Posts by Cassius

So are there intact sentences which give context to the usage?

Thanks Don for starting this. I will try to edit and reconstruct some of my comments that we made in private. I apologize that in pasting them here there is not an entirely logical flow between them, but I think the points are relevant to the conversation, which I hope will go on much further into the details:

OK I see that I need to add Tsouna's book to my reading list, and I see why it is so attractive to Hiram (and no doubt many people) because it has a section on Therapeutic exercises. It says clearly that Philodemus was purposely going outside Epicurean doctrine. I think we can add this to the list of examples where the later Epicureans were not uniform in their views and that there were controversies as to who was or was not straying outside of Epicurean doctrine -- for good or for bad effect will be an individual contextual issue.

As to "setting before the eyes" I see she refers to this as the "so-called technique" of bringing-before-the-eyes. I wonder if anyone else in the world prior to or other than Tsouna herself identified this with specificity or called it that. I do think that in the syncretic approach there is a tendency to pull things out of context and make something different of them than existed in the original context. Maybe this is important, maybe it is not, but I generally like to see the issue stressed by the founding authorities before I accept that it was important to them (much like the issue of katastematic/kinetic distinctions).

Looks like there is another reference too, Don --- Tsouna 2003

As to Philodemus in general and his reliability:

In my opinion Philodemus is in a gray area and he's definitely not a "Founding Authority" in the sense of Epicurus or Metrodorus or Hermarchus. By the time he was writing it's likely that there were significant divisions (and Philodemus reports on them) including those issues documented by Cicero/Torquatus such as:

- How much logical exposition is appropriate to establish that pleasure is the good

- How to look at "friendship."

And I bet by this point there was probably the division too noted by Diogenes Laertius as to a "fourth leg of the canon." Since we're talking here about visualization it's interesting to think about whether that could be related to the "fourth leg" controversy.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (against Philodemus or anyone else! ). I think these are fascinating issues on which we have to keep an open mind. I do generally think that when we have a reliable text of Philodemus saying something we have a very high value source that is entitled to a lot of respect. However it's hard to say whether what is being reported has some overlay of Philodemus' own view vs that of Epicurus himself, and I think we always need to be alert to that.

I think we today have an incentive to see things that might not really be there, like Dewitt with Christianity. We're all doing the best we can to reconstruct the wider positions from narrow evidence, and it's easy to make mistakes and go too far. If the person doing the writing isn't rigorously protecting their views from outside "pollution" from their own viewpoints, then it's easy to see what we're looking for. I don't really have a grip on Tsouna's personal perspective other than to observe that she seems to rather frequently disagree with Sedley, whose instincts I personally find more likely to be similar to Epicurus.

Also keep in mind that being a lawyer I do like to constantly pit testimonies and opinions against each other, and in doing so I am not necessarily questioning the good faith of any of them, just trying to test their accuracy from different perspectives.

It's interesting to compare perspectives on how to judge Philodemus vs Lucretius. Philodemus might well have been the smarter person and a major thinker in his own right. Lucretius might have been "just" a poet. But if Lucretius was rigorously following the original texts of Epicurus, that makes him possibly a better source.

Which is a way to bring us around to the fact that the very first words of that section on Epicurus in Book One are "Ante oculos." I didn't have time to search Tsouna to see if she incorporates that in her analysis of the technique.

Note: I mean how much is there that Tsouna is able to cite? Is it a clear section that states "We have an very important Epicurean tecnhique called 'setting before the eyes' or is it just a phrase that appears several times as a natural result of thinking that it is important to visualize what we are talking about? I just haven't read enough to be sure.

---

I just finished reading Tsouna's introduction to Ethics of Philodemus. She is very clear as to the very great difficulties in the reconstructions, and that there is a lot of room for reasonable people to differ in interpretations of what she is writing about.

