Posts by Cassius

This festival is coming up soon and I am delinquent in not getting something posted more publicly about it.

michelepinto can you help us with links to pages about the event?

Thank you!!!

I don't know about anyone else but I don't pretend to have any confidence in any particular reconstruction we've seen so far. Why should the number of horses or elephants be related to each other?

Now for things which are in some sense natural opposites, like "hot" and "cold" - I can more readily see that.

But I think we ought to be able to do a better job of reconstructing Epicurus' thought than what I have seen so far.

The principle of "Nature never makes a single thing of a kind" seems to me to be pretty firmly graspable and a firm starting point for expecting there to be an infinite number of worlds (or for the sake of our discussion, and infinite number of planets like Earth).

And I can see there being some kind of observable "progression" in those things that Nature has created. Nature has created pleasure as a reality (a very deep question there) but regardless of anything else we know that living things have the feeling of pleasure and pain and it's a small leap to conclude that this faculty of feeling allows living things to "progress" over time to get stronger and more self-fulfilling.

But as for there being an "equal number" of beings through some kind of princple of opposition or linkeage, I think we would need to be able to articulate something better than "Velleius says so." "Maybe" the equality issue arises from the infinite number series observation that is cited above, but if Epicurus' point was there there is an infinite number of everything and therefore there's the same number of everything -- that does not seem to me like the kind of point Epicurus would have made -- it sounds too purely abstractly mathematical to me.

So therefore I suspect something more than has been articulated so far, and I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that this was an interpolation of later Epicureans.

I guess my focus would be on a more likely translation of "all like things match all like things."

Yes it's not the "calculus" part that causes the problem, it's the association of the term in full as Don said.

Quote from camotero

Incidentally, this hedonistic calculus, in my interpertation, is the swerve in action.

Yes IMHO you are doing a good job of describing it. The only real problem with the term "hedonistic" calculus is that it's not a label the Epicureans accepted or used, so far as I can tell, and the term is today more associated with a Cyreniac "pleasure of the moment" attitude. When you're debating a term like "hedonistic calculus" that isn't originated or trademarked by Epicurus it's easy to get confused. Epicurus taught a full "worldview" philosophy and the real secret of Epicurean philosophy is not so much stacking up pleasures against pain, which most anyone can do to some degree, but gaining an understanding of the universe that allows you to "intelligently" stack up those pleasures against those pains, and more accurately and succesfully obtain a better result in the process.

Quote from camotero

A.When in doubt, focus on eliminating pains, this IS OK, and it's the first type of pleasure

I suspect that it is literally true that in most cases when you don't know what to do next, jumping out of the frying pan without worrying too much about the direction you're jumping is a good idea.

But along with the comment above, the real heart of Epicurean philosophy comes from understanding the full situation you as a human are in through applied physics and epistemology and ethics. Maybe as reflected in the first part of your sentence, when you have grasped such a worldview you have significantly decreased the range of "doubts" that you should be experiencing, and you should have a much better idea of how to proceed toward pleasure. If you DON'T do that, then you will be as Epicurus describes - you will have studed and observed phenomena but not understood anything, and in fact you might even be in a worse position than before, because now you have 100s more questions but no scheme of understanding through which to approach them.

And as Epirucus himself says, sometimes you WILL choose pains, as you indicated Camotero, so you must have an understanding of where you are in order to decide whether a particular pain SHOULD be eliminated immediately, and how. The Frying pan might be hot, but if that frying pan is suspending you over the grand canyon you might be well advised to stay in the frying pan til you've figured out a way to arrange a soft landing.

Not trying to be nit-picky here but I hope you see the general point is the big one you've done a good job of addressing in your post. The quantity of absence of pain may equal pleasure quantitatively, but qualitatively and contextually things are always unique and nothing is ever fully at rest, and PLEASURE is the word that Epicurus always comes back to as the guide. So when possible, even when confronting pains, it might often be a better course to "wait" and gain a better understanding of the full picture before blindly attacking the pains of the moment without an overall strategy.

