Posts by Cassius

On first thought Camotero I think the issue is that there are a couple(?) Of text references to Epicurus talking about "casting the mind" such as in his figurative journey through space, and so that tends to get picked up by commentators when they see something about "applying the mind.". Pretty clearly Epicurus stressed that thinking requires action of the mind applied to observations, and I don't think there is much more to it than that. The bottom line for me would be that we don't often need the full details but we do need the overall outline in order to apply our minds in an organized way to figuring out problems consistent with the overall view. You could reverse that and say you are applying the principles to the problem but I doubt that makes much difference.

Maybe you are asking something else?

Wow very interesting on amber - now I am confused myself where it comes from!

Holiday weekends are great!

Episode Eighty-Seven of Lucretius Today is now available. In this episode we will continue into Book Six and discuss earthquakes, the water cycle, and the possible relationship of the "Chicken Little" fable to some of this text. Thanks to Martin for reading this week:

Martin has pointed out what appears to be an excellent opportunity to put together a special presentation on Epicurean views of "formal logic" and its relationship to reality. The opportunity comes from our mention in an earlier thread of the following statement by Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends:

Again, the thread reference was here, and below is a copy of Martin's post: RE: Issues In The Meaning And Definition of Logic

One way of stating the issue is that the laws of formal logic in fact do allow a syllogistic construction in which the conclusion is true while one or more premises or false. This is not the way non-experts think that logic works, so it is important that non-experts understand what the experts are asserting, so that they can see that the assertions of formal logic need not be connected with reality -- and for that reason normal people should not infer that formal logic can be used to "disprove reality."

We're going to see if we can put together some reference material that will make this issue easier to understand, and hopefully trace it all the way back to Aristotle if not earlier.

The issue of logic being a tool that can be consistent within itself, and yet not be connected with practical reality, is something that we see come up over and over. It seems to me that this is counterintuitive to the way most non-experts approach the issue of logic, so it will be great to see if we can develop a presentation that will make the issue easier for the average person to understand.

Quote from Don

There's a lot of baggage with that English word.

Yes as with Godfrey's comment the main issue is probably "immortal" or maybe "divine."

There's presumably no issue with looking for some more precise definition of "life," just as when Lucretius talks about the mixture of elements necessary for life, so long as we always keep in mind that what we're talking about is mortal and absolutely natural.

Wow i've never heard that they were considered to have souls, or that Aristotle thought that plants have souls!

I was just singing the praises of Munro in another thread while going through Munro's Introduction to Lucretius (contained in volume two of his three volume set).

I think Munro is generally very sympathetic to Epicurus and Lucretius and therefore someone to be consulted in any translation issues, but here's a clip that I have to disagree with:

I am posting this mostly as a joke because I have been saying on the Lucretius podcast that I am looking forward to the part about magnets, but I do think there's an interesting point here. To me, the issue of magnets probably was indeed something Epicurus and Lucretius thought was important, because it is probably the closest-to-home instance of "action at a distance" that we have directly in front of us. The ability of one magnet to influence another could easily be described to be magical, and I suspect that the Epicureans wanted to take special care to come up with a non-supernatural explanation of the phenomena. So contrary to Munro I do think magnets warrant special attention

I was recently pestering Martin and Don about how I was aware that Goethe was esteemed as one of the smartest Germans ever, but that I was stumped about exactly why.

Here's a comment from Munro's introduction to Lucretius that may raise Goethe further in my esteem:

Maybe at some point we'll have a chance to track down more of Goethe's commentary on Lucretius and/or Epicurus.

Here is at least part of what I am remembering about Munro's commentary. The first line about not caring if it is true is not good but may be part of the old issue of self-protection. However read the part marked in red as to "sterile wisdom" and "barren virtue" and I think we have good evidence of an Epicurean heart:

Yes I'd like to see what Gigante said too before reading too much into it.

I suspect he's doing just like what a lot of us are probably doing -- making sure that we have a private retreat, but also that we're located to take advantage of most if not all of the modern conveniences.

I feel exactly the same way Joshua!

Darn. I collected some of Bailey's negative comments about Epicurus here, but I thought I had some positive ones by Munro as well. I will keep an eye out for what I remember but I remembers some distinct kind words for Epicurus' ethics and negative words about the Stoics in one of Munro's introductory commentaries on Lucretius;

The “Yea-Sayers” and the “Nay-Sayers” – NewEpicurean

No, Camotero, I think you are going to find that those writers are true to their areas of expertise.

They are not going to be partisans of Epicurus against their own specialities and interests.

They are going to provide valuable perspective, but you are going to have to be wary of their predispositions.

There is only one reputable academic writer I know of who is not a Stoic, not a Platonist, not an Aristotelian, and who devoted his career to the study of Epicurus because he was so sympathetic to Epicurus' perspective and his importance to the world.

You probably don't need me to repeat his name but of course I will: Norman DeWitt.

Note: As a possible second example we might want to consider Hugh Munro. In reading Munro's commentaries on Lucretius I have found Munro to be a defender of Epicurus/Lucretius' ethical positions against his detractors. I don't have a good list of cites to give you to that, but if I were looking for someone else who apparently devoted his academic career to Epicurus/Lucretius I think Hugh Munro is a good bet.

Quote from camotero

So I'm hopeful that the translation will be pro Epicurus.

Well the trick there is "What is the meaning of 'pro-Epicurus?'" It's pretty safe to say that most or all of the writers who have devoted the time to write a book about him in the last 100 years would call themselves "pro-Epicurus" -- but the issue is what do they think Epicurus taught, especially in terms of engagement with the world, asceticism, relationship to Stoicism, relationship to standard Platonic doctrine, etc.

'

Every one of the writers on my "unfriendly" list, starting perhaps with Cyril Bailey himself, I rate as unfriendly not because they don't think they are personally well disposed toward Epicurus, but that their version of Epicurean philosophy is, in my humble opinion, antithetical to what Epicurus himself was teaching and wanted the world to understand.

That's why here on the page we've tried to summarize some of those important points, especially in the "Not Neo-Epicurean, but Epicurean" list, as well as even in the shorter golden graphic of four key elements of what Epicurus taught. Most people don't argue about the "no supernatural gods," "no life after death" part, although even there I find many writers want to gloss over that as if that's not as important as the "pleasure" issue.

But by the time you get to "all good and evil consists in sensation" (a bright line that there is no absolute virtue) and "pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life" (which ought to be clear enough) it takes significant explanation to lay out where the battle lines are, and unless people get directed to a source that wants to dive into those issues (like this website, or to some extent DeWitt) then they don't even see that the issues exist.

Quote from camotero

From what I glimpsed, and as the cover says, the biography of DL is not complete but rather just selections of the text.

Yes, that is what I recall. It's a "selection" from Book ten, if i recall. So that makes it a good supplement but not a full replacement to DL himself. I would still advocate you find one of the used (or new I guess) Loeb Editions (green sleeve). There are significant references to Epicurus in other sections as well as Book Ten, so ultimately you'll want to read the full thing.

I have to apologize for sounding so congested on this episode, so I explained that I had a head cold in the introduction. I think that also affected my basic knowledge of European weather as well, as I sounded very concerned about all those hurricanes barreling north and hitting England and Germany and the Mediterranean. For the next episode the cold will be gone and I will be back to my normal level of classical and geographic illiteracy.

Episode Eighty-Six of Lucretius Today is now available. In this episode we will continue into Book Six and discuss typhoons and whirlwinds, with Don reading today's text.

Quote from Don

Doesn't he say as much in the Letter to Menoikeus about accepting myths?

Yes exactly and I started to add that as my own reference but I didn't want to sound too argumentative this afternoon

I seem to recall that DeWitt thought that Epicurus considered Plato to be a skeptic, and I think the "accepting myths" probably applied to Plato too even though that's in a section where Epicurus was referencing determinism. And I'd probably double down and say that if you accepted Plato's view of the universe you really wouldn't have much choice except to follow his rules, so even an accusation of hard determinism might be in play too.

OK I will say it:. The intersection of the viewpoint of many academics with their preferred translation may well be that the academics consider everyone but themselves to be hoi polloi, and thus they see no difference between "hoi polloi" and "the world."

...which I strongly believe was *not* Epicurus' viewpoint. I believe if forced to choose, Epicurus would take the "hoipolloi" over the "golden" academics most any day of the week, as would I!