Posts by Cassius

That looks like a great outline Don!

I was thinking about a new thread to make this point but I'll make it here. All this work is a team effort and we all have different interests and capabilities. Something like this requires not just writing skill but art skill, and area where I am woefully deficient (among many others).

I hope every time someone reads a thread and someone is proposing something that if they have a talent that would help they will volunteer without waiting for an invitation. There's not a lot of "pride of ownership" here among our creators and I have never seen someone turn down help when offered. Epicurean philosophy is a huge project which requires teamwork if we're to make the kind of progress that's possible.

Welcome @gvanwa !

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!

I like to be clear that I don't represent or think that I have all the answers either, but there are some things I do like to strongly assert:

1. That Epicurus was attempting to be absolutely consistent from bottom to top of his philosophy. In other words, I think he did his best to make his ethics (which seems to be the focus of this current conversation) as consistent with his physics and his epistemology as possible.
2. That means that any interpretation of Epicurus' ethics which would appear to conflict with Epicurus' physics and epistemology is not likely to be a correct interpretation of what he actually taught.
3. That his physics established without room for doubt (in his system) that:
   1. There are no supernatural gods or other forces.
   2. There is no "fate" either supernatural based or through hard determinism in physics (because of the swerve)
   3. There is no life after death (there is no immortal soul; mortal cannot unite with immortal; etc) which means we only have one life to live.
   4. There is no absolute virtue or eternal "concepts" of any kind (because there is nothing eternal in the universe except the atoms, which means that there are no eternal combinations that could form a basis for anything absolute; and because there is no "center" to the universe from which there could be a single perspective by which to judge all others; because there is no supernatural god whose perspective could be deemed to be the only correct one, etc.)
4. That his epistemology establishes without room for doubt (in his system) that:
   1. The senses are the ultimate foundation for all reasoning that can be deemed to be correct.
   2. That there is ultimately no standard for "good" except pleasure and no standard for "bad" except pain.
   3. That knowledge we can have confidence in is possible in many things, even in some important things that we can't observe directly, such as items 1-4 above. However omniscience about everything we might like to speculate about is not possible and not therefore we can't hold our own conclusions up to a standard of omniscience.

So I would argue that any conclusions that we would come to about Epicurus' ethics have to be tested against those basic ideas about the universe and about how we ascertain knowledge.. If the assertion about the ethical conclusion appears to flow from these premises then that understanding of Epicurus' ethics is likely accurate to what he actually taught. If assertion about the ethical conclusion appears to conflict with these premises, then it's unlikely to be a correct interpretation of what Epicurus taught.

Obviously this kind of analysis isn't foolproof, but I do think Epicurus did his best to tie everything into a coherent whole, so it's a good place to start, and a good way to check the assertions of the commentators. And that's one benefit of new people starting with DeWitt - he does a good job of covering both physics and epistemology and doesn't lead the reader to think that Epicurus' ethics are the only important thing about his system.

And this is why it seems to me that I observe the commentators who have the least interest in Epicurus' physics and epistemology seem to go furthest astray from a plausible reconstruction of Epicurus' ethics. That's why we've spent a lot of effort over the last two years going over Lucretius, and why as soon as we finish discussing the Torquatus material on the podcast I'd like to see us go back and cover the Letters to Herodotus and to Pythocles before we tackle the letter to Menoeceus.

I am admittedly losing my grip on popular culture more everyday, but it is my understanding that "freethinker" is still an identifiable term as referring to having an open mind about whether there is a god (and thinking probably not) so I would bet that that is a term a significant number of people consider themselves to be.

Don and I cross posted. I nominate Don to carry those e-zines to the ecstatic dancers!

I was pretty OK with the "progressives" and "freethinkers", but if we get too many "anarchists" and "ecstatic dancers" we may have to stsrt worrying about our reputstion with the Stoics!

Quote from Don

But that begs the question: Even if we could explain it have basic intros, how to get them in front of people's eyes?

At least a part of that answer is social media, at least as long as it is freely accessible and relatively free of censorship.

Quote from Don

we should be able to explain the basics of the philosophy to a child.

And we should be ashamed not to have learned these basics as children, per the point made by Torquatus in Book One of On Ends.

Quote from Scott

One could for instance argue that something hypothetically perfect must have NO limits, NO limitations.

And yes that takes you to Christian / monotheistic omnipotence and omniscience.

And that's why the Epicurean physics is so important: if you learn the basics at the beginning as Epicurus intended, and understand the critical importance of consistency, then you realize the folly in pursuing hypotheticals that have (and can have, given your physics positions) no existence in fact. This is one of the areas that Don and I and others have talked about in terms of resisting abstract hypotheticals, and why it's recorded that Epicurus himself was averse to them.

We can imagine anything we want, and we can make hypothetical systems that are consistent within themselves, yet which have no foundation in the real world observable to our senses.

You should keep after this argument Scott until you've satisfied yourself with it, because it's one of the core arguments that will forever separate Epicurus from the world of religion and abstract logic -- and will forever make those opposing schools the mortal enemy of Epicurus.

We as Epicureans may appear to be riding safely on a wave of secularism in recent decades and centuries, but the issues are must deeper than Epicurus against Judeo-Christianity -- it's also Epicurus against the misuse of abstract logical speculation.

