1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
Everywhere
  • Everywhere
  • Forum
  • Articles
  • Blog Articles
  • Files
  • Gallery
  • Events
  • Pages
  • Wiki
  • Help
  • FAQ
  • More Options

Welcome To EpicureanFriends.com!

"Remember that you are mortal, and you have a limited time to live, and in devoting yourself to discussion of the nature of time and eternity you have seen things that have been, are now, and are to come."

Sign In Now
or
Register a new account
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  1. Home
    1. Start Here: Study Guide
    2. Community Standards And Posting Policies
    3. Terms of Use
    4. Moderator Team
    5. Site Map
    6. Quizzes
    7. Articles
      1. Featured Articles
    8. All Blog Posts
      1. Elli's Blog / Articles
  2. Wiki
    1. Wiki Home
    2. FAQ
    3. Classical Epicureanism
    4. Physics Wiki
    5. Canonics Wiki
    6. Ethics Wiki
    7. Search Assistance
    8. Not NeoEpicurean
    9. Foundations
    10. Navigation Outlines
    11. Key Pages
  3. Forum
    1. Full Forum List
    2. Welcome Threads
    3. Physics
    4. Canonics
    5. Ethics
    6. Uncategorized Forum
    7. Study Resources Forum
    8. Ancient Texts Forum
    9. Shortcuts
    10. Featured
    11. Most Discussed
  4. Latest
    1. New Activity
    2. Latest Threads
    3. Dashboard
    4. Search By Tag
    5. Complete Tag List
  5. Podcast
    1. Lucretius Today Podcast
    2. Episode Guide
    3. Lucretius Today At Youtube
    4. EpicureanFriends Youtube Page
  6. Texts
    1. Overview
    2. Diogenes Laertius
    3. Principal Doctrines
    4. Vatican Sayings
    5. Lucretius
    6. Herodotus
    7. Pythocles
    8. Menoeceus
    9. Fragments - Usener Collection
    10. Torquatus On Ethics
    11. Velleius On Gods
    12. Greek/Latin Help
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured images
    2. Albums
    3. Latest Images
    4. Latest Comments
  8. Calendar
    1. Upcoming Events List
    2. Zoom Meetings
    3. This Month
    4. Sunday Zoom Meetings
    5. First Monday Zoom Meetings
    6. Wednesday Zoom Meeting
    7. Twentieth Zoom Meetings
    8. Zoom Meetings
  9. Other
    1. Featured Content
    2. Blog Posts
    3. Files
    4. Logbook
    5. EF ToDo List
    6. Link-Database
  1. EpicureanFriends - Home of Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Cassius
  • Sidebar
  • Sidebar

Posts by Cassius

We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email.  Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
  • Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    • Cassius
    • August 8, 2021 at 7:44 AM

    I can't recall at the moment whether the above thread makes reference to Cicero's "De Officiis," but i have started scanning that again in reference to a comment from Shahab about "Duties," and i think there is probably much in it, especially the opening part, which would be useful in drawing the parallels between Stoicism and Humanism.

  • Welcome Philia!

    • Cassius
    • August 8, 2021 at 12:39 AM
    Quote from Philia

    It was the Stoics and Cicero who concocted and publicized the false report that Epicurus counted pleasure as the greatest good. This is mistakenly asserted in all our handbooks."

    You will find that there is a lot of subtlety both in Epicurus and the way DeWitt presents Epicurus, much of which you'll probably appreciate no matter how far you get, and some of which you'll not accept - but having considered it will help you anyway, I would argue.

    In this case, I would liken DeWitt's observation to his reference to the multiple meanings of the word "true" in the "all sensations are true" statement.

    DeWitt wrote an article on the "Summum Bonum Fallacy" and you'll want to read that part of his book and consider it in detail. I think one way of interpreting what DeWitt and/or Epicurus was saying is that there are mutiple meanings of the word "good" / "greatest good" that have to be considered.

    A phrase that I remember from DeWitt is something to the effect that "pleasure and pain have meaning only to the living" and I think that is a very valid point - that Epicurus knew (PD2) that being alive is a precondition even to experiencing pleasure or pain. If that's part of the point, perhaps the issue is that a good can refer to an "asset" (such as for example a house) such that your greatest "good" may be your house (in terms of money value anyway) while it's also understood that in a more basic sense your greatest good is your life or health that allows you to live in it. And there's also "greatest good" in the sense of a "goal" or a "guide."

    It does seem clear that Epicurus was wrestling with the Platonists and Peripatetics over straining too much over the meaning of the word "good" as further referenced by that fragment about those who walk around endlessly prattling about the meaning of good.

    I sometimes think that it is better to think of pleasure as a "guide" rather than a "good" -- and indeed there's a phrase in Lucretius that Don can help us with the latin on where Lucretius calls Venus / Pleasure what is translated as "divine pleasure, guide of life" (I think it's "Dux vitae, dia voluptas".) Book Two:

  • Welcome Philia!

    • Cassius
    • August 8, 2021 at 12:20 AM

    As i see it I don't disagree with Don's perspective and it is largely what I am trying to convey in my "both are true" comment. Yes I do think it is possible to generalize, but it is generalizing within a context, and the generalization is going to hold true only so long as the facts supporting it are true. And the main fact which is at the starting point is that there is no universalizing supernatural force or extradimensional ideal which can take the place of a contextual analysis.

    I feel sure that people like Don and I would have no difficulty agreeing on many generalizations, and that have no issue with seeing the limits of our generalizations. But I think world human history shows that there is a great danger that these limits are very easy to forget, so my perspective is to stress the warnings that I think are even today very frequently needed.

    And a large part of my view is influenced by some Latin that I used to think was exactly the right view until I saw it as the polar opposite of Epicurus, the part from Cicero's Republic which I think speaks directly to why we started discussing humanism. I believe this view was known to Epicurus and helps us see how his views are in opposition. Here is a version of the quote which I found at the link below, though I usually see it translated "True law is right reason in accord with nature...."

    https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4104&context=ndlr


    This below is the version I usually see, and to which I would point as the common thread of there being a "one eternal and unchangeable law [that] will be valid for all nations at all times." Of course Cicero wrote this long after Epicurus' time, but as Cicero fancied himself part of the "New Academy" I would think that some similar statement, or at least the seed of the idea, comes down from at least as far back as Plato himself.

    It is almost as if the last ten PD's were written with the view of exactly refuting such a "one law for all people at all times" point of view.

  • Welcome Philia!

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 5:57 PM

    More seriously, after laughing with Don -- I do find that (in my humble opinion) this is one of the hardest but most important issues to see through. We all have (and I think SHOULD have) our own personal views of what is the right way that we want ourselves and our friends to live.

    But that's light-years away from taking the position that there is some justification (in the gods, or in idealism of some kind that is non-religious) that there is a set way for EVERYONE to live.

    I think it's very possible and critical to understanding of Epicurean philosophy and the Epicurean view of the universe that both things can be true at the same time. If you don't hold fast to your own view of what is the "right" way for you to live, then you'll likely fall into nihilism or some other form of despair. But if you think that "your" view is the best for everyone, and that something gives you the right to enforce that view on everyone else, then you'll eventually fall into something that is (admit it or not) tyrannical in nature.

  • Welcome Philia!

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 5:53 PM
    Quote from Don

    Welcome to the club :)

    LOL :)

  • Welcome Philia!

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 5:43 PM
    Quote from Philia

    I guess I still need to examine my personal hang-ups with the word "pleasure" that come from a protestant upbringing.

    Yes that would appear to be the issue! ;)

    The terminology "life worth living" is heavily weighted with its own Platonic / Aristotelian / Stoic / Religous baggage, since it implies that you have to look outside Nature's faculties (pleasure and pain) for justification and guidance. :)

  • Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 4:30 PM

    I''ll post this to bump this thread, make sure no one gets a "this thread is too old to post in now" message, and point out that due to a discussion going on elsewhere we may get the thread a new lease on life: RE: Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 4:27 PM

    If anyone wants to get into a longer discussion about humanism (and this evoked considerable debate before, and will again) let's do it over in this thread: Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    As you will see there, Hiram responded negatively, and dispute over this issue is probably fair to say the reason why this website and the Society of Epicurus ended up parting ways, leading to the "Not-NeoEpicurean" position statement and several of the other posting guidelines here against political debating.

    [Note: Now that I have updated that last post with some links, let me put in a plug that "this is what an internet forum is all about." There's no way I could have so quickly found and put together our material about this issue so quickly without the organization provided by a forum software like the one we use here.]

  • Elayne Reviews Alan Reye's Editorial on Thomas Jefferson

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 4:17 PM

    Here is the text of that review referenced in the first post:

    Opinion Piece: Thomas Jefferson, Despicable Racist and Epicurean


    An essay was submitted to us last week by a member. I am posting it here with my own commentary, which represents my personal response and not a group admin response. To best understand my post, I recommend that you read the linked article first. I am not posting the article as a stand-alone because it violates our group rules against promoting neo-Epicurean perspectives. As you read it, see if you can notice the errors on your own before you come back and read my response, which I offer to the author and to you in the spirit of friendliness, hoping that is how you will receive it. I think a friend would not let me persist in errors likely to cause me pain without speaking up, because my pain would be painful to my friend.

    Before I proceed, I want to explain the description “despicable racist” in my title. This is _my_ title for my response here, not the title of the essay I'm responding to. This is my personal feeling about Jefferson. I dislike him intensely—I find him vile. I want my friends to know how strongly I feel. I feel strongly enough that it is even an effort to be articulate in this post. I told the author I was tempted to write “Thomas Jefferson, You F***ing Racist A**hole!”, and that’s the more accurate translation of “despicable racist” here. I have undertaken a more detailed response only because I hope that some of you may gain pleasure because of it. Maybe it will help you find ways to develop responses to the Jeffersons you meet in life today.

