Posts by Cassius

On looking up examples of damage that comes from loose construction, (which Don is surely avoiding, I know) I happened to look again at this from Wikipedia on the T. Take a look at the last sentence in this paragraph:

What is terrible is easy to endure

The Epicureans understood that, in nature, illness and pain is not suffered for very long, for pain and suffering is either "brief or chronic ... either mild or intense, but discomfort that is both chronic and intense is very unusual; so there is no need to be concerned about the prospect of suffering." Like "What is good is easy to get," recognizing one's physical and mental limit and one's threshold of pain — understanding how much pain the body or mind can endure — and maintaining confidence that pleasure only follows pain (and the avoidance of anxiety about the length of pain), is the remedy against prolonged suffering.^[13

The "REMEDY"? Or as people are fond of saying "the CURE"? I think Epicurus would say "No"! The remedy or the cure of a disease is to root it out and destroy it. What is being described here in 3 and 4 are "coping mechanisms" which are certainly desirable but in no way a "cure." I am surely in favor of aspirin, but aspirin does not really cure the source of the pain at least in most cases. The "cure" of these pains is not in thinking about them as short or mild, the cure comes in "curing" them, and to the extent that the phrasing of 3 and 4 suggests that Epicurus would suggest "coping" rather than "curing" this is extremely damaging to Epicurean theory.

I am not so down on 1 and 2 as I am on 3 and 4, but in sum the total effect of these is to more aptly deserve the name the "Four-Part Coping Mechanism" than the Four-Part "cure."

This is just the kind of diversion from proper focus that undue emphasis on the word "katastematic" creates in the minds of those who do not understand that "katastematic" (to the extent it has a clear definition stated by Epicurus at all) is simply one among many pleasures - and one that does not rate even the clear emphasis Epicurus gave to friendship and prudence as of special importance.

I am together with all of this with the probable exception of post 3. That is not what Diogenes Laertius says about the two categories, is it?

And of course I also want the record to reflect that I agree with Boris Nikolsky that the whole "katastematic" question is an overlay of non-Epicurean analysis adopted from other schools, well apart from Epicurus, which is an artifact of Diogenes Laertius' well meaning but imprecise attempt to categorize Epicurus according to theories well known at DL's time.

As for mental pleasures being more significant than bodily ones at times I agree that makes sense as stated by Torquatus in his discussion with Cicero, so Metrodorus' book title would fit that well.

I also think it is useful to highlight the confidence of maintaining ones pleasures and the ability to experience pleasures mentally (including the memory of pleasures of the past) which is also well documented.

The only real problem that I have is that framing all this in terms of "katastematic pleasure" seems to me to be bound to be interpreted by those who are not so subtle as Don to be justification for their continuing focus on this term for their implication that katastematic pleasure is something higher than any other kind of pleasure, which I believe is not justified and is very harmful.

Of the points raised by Don, points 4 and 5 are lost on the "katastematic pleasure above all" crowd, and the difficulty is that the view of "Confidence in Katastematic Pleasure" will continue to crowd out and undermine the proper focus, which was as summarized by Torquatus more accurately as

"pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them" (Reid)

Nothing there about "katastematic pleasure" being the primary goal," and to elevate it loosely as many do is to implicitly derogate all the rest.

So to me the task is to flesh out the benefits of the subject without confounding errors (which are in many cases intentional under the influence of Buddhism and Stoicism) even worse than before.

I have no doubt Don can do that here, but in general conversation about Epicurus elsewhere using this terminology is like hobbling oneself at the beginning by explaining "what's good is easy to get" and "what's terrible is easy to endure" to starving children. That's not a challenge that any Epicurean has any need to undertake voluntarily, because those contentions phrased that way are not well founded in the core texts of Epicurus himself. To me, those phrasings are best considered to be innocent but harmful diversions from the main core and stream of Epicurean thought. "Easy" and "katastematic" are similarly troublesome, and I don't advise people to look for unnecessary trouble!

Welcome to Episode 161 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."

