Posts by Cassius

Welcome to Episode 267 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website.

This week we will address "Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself - All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation."

Our discussion outline (work in progress!) will be here.

Welcome to Episode 264 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we have a special episode in which our podcaster co-host Don will give a talk entitled "Bread and Water - Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Asceticism." This talk was given on January 19, 2025, as part of our first EpicureanFriends Livestream. We'll link the slideshow presentation in the show notes to this episode, but you can view it anytime at EpicureanFriends.com by clicking on the "Featured Videos" link at the top of our website.

At the same location we also have a link to Don's video on "Where Was the Garden of Epicurus? Isolated, or Near the Center of Things?" In that talk, just as in this new Bread and Water talk, Don debunks myths that have grown up around Epicurean philosophy, mistakenly labeling the ancient Epicureans as isolationist and ascetic. Don does great work and we're proud to have him as a part of our podcast family.

Next week we'll be back with a regular Lucretius Today episode. Until then, enjoy Don on the topic "Bread and Water? Debunking the Myth of Epicurean Asceticism"

Welcome DaveT !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum 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 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.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Episode 263 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available: "All Sensations Are True."

[media]

Also:

Quote

Caesar also offers a striking argument against the death penalty itself (Sall. BC 51.20):

de poena possum equidem dicere, id quod res habet, in luctu atque miseriis mortem aerumnarum requiem, non cruciatum esse; eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere; ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum esse.

About the punishment I can speak according to the facts: in sorrow and misery death is a relief from grief, not a torture. It dissolves all human ills, and beyond it, there is place for neither care nor joy.

While Sallust is not quoting Caesar verbatim, he presumably availed himself of the senatorial archives in reconstructing the speeches, and the historicity of the remarks on death is confirmed not only by the fact that Sallust’s Cato, in responding to Caesar, refers back to them, but crucially also by Cicero’s own summary of the discussion in the fourth speech Against Catiline.

As for Cato, he begins his attack on Caesar’s proposal as follows (Sall. BC 52.13):

bene et conposite C. Caesar paulo ante in hoc ordine de vita et morte disseruit, credo falsa existumans ea quae de inferis memorantur, divorso itinere malos a bonis loca taetra, inculta, foeda atque formidulosa habere.

C. Caesar a little while ago gave this order a well-phrased and well-structured lecture on life and death, apparently deeming false what is said about the underworld, namely, that divorced from the good, the wicked inhabit horrid, desolate, foul and fearful places.

Display More

I see Trebatius Testa, apparently a well-known figure, is listed in Wikipedia, but Epicurean leanings are not mentioned --

Trebatius Testa - Wikipedia

Here is another article discussing Julius Caesar as potentially Epicurean. I don't yet have a fix on how to compare it to the 1977 article by Frank Bourne, but we have links to both in our "Julius Caesar" subsection of the forum.

Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death

In Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age, ed. by S. Yona and G. Davis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 72-86.

www.academia.edu

Couple of sections that catch my attention:

Quote

That Caesar was informed about Epicureanism is without doubt. Even if he had undergone no specifically philosophical training himself, a basic knowledge concerning the major philosophical schools was, by the first century BC, part and parcel of the Roman aristocracy’s cultural competence, and Caesar can hardly have failed to pick up the principles of Rome’s most fashionable philosophical creed. Furthermore, as has often been pointed out, many of Caesar’s friends and followers were Epicureans. These include not only his father-in-law Piso, but also his trusted lieutenant C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and the jurist C. Trebatius Testa. In the case of such other Caesarians as L. Cornelius Balbus, A. Hirtius and C. Matius, we cannot be sure about their philosophical allegiance, but Epicurean leanings have often been suggested. While older views that Epicureanism provided a political ideology for the Caesarian party have long been debunked, and it is well established that Epicureans stood on both sides of the Civil War, the concentration of putative Epicureans in Caesar’s circle is still worth noting.

What is especially interesting is the evidence for Epicurean activity in the Caesarian camp during the campaigns in Gaul, Germany and Britain. Trebatius, who had joined Caesar’s staff on the recommendation of Cicero, converted to Epicureanism in 53 BC, apparently under the influence of Pansa. His mentor back in Rome reacted in mock horror: “My friend Pansa tells me you have become an Epicurean. That’s a great camp you got there!” (indicavit mihi Pansa meus Epicureum te esse factum. o castra praeclara!, Fam. ..). Just a year earlier, the leisure hours of the campaigning Caesarian officers may have been taken up with studying Lucretius’ brand-new poem. As Christopher Krebs has shown, following F. R. Dale, Caesar himself must have read On the Nature of Things in 54, to judge from striking verbal echoes in Books 5, 6, and 7 of his Gallic War. It is possible that Caesar, and perhaps other philosophically interested members of his staff, were introduced to Lucretius by Quintus Cicero, who knew the poem by February 54 (Cic. QFr. ..) and joined Caesar’s campaign shortly thereafter. Dale (, ) fondly imagines that Caesar “read Lucretius with Quintus in Britain, on a summer evening in his tent.”

Would be particularly interesting to follow up on the reference to verbal parallels between Lucretius and Caesar's "Gallic War"!

Thanks to Don for pointing to that thread. We have several people who are particularly familiar with those philosophies and I seem to recall that Eikadistes' knowledge was particularly detailed.

A Special Happy Birthday to our regular participant -- ONENSKI!

Happy Birthday to Onenski! Learn more about Onenski and say happy birthday on Onenski's timeline: Onenski

Saving someone from drowning is a very apt analogy!

Al Hakiim please comment when you can while reading and that will help us expand our Jefferson subsection. There's a great deal of explicitly philosophical material in those letters that deserve discussion.

In addition to the letters with Adams there is a lot of interesting commentary in the "Head and Heart" letter as well, in which I think he gives the "heart" - rather than rationalism - the better part of the argument.

I also found Jeffersons connection to "Thomas Cooper MD" very useful, given Cooper's explicit materialism. See thomascoopermd.com And there are all sorts of other figures of that period from Thomas Paine to Elihu Palmer and details of "deism" that have at least significant Epicurean overtones. Not to mention the explicitly Epicurean "A,Few Days In Athens," which Jefferson endorsed, and of which I am sure there is much more to the story than a one-off writing project by Frances Wright.

There's a lot more connection to Epicurus in that period than we've been led to believe.

Thanks to your motivation posts, Al-Hakiim, I've set up a page here and copied over the resources from NewEpicurean. Hopefully they will be easier to use here:

Thomas Jefferson Resources - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

I presume this is an older edition but looks like there is an Archive.org link here:

Plutarch's Lives : Plutarch : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

11v. 17cm

archive.org

One more comment about the Jefferson connection. i too found it highly motivational to understand Epicurus as an influence on Jefferson and thereby as an influence on the development of American historical thought. But the significance by no means stops there. At some point you'll want to consider Nietzsche's interpretations of Epicurus (not all of which are consistent, unfortunately) and especially consider what Nietzsche had to say in his "Antichrist" about the influence of Epicurus and Lucretius on the entire Western world, rather than just on America. Jefferson reserved much of his appreciation for Epicurus for his private letters, but Nietzsche referenced Epicurus in public and in very challenging terms.

Quote from Nietzsche' Antichrist

The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but "Christianity", which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.—Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared… Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world", in the flesh....

Also for another far-reaching publicly-stated interpretation of Epicurus that has a Jefferson connection, be sure to read his friend's Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens." That's another highly interesting book that I myself might never have found without our Epicurean networking on the internet.

On behalf of all of us who have generated the content over the years, thank you for the kind words about the website Al-Hakiim!

For me finding the Jefferson endorsement of Epicurus was key. I'm not sure what you've seen here at the forum, but be sure you find the full collection of Jefferson material collected here. Hopefully we have all or part of that here, but if not we need to make sure those other letters beyond the Peter Carr "I too am an Epicurean" are easily findable. The letters with John Adams make it even more plain that Jefferson understood a lot about Epicurus.

So yes the Jefferson connection was a major influence on my own thinking. Now, given the path that you're own, i'd recommend the DeWitt book (for the sweeping scope) followed by the Austin book (for a contemporary appreciation that doesn't follow the modern trend to water down the philosophy).

it may not be an issue for you, but one of the most challenging aspects for most people is getting past a superficial interpretation of the word "pleasure." I would not recommend too much focus on Lucretius or even the core texts until you have read an introductory summary like DeWitt, but for me the most benefit has come from reading Books One and Two of Cicero's On Ends. Definitely don't tackle that until you've read enough introductory material to give you background on the "Pleasure" debate - for example you need to be sure that you are acquainted with the "anti-pleasure" arguments typified by Plato's "Philebus." DeWitt can provide most of that. But once you get familiar with how Cicero (and the other philosphers) were limiting the term "pleasure" to "sensuality," and how Epicurus saw fit to respond to that by emphasizing that there are only two feelings, and thus all feelings which are not painful come within "pleasure," then you are no longer trapped into thinking that the advocacy of "pleasure" means nothing more than tea parties and dreamy indulgence.

As Dewitt put it on page 240 of “Epicurus And His Philosophy” page 240 (emphasis added):

“The extension of the name of pleasure to this normal state of being was the major innovation of the new hedonism. It was in the negative form, freedom from pain of body and distress of mind, that it drew the most persistent and vigorous condemnation from adversaries. The contention was that the application of the name of pleasure to this state was unjustified on the ground that two different things were thereby being denominated by one name. Cicero made a great to-do over this argument, but it is really superficial and captious. The fact that the name of pleasure was not customarily applied to the normal or static state did not alter the fact that the name ought to be applied to it; nor that reason justified the application; nor that human beings would be the happier for so reasoning and believing.

And getting back to Jefferson, he too has really good advice:

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up....

Welcome Al-Hakiim von Grof

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum 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 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.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

I completely agree, Bryan, and I see in this one of the most obvious problems with stoicism and all sorts of rationalism. Setting up "virtue" (in this case honesty) as an end it itself, never to be secondary to any other goal, is a prescription for disaster if what you value is a human life of pleasure rather than some arbitrarily selected abstract goal. It is absurd to think that you must be honest with the burglar who asks for the location of the keys so he can invade your house and murder your family.

"Pleasure" is not an arbitrarily selected abstract goal because it is based on a feeling given by nature, and even when the term "pleasure" is used as an abstraction, it can be immediately tested against the feeling.

And the whines of the past and current Ciceros and Senecas who push asceticism and virtue are especially easy to see through once you demolish their "pleasure = sex drugs and rocknroll" definition and realize that pleasure is everything in life that is desirable.

Both Cicero and Seneca preserved some important information about Epicurus so I give them credit for that, but I see in Cicero a greater willingness to be frank even in disagreement. And toward the end of his life Cicero maybe even made a few steps in the right direction by giving credit to Cassius for showing Cicero more vigor in Epicureanism than Cicero had expected to see. I would trade a hundred Senecas for one Cicero any day of the week.

Very interesting - thank you Tau Phi!

From the angle on the ring the face is reasonably approximate despite the lack of hair - wonder why the book cover is so off......