On the bread and water material, this would be an excellent topic to write up your summary (not much needed other than what is above plus your conclusion) and we will post it as a blog post here and then promote on Facebook. Or of course just a post on your own blog that we can link to and copy here so it will be safe both places

Outstanding posts Don.

I don't know if people could hear from the tone of voice but I think even Martin was employing some of the notorious dry German humor when he was talking about how it was lucky for him that he didn't spend too much time reading Plato, and I know I cut from the final version my laughing as he was saying it.

I am very pleased with these recent episodes and I think this was a good example of covering the topic briefly but decently. You simply can't spend all your time reading background material or you will never get on with living your real life.

This is one of the benefits of a group and forum like this where we can divide work and help each other share discoveries.

I have never read what you quoted from Farrington but I agree: that's a very perceptive statement by him and elaboration by you and I think that ought to one day become the standard interpretation of what the Epicurean bread and water references mean. And how much confusion and false starts toward minimalism that could be avoided if it did.

I think you'll draw some similar deep observations from Nichomachean ethics, especially along the lines that Frances Wright is pointing out and confronting the problem of Universals and what Epicurus would have really thought about it. And at that time when we can condense better explanation, the section in Lucretius Book One about how properties and qualities of atoms and bodies relates to the Trojan War and the episode with Paris and Helen will jump out at us as making total sense rather than the bewilderment that it often seems to generate.

And when you finish Nichomachean ethics, if you'll consider tackling Philebus, i think you'll find similar origins of argument to unwind why "the limit of pleasure" is such a deep issue, and even how limits relate to "purity" which also seems dark to us.

This is a productive time for our discussions so let's keep them up!

Don I cannot remember how much you have said you have read into A Few Days In Athens. Chapter 15 of her book takes particular aim at Aristotle and I bet you would find it interesting while reading Nichomachean Ethics.

Some of what she says may be pure Epicurus and some may be extrapolation, and some may go to far about never reaching a theory, but in general I think she does a good job of bringing out the issues and hazards of Aristotle's approach.

This is discussed in both the letter to Herodotus and in Lucretius Chapter One under the topic of properties and qualities of atoms and bodies. Frances Wright comments on the issue at length in Chapter 15 of her book with this as part of her conclusion, which I think is at least partly a good description of Epicurus' position as far as she goes:

“What is in a substance cannot be separate from it. And is not all matter a compound of qualities? Hardness, extension, form, color, motion, rest — take away all these, and where is matter? To conceive of mind independent of matter, is as if we should conceive of color independent of a substance colored: What is form, if not a body of a particular shape? What is thought, if not something which thinks? Destroy the substance, and you destroy its properties; and so equally — destroy the properties, and you destroy the substance. To suppose the possibility of retaining the one, without the other, is an evident absurdity.”

“The error of conceiving a quality in the abstract often offended me in the Lyceum,” returned the youth, “but I never considered the error as extending to mind and life, any more than to vice and virtue.”

“You stopped short with many others,” said Leontium. “It is indeed surprising how many acute minds will apply a logical train of reasoning in one case, and invert the process in another exactly similar.”

Seems to me that this is a good summary of the Problem of Universals From Wikipedia :

The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes: Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?^[1]

The problem of universals relates to various inquiries closely related to metaphysics, logic, and epistemology, as far back as Plato and Aristotle, in efforts to define the mental connections a human makes when they understand a property such as shape or color to be the same in nonidentical objects.^[2]

Universals are qualities or relations found in two or more entities.^[3] As an example, if all cup holders are circular in some way, circularity may be considered a universal property of cup holders.^[4] Further, if two daughters can be considered female offspring of Frank, the qualities of being female, offspring, and of Frank, are universal properties of the two daughters. Many properties can be universal: being human, red, male or female, liquid or solid, big or small, etc.^[5]

Philosophers agree that human beings can talk and think about universals, but disagree on whether universals exist in reality beyond mere thought and speech.

Quote from Norman DeWitt Chapter One

True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.

False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction.

We did not get to this point in Episode 146, so before we record episode 147 let's make some notes and be clear on this point as to the difference between deduction and induction by defining those terms so we can be clear about when Epicurus is reasoning from the particular to the general as opposed to from the particular to the general. This is important because while we probably have little confusion about what it means to speak about particular atoms and void and their movement, we will need to spend some time talking about what is meant by "the general." The definition below uses the term "universal" and we will need to address "The Problem of Universals".

Merriam-Webster:

induction

in·duc·tion in-ˈdək-shən 

2 a(1): inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances

compare DEDUCTION sense 2a

deduction

de·duc·tion di-ˈdək-shən 

2 a: the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning based on intuition rather than deduction, specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises (see PREMISE entry 1 sense 1)

compare INDUCTION

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Eight 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 continue to discuss a series of Points and Counterpoints which Norman DeWitt describes as "True Opinions / False Opinions" about Epicurus:

• True Opinions - False Opinions
  • Epicurus’ View of Truth:
  • • True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
    • False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
  • Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
    • True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
    • False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction, the truth was that Epicurus' chief reliance was upon deduction.
  • Epicurus’ As A Man of Action
    • True: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.
    • False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.
  • Epicurus’ View of Self-Interest
    • True: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.
    • False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.
  • Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of Christianity
    • True: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.
    • False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”

Quote from Kalosyni

Just ideas and trying them out -- that is what is happening here on the forum -- testing out whether or not the Epicurean philosophy can be adequately elucidated -- and then seeing if they are of interest to anyone

Correct! Ambition and experimentation may sometime go further than our reach and have to be considered carefully when they approach that, but in general they are good and a large part of what life is about. The total absence of them means death, and it would not even be necessary to say that if we weren't all so familiar with religions and viewpoints that explicitly or implicitly advocate exactly the reduction of them to zero.

Episode 147 - The third of our Introductory series of podcasts on Epicurean Philosophy is now available. This week we focus on "True Opinions And False Opinions about Epicurus."

Quote from Kalosyni

Then the summer is open for "an Epicurean travel exchange" in which Epicureans invite other Epicureans to travel and spend a few days at their own house, and everyone takes turns hosting one or more visitors.

Such an ambitious goal indicates to me that either (1) Kalosyni has not absorbed the alleged doctrine that all ambition and desire is bad, and that we should focus on pursuing only on those pleasures that are necessary, or (2) no such doctrine was taught by Epicurus.

In my world of Epicurus, option (2) rules the day!

I have been encouraging Kalosyni because she is interested in working on a "set of guidelines" or an "agenda" or a "protocol" as to how a local live or local zoom (targeted towards allowing the formation of real-life Epicurean Friendship Groups) might function. Maybe :"Live Like An Epicurean For a Week" has an analogy to "Live Like an Epicurean For Weekend" or "Live Like and Epicurean for an Hour" (on a zoom)?

Quote from Don

Part of me

Just light a fire under that part and let us know! Now that you're taking a break from the podcast and have extra time on your hands we've just been waiting to support you on a new project!

Thank you too Nate! The entire subject of Pyrrrhonism (is Outlines of Pyrrhonism available today?) should be a topic of study for us. I feel confident that in that study we would learn a lot to the effect of why and how Epicurus rejected it, and that would really help give shape to what we do know from the remaining Epicurean texts.

Sort of like everyone today presumes Epicurus was the same as a modern atheist, most people seem to presume that he was a radical skeptic, and they kick back when confronted with the clear evidence to the contrary. It's the issue of whether anything is knowable, and where the line is in where we can have confidence in our knowledge.

Like Diogenes of Oinoanda said in Fragment 5:

Quote

[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.

Digging all this out would be a lot of work but very rewarding. To many this can seem like a side issue, but it really informs the whole Epicurean attitude toward life, to not give in to nihilism and despair at finding anything to be knowable, but to dig in with confidence after getting an understanding of "knowability" in the first place.

