As to Plato being "the Golden man" we have this from EAHP chapter five:
"The Platonists, however, could not boast of innocence themselves, because their own Arcesilaus was on record as hailing the founders of the school as "almost gods or relics of the race of gold." 46 Thus Epicurus, when dubbing Plato "the Golden," was possibly mocking his followers and not merely deriding his division of mankind on the basis of iron, silver, and gold."
As to the followers of Plato being 'Flatterers of Dionysus,’ we have this from DeWitt's EAHP chapter fourteen:
Outside of the popular assembly parresia signified the expression of the speaker's opinion without regard for the feelings of others, and it might mean defiance. Epicurus was exemplifying it when he publicly assailed the Platonists, who in his youth were enjoying a monopoly of favor. He called them "flatterers of Dionysus," and the "deep-voiced." 20 The latter was a term of derision similar to "would-be Hamlets"; it was applied to second-rate actors who pitched their voices absurdly low in the performance of kingly roles. Insofar as they hung around hoping for such parts, they were "flatterers of Dionysus," the god of the theater, comparable to the flatterers of Alexander and his successors. The reference is rendered specific by the derisive language of Metrodorus, who dubbed the young Platonists would-be Lycurguses and Solons.21 There was a temporary revival of law-giving because of Plato's dream of
a philosopher-king, which opened court posts for graduates of the Academy.
As to Nausiphanes ‘The mollusk,’ ‘The illiterate,’ ‘The cheat,’ ‘The harlot,' we have the following from DeWitt's EAHP chapter three:
How long Epicurus sojourned with Nausiphanes it is impossible to say, but the duration of the discipleship was certainly long enough to engender exceptional bitterness of feeling. Cicero records in a malicious moment that being "on the spot," as it were, and unable to deny obligation, Epicurus assailed his teacher with all sorts of insulting epithets. This statement can be documented, thanks to the researches of later Platonistic adversaries, who rummaged the records for damaging items of evidence. From a single list we learn that among the opprobrious epithets were "lung-fish," "dumb animal," "imposter," and "prostitute." These insults call for comment. Of the four words the first two and the second two constitute pairs.
The word here rendered "lung-fish" has been erroneously translated "mollusc" and "jelly-fish." The Greek is pleumon, "lung," and Pliny describes the creature as having no more sensation than a block of wood, while Sextus Empiricus explains the word as equivalent to "insensate." 30 The word rendered "dumb animal" above is usually translated "illiterate." To so describe Nausiphanes would be absurd. The Greek is agrammatos and when used of animals it signifies "dumb," just as the psalmist speaks of the horse and the mule "which have no understanding." Just what justification Epicurus may have had for so characterizing his teacher can only be surmised. In their opposition to skepticism and acceptance of dogmatism they were agreed. It is conceivable therefore that the bitterness of Epicurus arose from his inability to bring his teacher around to his own views on the topics of free will and determinism and the function of philosophy, which were the chief grounds of his rupture with the teachings of Democritus. At this stage of his career he was litigious and shunned no controversy.
This is not the whole story, however. The imperturbability of Pyrrho was indifference and a sort of resignation to belief in the impossibility of knowledge. With this sort of resignation it is clear that neither Nausiphanes nor Epicurus had any patience. The distinction of becoming the first dogmatists may perhaps be claimed for them. Nausiphanes admired only the disposition of Pyrrho and rejected his skepticism. He erected a canon of knowledge, which means that he asserted the possibility of knowledge. He called his canon the Tripod, though information is lacking us concerning the three legs of this triad. The astute Epicurus did not take over this name, but he did set up three criteria of knowledge, the Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings. These he chose to call his Canon. That it was in reality filched from Nausiphanes is expressly stated by a reliable writer.31 If there be truth in this report — and such charges were often made with little justification — the achievement of Epicurus was to bring the idea to universal knowledge; his gifts as a publicist were of a high order.
