Posts by Cassius

Quote from reneliza

That was a lot of words to say the same thing in a lot of different ways in the hopes that one of them adequately conveys what I'm trying to say I think I'm coming upon something more, but I'll wait until I've read more and have a deeper understanding of Epicurus's original teachings

Somehow I missed reading this post at the time it was posted - maybe we crossposted.

So it looks like I better address another fundamental point about this "what is pleasure?" discussion:

ReneLisa I see your perspective as intersecting with Kalosyni's recent post about REBT / CBT and therapy, and i think my comments in that thread apply here too. Is Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy Compatible with Epicureanism?

In my view, Epicurean views need to be thought of first as a "philosophy" of life - a world view. Yes Epicurean philosophy is practical, and yes it will lead in many practical directions, but Epicurean philosophy is not first and foremost a "therapy" as modern Stoicism has become.

My point here is that Epicurus' discussions about "pleasure" are - in my view - primarily tuned to addressing some basic philosophic questions. Epicurus is starting by asking "What is the nature of human life?" and "What is the goal of human life?" -- big picture items like those. In that field, the big alternatives argued by others are (1) Being pious (following god/religion like the priests tell you), or (2) Being "rational" (following "reason" or "logic" like Plato or Aristotle or Mr Spock might tell you), or (3) Being "virtuous" or being "a good person" (like the Stoics or fundamental "Humanists" might tell you). I am sure there are other major categories too.

I think that's the first way you have to understand Epicurus. When he says things to the effect that "pleasure is the goal of life" he's contrasting that conclusion to (1), (2), or (3) above. He's not prescribing a medication or giving precise clinical advice for particular person to follow at a particular moment.

AFTER you reject (1), (2), and (3) and realize why they are wrong (for reasons such as there is no "supernatural god" and no "fate" and no "afterlife" and the other things that go with the Epicurean worldview), then you're in a position to understand your basic place in the universe and the general direction you should be heading. And at that point you're equipped to identify and call in all the appropriate "therapeutic techniques" that might help someone in your personal situation to work through your current problems and move in the direction you want to go.

I just see the need to caution people that when they compare CBT or any "therapy" to Epicurean philosophy there's a hazard of making the mistake of comparing apples to oranges - they are very different things. To me, it would never make any sense to engage in any "therapy" without first having an idea of the meaning of "health" and where you need to be. That's what Epicurean philosophy provides -- an understanding of "health." Once you have that only then are you in a position to judge what particular medicine a particular person needs at a particular moment.

There are a series of 'practical' observations embedded into the texts that sort of correspond to the kind of wise advice that we traditionally get from parents, or friends, etc. Examples include:

VS43. The love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly gained, is shameful; for it is unseemly to be parsimonious, even with justice on one’s side.

VS44. The wise man, when he has accommodated himself to straits, knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.

VS45. The study of nature does not make men productive of boasting or bragging, nor apt to display that culture which is the object of rivalry with the many, but high-spirited and self-sufficient, taking pride in the good things of their own minds and not of their circumstances.

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

VS48. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content.

VS49. It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he does not know the Nature of the universe, but still gives some credence to myths. So, without the study of Nature, there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

But my main point is that everything wise to do in life isn't philosophy, which is a complete worldview. A series of "therapeutic techniques" can't take the place of a philosophy. And that's especially true since "therapy" divorced from answering questions about "Toward what goal?" can be very manipulative and even dangerous.

That's essentially what has happened in modern Stoicism, and it's why so many Stoics are confused about their philosophy and think it's so similar to Epicurean philosophy. The modern Stoics have stopped stressing their ancient foundations ("virtue" as the goal, in which pleasure is a highly negative thing) to the point where modern Stoicism has little or anything to do with what the Stoics originally developed. I would submit that modern Stoicism is in fact now focused on issues of living 'happily," while for the ancient Stoics what we think of as living "happily" was one of the major *obstacles* to their goal - living "virtuously."

We could take that observation off in great detail - and i think we have discussed it in the past - but the point under discussion here is not to give Stoicism a well-deserved bashing but to point out the limits of CBT / REBT. (If you want to read a bashing of Stoicism, one unexpected place to read a good one are the parts of CIcero's "On Ends" which are devoted to examining the Stoics.)

