Posts by Cassius

On the "Was Epicurus Arrogant" issue, probably this text reference from Cicero's "On The Nature of The Gods" is relevant:

Quote

Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus! “I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination, such as the artisan deity and world-builder of Plato's Timaeus, or that old hag of a fortuneteller the Pronoia (which, we may render ‘Providence’) of the Stoics; nor yet a world endowed with a mind and senses of its own, a spherical, rotatory god of burning fire; these are the marvels and monstrosities of philosophers who do not reason but dream.

1 - I had a friend once who was a big joseph campbell fan, but I never figured him out. It's possible that he deserves a thread here somewhere, but I don't even know enough to have an opinion on that.

2 -

Quote from Matt

Religious identity is very important to many people. I too grew up with a “religious” identity and it still echoes in my life even now.

I am not sure that this isn't part of what Velleius was talking about in "On the Nature of the Gods." Very complex issue.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

What do you think of that?

One thing I think about that is that I recall Frances Wright wrote this about debating with friends, in "A Few Days In Athens" Chapter Eight"

Quote

Theon stopped, and, making a short apology, hastily retired. “Stay!” cried the master. Theon again entered, but did not advance much within the threshold.

“When I bade you stay, I did not mean to fix you as doorkeeper. Come in, and shut the door behind you.” Theon joyfully obeyed, and hurried to seize the extended hand of the sage.” Since you have intruded on the sanctuary, I shall not drive you out.” He motioned the youth to a place on his couch. “And now, what pretty things am I to say to you for your yesterday’s defense of the wicked Gargettian? You should have come home with me last night, when we were both hot from the combat, and then I could have made you an eloquent compliment in full assembly at the Symposium, and you would as eloquently have disclaimed it with one of your modest blushes.”

“Then, truly, if the master had such an intention, I am very glad I did not follow him. But I passed the evening at my own lodgings, with my friend Cleanthes.”

“Trying to talk him into good humor and charity, was it?”

“Something so.”

“And you succeeded ?”

“Verily, I don’t know; he did not leave me in worse humor than he came.”

“Nay, then it must have been in better. Explanation always approaches or widens the differences between friends.”

“Yes, but we also entered into argument.”

“Dangerous ground that, to be sure. And your fight, of course, ended in a drawn battle.”

“You pay me more than a merited compliment, in concluding that to be a thing of course.”

“Nay, your pardon! I pay you any thing but a compliment. It is not that I conclude your rhetoric and your logic equal, but your obstinacy and your vanity.”

“Do you know, I don’t think myself either obstinate or vain,” said Theon, smiling.

“Had I supposed you did, I might not have seen occasion to give you the information.”

“But on what grounds do you think me obstinate and vain?”

“Your years; your years. And do you think there is a man under twenty that is not both?”

“Why, I should think an old man, at least, more obstinate than a young one.”

“I grant you, when he is obstinate, which is pretty often, but not quite always; and when he is vain, the same. But whilst many old men have vanity and obstinacy in the superlative degree, all young men have those qualities in the positive. I believe your share to be tolerably moderate, but do not suppose that you have no share at all. Well, and now tell me, was it not a drawn battle?”

“I confess it was. At least, we neither of us convinced the other.”

“My son, it would have added one more to the seven wonders if you had. I incline to doubt, if two men, in the course of an olympiad, enter on an argument from the honest and single desire of coming at the truth, or if, in the course of a century, one man comes from an argument convinced by his opponent.”

Display More

One lesson that seems pretty easy to draw is that when we have just a few people who know each other well, we can be more "free-form" and probably satisfy everyone that their time is well spent. And when we have just a few people plus a small number of "new" people we can take the time to have general conversation to learn about their background.

But the more people we have who attend, the more important it's going to be to keep things more organized so that everyone knows what to expect, we have people participating in a "fair" or at least "appropriate" way, and we keep a tighter rein on the conversation so that people don't think their time is being wasted on topics they didn't come to talk about.

We always want to be considerate of peoples' time and that they don't feel like at the end of a session that their time has been wasted.

Thank you Don. Direct link

HA! GREAT! It includes what pretty directly seems like a slam at the Stoics! Anyone read that differently?

Quote

Such was the conviction of the ancients, and to produce this result they were aware that it was necessary not only to declaim in the schools of rhetoricians, or to exercise the tongue and the voice in fictitious controversies quite remote from reality, but also to imbue the mind with those studies which treat of good and evil, of honour and dishonour, of right and wrong. All this, indeed, is the subject-matter of the orator's speeches. Equity in the law-court, honour in the council-chamber, are our usual topics of discussion. Still, these often pass into each other, and no one can speak on them with fulness, variety, and elegance but he who has studied human nature, the power of virtue, the depravity of vice, and the conception of those things which can be classed neither among virtues nor vices. These are the sources whence flows the greater ease with which he who knows what anger is, rouses or soothes the anger of a judge, the readier power with which he moves to pity who knows what pity is, and what emotions of the soul excite it. An orator practised in such arts and exercises, whether he has to address the angry, the biassed, the envious, the sorrowful, or the trembling, will understand different mental conditions, apply his skill, adapt his style, and have every instrument of his craft in readiness, or in reserve for every occasion. Some there are whose assent is more secured by an incisive and terse style, in which each inference is rapidly drawn. With such, it will be an advantage to have studied logic. Others are more attracted by a diffuse and smoothly flowing speech, appealing to the common sentiments of humanity. To impress such we must borrow from the Peripatetics commonplaces suited and ready prepared for every discussion. The Academy will give us combativeness, Plato, sublimity, Xenophon, sweetness. Nor will it be unseemly in an orator to adopt even certain exclamations of honest emotion, from Epicurus and Metrodorus, and to use them as occasion requires. It is not a philosopher after the Stoic school whom we are forming, but one who ought to imbibe thoroughly some studies, and to have a taste of all. Accordingly, knowledge of the civil law was included in the training of the ancient orators, and they also imbued their minds with grammar, music, and geometry. In truth, in very many, I may say in all cases, acquaintance with law is desirable, and in several this last-mentioned knowledge is a necessity. (Latin)

This is an interesting comment from that article - i was not aware that Tacitus mentioned Epicurus:

Quote

since Tacitus, in the Dialogue of orators, advises orators to use Plato and Xenophon “and even to borrow certain edifying maxims from Epicurus and Metrodorus“.

For example I don't think I have ever found a good "overview" of how the philosophers were arranged on the panel - and this doesn't seem to tell us either. I bet there's a lot more that we who are particularly interested in Epicurus could gain from making a study of this work.

This is a fascinating topic. I have read about this mosaic but maybe not seen the page you linked. It is a very good one.

I recall reading about this mostly because Bernard Frischer talks about it (somewhere) as a good lead for what the "standard" seated bust of Epicurus must have looked like especially in terms of the placement of his right arm / hand. The controversy seems to be over whether his arm was in an outstretched 'gesturing' position, or folded up against his chest in what might be considered a more "passive" position.

Of course I favor the "gesturing" position (which would indicate teaching and engagement) and this mosaic is good evidence of that being the actual case.

Marco thank you very much for posting this and if you are able to do additional research and actually get there please post more!

We had four participants last night - thanks to all who attended. I don't see any reason not to do this again next Tuesday night at the same time, so let's tentatively plan to do so.

But let's consider this only tentative for the moment as we still have lots of things to figure out.

Quote from Scott

How is it the average folk will benefit from this?

This is a great question. The answer is "average folk" probably won't benefit from this. But then again most of us here are not "average folk" in the broadest sense of the word.

Most of us here are fairly highly motivated people who really want to dig into the texts for themselves and determine what parts of it they think are true and which may not be, and for that purpose reading commentators is really not enough. Not that we all have to learn Greek and Latin ( although Don is an inspirational example ). We at least need to take the original materials and organize them for ourselves so that we can make our own decisions as to what they are saying and whether they are "true."

Another aspect of this is pretty well established, that most (if not all) of the time a motivated Epicurean is going to want to "spread the word" about what he or she finds to be true at least to their own circle of friends, if not to the world at large. (We've discussed recently that "the world at large" is not necessarily a good idea, except perhaps in the examples of Epicurus and Lucretius and others writing material of general interest that anyone can pick up if they choose.)

But what I would specifically cite is Epicurus' letter to Herodotus that in order to really understand and apply the philosophy you need to sit down and draw up your own outline of the most important headings and how they fit together.

Obsidian and Logseq are to a significant degree "research and outlining" tools. They are free, which is a huge plus. They are based on interchangeable file formats which make it easy for multiple people to collaborate and share documents with each other. And maybe in terms of what they are designed for one of their most important uses is as "writing tools." They are designed not only to help you search and find existing information but also to help you use the old information to generate new documents. And of course that means that they are useful for us not only to find information for our own use but to take that and prepare documents and slideshows and graphics that are useful for explaining the philosophy to others.

So that's the basic idea.

This is a long podcast taking time to edit into final form but I'll occasionally add a note for future listeners. When talking about the potential for Epicurus being arrogant we touched on the issue of Epicurus having his father celebrate the birthday of his mother and brother (if I remember correctly). The point I'd like to drop in here is that while that may sound strange, most arrogant people I know generally ask that their own birthday be celebrated, rather than someone else's. Of course you could say that the strangeness increases the arrogance, but I think everything can be viewed from multiple perspectives and each person has to add the the whole picture for themselves.

If anyone else is interested let me know.

Yes I am thinking there is a strong possibility that the Greek wording focuses on perceptions, as LSJ indicate, and that it is Bailey who makes it into something implying the involvement of concepts and ideas, much as he translates anticipations / prolepsis as "concepts"

This is part of the relevant discussion from Torquatus:

Quote

He judged that the logic of your school possesses no efficacy either for the amelioration of life or for the facilitation of debate. He laid the greatest stress on natural science. That branch of knowledge enables us to realize clearly the force of words and the natural conditions of speech and the theory of consistent and contradictory expressions; and when we have learned the constitution of the universe we are relieved of superstition, are emancipated from the dread of death, are not agitated through ignorance of phenomena, from which ignorance, more than any thing else, terrible panics often arise ; finally, our characters will also be improved when we have learned what it is that nature craves. Then again if we grasp a rm knowledge of phenomena, and uphold that canon, which almost fell from heaven into human ken, that test to which we are to bring all our judgments concerning things, we shall never succumb to any man’s eloquence and abandon our opinions.

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

I think this is where I got the idea that the best meaning is "repeated" or "separate" perceptions: this is Hicks in the Loeb edition. "And the reality of separate perceptions guarantees the truth of our senses."

I better wait for Don to weigh in before thinking too much about Bailey's version drives my blood pressure too high!

Yes exactly Kalosyni. That's the ultimate point and probably why that made it into the principal doctrines. If you argue that perceptions are invalid then you have no frame of reference to conclude that anything is certain or even knowable at all.

This is one of those that makes sense to read together to try to figure out the ultimate points. Clearly one basic point is that the perceptions of the senses are the ultimate evidence that any knowledge has to be based on. As to 24 he seems then to be hammering home the point that we know that multiple perceptions can end up pointing in different directions, and so we always have to keep a bright line distinction in our mind that some things we have enough evidence to be certain about, but some we aren't, and we can't confuse the two together.

And that gets back to the references on how we distinguish something as true:

Quote

From DIogenes Laertius: "for all reason is dependent upon sensations; nor can one sensation refute another, for we attend to them all alike. Again, the fact of apperception confirms the truth of the sensations.

That's Bailey and I see he uses the word "apperception" which might in fact might be a terrible word choice. We need Don here but it's my understanding from reading commentators is that "apperception" is a more modern word (see here) and that the better interpretation of this statement is simply that the senses guarantee themselves. In other words you guarantee the truth of the conclusion that the oar is not bent by removing it from the water and looking again, or the truth of the fact that the tower is square and not round by walking closer to the tower and looking at it up close, with the result that the truth of the senses is established by USING them, over and over, and then checking to see if the result is the same or different. For example, YONGE, which says that it is "the reality and evidence of sensation that confirms the certainty of the senses.":

Mensch:

But I would argue it is clear that the bottom line is that the truth of the concepts we form is squarely dependent upon the observations of our senses, and that's why it is nonsensical and circular to argue that anticipations ARE concepts (as Bailey seems to do).

Right. Context is everything. What we might do if we lived in 200BC Athens or Rome is different than our circumstances in 2022. And from virtually every perspective of age, sex, location, education level, financial resources and on and on and on what a person is going to do to consider and implement Epicurean ideas is going to be different.

If I get your question, it is uploaded as an MP3. I will experiment with a larger file size when I upload the next episode

Quote from Don

which while true is often used to characterize a daredevil, no-holds-barred lifestyle.

I wouldn't say that YOLO necessarily has a completely negative connotation, but yes it's often used like "I'm going to get on that "Biggest Rollercoaster West of the Mississippi" no matter what you think - 'You Only Live Once!'"

I think Joshua is correct that the quality issue is probably related to Skype, but it's not clear that that's the whole problem. I don't think any of us are using super-professional equipment so that's probably part of the issue. If you are good with technology and have suggestions, let me know.

(Also, I know that I AM compressing somewhat to reduce the audio file size from the raw skype to the final file uploaded to the podcast provider. I will look into that issue as well.)