Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

He must have either seen it as important (like the gods being first in Menoikeus and the PDs) or fundamental to his physics.

I strongly think that Epicurus saw it as BOTH of those which you reference. It's a shame that his ideas on this have been dismissed they way they have. Once again, DeWitt is pretty good in taking Epicurus seriously, which apparently means considering the mind as a "suprasensory mechanism" able to receive and perceive these images directly without going through the eyes.

When we discussed this section of the podcast we really didn't dig into it too far, but even for those who reject the idea out of hand today, we need to keep in mind that this was important to Epicurus. It's even possible (and I am not advocating this at least at present) that this was tightly involved in the mechanism of "anticipations. "

Now that I write that, I do remember that when we were going over book 4 in the podcast that some of the panel thought that potentially the issue involved was that the receipt of images over time would imprint patterns that would be relevant to later thoughts, sort of like the citation in Diogenes Laertius, but instead of involving things we see, things that the "images" would imprint in the mind directly. It's very clear that Epicurus thought that these images were involved in our dream processes.

So at this point I would speculate that to the extent you are onto a good trail in regard to a teaching or therapy mechanism, the basis for it would be that Epicurus held that repeated exposure to images over time would imprint on the mind and affect later tendencies in thought processes.

It's a related point, but not the same point, to speculate that the receipt of these images is involved in anticipations, and that this is highly relevant (and may even "be") the third leg of the canon - the explanation for "intuition." I think we discussed in the podcast that the imprint of these images in the structure of the brain might be relevant to genetic transmission of dispositions across generations, since "something" is involved there, given that it strongly appears that Epicurus was not a fan of "blank slate" theory.

Regardless of whether either of these are fruitful to discuss or any particular users here think that they can be reconciled with modern science, it appears to me to be well founded that Epicurus himself thought something like this was true, so we should expect that he and his later school members attempted to follow these lines of thought to their logical conclusions.

(I should have known Don was going to to straight for the "images" material!)

The question has been raised about whether it is a good idea to make this into a continuing podcast, or to flatly state that it is not being recorded, which might be conducive to more frank conversation. When we started this I got several questions from people who wanted to hear it even if they could not attend live, so I do think there is an audience for this.

On the other hand, recording and posting is going to cause some degree of reluctance on the part of some people to speak freely.

There's a significant tradeoff of benefits and I am not sure which is best so I would like opinions.

Check out how I have edited this first one as a prototype. I definitely think that (as here) we will not post any of the cameras that were live, and we can make the video just slides (as we did here).

What do you think? Let's try to decide before this Sunday night. We'll definitely tell everyone who signs on our intention, one way or the other.

Right now this is posted on my page but it is not announced anywhere but here. If anyone whose voice is recorded would like it removed just let me know and I can edit them out.

Take a look at the "disclaimer" that I put at the front of the video as well. I am thinking that people will come and go and won't be in every episode, so we need to be clear that this is more free-wheeling discussion and less and official statement of Epicurean viewpoints --- we have the Lucretius Today podcast to serve more that function.

Thank you again, but as far as "conclusion" goes I expect this topic to remain as active over time as the eternal questions like "Aren't stoicism and Epicureanism pretty much exactly the same?" And as a result this will be an "evergreen" topic that will be revisited enough times to make anyone believe in Nietzsche's "eternal return!"

I would say it means your own future and the future of those who are relevant to you.

If that's your friends and family through which you derive the most pleasure, then that's the focus.

If for some reason you are wired that you most intense pain and pleasure comes from being concerned about humanity at large, then that's your focus.

The really essential insight I think through Epicurus is that you must understand yourself and what is important to you, and go with that, because there is no supernatural god, or idealist structure of the universe, that establishes which focus is "right" for everyone to follow. Whichever focus we choose is our own choice, and we're responsible for the consequences of that decision.

Quote from Don

I think "responsibility" isn't the right word.

I agree that this word is a problem, though it can be defined so that it is not. And "responsibility" is pretty close to "duty" which is a word the Stoics like even better. Cicero's "On Duties" impressed me at the time before I started reading Epicurus. There may still be good parts of it, and I do recall good hypothetical questions (such as what should the ship captain bearing corn to a starving town due when he knows that there are more ships right behind him on the way to the town. Tell them that more ships are on the way and the price will fall, or charge all he can get?)

