Posts by Cassius

Quote

"Epicurus .l. does not offer a universal prescription for the great life. Freedom from anxiety is good, all other things being equal, but many would say that a willingness to do without tranquility is what has enabled them to push themselves and live fuller lives.'

That's a pretty good summary of the common dismissal of Epicurus, but I am confident we can deal with those complaints, and that should be a large part of our ongoing projects here at the forum.

We'll have to explain how a "universal prescription" doesn't mean quite what he thinks it does, but even more clearly we have to continue to work to deal with the 'tranquility is what he is pushing" and "freedom from anxiety is all that matters" issues.

Living for Pleasure by Emily A Austin – an Epicurean guide to happiness

A timely guide to the Greek philosopher – and rival to the Stoics – who saw freedom from anxiety as the ultimate goal

www.theguardian.com

I see it doesn't take the reviewer longer than four paragraphs to give the perennial "BUT" and make the common complaint about tranquility. But the fact that he gives three positive paragraphs first is good!

Quote

Epicurus’s distinctive feature is his insistence that pleasure is the source of all happiness and is the only truly good thing. Hence the modern use of “epicurean” to mean gourmand. But Epicurus was no debauched hedonist. He thought the greatest pleasure was ataraxia: a state of tranquility in which we are free from anxiety. This raises the suspicion of false advertising – freedom from anxiety may be nice, but few would say it is positively pleasurable.

The conclusion is high praise for the book, even if the writer of the article sells Epicurus short:

Quote

The clarity and concision of Austin’s prose means that she covers many more of the details of Epicurean thought in her 24 short chapters. Anyone seduced by the recent fashion for Stoicism should read her book to see why their biggest contemporary rival offers a better model for living. The Stoics tell us that the only thing that matters is virtue, we should be indifferent when loved ones die, and that the universe works providentially, so ultimately nothing in it is bad. Epicurus was realistic enough to accept that external circumstances can make life intolerable, grief is natural and real, and shit happens.He speaks to us all, but does not offer a universal prescription for the great life. Freedom from anxiety is good, all other things being equal, but many would say that a willingness to do without tranquility is what has enabled them to push themselves and live fuller lives. Austin ultimately shows that Epicurus is a pretty good guide on the journey of life, but you should let some other thinkers show you around too.

Seems to me that the Guardian has lots of readers so it is great to see this review! And generally I think the article is as positive as we have the right to expect given current attitudes.

Quote from Don

Sagan definitely doesn't pull any punches on Plato! Bravo! It lays out the "case against" Plato and his "ideas are better than the natural world" fallacy.

I am reminded of what Todd wrote yesterday about having this to validate what we talk about regularly. It's almost as if Carl Sagan had read many of the passages in Norman DeWitt making almost exactly the same point about Plato.

It's interesting that it seems kind of jarring: First we have this "obscure" teacher from Canada making these points about Plato that almost no one ever mentions in common conversation about Epicurus. A few of us end up almost alone considering this to be significant, while the rest of the world ignores it in favor of dwelling on the subtleties of "absence of pain." Then we find this "god of modern science," who is known for his astronomy more than anything associated with philosophy, coming from out of nowhere making exactly the same points made by DeWitt, and it becomes easier to see as if for the first time how much of Epicurus is a direct rejection of Platonic idealism.

And we shouldn't forget either that the Epicureans point out for us also, in the passage of Diogenes of Oinoanda about the flux, that Aristotle too is guilty of much the same fundamental error as Plato. And here comes Carl Sagan to second the indictment against Aristotle, a point that even fewer people today are willing to make!

Where there is smoke there is fire. And where we have found two significant figures making the same point, we will find others in history too making the same points, if we look long enough.

Welcome MaxImpala, and great avatar!

Quote from Little Rocker

What irritates me most about the Leonard passage, actually, is the 'yet.' (Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.) Like, what, but it might start happening soon?

I can't believe that I missed that! You are right! The "yet" GUTS the whole meaning of the passage, and in fact I would say the whole meaning of the canonics and the philosophy itself! Yes i understand that it's a deep issue as to how many times we have to see the same thing over and over without exception, and when we are justified in claiming that we "know" something, but that question is exactly what Epicurus is wrestling with, and Leonard totally pulls the rug out from under it before Book One is even getting started!

You've managed to multiply my sourness toward Leonard, but this is now a great illustration of one of how to go wrong on one of the biggest issues in the philosophy. Even Bailey - who I distrust too - doesn't go nearly so far!

Do you have a source for the pig icon in case someone wants to modify or use as is?

Does not have quite the same "militant" edge but that's great too!

Very well thought out and it looks good full size, but maybe the icon-shaped leaping pig would be more recognizable as an icon.

I think the "militant look" combined with the leaping pig has some definite flair to it

Welcome MaxImpala !

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 -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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!

I am inquiring to find out where Kalosnyi got the new fighting pig icon. I can't really tell what is presently on the hat but it is possible that modifying it to add the leaping pig might make an excellent icon - maybe one of the best on the forum!

pasted-from-clipboard.png

Elli's Facebook comment on this Episode and on Emily Austin:

Yep when I read through it I would have to agree. Useful mainly for those at a very basic level -- perhaps even as far back as high school or before. The emphasis in my title needs to be on "Basic."

Exactly what I was thinking as to Sagan, Todd. Arguments from "authority" aren't the best way to present things, but I'm willing to use any reasonable argument in the appropriate circumstances. Newer people who aren't familiar with Epicurus or pro-Epicureans will recognize the name of Carl Sagan with some respect. It seems to me that the name "Carl Sagan" has a huge amount of "street cred" that we can find very useful with those who are science-oriented. Sort of similar to using "Thomas Jefferson" with those who are more "history" or "tradition" oriented.

We need to better organize links on this forum, but for the time being here is a link to a brand new (as this is posted) basic article on atomism:

Philosophy of Atomism: Did Ancient Greek Thinkers Discover Atoms?

Atomism has been around for centuries in philosophy, long before the modern scientific definition of atoms. This article explores some of the key philosophers…

www.thecollector.com

Note too: That cameo sketch in my post 27 above - which I compare to the ring - comes from the same book of sketches of findings in Herculaneum from which we get the sketch of Epicurus' bust which I use throughout Epicureanfriends. I don't recall what page it is but the description of the location of its finding is no doubt in that book (in Italian). It seems that the sketcher created unique portrayals of what he was working from, and of course this isn't a photograph, so there's no telling what the original setting looked like and whether that circle background is the original.

I got it now too. Mr. Daff is going to wonder how this turned out to be a big day for his program

I got it now too. Mr. Daff is going to wonder how this turned out to be a big day for his program

This comment on page 18 hits home with me:

"Mr. Munro calls the stone “a black agate,” and does not mention its provenance. The engraving in his book
does no justice to the portrait. There is another gem representing Lucretius in the Vatican: of old it belonged to Leo X. The two gems are in all respects similar. A seal with this head, or one very like it, belonged to Evelyn, the friend of Mr.
Pepys."

There is another version of a cameo that resembles this but which is in much more detail and more attractive and I have long wondered if they were meant to be the same person. Maybe it's the one Joshua mentioned. Maybe it's this one from Herculaneum:

Oh this slide show is EXCELLENT Joshua! We are most certainly going to have to set that up as both a "file" and an "article" that can be found from the front page. Is that going to be OK? Maybe you give a little talk about it at our Wednesday Zoom and then polish it off after that for publication?

Also, re-reading that footnote, how are you people interpreting the "inscribed LVCR in the lettering of his own time"?

"His" meaning Lucretius, or "his" meaning Dr. Nott?