Posts by Cassius

Well yes that last comment goes to the heart of the issue -- the word "empty" in English at least to me is indicating that it is not in actuality what it represents itself to be, and that is not my understanding of what Epicurus is saying as to pleasure. No pleasure, no matter how much pain the choice may later bring, is devoid of pleasure, and that would be what I would infer from use of the term "empty." Yes a particular pleasure may be unchoiceworthy in that it brings excessive pain in a myriad of ways, and that kind of analysis is core Epicurean thought, but a pleasure would NOT be labeled "empty" because the pleasure does not bring pleasure, because if that choice or action were not pleasurable then it would not be pleasure.

If the meaning to be conveyed is "don't choose it because it doesn't bring net pleasure" or anything that means something similar, then I am all ok. But that is not what the word "empty" conveys to me ,or to what I would wager would be a large number of people in common understanding. That's why I recoil from it.

Quote from Don

According to this (and I've seen similar more detailed expositions in Tsouna's book), anger can stem from pain but be sustained by "the pleasure of revenge." One is acceptable and understandable, the other is "empty."

I know that you're putting the quotes around "empty" because you're referring to references in the texts. At some point I would like us to spend some closer time examining those texts because I sense that "empty" is conveying things in English of which I don't think Epicurus would have approved. (I think another example of such a term would be "vainglory" as used a few times on this and other forums.)

I find that I don't use the "empty" term myself very much or at all, and when I see it used it seems it's frequently being applied as a label of disapproval for reasons that don't seem to have much to do with Epicurean philosophy. Maybe I will stand to be corrected on that and if so I will learn something, but I question how this term can be reconciled with the "all pleasure is desirable" foundation, and the foundation that pleasure and pain are intrinsically desirable/undesirable in themselves.

I need to read what you just wrote Don but I want to mark this point: After we read the new text for the podcast today we will circle back around and take up these two issues as they are great points to discuss to keep the podcast focused on the big picture issues.

Thanks for those two points Don because I think discussing them is going to be helpful.

In both cases I agree with Elayne's points as written, but I think you're bringing out aspects that need to be very clear.

On the first point, the issue it seems you are pointing out is "I don't think it's accurate to say "our senses are also subjective." That sounds like a Skeptical position as if our senses can't be trusted and nobody could agree on what their senses are telling them. " To me the issue there is that I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that the senses are both subjective AND at the same time trustworthy and repeatable. Elayne's final point is really the foundation ("absolute, objective point of view, there being no such thing") which is based on the conclusion that there is no center point in the universe where God or anyone else stands and says "MY perspective is the correct one and all others are to be judged against mine." This is why I say taking positions on deep physics issues has such practical importance. While it may be possible to come a similar conclusion through all sorts of other theories, if you DO come to the conclusion that there is no absolute perspective against which all others are judged, you know easily that "one-for-all" perspectives cannot exist.

On the other hand, while we don't have a single one for all god perspective, there is a "We" which consists of humans like ourselves, living on a place like earth, and within the confined grouping even though our perspectives are not universal for the universe, there is a very large degree of repeatability and verifiability within our own experiences. I think back to the example of looking at our hand, and that we see a hand rather than a zillion whirring atoms. In fact what is there is a zillion whirring atoms, were our eyes geared to see them, but instead our eyes are geared to see the hand, and we can have great confidence that every time we or other humans look at our hands, we will see the hands and not the zillion atoms.

On the second point, I am not sure exactly where you are going except to flesh out the distinct meanings of the words "emotion" vs pain and pleasure or feeling or other words. I agree with you that we need to use words clearly and that emotion conveys something different than pain and pleasure, much in the way the word happiness conveys something different. But I still think Elayne's sentence is correct as written and I would be interested in where you are going with the distinction in this context. Are you trying to construct a definition of emotion that leaves out the feeling that it describes? Again I agree with Elayne that a feeling is an inherent part of an emotion.

Episode Fifty-Six of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's podcast we will continue to discuss the operation of the senses. As always, let us know your questions and comments in the thread below.

I agree with what you are saying Don and as you probably expect, I would go further. I am not prepared to say that some versions of the mechanisms described by Lucretius are impossible, especially since I am far from comfortable that I even understand what he is saying. I do not think it is productive to try to lock down his descriptions with more detail than our scanty texts allow us to be sure of, and I think the best way to deal with them is always first to try to understand where he is coming from before we decide whether he is wrong or right.

So when you say "our brains do not receive images/films/eidōlon like a radio receives radio waves" I can completely agree - our brain is not a radio receiver and we are not going to be able to tune into to a local radio station without mechanical assistance. But that doesn't mean that next year new scientists aren't going to be able to rig new experiments and determine that there are currently-unknown waves that can stimulate our minds directly, and so my own position at present is basically what you are saying - that this theory represents a non-supernatural way of explaining phenomena that are even today difficult to understand, and that we should make of it what we will.

I am firmly convinced that nothing has changed in human nature since Epicurus and Lucretius first articulated this theory, so they would have faced the same issues of testing and observation of how it works that we do today -- and they would have had the same experiential results that we have - that the receipt of information in this way is not a way to communicate with gods or to reliably organize our daily efforts to live our lives happily. Whatever Epicurus thought about the theory, he was dealing with the exact same facts and human nature that we are dealing with today, so he would not have had facts which are not available to us to flesh out the theory any more than we can today.

All of which leads me to conclude that to the extent Epicurus thought this aspect of his philosophy was important it appears to have had a very specific and limited role, so I would not assign any more importance to it today than he did then.

We will be discussing this excerpt in the Lucretius Today podcast to be recorded on February 14, so if anyone has any comments on this passage we have plenty of time to discuss and incorporate into that episode.

I really wanted to post this along with the discussion we had several weeks ago on the nature of images, but I can no longer find a good place. Perhaps at some point I can find the right place and insert a link to this post.

For present purposes, of course the topic of images is primarily treated in Book 4 of Lucretius.

The precise purpose of this post, however, is to highlight the second part of Book 4 where Lucretius moves past his initial introduction of images being perceived by the eyes, and returns to images to discuss how they can impact the mind DIRECTLY - meaning, without going through the eyes. This would clearly be relevant to DeWitt's discussion of the mind as a "suprasensory mechanism" that perceives images directly, and of course of relevance to the issue of receiving images of the gods, though that does not seem to be the focus here.

There are many aspects of this that are fascinating, including the place it appears in the text, right after a discussion of lions fearing cocks, and right before he turns to the one of the even more fascinating sections that appears to bear directly on "evolution." For now, however, here is the part on images affecting the mind directly:

Quote

Come now, let me tell you what things stir the mind, and learn in a few words whence come the things which come into the understanding. First of all I say this, that many idols of things wander about in many ways in all directions on every side, fine idols, which easily become linked with one another in the air, when they come across one another’s path, like spider’s web and gold leaf. For indeed these idols are far finer in their texture than those which fill the eyes and arouse sight, since these pierce through the pores of the body and awake the fine nature of the mind within, and arouse its sensation. And so we see Centaurs and the limbs of Scyllas, and the dog-faces of Cerberus and idols of those who have met death, and whose bones are held in the embrace of earth; since idols of every kind are borne everywhere, some which are created of their own accord even in the air, some which depart in each case from diverse things, and those again which are made and put together from the shapes of these. For in truth the image of the Centaur comes not from a living thing, since there never was the nature of such a living creature, but when by chance the images of man and horse have met, they cling together readily at once, as we have said ere now, because of their subtle nature and fine fabric. All other things of this kind are fashioned in the same way. And when they move nimbly with exceeding lightness, as I have shown ere now, any one such subtle image stirs their mind; for the mind is fine and of itself wondrous nimble.

