Posts by Cassius

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!

  • Request For Suggestions For Entries in This "Epicurean Figures of the Past" Forum

    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.

  • Philonides of Laodicea (NewEpicurean blog post)

    NewEpicurean Blog post from 4/5/14 

    Unsung Heroes of Epicureanism: Philonides of Laodicea

    One of the more important proponents of Epicureanism in the ancient world, whose efforts are known but little remembered today, was Philonides of Laodicea. Philonides was an Epicurean philosopher based in Antioch some 150 years before Christ. Here is his entry in Wikipedia:

    Philonides (c. 200 – c. 130 BCE) of Laodicea in Syria, was an Epicurean philosopher and mathematician who lived in the Seleucid court during the reigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Demetrius I Soter. He is known principally from a Life of Philonides which was discovered among the charred papyrus scrolls at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum.[1] Philonides was born into a family with good connections with the Seleucid court.[2] He is said to have been taught by one Eudemus, and Dionysodorus the mathematician.[3] Philonides attempted to convert Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Epicureanism, and later instructed his nephew Demetrius I Soter in philosophy.[2] Philonides was highly honoured in the court, and he is also known from various stone inscriptions.[4] He was renowned as a mathematician, and is mentioned by Apollonius of Perga in the preface to the second book of his Conics.[3][5] Philonides was a zealous collector of the works of Epicurus and his colleagues, and is said to have published over 100 treatises, probably compilations of the works he collected

    And here is a more expanded description from Chapter 15 of Norman DeWitt’s Epicurus and His Philosophy:

    “The Epicurean school in Antioch is remarkable not only for its strategic importance but also for the fact that its existence is known only from a papyrus. By way of introduction to the story, however, certain warnings are in order, as happens so often in the history of Epicureanism. In spite of the fact that Epicurus seems to have recommended especially the method of extension from disciple to disciple for the propagation of his doctrine, it is quite usual to find his adherents among the teachers of grammar, rhetoric, and even mathematics. The prejudice of the founder against these branches has been greatly exaggerated, especially among modern scholars. Epicurus himself had been a privileged person, enjoying the endowments of generous friends, especially Idomeneus. The sordid necessity of earning a living was more often the lot of his later devotees. They taught their philosophy along with accepted subjects of study. If this judgment is rendered more credible by examples, the names of Epicureans who essayed to teach grammar or rhetoric in Rome may be found in Suetonius,27 while it is clear that men like Arnobius, Lactantius, and St. Augustine acquired their knowledge of the creed along with rhetoric.

    It is in the light of such knowledge that we should read of the distinguished philosopher Philonides, who set up his headquarters in Antioch and surrounded himself with “a throng of scholars.” He made a convert of Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 164 B.c.) and enjoyed not only his patronage but also that of his successor, Demetrius Soter. It was manifestly the ambition of Philonides to make Antioch a capital of Epicureanism. He utilized his privileged position to assemble all the writings of Epicurus for the royal library. Like other leaders of the sect, he was busy with his pen, published 125 books, and rearranged the letters of Epicurus and his three colleagues according to names and subject matter.

    That Philonides was also a man of force and persuasion is demonstrated not only by his influence over two monarchs but also by his services as a diplomat. His ability as an administrator was recognized by his appointment in charge of Laodicea on the Sea.

    The unique interest that attaches to this school in Antioch is enhanced by other reasons, particularly two: it is probable that it served as a base of operations for the forcible introduction of Epicureanism into Judaea, and it was in this city that, according to Luke, the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the word Christian is a Latin and not a Greek formation. Since adherents of the older sect were already known by the name of their founder, it was natural for Roman residents, whether merchants or officials, to designate the adherents of the new sect in a similar way. To these neutral observers, when they heard of Epicureans ridiculing Christian prophecies and the Christians fighting back, the contenders would have been no more than two warring factions. It was manifestly the resident Romans who coined the word Christian.

    As for Antiochus himself, his very name was loathsome to the Jews, because his adopted surname Epiphanes means “the god manifest.” He also waged vindictive warfare against them and attempted to force Greek culture upon them and, since Epicureanism was the court philosophy, there can be little doubt that this was part of his program. It is on record that a gymnasium was built in Jerusalem,29 abhorrent to the orthodox Jew not only as an alien institution but specifically because of nudity in sports and the threat of sodomite practices associated with it. It signified also the virtual licensing of public teachers free of priestly control. That some progress was made in this direction is evidenced by the word Ecclesiastes, which means public teacher. Moreover, the book that goes under this name is abundantly sprinkled with atoms of Epicureanism; it was squeezed into the canon only by drastic and incongruous editing.

