Posts by Cassius

It is apparently Usener 423 citing Plutarch, here from Epicurism.info

Epicurus.info : E-Texts : Epicurea

We talked about some of this in the podcast recording today and it is truly a rabbit chase.

I am not sure the chase can even get off the ground until we decide what we mean by "good", which is well before we put any modifiers on the term like natural or necessary or intrinsic or instrumental or anything else.

And part of answering that question probably means coming to terms with what Epicurus really meant in his warning about walking around uselessly harping on the meaning of good.

Do we end up,as Francis Wright apparently did (need to check the text) concluding that there is nothing good but pleasure, and nothing bad/evil but pain?

I am tempted to say the answer is "yes" but so much depends on the subtle meanings assigned to the words in even that formulation.

I tend to think that whenever someone wants to discuss this, they are suggesting that inseparable from the word "good" is an implicit "always." And if that is the case, I find it very difficult to designate anything as "always good" other than pleasure.

Or do we define the good as Torquatus suggested in On Ends that "everyone agrees...." That as to the "supreme good" ---

"The problem before us then is, what is the climax and standard of things good, and this in the opinion of all philosophers must needs be such that we are bound to test all things by it, but the standard itself by nothing. Epicurus places this standard in pleasure, which he lays down to be the supreme good, while pain is the supreme evil; and he founds his proof of this on the following considerations."

One thing that would be good would be to see if we can find examples of where such terms were used in the core texts. This will be a good discussion!

That's because it won't be recorded until tomorrow! I used to put "preproduction" on advance threads to indicate that and I will go back to that habit. Thanks!

Quote from beasain

A few 'reasonable' explanations are enough, and they are not (much) interested in making the science advance.

I too need to read that article, but I will go ahead and state my view of this issue:

As to the first part of the sentence, yes one or a few "reasonable" explanations are sufficient to satisfy our most pressing need, which is to banish the allegations of the religionists that the Sun was divine, or part of a divine order.

But as to the second part of the sentence, when I see that sentiment stated in that way (and we see it often) I think that the wording is too negative and arises from modern prejudices against Epicurus. I see Epicurus as being strictly logical in his approach, which is that once he has determined (through science!) that the end of life is happiness/pleasure, then he is logically consistent and holds the tests of ALL actions in life, including the study of science, to the test: "Does it advance our happiness?" Once you conclude that there are no criteria given us in life by nature other than pleasure and pain, then you apply that conclusion rigorously and without exception.

The negative presumption that is conveyed in "not much interested in making the science advance" is the anti-Epicurean conception that there are ends in Nature which are justified IN THEMSELVES apart from whether they bring pleasure or avoid pain. Such a conclusion is logically ruled out by Epicurean philosophy.

On the other hand, Epicurean philosophy also asserts that since there is only one reason to do anything in life (pleasure/pain) you are going to do everything in life that is practical for you to pursue pleasure. And MOST CERTAINLY the advancement of science is a tremendously useful tool for advancing pleasure and avoiding pain, so MOST CERTAINLY an Epicurean is going to appreciate and pursue the advancement of science as a tool for better living.

So in my view the many times that we see statements like "Epicurus wasn't much interested in science" we are really seeing the complaint that "Epicurus wasn't interested in XXXX for the sake of XXXX itself." That argument makes no sense without realizing that the impetus behind it is the assertion that Epicurus was wrong and that he should have valued "XXXX in itself" (most generally, they are asserting "virtue" or "piety" as goals in themselves).

Therefore I think we ought not be afraid of or concerned about that "Epicurus didn't value science" argument, and instead turn the issue around and use it as a teaching opportunity for explaining why Epicurus taught what he taught.

End of rant!

Episode 125 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today we conclude the letter to Herodotus. Next week we begin with the letter to Pythocles.

Thank you Beasain - and again, it was a pleasure speaking with you directly this past Wednesday!

Flying pigs are nice. I wonder why he is portrayed sitting in a pot?

Podcast should be up later today. A few notes in the meantime:

- Around the twenty minute mark (and several places) we talk about possible differences between the attitude of Frances Wright ("observation is everything, theory is nothing") and what Epicurus seems to be saying about determining alternative "explanations" for celestial phenomena (even though we don't have information to say which one of several is correct). I think we might want to expand in the future on this issue: An "observation" is not really the same as an "explanation." Epicurus is telling us that we may have several "explanations" that are consistent with observations, and that we should not choose between them if we don't have sufficient evidence to do so. But it seems to me that here is another example where Epicurus is clearly telling us to USE our observations to come up with rational explanations that assist our happiness and help us to see that supernatural gods are not a necessary explanation of natural phenomena. Whether or not Frances Wright means to be so extreme, she seems to me to differ from Epicurus on this, because several of her chapters can be read to imply (or even state explicitly) that we should never move past observation to reach any "theories" of any kind. Maybe the resolution is to unwind the meaning of the term "observation" as Frances Wright uses it, but on the face of it I can see the way she makes her point to be potentially confusing, or even wrong, from Epicurus' perspective.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Twenty Six 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 begin Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles. Now let's join Joshua reading today's text:

Bailey

[84] CLEON brought me a letter from you in which you continue to express a kindly feeling towards me, which is a just return for my interest in you, and you attempt with some success to recall the arguments which lead to a life of blessedness. You ask me to send you a brief argument about the phenomena of the sky in a short sketch, that you may easily recall it to mind. For you say that what I have written in my other works is hard to remember, even though, as you state, you constantly have them in your hands. I was glad to receive your request and felt constrained to answer it by pleasant expectations for the future.

[85] Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation. Therefore lay good hold on it, keep it in mind, and go through it all keenly, together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus.

First of all then we must not suppose that any other object is to be gained from the knowledge of the phenomena of the sky, whether they are dealt with in connection with other doctrines or independently, than peace of mind and a sure confidence, just as in all other branches of study.

[86] We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena. For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations.

[87] For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble.

Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth: for we can observe how they come to pass, though we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky: for they may be produced in several ways.

[88] Yet we must never desert the appearance of each of these phenomena, and further, as regards what is associated with it, must distinguish those things whose production in several ways is not contradicted by phenomena on earth.

HICKS

Epicurus to Pythocles, greeting.

[84] In your letter to me, of which Cleon was the bearer, you continue to show me affection which I have merited by my devotion to you, and you try, not without success, to recall the considerations which make for a happy life. To aid your memory you ask me for a clear and concise statement respecting celestial phenomena; for what we have written on this subject elsewhere is, you tell me, hard to remember, although you have my books constantly with you. I was glad to receive your request and am full of pleasant expectations.

[85] We will then complete our writing and grant all you ask. Many others besides you will find these reasonings useful, and especially those who have but recently made acquaintance with the true story of nature and those who are attached to pursuits which go deeper than any part of ordinary education. So you will do well to take and learn them and get them up quickly along with the short epitome in my letter to Herodotus.

In the first place, remember that, like everything else, knowledge of celestial phenomena, whether taken along with other things or in isolation, has no other end in view than peace of mind and firm conviction.

[86] We do not seek to wrest by force what is impossible, nor to understand all matters equally well, nor make our treatment always as clear as when we discuss human life or explain the principles of physics in general – for instance, that the whole of being consists of bodies and intangible nature, or that the ultimate elements of things are indivisible, or any other proposition which admits only one explanation of the phenomena to be possible. But this is not the case with celestial phenomena: these at any rate admit of manifold causes for their occurrence and manifold accounts, none of them contradictory of sensation, of their nature.

[87] For in the study of nature we must not conform to empty assumptions and arbitrary laws, but follow the promptings of the facts; for our life has no need now of unreason and false opinion; our one need is untroubled existence. All things go on uninterruptedly, if all be explained by the method of plurality of causes in conformity with the facts, so soon as we duly understand what may be plausibly alleged respecting them. But when we pick and choose among them, rejecting one equally consistent with the phenomena, we clearly fall away from the study of nature altogether and tumble into myth. Some phenomena within our experience afford evidence by which we may interpret what goes on in the heavens. We see how the former really take place, but not how the celestial phenomena take place, for their occurrence may possibly be due to a variety of causes.

[88] However, we must observe each fact as presented, and further separate from it all the facts presented along with it, the occurrence of which from various causes is not contradicted by facts within our experience.

Thank you for the post and for the graphic Kalosyni! Kind of a combo east-meets-west look!

That's a great post and very interesting to read through Simon! If my own guesswork is any guide, looks to me like you're doing a great job absorbing the same material I'm reading!

New word to me - aporia? Sounds very close to aponia -. Thanks for the info on the book that article does sound promising!

Welcome mecipriano ! 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!

We had a good group tonight -- we had Fernando from Mexico, Beaseaie from Spain, Steve K from Ohio,, and Kalpsyni and Martin -- so a good group !

We will miss you if you don't but don't worry because there will always be next week.

Please remember our gathering tonight at 8:30 PM Eastern time and join us if you can!

Thank you for setting this up Nate!

Note also: There is a copy of this map in the Gallery section with several comments here: Epicurean Communities of the Ancient World

The reason for posting this thread is that the graphic and associated research is apt to draw a lot of comment over time, and it will be easier to keep track of that if we handle it here in a discussion thread

I also set up a thread for the other article, which looks to be equally interesting - so again, thank you!

Thread

Acticle: Epicurus in Nineteenth Century Germany: Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche

Thanks also to beasain for this link:




https://www.academia.edu/43798550/Epicu…x_and_Nietzsche





This link might work for direct download- otherwise navigate from the link above.

Cassius

June 6, 2022 at 2:24 PM

Thanks also to beasain for this link:

Epicurus in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Hegel Marx and Nietzsche

and Keywords Epicurus marks a unique point of convergence for three unlikely bedfellows in the nine teenth century: Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche. Each sees a…

www.academia.edu

This link might work for direct download- otherwise navigate from the link above.