But all of these questions have Epicurean answers based on calculations of pleasure and pain widely understood to include all types and considerations of what we will experience as a result of our actions, so "duty" and "responsibility" have to be carefully defined not to imply "duty to god" or "duty to ideals" of any kind.

I agree with you completely Smoothkiwi. As for myself, I may not have had any control over the way I came into the world, but unless I die unexpectedly I have complete control over when and how I exit it, and I expect to exercise that authority without interference from any government, preacher, or anyone else.

We want to be very careful and not be too casual about this topic, but the very idea that anyone would seek to restrict my right to exit on my own terms at the time I decide is one of the most offensive suggestions that I can think of the religious and other establishment authorities making.

Episode 107 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we continue with Torquatus' summary of some of the Key Doctrines of Epicurus, with a discussion of the Epicurean emphasis on natural science.

Quote from Don

I originally thought Hiram may have been making more of it than was warranted. Now, Cassius might be imbuing it with more depth than is warranted. Maybe.

We'll all soon be having whiplash!

But I do think that the "images" aspect is one of the least appreciated aspects of Epicurean philosophy. It's almost totally neglected and most of us (including me) treat it as an amusing sidebar not worthy of much consideration.

But given how it appears to tie into many aspects of the philosophy, I bet if we had more materials we would find it popping up in unexpected places, and this may be one.

So I'm not really advocating any position yet except for let's dig into the material.

And I need to verify near the beginning of the dig is to verify how many (if any) of those "clear to see" references are indeed "ante oculos."

I need a good text version of Lucretius in latin somewhere -- I think there is or was a latinlibrary.com ?

Quote from Kalosyni

. But I think it will be important to keep on top of the science.

That's the bottom line for me, just like a person might want to think about earthquakes before living in parts of California or tornadoes before living in Kansas. Lots of places have their own unique issues which overlay global issues, so the best you can do is to do your best to be intelligent and on top of all of them.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Great; if I won't be able to gather food without inflicting pain, I'll happily end my own life

I agree with the thrust of your post but I pick this part out just to extend the conversation:

It's pretty tricky to carry that statement out to a logical extreme, and in my view therefore important not to treat it as an absolute. If we consider animal pain in the equation (and I think we probably should), then most of us live off the spoils of some pretty horrible treatment of animals in factory farming and otherwise.

So it's important to keep before the eyes (right Don?) a clear view of the limits of what we can realistically experience in life. We inflict a certain degree of pain (in the form of effort) on ourselves every day just to continue living. And we do that for the pleasures obtained.

So yes ending our own lives is in fact a realistic option if the circumstances truly deserve it, but we have to be very careful in deciding when that is the case. If we choose unwisely in when to exit we don't get a "do-over!"

And that too is one of the invigorating things about Epicurus - we're playing for keeps, and there's no recompense for a mistake for us - no strumming harps in heaven as consolation prize.

In case it may be helpful here are other references in Lucretius which Bailey has translated the phrase "clear to see":

Quote

[700] And yet we must not think that all particles can be linked together in all ways, for you would see monsters created everywhere, forms coming to being half man, half beast, and sometimes tall branches growing out from a living body, and many limbs of land-beasts linked with beasts of the sea, and nature too throughout the lands, that are the parents of all things, feeding Chimaeras breathing flame from their noisome mouths. But it is clear to see that none of these things comes to be, since we see that all things are born of fixed seeds and a fixed parent, and can, as they grow, preserve their kind. You may be sure that that must needs come to pass by a fixed law. For its own proper particles separate from every kind of food and pass within into the limbs of everything, and are there linked on and bring about the suitable movements. But, on the other hand, we see nature cast out alien matter on to the ground, and many things with bodies unseen flee from the body, driven by blows, which could not be linked to any part nor within feel the lively motions in harmony with the body and imitate them.

[98] \[Yet many wise men have thought\] that the sensation of the mind is not placed in any part determined, but is a certain vital habit of the body, which the Greeks call a harmony, in that it makes us live with sensation, although in no part does an understanding exist; as when often good health is said to belong to the body, and yet it is not itself any part of a healthy man. In this wise they do not set the sensation of the mind in any part determined; and in this they seem to me to wander very far astray. Thus often the body, which is clear to see, is sick, when, all the same we feel pleasure in some other hidden part; and contrariwise it happens that the reverse often comes to be in turn, when one wretched in mind feels pleasure in all his body; in no other wise than if, when a sick man’s foot is painful, all the while, may be, his head is in no pain. Moreover, when the limbs are given up to soft sleep, and the heavy body lies slack and senseless, yet there is something else in us, which at that very time is stirred in many ways, and admits within itself all the motions of joy and baseless cares of heart.

