Posts by Cassius

As to that article Don cited last, sounds like our back and forth on Democritus is not entirely different than the different interpretations of Democritus advanced by Sextus Empiricus vs that of Galen.

Quote

"Galen is, then, an objective relativist, who holds, contrary to Sextus’s view that it is false to call an apple red, that the apple really is red, only not intrinsically, but in relation to perceivers."

Sounds like the way to interpret Democritus in a pro-Epicurus way is through Galen, while Sextus seems to be happier with the "slippery slope to nihilism" side. (If Sextus is in fact saying that it is "wrong" to call an apple red.)

If one says that it is false to call an apple red, then (leaving aside issues of language and definitions) that is a statement that many people of common sense would interpret as a direct challenge to the reliability of the senses on which Epicurean philosophy is built. Epicurus could not allow such an opinion to go unchallenged.

Also:

Quote

Democritus may then be taken (following Sextus) as maintaining that things are not in fact flavored or colored, but are merely (falsely) called so (because that is how they seem to be), or (following Galen)as maintaining that things are flavored, colored, etc., not intrinsically, but insofar as that is how they seem to us and, consequently, how we (conventionally) describe them. It may be that Democritus did not in fact distinguish these two theses, which are not in any case sharply distinguished from one another, since it is frequently disputed how far something’s being generally regarded as F, or called F, is constitutive of its actually being F.

Excellent finds by Don and Godfrey above - this is where we can do so much more working together than alone.

And of course by now we are close to delinquent in not relating this to the "properties" and "qualities" that are discussed pretty extensively in both the letter to Herodotus and in Lucretius book one (I think), along with the "Trojan War" analogy. I think we are missing a key piece of the Epicurean worldview by not discussing this issue of properties and qualities more frequently. Its through that insight that we explain what is real to us and what, and how we divide the permanent from the temporary. Without this distinction the universe is pretty much indecipherable and it is as if the flux is indeed too fast for us to grasp anything.

This whole issue of explaining to people how to think about what is permanent and unchanging (atoms and void) versus what we should think about what we perceive with our senses (the qualities, which are not random, but which arise from the properties of the atoms and void then and there present in our contextual circumstances) is clearly a subject of first importance. If we don't understand why things in our experience change over time, but that they do not change "randomly" or "chaotically" or "supernaturally" but according to nature, then we can never have confidence in of our conclusions about anything. We will flip flop between (1) a variation of hard determinism with implications that lead to a sort of Calvinism that everything was set in motion without exception from the beginning of time, and (2) a radical skeptical / nihilistic view that nothing can be projected with any confidence whatsoever, and then we are like flotsam and jetsam tossed about helplessly in the waves.

It's only through a coherent perspective from which we can unwind the changing from the seemingly permanent that we can make headway in explaining the universe without resorting to the supernatural or throwing up our hands in total frustration.

In a way I see this much as Sedley has talked about Epicurus' basis for the swerve. Epicurus didn't need an electron microscope to validate the swerve in particular or atomism in general. Atomism is where we arrive when we observe the facts around us and when we deduce from them a mechanism which allows us to rationally explain what we see in a way that is consistent with all the evidence we see and not contradicted by anything. The swerve is where we arrive when we observe the indeterminate actions of intelligent life, and think about the way elements must interact in space. And we have no grounds to criticize and say "Epicurus was just guessing because he didn't have an electron microscope" because what Epicurus was doing was not guesswork, but logical inquiry based strictly on justifiable rules of evidence - the same way we deduce no life after death. We don't think it's a legitimate argument in every case to require someone to go there (death, walk through a fire) and come back to tell us about it, and neither should we require that we "see" elemental particles directly before having confidence that they exist.

We never see the gods (or anything else) create something from nothing, but we see continuity and regularity in the physical world around us, so we can reason from those observations that there must be some elemental point of origin that is unchanging and eternal. It matters not whether that elemental origin is the "atom" or some "subatomic particle" or "energy" or what. What matters is that what we see, and what we do not see, impel us toward the conclusion thst there is a natural elemental foundation, without good reason (based on evidence from the senses) for doubt.

HA!

1 - Thanks Joshua for the cite.

2 - Yes it is sort of a dilemma isn't it? I would think that also relates to the issue of speaking publicly in crowds, etc, and the general issue of speaking clearly. If you know the people you are talking to will not understand or accept your message, do you even talk to them? That's the reason (well, one of them) I don't invite myself onto the local nursing home circuit to tell all the 90 year olds that they have been wrong all their lives in religion and that their last breath will in fact be their last.

