Posts by Cassius

I agree with this fundamental point too:

Couple of comments on that article. First: i wish she had included a cite on where to find this in Aristotle, but I think this true and a crucial observation for Epicureans to understand about the prevailing view that Epicurus faced:

That is why I argue that PD3, and all Epicurean discussion of "absence of pain" as constituting the highest state of pleasure, is really aimed at establishing pleasure as the highest good, not at making the point that modernists allege (they allege that absence of pain is some uniquely desirable special kind of pleasure - a "fancy pleasure" as described in Elayne's article).

In truth, I would argue, PD3 and PD4 are like PD1 and PD2 - they are statements that establish something else and far more important than what may appear to be on the surface.

PD1, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the supernatural meddling gods of the majority view.

PD2, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in life after death and in the threats and rewards of an afterlife of the majority view.

and PD3, if accepted, makes it impossible to accept the argument of Plato and Aristotle that "Pleasure" can not be the highest good.

Again, the point is this: that Plato and Aristotle and others had seemingly proved to the majority's satisfaction that pleasure alone cannot be considered to be the good. From their perspective pleasure has no "limit" - more of it is always better, so it fails to meet the test of "such that no added good could make it any better." Epicurus answers that and provides a proof of its error by pointing out that "the limit of the quantity of pleasure is the absence of pain." This produces the vessel analogy that a vessel (a human life, viewed as the maximum amount of pleasurable experience a single human can feel) can only be filled so far, and once a vessel is filled to the brim, it cannot be filled any further. Thus PD3 is in my view a backhand / roundabout way of saying what you would expect Epicurus to say: "Pleasure is the highest good."

But just as he chose to say "There are no supernatural gods" and "There is no life after death" in a roundabout way, to "inoculate" you against the reverse opinion, he said "Pleasure is the highest good" in a roundabout way, to inoculate you against accepting the specious arguments of Plato and Aristotle and the rest.

Yes that is indeed a promising looking article. Thank you Kalosyni!

Kalosyni yes you're right that language is a little over the top. The key issue would be more at the level of how to analyze the question of pursuing pleasures that come only at the cost of danger and how to compare that with an attitude of avoiding danger at all cost.

Unfortunately the loss of subtly arises from viewing just the final scene without the rest of the movie. In general the prior sections are probably consistent with much that most people here probably agree, in a generally nonpolitical sense, of having a general attitude of how "science" properly employed can help end war and bring all sorts of other beneficial results - but not without costs.

The British accent of the characters is kind of hard to understand at various places, but in general I am pretty comfortable recommending the film as setting up a lot of very important questions and implying an answer that is generally in an Epicurean direction -- but only through confronting this issue that sometimes great pleasures can come at great costs, and it's essential to think about how to make those difficult decisions.

Yep I agree there too for exactly the reason Joshua stated.

I don't want to always be in the mode of reacting, and reacting negatively, to Buddhism and Stoicism and the like as if they're the only thing that's worth talking about, but if we're realistic about the place that most general readers of Epicurus are in November of 2021, I think it's fair to say that most of them have been exposed to so much argument from that direction that they think it's a given that Epicurus was saying the same thing.

So i think that's where we have so much opportunity and can have a real impact - in showing how wrong that picture is.

I completely agree and this is a subject that needs lots of attention.

I think it's quite proper to refer to "laws of nature" and there's a lot of that in Epicurus/Lucretius if I recall correctly, but they were talking generally in terms of physics. They were also talking carefully about the issue of "properties" and "events" or "incidents" (I hate the word "accidents" as I think its connotations make it misleading in this context) and I think most modern discussions skip over that without realizing the important implications.

And then there's the biblical "slave of the weak and beggarly elements" reference which also is a point of connection where we can show how the Epicureans were directly translating their physics into implications for human life.

But I think you're exactly right. There is this long "laws of nature of of nature's god" that appears in even in Jefferson that is being used to establish the viewpoint that social / political conventions were themselves written by "Nature," and most of those implications I think go way too far.

This is a part of the subject of justice that really cries out for expansion to clarify where Epicurus was going.

I firmly agree Nate. I get the sense that the Stoic influence leads people to think that Epicurus is pushing something similar to their "mind over matter" approach and I think (1) they are totally wrong and (2) it's important to hit on this very hard so that we eliminate the confusion. It's hard enough to show people how important good philosophy is without them thinking at the very beginning of the road that the road leads to ignoring the pleasure and pain of the here and now.

Right and we mentioned that in the podcast. Yes that is Reagan on the right in the still, but he is not the star - this is an Errol Flynn / Olivia deHavilland movie vehicle. I will paste a picture of Massey playing Brown below. He was a very strong actor and with this beard sort of makes me think he could have played a good Epicurus.

And to follow up on Godfrey's comment, another interesting actor in that still photo is on the far left - that is Alan Hale, father of the "Skipper" in Gilligan's Island - when you see him in the movie theres a strong family resemblance in looks and mannerisms.

Still working on the edit but let me post this before I forget. We did a good job of staying away from contemporary politics in this episode but in explaining the depth of passion that is often involved in discussing justice Joshua brought up the historical example of John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry as an example of how different people can see the same incident from starkly different perspectives.

For those who aren't as elderly as I am I asked Joshua if he had seen the well-known but old movie on the story. The movie was "Santa Fe Trail" and here is the link below. Raymond Massey, the actor who played John Brown, did a great job of conveying Browns intensity, and he conveys the same intensity in a clip I like to use to dramatize the issue of "peace and safety" and I am posting tonight also in Kalosyni's thread.

So if someone wanted they could enjoy a Raymond Massey film festival with these links.

In both of these movies I have linked I think a reasonable person could ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

On that last point, about the goal being "peace" I like to dramatize that issue with the closing scene of HG Wells' " Things to Come." The actor who plays the tall guy is the one I mentioned in the podcast this week to Joshua. His name is Raymond Massey and he played John Brown in the movie we discussed. I will post that link in that thread. Massey really knew how to convey "intensity", and this clip sets up the question of choosing between types of pleasure which appear to be more vs less dangerous. In this clip, the two male characters have just launched their two children off to a journey to the moon from which they may never return, and one of the two men is not happy about it at all. The whole movie revolves around such questions but the final scenes brings it home.

"Which shall it be?"

In both of these movies I think a reasonable person would ask at the end: Is Raymond Massey's character crazy? Or is he the sanest person you've ever seen?

PS - In "Santa Fe Trail" Massey is clearly portraying a religious zealot (which may or may not be accurate historically) so I don't think anyone would argue that an Epicurean would endorse that motivation. But someone could act similarly without a religious motivation, and the main reason for bringing up the Brown figure is the reason Joshua gave - to illustrate divergence of opinion on justice. In "Things To Come" we don't have religion as a factor at all, and I think we do have a totally safe illustration on views of feeling and pleasure we can debate in detail.

Yes that makes a lot of sense to express it that way. Alternative ways to consider the relationships would include:

1 Tranquility is a part of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

2 Tranquility is a pleasure, but is not pleasure itself.

3 Tranquility is an aspect of pleasure, but not pleasure itself.

Of those I would endorse option 2.

Probably the trickier issue is the contention that some seem to make:

1 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but among all pleasures it is the "best."

2 Tranquility is not only "a" pleasure, but it is the goal and purpose of all other pleasures.

I would reject both of those contentions and would say that (1) Epicurus did not say either one, and (2) that these contentions are not "true" in the sense of being generally established for everyone by nature. If someone in his or her individual circumstances decides to set "tranquility" as their ultimate goal in life I would not try too hard to argue them out of it, if they truly believe that to be warranted by their circumstances. But I would expect for most people in most circumstances "tranquility" would be an unnecessarily limited goal. In general if someone stated to me that their ultimate goal in life was "peace" or to escape pain I would start wondering what kind of doctor they might need. But in the end I think it's a choice each individual has to make at each moment of his or her life.

Welcome @Franklin !

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!

We had a great discussion today and I will get the audio posted asap so people will have time to make comments and pose questions before next week.

We'll plan to devote the whole of Episode 98 to justice based on the above text. If anyone has topics related to justice they they would like us to be sure to talk about, please add those suggestions here.

One aspect I want us to be sure to cover is a set of questions that underlies all of the virtues, but is particularly stark as to justice:

If justice (or any other virtue) is not absolute - and it seems clear that Epicurus held that it was not absolute - then what exactly IS justice (or any other virtue)?

Is justice (or any other virtue) recognizable only in retrospect? (Meaning that we don't know whether an action was just/virtuous or not until we know the result?

Is justice (or any other virtue) simply a name which we apply to certain categories of human action? (Such as "courage" being a label we apply to how we face adversity?)

If we decide to talk about "examples" in the field of justice, let's try to be sure to pick examples that are at least several hundred years old so that we don't run afoul of our "no-politics" guideline. Perhaps we can even use examples like the Roman Civil War, and the conflict between Julius Caesar and the Conspirators, since it's very difficult for most of us nowadays to figure out what the fighting was all about.

Principal Doctrines Which Are Relevant to Justice:

PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.

PD07. Some men wished to become famous and conspicuous, thinking that they would thus win for themselves safety from other men. Wherefore if the life of such men is safe, they have obtained the good which nature craves; but if it is not safe, they do not possess that for which they strove at first by the instinct of nature.

PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

PD31. The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage, to restrain men from harming one another, and save them from being harmed.

PD32. For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another, or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust; and likewise, too, for all tribes of men which have been unable, or unwilling, to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.

PD33. Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another, in any place whatever, and at any time, it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed. [see note below]

PD34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions.

PD35. It is not possible for one who acts in secret contravention of the terms of the compact not to harm or be harmed to be confident that he will escape detection, even if, at present, he escapes a thousand times. For up to the time of death it cannot be certain that he will indeed escape.

PD36. In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all.

PD37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.

PD38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

No problem - Joshua reads the Reid translation that is here: Cicero's "Torquatus" Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - from "On Ends"

Kalosyni and profkesarsarwara (and this is addressed to all participants here, but particularly to newer ones like Kalosyni and Kesar):

It seems to me that the presentation of Epicurean philosophy in this excerpt from "Torquatus" is probably one of the best ways to get a quick handle on the major aspects of Epicurean ethics, so I would very much appreciate it if the two of you can find the time to listen and comment here in this thread.

I would like to start featuring this recording on the home page and in "advertising" as quite possibly the best introduction to Epicurean philosophy out there in audiovisual form, so if you guys have comments or questions about any aspect of it those would be particularly valuable as we refine it.

Thanks!

The only minor issue I hear so far as that at 35:36 it sounds like the word is being read as "undefined" instead of "undefiled."

An easy fix, but let's see if others report other questions before we do a new cut on that section.

I have listened to this several times now and I have to say I think Joshua's version is outstanding!

Edit:

At 4:30 we need to smooth the transition so that it is clear that "And there is a difference..." Is a related but separate and new thought.

At 41:57 there is a slight pacing / emphasis issue. The "THEN ONLY" should be set off for emphasis so that it is clear that THEN ONLY (if we trust the senses) will conception and perception be possible.....

We've now prepared an advanced draft of a new recording of the major presentation on Epicurean Ethics by "Torquatus" in Book One of CIcero's "On Ends" - with Joshua reading it for us.

It's taken a lot of work for us to get this far, and we want to be sure that there are no significant mistakes in it before we promote it to the world at large outside of EpicureanFriends.

If you get a chance, please listen and let us know if you catch anything that needs improvement. There are no doubt some editing glitches that aren't Joshua's fault, but they should be minor.

Let us know any issues that you run into and we'll see about fixing this before final release.

This Torquatus material is perhaps the most clear and extensive explanation of Epicurean ethics anywhere. It's even more extensive and specific that Epicurus' own "Letter to Menoeceus," so this audio version should prove to be very helpful in acquainting more people with the details of the philosophy.

After we get this in final form we can post to Youtube and other places, but let's check it out first. Let us know your comments. I think you will be very pleased with Joshua's version!

Torquatus' Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - Read By Joshua : EpicureanFriends.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

An Audio Reading of Torquatus' presentation of Epicurean Ethics from Cicero's On Ends (Book One).

archive.org

I will probably have more thoughts after I think about this for a while, but for anyone who might question the implications of this sentence: "Not all stress should be avoided and modern Epicureans should move away from seeing tranquility as a main goal." I have a comment:

I think that if Epicurus were here he would agree, and he would be the first to say "but modern Epicureans should never have identified tranquility as the goal of life. I was very clear - PLEASURE (not tranquility) is correct definition of the guide and goal of life." And he might point out that Venus was the goddess of pleasure, of love, and of many things similar to that, but that no one would ordinarily think to list "tranquility" as the first of her attributes.

Episode Ninety-Seven of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode we continue our examination of the virtues as instrumental for pleasure, with the focus this week on "temperance" and courage.