Posts by Cassius

Excellent - thank you - Plutarch is where I will go!

And this is interesting, that the settlement was suggested by Cicero. So Cicero did seem to have good judgment on things other than his view of Epicurus:

[3] But Lentulus, who was by this time consul, would not call the senate together; Cicero, however, who was just returned from Cilicia, tried to effect a settlement of the dispute on these terms, namely, that Caesar should renounce Gaul and dismiss the rest of his forces, but should retain two legions and Illyricum, and wait for his second consulship.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Still, I think that Christianity didn‘t really destroy Epicureanism… well, it did, but it also took some of the things out of this great philosophy and incorporated it into its own world view. The community of friends…

I can hear Don thinking "this guy is the reincarnation of Norman deWitt!" Kind of an inside joke but can't resist making it. Smoothkiwi as you read DeWitt's books (specifically including "St Paul and Epicurus" you will see he is fond - perhaps too fond of drawing analogies to Christianity. I think many of them are valid, but some of them you'll probably agree are stretched. In general though his points are probably good points of connection for Christian readers.

Don I think you're talking about THIS thread; Interpretations of PD 10 Discussion for the prior "bliss pill" discussion.

Best thing would be to start with a link to where we discussed it before if you can find that, and second just to state a summary of why you think this is incorrect (and we can eventually find a link to past discussion).

What I recall is that where we went down the rabbit hole in the past, and may well again, is the issue of this being a HYPOTHETICAL and that for a hypothetical the presumptions are accepted as true.

(And since you commented on the all-caps i will apologize to new users and explain that I am so incredibly lazy that I find it easier often to use all caps for emphasis rather than underlining or italics and that I do not mean to imply "shouting' )

Welcome @davidsixx !

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!

Oh my gosh excellent post, and i am showing my alzheimers again to say that I do cannot recall ever reading this detail about what you state as the offer from Caesar.

Do you know where in the historical sources this is documented? I would like to go back and read the original history of that to try to fix it in my mind.

Don and Joshua (who come to mind as really into some of the historical details) do you recall this detail and how well it is documented and your impression of the likelihood of its truth?

Part of the reason I ask is that i think you are exactly right Smoothiekiwi -- Cassius Longinus and probably even Brutus WOULD have accepted such an offer, I would think -- certainly Cassius as an explicit Epicurean in later life would have.

Well after reading the rest I don't see to much reason to revise my prior opinion or add to it too much. As I see it she largely continues in the same vein, deserving some praise and some caution.

For example, I think I know the section in Lucretius that supports this, but I would not say that this is really true of the big picture of the philosophy: "According to Epicurus, cold, hunger and illness are the main causes of human misery, but we are liable to other forms of suffering and deprivation."

Same here: These are largely true as well, but doesn't the writing seem at least just a little "overbroad"?

"Keep your worldly ambitions modest, he advised. Unrequited love, he recognised, is terrible to endure, as are the torments of jealousy, so keep away from anyone threatening to make you miserable before you are in over your head.
Here's another example where I bet Martin would agree with me:

"The Epicureans thought this was wicked nonsense, and their later followers, especially Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, agreed." Yes each of these had certain good things to say about Epicurus (or at least I think they did). But is it really a good idea to call them "later followers" of Epicurus - especially Karl Marx? If you're trying to write a generalist article encouraging interest in Epicurus, do you really want to do that? Maybe in the New Statesman, I suppose (not really familiar with exactly where that is on the political spectrum, but it's somewhere on the left so maybe that explains her choice.)

Also, I think we've previously here on the forum confronted the bliss drug issue, possibly in discussing prior Wilson references to it, and come to the same criticism that I would restate here: She's not describing this exactly right:

Quote

An important objection to regarding pleasure as the sole human good, and pain as the only true evil, is that few of us would choose to take a “bliss drug” that kept us in a permanent and passive state of delight, unaware of our hurts. Most would rather experience hardships, ups and downs, and the pains of off-and-on deprivation that keep our appetites sharp. The Epicurean can agree entirely. A bliss drug would not be a source of real pleasure because it would wipe out experience. Blissed out, we would not be encountering the world as it is, but a distorted world in which the causes of physical and psychological pleasure as well as pain were obscured.

And the problem here is again that Wilson seems to like to talk in terms of "real pleasure" which I think is a major error in terminology. Again, pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain, and the feeling is very difficult to the point of impossible to "mistake" -- the issue is that some pleasures are not to be chosen because they lead to great pain later, and vice versa. IF IN FACT A BLISS DRUG WORKED THEN AN EPICUREAN WOULD CHOOSE IT! In fact that's largely what Epicurean philosophy is, and why we use the "Tetraphmarmakon" analogy -- Epicurean philosophy is medicine for the soul and for the human life and helps us live more happily and less painfully.

It's difficult to understand why Wilson does not seem to want to embrace this point, and make it clearly, except that her articles are generally weighted with politics and she seems to want to appeal to a particular political viewpoint more than anything else. I see this as a significant hazard in being too consumed with politics and that's part of our "no-politics" rule here, though not our primary reason for it.

Looks like this may be it: Epicurus' Birthday Calculations

(So you don't have to click through ----)

From Gassendi's Life of Epicurus Check this transcription against the PDF here.

Chap 2. The Time of His Birth

Epicurus was born (as ^[29] Laertius relates out of the Chronology of Apollodorus) in the 3rd year of the 109th Olympiad, the 7th day of the month Gamelion; at whose birth, ^[30] Pliny saith, the Moon was twenty daies old. Hecatombeon (the first month) this year falling in the Summer of the year 4372. of the Julian Period, (now used by Chronologers) it is manifest, that Gamelion the same year, being the 7th month from Hecatombeon, fell upon the beginning of the year 4373, which was before the ordinary computation from Christ 341 compleat years. Now forasmuch as in January, in which month the beginning of Gamelion is observ’d to have fallen, there happened a new Moon in the Attick Horizon, by the Tables of Celestiall Motions, the fourth day, in the morning, (or the third day, according to the Athenians, who as ^[31]Censorinus saith, reckon their day from Sun-set to Sun-set) and therefore the twentieth day of the Moon is co-incident with the three and twentieth of January; it will follow, that Epicurus was born on the 23rd of January, if we suppose the same form of the year extended from the time of Cefar, upwards. And this in the old style, according to which the cycle of the Sun, or of the Dominical letters for that year, (it being Biffextile) was BA, whence the 23rd day of January must have been Sunday. But if we suit it with the Gregorian account, which is ten daies earlier, (now in use with us we shall find, that Epicurus was born on the 2nd of February, which was Sunday, (for the Dominicall Letters must have been ED.) in the year before Christ, or the Christian computation, 341. and consequently in the 1974th year, compleat, before the beginning of February this year, which is from Christ 1634. Some things here must not be passed by.

First, that ^[32] Laertius observes Sosigenes to have been Archon the same year, wherein Epicurs was born, and that it was the 7th year from the death of Plato. Moreover, it was the 16th of Alexander, for it was, as the same ^[33] Laertius affirms, the year immediately following that, in which Aristotle was sent for to come to him, then 15 years old.

Secondly, that ^[34] Eusebius can hardly be excused from a mistake, making Epicurus to flourish in the 112th Olympiad; for at that time, Epicurus scarce had pass’d his childhood, and Aristotle began but to flourish in the Lyceum, being returned the foregoing Olympiad out of Macedonia, as appears from ^[35] Laertius.

Thirdly, that the error which is crept into ^[36] Suidas, and hath deceived his Interpreter, is not to be allowed, who reports Epicurus born in the 79th Olympiad. I need not take notice, how much this is inconsistent, not onely with other relations, but even with that which followeth in Suidas, where he extends his life to Antigonus Gonotas: I shall onely observe, that, for the number of Olympiads, Suidas having doubtlesse set down ςθ, which denote the 109th Olympiad, the end of the ς was easily defaced in the Manuscript, so as there remained onely ο, by which means of οθ, was made the 79th Olympiad.

Fourthly, that it matters not that the Chronicon Alexandrinum, Georgius Sincellus, and others, speak too largely of the time wherein Epicurus flourished, and that we heed not the errous of some person, otherwise very learned, who make Aristippus later then Epicurus, and something of the like kind. Let us onely observe what ^[37] St. Hierom cites out of Cicero pro Gallio; a Poet is there mentioned, making Epicurus and Socrates discoursing together, Whose times, saith Cicero, we know were disjoyned, not by years, but ages.

Fifthly, that the birth-day of Epicurus, taken from Laertius and Pliny, seems to argue, that amongst the Athenians of old, the Civill months and the Lunary had different beginnings. This indeed will seem strange, unlesse we should imagine it may be collected, that the month Gamelion began onely from the full Moon that went before it; for, if we account the 14th day of the Moon to be the first of the month, the first of the Moon will fall upon the 7th of the month. Not to mention, that Epicurus seems in his Will to appoint his birth to be celebrated on the first Decad of the dayes of the month Gamelion, because he was born in one of them; and then ordaineth something more particular concerning the 20th of the Moon, for that it was his birth-day, as we shall relate hereafter. Unlesse you think it fit to follow the ^[38] anonymous Writer, who affirms, Epicurus was born on the 20th day of Gamelion; but I know not whether his authority should out-weigh Laertius. Certainly, many errours, and those very great, have been observed in him, particularly by Meurfius. I shall not take notice, that the XXXX of Gamelion might perhaps be understood of the 20th of the Moon, happening within the month Gamelion, from Cicero, whose words we shall cite hereafter. But this by the way.