    The first problem I notice is that the author starts from saying Epicurean Philosophy is a philosophy not only of happiness but of liberty. This is not true. The single aim of Epicurean Ethics is pleasure. Liberty is included insofar as it produces pleasure. Indeed, for every human I’ve personally met, a subjectively sufficient liberty is essential for a pleasurable life. There may be exceptions, but I proceed on the basis that whoever is front of me likely finds liberty pleasurable until the person tells me otherwise. It seems to be a strong characteristic of our species.

    It is also true that EP is not only about ethics. It is fundamentally about physics, about how we know what is real and what isn’t. It is a philosophy of material reality and not idealism. In brief, we know what is real through our senses (including reading instruments which examine the material world), our prolepses (which I personally interpret as innate pattern recognitions), and our feelings of pleasure and pain. Each of these ways of knowing about reality is different, and we use all three together. It is critically important to understand that each of these is _subjective_. I do not mean subjective as in opinion. I mean that we perceive reality as subjects, with our own particular bodies located in particular times and places. I do not know of any absolute, objective, completely outside of everything point of view.

    Using feelings to know what is real is counter to much popular ideology, but it is science-based. It is not that we use pleasure to know whether a pepper is red, anymore than we use our ears to hear the color of the pepper. Our feelings tell us what is happening in our bodies. If we eat a hot pepper, the capsaicin is in the pepper, but the pain is in our bodies, along with (at least for some of us) the pleasures of the taste and of the endorphins produced in response to the pain. Feelings are _part_ of reality because our bodies and the processes of our bodies are real.

    “Justice” is one of the Epicurean prolepses. The essay makes a serious error in understanding justice—he frames it as something that can be measured “from the outside”. Justice is not so much a concept, although we do build concepts around it, as it is an innate sense. There is research suggesting we and other species have an inborn “tit for tat” system, a neurologic pattern recognition, by which we keep track of symmetry in social interactions. I suspect this is the basis for the prolepsis “justice”—but even if you think of prolepses differently from me, a material reality-based philosophy means that justice is subjective. We are not imagining the possibility of an absolute pattern or thing “justice” which can be objectively measured. Whether an interaction is just or not will depend on individual perception. We will have a broad similarity in our perceptions because we are in the same species, especially if we have been exposed to the same cultural rules.

    Here is Principal Doctrine #36: In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all.”


    The sensation of “mutual advantage” is _felt_ by the subject. It has no universal definition—it is a sensation in the mind. The universality of justice is similar to the universality of pain and pleasure—not universal in what produces the sense of justice, pain, or pleasure, but in the type of sensation we label as justice, pain, or pleasure.

    One person in a two-person interaction may passionately sense the advantage is symmetric and just, even if the other person finds it asymmetric and unjust. For each person perceiving just or unjust interactions, a just situation seems to be linked tightly to the pleasure pathways in the brain and unjust to pain pathways. I have not met a human for which this wasn’t the case and suspect it is typical enough to be treated as a species characteristic. This tight linkage of pleasure with subjective justice is actually the only reason I care about justice. The pleasure of others in feeling justly treated causes me significant empathetic pleasure. If justice were primarily painful, why would anyone seek it out? It has no inherent value apart from pleasure, nor does anything else.

    The essay proceeds as if it is possible to define “natural justice” in a way which will give the same answer for every observer. This is counter to physics, counter to biology (which depends on physics), and thus counter to Epicurean Philosophy. All perceptions occurring in reality are by definition “natural”—the alternative is something unreal, something that can’t exist. Ironically, what is conceived as “natural justice” here is actually idealized justice, a concept without existence in reality.

    The author calls Jefferson not Epicurean because he does not seek [idealized] justice. He also points out that slavery caused Jefferson pain yet he owned other humans anyway. What the author omits is that we have no evidence Jefferson experienced more pain than pleasure in treating other people so. In fact, Jefferson called himself an Epicurean and appeared to understand how to make life decisions in order to have more pleasure than pain. For such an important decision, whether or not to own other humans, I doubt he failed to apply this decision-making process. The same is true of his household economic decisions. The author assumes this was not Epicurean because going into debt can cause more pain than pleasure. But was that Jefferson’s assessment of his particular decisions? Only Jefferson would be able to tell us.

    The author says that Jefferson ignoring sense evidence about Black people is non-Epicurean. I put it to you that all of us cherry pick what we are going to pay attention to and what we will exclude from our thoughts—I don’t know of a human who doesn’t do that, and it is usually not done in a conscious way. This isn’t non-Epicurean, or if it is, there have never been Epicureans. A non-Epicurean would assert that we can’t use our senses to know what is real, and I don’t know of Jefferson ever doing that.

