Posts by Cassius

On solitary vs teacher-student, since I am still viewing this as a very simple issue, I would say the answer would likely be either.

Either alone, or with a teacher (and I can certainly see that advantages of having a teacher or at least a friend to talk to) the way to reason through any situation would be to turn the possibilities over in your mind and identify them as best you can. For a very obvious example, when evaluating which course of several to apply, sitting down and preparing a chart of the pluses and minus of each option. Which brings to mind that i still like at time today to use a pen and paper to write things down, and I find that the act of writing seems to solidify my connection with the thought. People talk about that as muscle memory or something,right? Maybe there's something analogous about visualizing that also helps make the issues real.

Quote from Don

Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get old? If every variety of pleasure could be experienced eventually in infinite time by an incorruptible being/spirit/entity/god, wouldn't pleasure get old? Is that one reason we don't need an infinite life to experience the most pleasurable life?

I am not going to be able to offer it in this post, but this is where I think there is one of those "logical" answers which may not be satisfactory to everyone. What we perceive as boredom may be in fact be a deficiency in us (such as our aging) that a more highly evolved being would also have been able to dispose of, just as with other sources of pain.

Not gonna represent that this is anywhere near a complete answer but it's something I bet could be reconstructed within our existing framework of Epicurean textual knowledge and wouldn't be hopeless task - at least from a "logical" perspective.

Quote from Marco

About depression:

‘…Nor can one live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly..’. PD 5

So, someone who is depressed should ask himself: ‘Where was I not living wisely/prudently, not honorably or not justly’ and change that.

Marco (and to comment on recent other points):

I think what we are zeroing in on is that there are multiple causes for depression. Some of those causes are "logicial" caused by holding bad premises (worries about the gods, about death, about being confused over the goal of life).

On the other hand there are medical / clinical causes that are beyond the control of "changing your thinking" to help.

The trick is to distinguish between the two: Epicurus has lots to say and lots to help on the first category. On the second category, the prudent thing to do is to figure out that the problem is medical and you need professional help.

And unfortunately often in the case of category two, it's hard to self-diagnose and realize or accept that we need professional help. That's where friends need to use the art of persuasion to the extent possible to encourage outside help.

"So, someone who is depressed should ask himself: ‘Where was I not living wisely/prudently, not honorably or not justly’ and change that."

So yes, that question needs to be asked, but people need to to be ready from the very beginning to realize that their own choices "may" not be the cause of their problems.

In addition to what Joshua said, we only finished 63, so the Sedley article should be still applicable for next week!

Reminder - our first meeting of the A Few Days In Athens Book Review is tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern USA Time. Zoom link will be posted about a half hour prior to the meeting!

Thanks for that work! Sounds in most cases like the meaning is essentially "Think about the consequences..." Or "imagine for a moment the consequences..." Of s particular course of action?

Thanks for that Titus! Are you planning to expand this or would you like commentary or questions?

Yes they do! And that is a large part of the reason so large a number on the Facebook page are so weighted toward Stoicism - they are already so depressed that they are looking for answers anywhere they can find them, and as a result they really aren't interested in the details of the philosophy beyond that.

As is my policy I am not suggesting that anyone here is who not currently on facebook go over there for this thread. However for those of you on Facebook who are interested in the topic of depression, we have this thread currently going on. I approved the general question and then went away and I see there is quite a back and forth. Not a lot of it is productive other than the posts from people who are our regulars, such as Nate and Holly Graves (a regular at Facebook). Just in case someone wants to reference it in the future here is the link. We probably need to take some of Nate's and other good answers and develop more of a thread here:

We don't have a FAQ entry on depression. Should we? If we can develop a good strong answer here we can create a FAQ entry and point it to this thread.

Frequently Asked Questions - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Here is another analogy:

In the letter to Herodotus Epicurus is quite clear in advocating the use of outlining.

In the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus is quite clear in advocating the study of nature, and the discussion of issues such as infinity.

It's that level of clarity that I think we should look for in embracing any advice as to "techniques.". Because those are so clear and from Epicurus, those should be at the top of the list of any list of "techniques."

It's probable also that there are clear instructions to try to it some or all of the central doctrines to memory. That also deserves a highest priority.

If there are other "techniques" that deserve similar status to those, we should add them to the list, while also documenting their level of authority. I suspect there are others that can be added to this list just from the letters to Epicurus or Lucretius.

There is also the "do all things as if Epicurus we're watching" - from Seneca if I remember correctly?

Likewise "Meditate Mortem" - also from Seneca?

And so for basic programs of this forum we ought to stress and focus on those that are clearly documented, and only when those are tended to supplement the list.

It would be really good to make this into an explicit numbered list in terms of level of authority of the source, and then as we go forward decide where to put the visualization issue on that list.

And as for newer students, probably the soundest advise is to take Epicurus to heart and follow the list in the order Epicurus himself seemed to stress it, and only then, and afterwards, begin to experiment with other possibilities.

What I am reminded of reading these last two posts is that knowledge of all kinds is generally helpful and probably only rarely if ever unhelpful.

As we hopefully continue to grow as a forum over the years, the challenge will be to be sure we accommodate as many varying interests as we can, while always keeping the focus on Epicurus. And this "interest" issue is not only a matter of topic, but also a matter of "basic" vs. "advanced" in the study of Epicurus.

Probably over time we will want some more introductory or guidepost material that prepares new readers for what they will find here, and acclimates everyone from the beginning that there are natural progressions and interests and that no one should expect to want to participate in every discussion, or be turned off in any way by that fact.

I think this is probably a part of the "atomistic" nature of the universe to prepare people for - maybe it's all a subset of the point that Epicurean philosophy is more of an "operating system" that equips individuals to go out and live their own lives in their own habitats more successfully.

It isn't a monotheistic religion in which we expect everyone to do the same things in the same way and all live inside the same garden / house / commune.

We can "prepare" here, and those who like the teaching and transmission will always probably find this place a central focus, but once we understand the basics some significant number will then move on to start their own "local" or "specialized" groups that apply the principles in unique ways.

Yes the "shores" is from Humphries, which means it's the text that Charlton Griffin reads, which is why that is burned into my mind:

[159] Now, if things come from nothing, all things could
Produce all kinds of things; nothing would need
Seed of its own. Men would burst out of the sea,
And fish and birds from earth, and, wild or tame,
All kinds of beasts, of dubious origin,
Inhabit deserts and the greener fields,
Nor would the same trees bear, in constancy,
The same fruit always, but, as like as not,
Oranges would appear on apple-boughs.
If things were not produced after their kind,
Each from its own determined particles,
How could we trace the substance to the source?
But now, since all created things have come
From their own definite kinds of seed, they move
From their beginnings toward the shores of light.

I must be hallucinating as to "shores." I was sure it was there (maybe Humphries) but what I am finding is "borders":

Munro:

[159] If things came from nothing, any kind might be born of any thing, nothing would require seed. Men for instance might rise out of the sea, the scaly race out of the earth, and birds might burst out of the sky; horned and other herds, every kind of wild beasts would haunt with changing broad tilth and wilderness alike. Nor would the same fruits keep constant to trees, but would change; any tree might bear any fruit. For if there were not begetting bodies for each, how could things have a fixed unvarying mother? But in fact because things are all produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and goes forth into the borders of light out of that in which resides its matter and first bodies; and for this reason all things cannot be gotten out of all things, because in particular things resides a distinct power.

Quote from Don

What is that section in Lucretius with "bring into the light" or something like it? I can't remember the context to determine if it's relevant here or not.

I am not in a place where I can find quotes immediately but I think at least Munro translates it as "shores of light" and it's usually (if I recall) in those sections where we are talking about the need for a comprehensive philosophy, and the cup of wormwood for its healing properties (I think). Let me see what I can find and I will paste here:

I am just writing notes now as they come to mind:

I also want to say that if we can find good documentation for something special, Cassius will be the first to call a series of "Visualization Parties" so we can all talk about and work on the technique together!

But what I am afraid of is something that Don and I both note in DeWitt: It's kind of embarrassing, and undermines his credibility somewhat, to find connections to Christianity hiding almost under every rock. I do think he's right to draw many of his connections, but he probably goes overboard and ends up turning off readers who aren't really interested in drawing out every possible connection.

That's what I am afraid of here - that if indeed there is nothing more going on here than an idiom for "examine closely" or "look closely" or "look at what's right in front of you" then to imply that there was a special and well developed Epicurean technique that goes far beyond what is obvious (sort of a pun there) could tend to be an embarassing contention to make if people go looking for the documentation, find it very meagre and too speculative and ambiguous to be of any use, and get disappointed in studying Epicurus as a result.

Ok finally I remember for this thread one of the main points I want to raise:

What I interpret to be the most important reference to "ante oculos" is the reference early in book one of Lucretius:

"Humana ante oculos foede cum vita....."

