Posts by Cassius

Happy Birthday to EricR! Learn more about EricR and say happy birthday on EricR's timeline: EricR

Quote from Charles

To be fair, Che Guevara does have a loose resemblance to Jesus.

And depending on the images of Jesus that you're used to, so does the bust of Epicurus itself!

Thank you Nate. I posted a couple of comments about those "Chepicurus" icons here:

Onenski I looked for a specific thread on the cultishness question and could not find one.

Maybe this on is closest: DeWitt's "Organization And Procedure In Epicurean Groups"

I see I did a graphic long ago:

It would be fine if you would like to start another one directly on point. It would probably be worthwhile to do so because this is another area where the criticism is easy to make and is superficially persuasive, but which I think there are many good answers in response.

Does one generally see one's father as being "authoritarian" when he gives "orders" to a child? At what age or mental capacity do we see orders to a child being improper? Is it proper to tell a dying person that they are dying when maybe there is a possibility that they will recover if they fight hard enough? There are lots of related questions as to when things are proper and when they are not, and it's as easy I think for a partisan against Epicurus to attack him as it is for a partisan for Epicurus to defend him. Probably the only way to proceed is to line up the possibilities openly and let each person decide for himself, and they will probably make their decision based on their general impression of Epicurus rather than on any one single factor.

Probably Don has better commentary on empty. I know we've discussed "vain and empty" before but I can't recall where we ended up. Those words just seem to me to be too ambiguous to be useful.

Quote from Don

Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

Yes it seems to me every time we do one of these analyses, that needs to be included, to emphasize that it is a subjective decision on what is or is not worth it to us.

Is that perhaps an echo of some of those O Henry stories (the gift?). Maybe I now interpret that differently than I used to

I think this is also where the word "empty" gets used, right? And I find that word also not up to the task of being clear.

Those look like good formulations to me (since you're really quoting the doctrines). So now the question for this graphic and context shifts to whether "groundless" is appropriate.

It would be good for you to read Bernard Frischer's book and look at his examples of the artwork and his theories about how they were used.

Your reaction to "hero worship" is very common, but ultimately I think that the concern is unjustified. Epicurean philosophy teaches you to question authority and demand answers based on evidence, and it doesn't lead in the direction of general cultism for anyone who thinks about it.

The issue of how to deal with younger and less "educated" people may be difficult, but the ultimate point is as in

VS32. The veneration of the wise man is a great blessing to those who venerate him.

Once you strip way the word choice issues (is "veneration" really the best English word?) you come back to an obvious point - that people learn by watching more experienced and wiser people and paying respect to them benefits the observer as much or more than the observed.

Quote from Cassius

Early Continental philosophy was largely oriented toward the works of Kant whose ethics and metaphysics heavily contract with atomism and hedonism.

Nate, should I presume that that should have been "contradict" rather than "oontract with" and make that correction in the post above?

[Admin Edit - This Facebook Exchange is far beyond me but Nate's answer looks so worthwhile that I thought we ought to preserve it.

Al Drea -

What do modern Epicureans think about the way ideas from ancient atomism (eg. Epicurus, Lucretius) are used in recent Continental philosophy? I mean writers like Althusser, Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, etc.

Nate -

Some of their ideas are on point, but most others are dissimilar. For one thing, there is much less of a focus (to the point of rejection) on physics in Continental philosophy. Early Continental philosophy was largely oriented toward the works of Kant whose ethics and metaphysics heavily contrasted with atomism and hedonism. Still, there are similarities. For example, I think Epicurus would have appreciated Derrida's analysis of the relationship between signifiers and that which they signify as well as his critique of "logocentrism". Deconstruction is an effective tool that Epicurus might have used in criticizing popular culture, but the objects of Derrida's focus were not of primary interest to Epicurus. Baudrillard's focus on nihilism is antithetical in tone to Epicureanism, though, his critique of popular culture would have been well received by Epicurus. I don't think that he would have agreed with Sartre's characterization of human life as being Sisyphean or Camus' framing of human existence as alienating and dissociative, though, both philosophers' emphasis on finding answers internally through responsibility and care reflects Epicurus' project. Deleuze's Kantian interest and focus on metaphysics generally floats at the other end of the philosophical pool; Althusser spends a lot of time juggling the Marxist dialectic, and "material" or not, the dialectic connotes Plato to Epicureans; still, the importance each places on the value of the individual in orienting a political narrative strikes me as being Epicurean in tone. Nietzsche is a key point of interest in that he shows no restraint in expressing unconditional admiration for Epicurus, though he later goes on to criticize him in later works. In general, I think we will find more overlap with Epicurean ideas in the modern Analytic tradition than the Continental.

Holly has been of great help to us at Facebook for years. Some day we've got to get her over here. She's a librarian. Seems like we have one of those already, but we could use another!

posted on Facebook along with a link to Don's article:

Virtually every aspect of the discussion in both part 1 and part 2 is good food for thought. Dr. Austin does a good job with it but as she says, this is new territory for all of us, to think about how best to express and defend the positions. Experience doing it will make us all better both in understanding and in communication.

I have been listening to this episode several times to try to think about how to expand on some of the details.

I think our serendipitous references "going to Rome" proved to be a good way of visualizing the question of how much pleasure to pursue in life. Dr Austin herself was reflecting on the word "enrich" as a way to look at it.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the usefulness of this analogy and the direction the discussion took.

How many times should we desire to visit Rome?

Lots of good thought there Todd. As to this one:

Quote from Todd

Weight loss requires a caloric deficit (aside from surgery). All the rest is just about ways of making a caloric deficit easier to sustain.

Many of the low-carb people (like Gary Taubes) seem to me to argue that weight gain or loss is driven significantly by "type" of food consumed - their argument is that the primary problem is that carbs drive insulin and insulin drives fat storage, and that even the amount of food consumed is often driven by hormonal issues caused by the type of food consumed.

One way of summarizing their argument seems to be that the type of food ingested ends up affecting "hormonal" balances (insulin being hormonal) and that pure calories in / calories out does not describe the big picture -- given for example that babies do not grow up purely due to calories in / calories out but due to hormonal or genetic directives that control where and how much fat is deposited in the body.

I know things are much more complicated than that, but what is your viewpoint as to that line of argument, and that it is almost as important "what you eat" as it is "how much you eat?"

Welcome to Episode 158 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 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 continue our discussion of Chapter Seven - The Canon, Reason, and Nature

The Dethronement of Reason

Ridicule

Nature as the Norm

Priority of Nature over Reason

Welcome to episode 157, part two of 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.

In the first episode of this series we introduced you to Dr Emily Austin, professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University, and author of the book "Living for Pleasure: an Epicurean Guide to Life."

In part one Dr. Austin told us about how she became interested in Epicurus and decided to write her book. We began our discussion of the basic fundamentals of Epicurean philosophy, how Epicurus differs from the Stoics, and several questions that are frequently asked about how to pursue the desire for pleasure. In this part two we will continue that discussion, and dive further into how to apply Epicurean philosophy to modern life. Now lets return to the discussion.

Time Stamps:

1:36 - The difference in the Epicurean vs Stoic perspective on virtue.

5:30 - The Epicurean world view derives from the Epicurean physics, and further distinguishing Epicurus from other schools.

28:00 - How important is an interest in Epicruean science to appreciation of Epicurean philosophy?

38:50 - A theory as to how Lucretius may have intended to end his poem.

Welcome jdarraugh !

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!

Two Facebook comments to the podcast:

I don't know about the "surprisingly," but given that the second commenter is a philosophy professor himself, that's high praise!