THANK YOU for the reminder. The floating nature of the birthday over what seems to be an unnaturally-extended period always makes this hard to remember. I think we have a post or a thread about this calculation and we need to highlight it every year as the date approaches. If someone finds it before I do please post in this thread and we'll add to the front page notices.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Stoicism shows a clear path, without other branches: virtue is the only good, so your goal is to focus on virtue. That’s it. You like photography and think that you are extraordinarily talented? It doesn’t really matter, because your goal is virtue. It’s better if you go into politics, because that’s where you can be the most virtuous.

I'm beginning to see why I generally like your posts and thought processes -- i think you've tagged Stoicism exactly right. For some reason it's hard for a lot of people to understand this. I tend to think it's because they can't imagine that Stoicism really asserts this, and the modern stoics do try to downplay it. But i think you're exactly right, and once this is called out most of this "Epicurus and the Stoics are so similar!" attitude evaporates.

I agree but would add a minor general comment on terminology. You're put "moderation" in quotes and I think that is very warranted. The big picture is that people's body chemistry can be different, and even different at different periods of like. Someone who has overeaten sugar for years is likely going to have developed diabetes and their body will tolerate less and less sugar over time.

The point about "moderation" is that it's kind of like several other words that can be used too loosely. The point is not really to consider two extremes and divide them in half, but to use all the facts of a situation to analyze and choose "the right amount" that fits the situation. Sometimes that point is a "midpoint" between two extremes, but sometimes the situation calls for more or less or for a point that would not be some abstract "middle" but "correct under all the circumstances.

It's just a minor point but i believe greeks like Aristotle are associated with the impression that there is some kind of "golden mean" that exists in the abstract that everyone should follow. I think Epicurus stands for a different position - that there is not a one-size-fits-all "moderation" that should be the goal, but "the right amount under all the circumstances leading to the best pleasure/pain result."

I know this sounds nit-picky to some people but i think there's a point here worth making to zero in on Epicurus' exact position.

i think your point here is correct. Some people will look at situations and prejudge them "how could someone not want to go visit their grandma?" and jump to the application of a one-size-fits-all rule and say "He should!"

We don't need to get into the specifics of your situation or any other of the situations you mention as to what you should tolerate and what you should not. You may or may not be making the decision that others would make on any of those situations. But you're right to be looking at YOUR situation and adding up all the implications of YOUR situation, without thinking that there's a universal rule that answers the question for her. That's all that anyone can do. We should work to look at the universe and the way things are with the most clear possible analysis, but in the end we cannot hold ourselves to standards of omniscience and we have to make our choices on the best information, and using the best analysis, that we have access to.

And you are right here too - Epicurean philosophy is often thought to be "egoistic" - and it is from a certain perspective, but the difference between Epicurus and Ayn Rand style egoism is that Epicurus stresses clarity of result -- We should not do anything just because we decide it is our will to do it, we should keep the focus on why we do anything - pleasure - and measure the whole situation according to how much pleasure and pain will result to us. There are MANY situations in life were "doing what we want to do" is not going to produce the best pleasure/pain result for us.

Thanks Don I missed the break but too late for more tonight. I will wrap up tomorrow

Uh oh!

MY RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE:

Catherine Wilson continues to be one of the better writers on Epicurus today. Who could disagree with the title of her article? Aside from her willingness to accept the church fathers and Plato as "greats" I agree there is a lot of good material in this. However I'd like to talk about her final two paragraphs:

"Epicurus made it clear from the start that he did not advocate the direct pursuit of personal pleasure in the forms of gluttony, indiscriminate sex or overconsumption of intoxicating substances. This was foolish, as it ultimately produces pain. Real pleasure arises from judicious – though not overly fussy – “choice and avoidance”, and avoidance is as important as choice.

Epicurean ethics reduces to a few simple principles: avoid harming others and live so that others have no motive to harm you. Form agreements with them for mutual aid and protection. The greatest good for a human being, Epicurus thought, is friendship – pleasure in the presence of another individual, and the security of knowing that help will be given if ever it is needed."

My response:

(1) Epicurus did endorse the pursuit of food, sex, and other pleasures, but not (as she correctly observes) to the point of gluttony which ultimately produces more pain than pleasure. But to talk about "real pleasure" is something else: I would submit that Epicurus clearly says that "all pleasures are desirable" and there is really no such thing as a "false pleasure" --- if you want to talk about pleasures to be avoided, the point is that some pleasures produce more pain than pleasure in the end, when summed all together.

(2) I have even more concern about saying that "Epicurean Ethics reduces to a few simple principles" wherein those she lists a series of things in which pleasure is almost an afterthought. As she often does, Catherine Wilson is playing to current social norms and attempting to justify in modern terms. The goal of Epicurus is unwavering: pleasure for yourself and those who are your friends. Yes, a good way to do that is to live justly and honorably, but that is not the goal - the goal is the pleasure. Even less well stated is the statement that "the greatest good for a human being is 'friendship." Epicurus is very emphatic in defining the greatest good in philosophic terms as pleasure -- and Wilson is mixing the means and the ends in saying that he held the greatest good to be friendship. Epicurus clearly stated that of all the things that the wise man will seek in order to procure a life of pleasure, the greatest is friendship. That makes friendship, like virtue itself, a tool toward pleasure, and not the end in itself. Wilson is no doubt well aware of this, but not content to point out that Epicurus said that one would die for a friend, or be as hurt at the torture of a friend as when tortured himself, she mixes the end and the means so as to appeal to a wider audience.

Time for the reminder from Diogenes of Oinoanda, who perhaps one day will have shouted loud enough for even Ms. Wilson to hear:

Fr. 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Episode 103 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our topic is focused on more mistakes made be people who do not identify pleasure as the goal of life and pursue it intelligently.

Good question, Alex, but can you clarify what you are asking? At this precise moment I am not recalling a part of Lucretius specifically on this as much as I am remembering Diogenes Laertius and Cicero's criticism. And then as to the relationship between happiness and pleasure there is the "shout" part of Diogenes of Oinoanda and then several instances here in Torquatus.

Can you clarify your question? (Or maybe Joshua or Don or someone can go ahead and respond further as is.)

Also on this topic, in terms of "spreading the word to new people," another obvious observation is that since of the things we pursue to ensure a happy life by far the greatest is the acquisition of friends, and since it is also clear (i would assert) that we want friends who see the world the way we Epicureans do, then it is logical that some amount of effort is going to be spent on spreading the word so as to increase the number of your Epicurean friends.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

A major part of my rejection of Buddhism is that I believe that sometimes, it‘s a good thing to endure some pain

I don't have much experience on that myself, but I can guarantee you that you and a large number of others here at the forum who have taken a detour through Buddhism can "commune" on that topic at extreme length!

(Not sure what the "cute" term for the Buddhist practice would be but I bet there is one. )

First, yes: There's no divine commandment or categorical imperative to save everyone in the world, as the Christians argue to be the case. Your own pleasure and that of your friends is ultimately the only natural standard for what to pursue. Of course that ends up meaning all sorts of other things in regard to virtue and relations with others and trying to be on good terms with them as well, but ultimately it all comes down to the feelings that nature provides, and that varies according to "who else" you are talking about. Your friends evoke stronger feelings of pleasure than do random strangers.

Also

Quote from smoothiekiwi

If I want to enjoy pleasure with the least amount of pain, I won’t go out into the world and proclaim to know the truth

I would caution to be very precise with this formulation. I do not think it is correct exactly as written, although I probably say it that way often myself -- too loosely.

I think the proper approach would be a combination of several considerations, primarily:

1. You're looking for the maximum pleasure you can achieve at a cost in pain that you find worthwhile. (which is not the same as "the least amount of pain.") And in proof of that I would cite exactly what you did about the effort that Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans put into their work and the peril that came their way because of it.
2. Only you can determine what amount of pain is justifiable - there are no absolute standards of ranking pain or pleasure. (I don't think any Epicurean would argue that there is, and that includes the natural and necessary discussion, which doesn't add up to an absolute standard either. I would assert - and do ad nauseum - that those who assert "tranquility" or some other kind of "fancy pleasure" is the "best" pleasure are flat-out wrong under Epicurean theory and reality.)
3. Everyone experiences some pain in life; only the Epicurean god category would be theoretically able to avoid all pain. (I think everyone here would take that position regardless of their views of what Epicurus meant by "gods.")
4. There are almost always going to be limitations when you attempt to start starting the goal in words more precise than "pleasure." I would say that is because there are natural limitations in the ability of words to capture feelings, and Epicurus ultimately says that the proof of his position that pleasure is to be pursued and pain avoided comes from observing the infants of all species before they are corrupted with false ideas. That's an observational standard rather than a conceptual formula, and I think there are deep reasons why conceptual formulas are always going to be lacking, just like a map is never a complete recreation of the territory described, just an outline.