Posts by Cassius

Yep. I hope this will end up being a long thread and an ongoing process for lots of people to use in the future. That's a very good list of symbols for inclusion, and I suspect the real trick is prioritizing and selecting the issues to be included so any particular image focuses on whatever main points it is trying to convey. There's no necessity to reduce everything down into a single graphic.

As I look at your numbered list, those are good "positive" symbols with which to identify as a goal. I suppose what Plato was doing was taking a more aggressive or argumentative topic indicative of human suffering and dramatizing his proposed solution (escape to a "true world" outside the cave). We need those kind of confrontational graphics too in addition to the pleasure aspect.

Michele's friend's "breaking the chains" graphic is almost a mirrored response to the Platonic cave metaphor. It could be varied thousands of ways, among them going beyond the implicit attribution of the situation to the glowering of the gods above, to somehow conveying (as did Lucretius) that the breaking free comes from exploring the universe with strength and courage of mind with presumably some nod toward the senses.

As we talk about this I have to wonder whether the Platonic cave analogy was in Lucretius' mind when he came up with that passage in Book One.

It is good that we often get very deep in the weeds in important questions (The Canon: Three Legs of Four?; When Was Epicurus Born? What is the nature of Anticipations? etc. etc.). However given several recent podcast discussions I am remembering how important it is not to get lost in those weeds, so I am thinking this thread will be a way to keep us also focused on the big picture.

Plato is often and I think fairly identified with the "Cave" analogy, which leads to fruitful possibilities of illustrating maybe the central aspect of the anti-Epicurean philosophies: that are senses are deceptive and we are chained in a prison of shadows from which we need abstracted reason and logic (brought to us by the expert philosophers) as our only means of escape.

How can we contrast and summarize our place in the universe under the Epicurean worldview? We have a couple of illustrations on the forum already:

(Graphic commissioned by Michele Pinto - see right sidebar of the home page for details).

And Nate's Allegory of the Oasis (see bottom of the EF homepage for link to a description):

Both of these are now several years old, and I see that Nate's graphic was first added here back in 2018 or so.

I think over time it should be a continuing project to develop new versions of graphics which summarize the key role of Epicurus in the history of philosophy. We have allusions like the "hog in Epicurus' herd" from Horace, but most of all we have the opening of book one of Lucretius, which likely played a role in the graphic listed above from Michele (here in the Humphries version):

When human life, all too conspicuous,

Lay foully groveling on earth, weighed down

By grim Religion looming from the skies,

Horribly threatening mortal men, a man,

A Greek, first raised his mortal eyes

Bravely against this menace. No report

Of gods, no lightning-flash, no thunder-peal

Made this man cower, but drove him all the more

With passionate manliness of mind and will

To be the first to spring the tight-barred gates

Of Nature's hold asunder. So his force,

His vital force of mind, a conqueror

Beyond the flaming ramparts of the world

Explored the vast immensities of space

With wit and wisdom, and came back to us

Triumphant, bringing news of what can be

And what cannot, limits and boundaries,

The borderline, the bench mark, set forever.

Religion, so, is trampled underfoot,

And by his victory we reach the stars.

I am not artist myself, but it's easy to take that passage and think of many many different ways to analogize the same point - especially if we combine it with the allusions to Epicurus that start each of the other five books of the poem as well.

So the point here is that while we develop our aptitude in dealing with the details, it's even more important to develop our dexterity with the "big picture." I bet Nate has had many different thoughts about illustrations in the five years since he did his oasis graphic, and the graphic from Michele should have motivated lots of thoughts for alternative illustrations of the essence of the Epicurean approach to life - and that is why it is featured on our home page.

I may pin this post somewhere but as time goes by I hope we can expand this list of pro-Epicurean illustrations much further than we already have.

Edit: Even if you are not an artist yourself, you can still submit "word pictures" to the thread that over time will give ideas for scenarios to other people.

Just to set the stage on the "three legs of the canon vs. four" issue, the following is from the chapter of the book entitled "Epicurean Gnoseology":

The four criteria of truth include senses, concepts (προλήψεις, “preconceptions”), emotions (πάθη, “passions”) of pleasure and pain and the imaginary imposition of the mind (φανταστική ἐπιβολή τῆς διανοίας):

...