One other thing I would point out is that it's important to remember what Epicurus said about pain -- sometimes we DO choose pain in order to avoid a worse pain or achieve a greater pleasure. The "sometimes" is the issue - we have to think through carefully what our goal is and why we may choose to undergo pain.

Is "Behavioral Therapy" going to answer questions like that, if "therapy" is focused purely on "reducing pain" or "coping with pain" without answering the bigger philosophic question of whether the pain a person is going through is "appropriate"?

A medical doctor can pretty uniformly know that "treating pain" is the obvious goal. "Being tired" can be caused by all sorts of disease processes which a doctor will have medications to treat.

But what if you are "tired" because you have just engaged in lengthy exercise toward losing weight or generally improving your health? Would a doctor look to medicate away your "tiredness" simply because you are tired?

A philosophy of life has to identify the goal of living and analyze any current problems in the context of obtaining ultimate goals. Any "therapy" that represents itself as helping to adjust your behavior without first analyzing the reasons for your situation and your ultimate goals in life may just prolong the period of time of wandering in darkness.

I see one of the links states this:

Quote

REBT? What is it?

What is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)? Created by Albert Ellis, REBT is a form of the very popular cognitive behavior therapy and has been dominating approaches to psychological treatment since the 1950s. You might be wondering what distinguishes REBT from other forms of psychotherapy techniques. In essence, Albert Ellis created it as a philosophy of living – its foundation is the belief that it is not the events in our lives that cause our emotions, rather it is our beliefs that cause us to experience emotions such as anger, depression, and anxiety. It is a mode to consider and change our irrational beliefs and has shown to have a favorable effect on reducing emotional pain.

Those are statements that bother me. REBT may be a very effective therapy and technique, but it's certainly not a "philosophy of living."

And this sounds like pure mind-over-matter Stoicism; ' its foundation is the belief that it is not the events in our lives that cause our emotions, rather it is our beliefs that cause us to experience emotions such as anger, depression, and anxiety." Read in a certain way that may be ok, but to imply that you can change real issues in your life simply by what you "believe" about them is more pseudo-stoic nonsense. If someone has a medical problem they need a doctor, not to change their "belief" about their medical condition.

Much like Stoicism itself it sounds to me like this is making claims on which it can't deliver, and it's offering itself as a full philosophy of life when it's really closer to a coping mechanism.

The only thing I would tweak on Don's response is this:

Quote from Don

not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to pain.

Since you're early in the reading of Epicurus, Renelliza, I would stress that this probably needs to be stated as:

"...not every pleasurable feeling should be chosen because some pleasurable feelings will lead to MORE PAIN THAN THAT PLEASURE IS WORTH TO YOU".

I think Don and i are together on that point and he probably will agree with me - I am sure he will say so if he does not.

The same people who will argue that "absence of pain" is the heart of Epicurean philosophy rather than "Pleasure" will argue to you that it is necessary according to Epicurus to banish every pain at every moment, and to never take any course of action that will lead to any pain whatsoever.

That's clearly NOT what Epicurus says in the letter to Menoeceus or other places -- Epicurus is realistic and knows that life requires exertion, and much exertion is painful, and yet we sometimes choose a painful action anyway not only to avoid worse pain, but to achieve pleasures that greatly outweigh the cost in pain.

If Don or anyone thinks I am misstating that please correct me.

Quote

Letter to Menoeceus:

For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.

And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time.

Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

We haven't talked about cognitive behavioral therapy in a long while, and i am not up on the details. In general, it's definitely more related to Stoicism, and in fact the leading internet Stoic, Donald Robertson, is primarily (from what I gather) a CBT teacher.

I seem to remember this section on criticism of CBT at Wikipedia seemed to be longer:

Quote

Philosophical concerns with CBT methods

The methods employed in CBT research have not been the only criticisms; some individuals have called its theory and therapy into question.^[216]

Slife and Williams write that one of the hidden assumptions in CBT is that of determinism, or the absence of free will. They argue that CBT holds that external stimuli from the environment enter the mind, causing different thoughts that cause emotional states: nowhere in CBT theory is agency, or free will, accounted for.^[206]

Another criticism of CBT theory, especially as applied to major depressive disorder (MDD), is that it confounds the symptoms of the disorder with its causes.^[209]

I don't have any doubt but that REBT or CBT or many other types of therapies can be somewhat helpful depending on context, just like some people need medication and all the spoken-word therapy in the word isn't going to help them.