Sensations

Epicurus Not An Empiricist

Anticipations

The Account of Laertius

The Element of Anticipation

Evidences From Specific Context

Later Evidences

Feelings

This week we continue in Chapter 8 and move to the subsections "Sensations" and "Epicurus Not An Empiricist"

The more literal Munro of the same passage from book 6:

[68] Now unless you drive from your mind with loathing all these things, and banish far from you all belief in things degrading to the gods and inconsistent with their peace, then often will the holy deities of the gods, having their majesty lessened by you, do you hurt; not that the supreme power of the gods can be so outraged that in their wrath they shall resolve to exact sharp vengeance, but because you will fancy to yourself that they, though they enjoy quiet and calm peace, do roll great billows of wrath; nor will you approach the sanctuaries of the gods with a calm breast, nor will you be able with tranquil peace of mind to take in those idols which are carried from their holy body into the minds of men as heralds of their divine form. And what kind of life follows after this, may be conceived.

Don what source is that?

[41] Ad ea cum accedit, ut neque divinum numen horrea

Here's the text from Lucretius 6 (Which i remember in Humphries form):

And so they wander, borne along in blind

Unreason. Spit out all such stuff, I tell you,

Stop having thoughts unworthy of the gods,

Alien to their serenity. Affront

To their high holiness can do you harm -

Not that their lofty power can be so hurt

That it would thirst for vengeance in a rage

For retribution - but that you yourself

Will feel convinced that mighty tidal waves,

Huge seas of anger, roll, and flood, and break

Against your littleness, while all the while

They have not even noticed, and their calm

Is quite unbroken. But you cannot go

Serenely toward their altars; you are blind

To the benignant holy images

They send as heralds of divinity;

And what your life may be in consequence

Perhaps you realize.

We have received a request for zoom meetings which are more accessible to European time zones. Currently all our zooms have been in the evening Eastern time, and that places it in the middle of the night in Europe.

We definitely plan to do at least one such session soon, and if we have enough interest we will do it regularly. Of course nothing stops our current European participants from organizing their own zooms, but for the maximum benefit of all I am sure our "American hemisphere" friends would like to meet and interact with the Europeans.

The first obvious choice for us to open this up to the widest audience would be for us to set something on a Saturday in the morning or early afternoon Eastern time. Possibly 1:00 or 2:00 pm Eastern would make it an evening session for Europe and still not too early for California (?)

If you are interested in participating in a Saturday zoom at around 1:30 Eastern USA time please respond to this thread and we will get something set up as soon as the next couple of weeks. At least at the first one focus would be to spend time just getting to know our European friends better.

Very good point. Reid has it that way, so the Latin may support it, i was about to go further and say it's so far off as to be unusable, but really as I think twice this may actually be accurate. Maybe this is affirming what is apparently the true Epicurean position, analogous to reverencing the wise man, that we benefit from reverencing even though the wise man man may not be directing his activities toward us at all.

There's a passage in Lucretius about not being able to approach the temples of the gods without fear unless you have a proper understanding of them (but I can't find it right now).

This definitely calls for parsing the Latin

I am afraid that listing the "being steadfast" part as a separate item just is not really supported by the Latin. Especially when looking at the Reid translation, seems to me that there are really only five major things going on. This version follows Reid most literally:

1. Set as your goal to live among pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them, while at the same time:
2. Be confident that death is apart from sensation,
3. Be confident that pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance.
4. Be free of awe of the influence of the gods;
5. Be never forgetful of the pleasures of the past, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Varying translation choices between Rackham and Reid:

When we reviewed this material in the podcast, we chose the REID translation because it seemed more literal than Rackham. Here is Reid's version of this same passage:

[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. [41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

So going by this one the description of the best life is "the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them. "

Comparing that to Rackham (The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: ) and looking back at the Latin, it appears that the "undisturbed" has crept into Rackham without good justification. I think we can all speculate as to why he would be tempted to use that term even though it is not in the text.

It's pretty easy to read "impede" in the sense of delay (or thward) for as Reid does, plus the "impending" rings of "threaten" also per Reid, which agrees with my Cassell's Latin dictionary for Impendeo. That rings well with the reference at the beginning of book 1 as Epicurus standing up against the threats of the gods and breaking the bars of the gates of nature.