That these things come to pass as I tell, you may easily learn from this. Inasmuch as the one is like the other, what we see with the mind, and what we see with the eyes, they must needs be created in like manner. Now, therefore, since I have shown that I see a lion maybe, by means of idols, which severally stir the eyes, we may know that the mind is moved in like manner, in that it sees a lion and all else neither more nor less than the eyes, except that it sees finer idols. And when sleep has relaxed the limbs, the understanding of the mind is for no other cause awake, but that these same idols stir our minds then, as when we are awake, insomuch that we seem surely to behold even one who has quitted life, and is holden by death and the earth. This nature constrains to come to pass just because all the senses of the body are checked and at rest throughout the limbs, nor can they refute the falsehood by true facts. Moreover, the memory lies at rest, and is torpid in slumber, nor does it argue against us that he, whom the understanding believes that it beholds alive, has long ago won to death and doom. For the rest, it is not wonderful that the idols should move and toss their arms and their other limbs in rhythmic time. For it comes to pass that the image in sleep seems to do this; inasmuch as when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. And indeed we must suppose that this comes to pass in quick process: so great is the speed, so great the store of things, so great, in any one instant that we can perceive, the abundance of the little parts of images, whereby the supply may be continued.

And in these matters many questions are asked, and there are many things we must make clear, if we wish to set forth the truth plainly. First of all it is asked why, whatever the whim may come to each of us to think of, straightway his mind thinks of that very thing. Do the idols keep watch on our will, and does the image rise up before us, as soon as we desire, whether it pleases us to think of sea or land or sky either? Gatherings of men, a procession, banquets, battles, does nature create all things at a word, and make them ready for us? And that when in the same place and spot the mind of others is thinking of things all far different. What, again, when in sleep we behold idols dancing forward in rhythmic measure, and moving their supple limbs, when alternately they shoot out swiftly their supple arms, and repeat to the eyes a gesture made by the feet in harmony? Idols in sooth are steeped in art and wander about trained to be able to tread their dance in the nighttime. Or will this be nearer truth? Because within a single time, which we perceive, that is, when a single word is uttered, many times lie unnoted, which reasoning discovers, therefore it comes to pass that in any time however small the several idols are there ready at hand in all the several spots. So great is the speed, so great the store of things.

Therefore when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. Again, because they are fine, the mind cannot discern them sharply, save those which it strains to see; therefore all that there are besides these pass away, save those for which it has made itself ready. Moreover, the mind makes itself ready, and hopes it will come to pass that it will see what follows upon each several thing; therefore it comes to be. Do you not see the eyes too, when they begin to perceive things which are fine, strain themselves and make themselves ready, and that without that it cannot come to pass that we see things sharply? And yet even in things plain to see you might notice that, if you do not turn your mind to them, it is just as if the thing were sundered from you all the time, and very far away. How then is it strange, if the mind loses all else, save only the things to which it is itself given up? Then too on small signs we base wide opinions, and involve ourselves in the snare of self-deceit.

It happens too that from time to time an image of different kind rises before us, and what was before a woman, seems now to have become a man before our very eyes, or else one face or age follows after another. But that we should not think this strange, sleep and its forgetfulness secure.

Herein you must eagerly desire to shun this fault, and with foresighted fear to avoid this error; do not think that the bright light of the eyes was created in order that we may be able to look before us, or that, in order that we may have power to plant long paces, therefore the tops of shanks and thighs, based upon the feet, are able to bend; or again, that the forearms are jointed to the strong upper arms and hands given us to serve us on either side, in order that we might be able to do what was needful for life. All other ideas of this sort, which men proclaim, by distorted reasoning set effect for cause, since nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

Display More

Welcome to Episode Fifty-Seven 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.

