Posts by Cassius

Quote from Susan Hill

My brother, for example, is devoted to a materialism/scientism that in no way allows for the existence of anything that is presently mysterious to science

That "in no way allows for the existence of anything that is presently mysterious to science" would certainly be a problem, given the practical reality that there are clearly many things that are presently mysterious to science.

A lot of Epicurean philosophy is devoted to exploring a proper approach to dealing with things that are currently unknown.

You obviously have a lot going on in your thinking and it's going to take time to deal with so many different aspects of things. Once you have time for enough reading I think you'll see why I recommend the DeWitt book so highly. He'll give you a good grounding on Epicurus without a lot of extraneous comparisons to other philosophies (other than the Platonic viewpoints to which Epicurus was reacting). That will be the quickest way to understand Epicurus on his own terms without filtering him too strongly through other paradigms and the sidetracks which that would entail. Once you do that you'll then be in a great position to circle back and decide how he stacks up against the eastern analysis.

Attached to this message is an article by David Sedley that contains a lot of interesting information about Epicurus' views on "dialectic" (presumably referring to "logic" - or as Sedley says "syllogistic, definition, division, partition, the resolution of sophisms and logical principles governing the assignment of truth and falsity").

Sedley is one of my favorite living writers on Epicurus. I am posting this without studying the article in full but I feel sure that the analysis here will be helpful to our topic in this forum on the Epicurean Canon of Truth. The views of Epicurus on the use of some aspects of logic are complex (or at least seem to appear that way to us today) and this is an important topic for understanding Epicurus' view of truth.

Sedley develops this discussion through reference to "the Bat Riddle":

Quote

The Bat Riddle

At the end of Republic book 5, Plato’s Socrates argues that scientific knowledge (epistêmê) focuses on Forms, while sensible particulars are the domain of unstable ‘opinion’ (doxa). For example, while Beauty (the Form) corresponds to pure ‘being’ and can therefore be known, ‘the many beautiful things’ no more are beautiful than they are not beautiful and therefore cannot be known. Down to this point, the antithesis has been argued only with regard to pairs of opposite predicates – beautiful/ugly, large/small, double/half and so on. But in the closing remarks of the discussion Glaucon hints at its broadening so as to cover substances too:

‘It’s like the double meanings at feasts’, he said, ‘and the children’s puzzle about the eunuch, his shooting the bat – their puzzle about what he did it with and what the bat was on. For these too [i.e., the cases of opposites] are ambiguities, and it is impossible to think reliably of each of them as either being or not being, or as both, or as neither.’

More quotes of interest:

In that last footnote 44 Sedley is referring to this following passage from Lucretius, here translated by Martin Ferguson Smith:

This article by Sedley contains extensive discussion of Epicurus' view of the Platonic / Aristotelian "Bat riddle" about the implications of referring to bats as birds. It seems to me that all of this is a good example of how Epicurus was deeply concerned about refuting word games, and this would then constitute a prime example for the argument that the "limit of pleasure" / painlessness terminology was intended as a specific logical rejoinder to the anti-Pleasure argument in Plato's Philebus (just as Epicurus was responding to this argument in Plato's Republic, per Sedley), and not (as it is used by Stoics/Neo-Epicureans today) as a full and complete definition of the goal of human life.

And always remembering that the Randians' favorite, Aristotle, was essentially in the same camp as Plato, here we see that Epicurus objected to both:

And this shows that Platonic-Aristotelian connection, which would suggest that the Epicurean line about walking around endlessly prating about the meaning of "the good" was aimed as much or more at Plato than at Aristotle:

There is important information in this article too about Epicurus' arguments against determinism:

Episode 37 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we are missing Elayne, but we finish Book 2 and set the stage to begin discussing the nature of the soul and the non-existence of life after death in the coming weeks. As always, let us know if you have any comments or questions about the program, and subscribe to us on Itunes or another other podcast source so you don't miss an episode. Thanks to all who have stuck with us through the first two books of the poem, and please stay with us as we plow ahead to discovery the nature of things with Lucretius and Epicurus.

Susan I am happy to see that Joshua has already jumped in on your initial comment, [edit: Sorry I did not see Godfrey too!] and I am thinking that several others here will have intelligent things to say as well. I have to admit that my own knowledge of the eastern traditions is next to non-existent, so I will have to rely on them to draw the comparisons, and I will have to wait to comment mainly on the conclusion part of these discussions. I am also going to see if I can draw Holly Graves from the Facebook group into this discussion, as she has much the same background.

