Posts by Cassius

Quote from Matt

Since we are not explicitly talking about this in terms of Epicurean philosophy,

We're going to have to figure out some way of clarifying that. It's like with "Gods" -- the definition is so different in Epicurus vs the non-Epicurean traditions that the words mean dramatically different things. In analogy to Epicurus saying that supernatural gods don't exist, but "real ones" do, we've got a situation where we (and probably Epicurus) refer to "evil" all the time, but do not mean anywhere near the same thing as does society at large. In Epicurean terms I would say there is no such thing as "absolute evil" (other than perhaps "pain" in a generic sense) just as there are no supernatural gods.

Unless we keep this clear the conversations are going to be hopelessly confused.

If anyone wishes to argue or imply that there is such a thing as "absolute evil" (in all circumstances; all times, all places, to all people) it would probably be good for them to state that explicitly so it can be fleshed out.

Welcome Jake cu

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 Matt

Yet still…will society still judge the act as evil?

I have pretty well come to peace with that question myself. What "society" thinks is relevant only insofar as society has the power to punish offenses against its collective decision-making. What "society' concludes is often as inverse to the "truth" of a matter (let's say from the perspective of Epicurus for present discussion) as it is accurate to the truth. Society's opinion is of relevance to lots of things, but not to there being any absolute truth of the matter.

Welcome @Yannsousa !

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 Cassius

Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.

To restate this, I think this is one of the big aspects of the canon of truth. The senses and pain and pleasure (and presumably anticipations) can present something to us on a perceptual level which is repeatable and therefore verifiable from that standpoint. But is there any OTHER standpoint other than this perceptual level at which something can be considered absolutely the same for everyone at all times and places? I doubt that is possible under Epicurean philosophy, and in fact it's probably pretty clear that it is not.

Are all words (even "pain" and pleasure") purely a matter of definition in our conscious minds, that become locked in only when we attach them to a certain set of perceptions? I tend to think so, especially when we consider that different languages use entirely different words for what we consider to be the same things.

But the whole process of language is not really chaotic or random either. We're all wired in similar ways, and take pleasure and pain in similar things, and see, hear, touch, smell, and taste in similar ways. So it would be natural that we might also process perceptions into opinions (and assign those opions labels) in similar ways.

So there can be expected behaviors within certain natural lanes of travel without there being any intent, or providence, or absolute standard giving rise to "absolutes" in these areas.

Or so it would appear to me today.

I thought I remembered a line in "A Few Days In Athens" where Epicurus said that there was no good but pleasure, and no evil but pain, but so far the nearest I can find is this in chapter three in regard to virtue. This is related, but not quite as direct. Of course Frances Wright is not really to be accepted as an authority on Epicurus' position, but her views are always interesting:

Quote

“Yes, in a great measure, yet not all together: we are all the wooers of virtue, but we are wooers of a different character.”

“And may she not then favor one more than another?”

“That is a question,” replied the Gargettian, playfully, ” that each will answer in his own favor. If you ask me, he continued, – with one of his sweetest tones and smiles, “I shall say, that I feel myself virtuous, because my soul is at rest.”

“If this be your criterion, you should with the stoics deny that pain is an evil.”

“By no means: so much the contrary, I hold it the greatest of all evils, and the whole aim of my life, and of my philosophy, is to escape from it. To deny that pain is an evil is such another quibble as the Elean’s denial of motion: that must exist to man which exists to his senses; and as to existence or non existence abstracted from them, though it may afford an idle argument for an idle hour, it can never enter as a truth, from which to draw conclusions, in the practical lessons of a master. To deny that pain is an evil seems more absurd than to deny its existence, which has also been done, for its existence is only apparent from its effect upon our senses; how then shall we admit the existence, and deny the effect, which alone forces that admittance? But we will leave these matters to the dialecticians of the Portico. I feel myself virtuous because my soul is at rest. With evil passions I should be disturbed and uneasy; with uncontrolled appetites I should be disordered in body as well as mind — for this reason, and for this reason only, I avoid both.”

“Only!”

“Only: virtue is pleasure; were it not so, I should not follow it.”

Theon was about to break forth in indignant astonishment: the sage softly laid a hand upon his arm, and, with a smile and bend of the head demanding attention, proceeded; “The masters who would have us to follow virtue for her own sake, independent of any pleasure or advantage that we may find in the pursuit, are sublime visionaries, who build a theory without examining the ground on which they build it, who advance doctrines without examining principles. Why do I gaze on the Cupid of Praxiteles? because it is beautiful; because it gives me pleasurable sensations. If it gave me no pleasurable sensations, should I find it beautiful? should I gaze upon it? or would you call me wise if then I gave a drachma for its possession? What other means have we of judging of things than by the effect they produce upon our senses? Our senses then being the judges of all things, the aim of all men is to gratify their senses; in other words, their aim is pleasure or happiness: and if virtue were not found to conduce to this, men would do well to shun her, as they now do well to shun vice.”

“You own then no pleasure but virtue, and no misery but vice?”

“Not at all: I think virtue only the highest pleasure, and vice, or ungoverned passions and appetites, the worst misery. Other pleasures are requisite to form a state of perfect ease, which is happiness; and other miseries are capable of troubling, perhaps destroying, the peace of the most virtuous and the wisest man.”

“I begin to see more reason in your doctrine,” said the youth, looking up with a timid blush in the face of the philosopher.

Display More

Logic in the sense of parsing definitions and categories. It's largely a word game until you connect back to emotions / pain / pleasure.

