Posts by Cassius

As to the Metrodorus comment I would go further and even question the accuracy of the quote.

As usual with such fragments, we don't have the full context, and to say "sex never profits" we have to ask what is the original wording and what is really meant by "profit."

So far as we know the Epicureans were not in the habit of talking capitalist theory, but they were in the habit of finding pleasures to be pleasing. That sex is generally pleasing goes without saying, and we aren't in the habit of condemning pleasures unless more pain than pleasure results. It would not be accurate or consistent with Epicurus to say that "sex always produces more pain than pleasure" so far as I can tell from the overall surviving texts.

So I would not take this quotation as sufficient cause to question that sex was being carved out as an exception and was intended to be labeled as a pleasure that always produces excessive pain. It's much more likely that there is missing context, or translation issues, or even intentional slanting of the way the text has been transmitted.

I didn't really finish my thought did I?

So when she says Epicurus thinks sexual pleasure and committed romantic relationships are natural, but unnecessary, desires (or so I argue). In the terms of this book, they are extravagant desires, and all extravagant desires can adorn the tranquil life if you do them right.

...that's a departure and an improvement from the standard academic implication that Epicurus was an ascetic and advised against sexual pleasure and romantic relationships completely.

But she still leaves open and in fact embraces the conclusion that they "can adorn the tranquil life if you do them right" which is less than a full-on endorsement of considering the possibility that for some/many people they may be not only natural but "necessary for happiness."

That's where the terminology is an improvement from the standard awful academic implications, but still leaves further to demolish the ascetic implications of the academic perspective entirely, which aren't justified in what we have from Epicurus himself in Menoeceus.

"can adorn the tranquil life" needs to proceed further to open the door to "depending on the person, necessary for happiness."

Yes her analysis is far better than we generally get. Might she have gone even further? Echoing Kalosyni's concerns about extravagance, I recall this from Menoeceus:

"We must consider that of desires some are natural, others vain, and of the natural some are necessary and others merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life."

Focusing on that language, does "extravagance" advance the ball as far it is should go? When you look at the variations of "necessary" from "necessary for very life" vs "necessary for happiness" that is a huge degree of separation.

Sure romantic love might not be "necessary for life" but for a lot of people it might well be "necessary for happiness."

So if "extravagant" is elevated to a title in itself, where does romantic love fall? If it is necessary for happiness for a lot of people then it's not "extravagant."

So to repeat her analysis is a lot better than we generally see, but there's room for making these issues more clear. We can't blame Epicurus himself for this ambiguity -- he makes it clear in Menoeceus that "necessary" itself has a context, and he doesn't (in a letter of general advice) start giving us a long detailed list of where things should fit.

Just as Austin says that Epicurus didn't write something as condensed as the tetraphmarkon, but that his follows wanted it, I think we have to be very careful with natural and necessary talk not to condense Epicurus too far and thereby muck things up.

Good to hear Dons comments so far.

Quickly: I've tended to use the Kennedy and McCain names more because they are easy for me to remember rather than because she dwells on them. The general point is to me as Charles is stating it - it's important to keep saying that many assessments in life are personal,

and different people will evaluate their pleasure and pain reactions differently. The more complicated the issue the more opinions will vary.

In a better world we would have 50 or 100 books like this which give their own personal takes and wording on how they apply Epicurus. As it is, we have this one and maybe a small handful of others, with this probably the most successful by a good distance. For that reason I am happy to dwell on the positive aspects and mainly use any "negative" comments to hopefully contribute to what she or others may write later. We've needed something like this for a long time time and I am very happy it exists. What she has done will allow us to do better in the future and keep improving the quality of our presentations.

Quote from Kalosyni

the label of "extravagant desires" doesn't seem quite right to me.

That's an interesting reaction - I wonder if you would have had it if you had read straight through. I am tempted to say you might not have.

I am still absorbing and thinking about the book, and considering that we who are pretty well-read in the subject might get a different impression from people who are probably her target subject and less well read. It's as if there is a multiple layer discussion going on here. When she says "in the terms of this book" I am thinking that those of us who have talked a lot about the necessary and natural categories will immediately think of the different ways we have seen this issue expressed, and we haven't generally seen "extravagant" used - although that sort of reminds me of the "fancy pleasure" term that Elayne used in her past article her on the forum.

I still see issues with clarity in the whole subject. Is necessary being referred to as necessary for life (water, air, etc) or "necessary for happiness" which seems to be a very broad and ambiguous approach in the first place ("what does happiness mean?")

