Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

So Epicurus was "right" in a sense that there is no neutral state. You're either feeling pleasure or pain.

Anytime someone says "So Epicurus was 'right'..... you can expect me to agree, however:

I'm not able to take the time to read Feldman and comment on the analysis other than what you guys are saying.

The reason I am posting this comment is that as to the position that there is no "neutral state," I want to go on record as not being sure whether that position was intended to be something that he was taking on based on observation (such as on observation of babies and kittens and puppies) or whether that is a position he took on some kind of "logical" ground, as he did in the case of the swerve, and of the existence of the void. If it's the latter, that would be another reason to be cautious in drawing parallels with neurological or medical research.

Personally, I doubt that the denial of a neutral state is of as much practical significance as it is of "logical" significance in debating with Plato on the nature of pleasure as the greatest good.

Is there some reason for the circle rather than just the two axes?

I don't have a problem really with considering the experience of feeling balanced and in equilibrium as a pleasure.

The bogie-man I am always on the lookout for is the identification of any particular type of pleasure as higher or better than the rest, because then I think the advocate of such a position has fatally undermined the logic of the position that "pleasure" is the greatest good.

I prefer to think of the pleasure of eating ice cream while also feeling in balance, or in equilibrium, as the best way to describe what is being discussed.

At any particular time I think we're experiencing a lot of different pleasures (and pains, unfortunately) and at a high level we're looking for the net sum of everything. We might be crippled or have lost a leg, and have pain in our remaining stub of a leg , but otherwise be living a confident and successful life full of all sorts of pleasures. It wouldn't be right to say that the pain we experience in that situation doesn't exist, but it also wouldn't be be right to say that the loss of the leg totally ruins a life that is otherwise highly pleasurable.

I don't think you're likely to go in the direction I am concerned about Don, but I am very confident that the Okeefe "Epicurus had a special definition of pleasure as absence of pain" crowd (not to single him out but just as an example) *would* go in that direction. They are constantly defining katastematic pleasure as the highest pleasure, saying that active pleasure (including joy and delight) are useful only to get to that state of painlessness, and strongly planting in the minds of their readers that that state has nothing to do with what ordinary mortals think of as "pleasure" at all.

There's no doubt that certain portions of the texts can be read that way, and I can't say enough bad about that position, so it's a constant struggle to make sure that it doesn't creep in when in truth the waging of a campaign against it (and thus to place ordinary pleasure back in its rightful place, as per Gosling & Taylor, Nikolsky, and yes even DeWitt) is probably one of the main reasons for this forum.

Obviousky I didn't say it very well because I thought I was trying exactly what you said

Absolutely pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain and the two are entirely separate - that is explicit in PD3.

Why I think we are both talking about is walking and chewing gum at the same time -. We can experience more than one thing at once, with one hand feeling pleasure and the other feeling pain (though there are probably better examples).

I think that Epicurus has explicitly ruled out a single sensation being both pleasure and pain at the same time, which is why the conclusion I think you and I both agree on focuses on the total experiences of the person, not a single sensation.

Welcome to Episode Eighty-Six of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and 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.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please visit EpicureanFriends.com where you will find our goals and our ground rules. If you have any questions about those, please be sure to contact us at the forum for more information.

In this Episode 86 we will read approximately Latin lines 423 through 527 as we discuss typhoons and whirlwinds and continue further into Book Six.

Now let's join Don reading today's text.

Munro Notes-

423-450: presters are thus formed : if the wind cannot break the cloud, it forces it clown in the shape of a column to the sea, where it bursts and causes a furious boiling and surging: sometimes the whirl- wind will gather up atoms of cloud and wrap them round, and will so imitate a real prester: this will shew itself sometimes on land, but oftener on the sea.

451-494: clouds are thus formed: first many particles in the sky get entangled and form small clouds; and then these unite, until the sky is overcast : thus high mountains are seen to smoke with mist, because the small particles of cloud are first carried to these by the wind: then moisture steams up from the sea and rivers; and the pres- sure of the ether above condenses it; finally many atoms, flying as I have shewn through space, come into this heaven of ours, and increase the mass from all sides.