There remain the epithets "imposter" and "prostitute." For these it is the most plausible explanation that Epicurus discovered his teacher to be living a double life, preaching virtue, as all philosophers did, and at the same time practicing vice. Cicero informs us that most philosophers condoned the practice of homosexuality, and for once he agreed emphatically with Epicurus in condemning it as against Plato.32 The latter, as is well known, had essayed in his Symposium to sublimate this passion into a passion for knowledge. Epicurus also wrote a Symposium, in which he retorted: "Intercourse never was the cause of any good and it is fortunate if it does no harm." 83 In the case of Nausiphanes there is another item of evidence from the pen of Epicurus: "As for my own opinion, I presume that the high-steppers (Platonists) will think me really a pupil of the 'lung-fish' and that I listened to his lectures in the company of certain lads who were stupid from the night's carousing. For he was both an immoral man and addicted to such practices as made it impossible for him to arrive at wisdom." 34 The practices here referred to have been interpreted as the study of mathematics,35 but the mention of adolescent lads, of drinking, and of immorality make the true reference unmistakable to any reader conversant with the shadier side of student life among the Greeks.
As for Epicurus himself, even if strict in his views about chastity, there is no doubt that he was an irritating pupil. It will be recalled how he put his early instructor in a corner over the topic of chaos. The following extract reveals no more the irritable teacher than the irritating pupil; the reference is to Nausiphanes: "Well, good riddance to the braggart, for that rotter, when in a temper, would have a torrent of the sophistic bluster at the tip of his tongue, like many another of the servile creatures." 3e It may be mentioned that Epicurus classified all men as slaves who, like the physicists, believed in Necessity, or, like the poets, in Fate, or, like Theophrastus, in Fortune, or, like the people, in divine interference, or like the Platonists, in astral deities, or those who, by pursuing the conventional education, surrendered their freedom for the pursuit of power, fame, or wealth.
The list of insults used by Epicurus against his opponents, as listed by Diogenes Laertius, is colorful, but there is also a lot to learn from taking them apart and dissecting them. That's a task that probably can't be handled in one thread, but this is a place to start. If you've seen commentators give explanations for these, please add them to the thread . In each case we ought to explore who the opponent is, why he was an opponent, and the basis in truth for why Epicurus' insult is biting.
Here's the list:
Anyone who can help, please add a post below and we can compile the result either here in this first post of the thread, or in the lexicon, or some other logical place, over time.
I have heard back from the myminifactory folks and will keep you posted.
Good site!
1 - That is a really good bust of Epicurus - maybe one of the best from my point of view. But there were several from Herculaneum - cause I don't see an inscription on this one? Is the base original? Also, that date of discovery sure is close to that of the herme - almost too much to be a coincidence and almost points to "this is the period we started keeping track of things" rather than "prior to this date no one anywhere in the world had any idea."
2 - This one struck me as funny - that's quite a divergence of possibilities!
3. This is a really clear view of Hermarchus. Almost looks as if he is frowning or sad? And this one emphasizes my ongoing question about these bases -- are these bases original, or added?
4. Because THIS view of Epicurus has a base that looks original, and as if this could be the inscription that confirmed his identity:
5. Same comment again as to Hermarchus. Does he look sad? This base looks "original"?
6. For no reason whatsoever other than I like it I have to include the one of the leaping pig. I also wonder on this one? Presumably the base is original?
7. Also for completeness:
Hello and welcome to the forum @GBSolution ! (I am a little concerned the name indicates a possible spam-bot, but hopefully not! But for that reason it would be especially good to hear from you saying hello.)
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.
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!
That's good to know (that it's a claim, anyway) because I was thinking that the date of confirmation was more traceable to the small busts at Herculaneum. I'm not sure of the date of that one but maybe not so far apart (?) At any rate I would think this would be a key part of Frischer's studies so if he thinks the date of confirmation is traceable to the herm, then that seems like a pretty reliable source.
So what are you thinking was in the mind of the sculptors as to the purpose of this herm in particular.
Are we thinking this dates back to Greece or is a later Roman sculpture?
Fascinating information Joshua - thank you! i wonder what type of setting this was originally intended for?
I sent an email to the myminifactory.com address and I will update the thread here if I hear anything.
Agreed that one is much better!