    However, I am not convinced that Jefferson was actually ignoring sense data. I suspect he was writing this way as a persuasive tactic, to get himself off the hook interpersonally and possibly intrapersonally. I can’t prove that, but it seems likely considering that he was strategic in other ways about expressing his opinions to different groups of people. He deliberately did not express his lack of a belief in supernatural gods to the general public, for instance.

    Thinking that Jefferson understood and practiced Epicurean Philosophy is part of what leads me to call him despicable—because I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing to other humans and found his decision to be more pleasurable than painful! This causes me pain.

    I use the term despicable in the only way it can be used—as an expression of my own strong feeling. There is no universal standard of despicable. Jefferson and the humans he enslaved certainly had their own prolepses and feelings about justice. And I, along with other readers of today, will naturally experience feelings about justice from learning about what he did. Although I have said justice is subjective, I am also a subject, and my prolepsis of justice is valid even if it is different from yours. It tells me about the reality of my brain’s pattern recognitions. My sense knowledge tells me that humans generally dislike being coerced; I also have read what enslaved humans have said about slavery. It’s not surprising to me that when I read Jefferson’s words, I am angry at him and find him despicable—not a person I would want as a friend but someone I would be pleased to oppose.

    This brings me to one of the most important points I want you to understand. Whether someone is an Epicurean or not has nothing to do with whether you or I will find them admirable. Jefferson may have used our philosophy very skillfully to obtain pleasure for himself. That does not mean any of us have to like him. There is not a single absolute standard we can point to that will tell us who is likable and who is not, because liking someone is a feeling of pleasure produced by the character and actions of another person.

    You, reading this, may have entirely different feelings about Thomas Jefferson. Your politics could completely be opposed to mine. I could feel a strong desire to persuade you to change your mind about your positions. Yet if you understand that reality is material, that we know what is real by our senses, prolepses, and feelings, and if you have chosen to use pleasure as your guide and goal, then we are both Epicureans. Within that same philosophy, we may find each other to be beloved friends or despised enemies.

    When you understand this point, it will help you choose your friends and understand your own political positions and feelings. It will help you recognize when you are being misled into using idealistic philosophies and keep you on the path of pleasure.

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 4:11 PM

    This is a good question and -- without trying to open a can of political worms that would contradict one of our other core principles here at the forum - this is a point that we discussed back when we were developing the "Not NeoEpicurean But Epicurean" graphic and statement for the forum itself: Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean

    I believe we discussed this in one or more Lucretius Today episodes, and I think we have some longer posts on this here and at facebook. I remember Elayne having some very pointed things on this position with which I agreed as well. It's also very possibly included in the lengthy thread we had about the proposed statement of principles of the Society of Epicurus. I will compile some links and suppplement this post but in the meantime I will summarize by saying that: most definitions of humanism appear to be consistent with this page by the American Society of Humanists. Among the key aspects of that are statements like this:

    Quote

    Definition of Humanism

    Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.

    – American Humanist Association

    Terms like "progressive," "ethical lives," "responsibility," "personal fulfillment," and "greater good" point to the unifying aspect of Humanism being an essentially idealist or even political movement which asserts a "best" way of life for all men, which would contradict Epicurus's view of the universe in which there is no natural basis for such an assertion. One of the most clear statements of this conclusion comes in the final ten principal doctrines that maintain that there is no such thing as absolute justice.

    I think it's pretty clear from many popular articles that Stoicism is, like humanism, a philosophy that asserts that there is a "greater good" which can be stated in absolute moral terms (virtue) that is the same for all people. Now of course many humanists will disagree with many Stoics as to how the "greater good" should be defined, but that simply points out the commonality further -- their unifying aspect is that they agree that there is a "one size fits all" morality and virtue. I would argue that Epicurus would reply that there is no standard of judgment at all other than pleasure and pain.

    Maybe an even shorter way to capsulize the issue would be to say that there is a strong case to be made that most versions of "humanism" are in essence a form of "idealism" not so far at all from "Platonism.". And that commonality helps draw the parallel between humanism and Stoicism.

    This is how we stated it in the original Not-NeoEpicurean graphic:


    Additional references:

    The first links one may be among the best:

    Thread

    Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    I have never considered Epicurean philosophy to be a form of "Humanist" philosophy any more than it is a form of Stoicism or Platonism. I haven't written extensively on this, in part because many Humanists are allies on certain important points, such as rejection of Supernatural Religion.

