Posts by Cassius

Quote from Matt

my entire “romance” life has been dictated by chemical impulses.

That is why I think it is a good analogy to consider what Epicurus was warning about here to be akin to "intoxication."

If Lucretius' section on this topic is reflective of the mature Epicurean position, and I think that it very likely is, then it seems to me that Lucretius is making clear that the benefits of these topics can be achieved in a prudent way without getting burned.

And that's very similar to the observation that the benefits of alcohol can be enjoyed by most people if we do so prudently to avoid everything from terrible hangovers to killing someone else - or ourselves - through drunk driving.

But even there again we should shy away from "universalization" -- some people are apparently so wired biologically that they suffer far more from the intoxicating effects of alcohol than others, so each person's "constitution" has to be taken into account in deciding how much of the activity to engage in.

Quote from SimonC

I agree with your critique of utilitarianism: it is difficult to motivate limiting the number of morally relevant people, which leads to the conclusion that you should probably sell all your property and give to charities, which is clearly unacceptable even to utilitarians.

You're probably right that that is unacceptable even to utilitarians, so that may not be part of their philosophy (I am not sure what Bentham wrote in full).

But that's pretty much exactly the box in which Christianity has itself. And the early Christians seem to have taken that literally and attempted to adapt communism (I believe the reference is in the book of Acts). And as a result of that being the logical conclusion of their doctrines they corner themselves into the point where modern Christians pretty much have to admit that they are not good Christians by definition, since they don't sell all their belongings, given them to the poor, and devote themselves to a life of ascetic religion. And to justify THAT, they have to resort to excuses like saying that they are "not perfect, just forgiven...." and similar excuses.

They've set up a paradigm that is impossible for them to achieve and live a life of guilt as a result, if they bother to think about it.

That's very different with Epicurus - the goals are achievable and realistic and very much not "suicidal."

Quote from Don

I keep coming back to Usener Fragment 67:

"For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."

I wasn't sure which fragment you were going to cite, Don, when I started reading your post, so I was getting ready to pull the trigger on another "always be prudent about pulling quotes out of context post" ----

But this particular fragment is so utterly and broadly and obviously consistent with the rest of the philosophy, and seems to me to be so strongly compelled by the epistemology and the ethics and the physics all at the same time, that I think it really is among those that is the most basic and unchallengable.

Any legitimate concept of "the good" in Epicurean terms is ultimately and intimately tied to our feelings of pleasure and pain that occur when we engage in it. We don't accept good and bad by a priori formulas and logical reasoning about what "should" be the result of something, especially since there is no "fate" that predetermines outcomes in most human affairs (with the exception of such things as death). Our relations with our friends and family and opposite sex aren't pre-determined liked death, and it seems to me that each one is going to be an individual matter of "hedonic calculus" .

But DARN I hate the words "hedonic" and "hedonic calculus." It's much more accurate to say something like "Epicurean calculus." The philosophy is EPICUREAN philosophy, not "Pleasurism" -- we frequently (and ought to always!) choose short-term pain over short-term pleasure when greater pleasure in the end is the result of the choice. Yes in the end it comes down to pleasure over pain, and pleasure is the goal and the end, but in common communication the word "Epicurean" conveys the result a lot more accurately than does "hedonic."

And I think there Matt you are introducing the very difficult but very important issue of cultural and gender rules and norms that vary greatly over time. I don't need to be more specific than to note that there is fierce disagreement over whether there is a single correct attitude toward these topics -- whether our current societal norms in 2022 in the West are better or worse than those of 200 BC Athens. We can debate those issues "til kingdom come" and never arrive at a consensus solution.

But the point is that Epicurus was very clear that we should challenge and not accept on authority whether cultural norms are to be accepted by us individually or not. All of us are influenced by prevailing norms, and also we are aware of historical differences, and the possibility that things may change in the future. The reality for us is that we only have one life to live, and we have to make choices in the present as to what will lead to more or less pleasure and pain.

I think if Epicurus were here today he would probably say the same thing now as then: that giving in to cultural norms without examining them and deciding whether we will ultimately be happy that we chose to follow them or not is a very im-prudent method of proceeding.

Here is the conclusion of the BRENNAN article which I will also attach here (sorry that this clip does not pick up the greek, so I will post a picture too):

Quote

But that something like this is right seems to me overwhelmingly plausible. We should count it pure gain to rid ourselves of "6iaTpa7rtcsicOaO"t and the monstrous fragment (frag. 591 Us.) that it spawned. No longer must we suppose that the Epicurean sage "turns aside from his purpose," or "feels shame in the presence of others"-both of them incredible claims for any school to make about its sage.

Instead, we have a perfectly natural continuation of the earlier discussion, which shows that the exceptional circumstances recognized in the case of marriage were also recognized in the case of child-rearing-exactly what Epicurus' own will tells us.

The evidence of the will thus coheres with our emendation of the text, and with the earlier alteration of Kai lpv to Kai Tr&5 or 06?? ptfv. All of these passages support the view that Epicurus was on record as advising, in general, against marriage and childrearing. But he also clearly thought that there were exceptions that justified both institutions, at least for certain Epicureans. And he was on record as saying this, too-perhaps in explicit comments in theoretical treatises, but at least through the contents of his will-so that later Epicureans had to incorporate this into their account of the master's views. I think that they were right to do so; nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition.

TAD BRENNAN

King's College, London

In conclusion on this article, even though it is closer to my view, I think that it goes to far to say in English that Epicurus was likely to have been "on record as advising, in general, against marriage and childrearing."

I think the most likely-to-be-accurate statement would be that Epicurus was: ""on record as advising, in general, about the risks and dangers of marriage and childrearing."

The final statement, that "nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition," is almost surely correct, since I think you could go further and say that ""nothing in the structure of Epicurean hedonism could justify the blanket prohibition" of any pleasure, because the proper formulation would be that on the other hand we do not choose every pleasure, because some actions can be expected to bring more pain than pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

It seems that the only way to solve this puzzle for modern times, is to use a hedonic calculus. But then how do you determine the outcome with regard to pleasure and pain? This simply could be a subjective feeling, so some people might decide that marriage results in too much pain and so will not get married...or if divorced they will not seek to get re-married. But the problem is that you sometimes can't predict the outcome. And then this: is it worth experiencing an extreme amount of emotional pain so that you can enjoy some brief times of emotional (and physical) pleasure?

This is the reasoning I would use to come to a conclusion as to what Epicurus would most likely have endorsed at the end of his life (meaning in his most mature teaching). The way to solve this puzzle or any other puzzle is the hedonic calculus.

Every question is decided by VS71. "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"

Is the topic sex, or is it "romantic love," or is it marriage, or is "having children," or something else? It's easy to stray away from a precise question and to think that the answer to one might be the answer to the other.

A lot of the advice in Lucretius is geared toward the issue of "romanticizing" one's love interest (likely viewed as a form of intoxication) and how to sober yourself up. I won't quote all that here, but everyone needs to review the full statement by Lucretius starting at around line 1060 (here is the link to it in Bailey).

It would seem to me that Epicurus would say that while intoxication itself can have significant pleasure, what happens afterward is frequently more painful than pleasurable, so you had better be extremely cautious about being intoxicated.

Is that a flat ban against marriage, or children, or sex, or romance? I would say "clearly not." Is it a statement that these activities are some of the riskiest in life where the benefit/detriment ration can frequently go out of control and veer toward a very negative result? I would say again the answer is clear - "yes."

But just as firmly as I would say that it is a very un-Epicurean generalization that Epicurus taught us to avoid pain at all costs, and thereby live an ascetic live, I don't think he would have taught to adopt the general rule of avoiding romantic love, sex, marriage, and children.

And viewed from that perspective, like everything else in life, I think he would have said to be extremely careful handling dynamite (for example), but that if you are confident you can handle the dynamite to blast open new roads, build damns, and do things that you are confident will make your life better than otherwise, then it would certainly prudent for you to do so.

At some point we need to bring in the specific text material from Lucretius. Also, in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.

As for "Sweet" being before your generation, that's one of the burdens of being old like I am. I remember very clearly that song playing on the radio when it first came out!

Here is a link where public domain editions of the Loeb collection can be downloaded.