But really the important point in this discussion I think is that I do think Epicurus meant that he would speak fully and completely, even though it might not be understood, and that he would in fact strive to make himself as clear as possible. The issue here is not that these clips are incorrect in and of themselves - they are not. But they are not the "whole truth" that is relevant to the issue, and if we know that by speaking only part of the truth that the statement we make will be misconstrued, then I would think that we would strive to be as clear as possible and tell the whole truth that is less likely to be misinterpreted. But of course the caveat I have been trying to include is that at least in the case of Epicurus I feel like he did in fact speak the whole truth, and that the rest of it has been lost to us (for reasons that Cicero and other opponents would be to blame for). In the case of Democritus I presume it is more likely that Epicurus had the full texts of Democritus, so if the Epicureans felt like he needed to be criticized on that point, there might be more reason to defer to their judgment, since they probably knew more about what Democritus said than we know about what Epicurus said.

This thread has me thinking back to what I think is very close to one of the (or the) ultimate points.

Epicurus seems to think that there is probably no greater plague on humanity than "otherworldiness." PD1 denounces the idea of a supernatural otherworldiness. PD2 denounces the idea of a heaven or hell otherwordiness. In emphasizing pleasure and pain, PDs 3 and 4 establishes the foundation for seeing that neither virtue nor platonic ideals nor anything other than the pleasure and pain of this world are of concern to us.

From that perspective, everything that focuses the mind on the importance of this life in this world is beneficial to us. Everything that distracts into thinking that this world is an illusion, or that minimizes the importance to us of this world, is detrimental.

It is certainly true from every atomistic perspective that only atoms and void have eternal unchanging existence. But we as humans are not eternal and unchanging beings. What matters to *us* is the world we have as we perceive it around us.

If a perspective about atomism assists us in a full understanding of our place in the universe and the way our world works, and allows us to tune our actions to live more happily, then it beneficial to our well-being and important for us to understand and remember.

If a perspective about atomism leaves out the fact that we are mortal and changing beings, and implies that our existence is somehow of lesser rank or less important than the atoms themselves, then that perspective is destructive to our well-being, and I would expect Epicurus to denounce that incomplete perspective just as he denounces supernatural religion or false claims of life after death.

I meant to add this earlier:

1) Joshua do you have a cite for the precise way you quoted " By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."

I like that version as making a very clear point, but maybe that is someone's interpretation?

2) Also I know one of the first comments here was Don's "I'm not sure I completely disagree with Democritus." We then proceeded to discuss the details of what we think is correct. But we shouldn't skip over the question: "What point do we think Diogenes of Oinoanda was arguing?" Was Diogenes accusing Democritus of tending toward skepticism, and linking it to the disagreement with Aristotle as to the flux being too fast to perceive any details, and therefore being the slope to skepticism? Or does anyone see another possible point? If so, what?

I think one of the best ways to keep ourselves on track in studying Epicurus is for us to be sure we can articulate the point that was being made in the text before we decide if we agree or disagree with it. This is one of those texts that's probably not entirely clear on its face, and we need to be sure we all think it means the same thing.

Quote from waterholic

Both Lucretius and Democritus agree on the fact that only atoms and void truly exist and the spirit too consists of atoms

Given what I write below I would be very hesitant to state the proposition that way - (that they both took the same position that only atoms and void truly exist). I would say that Democritus took that position but Epicurus did not, as he was working from a differnent perspective of what it means to "exist."

Quote from waterholic

A final note, Lucretius too refers to certain images or perceptions that appear not to "exist".

See I see both of those comments as relating to the extremely important issue of what we should take "exist" to mean.

If you are talking about dreams, someone correct me if I am wrong but I recall Epicurus/Lucretius as specifically saying that they do "exist" in that the have real impact upon us. But again that hinges on the meaning given to "exist."

So given the statement in Diogenes of Oinoanda my view would be that Epicurus took the very strong position that we should consider the world around us actually does "exist" even though it is ultimately made up of atoms and void, which alone have eternal and unchanging properties.

I know I may sound like I am being nitpicky but I don't think this point is minor, and thus its inclusion on the inscription. The entire "Canon of Truth" seems to be devoted to allowing us to define that which we perceive as "true" and there is only a thin shade of meaning (IMHO) between "true" and "real." If we can validate it with the canon of truth, my interpretation would be that Epicurus would say that it "exists" or at the very least that it is "true" which in this context I would take to be almost exactly the same thing (and maybe exactly the same thing).

Glad to have you with us, and the topics you raise are frequent issues of discussion. Can't point to any real life communities at the moment but maybe and hopefully the regular communication of like-minded people over the internet will be a start.