I think it's critical to keep those caveats in mind, and that's one of the concerns I have about the article(s) we are talking about. Frequently I don't see any reference at all to the textual uncertainties, and Tsouna's conclusions are presented (and again I am referring to these articles,and not to her) as if they are certain and that we should accept them without question as equal to the best documented texts. And I think that's a very dangerous approach apt to create conflation and improper syncretism (the words of the week!)

As far as the courtroom analogy on the "truth" of the senses as witnesses, I have never seen that developed anywhere else in my reading other than DeWitt. I too consider it to be very clarifying and likely correct and consistent with the texts. In my mind this is an example of some of DeWitt's major strengths. You may or may not agree with all his extrapolations but I think his sympathy with Epicurean positions and his attempt to find explanations that make sense are very refreshing. You'll have plenty of time in the future to get tired of those many commentators who are convinced that they are far smarter than Epicurus and like nothing more than to argue how naive Epicurus was. For all the faults that he may have, DeWitt makes an effort to reconstruct Epicurus in a sensible way.

Simon it's been my observations that extremely deep conversations about free will rarely lead many people to change their minds, but I do think it is useful to be clear about Epicurus' position and I think we can help there:

Quote from SimonC

- In a universe with a strong, perhaps dualistic, free will, a moral person could commit a crime and still remain a moral person. To claim otherwise is to claim that a moral person has something in him that prevents him from being immoral or that a person that has committed a crime is no longer a moral person, which is conceding that actions are in some sense deterministic.

I think Epicurus would disagree with this, because I think this implies that "crime" and the definition of a "moral person" are somehow absolute. I have no difficulty thinking that people who commit crimes can still be a moral person. I consider myself a moral person, and I speed on the highway on a fairly regular basis. It's simply not consistent with the Epicurean perspective on justice or on the nature of the universe to get hung up on moral absolutes.

Quote from SimonC

I guess I don't see what is so bad about determinism.

I think a large part of the answer here is that Epicurus was a very practical person and not as concerned about satisfying logicians as he was in helping ordinary people. He seems to have thought (and I would agree) that it is extremely damaging to a normal person's hope for happiness for them to come to believe that they are the slaves of any kind of fate whatsoever and that they can have no effect on their futures no matter what they do. Of course there are indeed things that cannot be changed: death, and the fact of no life after death. But there are plenty of things that normal people can do during their lives to live more happily, and hamstringing them with complicated philosophical views that - despite what they perceive - they have no control over their futures is not a very constructive way to go, from that perspective.

Quote from SimonC

The swerve does get rid of the predictability of the universe. Perhaps this is what Epicurus was worried about? That it would be difficult to insist we have free will if "fate" is true.

I would say "not at all." Epicurus held that most of the universe is indeed deterministic, and that it is in only limited circumstances relevant to us, such as in the existence of agency in higher animals, that it "breaks through" so as to effect us. I highly recommend the AA Long article "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism" for a discussion of this aspect of the swerve.

Welcome bribri56 !

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!

I would not at all defend Jefferson as an Orthodox Epicurean, but I also take articles like that less seriously than I do Jeffersons own letters which I collect at http://www.newepicurean.com/Jefferson

He was primarily a politician and was not very straightforward in reconciling his public and private statements.

In my view he serves mainly as a rather transparent way of "legitimizing" those of us who hold Epicurean views yet still want to move somewhat in traditional society. For someone who has no need to do that there's no need to spend much time with Jefferson.

Running a forum on ideas as revolutionary Epicurus while also keeping the lights on can be a tricky business!

As I said in a private exchange recently, I think we are probably more in a 'John the Baptist' stage of preparing the way for the real Epicurean world revolution, than we are the front line revolutionaries ourselves.

So when the time comes for the next Epicurus to arise I won't be at all surprised no matter how much or how little time he or she spends with Jefferson.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Seven 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. Last week we started section 63, but only got through the first two sentences. Today we return to section 63 and discuss the Epicurean emphasis on natural science.

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

[63] It was indeed excellently said by Epicurus that fortune only in a small degree crosses the wise man’s path, and that his greatest and most important undertakings are executed in accordance with his own design and his own principles, and that no greater pleasure can be reaped from a life which is without end in time, than is reaped from this which we know to have its allotted end. He judged that the logic of your school possesses no efficacy either for the amelioration of life or for the facilitation of debate. He laid the greatest stress on natural science. That branch of knowledge enables us to realize clearly the force of words and the natural conditions of speech and the theory of consistent and contradictory expressions; and when we have learned the constitution of the universe we are relieved of superstition, are emancipated from the dread of death, are not agitated through ignorance of phenomena, from which ignorance, more than any thing else, terrible panics often arise; finally, our characters will also be improved when we have learned what it is that nature craves. Then again if we grasp a firm knowledge of phenomena, and uphold that canon, which almost fell from heaven into human ken, that test to which we are to bring all our judgments concerning things, we shall never succumb to any man’s eloquence and abandon our opinions.

[64] Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. Now those who invalidate sensations and say that perception is altogether impossible, cannot even clear the way for this very argument of theirs when they have thrust the senses aside. Moreover, when cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes, and as I shewed just now, our leader again has established the canon and criterion of knowledge and thus has imparted to us a method for marking off falsehood

from truth.

In contrast to the ambiguity I see everywhere in discussions of Buddhism, I think it's relatively easy to construct a list of simple points that describe the Epicurean approach to life. I think we can use Thomas Jefferson as an illustration of someone who saw the same things, and we can build on one of his letters to John Adams to show an description of the sequence. I will put the full cite at the bottom:

1. ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’
   
2. I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter.
   
3. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion.
   
4. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space.
   
5. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need.
6. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organization of matter, formed for that purpose by it’s creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking.
7. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.
   
   To That I Would Add For Purpose of This Discussion:
   
8. It is a certainty that I am not going to be here very long. I am going to die and forever cease to exist much more quickly than I would like.
9. It is a certainty that Nature gives us nothing other than pleasure and pain as the ultimate foundation of all choice and decision making.
10. Since I am going to be here for only a short time, I want to experience as much pleasure, and as little pain, as possible.
11. I consider it to be a certainty that it takes effort to remain alive, and effort means pain, and so I am ready and willing to accept some amount of pain as the price for achieving pleasure.
12. Therefore I am attracted to philosophies and religions and ways of ordering life that target the promotion of pleasure in my life.
13. And I am also repelled by philosophies and religions and ways of life that target anything other than the promotion of pleasure in my life.
14. And finally for purposes of this exercise, I consider pleasure to be a feeling that is unmistakable, so when someone tries to tell me that I should pursue a definition of pleasure that doesn't feel pleasurable to me, I run the other direction.
15. Thus I am an Epicurean and not a Buddhist.

Quote

Jefferson to John Adams, August 15, 1820:   (Full version at Founders.gov)

…. But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It’s crowd of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’ I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it’s creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.

Quote from Don

But, in the *ultimate* analysis, we are simply momentary aggregates of atoms moving in the void.

I say much the same thing pretty often, but even here I would be be careful that the word "ultimate" invests that perspective with something more than it probably deserves. I guess what we're really referring to is something like either "microscopic" (figuratively) or "eternal" (more literally) perspectives. From a strong enough microscopic ("vision") perspective, all we see if we look through the instrument is something like atoms and void. From a "time" perspective, if we could stand back and look to see what it is (if anything) that exists unchanged over an eternity, all we see is matter and void.

But do the perspectives of " time" and "vision" really deserve the deference of being called "ultimate?" I think what most of us are implying when we say "ultimate" is something like "the most important perspective of importance." And if we're using that as the definition, then indeed the most important perspective of significance of importance is a matter of importance "to us" and that's a lot more complicated than matters and void. That's "our" world of qualities and events and accidents and things that rise to the "shores of light" in our level of experience.

Quote from Kalosyni

Yes, thank you Cassius! I will carry on with my Epicurean studies

LOL. That makes it sound like I am rapping the knuckles of a student in grammar school

Quote from Don

Well summarized! And, interestingly enough, there are some/many who would unfortunately describe Epicurean philosophy the same way: the removal of pain is the goal.

