Posts by Cassius

Episode Ninety-Nine of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode we continue our examination of justice:

This conversation reminds me of a euphemism that was popular in the past for companies that wanted to fire large numbers of people without admitting what they were doing - they would call it "right-sizing." That's pretty much how I see anything good that exists in the term "moderation" - as meaning selecting whatever quantity that produces the most beneficial result under the circumstances.

Quote from Don

I don't find "temperance" in Epicurus's writings. Is it mentioned anywhere other than by "Torquatus"?

Great question and if we can't find it at all then that is good evidence in itself.

I don't mean this to be arguing with Kalosyni in any way but the quote (which is a good find) seems to me to be very helpful in explaining my contrarian view:

Quote

The poet Eubulus noted that three bowls (kylikes) were the ideal amount of wine to consume. The quantity of three bowls to represent moderation is a recurring theme throughout Greek writing (today, the standard 750 ml bottle contains roughly three to six glasses of wine, depending on serving size).[1] In his c. 375 BC play Semele or Dionysus, Eubulus has Dionysus say:

"Three bowls do I mix for the temperate: one to health, which they empty first; the second to love and pleasure; the third to sleep. When this bowl is drunk up, wise guests go home. The fourth bowl is ours no longer, but belongs to violence; the fifth to uproar; the sixth to drunken revel; the seventh to black eyes; the eighth is the policeman's; the ninth belongs to biliousness; and the tenth to madness and the hurling of furniture."

These guys are fooling no one but themselves if they think that there is an ideal of "moderation" or "ideal quantity" that has some absolute value separate from circumstances that can be referenced by referring to "moderation" in and of itself. Instead, what there is in place of that is always a quantity that makes sense based on context, which varies by fact. In this case, the proper quantity varies with things like the weight of the drinker, their built-up tolerance to alcohol, and other aspects of bodily chemistry that varies by individual. Sure you can generalize that "most people" are going to fall within certain variable limits, but that is further evidence that circumstances determine the result, not some pre-defined concept of "moderation" or "temperance" or any other similar word that comes to mind.

The other virtues are subject to the same qualification and limitation, but "temperance" or "moderation" seems to me to have not even a veneer of common sense about it. In fact it's almost a vice in itself - to look to some kind of predefined quantity rather than the right quantity that is desirable under the circumstances.

The more I think about it, I will repeat, the more I think this concern applies to all of the virtues, but I think I've seen this one praised casually too many times on facebook by Aristotelians and the supporters of the standard establishment Greek philosophers to consider it more charitably

But I do think Goldwater had it very wrong too -- you wouldn't want to be or to praise "extremism" any more than you would want to be "moderate" - both are predefined reactionary perspectives divorced from the circumstances.

If it were me it would be more like "Vigor in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue."

I think I will just insert this random thought here:

I think some people who start out in reading Epicurus read so much about the word "ataraxia" that they conclude from sheer dominance of discussion that ataraxia was the focus of Epicurus' work.

It would probably help them to lose their fixation on ataraxia to realize that the entirely separate word "aponia" was used for "absence of pain." It seems to me intuitively that if someone wanted to go off in the wrong direction and fixate on one of these words as the goal rather than pleasure, it would make more sense to fixate on "aponia" than "ataraxia." And that would also be more accurate from the point of view of the measurement of quantity and canonics aspect since - given that pain and pleasure are the only two passions - in terms of quantity "absence of pain" and "fullness of pleasure" would mean the same thing.

Once you realize that there is not one but two Greek words that are used in this context, maybe it becomes more understandable that it's necessary to look deeper - back to the original word of pleasure - than to take these other statements about tranqility and absence of pain in isolation.

What is pecan pie "porter"? I know what pecan pie is, but "porter?"

I agree with Don. The post is good. In contrast utilitarianism seems mostly designed to avoid using the word pleasure and to in fact obscufate the whole issue of what their goal in life really is.

.

