives fat storage, and that even the amount of food consumed is often driven by hormonal issues caused by the type of food consumed.

One way of summarizing their argument seems to be that the type of food ingested ends up affecting "hormonal" balances (insulin being hormonal) and that pure calories in / calories out does not describe the big picture -- given for example that babies do not grow up purely due to calories in / calories out but due to hormonal or genetic directives that control where and how much fat is deposited in the body.

I know things are much more complicated than that, but what is your viewpoint as to that line of argument, and that it is almost as important "what you eat" as it is "how much you eat?"

Welcome to Episode 158 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'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 continue our discussion of Chapter Seven - The Canon, Reason, and Nature

The Dethronement of Reason

Ridicule

Nature as the Norm

Priority of Nature over Reason