Happy Birthday to Hermitage! Learn more about Hermitage and say happy birthday on Hermitage's timeline: Hermitage
Posts by Cassius
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
-
-
It would seem so! The "truth" about the nature of the universe isn't the property of any particular group
-
Cassius started a new event:
QuoteThanks to Joshua for suggesting this. At first I labeled it "Thomas Jefferson's Birthday" but the shorter version is easier to read on the calendar and I doubt there is any real question as to who is being referenced. With Frances Wright and some others, however, we probably need first and last names.
-
Good grief I have got to get his and Frances Wright's on the calendar. Thank you!
-
Yes interesting. For some reason I was getting in my mind that Catiius might have been eastern / Syrian like Philodemus. This expands the geography somewhat.
So for our cosmopolitanism list:
Epicurus et al - Greek
Lucretius et al - Roman
Philodemus - Syrian (?)
Catiius - Celtic
-
Another point of reference, from David Sedley's "Ethics of Brutus and Cassius"
QuoteIf the aim of Brutus' question was to test Statilius' suitability as a conspirator against Caesar, it must have been one which Brutus knew an Epicurean could in principle answer either way. That is, if Statilius had been sympathetic to the conspiracy -like its instigator his fellow Epicurean Cassius -he might in principle have given the positive answer that the wise should be prepared to sacrifice tranquillity on account of non-philosophers: otherwise there would have been little point in Brutus' putting the question to him. Indeed, since Brutus had already discussed the conspiracy with Cassius, it is a reasonable guess that his test question about jeopardizing one's ataraxia for the public good somehow borrowed from Cassius' own moral reasoning with regard to the assassination.
This constitutes indirect but not negligible evidence that Cassius saw in the current political situation factors which might justify even Epicurean sages in sacrificing their own tranquil detachment. It was, as a matter of fact, an Epicurean tenet already familiar to Cicero (Rep. 1.10) that in exceptional crises the 'no politics' rule might have to be suspended.31 We have no direct evidence as to how such crises were specified or how the suspension was defended on Epicurean principles. One plausible guess might have been that it was simply a prudential matter of the wise accepting short-term worry for the sake of their own greater long-term tranquillity -for example, working for improved social or political conditions which will, once established, safeguard an Epicurean lifestyle. But Brutus' question implies a very different rationale: it implies that the wise were supposed by some contemporary Epicureans, perhaps including Cassius, to be on occasion driven by an overriding sense of obligation to their non-philosophical fellow-citizens.
3 1 cf. Sen., De Otio 3.2, where it is attributed to Epicurus himself. For further discussion of this and other Epicurean principles regarding political involvement, see Fowler, op. cit. (n. I).
NOTE: That last note appears to be a reference to D. Fowler, Lucretius and Politics', 120-50.
NOTE 2 -- Sedley seems to be concerned about a conflict between Cassius' Epicurean views and the "public good." I see no reason to focus on that - the issue was the good (the future pleasure and happy living) of Cassius and his friends - not some abstract "public good." Cassius need not have been concerned about the future of his Rome because he was concerned about the public good - it would be equally or more reasonable for him to be evaluating the future under Caesar for its impact on the happiness of himself and his friends (however wide a group he construed that to be).
-
As we previewed last week, this Chapter 11 is the long-awaited "Epicurus wades into the roaring stream as a man of action to save the day" Chapter.
This is going to be one of our best opportunities to marshal together all the citations and arguments we can muster (a good military analogy) to make the point that Epicureans are not pointy-headed intellectuals who live passively in their caves, so please be thinking about material we can talk about in addition to the Seneca reference to the lost letter to Idomeneus about taking action "seasonably"
RE: AFDIA - Chapter Eight - Text and Discussion
And here's the graphic by Elli with her commentary:
epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2623/
Posts by Elli at Facebook:
Hi Cassius. this fragment is from Epicurus' epistle to Idomeneus "on the urgent need for action" (survived by Seneca). I remember that I've made this graphic long time ago as I connected this fragment with Odysseus, and how he escaped from the cave of Polyphemus.
This fragment by Epicurus is against "fatalism and apathy", so I made and this post. … RE: AFDIA - Chapter Eight - Text and Discussion
And here's the graphic by Elli with her commentary:
epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2623/
Posts by Elli at Facebook:
Hi Cassius
This fragment by Epicurus is against "fatalism and apathy", so I made and this post. … -
I would dearly love to find some surviving Catius and - whose the other one - Rufinius?
And i need to fix in my mind what "insubrian" means
Insubria is a historical-geographical region which corresponds to the area inhabited in Classical antiquity by the Insubres; the name can also refer to the Duchy of Milan (1395–1810). For several centuries this name stood for an area stretching approximately between the Adda river in the east and the Sesia river in the west, and between the San Gottardo Pass in the north and the Po river in the south, thus it was a synonym of the Milan region and the countryside areas gravitating towards it.
-
I don't find anything in there about speaking Greek. Googling, I came across a reference to this Philodemus referring to the gods in this way, but I can't find a specific cite. Without the quotation in Philodemus, there's always the possibility that Cicero was up to his lawyerly trickery in this passage.
I do think it is in Philodemus, maybe in "On Piety" but I really thought it was in that Velleius section, because I thought it was stated as "a language like Greek," just as in the other psuedo references like psuedo-blood.
If and when I come up with it I will post back - I bet someone here knows more quickly though.
-
Mental images" might be a better description.
Except that I think that term would imply that they originate or exist only in the mind, which would pretty clearly contradict what they Epicureans state- they originate outside the mind.
There are all sorts of pitfalls:
"invisible" images sort of implies woo
"imperceptible" images might work, but they are supposedly perceptible to the mind
"non-visible" is awkward, but might actually be better than Invisible.
there's also the issue as to whether to describe them as "films" or some other word that conveys that they leave the surface of each object in sequence so as to retain to at least some degree the shape of the object. The word "shed" is almost more appropriate from that perspective.
Maybe I am coming around to Catius' "spectres
QuoteDisplay MoreCassius had recently become a follower of the Epicurean school of philosophy.
[15.16] Cicero to Cassius [Rome, January, 45 B.C.] L I expect you must be just a little ashamed of yourself now that this is the third letter that has caught you before you have sent me a single leaf or even a line. But I am not pressing you, for I shall look forward to, or rather insist upon, a longer letter. As for myself, if I always had somebody to trust with them, I should send you as many as three an hour. For it somehow happens, that whenever I write anything to you, you seem to be at my very elbow; and that, not by way of visions of images, as your new friends term them, who believe that even mental visions are conjured up by what Catius calls spectres (for let me remind you that Catius the Insubrian, an Epicurean, who died lately, gives the name of spectres to what the famous Gargettian [Epicurus], and long before that Democritus, called images).
2 But, even supposing that the eye can be struck by these spectres because they run up against it quite of their own accord, how the mind can be so struck is more than I can see. It will be your duty to explain to me, when you arrive here safe and sound, whether the spectre of you is at my command to come up as soon as the whim has taken me to think about you - and not only about you, who always occupy my inmost heart, but suppose I begin thinking about the Isle of Britain, will the image of that wing its way to my consciousness?
3 But of this later on. I am only sounding you now to see in what spirit you take it. For if you are angry and annoyed, I shall have more to say, and shall insist upon your being reinstated in that school of philosophy, out of which you have been ousted "by violence and an armed force." In this formula the words "within this year" are not usually added; so even if it is now two or three years since, bewitched by the blandishments of Pleasure, you sent a notice of divorce to Virtue, I am free to act as I like. And yet to whom am I talking? To you, the most gallant gentleman in the world, who, ever since you set foot in the forum, have done nothing but what bears every mark of the most impressive distinction. Why, in that very school you have selected I apprehend there is more vitality than I should have supposed, if only because it has your approval. "How did the whole subject occur to you ?" you will say. Because I had nothing else to write. About politics I can write nothing, for I do not care to write what I feel.
[15.19] Cassius to Cicero [Brundisium, latter half of January, 45 B.C.] L
I hope that you are well. I assure you that on this tour of mine there is nothing that gives me more pleasure to do than to write to you; for I seem to be talking and joking with you face to face. And yet that does not come to pass because of those spectres; and, by way of retaliation for that, in my next letter I shall let loose upon you such a rabble of Stoic boors that you will proclaim Catius a true-born Athenian.
Cicero: Letters to and from Cassius
Seems like the same confusion of issues and words was plaguing Cicero and Cassius.
-
Thanks for those pictures! Just as a general comment that applies to several different posts, I do agree that some of the "images" being discussed are coming from the statues, but I don't think that includes all of the images, some of which I think they though came directly from the intermundia.
Another general comment is that "images" so firmly conveys "vision" and "seeing" to us that I wonder if it would not be better to use another word (idols or even spectres) to make clear that we are not talking about sights visible to the eye.
When we use the word "images" it is hard for us in casual communication to know for sure which of us are rigorously making that visible/ not visible distinction and which of us are not.
Or maybe another way to make this clear is to always couple "images" with "invisible" so that we discuss "invisible images." That's an option that probably makes the issue clear, but also may sound a little weird - but perhaps not as weird as "spectres."
-
See, that's my sticking point here in reference to the gods. No one has ever seen a god and yet Epicurus says we have an image of them?
Especially we should focus on the part of your question where we use the word "image." It seems pretty clear that "images" are specifically NOT things that we "see." They are "data" that enter our brain through means other than from the eyes -- this is the issue of the mind being a direct receiver of information. Birds presumably don't "see" magnetic waves either, but they still are able to use and be effected by them (if that analogy holds).
-
See, that's my sticking point here in reference to the gods. No one has ever seen a god and yet Epicurus says we have an image of them?
I would say there that we should not presume that what we are thinking of as "a god" is what Epicurus is thinking, so there's no certainty that what we are perceiving as images of the gods are actually what we are expecting. Maybe the perceptions of the gods even through images are just the "feelings" of blissfulness that we get when we contemplate them. As far as I can tell the majority (maybe all?) of the specifics like tall, shaped like men, speak Greek, and stuff like that -- those could all be later interpolations of later Epicureans rather than from Epicurus himself.