And here is a direct link to the second volume of Diogenes Laertius, where the Epicurus biography is included.

I refer to his passage from Cicero's "Republic" very often to contrast it as essentially the opposite of Epicurus' view of justice, but I always have a hard time finding it when I need it. This post is just to provide some links and clips to the key passage:

Attalus: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . .

Project Gutenberg Edition.

Loeb Edition:

Note: I am not able to find a good copy of this for free and online. If someone has a link please let me know.

Yonge: (link to this version at archive.org)

Thank you for starting this thread and thanks for the text references. This is a huge area of interest for most people and we really need to explore this.

This issue of "idioms" and "expressions" is a big one and obviously is something that we face in our translations of the ancient texts too. It always pays to be cautious in thinking we read something that would not make sense from what we know about the larger context of a person. That is probably a major theme of our work in interpreting Epicurus.

Yes that comes awfully close to the idea that "it would be better never have to have been born" which may be true in some terribly tragic situations but is not generally true.

Epicurus seems to have specifically denounced that idea in the letter to Menoeceus ( is that the way you interpret it Don? ) and even if there is some ambiguity in the phrasing I certainly think he would if asked precisely.

It is difficult to even discuss theses things but we have to confront them if we have any hope of being able to take a reasonable position and stick by it. It is probably safe to say that every normal person has a painful reaction to seeing others in pain, or even thinking about others in pain, but what we do with that ability to feel that pain has to be handled prudently. We can't collapse in despair at the pain of the human condition, and yet it's also pretty clear that we should not ignore it, because we often can't - the pain of others will often impact us even if we try to love in a cave.

The whole issue has to be handled intelligently based on "the way things are"

Well presented Smoothiekiwi. Another two examples that I often think of are local animal shelters and nursing homes. It's not even necessary to think about Africa. All you have to do is think about the fact that all of us have local animal shelters or nursing homes where nice animals and people are suffering and would be happy to have any attention we would be willing to give them.

And the costs to us of doing so would be minimal.

But yet, for the most part, none of us donate a minute of our time or a cent of our money to help suffering people or animals "right down the street."

I am not saying that these decisions not to help are to be condemned or praised - bit the point before the house is that if you let yourself think of these things too much you could pretty much destroy your own mental health.

The point of my writing this is that it seems clear to me that we have to come to terms with how to analyze these issues, and Epicurus' worldview seems to me the best way to make sense of it all and actually apply a philosophicallly sound analysis to the problem.

No doubt she's talking figuratively, as that's a common figure of speech in the USA.

Welcome nixmercury !

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!

I very much want to finish our series on Torquatus as efficiently as we can before we add a regular feature to the weekly podcast of answering one or more questions because I think the Torquatus material is a great outline of the most important points that we need to cover as an overview of the basics. We ought to be in the "home stretch" now but it will still take maybe as much as two months to finish - we will see.

In the meantime if questions get posed that are so basic and so frequently asked, like the cult question, we can find a way to work something in.

Do just let us know somewhere if there is a burning issue that needs more than what we do here in threads at the forum.

Cause frankly almost any question that comes up will probably fit within one of the topics Torquatus is about to list in outline form.

Yes we are going to find a way to devote some time to questions, either topical from the forums ( probably) or going through the FAQ, or both

Quote from Don

limit is "our inevitable death"

Yes have to keep the discussion light and breezy!

Quote from Don

Aim high, ο φίλος μου! Aim high, my friend!

Nothing but the best for us!

Quote from Matt

have more in common with many online individuals that I’ve never met, but corresponded with for almost 7 years than I do with many of my in person friends.

I feel exactly the same way and this is a source of much amazement and disbelief to some of my local friends to whom I mention it.

Quote from Don

hey were very (almost too) open to all beliefs and non-beliefs.

Yes that is part of the issue (they may tend to be radical skeptics) and then there is the "humanism" issue which is probably too much of a tangent to tackle here. This is one of the areas where some of Elayne's past commentary was most helpful. She had impeccable - sterling - credentials in dealing with the people who are attracted to the UU approach (because she had been down that path and understood and agreed with many of their policy views) but she understood how selecting particular views of the "good" would be contradictory to the basics of the philosophy of an atomistic universe.