Posts by Cassius

Episode One Hundred Two of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Happy New Year! Celebrate the end of the old year or the beginning of the new with our latest episode. As always, let us know if you have any questions or comments

Yes there is definitely a lack of consensus on how to interpret those PDs so it is good for you to add that perspective. And in addition to what you have raised, there are the questions that arise from the changed circumstances that Epicurus starts talking about, because the conclusion that one would think would be obvious (that the breaking of a contract is unjust) does not seem to be nearly so obvious at all. In fact I would argue that Epicurus makes it so easy to justify breaking a contract that if "harm or be harmed" were held by some to be a universal standard of some kind, he's almost taking pains to show that even that is not universal.

So there's the issue that even if one were to suggest that all justice should be considered to revolve around contracts not to harm or be harmed, it appears that there is no injustice in breaking those contracts very readily.

Lots to unwind in the issue of Justice and this is definitely an area not to pin oneself down to a particular position to quickly.

Quote from Matt

there is no universal imperative to do so

Yes that is the issue. For there to be a universal imperative there would need to be some kind of enforcing mechanism, some kind of "authority figure" with the authority and the right to set such a standard.

Of course in practice the vast majority of people have the same "sense" that pain is bad and pleasure is good, and there is a general baseline revulsion to pain in most people (we can leave out the psychopaths and ascribe that to clinical issues). So we largely get to the same place that most of us have an understanding that inflicting pain on others is undesirable MOST of the time, but we all can (or should) be able to quickly identify cases where even the most emphatic person can see that some infliction of pain (restraint or pain to someone who is about to murder innocent people) has such beneficial results that we are willing to do that.

There's a wide spectrum of views on these subjects among most people who I would consider normal, and the number of people who have no regard to others' pain is probably about the same small number who would never admit any exceptions to the infliction of pain -- both positions run smack into the reality of the pain that we would face if we tried to implement them in reality.

Also we have been talking recently about the long-existing project of writing personal outlines. It might well be a good idea to condition participation in some of the more advanced activities here on people participating in that project as a means of clarifying their own thoughts and getting constructive commentary from others on aspects that they might be overlooking: Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy

I am slogging through editing the most recent podcast and I think some of the issues we are discussing here are either the same or the subtext of this podcast episode. There are multiple levels of meaning and application in a lot of these issues, and they fly in the face of common attitudes we've learned or been exposed to in other places. And I dare say that most of us (me included) have very little experience in the Epicurean perspectives, so we make mistakes when trying to build up from the foundation when we think he is going to arrive where we already are -- and so we tend to think that we don't NEED the foundation.

That's a big problem to figure out ways around, but it's one of the reasons why we did the reading of Lucretius and I do think we need to urge everyone to try to go through that for themselves and listen to as many as possible.

Maybe we also need to make a list of "best" episodes since we now have so many, but this issue of how the physics and epistemology relate to the ethics is something that came up over and over in the podcast so there is some good material there especially in the episodes covering the early books where we dealt with these issues for the first time.

I have been reminded in a private conversation that there is a significant issue in the use of Zoom and video meetings which we have not already discussed, and that is the issue of safety and security of the participants when new and unknown people are allowed to participate.

I think most and maybe all of this in this thread have been proceeding under our past well-established pattern that our meetings are essentially "invitation only" and that invitations are issued to new people only after a significant period of "getting to know you" time communicating publicly on the forum.

Maybe there will come a time in the future where we have totally open meetings for anyone and everyone to be able to participate, but we aren't anywhere near that point at this time.

So definitely one of the issues to be resolved before we proceed with more regular meetings will be "who gets an invitation."

We'll work through it as we have done in the past, but it's definitely a point to remember. And it dovetails in with our forum policy of allowing "anonymous" accounts. We don't expect people to divulge their personal details in order to participate in written conversations, because we can determine from what is written whether the conversation is within our forum guidelines, and easily remove it if not. As we more to more direct communication, we'll need to implement procedures to maintain that same kind of security and consideration for personal privacy.

