Posts by Cassius

Uh oh!

MY RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE:

Catherine Wilson continues to be one of the better writers on Epicurus today. Who could disagree with the title of her article? Aside from her willingness to accept the church fathers and Plato as "greats" I agree there is a lot of good material in this. However I'd like to talk about her final two paragraphs:

"Epicurus made it clear from the start that he did not advocate the direct pursuit of personal pleasure in the forms of gluttony, indiscriminate sex or overconsumption of intoxicating substances. This was foolish, as it ultimately produces pain. Real pleasure arises from judicious – though not overly fussy – “choice and avoidance”, and avoidance is as important as choice.

Epicurean ethics reduces to a few simple principles: avoid harming others and live so that others have no motive to harm you. Form agreements with them for mutual aid and protection. The greatest good for a human being, Epicurus thought, is friendship – pleasure in the presence of another individual, and the security of knowing that help will be given if ever it is needed."

My response:

(1) Epicurus did endorse the pursuit of food, sex, and other pleasures, but not (as she correctly observes) to the point of gluttony which ultimately produces more pain than pleasure. But to talk about "real pleasure" is something else: I would submit that Epicurus clearly says that "all pleasures are desirable" and there is really no such thing as a "false pleasure" --- if you want to talk about pleasures to be avoided, the point is that some pleasures produce more pain than pleasure in the end, when summed all together.

(2) I have even more concern about saying that "Epicurean Ethics reduces to a few simple principles" wherein those she lists a series of things in which pleasure is almost an afterthought. As she often does, Catherine Wilson is playing to current social norms and attempting to justify in modern terms. The goal of Epicurus is unwavering: pleasure for yourself and those who are your friends. Yes, a good way to do that is to live justly and honorably, but that is not the goal - the goal is the pleasure. Even less well stated is the statement that "the greatest good for a human being is 'friendship." Epicurus is very emphatic in defining the greatest good in philosophic terms as pleasure -- and Wilson is mixing the means and the ends in saying that he held the greatest good to be friendship. Epicurus clearly stated that of all the things that the wise man will seek in order to procure a life of pleasure, the greatest is friendship. That makes friendship, like virtue itself, a tool toward pleasure, and not the end in itself. Wilson is no doubt well aware of this, but not content to point out that Epicurus said that one would die for a friend, or be as hurt at the torture of a friend as when tortured himself, she mixes the end and the means so as to appeal to a wider audience.

Time for the reminder from Diogenes of Oinoanda, who perhaps one day will have shouted loud enough for even Ms. Wilson to hear:

Fr. 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Episode 103 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our topic is focused on more mistakes made be people who do not identify pleasure as the goal of life and pursue it intelligently.

Good question, Alex, but can you clarify what you are asking? At this precise moment I am not recalling a part of Lucretius specifically on this as much as I am remembering Diogenes Laertius and Cicero's criticism. And then as to the relationship between happiness and pleasure there is the "shout" part of Diogenes of Oinoanda and then several instances here in Torquatus.

Can you clarify your question? (Or maybe Joshua or Don or someone can go ahead and respond further as is.)

Also on this topic, in terms of "spreading the word to new people," another obvious observation is that since of the things we pursue to ensure a happy life by far the greatest is the acquisition of friends, and since it is also clear (i would assert) that we want friends who see the world the way we Epicureans do, then it is logical that some amount of effort is going to be spent on spreading the word so as to increase the number of your Epicurean friends.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

A major part of my rejection of Buddhism is that I believe that sometimes, it‘s a good thing to endure some pain

I don't have much experience on that myself, but I can guarantee you that you and a large number of others here at the forum who have taken a detour through Buddhism can "commune" on that topic at extreme length!

(Not sure what the "cute" term for the Buddhist practice would be but I bet there is one. )

First, yes: There's no divine commandment or categorical imperative to save everyone in the world, as the Christians argue to be the case. Your own pleasure and that of your friends is ultimately the only natural standard for what to pursue. Of course that ends up meaning all sorts of other things in regard to virtue and relations with others and trying to be on good terms with them as well, but ultimately it all comes down to the feelings that nature provides, and that varies according to "who else" you are talking about. Your friends evoke stronger feelings of pleasure than do random strangers.

Also

Quote from smoothiekiwi

If I want to enjoy pleasure with the least amount of pain, I won’t go out into the world and proclaim to know the truth

I would caution to be very precise with this formulation. I do not think it is correct exactly as written, although I probably say it that way often myself -- too loosely.

I think the proper approach would be a combination of several considerations, primarily:

1. You're looking for the maximum pleasure you can achieve at a cost in pain that you find worthwhile. (which is not the same as "the least amount of pain.") And in proof of that I would cite exactly what you did about the effort that Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans put into their work and the peril that came their way because of it.
2. Only you can determine what amount of pain is justifiable - there are no absolute standards of ranking pain or pleasure. (I don't think any Epicurean would argue that there is, and that includes the natural and necessary discussion, which doesn't add up to an absolute standard either. I would assert - and do ad nauseum - that those who assert "tranquility" or some other kind of "fancy pleasure" is the "best" pleasure are flat-out wrong under Epicurean theory and reality.)
3. Everyone experiences some pain in life; only the Epicurean god category would be theoretically able to avoid all pain. (I think everyone here would take that position regardless of their views of what Epicurus meant by "gods.")
4. There are almost always going to be limitations when you attempt to start starting the goal in words more precise than "pleasure." I would say that is because there are natural limitations in the ability of words to capture feelings, and Epicurus ultimately says that the proof of his position that pleasure is to be pursued and pain avoided comes from observing the infants of all species before they are corrupted with false ideas. That's an observational standard rather than a conceptual formula, and I think there are deep reasons why conceptual formulas are always going to be lacking, just like a map is never a complete recreation of the territory described, just an outline.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

But I most certainly wouldn’t gain pleasure from going around, from door to door, and spreading the word of Epicurus.

YOU wouldn't do that, WE wouldn't do that, and neither would the Epicurean mentioned in Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle-Monger" after getting this advice from Lucian: https://epicurism.info/etexts/Alexander.html

Quote

On one occasion, indeed, an Epicurean got himself into great trouble by daring to expose him before a great gathering. He came up and addressed him in a loud voice, ‘Alexander, it was you who induced So-and-so the Paphlagonian to bring his slaves before the governor of Galatia, charged with the murder of his son who was being educated in Alexandria. Well, the young man is alive, and has come back, to find that the salves had been cast to the beasts by your machinations." What had happened was this: The lad had sailed up the Nile, gone on to a Red Sea port, found a vessel starting for India, and been persuaded to make the voyage. He being long overdue, the unfortunate slaves supposed that he had either perished in the Nile or fallen a victim to some of the pirates who infested it at that time; so they came home to report his disappearance. Then followed the oracle [indicting the slaves with murder], the sentence, and finally the young man’s return with the story of his absence.

All this the Epicurean recounted. Alexander was much annoyed by the exposure, and could not stomach so well deserved an affront; he directed the company to stone the man, on pain of being involved in his impiety and called Epicureans. However, when they set to work, a distinguished Pontic called Demostratus, who was staying there, rescued him by interposing his own body; the man had the narrowest possible escape from being stoned to death—as he richly deserved to be; what business had he to be the only sane man in a crowed of madmen, and needlessly make himself the butt of Paphlagonian infatuation?

You're providing the answer to your own question by pointing out that it would defy common sense to go around preaching indiscriminately.

And as we know, Epicurus held ALL of these are true:

PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain.

VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

VS52. Friendship dances around the world, bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.

It was called to my attention today that we don't have much here in terms of reviews of Hiram's book. We really ought to add more commentary in this thread, since a lot of people come into contact with it.

I have a lot I could say about this book but let me be brief for the moment. Hiram put a lot of work into this and into his other work, and there's a lot to be gained from reading it. However it is important to keep in mind what this book is not:

1. It is not a full and complete introduction to Epicurean philosophy. For that, I strongly recommend DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy."
2. It is not a detailed commentary on some particular aspect of Epicurean philosophy. For that, you will want to consult one of the many academic articles you can find searching JSTOR or Academia.com.
3. It is not a "compare and contrast" book that explores in detail the differences and similarities between Epicurus and competing philosophies and doctrines. Hiram covers a number of traditions that he feels to be compatible with Epicurean philosophy, and he makes recommendations on how someone might want to consider pursuing them. But it's not a deep discussion of the merits or demerits of other approaches and whether they are ultimately logically consistent with Epicurus.

Hiram's book is in my view much more of a "self-help" book that people who are somewhat familiar with a variety of other traditions besides Epicurus may find helpful in their own pursuit of techniques to improve their lives. When read in that way I think Hiram's book is helpful. I have a copy myself and don't mind including it on reading lists for people who are interested in this approach.