So that's about all I can offer. Therapy is no substitute for a proper philosophy, but probably sometimes it's exactly therapy that someone is needing.

For anyone coming across this post in the future I have found the longer version of the "criticism" section of the CBT wikipedia page, and I posted it here.

Ok that's my first stab at a longer answer to ReneLiza. We need some of our other regulars to weigh in on this question, which is probably one of the ones we'll encounter most often in new people.

And ReneLiza if the responses you are getting are not addressing the question or you want comment on more specific areas let us know!

Quote from reneliza

True, I would choose not to engage in the experience altogether, but is that original sensation still "good"? Is masochistic fulfillment "evil"? If the sheer sensations would be painful or pleasurable out of context then how do we classify them (especially as in my example where the context is initially unknown)?

Or is this just unnecessary overanalysis which I do quite enjoy?

Reneliza I did not mean to avoid the question. I was hoping some others would jump in and I hope others besides Don still will, because this is such a key question.

My basic response as hinted above is that the "good" and "bad" terminology is what has to be scrutinized. Those are very abstract terms, and they are very similar to the "virtue" question. There is a lot of discussion in Epicurean philosophy to the effect that "virtue" and "good" and "evil" are entirely relative concepts, and that they vary entirely by context.

On the other hand, pleasure and pain are sensations, and while we are experiencing them there is no mistake as to what we are experiencing.

You are quite right though that the very same experience can change from pleasurable to painful very quickly, but while we are experiencing it, pleasure and pain are given to us as perceptions which our minds do not evaluate separately. To the extent we are talking about mental pains and pleasures, those too vary quickly, but are unmistakeable for the moments we are experiencing them.

I don't think I have previously addressed you personally on the suggestion to read the Dewitt book as soon as you can. It is now flawless, but it is a very good general introduction to the philosophy, and it will acquaint you with the basic issues and give you a good overview faster than any other way.

If you are an experienced reader of philosophy you can consider reading Diogenes Laertius or Lucretius directly, but I think those require significant background in philosophy before you can catch the depth of them.

You might possibly be interested in "A Few Days In Athens" as that covers your question in "story" form, but that depends on your tastes.

For now, the thumbnail summary is that Epicurus rejected over-analysis of the question of "what is the good?" and "what is the highest good?" which most of the other schools were fond of obsessing over. Epicurus concluded that the universe is entirely natural, without supernatural influence, and that the only directives of nature we are given by which to know what to pursue and what to avoid ultimately come down to "pleasure" and "pain" -- which we know without mistake as feelings.

You might well profit from reading the Torquatus narrative in Cicero's On Ends, as that too is pretty direct and understandable on this point: Cicero's "Torquatus" Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - from "On Ends"

You will quickly grasp the point that Epicurus is making, and you'll see that when he says things close to "all pleasure is good" the analysis that has to be understood is much more focused on the implications of "Good"

Reneliza if you were to ask that question many places on the internet you might get an answer like this:

Introduction

In this passage from the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.), summarizes two of his most famous ethical doctrines: that death should not be feared and that pleasure is the highest good. However, pleasure for Epicurus is not the indulgence of fine foods, drinking beer, and sex. Pleasure is simply the absence of pain. So for Epicurus, a simple life of quiet contemplation is the most pleasurable and therefore ideal life.

-------

And from that you might conclude that fine food, drinking beer, and sex are not pleasures at all!

I for one would disagree strongly that that is what Epicurus taught.

So this is a very important topic.

It is not at all overanalysis and there are millions of examples. You may like chocolate ice cream, at least or the first couple of cups. But when you reach a gallon or more, I would be that you find the very same ice cream you were at first eating with pleasure has turned decidedly unpleasurable.

Is this something that is obvious to us that Epicurus has missed? No, of course I would say "no" to that - so there is an answer (or multiple answers) that everyone studying Epicurus needs to be prepared to explain.

Let's see who wants to go first but in the meantime Reneliza, have you read Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil?"

Notes On Deism and Natural Law

(Organized by Author)

5/23/22 -- This is a list of quotes I put together many years ago, including a list of other authors (at the bottom) of similar viewpoint. I am pasting it here just as a reference for further research, as some of the quotes are from Elihu Palmer, and the Mills father and son. Some of the quotes are from Cicero but most are from the 1800's period.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: n.p 42, Dio Chrysostom Twelfth Discourse, Loeb Classical Lib.