Quote from Godfrey

Could this be due to the fears inherent in "idealism"? Particularly the fear of looking like a fool?

I agree with your comment about craving for power. I don't think I have heard you comment previously about fear being inherent in idealism. What are your thoughts on that?

Quote from Don

that science is "rediscoverable" and religion is not.

It might be necessary to be a little more precise about the meaning of "religion." I would expect that Christianity or Judaism or precise religions would not be rediscoverable, but there seems to be a lot in the Epicurean texts about how humans sort of "naturally" fell into the mistake of thinking that there are supernatural forces.

So in the generic sense of "religion" meaning "belief in something supernatural" that might be something that humans on desert islands might not only rediscover but be "naturally" inclined towards.

Just thinking out loud there mostly.

Quote from JJElbert

But minds are imperfect, and memory is frail---so that a certain degree of 'regular maintenance' is necessary to keep one's philosophy on a right heading

Yes that is true and in addition even the best minds and memories are influenced by our surroundings - the Epicurean material on images stresses that. So that when we are surrounded by antiEpicurean images every day, as most of us are, we have to take steps to innoculate ourselves from their influence.

I don't like always sounding the "call to battle" alarm but I think it is clear that such a conflict is constantly going on whether we acknowledge it or not. Unless we find a desert island and live without TV and internet that's unlikely to change.

It appears even the Epicurean gods werent unchanging as the basis of their deathlessness but that they found the power to replace their own makeup from the flow of atoms - a useful analogy for us I think (Joshua's "regular maintenance").

I will get the podcast up as soon as possible, but in the meantime I should clarify that the reason we were talking about this was in the context of justice. The point was made that we can in fact derive much useful guidance from observing the nature of things -- how things work for us and to us -- how we do in fact have to eat and drink and do all sorts of things due to the way we are "created by nature."

But the warning stressed so strongly by Lucretius is the real point, and we discussed that he's not making this point simply as a biological observation. He's asserting that just because we use the eyes to see that does not mean that SOMEONE OR SOMETHING DESIGNED THEM THAT WAY.

And so by analogy, just because we observe that certain patterns of conduct do produce more pleasure, and others produce more pain, that too is a PRACTICAL conclusion about "the way things are." It doesn't mean that just because things are that way now, that "Venus / Nature" or some supernatural god designed them that way for our benefit and for us to follow as an ironclad absolute rule. Simply because we can observe that in many contexts things generally work out in the end or pleasure, or for pain, that does not mean that we should treat those observations as "absolute natural law" that have to be honored in the same way that we would honor them if some supernatural god handed them to us as an eternal law (as for example Moses was allegedly handed the ten commandments), nor are that written somehow mystically "in the stars" - or somewhere else - and are discernable to us through geometry or mathematics or "logic" (as or example Plato and Aristotle proposed).

This is such a deep subject and this post is not intended to be the last word on anything - just an explanation as to why this cite appears in the notes to this podcast. Martin and Charles and Joshua can correct me if my summary is wrong, and once the podcast is posted everyone is of course invited to comment.

Now for the alternatives:

BAILEY:

[823] Herein you must eagerly desire to shun this fault, and with foresighted fear to avoid this error; do not think that the bright light of the eyes was created in order that we may be able to look before us, or that, in order that we may have power to plant long paces, therefore the tops of shanks and thighs, based upon the feet, are able to bend; or again, that the forearms are jointed to the strong upper arms and hands given us to serve us on either side, in order that we might be able to do what was needful for life. All other ideas of this sort, which men proclaim, by distorted reasoning set effect for cause, since nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

[843] But, on the other side, to join hands in the strife of battle, to mangle limbs and befoul the body with gore; these things were known long before gleaming darts flew abroad, and nature constrained men to avoid a wounding blow, before the left arm, trained by art, held up the defence of a shield. And of a surety to trust the tired body to rest was a habit far older than the soft-spread bed, and the slaking of the thirst was born before cups. These things, then, which are invented to suit the needs of life, might well be thought to have been discovered for the purpose of using them. But all those other things lie apart, which were first born themselves, and thereafter revealed the concept of their usefulness. In this class first of all we see the senses and the limbs; wherefore, again and again, it cannot be that you should believe that they could have been created for the purpose of useful service.