Which reminds me to comment - I've never understood how anyone came up with the idea of the double-head. I suppose i can see that it saves stone that would otherwise be pretty useless showing the back of the head, but it seems awkward at best as a display mechanism and I would have thought someone with the resources to undertake a project like this would have had two pieces of stone available.
That site looks like a great find - thank you:
1 - I wish there were a Herculaneum leaping pig there, but I can't find anything.
2 - That Epicurus bust looks like it SHOULD be useful, but it looks like the "original" from which it was scanned doesn't really look like Epicurus.
Welcome to Episode Sixty-Nine 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 check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any question about that, please be sure to contact us at EpicureanFriends.com for more information.
In this Episode 69 we will read approximately Latin line 235-323 of Book V, and we will talk about the upcoming end of our world as we know it. Now let's join Don reading today's text.
Latin Lines 235-323
Munro Notes-
235-246: first then, since earth water air and fire are all mortal, the world of which these are the parts should be deemed mortal: the world then had a beginning and will have an end.
247-260: think not I am begging the question in asserting that earth water air and tire are mortal: first as to earth: sonic of it you see passes away in clouds of dust ; so is carried away by floods or rivers eating their banks: again what feeds other things, is usually replenished in return ; and since earth, mother of all things, is also their tomb, the earth wastes and grows again
261-272 the same is true of water : fresh supplies are constantly coming to seas and rivers; but the sum remains the same, because as much is taken away by the winds and the sun, and by filtering through the ground, whence the water finds its way back to the river-heads.
273-280: the air too is ever changing; for whatever streams off from things, must pass into air; and thus unless the air gave back as much, all things would become air.
281-305 : and so it is with fire too; the sun continually sends out new light, as you may see when clouds intercept it; the light beneath the clouds at once disappears; and thus it is with lights on earth; lamps and the like are constantly sending forth fresh lights, so that the destruction of the old is concealed by the instantaneous production of the new: the same is the case with sun moon and stars.
306-317 : again the hardest things, stones metals and the like are broken up by time: they had a beginning then; else they would not give way after enduring from everlasting.
318-323 : if as some say the all-environing ether begets all timings and takes them back at death, then must it be mortal; for it is thus subject to increase and decrease.
Browne 1743
And further, since the body of the earth, the water, and the light breath of the air, and the hot fire, of which this universe of things consists, had all a beginning, and are all formed of mortal seeds, the nature of the world must be the same, and must die likewise. For a body whose parts and members we know were born, and were produced from mortal principles, that being must be the same in nature with its parts; it must have a beginning, and be equally mortal. And therefore when I observe the four elements (the great limbs of the world) are continually changing, are wasted away, and then renewed; I conclude that the whole world, the earth and the heavens, had a time of beginning, and will in time fall and be destroyed.
But my Memmius, that you may not think I rashly supposed what I should have proved upon this subject, when I said that the earth and the fire were mortal, and made no doubt but the air and the water were so too, and that they began to be, and by degrees increased, you are to observe, first, that some part of the earth is burnt up by the continual strokes of the Sun, and much of it, being worn by the continual treading of the feet, rises into flying clouds of dust, which the fierce winds scatter through all the air, and part of the earth, by soaking showers, is turned into water, and the encroaching rivers eat away their banks. Besides, whatever increases another body with any of its parts, must lose so much from itself, and since the Earth is certainly the great parent and common selpulchre of all things, it must sometimes be diminished, and then increase and be renewed again.
And then the Sea, the Rivers, the fountains, abound always with sweet water, and flow with everlasting streams. There is no need of many words; the prodigious currents that flow every way to the sea prove this effectually. But less the mass of waters should flow too great, some of it is continually licked up, and wastes away; the strong winds, brushing over its surface, take off part of its flood, and a part the sun exhales and draws up into the air, and some is divided through the subterraneanous passages of the earth. There the saline particles are strained off, and then the waters flow back, and start up in fountains, and form themselves into rivers, which glide sweetly with their collected strength over the earth, through those channels where the streams first made their liquid way.
And now, to speak of the Air, which is changed with its whole body every moment, in various manners not to be numbered; for whatever is continually flowing off from bodies is carried into the vast ocean of the air; unless the air therefore restored again those particles to the bodies from whence they came, and renewed them as they wasted away, all things had long since been changed into Air, and wholly dissolved. The air therefore is continually produced from bodies, and continually returns into them again, for things never remain the same, but are in a perpetual fluctuation.
The Sun likewise, that large fountain of liquid light, constantly bedews the heavens with a new brightness, and instantly supplies one ray by the succession of another; its first beams of light, as soon as they have shone out, die away. This you may collect from hence, that as soon as a cloud interposes between the sun’s orb and us, and as it were breaks through the rays of light, the lower part of the beams immediately perishes, and the earth, as the clouds pass over it, is made dark. This proves that things require a constant stream of new rays, and that every first emission of light dies; nor could things otherwise be seen in the light unless the Sun (the fountain of brightness) continually sent out fresh supplies. After the same manner our nightly lights that we use here below, our hanging lustres, our lamps shining with a bright flame, and fat with oily smoke, are continually sending out new streams of light by the help of fire. They press on and discharge their trembling rays without intermission; they never cease, nor is the light ever interrupted, or leaves the place dark for a moment, so swiftly is the destruction of the first rays repaired from the constant fire of the lamps (the fountain of light) and a new beam instantly flies off as the old expires. We conclude therefore that the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars are continually throwing off new supplies of light, and that the first rays they emit perish and die away; lest you should believe these beams remained perfect and undissolved, and were eternally the same.
Besides, don’t we observe how stones are worn away by time? That lofty towers fall to ruin, and rocks moulder to dust? That the temples and images of the gods are tired with standing, and are forced to give way? Nor can the gods themselves extend the bounds of fate, or strive against the laws of nature. Don’t you see the monuments of men burst asunder at last, to grow old, and suddenly break in pieces? That the rocks are torn, and tumble from the high mountains, and are unable to bear or resist the mighty force even of a finite time? For they would never have fallen with this sudden ruin had they from all eternity endured the strokes of time secure and unshaken.
And then look up to those surrounding heavens that above and below embrace this body of the earth; those heavens which, some say, produce all things out of themselves, and to which all things are at last resolved. They surely had a beginning, are formed of mortal seeds, and must have an end, for whatever seeds and contributes to the increase of other bodies must lose some of its parts and must again be repaired by those bodies when they are dissolved.
Munro 1886
First of all, since the body of the earth and water and the light breath of air and burning heats, out of which this sum of things is seen to be formed, do all consist of a body that had a birth and is mortal, the whole nature of the world must be reckoned of a like body. For those things whose parts and members we see to be of a body that had a birth and of forms that are mortal, we perceive to be likewise without exception mortal, and at the same time to have had a birth. Since therefore I see that the chiefest members and parts of the world are destroyed and begotten anew, I may be sure that for heaven and earth as well there has been a time of beginning and there will be a time of destruction.
And herein that you may not think I have unfairly seized on this point for myself, because I have assumed that earth and fire are mortal and have not doubted that water and air perish, and have said that these are likewise begotten and grow afresh, mark the proofs: First of all some portion of the earth, burnt up by constant suns, trampled by a multitude of feet, sends forth a cloud and flying eddies of dust, which the strong winds disperse over the whole air. Part too of the soil is put underwater by rains, and rivers graze against and eat into the banks. Again whatever increases something else is in its turn replenished; and since beyond a doubt earth the universal mother is found at the same time to be the general tomb of things, therefore you see she is lessened and increases and grows again.
Furthermore, that sea rivers fountains always stream over with new moisture and that waters well up without ceasing, it needs no words to prove: the great flow of waters from all sides clearly shows it. But then the water on the surface is always taken off, and thus it is that on the whole there is no overflow, partly because the seas are lessened by the strong winds sweeping over them and by the ethereal sun decomposing them with his rays; partly because the water is diffused below the surface over all lands; for the salt is strained off and the matter of liquid streams back again to the source and all meets together at the river-heads, and then flows over the lands in a fresh current, where a channel once scooped out has carried down the waters with liquid foot.
