Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP is off-putting. It's very in-group jargony with no semantic content to a wider world.

Quote from Don

What's the natural audience for Epicureans? (I genuinely don't have an answer. Thoughts?)

I think these questions are related. I agree that the issue of the "ism" terminology is lost on most modern English speakers (hard for me to be sure about other languages) and I don't think the question should be made a priority in dealing with someone who doesn't see the point. I do think that some interesting points can be made by discussion the question of "isms," because there are lots of aspects of Epicurean philosophy beyond just the role of pleasure and pain, which is why a label such as "Pleasurism" or even"Hedonism" doesn't work for me, and why I never use the "Hedonist" label. Discussing the issue of what "Epicureanism" is helps flesh out that it's more than just a system of ethics. But the way most people understand the "ism" suffix (in my experience) is that it just means "system of thought" and there's nothing necessarily negative about that.

The natural audience probably would be a subset of whatever type person it is who wants a coherent system of thought - not everyone seems to want or care about having one. I don't know that this should always be true, but it seems to be a lot easier to identify the type of person who is naturally "not an Epicurean" than "naturally is an Epicurean." There's definitely a list of attributes that can be identified, though, and among them would be the degree to which a person values thinking independently from the larger group. The issue isn't a matter of objecting for the sake of objecting, or naturally being uncooperative, but more a matter of determination to follow one's own sense of pleasure and pain rather than taking those cues from the larger society.

Quote from Titus

fit better in already existing structures?

I would say that is the key. I think Stoicism is actually the majority view of most "establishments" in the corporate and governmental and academic world, even if they don't admit it. The prevailing worldview in my eyes is some version of "virtue ethics" in which most existing institutions have their view of what is "good" and seek to apply that to everyone, and that is highly consistent with the Stoic worldview. Stoicism doesn't require overt belief in a particular theology, but it serves much the same function as traditional religion, so it's easy to move back and forth between the two, even if one considers oneself secular / humanist, and still be in the same general area.

Epicurean philosophy is much more 'revolutionary' and "anti-establishment" in rejecting even the possibility of uniform rules of conduct for everyone, other than by agreement, and the idea of placing "pleasure" at the core of how life is to be lived is still frowned upon by almost every other camp.

And also in the mix is that Epicurean philosophy really doesn't lend itself to a hierarchical tightly-organized framework that is conducive to money-making or power, and that in itself is a huge incentive for people who are after one or the other to focus on Stoicism rather than Epicurus.

No doubt there are lots of other factors too but those stand out in my mind.

I think the hurdle that Epicureans failed to cross in the ancient world, and that has to be crossed today, is that if it is every going to thrive as a substantial force it has to find a way to translate the emphasis on "Friendship" into the realization that the world is a dangerous place and that it is necessary for people of similar perspectives to band together in order to survive. The core philosophical elements of that are present, especially in the last ten PDs. Hopefully the internet age will allow that need to finally come together to reality.

Thank you for posting that, Charles.

One of many aspects I find interesting is the part you included:

Quote

(217) THE CHRISTIAN: “No one correctly calls that than which something greater is found the ‘ultimate good.’ For what is below or less than something cannot by any means be called ‘supreme’ or ‘ultimate.’

This calls to my mind how important it is to some people to have a convincing argument on this question -- as to whether a thing can qualify as the "ultimate good" if something can be added to it to make it better (or supreme / ultimate).

This is why I think it's critical to see PD3 as a response to this argument rather than an endorsement of "absence of pain" as a code-word for something other than pleasure.

Lots of these people were focused on the argument of what is BEST, and if they can't conclude that their goal is BEST, and that nothing is higher, then they dismiss it as their goal. From an abstract logical point of view I can see their point, and I firmly believe that that's what Epicurus decided to address with his absence of pain argument. From a logical point of view, pure pleasure with no mixture of pain cannot be made better, and that's the "limit of the quantity of pleasure" that defines the Epicurean goal of life.

It is so perverse to mutate "pure pleasure" with no mixture of pain into something that is not pleasure at all!

But that's what these "reconcilers" apparently including Abelarde were trying to do, and continue to try to do today. They are trying to reconcile death with life, food with poison, and no one should be surprised that the melding of the two does not make any sense.

I have no doubt that Epicurus was very clear to keep these perspectives separate and we would see this stated explicitly if we had more texts. It's clear enough as it is if you realize the context that Plato and Seneca and others had been arguing (that the best cannot be excelled) but today that just strikes us as a word game that's hardly worthy of a response.

Welcome to Episode Sixty-Two 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 62 we will continue our discussion of perils of romantic love.

Our text today is Latin Lines -1141-1208 - of Book Four.

Munro Notes

1141-1191: if there are such evils in prosperous, what must be the evils of unsuccessful love? strive then not to fall into love; but if you are caught, use all efforts to escape : yet men stand in their own way, and deluded find beauties even in defects ; the discarded lover will refuse all comfort; who yet, if received back, will find out his folly and be glad to get away again.

1192 - 1208: yet women sometimes feel true love in return.

Browne 1743

These are the misfortunes that attend an amour ever so fortunate and constant; but the miseries of a wretched and disastrous love are innumerable, and obvious to everyone with his eyes open. You had better therefore be upon your guard beforehand, and observe the rules I have laid down to prevent your being caught; for 'tis not so difficult to avoid being drawn into the snares of love as to disengage yourself from the net when you are taken, and to break through the strong knots which Venus ties close upon all her votaries.

And though you are entangled and within the net, you may still avoid much of the evil, unless you willfully set yourself against the remedy. First then, you are to take no notice of any imperfections, either of mind or body, you find in the mistress you admire and fondly love. All lovers, blinded by their passion, observe this, and attribute beauties to the fair to which they have no real pretence; and therefore the ugly and deformed we see have their several charms, and secure a sovereign power over their admirers. The lover that has such a forbidding Dowdy for a mistress is laughed at by his companions, who advise him to appease Venus and render her propitious, while they think nothing of their greater misfortunes in placing their esteem upon others less lovely and less beautiful. The black seems brown; the nasty and rank is negligent, the owl-eyed is a Pallas, the sinewy, with her dry skin, is a little Doe, the dwarf, of the Pygmy Breed, is one of the Graces, wit and spirit all over; the large and gigantic is surprising and full of majesty. If she stammers and cannot speak, then she lisps; she is modest if she is dumb; but the Turbulent, the violent and the talkative is all Fire. If she is worn away with a consumption, she is my Slender Love, you may span her in the waist if she is dying with a cough. The two-handed Virago, with her full Duggs, is Ceres herself, a bedfellow for Bacchus; the flat-nosed is my Silene, a little Satyr; the pouting lip is a very Kiss. It would be endless to say all that might be offered upon this subject.

But allow your mistress all the advantages of beauty in her face, that charms of love arise from every limb, yet there are others as lovely as she, and time was when you lived without her, and we know she plays the same game that homelier women can do as well. And then she perfumes, rank as she is with filthy smells, that her maids cannot come near her, but make a jest of her when they are not seen. But when the lover is shut out, and all in tears crowns the gates with flowers and garlands, and pours ointments upon the stately pillars, and the wretch warms the very doors with his kisses; yet when he is admitted, and one blast from her armpits strikes full upon him as he enters, he presently seeks for a plausible reason to be gone, and all his long-labored speeches of complaint are forgotten, and he condemns himself of folly for raising such ideas of her beauty, which no mortal could lay claim to. This secret is well known to women of the town, and they act cunningly behind the scenes as it were, and conceal their failings from those whose love they would secure fixed and lasting to themselves. But all to no purpose, for you may easily imagine how things are, and discover all, and prevent their utmost endeavors to deceive you. And if your mistress be of an open temper, and not sullen and reserved, she will not so much as hide her defects, but hope you will allow for imperfections that are common to the whole sex.

Nor does the woman always breathe with feigned desire when joined in strict embrace with him she loves, when she holds him close, and on his pressed lips imprints her balmy kisses; for she often does it heartily, and strives to share the common joy, and run the heats with vigor to the goal. Nor for any other reason would birds and herds and wild beasts and cattle and mares bear the weight of the male if they did not burn and rage with equal heat, and so receive with joy the lusty leap. Don't you observe how those whom mutual pleasure has bound fast are tortured as it were in common bonds? How dogs in the street are striving to untie the knot and pull with all their might a different way, yet they stick fast in the strong ties of love? This they would never do if not engaged in mutual joys, which cheat them with delight and hold them fast. The pleasure then is common to them both.

Munro 1886

And these evils are found in love that is lasting and highly prosperous; but in crossed and hopeless love are ills such as you may seize with closed eyes, past numbering; so that it is better to watch before-hand in the manner I have prescribed, and be on your guard not to be drawn in. For to avoid falling into the toils of love is not so hard as, after you are caught, to get out of the nets you are in and to break through the strong meshes of Venus. And yet even when you are entangled and held fast you may escape the mischief, unless you stand in your own way and begin by overlooking all the defects of her mind or those of her body, whoever it is whom you court and woo. For this men usually do, blinded by passion, and attribute to the beloved those advantages which are not really theirs. We therefore see women in ways manifold deformed and ugly to be objects of endearment and held in the highest admiration.

And one lover jeers at others and advises them to propitiate Venus, since they are troubled by a disgraceful passion, and often, poor wretch, gives no thought to his own ills greatest of all. The black is a brune, the filthy and rank has not the love of order; the cat-eyed is a miniature Pallas, the stringy and wizened a gazelle; the dumpy and dwarfish is one of the graces, from top to toe all grace; the big and overgrown is awe-inspiring and full of dignity. She is tongue-tied, cannot speak, then she has a lisp; the dumb is bashful; then the fire-spit, the teasing, the gossiping turns to a shining lamp. One becomes a slim darling then when she cannot live from want of flesh; and she is only spare, who is half-dead with cough. Then the fat and big-breasted is a Ceres’ self big-breasted from Iacchus; the pug-nosed is a she Silenus and a satyress; the thick-lipped a very kiss. It were tedious to attempt to report other things of the kind.

Let her however be of ever so great dignity of appearance; such that the power of Venus goes forth from all her limbs; yet there are others too; yet have we lived without her before; yet does she do, and we know that she does, in all things the same as the ugly woman; and fumigates herself, poor wretch, with nauseous perfumes, her very maids running from her and giggling behind her back. But the lover, when shut out, often in tears covers the threshold with flowers and wreaths, and anoints the haughty doorposts with oil of marjoram; and imprints kisses, poor wretch, on the doors. When however he has been admitted, if on his approach but one single breath should come in his way, he would seek specious reasons for departing, and the long-conned deep drawn complaint would fall to the ground; and then he would blame his folly on seeing that he had attributed to her more than it is right to concede to a mortal. Nor is this unknown to our Venuses; wherefore all the more they themselves hide with the utmost pains all that goes on behind the scenes of life from those whom they wish to retain in the chains of love; but in vain, since you may yet draw forth from her mind into the light all these things and search into all her smiles; and if she is of a fair mind and not troublesome, overlook them in your turn and make allowance for human failings.

Nor does the woman sigh always with feigned passion, when she locks in her embrace and joins with her body the man’s body and holds it, sucking his lips into her lips and drinking in his kisses. Often she does it from the heart, and seeking mutual joys courts him to run the complete race of love. And in no other way could birds, cattle, wild beasts, sheep and mares submit to bear the males, except because the very exuberance of nature in the females is in heat and burns and joyously draws in the Venus of the covering males. See you not too how those whom mutual pleasure has chained are often tortured in their common chains? How often in the highways do dogs, desiring to separate, eagerly pull different ways with all their might, while all the time they are held fast in the strong fetters of Venus! This they would never do, unless they experienced mutual joys strong enough to force them into the snare and hold them in its meshes. Wherefore again and again I repeat there is a common pleasure.

Bailey 1921

And these ills are found in love that is true and fully prosperous; but when love is crossed and hopeless there are ills, which you might detect even with closed eyes, ills without number; so that it is better to be on the watch beforehand, even as I have taught you, and to beware that you be not entrapped. For to avoid being drawn into the meshes of love, is not so hard a task as when caught amid the toils to issue out and break through the strong bonds of Venus. And yet even when trammelled and fettered you might escape the snare, unless you still stand in your own way, and at the first o’erlook all the blemishes of mind and body in her, whom you seek and woo. For for the most part men act blinded by passion, and assign to women excellencies which are not truly theirs. And so we see those in many ways deformed and ugly dearly loved, yea, prospering in high favour.

And one man laughs at another, and urges him to appease Venus, since he is wallowing in a base passion, yet often, poor wretch, he cannot see his own ills, far greater than the rest. A black love is called ‘honey-dark’, the foul and filthy ‘unadorned’, the green-eyed ‘Athena’s image’, the wiry and wooden ‘a gazelle’, the squat and dwarfish ‘one of the graces’, ‘all pure delight’, the lumpy and ungainly ‘a wonder’, and ‘full of majesty’. She stammers and cannot speak, ‘she has a lisp’; the dumb is ‘modest’; the fiery, spiteful gossip is ‘a burning torch’. One becomes a ‘slender darling’, when she can scarce live from decline; another half dead with cough is ‘frail’. Then the fat and full-bosomed is ‘Ceres’ self with Bacchus at breast’; the snub-nosed is ‘sister to Silenus, or a Satyr’; the thick-lipped is ‘a living kiss’. More of this sort it were tedious for me to try to tell.

But yet let her be fair of face as you will, and from her every limb let the power of Venus issue forth: yet surely there are others too: surely we have lived without her before, surely she does just the same in all things, and we know it, as the ugly, and of herself, poor wretch, reeks of noisome smells, and her maids flee far from her and giggle in secret. But the tearful lover, denied entry, often smothers the threshold with flowers and garlands, and anoints the haughty door-posts with marjoram, and plants his kisses, poor wretch, upon the doors; yet if, admitted at last, one single breath should meet him as he comes, he would seek some honest pretext to be gone, and the deep-drawn lament long-planned would fall idle, and then and there he would curse his folly, because he sees that he has assigned more to her than it is right to grant to any mortal. Nor is this unknown to our queens of love; nay the more are they at pains to hide all behind the scenes from those whom they wish to keep fettered in love; all for naught, since you can even so by thought bring it all to light and seek the cause of all this laughter, and if she is of a fair mind, and not spiteful, o’erlook faults in your turn, and pardon human weaknesses.

Nor does the woman sigh always with feigned love, when clasping her lover she holds him fast, showering her kisses. For often she does it from the heart, and yearning for mutual joys she woos him to reach the goal of love. And in no other way would birds, cattle, wild beasts, the flocks, and mares be able to submit to the males, except because their nature too is afire, and is burning to overflow. Do you not see too how those whom mutual pleasure has bound, are often tortured in their common chains? Wherefore, again and again, as I say, the pleasure is common.

Episode 61 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we begin the famous ending of Book 4, which addresses in great detail the perils of romantic love. We will be covering this section for the next several weeks, so please be sure to let us know if you have any comments or questions, and we will try to address them over the next several episodes.

Thanks Joshua. Over the years I have been impressed with virtually everything I have ever read by Sedley. I think he's probably the foremost living scholar on Epicurus, though Martin Ferguson Smith and Voula Tsouna and probably several other names would be in the pack. I am thinking that it would be good to have a thread on most every book / article that Sedley and several others have written. For now I would put the articles in a new thread here in this subforum, and if it gets large enough we can break up the forum by name.

https://www.academia.edu/10175217/Epicu…essional_rivals

I googled for "Philosopher / Jew / Christian " but didn't find a good free text. Please post a link if you find one Charles - thanks.

Presuming that is not part of a book or larger context, the inscription almost looks as if it was intended to be a quotation, but the translation doesn't really make much sense. Maybe" traces" is "limits" (?) but the "do not discover" doesn't seem appropriate.

different style but very nice too! Very similar subject.

Hmmm not quite as interesting as I had hoped....I wonder what that note [3] references?

Not sure I follow his reasoning why he thought that Lucretius seems more motivated by the physics than the stated purpose of freeing from religious oppression, or why the practical minded Roman would not appreciate that. From a "practical" point of view very little would be more efficient toward happiness than overthrowing religious oppression. Maybe he's saying the Roman would be looking for information to use for better farming or the like, but if there is one thing the poem is devoid of it's "practical" application like mechanics or hydraulics.

Yes that is working now - thanks! And Don I went to your profile to look at that one but it looks like all one can see is a part of it on the profile, so maybe post a full copy somewhere(?)

Thanks Don - not very long! Maybe Martin can let us know whether the full document is interesting enough to pursue further.

Clip of the English notes:

Looks like the picture is not showing up in Joshua's post. Joshua do you know what's wrong?

Great find! We need that full intro, eventually in English, but I guess the German is the place to start

Thank you for your positive response to my last post If I recall correctly I woke up in the middle of the night and wrote that and I knew at the time I needed to be concerned about sounding too harsh It's a big world and I like every point of view to have a place in the sun --- unfortunately I find that not everyone shares that view. Maybe this forum is a version of "isonomia" -- not really striving for an equal number of people who focus on the "joy and delight" approach vs those who focus on "minimizing pain" --- but at least this forum is a step toward an "equitable distribution" so that there is a place for those in the J&D camp to have a place where their viewpoints prevail.

I generally don't purchase antique / antiquarian books, but several years ago on ebay I saw listed a copy of Lucretius translated by John Mason Goode and published in 1810. The binding and format looked impressive and I had not heard of this edition, so I bought it. It has forever soured me on "poetic" translations of Lucretius, because I took an immediate dislike to it and have got very little benefit from it over the years. Goode takes what seem to me to be extreme liberties in converting the text into English poetry, and as if to one-up his questionable translation, Goode tended to add the most incredibly tangential footnotes I have ever read in a Lucretius translation. They seem much more oriented toward making Mr. Goode look like a man of the world rather than a classical poetry scholar.

At any rate, I decided to check Goode's notes on this topic and what do you know he actually wrote a fairly lucid note that is probably helpful enough to include here. In the end his point seems to be "Epicurus' theory may be nonsense but those that came afterwards have been just as bad" but I do think the part that is his comparison to Plato and Aristotle on the theory of ideas is actually pretty insightful. I don't know that this puts him in either Munro's camp or Bailey's camp -- possibly slightly closer to Bailey than Munro, but in the end, it seems to me Goode is focused on the images more in the respect that they end up being a component of "analysis" or "truth" than their being the main mechanism of general "thought."

A perfect example of my frustration with Goode is that he starts his note off by referencing the exchange between Cassius and Cicero, which as noted above i think is right on point, but he manages to cut out Cassius' reply and thereby omits to say that Cassius *denied* what Cicero was alleging about the images. Seems to me a rather surprising omission.

Anyway, maybe someone will find a scan of this to be a little thought-provoking. (Attached)

I feel like the comment below underlined in red is HIGHLY justified, if Goode's note-writing is any indication:

Quote from Titus

because in my understanding this is a key part of Epicurean philosophy.

I don't doubt that that is your understanding at all, as that is the prevailing view in the academic world at large. That's why we're very clear in our terms of service and our welcome post and in the "Not Neo Epicurean Graphic" and the "Our Posting Policy" graphic that that is not the prevailing view here, and at some point we limit the continued argument for that position.

Now of course in saying all that I'm not intending to say that you have approached the line or in danger of that in any way, but just to acknowledge the truth that the academic world is hugely hostile to the view of Epicurus taken by Norman Dewitt and the writers listed in the "Don't be a Stoic in Disguise" Post in the right sidebar on the front page.

Basically the main reason this forum was founded and has sustained itself to date is in opposition to that view and to provide a place for those who think differently to compare notes and arguments against that viewpoint.

Note: I realize in this post and in what I am quoting from yours there is a danger in losing the focus on what "this" is. To summarize once again, possibly the best way of stating what I am arguing for is a "common sense" definition of the word pleasure, as ordinary people understand that word, which includes BOTH pleasures of "rest" and also "joy and delight" from the point of view that "all pleasures are desirable" and the only reason that one might choose not to pursue certain pleasures is that in the context of that person the pursuit would bring more pain than pleasure. This is the opposite of the "minimalism for the sake of minimalism" approach or any approach that embraces asceticism as the true end, rather than pleasure. But of course that's just a brief summary of the viewpoint you can find (hopefully!) permeating the great majority of posts on this forum.

Here's another example of my ongoing dispute with Bailey, from the next page after what is quoted in the last post:

Why, Mr Bailey, are you so certain that Lucretius / Epicurus chose to "go off into side issues" rather than "the main theory of thought?" Maybe it is you, Mr. Bailey, who misunderstands what the main issue is, and that that main issue is not "thought" at all, but the issues which Lucretius chooses to discuss?

Following what I always think should be one of the most important rules of construction, maybe we should give Lucretius the benefit of the doubt and presume that he knows a little more about Epicurus than we do, and that if Lucretius chooses to say something and go off in a particular direction, that he has good reason for it?

Here is side by side comparison of the commentary of Bailey (white, left) vs Munro (colored, right) on this same section. Compare how Bailey categorizes the entire discussion in terms of "thought" while Munro does not mention the words "thought" or any variation of "thinking," but deals with the subject as if it is just another variation of sensation, not something different in kind.

I also added underlines in Bailey which emphasize where Bailey is presuming his conclusion in his description. In passages marked 2 and 3 I also question the presumption that it is necessary for sensation and thought BOTH to be "set in action" and "stirred" by emations from outside. Yes as to sensations, but why does the action of the mind have to be in reaction to something OUTSIDE. I see no reason whatsoever in the rest of Epicurus to think that the mind cannot generate its own actions, and I would presume as devoted as Epicurus was to "agency" that the mind DOES initiate its own thoughts, in addition to responding to things that it perceives, just as we in this thread are both initiating our own comments and responding to the comments of each other.

Bailey is insisting that in all cases the the receipt of images in the mind and the receipt of vision by the eyes are linked together in result, and I certainly see the passage that he is referring to it, but by no means does it follow (in my view) that this process is going on in *everything* that our minds think.