Posts by Cassius

I firmly agree Nate. I get the sense that the Stoic influence leads people to think that Epicurus is pushing something similar to their "mind over matter" approach and I think (1) they are totally wrong and (2) it's important to hit on this very hard so that we eliminate the confusion. It's hard enough to show people how important good philosophy is without them thinking at the very beginning of the road that the road leads to ignoring the pleasure and pain of the here and now.

Right and we mentioned that in the podcast. Yes that is Reagan on the right in the still, but he is not the star - this is an Errol Flynn / Olivia deHavilland movie vehicle. I will paste a picture of Massey playing Brown below. He was a very strong actor and with this beard sort of makes me think he could have played a good Epicurus.

And to follow up on Godfrey's comment, another interesting actor in that still photo is on the far left - that is Alan Hale, father of the "Skipper" in Gilligan's Island - when you see him in the movie theres a strong family resemblance in looks and mannerisms.

Still working on the edit but let me post this before I forget. We did a good job of staying away from contemporary politics in this episode but in explaining the depth of passion that is often involved in discussing justice Joshua brought up the historical example of John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry as an example of how different people can see the same incident from starkly different perspectives.

For those who aren't as elderly as I am I asked Joshua if he had seen the well-known but old movie on the story. The movie was "Santa Fe Trail" and here is the link below. Raymond Massey, the actor who played John Brown, did a great job of conveying Browns intensity, and he conveys the same intensity in a clip I like to use to dramatize the issue of "peace and safety" and I am posting tonight also in Kalosyni's thread.

So if someone wanted they could enjoy a Raymond Massey film festival with these links.

In both of these movies I have linked I think a reasonable person could ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

On that last point, about the goal being "peace" I like to dramatize that issue with the closing scene of HG Wells' " Things to Come." The actor who plays the tall guy is the one I mentioned in the podcast this week to Joshua. His name is Raymond Massey and he played John Brown in the movie we discussed. I will post that link in that thread. Massey really knew how to convey "intensity", and this clip sets up the question of choosing between types of pleasure which appear to be more vs less dangerous. In this clip, the two male characters have just launched their two children off to a journey to the moon from which they may never return, and one of the two men is not happy about it at all. The whole movie revolves around such questions but the final scenes brings it home.

"Which shall it be?"

In both of these movies I think a reasonable person would ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

Yes that makes a lot of sense to express it that way. Alternative ways to consider the relationships would include:

1 Tranquility is a part of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

2 Tranquility is a pleasure, but is not pleasure itself.

3 Tranquility is an aspect of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

Of those I would endorse option 2.

Probably the trickier issue is the contention that some seem to make:

1 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but among all pleasures it is the "best."

2 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but it is the goal and purpose of all other pleasures.

I would reject both of those contentions and would say that (1) Epicurus did not say either one, and (2) that these contentions are not "true" in the sense of being generally established for everyone by nature. If someone in his or her individual circumstances decides to set "tranquility" as their ultimate goal in life I would not try too hard to argue them out of it, if they truly believe that to be warranted by their circumstances. But I would expect for most people in most circumstances "tranquility" would be an unnecessarily limited goal. In general if someone stated to me that their ultimate goal in life was "peace" or to escape pain I would start wondering what kind of doctor they might need. But in the end I think it's a choice each individual has to make at each moment of his or her life.

Welcome @Franklin !

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!

We had a great discussion today and I will get the audio posted asap so people will have time to make comments and pose questions before next week.

We'll plan to devote the whole of Episode 98 to justice based on the above text. If anyone has topics related to justice they they would like us to be sure to talk about, please add those suggestions here.

One aspect I want us to be sure to cover is a set of questions that underlies all of the virtues, but is particularly stark as to justice:

If justice (or any other virtue) is not absolute - and it seems clear that Epicurus held that it was not absolute - then what exactly IS justice (or any other virtue)?

Is justice (or any other virtue) recognizable only in retrospect? (Meaning that we don't know whether an action was just/virtuous or not until we know the result?

Is justice (or any other virtue) simply a name which we apply to certain categories of human action? (Such as "courage" being a label we apply to how we face adversity?)

If we decide to talk about "examples" in the field of justice, let's try to be sure to pick examples that are at least several hundred years old so that we don't run afoul of our "no-politics" guideline. Perhaps we can even use examples like the Roman Civil War, and the conflict between Julius Caesar and the Conspirators, since it's very difficult for most of us nowadays to figure out what the fighting was all about.

Principal Doctrines Which Are Relevant to Justice:

PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.