Quote from Kalosyni

The reason I haven't spent much time with Epicurean physics and epistemology is that I am a firm believer in modern science. I think it might be important to contrast Epicurus' ideas with modern scientific understanding.

Parts of Epicurean physics are certainly outdated, but not all by any means, and none of Epicurean epistemology would really fit the "outdated" parts. I think as you read further into it you will find much that you won't otherwise understand as to how the Epicurean Ethics works.

Quote from Kalosyni

So now we must extend this "do no harm" to all people.

And this would be example number one. I am no expert on Kant, but the notion of "extending to all people" sounds like a Kantian categorical imperative, which I would say has no parallel at all in Epicurus, which would be quite the opposite in viewpoint. In Epicurus there is no universal justice, but in fact only local and subjective justice, for example as stated in PD33 and PD34.

While I don't share the extreme conclusions of some about "live unknown" there is a very strong strain of "subjectivism" in Epicurean philosophy where you don't expect everyone to agree with you on everything, and so with those who don't (who can't be made your friends because of it, you don't force them and yourself to live we each, you "separate." PD39

And there is no reason that you would tolerate others doing what you believe to be harmful to yourself, even though they don't agree with it's correctness. Such people you don't "reform," you "restrain," "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.

I think as you read more into these physics and epistemology issues you'll begin to resolve some of your questions about what Epicurus was teaching. Note that I am not saying that you will agree with them, but that you'll begin to understand why they don't lead toward universal ethical values for everyone at all times and all places. Yes, I do think that it is possible to generalize that in most cases pleasure is to be chosen and pain to be avoided, but we don't even do that ALWAYS even in our own cases -- sometimes we choose pain in order to bring more pleasure to us later.

Possibly the big question in all this is "Whose pleasure?" I think you'll eventually find that the "greatest pleasure for the greatest number" might be Utilitarian philosophy, but not consistent with Epicurus.

Quote from Kalosyni

The reason I haven't spent much time with Epicurean physics and epistemology is that I am a firm believer in modern science. I think it might be important to contrast Epicurus' ideas with modern scientific understanding.

Parts of Epicurean physics are certainly outdated, but not all by any means, and none of Epicurean epistemology would really fit the "outdated" parts. I think as you read further into it you will find much that you won't otherwise understand as to how the Epicurean Ethics works.

Quote from Kalosyni

So now we must extend this "do no harm" to all people.

And this would be example number one. I am no expert on Kant, but the notion of "extending to all people" sounds like a Kantian categorical imperative, which I would say has no parallel at all in Epicurus, which would be quite the opposite in viewpoint. In Epicurus there is no universal justice, but in fact only local and subjective justice, for example as stated in PD33 and PD34.

While I don't share the extreme conclusions of some about "live unknown" there is a very strong strain of "subjectivism" in Epicurean philosophy where you don't expect everyone to agree with you on everything, and so with those who don't (who can't be made your friends because of it, you don't force them and yourself to live we each, you "separate." PD39

And there is no reason that you would tolerate others doing what you believe to be harmful to yourself, even though they don't agree with it's correctness. Such people you don't "reform," you "restrain," "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.

I think as you read more into these physics and epistemology issues you'll begin to resolve some of your questions about what Epicurus was teaching. Note that I am not saying that you will agree with them, but that you'll begin to understand why they don't lead toward universal ethical values for everyone at all times and all places. Yes, I do think that it is possible to generalize that in most cases pleasure is to be chosen and pain to be avoided, but we don't even do that ALWAYS even in our own cases -- sometimes we choose pain in order to bring more pleasure to us later.

Possibly the big question in all this is "Whose pleasure?" I think you'll eventually find that the "greatest pleasure for the greatest number" might be Utilitarian philosophy, but not consistent with Epicurus.

**********

Admin Edit: For the continued discussion on the topic of justice, go here.

Uh Oh, have I already read and talked about this and forgotten? Same topic, but different reference points?

Here's the table of contents. The article on Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Forms, which I have not read, is available for free here.

It would be great to get a handle on the chapter on Epicureans and Stoics on Universals, but so far I can't find it.

That looks like a great outline Don!

I was thinking about a new thread to make this point but I'll make it here. All this work is a team effort and we all have different interests and capabilities. Something like this requires not just writing skill but art skill, and area where I am woefully deficient (among many others).

I hope every time someone reads a thread and someone is proposing something that if they have a talent that would help they will volunteer without waiting for an invitation. There's not a lot of "pride of ownership" here among our creators and I have never seen someone turn down help when offered. Epicurean philosophy is a huge project which requires teamwork if we're to make the kind of progress that's possible.

Welcome @gvanwa !

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!

I like to be clear that I don't represent or think that I have all the answers either, but there are some things I do like to strongly assert:

1. That Epicurus was attempting to be absolutely consistent from bottom to top of his philosophy. In other words, I think he did his best to make his ethics (which seems to be the focus of this current conversation) as consistent with his physics and his epistemology as possible.
2. That means that any interpretation of Epicurus' ethics which would appear to conflict with Epicurus' physics and epistemology is not likely to be a correct interpretation of what he actually taught.
3. That his physics established without room for doubt (in his system) that:
   1. There are no supernatural gods or other forces.
   2. There is no "fate" either supernatural based or through hard determinism in physics (because of the swerve)
   3. There is no life after death (there is no immortal soul; mortal cannot unite with immortal; etc) which means we only have one life to live.
   4. There is no absolute virtue or eternal "concepts" of any kind (because there is nothing eternal in the universe except the atoms, which means that there are no eternal combinations that could form a basis for anything absolute; and because there is no "center" to the universe from which there could be a single perspective by which to judge all others; because there is no supernatural god whose perspective could be deemed to be the only correct one, etc.)
4. That his epistemology establishes without room for doubt (in his system) that:
   1. The senses are the ultimate foundation for all reasoning that can be deemed to be correct.
   2. That there is ultimately no standard for "good" except pleasure and no standard for "bad" except pain.
   3. That knowledge we can have confidence in is possible in many things, even in some important things that we can't observe directly, such as items 1-4 above. However omniscience about everything we might like to speculate about is not possible and not therefore we can't hold our own conclusions up to a standard of omniscience.

So I would argue that any conclusions that we would come to about Epicurus' ethics have to be tested against those basic ideas about the universe and about how we ascertain knowledge.. If the assertion about the ethical conclusion appears to flow from these premises then that understanding of Epicurus' ethics is likely accurate to what he actually taught. If assertion about the ethical conclusion appears to conflict with these premises, then it's unlikely to be a correct interpretation of what Epicurus taught.

Obviously this kind of analysis isn't foolproof, but I do think Epicurus did his best to tie everything into a coherent whole, so it's a good place to start, and a good way to check the assertions of the commentators. And that's one benefit of new people starting with DeWitt - he does a good job of covering both physics and epistemology and doesn't lead the reader to think that Epicurus' ethics are the only important thing about his system.

And this is why it seems to me that I observe the commentators who have the least interest in Epicurus' physics and epistemology seem to go furthest astray from a plausible reconstruction of Epicurus' ethics. That's why we've spent a lot of effort over the last two years going over Lucretius, and why as soon as we finish discussing the Torquatus material on the podcast I'd like to see us go back and cover the Letters to Herodotus and to Pythocles before we tackle the letter to Menoeceus.

I am admittedly losing my grip on popular culture more everyday, but it is my understanding that "freethinker" is still an identifiable term as referring to having an open mind about whether there is a god (and thinking probably not) so I would bet that that is a term a significant number of people consider themselves to be.

