Posts by Cassius

Bumping this thread as a reminder that the first session Kalosyni is putting together is tonight (Friday December 2nd). If you're interested in attending please let us know. Kalosyni has put a lot of preparation time into this but it's the first we've done and like most things here it is still experimental so we will appreciate your participation and ideas for further such events in the future.

One thing I personally would like to see too would be an expansion of the chart in post 13 above with so we could add sample "therapies" that fit under each category.

In other words I see the basic organization of a chart as divided up into sort of "areas of life" where the columns list (1) the area of life, then (2) a description of healthy functioning in that area, then (3) a description of misfires or less healthy functioning / pitfalls, then (4) references to texts cites that deal with the issue, and then (5) a final column for suggested "techniques" or "therapies" that apply to that area of functioning.

If discussion during the happy hour lags I could see it being productive to throw out for discussion ideas on how such a chart could be developed further.

Here's the Perseus.tufts.edu link for the full context: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…Asection%3D558d

[558c] if only he says that he loves the people!1” “It is a noble2 polity, indeed!” he said. “These and qualities akin to these democracy would exhibit, and it would, it seems, be a delightful3 form of government, anarchic and motley, assigning a kind of equality indiscriminately to equals and unequals alike!4” “Yes,” he said, “everybody knows that.”

“Observe, then, the corresponding private character. Or must we first, as in the case of the polity, consider the origin of the type?” “Yes,” he said. “Is not this, then, the way of it? Our thrifty5 oligarchical man

[558d] would have a son bred in his father's ways.” “Why not?” “And he, too, would control by force all his appetites for pleasure that are wasters and not winners of wealth, those which are denominated unnecessary.” “Obviously.” “And in order not to argue in the dark, shall we first define1 our distinction between necessary and unnecessary appetites2?” “Let us do so.” “Well, then, desires that we cannot divert or suppress may be properly called necessary,

[558e] and likewise those whose satisfaction is beneficial to us, may they not? For our nature compels us to seek their satisfaction.

[559a] Is not that so ?” “Most assuredly.” “Then we shall rightly use the word ‘necessary’ of them?” “Rightly.” “And what of the desires from which a man could free himself by discipline from youth up, and whose presence in the soul does no good and in some cases harm? Should we not fairly call all such unnecessary?” “Fairly indeed.” “Let us select an example of either kind, so that we may apprehend the type.1” “Let us do so.” “Would not the desire of eating to keep in health and condition and the appetite

[559b] for mere bread and relishes1 be necessary?” “I think so.” “The appetite for bread is necessary in both respects, in that it is beneficial and in that if it fails we die.” “Yes.” “And the desire for relishes, so far as it conduces to fitness?” “By all means.” “And should we not rightly pronounce unnecessary the appetite that exceeds these and seeks other varieties of food, and that by correction2 and training from youth up can be got rid of in most cases and is harmful to the body and a hindrance to the soul's attainment of

[559c] intelligence and sobriety?” “Nay, most rightly.” “And may we not call the one group the spendthrift desires and the other the profitable,1 because they help production?” “Surely.” “And we shall say the same of sexual and other appetites?” “The same.” “And were we not saying that the man whom we nicknamed the drone is the man who teems2 with such pleasures and appetites, and who is governed by his unnecessary desires, while the one who is ruled

[559d] by his necessary appetites is the thrifty oligarchical man?” “Why, surely.”

“To return, then,” said I, “we have to tell how the democratic man develops from the oligarchical type. I think it is usually in this way.” “How?” “When a youth, bred in the illiberal and niggardly fashion that we were describing, gets a taste of the honey of the drones and associates with fierce1 and cunning creatures who know how to purvey pleasures of every kind and variety2 and condition, there you must doubtless conceive is the beginning

[559e] of the transformation of the oligarchy in his soul into democracy.” “Quite inevitably,” he said. “May we not say that just as the revolution in the city was brought about by the aid of an alliance from outside, coming to the support of the similar and corresponding party in the state, so the youth is revolutionized when a like and kindred1 group of appetites from outside comes to the aid of one of the parties in his soul?” “By all means,” he said. “And if, I take it, a counter-alliance2 comes to the rescue of the oligarchical part of his soul, either it may be from his father

I may be posting this in the wrong place but I remember that at the very least Don and/or Godfrey and I were asking what precedent might have existed for the natural and necessary distinctions before Epicurus. A friend has today pointed us toward the following excerpts from Plato, for which I am very appreciative!

Republic 8: 558d-559d

Quote from Charles

It is safe to say that a good chunk of us on the forums are introverts.

I should also have commented that I bet this is surely correct, and it certainly includes me!

Great article Charles. I see you consider it a rough draft but it is so lengthy and detailed that when you get it to the point where you approve I'd like to move it into an "article" so that it appears in rotation on the front page. Let me know when you are ready to do that, and if you have a graphic that you'd like to see attached to it (otherwise we can make a generic one).

I think we need to make more use of these "longer-form" posts on general issues by listing them as articles so that the rotate on that section of the front page, where lurkers are more likely to see them.