Date: 60 BC

Quotation:

And so, of all the many kinds of living creatures there is none except man that has any concept of a god, while among men themselves there is no race so highly civilized or so savage that, even if it does not know what sort of god it ought to have, yet thinks that it ought to have one. This goes to show that man recognizes God because in a sense he remembers and recognizes the source from which he sprang.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: The Republic, Loeb Classical Library, page 211. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

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 repeal any part of it, and it 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.

And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the fu-ture, 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.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic III. Loeb Classical Library, page 225. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

Ad decus et ad libertatem nati sumus; aut haec teneamus aut cum dignitate moriatur.

It is to glory and to liberty we were born; let us either hold fast to these or with dignity let us die.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic VII. Loeb Classical Library, page 353. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

I do not refuse peace, but war clothed with the name of peace I dread much. Wherefore, if we wish to enjoy peace, we must wage war; if we reject war we shall never enjoy peace.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic VIII, Loeb Classical Library, page 377. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

There is this difference, Calenus, between your creed and mine: I am unwilling that any citizen should act so as to incur the penalty of death; you think that, even if he has so acted, he should be spared. If there be in the body anything such as to injure the rest of the body we suffer it to be cauterized and cut out, that some member, rather than the whole body, should perish; so in the body of the State, to ensure the health of the whole, let what is noxious be amputated. A harsh saying; but yours is harsher: "Let the reprobate, the criminal, the disloyal, be saved; let the innocent, the honest, the good, all the State, be wiped out!"

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic XIII, Loeb Classical Library, page 603 Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

Our first prayer is to conquer; in the second place, to regard no chance of fortune as unbearable on behalf of the honour and liberty of our country. What remains is not a third, but the last alternative of all, to incur the greatest turpitude through love of life.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic XI, Loeb Classical Library, page 491. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

For law is nothing else but a principle of right derived from the will of the Gods, commanding what is honest, forbidding the contrary.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic X, Loeb Classical Library, page 445. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

It is indeed with a great and well-nigh assured hope that we have taken up the cause of liberty; but though I allow that the issues of war are uncertain and Mars inconstant, yet we must struggle for liberty at the risk of life. For life does not consist in breath: it does not exist at all in the slave. All other nations can bear slavery; our community cannot, and for no other reason than that other nations shun toil and pain, and, to be free from these, can endure all things; but we have been so trained and our minds do imbued by our ancestors as to refer all our thoughts and acts to the standard of honour and virtue. So glorious is the recovery of liberty that in regaining liberty we must not even shrink from death. Nay, if immortality were to follow the shrinking from present peril, yet from that it would seem we would shrink the more, as a perpetuation of servitude. But seeing that days and nights all manner of chances surround us on every side, it is not the part of a man, least of all of a Roman, to hesitate to surrender the breath he owes nature to his fatherland.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic X, Loeb Classical Library, page 423. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

No man grudges another's merit who is conscious of his own.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: Phillipic III, Loeb Classical Library, page 227. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

But if already - may the Gods avert the omen! - the State has been brought to its last pass, let us, the leaders of the world and of all nations, do what stout gladiators do to die with honor, let us fall with dignity rather than serve with ignominy. Nothing is more detestable than disgrace, nothing fouler than servitude. It is to glory and to liberty we were born; let us either hold fast to these or with dignity let us die.

Author: Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Reference: The Republic, Loeb Classical Library, page 157. Date: 50 BC

Quotation:

And though Brutus was only a private citizen, he sustained the whole burden of the government, and was the first in our State to demonstrate that no one is a mere private citizen when the liberty of his fellows needs protection.

Qui cum privatus esset, totam rem publicam sustinuit primusque in hac civitate docuit in conservanda civium libertate esse provatum neminem.

Author: Dio Chrysostom

Reference: Twelfth Discourse: Loeb Classical Library p 43

Date: 97

Quotation:

To resume, then: Of man's belief in the deity and his assumption that there is a god we were maintaining that the fountain-head, as we may say, or source, was that idea which is innate in all mankind and comes into being as the result of the actual facts and the truth, an idea that was not framed confusedly nor yet at random, but has been exceedingly potent and persistent since the beginning of time, and has arisen among all nations and still remains, being, one may almost say, a common and general endowment of rational beings.