And next I will speak of the air which is changed over its whole body every hour in countless ways. For whatever ebbs from things, is all borne always into the great sea of air; and unless it in return were to give back bodies to things and to recruit them as they ebb, all things ere now would have been dissolved and changed into air. It therefore ceases not to be begotten from things and to go back into things, since it is a fact that all things constantly ebb.
Likewise, the abundant source of clear light, the ethereal sun, constantly floods heaven with fresh brightness and supplies the place of light on the instant by new light; for every previous emission of brightness is quite lost to it, wherever it falls. This you may know from the following examples: as soon as ever clouds begin to pass below the sun and to break off so to say the rays of light, forthwith their lower part is wholly lost, and the earth is overshadowed wherever the clouds pass over; so that you may know that things constantly require new irradiation and that all the preceding emissions of light are lost, and in no other way can things be seen in the sun, unless the fountain head of light itself send a supply. Moreover, you see, nightly lights which belong to earth, such as hanging lamps and torches bright with darting flames, hasten in like fashion amid great darkness with ministering heat to supply new light; are eager to bicker with fires, are eager; nor is the light ever broken off nor does it quit the spots illuminated: with such suddenness is its destruction concealed by the swift birth of flame from all the fires at once. In the same way then we must believe that sun moon and stars emit light from fresh and ever fresh supplies rising up, and always lose every previous discharge of flames; that you may not haply believe that these flourish indestructible.
Again see you not that even stones are conquered by time, that high towers fall and rocks molder away, that shrines and idols of gods are worn out with decay, and that the holy divinity cannot prolong the bounds of fate or struggle against the fixed laws of nature? Then see we not the monuments of men, fallen to ruin, ask for themselves as well whether you’d believe that they decay with years? See we not basalt rocks tumble down riven away from high mountains and unable to endure and suffer the strong might of finite age? Surely they would never fall suddenly thus riven away, if for infinite time past they had held out against all the batteries of age without a crash.
Again gaze on this, which about and above holds in its embrace all the earth: if it begets all things out of itself, as some say, and takes them back when they are destroyed, then the whole of it has had a birth and is of a mortal body; for whatever gives increase and food out of itself to other things must be lessened; and must be replenished, when it takes things back.
Bailey 1921
First of all, since the body of earth and moisture, and the light breath of the winds and burning heat, of which this sum of things is seen to be made up, are all created of a body that has birth and death, of such, too, must we think that the whole nature of the world is fashioned. For verily things whose parts and limbs we see to be of a body that has birth and of mortal shapes, themselves too we perceive always to have death and birth likewise. Wherefore, when we see the mighty members and parts of the world consumed away and brought to birth again, we may know that sky too likewise and earth had some time of first-beginning, and will suffer destruction.
Herein, lest you should think that I have snatched at this proof for myself, because I have assumed that earth and fire are mortal things, nor have hesitated to say that moisture and breezes perish, and have maintained that they too are born again and increase, first of all, some part of earth, when baked by ceaseless suns, trodden by the force of many feet, gives off a mist and flying clouds of dust, which stormy winds scatter through all the air. Part too of its sods is summoned back to swamp by the rains, and streams graze and gnaw their banks. Moreover, whatever the earth nourishes and increases, is, in its own proportion, restored; and since without doubt the parent of all is seen herself to be the universal tomb of things, therefore you may see that the earth is eaten away, and again increases and grows.
For the rest, that sea, streams, and springs are ever filling with new moisture, and that waters are ceaselessly oozing forth, there is no need of words to prove: the great downrush of waters on every side shows this forth. But the water which is foremost is ever taken away, and so it comes to pass that there is never overmuch moisture in the sum, partly because the strong winds as they sweep the seas, diminish them, and so does the sun in heaven, as he unravels their fabric with his rays, partly because it is sent hither and thither under every land. For the brine is strained through, and the substance of the moisture oozes back, and all streams together at the fountain-head of rivers, and thence comes back over the lands with freshened current, where the channel once cleft has brought down the waters in their liquid march.
Next then I will speak of air, which changes in its whole body in countless ways each single hour. For always, whatever flows off from things, is all carried into the great sea of air; and unless in turn it were to give back bodies to things, and replenish them as they flow away, all things would by now have been dissolved and turned into air. Air then ceases not to be created from things, and to pass back into things, since it is sure that all things are constantly flowing away.