I could imagine the possibility of her commenting about this subject in a similar manner to what she said about the tetrapharmakon - that it's a useful memory device but easily confusing without significant context and grounding in the details.

Quote from Pacatus

I really started to think of Epicureanism as a “faith”

I think once you start thinking about "i've never seen an atom but I am 100% confident that atoms or something like them exist" and then start parsing out whether the words "believe" or even "faith" are interchangeable with being 100% confident in something you have never seen for yourself, it becomes possible to see these words as less threatening, and then move the focus of concern to other aspects where it probably deserves to be. Seems to me the issue is more in the claim of divine revelation of claiming to know things without evidence or similar expressions, and it is better to dive into those details than to get too obsessed about particular words.

I say that even though I agree that phrases like "people of faith" are huge red flags and cause for very legit concern and distancing.

Quote from Pacatus

“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

i think that's dead on right.

Quote from Charles

I think she left out an important aspect, namely justice and moral relativity and how specific Epicurus' advice can be applied to his own time period versus their application to today's world.

Yes I agree that she is definitely light on that aspect, and that probably also explains her willingness to be very free with her commentary on contemporary issues that are at least partly or even wholly political (as I have mentioned in regard to the John F. Kennedy and John McCain issues). I am reading into this that because she didn't highlight and bring out the "moral relativity" (or maybe calling it context-dependency would be accurate too) she is too free in implying that her own view of such issues is necessarily what every Epicurean would conclude. So yes I think that you're commenting on something I agree with.

Personally I have a pretty low expectation for this kind of thing, since I see it done so frequently. Seems like half the articles that get written about Epicurus are more psychology or political opinion that just brings in Epicurus as a justification for decisions the writer has already reached. That's the way I see the modern Stoics - they are really just CBT/pyschotherapists but they want to wrap their conclusions around some ancient writers for prestige purposes.

But I think in this case we're mostly coming up here with observations that might help serve as a preliminary comment to someone setting out to read it. Once you understand the point it's pretty easy to dismiss personal judgments as personal without undermining the credibility of the rest.

At this point in my thinking my attitude is still that we're going to come up with some preliminary comments that would be good for new readers to bear in mind as they read the book, but that the issue is not as serious as it often occurs, and its something that makes for a good discussion while reading the book.

Charles I agree with the points you are making but - maybe I am distracted as I read this - do you think Austin disagrees with you?

Maybe you are saying that she should have talked further about these issues and you're not so much saying you disagree with what she wrote as that you think she did not deal with this aspect?

I am gathering that is your point but I am not sure whether you are saying that she gives the wrong impression on what she does say, or just that she left out an important aspect?

"As to Joshua's Hitchens video, that reminds me that there is also a George Carlin video that takes on a similar project that despite its much spicier language is probably significantly more consistent even than Hitchens' video with a mature Epicurean approach."

This comment reminds me that I wanted to say that some of us have observed some concern at a mention of Epicurus likened to a "court jester" of the ancient world. Those words convey implications that I don't think are accurate or flattering.

But as for George Carlin --- I would not be quite so concerned if someone decided to smile and draw some comparisons between Epicurus and George Carlin. I am no expert on Carlin but he's always struck me as someone who is an expert at using humor in a deadly serious way.

Does this seem like a ping pong game? It's a terrible idea to try to "translate" the ten commandments but at the same time it's a great exercise!

I do think both perspectives are true and this highlights how central "context" is to the Epicurean worldview. You've picked a particular context and within that context we can work toward something that's helpful, but at the same time we have to realize that out of its context it could actually be harmful.

I really do think this is why the PDs read as they do. They are sort of "principles" that don't necessarily lead TO a particular direction for a particular life, but they lead AWAY from major pitfalls that are pitfalls for everyone.

I didn't finish listening to the Hitchens talk but I think from past observation that he is subject to a major danger that people have to take an approach that is something like "I too believe that there are absolute rules for being a good person - but those guys got the rules wrong and I can give you the correct list."

The Epicurus approach is more like "You've got to understand that there is NO single list of rules that apply to everyone at all times and all places to tell them affirmatively what to do in every circumstance. But I can tell you how the universe works (the physics) and how to use your head (the canonics) and then I can also tell you the major pitfalls that everyone confronts and how to avoid them. Then after that you're as equipped as anyone can be to use your life in your context to pursue the general goal that everything else points to."

