Posts by Cassius

Yes Don and while I have the highest respect and gratitude for your translations, when the "classical experts" seem to agree that some kind of "feeling" or "sensation" is the better translation, we'll need to take a position on whether THEY are the ones who are picking from among the alternatives the word their notion of what is 'correct' or whether we are the ones doing that. I don't begin to have the ability to weigh in on whether they could be wrong, and in the confines of my own analysis I am pretty much unable to take a position on what is correct, other than by "intuiting" the right word, as I think Elayne is doing.

Maybe what we have going on here is what DeWitt talks about the three legs of the canon not operating independently but in some way being integrated together into a single unit.

Wow the time does fly! Thank you for all your contributions Don - seems like you and several others all got active at nearly the same time, and the last year or so has been one of our most productive periods. If you could just find a way to replicate yourself about a hundred times we'd be well on our way to domination of the philosophic world!

That is a very good point Elayne and something that needs to be considered, especially when writing an explanation of the point. In stating the four in most succinct form, however, I think it is important to stay a closely as possible to the wording of Epicurus or the most reliable texts, and the translations of that seem to all say "sensation." Now it might be relevant here to go back to what Don has been pointing out that perhaps "internal sensations" is better than feelings.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be thought through and perhaps should vary with the location where it is being used.

Actually as I type this I am now thinking that this is an issue which is not entirely clear, and we need to be careful. We need to consider whether what we today define as "feeling" what Epicurus was saying in the words translated as "pathe" or "passions" or "internal sensations" or feelings?" And I am not entirely sure whether Epicurus was equating sensations with feelings or not (probably not) nevertheless the way he is relating them may not be something we really have a final finger on.

I guess the place to start would be to examine that segment of the passage in PD2 to see exactly what word was used. Don or anyone, can you help with that?

"For our nature [wants what] is better for our soul. Moreover, the soul is manifestly more [powerful] than the body; for it [has] control of the extreme and supremacy over the other [feelings], as indeed we revealed it [above.] [So if], through paying attention to the arguments of Aristippus, we take care of the body, [choosing] all the pleasure derived from drink, food and [sexual acts] and indeed absolutely all the things which no longer [give enjoyment after the happening], but neglect the soul, we shall deprive ourselves of the greatest pleasures."

Diogenes of Oinoanda Fragment 29 http://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html

The purpose of this thread will be to accumulate text citations in support of four key assertions of Epicurean philosophy. This first post will contain a table of the assertions with passages from the texts supporting each assertion. We should include here citations primarily from Epicurus (Diogenes Laertius) and Lucretius, but other credible sources such as DIogenes of Oinoanda and the Epicurean material from Cicero are also prime targets for finding good material. Please add suggestions in this thread and we can update the table as they come in.

A table format would be preferable, but that isn't easily viewable on a telephone, so this post starts with an "outline" format, followed by the table at the bottom of the post:

1. There Are No Supernatural Gods
   1. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus: "First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien.
   2. PD1. The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak.
2. There Is No Life After Death
   1. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus:Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation. For that which gives no trouble when it comes is but an empty pain in anticipation. So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.
   2. PD2. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.
3. All Good and Evil Consists in Sensation (No Absolute Good / Evil / Virtue)
   1. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus: Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation...
   2. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus: For the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them.
   3. Diogenes of Oinoanda Fr. 32: If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point. Suppose, then, someone were to ask someone, though it is a naive question, «who is it whom these virtues benefit?», obviously the answer will be «man.» The virtues certainly do not make provision for these birds flying past, enabling them to fly well, or for each of the other animals: they do not desert the nature with which they live and by which they have been engendered; rather it is for the sake of this nature that the virtues do everything and exist.
   4. PD5. It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life is not living prudently, honorably, and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life] cannot possibly live pleasantly.
   5. PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.
   6. PD 33. Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another, in any place whatever, and at any time, it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed. 34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions. 36. In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all. 37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts. 38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage
4. Pleasure Is the Beginning And End of the Blessed Life
   
   1. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus: 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.
   2. PD3. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once. (A refutation of Plato's argument in Philebus that pleasure is not the greatest good because pleasure allegedly has no limit.)
      
