Posts by Cassius

Quote from camotero

So, since pleasure is clearly a function of relieved pain, i

I am going to have to come back later but this is clearly not a full and correct statement of the issue. Some pleasure is indeed such, but much pleasure is not. There is a long discussion of this in Gosling and Taylor and if I recall correctly they show that not even Plato eventually took that position (that all pleasure arises from loss of pain). There is a classic example of the smell of a rose when walking through a garden -- that is clearly pleasurable, but the pleasure does not arise from any kind of pain existing prior to smelling the rose.

As to the gas tank analogy, that arises from there being only two feelings -- the gas in the tank does not derive its essence from the "air" in the tank any more than the air derives its essence from the gas.

and there is a place where Cicero ridicules Epicurus for his comment on a wise man under torture -- we will find that and add that here too.

Quote from camotero

I also do see the relevance in trying to define for us what would make an ideal state of being fine, as a goal to work towards:

I think that is the key and more -- as a "goal." I think that Epicurus thought it was important not just to be negative against existing errors, but to set out a positive vision of what life "should" be like (at least in general) and for that goal it's probably helpful to visualize how life would be like if we were stronger, longerliving, etc. -- kind of like how we learn in sports from others who are more advanced than we are. In this case we can't observe them directly (apparently) but we can think about how they might be.

Alex thanks for the kind words about the podcast! We will do our best to keep feeding your appetite for our discussions!

I have not read James Warren's book so i cannot comment with authority. I do think I can add something though:

1) i am confident that Warren's scholarship is good and that you will find much good material to consider on the points he is writing about. At the level at which he writes you can be sure that his sources are sound, and you'll no doubt gain a lot of good raw material to think about.

2) I do want to strongly note a general caution: James Warren is in my experience similar to Tim O'Keefe, who I would also make the same point as #1, but would have the same caution I am stating here. They write for an academic audience primarily, and not because they are primarily "advocates" for Epicurus. I don't know what their personal views are, but I find it very significant that you will rarely if ever see them citing DeWitt's analysis in their own books, except perhaps an occasional negative reference. I consider both Warren and Okeefe to be far too influenced by Stoicism, and my reading is that they are both of the view that you will often see criticized on this website as too far into the "absence of pain" viewpoint.

Without going too far down that rabbit hole again, I would urge you to read DeWitt before you read any of the more contemporary or the more specialized books. My experience is that someone at the beginning of their reading gets a good overall grounding in the big picture of Epicurus, especially as to how he opposed so much of Plato and Aristotle, then you will easily see how much is going on in Epicurus' mind beyond the "absence of pain" issue.

The alternative that I see occur far too regularly is that people will start with one of these "contemporary" books that focuses on "absence of pain," and that further pigeon-holes Epicurus in their mind as essentially the same as the Stoics but just with a twist as to word choice. Especially if you have an existing grounding in Buddhism or Stoicism or even just some types of modern psychology, it is easy to get the idea that this "absence of pain" issue is the key to everything else, and In my view that is a huge mistake.

So I would say to you what I would say to everybody: it is far better for you to read DeWitt's "general" treatment of the entire philosophy before you read any of the detailed presentations of the detailed sub-issues (like death, or on the gods, or on ethics of any kind). Maybe the best way to say it is that if you start with one of the sub-topics, you'll almost inevitably be presuming that you understand Epicurus' basic perspective (based on what everyone knows from high school or wikipedia) and you will dramatically underestimate him. I think Epicurus needs to be viewed essentially as a total revolutionary against much of existing Greek philosophy and religion, and it's far better to wipe your attitude of everything you think you know about him at the very beginning. Then as you gather all the additional data you will get from Okeefe and Warren and others you will know how to respond to it, because you'll begin to think as Epicurus did and you'll know what to test the varying opinions against.

I don't think it is JUST "a plain and simple description of a god's nature" although I do think that is by far the most important part. If you accept this and follow it rigorously you'll never be taken in my supernatural religion, and that in itself justifies its position as doctrine one.

But I agree that it states something that we feel through anticipations -- i think it is fair to say that most humans feel naturally that strength in the ability to sustain one's own happiness is something that comes through self-sufficiency (which is not the same at all as asceticism) and that if we are dependent on sustenance from others for our necessities then we are by virtue of that "weak" and easily knocked off balance.

Personally I emphasize that point and would not be overly concerned about "being on the receiving end of their anger." Yes that is a practical part of our situation as humans, but I would not think that that consideration natural extends upward all the way that you may be taking it. I think even Epicurus' conception of godhood means that at some point the "strength' side washes away much concern about being on the receiving end of anything negative. I would think that as a god if you haven't arranged your affairs strongly enough that you are no longer concerned about the wrath of other beings, then you aren't yet at godhood. Yes a god wouldn't do naturally be doing anything to create trouble for itself, but just like in this world where we aren't surrounded by people whose wrath is not always rational, I would anticipate that a true good wouldn't be concerned about being on the receiving end of "irrational" anger either. (I hope that makes sense - the point I am suggesting is that I think an Epicurean god's status of being able to overcome all forces of destruction to itself would imply strength against ALL forces, no matter whether the gods action did something to provoke anger or not).

Yes I think you are right, boyh0wdy, in emphasizing Don't point that whatever this turns into it cannot turn into a burden. Some amount of "commitment" is probably an inevitable part of any project, but we need to make it easy for people to be absent without feeling guilty, as I would think that marks the line between burden and enjoyment.

it needs to be something that is dominantly pleasurable or it won't become a habit to be there when possible. that's one reason I do think it needs to have a set format (such as reading and talking about a particular doctrine as part of each episode) so we can always expect to learn something from each meeting.

I know in my own experience that what needs to be avoided is the right balance of time between hearing what "new people" have to say vs points from more experienced people. That's where it's going to be necessary to have some way to ensure something of a "minimum quality" to the discussion. But as long as the discussion is 'sincere' I think all of us can get a lot out of it, especially when we think about how we ourselves were just starting at one point, and also when we think about the fact that "if this question is arising in this person's mind then it is something that we can work on improving our presentation of the issue" so that we develop good places to point new people on common questions.

Thank you for the kind words Pacatus and I know all of us appreciate those who participate here, so I do hope your holidays have been and will continue to be bright!

Let's keep most discussion of Frances Wright here: A Few Days In Athens - By Frances Wright

I will say this however, has already gone through my mind: It would be wrong to make major changes in the way the work is written, but there are a couple of places (perhaps two come to mind) where a slight change in wording would make the meaning much more clear and consistent with what I think most all of us would agree is what Epicurus actually wrote.

I am not sure those come to mind right now except in regard to two related passages (1) a sentence on the existence of gods (in which she has Epicurus take a position here that is clearly not what he said and is far outside any of the positions we regularly debate here, and (2) an extended discussion of observation vs theory that seems also to have been her own variation on Epicurus.

As we get much further into the project than we are now we can review some of the earlier posts here on criticism of the work, and we can at the very least gather those into an "appendix" which we keep with the final production.

Check here for earlier discussions and criticisms. There are certainly some significant issues in the book that would be much too extensive and totally improper to try to deal with by any "rewriting," but in general it is a very well done story and does do a good job of conveying many core Epicurean viewpoints:

Thread

Warnings For New Readers of A Few Days In Athens

Please be sure to see Elayne's thread here: Problems in Frances Wright's "A Few Days in Athens"

Cassius

October 22, 2020 at 3:59 PM

I think virtually all your concerns will be resolved when you get a chance to read it. As it stands now, it is written virtually in play form, and it tells a story which is very simple and not overly complex or divided into tangents.

I always warn people that the first chapter or two are kind of "Flowery" - written in an eighteenth century style that turns off some people (especially men). But once you get past the initial descriptions of the characters (where I think the floweriness is most in display) the story settles down to a very direct style.