495-526: rain comes in this way: many particles of matter rise with the clouds from all things; then the clouds suck up much moisture from the sea and rivers; thus the clouds both by their own weight and the pressure of the wind emit rains; and these are increased by the sun helping to dissolve the clouds: rains are heavy and lasting, when these causes combine, and the reeking earth sends its moisture back: the rain- bow comes from the sun shining right upon a mass of cloud.

Browne 1743

[423] It is easy, from what has been observed, to apprehend the cause of those whirlwinds (which the Greeks, from the Nature of Things, justly call Presters) and how they descend from above and fall into the sea. They are sometimes seen to descend from the air into the water like a pillar, and the sea, raging about with violent blasts of wind, seems to boil, and is exceedingly tossed, and whatever ships are caught with the reach of the hurricane are in the utmost danger of being cast away.

[431] This happens when the force of the wind, impetuously whirling within the cloud, is not able to break it, but drives it on, so that it falls like a column let down into the sea. This descent is gradual, as if it was thrust by some hand or arm, and spread over the waters. When the cloud bursts, the fury of the wind breaks out among the waves, and violently whirling round takes fire, and raises a wonderful heat and fermentation in the waters; for a rolling whirlwind descends with the cloud, which being slow in its motion, it bears along with it through the air, and when it has thrust the heavy body of the cloud into the sea, it plunges furiously with it into the water, and with a dreadful noise sets all the element in a blaze.

[443] It sometimes happens that a whirlwind, as it passes through the air, will scrape off some seeds from the bodies of the clouds, and rolling itself within, will look like a prester descending from above into the sea. When this vortex of wind falls upon the earth, it bursts out without being kindled into flame, it whirls with mighty force, and raises a tempest and bears down everything before it. This sort of whirlwind is not common at land, for the high hills hinder its descent and breaks its force, bit it appears frequently in the wide sea and in the open air.

[451] Now for the origin of clouds: These are formed when certain rough and hooked seeds, as they fly about, at length unite in the higher region of the air that is above us, but are held together loosely, and not bout in any close and strict embrace. Of these the thin and small clouds are first produced, and many of them meeting together, and pressing close, make the large and heavy clouds, which the winds drive every way abroad till they break out into a raging storm.

[459] And then, the nearer the tops of mountains approach the sky, the higher they are, the more they smoke, and appear covered with the thick darkness of a yellow cloud, because the mists that arise are so thin and subtle that before they are discovered by the eye they are carried aloft by the winds to the tops of the highest hills. And since they unite there in larger bodies, and show thick and condensed, they seem to rise from the tops of these hills into the air, for when we ascend a high mountain, the thing itself and the sense demonstrate that the winds tend to the highest places and reign there.

[470] Besides, that nature raises many exhalations from the wide sea is plain, by observing that garments expanded upon the shore will soon be wet; and therefore, to form such vast bodies of clouds, many seeds are thrown off and arise from the motion of salt waters.

[476] And we see that mists and watery particles rise from all the rivers, and from the earth itself; which, like a vapour, are from thence squeezed out and carried upwards, and cover the whole heavens with darkness, and uniting together by degrees, are sufficient to produce the clouds. For the seeds that are continually descending from above in a confused manner, continually beat these mists upon the back, and by condensing and pressing them close, form them into clouds over all the sky.

[483] It may be, likewise, that seeds from without, from the immense space of the universe, may flow hither, and unite in the production of the flying clouds, for I have proved before that these seeds are without number, and that the void is infinite. I have shown how suddenly and with what celerity they pass through this boundless space. It is no wonder therefore that tempests and dark clouds are in so short a time frequently spread over the whole heavens, and cover the high mountains, the seas, and the earth, with so quick a motion; since, from every quarter, through all the passages of the air, through all the breathing-places, I may say, of the universe, the seeds can make their way hither and unite, or withdraw and fly away again.