    It derives its startling literary quality from the combination of luminous Hebraic imagery with the stark materialism of Epicurus. Consider, for example, the following, 9:4-5: “A living dog is better than a dead lion, for the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything.” Here we see transposed into the Hebraic idiom of thought the doctrine of the Garden that the most precious of all things is life itself and “that death is nothing to us”; it is anesthesia. The opinion has been expressed that the author was a Jewish physician of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

    The hatred of the orthodox Jew for the heretical teaching is on record to this day in the rabbinical term apikoros, “unbeliever.” Jewish students were exhorted “to study the Law and know how to make answer to an unbeliever [lit. “Epicurean”].”

    It may be added that, even apart from attempts at cultural regimentation, an opening had been afforded for the infiltration of Epicurean doctrines among the Jews by the division between Pharisees and Sadducees. The beliefs of the latter, as recorded by Josephus,32 including the denial of divine providence and the assertion of free will, exhibit an unmistakable coincidence with the teachings of Epicurus. This coincidence is the more noticeable because the reluctance of the Sadducees to hold public office is likewise mentioned. That Epicurus was in the mind of Josephus when penning his account of this sect, even if not mentioned by name, becomes the more probable when it is recalled that his defense of the prophet Daniel concludes with a spirited and extended diatribe against Epicurus and his views on the government of the universe. On this occasion the arch-heretic is specifically named.”

  • Cornelius Nepos' "Life of Atticus"

    Epitome of Roman History
    Selection from Book XIV: "Atticus"
    by Cornelius Nepos, c. 100 BCE - c. 25 BCE
    English text prepared by Vincent Cook

    Latin text also available at gmu.edu

    text from Epicurism.info

    		 leaflr.gif

    Titus Pomponius Atticus, descended from the most ancient Roman ancestry, kept uninterrupted the equestrian rank inherited from his forbears. His father was industrious, by the standards of those days wealthy, and greatly interested in literature. He, in accord with his love of letters, educated his son in all those branches of learning in which boyhood should be made to share. As a boy, in addition to a natural capacity for learning, he also had an exceptionally agreeable expression and tone, so he not only swiftly learned passages that were set, but also recited them extremely well. As a result he had a distinguished reputation among his peers and shone forth more brightly than his high-born schoolmates could bear with indifference. Thus he roused them all by his own zeal: among their number were - Lucius Torquatus, the younger Gaius Marius, and Marcus Cicero; with all of whom he became so close that no one was dearer to them throughout his life.

    His father died early. As a young man, because of his being an in-law of Publius Sulpicius, who was killed while tribune of the plebians, he had some share in that danger; for Anicia, a cousin of Pomponius on his mother's side, had married Servius, Sulpicius' brother. So when Sulpicius was killed and Atticus saw that the state was thrown into strife by the disorder Cinna incited, and that he was given no opportunity to live in keeping with his rank without offending one side or the other - the citizens' loyalties were divided with some favoring the party of Sulla, others that of Cinna - he thought it was the right time to devote himself to his studies and moved to Athens. Nevertheless, when the younger Marius had been declared an enemy of the state, he helped him from his own resources and assisted his escape with money. And in order that his travels abroad should do his estate no harm, he moved a substantial part of his fortune to Athens. There he lived in such a manner that he became greatly beloved by all Athenians, and for good reason. For apart from his personal charm which was already abundant in his youth, he often relieved their public want from his own resources; when they were obliged to roll-over the public debt and were unable to obtain reasonable terms for it, he always intervened on terms where he never accepted usurious interest rates from them nor allowed them to remain in debt beyond the term fixed. Both conditions were advantageous to them, since he neither suffered their debt to become overdue by his leniency nor to grow through compounding of the interest. He augmented this service by a further act of generosity: he gave them all six modii [~50 liters] of wheat per person: the equivalent measure being called a medimnus at Athens.

    athens.jpg

    His behavior in Athens was such that he showed himself to be at one with the humblest and equal with the mighty. The result was that they bestowed upon him all the public honors possible and desired to make him a citizen. This gift he was unwilling to take advantage of, because the jurists hold that if one becomes a citizen elsewhere, Roman citizenship is forfeited. So long as he lived there, he opposed the erection of any statue to him, but when he left he could not stop them. And so they put up several statues to him and Phidiae in their most sacred places, for in all the administration of the state's business, they treated him as both agent and adviser. It was, therefore, fortune's foremost gift that he was born in that very city where rulership over the world resided, so that it was for him both his fatherland and home; on the other hand, it was a mark of his wisdom that when he moved to the city which surpassed all others in its antiquity, culture, and learning, he was dearer to it than all other men.

