Posts by Cassius

Philos it might be good to repost something featuring the Hermarchus and Metrodorus busts because I am not sure that those are widely known to be available.

Wow I had completely forgot about these so thank you for bumping!

I have a question:. The photos seem to have a good tint, but the ones you have now are sterling silver? Might be a good idea to post a picture of that version (?)

I think I have some old recordings made by text to speech, but I don't recall. I definitely want to put our full podcast series there too as a more permanent place for it.

Editing is coming along on this one and it should be up by midday Friday, followed shortly by Joshua's full recording of the Torquatus text from On Ends. I think I will first post that to my account at Archive.org so it has a separate home that is easy to find, with a separate discussion thread here, rather than simply include it as a regular podcast episode.

I always liked that cartoon too! Hard to go too far wrong when you follow uncorrupted animals!

Don thanks for the excellent Thanksgiving post. It was so good I decided just to copy the link to the front page here, and also to the Facebook group, rather than try to write something else myself! But the librarians out there will note that I gave proper attribution to the author so no plagiarism this time!

OK I think I have at least temporarily resolved the issue - it should be visible to everyone now.

That looks like a great find - thank you!

Uh oh ! What happened? That is just supposed to be the link to the page where the file is stored! Let me try to fix!

Edit:. Ok now maybe *everyone* can access the link!

We've had some recent updates to the discussion about Nate's translation work in the comments to his upload here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/filebase/index.php?file/64-kuriai-doxai-a-compilation-of-translations-by-nathan-h-bartman-2021/

I note this because anyone who follows this topic will want to see these. Unfortunately due to the way the forum software works, unless you have participated in the thread you probably won't see the comments pop to the top of your standard update notifications (and that's why I am posting this).

Nate is doing some interesting research into the possible relationship between the way PD01 is structured and the nearby monotheistic religions, so if you're interested in that please check Nate's thread.

That is great and I wish you lots of success!

Today I tweaked the font color on the new "Radiant" themes to:

(1) make the color of the top bar a little less "radiant" - toning it down from effectively neon to a little darker, and

(2) made the color of the text in the main body of the website a little brighter, and less subdued and therefore (hopefully) easier to read.

If anyone sees any problem with those changes or would prefer further tweaking please let me know!

That's a nice start to a website!

Yep. Nor is there a book in which you can find an absolute list of "things that are and are not ethical.". I think that is probably the harder pill to swallow.

We hate the things we find unjust, and we need at act against them, but we shouldn't confuse our own views with those of God or Nature.

Quote from Don

we - as members of society- have put in structures and "contracts" to deal with "injustice" to keep ourselves safe.

Yes hopefully so - but whether they are in fact in place is one of those contextual circumstances which has to be considered in projecting what will happen if we take particular actions. The point of writing this being that there is no supernatural automatic enforcement mechanism like the religious majority believes to be the case.

In tonight's 20th discussion Martin brought up the latest version of this continuing question, which was posted to the Facebook thread for Episode 95. Those of you who weren't on our 20th discussion were spared my rant on the subject, but there's one part of it I want to repeat and reassure you about: No matter how long you are involved in discussion of Epicurean philosophy, this position is going to be thrown in your face, so it is imperative that you develop a response and be prepared to deal with it.

Our episode of course was devoted to explaining the Epicurean position, through Torquatus, that pleasure is the highest good. Whenever that point is made, you can be sure that assorted stoics and neo-stoics are going to come out of the woodwork to point out that "Yes, Epicurus said pleasure was the highest good, but what he also said was that the highest pleasure was tranquility, and that's not a form of sensual pleasure at all but something that transcends the senses!"

Here it is once again, followed (logically enough) by a debate among Stoic-minded people about their own viewpoints:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2381/

My answer to this question is set out in the discussion presented at this link, and at many other places on this forum: The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model

But simply posting a link doesn't begin to equip us to address the question. In our 20th discussion, Godfrey and Joshua suggested several different perspectives that need to be considered (one of which is "Who was Menoeceus and how advanced a student was he?" (so that we understand how Epicurus would have tailored his message).

Then there are observations about PD3 (which is very close to the section of the letter to Menoeceus about absence of pain, but which differs in significant respects.

There is an entire series of arguments to be made in addition to those I make about the Philebus context in the article I linked above.

But for now I would be appreciative to any who would like to extend this thread: How would YOU answer Mr. Daly's question in a way that makes plain how to reconcile the many clear statements about pleasurable sensations made by Epicurus with the argument that Epicurus then (they argue) reversed course and said that the highest pleasure was not a sensual experience at all?

Quote from Kalosyni

Of course, we assume that we have developed the wisdom to make choices that are ethical, and so we don't choose to do things that cause any pain or suffering to others.

One of the most challenging issues (ask Don! ) is that this wording itself probably has to be parsed, because there is no list if ethical vs non ethical to consult, and in the end Epicurus says there are no such lists. There's no guarantee that everyone feels pain when another person is harmed, and some in fact take pleasure in it in some circumstances. In the end much of the pain that can be expected to come from hurting other people depends on the circumstance that we can expect that others will punish us for that action, and if we have reason to expect that we will not be punished, that motivation will not exist.

All of which is not intended to invoke rabbit hunting, but to be a reminder that there are no supernatural forces lurking in the background to tell us what is ethical, or waiting to punish those who are unethical. Even back to Epicurus' time the majority thinks that such bright lines and supernatural forces do exist, so it's very interesting to think about how we should internalize and act on that knowledge.

Post from a reader at Facebook: Are you all familiar with this figure? I want to share it with those who haven't seen it. I also want to ask about the 3rd cup. What does it mean? Does it tip over sometimes or does extravagance create a pendulum effect? Photo source:
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/blog/index.php?entry/18-the-full-cup-fullness-of-pleasure-model/

My response:

First, I want to apologize to Aapo for the delay in receiving and approving this post. It's now almost two weeks since he posted it but just a moment ago was the first time it popped up in its proper place on my page to review and approve it. A lot has changed with the way Facebook is tendering posts to administrators and I don't know what's going on. Last Sunday two of us Admins went looking for this (because Aapo asked about what happened) and we couldn't find it to approve it. Now here on Friday almost a week later it appears exactly as normal for approval. This is very frustrating. So the point here is to please understand that if you submit a post to the group and it doesn't come up shortly, please message one of the admins to ask about it and understand that there is a possibility that we may not have seen it.

Second, to answer the question generally, this is a graphic I prepared some years ago on the topic of the analogy of the leaky vessel used at the beginning of Lucretius Book Six. If I were redoing it today I would probably do it differently, but I do think that it does help serve as a point of discussion (as it is doing here) that the issue of "how much pleasure should be pursued" is one to think about carefully. The current version of my longer post discussing many of the cites to the texts that are relevant to this question is here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…kUthgrzzD_Xgt7o

And now to answer the question more precisely: The third cup example is intended to illustrate what happens when the vessel (an analogy for human life) is "overfilled" with pleasures. I believe the point of the "vessel" analogy in the first place is to serve as an illustration of the Epicurean doctrine that the "limit of quantity of pleasure" as described in PD03 can be thought of as "a human life completely full of pleasure." For purposes of the illustration it means roughly all the experiences from birth to death of any living thing. The optimum state for any living being would be to experience only pleasure for every moment of its life from birth to death. No one is saying that that goal is possible for a human being, and in Epicurean doctrine it's probably only possible for Epicurean gods in the intermundia. But for purposes of defining a goal - for purposes of responding to Plato or Aristotle as to what is the best life possible - we can define a the goal as a vessel which is absolutely full of pleasure.

Now, as stated in PD18 (and elaborated in 19 and 20):

PD18. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures, and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.

PD19. Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of pleasure.

PD20. The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits, and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time; but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short, in any way, of the best life.

So the point of the third cup illustration would be to bring home to your mind an image that the cup of life can be filled only so far, and that any pleasure that one might think about adding to it after that point would be spilled out and would only at best amount to variation of what is already there.

The illustration has a number of uses, including the obvious one that we're discussing here. As explained further in the article linked here, the point of a "limit of quantity of pleasure" also has important uses in logical debate over whether it is correct to think of pleasure as the guide or end of life. Plato and others argue that pleasure cannot be the goal because the goal must be something that can be a superlative ("the best") and cannot be exceeded. Most people think that pleasure can be extended indefinitely, so if you take a rigorously logical perspective that would in some minds disqualify pleasure as meeting the definition of a "final goal." One point of a vessel analogy like this would be to respond to such an argument with the response: "You say pleasure must have a limit? Yes it does have a limit - the limit of pleasure in a human life is a life filled with pleasure for that lifetime (the vessel)."

This was an allusion to "nihilism" - the emphasis is on what it means to think that "your life means nothing" - and the heart of that issue is the question of "meaningfulness."

Yes you are indeed made up of atoms and void, and in the Epicurean view there is no "divine spark" mixed in. So if you are looking at the entire situation in terms of matter and space, you are indeed a speck in a huge extent of space.

Does that mean you should consider yourself to be in every respect the equivalent of dirt, and recklessly spend your time as if it were no concern of yours whether you lived or died?

That's the direction I am going with that statement.

Does your life in fact mean anything to the universe? No - the universe is not an animate object and has no concern or evaluation of you.

Does the fact that the universe has no concern or evaluation of you mean anything to you? I would say that Epicurus would answer that by his many statements about the value to us of the pleasure of living, which is implicitly in fact our highest value. There are times when we do voluntarily give up our lives, but we don't make that decision by asking "Universe, should we give up our life today?"

So both are true - we are indeed in terms of quantity a speck in a huge expanse of space. But at the same times, our lives are of most important value to us, so that we should focus our effort on using our time the "best" way possible. And we have to have a philosophical judgment as to what is the "best way possible."

Welcome @Tdhultman !

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!