[495] And now I shall explain in what manner the rain is formed within the clouds above, and falls down in showers upon the earth. I shall first show that many seeds of rain are raised from every thing, together with the clouds, and that they increase together, both the clouds and the rain contained within, in the same manner as the blood increases in proportion with our bodies, or as sweat or any other moisture diffused through the limbs. The clouds likewise, like hanging fleeces of wool, suck up many particles of salt water when the winds drive them over the open sea. And so by the same rule a quantity of moisture is raised into the clouds from all the rivers, and there these many seeds of waters meeting from all parts, and uniting variously together, the clouds being full, are obliged to discharge their load of moisture for two reasons: either the force of winds drives them close, or the number of them, raised one above another, presses them down from above with their own weight, and makes the showers to pour down. Besides, when the clouds are made rare and thin by the winds, or are dissolved by the heat of the sun striking upon them, they discharge their rainy moisture and drop, as wax dissolves and melts over a hot fire.

[517] But expect a violent storm of rain when these clouds, heaped up, are pressed, not only by their own weight, but driven close by the stroke of winds from without. The rains used to confine us long at home, and to last for some time, when there are seeds of moisture in abundance; when the dropping clouds are raised on heaps above, and are driven every way abroad, and when the earth, thoroughly soaked, sends back the vapors into the air.

[524] And when the sun, in a dark storm of rain, strikes with its beams directly upon an opposite cloud, full of moisture, then you see the colors of the rainbow drawn upon the black clouds.

[527] And all other appearances which are formed and increase in the upper regions of the air., and all the meteors that are raised in the clouds, the snow, the winds, the hail, and chilling frosts, and the strong ice that hardens the surface of the waters, and stops and binds up the current of rivers as they flow; it is easy to account for all these, and to apprehend their causes, and how they are produced, if you consider well the virtue and power of the seeds from whence they spring.

Munro 1886

[423] To proceed, it is easy from these facts to understand in what way those things, which the Greeks from their nature have named presters, come down from above into the sea. For sometimes a pillar so to speak is let down from heaven and descends into the sea, and round about it the surges boil, stirred up by heavy blasts of winds; and all ships caught in that turmoil are dashed about and brought into extreme danger.

[431] This takes place when at times the force of the wind put in motion cannot burst the cloud which it essays to burst, but weighs it down, so that it is like a pillar let down from heaven into the sea, yet gradually, just as if a thing were thrust down from above and stretched out to the level of the waters by the fist and push of the arm; and when the force of the wind has rent this cloud, it bursts out from it into the sea and occasions a marvelous boiling in the waters; for the whirling eddy descends and brings down together with it yon cloud of limber body; and as soon as it has forced it down full-charged as it is to the levels of the sea, the eddy in a moment plunges itself entire into the water, and stirs up the whole sea with a prodigious noise and forces it to boil.

[443] Sometimes too the eddy of wind wraps itself up in clouds and gathers out of the air seeds of cloud and imitates in a sort the prester let down from heaven. When this prester has let itself down to the land and has burst, it belches forth a whirlwind and storm of enormous violence; but as it seldom takes place at all and as mountains cannot but obstruct it on land, it is seen more frequently on the sea with its wide prospect and unobstructed horizon.

[451] Clouds are formed, when in this upper space of heaven many bodies flying about have in some one instant met together, of a rougher sort, such as are able, though they have got the very slightest holds of each other, to catch together and be held in union. These bodies first cause small clouds to form; and these next catch together and collect into masses and increase by joining with each other and are carried on by the winds continually until a fierce storm has gathered.

[459] The nearer too the tops of a mountain in each case are to heaven, the more constantly at this elevation they smoke with the thick darkness of a swarthy cloud, because, as soon as clouds form, before the eyes can see them, thin as they are, the winds carry and bring them together to the highest summits of a mountain; and then at last when they have gathered in a greater mass, being now dense they are able to make themselves visible and at the same time they are seen to rise up from the very top of the mountain into the ether: the very fact of the case and our sensations, when we climb high mountains, prove that the regions which stretch up on high are windy.

[470] Again clothes hung up on the shore, when they drink in the clinging moisture, prove that nature takes up many bodies over the whole sea as well. This makes it still more plain that many bodies may likewise rise up out of the salt heaving sea to add to the bulk of clouds; for the two liquids are near akin in their nature.

