Posts by Cassius

So we'll keep a list and make it into a sort of challenge,

So far the list is:

1. Godfrey,
2. Kalosyni,
3. Cassius,
4. Joshua

This week's podcast will be posted later tonight, and as usual in the editing process I find it appropriate to make a remark or two.

In this case, my remark is that this episode marks the return of Joshua after a two week absence, and as I complete the editing I keep thinking to myself that this is one (of many) strong episodes by Joshua.

Finding the Gellar-Goad article on the size of the sun was a great contribution, and Joshua explains the issues in this episode very well.

I would be tempted to remark that the strong performance comes from Joshua being rested, but actually I am more than certain that the real credit goes to the fact that he spent his absence communing with the great status of Athena inside the only full-scale replica of the Parthenon in existence.

I can now count at least three of us who have been there on separate occasions (Kalosyni, me, and now Joshua). Maybe when we look to the future for a place for a live gathering, we shouldn't overlook the benefits of an environment that (in replica) would have been very familiar to Epicurus himself!

(That reminds me - How many others here have seen the Parthenon in Nashville? It's well worth seeing!)

Intriguing suggestions!

This thread was updated today with the latest backup contact information for the forum. (See previous post.)

Thank you Kalosyni. This topic came up Wednesday night when we were discussing that there doesn't seem to be a lot of detailed information on our usual core pages about the political situation in Athens during the specific years that Epicurus was alive.

Knowing what was going on specifically during his life, rather than loosely and generally as we tend to talk about it, would probably be helpful.

At some point we need some enterprising person to pick up the challenge and write an article about what we know specifically about the years during which Epicurus was "flourishing" (to borrow the standard Aristotelian term). Kalosyni's links give us a start!

Great post Nate. What is your conclusion - the seventh of Gamelion I presume?

I kind of see this as symptomatic of a lot of the commentary on Epicurus - it seems generally sloppy and people regularly say things that are not supportable in the texts.

Maybe to be generous, when there are so relatively few people interested in him many it is easier to make mistakes since there are so few eyeballs watching what is published.

And the divergences you cite are largely pre-internet age. As per the comments yesterday about the Wikipedia entries, in the age of the Internet it's both easier to correct AND easier for perpetuate errors.

This is a problem with no easy solution.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Thirty 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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.

Today we continue Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles and we look at more phenomena of the sun and moon. Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

BAILEY:

[94] The wanings of the moon and its subsequent waxings might be due to the revolution of its own body, or equally well to successive conformations of the atmosphere, or again to the interposition of other bodies; they may be accounted for in all the ways in which phenomena on earth invite us to such explanations of these phases; provided only one does not become enamoured of the method of the single cause and groundlessly put the others out of court, without having considered what it is possible for a man to observe and what is not, and desiring therefore to observe what is impossible. Next the moon may have her light from herself or from the sun.

[95] For on earth too we see many things shining with their own, and many with reflected light. Nor is any celestial phenomenon against these explanations, if one always remembers the method of manifold causes and investigates hypotheses and explanations consistent with them, and does not look to inconsistent notions and emphasize them without cause and so fall back in different ways on different occasions on the method of the single cause. The impression of a face in the moon may be due to the variation of its parts or to interposition or to any one of many causes which might be observed, all in harmony with phenomena.

[96] For in the case of all celestial phenomena this process of investigation must never be abandoned - for if one is in opposition to clear-seen facts, he can never have his part in true peace of mind.

The eclipse of sun and moon may take place both owing to their extinction, as we see this effect is produced on earth, or again by the interposition of some other bodies, either the earth or some unseen body or something else of this sort. And in this way we must consider together the causes that suit with one another and realize that it is not impossible that some should coincide at the same time.

[97] Next the regularity of the periods of the heavenly bodies must be understood in the same way as such regularity is seen in some of the events that happen on earth. And do not let the divine nature be introduced at any point into these considerations, but let it be preserved free from burdensome duties and in entire blessedness. For if this principle is not observed, the whole discussion of causes in celestial phenomena is in vain, as it has already been for certain persons who have not clung to the method of possible explanations, but have fallen back on the useless course of thinking that things could only happen in one way, and of rejecting all other ways in harmony with what is possible, being driven thus to what is inconceivable and being unable to compare earthly phenomena, which we must accept as indications.

[98] The successive changes in the length of nights and days may be due to the fact that the sun’s movements above the earth become fast and then slow again because he passes across regions of unequal length or because he traverses some regions more quickly or more slowly, (or again to the quicker or slower gathering of the fires that make the sun), as we observe occurs with some things on earth, with which we must be in harmony in speaking of celestial phenomena. But those who assume one cause fight against the evidence of phenomena and fail to ask whether it is possible for men to make such observations.

HICKS:

[94] The waning of the moon and again her waxing might be due to the rotation of the moon's body, and equally well to configurations which the air assumes; further, it may be due to the interposition of certain bodies. In short, it may happen in any of the ways in which the facts within our experience suggest such an appearance to be explicable. But one must not be so much in love with the explanation by a single way as wrongly to reject all the others from ignorance of what can, and what cannot, be within human knowledge, and consequent longing to discover the indiscoverable. Further, the moon may possibly shine by her own light, just as possibly she may derive her light from the sun;

[95] For in our own experience we see many things which shine by their own light and many also which shine by borrowed light. And none of the celestial phenomena stand in the way, if only we always keep in mind the method of plural explanation and the several consistent assumptions and causes, instead of dwelling on what is inconsistent and giving it a false importance so as always to fall back in one way or another upon the single explanation. The appearance of the face in the moon may equally well arise from interchange of parts, or from interposition of something, or in any other of the ways which might be seen to accord with the facts.

[96] For in all the celestial phenomena such a line of research is not to be abandoned; for, if you fight against clear evidence, you never can enjoy genuine peace of mind.

An eclipse of the sun or moon may be due to the extinction of their light, just as within our own experience this is observed to happen; and again by interposition of something else – whether it be the earth or some other invisible body like it. And thus we must take in conjunction the explanations which agree with one another, and remember that the concurrence of more than one at the same time may not impossibly happen. He says the same in Book XII. of his "De Natura," and further that the sun is eclipsed when the moon throws her shadow over him, and the moon is eclipsed by the shadow of the earth; or again, eclipse may be due to the moon's withdrawal, and this is cited by Diogenes the Epicurean in the first book of his "Epilecta."

[97] "And further, let the regularity of their orbits be explained in the same way as certain ordinary incidents within our own experience; the divine nature must not on any account be adduced to explain this, but must be kept free from the task and in perfect bliss. Unless this be done, the whole study of celestial phenomena will be in vain, as indeed it has proved to be with some who did not lay hold of a possible method, but fell into the folly of supposing that these events happen in one single way only and of rejecting all the others which are possible, suffering themselves to be carried into the realm of the unintelligible, and being unable to take a comprehensive view of the facts which must be taken as clues to the rest.

[98] The variations in the length of nights and days may be due to the swiftness and again to the slowness of the sun's motion in the sky, owing to the variations in the length of spaces traversed and to his accomplishing some distances more swiftly or more slowly, as happens sometimes within our own experience; and with these facts our explanation of celestial phenomena must agree; whereas those who adopt only one explanation are in conflict with the facts and are utterly mistaken as to the way in which man can attain knowledge.

Happy Birthday Nate! Hope you are well, and thank you for all you do!

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

Quote from Kalosyni

it looks like the Wikipedia article is saying that the goal of life is living a quiet and simple life and not doing anything fun.

Yes that is exactly my concern, with the caveat too that "fun" means a lot of different things to different people.

What I mean even more clearly is that the "Academic World," which is firmly Stoic/Platonic/Aristotelian, has a strongly vested interest in conveying to everyone that : "Epicurus held the goal of life is living a quiet and simple life and not doing anything to displease the Stoics / Platonists / Aristotelians."

None of these guys have cared to lift a finger to support or reinvigorate the Epicurean school for 2000 years, but they are all to happy to give YOU a hundred reasons why YOU should sit quietly and should not do so yourself!

"Just stay home and live a quiet simple life and forget about Cassius Longinus and the whole flock of Epicurean Romans from poets to leaders of society to generals who refused to go quietly and be told what to do.."

That's the clear message I get from the way these guys are focusing on "tranquility" and acting as if "pleasure" wasn't in Epicurus' vocabulary.

That's what I would tell my cows and my pigs if I were a farmer as I lead them to the slaughterhouse too!

To Don's point:

Right, and of course -- there are definite distinctions between pleasures. The real issue and controversy is over the place and hierarchy of the two categories, as conveyed in" "Absence of pain, aponia, and lack of disturbance of mind, ataraxia, are two of the katastematic pleasures and often seen as the focal ones to Epicurus." To the extent that that sentence says that (1) aponia and ataraxia are katastematic pleasures, and (2) they are "focal ones" to Epicurus (implying of central importance) I would context both of those statements are highly open to debate and the controversy should have at least been noted in the article.

And the really irritating aspect of the controversy is that the implication of those who are primarily arguing for katastematic pleasure as being superior is that they also argue that katastematic pleasure is not something that is "sensed" in the normal way. As pointed out by Wenham, to any normal interpretation of the sensory basis of Epicurean philosophy, something that is not experienced is worth nothing.

And all of this argument is based on the most slender of threads in Diogenes Laertius as amplified by Cicero hundreds of years later, while not a word about it is breathed in Lucretius or virtually any other source.

Two more comments:

1 - I am always quick to remember the William Short quote about guarding against lethargy because of all people I am the most guilty of it!

