Posts by Cassius

I am very pleased to see that she cautions against superficial use of the Tetrapharmakon and explains the need to get behind it to its root! I can't imagine that this book isn't going to zoom toward the top ranks of my "recommended for new readers" list. (My underline below)

Quote

Epicurus himself did not condense his practical philosophy into something so brief and chantable as “despair is a vice,” but his followers wished he had, so they did it for him. Drawing upon, among other things, a passage from the Letter to Menoeceus and a smattering of Principal Doctrines, they produced “The Fourfold Remedy” (the “tetraphamakos”).¹ From Philodemus:

God presents no fears, death no worries; the good is easy to get, the bad easy to endure.

Imagine that I had opened the book by telling you that Epicurus espoused these four claims, rather than putting them here, at the end. I assume that every reasonable person would likely dismiss one or more claim out of hand. The Classicist Fiona Hill, for example, writes that “the third remedy may provoke a cynical snort in any reader struggling to make ends meet, unless they have no dependents and are temperamentally ascetic.”² And in some sense she’s clearly right. Taken in isolation, the Fourfold Remedy serves at best as a promissory note for difficult arguments, an IOU for a hefty sum unlikely to be met.

By this point, though, I hope you feel like you have the tools to piece together Epicurus’ reasons for supporting all four claims. Not that Epicurus thinks you need such arguments ready at hand as you traverse the rocky path of daily living or that you must feel prepared to triumph in an argumentative battle of skill, but it helps to have confidence that such arguments exist. Let’s briefly recap, then, the general outlines of the Epicurean commitments that undergird the Fourfold Remedy, somewhat like the greater part of the iceberg that lies below the surface of the water.

Absolutely phenomenal:

Quote

The Fourfold Remedy is the core of a much larger nexus of Epicureanism’s philosophical commitments, the kind of complex nexus that undergirds any philosophy worth considering. We should never let anyone convince us of an overnight magic elixir, that a coin in our pocket with a catchphrase will make life manageable, that a quick fix will engender a fundamental life reorganization. Something like the Fourfold Remedy can only serve as a handy reminder of a deeper system of value and way of living that we fully inhabit and express.

True, you can remember distillations like the Fourfold Remedy in a way that you could never remember this chapter. It would prove fruitless, though, to chant it over and over in isolation of its argumentative context, and perhaps that is why the distillation does not come from Epicurus himself. Distillations are for people who already know the “why,” and Epicurus was in the business of providing the “why.” At this point, you know the “why,” at least in broad outline and within the context of modern life. You have the tools to evaluate the project writ large as a system of value and decide for yourself.

Yet a philosophy is to be lived, not simply evaluated in the cold light of reason, or squabbled over among scholars in a stuffy hotel conference room. Epicurus does not think it is enough to merely chant the words, nor even to understand the arguments he uses to support his claims. We must also internalize and act on them.

I will move this thread into the "recent books" section and re-title it with the Book title. I now have a copy and while I am just skipping around I can already say that I think this is by far the best recent book I have seen on Epicurus.

I don't know how quickly I can read and absorb the full book but hopping around I am *very* encouraged with what I see:

Quote

As for living like an Epicurean, I have a few suggestions, some drawn directly from Epicurean texts, others extrapolated from ancient texts for modern purposes.

This one might sound a bit obvious, of course, but the first thing to do is to read Epicurus. Though his writing is terse, what remains of his work is not voluminous. Trying to read Epicurus, at least most Epicurus, is not like trying to read Kant or Hegel. The Hellenistic Philosophers, especially the Roman ones, wrote to be read. Epicurus intended the Letter to Menoeceus, Principal Doctrines, and Vatican Sayings to be clear and easy to consult. If Epicurus’ prose disappoints, then choose Lucretius, who tries as best he can to faithfully reflect Epicurus’ views, but with charm, meter, and a wit finely attuned to human foibles. Lucretius claimed that his poetry was like putting honey on the cup of a glass of medicinal wormwood to make swallowing it easier. Think of Epicurus as a whiskey neat, and Lucretius as a tasty cocktail. People tend to prefer one over the other, but they both serve their purpose.

Some critics of Epicurus thought he encouraged Epicureans to unreflectively memorize and recite his writings without concern for comprehension. Among the many uncharitable objections to Epicureanism, I consider that accusation the most unfair. Reading, even memorizing, Epicurus is insufficient. You need to take the philosophy apart and see how it works, develop a fuller understanding, reflect on how it applies to living, especially in the context of your own life. Thankfully, you can plow through Epicurus multiple times without losing a single month of your life—try that with Kant!

Less obvious is the Epicurean advice to write some Epicurus of your own. In his On Gratitude, Philodemus recommends that we write our own texts.²

Remember that Epicureans think we all have individual natural dispositions and that our life histories and circumstances make us who we are. Some of us struggle more with pride, others with self-effacement. Some with greed, some with parsimonious asceticism. Some with a desire for honor, some with a disdainful indifference to the approval of good people. Some of us express gratitude for people who harm us, while others of us are prone to ingratitude for those who help.

Nate have you checked out the book?

Looks like there is a preview sample available here: https://nook.barnesandnoble.com/products/97801…n=9780197558348

And the listing at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Living-Pleasur…uct_top?ie=UTF8

Here's the page for her book at Oxford University Press: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/living-for-pleasure-9780197558324?cc=us&lang=en&#

EDIT: The following article popped up in a google search for me, and so I initially posted this thread about "Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicurean?" However that article quickly led to the new book "Living for Pleasure" by the same author (Emily Austin) so this thread is now covering both the article and the book.

Great Article! http://hnn.us/article/184389

Quote

Modern Stoicism has saturated the philosophical market—seminars, apps, podcasts, retreats, bestseller lists, psychotherapy. As a specialist in ancient Greek philosophy, I admit that I’m pleased to see so many people take an interest in what I study for a living. Stoicism has a lot going for it, and many of my students are powerfully drawn to its core commitments. All that is to say, I can see the allure.

My aim here, though, is to convince readers, especially those committed to evolutionary science and modern physics, to learn more about Epicureanism, Stoicism’s oldest and greatest rival. Cards on the table—I prefer Epicureanism, and I have recently published a book on Epicureanism as a way of life. That said, I think even devoted, forever members of the Stoic caucus have good reason to study Epicureanism, if only because taking your rivals seriously is a sign of intellectual virtue, an indication that you have not grown complacent. As a more controversial point, I suspect that many Modern Stoics are already Epicureans, at least by the standards of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Let me explain.

Let's work to give this one some exposure!

Welcome ram !

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 further and join one or more of our conversations.

This 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!

Welcome ccarruth42

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 further and join one or more of our conversations.

This 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!

Episode 148 - The fourth of our Introductory series of podcasts on Epicurean Philosophy, is now available. This week we complete our discussion of "True Opinions And False Opinions about Epicurus."

Martin I think you are properly calling attention to the fact that the deductive process starts with observations, so I guess the better way to say it is that he uses both.

Quote from Kalosyni

I suppose my version in post 52 is very different than Martin's formlation (too different).

It's a good start and working through revisions and alternatives is always helpful

Kalosymi can you pithily condense to match Martin's formulation?

Wikipedia article on the correlation / causation issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati…imply_causation

Lots of subtleties because you wouldn't want to suggest that correlation is somehow itself misleading ... The issue seems to be that the error is in giving it more weight than it deserves rather than saying that it should be given no weight at all as an indicator and making sure that all other circumstances are given appropriate weight.

Charles do not let me hijack this thread but I have another comment which I also think is relevant, and it relates to the cliche that "absence of evidence of a thing is not evidence of the absence of that thing." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Quote

Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are similar but distinct concepts. This distinction is captured in the aphorism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Often attributed to Martin Rees or Carl Sagan, versions of this antimetabole appeared as early as the 19th century.^[1] In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance.^[2] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe.^[3] This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.^[4]

When you combine that with Epicurus' observation that: "But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?" as explained by Sedley, you have I think the key to observing that these earlier materialists were regressing from Epicurus rather than progressing. And why did they do so, given that Lucretius was plainly in front of them?

