Posts by Cassius

By all means, sir Tranqulist! Let's shut down this online forum, forget looking for Epicurean friends, forget taking action to secure our lives and our friends lives, and let's just go "eat a piece of cheese," " have a conversation with a friend," and "look at a beautiful sky." And if we do bother ourselves with philosophical (or related religious) issues, let's just "think them through" without caring whether we help our friends or anyone else who might be caught up in anxiety and distress because of those issues.

And if you accept the view that "freedom from pain and anxiety" was Epicurus' view of how to live life, then indeed you'll spend your time limiting your desires and withdrawing from society.

On the other hand what Epicurus did was pursue his desire for pleasure and happiness through the study of nature and the spreadings of his philosophy through constant controversy against other schools, and to live out his life pleasurably among many friends (with courtesans and slaves and multiple houses and apparent material well-being) close to the very center of an Athens that was filled with people who despised his philosophy.

So I think Epicurus would reject this author's characterizations of what Epicurus taught, and I think "we" should too. Which doesn't mean there's not a lot to learn from this article, because by talking about it we get a better focus on the issues.

Yep, he's a Tranquilist, and suggests that the best way to live a pleasurable life is to give up conventional ideas of pleasure (that way you won't worry if you aren't achieving pleasure!). Not surprising to see him starting to quote Nussbaum.

Hard to state Tranquilism more clearly than this (page 9 of the article)

So he (the writer) and Nussbaum, even though both are into tranquility and the natural and necessary divison, cannot even agree among themselves as to what "empty" means. More evidence (to me) that the word "empty" is clear mainly in describing the usefulness of the empty analysis itself (for which I do not blame Epicurus, but these writers who think this word makes sense without more clear explanation of what is being discussed).

I have never heard of this clip from Clement of Alexandria but I now want to find it because I think it helps illustrate the issue very well:

Julia Annas isn't someone recognizable to quote to others, but she's right too.

Cicero's quote isn't quite as clear, but it's usable too.

All are good quotes to use against someone (maybe even the author of this article?) who wants to posit "Absence of pain" as Epicurus' complete statement of the best life.

I particularly do agree with the part I underline here:

I don't buy this, and ONCE AGAIN I think the problem is we're getting tripped up by logical games about "good" and "bad" and the "greatest good" and so forth.

Why is it a problem to hold both, at the same time, that:

(1) the state of being dead is nothing to fear in itself, because it causes us no pain, because "we" are not there to experience it,

AND

(2) the state of being alive is desirable, as it is our only our chance to experience pleasure, so therefore we want to live as long as we can experience enough pleasure to make the pains of growing older worthwhile.

I see nothing contradictory between those two, and in the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus said:

Quote

And he who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but ‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’. For if he says this from conviction why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them.

So my view is that Epicurus held BOTH, at the same time, without contradiction, that:

(1) the state of being dead is nothing to fear in itself, because it causes us no pain, because "we" are not there to experience it, AND

(2) the state of being alive is desirable, as it is our only our chance to experience pleasure, so therefore we want to live as long as we can experience enough pleasure to make the pains of growing older worthwhile.

This looks to be a promising article from the title. I haven't had time to read but might be worth discussing. Without reading further I am not sure what to think about the "exercising our rational capabilities" comment (especially since this was presented in an Aristotle group) but I do like even at first glance the "establishing control over our lives."

Epicurus on Pleasure, a Complete Life, and Death: A Defence

Epicurus argued that the good life is the pleasurable life. He also argued that 'death is nothing to us'. These claims appear in tension. For if…

www.academia.edu

If this is worthwhile we'll add it to the "files" section.

NOTE: I have now read it all, and I have presented lots of criticisms of it below, but it is a very good article for focusing on the issues involved in viewing Epicurus' goal as "Tranquility."

I was asked about this article today. I see that Susan posted it almost two years ago, and it doesn't look like I have had time to read it closely yet. But it's probably significant to several of our ongoing conversations so by making this post I am "bumping" it for further comment.

File

Significance of Worship And Prayer Among the Epicureans - Hadzits

Significance of Worship And Prayer Among the Epicureans - Hadzits

Cassius

March 3, 2022 at 4:31 PM

Here is my Epub collection of several Lucian works that specifically mention Epicurus. These have been copied into the forum so the epub is obsolete and needs dramatic revision and expansion, but I am posting it here in case it is of use to anyone:

File

Lion of Epicurus - Lucian And His Epicurean Passages

Epub Collection of Works By Lucian Concerning Epicurus

Cassius

March 2, 2022 at 6:10 AM

Thank you Godfrey!

