Posts by Cassius

That is a great find and an important paper to take note of, Don, thanks. Lots of good information in it - it even discusses the Nikolsky paper.

But after scanning through it what strikes me is it is almost a debate with himself, and notes that he has changed his own views over the years. I doubt a general reader is going to be able to read that and be anything but confused over the point he is making.

To me this one is probably an illustration of how you can talk yourself into a circle if you get obsessed over trying to decide what katastematic pleasure is and whether it is somehow "highest" and whether you should somehow care about it rather than the joy and delight and even cheerfulness which Konstan admits are KINETIC pleasures.

This is definitely one I will be using in the future as it is someone who specifically wrestles with Nikolsky and Gosling and Taylor without, in my view, scoring any points against them.

Good find.

Thanks to those who joined tonight. We had a very good crowd - not counting the "zoom bombers" who we had to eliminate at the start! That was a weird experience!

Quote from Matt

think unmanaged expectations are the main source of dissatisfaction in a sexual relationship…and communication is key

Probably that applies to life in general and maybe that is in fact a huge part of Epicurus - managing expectations of what is possible and what is not.

And here is the sample I made from Nate's PNG:

For example here is how it is done in Inkscape:

Inkscape tutorial: Tracing bitmaps | Inkscape

inkscape.org

I have made one that appears pretty decent, but I need to fix the attachments here so I can attach an SVG file

What we eventually need is a "vector graphic" image of that leaping pig, along the lines of what Nate already as, in a format that these vector graphic programs like Inkscape (the free one) and others can use.

That way the image can be rotated and resized and all sorts of things done to it without losing sharpness.

I think what's involved 's "tracing" the PNG into such a program and saving it in SVG format. I will try to experiment if I can find time, but that 's what we need - an SVG format.

Ironic, because what it means is turning an actual image of a pig into a series of electronic numbers

Great and I will be looking forward to it.

News Items To Mention Tonight:

1. Upcoming Festival in Senigallia Italy.
2. Recent Discussions on the Forum
3. Plans for Upcoming Review of "Epicurus and His Philosophy
4. Recent thread on "Romantic Love" is expanding and that topic is always a favorite.
5. Others?

PD11. If we were not troubled by our suspicions of the phenomena of the sky, and about death, fearing that it concerns us, and also by our failure to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we should have no need of natural science.

PD12. A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.

Nate's Compilation:

Doctrine Eleven

**EΙ ΜΗΘEΝ ****ΗΜAΣ AΙ TΩΝ ΜETEΩΡΩΝ ΥΠΟΨΙAΙ ΗΝΩΧΛΟΥΝ**

**ΚAΙ AΙ ΠEΡΙ ΘAΝATΟΥ ****ΜΗ ΠΟTE ΠΡΟΣ ΗΜAΣ ῌ TΙ ETΙ TE TΟ**

**ΜΗ ΚATAΝΟEΙΝ ****TΟΥΣ ΟΡΟΥΣ TΩΝ AΛΓΗΔΟΝΩΝ ****ΚAΙ TΩΝ**

**EΠΙΘΥΜΙΩΝ ****ΟΥΚ AΝ ΠΡΟΣEΔEΟΜEΘA ΦΥΣΙΟΛΟΓΙAΣ. **

“If apprehensions relating to the heavenly bodies did not disturb us, and if the terrors of death have no concern with us, and if we had the courage to contemplate the boundaries of pain and of the desires, we should have no need of physiological studies.” Yonge (1853)

“If we had never been molested by alarms at celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by the misgiving that death somehow affects us, nor by neglect of the proper limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need to study natural science.” Hicks (1910)

“If we were not troubled by our suspicions of the phenomena of the sky and about death, fearing that it concerns us, and also by our failure to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we should have no need of natural science.” Bailey (1926)

“If our dread of the phenomena above us, our fear lest death concern us, and our inability to discern the limits of pains and desires were not vexations to us, we would have no need of the natural sciences.” Geer (1964)