It's always interesting to hear about the path people take in getting to where they are so I look forward to anything you think would be of interest in these comparisons.

Welcome to Episode Thirty-Eight 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. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a self-taught Epicurean. 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.

Before we start, here are three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which may or may not agree with what you here about Epicurus at other places today.

Second: We aren't talking about Lucretius with the goal of promoting any modern political perspective. Epicurus must be understood on his own, and not in terms of competitive schools which may seem similar to Epicurus, but are fundamentally different and incompatible, such as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, and Marxism.

Third: The essential base of Epicurean philosophy is a fundamental view of the nature of the universe. When you read the words of Lucretius you will find that Epicurus did not teach the pursuit of virtue or of luxury or of simple living. or science, as ends in themselves, but rather the pursuit of pleasure. From this perspective it is feeling which is the guide to life, and not supernatural gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. And as important as anything else, Epicurus taught that there is no life after death, and that any happiness we will ever have must come in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Now let's join the discussion with today's text:

Latin Text Location 1 - 93

Munro Notes:

1-30: he addresses Epicurus as his father and guide, who had dispelled the darkness of error, explained the whole nature of things, revealed the gods and their blest abodes, and destroyed the belief in Acheron.

31-93 I have now to explain the real nature of the soul and to dispel dispel the terrors of hell which poison life: many boast they know all this, but when tried by adversity, they choose to suffer any misery rather than face death and its consequences: nay often men from this fear will commit any crime, in order to get wealth and honour, thinking that want and contempt destroy the security of life; hence civil war, hence hatred of relations; hence men often rush to death from fear of death: this fear in short is the source of all evils: and can be destroyed only by the true knowledge of nature.

Browne / 1743:

O Epicurus, who could first strike so clear a light from so great darkness, and direct us in the proper advantages of life! Thee, the glory of the Grecian name, I follow. Thy steps I closely trace with mine, not so much from a desire to rival thee, as from the love I bear, and the ardent passion I profess to imitate thee. For how can the swallow contend in singing with the swan? Or what can kids, with feeble limbs, perform in running with the noble horse's speed? Thou great Father, founder of philosophy! Thou with paternal precepts dost inspire thy sons, and from thy writings, most illustrious chief, as bees suck honey from the flowery fields, we feed upon thy golden sentences - golden, and fit eternally to live.

For when thy reason first began to prove that Nature was not formed by powers divine, the terrors of the mind all fled, the walls of this great world lie open, and I see how things are managed through the mighty void. The deity of the gods, their calm abodes appear, which neither winds disturb, nor clouds overflow with showers, nor the white-falling snow, congealed by sharpest frost, does spoil; but the unclouded air surrounds them always, and smiles on them fully with diffused light. Nature in every thing supplies their wants; nothing at any time destroys their peace. But the wide tracts of Hell are nowhere seen, nor does the interposing Earth prevent our sight, but we discover what beneath our feet is doing in the space below. In these pursuits a certain divine pleasure spreads round me, and I stand amazed, that by thy strength of mind, all nature every way lies naked to our view.

Since then I have taught what are the first seeds and principles of things, how they differ in their figures, and of themselves fly about, beaten by mutual strokes, and from them all beings are produced, the nature of the Mind and of the Soul comes next to be explained in these my lines, and all the terrors of infernal pains banished, and headlong driven quite away, that from the bottom so disturb the life of man, and cover all things with the gloom of death, and leave no place for pure and unmixed pleasure to possess. For what men vainly talk, that disease and an infamous life are more to be feared than the terrors of death, and they know that the soul consists wholly in the blood, and therefore they want no assistance from our philosophy. I would have you observe that those boasts are thrown out more for the sake of praise and popular breath (if their vanity by chance leads that way) than that they believe any such thing; for let these very men be banished from their country, and driven into a desert far from human sight, stained with the guilt of the foulest crimes, yet they live on, afflicted as they are, with all sorts of misery, and wherever the wretches come, they fall a-sacrificing, and slay black cattle, and offer victims to the infernal gods, and in this deplorable state they, with more than common zeal, apply themselves to the offices of religion.

