Posts by Cassius

And I agree we do want to live a "wise" life because we don't place wisdom as a goal in itself, but employ it among the most valuable tools we can have to pursue our goal (happiness/pleasure) as successfully as possible.

How would you apply this to the "4th leg" Don?

I wonder if this is the full reference, because if so someone could argue that this is philosophical only and not dealing with lifestyle: (had to include the Stoic paragraph too for fun!)

CHAPTER V

[NUMENIUS] 'FOR the time then of Speusippus, sister's son to Plato, and Xenocrates the successor of Speusippus, and Polemon who succeeded Xenocrates in the School, the character of the doctrine always continued nearly the same, so far as concerned this much belauded suspension of judgement which was not yet introduced, and some other things perchance of this kind. For in other respects they did not abide by the original tradition, but partly weakened it in many ways, and partly distorted it: and beginning from his time, sooner or later they diverged purposely or unconsciously, and partly from some other cause perhaps other than rivalry.

'And though for the sake of Xenocrates I do not wish to say anything disparaging, nevertheless I am more anxious to defend Plato. For in fact it grieves me that they did not do and suffer everything to maintain in "every way an entire agreement with Plato on all points. Yet Plato deserved this at their hands, for though not superior to Pythagoras the Great, yet neither perhaps was he inferior to him; and it was by closely following and reverencing him that the friends of Pythagoras became the chief causes of his great reputation.

'And the Epicureans, having observed this, though they were wrong, were never seen on any point to have opposed the doctrines of Epicurus in any way; but by acknowledging that they held the same opinions with a learned sage they naturally for this reason gained the title themselves: and with the later Epicureans it was for the most part a fixed rule never to express any opposition either to one another or to Epicurus on any point worth mentioning: but innovation is with them a transgression or rather an impiety, and is condemned. And for this reason no one even dares to differ, but from their constant agreement among themselves their doctrines are quietly held in perfect peace. Thus the School of Epicurus is like some true republic, perfectly free from sedition, with one mind in common and one consent; from which cause they were, and are, and seemingly will be zealous disciples.

'But the Stoic sect is torn by factions, which began with their founders, and have not ceased even yet. They delight in refuting one another with angry arguments, one party among them having still remained steadfast, and others having changed. So their founders are like extreme oligarchs, who by quarrelling among themselves have caused those who came after to censure freely both their predecessors and each other, as still being more Stoical one party than the other, and especially those who showed themselves more captious in technicalities; for these were the very men who, surpassing the others in meddlesomeness and petty quibbles, were the more quick to find fault.

Thanks for finding that Nate - I have the book but if I read that I had forgotten it. Some of that seems pretty aggressively speculative but I don't know that any is far-fetched.

This seems like a particularly interesting reference to track down in full - I have not heard of this either:

Quote

An ancient and non-Epicurean witness, Numenius, seems to be reporting Epicurus’ success in this with an observer’s disinterested eye when he says (apud Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 14.5.3) that ‘Epicureans in the Garden resemble people living in a well-organized state.’

Episode 77 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this Episode we will read approximately Latin line 1028 - 1105 of Book Five. We will talk about the formation of language and the rise of early human societies. As always, please let us know any comments or questions in the thread below:

Quote from Don

I'm not convinced at all that romantic love was created in the Middle Ages.

I completely agree with that. Sure there are lots of differences in many ways between people today and people 2000 years ago due to politics, culture, religion, education, etc ----but I am convinced that the basic feelings and attributes that make us up today are very similar to those from many thousands of years ago.

I suspect that there is a lot to that, but I also think that romantic love as a feeling is more than simply cultural, so surely it was a component of feelings even then. But as to what the "institution of marriage" was back then, then comments seem pretty on track to me.

Quote from Don

The wise man will not marry unless he turns aside from his purpose

Ok that seems to be the issue. You are translating it that way ("unless he turns aside from his purpose"), but the others are not, correct? Maybe this is an instance where there is some subtlety they properly detect and you do not? Do you have any other authority following your view? Do we know why they chose not to follow what appears to you to be the normal construction? Were they "correcting" the text?

I would agree with your view that the wise man would never turn aside from his purpose, other than perhaps in the sense of temporarily accepting some lesser pain for some greater pleasure later. But I do not consider that kind of decisionmaking to be really "turning aside from one's purpose" since the overall goal remains the same.

I feel like the sense that Bailey is conveying is most consistent with the philosophy and therefore most likely to be correct:

Quote

"Sexual intercourse, they say, has never done a man good, and he is lucky if it has not harmed him. Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work On Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life."

In other words i would expect Epicurus to see some form of marriage and children to be most consistent in general with nature for most people (for the continuation of the species, as nature calls all species to survive). Therefore he would see it to be generally advisable, but would always allow the caveat that there may be individual circumstances personal to the person involved which would make marriage and children inadvisable or impossible.

I see the "marry according to the circumstances of his life" to be the caveat that goes almost without saying in regard to any activity of life. And I see the awkward wording as the result of D.L. describing and condensing the principle, rather than quoting Epicurus directly.

I would see Epicurus' general viewpoint best expressed by himself, in his will, when he provided for taking care that Metrodorus' daughter be married to a member of the school when she comes of age. To me that is the gold standard example of what he really thought, and the awkward wording is the fault of D.L. rather than Epicurus.

This following sentence seems to me to be inconceivable otherwise, as both a daughter or Metrodorus, and a member of the school, both of whom I would presume to be highly valued by Epicurus, and whom he wanted to be wise people, were involved:

Quote

"Let them likewise provide for the maintenance of Metrodorus's daughter so long as she is well-ordered and obedient to Hermarchus; and, when she comes of age, give her in marriage to a husband selected by Hermarchus from among the members of the School; and out of the revenues accruing to me let Amynomachus and Timocrates in consultation with Hermarchus give to them as much as they think proper for their maintenance year by year."

Now we could speculate that special circumstances were involved here, and that we have the unusual case that both spouses were presumably Epicurean and therefore knew how to handle "marriage" better than most people. Or perhaps the special circumstance was that they were part of the school and had a support structure around them, or money. But I doubt that Epicurus saw them to be an exception to the rule, since he generally seems to have thought that most people had the capacity to understand "right reason" and live according to his views. But I do think also that the point made by A_Gardner and others that we need to look carefully at what Epicurus considered to be the nature of marriage. Very possibly like justice itself he considered a marriage agreement to be like other agreements, that could change with circumstances, But that's speculation too - the only thing I think is beyond the reach of speculation is that Epicurus would not see a wise man turning aside from his purpose of seeking to live happily - I think it's inconceivable he would take that position about anyone who is wise.

At least in my mind, a wise man's conceptualized / generalized purpose is to live as happily as possible given his circumstances, with happiness also conceptually / generally understood to mean that individual's personal "calculation" of the mix of pleasures and pains that are open to him.

As we have seen Lucretius refer to several times, Epicurus apparently observed / held that people differ in their makeup as to what makes them happy. Some people are more group-oriented, some more solitary, some hot-tempered, some mild, and huge numbers of other variations. Or as my wife might put it, some are "marriage material" and some are not. In a very general sense I would suspect that that kind of thing is what Epicurus is getting at, plus all the innumerable circumstances of life that can make marriage / children more or less possible to a particular individual. But always in the context of keeping the goal focused on living happily.

Hello and welcome to the forum @Richard Nelson !

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

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!

These posts are good to point out the very large potential differences in what "marriage" means.". I wonder if we know anything about how the term related to the issue of having children. Do I detect that there are t2o clauses and that the "have children" is treated somewhat differently in both?

Nate your reference to Florida reminds me of the Champlain Towers collapse. That nighttime surveillance video of the collapse is almost surreal. But more to the point, until the engineers determine what really happened, I bet a lot of people are going through tremendous anxiety worrying that the same thing could happen to them. And like you said hopefully the diagnosis will make a repetition less likely.

This topic has been discussed in several places and it might be best to link to those here, rather than start the thread anew. As we come across those discussions (primarily under ethics, I think) let's link them here.

OK that was easy - the primary information is found HERE in the FAQ - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…arriage#entry-8

And HERE for the FAQ Discussion - What Did Epicurus Say About Marriage?

Thanks for that link! I will add that one to the list of problem translations.

In reviewing the post linked below I was thinking that we had a "table of problem translations" and here it is from 2018! I'm going to add to the table RE: "Wise Man" Saying as to Rejoicing At the Misfortune of Another

I may look for a way to highlight this thread so we don't forget it.

Quote from Don

This is a *perfect* example of the hazards of reading only *one* translation of an ancient text (or, in fact, any non-English original text in translation).

As another example, I'm still trying to determine whether Epicurus wanted me to get married or not!

Bailey's extant remains has this as line 121 of the book from Diogenes Laertius:

[121] He will erect statues of others, but whether he had one himself or not, he would be indifferent. Only the Wise man could discourse rightly on music and poetry, but in practice he would not compose poems. One wise man is not wiser than another. He will be ready to make money, but only when he is in straits and by means of his philosophy. He will pay court to a king, if occasion demands. He will rejoice at another’s misfortunes, but only for his correction. And he will gather together a school, but never so as to become a popular leader. He will give lectures in public, but never unless asked; he will give definite teaching and not profess doubt. In his sleep he will be as he is awake, and on occasion he will even die for a friend.

Today I received a question from one of our readers ( shahabgh66 ) who asked about this excerpt from the section of Diogenes Laertius devoted to the string of sayings about what the "wise man" will or will not do:

He will rejoice at another’s misfortunes, but only for his correction.

The question is - what does this mean? - because it is a little un-intuitive that we would ever rejoice at the misfortunes of another, even those that are instructive. But presumably that is the point, that when someone is corrected through misfortune that is something to be happy about (?)

Thanks - I think I can say with confidence that this week's will be better when it's posted.

I haven't had a chance to look at this but it appears directly on point with the forum topic - https://www.academia.edu/42855461/Pierr…=download-paper

This paper deals with the Epicurean conception of responsibility. There are many issues about the so-called Epicurus’ demonstration of freedom. Now, if we consider Epicurus’ remains, it is not obvious that Epicurus’ texts explicitly demonstrate the eph’ hêmin thesis. It will be argued, that the Epicurean eph’ hêmin, in this context, is not a demonstrandum because responsibility is a primary evidence. Arguments in this sense are of three kinds: cosmological, ethical and epistemological. I will show that Epicurus, when he depicts the sage’s life and behaviour, invokes the cosmological conditions of action, particularly in Letter to Menoeceus, arguing that the sage does not absolutely depend on a causal chain. Then I will focus on the arguments he develops in his Peri phuseôs about the ethical consequences of the denial of human freedom. Finally I will deal with the logical absurdity of such a denial. I will defend the view that this use of the eph’ hêmin thesis is closely connected with the Epicurean theory of knowledge and with its logical requirements.