[323] This nature then of the soul is protected by the whole body, and is itself the guardian of the body, and the cause of its life; for the two cling together by common roots, and it is seen that they cannot be torn asunder without destruction. Even as it is not easy to tear out the scent from lumps of frankincense, but that its nature too passes away. So it is not easy to draw out the nature of mind and soul from the whole body, but that all alike is dissolved. With first-beginnings so closely interlaced from their very birth are they begotten, endowed with a life shared in common, nor, as is clear to see, can the power of body or mind feel apart, either for itself without the force of the other, but by the common motions of the two on this side and on that is sensation kindled and fanned throughout our flesh.

[995] The Sisyphus in our life too is clear to see, he who open-mouthed seeks from the people the rods and cruel axes, and evermore comes back conquered and dispirited. For to seek for a power, which is but in name, and is never truly given, and for that to endure for ever grinding toil, this is to thrust uphill with great effort a stone, which after all rolls back from the topmost peak, and headlong makes for the levels of the plain beneath.

[54] First of all, since among things clear to see many things give off bodies, in part scattered loosely abroad, even as wood gives off smoke and fires heat, and in part more closely knit and packed together, as when now and then the grasshoppers lay aside their smooth coats in summer, and when calves at their birth give off a caul from their outermost body, and likewise when the slippery serpent rubs off its vesture on the thorns; for often we see the brambles laden with these wind-blown spoils from snakes. And since these things come to pass, a thin image from things too must needs be given off from the outermost body of things. For why these films should fall and part from things any more than films that are thin, none can breathe a word to prove; above all, since on the surface of things there are many tiny bodies, which could be cast off in the same order wherein they stood, and could preserve the outline of their shape, yea, and be cast the more quickly, inasmuch as they can be less entangled, in that they are few, and placed in the forefront. For verily we see many things cast off and give out bodies in abundance, not only from deep beneath, as we said before, but often too from the surface, such as their own colour. And commonly is this done by awnings, yellow and red and steely-blue, when stretched over great theatres they flap and flutter, spread everywhere on masts and beams. For there they tinge the assembly in the tiers beneath, and all the bravery of the stage and the gay-clad company of the elders, and constrain them to flutter in their colours. And the more closely are the hoardings of the theatre shut in all around, the more does all the scene within laugh, bathed in brightness, as the light of day is straitened. Since then the canvas gives out this hue from its outermost body, each several thing also must needs give out thin likenesses, since in either case they are throwing off from the surface. There are then sure traces of forms, which fly about everywhere, endowed with slender bulk, nor can they be seen apart one by one.

[1056] Lastly, what is there so marvellous in this, if the human race, with strong voice and tongue, should mark off things with diverse sounds for diverse feelings? When the dumb cattle, yea and the races of wild beasts are wont to give forth diverse unlike sounds, when they are in fear or pain, or again when their joys grow strong. Yea verily, this we may learn from things clear to see.

[137] It comes to pass, too, sometimes, that the force of a mighty wind rushing on tears through the cloud and breaks it asunder with a front attack. For what the blast can do there is shown by things clear to see here on earth, where the wind is gentler and yet it tears out and sucks up tall trees from their lowest roots.

[272] Nor is it the same as when we move forward impelled by a blow from the strong might and strong constraint of another. For then it is clear to see that all the matter of the body moves and is hurried on against our will, until the will has reined it back throughout the limbs. Do you not then now see that, albeit a force outside pushes many men and constrains them often to go forward against their will and to be hurried away headlong, yet there is something in our breast, which can fight against it and withstand it? And at its bidding too the store of matter is constrained now and then to turn throughout the limbs and members, and, when pushed forward, is reined back and comes to rest again.