And therefore it is proper to view men rather under a doubtful fortune, and observe how they behave in circumstances of distress, for then they speak truth from the bottom of their hearts, the mask is pulled off, and the real man shows undisguised. Besides, covetousness and the blind desire of honors, which compel unhappy men to exceed the bounds of right, and urge on the partners and assistants of their crimes to strive day and night with the utmost pains to arrive at the height of wealth: these plagues of life are chiefly nourished by fear of death; for infamy, and contempt, and sharp want seem far removed from a sweet and pure state of life, and, as it were, hover about the gates of death. And wherefore will men, possessed by a false fear, labour to avoid, and stand at the remotest distance from them, they add to their heaps by civil war, and, insatiable as they are, double their riches, heaping one murder upon another. They laugh with cruel delight at the sad funeral of a brother, and hate and fear the entertainments of their nearest relations.

From the same cause and from the same fear, envy often becomes the tormentor of mankind; they complain that one is raised to power before their eyes, another to respect, a third distinguished by shining honors, whilst they lie buried in obscurity, and are trod upon like dirt, and so they pine themselves to death for the sake of statues and a name. And some men, from a fear of death, conceive so great a hatred for life, and the preservation of their being, that in a gloomy fit they become their own executioners; not considering that this fear of death is the source of all their cares. This breaks through all shame, dissolves the bonds of friendship, and in short overturns the foundations of all goodness; for some we see betray their country and their dear parents, striving by that means to deliver themselves from death, and the pains of Hell. For as boys tremble, and fear every thing in the dark night, so we, in open day, fear things as vain and little to be feared, as those that children quake at in the dark, and fancy advancing towards them. This terror of the mind, this darkness then, not the sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day can scatter, but the light of Nature and the rules of reason.

Munro:

THEE, who first was able amid such thick darkness to raise on high so bright a beacon and shed a light on the true interests of life, thee I follow, glory of the Greek race, and plant now my footsteps firmly fixed in thy imprinted marks, not so much from a desire to rival thee as that from the love I bear thee I yearn to imitate thee; for why need the swallow contend with swans, or what likeness is there between the feats of racing performed by kids with tottering limbs and by the powerful strength of the horse? Thou, father, art discoverer of things, thou furnishest us with fatherly precepts, and like as bees sip of all things in the flowery lawns, we, o glorious being, in like manner feed from out thy pages upon all the golden maxims, golden I say, most worthy ever of endless life.

For soon as thy philosophy issuing from a godlike intellect has begun with loud voice to proclaim the nature of things, the terrors of the mind are dispelled, the walls of the world part asunder, I see things in operation throughout the whole void: the divinity of the gods is revealed and their tranquil abodes which neither winds do shake nor clouds drench with rains nor snow congealed by sharp frosts harms with hoary fall: an ever-cloudless ether overcanopies them, and they laugh with light shed largely round. Nature too supplies all their wants and nothing ever impairs their peace of mind. But on the other hand the Acherusian quarters are nowhere to be seen, though earth is no bar to all things being descried, which are in operation underneath our feet throughout the void. At all this a kind of godlike delight mixed with shuddering awe comes over me to think that nature by thy power is laid thus visibly open, is thus unveiled on every side.

And now since I have shown what-like the beginnings of all things are and how diverse with varied shapes as they fly spontaneously driven on in everlasting motion, and how all things can be severally produced out of these, next after these questions the nature of the mind and soul should methinks be cleared up by my verses and that dread of Acheron be driven headlong forth, troubling as it does the life of man from its inmost depths and over spreading all things with the blackness of death, allowing no pleasure to be pure and unalloyed. For as to what men often give out that diseases and a life of shame are more to be feared than Tartarus’ place of death, and that they know the soul to be of blood or it maybe of wind, if haply their choice so direct, and that they have no need at all of our philosophy, you may perceive for the following reasons that all these boasts are thrown out more for glory’s sake than because the thing is really believed. These very men, exiles from their country and banished far from the sight of men, live degraded by foul charge of guilt, sunk in a word in every kind of misery, and whithersoever the poor wretches are come, they yet do offer sacrifices to the dead and slaughter black sheep and make libations to the gods manes, and in times of distress turn their thoughts to religion much more earnestly.

Wherefore you can better test the man in doubts and dangers and mid adversity learn who he is; for then and not till then the words of truth are forced out from the bottom of his heart: the mask is torn off, the reality is left. Avarice again and blind lust of honors which constrain unhappy men to overstep the bounds of right and sometimes as partners and agents of crimes to strive night and day with surpassing effort to struggle up to the summit of power, these sores of life are in no small measure fostered by the dread of death. For foul scorn and pinching want in every case are seen to be far removed from a life of pleasure and security and to be a loitering so to say before the gates of death. And while men driven on by an unreal dread wish to escape far away from these and keep them far from them, they amass wealth by civil bloodshed and greedily double their riches piling up murder on murder; cruelly triumph in the sad death of a brother and hate and fear the tables of kinsfolk.