Preconceptions are concepts stored in the mind and are derived from the senses. These concepts are based on repetitive sensory experiences. They do not need verbal proof since they are evident by observation to all ("universal understanding"), constituting a criterion of correct belief. For example, it is common to all people who have seen a rose, the "clear preconception of a rose", that is, the explicit concept based on observation of this material object. Through preconceptions, the chaotic information of the sensory world begins to assemble into a coherent, structured, and stable entity leading to the emergence of language and consciousness.

...

Imaginary impositions of the mind are representations that the mind captures when it focuses its attention on something. In its singular form, the term has been interpreted as "insightful conception of the mind", "immediate perception of the mind", and "focus of the mind on an impression", but perhaps the best conceptual approach to the term is ‘focusing on a cognitive image’. According to Diogenes Laertius, Epicurus, in his book “Kanon”, describes the three criteria of truth, senses, preconceptions and passions. At the same time, the imaginary imposition of mind was added as a criterion of truth by the later Epicureans (D.L. X31). However, Epicurus, in his Principal Doctrines (XXIV), mentions: “If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to discriminate with respect to that which awaits confirmation between matter of opinion and that which is already present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any immediate perception of the mind,

[The discussion of this latter paragraph is taken further, basically in the direction of interpreting impacts of "images" on the mind as constituting a fourth leg. As far as I can tell so far the book does not attempt to take a position on why Epicurus himself did not consider this to be a full leg of the canon, or on why later Epicureans thought he was wrong in failing to do so.]

Welcome to episode 156, a special two-part Episode 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 too 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 are very pleased to bring you an interview with a special guest: Dr. Emily Austin, professor of Philosophy at Wake Forest University.

Dr. Austin is author of the book "Living for Pleasure: an Epicurean Guide to Life," which was published in November 2022 by the Oxford University Press as part of its Guides to the Good Life Series. Dr. Austin graduated summa cum laude in philosophy from Hendrix College in Arkansas, and she received her doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis in 2009. Since that time, she has been teaching philosophy at Wake Forest in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Dr. Austin applies both her academic credentials and her teaching skills to the task of showing how Epicurean philosophy differs sharply from Stoicism, and how it stands for a truly positive approach to life that isn't grounded in asceticism, but in a complete understanding of the central and uncompromising appreciation of "Pleasure" in the pursuit of happiness.

Time Stamps:

• 19:15 - How do you deal with the objection that "pleasure" cannot be the full goal of life?
  • People can't describe their view of the good life without discussing pleasure.
  • Some people seem to think that pain is good
  • Discussion of the opening of book 2 of Lucretius - looking out from safety at people who are in distress
  • Cultural problems today arising from Puritanism
• 28:00 - What is the role of one's view of "death" in Epicurean philosophy?
  • Desire for immortal life is corrosive
  • References to "Lonesome Dove"
  • References to Montaigne
• 39:45 - Some people see a tension between pursuit of pleasure as opposed to pursuit of tranquility. How do you reconcile that question and summarize the issue of how much pleasure is enough? Was Epicurus an ascetic?
  • Epicurus is not only about tranquility, and this is a misunderstanding among modern supporters of Epicurus as well as his opponents.
  • Epicurus does not oppose natural and unnecessary desires.
  • Dr Austin had to insist that the word "Pleasure" be in the title of her book.
  • It is a mistake to make Epicurus too much like other tranqulity seeking philosophies, but the first step most people need to take is to deal with anxiety so they can then pursue andprioritize desires more prudently.
  • It is a charitable impulse to say that Epicurus is not about partying all the time, but people over-correct and seem to make Epicurus to be opposed to pleasure.

Godfrey I just finished editing and posting this week's Lucretius Today podcast, and I realized that this issue of the alleged "fourth leg" of the canon comes up at the 56 minute mark of the episode. We didn't get into it in great detail, since I haven't been able to read the new book yet, but thought I would mention this here for future reference because this issue is part of what DeWitt addressed in discussing "The Canon, Reason, And Nature" in his chapter seven.

Episode 155 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue in Chapter 7 - "The Canon, Reason, And Nature." Our goal is to challenge you to think more deeply about Epicurus, and this week I think we deliver much food for thought on the canon and on "all sensations are true."