    When Sulla came to Athens on his way back from Asia, he kept Pomponius by him as long as he was there, captured by the young man's culture and learning. He spoke Greek so well that he seemed a native Athenian; on the other hand his Latin was so graceful that its charm seemed somehow inborn, not learned. He also recited poetry, both in Greek and in Latin, so well that there was nothing further to be desired. The effect of this was that Sulla at no point left him and wanted to take him back with him to Italy. When Sulla tried to persuade him, 'No, please, I beg you,' said Atticus, 'I left Italy to avoid bearing arms against you in the company of those men against whom you would lead me.' Sulla praised the young man's sense of duty, and ordered that all the gifts which he had received at Athens be passed on to him when he departed. He resided at Athens for several years; he gave as much attention to his family estate as the careful master of a household should, and devoted all the rest of his time either to literature or to the Athenians' public affairs. At the same time he placed himself at the service of his friends in Rome, for he often came to their elections, and never failed them if there was any important action taken; thus, he was exceptionally loyal to Cicero in all his perils: when he fled his country, Atticus made him a present of 250,000 sesterces [~7,800 troy ounces of silver]. After calm was restored to affairs at Rome, he returned, I believe when Lucius Cotta and Lucius Torquatus were consuls.

    On his departure the whole citizen body of Athens escorted him, showing by their tears their grief at his coming absence.

    His uncle on his mother's side was Quintus Caecilius, a Roman knight and a friend of Lucius Lucullus, a rich man of a very difficult nature. Atticus so respected his harshness that he gave no offense and retained his goodwill - though no one else could stand him - down to his old age and thereby reaped the fruits of his devotion, for Caecilius at his death adopted him in his will and made him heir to three-quarters of his estate: from this inheritance he received about 10 million sesterces [~312,500 troy ounces of silver]. Atticus' sister was married to Quintus Tullius Cicero; the marriage was arranged by Marcus Cicero, with whom Atticus lived on very close terms ever since they were students together, indeed much more intimately than with Quintus, which shows that similarity of character carries more weight in friendship than ties of blood. He was also on such intimate terms with Quintus Hortensius, who in those days was among the foremost in eloquence, that one couldn't know whether Cicero or Hortensius loved him more dearly, and he achieved the very difficult feat of preventing conflict between two men who so competed for glory; he was himself the bond between these two men.

    His conduct in public life was such that he always belonged and was regarded as belonging to the optimates [the aristocratic party]; yet he did not commit himself to the waves of civil disorder, for he considered that men who entrusted themselves to such waves were no more in control than those who were tossed by the waves of the sea. He did not seek offices, though they were open to him through both his influence and his status; because they could not be canvassed for as in the good old days, and couldn't be won without breaking the law amid the unlimited bribery and corruption, nor could they be administered to the state's advantage without danger when public morals had been so corrupted. He never took part in a public auction of confiscated property. He never became a public surety or a public contractor [for farming tax-revenues]. He accused no one, whether in his own name or as seconder; he never went to law on his own account; he never exercised jurisdiction. The post of prefect, offered him by many consuls and praetors he accepted on condition that he accompany no one to his province, be content with the honor alone, and despise the profit to his estate. He would not even consent to go with Quintus Cicero to Asia, though he might have obtained the post of legate [lieutenant-governor] on his staff, for he said that it was not appropriate, after he had refused to hold a praetorship [governorship], to be a praetor's assistant. He served therein the interests not only of his dignity but also of his peace of mind, since he avoided any suspicion of criminality. Consequently everyone valued more highly the courtesy which he showed them, since they could see it was to be attributed to his genuine respect for others and not to fear or hope.

    When he was about 6o, Caesar's civil war broke out. He took advantage of the exemption due to his age, and did not move away from Rome. Whatever his friends needed when they set out to join Pompey he gave from his own fortune. Pompey himself, close though he was to him, he did not offend. From him he was holding no award, as others did, who through him had received either office or money; some of them most reluctantly joined his army, while others remained at Rome and gave him the greatest offense. Atticus' inactivity was so gratifying to Caesar that when he had won, and was demanding money from private individuals by letter, not only did he give Atticus no trouble, but at his request pardoned his sister's son and Quintus Cicero, as they were in Pompey's camp. Thus by his old rule of life he avoided new dangers.

    Then there was that time after Caesar's death, when it seemed that the state was in the hands of the two Brutuses and Cassius, and that all the citizens had turned to them. He was on such good terms with Marcus Brutus that the younger man was not closer to any of those his own age than he was to Atticus, old though he was. Brutus kept him not only as his principal adviser, but also as a daily companion. Some men formed the idea that a private fund should be set up by the Roman equestrians for the assassins of Caesar. They thought it could easily be brought about if the leading men of the order contributed money. So Gaius Flavius, an intimate of Brutus, appealed to Atticus to lead the scheme. But because he thought that services should be performed for friends, but not join parties, and had always kept away from such plots, he replied that if Brutus wished to make any use of his resources he might do so as far as they permitted, but that he would neither discuss nor join with anyone in that plan. So the unity of the conspiratorial association was shattered, just by this one man's disagreement.

    Not long after that, Antony began to gain superiority, to such an extent that Brutus and Cassius ceased to perform the duties assigned to them as a pretext by the Consul, utterly despaired of the situation, and went into exile. But Atticus, who had refused to contribute money along with others to that cause when it was prospering, sent Brutus, when he was in dire straits and leaving Italy, a gift of 100,000 sesterces [~3,125 troy ounces of silver]. In his absence,. he sent orders for another 300,000 sesterces [~9,375 troy ounces of silver] to he given to Brutus in Epirus. He did not flatter Antony the more in his time of power on that account nor abandon those in despair.

    After that came the war fought at Modena. During it, if I just called him prudent, I should praise him less than I should, since it was more properly a divination, if by divination we mean a perpetual natural goodness which no circumstances shaken or lessen. When Antony was adjudged a public enemy and left Italy, there was no hope of his restoration. Not only his enemies, who were then very numerous and powerful, but also those who had joined with his opponents and hoped by doing him harm to gain some advantage, began to persecute Antony's friends, wanted to rob his wife Fulvia of all her possessions, and even preparing to put his children to death.

    Atticus, though he was very intimate with Cicero, and a close friend of Brutus, not only gave them no encouragement towards injuring Antony, but on the contrary protected, as far as he could, those close to him as they fled from the city, and helped them with whatever they required. To Publius Volumnius he gave so much that more could not have come from a parent. Further, to Fulvia herself, when she was distracted by lawsuits and tormented by great anxiety, so diligently did he perform his services that she never appeared in court without Atticus, and Atticus was her surety in all legal actions. Even more, since she had in the days of her prosperity bought an estate to be paid for by a fixed date, and was unable, after the calamity, to raise a loan, stepped in and lent her the money with no interest and no stipulated terms, considering it his greatest gain to be acknowledged as mindful of and grateful for favors, and at the same time to make it obvious that he was accustomed to be a friend not to good fortune, but to people.

    In so doing no one could think that he acted bide his time, for no one held the opinion that Antony would return to power. But gradually he was most sharply criticized by several optimates, because they thought he wasn't sufficiently hostile to bad citizens. Atticus, however, being a man of independent judgment, considered what it was right for him to do rather than what others were going to commend.

    Fortune suddenly changed. Antony returned to Italy, and everyone thought that Atticus was in very great danger because of his close intimacy with Cicero and Brutus. Thus, on the eve of the junta's homecoming he had withdrawn from public life, fearing proscription, and was in hiding at the house of Publius Volumnius, to whom, as I have explained, he had helped shortly before. Such was the changeability of fortune at that time that now one party, now the other, was at the extremes either of the heights of power or of the depths of peril; he had with him Quintus Gellius Canus, a man of his own age and very similar to him. This may also serve as an example of Atticus' goodness that he lived on such close terms with this man, whom he had known as a boy in school, that their friendship continued growing on down to their old age.

    Antony on the other hand, though he was spurred on by such hatred for Cicero that he was an enemy not only to him but to all his friends and wanted to proscribe them, as many encouraged him to do, still remembered the services rendered him by Atticus. After he had found out where he was, he wrote to him in his own hand telling him not to be afraid and to come to him at once; he had removed his name, and for his sake Canus, from the list of the proscribed. And so that no danger might befall him - that used to occur at night - he sent him an escort. Thus Atticus at a time of great danger served to protect not only himself but also the friend whom he held dearest. Nor did he seek aid from anyone for his own safety alone, but did so also for his friend's, so that it appeared that he desired no good fortune for himself that was not shared by his friend. But if the helmsman who saves the ship from a storm in a rock-filled sea is exalted with the highest praise, why should not the skill of a man who reached safety after such grave and numerous tempests of civil strife be thought unparalleled?

