Posts by Cassius

Don since you are sort of the expert on this, I will set the zoom to allow you to share your screen, so if you want to show a slide or graphic or just some text we can do that too. Happy to have you run with that part of the discussion.

Great!!!!

Just in case anyone needs them for the Zoom call tonight, here are the various translations of PD10 (as compiled by Nate):

“If those things which make the pleasures of debauched men, put an end to the fears of the mind, and to those which arise about the heavenly bodies, and death, and pain; and if they taught us what ought to be the limit of our desires, we should have no pretense for blaming those who wholly devote themselves to pleasure, and who never feel any pain or grief (which is the chief evil) from any quarter.” Yonge (1853)

“If the objects which are productive of pleasures to profligate persons really freed them from fears of the mind—the fears, I mean, inspired by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, the fear of pain—if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should not have any reason to censure such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasure to overflowing on all sides and would be exempt from all pain, whether of body or mind, that is, from all evil.” Hicks (1910)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky and death and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires [and of pains], we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full with pleasures from every source and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.” Bailey (1926)

“If the practices productive of the pleasures of profligates dispelled the fears of the mind about celestial things and death and pains and also taught the limit of the desires, we should never have fault to find with profligates, enjoying pleasures to the full from all quarters, and suffering neither pain nor distress from any quarter, wherein the evil lies." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute were able to drive away from their minds their fears about what is above them and about death and pain, and to teach them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find fault with the dissolute; for they would fill themselves with pleasure from every source and would be free from pain and sorrow, which are evil.” Geer (1964)

“If the causes of the pleasures of the dissipated released mental fears concerning celestial phenomena and death and distress, and in addition taught the limit of desires, we should never have any reason to reproach them [i.e. the dissipated], since they would be satisfying themselves with pleasures from all directions and would never have pain or distress, which constitutes the bad.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“If the things that beget pleasure in dissolute individuals could dispel their minds' fears about the heavens, death, and pain, and could still teach them the limits of desires, we would have no grounds for finding fault with the dissolute, since they would be filling themselves with pleasures from every source and in no way suffering from pain or grief, which are evil.” O'Connor (1993)

“If the things which produce the pleasures of profligate men dissolved the intellect's fears about the phenomena of the heavens and about death and pains and, moreover, if they taught us the limit of our desires, then we would not have reason to criticize them, since they would be filled with pleasures from every source and would contain no feeling of pain or distress from any source—and that is what is bad.” Inwood (1994)

“If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.” Anderson (2004)

“If those elements that are productive of the pleasures of the debauched released them from the mental apprehensions aroused by natural phenomena, fear of death, and [obsessive anticipation of] pain; if, in addition, they formed their characters in such a way that they knew when to set a limit to their desires, we would then never have anything to censure them about: indeed, they would then be fully actualizing all the pleasures and in no way would they have either what is painful or what is productive of grief in them—and it is this latter condition [which they would be avoiding] that is morally bad.” Makridis (2005)

“If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).” Saint-Andre (2008)

“If the things that produce the debauchee's pleasures dissolved the mind's fears regarding the heavenly bodies, death, and pain and also told us how to limit our desires, we would never have any reason to find fault with such people, because they would be glutting themselves with every sort of pleasure and never suffer physical or mental pain, which is the real evil.” Strodach (2012)

“If the objects that afforded pleasure to profligate men actually freed them from mental fears, namely those that relate to celestial phenomena and death and pain, and also taught them to limit their desires, we would never have any occasion to find fault with such men, since they would then be filled with pleasures from all sides and would be free of all pain and grief—that is, of all that is bad.” Mensch (2018)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute released our minds from fear of celestial things and death and pain, and if they taught us the limit of desire, then we would have nothing to reproach in them, since they would then be replete with pleasures from every source and devoid of pain or sorrow from any source, which are precisely what is bad.” White (2021)

Posted at Facebook:

Good video! And how does he recognize sensory adaptation? By the evidence of the senses!

I only had a chance to watch the intro so not sure where he ends up.

Quote from Martin

Within Epicurean physics, atoms are hard bodies. If they were large and not emitting anything, they would at least be visible as shadows.

Yes that makes sense too, which is along the lines that they ought to be "touchable."

I also think that as raised earlier a very precise discussion of this would need to account for the apparent Epicurean position that "images" (at least some of them) are or can be invisible.

(I know I am addressing only part of Martin's comments here but I don't have comment yet on the rest.)

If you come up with some good summary observations, be sure to post them. This issue - that mathematics is a model but not reality itself - can be stated all sorts of ways but it is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, and new ways to make the issue more clear are always welcome.

Quote from SimonC

A thought on the inconceivability of visible atoms: according to Epicurus, things are visible because they constantly emit thin films of atoms. But a single atom can't emit a film smaller than itself and is therefore not visible in the ordinary sense.

I think that's a really perceptive observation SimonC as to single atoms not giving off images!

As to the basketball size single atoms, maybe one answer there is that while such a thing might not give off an image, such a thing would (presumably?) be very "touchable" and we would be able to "feel" its presence even if it didn't give off particles to see, hear, or smell (?)

But I really like your observation that a single atom would not give off an image. I think that sounds right to me - anyone disagree?

As of today we'd presumably look at the issue differently and talk about light bouncing off things, and I really don't know that Epicurus rejected the issue of light bouncing either. But to the extent we would talk about receiving "images" I think your logic is sound - a single atom couldn't give off an image from its surface.

Then of course we'd have to consider whether every use of the word "image" is really the same thing. Epicurus seems to talk about "receiving images" as different from "seeing things" (at least at times) so maybe what we're really observing is that a single atom would not give off an "image" that could be "perceived directly by the mind" as opposed to "seeing it" with our eyes.

Now I am rambling but this kind of thinking really strikes me as "thinking like an Epicurean." I bet if we turned this over in our minds just a little we could develop a coherent set of observations about this, but it would need to take into account the difference between "receiving images" and "seeing things" which I don't think to be exactly the same thing.

Quote from Don

And I see what Clay was trying to do, I think, in calling the article after Epicurus's will. He's trying to say that even though Hermarchus is his philosophical heir, it is actually Lucretius who ends up being his "heir" because we get Lucretius's whole poem to carry on Epicurus's philosophy. Yeah, that's a little arcane.

Yep "arcane" is a good word. I think Clay is a good guy and I am well disposed toward him, but maybe becoming an Epicurean afficianado makes one "arcane" However of course I show no such tendencies myself

I started to write this earlier and pulled back. Now I have more time ---> In reading Diskin Clay's article on the "Last Will" it seems to me that he is potentially overly negative about certain aspects. The take-away I get is that he is "presuming" that the evidence indicates that Epicurus really spent most of his time writing letters to his inner circle that were disorganized and filled with jargon, and that it wasn't til near the end of his life that he really decided to systematize anything clearly.

Now I am reading Clay too harshly, probably, but maybe I would be interested in what Eikadistes has to say about Clay if he has read several of his articles (I note Nate already said that Clay's lists weren't consistent ) And one thing I have always taken away from the "Last Will and Testament" article is to say to myself "Diskin, you're saying Epicurus was unclear, when you entitle your paper something that barely reflects the subject matter?"

I think we see all the time that the personality of the writer of things gets projected onto Epicurus. DeWitt takes everything in a "sympathetic" way, other writers seem to strain to be as unsympathetic as possible, and the evidence in all likelihood isn't strong enough to say for sure which is right. It's a problem to guard against.

Yes looks like DeWitt started off looking for twelve and relied on Lucretius to come up with that number. I think he's making reasonable presumptions, and in fact most of what he comes up with lines up with Diskin Clay, but certainly not everything.

As usual we're largely on our own as to what is reasonable to presume and what is not. Almost like we're similar to Theon in "A Few Days In Athens" -- piecing things together over time.

link to DeWitts list:. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…tals-of-nature/

01 Matter is uncreatable.

PN 02 Matter is indestructible.