Quote from Nate

Everything radiates tiny, sensible particles. (EH 46.1-47.2)

Nate - In regard to this one, I think it would be useful if we could mention -- when the occasion arises in these discussions you are referring to -- the distinction or relationship between (1) the process of seeing or hearing or smelling due to the movement of particles, and (2) the phenomena described as "images."

It seems pretty clear when you drill down that the processing of "images" is not the same thing as "seeing" (or hearing or smelling) but it is very easy to lump all these things together and talk about them as if they are the same. For example the phenomena you are referencing in this item is not necessarily describing sight, yet many readers are likely going to presume that that is what it refers to (especially when we call them "sensible").

Another reason for my comment is that I think this probably plays into the controversy of the "present impressions of the mind." It would therefore be helpful for a number of reasons if we could work to make clear the distinction between "images" and the phenomena we include under the 5 senses (if in fact there is a difference, which I am presuming there is.)

Thank you Godfrey! Yes it would be very helpful to take note of differences of interpretation as that will help clarify things whether we agree or disagree.

The "three" vs. "four" legs of the canon is a great example of that. Diogenes Laertius himself points out that later Epicureans disagreed with Epicurus on this and added the fourth. DeWitt sides strongly with Epicurus on this, but no matter which side we choose it helps to understand why there was disagreement. In discussions from some years ago I recall reading that the current Greek Epicureans take the "four" position, but I don't recall seeing a good clear written explanation as to why they do so.

This is similar to issues pointed out by Torquatus where he himself appears to say that he is deviating from Epicurus. If we can't explain the disagreement then there is no way we can intelligently decide which we think is correct.

Quote from Kalosyni

So this is one in which we should be ready to recognize the signs of this and realize how it will affect all of us -- and make peace with it.

"And make peace with it...". Or first and preferably, to the extent possible, prepare to harden our systems to minimize as best as possible the effect of it. Or, where that is not possible, prepare a spaceship to allow as many as possible to escape the impact. Only when I am facing absolutely certain early destruction (which does happen in many cases) or circumstances such as preventing death of a friend as Epicurus describes) would I make peace with early destruction that might possibly be avoided.

Now I will return to watching my copy of "When Worlds Collide." Excellent movie.

Quote from Little Rocker

Isn't Stoicism, like, transcendentally bad?!

I admit when you put it that way it's hard to disagree!!

Quote from Little Rocker

I find those justice doctrines inscrutable, but it seems that he thinks there's some objectivity at stake and that some laws and contracts are actually better than others.

"Inscrutable" is a good word for me too, but there must be a way to decode it. He spends so much time stressing how things that were previously just become unjust when circumstances change that the whole presentation seems to be weighted more toward establishing the limitations of the abstract concept of justice rather than specific examples of justice in the real world.

And maybe that presentation choice makes sense given how much attachment we have to the idea of thinking that there is an absolute justice, and therefore the need to shake us out of our complacency. I suppose it is important too to point out that since neither gods nor ideal forms create permanent and absolute justice, even we humans, in forming our agreements with each other not to harm or be harmed, don't in so doing create anything that has permanency or absoluteness to it.

But regardless of whether "justice" is involved, i think the faculty of pleasure and pain gives us much of what we want in this department. Just like "normal" people like ice cream, "normal" people find the things most people consider to be benevolent to be pleasing, and most people find things that we ordinarily consider to be malevolent to be painful. And our liking for ice cream and dislike for things that taste nasty is to a significant degree hard wired into us.

The phrasing I like to quote on that issue comes from a 1779 book I found some years ago from Jackson Barwis written against John Locke's version of blank slate theory:

Quote from Jackson Barwis - Dialogues on Innate Principles

When we are told that benevolence is pleasing; that malevolence is painful; we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions: but by an appeal to the innate internal affections of our souls: and if on such an appeal, we could not feel within the sentiment of benevolence, and the peculiar pleasure attending it; and that of malevolence and its concomitant pain, not all the reasoning in the world could ever make us sensible of them, or enable us to understand their nature.

Quote from Little Rocker

I guess I'm just saying that I'm willing to consider going a lot further into traditional hedonism than a lot of people might find comfortable.

I agree with Don's comments agreeing with your direction here, and I think your direction is compelled by the philosophy even though it is the place a lot of division occurs and a lot of people eventually drop away. In fact I would say that people who never reach this point of understanding about Epicurus have never really understood the atomist foundations of Epicurean philosophy. They are still stuck in some variation of idealism of which they can't let go.