Author: Franklin, Benjamin

Reference: Date: 1859

Quotation:

BF CH 7 end - I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty: Chapter I, line 156, page 5 Date: 1859

Quotation:

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty: Chapter I, line 250, page 7. Date: 1859

Quotation:

The likings and dislikings of society, or some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings and dislikings should be a law to individuals.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter I, line 263, page 7. Date: 1859

Quotation:

Those who first broke the yoke of what called itself the Universal Church, were in general as little willing to permit difference of religious opinion as that church itself.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter I, line 335, page 9. Date: 1859

Quotation:

The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter I, line 910, page 39. Date: 1859

Quotation:

It is illustrated in the experience of almost all ethical doctrines and creeds. They are full of meaning and vitality to those who originate them, and to the direct disciples of the originators. Their meaning continues to be felt in undiminished strength, and is perhaps brought out into even fuller consciousness, so long as the struggle lasts to give the doctrine or creed an ascendancy over other creeds. At last it either prevails, and becomes the general opinion, or its progress stops; it keeps the possession of the ground it has gained, but ceases to spread further. When either of these results has become apparent, controversy on the subject flags, and gradually dies away. The doctrine has taken its place, if not as a received opinion, as one of the admitted sects or divisions of opinion: those who hold it have generally inherited, not adopted it; and conversion from one of these doctrines to another, being now an exceptional fact, occupies little place in the thoughts of their professors.

Instead of being, as at first, constantly on the alert to defend themselves against the world, or to bring the world over to them, they have subsided into acquiescence, and neither listen, when they can help it, to arguments against their creed, nor trouble dissentients (if there be such) with arguments in its favor. From this time may usually be dated the decline in the living power of the doctrine.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter II, line 1040, page 42. Date: 1859

Quotation:

All languages and literatures are full of general observations on life, both as to what it is, and how to conduct oneself in it; observations which everybody knows, which everybody repeats, or hears with acquiescence, which are received as truisms, yet of which most people first truly learn the meaning, when experience, generally of a painful kind, has made it a reality to them.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter II, 1090, page 43. Date: 1859

Quotation:

The loss of so important an aid to the intelligent and living appre hension of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, opponents, though not sufficient to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the benefit of its universal recognition. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I confess I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavoring to provide a substitute for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as present to the learner's consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for his conversion. But instead of seeking contrivances for this purpose, they have lost those they formerly had.

The Socratic dialectics, so magnificently exemplified in the dialogues of Plato, were a contrivance of this description. They were essentially a negative discussion of the great questions of philosophy and life, directed with consummate skill to the purpose of convincing any one who had merely adopted the commonplaces of received opinion, that he did not understand the subject -- that he as yet attached no definite meaning to the doctrines he professed; in order that, becoming aware of his ignorance, he might be put in the way to attain a stable belief, resting on a clear apprehension both of the meaning of the doctrines and of their evidence.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter II, line 1093, page 43. Date: 1859

Quotation:

It is the fashion of the present time to disparage negative logic -- that which points out weaknesses in theory or errors in practice, without establishing positive truths. Such negative criticism would indeed be poor enough as an ultimate result; but as a means of attaining any positive knowledge or conviction worthy the name, it cannot be valued too highly; and until people are again systematically trained to it, there will be few great thinkers, and a low general average of intellect, in any but the mathematical and physical departments of speculation.

Author: Mill, John Stuart

Reference: On Liberty, Chapter II, line 1305, page 49. Date: 1859

Quotation:

That mankind owes a great debt to this morality (Christianity), and to its early teachers, I would be the last person to deny; but I do not scruple to say of it, that it is, in many important points, incomplete and one-sided, and that unless ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the formation of European life and character, human affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now are. Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good: in its precepts (as has been well said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "thou shalt." In its horror of sensuality, it made an idol of asceticism, which has been gradually compromised away into one of legality.