Here is the latin from the LatinLibrary.com:

Quote

[40] Extremum autem esse bonorum voluptatem ex hoc facillime perspici potest: Constituamus aliquem magnis, multis, perpetuis fruentem et animo et corpore voluptatibus nullo dolore nec impediente nec inpendente, quem tandem hoc statu praestabiliorem aut magis expetendum possimus dicere? inesse enim necesse est in eo, qui ita sit affectus, et firmitatem animi nec mortem nec dolorem timentis, quod mors sensu careat, dolor in longinquitate levis, in gravitate brevis soleat esse, ut eius magnitudinem celeritas, diuturnitatem allevatio consoletur. [41] Ad ea cum accedit, ut neque divinum numen horreat nec praeteritas voluptates effluere patiatur earumque assidua recordatione laetetur, quid est, quod huc possit, quod melius sit, accedere? Statue contra aliquem confectum tantis animi corporisque doloribus, quanti in hominem maximi cadere possunt, nulla spe proposita fore levius aliquando, nulla praeterea neque praesenti nec expectata voluptate, quid eo miserius dici aut fingi potest? quodsi vita doloribus referta maxime fugienda est, summum profecto malum est vivere cum dolore, cui sententiae consentaneum est ultimum esse bonorum eum voluptate vivere. nec enim habet nostra mens quicquam, ubi consistat tamquam in extremo, omnesque et metus et aegritudines ad dolorem referuntur, nec praeterea est res ulla, quae sua natura aut sollicitare possit aut angere. [42] Praeterea et appetendi et refugiendi et omnino rerum gerendarum initia proficiscuntur aut a voluptate aut a dolore. quod cum ita sit, perspicuum est omnis rectas res atque laudabilis eo referri, ut cum voluptate vivatur. quoniam autem id est vel summum bonorum vel ultimum vel extremum -- quod Graeci telos nominant --, quod ipsum nullam ad aliam rem, ad id autem res referuntur omnes, fatendum est summum esse bonum iucunde vivere.

This may be our most plain and simple detailed statement of the most desirable life left from the ancient Epicurean writings:

Constituamus aliquem magnis, multis, perpetuis fruentem et animo et corpore voluptatibus nullo dolore nec impediente nec inpendente,

To me, a drive for clarity (or to banish improper connotations) is an embodiment of VS46 -

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

Improper inferences from words like "tranquility" (and of "easy" in 3 and 4 of the T) have long done us great harm!

So we don't need to jettison them completely, just be clear in our use of them.

I don't think I use the word "precision" twice in a year, but I see that Dewitt uses the word at least 39 times in his book, such as:

(and the word "precise" 29 more times)

So a better choice of words for 2 (firmness might work too, but steadfastness works):

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess steadfastness of mind,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Yes firmitatem is an interesting word choice -- not "strength" of mind in the sense of "virtus" but the words Don suggests, indicating steadfastness, stability, constancy.

Words that very much play into our analogies to bodies of water, except that the point clearly would seem to me to imply "undivertable motion toward a goal" like the powerful Mississippi River flowing downstream, rather than just a small current in a tiny stream which is easy for beavers to divert.

(How's that for mixing metaphors from recent discussions?)

Quote from waterholic

Great list, like very much the six, except the "strength of mind". I don't understand why, but it "sounds stoic".

Agreed that it sounds Stoic to me too, but this might be an overreaction on our part.

Just because the Stoics may say the sun rises in the east that doesn't make it false

It looks to me like "Firmitatem animi" is a key phrase:

Again thinking that "strength of mind" is worth emphasizing for its own role as the means to the goal (which is indeed how I would see "tranquility," as a part of the means to to the goal of Pleasure, and not the goal in itself):

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess strength of mind,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

Thinking back to Don's "strength of mind" emphasis, here's back to Six -

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess a strength of mind that is proof against (resistant to?) all fear,
3. Work to understand that death means complete unconsciousness,
4. Work to understand that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
5. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
6. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.

If we wanted to stick to four, that's easily done as well:

1. Set as your goal that of living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain
2. Work to possess a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain by understanding that death means complete unconsciousness, and pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity.
3. Work to possess no dread of any supernatural power;
4. Work to never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection.