I see that Helvetius is described as following Locke (and this Aristotle) on a radical "blank slate" position. That would likely indicate a deviation from Epicurus, but I would trust summaries until we see what he wrote himself.

I am going to tag Charles on this one - old French philosophy is his department!

And we are glad to have you! If your reading has not yet included the DeWitt book, I will risk being johnny-one-note and suggest you get it -. Not because I am slavishly devoted to DeWitt, but because I honestly think it is the best way for an average 21st century reader to immerse themselves in the full sweep of the philosophy on a generalist level. At the very least, don't let your interest wane until you give that book a chance :-). It made all the difference for me.

Welcome Jo.

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!

Note: I just happened to be looking at the users online list and I noticed a name that I didn't recognize and don't think we welcomed back in May. So please excuse me Will1776 for not acknowledging you earlier. So in the spirit of better late than never:

Welcome Will1776

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!

We received this post today at Facebook:

Quote

Has somebody here studied Helvetius?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Adrien_Helv%C3%A9tius

I noticed that nobody mentions him here. I haven't studied or read any of his work, but based on the discription in Wikipedia, there are clear similarities.

I responded:

That's a great question and not someone I am familiar with, but I see this at wikipedia - "In 1758 Helvétius published his philosophical magnum opus, a work called De l'esprit (On Mind), which claimed that all human faculties are attributes of mere physical sensation, and that the only real motive is self-interest, therefore there is no good and evil, only competitive pleasures. "

I see also that he was associated with Frederick the Great, who was a known fan of Lucretius.

Thanks very much for this post and we'll see what others come up with. He definitely looks work looking into!

So as we have time, let's look into him!

Here is a paper which appears very relevant to this topic, because it apparently focuses on how Epicurus' philosophy does not lead to universalization as does that of Kant. I have not had a chance yet to read beyond the first page, and I expect to disagree at least in part with the writer's summary in which he says that Epicurus' system propounds happiness for all." (I agree that the goal of all is the happiness or themselves and their friends, but if the author asserts that each individual has the happiness of everyone living in the world as his/her goal, then I will say he is mistaken. Yes the practical and actual happiness of "others" is relevant to ours, but I would strongly dispute that "others" means "everyone" for a variety of practical and theoretical reasons. I would assert there is a scale of relevance in which the happiness of those closest and dearest to us is most important, and the further away from us and our acquaintance, the less generally relevant that person's happiness will be of concern to us.)

But let's read the article and see if it sheds any light on our issue.

Tonight in our Twentieth discussions Martin and I talked briefly about the historical character of Memmius. We couldn't remember what details there were outside of Lucretius in regard to Memmius, but I thought there was a something in Cicero and it appears there was - something about Memmius buying Cicero's house and wanting to raze it to build something new, to which the local Epicureans objected. Here's some of that material:

Here is the Wikipedia reference:

Gaius Memmius (poet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaius Memmius (died circa 49 BC, incorrectly called Gemellus, "The Twin") was a Roman orator and poet. He was Tribune of the Plebs (66 BC), possibly a patron of Lucretius, and an acquaintance of Catullus and Helvius Cinna. His sister Memmia was married to Gaius Scribonius Curio.^[1]

While at first a strong supporter of Pompey, he later quarrelled with him and went over to Caesar, whom he had previously attacked. In 54, as candidate for the consulship, he lost Caesar's support by revealing a scandalous transaction in which he and his fellow candidate had been implicated.^[2]

Being subsequently condemned for illegal practices at the election, he withdrew to Athens, and afterwards, to Mytilene. He died about the year 49. He is remembered chiefly because it was to him that Lucretius addressed the De rerum natura, perhaps with the idea of making him a convert to the doctrines of Epicurus. It appears from Cicero^[3] that he possessed an estate on which were the ruins of Epicurus' house, and that he had determined to build on the site a house for himself. According to Ovid^[4] he was the author of erotic poems. He possessed considerable oratorical abilities, but his contempt for Latin letters and preference for Greek models impaired his efficiency as an advocate.^[5]

Gaius Memmius was married to Fausta Cornelia, the daughter of Lucius Cornelius Sulla.^[6] They had at least one son, Gaius Memmius, suffect consul in 34 BC.

1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica:

MEMMIUS, GAIUS (incorrectly called Gemellus, “The Twin”), Roman orator and poet, tribune of the people (66 B.C.), friend of Lucretius and Catullus. At first a strong supporter of Pompey, he quarrelled with him, and went over to Caesar, whom he had previously attacked. In 54, as candidate for the consulship, he lost Caesar’s support by revealing a scandalous transaction in which he and his fellow candidate had been implicated (Cic. Ad Att. iv. 15-18). Being subsequently condemned for illegal practices at the election, he withdrew to Athens, and afterwards to Mytilene. He died about the year 49. He is remembered chiefly because it was to him that Lucretius addressed the De rerum natura, perhaps with the idea of making him a convert to the doctrines of Epicurus. It appears from Cicero (Ad Fam. xiii. 1) that he possessed an estate on which were the ruins of Epicurus' house, and that he had determined to build on the site a house for himself. According to Ovid (Trist. ii. 433) he was the author of erotic poems. He possessed considerable oratorical abilities, but his contempt for Latin letters and preference for Greek models impaired his efficiency as an advocate (Cic. Brut. 70). Another Gaius Memmius, tribune in 111 B.C., attacked the aristocrats on a charge of corrupt relations with Jugurtha. Memmius subsequently stood for the consulship in 99, but was slain in a riot stirred up by his riyal the praetor Glaucia. Sallust describes him apjan orator, but Cicero (De oratore, ii. 59, 70) had a poor opinion of him.

For Don, the Latin text! https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/comme…oadfam13.1.html

The video here is just incredible, and fits so nicely into a discussion of life spreading through the universe via space travel:

Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin crew return as astronauts after historic launch

CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" team watches Blue Origin land its booster and Jeff Bezos and his crew float back down to Earth's surface in their capsule. The…

www.cnbc.com

Yes indeed there are many threads on that topic, including one of our most-discussed: Reverence and Awe In Epicurean Philosophy

They should all now be in this forum or one of its subsections: Epicurean Gods and Life Elsewhere In the Universe

Yes this acceptance of some aspects of religious practice and rejection of others is highly interesting.

It seems to me they were working had toward a coherent and consistent system that would have totally reformed religion but grounded it in the benefit that comes from venerating the sage (VS43 on the veneration helping the generator) and having a goal to work toward (the lifestyle of the gods) while also making sure that it was not seen as a totally fictional "platonic noble lie" by linking them to our expectations of higher and lower life in other parts of the universe.

It's definitely not "atheism" as people generally define the word today, bit it is strictly non-supernatural.

I too can see the benefits of such an approach, especially in combatting the nihilism that is so damaging to so many people. I see this as much more effective than Nietsche's eternal recurrence.

Two items from that article that are logical deductions that I think might well have figured into Epicurus' thinking:

Quote

After all, life appeared on Earth about 4 billion years ago — very quickly, considering that our planet formed just 4.5 billion years ago and remained hot and inhospitable for a long time thereafter. So, life's emergence doesn't seem miraculous, which, in turn, implies that it could have happened here more than once.

That's one - life is continuously generating both here and elsewhere, so there is no "first living thing" in the universe - life has existed eternally like the universe itself

Quote

Over the eons, billions of Red Planet rocks have made their way here, after being blasted into space by powerful asteroid or comet impacts. A lot of Earth material has ended up on Mars as well, but the ledger is decidedly unbalanced; the sun's powerful gravity pulls more stuff inward, toward Earth. (This extensive rock-swapping, by the way, has led some scientists to postulate that life actually arose first on Mars, then made its way to Earth later.)

And two - there's no guarantee that the life forms we see today started here on earth - they could have started elsewhere either primitively like the rock transfers or in a more advanced state just as we are about to spread life to other planets through advanced space travel.

Both of these are of course speculative but would be entirely consistent with what we can read in Lucretius.

Latest Space.com article referencing Epicurus and life elsewhere -.

Quote

The "cosmic pluralism" theory espoused by Anaximander, Epicurus and their followers didn't take off, unfortunately; it was quashed by the ideas of heavyweights like Plato and Aristotle, who held that Earth is unique.

The search for alien life

We've entered an exciting new era in the hunt for aliens.

www.space.com

Thank you for letting us know that you found the site via podcast! Did you start at the beginning or recently? I hope to go back and reorganize them, and improve the presentation, over time, but I wanted us to make it through the whole book first without getting too sidetracked on the cosmetics.

At any rate thank you for joining us, and we look forward to hearing from you!

Welcome Paquin!

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!

Glad you saw this Jack as I was going to bring it to your attention to be sure you did, as no doubt this is an area where you have much more expertise than most of us do. Here are my comments:

Quote

First, a basic definition of my Non-Aggression Principle that can and should be Universalized:

Already I would have a concern about the "can and should be universalized." I do not see what basis that can be provided within Epicurean theory that any "principle" "can and should be universalized." We know from observing the young of all species that:

"Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict. Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature."

It therefore appears to me that there is nothing "universal" established by nature other than pleasure and pain, and that any attempt to "universalize" an ethical decision is going to run afoul of the fact that Nature herself does not so ordain.

So on what basis do you argue the "should"?

Quote

The FIRST use of PHYSICAL force by one human being against another including his voluntarily acquired property, is the ONLY Human Action that must be prohibited, considered immoral, wrong, evil in all circumstances except to save that person’s physical life in the moment (e.g., physically stopping a child, a blind or mentally disabled person from wandering out into traffic).

This is going to be subject to the same analysis as stated above, but provides us another way to ask the question: By what authority do you segment out "to save that person's physical life in the moment" as something that is an exception to your otherwise universal rule?

Now of course please understand that I do agree that as a practical matter in most circumstances it is desirable to come to agreements not to harm each other, but since we are talking philosophy and trying to get to the most articulate and precise description of the issue and the conclusions to be drawn from it that we can, it appears to me that Epicurus has drilled down to the essence of the issue, while the "NAP" is simply one ethical choice or tool that may be helpful in many circumstances, but which is certainly not prescribed by Nature (and therefore not by any other higher or equivalent authority) as a universal rule.

I don't think we should first argue about the "can be universalized" part yet, even though there would be many practicalities involved - we probably first need to deal with the "should it be universalized?" aspect because I don't see that it is going to be anyone to argue that there is any valid authority for the universalizing of any ethical or moral value at all. To my reading Epicurus did not attempt to do so, and in every case in his doctrines and writings it appears to me that he was very clear that all choices and avoidances - including / especially in ethics and morality - are subservient to the greater question of whether they lead to pain or pleasure in practice.

From the letter to Menoeceus:

Quote

And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

You mean you don't want to listen to it twice?

FIXED!

Welcome to Episode Eighty of Lucretius Today. In this Episode 80 we will read approximately Latin lines 1226-1341 of Book Five. We will talk in this episode about the development of metallurgy and the art of war.

I do think there is a very logical relationship to what is being discussed in the PDs on justice, but I think that the controversial point is the same as to both. I think that what he is saying is that "justice" like all the virtues is strictly tied to result in a particular situation, and that it shouldn't be viewed as an absolute. That's why it seems that he is saying that it is so easy to find the limitations in discussing justice - that the word does not even apply to those who refuse to agree to the agreement, and that even where people initially agree, if conditions change then the justice changes.

I think that's exactly applicable to the "non-aggression principle." Like "justice," the NAP is a good working tool that is going to produce the best results in many - but not all - circumstances, and it is necessary to see that both "justice" and the "non-aggression principle" are contextual and do not apply to all people at all times in all circumstances.

Any other view of justice or the NAP as "absolute" I think is therefore going to be putting the cart before the horse and turning the "tool" into an end in itself, which is exactly what Epicurus is warning against and with Diogenes of Oinoanda "shouts" about to all greeks and non-greeks on his wall.

To follow up on that last post, I think it is legitimate to set the table for this discussion in the way that the Epicurean Torquatus did in On Ends:

Quote

I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.

In Epicurean theory the ultimate good is pleasure, and if the NAP is suggesting that it is a higher concern than pleasure, then such a claim would be immediately ruled out by the most fundamental of Epicurean viewpoints.