[476] Again we see mists and steam rise out of all rivers and at the same time from the earth as well; and they forced out like a breath from these parts are then carried upwards and overcast heaven with their darkness and make up clouds on high as they gradually come together; for the heat of starry ether at the same time presses down too on them and by condensing as it were weaves a web of clouds below the blue.

[483] Sometimes there come here into heaven from without those bodies which form clouds and the flying storm-rack; for I have shown that their number passes numbering and that the sum of the deep is infinite; and I have proved with what velocity bodies fly and how in a moment of time they are wont to pass through space unspeakable. It is not therefore strange that a tempest and darkness often in a short time cover over with such great mountains of clouds seas and lands, as they hang down upon them overhead, since on all sides through all the cavities of ether and as it were through the vents of the great world around the power of going out and coming in is accorded to the elements.

[495] Now mark and I will explain in what way the rainy moisture is formed in the clouds above and then is sent down and falls to the earth in the shape of rain. And first I will prove that many seeds of water rise up together with the clouds themselves out of all things and that both the clouds and the water which is in the clouds thus increase together; just as our body increases together with the blood, as well as the sweat and all the moisture which is in the frame. The clouds likewise imbibe much sea-water as well, like hanging fleeces of wool, when the winds carry them over the great sea. In like manner moisture is taken up out of all rivers into the clouds; and when the seeds of waters full many in number in many ways have met in them, augmented from all sides, then the close-packed clouds endeavor to discharge their moisture from two causes: the force of the wind drives them together, and likewise the very abundance of the rain-clouds, when a greater mass than usual has been brought together, pushes down, presses from above and forces the rain to stream out. Again when the clouds are also rarefied by the winds, or are dispersed, being smitten at the same time by the heat of the sun, they discharge a rainy moisture and trickle down, just as wax over a hot fire melts away and turns fast into liquid.

[517] But a violent rain follows, when the clouds are violently pressed upon by both causes, by their own accumulated weight and by the impetuous assault of the wind. And rains are wont to hold out and to last long, when many seeds of waters are stirred to action, and clouds upon clouds and rack upon rack welling forth from all quarters round about are borne along, and when the reeking earth steams moisture back again from its whole surface.

[524] When in such a case the sun has shone with his rays amid the murky tempest right opposite the dripping rain-clouds, then the color of the rainbow shows itself among the black ,clouds.

[527] As to the other things which grow by themselves and are formed by themselves, as well as the things which are formed within the clouds, all, without exception all, snow, winds, hail, and cold hoarfrosts and the great force of ice, the great congealing power of waters, and the stop which everywhere curbs running rivers, it is yet most easy to find out and apprehend in mind how all these things take place and in what way they are formed, when you have fully understood the properties assigned to elements.

Bailey 1921

[423] Next after this, it is easy to learn from these things in what way there come into the sea, shot from on high, what the Greeks from their nature have named fiery presters. For it comes to pass sometimes that as it were a column let down descends from the sky into the sea, around which the surges boil, violently stirred by breathing blasts, and all ships that are then caught in that turmoil, are harried and come into great danger.

[431] This comes to pass sometimes when the force of the wind set in motion cannot burst the cloud it starts to burst, but presses it down, so that it is weighed down like a column from sky to sea, little by little, as though something were being thrust down and stretched out into the waves by a fist and the pushing of an arm above; and when it has rent this cloud asunder, the force of the wind bunts forth thence into the sea and brings to pass a wondrous seething in the waters. For a whirling eddy descends and brings down along with it that cloud of pliant body; and as soon as it has forced it down pregnant on to the levels of ocean, the eddy on a sudden plunges its whole self into the water, and stirs up all the sea with a great roar, constraining it to seethe.

[443] It comes to pass also that an eddy of wind by itself wraps itself in clouds, gathering together seeds of cloud from the air and, as it were, imitates the prester let down from the sky. When this eddy has let itself down to earth and broken up, it vomits forth a furious force of whirlwind and storm. But because this happens but rarely at all, and mountains must needs bar it on land, it is seen more often on a wide prospect of sea, and in an open stretch of sky.

[451] Clouds gather up, when many bodies as they fly in this upper expanse of heaven have all at once come together—bodies of rougher kind, such as can, though they be but intertwined with slight links, yet grasp and cling to one another. These first of all cause little clouds to form; then these grip hold of one another and flock together, and uniting they grow and are borne on by the winds, until at last a furious tempest has gathered together.

[459] It comes to pass, too, that mountain-tops, the closer they are to the sky, the more at that height do they smoke continually with the thick darkness of a murky cloud, because, when first the clouds form, still thin, before the eyes can see them, the winds carry them and drive them together to the topmost peaks of the mountain. There it comes to pass at last that, gathered now in a greater throng and thickened, they can be seen, and at once they seem to rise into the open sky from the very summit of the mountain. For clear fact and our sense, when we climb high mountains, proclaim that windy regions stretch above.

[470] Moreover, that nature lifts up many such bodies all over the sea is shown by clothes hung out on the shore, when they take in a clinging moisture. Wherefore it is all the more seen that many bodies too can rise to swell the clouds from the salt tossing ocean; for in all their nature these two moistures are akin.

[476] Moreover, we see clouds and vapour rising from all rivers, and likewise from the very earth which, like a breath, are forced out hence and carried upwards, and curtain the heaven with their darkness, and little by little, as they meet, build up the clouds on high. For the vapour of the starry ether above presses down on them too, and, as it were by thickening, weaves a web of storm-cloud beneath the blue.

[483] It happens, too, that there come into our sky those bodies from without which make clouds and flying storms. For I have shown that their number is innumerable, and the sum of the deep measureless, and I have set forth with what speed the bodies fly, and how in a moment they are wont to traverse through space that none can tell. So it is not strange if often in a short time storm and darkness cover up sea and land with such great storm-clouds, brooding above, inasmuch as on all sides through all the pores of the ether, and, as it were, through the breathing-holes of the great world all around there is furnished for the particles exit and entrance.

[495] Come now, in what manner the rainy moisture gathers together in the high clouds, and how the shower falls shot down upon the earth, I will unfold. First of all it will be granted me that already many seeds of water rise up with the clouds themselves from out of all things, and that both alike grow in this manner, both clouds and all water that is in the clouds, just as our body grows along with its blood, and likewise sweat and all the moisture too that is within the limbs. Besides, they often take in also much moisture from the sea, just like hanging fleeces of wool, when the winds carry the clouds over the great sea. In like manner moisture from all streams is raised to the clouds. And when many seeds of waters in many ways have duly come together there, increased from all quarters, the packed clouds are eager to shoot out the moisture for a double cause; for the force of the wind pushes it on and the very mass of the clouds, driven together in greater throng, presses on it and weighs it down from above, and makes the showers stream out. Moreover, when the clouds, too, are thinned by the winds or broken up, smitten by the sun’s heat above, they send out the rainy moisture and drip, even as wax over a hot fire melts and flows in a thick stream.

[517] But a violent downpour comes to pass, when the clouds are violently pressed by either force, their own mass and the impulse of the wind. Yea, and the rains are wont to hold on long and make a great stay, when many seeds of water are gathered, and clouds piled upon clouds and streaming storms above them are borne on from every quarter, and when the whole earth smoking, breathes out its moisture.

[524] When at such time the sun amid the dark tempest has shone out with its rays full against the spray of the storm-clouds, then among the black clouds stand out the hues of the rainbow.

[527] All other things which grow above and are brought to being above, and which gather together in the clouds, all, yea all of them, snow, winds, hail, chill hoar-frosts, and the great force of ice, that great hardener of waters, the curb which everywhere reins in the eager streams, it is yet right easy to find these out, and to see in the mind in what manner they all come to be and in what way they are brought to being, when you have duly learned the powers that are vouchsafed to the elements.

Quote from Don

Like different flavors of ice cream?

Don also I think we have to take into account here also the "purity" or "pure pleasure" or "unalloyed" issue that is addressed in PD12 and PD14 and I think other places as well.

And this in turn probably stems from the purity argument by Plato in Philebus.

The issue in contention seems to derive from some logical argument that having something without any mixture of something else is superior or better than having it mixed with something that is less desirable. Probably this is related to the contention that in order to be a highest good, it indeed has to be highest and not capable of improvement. Thus in order to discuss the highest state of pleasure possible, logically the pleasure experience which is best must be unalloyed and not combined with anything else (actual or fear of interruption or pain).

