Posts by Cassius

I see the potential format being something much more like a Rotary Club, which in my mind is a group that meets for a meal, hears a presentation on a topic of common interest, but really serves as more of a meet and greet occasion where people can find each other as potential friends who might be interested in talking to each other and doing things between meetings as well.

Possibly there are other groups that meet regularly that we could productively talk about as examples. There's the obvious example of "churches" but there are all sorts of issues with that model, and I do think that what is doable is more along the lines of a "meetup" group, but more organized and therefore more like a Rotary or Lions or Kiwanis or other more recent examples of those old names that may no longer exist.

In the context of targeting atheists or any other group I would say this: I am not aware of anyone who can fill the "charismatic" shoes that SK referenced earlier, but part of what we are missing is a coherent message packaged in an attractive form (the honey on the rim) that can serve as the centerpiece of discussion for any group that comes together in an initial meeting.

Whenever a group of strangers comes together on ambiguous terms, something has to be done to immediately "take charge" of the conversation so that it isn't taken over by those with another agenda. That means being clear in our agenda, and presenting it in an attractive and non-threatening but firm way so that it is clear what those who might consider returning would expect in the future.

So for example while a group of atheists might come together on the basis of knowing that rejection of supernatural religion is part of the program, the rest of the program needs to be immediately up front in outline form so that those who happen to be atheists but who are otherwise categorically and constitutionally adverse to Epicurus (such as crotchety old men, nihilists, and the list could go on and on) could immediately be discouraged from trying to take over the meeting or discourage those who are sincerely open-minded.

I remember as I have mentioned before that Elayne was the last who tried a meetup group format, and she tried to use "Tending the Epicurean Garden" as a text. I think she concluded that was a huge mistake and just played into taking an already eclectic group and making it even less unified.

It's probably much more appropriate to use something like the DeWitt book, especially the outline form presented in Chapter One, to quickly convey to everyone the general outlines of the direction. But at the same time combine it with more immediate references to pleasure (potentially food, drink, outside activities) to establish that the group isn't focused on being a bunch of disembodied minds.

Quote from SimonC

I think the religious drive you describe is extremely common, the plethora of self-help / "become a stoic in 30 days" books is a testament to this.

Quote from SimonC

Perhaps one day Epicureanism will come back in a big way - maybe on the tail of some new neuroscience finding - but idealism is so very very deeply ingrained in our whole culture and institutions.

I agree with everything you wrote.

At the same time, we have the direct statement that almost amounts to a command, in the sense that it is clear that any prudent Epicurean is going to follow it:

PD27. Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.

So at the same time we face these hurdles that KW and SC have stated, we have to take action in our own lives to accomplish finding friends as best we can. And the best friends are generally going to be those who share some significant part of our worldview.

As I write this we're 1.5 hours away from having another "weekly" zoom meeting mainly for discussing anything that might be on people's minds and continuing planning for the future. If you are interested in attending please post in this thread and I will be sure you get a link by direct message (the conversation feature).

That is very helpful! Thank you for updating it!

Just a couple of notes:

Quote from smoothiekiwi

but a community isn't necessary to see the truth Epicurus had been preaching

It is not necessary, certainly, but it surely is desirable, and there's no reason not to work toward it.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Ataraxia, the independence from external events, is actually an extremely important concept in the philosophy, at least according to Hiram (looking at "Tending the Epicurean Garden"!)

Certainly ataraxia - which I would prefer to simply go ahead and translate as "absence of disturbance" is an important concept, just as is absence of pain. It is interesting that you are linking it to "independence from external events" more than the literal absence of disturbance. This is indeed where I would argue that many modern commentators (no need to refer specifically to Hiram) go off the beam and forget that Epicurus had clearly laid down that it is not "absence of disturbance" but pleasure that is the goal of life. We don't need to go into that whole argument here now, but I do think by linking it here you are perhaps giving an example of what I worry about most - which is that tranqilism has replaced pleasure as the focus of some in the Epicurean community. Please again let me restate I am not criticising you, SK, but making the observation that in life we have some major options, and whether we pursue pleasure aggressively during the time we have, or whether we accept "tranquism," is a huge question. And yes I state it in terms of "accepting" transqilism because I would argue that it is a major error to think that Epicurus held tranqilism or tranqility to be higher than pleasure.

But I am glad you wrote that because again it focuses the issue: Yes we can choose to be "tranquil" as we accept our existing situations (which rings of Stoicism even as I write it). Or we can choose to use the insights of Epicurean philosophy to focus with intensity on pleasure as the goal, the shortness of life as a spur, and the eternity of nothing after death as good reason to "make hay while the sun shines."

You're right in all of your considerations about how a large community is not necessary, and how we can live happily regardless of those circumstances which we can't change. But we CAN change some of our our circumstances - we can certainly work to make more Epicurean friends - and if we don't do that in the name of the "Tranquility" which some commentators urge --- then that would be a great tragedy.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

No one will simply look at Epicureanism nowadays and think: "Wait, that makes sense!" People are wayyy too absorbed in politics and news and non-natural desires. What I think matters is that you set an example.

People will come. Charismatic personalities, self-assured people always attract friends.

You are absolutely right. The philosophy has been there for thousands of years, it's largely (from the Epicurean point of view) common sense, and yet not very many have chosen to follow it in the open. It's going to take a new generation of opinion leaders coming after us to really kick things into gear. But we can make a start now, and I think we can make significant progress.

Beautifully written Kalosyni. Clearly you are a very talented writer and that is greatly needed to advance this project!

Thanks Don. I remember reading into Eusebius many years ago when I was still researching the origins of Christianity, but I was not tuned in to Epicurus at the time. I look forward to your comments on this.

LOL tjhank you!

What would be a good topic for Tuesday night? Kalosyni is suggesting that we talk about the personal outline project.

That is a very eloquent statement of the point, and worded like that it seems so obvious and clear that no one in their right minds could ever doubt it. Thank you!

I should be available for another Zoom meeting tomorrow night (Tuesday the 17th) so if you're available and interested please reply here.

Bryan two questions to start:

(1) what about the coin collection? Presumably those are mainly Roman and Greek coins. Are there any which have any kind of Epicurean connection? I suppose a coin that referenced Cassius Longinus would have a connection, but I don't think I have an idea of any other possible candidates unless stretching to include perhaps Antiochus since he is reputed to have had Epicurean leanings.

(2) Also as to the reproductions of the Tetrapharmakon -- is that something you did, or have museum reprints been made at some point in the past?

And a comment: I really like the linkage of the exhibits to references in De Rerum Natura!

Ok now that I am looking at those photos more closely, I strongly suspect I am not the only one who didn't get notification that these were there. I am sure there would have been quite a few likes and comments from others if they had seen these. These are GREAT displays and each one spurs lots of questions.

One of the unfortunate issues with this forum software (and there are only a few, really) is that new posts to the Gallery and to the Filebase don't seem to automatically show up as new events in the Notification Panel (at the top right of the screen). For example, I just noticed that Bryan has posted some interesting pictures to the Gallery, which will show up if you click here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/

Are others experiencing an issue with not seeing notifications of new pictures in the gallery? It's possible that it's just me and that the problem arises from signing in on multiple computers. If there is a notification issue I will try to fix it but in the meantime these are very neat so check them out!

Welcome @Jacques !

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!

Yes thanks again to Kalosyni for starting the thread. This will prove to be the raw material for what will eventually be a recorded "roundtable" or similar media presentation on the subject at some point.

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."