Yes it's easy to go down a rabbit hole of alternative programs, but Dynalist is a good one for our uses, I think. For another example, here's a copy of the Thomas Jefferson outline in Dynalist, from which it is easy to cut and paste if someone were inclined to use it as a starting point for their own.

https://dynalist.io/d/SeMVaGIuaeoySjbrjNx96SRn

• Thomas Jefferson's Outline of Epicurean Philosophy:
  • Physical
    • The Universe eternal.
      • Its parts, great and small, interchangeable
    • Matter and Void alone.
      • Motion inherent in matter, which is weighty & declining
      • eternal circulation of the elements of bodies.
    • Gods, an order of beings next superior to man.
      • enjoying in their sphere their own felicities,
      • but not meddling with the concerns of the scale of beings below them
  • Moral
    • Happiness the aim of life
      • Virtue the foundation of happiness
      • Utility the test of virtue.
    • Pleasure active and in-dolent.
      • In-dolence is the absence of pain, the true felicity
      • Active, consists in agreeable motion
      • it is not happiness, but the means to produce it.
      • thus the absence of hunger is an article of felicity; eating the means to produce it.
    • The summum bonum is to be not pained in body, nor troubled in mind i.e. In-dolence of body, tranquility of mind.
      • to procure tranquility of mind we must avoid desire & fear, the two principal diseases of the mind.
    • Man is a free agent.
    • Virtue consists in: 1. Prudence 2. Temperance 3. Fortitude 4. Justice
      to which are opposed: 1. Folly 2. Desire 3. Fear 4. Deceit

(Source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.051_0891_0894/?sp=4 )

Wow great find - thank you Kalosyni! I don't think I have ever seen that reference to Sextus Empiricus saying that before.

We've referred to that a lot on the forum in the past but I don't think linked it to Sextus Empiricus. It would be worth tracking down our prior discussions and adding this as a reference, and maybe even find a prior thread or starting a new one to highlight it.

This is worth exploring a lot further, post on facebook, etc.

I hope I am not forgetting but I do think this is the first time I have seen this.

Excellent and outstanding that you have checked in! The last thing we want to do is to remove accounts from real people inadvertently. Glad to have you!

For the sake of others, that kind of comment from Jim is all we really need to validate your account.

Again - welcome!

We've recently had a couple of posts about ways to organize outlines, and I think it's important to suggest to people that they not just attempt to come up with an ordered list of points from the Principal Doctrines or from any other pre-ordered list, but to use the pre-ordered list mainly as the way to organize your own thought processes.

So in that regard it seems to me one of the obvious ways to proceed is to start the "top level items" of the outline with some version of the ways that Epicurus organized his philosophy, but then to be sure to expand the list into specific decisions that we need to make ourselves in our own lives.

One of the best on-line tools I have found to make outlining easy is Dynalist.io where you can set up a free account. I just realized that you can also use it o share outlines (as you will see below) and that it also has a command ("Expand to Level" by right-clicking the first bullet) that lets you view the outline from whatever level you choose (down to four levels). Dynalist has a paid option but the great majority of its features are in the free tier and I doubt anyone would feel the need to upgrade unless they really get into the program and start using it in other areas of life. Once you sign up for a free account you can save your outlines and share them as I am doing below. Dynalist is also a great place to start a project because it's very easy to create an outline and then copy and paste it into word processors or other programs.

Here's an example of how you can create a live outline which shows how easy it is to view different levels and move items around. Probably best to view it by clicking the link, but I am also attaching a picture. I didn't have time to fill out more than two levels at the time I wrote this, but it seems to me that it makes senses to start with at least two or three high level statements and then fill out underneath each one a list of practical ways that you might apply each item. Then the beauty of outlining is that it's easy to move things around, change the order of their priority, and just generally extend out the high-level conclusions to particular applications in your own life.