2 - Those Wikipedia articles on Epicurus and Epicureanism are full of the same assertions, without any reference to any disagreement among those who read him. And they all lead back and lay the groundwork for the conclusions in the main article, that the "greatest good" is not pleasure, but ataraxia / aponia / "peace of mind." That the key to working with desires is to LIMIT them and live "the simple life" (which is not *always* the case), that all Epicureans should withdraw from politics (with which the Roman Epicureans begged to differ)

I try to always be clear on that. Someone who values that aspect of Epicureanism will benefit from Epicurean philosophy and find justification for their choices. But in doing so, such people are way out of line in suggesting that that is the ONLY way to practice Epicureanism, and that their reinterpretation of the key wording, displacing "Pleasure" from the ultimate standard of action, is again way over the line in what the texts allow them to do.

It's not the "kinetic" valuers who try to writer the "katastematics" out of Epicurean philosophy, it's the "Katastematics" who use every opportunity to claim Epicurus for themselves as if they needed more than the Stoics and the Platonists and the entire rest of Greek philosophy to justify their choices.

When all the while Diogenes Laertius was very clear that Epicurus held both to be valuable, and he never clearly labeled one as subordinate or instrumental to the other.

"Epicurus differs from the Cyrenaics about pleasure. For they do not admit static pleasure, but only that which consists in motion. But Epicurus admits BOTH kinds BOTH in the soul and in the body, as he says in the work on Choice and Avoidance and in the book on The Ends of Life and in the first book On Lives and in the letter to his friends in Mytilene"

Kalosyni"s caution to the extrovert in her post above reminds me of the flip side: Thomas Jefferson's caution to an "introvert" (of a kind) in his letter to William Short:

"I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up; take a seat with Correa, and come and see the finest portion of your country, which, if you have not forgotten, you still do not know, because it is no longer the same as when you knew it."

Without taking the time to look back at the editing history of that entry, I would say that is a good example of how Wikipedia must be taken with a grain of salt. There really is no one who is an "authority" on this issue, so anyone who stands up to present a definition ought to be clear to state that there are experts on several sides of this question. I doubt seriously whether Gosling and Taylor of Nikolsky or any number of others would endorse that passage in whole.

Flatly stating something as if it accepted, without noting controversies, is a good way to pile misinformation on top of misinformation. That's pretty much the core thrust of the Epicurean sayings about waiting and not selecting only one position when the evidence is not clear.

And almost every phrase of that summary is open to serious question, and as It is I would say that entry does a lot more harm than good.

Just to be clear of course I do not mean to criticize anyone citing that article, because it's important for us to know that it is there, and we can't expect everyone to trace back every issue to it's core..

But the cultural effect of a resource like Wikipedia appearing to be an arbiter of truth in an instance like this is really an interesting and not a positive thing.

I guess the ultimate Epicurean perspective is to always remember that there IS no "arbiter of truth" and we are always just doing the best we can to develop opinions consistent with the evidence in front of us.

I like that!

Remember our Wednesday Night gathering starts in 3.5 hours from when I am writing this - it's at 8:30 PM eastern time. If you can join us please do, and if you have any issues finding the link, please post here or ask in a private message!

Just posted at Facebook:

There's also the human-made version of the solar flare: EMP weapons: https://www.livescience.com/air-force-emp-…protection.html

I bet Matt would be in a better position than most of us to know whether EMP weapons are fictional or real and how much "worry" to exert about those.

As for pondering the uncertainty of the future, I would say once we identify that:

"... with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame"

... then we act appropriately to mitigate those possibilities that are reasonable to mitigate.

As far as the rest goes, and pondering beyond that, we just take the realistic attitude that "we must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come."

And we take some degree of confidence that: "In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain."

My two cents is that I agree with the idea that Epicurus found pleasure in life itself and that helps explain his full attitude towards the availability of pleasure all the time.

Yes that's the issue that i stumbled over when I first read the "109."

On that "hard cases make bad law" maxim, this is a good summary:

Hard cases make bad law - Wikipedia

Now that I am more well versed in Epicurus I think discussion of the maxim is probably good more for illustrating the limits of "law," and for illustrating why the Epicurean Doctrines on justice contemplate constant changes in circumstsnces.

In fact I now question even such sayings as the overall desirability of "government by law and not by men." Most of us certainly prefer to know the rules and to see them apply uniformly most of the time, but unless their is a mechanism for suspending them when circumstances "justify" suspension then "the law" can become just as intolerable as any sole dictator.

The contention that a single law could or should be the same for all people at all times and all places is very Ciceronian / Stoic / Platonic but probably not at all Epicurean.

Generalities can be useful, yes, but can also be fatal when we don't recognize their limits and that "hard cases" do exist.

So I am more now in the camp of saying that any legal system has to be able to incorporate hard cases in order to be just. Something like "Considering hard cases makes for good law."