And unfortunately at this point in world history that "some/many" is probably the vast majority of people who've been exposed to Epicurean through the "orthodox" academic path.

I'm of course sensitive to not wanting us to be perceived as a "cult" or to accusations that this forum is dedicated to anything less than "totally free inquiry." But I think that it's almost a principal of physics to observe that the world doesn't operate in all the ways that we might like it to. Maybe we should look for an analogy to the hooks of atoms, or something else in Epicurean physics, that explains how "bodies" come into being at all, and that the universe doesn't remain a totally formless soup.

Unless we accept that there are natural principals of attraction and repulsion, and that some people will choose some paths and others will choose other paths, then we would neither have bodies and ultimately humans forming from the atoms and the void, nor would we ever have any organized patterns of thought that we could define as Epicurean or Stoic or Buddhist or anything else. The point being that the development and following of basic key principles should not be viewed as a bad thing, but as an example of how the glue of the universe works to hold anything and everything together.

And in fact my comment as to needing to know the "why" and the "how" is pretty much exactly the point made by Torquatus which is at the top of the home page now:

Quote

Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. ... [W]hen cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes....

If we can't "justify the verdict of our senses" then we can't be sure of anything - that's the "skepticism" problem that Buddhism jumps off the deep in by accepting as having no solution.

And without confidence in the verdicts of our senses only then is "cognition and perception" about anything possible.
And without cognition and knowledge, "every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business" is invalidated.

As Diogoenes of Oinoanda stated it, we accept that the flux exists, but not that it is so fast that we can't come to grips with it!

Quote

Fr. 5

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Thank you too for the excellent post Kalosyni! There is a lot of information there, which from my perspective speaks for itself. To read about Buddhism is in my mind to recoil at its opposition to everything I see in Epicurus. When I read about Buddhism I "sense" pain itself; when I read about Epicurus' views I see a path that is the opposite of pain and to which I am naturally drawn.

Here's the one part I would comment on now:

Quote from Kalosyni

The antidote to all the unhealthy passivity of Buddhism....is Epicureanism!

For me....first it is important to understand what the natural and necessary pleasures of life are...and getting clear on what those are...then diligently (and patiently) working toward getting those pleasures. This is my list:

1) eating healthy food

2) an adequate place to live

3) good sleep

4) some form of regular exercise

5) making and maintaining good friendships (could include a life partner)

6) study of Epicurean wisdom philosophy

7) right type of career/job/craft

Display More

Yes, I think that is all correct, especially when you say "For me..." but if someone where to tell me this I would want to ask them immediately: Yes, what you are describing is a good course toward pleasure and the Epicurean life.

But do you FIRST understand WHY this path makes sense?

Someone who skips right to the "application" without understanding may be apt to give up when the going gets tough, or when, as Lucretius says, that person is confronted by the scary or intimidating tales of the religionists or idealists, who suggest that you are following the path of evil by not heeding their definition of "the good."

In short it's important to understand why and how Epicurus embraced pleasure as the good so that you won't be shaken from the course in the inevitable storms of life.

I want to commend Nate and recommend his post as probably the most concise, direct, and clear that I have seen. Of course I don't have the personal knowledge to validate or correct any errors, so those who read this thread in the future please feel free to elaborate. But for future reference and to avoid interminable rabbit trails, I will pin this post to the top of this subforum where it will be easily visible. Thanks Eikadistes ! The original post in its original context is here.

Quote from Nate

Of the ancient Indian philosophies of Ājīvika, Ajñana, Buddhism, Chārvāka, Jainism, Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Vedanta, and Yoga, we'll find the closest companion to Epicureanism in Chārvāka. Early Buddhism is most closely related to the Indian school of Ajñana, from which Pyrrhonism developed, so, in general, I don't think that comparisons between Buddhism and Epicurean philosophy are helpful. They are dissimilar and historically unrelated.