It's tricky to describe and yet not sound like a "monster," but it seems to me that Epicurus was saying that the universe simply doesn't care about our moralities. We're given pleasure and pain to do with what we will, and while most people are constituted similarly and do generally tend toward the same conclusions about how best to implement those choices, no matter how strongly we feel that "our way" is the best, the moral evaluation can never be more than "our perspective." That's not to say that we shouldn't consider our perspective critically important. I think Epicurus was allowing that we should engage with the world even in politics to the extent it is necessary and leads to a more pleasant life under our own circumstances. I too think that each of us should work as hard as we can to bring the kind of world we would like to live in to reality, at least in our own personal context. But given the atomist nature of the universe, we always have to remember that our perspective remains our own, and now matter how much emotional investment we place in it, that emotional investment never transmutes into the blessing of supernatural gods, ideal forms, or any other kind of unchanging absolute standard of morality.

That chills some people and drives them away, but "it is what it is" if you follow Epicurean philosophy to its logical conclusions. Fudging on this point is what I think leads to disillusionment and disappointment, and I think we are better off biting the bullet and following the philosophy to its logical end point.

Quote from Philosophical Management of Stress based on Science and Epicurean Pragmatism: A Pilot Study

The philosophical approach to stress management comes hand in hand with feasibility, effectiveness, and applicability: it can be offered to everyone, regardless one’s age and educational level. We decided that the key philosophical perspective of this program had to be Epicurean pragmatism (epistemologically) and humanism (morally). Pragmatism is the philosophical outlook that focuses on objective reality, and considers important what may be practically useful. As a consequentialist tradition, pragmatism assumes that stressful thoughts stem from real-life problems, to which practical solutions should be proposed. Any theory or aim should be judged according to criteria such as applicability, practicality and utility. The major figures in this tradition are William James and John Dewey.4 Humanism, in turn, holds that humanity, that is, being human, constitutes the ultimate value, and assumes that the ultimate end of any law-abiding civilized society is to defend basic human rights such as life, freedom, and happiness (eudaimonia). The declared objective of humanism is to defend the dignity and personality of every human, and facilitate the development of our capabilities in such way, as to live harmoniously in any given society, emphasizing that the actual meaning of life consists in the pursuit of happiness. The elaborated moral status of this notion, happiness, can be traced back to the Ancient Greek philosophical tradition, while it has also maintained its dominant status during the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Modernity.

This paragraph in particular I think highlights the issue. Although I beat the drum for Epicurean epistemology myself, I definitely do not look outside Epicureanism for ethics or morality. My view would be that to affirmatively state the morality aspect of the study is Humanism rather than Epicureanism takes the approach completely outside of Epicurean philosophy into a "virtue" based orientation. All of the goals being listed of course impress us generally virtuous / desirable, but the only bedrock foundation is pleasure, and context will determine in any particular situation where those generally-desirable objectives fit in the larger and ultimate goal of "pleasure."

Quote from Don

In the end, as I said, I can appreciate his work over the years, but I'm not entirely comfortable with some of his emphasis and his framing

Yes I agree. I think a significant part of the question comes from the attempt to combine Epicurus with "Humanism" and other viewpoints, with the inevitable tensions that that creates.

We all have a very understandable desire to take a "big tent" approach, but we need to be honest with our readers and ourselves as to how far to go in that regard, or else we end up in disappointment and disillusionment. "Humanism" is an even more ambiguous term than "Epicureanism," but I think it is fair to say that whatever we consider "Humanism" to mean, it means something other than a pleasure-based ethics. And in fact the articles we are talking about are pretty specific in defining their ethical goals in terms of Humanism rather than Epicureanism, as if Epicureanism is just a tool to convince people to be Humanists.

A lot of the phrasing I think we are seeing seems to be geared towards "flourishing" and "wellbeing" and similar terms that evoke more of an Aristotelian and even Platonic approach than I think most of us here would conclude us truly compatible with Epicurus. Anytime we start de-emphasizing the term "pleasure" with other wording we are in dangerous territory.