Display More

Also: Are there not some references in Lucretius to our motions being the result of us first visualizing the motion? I thought it was here in Book 2 in regard to the swerve, but it's not exactly stated that way -- HOWEVER see the reference to "clear to see" in line 272 : (Bailey) I wonder if that is an "ante oculos" ->

[251] Once again, if every motion is always linked on, and the new always arises from the old in order determined, nor by swerving do the first-beginnings make a certain start of movement to break through the decrees of fate, so that cause may not follow cause from infinite time; whence comes this free will for living things all over the earth, whence, I ask, is it wrested from fate, this will whereby we move forward, where pleasure leads each one of us, and swerve likewise in our motions neither at determined times nor in a determined direction of place, but just where our mind has carried us? For without doubt it is his own will which gives to each one a start for this movement, and from the will the motions pass flooding through the limbs.

[263] Do you not see too how, when the barriers are flung open, yet for an instant of time the eager might of the horses cannot burst out so suddenly as their mind itself desires? For the whole store of matter throughout the whole body must be roused to movement, that then aroused through every limb it may strain and follow the eager longing of the mind; so that you see a start of movement is brought to pass from the heart, and comes forth first of all from the will of the mind, and then afterwards is spread through all the body and limbs.

[272] Nor is it the same as when we move forward impelled by a blow from the strong might and strong constraint of another. For then it is clear to see that all the matter of the body moves and is hurried on against our will, until the will has reined it back throughout the limbs. Do you not then now see that, albeit a force outside pushes many men and constrains them often to go forward against their will and to be hurried away headlong, yet there is something in our breast, which can fight against it and withstand it? And at its bidding too the store of matter is constrained now and then to turn throughout the limbs and members, and, when pushed forward, is reined back and comes to rest again.

Now of course "images" do not appear to be the same thing in the texts as what we see, BUT it seems fair to say that the things that we see do generate images as well as visible sights. So is it possible that we are talking about picturing things so as to summon up the images that are received directly into the mind?

Duh. I should have brought this question up earlier too (I hope i didn't and have forgotten)!

What would be the relationship, if any, between this discussion and the flow of "images" that is discussed extensively in Book 4 of Lucretius?

I gather from our discussion of book 4 (which I think took place before your arrival in the podcast Don) that Epicurus was suggesting that many of our thought processes derive from our minds selectively receiving some from among many of the "images" that are constantly floating in the air. This is specifically suggested too by Cicero in his correspondence to Cassius Longinus and in Cassius' subsequent reference to "spectres."

To what extent would an idea of "setting before the eyes" be related to selectively tuning your attention to certain images as part of the thought process.

One of the reasons the images discussions seem to be largely ignored by modern commentators is that Epicurus seems to have been suggesting that these images were intimately involved in our thoughts, which we tend to reject today. I can't imagine that Philodemus departed too far from Epicurus on that, so is it possible that the Epicurean view of images is related to issues involving setting before the eyes?

10.2********Letter from Cicero to Cassius, written from Rome, January of 45 B.C.

DXXX \(F XV, 16\)

TO C. CASSIUS LONGINUS \(AT BRUNDISIUM\)

ROME \(JANUARY\)

I think you must be a little ashamed at this being the third letter inflicted on you before I have a page or a syllable from you. But I will not press you: I shall expect, or rather exact, a longer letter. For my part, if I had a messenger always at hand, I should write even three an hour. For somehow it makes you seem almost present when I write anything to you, and that not “by way of phantoms of images,” as your new friends express it, who hold that “mental pictures” are caused by what Catius called “spectres” – or I must remind you that Catius Insuber the Epicurean, lately dead, calls “spectres” what the famous Gargettius, and before him Democritus, used to call “images.”

Well, even if my eyes were capable of being struck by these “spectres,” because they spontaneously run in upon them at your will, I do not see how the mind can be struck. You will be obliged to explain it to me, when you return safe and sound, whether the “spectre” of you is at my command, so as to occur to me as soon as I have taken the fancy to think about you; and not only about you, who are in my heart’s core, but supposing I begin thinking about the island of Britain – will its image fly at once into my mind? But of this later on.

I am just sounding you now to see how you take it. For if you are angry and annoyed, I shall say more and demand that you be restored to the sect from which you have been ejected by “violence and armed force.” In an injunction of this sort the words “within this year” are not usually added. Therefore, even if it is now two or three years since you divorced Virtue, seduced by the charms of Pleasure, it will still be open for me to do so. And yet to whom am I speaking? It is to you, the most gallant of men, who ever since you entered public life have done nothing that was not imbued to the utmost with the highest principle. In that very sect of yours I have a misgiving that there must be more stuff than I thought, if only because you accept it. “How did that come into your head?” you will say. Because I had nothing else to say. About politics I can write nothing: for I don’t choose to write down my real opinions.

## ****10.3********Letter from Cassius to Cicero, written from Brundisium, January, 45 B.C.

I hope that you are well. I assure you that on this tour of mine there is nothing that gives me more pleasure to do than to write to you; for I seem to be talking and joking with you face to face. And yet that does not come to pass because of those spectres; and, by way of retaliation for that, in my next letter I shall let loose upon you such a rabble of Stoic boors that you will proclaim Catius a true-born Athenian.

Ok I looked back at 16 and 27 but I still don't see much more there than an allusion or idiom referring to "confronting" a person with the consequences of their thoughts or actions, which seems to me to be a fairly ordinary thing that anyone of any philosophy would do in making a point.

Do you see Philodemus saying more than that in those passages?

What I am reading seems to be something like:

"If someone has a problem confront them by discussing with them the consequences of their actions and fleshing those out in detail."

Ok, if so, that makes sense.

But is there more than that?

Now the specific aspect of telling them to "picture it" might be significant, but wouldn't it be significant only if there is something special in the Epicurean view of how "picturing"relates to thinking?

So I gather that is what we are talking about, some kind of special relationship between thinking and picturing (?)

if so, what is that special insight of Epicurus that makes this significant?

Welcome @jonathan !

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!

So see I am not at all resistant to pursing the implications of "ante oculos" and that reminds me too:

1 - Is "ante oculos" what we are discussing?

2- Did we yet pull out the actual quotes from Philodemus (rather than Voula Tsouna's paraphrases or opinions)? That's what I was really concerned about, that we were speculating based on relying on Tsouna rather than on reading the actual reliable-grade texts themselves.

Right now I can picture at least two sections of Lucretius that might be relevant to a "picture this" idiom or method of explaining, but I don't have a firm picture of anything specific from Philodemus.

So I am not asking you (Don) to do it since we are all covered with work, and I don't have the time right now to offer to do it myself, but that would be a good goal for us at some point to pull together at least some preliminary English version of those cites for this project.

And if the texts are so fragmentary that all we can put together in English is Tsouna's conjectures as to the meaning of corrupted sentences, then we can do that, but then at least we can have them clearly labeled as such.

As usual my thoughts are clear as mud

Combined with a half-memory of reading something in "On methods of inference."

I think the key word for any potential relationship would be what I think is translated as "inconceivability.". That might sound like a logical concept at first glance, but since proof of anything is grounded in the senses, and there is probably a major role for "picturing" things in Epicurean views of thought processes, we might have a related issue.

Also long ago in the Lucretius podcast I think we ran into reason to discuss the extent to which memories constitute stored pictures, and I think there was resistance to that view, but that might factor in too if our emphasis on the use of words is clarity of meaning in a "picture" sense.

Do you have the picture of what I am suggesting yet?

I am sure by now you are getting the picture.

I had more to say on this earlier today and I should have pulled off the road to post it, but this is the best I can reconstruct hours later:

When I think of telling someone one to "set this before their eyes" I think of telling them to "picture this" in their minds.

Telling them to "picture this" is pretty close to asking them "Can you picture this?"

The reason I bring that up is that it seems to me that some of the epistemology sections refer to what may be a test of "can you picture this?" For example, I am thinking of Lucretius' suggesting that we imagine throwing a javelin toward the edge of space. and picturing whether anything might ever stop it.

It's my impression that Lucretius/Epicurus is suggesting that it is impossible ("inconceivable?") to imagine anything stopping the javelin, or that there is a wall or limit or end to outer space.

So where I am going is that as we examine passages which talk about "setting before the eyes" we might want to be on the alert for epistemological test aspects to the exercise.

If we can picture something in our minds, that might be an indication that the thing "might" at least possibly exist. If we cannot even picture it, that might be an indication of "inconceivability." Maybe I am picking up that"inconceivability" word in Philodemus On signs and it has no relation to the current discussion, but it seems to me to be something to be on the alert for as we read whatever material may exist. Because we clearly have Lucretius using the term "ante oculos" in one part of book one, plus we have him suggesting that we imagine the flying javelin as a technique of impressing the lesson on the student.