Podcast 57 - Food, Smell, and Taste

Latin Lines 632 - 721

Munro Notes

633-672: I will now explain why what is one creature's meat is another's poison : all creatures differ within and without; therefore they consist of different atoms; a nd the atoms being different, the pores and passages of the whole body, and also of the mouth and palate must differ: thus if food is pleasant to one creature, its smooth elements must suit the pores of that creature; if unpleasant, then its rough elements must more readily adapt themselves to them ; and thus in disease, what was before sweet to a man may become bitter.

673-686 : next to explain smell: it must stream on all sides from many things; but, as in taste, one kind suits one creature, another another; bees are attracted from far by the smell of honey, and so on; thus each creature is drawn to its proper food and avoids poison.

637-705: one smell will travel farther than another, but none so far as sound; I need not add as the images which excite sight; for it travels slowly and is soon lost, because it comes with much ado from the inmost parts of things, as proved by this that things when pounded or dissolved by fire smell more strongly : the atoms too of smell are greater than those of voice, since often a wall will stop the one and not the other; and thus too clogs often lose the scent.

706-721 : but in the case of the form and colours of things, as well as smells and tastes, some are suited to one creature, unsuited to another: thus for example the lion fierce as he is cannot face the cock.

Browne 1743

I shall now account why, as we find, different sorts of food are agreeable to different palates; or why, what is sour and bitter to some seems to others exceeding sweet. In these cases the variety and difference are so great that what is food to one will prove sharp poison to another; and it happens that a serpent touched with the spittle of a man expires and bites himself to death. Besides, to us Hellebore is strong poison, but goats it fattens, and is nourishment to quails; and to understand by what means this comes to pass, you must recollect what we observed before, that seeds of different kinds are mingled in the composition of all bodies. And then all animals supported by food, as they differ in outward shape, and after their several kinds have a different form of body and limbs, so they consist of seeds of different figures, and since their seeds differ, the pores and passages which (as we said) were in all the parts, and in the mouth and palate itself, must differ likewise; some must be less, some greater, some with three, some with four squares; many round, and some with many corners in various manners: For as the frame of the seeds and their motions require, the pores must differ in their figure. The difference of the pores depends upon the texture of the seeds, and therefore what is sweet to one is bitter to another: It is sweet because the smoothest seeds gently enter into the pores of the palate; but the same food is bitter to another because the sharp and hooked particles pierce the jaws and wound the sense. Now by observing this things will appear plain, for when a man has a fever, either by the overflowing of the gall, or whether the violence of the disease be raised by any other means, in such a case the body is disturbed, and all the order and disposition of the seeds are changed. And hence it is that the juices that were before agreeable to the sense are no longer pleasing, and those are more fit to enter the pores that fret and produce a bitter taste; for even in honey there is a mixture of rough and smooth seeds, as we had frequent occasion to mention to you before.

And now shall I pass on and show in what manner the approach of smells affect the nose. And first, a various stream of odors is continuously flowing from all bodies; for you must suppose that smells are perpetually thrown off, are emitted and dispersed abroad; but some are more peculiar to some animals than others, because they consist of seeds of different figures; and therefore the bee is attracted by the smell of honey in the air afar off, and vultures by the stink of carcases; and so the natural quality of the hound drives him on where the hoof of the stag has led the way, and the white goose (the savior of the capitol) can perceive the smell of a man at a great distance. So it is the difference of smell, peculiar to different creatures, that directs every species to its proper food, and makes it start at the approach of poison; and by that means the race of beasts is constantly preserved.

But this smell or odor that affects the nose, some kinds of it are emitted much further than others, but no one of them is carried so far as sound or voice (not to speak of those images that strike the eye and provoke the sight) for they wander about and move lazily, and being scattered through the air, die away by degrees before they have gone far, and for this reason because they flow with difficulty from the most inward parts of bodies; and that odors are emitted from the lowest profundity of the subject is proved from this, that the more they are broken or scattered by fire, the stronger they smell. And then we may observe that smells are formed of larger seeds than those of voice; for they cannot pierce through walls of stone, where voice and sound can freely pass; and therefore we cannot so easily distinguish on which side of us the body is placed that diffuses the smell, for the stroke grows cold as it moves through the air, nor does the hot scent briskly touch the organ, and therefore hounds are often at fault and hunt about for the trail.

