Posts by Cassius

I will add a couple more disjointed comments on the article here:

1. I think it's a well written article-length summary that presents basic facts in very readable form.

2. Under the topic "The Pursuit of Happiness" I would say that this summary suffers from what I complain about ad nauseum as to excessive focus on "absence of pain" while leaving the issue of positive pleasure either floating ambiguously or in fact defined totally negatively. And so it ends up with a negative assessments of "We do not have any of the more detailed works in which Epicurus might have attempted what Jeremy Bentham later called a “felicific calculus”. But, bearing in mind the difficulties that Bentham and the nineteenth century utilitarians found when they tried to move from principles to details, there is no reason to suppose he was more successful." That's probably why i didn't have more to say about the article when I first read it years ago.

3. I see under "Maintenance of Social Control" that he goes into the evaluation of the philosophy from the point of view of how well it helps to 'reconcile the great majority to distributions of property in which they are at a disadvantage.' While the writer may be a libertarian rather than a Marxist, i see that as actually way a Marxist way of looking at the question, evaluating everything by economics. That kind of perspective in my view obscures the central issue that I think Epicurus was pursuing: "What is the truth about our place in the universe?" And I think Epicurus was pursuing that question come hell or high water as to economics -- the answers to questions like chaos and life after death and supernatural religion isn't a matter of economics.

4 -- i think he's just simply wrong here, and that there is no need to ask the second question about "laws of nature beyond the existence and movement of atoms" because Epicurus plainly rejected that: "Then there is an apparent defect in his conception of the atomic movements. Does the universe exist by accident? Or are their laws of nature beyond the existence and movement of the atoms? The first is not impossible. An infinite number of atoms in an infinite void over infinite time will, every so often, come together in an apparently stable universe. They may also hold together, moving in clusters in ways that suggest regularity. But this chance combination might be dissolved at any moment—though, given every sort of infinity, some of these universes will continue for long periods. If Epicurus had this first in view, what point in trying to explain present phenomena in terms of cause and effect? Causality only makes sense on the assumption that the future will be like the past. If he had the second in mind, it is worth asking what he thought to be nature of these laws? Might they not, for example, have had an Author? Since Newton, we have contented ourselves with trying to uncover regularities of motion and not going beyond these. But the Greeks had a much stronger teleological sense. Perhaps these matters were not discussed. Perhaps they were discussed, but we have no record of them in the surviving discussions. Or perhaps they have survived, but I have overlooked them. But it does seem to me that Epicurean physics do not fully discuss the nature of the laws that they assume."

5 - This is not optimally worded, as Lucretius does not suggest this possibility, he's clear that Epicureanism is not impious: "It may be, Lucretius says, that beating down religion is impious and the entry to a life of crime. Much rather, it is religion which has brought forth criminal and impious deeds. He lived before the most notable acts of religious mania. But he was poet enough to know the psychology of enthusiasm."

6 - I like his section on Social Contract pretty well but I would differ with this: "As said, we do not have much Epicurean writing on this point. As with the Benthamites, he does not seem to have found any imperative for these ethical teachings. We may ask, for example, what reason there is against my killing someone if I can thereby take possession of his property—or just enjoy the sensation of killing—and if there is no chance of my being caught. The only answers we have are: "Do nothing in your life that will cause you to fear if it is discovered by your neighbour.[xxviii] And: 'The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance.[xxix]" If these are attempts at answering the question, they are feeble attempts. That the unjust are invariably unhappy is plainly false. As for the threat of discovery, the opportunities for secret crime have always been everywhere." ---------- I think the problem with that is that Epicurus would say that it is an error to look for an "imperative for these ethical teachings" because - and this is probably the same issue I have in point 4 above, I think Epicurus would say that "imperatives" don't exist and it is error to look for them. Yes in the end the writer is right that "Epicurus believed a stable and just social order could be sustained by the self-interest of individuals" but the emphasis is on the "could." I think Epicurus would say that there's no divine order in the universe and no fate and there's no force that guarantees a "just" result, and we just simply have to acknowledge that if we act rationally we will respect generally respect each others' interests, but that there are no guarantees and we simply do the best we can - because that's the way things are. Epicurus wasn't going to invent non-existent imperatives.

7 - A GREAT conclusion: "We have virtually everything that Plato wrote and almost nothing that Epicurus wrote. Plato, however, has had no discernable impact on the social sciences beyond providing legitimation to various cliques of demented and often murderous intellectuals. But, for all we have so few of his writings, the ideas of Epicurus have survived. And they have made the world a better place."

