Posts by Cassius

Edit: This thread concerns the article here, but much of the discussion focuses on the "bitter gift" reference.

https://greekreporter.com/2022/10/02/ancient-inscription-benefits-epicuranism/

Don I have read parts of Nichomachean ethics but not all. My understanding of one of the major issues is that Aristotle ultimately has no good foundation for what is virtue or the best life other than looking around to see what the leading citizens of Athens choose to do. So that flourishing or whatever terms he employs end up being without a clear foundation such as "pleasure" or even "do what the gods tell you to do" (religion). Even his "prime mover" position ends up being useless in providing a clear guide stone, and his tendency to try to explain things through categorizing then (which only plays games with names and ultimately solves nothing) does not save him either.

I am sure my comments there are overbroad so I will be very interested in your commentary of how you see the Aristotle - Epicurus difference shaking out when you finish.

Happy Birthday to Cassius! Learn more about Cassius and say happy birthday on Cassius's timeline: Cassius

I didn't read the link but the distinction in the text you quoted seems to be making the same point.

We can "feel happy" and know it just by observing the feeling (which is pleasurable). But if we start looking to evaluate "happiness" and whether we meet that evaluation, it's a much more intellectual process that involves a lot more than feelings.

I actually think "joy" has the same issue (and really, the issue is not with the particular word, but with "words" in and of themselves). I can no doubt feel it when I am joyful, but if I were asked to sit back and construct a written definition of the word "joy," that would be just about as difficult as the word 'happiness."

I think the issue that has to be articulated is that we have to be clear that "feelings" are the true guide of life. We can do out best to construct "maps" and write down all sorts of definitions of "happiness" and "pleasure" and "joy" and eudaimonia and everything else, but in the end we have to be clear about the limits of words. Words are maps and they are highly useful, but elaborate definitions can only serve that "map" function -- they cannot be equated with or confused with the feelings themselves. Trying to equate them in every respect leaves us confused and frustrated and shouldn't even be attempted without first making clear this difference between feelings and concepts.

You are very welcome Joshua! I put a lot of effort into the editing but I think the result is worth it. These episodes aren't meant just for us or just for now - I am hoping that they will be listened to for years to come as new people get introduced to Epicurus and look for a friendly and supportive presentation of the philosophy.

On that last point - of the difference between happiness as a feeling and happiness as an abstraction (the issue of the difference between maps and the real world):

Torquatus:

Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.)

Letter to Herodotus:

First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words, in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning. [38] For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference. And besides we must keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations, and in particular with the immediate apprehensions whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen.

Diogenes Laertius:

The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined. Of investigations some concern actual things, others mere words. This is a brief summary of the division of their philosophy and their views on the criterion of truth.

Quote from Kalosyni

And so how would we list The Factors of Happiness

That leads back into the question whether happiness is a feeling or an abatraction - the "map vs the territory issue.". As a feeling, we can say we feel happy and that's that.

But as an abstraction we can list generalities that generally lead people to consider themselves to be happy, but it's probably not possible to create a definitive list because each situation is different. (And I really should not hedge with that "probably.")

As a map the word happiness helps us define the goal, but I think we have to remember that there is a major limit to what we can list within a definition - no definition can fully convey a feeling.

Thank you for all that Joshua! Very interesting.

Happy Birthday to Robert K Stock! Learn more about Robert K Stock and say happy birthday on Robert K Stock's timeline: Robert K Stock

Quote from waterholic

Is it possible to assemble the grounding that Don is talking about in a structured, contemporary manner?

Yes of course it is and that is what "we" need to do. It's a huge job but you have to start somewhere, and not let the awful state of current discussions of Epicurus discourage us.

I almost want to laugh out loud:

How do you set up an outline of Epicurean happiness without ever mentioning "pleasure"?

But after laughing out loud it really make me mad, or better stated, resolved to do as much as possible to improve the situation. This isn't just innocent misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It's the result of trying to be all things to all people, and of trying to say to all the hard-core religionists and absolutists of the world:

"You don't have to put aside any of your current beliefs, YOU TOO can profit from Epicurus without changing a single thing in the way you think!"

Here's another example (the number is endless) of what happens when one jumps right to the ethics. We could paste this in any of a hundred threads here but I just saw this through Kalosyni and it's on my mind at the moment. If you DON"T get the grounding Don is talking about, this is the kind of mishmash you come up with:

From: https://www.verywellmind.com/epicurean-phil…ppiness-4177914

This is a totally different picture of pursuing an Epicurean life than I think most of us here hold, or that we think that Epicurus advocated.

But unless you go through the grounding in physics and epistemology, it all sounds plausible and even uncontroversial if you start with high-level abstracts like "Epicurus taught that we should pursue happiness" and "pleasure is the absence of pain."

So the task of setting up the presentation is a huge one.

I don't think we throw up our hands an give up. We can set up generalities that are also pretty clear, and we can educate people as we go along.

But maybe the most important and for some "dispiriting" thing is that we can't expect to convert the world, and we have to realize that huge numbers of people violently disagree with what Epicurus taught about the universe and how to think.

So we have to be very clear-eyed about what is possible and what is not.

Yes waterholic the work we do here is very helpful but I see it for myself and others as the first step, not by any means the last. I personally feel a lot more competent to articulate a message than I did 10+ years ago when I started, but there is no way I / we would have gotten better without the ability to discuss and interact. Reading and studying alone is a necessity but will never produce the confidence in expression that interaction brings.

But once we gain some level of competence that's just the beginning, and we all need to figure out ways to express the views ourselves in new articles and materials.

As you say we can't just repost the Principle Doctrines or the Vatican Says or any of the material. We need to understand the message so we can internalize it but then rewrite and repackage into new presentations.

I just checked FB and it says the EP page there has 3.9 thousand "members." Of course that is not realistic as to who sees the posts, but it is still a significant number. I need to look up how many "members" we have had here over time, but I doubt that we have more than a hundred (and probably less) people who regularly check in - even lurkers included.

The forum software says we had 1022 "visits" today, which would include lurking non-members, but I have no idea what that really means and surely the serious readership is less than that..

That is hard to say Pacatus as to how many regularly check in at Facebook or here. I bet we actually have more "regulars" here than at Facebook, but the issue is that the EP group at facebook has been "liked" many thousands of times, and posts there go far and wide but to non-committed readers. Our FB group was and I think is the largest "Epicurus" group, and tons of people search Epicurus casually and like it. So it really does have the potential to be seen much more than material posted here - but the readership is much more casual and even hostile

Right the issues that waterholic and pacatus have observed are largely the reason the Epicurean forum at facebook is being little used right now.

However, and it is ironic as heck, but this forum would not be here had I not initially met enough people over the years on Facebook to generate interest in kicking up my efforts a notch. So I do think that a great deal of benefit can come from participating there, but it has to be strictly watched and budgeted or else you end up arguing over and over again on the same minor points.

There are people who enjoy that and I am probably a better student of Epicurus today because I went through that, but it's important to choose one's battles and we now have enough people here (and of much better "quality") that it makes sense to focus here.

However (and this is largely the subject of this week's podcast) there is a large stream of "evangelism" in Epicurean history and even modern practice (if we don't have Epicurean friends in our real lives we really need to work to find/cultivate/"make" them) and public places like Facebook and Twitter are largely the equivalent of the Oinoandan plaza or the literary circles that presumably transmitted Lucretius to us.

Onenski I should have thought of this earlier but one of my favorite articles in all my Epicurean reading bears on what you are talking about.

It's "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" by A A Long.

Look for it here: Long: "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism"

The bottom line (one among many) is that Long suggests that while the swerve is potentially operational at all times, it only "breaks through" to cause observable action in our world in the realm of higher living things who actually exhibit free will.

There's a reference in the letter to Herodotus how Epicurus held that indeed "most things" at least in the physical world are largely deterministic, but Long argues that we can have our cake and eat it too if we observe how Epicurus observed that the swerve was only very slight, meaning that only in rare cases (in the great scheme of things) is it observable in action, which still allows "natural law" to govern most things in our observable world.

I think you will find the article on point and I would very much like to hear what you think about it.

I had been looking for this following quote and just found it. It mostly relates to the issue of "avoiding all pain" and whether we should draw a bright line against all high risk / high adrenaline enterprises.

Quote from Plutarch

14. Plutarch, On Peace of Mind, 2 p. 465F (Johannes Stobaeus, Anthology, 29.79): For this reason not even Epicurus believes that men who are eager for honor and glory should lead an inactive life, but that they should fulfill their natures by engaging in politics and entering public life, on the ground that, because of their natural dispositions, they are more likely to be disturbed and harmed by inactivity if they do not obtain what they desire.

Episode 141 - The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda (Part One) is now available!

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Two 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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.

Today we continue with our reading from the Inscription as translated by Martin Ferguson Smith, and this week we do us on issues regarding the nature of reality.

Fr. 5

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Fr. 6

[As for the first bodies, also] called elements, which on the one hand have subsisted from the beginning [and] are indestructible, and [on the other hand] generate things, we shall explain what [they are] after we have demolished the theories of others.

Well, Heraclitus of Ephesus identified fire as elemental, Thales of Miletus water, Diogenes of Apollonia and Anaximenes air, Empedocles of Acragas fire and air and water and earth, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae the homoeomeries of each thing, and the Stoics matter and God. As for Democritus of Abdera, he did well to identify atoms as elemental, but since his conception of them was in some respects mistaken, he will be considered in the exposition of our theories.

Now we shall bring charges against the said men, not out of contentiousness towards them, but because we wish the truth to be safeguarded; and we shall deal with Heraclitus first, since he has been placed first on our list.

You are mistaken, Heraclitus, in saying that fire is elemental, for neither is it indestructible, since we observe it being destroyed, nor can it generate things...

Fr. 7

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

Episode 142 - The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda (Part Two) "Reality" is now available!