And this happens not only in cases of smell and taste, but the images of things, and all colors, do not affect the eyes of men all alike, but to some they are more sharp and painful to the sense than they are to others. For the cock that claps his wings and drives away the darkness and by his clear notes calls forth the morning light, the fiercest lion dares not stand against this creature, nor look him in the face, but instantly prepares for flight; and for this reason, because there are certain seeds in the body of the cock that when emitted into the eyes of the lion fret and tear the balls, and cause a very acute pain, which the beast in all his courage is not able to bear; and yet these particles are in no way hurtful to our eyes; either they do not pierce them, or if they do, they find a free passage and return easily from the eyes again, so that they do not the least prejudice to the sight.

Munro 1886

I will now explain how it is that different food is pleasant and nutritious for different creatures; also why that which to some is nauseous and bitter, may yet to others seem passing sweet; and why in these matters the difference and discrepancy is so great that what to one man is food, to another is rank poison; and there is actually a serpent which on being touched by a man’s spittle wastes away and destroys itself by gnawing its body. Again hellebore for us is rank poison, but helps to fatten goats and quails. That you may know how this comes to pass, first of all you must remember what we have said before, that the seeds which are contained in things are mixed up in manifold ways. Again all living creatures soever which take food, even as they are unlike on the outside, and, differing in each after its kind, an exterior contour of limbs bounds them, so likewise are they formed of seeds of varying shape. Again since the seeds differ, there must be a discrepancy in the spaces between and the passages, which we name openings, in all the limbs and mouth and palate as well. Some openings therefore must be smaller, some larger; some things must have them three-cornered, others square; many must be round, some many-angled after many fashions. For as the relation between the shapes of seeds and their motions require, the openings also must differ accordingly in their shapes; and the passages must vary, as varies the texture formed by the seeds which bound them. For this reason when that which is sweet to some becomes bitter to others, for that creature to whom it is sweet the smoothest bodies must enter the cavities of the palate with power to feel them all over; but on the other hand in the case of those to whom the same thing is bitter within, rough and barbed seeds sure enough pass down the throat. It is easy now from these principles to understand all particular cases: thus when a fever has attacked any one from too great a flow of bile, or a violent disease has been excited in any other way, thereupon the whole body is disordered and all the arrangements of particles then and there changed; the consequence of which is that the bodies which before were suited to excite sensation, suit no more; and those fit it better, which are able to make their way in and beget a bitter sense. Both kinds for instance are mixed up in the flavor of honey: a point we have often proved before.

Now mark me, and I will discuss the way in which the contact of smell affects the nostrils: and first there must be many things from which a varied flow of smells streams and rolls on; and we must suppose that they thus stream and discharge and disperse themselves among all things alike; but one smell fits itself better to one creature, another to another on account of their unlike shapes; and therefore bees are drawn on by the smell of honey through the air to a very great distance, and so are vultures by carcasses. Also the onward-reaching power of scent in dogs leads them whithersoever the cloven hoof of wild beasts has carried them in their course; and the smell of man is felt far away by the savior of the Romans’ citadel, the bright white goose. Thus different scents assigned to different creatures led each to its appropriate food and constrain them to recoil from nauseous poison, and in this way the races of beasts are preserved.