It is my understanding that that Velleius material is indeed the only source for much of what is said there. Which doesn't mean it isn't accurate, given the way Cicero was using other material to prepare his philosophy works, but does mean we don't have much else to go by unless we can find it in Lucretius.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty Eight 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.

This week we are going to take a detour from the letter to Pythocles while both Joshua and Don are away. For this one week only (unless something unusual develops) we will discuss the Twelve Fundamentals of Nature. Part of the discussion has already begun here: The Twelve Fundamentals - Discussion on Lucretius Today Podcast

We'll refer to two lists, one by DeWitt and one by Diskin Clay:

The Elementary Principles of Nature below are as set forth by Epicurus and summarized in English by Norman Dewitt in his book “Epicurus And His Philosophy.” This list is provided for convenience. For discussion of each item, please see the forum devoted to each one.

PN 01 Matter is uncreatable.

PN 02 Matter is indestructible.

PN 03 The universe consists of solid bodies and void.

PN 04 Solid bodies are either compounds or simple.

PN 05 The multitude of atoms is infinite.

PN 06 The void is infinite in extent.

PN 07 The atoms are always in motion.

PN 08 The speed of atomic motion is uniform.

PN 09 Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds.

PN 10 Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time.

PN 11 Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size.

PN 12 The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable.

Thanks to Nate for retrieving these different reconstruction of this list by Diskin Clay: "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament" - by Diskin Clay

In Paradosis and Survival (12), Clay writes:

1. “Nothing comes into being out of nothing.” (EH 38.8-39.1, DRN I 145-150, 159-160)

2. “Nothing is reduced to nothing.” (EH 39.1-2, DRN I 215-218, 237)

3. “The universe always was as it is and always will be.” (EH 39.1-2, DRN II 294-307; V 359-363) (Atomic Theory; Quantum Field Theory)

4. “The universe is made up of bodies and void.” (EH 39.6-40.2, DRN I 418-428)

5. “Bodies are atoms and their compounds.” (EH 40.7-9, DRN I 483-486)

6. “The universe is infinite.” (EH 41.6-10, DRN I 958-1001)

7. “Atoms are infinite in number and space extends without limit” (EH 41.11-42.4, DRN I 1008-1020)

8. “Atoms of similar shape are infinite in number, but the variety of their shapes is indefinite, not infinite.” (EH 42.10-43.4, DRN II 522-527)

9. “Atomic motion is contstant and of two kinds.” (EH 43.5-44.1, DRN II 95-102 [I 952])

10. “Atoms share only three of the characteristics of sensible things: shape, weight, mass.” (EH 54.3-6, DRN II 748-752)

In Lucretius' Translation of Greek Philosophy (35-39), Clay writes:

1. “Nothing is created out of nothing” (DRN I 145-150, 159-160)

2. “Nothing is reduced to nothing.” (DRN I 215-218, 237)

3. “The universe is made up of two components: body and void.” (DRN I 418-428)

4. “Body is understood as atoms and their compounds.” (DRN I 438-486)

5. “Atoms share only three of the characteristics of sensible things: shape, weight, mass.” (DRN II 748-752)

6. “Atomic motion is constant and of two kinds.” (DRN I 952)

7. “The universe is infinite.” (DRN I 958-864)

8. “The atoms are infinite in number, and space extends without limit.” (DRN 1008-1020)

9. “Atoms of similar shape are infinite in number, but the variety of their shapes is indefinite, not infinite” (DRN I 1008-1020)

Episode 127 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, Joshua is away, and Don helps us out on the issue of "Formation of Worlds."

I see that the video (or audio I should say) is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/com…values_you_are/

I don't have time now to review the whole video but the question got me thinking about relevant potential analogies to slavery in Epicurean texts. While there are others, the one that jumped out at me was from Menoeceus:

Quote

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

Seems to me that Epicurus reacted negatively to the ultimate slavery of hard determinism (or maybe better word "necessity") with about as much energy - or more - than we today react to issues of personal slavery.

