Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

So, the common thread of κενός is void, empty, not able to be filled.

The main problem I have is that without some further explanation, the "void and empty" do not in my mind go together logically with "not able to be filled."

The "not able to be filled" carries more meaning than "empty", but simply being void and empty does not (standing alone) because the nature of the atoms and void is that they move around, and considering any particular space at a particular time, there's no necessary reason why that space cannot be filled.

Not sure I am being clear yet, and i am not faulting Epicurus, but i think our English usage of "empty" is probably missing the point, without more added to explain WHY it is not able to be filled. And since the allegation in the first place is apparently that the thing is "not able to be filled" then just saying that it is empty adds little or nothing to the statement.

If something is not able to be filled then the question would be "WHY NOT?"

Wow Welcome again SimonC and thank you for that introduction. That's a pithy way of hitting the high points of good information about your background to get things started, so thank you!

Your intro sounds a lot like what I would have written myself years ago.

The main thing that occurs to me to say is that with your attitude, and at your level of reading, I really hope you will post your reactions as you read through more material. It's extremely helpful to hear reactions from people as they read more, not just here, but other places, about Epicurus and how he fits into the general philosophic picture.

And as a layperson with just a couple of years of reading experience you're probably a very good example of what I think would probably be the type of person we tend to target with this forum: Enough reading to have some general familiarity with the issues, but not so much that the person has become jaded and cynical - which is what my experience is tends to happen to people when they get too deep into modern philosophy from a purely "academic" approach.

Look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Welcome SimonC !

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!

Quote from Don

calls out the "empty" desires

Have you done a deep dive on the etymology of the "empty" word? i find that word very empty of meaning and i wonder if we have it right or could do a better job explaining it.

"Vain" is a little better but still needs explanation as well, I would think.

The general topic of the relationship of philosophy to real life is something we need some hard-hitting material on that we feature on the website early in everyone's attention-span.

I think our bottom line through Epicurus is that it is not logic or reasoning at all, but "feeling" that gives meaning to life. So in the end we DON'T look to some logical construct for all the answers, we look to a natural mechanism.

But on the other hand, we can't conceptualize a feeling (other than words like pleasure and pain) and those general wordds leave the "mind" unsatisfied when we try to defend or state our positions using general words describing feelings and emotions.

We have to therefore come to terms with exactly what Epicurean philosophy (or any philosophy) is and can do, and what it can't.

I think I am going to work on a presentation to make on that topic but it keeps coming up over and over so is appropriate here.

In Don's post it's a subtext -- how does "philosophy" work together with the observational science as to how the atoms and void are actually rolling around. We need to have a cofindent position on how these work together so that we're not implicitly apologizing for the lack of clarity every time we talk about it. BOTH have their roles but I don't think we've made it clear enough how they work together.

Quote from Matt

had a feeling Ted Danson was going say something like he did

OMG that was Ted Danson from "Cheers?"

Quote from Don

I'm not "old and infirm"

Having seen Ted Danson for the first time in years I will admit to feeling VERY old and infirm!

The "Good Place" clip is great!

HOWEVER, I would not agree with the punishment at the end !

The ONLY thing that is ultimately and always good in life is Pleasure, Not "People"! Life everything except pleasure itself, "People" can be desirable, undesirable, and all shades in between, depending on the circumstances, just as was implied by the questions of the blonde-haired lady in her response.

So if we are talking philosophically (and the trolley problem is a philosophical test) the only true equivalence is:

Pleasure = Good!

Right Kalosyni?

Quote from Don

Yeah, this is what I call fun

Perfect for lifelong residence in whatever Gardens we can cook up !

"56–57. The wise man feels no more pain when being tortured himself than when his friend tortured,"

Which doesn't mean that he won't feel pain in either situation, but that he will feel it in both situations. And this is probably one of those situations too where in some circumstances the mental pain could be as bad or worse than the physical.

I think we were discussing this in terms of whether wisdom allows a person to "will away pain" or even crowd out the pain completely through compensating pleasure,and i don't think either of those would be what Epicurus was saying.

This is the article I was thinking about: https://www.edge.org/contributors/w…-for-retirement

I would have to review the whole article but I am thinking Epicurus would agree with Dawkins criticism of Aristotles position. This is related to the issue of color discussed in Lucretius.