The translators seem to view that as an interjection on the order of:

"all too conspicuous" - Humphrey

(I will get some more to add here)

But I interpret them to be saying, and it makes sense in the translation, that this is just some kind of idiom or expression for what we might say as:

• "right in front of you"
• "right before your eyes"
• "apparently"
• "obviously"
• "plain to see"
• "unmistakeably"

All of which would be normal ways of expressing something that is "right in front of you to be seen." And that's a point that is echoed later in book one, in the passage about if you can't have confidence in your senses as to what is right in front of you, you certainly can't have confidence in your opinions about anything that is hidden.

(And I need to look to see if there are other instances of ante oculos in Lucretius)

But the point of this being that if "ante oculos" is just an idiom or expression about things that are clearly right in front of you, that in itself has significance, without turning the issue into a "technique" so we can match the Stoics or some others who are really into "procedures."

Again this is not a criticism of you personally or anyone in particular who wants to search for such techniques, it's just a matter of wanting to document them very clearly before we accept something that Tsouna in the last several decades thinks she has discovered, when there doesn't seem to be any significant record of it in the rest of 2000 years of Epicurean texts.

Kind of like that other Lucretius line -- If it's true let's embrace it, if it's not true let's fight against it, but whatever, let's work to be as accurate as we can possibly be.

I think what I am really looking for is at least a couple of reliably-sourced English sentences (without major reconstructions of missing text) that make clear what is being discussed and how the term is being used.

Otherwise I would presume that something as simple could be going on as we might regularly say in discussing, for example, how to fish:

"Imagine you are in a boat on a pond getting ready to throw your line...."

"Imagine you are on the shore of a lake and you are about to cast a net...."

I could imagine all sorts of uses of words like "imagine" or "visualize" that would have very little significance as a technique beyond what is used in common conversation to set the stage for a discussion.

Now if there are lines like "Epicurus recommended as a method of thinking clearly that you intensely visualize what it is you are thinking about. Close your eyes and visualize all the colors, the shapes, the textures, and let your eyes wander all over them.... etc etc etc."

Are you seeing clear statements like that which indicate that Philodemus was emphasizing a particular method of pursuing thought about something?

If so can you point us to them? I apologize if they are in those links and I just didn't see them.

I see Forest hasn't visited since 2019. Maybe it would be helpful to develop a system to mark people as inactive, or even close old accounts, but I am not sure there is any real benefit in that. It's easy to tell from a user profile when someone last visited, and occasionally prompting them probably isn't a bad idea.

But maybe some kind of an "Active Poster" badge as a reward for active users would be desirable. Need to think about that.

Happy birthday @Forest ! You are our second birthday to come up since we opened this subforum. In writing this I don't recall if or when you have posted or whether you are still active here. I will check your profile next, and that makes me think of a new suggestion:

Since it is desirable to build a community here, it would be a good idea if we see a birthday come up for someone we don't know to take a second to visit their profile and learn what we can about them.

No doubt over time some people lose interest and we should mark them as inactive, but unless they close their account or say otherwise, we should probably presume it's a nice thing to do to say hello to them in their birthday.

Thanks Scott! Since we are devoted to studying Epicurus here rather than competing viewpoints, I doubt it would make much sense to pursue any systematic study of any "minor" religion or viewpoint unless a significant number of us here have confronted it and need "ammunition" against it.

The reason "Buddhism" in general is so relevant is of course so many people come into contact with it (maybe superficially) and need points of reference to decide whether to go further. If someone is deeply into a specific branch that would most likely be beyond the scope of our project here. I would probably refer such a person to Hiram, as he is more into those details than I would think would be appropriate here.

But I do appreciate all the good information that is coming out in these threads.

As was commented to me recently, one thing about our project is that we can expect, as people rotate in and out of this study, that the same questions are going to be asked over and over again. Covering them thoroughly as we are doing gives us a database of experiences to which we can point people going through these questions for the first time.

So we can continue and expand these discussions as our participants here find helpful. But I think I am already pleased to see that I think we are covering the situation well enough for the satisfaction of most generalists who ask "As an Epicurean should I be concerned about studying Buddhism?" And as for me I am satisfied that I would tell most people to give that a very low priority.

Most people who will come into contact with us probably will need to spend more time understanding how and why Stoicism is so incompatible with Epicurus rather than Buddhism, but for those who for whatever reason (geography or whatever) have come more into contact with Buddhism, this discussion ought to be helpful and is something I could never provide myself.