Quote from Scott

(How are our finances? Do we have enough to engage a top tier marketing/promotions firm to develop and deploy the content?

Ha! We can pay the server bills but hard to say we have many resources beyond that!

Quote from Scott

I doubt this philosophy was so wildly successful for 7 centuries without being able to be presented in simpler form, easy to understand and remember

Yes I agree with that too. Trying to help people with that was and is also a part of the reason for this section of the forum: Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy

I think we found it pretty useful and we had a number of people participate when we first put it up, but over time and after the first rush it hasn't been as well used. It would be fun if some of the newer people who haven't yet tried it also take a stab at it.

I can't remember where at the moment, but in terms of Epicurean philosophy being relatively easy and straightforward, Cicero made that point a number of times. This graphic isn't exactly it, but I think his exact quote on it being easy is somewhere nearby:

And really, truthfully it IS easy, and it DOES all follow from the basic principles of physics and epistemology, as Lucretius observes several times. From the 12 fundamentals of physics it is directly derivable that there is nothing eternal except matter and void, and when you apply that directly to "Is there an eternal soul?" "Is there a supernatural god?" "Are there eternal standards of absolute virtue?" even a child could deduce NO! NO! NO!

I know that I am terribly unfair to the dead horse but I keep beating him anyway because it's so important. The main complexity in Epicurus is more the upside-down perspective on ethics that the Stoicizers from Cicero to Okeefe keep arguing. They've confused everybody into thinking:

"Epicurus didn't mean what he said about pleasure" and thereby into thinking that:

"We can ignore issues of consistency; Epicurus may have preached Pleasure over and over and over, but when it comes down to it, Epicurus adopted a totally inconsistent viewpoint on the place of active pleasure in life!"

And even worse, they talk and act as if the Epicurean physics was nothing but a novelty not worth spending time on today, when it truth the basic principles of atomism and eternal in time / infinite in space universe were the direct supports for the argument that supernatural gods and fate do not exist.

They rip the heart out of the ethics and make it neo-Stoicism, and rip the heart of the physics and make it irrelevant -- little wonder that people today find it confusing to read Epicurus! But the fault is ours, not Epicurus's.

Very good post by Don there. The quote from Diogenes Laertius is very helpful, but probably fits in the category of having subtle implications that need further explanation.

I think it's generally a bad idea to try to dig out too much meaning in words that may not have been intended to be so precise, but here I would say:

The "can be conceived" is crucial. He's not saying "Epicurus held that there are two types of pleasure, one better than the other. I would argue he is continuing the same context of the debate with Plato. It is possible to "conceive" - to "conceptualize" two types of pleasure. One of those cannot be increased, which the gods experience, or which we can conceive "by definition," and the other being the kind that we ordinary mortals can experience, a continual flow of a mix of pleasures and pains in which pleasures can be experienced to go up and down with experience.

I say this because I can easily here the "Tranquilists" saying -- DL is saying that Epicurus held that there are two types of pleasure, one experienced by the gods, and that's better than the ordinary kind, and what he's referring to is "Tranquility!"

I can easily hear that being argued, and I think that needs to be swatted down with all the intensity that can be mustered. The goal is "Pleasure" - not "the pleasure of the gods" or "tranquilty" or anything else.

Yep the Terminator movie reference has always struck me as applicable, not the least due to this fragment (from the second one)?

Here is one version of the text -- a version that Elli sent to me with her Greek commentary / translation. I will see if I can find others because I am not sure if this is the final text or a draft. If anyone compares the text version to what they hear on the video and finds something significantly different, please let me know.

Original Post At NewEpicurean, with English text: http://newepicurean.com/you-have-been-deceived/

Working link for video without subtitles, at Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/202939817

___________

You have been deceived.

If you are hearing these words in the early years of the twenty-first century, then you have already wasted much of your life dealing with nonsense.

If you are surrounded by people who are called “religious,” then you have wasted your time dealing with people who claim that a god created the universe; that a god determined the course of your life before you were born; that a god will tell you what to do while you are alive, and that a god will punish or reward you after death. Depending on where you live, you may have had to live in fear for your life – fear that those who claim to be the chosen people of god will kill you, or enslave you, because you are not one of them.

Έχετε εξαπατηθεί.

Εάν ακούτε αυτά τα λόγια στα πρώιμα χρόνια του εικοστού πρώτου αιώνα, τότε έχετε ήδη σπαταλήσει σημαντικό μέρος της ζωής σας ασχολούμενοι με ανοησίες.

Αν περιβάλλεστε από ανθρώπους που αποκαλούνται «θρησκευόμενοι», τότε έχετε χάσει το χρόνο σας με το να ασχολείστε με άτομα που ισχυρίζονται ότι κάποιος θεός δημιούργησε το σύμπαν, ότι κάποιος θεός καθόρισε την πορεία της ζωής σας πριν ακόμη γεννηθείτε, ότι κάποιος θεός θα σας πει τι να κάνετε ενώ είστε ζωντανοί, και ότι κάποιος θεός θα σας τιμωρήσει ή θα σας ανταμείψει μετά το θάνατο. Ανάλογα με το πού ζείτε, μπορεί να έχετε ζήσει με φόβο για τη ζωή σας – ο φόβος ότι εκείνοι που ισχυρίζονται ότι είναι ο εκλεκτός λαός του θεού θα σας σκοτώσουν, ή θα σας υποδουλώσουν, επειδή δεν είστε ένας από αυτούς.