Glad to have you Little Rocker. Thanks for responding to the welcome email and I feel sure I speak for many others here in saying that we look forward to hearing more from you.

I want to be sure these two comments (especially Elli's) get saved:

Welcome Little Rocker

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 and let us know if you have had previous studies or background in philosophy, what prompted your interest in Epicureanism, and if you have any questions. And feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum.

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.

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!

Thanks again to everyone in the thread so far. I have updated the Facebook group with a new post:

Quote from Don

monthly assembly of his school on the 20th was established.

From our point of view, what about Jan 20 vs Feb 20?

That reminds me that I haven't updated the Facebook post I made on this, so to drive the numbers up even further it would be great to have a summary post here in this same thread to which I could point to as a follow-up

Thank you Nate!!

I see that you liked those Don but i was also going to joke:

Quote from Don

At least natural colors like hues of red, yellow, blue, etc.

Hows that for a series of "natural" colors -- especially the fluorescent purple!

I was thinking you were asking for maybe some "pale" variations that sort of match the sky?

But no doubt in any way of looking at it any color that brings pleasure to the user fits the bill! So again thank you Nate!

I remember when I came across Pharsalia maybe six years ago I downloaded a text version and ran it through a text-to-speech converter and listened to the whole thing.

Most of it was blood and guts and makes the Plague of Athens section in Lucretius Book 6 sound like a walk in the park. I remember thinking that I had never heard so many creative ways to slash the bodies of soldiers into pieces.

However I also remember that there was a section devoted to Pompey's defeat that went on and on about how terrible the result was -- something to the effect that the whole world was crying that Pompey had lost and what might have been if he had won the battle. I wish I could find that as it would be a good section to post and perhaps illustrate a parallel in sentiment if not in subject matter. If I come across it I will.

Should lend itself to color variations if the similarity gets too confusing! I probably won't switch but I do like it too!

This issue is well worth keeping alive. The Brown translation is head and shoulders above that of Creech and someone really deserves credit for the advancement.

And the Pharsalia poem is one we don't discuss often, given its very different topic, but the last I looked at it I can surely see the attraction that it holds for someone who likes Lucretius. If I recall correctly it's a very "romantic" tribute to the "republican" side that I would expect most of the Epicureans sided with and I can see a very strong "what might have been" attraction in translating both poems.

Quote from Don

btw, I really like this line of thinking of Kalosyni and the graphics that Nate has been working up!!

I suppose by now at the advanced age I am it is getting a little easier to judge the seasons by position of the sun in the sky, but even now it's kind of hard. On the other hand the phase of the moon sure is a lot more immediate and easier to judge, so I can see why people thought it made good sense to use it as the basis for a calendar.

This is an interesting approach and I look forward to seeing what the birthday experts think. It sort of makes it more immediate when you can see the changes on the face of the moon.

Tonight - November 30th - we'll be meeting as normal. Join us if you can, and if you haven't joined us before and need the link, please message Cassius.

My OJ Simpson crack seems relevant too. In criminal law there's the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, which is cryptically unwound to mean "a doubt for which you can give a reason."

On the other hand civil courts use the "preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not" standard.

And there's a lot of theory behind why one standard is appropriate in one context versus another, with "the need for finality" coming into play as maybe the ultimate reasoning behind having any standard at all.

So these are complicated issues but we deal with them every day and it makes sense to make it as clear as possible so that we can "affirm that which does not await confirmation" which maybe seems to be Epicurus' terminology.

Obviously we should wait before affirming a thing to be true when the evidence is inconclusive, and that's the part we are all comfortable with today.

But the rest of the story is that if we don't have good reason to wait before affirming an opinion to be true, then we shouldn't wait, seems to be the idea, especially when the issue is something important (supernatural gods, hell, heaven) which will have a direct impact on our enjoyment of life if we don't take a position.

Connects directly and in fascinating ways we need to explore! If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit!

We have to be able to identify when the evidence supports multiple causes, and when it supports only a single conclusion.

That seems to be directly the issue in PD24, which by reason of its inclusions in the doctrines indicates how important this issue was to Epicurus:

PD24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

It's definitely not easy to articulate this since we've been acclimated to the skeptical position that nothing is knowable, but it does all fit together when you think about it. You have to firmly identify in your mind the method, realize that you're not omniscient and this is the only real standard you have, and then not get shaken by arguments like "You can't be sure because you haven't been there."

I was thinking a few minutes ago, that's EXACTLY the implication in Cicero's jab at Velleius -- he's saying that since Velleius had NOT just come down from the Epicurean intermundia, he shouldn't be taking any firm positions on it.

Unless we firmly identify the fallacy in thinking that "you haven't been there so you don't know" invalidates every claim of knowledge, we never get anywhere.

I have never stuck my head in an oven and turned on the gas and lit a match but i am CERTAIN that that is not something that will benefit me from doing. And no amount of "you don't know because you haven't done it" will shake my confidence in that conclusion.