Posts by Cassius

Oops I need to ask this Don -- skip how many minutes?

Thank you I will listen to that ....

Also, I think this is the appropriate time to restate what I think ought to be implicit, but maybe not:

I think when Epicurus argues that "justice" does not exist in the air, he is not saying that the issues involved aren't of vital importance to the people involved, or that we should hold back from taking forceful, even "extreme," action to try to stop or resolve circumstances that we find painful. He's not saying that the red-heads should not defend themselves, or that we who presumably would be pained by their elimination (for whatever reason - they're our friends, they are us, or we just don't like the idea of eliminating anybody) should not take strong action to defend them.

He's simply saying that when we act to defend the red-heads, we should be clear that we are doing so because we ourselves are impelled to do so by our "feelings" (or however we want to describe that). What we're NOT doing is because we are impelled to by some force of "natural justice" that was instituted by the gods, or which exists as somewhere as a platonic or aristotelian absolute.

I think it's necessary to make this point regularly because we would not be being "heartless" to follow these last ten PD's to their logical conclusion, we would just be being "clear-sighted" when we realize that it's up to US to vindicate our viewpoints.

And to me, that has a much more forceful value than thinking that there is some kind of universal "justice" that can somehow defend itself, or that somehow motivates every human being if we just somehow can find a way to bring it to the surface. As I read it, Epicurus is emphasizing that those things DON'T exist, and that if we want to truly respect our feelings and follow them, then we'll ourselves take action, to the best of our ability, to see that the red-heads (this example) are protected.

I think Bryan has really encapsulated the whole issue here, which is the key to unwinding it:

Quote from Bryan

As we know, justice must be created, it does not just float around and therefore without us fabricating it by mutual agreement it will not be around at all.

And I think that the issue of killing all red-haired people has to be analyzed in that context. Were the red-haired people formerly part of an agreement not to harm or be harmed? Are the circumstances that gave rise to the agreement still present?

If (1) the red-hairs were not part of an agreement in the first place, a law to kill them would not be "unjust" in this viewpoint.

If (2) the red-hairs WERE part of an agreement previously, but the circumstances under which the agreement was entered into have changed, and the parties no longer mutually agree that killing red-hairs is improper, then a law to kill them would not be unjust after those circumstances change.

That's why this would not be a factor:

Quote from Don

because a red-haired person would constantly live in fear of harm.

You would expect that the people you have determined to be your enemies, and whom you think it appropriate to kill, would constantly live in fear of harm. For whatever reason you've not agreed not to kill them, and "justice" must be founded on agreement, so it's either "not unjust" or "neither just nor unjust" to kill them, because you're not violating a present agreement.

The bigger issue I have is distinguishing use of the term "unjust" from what Epicurus is apparently implying is "outside justice" (neither just nor unjust). I don't think we're yet clear on the difference between those two (unjust vs neither just nor unjust).

ok but suppose the two people involved in that murder hypothetical were on a desert island totally isolated from all organized communities or other people entirely? Would self defense then still be a matter of "justice"? Now clearly it is desirable / proper under Epicurean texts, but the question is must Epicurean justice be a matter of "society"?

Maybe that last part is the key point. Is Epicurus talking about justice using his own terminology? As with gods, how much of the outside terminology is he accepting?

Ok maybe where I am going is back in the direction of "examples.". Is protecting oneself from a murderer something that comes under the heading of " justice " at all?

I think most people today would say that it does. Are you saying Epicurus would not (say that self-protection involving harm to the aggressor) because that does not fall under the category of justice?

Quote from Don

"don't harm; don't be harmed" -

One of the clear reservations I have about stating the point that way is that "harm" seems overbroad. If a burglar or murderer threatens me or my friends, I consider myself entirely justified in placing a high degree of "harm" on that person to stop them from their efforts, and I think Epicurus would fully agree with that. How would you account for those situations in use of the word "harm"? Is it not "harming" a murderer to put a bullet between his eyes before he accomplishes his goal?

Quote from Don

your fav Atticus

OK now let's not get on the wrong track! By no means is Atticus my favorite - as you know by far I favor Cassius Longinus, who was very far from being neutral in the civil war! However in the bigger picture I think I have given up trying to decide which side I personally really favor in that conflict, or whether I personally think Cassius or Atticus were correct in their actions. We are so far removed from the background and details of that conflict that I find it impossible in my own mind to sort it all out, especially the character and actions of Caesar. Was the Republic so hopelessly corrupt that I could justify Caesar's actions? Was the Republic worth trying to save and did Cassius and Brutus act correctly? Was Atticus correct to stay neutral? Was Cicero justified in talking a big game and essentially doing nothing BUT talk? I don't know the answers to those questions and at this point I think the "true" details are probably lost to history. I think this is a good illustration why Epicurus was right to focus on the contextual individual circumstances and point out that a "general rule" is impossible by nature.

Godfrey I wonder if that statement means that he internalized Epicurean physics, or simply internalized the conclusion of no life after death.

It looks like Erhman has devoted a lot of effort to unwinding Christian / Jewish thought on the afterlife, kind of like Thomas Cooper does in going through his "Scripture doctrine of materialism."

In this context, I think there are a lot of related issues that stem from really understanding the Jewish attitude toward some of these issues (especially on the nature of the soul, afterlife if any). I think a lot of mainline Christians think that their ideas of an eternal soul, afterlife in Heaven, and maybe even in some way rising from the dead to a new life with real bodies, are shared with Judaism, but I gather that that is not true. I have made some effort in the past to get to the bottom of the jewish viewpoint on that by discussing it with the real Jews of my acquaintance without much success.

Once again, this particular effort and mixed result has confirmed in my mind the imperative to explore these issues as did Epicurus, and be very clear about one's conclusions. You're about to get me started on a tangent that I need to write a separate post about, but I am ready to double down on the viewpoint that there is nothing more important, or even in the neighborhood, of being clear about the nature of the soul being mortal and not subject to supernatural creation or control (the issue really may be "supernatural relation" rather than "supernatural control"). In relation to those issues, the issue of pleasure and Epicuruean ethics are strictly secondary, because the propriety of them is entirely dependent on the mortality / supernaturality issues. Anyone who is focused on "pleasure" as the fundamental issue of Epicurean philosophy - I am afraid to say but have to - has missed the boat, the train, the plane, and whole reason for the journey in the first place.

I am sorry I got distracted yesterday and wasn't able to reply, and I am still thinking about your suggestions here without reaching a conclusion yet. You are probably right to be considering the analogy with "civil" law and "criminal law." Also related are the terms "malum in se" (bad in itself) and "malum prohibitum" (bad because it is prohibited) - a classic latter of the example being driving on whatever side of the road is designated as against the law in that locality. One question to ask is whether Epicurus would accept even the idea of "malum in se." Possibly, but only with clear statements of what is meant and why.

It is statements like this which cause me concern:

Quote from Don

But the community needs to be peaceful and stable. Justice maintains this peace and stability.

When you say "the community needs...." you are making an observation that is no doubt true (organizations of any kind have a need to perpetuate their existence) but I see nothing in the texts that indicate to me that Epicurus was in any way concerned with the needs of "organizations." It seems to me that Epicurus was focused on the issues of feelings - pleasure and pain - and only individual human beings have those feelings. Now he might have been referring to organizational concepts as a part of showing how they are obstacles to pleasure, as he referred to false religions and false philosophies, so it is a possibility that he was singling out "justice" for attention given its status as one of the classic "virtues" which are elevated to ends in themselves.

But I am still in thinking mode and again would like to see more discussion.

but the basic point you are making is that we should consider justice to be an entirely "civil" concept and maybe use words like "fairness" for strictly personal relations ?

Quote from Don

Justice is not concerned with the personal but the community.

This statement hearks back to our brief discussion above, and I think this is the point in the chain of reasoning in post 69 where the processing halts. By this point, there is no "justice" in the actions between two individuals alone. Apparently we need to revisit your definitional section above, but I think this is the point that most people are going to say is not established satisfactorily. Do you believe it is?

Because if so then your final statement, given the definition of "justice," may be correct. However if this is the case then we're going to be adding to our list of non-standard terminology, and this one might be the most non-standard of all.

i would like to hear what others say.

Hello and welcome to the forum AdamSandvoid ! Very creative user name!

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!

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

more aggressive than even Thomas Paine on religion.

Wow! Okay, you've piqued my interest!!

Part of the reason that I say "more aggressive" is that while "Age of Reason" was one of the most influential books on me in decades past, I've come to think that Paine was more of a Stoic than an Epicurean. Of course the focus on "Reason" is a giveaway, plus Paine seems sincerely to have been a deist - I read him as firmly advocating for the clockwork model in which a supernatural creator put the universe in motion and then stepped back.

Cooper seems to have been much more an out-and-out materialist of the Epicurean variety in his physics. However its been more than a few years since I did my original Cooper reading, so I stand to be corrected. I think it's reasonable to say you can scan this introduction and see that it is more radically materialist than anything Paine produced.

Ok Godfrey you have pushed me over the ledge - I will mark these posts and move them into a new thread of their own....

I found the material on Thomas Cooper maybe 8 or 9 years ago and like you said found it FASCINATING. Cooper was a brilliant man and far ahead of his time; perhaps actually the most intellectually "like us" of the founding fathers - more aggressive than even Thomas Paine on religion. The only disappointment I have to admit is that I looked far and wide without finding any references in his work to Epicurus or Lucretius. Maybe he thought he was pushing the envelope already without associating himself with the dreaded name of "pleasure" - I say that because he had to publish many of his best works anonymously so that he wouldn't be fired from his job at the new University of South Carolina. They did eventually fire him for his religious views anyway, but today's main USC library is named after him. I strongly doubt most people in South Carolina understand who Cooper was and the ideas he promoted.

I actually thought I had a subforum devoted to him, pointed mainly to that thomascoopermd.com page. I probably will set one up at some point, since his work is so relevant, and maybe sometime in the future someone can document the Lucretius/Epicurus connection I have missed so far.

Don: You are certainly right that the Biblical version is entitled to no more credibility than the rest of their assertions. This part of the conversation called to mind another source that would be difficult to believe, the Jewish version, in which the Romans were not involved at all. But I give this version credit for being a lot more colorful, with magic words, flying contests, etc: https://archive.org/details/Schonf…up?view=theater

Thanks for the link Godfrey. I'm afraid Don is going to be a little disappointed though, if he thinks there's going to be a lot on Plato.

I would also quibble with this statement:

Not sure exactly whether I would praise or blame Pontius Pilate and the Romans for there role in what happened, but this sentence seems to me to place the onus of the motivation on them, when that's not how I read the history - seems like it was an internal power struggle between sects of the Jews with which the Romans have very little taste for being in the middle of, rather than taking the lead to suppress insurrection.

However I do agree with the main thrust of the article. I've commented on this before, but one of the more interesting pursuits of this that I've run across is in a short book/long article by Thomas Cooper MD, one of the intellectuals of the American founding period and friend of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote "The Scripture Doctrine of Materialism." My post at that link contains Jefferson's comment on the book, and I find the book itself to be highly useful in arguing with Christian friends that (like Ehrman says) the idea that the soul is immaterial and lives forever in the clouds is NOT part of what Jesus himself was teaching.

Thank you Godfrey!

Hello and welcome to the forum Cadmus !

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!

Here is a relatively recent (2018) article by Voula Tsouna that is new to me (link to paper at Academia.edu). Her articles are always interesting so probably well worth reading. Might need a new category for "Dreams" but on first thought I wasn't sure even if this was Canonics, Physics, or Ethics. I opted for Canonics.

Welcome to Episode Sixty-Five 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 65 we introduce a new panel member, Don, one of our regulars here at EpicureanFriends. We take this episode to introduce Don and recap where we've been, where we're going, and we get Don's take on the opening section of Book Five. Next week we will return to our normal format.