“Were we not upset by the worries that celestial phenomena and death might matter to us, and also by failure to appreciate the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need for natural philosophy.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 155 (1987)

“If apprehensions about the heavens and our fear lest death concern us, as well as our failure to realize the limits of pains and desires, did not bother us, we would have no need of natural science.” O'Connor (1993)

“If our suspicions about heavenly phenomena and about death did not trouble us at all and were never anything to us, and, moreover, if not knowing the limits of pains and desires did not trouble us, then we would have no need of natural science.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“If we were never troubled by how phenomena in the sky or death might concern us, or by our failures to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need to study nature.” Anderson (2004)

“If we were never perturbed by frightful second-guessing of natural phenomena and death; if, adding to the above, we were never [beset by] failure to comprehend the proper limits of pains and pleasures: then, we would have no need of natural science.” Makridis (2005)

“If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no need for studying what is natural.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“We would have no need for natural science unless we were worried by apprehensiveness regarding the heavenly bodies, by anxiety about the meaning of death, and also by our failure to understand the limitations of pain and desire.” Strodach (2012)

“If we were not harassed by apprehensions caused by celestial phenomena and by the fear that death somehow affects us, and by our failure to comprehend the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need for natural science.” Mensch (2018)

“If no worries about celestial things troubled us at all, or any about death possibly mattering for us, or again if we did not understand the boundaries of pain and desire, we would have no more need for the study of nature.” White (2021)

Doctrine Twelve

**ΟΥΚ ΗΝ TΟ ΦΟΒΟΥΜEΝΟΝ ΛΥEΙΝ ****ΥΠEΡ TΩΝ ΚΥΡΙΩTATΩΝ**

**ΜΗ ΚATEΙΔΟTA ****TΙΣ Η TΟΥ ΣΥΜΠAΝTΟΣ ΦΥΣΙΣ ****AΛΛ**

**ΥΠΟΠTEΥΟMENON ****TΙ TΩΝ ΚATA TΟΥΣ ΜΥΘΟΥΣ·**** ΩΣTE ΟΥΚ**

**ΗΝ AΝEΥ ΦΥΣΙΟΛΟΓΙAΣ AΚEΡAΙΟΥΣ ****TAΣ ΗΔΟΝAΣ**

**AΠΟΛAΜΒAΝEΙΝ. **

“It would not be possible for a person to banish all fear about those things which are called most essential, unless he knew what is the nature of the universe, or if he had any idea that the fables told about it could be true; and therefore a person cannot enjoy unmixed pleasure without physiological knowledge.” Yonge (1853)

“It would be impossible to banish fear on matters of the highest importance if a man did not know the nature of the whole universe but lived in dread of what the legends tell us.

Hence, without the study of nature there was no enjoyment of unmixed pleasures.”

Hicks (1910)

“It would be impossible to banish fear on matters of the highest importance, if a man did not know the nature of the whole universe, but lived in dread of what the legends tell us. Hence without the study of nature there was no enjoyment of unmixed pleasures.” Hicks (1925)

“A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that without natural science it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.” Bailey (1926)

“It is impossible for men to dispel the fear concerning things of supreme importance not understanding the nature of the whole universe but suspecting there may be some truth in the stories related in the myths. Consequently it is impossible without the knowledge of Nature to enjoy the pleasures unalloyed.” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 305 (1954)

“It is not possible for one to rid himself of his fears about the most important things if he does not understand the nature of the universe but dreads some of the things he has learned in the myths. Therefore, it is not possible to gain unmixed happiness without natural science.” Geer (1964)

“There is no way to dispel the fear about matters of supreme importance, for someone who does not know what the nature of the universe is but retains some of the fears based on mythology. Hence without natural philosophy there is no way of securing the purity of our pleasures.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 155 (1987)

“It is impossible for anyone to dispel his fear over the most important matters, if he does not know what is the nature of the universe but instead suspects something that happens in myth. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain unmitigated pleasure without natural science.” O'Connor (1993)

“It is impossible for someone ignorant about the nature of the universe but still suspicious about the subjects of the myths to dissolve his feelings of fear about the most important matters. So it is impossible to receive unmixed pleasures without knowing natural science.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.” Anderson (2004)

“It is impossible to be released from fear about the most important things for one who, not having adequate knowledge as to what the nature of the whole is, is trying to second-guess this or that in accordance with the [traditional] fairy tales. Hence, it is impossible to enjoy the pleasures in full unless one has studied natural science.” Makridis (2005)

“It is impossible for someone who is completely ignorant about nature to wash away his fears about the most important matters if he retains some suspicions about the myths.