BROWN:

But in subjects of this nature, guard yourself to the utmost of your power against that error, that gross mistake, and never believe that those bright orbs, the eyes, were made that we might see; of that our legs were made upright, and things fixed upon them, and were supported by feet, that we might walk and take large strides; that our arms were braced with strong sinews, and that our hands hung on both sides, to assist us in those offices that are necessary to the support of life. And whatever constructions they put upon other parts of the body, they are all absurd and against reason; for no member of the body was made for any particular use, but after it was made each member found out a use proper to itself; for there was no such thing as to see before the eyes were made, nor to speak before the tongue was formed, but the tongue was rather in being before there was speech, and the ears were made long before any sound was heard. In short, all the members, in my opinion, were in being before their particular uses were set out.

This is so true that, to engage in battle, to mangle the limbs, and to stain the body over with blood, these were in being before any shining darts flew through the air, and nature taught us to avoid a wound before the left hand learnt to oppose a shield in our defense; and so, to commit the body to rest was long before the invention of soft beds, and to quench the thirst was practiced before the use of cups. All these things, we may believe, were invented for common benefit, as they were found proper and convenient for the occasions of life. All things therefore that were in being before the use of them was determined applied themselves afterwards to the office that was most suitable and serviceable to them. Of this kind principally are the senses and members of our bodies, and therefore you are to avoid, upon all accounts, so much as to think that they were at first formed for any particular design or use.

MUNRO:

And herein you should desire with all your might to shun the weakness, with a lively apprehension to avoid the mistake of supposing that the bright lights of the eyes were made in order that we might see; and that the tapering ends of the shanks and hams are attached to the feet as a base in order to enable us to step out with long strides; or again that the forearms were slung to the stout upper arms and ministering hands given us on each side, that we might be able to discharge the needful duties of life. Other explanations of like sort which men give, one and all put effect for cause through wrongheaded reasoning; since nothing was born in the body that we might use it, but that which is born begets itself a use: thus seeing did not exist before the eyes were born, nor the employment of speech ere the tongue was made; but rather the birth of the tongue was long anterior to language and the ears were made long before sound was heard, and all the limbs, I trow, existed before there was any employment for them: they could not therefore have grown for the purpose of being used.

But on the other hand, engaging in the strife of battle and mangling the body and staining the limbs with gore were in vogue long before glittering darts ever flew; and nature prompted to shun a wound or ever the left arm by the help of art held up before the person the defense of a shield. Yes, and consigning the tired body to rest is much older than a soft-cushioned bed, and the slaking of thirst had birth before cups. These things therefore which have been invented in accordance with the uses and wants of life, may well be believed to have been discovered for the purpose of being used. Far otherwise is it with all those things which first were born, then afterwards made known the purposes to which they might be put; at the head of which class we see the senses and the limbs. Wherefore again and again I repeat, it is quite impossible to believe that they could have been made for the duties which they discharge.

Darn my guess was wrong -- book FOUR around line 800 or so!

I am guess it is is book five and it ought to jump out at me which book, and which section, because that is a very frequently referenced statement. We'll find it!

Quote from Kalosyni

Now for Epicureans the goal is to live life the most pleasureably, because this life is the only life. And to live pleasureably both includes and goes beyond tranquility.

Yes I think a large part of the issue is that this kind of formulation (and yours here is very on point I think) is necessarily extremely broad and even "abstract." "Living pleasurably" is such a broad description that (necessarily) means so many different things to different people that its necessary to keep in mind that it's an "outline" type of statement that must be translated into reality.

Quote from boyh0wdy!

