Posts by Cassius

Yes I think that both perspectives are involved and important:

Epicurus would not have taken the philosophical position in support of pleasure that he took unless his position was provable as true by observing the real world practical benefit.

And at the same time:

Epicurus would have rejected the real world practical benefit of pleasure (just as we sometime choose pain over pleasure) if he had been philosophically convinced that a greater benefit were achievable either now or after death by following supernatural religion or "virtue" or "rationalism."

You've got to have both perspectives because they go together and reinforce each other.

One without the other is much more vulnerable to attack. Together they withstand both "practical" and "philosophical" attack.

Here are two brief Wikipedia articles that I think are highly relevant because they go to the core of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. What I am suggesting is that if this central issue ("the good" / "the form of the good") was among the most important things that Aristotle and Plato were arguing about, we would expect that Epicurus too would weigh in on the topic of "the good" very early in the Principal Doctrines. Unless and until refuted Plato and Aristotle's position that the most important thing in life to us is "the good" we would never expect to proceed further away from what Plato and Aristotle taught. The first step in the analysis has to be establishing that this "form of the good" is not to be looked to as the ultimate standard. You don't even begin to discuss "types of pleasures" or "which pleasures to choose" until you first establish that pleasures itself is the goal.

How do you do that in a single document (which as we discuss a lot, was not numbered in the original version)?

To me, we can look for that logical process is what we see in the PD's. The first point to establish is the proof that, if accepted, allows you to reject the view that there are no supernatural gods and that the gods do not and cannot punish you after death. You start with that first because everyone, even Plato and Aristotle, essentially point to religion and supernatural gods as the source of everything. And you don't just say "The gods don't exist and there is no life after death" because you're a philosopher and you're listing out proofs (logical arguments) not just raw assertions.

And then the second point that you establish, in order of importance after disposing of the supernatural claims, is you provide the proof that there is no logical argument against considering "Pleasure" to be the good. And you do that by directly addressing the most potent logical argument against pleasure, which is that (in Platonic terms) "since pleasure has no limit it is in the class of the more or less and therefore is not a superlative and cannot be considered to be the highest or best." And I see that as the reason for the otherwise convoluted wording "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful." All the rest of PD3 and PD4 as to pleasure and pain are subsidiary corollaries that address Platonic logical arguments against making "Pleasure" the highest good.

Seen this way PD01 through PD04 are not primarily therapeutic advice (though they do have that effect for those who are able to absorb them). They are primarily logical positions intended as cannonballs fired against the opposing philosophical positions that ruled Epicurus' world and still rule ours today.

Wikipedia:

1 - The Form of the Good Interestingly I see the shortest blurb on wikipedia about that is "Superlative Concept in the Philosophy of Plato."

The first references that are seen in The Republic to the Form of the Good are within the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates (454 c–d). When he is trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of justice, Plato identifies that we should not "introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature" instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves" which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508 a–c), Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, "sun is not sight" but it is "the cause of sight itself." As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is "what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower". It is not only the "cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge". Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, "good is yet more prized". He then proceeds to explain "although the good is not being" it is "superior to it in rank and power", it is what "provides for knowledge and truth" (508e)

The discussion surrounding this article implies that this "form of the good" is maybe the single central concept of Platonism. Amusing fact: "There is an ancient anecdotal tradition that Plato gave a public lecture entitled "On the Good" which so confused the audience that most walked out. At the end of the lecture Plato said to those hearers who remained: 'The Good is the One."