Don and I cross posted. I nominate Don to carry those e-zines to the ecstatic dancers!

I was pretty OK with the "progressives" and "freethinkers", but if we get too many "anarchists" and "ecstatic dancers" we may have to stsrt worrying about our reputstion with the Stoics!

Quote from Don

But that begs the question: Even if we could explain it have basic intros, how to get them in front of people's eyes?

At least a part of that answer is social media, at least as long as it is freely accessible and relatively free of censorship.

Quote from Don

we should be able to explain the basics of the philosophy to a child.

And we should be ashamed not to have learned these basics as children, per the point made by Torquatus in Book One of On Ends.

Quote from Scott

One could for instance argue that something hypothetically perfect must have NO limits, NO limitations.

And yes that takes you to Christian / monotheistic omnipotence and omniscience.

And that's why the Epicurean physics is so important: if you learn the basics at the beginning as Epicurus intended, and understand the critical importance of consistency, then you realize the folly in pursuing hypotheticals that have (and can have, given your physics positions) no existence in fact. This is one of the areas that Don and I and others have talked about in terms of resisting abstract hypotheticals, and why it's recorded that Epicurus himself was averse to them.

We can imagine anything we want, and we can make hypothetical systems that are consistent within themselves, yet which have no foundation in the real world observable to our senses.

You should keep after this argument Scott until you've satisfied yourself with it, because it's one of the core arguments that will forever separate Epicurus from the world of religion and abstract logic -- and will forever make those opposing schools the mortal enemy of Epicurus.

We as Epicureans may appear to be riding safely on a wave of secularism in recent decades and centuries, but the issues are must deeper than Epicurus against Judeo-Christianity -- it's also Epicurus against the misuse of abstract logical speculation.

Quote from Scott

(How are our finances? Do we have enough to engage a top tier marketing/promotions firm to develop and deploy the content?

Ha! We can pay the server bills but hard to say we have many resources beyond that!

Quote from Scott

I doubt this philosophy was so wildly successful for 7 centuries without being able to be presented in simpler form, easy to understand and remember

Yes I agree with that too. Trying to help people with that was and is also a part of the reason for this section of the forum: Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy

I think we found it pretty useful and we had a number of people participate when we first put it up, but over time and after the first rush it hasn't been as well used. It would be fun if some of the newer people who haven't yet tried it also take a stab at it.

I can't remember where at the moment, but in terms of Epicurean philosophy being relatively easy and straightforward, Cicero made that point a number of times. This graphic isn't exactly it, but I think his exact quote on it being easy is somewhere nearby:

And really, truthfully it IS easy, and it DOES all follow from the basic principles of physics and epistemology, as Lucretius observes several times. From the 12 fundamentals of physics it is directly derivable that there is nothing eternal except matter and void, and when you apply that directly to "Is there an eternal soul?" "Is there a supernatural god?" "Are there eternal standards of absolute virtue?" even a child could deduce NO! NO! NO!

I know that I am terribly unfair to the dead horse but I keep beating him anyway because it's so important. The main complexity in Epicurus is more the upside-down perspective on ethics that the Stoicizers from Cicero to Okeefe keep arguing. They've confused everybody into thinking:

"Epicurus didn't mean what he said about pleasure" and thereby into thinking that:

"We can ignore issues of consistency; Epicurus may have preached Pleasure over and over and over, but when it comes down to it, Epicurus adopted a totally inconsistent viewpoint on the place of active pleasure in life!"

And even worse, they talk and act as if the Epicurean physics was nothing but a novelty not worth spending time on today, when it truth the basic principles of atomism and eternal in time / infinite in space universe were the direct supports for the argument that supernatural gods and fate do not exist.

They rip the heart out of the ethics and make it neo-Stoicism, and rip the heart of the physics and make it irrelevant -- little wonder that people today find it confusing to read Epicurus! But the fault is ours, not Epicurus's.