So it is impossible to experience undiluted enjoyment without studying what is natural.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“It is impossible to get rid of our anxieties about essentials if we do not understand the nature of the universe and are apprehensive about some of the theological accounts.

Hence it is impossible to enjoy our pleasures unadulterated without natural science.” Strodach (2012)

“It would not be possible to dispel fear about the most important matters if a man did not know the nature of the universe, but lived in dread of what the myths describe.

Hence, it would be impossible without the study of nature to enjoy unmixed pleasures.” Mensch (2018)

“There was no way to release someone from fear about the most important things if he does not know the nature of the entirety [sc. universe] and if he is worried about any of the tales sung of old; and so there was no way to obtain unmixed pleasures without studying nature.” White (2021)

Great! I hear Godfrey may join us too!

Thank you Nate!

Welcome GetulioVargasZ ! 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 accounts will be deleted. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourselves 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!

From the Herculaneum Society Pagethat Don found - Someone else who appreciates "thumbing one's nose!"

This life-size piglet was found in the Villa of the Papyri alongside many other bronzes and marbles in the largest collection of statues surviving from the Greco-Roman world. There is some evidence that the Epicureans adopted the piglet as a symbol of their hedonistic philosophy, which did not mean (as their critics alleged) the indulgence of carnal desires but the pursuit of true pleasure and inner tranquillity. The young animal is in an innocent state of nature and has not yet learned the fears and hatreds that cause pain in human life. "Pig" in the mouths of others was an insult so this appropriation of the tag was another way Epicureans thumbed their noses at society's ordinary, misguided values.

This carefree, energetic and frisky youngster, a favourite of many visitors to the Herculaneum Gallery in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples, seemed a good mascot for our young Society when we started up in 2004. And who knows but that pigs may fly?

It does not appear that we currently have a thread devoted to the Leaping Pig, at least not here in this forum where it needs to be. This is to start that thread so we can eventually explore details such as :

1. Where it was discovered.
2. Where it is now.
3. References to it in articles and journals.
4. Creating a replica via 3d printing.
5. How it ties in with Epicurean iconography.

I would also like a graphic version that can be added to the right-hand panel of graphics, probably right underneath the explanation of the EpicureanFriends logo. Something that looks like a flag, perhaps incorporating a circle or other reference to the sun, so that we have two "in your face" references at once.

"Oh, you don't like Epicurus' view of how to consider the size of the sun, we'll just say til the end of time: 'The Size of The Sun Is As It Appears!'"

"Oh, you don't like Epicurus' view of Pleasure as the goal of life and you think certain animals are 'unclean,' well then we'll adopt a PIG as our mascot!"

As to "in your face" references:

In closing I argue that the size of the sun is an Epicurean shibboleth. In Epicurus,in Lucretius and in Demetrius,we see the same nostrum repeated, with progressive elaborations that do not fully clarify the basic precept. The persistence of Epicureans in this formulation is not so much the result of reflexive dogma or pseudo-intellectual obscurantism as it is a passphrase, a litmus test. Think like an Epicurean, and you will figure out that the sun’s appearance and the sun itself are two related but distinct things with two different sizes; that you must keep the infallible data of the senses, tactile as well as visual, in proper perspective when making judgments about your perception; and that the available data is insufficient to estimate the sun’s magnitude to an acceptable degree of confidence (compare Barnes: 1989, 36). Think that Epicureans believe the sun’s diameter is a foot,that they are absurd,and you have exposed yourself as un-Epicurean. The first/second-century AD Stoic doxographer Cleomedes, who as Algra points out “nowhere takes account of the Epicurean principle of multiple explanations,”likewise fails this test when he mocks Epicurus’ position on the size of the sun.