Often likewise from the same fear envy causes them to pine: they make moan that before their very eye she is powerful, he attracts attention, who walks arrayed in gorgeous dignity, while they are wallowing in darkness and dirt. Some wear themselves to death for the sake of statues and a name. And often to such a degree through dread of death does hate of life and of the sight of daylight seize upon mortals, that they commit self-murder with a sorrowing heart, quite forgetting that this fear is the source of their cares, [this fear which urges men to every sin] prompts this one to put all shame to route, another to burst asunder the bonds of friendship, and in fine to overturn duty from its very base; since often ere now men have betrayed country and dear parents in seeking to shun the Acherusian quarters. For even as children are flurried and dread all things in the thick darkness, thus we in the daylight fear at times things not a whit more to be dreaded than what children shudder at in the dark and fancy sure to be. This terror therefore and darkness of mind must be dispelled not by the rays of the sun and glittering shafts of day, but by the aspect and law of nature.

Bailey:

THOU, who out of deep darkness didst first avail to raise a torch so clear, shedding light upon the true joys of life, ’tis thee I follow, bright star of the Greek race, and in thy deepset prints firmly now I plant my footsteps, not in eager emulation, but rather because for love I long to copy thee; for how could a swallow rival swans, or what might kids with trembling limbs accomplish in a race to compare with the stout strength of a horse? Thou art our father, thou discoverer of truth, thou dost vouchsafe to us a father’s precepts, and from thy pages, our hero, even as bees in flowery glades sip every plant, we in like manner browse on all thy sayings of gold, yea, of gold, and always most worthy of life for evermore.

For as soon as thy philosophy, springing from thy godlike soul, begins to proclaim aloud the nature of things, the terrors of the mind fly away, the walls of the world part asunder, I see things moving on through all the void. The majesty of the gods is revealed, and their peaceful abodes, which neither the winds shake nor clouds soak with showers, nor does the snow congealed with biting frost besmirch them with its white fall, but an ever cloudless sky vaults them over, and smiles with light bounteously spread abroad. Moreover, nature supplies all they need, nor does anything gnaw at their peace of mind at any time. But on the other hand, the quarters of Acheron are nowhere to be seen, nor yet is earth a barrier to prevent all things being descried, which are carried on underneath through the void below our feet. At these things, as it were, some godlike pleasure and a thrill of awe seizes on me, to think that thus by thy power nature is made so clear and manifest, laid bare to sight on every side.

And since I have shown of what kind are the beginnings of all things, with what diverse shapes they differ, and how of their own accord they fly on, impelled by everlasting motion, and in what manner each several thing can be created out of them; next after this it seems that the nature of the mind and the soul must now be displayed in my verses, and the old fear of Acheron driven headlong away, which utterly confounds the life of men from the very root, clouding all things with the blackness of death, and suffering no pleasure to be pure and unalloyed. For, although men often declare that disease and a life of disgrace are more to be feared than the lower realm of death, and that they know that the soul’s nature is of blood, or else of wind, if by chance their whim so wills it, and that so they have no need at all of our philosophy, you may be sure by this that all is idly vaunted to win praise, and not because the truth is itself accepted. These same men, exiled from their country and banished far from the sight of men, stained with some foul crime, beset with every kind of care, live on all the same, and, spite of all, to whatever place they come in their misery, they make sacrifice to the dead, and slaughter black cattle and despatch offerings to the gods of the dead, and in their bitter plight far more keenly turn their hearts to religion.

Wherefore it is more fitting to watch a man in doubt and danger, and to learn of what manner he is in adversity; for then at last a real cry is wrung from the bottom of his heart: the mask is torn off, and the truth remains behind. Moreover, avarice and the blind craving for honours, which constrain wretched men to overleap the boundaries of right, and sometimes as comrades or accomplices in crime to struggle night and day with surpassing toil to rise up to the height of power—these sores in life are fostered in no small degree by the fear of death. For most often scorned disgrace and biting poverty are seen to be far removed from pleasant settled life, and are, as it were, a present dallying before the gates of death; and while men, spurred by a false fear, desire to flee far from them, and to drive them far away, they amass substance by civil bloodshed and greedily multiply their riches, heaping slaughter on slaughter. Hardening their heart they revel in a brother’s bitter death, and hate and fear their kinsmen’s board.

