Posts by Cassius

This weekend in our Sunday zoom which was devoted substantially to food issues we tangentially discussed the statements that I gather are traditionally attributed to Metrodorus to the effect that the stomach or belly is of particular significance.

I thought I'd paste the following here as what appears to be the major source of this, and repeat my belief that general statements of this type should be viewed with caution. These sources (particularly Plutarch) are substantially hostile, and I am not aware of there being a direct and reliable statement of this position in a friendly source (Diogenes Laertius, Lucretius, Diogenes of Oinoanda).

At the very least I would personally put this in the category of "the size of the sun is as it appears to be" or "all sensations are true" or "the good is easy to get" or "what's terrible is easy to avoid" which require explanation by reference to other positions before the true meaning becomes clear. Without such context and explanation I personally would not cite statements to the effect that "the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach" as an authentic statement of correct Epicurean doctrine.

I'd put all this in the context of what Torquatus says when he explains that everything is related to the body, but that the pleasures and pains of the mind can greatly surpass those of the body:

Quote from On Ends Book 1

[55] XVII. I will concisely explain what are the corollaries of these sure and well grounded opinions. People make no mistake about the standards of good and evil themselves, that is about pleasure or pain, but err in these matters through ignorance of the means by which these results are to be brought about. Now we admit that mental pleasures and pains spring from bodily pleasures and pains; so I allow what you alleged just now, that any of our school who differ from this opinion are out of court; and indeed I see there are many such, but unskilled thinkers. I grant that although mental pleasure brings us joy and mental pain brings us trouble, yet each feeling takes its rise in the body and is dependent on the body, though it does not follow that the pleasures and pains of the mind do not greatly surpass those of the body. With the body indeed we can perceive only what is present to us at the moment, but with the mind the past and future also. For granting that we feel just as great pain when our body is in pain, still mental pain may be very greatly intensified if we imagine some everlasting and unbounded evil to be menacing us. And we may apply the same argument to pleasure, so that it is increased by the absence of such fears.

If someone has other cites or arguments that should be considered in this context please post.

Right and I see that your thread title is "bad habits and urges." But it seems clear that Stoicism and other aspects of Greek thought deemed all emotion as bad, and I wanted to get that point out front in the discussion. Once it's clear that emotion itself is not a bad thing, I would think the next question would be why the emotion has arisen and whether it is justified. I think it's well documented that Epicurus held that there are times when anger are both well justified, and I don't see how you can proceed without first evaluating the facts that led to them. As for "fear" in general, there's nothing terrible in life for those who understand that there is nothing terrible in not living, but that doesn't mean that particular situations aren't going to generate natural reactions of fear that should be heeded (e.g. standing at the end of a canyon looking down).

So I'm still thinking that the first thing to do is examine whether the feeling is justified. If it is justified, the first step is to take appropriate action. If it's not justified, then there's a problem in how the person is processing reality, and often there you've got the false framework that is at the root of stoicism and much religion, that of thinking that there is some other or higher reality that is more important than this one.

My first thought would be that since there is nothing divine or non-natural about the human mind, this is probably going to happen in the future and is definitely something to think about.

I would see it is as the expected way forward and that we should bring to bear on the opportunities and issues all our standard methods of analysis to try to get it right.

I've never thought that Epicurus has anything bad to say about variety or the desirabilty of life extension. Yes it's true that life doesn't get "better" simply by being longer, and we need not regret that at least for our present technology death at no more than about 100 years is the natural result of the way things currently are.

But Epicurus clearly says that "life is desirable" in the letter to Menoeceus so I would not hesitate to take the opportunity to live longer where it appeared to me that the pleasure would outweigh the pain.

Quote from Daniel188

and avoiding unnecessary emotions.

My first response would be that Epicurus would never look at life from this perspective. Life is all about feeling and Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus held that the wise man will feel his emotions more deeply than will others, and this will not be a hindrance to his wisdom.

I would start by listening to the emotions and making sure you know what they are telling you, and being glad that you have them.

CNN seems to take this seriously. It will be interesting to see if there is anything new here.

Thank you! Much of this, especially TYPST, is totally new to me:

Typst: Open Source

Download the Typst compiler for free. The Typst language and its compiler are developed in the open. Learn how you can contribute.

typst.app

Here's the link in the files section:

File

Bernier - Gassendi's Three Discourses on Happiness, Virtue, and Liberty

This book is focused on Epicurean philosophy and explaining it in context with other philosophers.

