Posts by Cassius

Anyone who wants to defend Socrates needs to be sure they have read the full Phaedo. Here's more of a taste of what Epicurus must have considered to be poison worse than hemlock. This is Socrates speaking, There is much more, and worse.

Quote

[66b] “And when they consider all this, must not true philosophers make a reflection, of which they will speak to one another in such words as these: ‘We have found,’ they will say, ‘a path of speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the psūkhē is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied, and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; [66c] and also is liable to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after truth: and by filling us so full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies, and idols, and every sort of folly, prevents our ever having, as people say, so much as a thought. For whence come wars, and fighting, and factions? Whence but from the body and the lusts of the body? For wars are occasioned by the love of money, [66d] and money has to be acquired for the sake and in the service of the body; and in consequence of all these things the time which ought to be given to philosophy is lost. Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation, and hinders us from seeing the truth: and all experience shows that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, [66e] and the psūkhē in itself must behold all things in themselves: then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom, not while we live, but after death, as the argument indicates [sēmainein]; for if while in company with the body the psūkhē cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow—either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, [67a] the psūkhē will be in itself alone and without the body. In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible concern or interest in the body, and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when the god himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away and we shall be pure and hold converse with other pure psūkhai, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere; and this is surely the light of truth. [67b] For no impure thing is allowed to approach the pure.’ These are the sort of words, Simmias, which the true lovers of wisdom cannot help saying to one another, and thinking. You will agree with me in that?”

“Certainly, Socrates.”

That is exactly my reaction Don. And i am sorely embarrassed that this forum has been going for some fifteen years without my recognizing this adequately.

Mea maxima culpa!

For me, this places a lot of what I've been reading about Epicurus in a very new light. No wonder he reacted the way he did.

Matteng that is why I am finding the material we are covering on the podcast now so valuable. I too was attracted to Stoicism (many years ago now) and for a long time I favored it. But as I look back now I see that i should have immediately tried to question what exactly they thought their goal to be. The word "happiness" is interpreted in too many ways to accept it at face value as a goal without an understanding of what the person using the word means. Same goes for Epicurean philosophy, and Lucian makes that point too - that this problem applies to all schools. Socrates is wrong - it IS possible to be clear, and to clearly communicate something positive that you have confidence is true. But just like people use different languages, even within the same language different people use different words in different ways. Epicurus is right that it is essential to be clear, and the only way to do that in conceptual matters is to cite numbers of examples and to explain the entire concept in understandable words.

But to get back to the current material on the podcasts, this is why Stoicism was not accepted - not just by the Epicureans - but also by the majority of the Academy. Both Aristotle and the regular heirs of Plato understood that there is more subtlety involved in the word "Virtue" than just things that are under one's own control. The Stoics talk today as if they ruled the roost in the ancient world, but we can read Cicero and see plainly that both Aristotle and the New Academy saw the problems with Stoicism. I am no fan of Carneades, but he seems to have directed at least as much, and probably more, of his fire at the Stoics than at the Epicureans. Aristotle has significant similarities with Epicurus as to certain views of pleasure, and even Socrates and Plato can be found to say occasional good things about pleasure. The distinguishing mark of Stoicism seems to be that they elevated the worship of Logic and Reason to an extreme that even Socrates and Aristotle and maybe even Plato himself would not have agreed with.

I perceive that everyone does not hold that Hermotimus dialog in the same esteem that I do, but if you haven't read the whole thing I highly recommend it. In my view it does an excellent job of making this point - that logical consistency is a dangerous trap if you start off at the beginning with premises that are not properly evaluated.

Even the introduction to the Epicurus Reader starts off with something similar, presuming that "Everyone wants to be happy." In a way that is true, and i say things like that myself sometime, but we're here to be clear about philosophy and how to pursue it, and in serious discussion the meaning of the word "happy" is NOT something to be taken for granted.

Going back to the recent question in which the Stoic article was cited, I want to add this:

Quote from Matteng

The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.

Again, the entire discussion in the article gets off to a bad start by failing to be clear what is meant by happiness. But even within the general framework of "control" there are huge problems. OF COURSE I want life. OF COURSE I want health. And indeed those things are not guaranteed, and they are therefore not totally within my control. But unlike a Stoic I am not going to cry about it and revolt against Nature. Nature gives us life and health on the contingency that we act properly to secure it and keep it. It would be insane to discard life and health simply because I don't have total control over keeping it.

This entire logic game set forth in the article is exactly the same kind of nonsense that Lucian complains about in Hermotimus. OF COURSE if you exclude as a value anything that you don't have total control over, then you'll never fail in your values. "Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed" is a logical consistency but it's also an unnatural and insane way to live life.

Stoicism is a reduction ad absurdem of certain trends in Socratic/Platonic thought that even Aristotle, who failed to reject the "prime mover" argument, could not accept. I wouldn't waste my time debating them unless and until one of them (who wouldn't be faithful to Stoicism if they did so) set forth a reasonable explanation of their terms of what life and happiness really entail. Divine fire and loving Fate and pursuing virtue in and for itself are pure nonsense. You're not going to reach a reasonable and acceptable set of conclusions when you start off with such a false foundation, no matter how logically consistent you might be at any single step along the way.

Matt there is something else I want to add. I see that you are going through a long sequence of statements about Stoicism and analyzing the logic of them. Anytime I get confronted with a long intricate chain argument, I always remember this from Lucian's Hermotimus:

Quote

Perhaps an illustration will make my meaning clearer: when one of those audacious poets affirms that there was once a three-headed and six-handed man, if you accept that quietly without questioning its possibility, he will proceed to fill in the picture consistently—six eyes and ears, three voices talking at once, three mouths eating, and thirty fingers instead of our poor ten all told; if he has to fight, three of his hands will have a buckler, wicker targe, or shield apiece, while of the other three one swings an axe, another hurls a spear, and the third wields a sword. It is too late to carp at these details, when they come; they are consistent with the beginning; it was about that that the question ought to have been raised whether it was to be accepted and passed as true. Once grant that, and the rest comes flooding in, irresistible, hardly now susceptible of doubt, because it is consistent and accordant with your initial admissions.

That is just your case; your love-yearning would not allow you to look into the facts at each entrance, and so you are dragged on by consistency; it never occurs to you that a thing may be self- consistent and yet false; if a man says twice five is seven, and you take his word for it without checking the sum, he will naturally deduce that four times five is fourteen, and so on ad libitum. This is the way that weird geometry proceeds: it sets before beginners certain strange assumptions, and insists on their granting the existence of inconceivable things, such as points having no parts, lines without breadth, and so on, builds on these rotten foundations a superstructure equally rotten, and pretends to go on to a demonstration which is true, though it starts from premises which are false.

Just so you, when you have granted the principles of any school, believe in the deductions from them, and take their consistency, false as it is, for a guarantee of truth. Then with some of you, hope travels through, and you die before you have seen the truth and detected your deceivers, while the rest, disillusioned too late, will not turn back for shame: what, confess at their years that they have been abused with toys all this time? so they hold on desperately, putting the best face upon it and making all the converts they can, to have the consolation of good company in their deception; they are well aware that to speak out is to sacrifice the respect and superiority and honor they are accustomed to; so they will not do it if it may be helped, knowing the height from which they will fall to the common level. Just a few are found with the courage to say they were deluded, and warn other aspirants. Meeting such a one, call him a good man, a true and an honest; nay, call him philosopher, if you will; to my mind, the name is his or no one's; the rest either have no knowledge of the truth, though they think they have, or else have knowledge and hide it, shamefaced cowards clinging to reputation.

So while I am fine if others here want to go through the details of Stoic chain reasoning, my own recommendation is to follow what Lucian advises:

Start with their fundamental presumptions and don't get drawn into an argument about self-consistency. The Stoics are very good about drawing up self-consistent arguments that are absolute nonsense when you examine their premises. Whatever good there might be in examining whether an issue is under your control or not (and indeed there may be some good in that) their overall use of the argument poisons any benefit from traveling very far down their road.

I wouldn't advise traveling a step with them beyond those steps in which you are sure you agree.

Quote

Th 1) Everyone wants happiness.

i would say from the very first sentence you are not defining what happiness means, so that it would be unproductive to evaluate anything after that starting point without more specifity.

Phaedo 99c–100a - Loeb (Jowett) from Archive.org, page 367 of the PDF version.

Welcome to Episode 322 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 start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 2 and our focus will include a statement by Varro in praise of Socrates, and possible Epicurean responses to it.

We'll also look at Socrates' "Second Sailing" and the major topics contained in the Mark Riley Article "The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates"

File

Riley - The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates

Details of the Epicurean Criticism of Socrates for his character and method of teaching.

Cassius

January 10, 2018 at 4:17 PM

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

• 
  

  

  Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/70342091/media

Complete Show transcript is here:

Episode 321 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates For Denouncing Natural Science"

[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/70179149/media

Current Link to Cosmos Episode 7 - Backbone of the Night - Attacking the Socratic/Platonic abandonment of the study of Nature (mentioned in this episode of the podcast)

Carl Sagan Cosmos Episode 7 - The Backbone of Night - Greek subtitles, ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΙ ΥΠΟΤΙΤΛΟΙ

Cosmos: A Personal Voyage is a thirteen-part television series written by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter, with Sagan as presenter. It was…

odysee.com

This will deserve its own thread - Socrates' "Second Sailing" and its implications from the Epicurean perspective.

Thread

An Analogy That Should Live Forever In Infamy Along With His Ridiculous "Cave" Analogy - Socrates' "Second Sailing"

Carl Sagan's "Backbone of the Night" episode has me wanting to pursue further the condemnation of Socrates and Plato for deprecating the study of natural philosophy. Here's some initial research into a term apparently that is a key part of that terrible turn of philosophy:

What was Socrates' "second sailing"?

Socrates' "second sailing" (in Greek: deuteros plous, δεύτερος πλοῦς) is a famous metaphor and methodological turning point described in Plato's Phaedo (around 99c–d). It occurs during…

Cassius

February 19, 2026 at 1:52 PM

Carl Sagan's "Backbone of the Night" episode has me wanting to pursue further the condemnation of Socrates and Plato for deprecating the study of natural philosophy. Here's some initial research into a term apparently that is a key part of that terrible turn of philosophy:

What was Socrates' "second sailing"?

Socrates' "second sailing" (in Greek: deuteros plous, δεύτερος πλοῦς) is a famous metaphor and methodological turning point described in Plato's Phaedo (around 99c–d). It occurs during Socrates' intellectual autobiography, where he recounts his early disillusionment with natural philosophy (the "inquiry into nature," or physis historia) and his subsequent shift in approach.The phrase draws from an ancient Greek proverb: when the wind fails during a sea voyage (the "first sailing," relying on sails), one resorts to the "second sailing" by taking to the oars — in other words, the next best or fallback method when the preferred/direct one doesn't work.Context and MeaningIn the Phaedo, Socrates explains that he initially pursued explanations for natural phenomena (causes of generation, growth, decay, etc.) through direct empirical investigation of physical processes — examining things themselves (erga, deeds/works, or material realities) in the manner of the pre-Socratic natural philosophers (like Anaxagoras). He hoped to discover the ultimate cause, especially the good as an ordering principle.This approach disappointed him: it either led to mechanistic, material explanations that ignored purpose/teleology or failed to deliver satisfactory answers about causation and the good. Disillusioned and fearing he might go blind (metaphorically) by staring directly at things, Socrates decided on a new path:He would take refuge in arguments, reason, discourse, or accounts (logoi) — "fleeing into the logoi" (eis tous logous kataphugonta) — and examine the truth of beings (tōn ontōn tēn alētheian) through them instead.This "second sailing" is thus Socrates' famous turn from direct, physical/sensory investigation of the world to investigating reality through reasoned discourse, definitions, and ultimately the hypothesis of the Forms (the intelligible, eternal realities like Beauty itself, Equality itself, etc.).Key Implications

• It is "second best" only in a provisional sense (as a safer, more reliable method after the failure of the first), but for Plato/Socrates it becomes the philosophically superior path.
• It leads directly into the theory of Forms as explanatory causes: beautiful things are beautiful because they participate in the Form of Beauty, etc. (the "safe" hypothesis Socrates adopts at 100a ff.).
• This shift is foundational for much of Plato's metaphysics and epistemology — moving from the visible realm to the intelligible, from becoming to being.

In short, the "second sailing" marks Socrates' decisive turn to rational, conceptual inquiry (dialectic and the Forms) as the proper way to seek truth and causes, after abandoning the inadequate direct study of nature. It's one of the clearest articulations in Plato of why philosophy must prioritize logos over mere empirical observation.

Quote from Phaedo

“Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, [97c] out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself: If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place; and I argued that if anyone desired to find out the cause of the generation or destruction or existence of anything, he must find out what state of being or suffering or doing was best for that thing, [97d] and therefore a man had only to consider the best for himself and others, and then he would also know the worse, for that the same science comprised both. And I rejoiced to think that I had found in Anaxagoras a teacher of the causes of existence such as I desired, and I imagined that he would tell me first whether the earth is flat or round; [97e] and then he would further explain the cause and the necessity of this, and would teach me the nature of the best and show that this was best; and if he said that the earth was in the center, he would explain that this position was the best, and I should be satisfied if this were shown to me, [98a] and not want any other sort of cause. And I thought that I would then go and ask him about the sun and moon and stars, and that he would explain to me their comparative swiftness, and their returnings and various states, and how their several affections, active and passive, were all for the best. For I could not imagine that when he spoke of mind as the disposer of them, he would give any other account of their being as they are, except that this was best; [98b] and I thought when he had explained to me in detail the cause of each and the cause of all, he would go on to explain to me what was best for each and what was best for all. I had hopes which I would not have sold for much, and I seized the books and read them as fast as I could in my eagerness to know the better and the worse.

“What hopes I had formed, and how grievously was I disappointed! As I proceeded, I found my philosopher altogether forsaking mind [98c] or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavored to explain the causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my body is made up of bones and muscles; and the bones, as he would say, are hard and have ligaments which divide them, [98d] and the muscles are elastic, and they cover the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which contains them; and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am sitting here in a curved posture: that is what he would say, and he would have a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound, and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same sort, [98e] forgetting to mention the true cause, which is that the Athenians have thought fit to condemn me, and accordingly I have thought it better and more right to remain here and undergo my sentence; [99a] for I am inclined to think that these muscles and bones of mine would have gone off to Megara or Boeotia—by the dog of Egypt they would, if they had been guided only by their own idea of what was best, and if I had not chosen as the better and nobler part, instead of playing truant and running away, to undergo any punishment which the State inflicts. There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, [99b] and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. And thus one man makes a vortex all round and steadies the earth by the sky; another gives the air as a support to the earth, which is a sort of broad trough. [99c] Any power which in disposing them as they are disposes them for the best never enters into their minds, nor do they imagine that there is the power of a daimōn in that; they rather expect to find another Atlas of the world who is stronger and more everlasting and more containing than the good is, and are clearly of opinion that the obligatory and containing power of the good is as nothing; and yet this is the principle which I would want to learn if anyone would teach me. But as I have failed either to discover myself or to learn of anyone else, [99d] the nature of the best, I will exhibit to you, if you like, what I have found to be the second best mode of inquiring into the cause.”

“I should very much like to hear that,” he replied.

Socrates proceeded: “I thought that as I had failed in the contemplation of true existence, I ought to be careful that I did not lose the eye of my psūkhē; as people may injure their bodily eye by observing and gazing on the sun during an eclipse, unless they take the precaution of only looking at the image reflected in the water, [99e] or in some similar medium. That occurred to me, and I was afraid that my psūkhē might be blinded altogether if I looked at things with my eyes or tried by the help of the senses to apprehend them. And I thought that I had better have recourse to ideas, and seek in them the truth of existence. I dare say that the simile [100a] is not perfect—for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas sees them only as an image, any more than he who sees them in their working and effects. However, this was the method which I adopted: I first assumed some principle which I judged to be the strongest, and then I affirmed as true whatever seemed to agree with this, whether relating to the cause or to anything else; and that which disagreed I regarded as untrue. But I should like to explain my meaning clearly, as I do not think that you understand me.”

Quote from Matteng

The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.I'd start by saying that their definition of "happiness" is absolute BS. No issues of control are even relevant until you forthrightly start with a clear explanation of what "happiness," means without the BS "virtue" overlay.

It appears that many Stoics are comfortable saying that they have no concerns about life and health. For my part I'd say that unless you have life and at least some degree of health, no happiness is possible.

This is an unbridgeable divide. The Stoics can go their way and I'll go mine.

I have now expanded the old comparison chart we had on the forum through the use of Claude AI to include columns for the Socratics and the Aristotelians. For the new additions I haven't checked each of the sources that that are listed for each point on the chart, but the issue summaries themselves appear to be a very good start.

This chart is something that we've needed for a very long time, and we need to bring our Epicurean expertise to improving it beyond what is possible through AI alone. It appears to me that Claude has already to some extent picked up from the material I already had on Epicurus and the Stoics a general tone of comparison that is valid, but I invite comments and suggestions on improving both the summaries and the citations. We need to edit these observations from an Epicurean perspective to help make sure that the divisions are highlighted as starkly and clearly as possible.

Epicurus vs Other Major Philosophies - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

I am going to update the master comparison table (which at present is oriented toward comparing with Stoicism and repost it shortly. I will add Aristotle and also the Socratics.

Edit: This is the current status of the result:

Epicurus vs Other Major Philosophies - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

I've prepared a new page to make it easier for browsers of the page to identify to what extent they fit with Epicurean Philosophy. This is a first draft which will change, but it's already in usable form. This stems primarily from the recent material we've been covering on the podcast which stresses the difference between Epicurus and the Socratic philosphers as to the role of natural science, so that's question one on this tree:

Are You On Team Epicurus? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

The Youtube translation to English works fairly well, so I will update the first post in this thread with links to the individual presentations as I find them. If you've already watched the video and know where any of these are, please add to the thread and I will update the first post

• Scientific Humanism and Psychosomatic Health – Christos Giapitzakis
• On Eudaimonia – Giorgos Gkonis
• In the Enemy’s Camp: Philosophy as Therapy of the Soul – Christos Koutsotassios
• The Garden as a Therapeutic Community: Epicurean Philosophy and the 12 Steps of Recovery – Kyriakos Veresies
• Irrationalism and Pseudoscience in Troubled Times: When the Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. An Epicurean Perspective on Our Contradictory Age – Stefanos Trachanas
• Epicurean Philosophy as an Antidote to the Absurdity of Our Time – Stratis Katakos
• Relational Dynamics within Groups through the Lens of Epicurean Philosophy – Evangelia Maritsa
• Epicurus in the Modern Era – Theodoros Georgiou
• From the Musicality of Character to the Ethics of Music – Dimitris Christakis
• Gilgamesh: The Epicurean Human at the Dawn of History – Eleni Michopoulou
• The Enlightenment of the 18th Century and Epicurus – Leonidas Alexandridis
• Democracy through the Eyes of Epicurus – Takis Kalyvas
• Epicurus through the Eyes of a New Friend – Thanasis Lalas
• Criterion of Truth and Perceptual Capacity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence – Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos
• Epicurean Approaches to Language – Evangelia Pitsikali
• The Concept of Human Nature in Light of Evolutionary and Epicurean Theory – Vasilis Roukas
• The Physics of Epicurean Philosophy: Connections with Modern Physics – Anastasios Liolios
• The Epicurean Stance on the Interpretation Problem of Quantum Mechanics – Spyros Tserkis
• Chaos Theory in Human History and the Philosophy of Epicurus – Giorgos Froutzos
• Epicurus’ Contribution to Prigogine’s Thought and the Understanding of Physical Complexity – Ioannis Antoniou

It's beginning to be clear that the Socratic position mentioned by Diogenes of Oinoanda as being opposed to the study of natural science constitute a major bright line division between them and Epicurus. Apparently that same distinction did not exist between Epicurus and the Stoics. Pending confirmation here's an AI summary:

Quote

In contrast to Socrates, the Stoics regarded the study of natural science (physikē) as not only desirable but philosophically necessary.

For the Stoics—beginning with Zeno of Citium and systematized by thinkers such as Chrysippus—philosophy was divided into three interdependent parts: logic, ethics, and physics. Physics, which included cosmology, theology, and the study of nature as a rational, ordered whole, was essential because it grounded ethics. One could not fully understand how to live well without understanding how the universe itself is structured and governed.

The Stoics held that the universe is an ordered, rational system permeated by logos (reason). Studying nature therefore reveals the rational principles by which the cosmos operates, including divine providence and necessity. Ethical ideals such as “living in accordance with nature” depend directly on correct physical understanding; without physics, moral prescriptions would lack foundation. In this sense, natural science had clear ethical value, not merely speculative interest.

This position marks a clear disagreement with Socrates. Whereas Socrates treated cosmological inquiry as largely irrelevant or distracting from moral self-examination, the Stoics saw it as indispensable to moral progress. While they agreed with Socrates that ethics is the ultimate aim of philosophy, they rejected his dismissal of natural science and instead integrated it tightly into their ethical system.

In summary, the Stoics explicitly did not agree with Socrates on this point: they affirmed the study of natural science as a crucial and valuable component of philosophy, necessary for understanding both the cosmos and the proper conduct of human life.

Here are a number of references we're incorporating into the current discussion of Socrates:

Reference to Lucian’s statements in “Alexander the Oracle Monger”

Thread

Lucian: Alexander, The Oracle-Monger

---

Alexander the Oracle-Monger

---

By Lucian of Samosata, translated by H. W. and F. G. Fowler (1905)

(other links to this text: Sacred-texts.com, Lucianofsamosata.info, Epicurism.info

Characters: Lucian, writing a letter to a friend.

Context: Lucian relates the story of a famous fraud.

You, my dear Celsus, possibly suppose yourself to be laying upon me quite a trifling task: Write me down in a book and send me the life and adventures, the tricks and frauds, of the impostor Alexander of…

Cassius

February 14, 2019 at 8:54 AM

• Picture to yourself a little chamber into which no very brilliant light was admitted, with a crowd of people from all quarters, excited, carefully worked up, all aflutter with expectation. As they came in, they might naturally find a miracle in the development of that little crawling thing of a few days ago into this great, tame, human-looking serpent. Then they had to get on at once towards the exit, being pressed forward by the new arrivals before they could have a good look. An exit had been specially made just opposite the entrance, for all the world like the Macedonian device at Babylon when Alexander was ill. He was in extremis, you remember, and the crowd round the palace were eager to take their last look and give their last greeting. Our scoundrel’s exhibition, though, is said to have been given not once, but many times, especially for the benefit of any wealthy new-comers.
• And at this point, my dear Celsus, we may, if we will be candid, make some allowance for these Paphlagonians and Pontics. The poor uneducated ‘fat-heads’ might well be taken in when they handled the serpent—a privilege conceded to all who choose—and saw in that dim light its head with the mouth that opened and shut. It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.

Reference to Carl Sagan’s Cosmos Episode 7 “Backbone of the Night”

• Start about the 20 minute mark
• 25:00 - Anaximander and evolution (positive)
• 26:27 - Empedocles discovers air; discussion of “water thief” (positive)
• 28:36 - Democritus and atoms (positive)
• 33:30 - Anaxagorus advances in astronomy but was persecuted (positive)
• 34:13 - Pythagorus “The mystics were beginning to win” - continuity between him and Christianity. Mathematical harmony underlies all of nature - “music of the spheres” - “cosmos means ‘ordered.’ Pythagorus said laws of nature deduced by PURE THOUGHT - they were mathematicians and thoroughgoing mystics- the dodecahedron - ordinary people to be kept ignorant of the dodecahedron - they suppressed knowledge of the square root of two as “irrational” Pythagoreans ignored “experiment” (highly negative)
• 39:07 Plato — Followed in steps of Pyathagorus and extended them - ideas are more real than the natural world - advised ignoring astronomy in favor of thinking - taught contempt for the real world - he and his followers extinguished the light of science and experiment. Unease with the world of the senses and dominated and stifled western philosophy.
• 40:44 - Pythagorus and Plato “provided an intellectually respectable justification for a corrupt social order.""
• 41:13 - “Plato and Aristotle were comfortable in a slave society. Thy offered justifications for oppression. They served tyrants. They taught the alienation of the body from the mind - a natural enough idea I suppose in a slave society. They separated thought from matter. They divorced the earth from the heavens. Divisions which were to dominate western thinking for more than 20 centuries. The Pythagoreans had won. … The books of theionian scientsts are entirely lost. Their views were suppressed, ridiculed and forgotten by the Platonists and by the Christians who adopted much of the science of Plato.
• Background as to Socrates, in addition to general criticism of Socrates’ honesty as contained in “the Epicurean Criticism of Socrates. Just putting this out there so we know the major issues. This is Grok:

What was Socrates’ position on whether it is important to study natural science and the nature of the universe?

Socrates did not consider the study of natural science (what the ancient Greeks called physis or inquiries into the nature of the cosmos, astronomy, meteorology, the elements, and the physical causes of phenomena) to be important or worthwhile for human life — at least not as a primary pursuit.He famously shifted the focus of philosophy away from these cosmological and physical speculations — which had dominated earlier thinkers like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras (the so-called pre-Socratics) — toward ethics, the examination of human affairs, virtue, justice, piety, and how one ought to live.Key Evidence from Primary Sources

• In Plato’s Apology (Socrates’ defense speech at his trial), he explicitly denies the popular accusation that he was a natural philosopher who investigated “things in the sky and below the earth.” He says he has no interest in or expertise in such matters and that the charge stems from a caricature (like Aristophanes’ comedy The Clouds, which mocks him as someone dangling in a basket measuring fleas and speculating about celestial phenomena). Socrates insists his real activity is questioning people about moral and ethical concepts in the marketplace.
• In Plato’s Phaedo (set on the day of Socrates’ death), he gives a more autobiographical account: As a young man, he was enthusiastic about natural philosophy and eagerly studied the works of pre-Socratic thinkers, hoping to discover the true causes of things (e.g., why things grow, why the earth is shaped as it is, or what makes the universe orderly). He became disillusioned when these materialistic explanations (e.g., Anaxagoras’ “Mind” as a cosmic force) failed to provide satisfying answers, especially about why things are ordered for the best or good. He abandoned this path as futile or misguided for human concerns and turned instead to examining human life, ethics, and the soul through dialectical questioning. He calls this his “second sailing” — a turn to logos (reasoned discourse) rather than direct empirical or physical investigation.
• In Xenophon’s Memorabilia (another student’s account of Socrates), Xenophon defends Socrates against similar charges by stating that he did not discuss “the nature of the universe” or speculate about the cosmos “as the others did.” Socrates reportedly argued that such inquiries were foolish: humans should focus on what is within their grasp (human affairs, ethics, practical wisdom), while leaving divine or cosmic matters to the gods (via divination if needed). He saw preoccupation with unreachable questions as neglect of more urgent human ones.

Why This Shift?Socrates believed true wisdom and the good life lie in self-knowledge (“know thyself”) and understanding moral concepts like virtue (which he often treated as a kind of knowledge). Speculating about the physical universe or its material causes did little to improve one’s character or make one a better person — it could even distract from ethical living or lead to impiety if it undermined traditional reverence for the divine order. He viewed the cosmos as intelligently ordered (with hints of divine design in Xenophon), but probing its mechanics mechanistically was not the path to virtue or happiness.In short, Socrates regarded the study of natural science and cosmology as largely unimportant — even potentially misguided — for the serious pursuit of wisdom and a good life. He prioritized the human realm (ethics, the soul, and moral improvement) over the natural one. This “Socratic turn” profoundly influenced later philosophy, marking a pivot from pre-Socratic naturalism to ethical and metaphysical inquiry in Plato and beyond.

Confirmed as the common view by Chatgpt:

What was Socrates’ position on whether it is important to study natural science and the nature of the universe?

In the ancient sources, Socrates is consistently portrayed as downplaying the importance of studying natural science and the physical structure of the universe, especially when compared with ethical inquiry.

According to Plato’s Apology, Socrates explicitly denies engaging in investigations “in the sky or below the earth,” distancing himself from the natural philosophers (physikoi) who speculated about cosmology, astronomy, and the ultimate constituents of matter. He presents this denial not merely as a defense against specific charges, but as a principled statement of his philosophical priorities. For Socrates, inquiry into nature was both uncertain and largely irrelevant to the central human task.

Socrates held that the most important questions concern how one ought to live: the nature of virtue, justice, piety, and the proper care of the soul. He believed that studying the cosmos does not reliably improve moral character and may even distract from self-knowledge. This stance is reinforced by later testimonies (such as those in Xenophon), which depict Socrates as skeptical that cosmological speculation yields practical or ethical benefit.

In short, Socrates did not regard the study of natural science or the nature of the universe as intrinsically valuable. He deliberately redirected philosophy away from cosmology and toward ethics, holding that understanding how to live well is far more important than understanding how the universe is structured.

More detail and specific reference to Epicurus from Claude:

Socrates famously argued against the importance of studying natural science and cosmology, representing a major shift in Greek philosophy from the natural philosophers (like Thales, Anaximander, and Democritus) who preceded him.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates explicitly distances himself from natural philosophy when defending against charges. He denies investigating “things in the sky and below the earth,” stating he has no knowledge or expertise in such matters (Apology 19b-c).

In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes his youthful interest in natural philosophy and his ultimate disappointment with it. He found that explanations based on material causes (like Anaxagoras’s system) failed to answer the questions that truly mattered to him - questions about purpose, goodness, and why things are as they should be (Phaedo 96a-99d).

Xenophon’s Memorabilia (IV.7) records Socrates actively discouraging students from studying astronomy, geometry, and other natural sciences beyond what’s practically necessary. He argued that such studies were:

• Endless and possibly futile
• A distraction from more important matters
• Less valuable than self-knowledge and ethical inquiry

Cicero famously credited Socrates with bringing “philosophy down from the heavens” and making it concerned with human life, ethics, and how one should live (Tusculan Disputations V.10).

Instead, Socrates insisted on the priority of self-knowledge (“Know thyself”) and ethical questions about virtue, justice, and the good life - what he considered truly important for human flourishing.

This represents a stark contrast with later philosophers like Epicurus, who considered natural science essential for removing fear and superstition.

Reference to Lucian’s statements in “Alexander the Oracle Monger” Lucian: Alexander, The Oracle-Monger
Picture to yourself a little chamber into which no very brilliant light was admitted, with a crowd of people from all quarters, excited, carefully worked up, all aflutter with expectation. As they came in, they might naturally find a miracle in the development of that little crawling thing of a few days ago into this great, tame, human-looking serpent. Then they had to get on at once towards the exit, being pressed forward by the new arrivals before they could have a good look. An exit had been specially made just opposite the entrance, for all the world like the Macedonian device at Babylon when Alexander was ill. He was in extremis, you remember, and the crowd round the palace were eager to take their last look and give their last greeting. Our scoundrel’s exhibition, though, is said to have been given not once, but many times, especially for the benefit of any wealthy new-comers.
And at this point, my dear Celsus, we may, if we will be candid, make some allowance for these Paphlagonians and Pontics. The poor uneducated ‘fat-heads’ might well be taken in when they handled the serpent—a privilege conceded to all who choose—and saw in that dim light its head with the mouth that opened and shut. It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.

Refer to Carl Sagan’s Cosmos Episode 7 “Backbone of the Night”

Start about the 20 minute mark
25:00 - Anaximander and evolution (positive)
26:27 - Empedocles discovers air; discussion of “water thief” (positive)
28:36 - Democritus and atoms (positive)
33:30 - Anaxagorus advances in astronomy but was persecuted (positive)
34:13 - Pythagorus “The mystics were beginning to win” - continuity between him and Christianity. Mathematical harmony underlies all of nature - “music of the spheres” - “cosmos means ‘ordered.’ Pythagorus said laws of nature deduced by PURE THOUGHT - they were mathematicians and thoroughgoing mystics- the dodecahedron - ordinary people to be kept ignorant of the dodecahedron - they suppressed knowledge of the square root of two as “irrational” Pythagoreans ignored “experiment” (highly negative)
39:07 Plato — Followed in steps of Pyathagorus and extended them - ideas are more real than the natural world - advised ignoring astronomy in favor of thinking - taught contempt for the real world - he and his followers extinguished the light of science and experiment. Unease with the world of the senses and dominated and stifled western philosophy.
40:44 - Pythagorus and Plato “provided an intellectually respectable justification for a corrupt social order.""
41:13 - “Plato and Aristotle were comfortable in a slave society. Thy offered justifications for oppression. They served tyrants. They taught the alienation of the body from the mind - a natural enough idea I suppose in a slave society. They separated thought from matter. They divorced the earth from the heavens. Divisions which were to dominate western thinking for more than 20 centuries. The Pythagoreans had won. … The books of theionian scientsts are entirely lost. Their views were suppressed, ridiculed and forgotten by the Platonists and by the Christians who adopted much of the science of Plato.
Background as to Socrates, in addition to general criticism of Socrates’ honesty as contained in “the Epicurean Criticism of Socrates. Just putting this out there so we know the major issues. This is Grok:

What was Socrates’ position on whether it is important to study natural science and the nature of the universe?

Socrates did not consider the study of natural science (what the ancient Greeks called physis or inquiries into the nature of the cosmos, astronomy, meteorology, the elements, and the physical causes of phenomena) to be important or worthwhile for human life — at least not as a primary pursuit.He famously shifted the focus of philosophy away from these cosmological and physical speculations — which had dominated earlier thinkers like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras (the so-called pre-Socratics) — toward ethics, the examination of human affairs, virtue, justice, piety, and how one ought to live.Key Evidence from Primary Sources

In Plato’s Apology (Socrates’ defense speech at his trial), he explicitly denies the popular accusation that he was a natural philosopher who investigated “things in the sky and below the earth.” He says he has no interest in or expertise in such matters and that the charge stems from a caricature (like Aristophanes’ comedy The Clouds, which mocks him as someone dangling in a basket measuring fleas and speculating about celestial phenomena). Socrates insists his real activity is questioning people about moral and ethical concepts in the marketplace.
In Plato’s Phaedo (set on the day of Socrates’ death), he gives a more autobiographical account: As a young man, he was enthusiastic about natural philosophy and eagerly studied the works of pre-Socratic thinkers, hoping to discover the true causes of things (e.g., why things grow, why the earth is shaped as it is, or what makes the universe orderly). He became disillusioned when these materialistic explanations (e.g., Anaxagoras’ “Mind” as a cosmic force) failed to provide satisfying answers, especially about why things are ordered for the best or good. He abandoned this path as futile or misguided for human concerns and turned instead to examining human life, ethics, and the soul through dialectical questioning. He calls this his “second sailing” — a turn to logos (reasoned discourse) rather than direct empirical or physical investigation.
In Xenophon’s Memorabilia (another student’s account of Socrates), Xenophon defends Socrates against similar charges by stating that he did not discuss “the nature of the universe” or speculate about the cosmos “as the others did.” Socrates reportedly argued that such inquiries were foolish: humans should focus on what is within their grasp (human affairs, ethics, practical wisdom), while leaving divine or cosmic matters to the gods (via divination if needed). He saw preoccupation with unreachable questions as neglect of more urgent human ones.
Why This Shift?Socrates believed true wisdom and the good life lie in self-knowledge (“know thyself”) and understanding moral concepts like virtue (which he often treated as a kind of knowledge). Speculating about the physical universe or its material causes did little to improve one’s character or make one a better person — it could even distract from ethical living or lead to impiety if it undermined traditional reverence for the divine order. He viewed the cosmos as intelligently ordered (with hints of divine design in Xenophon), but probing its mechanics mechanistically was not the path to virtue or happiness.In short, Socrates regarded the study of natural science and cosmology as largely unimportant — even potentially misguided — for the serious pursuit of wisdom and a good life. He prioritized the human realm (ethics, the soul, and moral improvement) over the natural one. This “Socratic turn” profoundly influenced later philosophy, marking a pivot from pre-Socratic naturalism to ethical and metaphysical inquiry in Plato and beyond.

Confirmed as the common view by Chatgpt:

What was Socrates’ position on whether it is important to study natural science and the nature of the universe?

In the ancient sources, Socrates is consistently portrayed as downplaying the importance of studying natural science and the physical structure of the universe, especially when compared with ethical inquiry.

According to Plato’s Apology, Socrates explicitly denies engaging in investigations “in the sky or below the earth,” distancing himself from the natural philosophers (physikoi) who speculated about cosmology, astronomy, and the ultimate constituents of matter. He presents this denial not merely as a defense against specific charges, but as a principled statement of his philosophical priorities. For Socrates, inquiry into nature was both uncertain and largely irrelevant to the central human task.

Socrates held that the most important questions concern how one ought to live: the nature of virtue, justice, piety, and the proper care of the soul. He believed that studying the cosmos does not reliably improve moral character and may even distract from self-knowledge. This stance is reinforced by later testimonies (such as those in Xenophon), which depict Socrates as skeptical that cosmological speculation yields practical or ethical benefit.

In short, Socrates did not regard the study of natural science or the nature of the universe as intrinsically valuable. He deliberately redirected philosophy away from cosmology and toward ethics, holding that understanding how to live well is far more important than understanding how the universe is structured.

More detail and specific reference to Epicurus from Claude:

Socrates famously argued against the importance of studying natural science and cosmology, representing a major shift in Greek philosophy from the natural philosophers (like Thales, Anaximander, and Democritus) who preceded him.

Key Evidence:
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates explicitly distances himself from natural philosophy when defending against charges. He denies investigating “things in the sky and below the earth,” stating he has no knowledge or expertise in such matters (Apology 19b-c).

In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes his youthful interest in natural philosophy and his ultimate disappointment with it. He found that explanations based on material causes (like Anaxagoras’s system) failed to answer the questions that truly mattered to him - questions about purpose, goodness, and why things are as they should be (Phaedo 96a-99d).

Xenophon’s Memorabilia (IV.7) records Socrates actively discouraging students from studying astronomy, geometry, and other natural sciences beyond what’s practically necessary. He argued that such studies were:

Endless and possibly futile
A distraction from more important matters
Less valuable than self-knowledge and ethical inquiry
Cicero famously credited Socrates with bringing “philosophy down from the heavens” and making it concerned with human life, ethics, and how one should live (Tusculan Disputations V.10).

Socrates’ Alternative Focus:
Instead, Socrates insisted on the priority of self-knowledge (“Know thyself”) and ethical questions about virtue, justice, and the good life - what he considered truly important for human flourishing.

This represents a stark contrast with later philosophers like Epicurus, who considered natural science essential for removing fear and superstition.

Diogenes of Oinoanda:

Fr. 4

… [as is supposed by] some of the philosophers and especially the Socratics. They say that pursuing natural science and busying oneself with investigation of [celestial phenomena] is superfluous and unprofitable, and they do [not even] deign [to concern themselves with such matters.]
Fr. 5
[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

And from Epicurus:

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 37
Wherefore since the method I have described is valuable to all those who are accustomed to the investigation of nature, I who urge upon others the constant occupation in the investigation of nature, and find my own peace chiefly in a life so occupied, have composed for you another epitome on these lines, summing up the first principles of the whole doctrine. (Bailey)

Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 11
Were we not upset by the worries that celestial phenomena and death might matter to us, and also by failure to appreciate the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need for natural philosophy. (L&S-THP)

Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 12
There is no way to dispel the fear about matters of supreme importance, for someone who does not know what the nature of the universe is but retains some of the fears based on mythology. Hence without natural philosophy there is no way of securing the purity of our pleasures. (L&S-THP)

Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 13
There is no benefit in creating security with respect to men while retaining worries about things up above, things beneath the earth, and generally things in the infinite. (L&S-THP)

Epicurus, Vatican Saying 29
I would rather speak with the frankness of a natural philosopher, and reveal the things which are expedient to all mankind, even if no one is going to understand me, than assent to the received opinions and reap the adulation lavishly bestowed by the multitude. (L&S-THP)

Epicurus, Vatican Saying 45
Natural philosophy does not make people boastful and loud-mouthed, nor flaunters of culture, the thing so hotly competed for among the multitude, but modest and self-sufficient, and proud at their own goods, not at those of their circumstances. (L&S-THP)

Lucretius 1.62-79
(1) When human life lay foul to see and groveling upon the ground, crushed by the weight of Religion, who displayed her head from the regions of heaven, lowering over mortals with horrible aspect, (2) a man of Greece dared first to raise his mortal eyes against her, first to make a stand against her; for neither fables of the gods could quell him, nor thunderbolts, nor heaven with menacing roar, but all the more they goaded the eager courage of his soul to long to be the first to burst through the close-set bolts of nature’s gates. (3) Therefore his vigorous mind won through, and he passed on far beyond the fiery walls of the world, and in mind and spirit traversed the boundless universe; (4) whence returning victorious he reports to us what can arise, what cannot, and by what principle each thing has its powers limited and its deep-set boundary stone. (5) Therefore Religion is now in turn cast down and trampled underfoot, while we by the victory are exalted high as heaven. (L&S-THP)

Riley - The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates