Posts by Cassius

Kalosyni let's pursue these issues as deeply and at length as you are inclined to do so. And it's good to write them in the public threads too, because they have come up many times before and will come up many times in the future. I can't easily find cites, but just as Don is engaged now, he's always been interested in these issues too -- you will find in past thread many exchanges with Don and Elayne as well on these topics.

A significant part of the question involves how hard it is to accept that strongly-held beliefs may not be grounded in a view of nature that is "provable" to be universal. All of us have deeply held views which we find highly pleasurable to support and abhorrent to find challenged, and that is as it should be because our sense of pleasure and pain does not all work the same way for everyone.

But what Epicurus did was say something like: "I don't care if the truth doesn't support my own view of pleasure and pain, I want to know the facts of nature and what is true, and I'll deal with the consequences." It is only because he came to firm conclusions about the nature of the universe that he concluded it to be impossible for there to be absolute justice or absolute rules of anything -- rules imply rule-givers and rule-enforcers, and those just don't exist - at least to our liking of them. Yes in the end the way humans work means that often times people we consider to be "bad" will be punished by other people as a result of their actions. But the bitter truth is that that is not always so, and often people we consider to be bad prosper and people we consider to be good get ground in the dust. And to make matters worse, Epicurus emphasizes that there is no compensation for such "unfairness" after death -- there IS no life after death where the good are rewarded and the bad are punished.

All of which means not that we shouldn't fight for what we find pleasing and fight against what we find painful, but only that we have to be realistic that there are no supernatural forces fighting on our side. Even more, it means that if WE don't take action to fight for our tranquility and to fight against the forces both mental and physical that would take that from us, then it's very possible (and maybe likely, if we're unlucky) that we and our friends are going to die an early and miserable death because of our failure to take proper action.

And when you add to that that Epicurus taught that there is "no fate" in human affairs, then you've got a philosophy that isn't left-wing or right-wing or center in political terms, but is highly charged with personal responsibility. Even if we work as hard as we can for our pleasure and tranquility no paradise is guaranteed to us, but the way the world operates if we DON't Work as hard as we can, then we're very likely to miss out on the good things in life that might well be ours if we lean and apply a true philosophy.

Yes that's it, and crossposted again! I pasted the full Brown and Bailey translations above.

From Brown's translation of Book 2, line 1023:

Now apply your mind closely to the documents of true reason, for a new scheme of philosophy presses earnestly for your attention, a new scene of things displays itself before you. Yet there is nothing so obvious but may at first view seem difficult to be believed, and there is nothing so prodigious and wonderful at first that men do not by degrees cease to admire. For see the bright and pure color of the sky, possessed on every side by wandering stars, and the Moon’s splendor, and the Sun's glorious light; these, if they now first shown to mortal eyes, and suddenly presented to our view, what could more wonderful appear than these? And what before could men less presume to expect? Nothing surely, so surprising would be the sight have been. But now, quite tired and cloyed with the prospect, none of us vouchsafes so much as to cast our eyes up towards the bright temples of the sky. Therefore do not be frightened, and conceive an aversion to an opinion because of its novelty; but search it rather with a more piercing judgment. If it appears true to you, embrace it; if false, set yourself against it.

Bailey version:

[1023] Now turn your mind, I pray, to a true reasoning. For a truth wondrously new is struggling to fall upon your ears, and a new face of things to reveal itself. Yet neither is anything so easy, but that at first it is more difficult to believe, and likewise nothing is so great or so marvelous but that little by little all decrease their wonder at it. First of all the bright clear color of the sky, and all it holds within it, the stars that wander here and there, and the moon and the sheen of the sun with its brilliant light; all these, if now they had come to being for the first time for mortals, if all unforeseen they were in a moment placed before their eyes, what story could be told more marvelous than these things, or what that the nations would less dare to believe beforehand? Nothing, I trow: so worthy of wonder would this sight have been. Yet think how no one now, wearied with satiety of seeing, deigns to gaze up at the shining quarters of the sky! Wherefore cease to spew out reason from your mind, struck with terror at mere newness, but rather with eager judgement weigh things, and, if you see them true, lift your hands and yield, or, if it is false, gird yourself to battle.

Somebody help me --- what's the reference in Lucretius to the point about a new scheme of philosophy presents itself in Epicurus, and what you should do is dive into it and either determine it is true and embrace it, or determine it is false and fight it with everything you've got?

I hate it when I can't remember text references.

(Note: It is amazing how Don and I can crosspost almost exactly to the second.)

Kalosyni it sounds to me like you are right to be struggling with some of the core issues of Epicurus, and you will want to keep struggling with these core issues until you decide whether you find his "medicine" worthwhile or not.

I recall that you said that you have not read Lucretius. When you do, you will find that one of his most-repeated analogies is to the taking of wormwood as a medicine, which restores health, but is bitter to the taste.

For example:

Quote

For that too is seen to be not without good reason; but even as healers, when they essay to give loathsome wormwood to children, first touch the rim all round the cup with the sweet golden moisture of honey, so that the unwitting age of children may be beguiled as far as the lips, and meanwhile may drink the bitter draught of wormwood, and though charmed may not be harmed, but rather by such means may be restored and come to health; so now, since this philosophy full often seems too bitter to those who have not tasted it, and the multitude shrinks back away from it, I have desired to set forth to you my reasoning in the sweet-tongued song of the muses, and as though to touch it with the pleasant honey of poetry, if perchance I might avail by such means to keep your mind set upon my verses, while you come to see the whole nature of things, what is its shape and figure.

And as Lucretius also said in a longer quote worth repeating here:

Quote

Herein I have one fear, lest perchance you think that you are starting on the principles of some unholy reasoning, and setting foot upon the path of sin. Nay, but on the other hand, again and again our foe, religion, has given birth to deeds sinful and unholy. Even as at Aulis the chosen chieftains of the Danai, the first of all the host, foully stained with the blood of Iphianassa the altar of the Virgin of the Cross-Roads. For as soon as the band braided about her virgin locks streamed from her either cheek in equal lengths, as soon as she saw her sorrowing sire stand at the altar’s side, and near him the attendants hiding their knives, and her countrymen shedding tears at the sight of her, tongue-tied with terror, sinking on her knees she fell to earth. Nor could it avail the luckless maid at such a time that she first had given the name of father to the king. For seized by men’s hands, all trembling was she led to the altars, not that, when the ancient rite of sacrifice was fulfilled, she might be escorted by the clear cry of ‘Hymen’, but in the very moment of marriage, a pure victim she might foully fall, sorrowing beneath a father’s slaughtering stroke, that a happy and hallowed starting might be granted to the fleet. Such evil deeds could religion prompt.

[102] You yourself sometime vanquished by the fearsome threats of the seer’s sayings, will seek to desert from us. Nay indeed, how many a dream may they even now conjure up before you, which might avail to overthrow your schemes of life, and confound in fear all your fortunes.

And justly so: for if men could see that there is a fixed limit to their sorrows, then with some reason they might have the strength to stand against the scruples of religion, and the threats of seers. As it is there is no means, no power to withstand, since everlasting is the punishment they must fear in death. For they know not what is the nature of the soul, whether it is born or else finds its way into them at their birth, and again whether it is torn apart by death and perishes with us, or goes to see the shades of Orcus and his waste pools, or by the gods’ will implants itself in other breasts, as our own Ennius sang, who first bore down from pleasant Helicon the wreath of deathless leaves, to win bright fame among the tribes of Italian peoples. And yet despite this, Ennius sets forth in the discourse of his immortal verse that there is besides a realm of Acheron, where neither our souls nor bodies endure, but as it were images pale in wondrous wise; and thence he tells that the form of Homer, ever green and fresh, rose to him, and began to shed salt tears, and in converse to reveal the nature of things.

Quote from Kalosyni

If this is what this online forum advocates

Yes I do find that Matt's summaries on these points are accurate to what many of us advocate as true, but that's because we are here because we agree with what Epicurus wrote. A lot of what he wrote and taught are very different from what most people are taught nowadays, and in the end each person has to decide what they think is true.

There are lots of subtleties in all these points which make it important not to jump to conclusions too fast. Be sure that you take all the time necessary to be sure you understand the implications before you accept them. There's no rush and there are many people here who are happy to talk about these things!

We won't quite get to it in the next episode, but in honor of some recent conversations in which we were discussing the extent to which Epicurean ethics are based on Epicurean physics and Epistemology, I just changed the Home Page opening quote for the new year:

Quote

Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. ... [W]hen cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes.... ("Torquatus" - Cicero's "On Ends" I-XIX

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Three of Lucretius Today.

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

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

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

At this point in our podcast we have completed our first line-by-line review of the poem, and we have turned to the presentation of Epicurean ethics found in Cicero's On Ends. Today we continue examine a number of important corollaries of Epicurean doctrine.

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

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

[61] Turn again to another class of men, trivial and pusillanimous, either always in despair about everything,or ill-willed, spiteful, morose, misanthropic, slanderous, unnatural; others again are slaves to the frivolities of the lover; others are aggressive, others reckless or impudent, while these same men are uncontrolled and inert, never persevering in their opinion, and for these reasons there never is in their life any intermission of annoyance. Therefore neither can any fool be happy, nor any wise man fail to be happy. And we advocate these views far better and with much greater truth than do the Stoics, since they declare that nothing good exists excepting that vague phantom which they call morality, a title imposing rather than real; and that virtue being founded on this morality demands no pleasure and is satisfied with her own resources for the attainment of happiness.

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

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

Thank you so much to all our participants at EpicureanFriends! You presence and participation has been a great inspiration to me, and I look forward to working with you even more productively and pleasurably in 2022!

But not a direct synonym for pain?

Unless that word is more etymologically helpful then "harm" is going to be just as ephemeral as "Justice" itself.

Pain means something we can understand clearly, but "harm"?

Ah I see - back in June - an ETERNITY ago!!!

Oh no! SO You (Don) posted it and I DID read it? Time for a new Alzheimer doctor!!!!

Luckily I have the excuse that that exchange was many years ago, right?

I am going to run out of time to finish this post but there is a comment at about the 50 minute mark by Joshua in regard to PD39 that I want to elaborate on so this is a note to myself to come back to this. (In case I forget, it's a point about something in PD39 that Joshua did not mention but which we should not omit, lest we as Epicureans be accused of being too willing to "turn the other cheek."

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.