In like manner, often through the same fear, they waste with envy that he is powerful, he is regarded, who walks clothed with bright renown; while they complain that they themselves are wrapped in darkness and the mire. Some of them come to ruin to win statues and a name; and often through fear of death so deeply does the hatred of life and the sight of the light possess men, that with sorrowing heart they compass their own death, forgetting that it is this fear which is the source of their woes, which assails their honour, which bursts the bonds of friendship, and overturns affection from its lofty throne. For often ere now men have betrayed country and beloved parents, seeking to shun the realms of Acheron. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.

As an extra incentive to welcome Susan Hill, I think her first comment (in another location) that came to our attention is worth repeating, because it is such good advice, spoken from apparent experience:

Which gave me the opportunity to say:

Probably there are other recent additions who haven't introduced themselves - if that includes you, please say hello. And here's a special thank you for one of the comments we received "I have been mired down by intensely ascetic philosophies for decades... I tell you, they are a dead end!"

Some might say that Epicurean philosophy is not "intensely ascetic" but that it IS "moderately ascetic." Those who take the time to read Epicurus directly, and follow our discussions here, won't fall for that argument, and they'll never accept asceticism as any part of the goal of life. Living frugally and simply can certainly have its time and place, when it is needed to lead to future pleasure, but remember Vatican Saying 63: "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess."

That's because it is not frugality, simplicity, or virtue which constitute the end of life, and the end of life certainly isn't asceticism. Epicurus taught that "The feelings they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined." He also taught "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. And what does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?"

Which leads to the conclusion: "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."

Ascetic philosophies ARE a dead end!

Hello and welcome to the forum @Susan Hill !

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. The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.
2. "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt
3. "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius
4. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
5. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
6. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
7. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
8. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
9. Plato's Philebus
10. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
11. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

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!

I wrote that last post for facebook but thought it would also be appropriate here too. And versions of it might be useful for posting other places, as appropriate.

To all of our recent additions and long-time members, this is a reminder about posting in the group. While we do review all new thread-starting posts before approving them, our standards are not particularly strict. If you've read the welcome post and the background material posted here, then you know that we welcome questions and discussions about all aspects of Epicurean philosophy and how it compares with other philosophies, both in theory and in practice, and in virtually every aspect of life. The cautions you see in our rules are there only to make sure that we have a place here in Facebook for a positive view of how to live as an Epicurean that's based on what the Epicureans are actually have recorded to have said, rather than how apologists for him over the ages have made him look like a shy retiring wallflower.

Many of you have probably not heard of Frances Wright's book "A Few Days In Athens," which is an early 18th century story about a visitor to Epicurus' school. I've been rereading that lately, along with some other material published by Wright. If any of you are concerned that being an Epicurean leads to disengagement with the world, or to a focus on fleeing from pain rather than actively pursuing whatever happiness in life might be available to you, I suggest you pick up her book, and then read about how Frances Wright spent the rest of her life applying her Epicurean views to actively pursuing all sorts of social Reform.

There are numberless applications of Epicurean philosophy to real life issues. I still remember the day several years ago when a member of an online forum told me about A Few Days In Athens, about which I had never heard before. Discussion here can lead to life-changing points of view, so don' hesitate to suggest topics for discussion. You never know when something that might be old hat for you will be deeply interesting to someone who hasn't encountered it.

Links where you can find A Few Days In Athens are here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…a6bAu6A_rUscevw

Thanks Don - that is going to be another productive source for names. Caesar's father in law seems clearly to have been an activist of sorts, and I gather there are references in Cicero that can be used to mine at least some details of his life and activities.

As to the wiki comment "a school of Epicureanism that had been modified to befit politicians, as Epicureanism itself favoured withdrawal from politics" - well we all have our own opinions as to the accuracy of that statement!

Because in fact "a school of Epicureanism that had been modified to befit politicians" is a much better description of the "quietist" version of Epicurus, since the "quietists" are much less of a threat to the political class than are more rigorous Epicureans like Jefferson, Wright, Caesar, or Cassius Longinus.