VS09. Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

Quote from Godfrey

I'm fully on board with the idea of an hierarchy, but in keeping with the mind-bogglingness of infinity, I can't conceive of a limit such as "best". I suppose there could be something that is "biggest", but, again, does infinity contain such a limit?

I agree with you that there would be no theoretical limit to "best" other than the practical limits analogous to "biggest.". He may have thought that there must be a limit to "biggest" because otherwise that very big thing would already, in an infinite time past, already have grown to consume the entire universe in size.

Let me look for rhe other references....

The "perplexing question" part is on page 221 under New Hedonism.

The "another pair of forces opposed to each other" is on page 273 under "New Piety"

The section in Lucretius that discusses "no single thing of a kind" is right at the end of book two:

[1048] First of all, we find that in every direction everywhere, and on either side, above and below, through all the universe, there is no limit, as I have shown, and indeed the truth cries out for itself and the nature of the deep shines clear. Now in no way must we think it likely, since towards every side is infinite empty space, and seeds in unnumbered numbers in the deep universe fly about in many ways driven on in everlasting motion, that this one world and sky was brought to birth, but that beyond it all those bodies of matter do naught; above all, since this world was so made by nature, as the seeds of things themselves of their own accord, jostling from time to time, were driven together in many ways, rashly, idly, and in vain, and at last those united, which, suddenly cast together, might become ever and anon the beginnings of great things, of earth and sea and sky, and the race of living things. Wherefore, again and again, you must needs confess that there are here and there other gatherings of matter, such as is this, which the ether holds in its greedy grip.

[1067] Moreover, when there is much matter ready to hand, when space is there, and no thing, no cause delays, things must, we may be sure, be carried on and completed. As it is, if there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living things could not number, and if the same force and nature abides which could throw together the seeds of things, each into their place in like manner as they are thrown together here, it must needs be that you confess that there are other worlds in other regions, and diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts.

[1077] This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

[1090] And if you learn this surely, and cling to it, nature is seen, free at once, and quit of her proud rulers, doing all things of her own accord alone, without control of gods. For by the holy hearts of the gods, which in their tranquil peace pass placid years, and a life of calm, who can avail to rule the whole sum of the boundless, who to hold in his guiding hand the mighty reins of the deep, who to turn round all firmaments at once, and warm all fruitful lands with heavenly fires, or to be at all times present in all places, so as to make darkness with clouds, and shake the calm tracts of heaven with thunder, and then shoot thunderbolts, and often make havoc of his own temples, or moving away into deserts rage furiously there, plying the bolt, which often passes by the guilty and does to death the innocent and undeserving?

[1105] And since the time of the world’s birth, and the first birthday of sea and earth, and the rising of the sun, many bodies have been added from without, and seeds added all around, which the great universe in its tossing has brought together; that from them sea and lands might be able to increase, and from them too the mansion of the sky might gain new room and lift its high vault far away from the lands, and the air might rise up. For from all places all bodies are separated by blows each to its own kind, and they pass on to their own tribes; moisture goes to moisture, with earthy substance earth grows, fires forge fires, and sky sky, until nature, parent of all, with perfecting hand has brought all things on to the last end of growing; as it comes to pass, when there is now no whit more which is sent within the veins of life, than what flows out and passes away. Here the growth of all things must stop,

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

Thanks for pointing out the broken link camotero - fixed now.

Cooper was a good writer and it's a same he's unknown today.

Quote from Godfrey

First aspect: at first it makes sense that in in an infinite universe there would be perfection as well as imperfection. But on further thought, how is perfection defined?

Exactly my view too. DeWitt is being too loose in using the word "perfection" without defining it. I do think he makes clear that the gods are not eternal, just "deathless," and that's a good hint that the Epicurean gods are not everything that we today would invest in the term "perfect" (such as omnipotent or ominiscient). The word perfect in this context has to be contextual and limited, like "the perfect basketball player." DeWitt drops the ball here by not making that more clear. (But on the other hand, how many writers have you seen carry the ball nearly this far?)

Quote from Godfrey

Isn't this a mental concept rather than something inherent in a material universe?

It may indeed be a mental concept, but that, in itself, is not a total disqualifier from consideration as part of an evidentiary chain, because we do regularly refer to and use mental concepts if we can reasonably extrapolate from sensory evidence to back them up. We predict atoms exist due to mental concepts which we derive from what we think is good physical evidence. The speculations we're talking about now are not arbitary and groundless, but based on observations here on earth, one example of which is the "nature never creates only a single thing of a kind (which is in Lucretius too).

Quote from Godfrey

But the key point in my mind is that perfection is a value judgment, and therefore has no place in describing a material universe.

Yes that's the definitional issue. "Perfect" is far too broad and loose a term. One way to get into this deeper would be to check the Latin word that was used. I wouldn't be surprised if its more related to "blessed" than what we are thinking today (ominpotent; omniscient) due to the corruption brought about by Abrahamic religion.

Quote from Godfrey

The second aspect, that the number of gods must equal the number of mortals, makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain this?

Do I not recall that DeWitt says that strict numerical equivalence is not the point, but rather "equitable distribution," which is in itself a loose term?

The way I have always thought of all this that makes sense to me is:

1 - We look around us here on earth and we see "life" in many forms.

2 - We see that Nature never makes only one single thing of a kind.

3 - Some of those life forms are "primitive" single cell organisms, and some of those life forms are extremely complex and powerful and intelligent (let's say Epicurus, or Don, for example )

4 - As I see it we have a mental tendency to organize in our minds a spectrum of these life forms from "lowest" to "highest" in terms of abilities. I personally think that that "tendency" would involve the faculty of anticipations in some way. The anticipation would not be the "concept of low to high life forms" but some very basic organizational drive to link things together that appear to be related . It would be important to note that just like seeing and hearing, that tendency does not had us completed concepts in an infallible way. The tendency would just exist report to us a phenomena, just like sight does, and we'd have to regularly and repeatedly test it to verify any conclusions that we decide to draw from those observations.

5 - We extrapolate that in an infinite and eternal universe there are, and already have been, and infinite number of worlds like ours with intelligent beings.

6 - We can reasonably extrapolate that there is no reason that "Epicurus" or "Don" is the most intelligent and physically powerful life form that can possibly exist, and therefore we extrapolate that "higher" (more intelligent and more powerful life forms) have, do, and will continue to exist.

As for their number, I agree that saying that the same number of mortals and gods exist is pretty "out there." However, over an infinite universe with infinite number of living beings in it, maybe it does make sense to say that the numbers of both are the same, because they are both "infinite."

All this is aggressive speculation but as per the Velleius material and other material DeWitt cites, it does seem well founded in the texts. And that doesn't even include the reference in Lucretius that seems to contemplate a Nietzsche-style "eternal recurrence" when he asks whether it would make a difference to us if our atoms would at any time in the future rearrange themselves in the same way they are now.

I don't think any of this is necessary to believe as core Epicurean philosophy. Some people, following the Frances Wright model, just aren't interested in this kind of big-picture speculation, and if someone is that way and not troubled by these issues, then there is no reason for them to be concerned about them.

But it seems to be natural for a large number of people to want to have *some* kind of reasonable perspective on the "big picture," and this direction does, it seems to me, provide a reasonable framework for those people to have a position on "the big picture" that stops them from being in fear that the lack of ANY explanation exposes them to the oppression of the priests.

Editing has been slow but is finally coming along and this one should be out soon.

In the meantime, I noticed an interesting exchange on Martin's wall about "entropy" and how issues revolving around the eventual destruction of our world (but not of the universe as a whole!) can be a little depressing to think about.

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?user/173-martin/#wall/comment398/response169

I think Martin did a good job with the point, and I mark it here in this thread because we talk about that issue to some degree in this podcast episode too.

I don't think I was able to cite it specifically in the podcast, but there are a couple of references in DeWitt that I think are well-reasoned and applicable:

Quote

Out of this teaching arises a perplexing question. Was Epicurus, in making of Nature a judge, and incidentally a teacher, involuntarily ascribing to her a certain purposiveness and by so doing admitting himself as a believer in teleology? On the face of it this would be going contrary to his fundamental teachings. In his cosmos a single primary cause was recognized, the downward motion of the atoms. In the overall picture it was true that the good prevailed over the bad, but this was a deduction from the infinity of the universe and the infinity of time; in the individual worlds the forces of destruction eventually prevailed over the forces of creation but never in the universe at large. This ascendancy of the good over the bad, however, does not signify purposiveness or some far-off divine event toward which the whole creation moves. For such teleology there was no room in the cosmos of Epicurus.

But primarily the reference I want to point out is the following extended quote, which is wrapped up in isonomia and the Epicurean theory of divinity. All of this has to be taken with the understanding that it is DeWitt's reconstruction of the doctrines of Epicurus from the remaining evidence, and we can differ on the details of the reconstruction. But it seems to me that this material is well-founded because there is a lot of textual evidence from Cicero and others in support of it, and very little if any that would be to the contrary. So at least for me I think this line of reasoning makes sense, perhaps not so strongly in the part that talks about the gods and numbering them, but definitely in the fundamental point that the universe as a whole is never destroyed (and therefore in a sense "prevails over the forces of destruction") which is the important point for addressing the "attitude" we should take about birth and death. In the end the birth and death of "worlds" is not a lot different from birth and death of animals, individuals, nations, continents, etc. But while individuals and planets come and go, the "universe as a whole" continues forever (in the Epicurean worldview).

Quote

It was from this principle that Epicurus deduced his chief theoretical confirmation of belief in the existence of gods. It was from this that he arrived at knowledge of their number and by secondary deduction at knowledge of their abode. He so interpreted the significance of infinity as to extend it from matter and space to the sphere of values, that is, to perfection and imperfection. In brief, if the universe were thought to be imperfect throughout its infinite extent, it could no longer be called infinite. This necessity of thought impelled him to promulgate a subsidiary principle, which he called *isonomia,* a sort of cosmic justice, according to which the imperfection in particular parts of the universe is offset by the perfection of the whole. Cicero rendered it *aequabilis tributio, * "equitable apportionment." 70 The mistake of rendering it as "equilibrium" must be avoided.

The term *isonomia* itself, which may be anglicized as isonomy, deserves a note. That it is lacking in extant Epicurean texts, all of them elementary, and is transmitted only by Cicero is evidence of its belonging to higher doctrine and advanced studies. Epicurus switched its meaning slightly, as he did that of the word *prolepsis.* To the Greeks it signified equality of all before the law, a boast of Athenians in particular. It was a mate to *eunomia,* government by law, as opposed to barbaric despotism, a boast of Greeks in general. That Epicurus thought to make capital of this happy connotation may be considered certain. He was vindicating for Nature a sort of justice, the bad being overbalanced by the good. It is also possible that he was remotely influenced by the teachings of Zoroaster, well known in his day through the conquests of Alexander, according to whom good and evil, as represented by Ormazd and Ahriman, battled for the upper hand in mundane affairs.

Whatever may be the facts concerning this influence, Epicurus discovered a reasonable way of allowing for the triumph of good in the universe, which seemed impossible under atomic materialism. Thus in his system of thought isonomy plays a part comparable to that of teleology with Plato and Aristotle. Teleology was inferred from the evidences of design, and design presumes agencies of benevolence, whether natural or divine. Epicurus was bound to reject design because the world seemed filled with imperfections, which he listed, but by extending the doctrine of infinity to apply to values he was able, however curiously, to discover room for perfection along with imperfection.

That he employed isonomy as theoretical proof of the existence of gods is well documented. For example, Lactantius, who may have been an Epicurean before his conversion to Christianity, quotes Epicurus as arguing "that the divine exists because there is bound to be something surpassing, superlative and blessed."71 The necessity here appealed to is a necessity of thought, which becomes a necessity of existence. The existence of the imperfect in an infinite universe demands belief in the existence of the perfect. Cicero employs very similar language: "It is his doctrine that there are gods, because there is bound to be some surpassing being than which nothing is better." 72 Like the statement of Lactantius, this recognizes a necessity of existence arising from a necessity of thought; the order of Nature cannot be imperfect throughout its whole extent; it is bound to culminate in something superior, that is, in gods.

It is possible to attain more precision in the exposition. Cicero, though brutally brief, exhibits some precision of statement. The infinity of the universe, as usual, serves as a major premise. This being assumed, Cicero declares: "The nature of the universe must be such that all similars correspond to all similars." 73 One class of similars is obviously taken to be human beings, all belonging to the same grade of existence in the order of Nature. As Philodemus expresses it in a book about logic, entitled *On Evidences,* "It is impossible to think of Epicurus as man and Metrodorus as non-man." 74 Another class of similars is the gods. This being understood, the truth of Cicero's next statement follows logically: "If it be granted that the number of mortals is such and such, the number of immortals is not less." 75 This reasoning calls for no exegesis, but two points are worthy of mention: first, Cicero is not precise in calling the gods immortals; according to strict doctrine they are not deathless, only incorruptible of body; the second point is that Epicurus is more polytheistic in belief than his own countrymen.

The next item, however, calls for close scrutiny. Just as human beings constitute one set of similars and the gods another, so the forces that preserve constitute one set and the forces that destroy constitute another.

At this point a sign of warning is to be raised. There is also another pair of forces that are opposed to each other, those that create and those that destroy.76 The difference is that the latter operate in each of the innumerable worlds, while the former hold sway in the universe at large. For example, in a world such as our own, which is one of many, the forces of creation have the upper hand during its youthful vigor. At long last, however, the forces of destruction gradually gain the superiority and eventually the world is dissolved into its elements.77

In the universe at large, on the contrary, the situation is different and the forces opposed to each other are not those that destroy and those that create but those that destroy and those that preserve. Moreover, a new aspect of infinity is invoked, the infinity of time. The universe is eternal and unchanging. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The sum of things is always the same, as Lucretius says. This truth is contained in the first two of the Twelve Elementary Principles. In combination they are made to read: "The universe has always been the same as it now is and always will be the same." 78 This can be true only on the principle that the forces that preserve are at all times superior to the forces that destroy.

It follows that Cicero was writing strictly by the book when he made his spokesman draw the following conclusion from the doctrine of isonomy: "And if the forces that destroy are innumerable, the forces that preserve must by the same token be infinite."79 This doctrine, it is essential to repeat, holds only for the universe at large. It is not applicable to the individual world and it does not mean that the prevalence of elephants in India is balanced by the prevalence of wolves in Russia. Isonomy does not mean "equal distribution" but "equitable apportionment." It does not denote balance or equilibrium. No two sets of similar forces are in balance; in the individual world the forces of destruction always prevail at last, and in the universe at large the forces of preservation prevail at all times.

By this time three aspects of the principles of isonomy have been brought forward: first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, "that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better"; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction.

All three of these are direct inferences from the infinity and eternity of the universe. There remains to be drawn an indirect inference of primary importance. Since in the individual worlds the forces of destruction always prevail in the end, it follows that the incorruptible gods can have their dwelling place only outside of the individual worlds, that is, in the free spaces between the worlds, the so-called *intermundia,* where the forces of preservation are always superior. There is more to be said on this topic in the section that follows.

Display More

So thanks to Marco and Martin for having the discussion that prompted me to find this.

Quote from Root304

or do we take the idea of an Epicurean Soul to mean the total package of human experience; our context, emotional and sensory depth, our passions and interests, our challenges, our relationship to ideas and people, our broadening and changing understanding as we journey through life, our histories and our relationship to that history and the core memories that shaped us.

I think it is absolutely clear that this is what Epicurus meant, and it is logically compelled by dividing all feelings into either pleasure or pain.

But you are right to highlight this as something that needs to be examined and repeatedly stated, because the number one attack on Epicurus IMHO is based on NOT admitting this wide definition. Those people argue that Epicurus was talking about what we might refer to as immediate bodily sensations, and that he did not mean to include mental / emotional issues at all. I think "those people" are clearly wrong, but this issue cannot be taken for granted, and it needs to be hammered home anytime there is any doubt as to whether the people in a discussion understand this point.

It's been three years since I started this thread, and we have a good number of new people who may not have seen it - and I think it is worth keeping in mind the name "Hieronymus of Rhodes" who is relatively obscure but useful as a contrast against Epicurus's views

I won't try to repeat all that was posted earlier in the thread, but it's worth keeping this name in mind. The bottom line is that there WAS a philosopher who explicitly promoted "absence of pain" as the ultimate goal of life, and who accordingly held that pleasure was not the highest goal. That philosopher wasn't Epicurus -- it was Hieronymus of Rhodes.

Cicero - On Ends:

Cicero - Academic Questions:

Quote from Kalosyni

That bit about pains in brackets is not in every translation above, which I find interesting.

That reminds me to memorialize what we talked about last night, that I think this has multiple levels of meaning, one of which is not the most obvious but may be among the most important:

That because we experience nothing after death, there is a limit to the pain which we need fear, and that is very liberating as it frees us from the threats of religion. Citing Humphries this morning:

You may,

Yourself, some time or other, feel like turning

Away from my instruction, terrified

By priestly rant. How many fantasies

They can invent to overturn your sense

Of logic, muddle your estates by fear!

And rightly so, for if we ever saw

A limit to our troubles, we'd be strong,

Resisters of religion, rant and cant,

But as things are, we have no chance at all

With all their everlasting punishments

Waiting us after death.

Letter to Menoeceus:

[125] For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living.

Torquatus from On Ends:

The fear of death plays havoc with the calm and even tenor of life, and to bow the head to pain and bear it abjectly and feebly is a pitiable thing; such weakness has caused many men to betray their parents or their friends, some their country, and very many utterly to ruin themselves. So on the other hand a strong and lofty spirit is entirely free from anxiety and sorrow. It makes light of death, for the dead are only as they were before they were born. It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us. These considerations prove that timidity and cowardice are not blamed, nor courage and endurance praised, on their own account; the former are rejected because they beget pain, the latter coveted because they beget pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

It is almost as if this Epicurean principle is an quick and reasonable short-cut to liberation -- no long hours of meditation are required.

Perhaps not "long hours of meditation" but there are numerous references to the need for "study" or "schemes of systematic contemplation, such as from Lucretius Book One:

Our terrors and our darknesses of mind

Must be dispelled, not by the sunshine's rays,

Not by those shining arrows of the light,

But by insight into nature, and a scheme

Of systematic contemplation. So

Our starting-point shall be this principle:

Nothing at all is ever born from nothing

By the gods' will.

Probably it is really important to distinguish between:

(1) Sitting on the floor with eyes closed, lotus style, palms up, evacuating your mind, and humming, as against -

(2) Rigorously and energetically engaging in a systematic and reasoned pursuit of the study of nature, observing numerous facts, evaluating them reasonably to determine views that can be held with confidence, rejecting and even spitting on the worthless and imaginary, holding in contempt those who say that such pursuit is not necessary, and then "never ceasing to speak the words of true philosophy."

Maybe it's just me but I see quite a difference between the two approaches

In the music, does it have words to it? There is lots of religious music I like but would choke on the words that accompany it.

Don thank you for your presentation. Yes this stuff is fun and I hope you will catch a fever to do more of it. I don't know how it would scale if we had more than ten or so people but I do think we have a model here that could do a lot. Combining a quality presentation with making sure people have an opportunity to talk and engage is I think a good formula.