PD07. Some men wished to become famous and conspicuous, thinking that they would thus win for themselves safety from other men. Wherefore if the life of such men is safe, they have obtained the good which nature craves; but if it is not safe, they do not possess that for which they strove at first by the instinct of nature.

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

PD31. The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage, to restrain men from harming one another, and save them from being harmed.

PD32. For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another, or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust; and likewise, too, for all tribes of men which have been unable, or unwilling, to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.

PD33. Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another, in any place whatever, and at any time, it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed. [see note below]

PD34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions.

PD35. It is not possible for one who acts in secret contravention of the terms of the compact not to harm or be harmed to be confident that he will escape detection, even if, at present, he escapes a thousand times. For up to the time of death it cannot be certain that he will indeed escape.

PD36. In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all.

PD37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.

PD38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

No problem - Joshua reads the Reid translation that is here: Cicero's "Torquatus" Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - from "On Ends"

Kalosyni and profkesarsarwara (and this is addressed to all participants here, but particularly to newer ones like Kalosyni and Kesar):

It seems to me that the presentation of Epicurean philosophy in this excerpt from "Torquatus" is probably one of the best ways to get a quick handle on the major aspects of Epicurean ethics, so I would very much appreciate it if the two of you can find the time to listen and comment here in this thread.

I would like to start featuring this recording on the home page and in "advertising" as quite possibly the best introduction to Epicurean philosophy out there in audiovisual form, so if you guys have comments or questions about any aspect of it those would be particularly valuable as we refine it.

Thanks!

The only minor issue I hear so far as that at 35:36 it sounds like the word is being read as "undefined" instead of "undefiled."

An easy fix, but let's see if others report other questions before we do a new cut on that section.

I have listened to this several times now and I have to say I think Joshua's version is outstanding!

Edit:

At 4:30 we need to smooth the transition so that it is clear that "And there is a difference..." Is a related but separate and new thought.

At 41:57 there is a slight pacing / emphasis issue. The "THEN ONLY" should be set off for emphasis so that it is clear that THEN ONLY (if we trust the senses) will conception and perception be possible.....

We've now prepared an advanced draft of a new recording of the major presentation on Epicurean Ethics by "Torquatus" in Book One of CIcero's "On Ends" - with Joshua reading it for us.

It's taken a lot of work for us to get this far, and we want to be sure that there are no significant mistakes in it before we promote it to the world at large outside of EpicureanFriends.

If you get a chance, please listen and let us know if you catch anything that needs improvement. There are no doubt some editing glitches that aren't Joshua's fault, but they should be minor.

Let us know any issues that you run into and we'll see about fixing this before final release.

This Torquatus material is perhaps the most clear and extensive explanation of Epicurean ethics anywhere. It's even more extensive and specific that Epicurus' own "Letter to Menoeceus," so this audio version should prove to be very helpful in acquainting more people with the details of the philosophy.

After we get this in final form we can post to Youtube and other places, but let's check it out first. Let us know your comments. I think you will be very pleased with Joshua's version!

Torquatus' Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - Read By Joshua : EpicureanFriends.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

An Audio Reading of Torquatus' presentation of Epicurean Ethics from Cicero's On Ends (Book One).

archive.org

I will probably have more thoughts after I think about this for a while, but for anyone who might question the implications of this sentence: "Not all stress should be avoided and modern Epicureans should move away from seeing tranquility as a main goal." I have a comment:

I think that if Epicurus were here he would agree, and he would be the first to say "but modern Epicureans should never have identified tranquility as the goal of life. I was very clear - PLEASURE (not tranquility) is correct definition of the guide and goal of life." And he might point out that Venus was the goddess of pleasure, of love, and of many things similar to that, but that no one would ordinarily think to list "tranquility" as the first of her attributes.

Episode Ninety-Seven of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode we continue our examination of the virtues as instrumental for pleasure, with the focus this week on "temperance" and courage.

Welcome to Episode Ninety-Eight of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Today we continue with that material and focus on "Justice" starting with line fifty.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

[50] XVI. Justice still is left to complete our statement concerning the whole of virtue, but considerations nearly similar may be urged. Just as I have proved wisdom, temperance and courage to be linked with pleasure, so that they cannot possibly by any means be sundered or severed from it, so we must deem of justice, which not only never injures any person, but on the contrary always produces some benefit, not solely by reason of its own power and constitution, whereby it calms our minds, but also by inspiring hope that we shall lack none of the objects which nature when uncorrupted craves. And as recklessness and caprice and cowardice always torture the mind and always bring unrest and tumult, so if wickedness has established itself in a man’s mind, the mere fact of its presence causes tumult; if moreover it has carried out any deed, however secretly it may have acted, yet it will never feel a trust, that the action will always remain concealed. In most cases the acts of wicked men are at first dogged by suspicion, then by talk and rumour, then by the prosecutor, then by the judge; many have actually informed against themselves, as in your own consulship.