But I do want to caution people against thinking that Hiram is giving, or even attempting to give, and exhaustive analysis of the details of Epicurean philosophy and how it compares with competing Greek or non-Greek philosophies. If you approach it looking for that information you may end up being confused about the issues that Hiram chooses to emphasize as against what you read in Lucretius, or in Epicurus' own letters, or in Diogenes Laertius or the other ancient sources.

People who come across this thread are encouraged to post their own thoughts about "Tending the Epicurean Garden" as that will likely be of great use to those who read it. And especially - if you have questions or concerns while reading it - please don't hesitate to post here in this thread and we'll deal with them as they occur to you.

How do my current thoughts compare to what I wrote on another venue seven years ago? I think you'll see some of the same points in an earlier form, but I am more cautious about recommending it today:

Quote

Jul 17, 2014 Cassius Amicus

This is an excellent book focused on how you can apply ancient Epicurean principles to live a happier life in the modern world. Hiram Crespo is the founder of the Society of Epicurus, and this is his first book, explaining his suggestions for living according to the principles of Epicureanism. This is not an academic treatise or a primer on basic Epicurean doctrines, but a practical guide written for general audiences. The book explains Epicurean views in context with similar views from numerous other traditions, and shows how techniques from a variety of sources can be combined to assist in living more pleasurably. The book is well written and well organized, providing essentially a "self-help" approach with lots of specific advice. This is one of the few absolutely pro-Epicurean books to have been written in the last several hundred years. As far as I know, one has to go back to Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens" for another book which comes out swinging in its unreserved advocacy of Epicureanism as a lifestyle and as a philosophy. One can read this book without any knowledge at all of the history or doctrine of Epicurus, because the author provides a good measure of both history and teachings in the course of the book. However the reader who is new to Epicureanism would profit from consulting websites such as http://www.epicurus.info/, http://www.epicurus.net/, and of course Crespo's own http://www.societyofepicurus.com/ for more background on the specifics of Epicurean ideas. It appears that Crespo's work as an advocate for Epicurean ideas is just getting started, so hopefully there will be more to come from the same author. (less)

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Maybe my perception of Epicureanism has been shaped by Wright, but I still believe that there's something I misunderstand from this philosophy- and I'm trying to figure out, what.

Also --- I do think if Wright were someone's main frame of reference, there is a possibility of going off track due to her emphasis on "observation" and her unwillingness to go further in the direction of Epicurus' epistemology.

I myself haven't gotten as far as I would like in analyzing Philodemus' On Signs / Methods of Inference, but I think that Epicurus would conclude that she went somewhat too far in Skepticism and that she did not absorb, or at least embrace, his ideas on when it is proper to reach conclusions and on what subjects.

Thank you for that intro!

I hope you will have DeWitt on your list, and that you will consider the Nikolsky article and the Gosling & Taylor book thereafter.

As many eyes as we can get on these issues the better off we are!

It's interesting that you were so impacted by the Frances Wright book. It's incredibly impressive as you say, but in itself it leads to some interesting issues (that we have some threads on here at the forum). SInce you are focusing on its attack on Stoicism, I think you would also be interested in the sections of Cicero's "On Ends" that are attacks on Stoicism. So many people consider him to have been a stoic but those sections of On Ends make some excellent anti-Stoic points from an unexpected direction.

Based on what you wrote if I were you I would probably NOT read the full Lucretius poem next - I would read DeWitt and the ones I mentioned above to further assist in the overall framework.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Not in the sense that pleasure isn't the thing we should employ to determine what is good or bad, but because there's something resulting out of this belief that transforms a regular man into Gandalf, so to speak.

It might be that further explanation of the Gandalf analogy would be helpful. I am familiar with Lord of the Rings but not enough to be sure exactly what you mean or draw from the analogy.

Great point. I know that in general discussion (such as below) that shorthand is used, but maybe the texts don't really justify it?

PD26. Of desires, all that do not lead to a sense of pain, if they are not satisfied, are not necessary, but involve a craving which is easily dispelled when the object is hard to procure, or they seem likely to produce harm.

PD29. Among desires, some are natural (and necessary, some natural) but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, but due to idle imagination.

Quote from Don

In fact, I would posit that most of our everyday desires fall into the "natural but not necessary" category, but they do add variety to our lives

Yes and the highlights another peril - that if thinking that "natural but not necessary" desires as a rule should not be pursued because they are not "necessary." Such a general rule would not in my opinion by Epicurean, but Stoic/ascetic.

