New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I am still curious if Epicurus proposed 12 because the 13th item on the listed was vastly less significant than the first 12, or, if, like the 40 ΔOΞAI, the 12 was a changing list based on the perceived needs of his students.
Yes, why Twelve, of all numbers?
While we are talking about this article I have another recurring gripe to mention and to combine with a praise:
The chasm between the providentially ordered cosmos of the Stoics and the random atomic universe of the Epicureans was deep and wide, and it could not be bridged.
This gives me the opportunity to plug one of my favorite articles, A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism." I never like to use the word "random" and I don't think emphasis on that concept is consistent with Epicurean views of the universe. Better words would include "unordered" or anything that conveys the lack of central control, while "random" carries connotations that go beyond that and imply to many ears that some force of randomness (sort of like Fortune as a goddess). As Long argues in detail, most events in the universe operate mechanistically, and the swerve/wiggle/whatever does not 'break through" to our level of perception except in relatively rare instances (such as "free will" in higher animals. The great majority of things, and the reason science allows us to make repeatable observations, operate purely mechanistically and not subject to "random" variation.
I highly recommend the Long article for his full argument.
Did you guys read Donald Robertson's reply? I will save you the effort as this is the conclusion:
Overall, I would say that the literature of ancient Stoicism suggests that Marcus Aurelius and perhaps also Epictetus believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life. What I haven’t attempted to do here is to argue at length for the philosophical consistency of an agnostic (or atheistic) form of Stoicism. However, in this regard, I would begin by pointing to the argument that the central principle of Stoicism, that the only true good is wisdom (the cardinal human virtue or excellence), acceptance of which arguably does not require belief in God, and from which other Stoic principles may derive without the need for belief in God as an additional premise.
I see this as totally and transparently unsatisfactory. Why is wisdom a good?
And he doesn't even see the need to argue for philosophical consistency?
I just clicked through to read the article and see what Don was reacting about. I completely agree with Don. My comment about Chris Fisher deserving credit for consistency was aimed at my appreciation for the fact that he stands with those who consistently are honest about the roots of Stoicism in the theistic world. Absent a foundation as to the nature of the world, nothing else in a philosophy is going to make sense, and at least Fisher is honest that Stoicism is grounded in a theistic worldview, just like Plato and just like Aristotle.
Of course I completely disagree with Fisher, but at least when you're honest about your worldview you aren't justifiably accused of misrepresentation about what you really believe. This isn't the time or place for a rant about "modern stoicism" but it's interesting to think about how likely it is that Aurelius and all the ancient stoics, who understand what their philosophy is based on, would probably be as upset at the "modern stoics" as they were at Epicurus - and probably more so. The ancient Stoics thought Epicurus was dead wrong, but at least they generally credited Epicurus about being honest about what he believed. And for that I can have more respect for ancient stoicism than for the modern variety that tries to avoid the issue.
The only other comment I want to make right now is about this sentence from the article:
For the Epicureans, acceptance of providence invited the gods into the lives of humans, and this they believed was a primary source of psychological distress.
This kind of formulation is bad enough coming from a stoic, but it's even more irritating to me because it probably is an accurate reflection of much modern writing about Epicurus - even from those on "our side." Yes, providence is a primary source of "psychological distress." But it's much more than that, and this is far downstream of the main issue.
The whole providence argument is just *false,* and that's the starting point of the analysis. If providence were *true* even though painful, then it would be easy to reconcile it with Epicurean philosophy, because we often choose pain in order to avoid worse pain or obtain greater pleasure. The problem with "providence" is not that it is painful, but that because it is false it has no persuasive claim to be the foundation of the "best" life. The reason Epicurean philosophy is convinced of this conclusion is rooted in the physics and epistemology, not because Epicurus was fixated on avoiding "psychological distress" or any other kind of pain as an end in itself.
That's why I think all of these various positions - the Fisher position, the modern Stoic position, and even some allegedly "friendly-to-Epicurus" positioning - is so damaging. If Epicureans were convinced that providence were true, there would be no more enthusiastic providentialists than Epicureans. It's because Epicurus had a theory of knowledge under which it's possible to be confident of what is "true" and what is "false" in important issues of life like this that Epicurus concluded that neither providence nor idealism nor anything else can supersede the faculty of pleasure that Nature gave us as the guide of life.
Chris Fisher is if I recall one of the traditional Stoics. I give him credit at least for consistency over the "modern" stoics with whom he spars.
Welcome Premster
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.
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!
In this episode - and likely for several weeks at least - we're going to be talking about some of the most important but least discussed aspects of the philosophy - canonics / epistemology.
We only scratched the surface this week but I hope everyone who is at leat remotely interested in the topic will help is through this.
We have the PDs in the mid-twenties to go by, plus comments in the letter to Herodotus and in book four of Lucretius. The really ambitious might want to help us try to incorporate some of Philodemus' On Signs / On Methods of Inference.
But at the very least when we are through I hope we can clearly draw lines between Epicurus and skepticism of all kinds - from the radical skepticism of Pyrrho to the idealistic skepticism of Plato and even to the views of Aristotle which Diogenes of Oinoanda criticized.
This is really basic and important and controversial stuff.
Welcome to Episode One Hundred Fifty-Five 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'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll 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 in Chapter Seven - The Canon, Reason, and Nature
Episode 154 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we start Chapter 7 - "The Canon, Reason, And Nature"
1. DeWitt identifies [a] the infinite multitude of particles and [b] the infinite extent of space as two different propositions, whereas every other reconstruction merges them into one. What gives?
Perhaps that's exaplainable in reference to the infinite divisibility issue.
Whether it's physics or sensation or the Canon or something else that needs to mention that color is a product of the arrangement of atoms, there's no way to tell from the context in Diogenes Laertius.
And thus DeWitt and Clay set out to "reconstruct" the list by looking for the common foundational points in Lucretius and Letter to Herodotus, which seems to be a pretty reasonable approach. I am not aware of other attempts to do that but seems like a fruitful topic for future writing.
Welcome @emmettmurphy !
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.
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!
Happy New Year to you too Todd! Your pleasure discussion was a highlight of the end of the year!
Thank you for introducing yourself! A large part of my recent thought revolves around how I am thinking that no matter how good the written resources, there is just no substitute for "personal" interaction with people of the same mindset. For the first few years when we started this site I was convinced that they key is finding and developing better written material, and of course I still see that as critical.
But no matter how good the book is, or how many scrolls are newly found at Herculaneum, what good are any of them if we don't internalize them and put them into practice? As Dewitt says in one of his lines, pleasure (and pain) have no meaning except to the living, and what we should be looking for is not some formulation that miraculously saves us like some kind of incantation. It seems to me the key is experiencing life to our best ability every minute, and Epicurean philosophy gives us the best approach toward understanding how to do that.
So thanks for mentioning that you have been lurking. I think (and hope) that there are probably a lot of people who do that, and it's good for you to be an example to others in posting.
Look forward to hearing more from you!
Yes and thank you to everyone who has participated in EpicureanFriends.com in 2022, and let's make 2023 even better!
Thank you for all those Nate!
(and that's Elli's Happy New Year Graphic at Facebook! )
I still think Epicurus (and Metrodorus and Philodemus) did use those categories; however, I think much ado has been made of them by later commentators.
But that's a conversation for another thread
Yes the important issue you've brought up here is how so much of what was recorded doesn't seem to be just a random list of what Epicurus was focused on, but an attempt to lay the philosophies against one another so the reader can compare and contrast them. So that when we find something significant in Epicurus we're likely to find the same issue discussed in Aristotle or Plato or the other previous schools, and if we go looking for those that will help us give context and meaning to what Epicurus was saying.
I've never bothered to read this before from Wikipedia:
Carneades (/kɑːrˈniːədiːz/; Greek: Καρνεάδης, Karneadēs, "of Carnea"; 214/3–129/8 BC[2]) was a Greek philosopher[3] and perhaps the most prominent head of the Skeptical Academy in ancient Greece.[3] He was born in Cyrene.[4] By the year 159 BC[citation needed], he had begun to attack many previous dogmatic doctrines, especially Stoicism and even the Epicureans[5] whom previous skeptics had spared[citation needed]. As scholarch (leader) of the Academy, he was one of three philosophers sent to Rome in 155 BC where his lectures on the uncertainty of justice caused consternation among leading politicians.[6][7][8] He left no writings.[9] Many of his opinions are known only via his successor Clitomachus. [10] He seems to have doubted the ability not just of the senses but of reason too in acquiring truth. His skepticism was, however, moderated by the belief that we can, nevertheless, ascertain probabilities (not in the sense of statistical probability, but in the sense of persuasiveness)[11] of truth, to enable us to act.[12]
Carneades is known as an Academic Skeptic. Academic Skeptics (so called because this was the type of skepticism taught in Plato's Academy in Athens) hold that all knowledge is impossible, except for the knowledge that all other knowledge is impossible
German Wikipedia has more detail:
Divisio Carneadea
Another method is what Cicero called it Divisio Carneadea ("Classification according to carnades"). It consists in the collection and classification of not only all the solutions to a problem that have been expressed so far, but also all possible solutions. Cicero illustrates this using the example of Goods theory. The individual arts or. Techniques such as medicine (healing art) or navigation (helmsman's art) have reference points for which they are studied and practiced (health or. safe seafaring). Reason is "art", the point of reference of which is "life", that is, according to Hellenistic understanding, the right life. Eudaimonie (Bliss, happy life, Latin vita beata). The nature of Eudaimonie and thus the way to it is controversial among the philosophers. First of all, there is a division of the teaching of goods according to the different views on the nature of eudaimony. Some seek eudaimony in experiencing pleasure, others in a state of painlessness, others in realizing the natural. Another principle of division that is combined with the first is the distinction according to the type of goal sought. Either the goal is something desired (for example, pleasure), the attainment of which is to bring about eudaimony, or the striving itself also contains the goal in itself, so that eudaimonia is realized even if there is no final success. For example, the Stoics see the pursuit of the natural as a goal in itself. The combination of both divisions results in six possible Eudaimon teachings. Additional possibilities arise if virtue is included as something sought.[32] The variety of the possibilities put together should lead to the relativization of all teachings and thus to the insight that none of them may claim generality.
Very interesting and thank you Don! It is almost as if Diogenes Laertius was working from a list of questions that he wanted to address as to every philosopher, and that almost everything that he recorded about Epicurus comes from a desire to add in Epicurus' views to this list of topics that he wanted to cover. And that we could learn a lot by looking at what Diogenes Laertius records from that perspective.
If so, that would be entirely consistent with the Nikolsky article and his observation that by the time Diogenes Laertius was writing he (Diogenes) was influenced by the Division of Carneades. And that would lead to the conclusion that Diogenes Laertius was applying a method of analysis that was current to Diogenes' own time, but which was not necessarily reflective of the time of Epicurus):
If Epicurus did not divide pleasures into kinetic and static, the question arises where Cicero and Diogenes Laertius found this idea. We will be able to answer this question if we examine the context in which a classification of pleasures is normally proposed. Both Cicero and Diogenes speak about it when they wish to contrast Epicurus' doctrine with the Cyrenaics' views. According to them, the Cyrenaics recognized only one type of pleasure, pleasure in motion, whereas Epicurus admits two types - pleasure 'in motion' and pleasure 'in a state of rest.' Besides, it should be noted that in comparing Epicurus' and the Cyrenaics' ideas Cicero proceeds from a description of various ethic doctrines that goes back to Carneades and is related to Carneades' division of theories of the supreme good (divisio Carneadea): using the classification principle 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis', the author of this division contraposed the definitions of the supreme good as pleasure in motion, as the absence of pain, and Epicurus' view which he believed to synthesize both of these concepts. Probably, Cicero received this view of Epicurus' concept of pleasure through Antiochus of Ascalon, who, as Cicero himself reported, had often used the divisio Carneadea in his reasoning. Let us now look at the tradition upon which the text by Diogenes Laertius is based. .....