Bad news Nate, it looks like they did NOT do their own version. This is from the page introducing them:

I want to repeat what I hope is obvious but which should not be left to implication: I have tremendous respect for all the work that Christos has put in over the years in promoting Epicurean philosophy, and so any "criticism" here of any formulations should be seen in that context. Heck every time I formulate things myself I do it differently, always hoping to improve but sometimes backsliding. It sounds petty sometimes to state a disagreement when the full context is that there is so much to be praised, but that's exactly the kind of constructive approach I think helps us all. And that's why I agree with Godfrey's comment but also have the greatest respect for Christos and holding both those positions is not a contradiction. A lot of the benefit we can get out of this forum is friendly and constructive criticism that leads to improvement.

They have been telling me that they planned to so I hope this is it!

I note from the main article in the first post that the word "pleasure appears several times, but most frequently in general terms not referencing Epicurus, until here:

Quote

We underline that according to Epicurus: [...] prudence can maintain psychosomatic balance (eustatheia) by consciously choosing what brings happiness, namely by wise satisfaction of natural and necessary desires (which concern our instincts), by understanding the nature of our emotions as criteria of truth, and by wise selection of those pleasures that are useful and not harmful.92

I added the underlining.

Given our recent discussions, I wonder if Epicurus would agree that use of terms like "useful" and "harmful" as superior to "pleasurable" and "painful" is the most preferable way to discuss the pleasure / pain calculation of choices and avoidances. I tend to think not, but it will be interesting to see what others think about this formulation.

Thanks LR for posting those links. I have an initial observation about those articles that I find very interesting.

Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) the article "Philosophical Management of Stress Based on Science and Epicurean Pragmatism" does not contain even a single instance of the word "pleasure." No need to comment further at the moment on why that might be, but one indication of a sound Epicurean approach to me has always been to be sure that "pleasure" is not obscured or replaced with other priorities.

The other article "Epicurean Stability" does mention "pleasure" fairly regularly, so that's more reassuring. However on first glance it looks like that article is going to give us a lot of opportunity to discuss how to keep sharp the distinctions between core Epicurean viewpoints as opposed to "eudaimonia" "well-being" and "flourishing" and similar concepts often problematic when used too loosely. Could be that we'll need to consult some of Diogenes of Oinoand's "shouting" about keeping "pleasure" in its proper place before this is over.

Lots more to read before I can comment much more.

Philosophical Management of Stress: An Introduction|Conatus - Journal of Philosophy

Full text link

Christos YapijakisNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

ORCID

Abstract

All human needs are compromised by everyday stressful conditions, which may be objectively devastating or subjectively augmented due to idiosyncratic way of thinking. Unmanaged acute stress can affect emotions, thinking and behavior and chronic stress can result in several severe health problems. Philosophy may provide a frame of thinking that may help in managing everyday stress. There are personal dimensions in the philosophical management of stress based on examples of Aristotle’s eudaimonia consisted of morality and pleasure, Plato’s transcendence aiming to join with the supreme good, Pyrrho’s serenity through suspension of judgement and the Stoics’ rational attachment to virtue. Furthermore, there are social dimensions of philosophical management of stress, since there is abundant scientific evidence that stress affects moral decision-making and therefore an ethical theory of life may not be sufficient in stressful conditions. In this context, such social aspects include the relationship of eudaimonia with community life, the artistic practice and the virtual eroticism in the contemporary world of digital media as a stress relief from physical confrontation with other persons in real life, the empathy and care as a crucial quality for stress relief and social change, as well as the Epicurean approach of stress management that may have both personal and social utility. Intervention programs of stress management combining many lifestyle techniques have been shown to enhance resilience and decrease stress for a period of time, based on systematic behavioral change. Two successful novel empirical pilot studies of pure philosophical management of stress based on cognitive psychotherapy and modification of mentality have been presented, both of them realized in the COVID-19 pandemic period: a three-month positive psychology intervention combined with Epicurean and Stoic concepts was provided to adolescent students and a month-long philosophical management of stress program based on Science and Epicurean Philosophy was offered to public sector professionals.

I just found out today about the new book released by Christos Yapijakis and several other contributors from the Garden of Athens in Greece. Here is a link to the Amazon page with table of contents and preview. I haven't had a chance to purchase much less start to read, but I hope if people here are interested and go through it they will comment in the thread below. Also below is the Table of Contents: