Posts by Cassius

I think Pacatus you have raised the real issue underlying the question - which includes the relationship and use of both direct evidence and "circumstantial" or "indirect" evidence.

Epicurus has no direct observational evidence of atoms or void, but he found strong circumstantial evidence from the observation of other things which he could observe directly. We therefore logically do not require direct evidence on all issues, but we require that any theories be consistent with what evidence does exist.

So when we use words like speculation and evidence we have to be very clear what we are talking about.

As I see it there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence from all else that we observe that "nothing comes from nothing..". We do not have direct evidence of what came before the "big bang" (which itself we infer from circumstantial evidence as we did not see it occur).

It is my personal position that the overwhelming evidence of nothing coming from nothing in all other observations is not invalidated as a good working model of the universe as a whole by the argument that "we have no direct evidence of what came before the big bang."

These are complicated epistemological issues that cannot be resolved purely by demanding "direct evidence* from our own observation. In order not to be accused of blind faith ourselves we have to have an understanding of our own rules of reasoning and waiting and opinion making as in the PDs in the early 20's

I believe this is one, which Munro translates as borders (Book one)

159] If things came from nothing, any kind might be born of any thing, nothing would require seed. Men for instance might rise out of the sea, the scaly race out of the earth, and birds might burst out of the sky; horned and other herds, every kind of wild beasts would haunt with changing broad tilth and wilderness alike. Nor would the same fruits keep constant to trees, but would change; any tree might bear any fruit. For if there were not begetting bodies for each, how could things have a fixed unvarying mother? But in fact because things are all produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and goes forth into the borders of light out of that in which resides its matter and first bodies; and for this reason all things cannot be gotten out of all things, because in particular things resides a distinct power

I will have to track them down over the weekend. I wonder if they are a special translation decision by Humphries

Great! Would the "shores of light" references in Lucretius fit in this picture?

Humphries Book One:

But now, since all created things have come

From their own definite kinds of seed, they move

From their beginnings toward the shores of light

Out of their primal motes.

...

There must be

A proper meeting of their seeds in time

For us to see them at maturity

Grown by their season's favor, living earth

Bringing them safely to the shores of light.

Humphries Book Two:

They give her eunuch priests

To demonstrate that men are sometimes found

Unworthy of their fathers, ravishers

Of the maternal godhead, and such men

Must not send offspring to the shores of light.

Humphries Book Five:

And why

Must every season bring disease? And why

Is early death so free to walk the world?

When nature, after struggle, tears the child

Out of its mother's womb to the shores of light,

He lies there naked, lacking everything,

Like a sailor driven wave-battered to some coast,

And the poor little thing fills all the air

With lamentation - but that's only right

In view of all the griefs that lie ahead

Along his way through life.

Now I turn

To our own earth's beginnings, to how the fields

All gently made decision what new birth

To send to the shores of light, or to commit

To the whims of the wind.

....

Time brings everything

Little by little to the shores of light

By grace of art and reason, till we see

All things illuminate each other's rise

Up to the pinnacles of loftiness.

MFSMITH -- Book One:

Since you and you alone stand at the helm of nature’s ship, and since without your sanction nothing springs up into the shining shores of light, nothing blossoms into mature loveliness, it is you whom I desire to be my associate in writing this poem *On the Nature of Things,* which I am attempting to compose for my friend Memmius.3 Through your will, goddess, he is always endowed outstandingly with all fine qualities. So with all the more justification, Venus, give my words charm that will ensure their immortality.

Thank you Don! Also I am going to try to get us to go through the arguments presented in Lucretius Book 3. I seem to remember that people have counted them, let me see if i can quickly separate them by topic. (just a start in this post)

Lucretius Book Three (Bailey)

1 - Death will be no different than the time before we were born:

[830] Death, then, is naught to us, nor does it concern us a whit, inasmuch as the nature of the mind is but a mortal possession. And even as in the time gone by we felt no ill, when the Poeni came from all sides to the shock of battle, when all the world, shaken by the hurrying turmoil of war, shuddered and reeled beneath the high coasts of heaven, in doubt to which people’s sway must fall all human power by land and sea; so, when we shall be no more, when there shall have come the parting of body and soul, by whose union we are made one, you may know that nothing at all will be able to happen to us, who then will be no more, or stir our feeling; no, not if earth shall be mingled with sea, and sea with sky.

2 - Even if our atoms come back together in the future we would not remember our past:

[843] And even if the nature of mind and the power of soul has feeling, after it has been rent asunder from our body, yet it is naught to us, who are made one by the mating and marriage of body and soul. Nor, if time should gather together our substance after our decease and bring it back again as it is now placed, if once more the light of life should be vouchsafed to us, yet, even were that done, it would not concern us at all, when once the remembrance of our former selves were snapped in twain. And even now we care not at all for the selves that we once were, not at all are we touched by any torturing pain for them. For when you look back over all the lapse of immeasurable time that now is gone, and think how manifold are the motions of matter, you could easily believe this too, that these same seeds, whereof we now are made, have often been placed in the same order as they are now; and yet we cannot recall that in our mind’s memory; for in between lies a break in life, and all the motions have wandered everywhere far astray from sense.

3 - Death is no different than if we had never been born:

[862] For, if by chance there is to be grief and pain for a man, he must needs himself too exist at that time, that ill may befall him. Since death forestalls this, and prevents the being of him, on whom these misfortunes might crowd, we may know that we have naught to fear in death, and that he who is no more cannot be wretched, and that it were no whit different if he had never at any time been born, when once immortal death hath stolen away mortal life.

[870] And so, when you see a man chafing at his lot, that after death he will either rot away with his body laid in earth, or be destroyed by flames, or the jaws of wild beasts, you may be sure that his words do not ring true, and that deep in his heart lies some secret pang, however much he deny himself that he believes that he will have any feeling in death. For he does not, I trow, grant what he professes, nor the grounds of his profession, nor does he remove and cast himself root and branch out of life, but all unwitting supposes something of himself to live on. For when in life each man pictures to himself that it will come to pass that birds and wild beasts will mangle his body in death, he pities himself; for neither does he separate himself from the corpse, nor withdraw himself enough from the outcast body, but thinks that it is he, and, as he stands watching, taints it with his own feeling.

Hence he chafes that he was born mortal, and sees not that in real death there will be no second self, to live and mourn to himself his own loss, or to stand there and be pained that he lies mangled or burning. For if it is an evil in death to be mauled by the jaws and teeth of wild beasts, I cannot see how it is not sharp pain to be laid upon hot flames and cremated, or to be placed in honey and stifled, and to grow stiff with cold, lying on the surface on the top of an icy rock, or to be crushed and ground by a weight of earth above.

4 - We lose good things after death, but we lose the bad things too!

[894] ‘Now no more shall thy glad home welcome thee, nor thy good wife and sweet children run up to snatch the first kisses, and touch thy heart with a silent thrill of joy. No more shalt thou have power to prosper in thy ways, or to be a sure defence to thine own. Pitiful thou art,’ men say, ‘and pitifully has one malignant day taken from thee all the many prizes of life.’ Yet to this they add not: ‘nor does there abide with thee any longer any yearning for these things.’ But if they saw this clearly in mind, and followed it out in their words, they would free themselves from great anguish and fear of mind.

[904] ‘Thou, indeed, even as thou art now fallen asleep in death, shalt so be for all time to come, released from every pain and sorrow. But ’tis we who have wept with tears unquenchable for thee, as thou wert turned to ashes hard by us on the awesome place of burning, and that unending grief no day shall take from our hearts.’ But of him who speaks thus we should ask, what there is so exceeding bitter, if it comes at the last to sleep and rest, that any one should waste away in never-ending lamentation.

5 - Death is like sleep, and we don't feel pain while we are asleep.

[912] This too men often do, when they are lying at the board, and hold their cups in their hands, and shade their faces with garlands: they say from the heart, ‘Brief is this enjoyment for us puny men: soon it will be past, nor ever thereafter will it be ours to call it back.’ As though in death this were to be foremost among their ills, that thirst would burn the poor wretches and parch them with its drought, or that there would abide with them a yearning for any other thing. For never does any man long for himself and life, when mind and body alike rest in slumber. For all we care sleep may then be never-ending, nor does any yearning for ourselves then beset us. And yet at that time those first-beginnings stray not at all far through our frame away from the motions that bring sense, when a man springs up from sleep and gathers himself together. Much less then should we think that death is to us, if there can be less than what we see to be nothing; for at our dying there follows a greater turmoil and scattering abroad of matter, nor does any one wake and rise again, whom the chill breach of life has once overtaken.

6 - We complain so much about the pains of life, we should be relieved to be rid of them!

[931] Again, suppose that the nature of things should of a sudden lift up her voice, and thus in these words herself rebuke some one of us: ‘Why is death so great a thing to thee, mortal, that thou dost give way overmuch to sickly lamentation? why groan and weep at death? For if the life that is past and gone has been pleasant to thee, nor have all its blessings, as though heaped in a vessel full of holes, run through and perished unenjoyed, why dost thou not retire like a guest sated with the banquet of life, and with calm mind embrace, thou fool, a rest that knows no care? But if all thou hast reaped hath been wasted and lost, and life is a stumbling-block, why seek to add more, all to be lost again foolishly and pass away unenjoyed; why not rather make an end of life and trouble? For there is naught more, which I can devise or discover to please thee: all things are ever as they were. If thy body is not yet wasted with years, nor thy limbs worn and decayed, yet all things remain as they were, even if thou shouldst live on to overpass all generations, nay rather, if thou shouldst never die.’ What answer can we make, but that nature brings a just charge against us, and sets out in her pleading a true plaint?

7 - We are being ungrateful to focus on death and not the good things life has brought us:

[952] But if now some older man, smitten in years, should make lament, and pitifully bewail his decease more than is just, would she not rightly raise her voice and chide him in sharp tones? ‘Away with tears henceforth, thou rogue, set a bridle on thy laments. Thou hast enjoyed all the prizes of life and now dost waste away. But because thou yearnest ever for what is not with thee, and despisest the gifts at hand, uncompleted and unenjoyed thy life has slipped from thee, and, ere thou didst think it, death is standing by thy head, before thou hast the heart to depart filled and sated with good things. Yet now give up all these things so ill-fitted for thy years, and with calm mind, come, yield them to thy sons: for so thou must.’

8 - Out of Death comes New Things.

She would be right, I trow, in her plea, right in her charge and chiding. For the old ever gives place thrust out by new things, and one thing must be restored at the expense of others: nor is any one sent down to the pit and to black Tartarus. There must needs be substance that the generations to come may grow; yet all of them too will follow thee, when they have had their fill of life; yea, just as thyself, these generations have passed away before, and will pass away again. So one thing shall never cease to rise up out of another, and life is granted to none for freehold, to all on lease.

Look back again to see how the past ages of everlasting time, before we are born, have been as naught to us. These then nature holds up to us as a mirror of the time that is to come, when we are dead and gone. Is there aught that looks terrible in this, aught that seems gloomy? Is it not a calmer rest than any sleep?

[978] Yea, we may be sure, all those things, of which stories tell us in the depths of Acheron, are in our life. Neither does wretched Tantalus fear the great rock that hangs over him in the air, as the tale tells, numbed with idle terror; but rather ’tis in life that the vain fear of the gods threatens mortals; they fear the fall of the blow which chance may deal to each.

[984] Nor do birds make their way into Tityos, as he lies in Acheron, nor can they verily in all the length of time find food to grope for deep in his huge breast. However vast the mass of his outstretched limbs, though he cover not only nine acres with his sprawling limbs, but the whole circle of earth, yet he will not be able to endure everlasting pain, nor for ever to supply food from his own body. But this is our Tityos, whom as he lies smitten with love the birds mangle, yea, aching anguish devours him, or care cuts him deep through some other passion.

[995] The Sisyphus in our life too is clear to see, he who open-mouthed seeks from the people the rods and cruel axes, and evermore comes back conquered and dispirited. For to seek for a power, which is but in name, and is never truly given, and for that to endure for ever grinding toil, this is to thrust uphill with great effort a stone, which after all rolls back from the topmost peak, and headlong makes for the levels of the plain beneath.

[1003] Then to feed for ever the ungrateful nature of the mind, to fill it full with good things, yet never satisfy it, as the seasons of the year do for us, when they come round again, and bring their fruits and their diverse delights, though we are never filled full with the joys of life, this, I trow, is the story of the maidens in the flower of youth, who pile the water into the vessel full of holes, which yet can in no way be filled full.

[1011] Cerberus and the furies, moreover, and the lack of light, Tartarus, belching forth awful vapours from his jaws, . . . . . . . which are not anywhere, nor verily can be. But it is fear of punishment for misdeeds in life—fear notable as the deeds are notable—and the atonement for crime, the dungeon and the terrible hurling down from the rock, scourgings, executioners, the rack, pitch, the metal plate, torches; for although they are not with us, yet the conscious mind, fearing for its misdeeds, sets goads to itself, and sears itself with lashings, nor does it see meanwhile what end there can be to its ills, or what limit at last to punishment, yea, and it fears that these same things may grow worse after death. Here after all on earth the life of fools becomes a hell.

[1024] This too you might say to yourself from time to time: ‘Even Ancus the good closed his eyes on the light of day, he who was a thousand times thy better, thou knave. And since him many other kings and rulers of empires have fallen, who held sway over mighty nations. Even he himself, who once paved a way over the great sea, and made a path for his legions to pass across the deep, and taught them on foot to pass over the salt pools, and made naught of the roarings of ocean, prancing upon it with his horses, yet lost the light of day, and breathed out his soul from his dying body. The son of the Scipios, thunderbolt of war, terror of Carthage, gave his bones to earth, even as though he had been the meanest house-slave. Yes, and the inventors of sciences and delightful arts, yes and the comrades of the sisters of Helicon: among whom Homer, who sat alone, holding his sceptre, has fallen into the same sleep as the rest. Again, after a ripe old age warned Democritus that the mindful motions of his memory were waning, of his own will he met death and offered her up his head. Epicurus himself died, when he had run his course in the light of life, Epicurus, who surpassed the race of men in understanding and quenched the light of all, even as the sun rising in the sky quenches the stars. Wilt thou then hesitate and chafe to meet thy doom? thou, whose life is wellnigh dead while thou still livest and lookest on the light, who dost waste in sleep the greater part of thy years, and snore when wide awake, nor ever cease to see dream-visions, who hast a mind harassed with empty fear, nor canst discover often what is amiss with thee, when like a sot thou art beset, poor wretch, with countless cares on every side, and dost wander drifting on the shifting currents of thy mind.’

[1053] If only men, even as they clearly feel a weight in their mind, which wears them out with its heaviness, could learn too from what causes that comes to be, and whence so great a mass, as it were, of ill lies upon their breast, they would not pass their lives, as now for the most part we see them; knowing not each one of them what he wants, and longing ever for change of place, as though he could thus lay aside the burden. The man who is tired of staying at home, often goes out abroad from his great mansion, and of a sudden returns again, for indeed abroad he feels no better. He races to his country home, furiously driving his ponies, as though he were hurrying to bring help to a burning house; he yawns at once, when he has set foot on the threshold of the villa, or sinks into a heavy sleep and seeks forgetfulness, or even in hot haste makes for town, eager to be back. In this way each man struggles to escape himself: yet, despite his will he clings to the self, which, we may be sure, in fact he cannot shun, and hates himself, because in his sickness he knows not the cause of his malady; but if he saw it clearly, every man would leave all else, and study first to learn the nature of things, since it is his state for all eternity, and not for a single hour, that is in question, the state in which mortals must expect all their being, that is to come after their death.

[1076] Again, what evil craving for life is this which constrains, us with such force to live so restlessly in doubt and danger? Verily, a sure end of life is ordained for mortals, nor can we avoid death, but we must meet it. Moreover, we move ever, we spend our time amid the same things, nor by length of life is any new pleasure hammered out. But so long as we have not what we crave, it seems to surpass all else; afterward, when that is ours, we crave something else, and the same thirst for life besets us ever, open-mouthed. It is uncertain too what fortune time to come may carry to us, or what chance may bring us, or what issue is at hand. Nor in truth by prolonging life do we take away a jot from the time of death, nor can we subtract anything whereby we may be perchance less long dead. Therefore you may live on to close as many generations as you will: yet no whit the less that everlasting death will await you, nor will he for a less long time be no more, who has made an end of life with today’s light, than he who perished many months or years ago.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Thirty-Seven 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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.

Today we continue our discussion of Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, and we complete our discussion of "Death is Nothing to Us" and related issues. Now let's join Kalosyni reading today's text:

BAILEY:

[126] But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. 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.

And he who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but _‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’._

[127] For if he says this from conviction why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them.

We must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come.

HICKS:

[126] But in the world, at one time men shun death as the greatest of all evils, and at another time choose it as a respite from the evils in life. The wise man does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life. The thought of life is no offence to him, nor is the cessation of life regarded as an evil. And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest. And he who admonishes the young to live well and the old to make a good end speaks foolishly, not merely because of the desirableness of life, but because the same exercise at once teaches to live well and to die well. Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born, but when once one is born to pass with all speed through the gates of Hades.

[127] For if he truly believes this, why does he not depart from life? It were easy for him to do so, if once he were firmly convinced. If he speaks only in mockery, his words are foolishness, for those who hear believe him not.

We must remember that the future is neither wholly ours nor wholly not ours, so that neither must we count upon it as quite certain to come nor despair of it as quite certain not to come.

It will be interesting to get feedback from Martin as the debate proceeds in the scientific community!

This is probably a good example of a field in which lots of caution and consideration of multiple possibilities even "waiting" is appropriate.

I write from the USA, and over the years a topic that comes us repeatedly is the viability of leaving the urban lifestyle for life in the country - or even to other countries outside the USA. At some point we will do a separate "life in the country" thread, but this is to start a thread on potential destinations outside the USA where someone of an Epicurean mindset might consider emigrating.

Places in South America or even Mexico are often suggested, but I don't have a clue where to start thinking of places that do have the benefits of technology (the Internet!) but are also safe and away from many of the hazards the urban USA.

Any ideas and thoughts on particular destination possibilities or the idea in general would be appreciated!

I have no way to evaluate the credibility of this other than that the argument does not appear to be religious based and seems to be occurring within the scientific community. The article points to other sources including a book on the topic.

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the…

iai.tv

It is very tempting to try to read these ancient Stoics as being against "disturbing" (negative) emotions while at the same time embracing "happy" (positive) emotions, and I think that is what the modern stoics try to imply in general discussion. But the problem is that that's just not true - because the Stoics identified "virtue" as the goal above all else, they included the positive emotions in with the negative, and saw ALL emotions as things to be avoided. I would say what they were promoting was much in the Spock / Vulcan model we are familiar with from the TV show. Spock does not appear to be a caricature, but an accurate representation of what their Stoic goal really was. And to come to terms with that is to ultimately - for most of us - is to reject it. Stoicism = Theistic Vulcanism.

And when we do come to terms with anti-emotion as core to Stoicism and the like, I think that helps us see that the same goal is even more repelling when we dress it up, stand its originator on his head, and try to call it "Epicurean." Even the ancient Stoics in opposing Epicurus did not stoop to that kind of gross misrepresentation. At least in accusing Epicurus of pursuing pleasure to excess and immorally, the ancient Stoics still acknowledged that "pleasure" as the word is commonly understood was his goal.

Join us Wednesday night the 24th at 8:30 PM Eastern for discussion of PD22 and PD23

PD22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

PD23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are false.

Quote from Don

(I do not know how Cassius can go from not having read the article to having long, thoughtful passages in a couple hours! That's genuinely impressive!)

It's not a talent - you'll eventually do the same thing when you've read several of their articles. Their train of reasoning is remarkably similar from article to article. That's probably one of the main reasons you and I have a different reaction to the "tranquilty" word. Not that I am an expert on Stoicism by any means, but you'll see the same argument over and over and over. The stoics try to defend their ancient views by dissassociating themselves from anything implying "apathy" or even "indifference" by calling Epicurus to their defense and arguing that the two schools are essentially the same. I predict with confidence that the more of their articles you read, the more you'll see the pattern.

Quote from Matteng

2. Modern Stoicism tries to become more natural and borrows parts of Epicurean ideas.

The Modern Stoics would probably be much better off if they would just drop the "Stoic" history and name and admit that they are an "ultra-passivist" or even a "Buddhist" form of Epicureanism. And that is why the interpretation of Epicurus' views is so controversial. That's exactly what they are trying to allege - that their stoic-lite / buddhist-lite is what Epicurus taught. And in defense of my position I would call to the witness stand the ancient stoics themselves, as they would be the first to denounce the muddying of the goal of life away from "virtue" (and they would also object to the essential "passivism" that the modern stoics are promoting). The ancient stoics may have been hypocrites in what they said they were pursuing, but at least they tried to pursue their goals with energy and vigor and even "hard work."

It almost makes me a little sympathetic to some of the modern stoics. They are trapped in the contradiction that they really don't believe in "virtue" as the ultimate good, yet they cannot come to admit that "pleasure" is the ultimate good. So they are left like wandering shades in the underworld that we've been discussing lately, unable to come to terms with what they really are, because they are aghast at the word "pleasure" and they want to be so much "better" than that.

That Nietzsche "fraud of words" passage I keep quoting is really spot on.

Thanks for your comments Root304! I thought the episode turned out well but it's more important what listener's think, so good to know.

Quote from Kalosyni

perhaps your circumstances are supportive of living untroubled -- once one is settled down in life and lives in a happy and safe community/city, is secure with one's living situation (owns one's own home), feels fully confident in financial security (with enough savings to last till the end of one's life) has a safety net of good family and friends, and has no doubts about future well-being. Anyone who doesn't have any of these will have to use the very painful attempt of a "mind over matter" approach and try to repress their worries if they want to feel at peace -- perhaps this is why we have religion (and stoicism) as one way to try to deal with a troubled mind.

To me I see no conflict between striving and being at peace. In fact it is ONLY if you have striven as hard as you can to attain your goals that you can really be at peace with yourself, especially as you near the end of your life.

I see nothing in the life histories of any historically known Epicurean that they had any approach other than to work as earnestly and as hard as they could to attain the kind of lives that they wanted to live.

So I see no necessary contradiction between "striving" and "pleasure." The issue always come back to whether you are making the right choices and avoidances to produce the result that you want. "The right choices" certainly can involve "striving" and working and even voluntarily enduring stress.

I think Jefferson had it right in the letter to William Short:

Quote

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road.

His conclusion? Dispassionate living IS happiness:.

Quote

..thoughts, perhaps, about being calm and focused on what you’re trying to achieve; thoughts about your own abilities and the things you can control; thoughts about fairness, courage, intelligence, and strength. Dispassionate living is all of that; and if the ancient philosophers we’ve looked at here have it right at all, then it’s happiness as well.

This comes awfully close to a denunciation of pleasure and to what amounts to wishing one had never had to endure any pleasure at any cost - and from the Epicurean perspective of pleasure as the goal of life it is as much of a denunciation of "humanity" as any form of eastern religion.

What? Epicurus dismisses the "majority of emotions"??? This kind of misrepresentation is why I have so little tolerance for Stoicism:

Quote

In essence, both systems dismiss the majority of emotions as arising from false beliefs that can be corrected. Both also make some allowance for emotions that arise from true beliefs, though here there is a difference. Epicurus suggests preserving tranquility by “redirecting” the mind away from sources of distress. The Stoics speak of a wise person who is completely serene in the face of externals, but has a lively affective response to aspects of her own character and behavior, seeing them, correctly, as good and desirable or (potentially) bad and to be avoided. For similar reasons, modern Stoics can find a role for truth-based emotions even among the non wise.

And as usual, the Stoics try to claim Epicurus through "calmness" and this is the hazard of loose thinking about "tranquility" rather than pleasure.

Quote

The Stoic version of the dispassionate mind has a certain kinship with the Epicurean approach. We’ve seen how Epicurus taught his followers to use their powers of scientific reasoning to convince themselves that the objects that most frequently give rise to fear, desire, or are not really anything to worry about. Through disciplined application of rational thought, the Epicurean mind becomes like a calm lake with nothing out there to disturb it. In Stoicism, the language of “indifferents” – a constant refrain in both Seneca and Epictetus – is quite similar, in that it appeals to philosophical reasoning to alter the learner’s beliefs about what objects merit the emotional response

Pure Ayn Rand Objectivism / Spockian Vulcanism:

Quote

But after the fact, we can review what our complicated and messy emotions are telling us about our evaluative beliefs. We can also work on our reasoning processes themselves. That, I think, is the real task for modern Stoics: not to eliminate the emotions across the board, not to shield themselves from circumstances that tend to trigger emotions, not to retrain themselves through desensitization or visualization exercises, but to purify the emotions by making them rational.

Quote

The dispassionate life and the life of reason We hear a great deal about reason in Stoic studies – and as far as I’m concerned we can hardly hear too much. It’s a much needed corrective to what’s coming at us from the surrounding culture, where appeals to reason are scarcely to be heard anymore. For Stoics, ancient and modern, reason is the most essential of all our capacities. It’s the central fact about human nature and the only thing that can make us happy.

I would hate to be an advocate of a philosophy that constantly needs fundamental "expanding" -

Quote

Expanding the Ancient View

But this is a place where the modern Stoic might reasonably seek to modify the ancient position. In the last chapter of Stoicism and Emotion, I make the case that a view of the emotions that develops on Stoic lines should give some thought to ordinary people’s feelings about virtue and vice. Even if the original Stoics didn’t go in this direction, we today can expand our notion of dispassionate living to include non-wise versions of the sage’s eupathic responses.

More inhumanity:

Quote

Could we not recoil from vice and long for virtue, like the young Alcibiades touched by Socrates’ teachings? In the ancient texts, the answer to this question seems to be no. In the few passages I’ve been able to find where that interesting door is opened a crack, it’s immediately shut again. The Stoics reasoned, perhaps, that morally imperfect people don’t really have access to the attitudes and feelings of wisdom. Even our best ideas and efforts are still susceptible to error. The joys and sorrows of our present state must be quite different from what a perfect mind would experience.