Quote from Godfrey

Having dipped just a little into reading Aristotle, I would say that Epicurus was reacting against basing a philosophy on the polis rather than the individual. Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and others determined that what was good for the polis was best for the individual, whereas Epicurus determined that the best life results from an understanding of nature and through the experience of the individual

You know things can begin to come into focus pretty easily when you realize that ANYTIME someone suggests a goal other than "pleasure" as an end it itself then the reasoning is going to come to grief. On the other hand, it's as clear as day that when seen as "tools" these other things (virtue, money, even "politics") can have their uses when they are strictly kept on a leash with the ultimate goal in mind, rather than ends in themselves. It really should not be so hard for anyone to understand that "sometimes" it is going to be necessary to engage in political activity, just like in general we choose any tool that helps us toward our goal, and that we even choose pain for the sake of greater pleasure or less pain in the end. Epicurus doesn't reject virtue or anything else as "bad in themselves" except as they factor into the ultimate question of happy living.

Absolutely agreed on all points in post 62. I presume you saw her article focusing on the stoic angle that is linked in the first post of this thread?

Ha my bad memory prevents me from disagreeing with you about my saying something pessimistic!

But maybe what I said then is something I still repeat - that while this is true sometimes, it's unfortunately not always true -

Quote from Todd

The battle is half won! We don't need to convince people to pursue pleasure.

As per a post I made earlier this afternoon, I think the real heart of Epicurus is not to help everyone go along their same merry way, just better calculating the expectable results in terms of pain vs pleasure (although that is indeed a part).

Unfortunately the battle is far from won against religion and false philosophies to accept that happiness *should be* the goal of life. Far too many people want to ignore Epicurus' views on the nature of the universe and the proper approach to knowledge, and cling to their existing religious and ethical views, and in so doing they miss the thrust and the long term benefit . They still haven't - and refuse to - admit that there is no "good" other than what derives from pleasure. (Which is the danger I think you and I are agreeing on in too easily thinking that our own personal preferences as to politics or anything else are necessarily synonymous with "the good."

And one reason for that is that inevitably in life crises will occur, and the standard calculation of maximizing pleasure over pain becomes very difficult to apply. That's in addition to the many who have already fallen into despair and find that they can't relate to a "pleasure" focus at all. If we aren't prepared on the "physics" and the "epistemology" then the emotional pain of the moment can easily cause us to fall back into despair or nihilism or both far too easily - or fail to climb out of it if we are already there.

Of course I don't think that's a "pessimistic" outlook - but I do think that were Epicurus here today he would stress those aspects of his philosophy as much or more than the psychology. In fact I think he would probably say "Look how little it has gotten you to focus on material wealth and the pleasures of the moment and how you still fail to understand your place in the universe and how to resist logical word games that have you as doubtful as ever about the ability to know anything at all."

Not disagreeing with you as much as using the opportunity to dig in as deep as possible on all the merits of Epicurus.

Great first post and welcome again Todd!

Welcome Todd

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 don't have time right now to read the whole article but I do want to comment on the opening paragraph:

Quote

Abstract

Epicurus (341-270 BC) was, with Plato and Aristotle, one of the three great philosophers of the ancient world. He developed an integrated system of ethics and natural philosophy that, he claimed and many accepted, showed everyone the way to a life of the greatest happiness.

Yes I agree, and I understand that when someone writes an article or gives a speech, you want a hook to get peoples' interest, and telling them that what they are about to hear can make them happier is a great way to gain their attention.

But I personally tend to identify with the Lucretian approach, which I see, from the way Lucretius chose to open his poem, as being much better stated as something like:

"What I am about to tell you is - whether you like it or not - "the way things are." You will find some of it to be bitter, but if you want true health, and if you want to be a man and deal with reality, then I will tell you about the leader who broke the chains of supernatural religion, exposed the fraud of priests and false philosophers, and shows you that you only have one life to live -- so you better make hay while the sun shines.

And by the way, you'll also have more pleasure and less pain living this way too."

If I could put myself in Epicurus' shoes at the end of his life, by far that is the way I would have wanted to be remembered.

I am moving this to a new thread so we can start afresh with comments.

Camotero thank you for bumping this very old thread. I can't recall the details of this article and I see that I picked out a couple of things I did not like about it, but I can't remember my overall opinion as to its usefulness.