And speaking of the political If I can find the time to dig more out of Frances Wright, it seems she was extremely concerned about "chartered" monopolies and banks and such, segments of society closely related to the professional careerist political class that it seems most everyone agrees that Epicurus was truly warning against, at a minimum. That's a list composed of people who would much rather see quietism taught than the kind of uncompromising search for honesty and truth represented by the Epicurean activists.

I won't have time and it would take too much space to paste too many of these clips, but some are so blindingly obviously derived from Epicurus that I'd like to save people some time and post a few more:

Judgment based on analogy against past observations:

This is aimed at the church, but does it not remind you of Torquatus criticizing Plato in "On Ends"?

Compare that to "You are pleased to think him uneducated. The reason is that he refused to consider any education worth the name that did not help to school us in happiness. Was he to spend his time, as you encourage Triarius and me to do, in perusing poets, who give us nothing solid and useful, but merely childish amusement? Was he to occupy himself like Plato with music and geometry, arithmetic and astronomy, which starting from false premises cannot be true, and which moreover if they were true would contribute nothing to make our lives pleasanter and therefore better? Was he, I say, to study arts like these, and neglect the master art, so difficult and correspondingly so fruitful, the art of living?"

This is SO good:

Longer version of excerpt already cited:

There is now absolutely no doubt in my mind but that Frances Wright was the author of AFDIA. Not only is the writing style is there, but also much of the basic theory. More examples are below.

But rather than ending my feeling that something is strange here, my feeling of strangeness has at least doubled. I think Joshua has put his finger exactly on the issue with the DeWitt quote. Wright made the decision to bulldoze forward with the substance of Epicurean theory while at the same time dropping all attribution to its authors.

So yes it presumably must have been a factor that she decided the religious question was too hot to handle, and indeed the end of AFDIA does attack religion, but indicates that much more could be said about it - without carrying through in full force.

Interesting as that is, I think the question more important to consider is how this applies to the issue of those who see Epicurus devoted to "living unknown" and "avoiding politics" and pursuing "absence of pain" at all costs.

Here is someone who has shown a deep understanding and appreciation of what would appear to be every significant aspect of Epicurean philosophy at a level undocumented since the ancient world, and yet she uses that knowledge in a way that every respectable modern commentator for at least 500 years (with the exception of DeWitt) would hold to be totally unacceptable to Epicurus!

If that is the case (and I think we can document a mountain of evidence that it is) who is wrong about Epicurus? The non-DeWitt modern commentators, or Frances Wright, Thomas Jefferson, Julius Caesar, Cassius Longinus, and others we've only begun to discuss?

What we're seeing with Frances Wright in these passages is an amplification of Jefferson's words in his letter to William Short that he attributed specifically to EPicurus:

"I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up...."

From page 63 of the 1829 Courses of Popular Lectures:

I am going back to her 1829 edition of her Course of Popular Lectures. This one contains an opening lecture on "knowledge" and I am finding this rings true to how I now read Epicurus. Don will recognize this as perhaps echoing our recent discussions on the passage translated as "mere words":

Further:

Quote from JJElbert

it seems to confirm DeWitt; "It was the fate of Epicurus to be named if condemned, unnamed if approved."

Yes, Joshua -- exactly! Good point.

Quote from JJElbert

Tell them that the foundation stones of that philosophy were laid by Epicurus as a bulwark against Plato and religion, and the same audience might balk to hear it.

That would seem to be what is going on from what I am reading. Well I started to write "Yes Frances Wright was an abolitionist" -- but I have to take that back, from what I am reading so far she didn't like the term herself. She was definitely advocating for the eventual freedom of the slaves, but through a gradual educational / resettlement process -- at least in this volume. She's taking a VERY intellectual approach to the problem so the reason I am making the observation is that she seems pretty definitely to be calculating her words to suit her circumstances. She seems to have been prevented from speaking in many instances, so she was definitely having to measure her words.

We're going to need to be careful to steer clear of analyzing this from strictly political terms, but I am finding some interesting reading in this version of her "course of popular lectures"

It sounds like she has gotten herself deeply into the controversies around abolition, which I think I understood from reading about her career, but this part apparently seems to go in the direction of her seeing an even BIGGER problem in "chartered companies" and "banks," which I am gathering means that she is diagnosing overriding financial considerations are worse problems. I may be misreading this but I am gathering she is approaching this from an anti-Hamilton, pro Jeffersonian / Jacksonian perspective.

Not sure what I gather from that other than that she is super-wrapped up in lots of types of politics, but certainly from a perspective friendly to Jefferson and Jackson at least from an "anti-monopoly" perspective.