    Once he emerged from these troubles, he made it his one goal to help as many people as he could and in whatever manner he could. When the mob was seeking out those proscribed for the rewards offered by the junta, no one came to Epirus who lacked for anything they needed and everyone was given the means to stay there permanently. Even more, after the battle of Philippi and the death of Gaius Cassius and Marcus Brutus, he even began to protect Lucius Julius Mocilla, the ex-praetor, and his son, and Aulus Torquatus, and the other victims of the same misfortune, ordering that all they needed should be transported from Epirus to Samothrace. It is difficult to cover all the details, nor is it necessary. I want one point clear, that his generosity did not depend on biding time or on calculation of gain. It may be understood from the facts and circumstances themselves since he did not sell himself to those in power but always helped those in trouble. He even took care of Servilia, Brutus' mother, no less after his death than while she prospered.

    He was generous and pursued no quarrels, since he harmed no one, and if he had received some injury, he certainly preferred to forget, not to avenge. He likewise retained the kindness he had received in an unfailing memory, while those he had himself bestowed he remembered for as long as the recipient was grateful. He so acted as to bear out the truth of the saying 'it is each man's character that shapes his fortune'. Nor did he shape his fortune before he shaped his character so as to take care not to ever be injured with justification.

    So by such conduct he brought it about that Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who was a most intimate friend of the young Caesar, although through his own influence and Caesar's power had the opportunity of any match he desired, chose an alliance by marriage with the family of Atticus, and preferred the daughter of a Roman equestrian over an optimate bride. It was - and this is not to be concealed - Marcus Antonius, triumvir for reconstituting the republic, who arranged this marriage. Where Atticus might have increased his possessions through his influence, so far was he from a avaricious desire for money that he only used his influence in begging the removal of his friends' dangers or annoyances.

    This was really quite evident during the proscription itself. Lucius Saufeius, who was a Roman equestrian of the same age as Atticus, and who was drawn by his love of philosophy to live several years in Athens, held valuable estates in Italy. When the triumvirs, according to the manner in which things were done at the time, sold the property, Atticus' good work and efforts brought it about that it was by the same messenger that Saufeius was told both that he had lost, and that he had regained, his inheritance. Likewise for Lucius Julius Calidus, who I truly think I can say is by far the most elegant poet which our age has produced since the death of Lucretius and Catullus, and no less a good man and well-educated in the most important arts; who was in his absence entered in the register of the proscribed by Publius Volumnius, Antony's chief engineer, after the proscription of the equestrians, on account of his large estates in Africa. It is hard to determine whether it was at this time more troublesome or more glorious for Atticus, since it was recognized that in their time of peril he cared for his friends whether present and absent.

    villa.jpgBut he was regarded as no less good a master of his household than he was a citizen. Although he was wealthy, no man was less inclined to excess in buying and in building. However, he did live extremely well and used the best of everything. His residence, built by Tamphilus on the Quirinal hill, had been left to him by his uncle, the charm of which lay not in the building but in the landscape, for the structure itself was built long ago and had more taste than luxury. In it he changed nothing except in situations when he was forced to by its age. His slaves, if judged by their usefulness, were excellent; if judged by their appearance, mediocre. For among them there were highly educated slaves, excellent readers, and numerous copyists, so there was not even a single footman who could not both read and copy well. Similarly, the other specialists required for domestic comfort were especially good. Notwithstanding this, he owned no one who wasn't born and trained in the household; this is a sign not only of his restraint but also of his industry. For, first, not to have immoderate desires, such as you would see in many, should be considered the sign of self-control, and, second, to procure by work rather than by expenditures is a sign of no ordinary determination. He was of good taste, not pretentious; distinguished, not extravagant; and with all his efforts aimed not at excess but at elegance. His furniture was moderate, not copious, so that it could not be noted for either excess.

    Nor shall I pass over, although I think it may seem trivial, that though he was of the richest Roman equestrians, and with no lack of hospitality invited to his home men of all ranks, we know from his daily accounts he used to allow 3,000 sesterces [~ 94 troy ounces of silver] a month on average for domestic expenses. This I state as a matter not reported but observed, for I often joined in his life at home on account of our relationship.

    At dinner-parties no one heard any entertainment other than a reader, which is quite delightful in my opinion, nor was there ever a dinner at his house without some reading to please his guests' minds not less than their bellies; for invited people whose way of life was not incompatible with his own. When the great increase in his wealth occurred, he made no change in his daily routine and displayed such moderation that neither on the 2 million sesterces [~ 62,500 troy ounces of silver] which he had inherited from his father did he live with insufficient splendor, nor on 10 million sesterces [~ 312,500 troy ounces of silver] did he live in greater extravagance than before, and on both fortunes maintained the same level. He had no gardens, no expensive villa near Rome or by the sea, nor any country estate in Italy, except for those at Arezzo and Mentana. All his income came from the estates in Epirus and Rome. From this one can see that he measured the usefulness of money not by quantity but by reason.