You're exactly right to ask this question, especially since we have almost a whole new group of people here now than we had in 2018. I will add it to my list to read and update my opinion. Given it's length and generality we ought to consider how useful it would be as a general introductory article.

Quote from camotero

I wonder if more people in the forums have read it and what their opinion is.

After some initial issues in downloading the new version, I am happy to report that I now have it and can read it. If you downloaded in the recent past be sure you have the most recent copy.

Very interesting and a great point that applies often when we think we understand Epicurus better than did his ancient followers!

Also Don what do you take Pliny's point to be in this discussion? The "thus?"

Quote

Hesychius was probably not a Christian. Explanations of words from Gregory Nazianzus and other Christian writers (glossae sacrae) are later interpolations

I wonder if Epicurean possibly, or Stoic.....

Quite possibly the take-home point is that time has no existence of its own, which further distinguishes Epicurus' from the Platonic "ideal / forms " viewpoint. (That observation probably applies to Aristotle's 'essences' too if Frances Wright's remarks about Aristotle are correct.):

Time, likewise, of itself is nothing; our sense collects from things themselves what has been done long since, the thing that present is, and what's to come. For no one, we must own, ever thought of Time distinct from things in motion or at rest.

...

...from whence you plainly see that actions do not of themselves subsist, as bodies do, nor are in nature such as is a void, but rather are more justly called the events of body, and of space, where things are carried on.

--------

Are there other implications to this observation beyond something like "we can measure time by whatever units make sense to us to choose?".

Or is there something else, or more...? Maybe that there is nothing magic or divine or fortune-telling about the passing of x hours or x days or x years?

Or that length of time (age?) is not an absolute standard or appropriate way to look at life and determine whether it has been lived fully, as is closer to the thought with which Kalosyni started the thread?

And to add to the mix, Lucretius, in the Brown edition, which uses "events" rather than exclusively "accidents" -

449] All other things you'll find essential conjuncts, or else the events or accidents of these. I call essential conjunct what's so joined to a thing that it cannot, without fatal violence, be forced or parted from it; is weight to stones, to fire heat, moisture to the Sea, touch to all bodies, and not to be touched essential is to void. But, on the contrary, Bondage, Liberty, Riches, Poverty, War, Concord, or the like, which not affect the nature of the thing, but when they come or go, the thing remains entire; these, as it is fit we should, we call Events. Time, likewise, of itself is nothing; our sense collects from things themselves what has been done long since, the thing that present is, and what's to come. For no one, we must own, ever thought of Time distinct from things in motion or at rest.

[464] For when the poets sing of Helen's rape, or of the Trojan State subdued by war, we must not say that these things do exist now in themselves, since Time, irrevocably past, has long since swept away that race of men that were the cause of those events; for every act is either properly the event of things, or of the places where those things are done. Further, if things were not of matter formed, were there no place or space where things might act, the fire that burned in Paris' heart, blown up by love of Helen's beauty, had never raised the famous contests of a cruel war; nor had the wooden horse set Troy on fire, discharging from his belly in the night the armed Greeks: from whence you plainly see that actions do not of themselves subsist, as bodies do, nor are in nature such as is a void, but rather are more justly called the events of body, and of space, where things are carried on.

I think as usual Epicurus is getting to what is really important for us to understand about time as a natural phenomena of human life, as opposed to how we can twist ourselves into pretzels of logic or mysticism trying to dissect and define time.

Probably that segment could be made a lot more clear to us by approaching it in that manner and looking more closely at the Greek to see exactly what he is contrasting his own view against.

Why should we NOT look to time as a "general conception?" (Is that or is that not referring to an anticipation?)

What other possible "predicates" should we avoid attaching to time, and who is doing that and why?

And again in the last sentence we have use of "accident" which might be better thought of as "incident" or "event" (which removes the 'chance' connotation but still considers time as a "quality") rather than an eternal unchanging attribute like atoms have.

Letter to Herodotus:

72] Moreover, you must firmly grasp this point as well; we must not look for time, as we do for all other things which we look for in an object, by referring them to the general conceptions which we perceive in our own minds, but we must take the direct intuition, in accordance with which we speak of “a long time” or “a short time,” and examine it, applying our intuition to time as we do to other things. Neither must we search for expressions as likely to be better, but employ just those which are in common use about it.

Nor again must we predicate of time anything else as having the same essential nature as this special perception, as some people do, but we must turn our thoughts particularly to that only with which we associate this peculiar perception and by which we measure it.