In terms of physics, Epicureanism shares the atomism of Ājīvika and Vaisheshika (though, both traditions propose a deterministic physics) as well as the materialism of Chārvāka.

It uniquely shares the ethics of Chārvāka, whereas every other tradition devalues hedonism.

We find the most similarity between Epicurean epistemology and Chārvāka, which justifies the criterion of direct physical and mental perceptions, without inference, comparison, or speculation. It is most dissimilar from Ajñana, which rejects all criteria of knowledge, followed closely thereafter by Buddhism, which avoids making any certain claims.

Epicurean theology is comparatively unique. Epicurus would have been opposed to the atheism of Ājīvika, Chārvāka, Nyāya, and Vaisheshika, as well as the agnosticism of Ajñana and Buddhism, as well as the immanent dualism and mysticism of Samkhya and Yoga, and also the divine idealism of Mīmāṃsā and Vedanta. The Jain universe of multiple, physical deities (the Tirthankaras), is the closest ancient Indian theology that in any way resembles Epicureanism. There is not, to my knowledge, any significant historical link between the two at any point in time.

As far as ancient Indian philosophies go, early Buddhism overwhelmingly contradicts Epicurean philosophy. They are at the opposite ends of the epistemological spectrum, propose completely different goals in life, and are only barely physically compatible if, for no other reason than early Buddhism's refusal to provide any hard answers on physics.

Whereas Epicureanism is most similar to Chārvāka and, to an extent Ājīvika and Vaisheshika, Buddhism shares intellectual similarities with Ajñana and Prryhonian Skepticism, and the meditative practices with Vedanta and Yoga. Buddhism's propositions are much closer to Epicurus' opponents than to Epicurus in any meaningful way.

Display More

Welcome @Tom Karpathos !

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!

Episode 106 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue with Torquatus' summary of some of the Key Doctrines of Epicurus.

Here is another clip that might advance this conversation:

Quote

Quote

Both Nietzsche's and Buddhist writings share the fact that they are a direct response to nihilism, however was he right in characterizing Buddhism as advocating a negation of the will, as a will to nothingness, or was this a misunderstanding stemming from his reading of Buddhist texts through the works of Schopenhauer?

I can speak less strongly to Nietzsche than I can to Buddhism, but let me say this: Buddhism is (and has been for than a millennium) as stricken by sectarianism as any Western religion. In the particular case of the approach to will, consider two almost orthogonal cases:

1. Theravada Buddhism. To vastly oversimplify, Theravadins practice something that approaches an ascetism. In a very real way, Theravada practice focuses on denying--and thus subduing--the will and any sense of desire. I think this most completely meshes with Nietzsche's conception of Buddhist thought as a negation of the will and a will to nothingness. This conception is very easily supported--and is supported in Theravada--through the Second and Third Noble Truths ("Desire is the root of suffering." and "There is a path to the cessation of desire.").
2. Zen Buddhism. Most notably in its theoretical form, Zen looks almost nothing like Theravada in respect to its approach to will and nothingness. Zen thinking relies heavily on the Diamond and Heart Sutras, which pretty explicitly say that the Buddhist conception of nothingness envelops even the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. As such, Zen practitioners reach for a stillness of mind that manifests as a totally natural motion of mind. This looks almost identical to Taoist Wei-Wu-Wei (action without action), which is harmonious natural activity. In Zen (as in most forms of Buddhism when practiced in their highest forms), the fullness of nothingness is recognized: it is not a negation of anything, but rather an affirmation of everything which is in the phenomenally experienced world. In Zen, it is said that "It is right to want flowers and to hate weeds." This is quite obviously NOT a negation of will, but perhaps rather an attempt to free one's will from what Zen would call the confines of ego-bound or conceptual thought.

The point is that Nietzsche's interpretation of Buddhist will and nothingness is quite defensible, and it is a very natural conclusion from certain forms of Buddhism--especially many of those that are approached in a more scholarly and academic fashion. On the other hand, there are Buddhist schools in which there is no reasonable way to reconcile Nietzsche's conception with what the practicing Buddhists talk about.