Cassius

November 22, 2025 at 5:37 PM

And I have added this to main the "Reading Recommendations" page here:

Reading Recommendations

This is outstanding Tau Phi. I will post in the files section and think about ways to publicize this. We have to keep in mind the compromises Gassendi made on religion and death and perhaps other things, but even with that I think his treatment of happiness, virtue, and determinism are extremely helpful. His broad overview of these issues probably places this in the category of DeWitt or Emily Austin or even Diogenes Laertius as a broad overview of important topics, with comparison to other philosophers.

The formatting looks excellent as well. Do you mind sharing what intermediate programs you used to produce the final PDF? did you use some kind of Latex generation or something else that is accessible to others. I can imagine that others here might tackle similar projects in the future and it would be good to know if you've got a particularly useful methodology that others can duplicate.

Whenever we have this discussion I for one always need to remember U469 from the Strobeus anthology (which I gather is not citable back to where the fragment itself comes (?):

[ U469 ]
Johannes Stobaeus, Anthology, XVII.23: "Thanks be to blessed Nature because she has made what is necessary easy to supply, and what is not easy unnecessary."

it seems highly likely that this is related if not the very same thought differently expressed.

Quote from Kalosyni

Could the word "wise" be used here instead?

Clearly wisdom is the presumption here, but the grammar and the historical usage that Don has cited probably requires something else.

Good list of various translations - thank you! In this case I'd lean toward one of the latter. Each of them would or could have more consistent implications for being Epicurus' version of explaining how virtue and happiness go hand in hand and how the wise man can always be happy. I could see that especially when you consider how the very next doctrine is a reference to how virtue is essential to happy living.

One way of looking at the first four, leading up to five, is that these are the virtuous way to always be happy, and that this is the true virtuous path to happiness rather than a disreputable one.

I especially think of how Epicurus explains in the letter to Menoeceus explains that it is the Epicurean who has a holy opinion of the gods and is not impious. It's the Epicurean who really understands the virtuous / honorable position on these issues.

Cicero may be right in Tusculan Disputations in asserting that the question of whether virtue is sufficient for the happy life / how the wise man is always happy is _the_ central question of philosophy. If so this would not be something Cicero himself came up with but he's simply carrying that opinion down from his heroes Pythagorus - Socrates - Aristotle.

If this was in fact seen as the central question in Epicurus' time too, then the framework of the PDs would be to illustrate the virtuous position on these issues (gods. death, pleasure, pain). The virtuous person has these correctly-understood approaches to the central questions and can always be happy through this understanding.

That would lead to the preference for the translation being NOT that these views of pleasure and pain are "easy," but that they are "honorable," "competent," or "thorough" in the sense of thoroughly atttainable .

Quote from Don

At risk of being a broken record, is important to remember that the first two lines are *not* commands. They're not in the imperative: "Don't do this." They are statements of fact:

You're not a broken record on this at all.

This part let me be clear I don't say sarcastically at all --- I just look forward to the day that your translation prevails over Wikipedia consensus!

This is a large part of what we are up against!

Don also what about the "easy" part -- do you agree with Wikipedia that "easy" is a fair translation, or would you modify that as well?

Welcome to Episode 309 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
We'll pick up this week at Section 11 of Part 5 of Tusculan Disputations. Here Cicero's student points out that Cicero has been contradicting himself in his own books as to the significance of the different positions on whether virtue alone is sufficient for happiness.

Cicero - Tusculan Disputations - EpicureanFriends Handbook

The heart of this argument is going to reveal how the line of non-Epicurean Greeks including Pythagorus/Socrates/Plato and the others listed here insist on finding the good only through their divinely-ordained reasoning of the mind:

Quote

But the human mind, being derived from the divine reason, can be compared with nothing but with the Deity itself, if I may be allowed the expression. This, then, if it is improved, and when its perception is so preserved as not to be blinded by errors, becomes a perfect understanding, that is to say, absolute reason, which is the very same as virtue. And if everything is happy which wants nothing, and is complete and perfect in its kind, and that is the peculiar lot of virtue; certainly all who are possessed of virtue are happy. And in this I agree with Brutus, and also with Aristotle, Xenocrates, Speusippus, Polemon.

I've now posted the episode and in finalizing the title I realized that the proper name is tracing these four ideas from the Principal Doctrines to the Tetrapharmakon to Cicero's Epicurean SpeakerS" - but we only mentioned Torquatus. For those reading this thread in the future a complete treatment of this as to PD01 and the correct view of the gods would necessarily include what Velleius had to say in Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods."

Episode 308 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Tracing Four Key Ideas From the Principal Doctrines to the Tetrapharmakon To Cicero's Epicureans"

A reference from this podcast for those who don't know it. I am amazed that in a quick look for "how sweet it is" with Jackie Gleason this is the only one i find. I know there must be hundreds more:

This podcast will be released later today. In the meantime another note:

In discussing the tetrapharmakon i make the comment around 28 minutes in that people often have a problem with the use of the term "easy" as it applies to the good being easy to get and the bad being easy to endure.

In connection with other points being made in recent episodes, I am going to explore over time this possibility that i have not ordinarily stressed:

(1) it is clear that Epicurus saw the need to address the challenge made in Philebus and other places that the highest good must "have a limit" as stated also in PD03.

(2) I have previously taken the position that Epicurus was meeting that challenge by stating that when all pain is eliminated that is by definition or theory the limit of pleasure, and I do continue to think that makes sense.

(3) In the past however I have dismissed this argument as having further implications and therefore did not apply it further, and that led me to the tendency to dismiss the argument as having any real merit on its own.

(4) However on thinking further I now begin to believe that Epicurus did not mean to diminish the importance of the argument, and that he in fact embraced it himself in his own presentation.

(5) By now in this list my direction is probably clear: of course this tetrapharmakos wording was not as far as we know from Epicurus himself, so the "easy" is what is suspicious. I now want to explore the possibility that the real meaning of what is captured here is not that what is good is necessarily "easy" to get, but that what is good (pleasure) is "attainable" because in fact it is graspable in full, it "has a limit" that enables it to be grasped.

(6) the same will go for pain in the fourth leg. The point would not be that the terrible is "easy" to avoid or endure, but that it is in fact "attainable" to endure it because it too has a limit - it cannot remain forever because death will terminate even the worst pain.

Epicurus never says in PD03 or PD04 tha what is good or bad is "easy" to reach. That's an overlay of the tendency of some people to focus on "absence of pain" as being akin to nothingness and therefore "easy" to obtain. The argument Epicurus is addressing, and then picking up for his own use is clearly different from that. The point is more likely to be that what is truly good and bad in life is not some fantasy of idealistic divine perfection, or evil in the sense of a supernatural force or eternal punishment in hell. What is true is instead that the good (pleasure) is attainable, and the bad (pain) is avoidable, because they "have a limit" which cannot be exceeded.

This line of thinking would parallel other recent comments I have made that, as Torquatus is stressing, the key to the understanding of the natural and necessary desire analysis is that it helps to analyze whether the goal of the desire is in fact attainable, and therefore reasonable to pursue, or in fact unattainable, and therefore unreasonable by definition to pursue.

The fact that most people fail miserably in achieving happiness and avoiding disaster is proof that none of this is "easy," and I don't think Epicurus would have agreed with that kind of phrasing. I doubt Epicurus considered at the end of his life that all of his efforts to build his school had been "easy" at all, and in fact I think he would have resented the implication.

Most of us are continental USA but Northern Europe is in a strong second place. Welcome aboard!

Of course Epicurus likely would have agreed with the conclusion and at least some of the reasoning, but his primary approach on gods was significantly different.

The riddle is based on pointing out contradictions in someone else's argument which certainly can be effective as far as it goes, but it still leaves you hanging on what the truth really is, as you are pointing out as to "the problem of evil."

I think you are right to sense that a physics argument is more important, and Epicurus also combines it with an argument based on how the human mind works.

Those are positive assertions you can verify for yourself whether they make sense to you or not. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's argument is helpful for debunking false claims, but Epicurus was not content with debunking alone.

We want a position on what is true, not just on how many millions of arguments are wrong.

It's sort of ironic but the position that there is a truth out there that can be found isa point of commonality between Stoics and Epicureans. They simply disagree profoundly on what that truth is.

Brief info on Tony is that he was raised catholic and came across Epicureanism when studying history. He's read and studied his letter to menoeceus, his texts on physics and 'on the nature of things', as well as his last wish. He's particular interested in Epicurus' ideas on death, justice, the myths and pleasure