[73] For indeed this requires no demonstration, but only reflection, to show that it is with days and nights and their divisions that we associate it and likewise also with internal feelings or absence of feeling, and with movements and states of rest; in connection with these last again we think of this very perception as a peculiar kind of accident, and in virtue of this we call it time.

Also there is this that is probably related:

VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied.

note Martyo also posted this on my wall, which is also public, but which many might not see so I am reposting here:

martyo26 20 hours ago

Cassius, thank you for for your warm welcoming message. I recently came across Epicurean philosophy while I was reading a survey of Greek and Roman philosophy. I immediately found myself wanting to learn more and found this site. Clearly, I have much to learn. Following your advice, I have ordered the DeWitt book. I also found your 5-Star summary of Epicurean teaching very helpful in getting me off to a good start

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Fifty-Three 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 are going to speed through the early development of the school before we turn to detailed treatment of individual philosophical topics:

Chapter VI - The New Education (Part 2)

• The Use of The Epitome
  • It is customary to classify Epicurus as an empiricist, because of his alleged reliance upon the sensations. To do so is to misunderstand the function of the Canon and to ignore the manifest procedures of his reasoning. One of his epitomes was devoted to the Twelve Elementary Principles of Physics. Since the procedure was to begin with these and to commit them to memory, it follows that the method was deductive throughout. These principles became major premises. Ideas arrived at by deduction from these were called epinoai, which by etymology means "inferential" or "accessory" notions. For instance, the third principle declared: "The universe consists of solid bodies and void." From this was deduced, on the principle of the excluded middle, the inferential idea that the soul is corporeal. Again, the fifth and sixth principles declared the infinity of the universe. From this was deduced, on a principle called isonomy, the existence of gods. Unless perfect beings existed somewhere in addition to imperfect beings, the universe would not be infinite; infinity applies to values no less than to space and matter. The function of the Sensations as part of the Canon is to test the correctness of the inferences drawn from the Twelve Principles. These Principles themselves were not based upon the evidence of the Sensations; the truth of them was demonstrated by a deductive syllogism, as will be shown in the chapter on the New Physics.
• The New Textbooks
  • The dogmatic writings comprised a series of textbooks on the Canon, Physics, and Ethics. Most of them were by Epicurus himself. The outstanding example was the thirty-seven on Physics.The refutative writings comprised a series belittling and refuting the teachings of all rival schools, especially the Platonists. An outstanding example was the letter of Epicurus entitled Against the Philosophers in Mytilene. The memorial writings consisted of sympathetic and eulogistic biographies of deceased members of the school. An example is the memoir of Epicurus on his brother Neocles. These three classes were logically integrated with the whole body of doctrine. Since Epicurus was convinced that his teachings were "true philosophy," the vera ratio of Lucretius, it followed that dogmatic textbooks were the requirement.
  • (1) Since Epicurus was convinced that his teachings were "true philosophy," the vera ratio of Lucretius, it followed that dogmatic textbooks were the requirement.
  • (2) Again, since the teachings of Epicurus were "the truth," it followed that all others were "false opinions" and "defilements." It followed likewise that the minds of novices must be kept pure from these and that the minds of converts should be purged of false doctrines already imbibed. To accomplish this second purpose was the aim of the refutative writings. These were not strictly controversial. They were not published with the idea that adversaries should reply in kind and be answered again. Satire was a frequent ingredient, such as the ridicule of the irony of Socrates.
  • (3) The nature of the memorial writings has been completely overlooked but they belong no less logically in the scheme than the two previous classes. One of their aims was to confer a new kind of immortality upon deceased members of the circle. It was the teaching of Epicurus that happiness was attainable; it was possible for mankind within the limits of mortal life to approximate all but completely to the happiness of the gods. This happiness embraced two elements, blissfulness and incorruptibility. Although the soul of man was corruptible, it was still possible for the memory of him to be made imperishable in the records and in the rites of the Epicurean brotherhood. It was with the aim of securing this new kind of immortality for himself and his associates that Epicurus established during his lifetime the regular celebration of the twentieth in each month and provided for its perpetuation in his will. These celebrations were memorial sacraments and the memoirs of deceased members are comparable to the Acts of the Apostles and the Lives of the Saints in the Christian church. A number of specimens are extant in the usual fragmentary condition among the Herculanean papyri.

I just clicked through to

ΑΘΗΝΑΪΚΟΝ ΕΤΟΣ

Αρχαίες πηγές Μελετήματα Έρευνα Πάτρια Ελλήνων θεοί

athenianyear.wordpress.com

That's quite a website!