(1) As to Joshua's Hitchens video, that reminds me that there is also a George Carlin video that takes on a similar project that despite its much spicier language is probably significantly more consistent even than Hitchens' video with a mature Epicurean approach

(2) Don's post and several of the other comments (and listening to Hitchens in the background) reminds me as I wake up today too reminds me that I definitely don't think that Epicurus would accept the ten commandments as a positive or even a neutral social construct. The entire thing is built on accepting a supernatural order of things (and all sorts of other negative presumptions) is which probably the number one source of evil in the world. So in discussing them with even a child I would think it would be very basic to plant the Epicurean seeds that would eventually show how damaging this construct has been in history. Of course what you've suggested in the beginning is a replacement set, so obviously you're looking for something positive as a replacement for a negative thing, but I would think that one of the most basic aspects of any childhood education approach would be not only to set them on the right path but warn them about the hazards they will encounter, so that plays into the project as well.

If we were looking for ten "good ideas" then it would be pretty easy to go through the PDs and generalize them into 10 sections. And certainly there are at least ten ways to generalize many of the comments Epicurus made on aspects of life.

But it looks like you are going through the biblical list and looking for rough equivalents and that raises the conceptual issues of the major differences of approach to life.

I suppose one issue to cross is whether it makes sense to talk about "commandments" vs "advice" or "good ideas."

I could see someone arguing that ultimately there is only the natural test of pleasure and pain, but even then we do are not always to follow the one or the other without reference to ultimate results. So it's hard to translate many of the doctrines into specific dos and donts without always hedging that context is in the end going to control at least in most cases.

So perhaps there is a framing issue that requires preliminary explanation.

Again at this point just thinking out loud.

Hey that is very creative! I have only just begun to think about further comments but i do think this is very creative and even if it proves impossible to find a set that pleases everyone the exercise should be very worthwhile!

Quote from Martin

We need olive trees!

and FIG trees!

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Nine 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'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll 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."

This week we discuss a number of fundamental points about the cultural and academic context in which the philosophy of Epicurus arose:

• The Cultural Content
  • Born in 341 BC, seven years after death of Plato and seven years before Alexander crossed Hellespont to conquer Persia.
  • Platonism was dominant in higher education.
  • When Epicurus arrived in Athens the Cynics were in revolt against conventional philosophy.
  • Epicurus owes debt to the later Aristotle in that Epicurus focused on organic life instead of inorganic, leading to setting Nature as furnishing the norm rather than hypostatized Reason as taught by Plato.
  • Chief negative influences of the time were Platonism and oratory, both of which were focused on the political.
  • Epicurus declared war on the whole system of Platonic education. More than half of Principle Doctrines are direct contradictions of Platonism.
  • It is a major mistake to consider Stoicism to be the primary antagonist of Epicureans - this ignores that Stoicism was developed after Epicurean philosophy: the main enemy of Epicurus was Platonism.
    
• Epicurus A Man of Erudition
  • Some detractors of Epicurus claim he was an ignoramus and enemy of all culture. This is absurd.
  • Epicurus was precocious as a child and challenged his teachers on the origin of the universe.
  • Epicurus no doubt received Platonic schooling in geometry, dialectic, and rhetoric.
  • Epicurus shows great familiarity with Platonic texts and more than half of his doctrines are rejections of Platonic positions.
  • Epicurus declared dialectic a superfluity but criticized Plato with acumen and wrote against the Megarians, the contemporary experts in logic.
  • Epicurus rejected geometry as relevant to ethics but adopted the procedures of Euclid in his own textbooks. Epicurus refuted mathematicians’ claims that matter is infinitely divisible.
  • Epicurus was clearly familiar with Aristotle and adopted many of his findings.

will substitute Don's Link - thanks!

Thanks that link will be removed!

Hmm I wonder if we won't eventually find a better translation than this one. And "not" just as they pleased, or "did just as they pleased...." And given the tone and circumstances I wonder if "lawless extravagance" captures the meaning...

⁵³Nor was this the only form of lawless extravagance which owed its origin to the plague. Men now coolly ventured on what they had formerly done in a corner, and not just as they pleased, seeing the rapid transitions produced by persons in prosperity suddenly dying and those who before had nothing succeeding to their property. So they resolved to spend quickly and enjoy themselves, regarding their lives and riches as alike things of a day. Perseverance in what men called honour was popular with none, it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honourable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offences, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little.