And I don't think any (or many) people here would infer such a rule, because we hit on that point so hard here in this forum. But in the outside world of people who read Epicurus I think that's a very real problem. They infer that Epicurus suggested we should pursue ONLY natural and necessary desires, even though he himself manifestly did not do that in his own case, nor would it be logical to reach such a conclusion in the first place given the rest of his philosophy.

And if someone wants to argue that point (which they often do in outside Epicurean discussions) I would ask them among many other things: Exactly how many of the slaves which Epicurus held at his death were "necessary?"

Welcome @smoothiekiwi !

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!

Quote from Don

unsatisfying nature of the empty desires, like "empty" calories, empty handed, empty headed, etc.

Right. Those in themselves are good qualifying explanations. They exist, but they are deceptive as to final result and all the implications that go with them.

Quote from Don

Maybe desires that come to nothing instead of "empty" desires

I am not wedded to any particular formulation but yes I do think that has a more meaningful ring to it. So we could be talking about an "idiom" here that explains the awkwardness I am sensing in the single word "empty"

I haven't thought of that "idiom" word lately in our context here, but I was just using it in another context earlier this week about someone who was raised overseas and who expressed confusion over the meaning of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Maybe our lexicon or FAQ ought to include a list of actual or probable Epicurean "idioms"

I noticed in the text from Torquatus while editing this week's podcast:

Quote

[60] There is also death which always hangs over them like the stone over Tantalus, and again superstition, which prevents those who are tinged by it from ever being able to rest. Moreover they have no memories for their past good fortune, and no enjoyment of their present; they only wait for what is to come, and as this cannot but be uncertain, they are wasted with anguish and alarm; and they are tortured most of all when they become conscious, all too late, that their devotion to wealth or military power, or influence, or fame has been entirely in vain. For they achieve none of the pleasures which they ardently hoped to obtain and so underwent numerous and severe exertions.

Don I presume this ("entirely in vain") is pretty much the same sentiment we are discussing? If so maybe we can find some points of comparison with the Latin from this section.

Well what you are saying there is that the desire for anything other than pleasure itself is just a means to something else, but again power, money, and fame do all have their legitimate uses , I would argue, even under the strictest Epicurean analysis.

You can say that the desire for UNLIMITED amounts of those things are "empty" as impossible to obtain, but if t hat is what you are saying then to be clear you are saying that it is the UNLIMITED aspect which is impossible to attain and therefore "vain" "delusive" or "whatever words you'd like to use.

But none of that is self-explanatory just by using the word "empty"

Quote from Kalosyni

Objects that can hold things (boxes, cups, etc.) can at times be empty.

Ideas that can hold things (truth, validity, reason, accuracy) can at times be empty.

I picked K's comment to quote largely at random, but the point I think is important is there.

I think this is important because I get the idea that in conjunction with discussions (us I mean, not Epicurean necessarily) which reference "empty" there it is also frequently implied that certain types of desires are ALWAYS "empty." That may be as much of my problem with this phrasing as anything else.

Is anyone thinking that there is a list of desires that is "ALWAYS" empty? I am thinking of the classic fame, power, riches, etc. Those may strike me as always dangerous, but NOT always "empty" and some degree of fulfillment of those is generally necessary in life.

So what I am suggesting as part of this discussion that we make clear the "relative nature" and "subjectivity" of these issues, because if we cross the line into saying "XXXX desire is ALWAYS empty" I have a feeling we are on that slippery slope to Platonism. That may apply to "I want to live forever" which is physically impossible for humans, but I am not aware of too many such desires that might be physically impossible to at least get some benefit from pursuing.

There's a lot of subtlety here to be considered.

I do not see myself arguing against what you guys are saying. I see this as an issue similar to use of the term "gods" which does not in American English convey the meaning and definition that Epicurus held to apply to gods.

We cannot use the term "God" without explanation any more than we can use the word "empty" without explanation if we expect people to understand us.

So I see myself as agreeing with your conclusion as long as you are annexing to your conclusion the explanation that you are providing here.

So I would say that "Empty" in American English does not convey the meaning we are wishing to convey. I don't see that you are yet suggesting a short phrase or combination of words that does the job, but that should be the goal, so that the word "empty" does not confuse people just like an unexplained use of the word "gods" confuses people

In both situations, clear speech and meaning requires explanation, just like we cannot throw the original Greek words at Americans and expect them to be understood.