Started June 28, 2022:

"It was indeed excellently said by Epicurus that fortune only in a small degree crosses the wise man’s path, and that his greatest and most important undertakings are executed in accordance with his own design and his own principles, and that no greater pleasure can be reaped from a life which is without end in time, than is reaped from this which we know to have its allotted end." Cicero, On Ends, Book 1. [63]

Thank you Don - I noticed you were scarce yesterday so I am glad you came back around for this one.

The target is the life of pleasure, and yes, it makes a lot of sense that staying "within one's means" is generally a very good idea, and it's something of course I try to do myself too. But in doing so it's essential to remember the goal at all times, and to never get carried away with this or any other "technique" as is the technique in itself is the goal.

That lesson never gets old and seems to need constant repeating in virtually every aspect of life.

"From sensory pleasures and drugs of abuse to monetary, aesthetic and musical delights, all pleasures seem to involve the same hedonic brain systems, even when linked to anticipation and memory."

You mean there's no special mechanism involved in the pleasure of contemplating the majesty of Zeus, or considering yourself to be a flickering part of the Divine fire? That won't please the Stoics if they find out!

Looks like Kalosyni and I crossposted, but I am glad to say that after reading her post I agree it is well stated and thank her for finding the thread I didn't have time to find.

Quote from Philliped1

"According to Lucretius, love is insatiable, accompanied by pain, heart-ache, bitterness, and other mental disturbances."

I don't know who wrote that, but even if it was David Sedley or someone else I highly respect I would say that is not a full picture of what Lucretius wrote.

Certainly romantic high-intensity love CAN be all of those things, but one of the first rules of Epicurean physics that crosses over into ethics is that there is no fate -- no "hard determinism" - and those results are not "inevitable." So the quote above "can" be a "part" of the picture of love, but it is by no means the full picture, and I don't believe Lucretius can fairly be read to say that it is.

(Forgot to start with -- Have you read Chapter four yourself?)

The final words of the chapter are (Humphries):

Finally,

The little woman does not have to be

A raving beauty; she can win your love,

Without the help of any gods, without

The darts of Cupids or of Venuses,

Simply by being decent, neat and clean,

A pleasant person to be living with.

That's about all it takes, and love depends

On habit quite as much as the wild ways

Of passion. Gently does it, as the rain

In time wears through the very hardest stone.

So one of the first observations I would make is that what is being discussed mainly is the intoxication of sexual passion. Intoxication of ANY kind can get someone into trouble, and romantic love is a high-risk / high-reward activity that has to be "handled with care."

I could almost stop there because that's really the main point to be made, but there are all sorts of other observations, including those made in some threads here in the past. (If I have time I'll search through but I know we have forums dedicated to the topic.)

Now if you're talking about long term relationships, marriage, children, and all the rest, that's very different from the intoxication of sexual passion.

We know, for example, that in Epicurus' own will he provided that the daughter(s) (i forget if there was one or more) be married off to one of the members of the school. So we have that example that Epicurus himself was clearly not against all marriage.

The part of the Diogenes Laertius that attempts to summarize what the wise man would do regarding marriage appears to be corrupted, and the experts argue whether it's a general advice yes or no to get married. But the provision for Metrodorus' offspring to be married in my mind tells the tale, and even those who argue about that passage include in their translation that he's talking about marriage "according to circumstances."

And that's exactly what we would respect. There are no moral or fated absolutes in human life (with exception of death) and even dynamite can be handled with care and be very useful. If you're getting long-term attached solely for sex most everyone would agree that that's a bad idea - it just won't work over time.

But as Lucretius closed his chapter, you can have much deeper relationships that DO stand the test of time, and grow over time, if they are based on shared values, shared interests, shared goals, etc.

OK that's a start