Posts by Cassius

Happy Birthday to kochiekoch! Learn more about kochiekoch and say happy birthday on kochiekoch's timeline: kochiekoch

I see that Hicks in the Loeb says "so great that nothing could augment them."

thanks Eikadistes - that's the Bailey version I think.

Today in the podcast recording Joshua brought up the letter to Idomeus, and one phrasing caught my eye, the underline

Quote

[22] When he was on the point of death he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus: ‘On this truly happy day of my life, as I am at the point of death, I write this to you. The disease in my bladder and stomach are pursuing their course, lacking nothing of their natural severity: but against all this is the joy in my heart at the recollection of my conversations with you. Do you, as I might expect from your devotion from boyhood to me and to philosophy, take good care of the children of Metrodorus.’ Such then was his will.

I would presume the meaning Epicurus intended to be understood was something like "on a scale of 1 to 10 my pain is a 10!"

This is far beyond my capacity to evaluate, but I wonder if this structure has any relationship to the structure involved in equating "absence of pain" with the highest pleasure. In other words, is this another example of Epicurus stressing a point by referencing its opposite, just as Aulus Gellius referenced in "Attic Nights"?

I've pasted the Aulus Gellius reference below, but if there's any merit in this analogy, this example might be useful not just for showing:

(1) how Epicurus's statement provides an illustration that one can be happy even under great pain ( i.e., pleasure and pain can both exist at one time, but in differnt part's of one experience, and that the happiness can be seen as the pleasure in some parts of experience outweing the pain in others, but also

(2) that "absence of pain" is clearly an expression, or manner of speaking, that emphasizes the presence of pleasure by noting the absence of dilution by any amount of its opposite.

If the Greek grammatical structure is parallel, this observation might be of some use in explaining how to understand "absence of pain" not as something obscure but as a figure of speech intended to be a way of emphasizing the point.

- Aulus Gellius :

There is absolutely no one who is of so perverted a character as not sometimes to do or say something that can be commended (laudari). And therefore this very ancient line has become a familiar proverb:

Oft-times even a fool expresses himself to the purpose.

But one who, on the contrary, in his every act and at all times, deserves no praise (laude) at all is inlaudatus, and such a man is the very worst and most despicable of all mortals, just as "freedom from all reproach" makes one inculpatus (blameless).

Now inculpatus is the synonym for perfect goodness; therefore conversely inlaudatus represents the limit of extreme wickedness. It is for that reason that Homer usually bestows high praise, not by enumerating virtues, but by denying faults; for example:

“And not unwillingly they charged,”

and again:

“Not then would you divine Atrides see Confused, inactive, nor yet loath to fight.”

Epicurus too in a similar way defined the greatest pleasure as the removal and absence of all pain, in these words: “The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of all that pains.”

Again Virgil on the same principle called the Stygian pool “unlovely.” For just as he expressed abhorrence of the “unpraised” man by the denial of praise, so he abhorred the “unlovable” by the denial of love.

• Attic Nights 2:6

That's the main reference but I will include the other too, with the most relevant part underlined:

Plutarch, in the second book of his essay On Homer, asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus's own words: "Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us." "Now Epicurus," says Plutarch, "omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul, and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch, "cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented."

What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say: "Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us." But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance, or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence?

In Plato too you will often find syllogisms in which the order prescribed in the schools is disregarded and inverted, with a kind of lofty disdain of criticism.

In the same book, Plutarch also finds fault a second time with Epicurus for using an inappropriate word and giving it an incorrect meaning. Now Epicurus wrote as follows: "The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of everything that pains." Plutarch declares that he ought not to have said "of everything that pains," but "of everything that is painful"; for it is the removal of pain, he explains, that should be indicated, not of that which causes pain. In bringing this charge against Epicurus Plutarch is "word-chasing" with excessive minuteness and almost with frigidity; for far from hunting up such verbal meticulousness and such refinements of diction, Epicurus hunts them down.

• Aulus Gellius - Attic Nights

Again to repeat past credits -- all credit belongs to Joshua for finding the Aulus Gellius reference.