I know it is tedious to constantly refer back to Platonic logical arguments, but I think that is exactly what Epicurus would have had to face in ancient Athens. Due to that he needed to either innoculate his students against the argument or deprogram them if they had already fallen for it. And the evidence for that is right there in Philebus which appears to be Plato's number one work denouncing pleasure as the goal of life. I would estimate the challenge would be similar to what we face today in many places in dealing with presumptions created by the Bible.

With of course the ultimate reason for the argument always going back to the "what is the greatest good?" formulation. In order to have an answer to that question which meets the Platonic objections, we have to have a description of a way of experiencing pleasure that is both unalloyed (with no pain) and continuous (with no disturbance).

If you're experiencing pleasure with any mixture of pain or interruption, then you're saying that this pleasure experience could be improved, and if it can be improved then it's not the best, and if it's not the best then it's not the "greatest good."

All of that is largely a word game, but for someone devoted to logical analysis it's a game you find yourself playing as part of philosophy.

Better just to point at puppies and kittens and babies and say "See, unperverted life pursues pleasure and avoids pain" but Torquatus says that some people (even some who call themselves Epicureans) say that that's not a good enough argument.

Godfrey so you are saying she sums pleasure and pain together to get a "net result" number which she then charts?

Quote from Don

Like different flavors of ice cream?

I don't would say the better analogy would be like eating ice cream in an ice cream parlor vs in a jail cell vs in a war zone vs in a hospital etc.

To me the important thing is first that you are in fact experiencing pleasure from eating ice cream, but we're also taking into account that the pleasure of eating it may be interrupted or disturbed (in a war zone or jail cell) or whether at the same time you are experiencing other pain (in a hospital with appendicitis).

This is something that I think we debated at times over the last several years under the "doing more than one thing at once" category. My view is that you can experience pleasure from eating ice cream but at the same time be worried or afraid about getting shot (war zone) and having the pleasure interrupted, or even while you experience physical pain in another part of your body (hospital).

With the point being that the best way to experience pleasure is without interruption or disturbance and without any accompanying pain of any kind.

The issue I see is that to isolate the absence of disturbance or interruption or pain in itself, without first focusing on the primary point that you are experiencing pleasure from some positive activity of body or mind is to imply that there is some substance to the "absence of" something, which I think is not true.

With an analogy being that matter has positive attributes (weight, shape, size, etc) while void has no attributes other than absence of matter, which gives matter space to be and move in. Matter is equivalent to void in one way only - quantity of space - and I would say pain is equivalent to pleasure in one way only - quantity of experience - as indicated by the quantity reference in PD3.

You're right I should probably say "accompaniments' rather than adverbs, but I would still maintain that they are manners of experiencing pleasure, (without pain and without disturbance) and don't really convey anything in themselves. Anytime we're talking "without" something I presume the main topic to be what's there in the first place, regardless of what might not be there at the same time.

And I do see this as part of the huge problem of people thinking that "painlessness" and "calmness" are worth pursuing in themselves. I see that as variations on the "virtue" problem, since as you know I think (and I think we both agree Epicurus thinks) pleasure alone can be considered worth pursuing in and of itself.

Quote from Nate

This reinforces the centrality of stability in Epicurean philosophy and provides an obvious reason why not all pleasures are to be chosen.

As a small adjustment if this were being stated formally, I would probably say "importance" rather than centrality lest someone take that as an indication that stability is the very center. Not to be picking nits but I think everytime someone uses a modifier or word other than pleasure they are opening themselves up to logical inconsistencies.

Also, I don't think we have a good handle on the modifiers even when used clearly. Stable

and "without pain" and "without disturbance" I think are adverbs, as are descriptions of intensity and duration. All apply to pleasure and don't stand alone. Plus I don't think we have a handle on how to rank even those, and it may well be that the reason we don't is that such a ranking is purely subjective.

I'm going to say "No" because I don't even think Epicurus talked or was concerned about katastematic pleasure much at all, as per the Nikolsky article. On the other hand absence of pain and absence of disturbance do seem to have figured into the discussion mix from Epicurus himself.

What is the definition you're working with for 'homeostasis"

LOL. And that's why I made those remarks about "Don will come in and explain all of this to us!" --- we can count on Don to go right to the heart of the issue!

So that I can add something more than this joke to this thread, let me poke another bear I've poked often in the past. When I was much younger I used to study the works of Ayn Rand, and from that experience I came away with it burned into me that "Here is someone (Rand) who really does in fact worship "reason."

I recall reading that she wanted the word "RATIONAL" on her headstone, even though I don't think she eventually did that.

And of course no one reading Rand can escape her worship of Aristotle as a virtual god of reason.

Then in subsequent years added to that I became familiar with the Stoics and observed that they were doing almost exactly the same thing as Rand in putting "reason" at the center of their analysis.

So this is where I see more of that "context" I've discussed recently with camotero. Some people are brought up steeped in religion, and so they are always interested in how Epicurus jibes with the religions viewpoint. I pretty much check that box personally. And then some get exposed to the Rand-like approach where they are taught to hold reason as essentially the standard of all things -- reason being the essence of what Rand would refer to as "man qua man." And I think if we set our minds to it we could come up with literal gobs of examples of philosophers all across the ages in that same boat, singing hymns of praise to "reason."

So in balancing how Epicurus could say both PD16 praising reason, while still in the rest of his philosophy putting reason in a firm secondary role to his "canon of truth," I think we need to take into account that it's very possible that Epicurus was as fed up with the worship of "reason" as I can get myself today when I let myself think about it too long.

Therefore we aren't talking about Epicurus opposing reason in the form of "common sense" or simple "consistency" or those ordinary senses. All of those I think he fully endorsed. We're talking about Epicurus pointing out the "limits of reason" specifically including those who try to use formal /syllogistic / symbolic logic to convince us to overturn the more day-to-day conclusions that we reach through the ordinary use of our ordinary faculties.

That's why I think Jefferson was exactly right in this quote below (once you take out the deistic tone that Jefferson was probably using to protect himself). I think Epicurus was essentially in tune with the last part I am highlighting from the letter Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.

It's hard for me to read this sentence: "This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense"

..... without thinking of Diogenes Laertius' " For all thoughts have their origin in sensations by means of coincidence and analogy and similarity and combination, reasoning too contributing something."

I realize this applies probably only to ethics, and we're talking more than that, but I do think it's instructive, so here's the full paragraph:

Quote

He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.

Yes Nate it's mainly a question of how you define the target of a list. Saying an occasional good word about Epicurus here and there is probably not enough to consider someone an Epicurean, but again it's all in the context of how you're setting up your chart. There are many people who say a good word about him who I wouldn't dream of calling Epicurean.

To me, I don't generally start considering them Epicurean until they've at least ruled out supernatural gods, ruled out life after death, they specifically talk about pleasure as the goal and distinguish that from virtue, and say at least something in the direction of general materialism. I don't know that with Mandeville we have good documentation except for the pleasure part.

Thanks for the background in your post. We definitely both in the forum and in the podcast the effect of different upbringings. You will probably hear in the podcast Elayne say that she was brought up in a very scientific family with little religious influence. The amount of time someone has been faced with religious doctrines definitely influences how interested they are in discussing those subjects.

Two of your comments concern me though:

Quote from camotero

So, reason, has been a great tool for me at many times, thus I have a bit of trouble putting it in a secondary role

Quote from camotero

And thus, I circle back to reason, to touch on the risks of following pleasure withouth the check of reason.

I think you're probably not yet seeing what I think is the real issue, especially in the second comment. I think what people in your situation (as I understand it) would be better of saying is something like this:

Quote

"So "reason" has been a great tool for me at many times, and I have always been taught and thought that being reasonable was the best anyone can be. Thus I have a bit of trouble dealing with the idea that any part of what most people think of as "reason" can be a problem. I've always understood formal logic, or syllogistic logic, or dialectical logic (whatever you want to call it) to be a good thing, and thus it is surprising to me that Epicurus pointed out many dangers and damaging effects that go along with the misuse of those things.

Further, I have always considered "reason" to be the ultimate test of truth, and I find it very disconcerting to hear that Epicurus held that the "senses," as well as pleasure and pain and something called "anticipations" (which I don't understand) to be the test of truth, with reason in a secondary role only adding a little. It's hard even to begin to understand what he means, because doesn't everything have to be "reasonable" to make sense? If I understand now what Epicurus was saying, it appears he was saying that reason is a part of the opinion-making process, and since the opinion-making process is always subject to error, it's a bad idea to take an "opinion" as unchallengeable in any situation. It appears to me now that what Epicurus was saying is that at any moment the only data we have that is unchallengeable to us, because we experience it in the moment, come from the five senses, pleasure and pain, and those pesky anticipations. He seems to have been saying that while reasoning is an important part of the opinion-making and conclusion-reaching process, reaching the right result in reasoning is totally dependent on observations of reality that can be verified, and the only things given to us by nature that have direct contact with reality are the three canonical faculties.

After all, Epicurus also said "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."

So the more I study it seems that what Epicurus was concerned about was focusing our attention on the data we get from our natural faculties that we take as "givens," and that those serve as the "ruler" against which we compare our opinions to judge their correctness. We can say that various parts of the opinion-making involve reason, but we never look at "reason alone," and especially the kind of "reason alone" that *can* be used by certain philosophers and other people, as the ultimate thing that we compare our opinions against."

So especially on your second quote, you do use "reason" as a part of evaluating your decisions and deciding what to choose and what to avoid. But the ruler ("the tool of precision" according to DeWitt) is not the standard of truth. (As an exception to illustrate the rule, if you want to invent a new system, a particular object *can* be made to be a standard, if for example you set up a certain bar somewhere as a unit of measurement, like Wikipedia says: "In 1799, the metre was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889).)" Even in the case of using a particular bar as a standard, you then develop "rulers" against that standard and you use those rulers as your tool in everyday life.

But in general, any measuring device was originally developed against some other standard, against which which the measuring device was created. What we are talking about here is that Epicurus said the ultimate standard of conduct is pleasure and pain, because that's all Nature gave us as stop and go signals. All our tests of what will eventually happen to us are judged against that. "Reason" is best considered as a tool, as a sort of measuring device, just like all of the "virtues." There is no absolute standard of "reason" or "reasonableness" anywhere in a Bureau of Standards in Brussels or anywhere else. And the common danger involved in thinking about "reason" in itself, just like all of the "virtues," is that people start worshiping the virtues in themselves, and consider "virtue to be its own reward."

The same thing is going on with "reason." Reason is by no means its own reward, and it should not be worshiped as a goal or an end in itself, but that is exactly what many people and philosophers seem to do, whether they are up front about it or not.

I do remember Elayne mentioning anhedonia perhaps even once or twice on the podcast

I've now read the two articles posted by Don and they have been very helpful so thank you Don! Now it's time for me to drop back and get some comments from others in here!

Additional Resource: Asmis - Epicurus' Scientific Method (Article on which her later book of the same name was based).

Also: According to the second link Don posted, this is a very important article, and corrects mistakes made by Barnes in Barnes' own article. But I am not sure it is going to be something we can find. Anyway, this is one I'd love to have, since i am almost as much a fan of AA Long as I am of David Sedley.

This formulation here sounds reasonable to me, and I begin to get the strong feeling that Epicurus would have disapproved a lot of these arguments, as per the Elizabeth Asmis note just above. I am getting the feeling that a lot of these arguments are unwise and similar to Torquatus thinking that he needed an elaborate and abstract argument about the nature and role of pleasure. All of this "necessity" and "essentialism" argument does not seem to me consistent with Epicurus' original position, so i suspect the comment highlighted below here is correct:

Well THIS certainly has my "red alert" alarm jumping and on the lookout for deviations by later Epicureans. Maybe i haven't been radical enough in thinking that Epicurus was on the warpath against formal logic:

I'm just a fountain of random points of interest tonight!

THIS is interesting in asserting that the enemy was not the Stoics but the Academics. I don't know that I have a dog in that fight (Stoics vs Academics) because I think it's important to see that they were all generally allied against Epicurus (not just the Stoics).