Of course outlining doesn't make any decisions for you and doesn't "solve" anything, but I do think it's extremely helpful to visualize options so that you can keep them in mind constantly throughout the day as you do make decisions on what to choose and what to avoid. Here's the sample:

https://dynalist.io/d/TYtzBfFkol7Ut4QFriXEIrn9

Here is a copy-paste version which I did by right-clicking the first hamburger three bars to the left of the first item, selecting "Export" and then selecting the "formatted option. It copied over cleanly and produced a formatted outline here in the EpicureanFriends editor.

• Epicurean Outline From General To Particular
  1. I analyze my surroundings in confidence that the Universe is totally natural, that there is no life after death, and that nothing has eternal unchanging characteristics other than the elemental particles and the void.
     • I am going to write a will to take care of my friends and family and belongings after I am gone, but I am not going to belong to a church because I think supernatural religion is a fraud.
  2. I manage my thoughts in confidence that I am able to obtain the knowledge that is needed to navigate the world through the senses, anticipations, and feelings.
     • I am not going to look for guidance by visiting a palm-reader or reading a daily astrology column or asking a "seer" to predict my future for me.
  3. I have confidence that there is no better word to express the ultimate goal of all living beings than "pleasure," and that there are neither laws of supernatural gods nor absolute laws from any other source which must be obeyed by everyone at all times and all places.
     • I am going to organize my life to be as happy as possible, taking into account that choosing between long life and most pleasurable experiences is a tradeoff. I really want to fly to the moon so I am going to work to sign up for a trip as soon as it is available, even though I know I might not come back.

(Reminder note: I outline things differently every time I start a new one. The items above are just a rough example, not my view of mine or anyone's ultimate outline.)

Quote from Kalosyni

Now in our present time, is this helpful or needed? Will anyone find this useful? What parts of the philosophy are the most helpful or needed?

I think the model and purpose is that if YOU find it useful that's the main thing that matters. Yes it helps to see what other people are thinking as a way to check our own thoughts but in the end the whole issue is being able to summon up the key points immediately so as to be able to apply them in moment-by-moment thinking.

Quote from Letter to Herodotus

[36] Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered, if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail.

The thing I really like about the idea of outlining is that it sort of forces you to confront the "how" of how you are organizing thoughts. You have to have a context and and theory in order to make it make sense.

For example I see the term "top-level item" used in outlining to discuss starting points,

In this version, I suppose the top level items would be:

1 - The Life of Epicurus

2 - The Philosophy

So the basic structure is that you're breaking things down into those two categories.

Then under philosophy you have:

A. Cosmology

B. Epistemology

C. Ethics

And then the great weight of the outline is under Ethics as:

1. Pleasure is the natural innate goal of human (and animal) life

2. The Tetrapharmakos

3. Correct Understanding of Justice

4. A Pleasurable and Content Life

With Item 4 being the great weight of that section.

I am just thinking out loud about the process. I wonder if an outline needs a sort of topic sentence foreward to describe how it is organized before the organization actually starts. Is the outline: (1) How I Think I Should Live? or (2) The Important Aspects of Epicurus, or (3) What I Would Say To A Friend About Epicurus If I Only Had Five Minutes .... or something like that.

So we've been talking about this section as "Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy" but maybe that's too broad of a title? What makes sense as a way of putting the goal of the outline out there with clarity?

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Seven 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 discuss a series of Points and Counterpoints which Norman DeWitt describes as "True Opinions / False Opinions" about Epicurus:

• True Opinions - False Opinions
  • Epicurus’ Place In Greek Philosophy:
    • True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus’ chief abominations.
    • False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism. (False because Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.)
  • Epicurus’ Attitude Toward Learning:
    • True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker.
    • False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.
  • Epicurus’ Goal For Himself And His Work:
    • True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.
    • False: Epicurus was nothing more than a copycat who was ungrateful to his teachers.
  • Epicurus’ Place in Greek Scientific Thought:
    • True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.
    • False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.
  • Epicurus’ Role As a Systematizer:
    • True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.
    • False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.
  • Epicurus’ Dogmatism:
    • True: Epicurus’ strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.
    • False: Epicurus’ demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.
  • Epicurus’ View of Truth:
    • True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
    • False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
  • Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
    • True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
    • False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction.