Posts by Cassius

I think a lot of the points in this article are relevant to conversations we have had with Don in the past, so notwithstanding his podcasting sabbatical I am looking forward to his comments on Striker's article!

And the article concludes with a very good taking-apart of the Pyrrhonist view that happiness IS tranquility. It's impossible for me to read very much about Pyrrho without seeing him as absurd and a good example of what not to believe and to do, and that's a very good end to the article.

This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time! Thank you again Kalosyni!

Martin - I think if I were looking to nominate someone for "Foremost Living German Scholar on Epicurus" I would have to put Gisela Striker's name near the top of the list. Can you think of anyone better?

Might be fun sometime to think about listing them by nationalities. I would put David Sedley at or near the top of the Englishmen, and I would list Boris Nikolsky as important in Russian, but I am not sure as to French or American or others.

I agree with Gisela Striker there too. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, a pig is still a pig. "Ataraxia" is (like aponia) a negative term, and would In my view never be used by Epicurus as the primary way to express and convey the ultimate goal of life.

A negative term suits very well to explain why Plato and Aristotle are wrong in saying that pleasure cannot be the highest good, but a negative term is never going to take the place of hedone, or other words like euthymia, as the positive way Epicurus would articulate the guide and goal of life.

Call it a matter of style, or tone, or a 'sense of life' issue, but if there is a "Stoic personality" and an "Epicurean personality" (and I would say there probably is) then I would say that the Epicurean personality is going to find much more pleasure and affinity in the "positive" rather than the "negative." Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius just ooze with sourness and negativity and darkness and defeat.

So in post number 18 above, when Kalosyni writes:

There is this important clarification of 'the happy person will be unperturbed":

I agree with this too, but due to the damnable Stoic/religious influences that are so widespread today, I think in most contexts when you can make the statement underlined in red you should go further and clarify that Epicurus did not think you reach that state through mind games (like the Stoics) but through the aggressive and vigorous study of nature and the taking of all actions that are possible to create and maintain your state of pleasurable living in the real world.

As Joshua said in the current podcast, or as Raymond Massey character says at the end of the "Things to Come" scene, the work of getting your life in order philosophically is not the end of the process, but only the beginning. Yes philosophy itself is pleasurable, but once you have your philosophical life in order you aren't finished, you're only beginning. Then and only then are you prepared and equipped to go out into the world and do what needs to be done to obtain and secure your pleasant life.

And the Stoic task was not only more "ambitious" but also unnatural, foolish, and impossible - and the list of negative adjectives could go on and on.

OMG YES this is so true from my point of view too! --->

To repeat - I would contend that In the minds of many modern writers (many, not all), THAT is the reason they push "tranquility" and seek to ignore "pleasure" by redefining it as "absence of pain" - because they want to ELIMINATE pleasure from the entire discussion!

...Which means that every emphasis on tranquility and similar concepts should be rigorously and vigorously scrutinized to determine whether the writer is in fact explaining an aspect of pleasure as taught by Epicurus, or is seeking to overturn and rewrite the entire system of Epicurus to conform to Stoic principles.

And outside of Epicureanfriends.com and other contexts and writers who explicitly make this point early and often (like this Striker article), I would say that a large segment of modern "Epicurean" commentary in fact undermines and would destroy what Epicurus in fact taught.

I agree with this fundamental point too:

Couple of comments on that article. First: i wish she had included a cite on where to find this in Aristotle, but I think this true and a crucial observation for Epicureans to understand about the prevailing view that Epicurus faced:

That is why I argue that PD3, and all Epicurean discussion of "absence of pain" as constituting the highest state of pleasure, is really aimed at establishing pleasure as the highest good, not at making the point that modernists allege (they allege that absence of pain is some uniquely desirable special kind of pleasure - a "fancy pleasure" as described in Elayne's article).

In truth, I would argue, PD3 and PD4 are like PD1 and PD2 - they are statements that establish something else and far more important than what may appear to be on the surface.

PD1, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the supernatural meddling gods of the majority view.

PD2, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in life after death and in the threats and rewards of an afterlife of the majority view.

and PD3, if accepted, makes it impossible to accept the argument of Plato and Aristotle that "Pleasure" can not be the highest good.

Again, the point is this: that Plato and Aristotle and others had seemingly proved to the majority's satisfaction that pleasure alone cannot be considered to be the good. From their perspective pleasure has no "limit" - more of it is always better, so it fails to meet the test of "such that no added good could make it any better." Epicurus answers that and provides a proof of its error by pointing out that "the limit of the quantity of pleasure is the absence of pain." This produces the vessel analogy that a vessel (a human life, viewed as the maximum amount of pleasurable experience a single human can feel) can only be filled so far, and once a vessel is filled to the brim, it cannot be filled any further. Thus PD3 is in my view a backhand / roundabout way of saying what you would expect Epicurus to say: "Pleasure is the highest good."

But just as he chose to say "There are no supernatural gods" and "There is no life after death" in a roundabout way, to "inoculate" you against the reverse opinion, he said "Pleasure is the highest good" in a roundabout way, to inoculate you against accepting the specious arguments of Plato and Aristotle and the rest.

Yes that is indeed a promising looking article. Thank you Kalosyni!

Kalosyni yes you're right that language is a little over the top. The key issue would be more at the level of how to analyze the question of pursuing pleasures that come only at the cost of danger and how to compare that with an attitude of avoiding danger at all cost.

Unfortunately the loss of subtly arises from viewing just the final scene without the rest of the movie. In general the prior sections are probably consistent with much that most people here probably agree, in a generally nonpolitical sense, of having a general attitude of how "science" properly employed can help end war and bring all sorts of other beneficial results - but not without costs.

The British accent of the characters is kind of hard to understand at various places, but in general I am pretty comfortable recommending the film as setting up a lot of very important questions and implying an answer that is generally in an Epicurean direction -- but only through confronting this issue that sometimes great pleasures can come at great costs, and it's essential to think about how to make those difficult decisions.

Yep I agree there too for exactly the reason Joshua stated.

I don't want to always be in the mode of reacting, and reacting negatively, to Buddhism and Stoicism and the like as if they're the only thing that's worth talking about, but if we're realistic about the place that most general readers of Epicurus are in November of 2021, I think it's fair to say that most of them have been exposed to so much argument from that direction that they think it's a given that Epicurus was saying the same thing.

So i think that's where we have so much opportunity and can have a real impact - in showing how wrong that picture is.

I completely agree and this is a subject that needs lots of attention.

I think it's quite proper to refer to "laws of nature" and there's a lot of that in Epicurus/Lucretius if I recall correctly, but they were talking generally in terms of physics. They were also talking carefully about the issue of "properties" and "events" or "incidents" (I hate the word "accidents" as I think its connotations make it misleading in this context) and I think most modern discussions skip over that without realizing the important implications.

And then there's the biblical "slave of the weak and beggarly elements" reference which also is a point of connection where we can show how the Epicureans were directly translating their physics into implications for human life.

But I think you're exactly right. There is this long "laws of nature of of nature's god" that appears in even in Jefferson that is being used to establish the viewpoint that social / political conventions were themselves written by "Nature," and most of those implications I think go way too far.

This is a part of the subject of justice that really cries out for expansion to clarify where Epicurus was going.

I firmly agree Nate. I get the sense that the Stoic influence leads people to think that Epicurus is pushing something similar to their "mind over matter" approach and I think (1) they are totally wrong and (2) it's important to hit on this very hard so that we eliminate the confusion. It's hard enough to show people how important good philosophy is without them thinking at the very beginning of the road that the road leads to ignoring the pleasure and pain of the here and now.

Right and we mentioned that in the podcast. Yes that is Reagan on the right in the still, but he is not the star - this is an Errol Flynn / Olivia deHavilland movie vehicle. I will paste a picture of Massey playing Brown below. He was a very strong actor and with this beard sort of makes me think he could have played a good Epicurus.

And to follow up on Godfrey's comment, another interesting actor in that still photo is on the far left - that is Alan Hale, father of the "Skipper" in Gilligan's Island - when you see him in the movie theres a strong family resemblance in looks and mannerisms.

Still working on the edit but let me post this before I forget. We did a good job of staying away from contemporary politics in this episode but in explaining the depth of passion that is often involved in discussing justice Joshua brought up the historical example of John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry as an example of how different people can see the same incident from starkly different perspectives.

For those who aren't as elderly as I am I asked Joshua if he had seen the well-known but old movie on the story. The movie was "Santa Fe Trail" and here is the link below. Raymond Massey, the actor who played John Brown, did a great job of conveying Browns intensity, and he conveys the same intensity in a clip I like to use to dramatize the issue of "peace and safety" and I am posting tonight also in Kalosyni's thread.

So if someone wanted they could enjoy a Raymond Massey film festival with these links.

In both of these movies I have linked I think a reasonable person could ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

On that last point, about the goal being "peace" I like to dramatize that issue with the closing scene of HG Wells' " Things to Come." The actor who plays the tall guy is the one I mentioned in the podcast this week to Joshua. His name is Raymond Massey and he played John Brown in the movie we discussed. I will post that link in that thread. Massey really knew how to convey "intensity", and this clip sets up the question of choosing between types of pleasure which appear to be more vs less dangerous. In this clip, the two male characters have just launched their two children off to a journey to the moon from which they may never return, and one of the two men is not happy about it at all. The whole movie revolves around such questions but the final scenes brings it home.

"Which shall it be?"

In both of these movies I think a reasonable person would ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

Yes that makes a lot of sense to express it that way. Alternative ways to consider the relationships would include:

1 Tranquility is a part of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

2 Tranquility is a pleasure, but is not pleasure itself.

3 Tranquility is an aspect of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

Of those I would endorse option 2.

Probably the trickier issue is the contention that some seem to make:

1 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but among all pleasures it is the "best."

2 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but it is the goal and purpose of all other pleasures.

I would reject both of those contentions and would say that (1) Epicurus did not say either one, and (2) that these contentions are not "true" in the sense of being generally established for everyone by nature. If someone in his or her individual circumstances decides to set "tranquility" as their ultimate goal in life I would not try too hard to argue them out of it, if they truly believe that to be warranted by their circumstances. But I would expect for most people in most circumstances "tranquility" would be an unnecessarily limited goal. In general if someone stated to me that their ultimate goal in life was "peace" or to escape pain I would start wondering what kind of doctor they might need. But in the end I think it's a choice each individual has to make at each moment of his or her life.

Welcome @Franklin !

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

We had a great discussion today and I will get the audio posted asap so people will have time to make comments and pose questions before next week.