    He never told lies nor could endure them. Hence his courtesy did not lack severity nor his gravity charm, so that it was difficult to understand whether his friends more respected or loved him. Whenever a request was made him, he gave his word scrupulously, because he thought it not generous but rather capricious to the extent that one could not perform. He was also so careful in attending to what he had promised them that he gave the impression of carrying out not a mandate for another but his own business. He never tired of a venture once undertaken, for he thought his own reputation was involved in it, and than that there was nothing dearer to him. Thus the consequence was that he looked after all the business affairs of the Ciceros, of Marcus Cato, Quintus Hortensius, Aulus Torquatus, and of many Roman equestrians besides. From this the judgment is permissible that he avoided administration of the state's business not from indolence but from choice.

    Of his humanity I can report no greater proof than that as a young man be was most dear to Sulla in his old age, yet likewise as an old man was the same to the young Marcus Brutus, while with men of his own age, Quintus Hortensius and Marcus Cicero, he lived on such good terms that it is difficult to judge to which generation he was best suited. And yet it was Cicero who held him in high esteem, so much so that not even his own brother Quintus was dearer or closer to him. To demonstrate the point, apart from the published works in which Cicero mentions Atticus, there are sixteen rolls of letters, sent to Atticus from the time of his consulship to the end of his life. Whoever read them would have little need of a continuous history of these times, for they offer so full a record of everything to do with the leaders' policies, generals' blunders, and changes in the state that there is nothing that does not appear in them, and it is easy to think that Cicero's foresight was almost prophetic, for not only did he predict things which actually happened in his lifetime, but also foresaw like a prophet events now currently experienced.

    What more should I tell of Atticus' devotion to his family? I heard him priding himself on just this at his mother's funeral, whom he buried at the age of ninety, being himself sixty-seven, that he never had occasion to need reconciliation with his mother nor quarreled with his sister, who was roughly his own age. That is a sign either that no conflict had ever occurred between them or that he was so indulgent towards his family that he judged it vicious to be angry with those whom he ought to love. Nor did he do this because of nature alone, although we all obey her, but also on account of his principles, for he had so fully perceived the precepts of the principal philosophers that he employed them for conducting his life, not for show.

    He was a great follower of ancestral custom and lover of antiquity, which he had so thorough a knowledge that he set it all out in the volume in which he placed the magistrates of each year in order. For there is no law nor peace treaty nor war nor any other illustrious deed of the Roman people which is not recorded in it at its proper date and - this was most difficult - he has so worked out the genealogies of families that from it we can learn the descendents of our famous men. He did the same thing in his other books; thus at the request of Marcus Brutus he gave an account of the Junian family from its origin to the present time, recording who was whose offspring, what magistracies he held, and their dates. He did the same at Claudius Marcellus' request for the Marcelli, at Cornelius Scipio's and Fabius Maximus' on the Fabii and Aemilii. There can be nothing more delightful than these books to those who have some desire for knowledge about famous men.

    He also touched on poetry in order to have some part, I suppose, in its charm, for it was in verse that he celebrated those who surpassed the rest of the Roman people in honors received and in the greatness of their deeds, inscribing beneath the portraits of each of them their deeds and magistracies in not more than four or five verses. It is barely believable that such important achievements could be set forth so concisely. There is also a single book written in Greek on the consulate of Cicero.

    ADDENDUM

    The preceding chapters were published in Atticus' lifetime. Now, since fortune has decreed that I survive him, I shall complete our account and so far as possible show my readers by means of actual examples, as I indicated above, that for the most part it is each man's character that determines his fortune. For content as he was with the equestrian rank in which he was born, he married into the family of the emperor, son of the deified Caesar; after having already won his friendship previously through no other means than by the refined style of life thanks to which he had charmed the other leaders of the city, Caesar's equals in standing but inferiors in good fortune. For such prosperity befell Caesar that Fortune refused him nothing that she had given anyone previously and granted him what no Roman citizen was able to achieve. To Atticus there was born a granddaughter by Agrippa, to whom he had given his daughter in marriage as a girl. This granddaughter Caesar betrothed when she was scarcely a year old to Tiberius Claudius Nero his stepson [later known as the Emperor Tiberius], the son of Drusilla. This union confirmed their close relations and rendered their friendly intercourse more frequent.

    Even before this betrothal, when Octavian was absent from Rome, he never sent a letter to any friend or kinsman without letting Atticus know what he was doing and above all what be was reading, and where and for how long he was going to be staying. But also, when he was in Rome and enjoyed Atticus' company less often than he might wish on account of his countless engagements, hardly even a single day passed on which he did not write to him; sometimes he asked him something about antiquity, sometimes he put him some difficult passage in poetry, sometimes he jestingly coaxed longer letters from him. So it happened that when the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, which had been founded on the Capitol by Romulus, from age and neglect had lost its roof and was collapsing, it was at Atticus' urging that Caesar saw to its restoration. Although far away, Marcus Antonius cultivated him in correspondence no less, and so took care to inform Atticus exactly on what he was doing from the ends of the earth. Just what this means will be more readily appreciated by a reader who can judge how much wisdom it requires to retain the intimacy and goodwill of those two men who were divided not only by a competition for the highest prizes, but by such a mutual disparagement as was bound to occur between Caesar and Antony when each of them desired to be the leader not only of the city of Rome but of the entire world.

    He had completed seventy-seven years in such a manner, and into extreme old age had advanced no less in dignity than in influence and fortune - for he obtained many inheritances exclusively by his own goodness - and had enjoyed such good health that he had not needed medicine for thirty years, then he fell ill. At the beginning neither he nor his physicians took it seriously, for they thought it was a gripping of the bowel [i.e. dysentery] for which swift and simple remedies were proposed. When he had suffered for three months in this condition without any pain except for those he experienced from the treatment, the disease burst so violently into his lower intestine that at the end ulcers full of pus burst through his loins.

    And before this befell him, after he felt the pains increase daily and the fever grow, he gave orders for his son-in-law Agrippa to be summoned, and Lucius Cornelius Balbus and Sextus Peducaeus along with him. When he saw they had come, he leaned on one elbow and said: "How much care and attention I have devoted to restoring my health recently I do not need to tell at length, since I have you as witnesses. Since I have, I hope, satisfied you that I have left nothing undone that might serve to cure me, all that is left is that I now look after my own well-being. I did not wish you to be ignorant of my purpose: for I am resolved no longer to nourish the disease. For however much food I have taken in these last days, I have so prolonged my life as to increase the pain without hope of recovery. Thus I beg of you both to approve of my resolution and not to try to shake me by pointless dissuasion"

    catacombs.jpgAfter giving this speech with such resolve in his voice and expression that he seemed not to be quitting life but moving from one house to another, Agrippa in particular embraced him in tears and begged him not to hasten his death over and above nature's compulsion, and, since even then he might survive the crisis, to preserve himself for his own sake and for the sake of those dearest to him, but Atticus quelled his pleas with silent obstinacy. So when he had abstained from food for two days, the fever suddenly abated and the disease began to be more bearable. Nevertheless he carried through his resolution undeviatingly and so died on the fifth day after he made his decision, on the last day of March when Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Sosius were consuls [March 31st, 22 BCE]. He was carried to his burial on a modest bier as he had himself directed, without any funeral procession, but escorted by all men of substance and by very large crowds of the common people. He was buried by the Appian Way at the fifth milestone, in the tomb of his maternal uncle Quintus Caecilius.

  • Phaedrus - General Info

    Phaedrus the Epicurean From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Phaedrus (/ˈfiːdrəs, ˈfɛdrəs/; Greek: Φαῖδρος; 138 – 70/69 BC[1]) was an Epicurean philosopher. He was the head (scholarch) of the Epicurean school in Athens after the death of Zeno of Sidon around 75 BC, until his own death in 70 or 69 BC. He was a contemporary of Cicero, who became acquainted with him in his youth at Rome.[2] During his residence in Athens (80 BC) Cicero renewed his acquaintance with him. Phaedrus was at that time an old man, and was already a leading figure of the Epicurean school.[3] He was also on terms of friendship with Velleius, whom Cicero introduces as the defender of the Epicurean tenets in the De Natura Deorum,[4] and especially with Atticus.[5] Cicero especially praises his agreeable manners. He had a son named Lysiadas. Phaedrus was succeeded by Patro.

    Cicero wrote to Atticus requesting Phaedrus' essay On gods (Greek: Περὶ θεῶν).[6] Cicero used this work to aid his composition of the first book of the De Natura Deorum. Not only did he develop his account of Epicurean doctrine using it, but also the account of the doctrines of earlier philosophers.