If you are surrounded by people who are called “highly educated,” then you have wasted your time dealing with people who claim that you should be “good” and “virtuous” – and that following their system of logic and reasoning is the only way to know what the words “good” and “virtuous” mean. These people tell you that it is not possible for you to know anything for yourself, and they consider you to be little more than slaves in a dark cave, waiting for them to enlighten you about a “truth” that only they can bring.

And if you are surrounded by people who are called “uneducated,” then you have wasted your time dealing with people who claim that the world is chaotic — totally unpredictable — and that it is useless to plan for the future, or to do anything other than pursue the pleasures of the moment, preferably with drugs, or any of the numberless forms of escapism that substitute for drugs in today’s world.

Αν περιβάλλεστε από ανθρώπους που αποκαλούνται «υψηλού μορφωτικού επιπέδου», τότε έχετε χάσει το χρόνο σας με το να ασχολείστε με ανθρώπους που υποστηρίζουν ότι θα πρέπει να είστε «καλοί» και «ενάρετοι» - και ότι το να ακολουθείτε το δικό τους σύστημα λογικής και συλλογισμού είναι ο μόνος τρόπος για να γνωρίσετε τι σημαίνουν οι λέξεις «καλοί» και «ενάρετοι». Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι σας λένε ότι από μόνοι σας δεν είναι δυνατό να γνωρίζετε τίποτα για τον εαυτό σας και θεωρούν ότι είστε κάτι λίγο περισσότερο από σκλάβοι σε μια σκοτεινή σπηλιά, περιμένοντάς τους να σας διαφωτίσουν σχετικά με μια «αλήθεια» που μόνο αυτοί μπορούν να σας μεταφέρουν.

Και αν περιβάλλεστε από ανθρώπους που αποκαλούνται «αγράμματοι», τότε έχετε χάσει το χρόνο σας με το να ασχολείστε με άτομα που ισχυρίζονται ότι ο Κόσμος είναι χαοτικός - εντελώς απρόβλεπτος - και ότι είναι άχρηστο να προγραμματίζετε για το μέλλον, ή να κάνετε οτιδήποτε άλλο παρά να επιδιώκετε τις απολαύσεις της στιγμής, κατά προτίμηση τα ναρκωτικά, ή οποιεσδήποτε από τις μορφές φυγής από την πραγματικότητα που υποκαθιστούν τα ναρκωτικά στο σημερινό κόσμο.

It is time for you to see that all this is deception, and that you need not hand your life over to it.

It is time for you to shift your devotion and your attention away from the deceptions which have grown from what we today call the “Middle East.” Once again you must ask the question that was first asked almost two thousand years ago: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

The man who first asked that question knew that Athens and Jerusalem cannot be reconciled. He knew that one has to take sides in the war between those who love their life in this world, and those who love some other world. You are living in a world that has chosen sides – and chosen unwisely.

The man who first asked that question knew that Athens and Jerusalem cannot be ψ. He knew that it is necessary to take sides in the war between those who love their life in this world and those who love some other world. You are living in a world that has chosen sides – and chosen unwisely.

Είναι καιρός να δείτε ότι όλα αυτά είναι απάτη και ότι δεν χρειάζεται να παραδώσετε τη ζωή σας σε αυτά.

Είναι καιρός να μετατοπίσετε την αφοσίωση και την προσοχή σας μακριά από τις απάτες που έχουν αναπτυχθεί από αυτό που σήμερα ονομάζουμε «Μέση Ανατολή». Για άλλη μια φορά θα πρέπει να θέσετε το ερώτημα που τέθηκε για πρώτη φορά σχεδόν δύο χιλιάδες χρόνια πριν: «Τι σχέση έχει η Αθήνα με την Ιερουσαλήμ»;

Ο άνθρωπος που έθεσε για πρώτη φορά αυτό το ερώτημα γνώριζε ότι η Αθήνα και η Ιερουσαλήμ δεν μπορούν να συμβιβαστούν. Γνώριζε ότι είναι αναγκαίο να πάρουμε θέση στον πόλεμο ανάμεσα σε εκείνους που αγαπούν τη ζωή τους σε αυτόν τον κόσμο και σε εκείνους που αγαπούν κάποιον άλλο κόσμο. Ζείτε σε έναν κόσμο που έχει επιλέξει πλευρές - και έχει επιλέξει απερίσκεπτα.

Hundreds of years before Tertulian asked his question about Jerusalem., there arose in Athens the greatest of all teachers and the school that he founded. The philosopher Epicurus showed the people of his day how to be free by asking other questions; questions which we ourselves can ask today.

But what has confused so many of you is that you have never thought about the nature of asking questions. You presume that all questions are asked in good faith, and that answers can be established by looking to see how many people agree with them, or whether the answers “make sense” to you given the assumptions that the questioners ask you to make.