It holds out the hope of heaven and the threat of hell, as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life: in this falling far below the best of the ancients.... What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern morality, is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not from Christian; as, even in the morality of private life, whatever exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honor, is derived from the purely human, not the religious part of our education, and never could have grown out of a standard of ethics in which the only worth, professedly recognized, is that of obedience. I am as far as any one from pretending that these defects are necessarily inherent in the Christian ethics, in every manner in which it can be conceived, or that the many requisites of a complete moral doctrine which it does not contain, do not admit of being reconciled with it. Far less would I insinuate this of the doctrines and precepts of Christ himself.

I believe that the sayings of Christ are all, that I can see any evidence of their having been in-tended to be; that they are irreconcilable with nothing which a comprehensive morality requires; that everything which is excellent in ethics may be brought within them, with no greater violence to their lan-guage than has been done to it by all who have attempted to deduce from them any practical system of conduct whatever. But it is quite consistent with this, to believe that they contain, and were meant to contain, only a part of the truth; that many essential elements of the highest morality are among the things which are not provided for, nor intended to be provided for, in the recorded deliverances of the Founder of Christianity, and which have been entirely thrown aside in the system of ethics erected on the basis of those deliverances by the Christian Church. And this being so, I think it a great error to persist in at-tempting to find in the Christian doctrine that complete rule for our guidance, which its author intended it to sanction and enforce, but only partially to provide. I believe, too, that this narrow theory is becoming a grave practical evil, detracting greatly from the value of moral training and instruction, which so many well-meaning persons are now at length exerting themselves to promote. I much fear that by attempting to form the mind and feelings on an exclusively religious type, and discarding those secular standards (as for want of a better name they may be called) which heretofore co-existed with and supplemented the Christian ethics, receiving some of its spirit, and infusing into it some of theirs, there will result, and is even now resulting, a low, abject, servile type of character, which, submit itself as it may to what it deems the Supreme Will, is incapable of rising to or sympathizing in the conception of Supreme Goodness.

I believe that other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind; and that the Chris-tian system is no exception to the rule, that in an imperfect state of the human mind, the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions.

....

It can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, pages 9 - 10 Date: 1819

Quotation:

The political tyranny of the earth coalesced with this phalanx of religious despots, and the love of science and of virtue was nearly banished from the world. Twelve centuries of moral and political dark-ness, in which Europe was involved, had nearly completed the destruction of human dignity, and everything valuable or ornamental in the character of man. During this long and doleful night of ignorance, slavery, and superstition, Christianity reigned triumphant; its doctrines and divinity were not called in question. The power of the Pope, the clergy, and the church, were omnipotent; nothing could restrain their phrenzy, nothing could control the cruelty of their fanaticism; with mad enthusiasm they set on foot the most bloody and terrific crusades, the object of which was to recover from infidels the Holy Land.

Seven hundred thousand men are said to have perished in the two first expeditions, which had been thus commenced and carried on by the pious zeal of the Christian church, and in the total amount, several millions were found numbered among the dead: the awful effects of religious fanaticism presuming upon the aid of heaven. It was then that man lost all his dignity, and sunk to the condition of a brute; it was then that intellect received a deadly blow, from which it did not recover till the fifteenth century. From that time to the present, the progress of knowledge has been constantly accelerated; independence of mind has been asserted, and opposing obstacles have been gradually diminished. The church has resigned a part of her power, the better to retain the remainder; civil tyranny has been shaken to its center in both hemispheres; the malignity of superstition is abating, and every species of quackery, imposture, and imposition, are yielding to the light and power of science.

An awful contest has commenced, which must terminate in the destruction of thrones and civil despotism; in the annihilation of ecclesiastical pride and domination; or, on the other hand, intellect, science, and manly virtue will be crushed in one general ruin, and the world will retrograde towards a state of ignorance, barbarism, and misery.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 11. Date: 1819

Quotation:

Church and State may unite to form an insurmountable barrier against the extension of thought, the moral progress of nations, and the felicity of nature; but let it be recollected, that the guarantee for moral and political emancipation is already deposited in the archives of every school and college, and in the mind of every cultivated and enlightened man of all countries. It will henceforth be a vain and fruitless attempt to reduce the earth to that state of slavery of which the history of former ages has furnished such an awful picture. The crimes of ecclesiastical despots are still corroding upon the very vitals of human society; the severities of civil power will never be forgotten. The destructive influence of ancient institutions will teach us to seek in nature and the knowledge of her laws, for the discovery of those principles whose operation alone can emancipate the world from dreadful bondage.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 14. Date: 1819

Quotation:

Ignorance is an excellent friend to an ancient system of error, to the church and the different projects by which mankind has been enslaved. If you can once persuade a man that he is totally ignorant of the subject on which you are about to discourse, you can make him believe anything. Impositions of this kind are furnished by every day's experience; and the victim of such imposition is commonly the first to applaud the instrument of his ruin.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 14. Date: 1819

Quotation:

Nothing can be more true, nothing more certain, or important, than that man owes to himself due respect, that his intellect is an object of veneration, and its result interwoven with the best interests of human society. The distorted exhibitions of imaginary beings contained in all ancient theology, ought to excite within us a strong desire to discover truth, and reclaim the dignity which nature gave to man.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 93. Date: 1819

Quotation:

It is extremely destructive to the moral happiness of mankind to teach them the want of powers, or the inadequacy of those they possess; because the fact is otherwise, because it is a solemn truth that the powers of man are competent to provide for his happiness; they are equal to the exigencies of his existence. It is superstition that has made him a fool, it is religious tyranny that has enslaved his mind, perverted his faculties, and tarnished the glory of his intellectual energies. Christianity has taught him two aweful and destructive lessons; first, that he is incapacitated for the performance of moral actions; and secondly in case he should perform them, they would add no merit or superior excellence to his character; that his best righteousness is like filthy rags which God would treat with marked abhorrence.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 109. Date: 1819

Quotation:

Reason, righteous and immortal reason, with the argument of printing types in one hand, and the keen argument of the sword in the other, must attack the thrones and the hierarchies of the world, and level them with the dust of the earth; then the emancipated slave must be raised by the power of science into the character of an enlightened citizen; thus possessing a knowledge of his rights, a knowledge of his duties will consequently follow, and he will discover the intimate and essential union between the highest interests of existence, and the practice of an exalted virtue. The power of reason, the knowledge of printing, the overthrow of political and ecclesiastical despotism, the universal diffusion of the light of science, and the universal enjoyment of republican liberty; these will become the harbingers and procuring causes of real virtue in every individual, and universal happiness will become the lot of man.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 138. Date: 1819

Quotation:

The moral qualities of our nature are capable of being drawn into action, in perfect coincidence with the fundamental principles of an exalted virtue; but it is also conceded, that they are capable of being vitiated. In every intelligent agent, actions of the most opposite nature will sometimes obtain; man is not wholly virtuous, nor is he wholly vicious; but he consists of a compound of these two different kinds of action; but whether virtuous or vicious, it is the result of his own choice, and the use of the moral energies of his nature; his virtue is always personal, and his vice are to be attributed to a source which entitles them to a similar denomination. He acts as an independent moral agent; he acts for himself, he is accountable for himself, and he cannot be justifiably criminated by the vices of another, neither can another be criminated by his violation of moral rectitude. In this case, personal moral agency is the correct ground of decision, and to this tribunal alone the whole must be deferred.

Author: Palmer, Elihu

Reference: Principles of Nature, page 157. Date: 1819

Quotation:

The essential principles of morality are founded in the nature of man, they cannot be annihilated, they are as indestructible as human existence itself.

THE FOLLOWING AUTHORS ARE OF SIMILAR DISPOSITION:

Ethan Allen

Reason the Only Oracle of Man (1784)

Elihu Palmer

Principles of Nature (1819)

Thomas Paine

The Age of Reason (1794)

Part 1

Part 2

Worship and Church Bells

Essay on Dream

Examination of the Prophecies

The Existence of God

Origin of Freemasonry

Vindication of Thomas Paine (Ingersoll)

Prospect Papers

Answer to Bishop of Landaff

Benjamin Franklin

BF CH 7 end I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day

John Toland

Christianity Not Mysterious (1696)

Anthony Collins

Discourse of Free Thinking (1713)

Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Human Liberty (1715)

Wollston

Gordon

Chubb

Mathew Tindal

Christianity As Old As Creation (1730)

Joel Barlow

The Columbiad (1807)

C.F. Volney

The Ruins, Or, Medications on the Revolutions of Empire (1791)

John Foster

John Stewart

Republican Religion

John Locke

The Reasonableness of Christianity

For discussion of aspects of the work of James Mill and John Stuart Mill related to Epicurus.