    But I was reminded of this point today and I think it is time to start a thread on it. My position is that "Humanism" is just another "-ism" that has a goal at its center which is very different from…
    Cassius
    May 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM
    Thread

    A Pattern I Observe In The Connection (Or Lack Thereof) Between Humanism And Epicurean Philosophy

    My goal in the discussion of "Humanism" has been to generate "light" rather than "heat," but since the goal of life is "light" (pleasure), and not the avoidance of "heat" (pain), I have more to add. The accompanying graphic is not a "proof" of anything. It is simply a summary of my observation, over many years, of a common thread that binds what I find to be the majority view of "Humanism" to what I find to be a popular but flawed view of Epicurus.

    The text on the left is from an article that…
    Cassius
    May 30, 2019 at 8:17 PM
    Post

    RE: Why Does Stoicism Seem to Be More Popular Than Epicureanism, Especially In England?

    Yes that wikipedia article goes into what I would expect the issue to be: What does "positive" mean? Why use the word "positive" rather than 'pleasure"? Do they resolve "positive" as meaning things beyond pleasure? And yes according to this they head right back into the "virtue ethics" issues that seem to characterize humanism. And to these extent these categories are accepted as ends in themselves, this would definitely appear to be an Aristotelian, rather than Epicurean, approach:

    …
    Cassius
    October 3, 2020 at 5:05 PM
    Post

    Elayne Reviews Alan Reye's Editorial on Thomas Jefferson

    Elayne has undertaken an Augean Stables (not sure that is the correct analogy) of reviewing Alan Reyes' article on Thomas Jefferson. I don't personally share Elayne's feelings about Jefferson, but I think her thoughtful discussion of all the issues is well worth reading and does a great job of unwinding much confusion about Epicurus' views on virtue and justice.

    I presume that at some point we will get a version of it here at Epicureanfriends.com, but I also see that it is unique exchange with…
    Cassius
    October 11, 2020 at 3:27 PM

    Outside Article: Nietzsche's Overcoming of Humanism

    Wikipedia: - Section on "Criticisms of Humanism" I suspect that wikipedia article is subject to a lot of changes, so here is how it appeared back in 2019: RE: Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

    This post has a PDF attached to it which preserves some of the Facebook exchange - RE: Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 2:43 PM

    Further as to Jefferson, presuming this is his own handwriting this is a key part of his letter to William Short - his "outline" at the end of the letter. To me he seems to clearly get that "utility is the test of virtue" correctly, but it worries me that he isn't then also clear (utilty toward what? - to which the answer should be 'pleasure' in the full context that Epicurus places it).

    Then in combination with "happiness the aim of life" he is again muddying the identification of happiness with pleasure, but you can cut him slack there for following the passage in the letter to Menoeceus. But while Epicurus then proceeds to articulate the clear central role of pleasure, Jefferson really doesn't.

    By the time Jefferson gets to stating that the summum bonum is not to be pained in body or troubled in mind, he has pretty well botched the clear statement in "On Ends" (which he surely read) identifying the summum bonum as pleasure. He has also contradicted his conclusion in the head and heart letter, and much of the implication of what he has previously written in the same letter to William Short.

    It's as if we're seeing in Jefferson's writing the same wrestling we continue to have today about how to state these issues clearly, and that Jefferson himself left the issues unclear. Of course he wasn't writing a philosophical treatise, so again I cut him a lot of slack, but I am afraid he was doing exactly what we tend to do try -- trying to make the issue more palatable to orthodox case by intentionally putting a gloss on the role of "pleasure" -- something I don't think Epicurus himself was guilty of doing, despite the controversial passages of the letter to Menoeceus that "can" be read in that direction.

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 2:29 PM

    Here's the slide that bothered me. It's probably pretty close to the thrust of Epicurus' doctrine, but it's not a direct quote from the letter to Menoeceus or the Principal Doctrines, is it?


    The Bailey version of the letter to Menoeceus is below; I don't recognize the part of the graphic starting with "...and therefore in death..."

    Quote

    Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation. For that which gives no trouble when it comes is but an empty pain in anticipation. So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 2:21 PM

    Thank you for those links Don! I thought it sounded like Head and Heart - I should have checked myself. Hard to understand how that citation got mixed up.

    I also noted a strange phrase in one of the quotes attributed to Epicurus - I will go back and look for that. It sounded like a variation I have never seen but it wasn't too far from the standard so I did not comment.

    Godfrey I guess as to Jefferson I have a combination of reactions -- I cut him some slack for his usefulness and his perceptiveness in seeing Epicurus to be the superior of all Greek philosophers, but there are definitely some phrasings as you point out that tend toward asceticism. For example in the letter to William Short he combines the "don't be a slackard" comment (which is good) with some comments in his outline about "In-dolence is the absence of pain, the true felicity." That plays right into the hands of those who are giving the "abscence of pain" idea an absurd construction, and Jefferson should have realized that and been more articulate.

