Posts by Cassius

Here's the page for her book at Oxford University Press: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/living-for-pleasure-9780197558324?cc=us&lang=en&#

EDIT: The following article popped up in a google search for me, and so I initially posted this thread about "Are the Modern Stoics Really Epicurean?" However that article quickly led to the new book "Living for Pleasure" by the same author (Emily Austin) so this thread is now covering both the article and the book.

Great Article! http://hnn.us/article/184389

Quote

Modern Stoicism has saturated the philosophical market—seminars, apps, podcasts, retreats, bestseller lists, psychotherapy. As a specialist in ancient Greek philosophy, I admit that I’m pleased to see so many people take an interest in what I study for a living. Stoicism has a lot going for it, and many of my students are powerfully drawn to its core commitments. All that is to say, I can see the allure.

My aim here, though, is to convince readers, especially those committed to evolutionary science and modern physics, to learn more about Epicureanism, Stoicism’s oldest and greatest rival. Cards on the table—I prefer Epicureanism, and I have recently published a book on Epicureanism as a way of life. That said, I think even devoted, forever members of the Stoic caucus have good reason to study Epicureanism, if only because taking your rivals seriously is a sign of intellectual virtue, an indication that you have not grown complacent. As a more controversial point, I suspect that many Modern Stoics are already Epicureans, at least by the standards of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Let me explain.

Let's work to give this one some exposure!

Welcome ram !

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!

Welcome ccarruth42

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!

Episode 148 - The fourth of our Introductory series of podcasts on Epicurean Philosophy, is now available. This week we complete our discussion of "True Opinions And False Opinions about Epicurus."

Martin I think you are properly calling attention to the fact that the deductive process starts with observations, so I guess the better way to say it is that he uses both.

Quote from Kalosyni

I suppose my version in post 52 is very different than Martin's formlation (too different).

It's a good start and working through revisions and alternatives is always helpful

Kalosymi can you pithily condense to match Martin's formulation?

Wikipedia article on the correlation / causation issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati…imply_causation

Lots of subtleties because you wouldn't want to suggest that correlation is somehow itself misleading ... The issue seems to be that the error is in giving it more weight than it deserves rather than saying that it should be given no weight at all as an indicator and making sure that all other circumstances are given appropriate weight.

Charles do not let me hijack this thread but I have another comment which I also think is relevant, and it relates to the cliche that "absence of evidence of a thing is not evidence of the absence of that thing." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Quote

Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are similar but distinct concepts. This distinction is captured in the aphorism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Often attributed to Martin Rees or Carl Sagan, versions of this antimetabole appeared as early as the 19th century.^[1] In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance.^[2] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe.^[3] This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.^[4]

When you combine that with Epicurus' observation that: "But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?" as explained by Sedley, you have I think the key to observing that these earlier materialists were regressing from Epicurus rather than progressing. And why did they do so, given that Lucretius was plainly in front of them?

I would say that they regressed due to their failure to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus had identified in "waiting" and also in rigorously making sure that *all* evidence that bears on a subject is included in the opinion. Following Sedley's lead, they should have realized that we can in our own observation plainly observe - and therefore we can confidently conclude -- that some free will exists. "Will I pick up the salt or the pepper first?" Nothing by our own minds decides which we will do. Given then that free will exists to any degree, there must be a mechanism at the atomic level which allows for non-mechanical operations of at least some atoms at some times. I suspect Sedley is correct and this is the true origin of the swerve theory.

Personally I would say the same thing applies to the size of the universe and also to its eternality. Today, no matter how many times astronomers look in their telescopes (or the equivalent) and say that "all matter is expanding outward" they always have to keep in mind that this observation applies only to the limits of their observations. At to the size of the universe the logical arguments that Epicurus raised that what we observe is not compatible with limited void but unlimited matter, or with unlimited matter and limited void, but only with unlimited matter AND unlimited void, still carry weight -- and for me personally I believe them to be decisive. The same thing goes that nothing comes from nothing and therefore there was never a beginning point for the universe as a whole. Everyone's personal mileage on these issues may vary, but this seems to be the was Epicurus was reasoning and it surely seems persuasive to me.

But while "your mileage may vary" on any individual question, it ought to be accepted by everyone IMHO that observations must always be evaluated within the limits of what they are able to perceive. Epicurus wasn't strictly an empiricist and he didn't (like Frances Wright seems to have done) swear off having confidence in theories where he found the confidence warranted. To do so - to say that no conclusions are ever possible unless you have observed something personally yourself - would be (as a friend observed to me once) an extreme form of skepticism in itself.

I would expect that as we read back through the last several hundred years of materialism that that is what we are going to find -- that these scholars, whether under the influence of the church or otherwise - failed to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus and Lucretius interwove into their physics.

Quote from Martin

hard determinism appeared to be the most fitting to a materialist world view

It's very interesting that Epicurus did not think so. That article by Sedley which talks about the swerve being more the product of Epicurus' logical reasoning on epistemology (I think it was) rather than in physics may be the best explanation, and also a guidepost for us in understanding better how he thought and the correctness of his view. I will find and link that here.

I am pretty sure it is this one, now to see if I can point to the right section. Here's the article, Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" and here's a link to a thread discussing it: Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism"

I was thinking I would find something more pithy but this interesting page has basically the assertion I remember:

And this is the interesting comment in Lucretius of which I would never have seen the significance without Sedley's article:

Quote from Lucretius Book 2

For all things that fall through the water and thin air, these things must needs quicken their fall in proportion to their weights, just because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot check each thing equally, but give place more quickly when overcome by heavier bodies. But, on the other hand, the empty void cannot on any side, at any time, support anything, but rather, as its own nature desires, it continues to give place; wherefore all things must needs be borne on through the calm void, moving at equal rate with unequal weights. The heavier will not then ever be able to fall on the lighter from above, nor of themselves bring about the blows, which make diverse the movements, by which nature carries things on. Wherefore, again and again, it must needs be that the first-bodies swerve a little; yet not more than the very least, lest we seem to be imagining a sideways movement, and the truth refute it. For this we see plain and evident, that bodies, as far as in them lies, cannot travel sideways, since they fall headlong from above, as far as you can descry. But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?

Happy Birthday to C. Florius Lupus! Learn more about C. Florius Lupus and say happy birthday on C. Florius Lupus's timeline: C. Florius Lupus

Just read the post. Excellent work Charles and I look forward to reading more. The whole subject of why these thinkers adopted so much of Epicurus' viewpoint on atomism but rejected his view of the swerve is highly interesting and a topic worthy of its own discussion. It they were willing to risk the wrath of the church on atomism, why not go all the way and embrace the swerve too?

I have some speculation on that, relating to epistemology and Epicurus' views on the primacy of the senses rather than "logic" (which they may have found even hotter to handle than the supernatural gods issue) but it's only speculation. I hope you will find good references that will help make the answer more clear.

Will do so now ... been feeling poorly today and somehow i didn't see this new post so glad you asked!

Started 11/10/22:

Having made these points clear, we must now consider things imperceptible to the senses. First of all, that nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds. Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus * * * These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made. Lucretius Book One (Brown)

I think what you're talking about Godfrey is why DeWitt talks a lot about "faith" in Epicurean philosophy (if I recall correctly) in which I gather that he's talking about a blend of confidence based on information that we know to be limited but which we have good reason to think is sound. So just like a lot of words we have to parse "belief" and even "faith" to be sure exactly what we mean.

Reminds me of my high school's motto which was Fide sed cui vide which they used to translate as "have faith but be careful in what"

For the time being we are proceeding with regular Wednesday night meetings with more of an "open topic" agenda. If anyone has general questions, comments, or issues they would like to discuss, please feel free to bring them up. We'll generally first see if there are any comments on the most recent Lucretius Today podcast, and then we will move to open discussion. Please join us if you can.

Can someone else who uses Android confirm that Don's link above works for them on their phone? On my desktop it works fine but whenever I use my Android phone, on any of there browsers, it does not want to open a page but rather tried to download something . Anyone else having that issue?

Edit: Thanks for the responses below: must be me.

It occurs to me that it might be useful to follow up on my comment that the body of historical fiction on Epicurus is "uneven" at best.

A Few Days In Athens comes to mind as the most successful.

But there are others, including "Epicurus My Master" by Max Radin. It's been quite a long time since I read that but I don't remember it positively.

I know there are others and I will see if I can add them to this thread, but the reason I forget them is that I don't remember coming away impressed. I think in general what I am remembering is that most efforts I have seen, instead of doing justice to the philosophy, seem in my view more to trivialize Epicurus (or the philosophy) rather than to be useful. That's where A Few Days In Athens is the exception.

But I would be happy to be wrong. If anyone has come across historical fiction on Epicurus or his philosophy that is praiseworthy, please add a link to this thread.

Excellent!