Good to see you take the initiative AxA.

There are a lot of subtleties in Epicurean philosophy but there's no reason that the right group can get together and learn them together.

Let us know if we can be of help.

Welcome AxA

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum 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 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.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"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. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

That's consistent with my current understanding that the real problem here got launched by the Stoics, which is a point that Cicero seems to me in On Ends, where his treatment of Stoicism is pretty slashing.

Aristotle's problem doesn't seem to be so much an overfocus on virtue but his supernatural prime mover orientation and evasion of pleasure as the basis of happiness.

About 17 hours from now we will be recording our "Virtue" extravaganza episode. We'll be talking live so there's no telling what topics the final episode will cover, but I've further refined the "talking points" I'd like to see us cover at the link below. If anyone has any last minute quotations to submit or suggestions for topics, there's still time to let us know in this thread.

Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself Because All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation

Good to hear from you Titus. Yes it is amazing how AI can talk! It can provide options, but as to judgement or the wisdom of doing such a thing I suspect it will always fall short.

Quote from Joshua

If people hear 'pleasure' and think 'bodily pleasure', I do not regard that as a problem - mainly because I think those people are probably motivated to this misinterpretation by religion or politics or culture or upbringing, and they would reject Epicureanism no matter how thoroughly it was explained to them.

Yep -- they are not completely wrong at all -- they are just only partly right.

And what I read you to be saying is that we have to realize that this issue is not just difference of opinion as to words. In fact, those who try to water down Epicurus to please his enemies may well be making the much worse mistake.

If you were ever to succeed in making people who are suspicious of pleasure really understand what Epicurus was saying, you should not expect them to say "Oh, I get it, that's neat - let's go have a party!"

They are more likely to say "Now I see what you're doing! What you're doing would totally replace [insert name of preferred God or Virtue here]! Now that I understand you, I see that there's no coming to an agreement with you. Get out of my life and my city -- It's time for war,heathen!

And unfortunately a lot of ancient Epicureans probably experienced exactly that result. Had Plutarch and the earliest church fathers had the power to eliminate the Epicureans by force, rather than just writing books against them, they might well have done that. And at least one of the religious holidays that exists today (I'm thinking Hanukkah) celebrates something very close to that (see the section Epicureanism and the Judeans).

So just like the Epicurean mentioned in Alexander the Oracle monger, we need to be careful in deciding who is open to discussion and how to talk with them.

As I have said, Alexander was much afraid of Epicurus, and the solvent action of his logic on imposture.

Quote from Lucian - Alexander the Oracle Monger

On one occasion, indeed, an Epicurean got himself into great trouble by daring to expose him before a great gathering. He came up and addressed him in a loud voice.

'Alexander, it was you who induced So-and-so the Paphlagonian to bring his slaves before the governor of Galatia, charged with the murder of his son who was being educated in Alexandria. Well, the young man is alive, and has come back, to find that the slaves had been cast to the beasts by your machinations.’

What had happened was this. The lad had sailed up the Nile, gone on to a Red Sea port, found a vessel starting for India, and been persuaded to make the voyage. He being long overdue, the unfortunate slaves supposed that he had either perished in the Nile or fallen a victim to some of the pirates who infested it at that time; so they came home to report his disappearance. Then followed the oracle, the sentence, and finally the young man's return with the story of his absence.

All this the Epicurean recounted. Alexander was much annoyed by the exposure, and could not stomach so well deserved an affront. He directed the company to stone the man, on pain of being involved in his impiety and called Epicureans. However, when they set to work, a distinguished Pontic called Demostratus, who was staying there, rescued him by interposing his own body. The man had the narrowest possible escape from being stoned to death—as he richly deserved to be; what business had he to be the only sane man in a crowd of madmen, and needlessly make himself the butt of Paphlagonian infatuation?

One aspect of the metaphor is that a lighthouse is clearly man-made, and the guidance we're looking to is something completely natural, more like a "north star" maybe. But metaphors are always approximate. Pointing out deficiencies in them is half the fun.

Austin on this site I've tried to provide links to the major texts here:

Core Texts - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

However I still refer at times to my older set of links here, and I may not have transferred them all over to the new format:

Library – NewEpicurean

Many of the people here have links to other material that I haven't incorporated, so if you're looking for something in particular please let us know.

Glad to have you Austin!

Welcome sowhataustin !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum 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 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.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"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. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Kalosyni

fit into this metaphor

Good question but I bet Don can do it.

Yes it is an interesting take, and well written, focused more on the military aspect of Rome than you usually see. He's more negative on the military aspect than I would be, but those issues are certainly debatable. Someone is going to feel a lot differently about Rome's military depending on whether they are Roman or Carthaginian.

I suspect that going too far in trying to take social positions ends up being more of a debate about Greco Roman politics than about philosophy. That's one reason I hesitate to weigh in on the dispute between Julius Caesar and Cassius Longinus. There seem to have been Epicureans on both sides of the civil war, and I am not sure which side I would take personally - probably that's another example of how contextual so many issues are. There seem to be Epicurean texts saying kingship can be ok and democracy not so ok.

It's all well and good to focus on local community welfare when you have a stable society, but when the Persians are on the march to Greece, or some Ghengis Khan or fundamentalist religion tries to conquer your society by force, then it's nice to have a viable military.

Good food for thought about the contextual nature of Virtue.

Quote from Don

PS. I'm thinking some of this is a matter of perspective and not just linguistic trickery.

I think this is what people are wrestling with mostly unsuccessfully. If you take the position that pleasure has to be stimulative (which means you accept Cicero's and Plato's and the other major philosophers' perspective) then you are going to think Epicurus is engaged in linguistic trickery.

If you take Epicurus' perspective that the purpose of life is not to fulfill some divine plan, but simply to live your life as happily as you can, then you can more easily see that being healthy and alive at all deserves to be considered pleasure, and you don't feel tricked by the fact that Epicurus doesn't promise you constant physical stimulation. A lot of people seem to think that Epicurus is saying that he's going to deliver them paradise through some kind of trick that the Stoics and Buddhists haven't thought of. (Hmmmm yeees - now I feel it - absence of pain really IS a great stimulant - feels kind of like marijuana - give me some more!!!)

Epicurus' viewpoint is a lot closer to choosing to see the glass of life as half-full, rather than half-empty, than it is to any kind of Buddhist of Stoic mind games.

In fact, I am not sure I should say it's "close" to that. It's exactly what it is -- learning through philosophy to see that life is pleasurable in all its aspects unless you are specifically experiencing some specific pain in some part of your experience. If you are experiencing some specific pains, then to the extent you can, you should try to minimize that pain, but not at the expense of giving up the majority of pleasures that you've successfully won and which continue to be available to you at reasonable cost.

"The wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation." --->

For this is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man as continually happy; he keeps his passions within bounds; about death he is indifferent; he holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread; he has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course. Furnished with these advantages he is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains. For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present; he is also very far removed from those defects of character which I quoted a little time ago, and when he compares the fool’s life with his own, he feels great pleasure. And pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation.

• Torquatus - Cicero, On Ends 1:62

Episode 266 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is a greatly-extended version of the presentation originally given on 1/19/25 entitled "The Epicurean Paradigm Shift."

For a slideshow version of this talk, click the "Featured Videos" link on our home page.

Over the next several weeks or months I am going to turn this presentation into my "standard speech" and devote the time that I would otherwise spend on reinventing wheels to refining this presentation.

Later today I will release the podcast version, and a slide-show video version, of a much expanded edit of the presentation originally released on January 19.

The current version is over twice the length of the original, and contains lots more citations, plus a new approach to generative the slides that should work much better, and allow for easier revisions.

For the time being, here is the Youtube Video version, and "Discussion Outline" reference material. I'll update this post with the Podcast link shortly:

Text and Discussion Outline: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/EpicureanParadigmShift.html

In the same line as you're thinking, Bryan, if I were a Pythagorean or a Platonist I doubt I could think of a better paperweight for us when reading rolled-up scrolls than a couple of those brass duodecahedrons.