Posts by Cassius

Yes I agree. What we are starting to see in the way we structure the podcast and some of the Twentieth skype sessions is going to lead in the right direct.

Some kind of

- Open with welcome to everyone and state the agenda.

- Some kind of brief presentation of a point of philosophy.

- Some kind of question/answer "roundtable" about the point of philosophy that was raised.

- Some kind of introduction of everyone by first name of who is there and a sentence or two or three (no more) about their background in Epicurus

- Then maybe a "thank you for coming and our next meeting will be _______ and in the meantime we invite you to join us in our ongoing discussions at http://www.Hometown_lEpicureans.com. " And then say "We invite everyone to hang around and introduce themselves further and enjoy our cookies and punch (or whatever).

We can do the same thing pretty much by zoom or at the local library.

And maybe a key element in the picture is that the structure has to give the local leader some motivation to be the local leader. In other words, not necessarily financial motivation, but some kind of reward or compensation for all of the effort that it takes to spearhead local activity.

We have half-joked before about the issue of "certifying" local people for things such as performing wedding ceremonies, but these issues have to be figured out without getting anywhere close to the "cult" status that we discussed in the last podcast.

It is a start anyway. Maybe the question is "what does a group of Epicureans getting together with each other do?

Some kind of pattern of activities combining a "lesson" or lecture with some kind of enjoyable activity (food)? Plus something that invites participation so people can get to know one another better.

Quote from Matt

But regardless a unified teaching curriculum would be needed to be the source for all the branches of the Garden.

Yes I agree. We can't wait until all 38 (or is it 37) books are reconstructed, we have to start with the outline basics and get things going, then fill in the details over time. I don't see any evidence that Epicurus waited until all or most of his books were written before he started organizing.

Quote from Matt

Everyone needs to start branching off.

That appears to be where things have fallen through in the past. Yes this is true, but in the end it takes "leadership" of a kind that I personally am not well equipped to provide! Or else we would be a lot further along already!

I think it is true that nothing really productive ever gets done by a committee alone, and that anything has to have a direction and a couple of leaders who help coordinate things. There are always a thousand reasons "not" to do things, and it takes some dedicated people to power past the obstacles.

Yes I have been talking with Kalosyni lately about the aborted (to date) efforts at epicuruscollege.com

I told her that I stopped pushing that forward in favor of the podcast, as I thought we needed more "content" before we could do course material.

I think that issue is now resolved, and it's now time to figure out how to develop courses for an online presentation that can be combined with local activity.

Matt and I crossposted but are on the same wavelength. We'll need to work on and provide a "model" for people to go by. Even the gods couldn't create anything without a model!

I think that part of the answer to these questions has to involve admitting that the world has changed a lot in the last few years.

Even until recently I gather people found out about each other through posting flyers at the library, or at the local college campus, or maybe posting an advertisement in the local newspapers.

None of that really is operational anymore. Even if we want to have a meeting of people in our subdivision or apartment complex, I gather that the first option nowadays is Zoom (or skype or whatever).

I can't think of any alternatives but to combine the two processes by working to identify people in a particular locality but expect that even then their primary communication means will be online.

So maybe the practical brainstorming needs to be figuring out how people are communicating and finding each other locally (maybe "Neighborhood" apps?) and figuring out a format where people in a particular locality can be invited to participate in zoom meetings that are fairly general in terms of Epicurean doctrine but also "local" in that everyone has a connection in generally living in a similar locality(?)

If that's the way forward, then that's going to take significant planning on how to preserve privacy and security and at the same time do something worthwhile.

I am not sure if this needs a new thread but I sense the topic is morphing to a variation of Joshua s "only the beginning theme."

The question is almost:." What do those of us who begin to get comfortable with the Epicurean worldview do with that knowledge? "

First and foremost that means using it to live happily ourselves, but then we should probably remember that the most important tool to live happily is friends.

We here are online friends but we need local friends at least as much.

So the topic always come back to how we can identify and/or cultivate our own local Epicurean friends.

We can't just always talk among ourselves and increase our knowledge of the texts. Once we have the outline and a basic understanding, we move from "General Officers" to the front lines.

And I think that points back to our needing to figure out our own variation of "Meetup groups" as Kalosyni and others have been discussing.

"I've seen somewhere a scientific experiment which determined that pain is worth four times the amount of pleasure. Means that when you experience pain, you'll need four times the amount of pleasure to feel as happy as before."

I would say that rules of thumb can be helpful but most frequently the ratings are so subjective that it's essential that the limits of thumbnails always be part of the conversation

Quote from Cassius

The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us.

I shouldn't have said it that way because this phrasing begs the question. We don't "have" to take risks in many cases. We choose whether to do so or not. We could simply choose to live in our caves on bread and water and forgo the possibility of many activities that may bring significant pleasure but at the cost of significant pain. If "all pain is to be avoided at all cost" is the formula, then the cave-dwelling life would be a logical option. But that doesn't appear to me to be the formula Epicurus taught, nor does it make sense to me that he would have taught it.

Quote from Kalosyni

And only certain people will be able to grasp this big picture understanding of Epicureanism,

Exactly that seems to be contemplated in several sections of the texts, not the least of which is the Diogenes Laertius section translated as:

Quote

A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation.

As well as in Torquatus' statement:

Quote

Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.

Quote from Kalosyni

He said: "Don't do anything unless you are as happy as a child feeding a duck."

I had a judge telll me one time that his best advice in life was "When in doubt, don't."

Of course he was widely considered in the community to be neither a great judge nor having a lot of personal insight

The problem is that we sometimes have to take risks knowing that our decisions may backfire on us. Figuring out how to do that prudently in itself would be a great topic -- "how to evaluate risk" -- because I don't think Epicurus would or did recommend avoiding all risk. That's another way of framing the question that is often asked as "Should we pursue ONLY the natural and necessary desires?"

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Five of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Last week we spent most of the episode discussing several listener questions. Today we return to the Torquatus text and look more closely at this list of core Epicurean doctrines.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

[62] XIX. But these doctrines may be stated in a certain manner so as not merely to disarm our criticism, but actually to secure our sanction. For this is the way in which Epicurus represents the wise man as continually happy; he keeps his passions within bounds; about death he is indifferent; he holds true views concerning the eternal gods apart from all dread; he has no hesitation in crossing the boundary of life, if that be the better course. Furnished with these advantages he is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains. For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present; he is also very far removed from those defects of character which I quoted a little time ago, and when he compares the fool’s life with his own, he feels great pleasure. And pains, if any befall him, have never power enough to prevent the wise man from finding more reasons for joy than for vexation.

[63] It was indeed excellently said by Epicurus that fortune only in a small degree crosses the wise man’s path, and that his greatest and most important undertakings are executed in accordance with his own design and his own principles, and that no greater pleasure can be reaped from a life which is without end in time, than is reaped from this which we know to have its allotted end. He judged that the logic of your school possesses no efficacy either for the amelioration of life or for the facilitation of debate. He laid the greatest stress on natural science. That branch of knowledge enables us to realize clearly the force of words and the natural conditions of speech and the theory of consistent and contradictory expressions; and when we have learned the constitution of the universe we are relieved of superstition, are emancipated from the dread of death, are not agitated through ignorance of phenomena, from which ignorance, more than any thing else, terrible panics often arise; finally, our characters will also be improved when we have learned what it is that nature craves. Then again if we grasp a firm knowledge of phenomena, and uphold that canon, which almost fell from heaven into human ken, that test to which we are to bring all our judgments concerning things, we shall never succumb to any man’s eloquence and abandon our opinions.

[64] Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. Now those who invalidate sensations and say that perception is altogether impossible, cannot even clear the way for this very argument of theirs when they have thrust the senses aside. Moreover, when cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and rmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes, and as I shewed just now, our leader again has established the canon and criterion of knowledge and thus has imparted to us a method for marking off falsehood
from truth.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

I remember Epicureanism being described as altruistic hedonism

Yes, but that's another example of why categories are dangerous. What is "atruism"? Putting others first always? That would certainly not be Epicurean. What is "hedonism?" Putting pleasure first always? Yes, from a certain perspective, but absolutely no from a moment to moment perspective, because we often choose pain to avoid worse pain or pursue greater pleasure. And here is where I particularly agree with Elli's criticism of "ism's" - anything that suggests a single goal that orients every other decision (other than pleasure) is going to be a bad idea at certain times. And even "pleasure-ism" doesn't accurately convey the point to most people. If you insisted on an "ism" -- the only one that would be most consistent with Epicurus' full worldview would be "Epicureanism" -- which does not appear to be the way even the ancient Epicurean's phrased it.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Just today, I found myself thinking that the thing which prevents me from inflicting pain on someone is altruism and the wish to make their lives better- that's my definition of love.

That may be your definition of love, but then "love" isn't the ultimate value in the Epicurean worldview, so has to be treated with caution too. As you observed smoothkiwi in another recent thread, not every example of prudent eating is Epicurean. Not every instance of "common sense" is Epicurean, and by similar token not every instance of love, or even of pleasure, is something that Epicurus advised everyone to engage in all the time.

I don't intend this to sound harsh of course but it's really challenging to think through the implications of what Epicurus is teaching. It doesn't add up to "god is love" or even "the universe is pleasure" or any kind of master intention-based plan of action that applies everywhere and all the time. "Pleasure" probably comes the closest to the universal motivating force, but every time we say that we need to remember that Epicurus was plain that we don't choose every immediate pleasure.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Still, I wouldn't call it inherently Epicurean- many religions and philosophies have rituals and traditions regarding meals. I regard eating your food consciously and with great joy as inherently natural, something which bring us more pleasure in the end. Epicureanism has simply succeeded in noticing natural patterns, in contrast to the other religions out there. Still, thanks for sharing!

I think this is exactly right and a huge point. It is good to have this article for reference because we constantly need reinforcement in living prudently toward a happy life.

But it's also true at the same time that even though Epicurus would maintain that his philosophy is largely just "common sense" applied to observation of nature, that doesn't mean that every activity implementing "common sense" should be claimed to be "Epicurean."

That would almost be what we sense (rightly or wrong) to have been DeWitt's attitude toward Christianity, on steroids -- every observation of commonality between Christianity and Epicurus becomes "aha - there was crosspolination!" And every observation of people having a good time means that they are Epicurean!

It would clearly be wrong to overgeneralize like that, but it would also be wrong to throw up a barrier and say "We will discuss nothing on this forum but the most abstract of philosophy!" (I know some people probably think that already! )

So that's what we use separate forums and subforums on the site to do -- put things in their proper place where they can be found at the appropriate times.

We are not disembodied minds, nor do we want to be, so we need to experience all sides of life, and I think we will find that we likely have similar approaches to a wide variety of things - even food and other day to day matters.

Thanks for that! Seems like there are also instances in Cicero of an Epicurean saying something "with a smile" in a similar way to what you are referring to here. And Ciceros jabs at Velleius in On the Nature of the Gods as talking as if he had just come from the intermundia, and his remarks to Cassius in his letters also seem goodhumored and not nasty. And of course Lucians works are full of humor in conveying Epicurean points.

I would go so far as to say i think it would be generally out of character for an Epicurean to have a "sour" disposition.

Quote from Matt

so deeply involved with psychics

My experience with people who are into psychics is that they are probably easier to deal with than hard-core religion.

Quote from Matt

I’m way less inclined these days to let certain things pass by without notice.

I agree - the question is more what to do about it after you notice it. I am all in favor of gently steering people in the right direction, maybe by dropping some ideas of reading that they might find interesting. Depending on whether they are left or right or some kind of weird religion, you can often find people they identify with who have in the past had some good things to say about Epicurus. But as far as hard-charging efforts to change peoples' minds, I am not sure there is a really good method.

Wow something happened to my first post in this thread. At this point I don't have a clue as to what it was supposed to be!

Quote from Matt

But because this isn’t the first time I’ve dealt with this type of thing it has caused me to really want to draw the line in the sand between what is casual belief in something supernatural and what is on the complete verge of madness.

My only caution is that most of the time when I have gotten too deeply involved with a person who is so clearly out of touch with reality nothing good has come of it. The chances of your changing their mind are next to none. Of course on the other hand we all have many casual relationships with people of all types and it doesn't really matter what they believe as long as their general relationship with us is beneficial.

No doubt there are lots of people in the world like that and always will be, and many of us will even have relatives that way. Possibly the real issue before the house that ought to be discussed is something like PD39 on what general methodology can be used to accurately decide whether someone (1) can be made our friend, or (2) can at least not be treated like an alien (stranger?) or (3) ought to be someone we actively separate ourselves from to the extent possible.

I don't necessarily think that Epicurus was suggesting that we ought to have only Epicurean friends, but those are interesting questions to consider -- such as "what really is a friend?" -- in realistic rather than poetic terms.