This is the quote from chapter seven of "A Few Days In Athens" I keep forgetting:

Quote from A Few Days In Athens Chapter Seven

“Zeno, in his present speech, has rested much of the truth of his system on its expediency; I, therefore, shall do the same by mine. The door to my gardens is ever open, and my books are in the hands of the public; to enter, therefore, here, into the detail or the expounding of the principles of my philosophy, were equally out of place and out of season. ‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’ This is the thrust which Zeno now makes at Epicurus; and did it hit, I grant it were a mortal one. From the flavour, we pronounce of the fruit; from the beauty and the fragrance, of the flower; and in a system of morals, or of philosophy, or of whatever else, what tends to produce good we pronounce to be good, what to produce evil, we pronounce to be evil.

So for example, if someone walks into a psychiatric hospital (which I am not sure the modern world is very far from being) and announces to everyone simply and with no further explanation:

"By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."

Or:

"By pleasure we mean freedom from pain in the body and trouble in the mind."

That person would be IMHO creating much more havoc and disruption than leading to any benefit to the people hearing him. And in this case there would also not be any excuse in saying that he was simply speaking the truth even at the cost of being misunderstood. These statements standing alone without explanation "leave an open gate to vice" and "admit of evil construction" because they can be taken to mean the opposite of what we think Epicurus (and probably Democritus, if he was truly happy) meant to convey.

There's a reason that witnesses in court are asked to swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. People who don't have the full context of a statement will naturally take it out of context and in this case they would do so with disastrous result.

So to repeat I am not blaming Epicurus or Democritus for any errors of any kind. These statements in full context convey important points. And neither they nor any other philosopher can control what later generations choose to repeat from they things that they say and write.

All we can do ourselves is try to be sure that the things we say "do not admit of evil construction" or "leave an open gate to vice." Truncating the message too far can do exactly that, and that's what we are seeing in so many casual internet articles. And it's particularly important to avoid speaking obscurely when we are aware that there are legions of Stoics and Buddhists and other lingering in the outer rooms looking eagerly for ways to turn statements on their head, and to use to undermine the goal of pleasurable living rather than support it.

I can agree with that for those of us who are confident of our understanding of the universe and the general desirability of life and the pursuit of pleasaurable living, but I think there is only a knife blade distance between that attitude and one of general despair, which is probably planted in the first place by religion and the false views of life promoted even by platonic-style humanism which promotes there being an absolute "good.". A lot of people are so "corrupted" by culture and education that they are easy prey to the destructive interpretations.

So I am agreeing with your point, and hoping that it too applies to Democritus as a laughing philospher, but even laughter itself can be caustic and despairing in some circumstances.

Wow this is very similar to the possibility of misinterpreting "absence of pain" as also a door to nihilism.

I doubt that blame for this lies with either Democritus or Epicurus. It lies with the fact that this is not a party game and there are lots of people who will take ones words and distort and misrepresent them for their own purposes.

Like that part of the speech in AFDIA talks about...the danger of leaving an open door to vice... There is no way to keep the message accurate over time without real living people who understand it continuing to promote it over time and protect it from misrepresentaton.

Quote from Don

everything else is merely thought to exist.

Lots of definitional issues that play into all this and have to be clarified in order to avoid the many slippery slopes. Maybe one of the threshold ones is to get a grip on "exist." We tend to think that that which does not exist is of no relevance to us, and is purely imaginary even.

But what matters to us, according to Epicurus, is what we perceive through the senses (and also through the feelings and anticipations (?)).

So if we define "exist" to mean "has a permanent and unchanging nature" then truly nothing "exists" except atoms and void.

But if we define "exist" to mean things we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell (and maybe what we can perceive through anticipations and the feelings of plain and pleasure) then the world around us absolutely qualifies as "existing" even though it is made up of atoms and void.

So we have this "scientific" vs "common understanding" issue again. It's perfectly proper to define the word "existing" in either way - subatomic scientists can use it one way, and therapists and real-world philosophers can use it another way. But woe to those who mix the meanings, and lead ordinary people to think that they don't really "exist' just because they themselves and human beings don't have a permanent and unchanging nature!

Was Democritus speaking purely scientifically, or was he wandering into "ethics" and suggesting that people shouldn't think in our world that anything really exists excepts atoms and void? Was the slipping down to the slope to Stoicism and thinking that we could through willpower make all our troubles go away by telling ourselves that our bodies and ourselves "aren't real?"

I tend to doubt Democritus himself was doing that, but I strongly suspect that others were making that argument, and Epicurus saw a need to take a stand and affirm to everyone that our lives demand that the things our senses reveal to us do in fact really exist-- and that they are indeed all we have.

So when it is said that "everything else is merely THOUGHT to exist" or "exists by convention" (which implies "consensus?) I can see Epicurus having a huge problem with that perspective as already over the ledge and halfway down the cliff toward radical skepticism and "nihilism."

But right or wrong as to these initial interpretations, all of this shows the huge importance of epistemology and a science of knowledge such as discussed by Epicurus (Herodotus) and Lucretius (mostly book 4).