Εκατοντάδες χρόνια πριν να θέσει ο Τερτυλλιανός αυτή την ερώτηση σχετικά με την Ιερουσαλήμ, στην Αθήνα εμφανίστηκε ο μεγαλύτερος όλων των δασκάλων και ίδρυσε τη σχολή του. Ο φιλόσοφος Επίκουρος έδειξε στους ανθρώπους της εποχής του πώς να είναι ελεύθεροι θέτοντας άλλες ερωτήσεις. Ερωτήσεις που και εμείς οι ίδιοι μπορούμε να κάνουμε σήμερα.

Αλλά αυτό που έχει προκαλέσει σύγχυση σε τόσους πολλούς από σας είναι ότι δεν έχετε εξετάσει ποτέ τη φύση των ερωτήσεων. Υποθέτετε ότι όλες οι ερωτήσεις είναι καλοπροαίρετες και ότι οι απαντήσεις μπορούν να διαπιστωθούν με την εξέταση του πλήθους των ανθρώπων που συμφωνούν μαζί τους, ή αν οι απαντήσεις «βγάζουν νόημα» σε εσάς με δεδομένες τις υποθέσεις που οι ερωτώντες σάς ζητούν να κάνετε.

Epicurus was the first man who pointed out that you yourself have the ability to find your way out of the dark caves of religion and “higher education.” Epicurus taught that your own abilities – your five senses, and the faculties with which you were born – are the only test of what is true and false. He also taught that all religious speculation, and all academic logic and reasoning, must be based on evidence that men have the ability to confirm or deny for themselves. Epicurus showed you what the preachers and the academics do not want you to see – that all their speculations in fact rely on the evidence of our natural faculties, and that speculation not built on that evidence is worthless.

Ο Επίκουρος ήταν ο πρώτος άνθρωπος ο οποίος επεσήμανε ότι εσείς οι ίδιοι έχετε την ικανότητα να βρείτε το δρόμο σας έξω από τις σκοτεινές σπηλιές της θρησκείας και της «ανώτερης εκπαίδευσης». Ο Επίκουρος δίδαξε ότι οι δικές σας ικανότητες - οι πέντε σας αισθήσεις και οι λοιπές ικανότητες με τις οποίες γεννηθήκατε - είναι ο μοναδικός έλεγχος για το τι είναι σωστό και τι λάθος. Δίδαξε, επίσης, ότι όλες οι θρησκευτικές δοξασίες και ότι όλη η ακαδημαϊκή λογική και το σκεπτικό, θα πρέπει να βασίζονται σε αποδείξεις που οι άνθρωποι έχουν τη δυνατότητα να επιβεβαιώσουν ή να διαψεύσουν από μόνοι τους. Ο Επίκουρος σάς έδειξε τι οι ιεροκήρυκες και οι ακαδημαϊκοί δεν θέλουν να δείτε - ότι όλες οι εικασίες τους στην πραγματικότητα βασίζονται στην απόδειξη των φυσικών ικανοτήτων μας και ότι η εικασία που δεν είναι χτισμένη πάνω σε αυτή την απόδειξη είναι άχρηστη.

Where is the proof, asked Epicurus, that a god created the universe? Where is that god now? Where are his continuing acts of creation today? Show me before my own eyes one grain of sand being created from nothing! Show me one grain of sand being destroyed to nothing! If there is no proof that a grain of sand can come from nothing, or go to nothing at the command of a god or any of his preachers, then there is no proof the universe can – or ever did – come from nothing!

Πού είναι η απόδειξη, ρώτησε ο Επίκουρος, ότι κάποιος θεός δημιούργησε το σύμπαν; Πού είναι αυτός ο θεός τώρα; Πού βρίσκονται σήμερα οι συνεχείς του πράξεις της δημιουργίας; Δείξτε μου μπροστά στα μάτια μου έναν κόκκο άμμου που να δημιουργείται από το τίποτα! Δείξτε μου έναν κόκκο άμμου να καταστρέφεται στο τίποτα! Εάν δεν υπάρχει καμία απόδειξη ότι ένας κόκκος άμμου μπορεί να προέρχεται από το τίποτα, ή να καταλήξει στο τίποτα κατ’ εντολή ενός θεού ή κάποιου από τους ιεροκήρυκές του, τότε δεν υπάρχει καμία απόδειξη ότι το σύμπαν μπορεί - ή ότι κάποτε μπόρεσε - να προέρχεται από το τίποτα!

Where is the proof, asked Epicurus, that the human soul existed before birth, or after death? Where is the proof that in all the ages a single man has come back to life once being truly dead? Such proof does not exist, and that means that once dead we are nothing, and there is no possibility of reward or punishment after death.

Πού είναι η απόδειξη, ρώτησε ο Επίκουρος, ότι υπήρχε η ανθρώπινη ψυχή πριν από τη γέννηση, ή ότι θα υπάρχει μετά το θάνατο; Πού είναι η απόδειξη ότι ανά τους αιώνες ένας άνθρωπος έχει έρθει πίσω στη ζωή έστω μια φορά ενώ ήταν πραγματικά νεκρός; Τέτοια απόδειξη δεν υπάρχει και αυτό σημαίνει ότι όταν είμαστε νεκροί δεν είμαστε τίποτα και ότι δεν υπάρχει καμία πιθανότητα για επιβράβευση ή τιμωρία μετά το θάνατο.