UPDATE: Looks like the link has changed:

Edge.org

As to essentialism I need to verify my memory but I thought we had a reference to an article by Richard Dawkins which references this issue. I will look for the link.

Yes "idealism" is used in English. I have seen "essentialism" used in philosophy writing as well.

I gather the two terms are closely related. I may be wrong but I gather "essentialism" is more associated with Aristotle and idealism with Plato, both as their theories for how to approach the issue of the existence (or not) or "universals."

Well I think our listeners will be pleased with today's episode, but it's another long one so it will take some time before it's ready.

In the meantime I wanted to note that today we will include a reference to the stone of tantalus, and to my surprise (found out only during recording) the standard references on the net to Tantalus focus mostly on the water in which he is standing and the branches above his head, and the Wikipedia page doesn't even have an example artwork with the stone. So we will want to supplement our discussion with links to the "stone" symbology when we find them.

This is a big subject but obviously I agree with the basic point, that security and privacy in online communications is essential, and it's necessary to be prudent about how open you can be with others about your personal details. There are related issues of censorship of information and opinion. and peer pressure to conform to norms on the big platforms. Personally I have not yet made the decision to sever all my big-platform ties, but I can see that day coming.

For now, my interim solution is mainly to post as few private details as possible, but to be willing to provide them to individual people, over time, as you get to know them and exchange information over time. So far I have not found any adequate substitute for observation over time in getting to know someone.

I too am interested to hear what others have to say about this.

Don I just noticed that you had posted this here without using the file base feature that Nate uses for his collection of the PDS. It's not emissary to use it, and we definitely want this thread in addition, but you might find the file base feature of keeping track of revisions at a single link useful.

It also keeps track of the number of downloads which is nice.

But you can achieve most of the same effect by just editing the first post here in this thread as you post updated revisions.

Yes it is hard to figure out how to organize things and it may be that conversations have to develop naturally.

But now that we've been reminds a couple of times about the personal outline approach, I think that would be particularly helpful for you, Kalosyni, given that it helps quickly highlight fundamentals and places where questions may arise that you may not recognize:

Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy

Somebody made the point that maybe the thread was driving from the original topic. Maybe we should step back and ask, in the process of making it more accessible, what does "it" refer to.

Since Kalosyni is fairly new here, what in a thumbnail are we talking about more accessible? (In terms of a list of five or six key points that we think might not currently be easily accessible?)

Quote from Don

I think the reason (which is started in the PD) is that something is no longer just is when it's no longer mutually beneficial and no longer adheres to the "basic grasp of justice" which, as I see it, is to neither harm nor be harmed.

Ok this is going to help because I think we need to focus on this issue, which I was starting on when I called 'harm" ambiguous:

Who gets to decide whether some is being "harmed" or not? I don't think there can be much of any absolute standard on that, and it's difficult to decide where the limit might be, given the rest of Epicurean philosophy.

Because I think we all end up at the same position if we agree that "harm" is very subjective and relative. If we think "harm" can be defined objectively, then we're looking at an absolute standard of justice which I don't think Epicurus would allow.

In the end, the only thing that is desirable in itself is pleasure and the only thing undesirable in itself is pain, so just at there is no objective "good" but pleasure, there is going to be no objective "bad" but pain.

Agree or disagree?

One can easily imagine how these disagreeable interpretations get started, depending on whether one is sympathetic or not.

There's no contradiction between these two positions, because that's our position here:

(1) ALWAYS use your own mind to your fullest ability and NEVER take as accepted anything on authority or without evidence that you consider to be persuasive.

(2) We want our own community of friends who believe the way we do, and we're going to have a set list of standards that everyone pretty much needs to adhere to -- and if you don't come around over time, you're going to want to look elsewhere for a community.

Both of those are I think absolutely consistent with one another, and I feel sure that Epicurus saw that just like anyone else would see it who wants to run an organization. I feel sure he had some version of his pretty close to both (1) and (2). But he also would have known that you can't run a school that is nothing but a debate society among people who don't agree on core values. You can't have a Organization of those pledged to undermine all organizations."

I was thinking that was a reference in Seneca, so I could be thinking wrong. Do you have a particular cite for it in Philodemus beyond what you quoted above? I am always more skeptical of Philodemus quotes too due to the uncertainties of the text.