Posts by Cassius

Started May 19, 2022:

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into "what is the means of happiness?" and they wanted to say "the virtues" (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not "what is the means of happiness?" but "what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?", I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point. (Diogenes of Oinoanda)

Fr. 32

... [the latter] being as malicious as the former.

I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now.

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.

Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Suppose, then, someone were to ask someone, though it is a naive question, «who is it whom these virtues benefit?», obviously the answer will be «man.» The virtues certainly do not make provision for these birds flying past, enabling them to fly well, or for each of the other animals: they do not desert the nature with which they live and by which they have been engendered; rather it is for the sake of this nature that the virtues do everything and exist.

Each (virtue?) therefore ............... means of (?) ... just as if a mother for whatever reasons sees that the possessing nature has been summoned there, it then being necessary to allow the court to asked what each (virtue?) is doing and for whom .................................... [We must show] both which of the desires are natural and which are not; and in general all things that [are included] in the [former category are easily attained] .....

Martin Ferguson Smith's translation of the Inscription: http://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html

Ended May 19, 2022:

Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. ... [W]hen cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes....

("Torquatus" -  Cicero's "On Ends" I-XIX)

Many of the things we could list as "images, nicknames, or things" associated with Epicurus deserve a thread of their own, but we can start with a list or table and then branch off as needed. Here's an effort for a start. Please suggest others and I will add them to the list. One purpose of this list will be to help in development of graphics and other "creative" presentations.

Thank you Joshua! I would really like to nail this down once and for all. I guess I am half blind but the sketches don't seem to matxh the originals in their cases nearly as well as that od Epicurus does. No possible confusion there...

I thought we had another very good session tonight - thanks to everyone who participated and especially Kalosyni for her presentation.

I admit even after years of study I still get confused when comparing the busts of Metrodorus and Hermarchus.

For example I thought this is Metrodorus:

But I am not 100% sure of that, and I don't have good side by side and authoritatively labeled PHOTOS of the existing busts from Herculaneum.

Can anyone help with that?

In this compilation of the ETCHINGS, the faces look pretty distinguishable:

But when I compare these to that photo (above) it's not at all easy for me to say which is which. Is the photo the same as the bust on the left or the right of that photo? And what's the right name labeling?

From Wikipedia, but that to me doesn't really look like EITHER of the etchings.

This Wednesday the 25th of May will be the fourth 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:

-Fourth Wednesday of the Month - Sharing Epicurean Ideas In The Modern World - Discuss ideas for engagement with people who don't know Epicurean Philosophy but who might be open to discussing it.

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

Quote from Kalosyni

These are all nuances, and interesting to talk about.

Yes, right, because we sometimes choose not to survive if the cost in pain in our view would be too great.

Survival itself is valuable only to the extent that it would lead to more pleasure than pain.

So I think we're agreeing that any goal to "survive" is a valuable goal only to the extent that we think it will lead to more pleasure than pain.

I wonder if it was for reasons like this that Nietzsche went for a "will to power" rather than "will to survive." Of course I think there's lots of other opinion out there on how "survival" may be the automatic goal that kicks in instinctively, but that "survival for the sake of survival" isn't on many philosophers' list of good ideas, unless the survival lead to something else (in Epicurus' case pleasure).

Kalosyni's post causes me to continue beating the poor dead horse by an image that Joshua's post evokes:

Quote from Joshua

First Snow in Alsace

by Richard Wilbur

The snow came down last night like moths

Burned on the moon; it fell till dawn,

Covered the town with simple cloths.

Absolute snow lies rumpled on

What shellbursts scattered and deranged,

Entangled railings, crevassed lawn.

Display More

The picture I now have in my mind to double down on the point is thinking of those poor devils in the trenches fighting WW1 (I'm not sure where Alsace is but I'll take it as close enough to the trench warfare area).

Even if I were huddled down in a trench in miserable cold and wet conditions keeping my head down and listening to shellbursts exploding overhead, I submit an Epicurean in that position should still look at every moment by moment decision using the same criteria I would if I were at a banquet in Paris:

Every decision every moment comes down to the same issue: By what standards do we make our decisions. Even in the trench an inch or a second away from possible death, the answer is the same: Every decision is weighed by the same question: "What will happen to me if I make this choice? Will this choice bring me greater pleasure or greater pain?"

Or as stated in the Vatican Sayings:

VS71. Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?

I don't think that's limited to "every desire" in the sense of choosing from vanilla vs chocolate ice cream. It's the ultimate question that has to be automatized and used as rigorously as you can to optimize every second of your life.

EDIT: .... the ultimate question.... as opposed to:

"What would God want me to do?"

"What would I do if I were a virtuous person?"

"What would logic and reason alone (if I were a Vulcan like Mr Spock) tell me to do?"

Ok so our agenda for tonight will be a different order from last week. Tonight will be:

(1) Welcomes
(2) Special Presentaiton by Kalosyni

(3) PD2

(4) Goodbyes

1 - yes credit for this topic goes to Marco, not to me... I just added the pedantic word playing

2 - Kalosynis view of the definition is the common one, yet to understand the philosophy we have to use the broader one that Epicurus was using. That makes it necessary to speak to both types of people and practice being understood to both.

Quote from Don

"I want to feel pleasure so I'll go to war." or "War gives me pleasure."

I think we're pretty much on the same page after reading the recent posts.

I think the issues that arise in discussing things like this is mainly a matter of keeping multiple contexts in mind.

Those two statements of course as written without additional context would be highly unlikely to make sense in most cases.

But since everything is a "case" more than a "rule" even those two could be tied to a context and make sense:

"I want to continue to feel pleasure at living under the Roman Republic so I will participate in assassinating Julius Caesar and go to war against Anthony and Octavian." (That would be something I could easily hear Cassius Longinus saying, given his letters to Cicero justifying his Epicurean beliefs, but as always when discussing the Roman Civil War there seem to be a lot of things going on beneath the surface so I am not really sure whose side I would take if i had been there)

"War against the Persians will lead to great pleasure if am able able to save Sparta and Greece." (I could hear Leonidas saying something like that prior to Themopalyae.)

But really at this point there's probably nothing further to be accomplished in illustrating the point. As usual I think we're basically at the same position. The interesting point that we can file away for the future is the extent to which illustrations like this are helpful in the "teaching" aspect of Epicurean philosophy. For the same reason that we discussed it we probably do need good examples of the point that only "pleasure" itself is ALWAYS a desirable feeling (because our nature presents itself to us that way.

That means everything else (even the **choice** to pursue a particular pleasure at a particular moment) has to be evaluated contextually.

And I don't think we are just playing with words. I think the clear articulation of these issues has to come before we can clearly understand it or express the point to others.

"but I wouldn't phrase it as happiness and joy are the "product of war."

My main clarification in this point is that I would not say (and don't think I did) that they are ALWAYS the product of war but pleasure CAN BE the product of war and of many other things that we find generally disreputable.

The test is always in the consequences, because if a thing in fact generates any degree of pleasure, it is pleasurable at least for that moment. Maybe not a wise idea at all, but the proof of whether any pleasure is generated is in the actual result for the time that pleasure is generated, rather than all the ultimate consequences of pain which may or may not occur later.

Plus there is great pleasure in defeating your enemy - not something we would immediately look kindly on in polite company, but there nevertheless.

I think we once again have to separate pleasure as an ultimate goal, which we wouldn't generally pursue through a life of war, with the pleasures that can come through most any activity that is not always and every moment painful. And as much as we might want to call it that, many people do get great pleasure in war - at least when they are winning - just like boxers and others who fight for a living (all competitive sports?) Find it very exhilarating - again at least in some moments.

Just posted this on facebook as a reminder:

Last week we had eight people at our first Wednesday Open Invitation Zoom, and we invite both those from last week and new visitors this week to attend. The link is the same as last week (if you saved it) - otherwise follow the Eventbrite link below:

Several of us who are a part of either this Epicurean Philosophy Facebook group or of the EpicureanFriends.com forum are working on a new friendship-building project: a weekly hour-long Zoom meeting of those who are interested in casual "live" conversation about Epicurean philosophy. We intend to promote this beyond Facebook, so we are setting up an Eventbrite page to coordinate the Zoom link across other social media sites. Our second session will be this coming Wednesday May 18 at 8:30 PM Eastern USA time, and you can find a link and further description at the Eventbrite page below. The page references "tickets" but of course admission is free. No doubt we'll go through a shakedown period as we get off the ground, but we hope to develop something that will be a positive addition to the existing Epicurean internet communities. Let us know in the thread below if you have any questions. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/epicurean-op…ts-335486799047

Yes a very poor mental image :-). We need one better for lancing the boil, and a better term than "hedonist". At the very least a modifier for it, but since hedone isn't even an original English world we need to do better.

This far we are at "Epicurean" but that doesn't advance the goal toward being self-explanatory.

Call it a definitional issue or philosophical issue or just call it a word game it you must, but this has got to be one of our key challenges. How do we make this so clear that the terminology becomes second nature?

There is NEVER any goal that is a goal in itself other than pleasure, and there is no contradiction in at the same time saying that we sometimes choose pain in order to achieve pleasure.

This confusion is at the root of so much confusion.

As weve just seen in going through AFDIA, people get attracted to "pleasure" but they often never shake the premise that they came in with - they think there is something higher than pleasure which has to steer the ship toward some other goal to save us from ourselves and from overindulgence.

The philosophical boil has to be popped:. We sometimes choose pain in our daily activities due to circumstances, but our goal in making every choice and avoidance decision is always pleasure.

Maybe it helps to reduce pleasure and pain to "feeling" and simply say that it is feeling that makes life worthwhile. Yes we sometimes make choices that cause temporary annoyances to our feelings, but we can't ever lose sight that it is for the sake of our best "feeling" that we do everything.

What we don't feel is, like death, nothing to us.

Quote from Godfrey

I ask this because my reaction to this specific quote is that it’s even more necessary to seek pleasure and avoid pain in an unsafe environment.

Yes I think you've pointed out the issue in Kalosyni's original wording.

From the highest-level point of view, our orientation is that we are ALWAYS seek to obtain pleasure and avoid pain.

The issue is that from the moment-to-moment point of view we can and often do choose pain so as to obtain a greater pleasure, or to avoid a worse pain.

This is the continuing problem of labels like "hedonism" and accepting the negative stereotype that the Epicurean is going to be a slacker and pursue momentary or lesser pleasures rather than to undergo the pain and effort that are often required to obtain more important goals. Epicurus makes very clear that that is not true, but calling him a "hedonist" or a "pleasure-seeker" obscures the big picture given the corruption of the language.

I agree with what Kalosyni wrote.

Also:

Quote from Kalosyni

So in some sense happiness and joy are a product of peace. It would not be safe to spend too much time "seeking happiness" in an unsafe environment.

And in other cases happiness and joy can be the product of war, if under the circumstances war is necessary to obtain or preserve the peace.

My point to emphasize would be that in the end there is nothing - not even "peace" which is desirable in and of itself other than pleasure, and everything else has to be considered a contextual tool that may or may not be appropriate to choose at a particular moment.

"Ultimately" the goal is pleasure, but at any particular moment our context may demand that we choose actions that are for the moment painful.