Where is the proof, asked Epicurus, that there is a single standard for what is “good” or “virtuous” in human life? Is it not true that killing another person will be looked on as a great evil if the person killed is an innocent baby? But that killing another person will be looked on as a great good if the person killed is a reprobate, stopped cold in the act of mass murder? All questions of what is right and wrong must be judged in the context from which they arise. There is no tablet of stone written by god or man which contains rules which must be obeyed by all men at all places and all times.

Stopped cold means "stopped totally" or "Stopped dead in its tracks" (without taking another step).

Πού είναι η απόδειξη, μας ρωτά ο Επίκουρος, ότι υπάρχει ένα μόνο πρότυπο για το τι είναι «καλό» ή «ενάρετο» στη ζωή του ανθρώπου; Δεν είναι αλήθεια ότι ο φόνος ενός άλλου ανθρώπου θα θεωρηθεί ως ένα μεγάλο κακό, αν το πρόσωπο που σκοτώθηκε είναι ένα αθώο μωρό; Αλλά αυτός ο φόνος ενός άλλου ατόμου θα θεωρηθεί ως ένα μεγάλο καλό, αν το πρόσωπο που σκοτώθηκε είναι ένας εγκληματίας, που σκοτώθηκε πάνω σε μια πράξη μαζικής δολοφονίας; Όλες οι ερωτήσεις για το τι είναι σωστό και τι λάθος θα πρέπει να κριθούν βάσει των συνθηκών από τις οποίες προκύπτουν. Δεν υπάρχει καμία πέτρινη πλάκα που να γράφτηκε από θεό ή άνθρωπο και που να περιέχει κανόνες οι οποίοι πρέπει να τηρούνται από όλους τους ανθρώπους σε όλους τους τόπους και σε όλους τους χρόνους.

But while ethical questions must be judged by their context, where is the proof, asked Epicurus, that nothing at all can be known with certainty? We can see for ourselves that killing may be good or evil depending on context, why should we accept without any proof that the state of being dead mean may mean delight in heaven or agony in hell?

Unproven assertions about death are bad enough, but even worse are those who tell us that nothing in life can be known with certainty. These are the worst kind of liars, because they presume that we will accept their definition of “true” and “false,” even while they tell us that nothing can be true or false!

Αλλά ενώ τα ηθικά ερωτήματα πρέπει να κρίνονται από τις συνθήκες τους, πού είναι η απόδειξη, ρωτά ο Επίκουρος ότι τίποτα απολύτως δεν μπορεί να γίνει με βεβαιότητα γνωστό; Μπορούμε να δούμε από μόνοι μας ότι ο φόνος μπορεί να είναι καλός ή κακός ανάλογα με τις συνθήκες, γιατί θα πρέπει να δεχτούμε χωρίς καμία απόδειξη ότι το να είναι κάποιος νεκρός μπορεί να σημαίνει απόλαυση στον ουρανό ή οδύνη στην κόλαση;

Αναπόδεικτοι ισχυρισμοί σχετικά με το θάνατο είναι αρκετά κακοί, αλλά ακόμη χειρότεροι είναι εκείνοι που μας λένε ότι τίποτα στη ζωή δεν μπορεί να γίνει γνωστό με βεβαιότητα. Αυτοί είναι ψεύτες του χειρίστου είδους, επειδή θεωρούν ότι θα αποδεχθούμε τον ορισμό τους πάνω στην «αλήθεια» και στο «ψεύδος», ακόμη και όταν μας λένε ότι τίποτα δεν μπορεί να είναι αληθές ή ψευδές!

Among the saddest of all are those whose education has led them to believe that their very lives are worthless. These people waste their lives and bury their emotions in drugs from the pharmacy, escapism from the television, or “stoicism” from the local bookstore.

In the face of these deceptions, Epicurus taught that we should look for ourselves at the nature of the world. When we do, we will see that the world is governed neither by gods nor by chaos. The sun rises in the east every day, and yet there is nothing truly new under the sun. Using our eyes and our intelligence, we can learn that the consistency we see in front of us must have a basis, and that this basis is neither supernatural nor chaotic.

Μεταξύ των πιο θλιβερών από όλους είναι εκείνοι των οποίων η εκπαίδευση τούς οδήγησε να πιστεύουν ότι οι ίδιες τους οι ζωές είναι άχρηστες. Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι σπαταλούν τη ζωή τους και θάβουν τα συναισθήματά τους με τα αντικαταθλιπτικά του φαρμακείου, με τη φυγή από την πραγματικότητα μέσω της τηλεόρασης, ή με τον «στωικισμό» αγοράζοντας σχετικά βιβλία από το γειτονικό τους βιβλιοπωλείο.

Αντιμέτωπος με αυτές τις απάτες, ο Επίκουρος δίδαξε ότι θα πρέπει να αναζητήσουμε τον εαυτό μας στη φύση του κόσμου. Όταν το κάνουμε, θα δούμε ότι ο κόσμος δεν κυβερνάται ούτε από θεούς ούτε από το χάος. Ο ήλιος ανατέλλει στα ανατολικά κάθε μέρα, και όμως δεν υπάρχει τίποτα πραγματικά καινούριο κάτω από τον ήλιο. Χρησιμοποιώντας τα μάτια μας και τη φρόνησή μας, μπορούμε να μάθουμε ότι η συνοχή που βλέπουμε μπροστά μας πρέπει να έχει μια βάση, και ότι αυτή η βάση δεν είναι ούτε υπερφυσική ούτε χαοτική.