Focusing primarily on Elihu Palmer and his works including "Principles of Nature"

"Principles of Nature" - Hathi: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006551454 Google: https://books.google.com/books/about/Pr…id=lFCLRAAACAAJ

Report of the Mock Trial.... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.…&view=1up&seq=5

Here is a screen clip relevant to this discussion. Apparently charges were brought against a printer for printing Elihu Palmer's "Principles of Nature." I am not sure if this was a real charge or a "Mock Trial" but either way it would seem to indicate that a Brit publishing something like "A Few Days In Athens" (see Chapter 16) in the early 1800's might have been in hot water: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.…&view=1up&seq=5

Several of us who have been participating in Wednesday Night Zoom meetings have been discussing expanding the project to something that we advertise on Facebook and other locations. This thread is to start the "open" discussion about that. We should have a number of posts with more information pretty quickly.

[Note: This thread was initiated after the exchange here.]

We already have a subforum for comparison of Epicurus to Utilitarianism, so let's continue to use that forum for that topic. Let;s use this subforum to exchange information on what we can find in the period leading up to, including, and shortly after Jeremy Bentham - the period in which "A Few Days In Athens" was written.

I am convinced if we started a systematic study of the orbit that Bentham and Frances Wright and the Mills father and son combo were traveling in, we'd find some more very good material on Epicurus.

I think that period and the writers from the late 1700's to mid 1800's would be particularly fruitful for good writing on Epicurus.

Something happened after that period, however, that turned attention more away from Epicurus.

That's a subject for the other thread too, but I would suspect the "turning away from Epicurus" has something to do with the rise of nihilism.

Anyway, let's talk in this thread and subforum about what we can find written by people in this period / this circle specifically about Epicurean Philosophy.

I need to and will start a new thread on this somewhere, but Nate's mention of these books reminds me that we discussed Jeremy Bentham a little in our recent AFDIA podcast.

I am convinced if we started a systematic study of the orbit that Bentham and Frances Wright and the Mills father and son combo were traveling in, we'd find some more very good material on Epicurus.

I think that period and the writers from the late 1700's to mid 1800's would be particularly fruitful for good writing on Epicurus.

Something happened after that period, however, that turned attention more away from Epicurus.

That's a subject for the other thread too, but I would suspect the "turning away from Epicurus" has something to do with the rise of nihilism.

OK OK I will set up the thread now! Here it is: Researching Jeremy Bentham and His Circle As They Relate To Epicurus

Nate I think this probably should be Thomas PAINE but I didn't change it....

Quote from Nate

Colonial North America versus self-described "Deists" like Thomas Young and Ethan Allen.

Also notable in the time period was Elihu Palmer, who's book "Principles of Nature" I have read in the distant past and found to be pretty good (but that was in my pre-Epicurean days, so no warranty!). Links to his work are here: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lo…hu%2C+1764-1806

I don't think that there is anything more important in the way Epicurus was presenting the issues than to emphasize that he was including *everything* that feels good in any way at all (physically, mentally, emotionally, or any word we might choose to use) under the term "pleasure."

That's the way you get around the constant temptation to rank some good feelings as *better* than others.

Of course the other issue is that indulging in some pleasures in some contexts will being more pain than pleasure, but that's a contextual issue and different people will answer differently how much pain should be accepted for a particular pleasure.

The pain calculation is a "practical" consideration that varies by person and context, but the decision to include *everything* that we find feels good under the term "pleasure" (rather than insist on 50 different terms) is - to me - definitional and philosophical.

And it is something that is not at all clear to everyone, and needs to be explained.

If you want to maintain that all pleasure is good, as Epicurus did, even though every pleasure is not to be chosen at all times, then you are making a sweeping statement ("all pleasure is good") which does not allow of any exceptions. So I'd you start ranking some as more good or less good, then you're not following Epicurus' own analysis.

"Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.". (letter to Menoeceus)

Welcome ReneLiza and thank you for that introduction! We have some very friendly and helpful people here who will be glad to answer anything you ask. And don't hesitate to ask anything no matter how basic you may think it might be. There's no better way for those of us who have been around for a while to test our own knowledge than to have an opportunity to explain things to someone new. So let us know however we can be of help.

Welcome reneliza ! 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!