Cassius, I totally agree on bringing up Buddhism and other philosophy

Thank you for understanding that my comments were not intended to be harsh. As usual several hours after I wrote that I started thinking - "Boy I bet he thinks I am a jerk....."

Quote from Godfrey

The danger from a Greek point of view, as pointed out in previous posts, is that it's very easy to read similar ideas into different philosophies and leave it at that, without appreciating the nuance and development involved.

And yes Godfrey's comment is pretty much the reason for my attitude, and it comes from years of seeing that be the chain of conversation over at Facebook. Here I think we're in a different environment where we can and should be much more clear about the purpose of the website, and I think we therefore have much less chance of problems developing. It pretty goes without without saying (since I try to hit it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer) that this site is devoted to the "promotion" Epicurean philosophy, and not just to abstract discussion of it. Of course as part of that we want new people who are open-minded and who are at the beginning stages of thinking through the issues, so constantly going back over the fundamentals and finding new ways to convey those is a very important part of the site that we'll always be doing in one form or another. And probably the best ways to do that involve exactly what we're discussing now - taking aspects of two very different things that appear similar at first glance, but then digging in to the details to see how they arose (in most cases) from very different presumptions, and in that context determining exactly what can continue to be engaged in and what needs to be left behind.

Yes I thought about that issue too. That background picture came as the default for the theme, and when I saw it I asked myself "Hmm is this more Epicurean or more Stoic?" I think it's tempting to always associate Epicurean philosophy with lush gardens or pastoral scenes, but I agree Nate - for the reasons you stated - that this scene can be harmonized to suit our purposes very well.

Glad to have you BoyH0wdy.

I have lost track of the number of people here who have gone down the Buddhist road, so that is definitely common. So many, in fact, that we probably ought to have a special "How to discuss your Buddhist background on EpicureanFriends" post.

Such a post would probably include something like:

A steady stream of "Epicurus' idea of XXX is a lot like Buddhist ideas of YYY" posts isn't particularly helpful to the goal of the group, since our frank purpose here isn't to display our ability to be eclectic, but to focus on Epicurus with more of a "contrast" than "compare" mindset. But just as discussion of "Epicurus differs from Stoicism in XXX way" is a common and helpful theme here, so posts which discuss "Epicurus differs from Buddhism in XXX way" is also very helpful.

The main reason you don't see those posts from me is that I have no Buddhist background and therefore no strength in writing them, but you'll see a good number of those and if you have similar thoughts please add to the list.

But anyway that is hardly our focus. It's much more interesting to hear general comments from people as the read through Epicurus for the first time, and I think the ability for new people to discuss those reactions with other people who have a greater depth of background is one of the real strengths of our group.

Looking forward to hearing more from you.

Yes I agree too.

I can see the possibility of arguing reasonably against all three items that tranquility, if defined as absence of anxiety, does not meet a strict definition of a "pleasure," if we consider pleasure to be a "positive experience."

But that kind of argument would be a word game where in my view you would want to specify why you were playing it and what you hoped to accomplish. I think most people in common conversation would consider "he is tranquil" would be a common-sense description of someone enjoying some pleasure (sleep, rest, relaxation, daydreaming, etc.)

So maybe the real issue here is that confusion (or manipulation) arisese when people slide back and forth between (1) common sense discussion and (2) academic word-splitting without being clear what they are doing and trying to accomplish.

The whole question of talking about "highest pleasure" sets off alarm bells in my mind because how can that discussion really have any meaning without combining it with all sorts of other qualifying terms that explain the context in which you're talking.

It's kind of like waving a globe at someone and screaming "THIS IS THE WORLD" over and over and over.

Yes, it's a representation of the world, but it's not equivalent to the world in every respect. In most cases that kind of observation goes without saying, but not always. Is the person shouting "THIS IS THE WORLD" crazy? Or are they in the middle of a legitimate but heated discussion about the best way to draw maps and theories of cartography? The context of a discussion can determine whether what the people are saying is brilliant, or insane.

Welcome Scott

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!