Posts by Cassius

Welcome MaxImpala, and great avatar!

Quote from Little Rocker

What irritates me most about the Leonard passage, actually, is the 'yet.' (Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.) Like, what, but it might start happening soon?

I can't believe that I missed that! You are right! The "yet" GUTS the whole meaning of the passage, and in fact I would say the whole meaning of the canonics and the philosophy itself! Yes i understand that it's a deep issue as to how many times we have to see the same thing over and over without exception, and when we are justified in claiming that we "know" something, but that question is exactly what Epicurus is wrestling with, and Leonard totally pulls the rug out from under it before Book One is even getting started!

You've managed to multiply my sourness toward Leonard, but this is now a great illustration of one of how to go wrong on one of the biggest issues in the philosophy. Even Bailey - who I distrust too - doesn't go nearly so far!

Do you have a source for the pig icon in case someone wants to modify or use as is?

Does not have quite the same "militant" edge but that's great too!

Very well thought out and it looks good full size, but maybe the icon-shaped leaping pig would be more recognizable as an icon.

I think the "militant look" combined with the leaping pig has some definite flair to it

Welcome MaxImpala !

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!

I am inquiring to find out where Kalosnyi got the new fighting pig icon. I can't really tell what is presently on the hat but it is possible that modifying it to add the leaping pig might make an excellent icon - maybe one of the best on the forum!

pasted-from-clipboard.png

Elli's Facebook comment on this Episode and on Emily Austin:

Yep when I read through it I would have to agree. Useful mainly for those at a very basic level -- perhaps even as far back as high school or before. The emphasis in my title needs to be on "Basic."

Exactly what I was thinking as to Sagan, Todd. Arguments from "authority" aren't the best way to present things, but I'm willing to use any reasonable argument in the appropriate circumstances. Newer people who aren't familiar with Epicurus or pro-Epicureans will recognize the name of Carl Sagan with some respect. It seems to me that the name "Carl Sagan" has a huge amount of "street cred" that we can find very useful with those who are science-oriented. Sort of similar to using "Thomas Jefferson" with those who are more "history" or "tradition" oriented.

We need to better organize links on this forum, but for the time being here is a link to a brand new (as this is posted) basic article on atomism:

Philosophy of Atomism: Did Ancient Greek Thinkers Discover Atoms?

Atomism has been around for centuries in philosophy, long before the modern scientific definition of atoms. This article explores some of the key philosophers…

www.thecollector.com

Note too: That cameo sketch in my post 27 above - which I compare to the ring - comes from the same book of sketches of findings in Herculaneum from which we get the sketch of Epicurus' bust which I use throughout Epicureanfriends. I don't recall what page it is but the description of the location of its finding is no doubt in that book (in Italian). It seems that the sketcher created unique portrayals of what he was working from, and of course this isn't a photograph, so there's no telling what the original setting looked like and whether that circle background is the original.

I got it now too. Mr. Daff is going to wonder how this turned out to be a big day for his program

I got it now too. Mr. Daff is going to wonder how this turned out to be a big day for his program

This comment on page 18 hits home with me:

"Mr. Munro calls the stone “a black agate,” and does not mention its provenance. The engraving in his book
does no justice to the portrait. There is another gem representing Lucretius in the Vatican: of old it belonged to Leo X. The two gems are in all respects similar. A seal with this head, or one very like it, belonged to Evelyn, the friend of Mr.
Pepys."

There is another version of a cameo that resembles this but which is in much more detail and more attractive and I have long wondered if they were meant to be the same person. Maybe it's the one Joshua mentioned. Maybe it's this one from Herculaneum:

Oh this slide show is EXCELLENT Joshua! We are most certainly going to have to set that up as both a "file" and an "article" that can be found from the front page. Is that going to be OK? Maybe you give a little talk about it at our Wednesday Zoom and then polish it off after that for publication?

Also, re-reading that footnote, how are you people interpreting the "inscribed LVCR in the lettering of his own time"?

"His" meaning Lucretius, or "his" meaning Dr. Nott?

One more thing as we solicit comments on this video. I am thinking that this presentation by Sagan is so clear and so basic that it ought to be part of a background "reading list" for anyone beginning the study of Epicurus in general or Epicurean physics in particular. The linking of these issues to problems with Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity is just priceless. I can't recall whether he mentions "Stoics" but they are clearly implicated negatively too.

It's really frustrating that Sagan does not mention Epicurus by name, and mentioned that Epicurus fought back against the same idealist gang that Sagan is criticizing. But again the implications are clear once you scratch the surface of the subject.

No doubt there are other videos and materials which make this same point, but this is the best I am aware of. Anyone who reviews this and thinks "I've seen _______ make the very same point in another video....." - Please post a link or info where we can try to find it and add to a "basics" list.

Quote from Don

My only question would be: do we *know* it's Lucretius the poet and not another 1st c. BCE member of the gens Lucretia:

I love the way you phrased that question. It calls for both a history debate, or even more so, a canonics discussion on the proper definition to be given to the word "know!"

Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" episode "The Backbone of the Night" praising atomism and attacking the mysticism / idealism of Pythagorus, Plato, and even Aristotle first aired in 1980, before many of the current readers of this forum were even born. Carl Sagan died in 1996, and this presentation isn't nearly as well known today as it once was. Even though the video does not mention Epicurus, it's my view that the issues discussed in the part of this video reviewing Greek philosophic issues are highly relevant to our discussions here at EpicureanFriends.

For anyone who has time to review at least the part from about the 25 minute mark to the 45 minute mark, I would very much appreciate hearing your comments - on any aspect you care to comment about. That goes equally for those who know nothing about Carl Sagan to those who watched every episode of Cosmos when it first aired.

My bet is that very few of us have watched this argument since you've started studying Epicurus, and it would be very helpful to know what your reaction is to it now.