Posts by Cassius

Thanks Don. I remember reading into Eusebius many years ago when I was still researching the origins of Christianity, but I was not tuned in to Epicurus at the time. I look forward to your comments on this.

LOL tjhank you!

What would be a good topic for Tuesday night? Kalosyni is suggesting that we talk about the personal outline project.

That is a very eloquent statement of the point, and worded like that it seems so obvious and clear that no one in their right minds could ever doubt it. Thank you!

I should be available for another Zoom meeting tomorrow night (Tuesday the 17th) so if you're available and interested please reply here.

Bryan two questions to start:

(1) what about the coin collection? Presumably those are mainly Roman and Greek coins. Are there any which have any kind of Epicurean connection? I suppose a coin that referenced Cassius Longinus would have a connection, but I don't think I have an idea of any other possible candidates unless stretching to include perhaps Antiochus since he is reputed to have had Epicurean leanings.

(2) Also as to the reproductions of the Tetrapharmakon -- is that something you did, or have museum reprints been made at some point in the past?

And a comment: I really like the linkage of the exhibits to references in De Rerum Natura!

Ok now that I am looking at those photos more closely, I strongly suspect I am not the only one who didn't get notification that these were there. I am sure there would have been quite a few likes and comments from others if they had seen these. These are GREAT displays and each one spurs lots of questions.

One of the unfortunate issues with this forum software (and there are only a few, really) is that new posts to the Gallery and to the Filebase don't seem to automatically show up as new events in the Notification Panel (at the top right of the screen). For example, I just noticed that Bryan has posted some interesting pictures to the Gallery, which will show up if you click here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/

Are others experiencing an issue with not seeing notifications of new pictures in the gallery? It's possible that it's just me and that the problem arises from signing in on multiple computers. If there is a notification issue I will try to fix it but in the meantime these are very neat so check them out!

Welcome @Jacques !

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!

Yes thanks again to Kalosyni for starting the thread. This will prove to be the raw material for what will eventually be a recorded "roundtable" or similar media presentation on the subject at some point.

Quote from Matt

my entire “romance” life has been dictated by chemical impulses.

That is why I think it is a good analogy to consider what Epicurus was warning about here to be akin to "intoxication."

If Lucretius' section on this topic is reflective of the mature Epicurean position, and I think that it very likely is, then it seems to me that Lucretius is making clear that the benefits of these topics can be achieved in a prudent way without getting burned.

And that's very similar to the observation that the benefits of alcohol can be enjoyed by most people if we do so prudently to avoid everything from terrible hangovers to killing someone else - or ourselves - through drunk driving.

But even there again we should shy away from "universalization" -- some people are apparently so wired biologically that they suffer far more from the intoxicating effects of alcohol than others, so each person's "constitution" has to be taken into account in deciding how much of the activity to engage in.

Quote from SimonC

I agree with your critique of utilitarianism: it is difficult to motivate limiting the number of morally relevant people, which leads to the conclusion that you should probably sell all your property and give to charities, which is clearly unacceptable even to utilitarians.

You're probably right that that is unacceptable even to utilitarians, so that may not be part of their philosophy (I am not sure what Bentham wrote in full).

But that's pretty much exactly the box in which Christianity has itself. And the early Christians seem to have taken that literally and attempted to adapt communism (I believe the reference is in the book of Acts). And as a result of that being the logical conclusion of their doctrines they corner themselves into the point where modern Christians pretty much have to admit that they are not good Christians by definition, since they don't sell all their belongings, given them to the poor, and devote themselves to a life of ascetic religion. And to justify THAT, they have to resort to excuses like saying that they are "not perfect, just forgiven...." and similar excuses.

They've set up a paradigm that is impossible for them to achieve and live a life of guilt as a result, if they bother to think about it.

That's very different with Epicurus - the goals are achievable and realistic and very much not "suicidal."

Quote from Don

I keep coming back to Usener Fragment 67:

"For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."

I wasn't sure which fragment you were going to cite, Don, when I started reading your post, so I was getting ready to pull the trigger on another "always be prudent about pulling quotes out of context post" ----

But this particular fragment is so utterly and broadly and obviously consistent with the rest of the philosophy, and seems to me to be so strongly compelled by the epistemology and the ethics and the physics all at the same time, that I think it really is among those that is the most basic and unchallengable.

Any legitimate concept of "the good" in Epicurean terms is ultimately and intimately tied to our feelings of pleasure and pain that occur when we engage in it. We don't accept good and bad by a priori formulas and logical reasoning about what "should" be the result of something, especially since there is no "fate" that predetermines outcomes in most human affairs (with the exception of such things as death). Our relations with our friends and family and opposite sex aren't pre-determined liked death, and it seems to me that each one is going to be an individual matter of "hedonic calculus" .

But DARN I hate the words "hedonic" and "hedonic calculus." It's much more accurate to say something like "Epicurean calculus." The philosophy is EPICUREAN philosophy, not "Pleasurism" -- we frequently (and ought to always!) choose short-term pain over short-term pleasure when greater pleasure in the end is the result of the choice. Yes in the end it comes down to pleasure over pain, and pleasure is the goal and the end, but in common communication the word "Epicurean" conveys the result a lot more accurately than does "hedonic."

And I think there Matt you are introducing the very difficult but very important issue of cultural and gender rules and norms that vary greatly over time. I don't need to be more specific than to note that there is fierce disagreement over whether there is a single correct attitude toward these topics -- whether our current societal norms in 2022 in the West are better or worse than those of 200 BC Athens. We can debate those issues "til kingdom come" and never arrive at a consensus solution.

But the point is that Epicurus was very clear that we should challenge and not accept on authority whether cultural norms are to be accepted by us individually or not. All of us are influenced by prevailing norms, and also we are aware of historical differences, and the possibility that things may change in the future. The reality for us is that we only have one life to live, and we have to make choices in the present as to what will lead to more or less pleasure and pain.

I think if Epicurus were here today he would probably say the same thing now as then: that giving in to cultural norms without examining them and deciding whether we will ultimately be happy that we chose to follow them or not is a very im-prudent method of proceeding.

Here is the conclusion of the BRENNAN article which I will also attach here (sorry that this clip does not pick up the greek, so I will post a picture too):

Quote

But that something like this is right seems to me overwhelmingly plausible. We should count it pure gain to rid ourselves of "6iaTpa7rtcsicOaO"t and the monstrous fragment (frag. 591 Us.) that it spawned. No longer must we suppose that the Epicurean sage "turns aside from his purpose," or "feels shame in the presence of others"-both of them incredible claims for any school to make about its sage.

Instead, we have a perfectly natural continuation of the earlier discussion, which shows that the exceptional circumstances recognized in the case of marriage were also recognized in the case of child-rearing-exactly what Epicurus' own will tells us.

The evidence of the will thus coheres with our emendation of the text, and with the earlier alteration of Kai lpv to Kai Tr&5 or 06?? ptfv. All of these passages support the view that Epicurus was on record as advising, in general, against marriage and childrearing. But he also clearly thought that there were exceptions that justified both institutions, at least for certain Epicureans. And he was on record as saying this, too-perhaps in explicit comments in theoretical treatises, but at least through the contents of his will-so that later Epicureans had to incorporate this into their account of the master's views. I think that they were right to do so; nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition.

TAD BRENNAN

King's College, London

In conclusion on this article, even though it is closer to my view, I think that it goes to far to say in English that Epicurus was likely to have been "on record as advising, in general, against marriage and childrearing."

I think the most likely-to-be-accurate statement would be that Epicurus was: ""on record as advising, in general, about the risks and dangers of marriage and childrearing."

The final statement, that "nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition," is almost surely correct, since I think you could go further and say that ""nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition" of any pleasure, because the proper formulation would be that on the other hand we do not choose every pleasure, because some actions can be expected to bring more pain than pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

It seems that the only way to solve this puzzle for modern times, is to use a hedonic calculus. But then how do you determine the outcome with regard to pleasure and pain? This simply could be a subjective feeling, so some people might decide that marriage results in too much pain and so will not get married...or if divorced they will not seek to get re-married. But the problem is that you sometimes can't predict the outcome. And then this: is it worth experiencing an extreme amount of emotional pain so that you can enjoy some brief times of emotional (and physical) pleasure?

This is the reasoning I would use to come to a conclusion as to what Epicurus would most likely have endorsed at the end of his life (meaning in his most mature teaching). The way to solve this puzzle or any other puzzle is the hedonic calculus.

Every question is decided by 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?"

Is the topic sex, or is it "romantic love," or is it marriage, or is "having children," or something else? It's easy to stray away from a precise question and to think that the answer to one might be the answer to the other.

A lot of the advice in Lucretius is geared toward the issue of "romanticizing" one's love interest (likely viewed as a form of intoxication) and how to sober yourself up. I won't quote all that here, but everyone needs to review the full statement by Lucretius starting at around line 1060 (here is the link to it in Bailey).

It would seem to me that Epicurus would say that while intoxication itself can have significant pleasure, what happens afterward is frequently more painful than pleasurable, so you had better be extremely cautious about being intoxicated.

Is that a flat ban against marriage, or children, or sex, or romance? I would say "clearly not." Is it a statement that these activities are some of the riskiest in life where the benefit/detriment ration can frequently go out of control and veer toward a very negative result? I would say again the answer is clear - "yes."

But just as firmly as I would say that it is a very un-Epicurean generalization that Epicurus taught us to avoid pain at all costs, and thereby live an ascetic live, I don't think he would have taught to adopt the general rule of avoiding romantic love, sex, marriage, and children.

And viewed from that perspective, like everything else in life, I think he would have said to be extremely careful handling dynamite (for example), but that if you are confident you can handle the dynamite to blast open new roads, build damns, and do things that you are confident will make your life better than otherwise, then it would certainly prudent for you to do so.

At some point we need to bring in the specific text material from Lucretius. Also, in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.

As for "Sweet" being before your generation, that's one of the burdens of being old like I am. I remember very clearly that song playing on the radio when it first came out!

Here is a link where public domain editions of the Loeb collection can be downloaded.

And here is a direct link to the second volume of Diogenes Laertius, where the Epicurus biography is included.

I refer to his passage from Cicero's "Republic" very often to contrast it as essentially the opposite of Epicurus' view of justice, but I always have a hard time finding it when I need it. This post is just to provide some links and clips to the key passage:

Attalus: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . .

Project Gutenberg Edition.

Loeb Edition:

Note: I am not able to find a good copy of this for free and online. If someone has a link please let me know.

Yonge: (link to this version at archive.org)

Thank you for starting this thread and thanks for the text references. This is a huge area of interest for most people and we really need to explore this.