    It's been a while since I read the "head and heart" letter but I do seem to remember that if you read the whole thing, and drill down to the conclusion, that Jefferson makes clear that pleasure / feeling trumps the dictates of "reason," so that is excellent. So that's the context if I recall correctly that that "retire within ourselves" comment may occur - but again I'd have to go back to the source. If indeed he meant "the art of life is the art of avoiding pain" as a stand-alone point that he emphasized as if it were clear on its on -- that definitely would be a huge problem for the way he is articulating the theory -- and certainly does not seem to be consistent with the way he lived his own life, so that would be very hypocritical.

    Also Godfrey if you were to watch the video and listen to the narration, the writer goes significantly further in the wrong direction than the slides indicate. Maybe I will find the time to flesh out more of the transcript, but there are indeed statements made in the narration that are worse than the slides, and deserve to be pulled out and provided a response.

    My comments here are rambling -- sorry -- but the ultimate point on Jefferson, Godfrey, would be that if Don is correct and that paragraph is an excerpt from the very long and detailed "head and heart" letter, then the probable response to the section that is quoted is that that is a part of the back and forth "debate" which is used a device in the letter, and by the time you get to the end of the letter it seems clear that Jefferson is rejecting excessive rationalism in favor of the position that the values of the heart - which presumably means pleasure - are what is really important in life.

    If someone goes back and reviews the Head and Heart letter and disagrees with my characterization of it, please let me know. It's basically a love letter to a married woman (if I recall) so it's not written as an absolutely clear philosophical piece, and if I recall the very last part of it trails off into the ambiguity that arises from the context in which it is written. But I remember the effect it had on me was to very strongly state a winning case for "the heart" against the case for "the head."

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 11:31 AM

    It's interesting that he closes the video with this quote from Jefferson. As I write this I don't recall the details of this letter and I need to go back and research it -- it appears to be a condensation and shorter statement of what Jefferson expounded on at much greater length in his "Head and Heart" letter. The basic point is the same, with the added benefit of the "head and heart" letter making clear that there are competing perspectives of which in the end the "heart" must be held to win out.

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 10:54 AM

    More credit where credit is due: The video producer is aware of the Vatican Saying on excessive frugality and actually includes it in the video:

    This quote from Seneca can be considered accurate without considering either Epicurus or Seneca themselves to have been, or to be talking about, asceticism. The point is to set one's appetite on pleasure, rather than on luxuries, because if you set your sights on luxuries you will likely end up with neither luxury nor pleasure, but if you set your sight on pleasure you can end up with pleasure regardless of the level of luxury you may happen to enjoy.


    No good graphic for this one, but here (below) is where he makes the astounding statement "Many Epicureans, including Epicurus himself, were also celibate." Wow - absolutely no foundation for that!


    I am so tired of this argument: "We can say that Epicureanism is technically hedonistic, but it is probably more useful to think of it as "tranquilistic." The first "hedonistic" is a manner of reference that Epicurus himself did not use, for good reason, and the second ("tranquilistic") is an absolute distortion of the basic point.

    So based on all these flawed observations, this is what you are led to as the ascetic / stoic view on how to practice Epicurean philosophy:

    The slide below is interesting and worth inclusion here - presumably Seneca is in fact crediting Epicurus fortitude, energy, and readiness for battle , even though on the surface Epicurus appears "effeminate." "Fortitude, energy, and readiness for battle" are not attributes that modern stoics, or most moderns of any kind, give credit to Epicurus for being, though I think he was exactly that. So if one sees anywhere a suggestion that the Epicureans were not in fact in possession of "fortitude, energy, and readiness for battle" then the person making that suggestion is probably lost wandering in the field of katastematic rabbit-holes.

    Reference Thomas Jefferson''s letter to William Short for the same point: " I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up...."

    Lots to be said about this slide, but he actually thinks that it is the Epicureans who need avoid over-analyzing? Likewise there is no reason to view "virtue" as likely to lead to the best outcome if you don't have a proper understanding of what virtue is, nor is there any reason to practice expecting pain unless you understand that the goal is pursuit of pleasure.

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 10:08 AM

    I will come back here and organize my main comments in a list in this post, but this is a start:

    1. This chart at the three minute mark is indicative of several aspects (I am ignoring the audio commentary on it for a moment). I would largely agree with the line on virtues, but I would disagree with the second line on "pleasures." The very strong thrust I believe is most fairly to be taken from Stoic writings is that pleasure is not only not necessary for the good life, but it is an obstacle and a thing to be avoided. The line on the Gods is also not accurate, as Epicurus did not say to "ignore" the gods, but to pay close attention to a true understanding of the gods due to the benefits that brings and the burdens it avoids. As to the last line, the video itself is marked that this line is incorrect as to the Stoics - the stoics did look to the gods for guidance.