Unfortunately, however, there is a massive caveat to this, and that is that most practicing Buddhists (even those who practice Sutra-driven forms of the religion) will tell you that Buddhism cannot be completely accurately expressed in academic words. There is a requirement for the suspension of self that requires the suspension of thought, and "nothingness" (to most Buddhists) is simply a word-symbol that points to the unencapsulable idea that is that suspension and the access it gives.

The only serious way to enquire about the philosophical validity of Western takes on Buddhism that are laden with basic philosophical conceits regarding thought, self, and truth is in terms of their psychological and cultural impact, and that's a completely different question.

That's from here: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3452…que-of-buddhism

In reading summaries like Matt has posted, the jargon almost seems nonsensical to someone who doesn't dive in to the details. What is the world is so attractive about it that people would spend the time to dive into those details when they hardly take the time anymore to read a book or a newspaper on current events. I presume that the superficial attraction is something about the "mystical" look or the simplicity appearance of the leaders, but I am probably descending again in to Buddhism-Bashing. Don't people who are attracted to it have "some" idea of the basic teachings before they dive into the details? What are those basic attractions that get people started down that path in the first place?

(And here I am referring to Westerners who are raised largely in a "Western" tradition - I am not referring to people in Eastern cultures who are raised around it and absorb it from the majority of those around them.)

We have recently had a number of good new participants in the forum who have a lot of experience in Buddhism. We have one thread on this already, but rather than restart that one I'd prefer a brand new one which will probably make it easier to get input from the new participants, which I would greatly appreciate.

As before, we don't need a Buddhism-Bashing tone here - though I myself probably have tendency to be the most guilty of that. Part of my frustration comes from finding it relatively easy to pin down core positions of Stoicism, and therefore contrasting it to Epicurean viewpoints on the same issues, but regularly being told that Buddhism is so amorphous that it's really impossible to pin it down. The discussion usually then devolves into "such and such a figure said this" and "such and such a figure said that" with the result that there are so many rabbit trails that only those who are deep into Buddhism end up really caring about the results.

So if possible I'd like us to work on a thread for "the rest of us" - Epicureans in particular, of course, who want to get an initial grasp of what is fairly referrable to as generic Buddhism from a Western perspective. That way we can hopefully get a grasp on at least a couple of core concepts.

To kick this off, I will post something that documents what I myself understand to be sort of a generic Buddhist position that I think Epicurus would find most unacceptable. Since we don't have direct Epicurean commentary, my best suggestion is to cite this in the form of two clips I came across this afternoon:

Those clips came from here.

Of course I said that this shouldn't be a "Bash Buddhism" thread and then I turn around and cite someone who never read "How To Win Friends and Influence People." But I cite this as an attempt to ground the discussion in the views of someone who was a far smarter person than I, who actually had some sympathies for Buddhism, and who apparently ended up finding a strong strain of Nihilism and Passivity in Buddhism which does in fact seem to me to be the standard criticism which I see repeated often in mainstream "Western" writing that ultimately seems to derive from the Greco-Roman-Epicurean perspective.

Hopefully these cites will help us focus on the really large questions including:

"Is Buddhism essentially nihilistic?"

Is the goal of Buddhism ultimately to cease to exist?"

Does Buddhism cultivate passivity?

And of course from our Epicurean perspective, "Is it fair to say that Buddhism has very little or any concern with pleasure as the goal of life?"

This is a start and I hope this time we can construct some commentary that would be useful in the future to our many visitors who have explored Buddhism prior to coming to this forum.

If you don't have a Dutch friend I think there is a Marco on the Facebook page who is definitely Dutch.

Welcome @SimonTrepanier !

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!

Joshua -- In order for this to show up on the home page under the "Featured Files" section I have added a new entry here: Joshua's Reading of The Torquatus Narrative of Epicurean Ethics - From Cicero's "On Ends"