[51] But if there are any who seem to themselves to be sufficiently barricaded and fortified against all privity on the part of their fellow men, still they tremble before the privity of the gods, and imagine that the very cares by which their minds are devoured night and day are imposed upon them, with a view to their punishment, by the eternal gods. Again, from wicked acts what new influence can accrue tending to the diminution of annoyances, equal to that which tends to their increase, not only from consciousness of the actions themselves, but also from legal penalties and the hatred of the community? And yet some men exhibit no moderation in money-making, or oice, or military command, or wantonness, or gluttony, or the remaining passions, which are not lessened but rather intensified by the trophies of wickedness, so that such persons seem fit to be repressed rather than to be taught their error.

[52] True reason beckons men of properly sound mind to pursue justice, fairness and honor; nor are acts of injustice advantageous to a man without eloquence or influence, who cannot easily succeed in what he attempts, nor maintain his success if he wins it, and large resources either of wealth or of talent suit better with a generous spirit, for those who exhibit this spirit attract to themselves goodwill and affection, which is very well calculated to ensure a peaceful life; and this is the truer in that men have no reason for sinning.

[53] For the passions which proceed from nature are easily satisfied without committing any wrong; while we must not succumb to those which are groundless, since they yearn for nothing worthy of our craving, and more loss is involved in the mere fact of wrong doing, than prot in the results which are produced by the wrong doing. So one would not be right in describing even justice as a thing to be wished for on its own account, but rather because it brings with it a very large amount of agreeableness. For to be the object of esteem and affection is agreeable just because it renders life safer and more replete with pleasures. Therefore we think that wickedness should be shunned, not alone on account of the disadvantages which fall to the lot of the wicked, but much rather because when it pervades a man’s soul it never permits him to breathe freely or to rest.

[54] But if the accolades passed even on the virtues themselves, over which the eloquence of all other philosophers especially runs riot, can find no vent unless it be referred to pleasure, and pleasure is the only thing which invites us to the pursuit of itself, and attracts us by reason of its own nature, then there can be no doubt that of all things good it is the supreme and ultimate good, and that a life of happiness means nothing else but a life attended by pleasure.

SUPPLEMENT:

Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings which are relevant to Justice.

PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.

PD07. Some men wished to become famous and conspicuous, thinking that they would thus win for themselves safety from other men. Wherefore if the life of such men is safe, they have obtained the good which nature craves; but if it is not safe, they do not possess that for which they strove at first by the instinct of nature.

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

PD31. The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage, to restrain men from harming one another, and save them from being harmed.

PD32. For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another, or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust; and likewise, too, for all tribes of men which have been unable, or unwilling, to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.

PD33. Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another, in any place whatever, and at any time, it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed. [see note below]

PD34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions.

PD35. It is not possible for one who acts in secret contravention of the terms of the compact not to harm or be harmed to be confident that he will escape detection, even if, at present, he escapes a thousand times. For up to the time of death it cannot be certain that he will indeed escape.

PD36. In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all.

PD37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.

PD38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

VS07. It is hard for an evil-doer to escape detection, but to be confident that he will continue to escape detection indefinitely is impossible.

VS12. The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance.

VS13. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men’s dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies, and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just, for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

VS43. The love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly gained, is shameful; for it is unseemly to be parsimonious, even with justice on one’s side.

VS62. Now if parents are justly angry with their children, it is certainly useless to fight against it, and not to ask for pardon; but if their anger is unjust and irrational, it is quite ridiculous to add fuel to their irrational passion by nursing one’s own indignation, and not to attempt to turn aside their wrath in other ways by gentleness.

Philos it might be good to repost something featuring the Hermarchus and Metrodorus busts because I am not sure that those are widely known to be available.

Wow I had completely forgot about these so thank you for bumping!

I have a question:. The photos seem to have a good tint, but the ones you have now are sterling silver? Might be a good idea to post a picture of that version (?)

I think I have some old recordings made by text to speech, but I don't recall. I definitely want to put our full podcast series there too as a more permanent place for it.

Editing is coming along on this one and it should be up by midday Friday, followed shortly by Joshua's full recording of the Torquatus text from On Ends. I think I will first post that to my account at Archive.org so it has a separate home that is easy to find, with a separate discussion thread here, rather than simply include it as a regular podcast episode.

I always liked that cartoon too! Hard to go too far wrong when you follow uncorrupted animals!