      

To avoid sidetracking this thread, I am going to start a new thread to document text citations that support each of these four assertions:

1 - No supernatural gods

2 - No life after death

3 - Pleasure as the goal or beginning and end of blessed life

4. - All good and evil consists in sensation (or something else conveying that there is no absolute virtue / the goal of virtue is pleasure)

That thread will be here: Four Hyper-Relevant Assertions of Epicurus (Citations From The Epicurean Texts)

I don't want to get this thread off the track of its focus on expansion of Epicurean activity on other internet platforms. However I want to insert this pointer to another thread that will discuss something I think is important to any such effort, which is, that in establishing a foothold on any platform I would recommend not trying to duplicate the depth of Epicureanfriends.com, but rather focusing on a few key aspects of Epicurean philosophy and keeping the discussion focused on practical application of those core issues.

I make that argument and discuss what those core issues might be here: RE: Planning And Execution of A Local Group

Three years after starting this thread my current thought is that a critical component of any local group or online initiative is going to be keeping the focus on just a couple of core unifying ideas and working hard to keep political division and foreign philosophical interests (primarily Stoicism) out of the mix.

Just as with the graphic at the top of the right sidebar, it seems to me that the most key components that are of central interest in 2021 are probably:

1 - No supernatural gods

2 - No life after death

3 - Pleasure as the goal or beginning and end of blessed life

4. - All good and evil consists in sensation (or something else conveying that there is no absolute virtue / the goal of virtue is pleasure)

Any such list is always improvable, but however they are worded each of these are clearly documentable in the texts, have huge numbers of implications, and are not necessarily tied to any specific theory of physics (though of course physics and epistemology would naturally be discussed as part of explaining and studying the top conclusions).

Rigorous insistence on topics like these being the center of focus would probably help politely freeze out the Stoics and keep political divisions and other agendas under control. The main topics have the most appeal to generalists, and for those who really want to dig into the details a local group could refer people to a forum such as this one for more advanced discussions.

It seems to me that exerting leadership to keep the discussion on the main track is probably critical to managing expectations and may be as important as any other factor in making any "local" effort viable.

Thank you Michele - is this kind of thing still regularly used in Italy?

I have not heard of any efforts except Elayne since that date. She had several meetings. I eventually dropped my account for lack of response, but in hindsight I should have set up something even though only a few people replied. I kept waiting for more to sign up but I probably should have followed the rule of "strike while the iron is hot" and gone forward shortly after posting the group even though only 2 or 3 responded.

We have a list of Epicurean websites elsewhere, but we don't have a list of Epicurean "discussion forums." I've made this list but I bet there are others. Anyone aware of other "discussion-oriented" sites that have a subforum devoted to Epicurus? Here is my current list. I know that there are other Facebook groups but my criteria would be "public." I was thinking there might be subforums devoted to Epicurus on some of the Atheist forums, but so far I can't locate any:

OTHER PUBLIC DISCUSSION FORUMS/GROUPS DEVOTED SPECIFICALLY TO EPICUREAN DISCUSSION (Not just websites)

Discord:

Older EpicureanFriends forum: https://discord.com/channels/39266…238208812810241

Newer Epicurean Philosophy Forum: https://discord.com/channels/39266…238208812810241

Reddit:

Epicurean Philosophy

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epicurean_Philosophy/

Epicureanism

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epicureanism/

Epicurus

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epicurus/

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy

I was going to ask this of michelepinto privately but it might be of wider interest:

I keep reading that a big part of the ancient diet was garum - some kind of "fish sauce.". For example: https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2021/…0e9aeY6tZDZAci8

Does anyone know what a modern equivalent of this would be available maybe through something like Amazon? I would like to try it but want to be sure to get an authentic style!

I see there are lots of options here: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=garum+fish+sauce+roman

Matthaios I am back and have time to add this: If you or anyone else have specific suggestions for sub-groups on other platforms, I hope you (and everyone) will let us know here so that any who are interested and able can help out. That's pretty much what I have tried to do with initiatives like on Reddit and Discourse, but I don't think I/we have done it systematically enough.

We have this list of Epicurean Websites: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?links/

But we don't feature that list prominently, and it's more just a list of static websites than it is a list of discussion platforms. We need to assemble links to the available forums at Reddit, Discourse, etc, and make that list more easily accessible, and anyone who starts a new subgroup somewhere else we can add that to the list as well.

I think we're now talking about something very similar to what Jordan C raised in regard to ataraxia, and it is a continuing question when you aren't really clear on the nature of the goal and the nature of pleasure:

Quote

Jordan:

What does ataraxia mean exactly? It's usually translated as absence of anxiety. However, Philodemus talks about Epicurean business owners -- and I cannot conceive of a business owner ever being totally free from anxiety. So since Philodemus is not calling for the business-man to sell up and move to a Garden, it must mean that ataraxia has a meaning different to what I'm thinking. I have always taken ataraxia to mean: a total lack of any mental disturbance. Does it mean something else? Something that even a business-man could maintain? Could it mean cheerfulness? Just as an aside: I do NOT want this discussion to devolve into a discussion about whether ataraxia is the aim of Epicurean philosophy. I just want to know what ataraxia really means

Quote

Cassius:

This might be a good post for comment by some of our Greek-speakers. In the meantime, I personally see a couple of issues going on here, and I think that Jordan's question is in fact spurred by the discussion he does not want to have ("whether ataraxia aim of Epicurean philosophy" - the answer to which is that the aim is "pleasure" rather than ataraxia).
The example Jordan gives of Philodemus and the business owner helps illustrate how Jordan is boxed in, because a businessman will never achieve a "total lack of any mental disturbance" any more than anyone else in any other profession. Epicurus tells the businessman as he tells everyone else that sometimes it is best to choose pain, in order to achieve more pleasure in life. Disturbance is a subset of pain, so that's the trap that Jordan is in -- he has set up an intermediate step (ataraxia) in the place of the ultimate goal (pleasure). Therefore he cannot imagine ever choosing disturbance under his viewpoint, since avoiding disturbance is in his view the ultimate goal.

All this is very simple to unwind when you accept the logical framework of Epicurean philosophy. Absence of disturbance (ataraxia) and absence of pain (aponia) are instrumental only - toward **pleasure**, which is the goal. Yes, hypothetically the best way to experience pleasure is without any mixture of pain and without any period of disturbance, but we can and often do choose both pain and disturbance in the goal of achieving the most pleasure that is possible to us.

Loose talk about ataraxia rather than pleasure being the goal of life is a barrier to a full understanding of Epicurus.

Quote

Elayne:

The idea that it is "devolving" the discussion to focus on whether ataraxia is the goal -- that is part of the problem here. Ataraxia is just an absence word, like void. Absence of disturbance does not tell you what replaces it, but we know that Epicurus did not conceive of 3 states-- pain (including anxiety), pleasure, and a void state with neither. So if there is no mental disturbance, the person has to be feeling only pleasure, and pleasure is indeed our goal-- as much pleasure as possible.

When defining ataraxia, I think people get caught in the idea that disturbance includes what is now called "eustress", positive stress, and really most activity, period. That will get people into a very passive mode which is not really conducive to pleasure. For example, I went for a hike yesterday-- it was strenuous exercise, positive stress, but I enjoyed all the aspects of it, both physical and mental. I have sometimes seen commenters here calling exertion a disturbance, but if it is experienced pleasurably, that is not correct. The same is true of the mind-- our minds can be active, even exerting ourselves strenuously thinking through business decisions or engaging in business-related social interactions, but if this is felt as a pleasure, then that is what it is, and ataraxia-- freedom from unpleasant disturbance-- would be present even when the person is actively engaging their mind!

Although I agree with Cassius Amicus
that the aspect of sometimes choosing pain for greater pleasure is relevant in your hypothetical, I also note that Epicurus observed he was able to maintain mental pleasure even during great physical pain, by remembering his friendships. I have a hard time thinking he would recommend to anyone that they deliberately take on life long _mental_ pain for greater pleasure, simply because he doesn't talk about any situation where that is the only option. It seems unnecessary, and if taking on lifelong mental pain is not necessary for great pleasure, why would anyone do it? It would be a hypothetical that almost no one would be advised to choose.

I owned a business for several years, and although I occasionally had some anxiety over it, this was rare, because I arranged my business decisions based on evidence of what would be successful and adjusted my actions according to what happened. I was actively engaged in running it, and I found that activity pleasurable.

Note: I am adding Martin K's comment here too:

Quote

Martin Kalyniuk
Ἀταραξία means what it does — serene state of mind.
No considerations as to its alleged unattainability by a certain class of people can prove otherwise or alter its meaning. Words do not work that way.

Is it it impossible for business-persons? Absolutely not. It is, in fact, its easy achievement that makes late Hellenistic schools of philosophy perennially attractive and particularly today.

Taking things philosophically. Re-aligning one's perspective away from profit or relative financial success as the be-all and end-aim of life. The self-instantiated, repeated, realisation that what feels catastrophic is, in fact, minor on the cosmic scale and you yourself probably won't remember it in two years' time.

This empowers those in business to maintain tranquil and clear-headed amidst the surge of Tyche's toying with us. That is why Epicureanism and Stoicism are presently popular precisely with the business class.

Cassius has also made a great practical point from the Epicurean perspective. Ἀταραξία is instrumental in Epicureanism as well as Stoicism. It is the ultimate goal only of the Pyhrronic school.
And in Pyrrhonism it has no broader reference to life at large, but rather specifically concerns questions that are (it is claimed) insoluble (i.e: every interesting aporiai).
To be bothered about business affairs is completely compatible with being imperturbable relative to humanity's hardest and trickiest theoretical problems.

*Written in the back of an Uber on my way to do high value business transactions*

Display More

In my view this is another of those positions that has both "logical" and "observational" sides.

It is observationally true that as long as you are alive and conscious you can summon up at least pleasant memories of the past.

But I also think this is another one of those "logical" positions in that the definition of "continuous" is important to consider. Just because some degree of pleasurable experience is continuously available that does not mean that simultaneously you are not experiencing lots of pain in the non-pleasurable parts of your consciousness.

I don't think the implication of continuous pleasure means that the "sum total" of all our experience at a particular moment is pleasurable, but that's the subtlety that needs to be explored. I am thinking that the issue is more that pleasure is continuously available to at least some degree, and therefore can still serve as the guide of life up until such time as we have no more opportunity and then it's time to die.

But I also do think that Epicurus believed that "generally" the "sum total" of our experience is enough within our control that we should in fact aim for and probably achieve a "sum total" in which the majority of experience is pleasurable most of the time. I am sure that he would acknowledge that there are very sad exceptions to that, but in general that is not a goal that is unobtainable, such as if one were to expect to actually achieve "total pleasure all the time." That would be something in theory for the gods in the intermundia, but not possible here.

Matthaios I am low on time as I write this so I know my response will seem clipped. Both Elayne and I have written lengthy comments on the issue of politics and I will try to come back and link them here.