Of all these different smells then which strike the nostrils one may reach to a much greater distance than another; though none of them is carried so far as sound, as voice, to say nothing of things which strike the eyesight and provoke vision. For in its lazy course each comes slowly on and is sooner lost, being gradually dispersed into the readily receiving expanse of air; first because coming out of its depths it with difficulty discharges itself from the thing: for the fact that all things are found to have a stronger smell when crushed, when pounded, when broken up by fire, shows that odors stream and withdraw from the inner parts of things: next you may see that smell is formed of larger first-beginnings than voice, since it does not pass through stone walls, through which voice and sound are borne without fail. For this reason also you will find that it is not so easy to trace out in what quarter a thing which smells is situated; for the blow cools down as it loiters through the air, and the courier particles of things are no longer hot when they finish their race to sense; for which reason dogs are often at fault and lose the scent.

But what I have said is not found in smells and in the class of flavors only, but also the forms and colors of things are not all so well suited to the senses of all, but that some will be more distressing to the sight than others. Moreover ravenous lions cannot face and bear to gaze upon a cock with flapping wings putting night to rout and wont to summon morning with shrill voice: in such wise they at once bethink themselves of flight, because sure enough in the body of cocks are certain seeds, and these, when they have been discharged into the eyes of lions, bore into the pupils and cause such sharp pain that courageous though they be, they cannot continue to face them; while at the same time these things cannot hurt at all our sight, either because they do not enter in or because the moment they enter a free passage out of the eyes is granted them, so that they cannot by staying behind hurt the eyes in any part!

Bailey 1921

Now how for different creatures there is different food and poison I will unfold, or for what cause, what to some is noisome and bitter, can yet seem to others most sweet to eat. And there is herein a difference and disagreement so great that what is food to one, is to others biting poison; even as there is a certain serpent, which, when touched by a man’s spittle, dies and puts an end to itself by gnawing its own body. Moreover, to us hellebore is biting poison, but it makes goats and quails grow fat. That you may be able to learn by what means this comes to be, first of all it is right that you remember what we have said ere now, that the seeds contained in things are mingled in many ways. Besides all living creatures which take food, just as they are unlike to outer view and a diverse outward contour of the limbs encloses them each after their kind, so also are they fashioned of seeds of varying shape. And further, since the seeds are unlike, so must the spaces and passages, which we call the openings, be different in all their limbs, and in the mouth and palate too. Some of these then must needs be smaller, some greater, they must be three-cornered for some creatures, square for others, many again round, and some of many angles in many ways. For according as the arrangement of shapes and the motions demand, so the shapes of the openings must needs differ, and the passages vary according to the texture which shuts them in. Therefore, when what is sweet to some becomes bitter to others, for the man to whom it is sweet, the smoothest bodies must needs enter the pores of the palate caressingly, but, on the other hand, for those to whom the same thing is sour within, we can be sure it is the rough and hooked bodies which penetrate the passages. Now from these facts it is easy to learn of each case: thus when fever has attacked a man, and his bile rises high, or the violence of disease is aroused in some other way, then his whole body is disordered, and then all the positions of the first-beginnings are changed about; it comes to pass that the bodies which before suited his taste, suit it no longer, and others are better fitted, which can win their way in and beget a sour taste. For both kinds are mingled in the savour of honey; as I have often shown you above ere now.

Come now, I will tell in what manner the impact of smell touches the nostrils. First there must needs be many things whence the varying stream of scents flows and rolls on, and we must think that it is always streaming off and being cast and scattered everywhere abroad; but one smell is better fitted to some living things, another to others, on account of the unlike shapes of the elements. And so through the breezes bees are drawn on however far by the scent of honey, and vultures by corpses. Then the strength of dogs sent on before leads on the hunters whithersoever the cloven hoof of the wild beasts has turned its steps, and the white goose, saviour of the citadel of Romulus’s sons, scents far ahead the smell of man. So diverse scents assigned to diverse creatures lead on each to its own food, and constrain them to recoil from noisome poison, and in that way are preserved the races of wild beasts.

This very smell then, whenever it stirs the nostrils, may in one case be thrown further than in another. But yet no smell at all is carried as far as sound, as voice, I forebear to say as the bodies which strike the pupil of the eyes and stir the sight. For it strays abroad and comes but slowly, and dies away too soon, its frail nature scattered little by little among the breezes of air. Firstly, because coming from deep within it is not readily set loose from the thing: for that smells stream off and depart from things far beneath the surface is shown because all things seem to smell more when broken, when crushed, when melted in the fire. Again, one may see that it is fashioned of larger first-beginnings than voice, since it does not find a path through stone walls, where voice and sound commonly pass. Wherefore too you will see that it is not so easy to trace in what spot that which smells has its place. For the blow grows cool as it dallies through the air, nor do tidings of things rush hot to the sense. And so dogs often go astray, and have to look for the footprints.

Yet this does not happen only among smells and in the class of savours, but likewise the forms and colours of things are not all so well fitted to the senses of all, but that certain of them are too pungent to the sight of some creatures. Nay, indeed, ravening lions can by no means face and gaze upon the cock, whose wont it is with clapping wings to drive out the night, and with shrill cry to summon dawn; so surely do they at once bethink themselves of flight, because, we may be sure, there are in the body of cocks certain seeds, which, when they are cast into the eyes of lions, stab into the pupils, and cause sharp pain, so that they cannot bear up against them in fierce confidence; and yet these things cannot in any way hurt our eyes, either because they do not pierce them or because, although they do, a free outlet from the eyes is afforded them, so that they cannot by staying there hurt the eyes in any part.

For example as we talk I think we could play with something like this:

Epicurean Philosophy In Real Life https://gitmind.com/app/doc/a7c1592401

We'll set this up directly Matt. Also I wrote this:

Elli what I am thinking primarily is that this would be an oral discussion about what Epicurean philosophy means to them. The theory of organizing it would be that rather than just do a stream of consciousness reply, the person being interviewed could organize their responses under the three categories of physics, epistemology, and ethics, and draw a simple outline in a few words on the screen so that the discussion has something to see in addition to listen to. I don't envision it being necessary to draw something in great detail, more like a teacher using a blackboard to organize their presentation and give the watching class something to focus their eyes on while the discussion is going on. I am thinking that as the discussion takes place, we would end up writing (for example) a couple of items under physics, or ethics, and then part of the discussion could be comparing how important each of those are, and the person doing the outlining could shift them around during the discussion.

I've been thinking about what kind of audiovisual project to do next and I think I have settled on the idea that I'd like to do an online "interview" with someone as they walk through a discussion of outlining what they see as the most important aspects of Epicurean philosophy to them. I don't think that a talking head video is the way to go, but this could be done by sharing a screen with a "mind-map" program where I talk to the person and they draw on the screen in real time the elements that they think are important into an outline and discuss them as they do it, move them around, etc.

This of course relates to our previous outlining discussions here: Draft Your Own Personal Outline of Epicurean Philosophy

I suggest the best guinea pig for this is Matt, being interviewed by me

Can I get some feedback on whether this sounds like a workable idea, and perhaps a good online mind-map to use? I have a paid zoom account or we could use skype, but the idea would be to share the map screen and talk through the creation of a basic outline of Epicurean philosophy, of course linking the idea to the suggestion in the letter to Herodotus.

I haven't used it but here is one that is totally free: https://gitmind.com/ If anyone has used something that they really like please let me know.

OK so how about it Matt? And how about any suggestions that come to mind from others, because after we do a prototype I think this would be a good series to do with everyone else eventually too.

But we need to do one as a prototype to test the concept.

Thoughts?

Hello and welcome to the forum Protonus !

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!

Hello and welcome to the forum Ataraxmys !

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Don

agree with your second statement, but I don't think that precludes the first

Yes I agree and I think I reworded several times trying to make that clear but it bears emphasis as you said. They aren't mutually contradictory.

I see Elli and Matt discussed this further:

Elli:

Αctually, in the greek text there are not the words "purpose", and the word "both". Instead for the word "purpose" is the greek word "telos" that means goal/end.

transl. XXII. (22) We must consider in the real end of life and all its obvious truth (i.e the obvious truth of the end), on which we base these that we think are right. Otherwise, everything will be full of wrong judgments and turmoil.

And more at this link - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…628327833882817

A few thoughts:

(1) I read "real purpose" and "all the evidence of direct perception" to be two different things, adding up to A: the ultimate goal of pleasure and B: the faculties of sense given to us by nature (as opposed to rationalism / idealism)

(2) I read "to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion" to mean that we are to judge the correctness of our opinions according to both (a) our specific context as measured by our faculties, and (b) our continuing general assessment of the goal of life, which is generally pleasure and not any more specific goal of virtue or salvation or whatever.

(3) And I read the ultimate point being that not only the best path toward our goal, but also the way to avoid fear, uncertainty, and doubt, is to keep this dual process constantly at work in our minds, meaning that we should constantly both (a) use our faculties to take stock of our immediate circumstances and(b) use that information to make decisions which are best suited to attain the ultimate goal (pleasure), even if for the moment we defer pleasure or even choose something painful.

Anyone see things significantly differently?

[Thanks to Matt for this post]

“We must consider both the real purpose and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.”

-Principal Doctrine 22

“τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφʼ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν· εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά.”

Don. - I think this part is getting closer to the point we need to regularly bring up as the big picture in the podcasts as we read the details of Lucretius

Quote

As for your final paragraph, what I mean here refers to how I read Diogenes Of Oinonanda's comment on the flux. The flux exists but it is not so unstable that we can't navigate through it. Meaning: yes it is true that we and everything else are made up of little particles whirring around, but that is not our level of perception. We live at a level where we do not need to distinguish every whirring element - nor should we WISH to! That is what I refer to as a limit of caring about the details or accuracy of description of where every particle is whirring at every particular moment. We want to understand enough so that we can control " our reality" but more detailed observation of every whirring atom is not feasible - or more importantly for our philosophical outlook, it is not even desirable - unless that knowledge somehow practically effects our happiness. When I look at my hand, I want to see a hand, I can't see every atom whirring about to form the hand. Nor would it be desirable or good for me if I did see those whirring atoms instead of my hand

i completely agree with your comment Don and would like to see you develop it because I think it is so important - even if we take it in different directions.

Quote

When we all use catchphrases like "The goal is pleasure" it can easily be misinterpreted that we mean "the goal is to walk around all day with warm, fuzzy feelings" or "the goal is to exist in a blissful haze." That's not the goal of Epicurus's philosophy.

I completely agree.

When I say the goal is pleasure, the first thing that comes to my mind that Epicurus is saying is not the feelings you list but "this is an affirmation that the goal is NOT set by gods or virtue or idealism or rationalism but by Nature herself through the faculty of feeling." That is why I personally write very little about particular pleasures, and I don't gather the Epicureans did either. As a philosophy I don't see this as a vacation guide or a cookbook or a relaxation therapy. Instead, it's much more a blueprint for philosophical and moral revolution against the powers of religion and conventional academia.

As for your final paragraph, what I mean here refers to how I read Diogenes Of Oinonanda's comment on the flux. The flux exists but it is not so unstable that we can't navigate through it. Meaning: yes it is true that we and everything else are made up of little particles whirring around, but that is not our level of perception. We live at a level where we do not need to distinguish every whirring element - nor should we WISH to! That is what I refer to as a limit of caring about the details or accuracy of description of where every particle is whirring at every particular moment. We want to understand enough so that we can control " our reality" but more detailed observation of every whirring atom is not feasible - or more importantly for our philosophical outlook, it is not even desirable - unless that knowledge somehow practically effects our happiness. When I look at my hand, I want to see a hand, I can't see every atom whirring about to form the hand. Nor would it be desirable or good for me if I did see those whirring atoms instead of my hand.