So if I understand your concern there is likely to be no need for deep rewrite at all -- it is already in a form which could be used almost without modification.

Once you read it or at least glance through it let us know if your view on this changes.

Yes exactly Don! That's why I went ahead and set up the collaborative document for revision, as it will take some effort to rework it into that format.

There's a lot of back and forth conversation that sometimes isn't exactly clear even when we are reading the text, but most of that works itself out when we get different voices to read the different parts. But even in those sections we probably need additional labeling so it really does look more like a script.

Camotero I think what you are questioning is the issue of the canon -- what it is, how to use it, etc. So simply saying "using our senses and feelings" is a start, but not the whole. You would need to incorporate all three of the legs of the canon, and then consider the rules of comparison and analogy (rather than abstract logical reasoning) of which we only have fragments of the full description.

If you decide to read further into that, I recommend the long appendix, and then the text, of the DeLacy translation of Philodemus' "On Signs" or "On Methods of Inference" (same work; different title).

I think what Epicurus is saying is that for the most success in life we need to tune our functioning to understanding Epicurean philosophy and how to apply it. No doubt we can feel relieved if something turns out pleasurable as a result of a decision made in an improper way, but I think he is saying that if we indulge that method consciously and regularly we are bound to suffer for it not because there is fate, but because we succeed best when we worth "with" the nature of things and not "against" it or in ignorance of it.

As a long term goal that now seems possible using Zoom, Skype, or similar system, I would like to see us coordinate a collaborative audio recording of "A Few Days In Athens" using participants here at EpicureanFriends as the reader for each character.

The text of "A Few Days In Athens" is almost usable as it, but it probably requires the addition of more verbal cues to alert the listener to who is speaking at a particular time. If we have enough readers to have a voice for each character that problem will be easier to address, but even then it may not be apparent in audio format who is speaking to whom at a particular time.

For that reason there is now a collaborate document in the Lexicon where we can work on modifying the text to produce a performance-ready version of the script:

Script of "A Few Days In Athens" Suitable For Performance - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Two of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Today we continue examine a number of important corollaries of Epicurean doctrine.

Now let's join (Charles or Joshua) reading today's text:

[56] By this time so much at least is plain, that the intensest pleasure or the intensest annoyance felt in the mind exerts more influence on the happiness or wretchedness of life than either feeling, when present for an equal space of time in the body. We refuse to believe, however, that when pleasure is removed, grief instantly ensues, excepting when perchance pain has taken the place of the pleasure; but we think on the contrary that we experience joy on the passing away of pains, even though none of that kind of pleasure which stirs the senses has taken their place; and from this it may be understood how great a pleasure it is to be without pain.

[57] But as we are elated by the blessings to which we look forward, so we delight in those which we call to memory. Fools however are tormented by the recollection of misfortunes; wise men rejoice in keeping fresh the thankful recollection of their past blessings. Now it is in the power of our wills to bury our adversity in almost unbroken forgetfulness, and to agreeably and sweetly remind ourselves of our prosperity. But when we look with penetration and concentration of thought upon things that are past, then, if those things are bad, grief usually ensues, if good, joy.

XVIII. What a noble and open and plain and straight avenue to a happy life! It being certain that nothing can be better for man than to be relieved of all pain and annoyance, and to have full enjoyment of the greatest pleasures both of mind and of body, do you not see how nothing is neglected which assists our life more easily to attain that which is its aim, the supreme good? Epicurus, the man whom you charge with being an extravagant devotee of pleasures, cries aloud that no one can live agreeably unless he lives a wise, moral and righteous life, and that no one can live a wise, moral and righteous life without living agreeably.

[58] It is not possible for a community to be happy when there is rebellion, nor for a house when its masters are at strife; much less can a mind at disaccord and at strife with itself taste any portion of pleasure undefiled and unimpeded. Nay more, if the mind is always beset by desires and designs which are recalcitrant and irreconcilable, it can never see a moment's rest or a moment's peace.

[59] But if agreeableness of life is thwarted by the more serious bodily diseases, how much more must it inevitably be thwarted by the diseases of the mind! Now the diseases of the mind are the measureless and false passions for riches, fame, power and even for the lustful pleasures. To these are added griefs, troubles, sorrows, which devour the mind and wear it away with anxiety, because men do not comprehend that no pain should be felt in the mind, which is unconnected with an immediate or impending bodily pain. Nor indeed is there among fools any one who is not sick with some one of these diseases; there is none therefore who is not wretched.

[60] There is also death which always hangs over them like the stone over Tantalus, and again superstition, which prevents those who are tinged by it from ever being able to rest. Moreover they have no memories for their past good fortune, and no enjoyment of their present; they only wait for what is to come, and as this cannot but be uncertain, they are wasted with anguish and alarm; and they are tortured most of all when they become conscious, all too late, that their devotion to wealth or military power, or influence, or fame has been entirely in vain. For they achieve none of the pleasures which they ardently hoped to obtain and so underwent numerous and severe exertions.

Ha I just came across another way of stating the telos of the forum:

The goal of Epicureanfriends.com is to be a friend to the friends of Epicurus.

Quote

The point being that the continuation and modern expansion of the Epicurean philosophy must navigate through and in the midst of the religious landscape of modern times.

I suspect it was much the same in ancient Greece and Rome, but yes.

Ha -- "the telos of Epicureanfriends.com"

I would describe that as a combination of the attitude of (1) Lucian in "striking a blow for Epicurus" and pursuing the attitude exhibited in "Alexander the Oracle-Monger" and of (2) Lucretius in using smart technology (his poem, our internet) to present the full meaning of Epicurean philosophy in its most fundamental form.

Sometimes I also think it can be expressed in thinking about how Epicurean philosophy differs as much from what is conveyed by "hedonism" as the stoics would say they differ from "stoicism." They deny that they are apathetic, and I would deny that a narrow focus on immediate physical gratification has much of anything to do with Epicurean philosophy.

Epicurus taught a full worldview, in which "pleasure" is only one part, and not what is generally conveyed by "hedonism" at all. As I see it, Epicurus used "pleasure" as a catch-all term for all agreeable feelings, mental and bodily, and on that level "pleasure" is a sweeping term that corresponds to and opposes "virtue" (as that is set up by the stoics and platonists) and "piety" (as that is set up by all those religions who suggest we should worship supernatural gods).

I think that's what both Lucian and Lucretius saw - a full worldview - and that really has very little to do with strategies for eating and drinking and relaxing. Those are significant but secondary to the deeper issues of where we spend eternity, whether we have free will, whether we need to worry about heaven and hell, and how to understand what knowledge is and our means of obtaining it, and how we organize our lives to attain maximum success in pursuing happiness through a proper understanding of (and action based on) those issues.

You are being ambitious but that is the only way to grow! When we stop adding / replacing atoms we start to die......( I am pretty sure is somewhere in Lucretius! )

But ambition is good! ( I say as I listen to Rienzi and read the book on which it is based )

As for the free time requirement we probably need to find ways to structure this so that for most of us we don't find it a burden or something we need to spend much time in preparation for or editing anything afterward.

Quote from Kalosyni

After all, how does one determine if someone is a devotee? or a sage?

Maybe that depends on how much a person likes to think of themselves as an ancient Greek!

More seriously maybe we just have some kind of basic reading list "test" and trust people to rank themselves by how much they have read.

But even more practically, we probably just need to keep something of a tight reign from the beginning using moderators, and then as we see how people actually do over time the moderators can allocate time based on subjective views of how much people are actually contributing. That might sound harsh but it's probably necessary and we can find ways to do it diplomatically and supportively.

If we primarily use the invitation method of vetting participants we will probably be ok because we should be able to tell beforehand if we are running into any problem personalities.