So that's what I am trying to drill down on -- we don't know that when Epicurus was referring to clear visions of the gods he was really talking about seeing beings who look like the statue of Zeus or Athena. Until we are absolutely sure that his "clear visions" constitute seeing human-shaped figures, I don't think we should presume that is what he means.
This is one of those areas where we don't have Lucretius giving direct testimony, and where I do think that we have to take the views of Epicureans 200+ years later as not necessarily of the same reliability of Epicurus himself.
So I really do see that as one of the areas where we have to be extremely careful. It is one thing to speculate that the gods look like humans, that they speak Greek, etc. But are those speculations really the "clear visions" that Epicurus was talking about? I don't think we should jump to that conclusion, and I think that (like you are implying) the fact that we today are not seeing such visions is a good indication that Epicurus didn't either.
But what we have is all so fragmentary -- I think that the issue of the speculations about the nature of the gods could well be just speculations, and that those speculations can co-exist compatibly with Epicurus having said that we have clear visions of them -- but that those clear visions are not of their shape or size or things like that, but of their "blissfulness" --- clear "feelings" or "reactions" to them but that fall short of "visions" like you and I and everyone else are expecting to see.
-
I also want to say for now in this thread too that I have expedited the production of Lucretius Today Episode 117 because although we don't grapple with images very much in this episode, what we do grapple with I think is very closely relevant to what we are discussing here:
-
Hmm... I can repeatedly think about centaurs and unicorns in substantially similar forms.
You can choose to imagine them, but I think it ought to be pretty apparent (at least in most situations) whether you are perceiving something that is "out there" beyond you, or whether you have chosen to summon the image from memory or from a new construct. At least I don't think I have any trouble distinguishing from constructs of my imagination vs things that I am perceiving due to some otherwise passive confrontation with them.
-
I am happy to say that I have been successful in expediting the production of Episode 117 of the Lucretius Today Podcast - because it touches on many very profound issues that we are now discussing on the forum. Today we discuss one of the most important doctrines of Epicurus - one which has many significant implications: the Doctrine of Infinity of Worlds!
Thank you Martin that is totally new to me!
That was going to be my main angle into this issue on the podcast, but we didn't get that far yesterday. I've been scooped!
We definitely want to be sure to cover that this coming episode!
The films/images are entirely consistent with Epicurus's physics. He needed a way to explain sensation and this is what he came up with.
Just a brief comment on this one: In general, I think that there is no reason to dismiss Epicurus' general theory of "images" as totally obsolete. Whether we now consider the moving substance to be particles emanated or photons bouncing or wave interference or whatever, it does seem to me to be fair to say that "something" is traveling outward from the direction of each object to be perceived by entering our eyes (in the case of light) or sound (in the case of hearing).
I think the significant thing is as you stated, Don, the issue is more the direction of travel. The Platonic (?) model implies (at least to me) something more supernatural, while the Epicurean model implies what I would consider to be the more correct view that all of our organs of sense are "receiving" something from the outside. We are constantly bathed in "somethings" contacting us from every direction in our environment.
Maybe another issue we could add to the mix is the current controversy over "5G" towers. Originally I dismissed all that talk as largely nonsense, and maybe I still should, but I am no longer confident. (Have their not been recent reports about airplanes being affected?) I still get irritated every time I get on an airplane and have to turn off my cell phone. The line between real problems and kook problems can often be blurry. Even the EU seems to think there is an issue?
Not to get us off on 5G at all, because I still tend to dismiss those concerns. But the issue of how to separate the kooky from the potentially legitimate isn't always easy!
Also -- one aspect of what I think Don and Joshua are talking about that we ought to discuss is the whole issue of "action at a distance." How can one thing influence another without any perceptible (to the senses) means of touching? We know that Lucretius / Epicurus specifically dealt with magnetism and/or perhaps static electricity even in their time, and of course this would seem to be an important element of refuting supernaturalism.
And just to be sure this is part of the discussion, it does seem to me to be intuitive to suspect that the objects around you can influence you regardless of whether you are looking at them or listening for them. Maybe the basic point is that one would suspect that whatever is moving between those objects and yourself doesn't stop moving just because you turn your eyes and look in another direction. Since Epicurus was focused on explaining the world in material "atomic" terms, it would seem natural (at least to me) to think about the effects of those atoms (which are postulated to keep their shape as the means of transmitting the qualities of the object) going forward through space regardless of whether we are looking for or listening for them. If it is true that certain birds are evolved to be able to work with magnetic fields, there may be other similar faculties which we have not yet discovered.
I see this discussion as very different from the discussion of "woo" which is centered on supernaturalist views. To keep open the possibility that phenomena exists which has not been discovered does not require that we consider that phenomena to be supernatural. We don't define what is natural and "supernatural," only nature determines what can exist, regardless of our speculations.
Does a tree falling in a forest with no person there to hear it make sound? Of course it does, and the movements of particles from place to place deserves a lot of consideration in natural science very much apart from whether and how a particular human interprets them.
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.