I may have misunderstood this by not reading the whole thing but her writing style does definitely seem similar to me with "A Few Days In Athens."

Ha - maybe we'll end up here with the example being - "Here's another person who thoroughly understands Epicurus and translates his advice in a very Julius Caesar / Cassius Longinus / Thomas Jefferson "activist" kind of way.

And aside from the intrinsic merit of the substance of "A Few Days In Athens," her example of taking that knowledge and then "seizing the day" / channeling her energy into activism may be the ultimate lesson.

Maybe she WAS the full and complete genius behind A Few Days in Athens, maybe she DID understand Epicurus better than anyone else of her time, and maybe FOR THAT VERY REASON she became one of the leading social reformers and activists of her age! Is that possible????

I found some time tonight to do some word searches through Frances Wright's "Course of Popular Lectures." Here is an excerpt with unmistakable similarities to Epicurus:

That came from here: https://archive.org/details/coursepopularle00wriggoog/page/n84/mode/2up?q=Pleasure

Another version: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug…&view=1up&seq=7

But it is so odd -- in there is a reference, not to Epicurus, but to "Pestalozzi"?????

Good list to work from, and no I had not seen that -- thank you!

There are definitely "lifestyle" arguments to be made, so good points. I hope we can find some - any would be a start - references in her other writings that would bear out her Epicurean orientation views specifically. That's the side that really troubles, me because surely we should be able to find some.

And your reference to her writing lots of things is what I understand too -- that's why among all that she is said to have written and done surely there are *some* specific statements about Epicurus.

Just to seed this subforum with an opening post, I wanted to pose the question in the title. I have always found it disconcerting that other than "A Few Days In Athens" itself, there seems to be no - close to zero, and possibly zero - other writings by Frances Wright indicating that she was a devoted Epicurean, a self-proclaimed Epicurean, or even interested in Epicurus. I have not by any means made a complete survey of her other work, so I hope to be corrected on this, and that is the purpose of this thread. Given what I consider to be the incredible depth of insight of "A Few Days in Athens, combined with her young age at publication, and her known family associations with distinguished philosophers, I wonder if in addition to the fiction of it being a "found manuscript" from the ancient world, it might also be material that was produced in part or even in whole collaboratively with others. I have probably said this before here on the forum, but I find it highly strange that someone who had come to understand Epicurus so well would be able or willing to resist devoting a large part of her subsequent writing to the same subject. Certainly most of us here when we discover what Epicurus was really about have a long-term motivation to "spread the word" after that point.

I haven't had time to pursue this and doubt I will spend much time pursuing the question, because the book stands on its own and is a monumental addition to Epicurean literature no matter who wrote it or under what conditions. But if we were to identify others with whom Frances Wright corresponded who shared these views, then that might lead us to other material which would be worthwhile additions to our library -- again regardless of who wrote them.

I would like to gradually expand this forum to include more people, especially - and with emphasis on - those in the ancient world who we can with greater confidence label to be Epicureans.

The Caesar article by Frank Bourne contains some good names of Roman Epicureans, and I will go through and add as many from there as I can. Others of you (joshua) have suggested Plotina and possibly Hadrian and/or Trajan themselves. I haven't yet added the emperors as separate subforums because I am not sure the evidence is as strong for them as it is with Plotina.

I want to pay special attention to separate subforums for the ancients because back then they had the texts and true Epicureans available to them. Therefore if an ancient acted as, or claimed to be, an Epicurean, it seems to me that we have a greater degree of confidence that they knew what they were talking about. There are many, such as known leaders of the school in Athens, or Catius and Amifinus (sp?) who were Epicurean "missionaries" in Italy who definitely need their own section.

After the rise of Christianity, through the middle ages, and all the way through today, we have people who talked about Epicurus or were alleged to be Epicureans who may have held a couple of beliefs here and there that seem Epicurean, but in total they might have been very far from embracing the full system. Just because someone asserts that "happiness" is the goal of life, or rejects life after death, or rejects Christianity or religion does not in and of itself mean that they studied and specifically embraced Epicurus. People like that are good subjects of threads in this "general" forum, but probably not people we want to encourage too much discussion about lest we get too far from the purpose of the forum.

Thanks for your help in organizing and building out this section of the forum. Please post your suggestions in this subforum and then as we identify specific people who merit their own subforum we'll create a separate entry for each name.