The point I want to emphasize is that I do not believe that in general terms Epicurean philosophy and politics are incompatible at all. Elayne is very politically active, as was Frances Wright, and certainly Thomas Jefferson, and Cassius Longicus, and Atticus, and I would even dare say that Epicurus himself was not averse to it. But the example of Epicurus is what I think we need to commit ourselves to following in this group, because the mixture of modern politics into this forum would be detrimental to the main goal of providing a foundational place for everyone who is interested in Epicurus to explore and sharpen their understanding.

it is my view that it is totally appropriate for people to pursue their interest in applying Epicurus to politics. On the left there is R Hanrott with his Epicurus.today blog, and many of the other Epicurean pages on the internet treat politics implicitly or explicitly. I think there are certainly logical limits on which political movements would embrace Epicurus (I can't see any religion-based movement doing so) but on the other hand I do not think there are many other bright lines we could draw if we are rigorously clear about the non-absolute nature of Epicurean justice and the rest of the philosophy.

I think in my role here it is best to take the position that everyone should pursue their study and application of Epicurus as best they see fit, while also understanding that the messy political issues of today fade into the background when you consider the two thousand year history of Epicurean philosophy and all the opposition it has faced from so many quarters in the past. I want to first see the growth of a foundational base of people who are really keyed in to the basic issues, and I think that this forum and my personal efforts best fit if we limit ourselves HERE to that goal. But at the same time it is very true that all of us have our own personal lives to live, and there will be many times in which the issues of today, including contemporary politics, MUST take precedence if we are to survive.

Thanks for posting that!

Quote from Don

You're absolutely right that it's unreasonable to expect warm feelings of pleasure all the time.

One of the subtleties here is involved in Epicurus saying that "I call you to continuous pleasure....."

I would say two aspects of that are:

(1) Pleasure of some kind or the other is always available while we are living, so in that sense it is continuous.

(2) We've discussed before the difficult issue of experiencing more than one thing at once. I think that ultimately yes we can segment out our feelings and feel pleasure at one thing and pain at another thing at the same time, but it's still true that the pain and pleasure can't coexist in exactly the same place/time. We can walk and chew gum at the same time so there are going to be a mixture of experiences at any one time, even though at the same time we consider pain and pleasure to be mutually incompatible.

That last point may need further discussion in this context but I think it is correct.

Mattaios as in your other recent post I removed the fonts and colors for readability's sake.

I am going to have to wait to add other comments, but I do want to go ahead and say that I don't recall thinking that Max Radin's book was a particularly helpful interpretation of Epicurus. It has been a long time since I read it and I would have to go back and review before I could comment more directly, but in my early days of reading Epicurus I found that book to be something that I wouldn't recommend to anyone trying to understand Epicurus.

Your quote where Radin is putting so much emphasis on chance strikes me as an example why I didn't like the book. I had the same reaction as you are saying -- Radin is overstating the role of chance and seemingly approaching the issue in a way that I suspect Epicurus would strongly disagree. Certainly there are circumstances we do not have control over, but the perspective Epicurus stresses is that we can and should act to steer our lives as best we can, as stated in your quotes from Epicurus himself.

Since you have just read it please feel free to discuss any parts of Radin's book that you would like, and we'll probably set up a thread on that book if we don't have one already and move this discussion into it. The book is well known so it would be good to have a thread where we discuss its shortcomings (and any good aspects, few of which I can currently recall).

[Matthaios I edited your posts to remove the colors and fonts. We need to make it more clear somewhere to stick to the standard forum fonts/colors/sizes, because with different themes (particularly dark vs light) it gets very difficult to read if we're not careful.]

As to your post there is one part that could be made more clear: "I'm assuming the world is going to get on without them...." I'm not sure exactly what you mean there unless that is just another way of stating "leading to their own demise."

Also another reminder: per the forum rules we need to stay away from current politics, so I need to caution against developing some of the specific examples in your post. We need to keep the discussion at the philosophical level (including religion, where the issues you reference appear). As long as we keep the discussion at a level which could apply to anyone anywhere, then integrating "hate themselves..." and "lead to their own demise" into a proper philosophical outlook are valid and important topics for the forum.