Epicurus taught that Nature has no ruler over her, and that Nature yields neither to gods nor to chaos. Instead, the world we see around us is composed of eternal elemental particles which we cannot see, but which form the eternal fabric and glue from which the universe is made. There are no ideal “patterns” to which we must conform our lives, or to which preachers and academics have exclusive access. There is no beginning or end to the universe in space or time. Instead there is only what is – the universe of eternal elements with natural properties from which worlds are made. It is from these which the natural laws of the universe arise, and from these by which the universe as a whole teems with life.

Ο Επίκουρος δίδαξε ότι η φύση δεν έχει κανέναν από πάνω της να την κυβερνά και ότι η Φύση δεν υποκύπτει ούτε στους θεούς ούτε στο χάος. Αντίθετα, ο κόσμος που βλέπουμε γύρω μας συντίθεται από αιώνια στοιχειώδη σωματίδια τα οποία δεν μπορούμε να δούμε, αλλά τα οποία αποτελούν το αιώνιο υλικό και την κόλλα από τα οποία κατασκευάστηκε το Σύμπαν. Δεν υπάρχουν ιδανικά «μοτίβα» στα οποία θα πρέπει να συμμορφώνονται οι ζωές μας, ή στα όποια οι ιεροκήρυκες και οι ακαδημαϊκοί έχουν αποκλειστική πρόσβαση. Στο σύμπαν δεν υπάρχει αρχή και τέλος του χώρου ή του χρόνου. Αντίθετα υπάρχει μόνο αυτό που πραγματικά είναι - το σύμπαν των αιώνιων στοιχείων με φυσικές ιδιότητες από τα οποία δημιουργούνται οι Κόσμοι.. Είναι αυτά από τα οποία προκύπτουν οι φυσικοί νόμοι του σύμπαντος, και είναι από αυτά εξαιτίας των οποίων το σύμπαν στο σύνολό του σφύζει από ζωή.

As for how we should live, Epicurus asked: To what do all living things look to know what is desirable and what is undesirable? Why would men be any less equipped by Nature to know what to choose and what to avoid than are any other animals? All of us can see, Epicurus pointed out, that young animals of all types – even humans – reach out for pleasure and draw back from pain from the moment of birth. And this they continue to do so long as they remain uncorrupted by false religions and false philosophies.

It is time for you to realize that the deceptions of the last two thousand years are not irreversible. They are not permanent, and they are not your “fate.” You are a being with free will and an intelligent mind. Just as you can choose what type of ice cream you like using your natural faculties, without gods or ideals of virtue to tell you which is best, you can choose how to live your life using your natural faculties as well.

The path to happy living was opened by Epicurus over two thousand years ago – it is time you got to know more about him.

Όσο για το πώς θα πρέπει να ζήσουμε, ο Επίκουρος ρώτησε: Πώς όλα τα ζωντανά όντα φαίνεται να γνωρίζουν τι είναι επιθυμητό και τι είναι ανεπιθύμητο; Γιατί οι άνθρωποι θα πρέπει να είναι λιγότερο εξοπλισμένοι από τη φύση, ώστε να γνωρίζουν τι να επιλέξουν και τι να αποφύγουν από ό,τι όλα τα άλλα ζώα; Όλοι μας μπορούμε να δούμε, τόνισε ο Επίκουρος, ότι τα νεαρά ζώα όλων των ειδών - ακόμα και οι άνθρωποι – επιδιώκουν την ευχαρίστηση και αποφεύγουν τον πόνο από τη στιγμή της γέννησής τους. Και αυτό θα συνεχίσουν να πράττουν εφόσον παραμείνουν αναλλοίωτοι από ψεύτικες θρησκείες και ψεύτικες φιλοσοφίες.

Είναι καιρός να συνειδητοποιήσετε ότι οι εξαπατήσεις των τελευταίων δύο χιλιάδων ετών δεν είναι μη αναστρέψιμες. Δεν είναι μόνιμες και δεν είναι η «μοίρα» σας. Είστε ένα ον με ελεύθερη βούληση και με ένα ευφυές μυαλό. Ακριβώς όπως μπορείτε να επιλέξετε τι είδους παγωτό σας αρέσει χρησιμοποιώντας τις φυσικές ικανότητές σας, χωρίς τους θεούς ή τα ιδανικά της αρετής να σας λένε ποιο είναι το καλύτερο, μπορείτε επίσης να επιλέξετε πώς να ζήσετε τη ζωή σας χρησιμοποιώντας τις φυσικές σας ικανότητες..

Η πορεία προς την ευτυχισμένη ζωή ξεκίνησε από τον Επίκουρο πριν από πάνω από δύο χιλιάδες χρόνια - ήλθε καιρ

Yes Matt has pretty much stated exactly what I am thinking, especially as to the issue of Nihilism. The only real elaboration I would add is that yes it is true that other than for perhaps Islam, as an overt religious movement, the overtly religious movements seem to be spent. There are very few crusading Presbyterians or Anglicans trying to take over governments and mandate that people follow their sects.