I would say that they regressed due to their failure to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus had identified in "waiting" and also in rigorously making sure that *all* evidence that bears on a subject is included in the opinion. Following Sedley's lead, they should have realized that we can in our own observation plainly observe - and therefore we can confidently conclude -- that some free will exists. "Will I pick up the salt or the pepper first?" Nothing by our own minds decides which we will do. Given then that free will exists to any degree, there must be a mechanism at the atomic level which allows for non-mechanical operations of at least some atoms at some times. I suspect Sedley is correct and this is the true origin of the swerve theory.

Personally I would say the same thing applies to the size of the universe and also to its eternality. Today, no matter how many times astronomers look in their telescopes (or the equivalent) and say that "all matter is expanding outward" they always have to keep in mind that this observation applies only to the limits of their observations. At to the size of the universe the logical arguments that Epicurus raised that what we observe is not compatible with limited void but unlimited matter, or with unlimited matter and limited void, but only with unlimited matter AND unlimited void, still carry weight -- and for me personally I believe them to be decisive. The same thing goes that nothing comes from nothing and therefore there was never a beginning point for the universe as a whole. Everyone's personal mileage on these issues may vary, but this seems to be the was Epicurus was reasoning and it surely seems persuasive to me.

But while "your mileage may vary" on any individual question, it ought to be accepted by everyone IMHO that observations must always be evaluated within the limits of what they are able to perceive. Epicurus wasn't strictly an empiricist and he didn't (like Frances Wright seems to have done) swear off having confidence in theories where he found the confidence warranted. To do so - to say that no conclusions are ever possible unless you have observed something personally yourself - would be (as a friend observed to me once) an extreme form of skepticism in itself.

I would expect that as we read back through the last several hundred years of materialism that that is what we are going to find -- that these scholars, whether under the influence of the church or otherwise - failed to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus and Lucretius interwove into their physics.

Quote from Martin

hard determinism appeared to be the most fitting to a materialist world view

It's very interesting that Epicurus did not think so. That article by Sedley which talks about the swerve being more the product of Epicurus' logical reasoning on epistemology (I think it was) rather than in physics may be the best explanation, and also a guidepost for us in understanding better how he thought and the correctness of his view. I will find and link that here.

I am pretty sure it is this one, now to see if I can point to the right section. Here's the article, Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" and here's a link to a thread discussing it: Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism"

I was thinking I would find something more pithy but this interesting page has basically the assertion I remember:

And this is the interesting comment in Lucretius of which I would never have seen the significance without Sedley's article:

Quote from Lucretius Book 2

For all things that fall through the water and thin air, these things must needs quicken their fall in proportion to their weights, just because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot check each thing equally, but give place more quickly when overcome by heavier bodies. But, on the other hand, the empty void cannot on any side, at any time, support anything, but rather, as its own nature desires, it continues to give place; wherefore all things must needs be borne on through the calm void, moving at equal rate with unequal weights. The heavier will not then ever be able to fall on the lighter from above, nor of themselves bring about the blows, which make diverse the movements, by which nature carries things on. Wherefore, again and again, it must needs be that the first-bodies swerve a little; yet not more than the very least, lest we seem to be imagining a sideways movement, and the truth refute it. For this we see plain and evident, that bodies, as far as in them lies, cannot travel sideways, since they fall headlong from above, as far as you can descry. But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?

Happy Birthday to C. Florius Lupus! Learn more about C. Florius Lupus and say happy birthday on C. Florius Lupus's timeline: C. Florius Lupus

Just read the post. Excellent work Charles and I look forward to reading more. The whole subject of why these thinkers adopted so much of Epicurus' viewpoint on atomism but rejected his view of the swerve is highly interesting and a topic worthy of its own discussion. It they were willing to risk the wrath of the church on atomism, why not go all the way and embrace the swerve too?

I have some speculation on that, relating to epistemology and Epicurus' views on the primacy of the senses rather than "logic" (which they may have found even hotter to handle than the supernatural gods issue) but it's only speculation. I hope you will find good references that will help make the answer more clear.

Will do so now ... been feeling poorly today and somehow i didn't see this new post so glad you asked!

Started 11/10/22:

Having made these points clear, we must now consider things imperceptible to the senses. First of all, that nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds. Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus * * * These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made. Lucretius Book One (Brown)