Likewise that bounteous source of liquid light, the sun in heaven, ceaselessly floods the sky with fresh brightness, and at once supplies the place of light with new light. For that which is foremost of its brightness, ever perishes, on whatever spot it falls. That you may learn from this: that as soon as clouds have begun for an instant to pass beneath the sun, and, as it were, to break off the rays of light, straightway all the part of the rays beneath perishes, and the earth is overshadowed, wherever the clouds are carried; so that you may learn that things ever have need of fresh brilliance, and that the foremost shaft of light ever perishes, nor in any other way can things be seen in the sunlight, except that the very fountain-head of light gives supply for ever.
Nay more, lights at night, which are on the earth, hanging lamps and oily torches, bright with their flashing fires and thick smoke, in like manner hasten by aid of their heat to supply new light; they are quick to flicker with their fires, yea quick, nor is the light, as it were, broken off, nor does it quit the spot. In such eager haste is its destruction hidden by the quick birth of flame from all the fires. So then we must think that sun, moon, and stars throw out their light from new supplies, rising again and again, and lose ever what is foremost of their flames; lest you should by chance believe that they are strong with a strength inviolable.
Again, do you not behold stones too vanquished by time, high towers falling in ruins, and rocks crumbling away, shrines and images of the gods growing weary and worn, while the sacred presence cannot prolong the boundaries of fate nor struggle against the laws of nature? Again, do we not see the monuments of men fallen to bits, and inquiring moreover whether you believe that they grow old? And stones torn up from high mountains rushing headlong, unable to brook or bear the stern strength of a limited time? For indeed they would not be suddenly torn up and fall headlong, if from time everlasting they had held out against all the siege of age without breaking.
Now once again gaze on this sky, which above and all around holds the whole earth in its embrace: if it begets all things out of itself, as some tell, and receives them again when they perish, it is made altogether of a body that has birth and death. For whatsoever increases and nourishes other things out of itself, must needs be lessened, and replenished when it receives things back.
Episode 68 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's episode, we continue into book five and discuss the question of whether the world was made for the benefit of humanity. As always let us know if you have any questions or comments
I don't have much more to offer at this point, but in glancing at an article by David Konstan on Epicurean Physics, I see he makes a point similar to that which we are discussing -- that there are multiple levels of significance in textual issues that can at first appear very simple:
I see I had the thread entitled "mutimedia" instead of "multimedia." Probably the original version was better, but I didn't want anyone to be distracted by my spelling, so I fixed it!
if it was necessary,
And I think that "IF" is the key. It's not necessary; Epicurus knows it's not necessary; we know it's not necessary; everyone knows it's not necessary -- so why say something that everyone knows to the point of the observation being trite? I think there's a good answer to that question, and I think the answer is that Epicurus sees the importance in engaging in the "hypotheticals" game - the game of abstractions which can easily lead to disaster, but which most people are taken in by to some degree, and which therefore has to be deprogrammed from him.
I don't think Epicurus ever meant anyone to even dream of only eating bread and water, and he himself certainly did not. But by engaging in the hyothetical you meet Plato head-on and beat him at his own game.
Unfortunately the hazard we are experiencing is that if your explanatory books get purged out of existence, and Platonists completely take over the world, then people stop understanding the context of your statement, and think you are being literal, and then either dismiss you as ridiculous or interpret you in a way that makes sense to them, but turns your own views upside down.
listen to his body's natural limit and not eat to the point of pain
Isn't that another observation that is so borderline "childish" that it is a good clue that something more profound is intended? How many people after they pass the age of five or six fail to understand that overeating ice cream leads to pain? Yes, some of us do it anyway, but we certainly understand the likely result of our actions and don't have anyone to blame but ourselves if we overeat anyway.
The best explanation for those observations is what I think Torquatus said, which is that the discussion allows us to see "the principle of the classification" -
One kind he classified as both natural and necessary, a second as natural without being necessary, and a third as neither natural nor necessary; the principle of classification being that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered.
