Posts by Cassius

You're right Onenski that I don't think we have had too many discussions in the past on this topic. I personally have not made myself an expert on the different theories that get packaged under the name "determinism" so (since it is late when I write this) I will see if others answer first before I reply further myself.

I guess the key to unwinding this is going to be figuring out if this makes sense, which intuitively seems hard to follow:

Quote from Onenski

? A determinist thinks that every event, including our decisions, is determined by previous states of the universe (out of our control). Every thought, decision and action is determined by too many factors (a good example is in the book "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky), but we don't know all of them. However, determinists consider our agency as part of the causes in the world. Whatever we do has consequences in the world. So, there's room for personal decisions. The future is unknown for us, but we are part of the causes that determine it

Just a reminder and a request for this topic:

Over the years we have received a lot of benefit from participating on Facebook, and were it not for the Facebook Epicurean forum I doubt this EpicureanFriends forum would exist.

However for the last couple of months (and years) I have been reducing my activity on Facebook largely to just posting notices of new podcast episodes, and wishing people a happy Twentieth. Martin and I continue to monitor the page each week, but we are not posting much original content there. The problems with Facebook are well known, but if you discipline yourself to mainly read and write in the Epicurean group itself there's a lot less downside risk.

So the purpose of this post is this: if anyone here at EF is as active Facebooker (or would like to be) and is interested in helping us use the Facebook group to spread "the message" of Epicurus in that location, let us know and Martin and I can help give you access to help us coordinating the posting.

I am particularly be interested in the help of any of us who are regular readers here at EF, because we want to maintain the quality of posts over there so it does not devolve back into "Gee the Stoics and Epicureans were just like the Buddhists and can't we all just get along and assume our lotus positions and hum our mantras together!" That's largely a joke but I assure you that if we don't monitor the posting that's exactly what will happen, given the general level of discourse on Facebook.

But there is a lot of opportunity there, as the Facebook group has a worldwide outreach that's very difficult to duplicate. So if you're interested in "meeting" people worldwide and helping us get EF-quality posting over at Facebook, be sure to post here in this thread and let us know.

Same goes for Twitter, but that's a different thread: Social Media - Twitter

These last comments point up the issues of ataraxia and aponia. If all "disturbance" is "pain" then why were two words necessary?

The implication to me is that the issue of "disturbance " much involve some subtlety different than "pain" rather than mental vs bodily pain -- unless there is evidence that disturbance was always used only in a mental context.

Quote from Pacatus

This seems closer to Don’s mindfulness than some passive tranquility. I wonder if equanimity could be a better one-word translation? Or just calm mindfulness?

I agree with the substance of what I am reading in these posts but I am not sure that "mindfulness" is of much help given the noted looseness of that term. And of course I continue to think that using untranslated Greek words also is of little help. For the time being it seems to me to be most clear if we try to describe as precisely as we can what we are saying, even if it takes a number of words to do that. Words like attention and focus and clearheadness such as are being used in the descriptions are much more clear without implying something with a "woo" factor that is desirable to avoid.

Quote from Kalosyni

And also, this brings up the firm belief that an Epicurean would not choose to be employed in any kind of high-risk/high-adrenaline enterprises -- or anything which disturbs the physical body or threatens its continuance.

I thought I better comment on this sentence. I think it's consistent with the idea that "in general" an Epicurean would not choose a career in politics or something that depends on the whims of crowds.

But to say flatly that "an Epicurean would not choose to be employed in any kind of high-risk/high-adrenaline enterprises" would IMHO probably be going too far. I doubt that it is the risk or the adrenaline are determinative - those would be according to our judgment as to whether it is "worth it" or not. I realize that applies to politics and fame as well, but I think the closer reading of some of the fragments indicates that Epicurus said we need to be flexible on firm rules and allow for personal preference.

Not only would many of the Roman Epicureans (especially Cassius Longinus himself) be an example of that, but I personally respect the decisionmaking of Amrinder Singh (member here was killed in an ultralight accident) or Martin (who likes zip line rides - if I had a picture link i would link it )

Obviously it is prudent to be very careful about high-risk activities. But I thought I better mark the point that I would not suggest the strict avoidance of these activities just for the sake of a longer life - just prudence and a careful review of the risk-reward analysis before engaging in them.

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

Please join us if you can on Wednesday night when we will discuss a very famous doctrine of Epicurus - PD27

Bailey: 27. Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.

**ΩΝ Η ΣΟΦΙA ΠAΡAΣΚEΥAΖETAΙ ****EΙΣ TΗΝ TΟΥ ΟΛΟΥ ΒΙΟΥ**

**ΜAΚAΡΙΟTΗTA ****ΠΟΛΥ ΜEΓΙΣTΟΝ ****EΣTΙΝ Η TΗΣ ΦΙΛΙAΣ**

**ΚTΗΣΙΣ. **

“Of all the things which wisdom provides for the happiness of the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friendship.” Yonge (1853)

“Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to insure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.” Hicks (1910)

“Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.” Hicks (1925)

“Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.” Bailey (1926)

“Of all the preparations that wisdom makes for the blessedness of the perfect life by far the most precious is the acquisition of friendship.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 190 (1954)

“Of all the preparations which wisdom makes for the blessedness of the complete life by far the most important is the acquisition of friendship." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 308 (1954)

“Of all the preparations that wisdom makes for the blessedness of the perfect life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friendship." DeWitt, St. Paul and Epicurus, 188 (1954)

“Of the things that wisdom prepares for insuring lifelong happiness, by far the greatest is the possession of friends.” Geer (1964)

“Of the things wisdom acquires for the blessedness of life as a whole, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 126 (1987)

“Of all the things which wisdom provides for living one's entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.” O'Connor (1993)

“Of the things which wisdom provides for the blessedness of one's whole life, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Of all things that wisdom provides for living one's entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.” Anderson (2004)

“Of all those things by means of which wisdom can procure blessed bliss to last for an entire life, by far the greatest is the acquisition of friends.” Makridis (2005)

“Of all the things that wisdom provides for the complete happiness of one's entire life, by far the greatest is friendship.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Of all the things that wisdom provides for the happiness of the whole man, by far the most important is the acquisition of friendship.” Strodach (2012)

“Of the things wisdom contributes to happiness over the course of one's life, the greatest by far is friendship.” Mensch (2018)

“Of all that wisdom provides for a whole life of bliss, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship.” White (2021)

Discussion Forum for PD27

I. sorry if I missed it but Don did you agree with MFS' translation? I don't see any brackets there so preumably this part is not reconstructed (?)

Ha thank you but that is only my first thought. I am waiting on the Greek expert (Don) and the desire experts (Godfrey et al) before making a final call.

Quote from Don

Check this out, too:

L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda - Persée

It has drawings of the fragments of the inscription!

I definitely don't think I have seen that one before so thank you!!

Good question!

Quote from Don

For anyone who's interested, here is the Greek text for the inscription:

DCLP/Trismegistos 865216 = LDAB 865216

And that's exactly what we need to address Kalosyni's question! Thank you!

Quote from Cassius

These medicines we have put [fully] to the test; for we have dispelled the fears [that grip] us without justification, and, as for pains, those that are groundless we have completely excised, while those that are natural we have reduced to an absolute minimum, making their magnitude minute.

Kalosyin brought up in this episode that the phrasing apparently referring to "groundless pains" might not be consistent with our recent discussions of talking about "groundlessness" and "emptiness" in terms of "desires."

So one thing we will need to talk about will be how to incorporate this phrasing into the recent discussions we have had with Godfrey and Don and others on this topic.

FWIW I see the essay you are referring to is called "False Idles - The Politics of the Quiet Life" which looks to contain a lot of general background and isn't focused exclusively on Epicurus. Haven't had a chance to look at it but does look interesting.

Quote from waterholic

But with regards to free will, aside from the context of a deity (some external intelligence that "tests" us - an idea that has been an excuse to avoid any critical thought), what could materialism have against the concept of free will

If you reduce everything to atoms and motion in a straight line, people think that that would lead to a totally mechanistic result, and so a straight line materialist such as Democritus would conclude that everything is in the grip of an iron "fate" that allows no room for personal decisions whatsoever. Cicero made this argument against Epicurus in criticizing the swerve as a departure and regression from Democritus.

Your definition is thoroughly suitable to me, but I believe would have been totally unsuitable to Cicero, as it would have prevented him from ridiculing Epicureans as worthless in civil society.

As to whether your definition would be suitable to the professional academic class today, I very much doubt it, as it would prevent them from keeping Epicureanism in a medicine box for use mainly in nursing homes and anxiety clinics.

I would like to think that, over time and little by little, we can make a dent in public perception and widen the discussion toward your definition.

Ren's caveat is correct though, in that I don't think we can ever expect, nor should we try, to convince "everyone" of all dispositions that the Epicurean view is "best." But in the world at large I am convinced there are huge numbers that would profit if they understood how and why the modern academic interpretation is so off base.

So many of us here end up saying about Epicurus "that's the way I always thought before I heard of Epicurus." That number could really grow if we could leapfrog the Ciceronian / academic box.

Yes Nate I agree. There are multiple perspectives that have to be appreciated and understood and allowing one perspective to dominate the others ends up with a similar problem as when we mix up the ends with the means, as is the problem with "virtue."

And as Ren says it's never going to be the case that everyone is going to agree on a single perspective - nor should we expect them to.

The issue for those who consider themselves to be primarily Epicurean seems largely to be a matter of finding a way to work with these several perspectives without letting any of them crowd out the big picture of the full Epicurean worldview.

"Some people can't achieve tranquility in the near term, but that does not mean they are any less Epicurean in pursuing the best mix of pleasure and pain that is available for them at any particular place or time."

In saying that I am thinking back to the recent thread on "Whether one has to be well off to be an Epicurean" (or a title something like that - I will find it and link. - Here it is)

I think it's a significant problem that many people get the idea that one has to be rich or successful to be an Epicurean, and I think what we are talking about now is related to that. One can be very upset and energetically engaged in some very difficult behavior that no one would call "tranquil" and still be a good Epicurean. In fact I would say that a person who in appropriate circumstances DOES NOT forgo tranquility in favor of vigorous action is the one who is not the good Epicurean (again, the "diving into the stream" example in AFDIA).

OK keeping in mind here that I think we are all largely on the same page but we're debating the "best" way to explain the issue in the world of 2022 among non-specialists:

I don't think I would agree that tranquility is a "necessary" condition.

If what we are talking about is "defining the best life" then yes it would be a significant part of the conceptual definition and in that sense it be necessary to include it somewhere in the definition of what to shoot for.

But if what we are talking about is explaining to real people a real working approximation of what we should work for at all times, then I think we would have to consider that there are times when "tranquility" is not an immediate focus, any more than many other pleasures are the immediate focus.

Getting back to the "natural and necessary" desires perspective, I would say it makes sense to include "the basics of life" (what we talk about as "necessary") as a necessary part of the goal an Epicurean would generally expect to secure at all times. But "tranquility" is often not available, as in wartime or in many other situations where energetic action is needed ( EG Epicurus diving into the stream to rescue the others in A Few Days In Athens).

Now I sense that will be responded to by the "hard cases make bad law" objection, but in this case I don't think that most of us live in a world where we can expect to be "tranquil" all the time.

To me the better way to articulate the goal in basic terms that are difficult to misunderstand is something more like:

"Life is about intelligently pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain in a way that ends up maximizing for you the pleasures of life, among which tranquility is an important pleasure along with many others."

But formulations that imply that tranquility is dominant or even "necessary" are the slippery slope to living in the cave. Some people can't achieve tranquility in the near term, but that does not mean they are any less Epicurean in pursuing the best mix of pleasure and pain that is available for them at any particular place or time.

Right - I agree with both of these comments:

Quote from Don

I maintain that cultivating tranquility is an important component of an Epicurean life, an Epicurean practice, but that is not at the expense of that "which the sensual enjoyment is attended by a kind of agreeableness." It's both

Quote from reneliza

If anything, it sounds like this might be one of us trying to blend in with the modern landscape of Epicureans by pointing to ataraxia as the goal, but then saying that doesn't actually mean you eschew all sensual pleasure.

Both of which are stated very differently, and would be understood very differently by most people, from the following promoted to the world by OKeefe and many other writers as the way to understand Epicurus:

Quote from OKeefe

"Given this pair of distinctions, the Epicureans maintain that the main constituent of the pleasant life, and hence, of the happy life, is the static mental pleasure of ataraxia, or tranquility—the state of being free from mental disturbance."

Was Cicero capable of and familiar with the tactic of taking words out of context and giving them meanings not originally intended or understood when it is to his advantage?

Consider this from De Officiis (Marcus Tullius Cicero. De Officiis. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913.)

33 Injustice often arises also through chicanery, that is, through an over-subtle and even fraudulent construction of the law. This it is that gave rise to the now familiar saw, "More law, less justice." Through such interpretation also a great deal of wrong is committed in transactions between state and state; thus, when a truce had been made with the enemy for thirty days, a famous general went to ravaging their fields by night, because, he said, the truce stipulated "days," not nights. Not even our own countryman's action is to be commended, if what is told of Quintus Fabius Labeo is true - or whoever it was (for I have no authority but hearsay): appointed by the Senate to arbitrate a boundary dispute between Nola and Naples, he took up the case and interviewed both parties separately, asking them not to proceed in a covetous or grasping spirit, but to make some concession rather than claim some accession. When each party had agreed to this, there was a considerable strip of territory left between them. And so he set the boundary of each city as each had severally agreed; and the tract in between he awarded to the Roman People. Now that is swindling, not arbitration. And therefore such sharp practice is under all circumstances to be avoided.