But (this goes back to the issue of whether "Humanism" is itself a religion) there are secular forms of absolutism that don't claim a supernatural basis, but which still claim a sort of Platonic / Stoic right to absolutism through "reason."

I don't want to divert us off into evaluation or criticism of the "Humanist" movement, because the definition of Humanism is so fluid and no one has the authority to state its definition with finality. The point would be broader and more simple -- that any claim of any nature by any group that there is only one way for everyone at all places and all times to live needs to be viewed very skeptically.

I would ask of each and every movement: Are they really pursuing a viewpoint compatible with Epicurus' identification of "pleasure" as the goal, or have they just substituted their own absolute view of "the good" and decided to mandate their own view of "Good without god" (which is an actual Humanist slogan)?

In the simplest terms I think Epicurus stands for the position that there is no "good" other than pleasure, and no "bad" other than pain" --- all good and bad derive from pleasure and pain, and whenever we take our eyes off the ultimate goal, we misidentify the means as the end.

Quote from Kalosyni

But my own feeling is "make love not war"...And I hold on to the dream of creating a 21st Century Epicurean Garden.

And my comment here applies not only to this quote but also to some of the other comments above from Don especially:

Yes that is a laudable goal, and should be pursued as much as your circumstances allow. But in my experience the world does not often allow that - it does not allow us to withdraw to our own communities and live in peace to ourselves. The world is full of Absolutists (Stoics, Platonists, Religious Radicals) who set for themselves the goal of making everyone else believe the way they do - and they will not leave us alone.

Unless a part of Epicurean activity is devoted not just to indulging in our own pleasures, but to making sure that the rest of the world that doesn't agree with us is willing (or compelled by our own power to expel) to leave us alone, then we cannot have confidence in our own ability to sustain our chosen lifestyles.

And my references to the "force" part aren't even probably as important as references to the "argument" part. Very few of us are likely to be able to advance to the point where we are completely confident of the correctness of our positions on the nature of things. Most of us are going to interact with people of other persuasions, and even if we succeed in avoiding those who say "We will not allow pleasure to be pursued as the goal of life" we are going to be constantly confronted with the Platonic argument that "If you think about it, pleasure SHOULD NOT be the goal of life."

And I cannot tell you how often over the years I have seen people get enthusiastic about Epicurean philosophy and then eventually fall away from it, not because they conclude it is wrong, but because they simply get tired of arguing with other people and supporting their own position.

So the Lucretian and Lucian and Epicurus style of constant philosophical warfare isn't necessary for all of us, but for the fact that they pursued that lifestyle, and but for some of us being willing to do that today, in my view there is absolutely no hope to proceed further into the realization of real or even online communities -- sadly, the anti-Epicurean world simply will not allow it.

OK I will find both the unsubbed video, and the text, and report back here.

I put "thanks" instead of thumbs up on some of these because I glad to see this discussion. Here are some responses:

Quote from JJElbert

What I cannot quite grasp is why an imperfect being (the human), arising from imperfect beginnings and employing imperfect means, must necessarily have as its aim something perfect.

I have a very important but somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer: "Because you are a MAN!" And you're not just ANY man, you're a Greek, you're a Roman, and you would be ashamed to be satisfied by setting a goal for yourself of ANYTHING BUT THE BEST! How dare you even SUGGEST that we use our lives to pursue anything but the best??

I see this as much the same message as those "Be All You Can Be" advertisements the Marines used to use. And in fact I truly see no problem with that attitude, even - or especially - as an Epicurean. We of all people take the position that we only have one life to live - no second chances, no reincarnation, no heaven after death. So for me, that has always been one of the most compelling observations of the philosophy: when you know your life is short and over for an eternity thereafter, how can you accept wasting a second of that time in failing to identify and pursue whatever is BEST? Now that probably wasn't the attitude of a lot of Epicurus' Athenian contemporaries -- there was probably a lot of simple "human pride" mixed in. But I do think that the "Why not be the best you can be?" attitude is sound reasoning, and in order to answer that question, the inquiring mind has to ask "Well, ok - What is the best I can be?"

Quote from JJElbert

but at my current level of understanding I slightly wish that he had cut down that argument instead of trying to supply an adequate solution.

I am afraid that the "cutting down" led in fact to part of our problem today. I firmly think that the Letter to Menoeceus, and the PD's, are both truncated and "outline-level" versions of Epicurus' full position. If we had more of the texts I feel certain that what we are discussing now (the view that the absence of pain limit is a response to this logical argument) would have been made amply clear. In fact I think that in the atmosphere of the philosophic schools of Athens everyone would have been taught that Platonic argument at the beginning stages of their learning about philosophy, and Epicurus and his contemporaries never considered or thought to deal with the possibility that this Platonic logical argument would fail from view, or that any of their future students would (like Don and me too until recently ) would fail to have read Philebus and be aware that it is necessary to deal with it. Surely we aren't the first to ask, and they in fact did ask: "Why did Protarchus and Philebus agree to back off and abandon their view that Pleasure is the highest good? Could they not have been better arguers? What should they have said?

And I think what we are discussing now is "What Philebus and Protarchus should have said to shut up Socrates."

Quote from JJElbert

Now I'm trying to better understand why he chose to take it. Since it recurs in almost all of the core texts, he must have felt that it was important.