PN 03 The universe consists of solid bodies and void.

PN 04 Solid bodies are either compounds or simple.

PN 05 The multitude of atoms is infinite.

PN 06 The void is infinite in extent.

PN 07 The atoms are always in motion.

PN 08 The speed of atomic motion is uniform.

PN 09 Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds.

PN 10 Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time.

PN 11 Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size.

PN 12 The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable

Wow thank you for that Nate! I have read the "Last Will and Testament " version but never compared his versions in other works. This is extremely helpful!

Link to the Last Will and Testament article:. "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament" - by Diskin Clay

This coming Sunday we are going to swerve away briefly from the Letter to Pythocles for one week only, and we thought a good one week topic would be a general overview of the "Twelve Fundamentals," a now lost text of Epicurus focused on summarizing the most key aspects of Epicurean physics.

Our text will be two main sources - DeWitts reconstruction in our "Texts" section, and the differing list compiled by Diskin Clay in his article "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament."

If you have any comments or suggestions of points to include, please add them in this thread.

Yes I think Don's answer applies in most cases in the last comment. But I am not sure it is a good idea for us to take the "everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not" too far. Some people do seem to choose pain for the sake of pain, under the influence of warped thinking. EG - "I am a worm and I deserved to be squashed by God.".

I suppose you can reduce that to "It gives him pleasure to think that" but in some cases it seems to me we would be straining too hard to argue that point.

In the end humans have some degree of intelligence and the free will to use it, so I think it's best at some point in some extreme cases to just let them wallow in their stupidity and agree with them:. "Yes sir I accept that you are serious about your framework. You are a bug in the sight of your lord and you deserve to be squashed. Go to it sir but please leave me out of it!"

I agree again with you post Matteng, especially as to the practical effect of Stoicism. The ancient Stoics were more consistent in detaching themselves to the point of a death-like state, and although the modern Stoics try to separate themselves from that, they can't successfully do it, and thus among the modern Stoics there is this uneasily feeling - whether acknowledged or not - that there is something wrong at the root of their philosophy.

Quote from Matteng

Stoic: Hero who embraces every problem / challenge.

Epicurean: avoiding pain like a weak coward.

And indeed as you would expect I think the descriptions are very accurate, but the labels are reversed! It is Epicurus who was the great conqueror of fear and the biggest challenges of them all, "and by his victory we reach the stars."

Space exploration, in fact, is for Epicureans, who seek pleasure from knowledge and new frontiers. Consistent Stoics would rather sit home and contemplate why the universe does not conform to their own preconceived notions of "virtue."

I agree with Don, and I think you are completely on the right track, and it is maddening that the major philosophies have made this question the slightest bit difficult.

Quote from Matteng

In ethics I wonder if Pleasure involves personal values besides the "pure bodily" pleasures

Absolutely yes. Do those actions you describe being you pleasure in performing them or even thinking about them? Then absolutely yes, to you they are pleasures. Epicurus says (per Torquatus) that the pleasures of the mind can be and are often more significant than those purely of the body (but remember Don's caveat, without the body you are nothing,so all pleasures are in that sense "of the body")

Quote from Matteng

(maybe thats the answer, a wide interpratation of pleasure ? )

Yes! And the interpretation is as wide as can be imagined. If something brings you a feeling OF ANY KIND then the feeling is ultimately pleasurable or painful. All human mental and physical activities fall in one of these two categories, no matter how much the abstractionists want to protest that their virtues are higher than pleasure.

Quote from Matteng

Are that "pleasures of the soul" ?

I would definitely say yes. The point to keep in mind is that there is no supernatural soul, so everything "mental" is of the soul, or spiritual, or intellectual, or whatever you choose to label that mental functioning of the body.

And glad to have you posting! These are common questions lots of people have and always good to talk about them!

Quote from Don

* (I'll be bringing that up every time a PD discussion comes up )

We've been referencing it every Wednesday and will continue to do so!

I know PD10 has always been one of Don's favorites!

Great thank you!