Posts by Cassius

Quote from smoothiekiwi

And thus it didn't really made sense to me why Epicurus seemed to try and to separate his students from the outside world

Did DeWitt say he did that, or did you pick that up as an artifact of what is generally "out there" on Epicurus? Either way, I don't think he "tried to separate his students from the outside world" at all. I think he taught them to embrace what was good in the world, and fight against what is bad, but in no way did he teach them to pull back into their caves. THAT is the modern or neostoic view that i think is just hogwash -- and says much more about those who say it, than it does about Epicurus, who can't be shown to have said it when the philosophy is viewed in total.

I am glad to see Don like my last post Some people might read some posts and think that Don and I are on significantly different pages on some important issues, and while we do have differences of perspectives, pretty much all the time all you have to do is get us "on the line talking" and you find out that there is very little difference in our positions. I think both of us like to be cautious in how we are being perceived, so we tend to write explanatory comments on things that give the impression of more difference of opinion than really exists.

But it's good that we are doing our best to be clear and I think as long as people don't get the wrong impression, the attempts to drill down in clarity -- such as on the hypotheticals issue - are very good for the forum.

Thank you Godfrey! If you recall Gosling and Taylor saying something similar to Joshua, and you can think of a location in the book to cite, please let us know!

I am sorry but I am too running around to be sure where to post on the latest comments on the pleasure machine issue. I'll try here:

My observation is that the big disagreement between everyone is deeper than the issue as stated. Some people are not willing to play the hypothetical game at all, so they reject the proposal because they refuse to accept the hypothetical. I think I saw SimonC make essentially that point, and I think Matt is echoing it in the post just above.

Failing agreement on whether we should accept the facts of the hypothetical, we can't fairly proceed to the ultimate question being asked.

And that's where it seems the discussion is at an impasse.

This *might* be related to Epicurus' refusal to accept the question of whether Metrodorus would be alive or dead tomorrow. He seemed in that case to be rejecting the facts of the hypothetical.

However would Epicurus reject ALL discussion by hypothetical? I doubt it.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

If everyone can truly be happy, why then claim the title to be the only wise man, as opposed to the philosopher title, for himself?

If you have a page and line number I'd like to see that, rather than just post general comments that in general I think DeWitt is the best available commentator. I don't accept that this was Epicurus' position (that he was the only wise man).

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Thus I get the expression that Epicureanism favours the creation of cult-like mentalities, where Epicureans claim to know „true beliefs“ (the same thing any cult leader would proclaim to know). What is your stance on that?

As explored in most of the responses, it depends on one's definition of a cult. That world has lots of bad connotations that would not apply. On the other hand certainly Epicurus was the leader of a group, and the group held its leader in high esteem (without necessarily thinking him perfect) and I think there are all sorts of observations that can be made to the effect that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with that.

Quote from Nate

It was totally a cult.

However, like the word "God", the word "cult" has been de-contextualized from its origins.

I wouldn't use Nate's first sentence because I think he's right in the second sentence - you have to be careful to define your terms before you emphatically apply them.

Quote from Don

f you're getting this impression from DeWitt, I'll be the first to admit I have problems with DeWitt. You'll notice some of my reviews of specific chapters of Epicurus and His Philosophers in this section. I have major issues with his Ranks and Titles section in chapter 5. I do not necessarily subscribe to a DeWittean interpretation in all things Epicurean.

Not to take this off on a tangent on DeWitt, but I think DeWitt might occasionally go to far in some areas, but in most areas his ultimate conclusions are pretty fair. You could probably pull some sentences that support calling the Epicureans a "cult" but by the time you finish the whole book and consider the whole philosophy (which I think DeWitt does better than most) then I don't think you reach any of the negative conclusions that we use when using the word "Cult" today. And just the opposite - it would be absurd to argue that the man who more than anyone else taught that authority should be challenged, and that nothing should be accepted that cannot be grounded in the evidence of the senses, was attempting to set up an organization of mind-numbed robots and to intimidate them into unquestioning belief in following his whims (which I think is a fair meaning of the word cult as we use it today).

Yes I agree with all your points Kalosyni. I probably am remembering that clip from Jefferson, but I am also thinking that he himself probably picked it up somewhere, perhaps in Cicero or Diogenes Laertius. It's pretty clear that the term appears in a Cyreniac context, and probably the main question is whether there is any evidence that Epicurus or the Epicureans wrote that they agreed with it. I haven't had time to search in Lucretius - let me make a quick check....

Nothing direct so far, but:

Book 2

[408] Lastly, all things good or bad to the senses in their touch fight thus with one another, because they are built up of bodies of different shape; lest by chance you may think that the harsh shuddering sound of the squeaking saw is made of particles as smooth as are the melodies of music which players awake, shaping the notes as their fingers move nimbly over the strings; nor again, must you think that first-beginnings of like shape pierce into men’s nostrils, when noisome carcasses are roasting, and when the stage is freshly sprinkled with Cilician saffron, and the altar hard by is breathing the scent of Arabian incense; nor must you suppose that the pleasant colours of things, which can feed our eyes, are made of seeds like those which prick the pupil and constrain us to tears, or look dreadful and loathly in their hideous aspect.

Book 5

[1379] But imitating with the mouth the liquid notes of birds came long before men were able to sing in melody right through smooth songs and please the ear. And the whistling of the zephyr through the hollows of reeds first taught the men of the countryside to breathe into hollowed hemlock-stalks. Then little by little they learned the sweet lament, which the pipe pours forth, stopped by the players’ fingers, the pipe invented amid the pathless woods and forests and glades, among the desolate haunts of shepherds, and the divine places of their rest.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

These are words of a Sceptic, aren’t they?

Actually no, I would not admit that. I would think a skeptic would ultimately say about everything "We just don't know and there is no right or wrong answer to anything."

I think Epicurus is taking exactly the opposite position, but he is being clear that there are some things we do know with certainty apply to everyone everywhere all the time (no supernatural gods; nothing eternal but matter and void; the soul does not survive the death of the body) but that that there are some things that apply only on a local basis (I like chocolate; you like vanilla).

So I think it's pretty clear that Epicurus would encourage everyone to indeed feel their emotions as deeply as possible when they find something repulsive, and to act on those emotions, but that he would also so "Be sure that you realize what you're acting on is "local" to you, and don't make the mistake of thinking you're fighting for some kind of eternal truth established by supernatural gods or "eternal ideas" or intentional-acting Nature, because those things just don't exist.

I probably didn't need to type that though because I am confident you see where this is all going. NOT in an endorsement of any particular political position, but in the acknowledgement that we as beings of nature operate most successfully, even in political affairs, when we acknowledge the reality of nature and work within Nature and not against it.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

E.g., I believe that every person has basic human right- if I stopped believing in that, that would mean that I can’t judge Nazism as a terrible political ideal. And that would lead to some terrible conclusions.

Of course i am going to challenge you (EPICURUS is going to challenge you) on exactly that point. Not that you should not judge Nazism (or Communism or Maoism or any other ism that you judge awful) to be awful, but that you must judge it with absolute clarity that it is YOU, and people like you, who find it awful -- not that there is a supernatural god, or a Platonic realm of ideas or even a "basic human right' -- because those things, even "basic human right" are not established by Nature and are not vindicated by Nature. Unless YOU and people like you take action to express your reaction against the views that you find repulsive, then those views can and will triumph. And THAT is what leads to terrible results -- when people start thinking that supernatural gods, or supernatural realms of ideas, will do their own work for them.

I realize how challenging this is -- Don in particular will agree with us how challenging this is, but I think it is the only logical conclusion to reach when you apply Epicurus consistently. That's where Godfrey's statement comes in:

Quote from Godfrey

t IS scary! Especially when you start with the Physics and understand Epicurus' atomism and cosmology and their implications. But then studying and understanding the Canon provides a solid grounding in the here and now. And, at least for me, it's only at this point that the Ethics really makes sense.

I think one of the best ways to deal with your concern SmoothieKiwi is to focus on the issue that Epicurus is not telling you to ignore your feelings of abhorrence toward particular things, as the Stoics might. He is telling you to implement your feeling of abhorrence, and fight against those things as strongly as you can, because if you don't, then your worse fears may well materialize.

And one other thing that i like to state in this context is as to your choice of opponents to reference with the implication that they are uniquely evil, or a good example of the worst kind of evil. I think it is important to recognize in the Epicurean worldview that there is only pleasure and pain, and that just like the word "pleasure" is a placeholder for all kinds of things that produce a feeling of pleasure in us, the word "pain' is also a placeholder. It is another discussion to go into this (which we need to explore) but it's pretty clear in Epicurus that there is no absolute ranking of things that bring 'the best pleasure" or "the worst pain" except in very abstract and general terms. Pleasure and pain are very individual and contextual, and what one of us today considers the supreme evil because it stirs in us the worse pains, is going to be held as only an academic curiosity at another place and time.

I have a friend who somewhere picked up the example of saying to himself "dead babies, dead babies, dead babies' when he felt the need to immediately sober up in a very serious situation. All of us can summon up such images that strike the worst feelings of abhorrence in our minds. So i make this point not because I want to make a political point about Nazism vs Communism vs Capitalism or vs Islam or Christianity or Judaism or whatever, but because I think it is an important point of theory to recognize that what we consider to be "evil" comes in many forms, and that it is important to always apply the ultimate theoretical point: there is nothing intrinsically good but pleasure, and nothing intrinsically bad but pain. No matter who our worst enemy and symbol of evil might be, they too were / are people, and from their point of view there is nothing inherently "evil" about them. It is up to us (and to them) to pursue and to bear the fruits of their actions in terms of supporting our view of the pleasurable life and opposing our view of the painful life. The universe does not do it for us. As stated by Torquatus in explaining Epicurus' position:

Quote

Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain?

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Ah, thanks! Should I copy my thread over to there and then delete it here?

Whatever you think is fine with me. Sometimes the best thing to do is leave a post or series of posts in place. but then make another post in the other thread with a "Cross-reference" link so people can jump over to this one and find it. Feel free to copy this over there, or just place a link to this location in the other thread (As you probably know, each post is numbered so you can link to a particular post.)

i see that googling brings up a lot of references to Aristippus and the Cyreniacs, such as this one:

https://epicureanism.wordpress.com/category/pleasure/

It is possible i may be confusing the two, but I really thought that I had read commentators say that Epicurus had endorsed this notion, and that either in Herodotus and/or Lucretius there was evidence of pleasure being referenced as atoms moving with smoothness vs roughness.

I better back off for the moment as I cannot confirm, but I suspect we'll eventually find something.

Ha no problem! Lucretius does not much confront the Stoics directly except by implication.

I think you might find helpful the appendix on logic in the DeLacy book on Philodemus' On Signs. - at the back of the book. He has a very good section on the development of Epicurean empiricism that might address what you are looking for to compare to the Stoics.

But you may be asking about a certain part of the debate rather than just the whole Stoic v Epicurean debate. If you are looking at the higher level, have you read DeWitt?

I know I have seen something specific about "smooth motion" - I will look further.

"Smooth motion" is something affirmatively associated with Epicurus somewhere in the texts, right Don ? (And others)

I absolutely agree. And it isn't really a function of "skepticism" -- because I think the evidence is clear that Epicurus was against radical skepticism, and DeWitt will speak to you on that.

The question really comes down to, in a real sense, "What evidence or argument am I willing to consider to be true?"

And although we don't have nearly as much text left on that issue as we would like, I think what we do have is pretty clear and helpful about the direction Epicurus was going in his work on "canonics."

Reading what you are saying I think these are examples of how important it is to really wrestle with that question "why.". It seems hard for many people to even ask that question about their most basic motivations. They presume for some reason that it is self evident that "being a good person" is a right answer, or if they ask (as we discuss in this week's podcast) about how to be " the best they can be" they really have no framework for analyzing what that " best" means.

That is why I think religion and even the humanist philosophies are more obstacle than help - they don't have a framework for considering and challenging questions about "why".

IF you're talking about that last post I don't see any issues. The problem generally happens when a dark or light color gets inserted and doesn't show up against a dark or light background

I find it impossible to keep Hadrian and Trajan straight in my mind,especially since I gather they both had a wall in England!

You know, we now have a copy of Joshua reading this entire section, so we'll always be able to refer to that for inspiration.

I know, however, that we have some other really good "readers" here too with radio-style voices. Matt and @EricR immediately come to mind, as well as Don. And although I have not heard Kalosyni read anything, I bet she could read well too, and a female voice tends to both appeal to the men and to be relatable to other women.

If any of these people ever feel inspired I would hope they would consider taking a stab at an audio reading of this particular text. All of it of course that we've pasted here  is very good, but if that's too much to tackle, I would recommend starting at this paragraph XVIII and going as far as possible to the end.    (Don't want to miss the part about how we should be ashamed not to have learned these things as children!)

"XVIII. What a noble and open and plain and straight avenue to a happy life! It being certain that nothing can be better for man than to be relieved of all pain and annoyance, and to have full enjoyment of the greatest pleasures both of
mind and of body, do you not see how nothing is neglected which assists our life more easily to attain that which is its aim, the supreme good? Epicurus, the man whom you charge with being an extravagant devotee of pleasures, cries aloud that no one can live agreeably unless he lives a wise, moral and righteous life, and that no one can live a wise, moral and righteous life without living agreeably."

On the page linked above we also have the Rackham version, and it is possible that some of us might prefer that version. It's actually a little smoother, and in some ways superior, but occasionally it seems less literal and that's why we went with Reid for the podcast.

If anyone decides to take up this challenge please post and we'll promote the results. I am sure a lot of us would get endless enjoyment by listening to this selection over and over in different voices.

THANK YOU! It is fascinating to think that the echo indeed goes the other way. I understand Diogenes Laertius dates to maybe 200 AD(?) This from Cicero dates to approximately 50 BC so quite a bit earlier. And of course the Epicureans were notably faithful to the original writings of Epicurus, so the soundness and traceability of these points to Epicurus himself would seem to be very reliable.

LOTS we can do with this material so we will be sure to go through it carefully in the podcast.