I was thinking that we might be able to look to Epictetus, but I see he POSTdates Cicero:

Epictetus (/ˌɛpɪkˈtiːtəs/;^[3] Greek: Ἐπίκτητος, Epíktētos; c. 50 – c. 135 AD) was a Greek Stoic philosopher.

Our recent discussion focused on unwinding the Wikipedia "bitter gift" issue ( RE: New Article on the Inscription ) has me thinking about something else:

I recently recommended to Onenski the article by AA Long the article "chance and natural law in Epicureanism. One of the arguments in that article is to observe in connection with the swerve that neither Cicero nor other ancient authorities attacked Epicurus with the argument that the swerve undermined the rest of the philosophy by making EVERYTHING indeterminate - in other words, the ancients even including Cicero understood from their familiarity with his writings that Epicurus had limited the effect of the swerve in important ways, so they did not attack him on the apparent contradictions between the swerve and the other conclusions of atomism.

That points out the potential usefulness of the sort of Sherlock Holmes "dog that didn't bark" method of sleuthing.

I wonder if we can apply that to the "absence of pain" question in this way:. Cicero attacked the apparent ambiguities of calling absence of pain the greatest pleasure from Cicero's perspective wrting 250 years after Epicurus. One would expect that this argument - which raises so many issues - would not have taken 250 years to be raised.been raised.

Do we not have any record of other writers from the time of Epicurus to Cicero who raise this question? Obviously Laertius doesn't really count because he comes after Cicero in time. Do we have any other materials between the time of Epicurus and Cicero in which this complain was raised?

In order to answer that we would need to know if any texts exist from well before Cicero. We can observe that Lucretius does not see this as an issue to be concerned about, but I wonder if there are other texts we can look to(?). It seems to me that if there are in fact commentators on Epicurus from the pre-Cicero period, and they do not raise this issue as a concern, then that is an indication that there was additional teaching material that explained within the Epicurean school why the interpretations advanced by Cicero (and even the defense given by Torquatus) are not the full story.

One would expect that lots of anti-Epicurean material prior to Cicero (including preCicero Stoic material) would attack on the same grounds, and there would be at least hints of discussion of it.

Other than Lucretius himself I am not sure what surviving texts date from the death of Epicirus to the time of Cicero's writing.

Sounds like the Greek Reporter website might have picked it up at Wikipedia. Correcting that reference would be highly desirable since so many people start there.

Argh I knew I needed to find it but I did not remember that the quote actually has the word "convention" in it, just like Diogenes of Oinoanda was criticizing. I know I made the point generally but that's what we miss in not having you there to illustrate. We may well want to return to the point in the podcast next week given its significance in (1) distinguishing Epicurus from Democritus, and (2) combatting the "nihilism" that follows from an over literal application of thinking that nothing is literally "real" in our perceptions of the world.

Nate that's a superb summary of which I think Epicurus would be proud, and I know I find greatly helpful myself. Thank you!

Welcome Ben ! 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!

This is a thread for discussion Democritus' position that nothing is truly real except atoms and void statement, especially in context with Diogenes of Oinoanda fragment 7:

Quote from Diogenes of Oinoanda

Fr. 7

Even Democritus erred in a manner unworthy of himself when he said that atoms alone among existing things have true reality, while everything else exists by convention. For, according to your account, Democritus, it will be impossible for us even to live, let alone discover the truth, since we shall be unable to protect ourselves from either fire or slaughter or [any other force].

Joshua ended up being sick and missed this episode, but we were able to get something recorded and i will have that up asap.

In the meantime one of the many ways we missed Joshua was in discussing:

Quote from Cassius

Fr. 7

Even Democritus erred in a manner unworthy of himself when he said that atoms alone among existing things have true reality, while everything else exists by convention. For, according to your account, Democritus, it will be impossible for us even to live, let alone discover the truth, since we shall be unable to protect ourselves from either fire or slaughter or [any other force].

I fumbled around without coming up with the exact quote from Democritus, which Joshua always remembers, to the effect that nothing by atoms and void are "truly real." Since this reference is probably key to understanding that passage, Joshua when you get a chance could you cite for us the exact quote that you've referenced many times? If we don't have it already we need a separate subforum on Democritus here.

This is an issue of recurring interest so i set up a separate thread here: The "Nothing is truly real but atoms and void" statement

That "bitter gift" reference now has me curious. Doesn't seem like something someone would come up with at random, and even the "gift' part doesn't sound really like Epicurus. I wonder if this person has totally transposed this thought from someone else and that "life as a 'bitter gift'" is a core thought of a competing philosopher.

Lots of stress on "absence of pain" that I think leaves the wrong balance as if pain must be avoided at all cost, but overall much more detailed than the average generalist article.