The article also points out Aristotle's criticism: " Aristotle discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argues that Plato's Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign "goodness" to anything in the existing world. Because Plato's Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good is thereby irrelevant to human ethics"

2. The Summum Bonum We have discussed this recently in our review of Torquatus. This article lays the phrase at the foot of Cicero: "Summum bonum is a Latin expression meaning the highest or ultimate good, which was introduced by the Roman philosopher Cicero^[1][2] to denote the fundamental principle on which some system of ethics is based — that is, the aim of actions, which, if consistently pursued, will lead to the best possible life. Since Cicero, the expression has acquired a secondary meaning as the essence or ultimate metaphysical principle of Goodness itself, or what Plato called the Form of the Good. These two meanings do not necessarily coincide. For example, Epicurean and Cyrenaic philosophers claimed that the 'good life' consistently aimed for pleasure, without suggesting that pleasure constituted the meaning or essence of Goodness outside the ethical sphere. In De finibus, Cicero explains and compares the ethical systems of several schools of Greek philosophy, including Stoicism, Epicureanism, Aristotelianism and Platonism, based on how each defines the ethical summum bonum differently."

Unfortunately as best I can tell Seneca does a much more clear job of stating this issue than does Plato/Socrates. Here is a very clear statement, but even this statement indicates that we need to be careful what we mean by "limitless", because apparently "Limitless" also can be viewed as a definite quantity. It appears that "the ability to increase or decrease," or "the ability to have more or less" is the real problem they are identifying, and so we have to be careful with any definition of "pleasure" that indicates we can have more or less of it.

It appears to me that this is all highly abstract, and not directly related to the choice of particular pleasures on a moment to moment basis. The question of which pleasures should be chosen comes next, AFTER we first identify "pleasure" as the ultimate greatest good / goal / guide (rather than virtue or god or reason).

If we step too quickly from the question (1) What is the greatest good? to the question (2) How should I pursue pleasure? then we're likely to miss the answer to question one entirely, and get confused if we use the answer to question one as the answer to question two. They are two separate questions which the Platonic logical argument (to which Epicurus is responding) is addressing separately.

Quote

but virtue itself does not become less or greater.^[4] For the Supreme Good cannot diminish, nor may virtue retrograde; rather is it transformed, now into one quality and now into another, shaping itself according to the part which it is to play. 8. Whatever it has touched it brings into likeness with itself, and dyes with its own colour. It adorns our actions, our friendships, and sometimes entire households which it has entered and set in order. Whatever it has handled it forthwith makes lovable, notable, admirable.

Therefore the power and the greatness of virtue cannot rise to greater heights, because increase is denied to that which is superlatively great. You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate. 9. Every virtue is limitless; for limits depend upon definite measurements. Constancy cannot advance further, any more than fidelity, or truthfulness, or loyalty. What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.^[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.

This is not a long dialog and this statement is pretty close to the start so it is easy to get the full context by starting at the beginning:

Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 66 - Wikisource, the free online library

Quote from Kalosyni

And then this points also toward what types of pleasures to pursue, and that "natural" pleasures can be fullfilled and are achievable (thus have a limit) -- and give a longer lasting feeling of fullfillment.

Ok I see this as an area of potential confusion that needs clarity.

I do not think that "can be fulfilled" and "achievable" should be viewed as the heart of the discussion in what is being talked about in PD3 or is the issue in responding to Plato as the basis for designating or not designating Pleasure as the greatest good.

It is not "possessing a limit" that itself makes "pleasure" worthy of being designated as the highest good. As Plato lists in Philebus, many things can have a limit. For example, it appears that Plato would say that all of the "virtues" have a limit because they are "superlatives." (See also the statement from Seneca in the post below.)

Virtue is complete in and of itself, in their view. If you're missing some element of virtue, then you're not really virtuous. For this reasoning look back at "in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind?"

He is stating that wisdom and knowledge and "mind" are complete in and of themselves, and therefore they are not rightly placed in the category of things of which you can have less or more. You're either "wise" or you're "not wise" -- he's saying that if you can add more wisdom to someone, then that person was not fully wise in the first place.

Unfortunately this discussion in Philebus is very complex and does not seem to be nearly as clear as it should be. In the part I quoted above I left out a long tangent that ends in this way:

and

I don't think we can adequately deal with this whole issue until we get a clear grasp of this argument, and I will be the first to admit that I don't have as good as grasp of it as I would like.

But what does seem clear to me is that we aren't yet talking about "individual pleasures" and we aren't at the level of being concerned with dividing up natural and necessary pleasures and choosing between them,

In this argument we are still at the basic level of whether "PLEASURE" can qualify as the highest good, as against VIRTUE, or PIETY or something like that.

And if we get ahead of ourselves and take this "limit" argument and derive from it that we should somehow "limit our pleasure" in life by means of the choices we make, then I think that's the straight road to asceticism, which is exactly where we DON"T want to end up if "Pleasure" is in fact the goal of life.

Joshua, Kalosyni, and anyone else who is willing to get into the details of this discussion in Philebus, I hope you will weigh in because I think it is hard to overstate the significance of this issue.

"Philebus" is reputed to be one of Plato's most mature and important dialogs. It is his "tour-de-force" against Pleasure as the good. And the tip of the spear of his argument by which he defeats the pro-pleasure side is this very argument -- by convincing the pro-pleasure side that pleasure has no limit (it can always be increased or decreased) he persuades Philebus (the pro-pleasure side) to abandon the argument that pleasure is the highest good.

In Athens in the age of Epicurus it therefore seems to me that Epicurus would have viewed the necessity of defeating this argument as almost as important as defeating the argument in favor of supernatural gods, and the argument in favor of reward or punishment after death. Epicurus was a teacher right in the heart of Athenian logic and philosophy, and this logical argument against pleasure had been enshrined as the gold standard by the most important teacher in Greek philosophy.

I also feel sure there are statements of this argument beyond this one in Philebus, and the examples cited above in Seneca. I just haven't had time to find more at this point.

We need more and better examples to illustrate what is in issue, because it is hard to follow given the shades of meaning of the word "limit."

One way is to go back to reneliza 's pink circle model:

In this diagram, the "limit of pleasure" is the edge of each circle. Each circle can contain only so much color, and no more, and the total quantity - the total magnitude - of "pink / pleasure" is the "area" of the circle contained within its edge.

By our definition of pink as containing ALL shades of pink (just like we define pleasure as containing ALL kinds of pleasure) we state that circles 2, 3, and 4 have all reached the LIMIT OF PINK (Pleasure). We may want to superficially quibble that "all shades of pink are not pink!" but we have DEFINED pink as including all shades, so circles 2, 3, and 4 have all reached their limit because they are completely filled with pink.

Circle 1, alone, has not reached the limit of pleasure, because it contains a lot of "white" space (our stand-in here for pain). Circle 1 cannot reach the "limit of pink" until all the white space is filled in with some shade of pink.

And this is one of the huge points: We don't make circle one reach the limit of pleasure simply by getting rid of all the white!!!! We can't replace the white with black or gold or green or any other random color, and we also can't simply make the white "disappear!"

We have to replace all the white (pain) with pink (pleasure) in order to reach the limit of pink/pleasure!

Welcome DavidN ! Please 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!

I agree with what is written above, but I also think there is another section on Philiebus which is more on point with the question of "why" the absence of a limit to pleasure was significant to Plato in relation to pleasure. The same argument is asserted with even greater clarity in Seneca, which I quote below too, but to me the essence of the argument is the logical point that if a thing has no limit, then it an always be made better,. The big point comes down to;: Once you admit something has no limit, then you admit it can be made better, and then by definition since it can be made better what you have isn't "the best" or "the highest" possible. To be the "highest good" something must really be the "best possible," and that means (sort of counterintuitively since we consider the word "limit" to be bad) that the best possible must have a "limit." The logical reasoning (which makes sense when you think about the varuous meanings of the word "limit") is that that which has no limit (no "highest point beyond which you can go no further") cannot be "the best."

As Seneca says it very precisely - "“THE ABILITY TO INCREASE IS PROOF THAT A THING IS IMPERFECT.”" In other words, if something belongs to the class which can be increased or decreased, then the quantify of that thing is not "perfect" --

Plato uses Philebus as a patsy, because Philebus misunderstands the implications of how "perfect" and "admitting of more or less" fit together. By admitting that pleasure has no limit, and can always be increased, he loses the argument to Plato. It's a point that tripped up Philebus, and it continues to trip up a lot of people today because they equate the "limit" as being a negative thing - when it seems clear when viewed logically that this use of "limit" is not bad at all - any more than saying that the fact that Mount Everest has a highest tip takes away from the fact that it is the highest mountain in the world (or whatever mountain it is that holds that honor).

That is why in my view it was important for Epicurus to show that pleasure has a limit. Unless we can show what that limit is (when all pain is gone from our life) then we have no limit we can point to, and thus, by Seneca and Socrates' reasoning, "pleasure" cannot be the highest good.

From Philebus:

SOCRATES: Have pleasure and pain a limit, or do they belong to the class which admits of more and less?

PHILEBUS: They belong to the class which admits of more, Socrates; for pleasure would not be perfectly good if she were not infinite in quantity and degree.

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now — admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite — in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question. …

SOCRATES: And whence comes that soul, my dear Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains elements like those in our bodies but in every way fairer, had also a soul? Can there be another source?

PROTARCHUS: Clearly, Socrates, that is the only source.

SOCRATES: Why, yes, Protarchus; for surely we cannot imagine that of the four classes, the finite, the infinite, the composition of the two, and the cause, the fourth, which enters into all things, giving to our bodies souls, and the art of self-management, and of healing disease, and operating in other ways to heal and organize, having too all the attributes of wisdom; — we cannot, I say, imagine that whereas the self-same elements exist, both in the entire heaven and in great provinces of the heaven, only fairer and purer, this last should not also in that higher sphere have designed the noblest and fairest things?

PROTARCHUS: Such a supposition is quite unreasonable.

SOCRATES: Then if this be denied, should we not be wise in adopting the other view and maintaining that there is in the universe a mighty infinite and an adequate limit, of which we have often spoken, as well as a presiding cause of no mean power, which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may be justly called wisdom and mind?

PROTARCHUS: Most justly.

The same argument in Seneca:

Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVI: This also is a saying of Epicurus: “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich.” Nature’s wants are slight; the demands of opinion are boundless. Suppose that the property of many millionaires is heaped up in your possession. Assume that fortune carries you far beyond the limits of a private income, decks you with gold, clothes you in purple, and brings you to such a degree of luxury and wealth that you can bury the earth under your marble floors; that you may not only possess, but tread upon, riches. Add statues, paintings, and whatever any art has devised for the luxury; you will only learn from such things to crave still greater. **Natural desires are limited; but those which spring from false opinion can have no stopping point. The false has no limits. **

Seneca’s Letters – To Lucilius – 66.45: “What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect.

Sorry to have missed you tonightRoot304 but hope you can join us next week.

Quote from Don

Epicurus gets at what her looked like writing to Menoikeus.

Do you think it's safe to presume that letter was written soon after arrival in Athens?

I know people say the style is different and we can presume something from that, but frankly I'm not sure how to interpret that.

I have to say that of the ones I have seen this one is my favorite:

Start at 2:04:

Thread

Bust Of Epicurus Reconstructed - Great Video Shared by Elli!

Thank you for finding this Elli! WOW Epicurus comes out STRONG in this video! Here's Epicurus reconstructed, and then afterwards the full video at about the 2:05 mark. This Epicurus is ready to star in his own movie!

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/1814/



youtube.com/watch?v=lq5JvWUMJE4

Cassius

April 21, 2021 at 9:05 PM

REMINDER: Tonight is our Wednesday Open Invitation Zoom, and we will talk about PD03 and PD04, as well as issues and opportunities in talking about Epicurus in the world today.

And we hope to see you this Wednesday too.

Good to have you Root304!

Welcome @Root304 ! Please 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!

Wednesday the 1st of June will be the first Wednesday of the month, and in accord with our planning this would be the week that we talk about art and music and poetry. The way we described it at Eventbrite was:

- First Wednesday of the Month - Questions from the Floor - Bring your questions on any topic related to Epicurus that you wish.

Let's use this thread to make suggestions as to topics to include - which means if you have a suggestion for a particular topic and would like to talk about it, please post it here.

Just posted on Facebook:

Our review of the final Chapter of A Few Days In Athens is now online. We'll record one more session tonight in recap of the book and then the series will be over. Thanks to all who participated, and the edited recordings of the sessions will be available in the future for those who are interested at the link below.

Updated graphic for Wednesday the 25th ----

Revised LOGO for this week - thanks Kalosyni!

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty 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.

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 in Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, and address some difficult material about the properties and qualities of atoms and bodies and what it means to exist. We probably raise more issues than we answer in this episode, so please review the show notes and we will come back to these issues in the next show.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

Bailey

All these properties have their own peculiar means of being perceived and distinguished, provided always that the aggregate body goes along with them and is never wrested from them, but in virtue of its comprehension as an aggregate of qualities acquires the predicate of body.

[70] Furthermore, there often happen to bodies and yet do not permanently accompany them accidents, of which we must suppose neither that they do not exist at all nor that they have the nature of a whole body, nor that they can be classed among unseen things nor as incorporeal. So that when according to the most general usage we employ this name, we make it clear that accidents have neither the nature of the whole, which we comprehend in its aggregate and call body, nor that of the qualities which permanently accompany it, without which a given body cannot be conceived.

[71] But as the result of certain acts of apprehension, provided the aggregate body goes along with them, they might each be given this name, but only on occasions when each one of them is seen to occur, since accidents are not permanent accompaniments. And we must not banish this clear vision from the realm of existence, because it does not possess the nature of the whole to which it is joined nor that of the permanent accompaniments, nor must we suppose that such contingencies exist independently (for this is inconceivable both with regard to them and to the permanent properties), but, just as it appears in sensation, we must think of them all as accidents occurring to bodies, and that not as permanent accompaniments, or again as having in themselves a place in the ranks of material existence; rather they are seen to be just what our actual sensation shows their proper character to be.

[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.

HICKS

They all have their own characteristic modes of being perceived and distinguished, but always along with the whole body in which they inhere and never in separation from it; and it is in virtue of this complete conception of the body as a whole that it is so designated.

[70] Again, qualities often attach to bodies without being permanent concomitants. They are not to be classed among invisible entities nor are they incorporeal. Hence, using the term 'accidents' in the commonest sense, we say plainly that 'accidents' have not the nature of the whole thing to which they belong, and to which, conceiving it as a whole, we give the name of body, nor that of the permanent properties without which body cannot be thought of.

[71]And in virtue of certain peculiar modes of apprehension into which the complete body always enters, each of them can be called an accident. But only as often as they are seen actually to belong to it, since such accidents are not perpetual concomitants. There is no need to banish from reality this clear evidence that the accident has not the nature of that whole – by us called body – to which it belongs, nor of the permanent properties which accompany the whole. Nor, on the other hand, must we suppose the accident to have independent existence (for this is just as inconceivable in the case of accidents as in that of the permanent properties); but, as is manifest, they should all be regarded as accidents, not as permanent concomitants, of bodies, nor yet as having the rank of independent existence. Rather they are seen to be exactly as and what sensation itself makes them individually claim to be.

[72]There is another thing which we must consider carefully. We must not investigate time as we do the other accidents which we investigate in a subject, namely, by referring them to the preconceptions envisaged in our minds; but we must take into account the plain fact itself, in virtue of which we speak of time as long or short, linking to it in intimate connexion this attribute of duration. We need not adopt any fresh terms as preferable, but should employ the usual expressions about it.

Nor need we predicate anything else of time, as if this something else contained the same essence as is contained in the proper meaning of the word 'time' (for this also is done by some). We must chiefly reflect upon that to which we attach this peculiar character of time, and by which we measure it.

[73] No further proof is required: we have only to reflect that we attach the attribute of time to days and nights and their parts, and likewise to feelings of pleasure and pain and to neutral states, to states of movement and states of rest, conceiving a peculiar accident of these to be this very characteristic which we express by the word 'time.' [He says this both in the second book "On Nature" and in the Larger Epitome.]