Some years ago I went through Lucians works and pulled out the ones that dealt with Epicurus specifically, like Alexander the Oracle Monger, which are very good.

But I never spent much time with the rest, and this one is an example that there is a lot of good material there that we need to harvest.

For example: How many of us have read Lucian's "The Porch vs. Pleasure"?

Now that we are much further along than I was when I produced my Lucian collection in epub, we are much better equipped to tackle the collection again and add them to our discussions.

Link to my epub: Epub Version of Lucian's Dialogues That Focus on Epicurus

Quote from EricR

It reminds me how much discomfort many of us experience with uncertainty.

And I think that's an important part of why Epicurus thought that it is important to track these issues down to a conclusion, and not leave them hanging, as did Frances Wright. At risk of offense when I make that observation I would not be surprised if some would say that if you were to "take a poll" on whether these issues are super-important (Epicurus) or can be put to the side (Wright), the answers to this question might be found to correlate to some degree by male / female. At any rate, regardless of sex, some people are more concerned about them than others, and it's interesting to think about why that divide exists. It might also be influenced by childhood indoctrination into religion. Why did Epicurus find it necessary to pursue his whole life the answer to the "Chaos" problem, while Frances Wright put it entirely aside.

This really deserves a long and detailed treatment, at least as much time as we would devote to a "personal outline." But I haven't done one and can only offer some random thoughts:

1 - I think we can trace the Epicurean viewpoint on this best by looking at Lucretius' argument for atoms and void and the other basic questions in Book One of his poem. He's using deductive reasoning to turn observations of things which can be observed into opinions about things which cannot be observed. And in regard to these "close-at-hand" issues, he does not resort to multiple explanations - he reaches conclusions which are to all intents and purposes "certain," especially when you look at them from a high-level view. Some of the terminology and observations might need revision today, but I think essentially the same reasoning applies today to exclude to a reasonable certainty the existence of supernatural universe-creating forces.

2 - Then there's the logical component of deciding what "reasonable certainty" really means. Do we have to conclude that because we are not omniscient we therefore can never be certain of anything? To me that's one way of stating the ultimate question, and I can't answer that in any way but to say that we DO have the means to determine with reasonable certainty those things that are most important to us, like the existence of the supernatural and absence of life after death. The evidence in support of those positions I find to be compelling, and the arguments against it I find to be totally speculative. And how do we stack up and weigh "speculation without evidence and against tons of evidence" in the balance? We don't give much if any significance in our day-to-day decisions, and it seems to me we should give it less significance the more important the question.

3 - If someone wants to argue that we need "faith" or "trust" I would say Yes, I agree to an extent, but trust in what? There is lots of evidence that Nature has given us our senses, and basic reasoning to use them, but no real evidence of supernatural revelations exist other than hearsay from people who in my humble opinion have shown them selves to be supremely untrustworthy and even deceptive. So if I have to "trust" someone or something I find it much easier to "Trust Nature" and play the cards we are dealt as she gave them to us.

I could go on and on and on but will stop there for now. I do think that we all have to tackle these issues and be able to articulate our positions on them, or we've entirely missed an whole 1/3 of Epicurean philosophy. I think these can be done in a LOT simpler way than to play the elaborate word games of the Stoics and others, and I think it's important that we work to reconstruct and explain Epicurus' arguments on these issues by (1) starting where he started and reasoning based on his patterns, and (2) exploring the surviving texts. Based on that two--pronged approach I think we can reconstruct his viewpoint pretty accurately.

Even as it is today, I personally find it pretty compelling.

Well I took the time to look at Sedley's article "On Signs" but it is of only limited use. He doesn't attempt to start from scratch and explain the basic issues in laymen's terms. We're generally talk about issues of how and why and when it is permissible to draw conclusions about that which cannot be observed from that which can be observed. DeLacey's book has a long set of commentaries (at the end of the book) that are much more clear about the basic issues. But Sedley is probably more up-to-date, and here are a couple of clips from Sedley that may be a little helpful:

I think we can find a link where people can read the full article if they are interested. Email me if so. But I think that the DeLacey commentary is really the place to start, and probably a lot less discouraging that starting with Sedley's article.

Again, the real challenge is bringing all this down to earth and explaining it in layman's terms, and that work has not yet been done and is calling out to us to do it!

This is Munro's version of the text in Book Two Don is referencing:

[644] All which, well and beautifully as it is set forth and told, is yet widely removed from true reason. For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme of repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger. And here if any one thinks proper to call the sea Neptune and corn Ceres and chooses rather to misuse the name of Bacchus than to utter the term that belongs to that liquor, let us allow him to declare that the earth is mother of the gods, if he only forbear in earnest to stain his mind with foul religion. The earth however is at all times without feeling, and because it receives into it the first– beginnings of many things, it brings them forth in many ways into the light of the sun.

Quote from EricR

Is it accepted within the community that it's an indisputable fact that "there is nothing other than atoms and void", or is it thought to be a belief that may or may not be true or provable?

This is as much an epistemological question as physical.

Based on the thread so far(and a short private exchange with Eric) I am pretty sure that a large part of what Eric is asking is the "epistemology" issue - the "certainty" issue.

Was Epicurus teaching a set of facts, or methodology, or combination of the two, by which we should be darn-near "certain" that nothing exists except the "material" realm?

Sometimes we get sidetracked on the question of "the physics has changed" and we start talking about fields and energy and the qualities of "nothingness" and the like, but I think we're now pretty on track that the essential question here is something else:

I don't know if this question will finally set us off on a thorough discussion of Philodemus' "On Signs / On Methods of Inference" (because everyone knows that whenever I have a question I consult Philodemus!) but I am pretty sure that the issues contained there and in PD22 - PD25 are what we need to discuss - with the emphasis being on Philodemus, and the help that is provided by the DeLacy commentary in his translation.

Ultimately one version of the question is: "Do we ever know that we have enough evidence to be "certain" of something? And, if so, "How do we know that we have reached that point?"

This is pretty much the question where Frances Wright decided to "punt" and take the position that we should take issues like this and classify them as "unanswerable" and/or "not my concern." I will go on record immediately and say that I think she was very wrong to do that. In fact that's my best guess as to why she decided not to spend much effort on Epicurus for the rest of her life, and I think that was a tragic mistake.

So maybe another question that we will answer when we answer Eric is "How do we avoid "the Frances Wright problem?" And that means that part of this debate ought to include a look at Wright's statements in Chapter 15 where she concludes: "Above all, she advances no dogmas, — is slow to assert what is, — and calls nothing impossible." (That "she" in the quote is a reference to "Real Philosophy" personified as "she."

Can you imagine hearing Epicurus say "I can't say that it's impossible that the universe was created by a supernatural god?" I can't, and in regard to the AFDIA book review these are the issues where we need to point out that Wright was deviating from Epicurus.

Wright will help us make the issue clear, but we won't find the answer there. I think we'll find it in Philodemus, Lucretius, and Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, with a little help from Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, and even Sextus Empiricus.

If we could just inspire someone to become the "Epistemologist" of our little garden, and help systematize this issue in the way that Nate has done the PDs or Don has done Menoeceus or Joshua has attacked reading Torquatus, we would REALLY accomplish something!

Quote from Martin

no fridge,

Now THAT's where I personally draw the line for sure!

Yes I would love to see that too Godfrey but I don't think any English versions are available. They do have some material in English in their website, but it's not much.

I have no idea!

The award in this thread for best answer goes to Nate!

You never know exactly where discussions will end up and I want to remember to comment about this so posting it now:

We ended up with some interesting opinions on the meaning of:

Quote from Cassius

No! Epicurus was not uneducated: the real philistines are those who ask us to go on studying till old age the subjects that we ought to be ashamed not to have learnt in boyhood.

Martin raised the issue: Is this a reference to continuing to study "music and geometry, arithmetic and astronomy," or a broader reference to philosophy itself?

You'll need to hear our discussion to get the subtlety of the difference but I had previously thought this a reference more to "philosophic conclusions in general" such as "pleasure is the goal" rather than to the other sciences. In particular, what is that that the word "learnt" or "learned" is supposed to refer to? Does that imply that a particular study to be "completed?"

For those of you who may have heard recent AFDIA sessions, is this related to Kevin's observation that he wondered whether Epicurus thought he had "figured out" certain important questions with some sense of finality?

I'll get the episode posted as soon as I can but this is one question raised today that I think will be worth discussing.

I think BOTH and maybe you're right that I have heard "heathen" more than hedon - but I know I have heard "you little hedon" and googling produces other instances beyond what I posted.

We're going to have to find ways to rehabilitate the word -- maybe name some cats and dogs "Hedon" and post cute pictures of them across the internet