Yes, not only important but essential given the knowledge of his students of the Platonic arguments, as discussed above.

Quote from JJElbert

I suspect that the answer has something to do with his conception of the gods; in paraphrase, 'they do not trouble us because their perfect happiness prevents them from wanting or needing to trouble us'.

See, I would not go in that direction except only to this limited extent: I think that the anticipations of the gods -- our ability to project the nature of their existence and what these "best" beings would be doing with their lives --- I think that aspect of human nature, that inborn faculty to look for "the best" -- is a large part of the driving force that compels us to deal with Socrates' question. It's our anticipations that lead us to recognize that there are such things as "better" and "worse" that we then devote out studies and our conceptual reasoning to in order to figure it out.

if we didn't have something within us that drives us to be "the best" then we might well be content to live in a cave on bread and water and air so long as our experience was filled with bread and water and air. But something drives us to "do better" than that form of existence.

Quote from Don

First, Epicurus's "limit" or "boundary stone" of pleasure seems eminently practical to me. If your mental and physical being is completely imbued with pleasure, by definition, you are feeling no pain. If you are feeling as much pleasure as possible with no hint of pain, there's no way that could be increased. You could feel different kinds of pleasure at that point, but you can't feel "more" pleasure if you're experiencing an absolute lack of any pain. This could be complete relaxation and calm or some other kind of all-encompassing pleasurable experience.

Yes - I agree with all of that EXCEPT the implication of the last sentence. When you're at the limit because your experience is completely filled with experiences you find pleasurable, then you're at the limit and there's nothing else you can experience - by definition. I would say tranquility is not BEYOND or IN ADDITION to that limit, but is part of the bundle of pleasures that you are experiencing that have taken you up to that limit -- but beyond that point you cannot conceptually proceed.

Quote from Scott

- if a favorite song comes on, or one's best friend whom was away for several months surprises and walks in, or any myriad of other pleasant things would suddenly occur, one's pleasure would increase, no? If those things happened to me, I feel certain I would experience an increase of pleasure. What am I missing here?

I think you're still not grasping the full significance of what Socrates is arguing. He is saying:

A life that's full of pleasure, but which can be made better by more pleasant things, is obviously not the best life you can conceptually achieve. The best life you can conceptually achieve cannot be improved. Socrates is accepting your premise, Scott, and using it to argue against you. Because Socrates is saying (in the full argument in Philebus) and elsewhere, that if more pleasure can always be added to your life, then you must recognize that "more pleasure" cannot logically be set as your goal -- you will always want more. And if you will always want more, Socrates will tell you, then you need to ask yourself "how do i know what else, what more kinds of pleasure, that I need?"

And Socrates will tell you "That Scott, is the function of WISDOM, and PRUDENCE and KNOWLEDGE." And if you admit that, as did Philebus/Protarchus, then you are quickly impelled to the conclusion that it is not correct to set PLEASURE as your goal -- No, the correct goal is in fact WISDOM/PRUDENCE/KNOWLEDGE!!!

And thus, Scott, Socrates would say to you, you must now join our fellow Platonists and Stoics on the road to search for WiSDOM (and the other virtues) which you have admitted to be more important than pleasure!

i am sure it exists somewhere, along with a video without the Greek subtitles. Matt do you have it readily findable? If not I will look and find it.

Thank you Matt! That brings back good memories!

Quote from Don

Not THE pleasure, but a pleasure.

And THAT, good sir, is the issue! Because that (tranquility as THE goal rather than A goal) is what Okeefe and those who write like he does are relentlessly asserting.

And as we've recently been discussing as to logic, if we're going to talk in terms of a "highest" goal, there can only be one such animal.

I would like to think that no one would be so foolish as to write off tranquility as desirable, or to think that any other reasonable person would do that. So I don't think I or any of us are in danger of actually becoming lulled into constant frenetic activity.

Are there any of those here? Please step up and name yourselves! I have a lot of projects I'd love to have some help with!

And in fact I think the danger is quite the reverse. A lot of very good people ARE in danger of looking only to "tranquility" - to "rest" - to passivity, and to other and more darker forms of resignation that border on "giving up" everything in life just for the sake of "absence of pain." The pressures of modern life, and the absence of good solid philosophic alternatives, drive a lot of people to the edge of despair. I would tag a lot of the problem with people strung out on meth and other drugs as being fed by the degeneracy of culture that Epicurus was fighting against. Fatalism, nonsensical virtue for the sake of virtue, imaginary heavens and hells, etc.

So I would say that if we had to rank those who swing from one extreme to the other, both of which would be wrong, there are a much higher number of people among those attracted to the O'Keefe version of Epicurus that are on the "passivity" side of that list.

And when I think about the energy and enthusiasm and vigor that I think is going to be necessary to re-establish Epicurean philosophy as a viable community and viable philosophic alternative, I think that passivity and withdrawal, and a designation that "tranquility" is our goal, is just about the worst poison pill for Epicurean philosophy that any Stoic could ever dream up.

I think Epicurus was engaged in what was essentially a philosophic war against the rival schools, and a war footing is probably where a good number of us need to be.

But rest assured, when my war is over, I'll be looking for more than a little tranquility!