    I am glad to see him include these two slides as I think it is very useful to keep in mind that there has always been violent opposition to Epicurus which does not come from differences as to the meaning of pleasure, but to the much deeper conflict with the Epicurean worldview:

    A pretty decent list of important points that Epicurus wrote about (with the exception of referring to "social contract as a basis of justice" - probably "social contract is debatable term but the core concept is that agreement over harm is THE (not "a") basis of justice:

    Oh NO - I strongly disagree with this next slide. If the stoics want to look for the "humanists" all they need to do is look in the mirror --

    Here's the root flow in so much analysis -- as detailed most succinctly by Nikolsky and in much more detail by Gosling & Taylor. This distinction is not Epicurean at all - to the extent Epicurus concerned himself with these categories, Epicurus embraced both, as Diogenes Laertius himself says, and he did not prioritize one over the other.


    Even this next slide, when you think about it, illustrates how misleading it is to focus on these categories. So all pleasures that arise from performing an action are kinetic? Well the very act of living is "performing an action," so according to that definition all pleasures experienced while living are kinetic, and nothing is experienced in death, so there are no pleasures except kinetic pleasures. Epicurus did not get caught up in such useless word games as these, which endlessly appeal to the Stoic-minded (such word games as Seneca himself complained against).



    The video "charitably" points out an obvious contradiction of this viewpoint, but Epicurus and Epicureans do not need the Stoics' charity - the people who really need charity are those who are so full of hubris that they think themselves superior in reasoning to Epicurus, and that he did not realize this "obvious objection" to his viewpoint. The answer, of course, is that what is described was not Epicurus' viewpoint at all. And yes, the key to understanding all this is to have a proper understanding of the statement in the center of the slide - PD3 - and that it does NOT mean that Epicurus held nothingness to be the highest and most pleasurable way of life.


    Looks to me like he's getting totally mixed up here, as there is no reason to think that "aponia" (absence of pain) is limited to absence of physical pain. It appears he's just getting mixed up more and more as he chases the "kinetic/katastematic" distinction - so he can no doubt enhance is ultimate viewpoint that there are in fact deep similarities between Epicurus and the Stoics.

    This is the full slide on categories of the desires. I note here that he's still chasing rabbits when he concludes that natural and unnecessary desires "offer kinetic pleasure but present a risk of katastematic pain." That arrangement is totally off course but a further illustration of the false premise and his expectation that katastematic pleasure is the highest type. The pain and pleasure calculation for this category is the same as all the rest - it is a mix of "physical pain" and "mental pain" (another difficult distinction in itself). And the red-letter "avoid entirely" in the third column is a further extension of the same error.

    Images

    • pasted-from-clipboard.png
      • 1.44 MB
      • 1,201 × 698
      • 4
  • Regarding categories | Will to Power: a natural or un-natural desire?

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM

    Let's do extended commentary on that video in THIS thread: Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is Compatible with Stoicism?" video

  • Review of the "What is Epicureanism and Is It Compatible with Stoicism?" video by Vox Stoica

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM

    Thanks to shahabgh66 for bringing this to our attention. Let's make comments on it below

  • Regarding categories | Will to Power: a natural or un-natural desire?

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 9:58 AM

    I have not previously seen that video so thanks to bringing it to our attention. Looks like it is a very detailed presentation so it would probably be worth reviewing and responding to it in detail.

    From the very beginning it appears you can predict exactly what is going to be presented - the ascetic version of Epicurus.

  • Regarding categories | Will to Power: a natural or un-natural desire?

    • Cassius
    • August 7, 2021 at 9:54 AM

    My first and most important comment is that I think what we are seeing here is typical for a stoic (which the video producer apparently is) - he is getting caught up in logical categorizations as if there is something magical about them, and so he is from the beginning failing to appreciate the fundamental starting point of Epicurus - that pleasure and pain are the only ultimate standards given to us by nature by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid. These categories have no intrinsic meaning in themselves other than explained by Torquatus in On Ends:

    "One kind he classified as both natural and necessary, a second as natural without being necessary, and a third as neither natural nor necessary; the principle of classification being that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered."

    So as Don has said the issue is not that there is anything wrong with power or fame in themselves, the issue is whether you choose to pursue them limitlessly as ends in themselves, or whether you recognize that there is a limit to keep in mind on all of them: You want that amount that leads you to maximum pleasure under your circumstances, no more and no less.

    So I'll repeat myself but I think this is the central point: You cannot be a stoic and pull this classification out of context as if Plato or God blessed it as an absolute ideal. The classification is subsidiary - like everything else is - to the ultimate goal, which is pleasure. And since there is no god or no absolute standards of conduct, there is only a contextual evaluation process depending on your circumstances - and if you get caught up in the multiple meanings of "natural" and "necessary" rather than always asking "what will happen to me in terms of pleasure or pain if I make this choice" then you're going to lose sight of the true goal and get totally confused.

    I would say that if Epicurus were here he might well say that this confusion of ends and means is one of the CENTRAL problems with the stoic approach, modern or ancient. Even ignoring the kinetic and katastematic reference on this chart, which I also think is misleading, it's simply impossible to come up with an absolute list of what to place in these three categories.

    If it were possible to come up with an absolute list, then you'd have an absolute definition of "virtue," which is equally impossible.

    Which is why I still have Elli's graphic from Diogenes of Oinoanda on the front page here. I would argue that you could put each of these three categories "natural and necessary" etc in this graphic in the place of "virtue" and the point would be exactly the same:

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply
    1. Philodemus' "On Anger" - General - Texts and Resources 20

      • Like 1
      • Cassius
      • April 1, 2022 at 5:36 PM
      • Philodemus On Anger
      • Cassius
      • July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM
    2. Replies
      20
      Views
      7.3k
      20
    3. Kalosyni

      July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM
    1. Mocking Epithets 3

      • Like 3
      • Bryan
      • July 4, 2025 at 3:01 PM
      • Comparing Epicurus With Other Philosophers - General Discussion
      • Bryan
      • July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
    2. Replies
      3
      Views
      546
      3
    3. Bryan

      July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
    1. Best Lucretius translation? 12

      • Like 1
      • Rolf
      • June 19, 2025 at 8:40 AM
      • General Discussion of "On The Nature of Things"
      • Rolf
      • July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM
    2. Replies
      12
      Views
      1.4k
      12
    3. Eikadistes

      July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:

  • First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
  • Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
  • Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.

Frequently Used Forums

  • Frequently Asked / Introductory Questions
  • News And Announcements
  • Lucretius Today Podcast
  • Physics (The Nature of the Universe)
  • Canonics (The Tests Of Truth)
  • Ethics (How To Live)
  • Against Determinism
  • Against Skepticism
  • The "Meaning of Life" Question
  • Uncategorized Discussion
  • Comparisons With Other Philosophies
  • Historical Figures
  • Ancient Texts
  • Decline of The Ancient Epicurean Age
  • Unsolved Questions of Epicurean History
  • Welcome New Participants
  • Events - Activism - Outreach
  • Full Forum List

Latest Posts

  • Episode 291 - TD21 - Epicurus Pushes Back Against "Expect The Worst And You'll Never Be Disappointed"

    Bryan July 26, 2025 at 11:20 AM
  • Note On Upcoming Episodes Of Lucretius Today Podcast

    Cassius July 26, 2025 at 7:19 AM
  • Episode 292 - TD22 - Not Yet Recorded - Cicero Continues His Attack On Epicurus

    Cassius July 26, 2025 at 7:01 AM
  • Busts of Epicurus

    Bryan July 25, 2025 at 12:22 PM
  • Lucretius Today Podast #291 Is Now Available - Epicurus Pushes Back Against "Expect The Worst And You'll Never Be Disappointed."

    Cassius July 25, 2025 at 12:15 PM
  • On Unhealthy Social Media Use / If Epicurus Were Alive Today, Would He Use A Smartphone?

    Sam_Qwerty July 24, 2025 at 8:19 PM
  • Cicero Fighting It Out "Horse And Foot" With Epicurus (Cicero's References to Epicurus in "On Duties" )

    Cassius July 23, 2025 at 6:49 PM
  • The "meaning crisis" trend. How do you answer it as an Epicurean philosopher?

    Sam_Qwerty July 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
  • Comparing Cicero's "De Officiis", Thomas Jefferson's "Social Duties", and Epicurean Philosophy

    Kalosyni July 23, 2025 at 12:32 PM
  • "Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400)" Ramsay MacMullen, Yale UP, 1984

    kochiekoch July 23, 2025 at 11:44 AM

Key Tags By Topic

  • #Canonics
  • #Death
  • #Emotions
  • #Engagement
  • #EpicureanLiving
  • #Ethics
  • #FreeWill
  • #Friendship
  • #Gods
  • #Happiness
  • #HighestGood
  • #Images
  • #Infinity
  • #Justice
  • #Knowledge
  • #Physics
  • #Pleasure
  • #Soul
  • #Twentieth
  • #Virtue


Click Here To Search All Tags

To Suggest Additions To This List Click Here

EpicureanFriends - Classical Epicurean Philosophy

  1. Home
    1. About Us
    2. Classical Epicurean Philosophy
  2. Wiki
    1. Getting Started
  3. Frequently Asked Questions
    1. Site Map
  4. Forum
    1. Latest Threads
    2. Featured Threads
    3. Unread Posts
  5. Texts
    1. Core Texts
    2. Biography of Epicurus
    3. Lucretius
  6. Articles
    1. Latest Articles
  7. Gallery
    1. Featured Images
  8. Calendar
    1. This Month At EpicureanFriends
Powered by WoltLab Suite™ 6.0.22
Style: Inspire by cls-design
Stylename
Inspire
Manufacturer
cls-design
Licence
Commercial styles
Help
Supportforum
Visit cls-design