But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues

In its poetic aspect I largely agree. But in links to the Bible it skirts close to the line. Paine was a deist and I now consider his whole approach to have been deficient, so his allegory falls flat too.

Quote from Matt

Ah yes Good vs. Evil and whether they exist as absolutes…the great debate.

It seems to me that despite the emotion involved, the largest part of this question is "definitional" and even "logical" so probably every time it's discussed with newer people, it needs to be hit home that there can be a lot of emotion and personal attachment involved in discussing this. Right Don?

Kalosyni one of the closest threads is this one started by Joshua: Is Pleasure the Only Good?

Yes I agree. She seems to be more of a "writer" than an academic too. Almost in the category of Greenblatt (the swerve) who probably deserves mention but is less clear in status as a promoter.

Given the quality of his posts I suspect Nate has retired and gone into full-time Epicurean commentary. Another great post.

Last time I did not bother to look up that book. Here's a link or two:

So it's fairly recent: https://www.amazon.com/You-will-not-t…h/dp/B0006FANBK

You Will Not Taste Death

A fine softcover copy. Indexed. Light shelf wear. Tight binding. Clean, unmarked pages. Not ex-library. Shipped Weight: Under 1 kilogram....

www.goodreads.com

I can't find much else as to who Hannah is or his views.

That's someone definitely to consider. She's certainly writing a lot of books and articles. But I wonder to what extent she says she agrees with it herself? (And of course that leads to the question of what kinds of caveats to include.) Same question would likely apply to Sedley, Tsouna, and probably several others. Are they academics and/or commentators or actual "promoters" of Epicurean philosophy, and what are their caveats?

"A godlike state of pure pleasure, a disposition of imperturbable joy, free from physical pain and mental anguish. The practice of prudence will lead the wise person to the good life."

I largely agree with that statement too and think it's a good highlevel summary. At what point however does it need however to have a caveat that since there is no fate, and not every person can become wise (see Diogenes Laertius) that "the practice of prudunce the best course most likely to lead the wide person to a good life" (which hints at the truth that this result is not guaranteed due to factors that sometimes occur that are out of our control.

Or is that something to explain later after the first statement?

Ok massive reordering of Ethics forums to put these near the top: 

The Relationship of Pleasure and The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"?)

The Relationship of Pleasure To Absence of Pain And Disturbance

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"

Types of Pleasures - Discussion of Specific Pleasures of All Kinds

The Relationship of Pleasure To Virtue

Emotions In Epicurean Philosophy

Ok that categorization isn't going to work. I will re-split them:

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And Pain To "Evil"

Pleasure as The Highest Good (And Is Pleasure the "Only Good"??

There's a lot to talk about in that post, probably starting with the basic issue of whether "good" and "evil" have an absolute existence in themselves, or are entirely relative.

There's also the issue of the relationship of pleasure to good and pain as evil.

We've talked about some of these before and we can do this here or in the older threads. It's possible we'll split this out after we talk a while too.

But here are the two older categories where we explored these issues:

The Relationship Of Pleasure To "Good" And The "Highest Good"

The Relationship of Pain To "Evil"

(The latter link is new)

I think we are basically on top of most of these, but we've had a flurry of activity recently and this is a good time for a reminder.

If you prepare any kind of lengthy "document" or even a "table" or something like that which is good for future reference., we need to feature it on the front page of the website in a separate box, either as a "blog article" or a "Filebase item" or perhaps even both.

If you check there now you'll see that we have Nate's list of translations, and I'm working on getting Nate's list of historical figures better featured. We also have the graphic he did a couple of years ago.

We also have Don's translation of the letter to Menoeceus, and we might elevate his "timeline" to similar status (need to talk to him about that).

Have I missed any significant contributions that need to be on the front page?

The basic thing to remember is that posts here in the forum can be pretty long, but for really "long-format" or detailed pieces, it's better to post them either as an "Article" or as a "File" so we can "feature" them and they are easier to find. It might be a good idea to feature more "Comparison Charts" or simply "Charts" as we currently do with the old Stoicism one I prepared. It would really be good either to extend that one into other philosophies, or use separate charts.

We'll also add something soon on the "A Few Days In Athens" book review.

But the main point of this post is that we do want to encourage everyone that if you put a lot of effort into any particular project we need to make sure it gets the attention it deserves, so let us know in this thread or otherwise if we've missed something from the past, or if new things are created.

The Christianity Comparison thread, but I don't think we have a chart:

Epicurean Philosophy vs. Christianity

Epicureans have been unpacking this for 2000+ years

Lucretius Book One:

Brown:

[80] But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such Scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!

Humphries:

I fear that, in these matters, you may think

You're entering upon a path of crime,

The A B C's of godlessness. Not so.

The opposite is true. Too many times

Religion mothers crime and wickedness.

Recall how once at Aulis, when the Greeks,

Those chosen peers, the very first of men,

Defiled, with a girl's blood, the altar-stone

Sacred to Artemis. The princess stood

Wearing the sacred fillets or a veil,

And sensed but could not see the king her father,

Agamemnon, standing sorrowful

Beside the altar, and the priests near-by

Hiding the knife-blade, and the folk in tears

At what they saw. She knelt, she spoke no word,

She was afraid, poor thing. Much good it did her

At such a time to have been the very first

To give the king that other title, Father!

Raised by men's hands and trembling she was led

Toward the altar, not to join in song

After the ritual of sacrifice

To the bright god of marriage. No; she fell

A victim by the sacrificing stroke

Her father gave, to shed her virgin blood-

Not the way virgins shed it - but in death,

To bring the fleet a happy exodus!

A mighty counselor, Religion stood

With all that power for wickedness.