So I think one of the major principles behind the differences of opinion that people have (which I am often referring to as the "ascetic" vs the "classical" model) is that because people are not approaching these texts as a "principled" or a "philosophical" dispute, they are trying to interpret these words as immediate practical advice.
This is a big mistake because what they are instead is really the high-level abstractions that are needed if you are debating with Philebus and Socrates, and talking about the "summum bonum" or the "the final and ultimate Good, which as philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else."
When you are debating with Plato on the summum bonum, you talk in terms of "pleasure" and "pain" and "natural" and "necessary" and "limits" and "vain" other such words which are loaded with philosophical meaning, but not with "practical meaning" unless you place them in an individual context. The letter to Menoeceus from which most of these issues spring is an extremely high-level discussion of the goal of life and the "principles" to follow. If you try to read it as a "to-do list that everyone should follow today" then you end up with bread and water in your cave, instead of living the rich and full life that Epicurus certainly would have intended.
Yes there are aspects of that video, such a the section on the gods, that are relatively well done. And my take on the tone of voice of the narrator is that he is being absolutely sincere in thinking that his presentation is accurate and fair.
But I think the best test of whether someone is getting so immersed in the "natural / necessary" "static / moving," "vain" and other such words that can no longer see the forest for all the trees is where they end up after the exercise.
And this video employs every one of the key words in the standard way, leading up to the conclusion at about the 20 second mark that "His philosophy leads much more to asceticism than to indulgence."
Yes he's right to an extent - that conclusion is exactly what that interpretation does add up to.
Yet there is absolutely no record of any ancient Epicurean, including Epicurus himself, being an ascetic in practice.
If you think about those two simple facts: (1) one way to attribute a series of statements made by Epicurus leads inexorably to asceticism, but also consider (2) there is no evidence that Epicurus or any other ancient Epicurean was an ascetic in real life, something doesn't add up, and something is wrong in one of those two observations.
Either (1) Epicurus and his key followers were among the biggest and most successful hypocrites who ever walked the face of the earth, or (2) what Epicurus and his followers taught was understood in the ancient world by those who knew them as NOT in fact adding up to asceticism.
Further, not only is there no record of an ancient Epicurean blazing new trails or techniques in asceticism, but that the common criticism of Epicureans in the ancient world was that they were IN FACT living lives of indulgence and association with pleasures - activities that were distinctly NOT limited to "necessaries" such as bread and water. So far as I can tell, there is nothing about the Villa of the Papyri that indicates that it was intended to simulate living in a cave or on bread and water, and as we've discussed before, Epicurus' will with its significant list of material possessions - including slaves - does not indicate a tremendous amount of asceticism.
In the face of these contradictions it has always seemed to me that people would be looking to reconcile them, and if they were interested in gaining wisdom from Epicurus (rather than techniques for massive hypocrisy) they would look to reconcile them in a way that brings practice and theory into harmony. They would look for a way to understand the theory in a way that would explain their actual lifestyle.
But that's not what they do at all, and I think the answer why is clear: They are starting with the presumption, which is in fact not only the majority but also almost unanimous among all other philosophies, that "virtue" is the goal and living an "ascetic" life is worthy and desirable. For that reason they look for the interpretation of Epicurus that fits their preconceived notions of what he "should" have been teaching.
They don't care to reconcile the actual lifestyles with the theory, or explain why their result would have Epicurus seemingly invert the normal meaning of words, because what they care about is promoting their theory of asceticism and virtue as the best life, and that's really all that matters to them. And so much the better, even if it requires sacrificing their own credibility (ignoring clear facts and presenting a counterintuitive narrative results in the greatest philosopher of pleasure in world history being an ascetic?), when the result they achieve is the total neutering and suppression of the ideas of their greatest philosophical opponent.
That's a great name for an award too! I think we have the makings of an end-of-year banquet where we get together and have a ceremony for each of a full list of awards!
Unfortunately, while I can name countless contenders for the "Bread and Water" award, I cannot call to mind a single video on proper Epicurean philosophy which would merit a nomination for the "Udders and Chian Wine" award. I think that is a great goal for someone to undertake producing one in time for the 2021 Awards in December!