  • Caesar the Epicurean - Bourne - 1977

    This thread is for discussion of Caesar as an Epicurean, with particular focus on the material contained in the article by Frank Bourne - "Caesar the Epicurean"

    &thumbnail=1

    This article contains many interesting points and can be read for free here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4…=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    It's interesting to me that Bourne doesn't really deal with what I presumed to be the main issue - that there is no real record of Caesar calling himself an Epicurean - but he produces a long list of circumstantial evidence that seems very persuasive to me.

    In fact the only real reason to doubt that Caesar was an Epicurean is the same "presumption" that all Epicureans were against involvement in politics, because once you deal with that by recognizing the contextual nature of such advice, the rest of Caesar's life does reveal numerous similarities, and the author documents.

    I was familiar with the episode from the Cataline conspiracy where Caesar recommended against execution of the conspirators on the ground that that is really not as severe as long-term incarceration, so that makes sense to me, but the author doesn't attempt to make much of Caesar's father-in-law being the owner of the Epicurean library at Herculaneum, which also seems to me to be relevant.

    But in general I think it's a very well written article packed with lots of references to Epicurean theory and good citations to how a life of activism CAN be consistent with Epicurean theory, if that's the type of person you are and that's the kind of thing you find pleasure in:

    1344-pasted-from-clipboard-png


    So I see this as a very well written and useful article covering a lot of topics in one place.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    I have now finished reading the full article "Caesar the Epicurean" and find it to be very well written and reasoned. It's interesting to me that the writer never really deals with what I presumed to be the main issue - that there is no real record of Caesar calling himself an Epicurean - but he produces a long list of circumstantial evidence that seems very persuasive to me.

    In fact the only real reason to doubt that Caesar was an Epicurean is the same "presumption" that all Epicureans were against involvement in politics, because once you deal with that by recognizing the contextual nature of such advice, the rest of Caesar's life does reveal numerous similarities, and the author documents.

    I was familiar with the episode from the Cataline conspiracy where Caesar recommended against execution of the conspirators on the ground that that is really not as severe as long-term incarceration, so that makes sense to me, but the author doesn't attempt to make much of Caesar's father-in-law being the owner of the Epicurean library at Herculaneum, which also seems to me to be relevant.

    But in general I think it's a very well written article packed with lots of references to Epicurean theory and good citations to how a life of activism CAN be consistent with Epicurean theory, if that's the type of person you are and that's the kind of thing you find pleasure in:


    So I see this as a very well written and useful article covering a lot of topics in one place.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Camotero in regard to the part of this thread devoted to "fighting" / "war" etc, I came across today this very interesting article by Frank Bourne that elaborates at length on how Julius Caesar's actions can be reconciled with his being an Epicurean.

    I have only read about half of it so far myself, but I bet you would find it interesting. It can be read for free here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4348711…an_tab_contents

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Quote from Cassius

    Anything less than than would be pure assertion on our part, and make our philosophy arbitrary, as a result of which it would rightly be laughed out of Athens.

    I wonder if my implying that the ultimate test of the validity of the system is that is logical makes me a Platonist myself? ;)


    I think Epicurus would smile at that thought too, but that ultimately this is the example of how "true logic" or "true reason" (a term I gather at least Lucretius used) does in fact support Epicurean conclusions, because we are resting the validity of our assertions on the observations of the sensations, anticipations, and feelings.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Camotero something else going on here that I think is relevant, and I see myself making this point a lot lately:

    It may look like we (I? Epicurus?) are taking things to unnecessary extremes by carrying things out to "extreme" logical conclusions, but I think that is exactly what Epicurus was doing. Epicurus was faced with teaching philosophy in ancient Athens, where everyone who was anyone was expected to know and understand the arguments of Plato and other similar authorities, starting with Philebus on pleasure but also lots of other dialogues with similar arguments. Those guys in Athens were fully committed to "logic" as the key to everything, so Epicurus could ill afford to take half-measures and appeal to practicality like we might do today. I think that is one reason that some of us have problems coming to grips with how extreme some of the conclusions can sound, but after going through Philebus and other Platonic dialogues a couple of times I am convinced that Epicurus thought that if he left any logical conclusion unanswered then his entire system would be ridiculed into obscurity.

    Yes we are appealing to the sensations and feelings as the ultimate guide of how to live, but we are doing so only after a rigorously logical argument as to why we are doing so. Anything less than than would be pure assertion on our part, and make our philosophy arbitrary, as a result of which it would rightly be laughed out of Athens.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Lots more good discussion. Here are a couple of comments:

    Quote from camotero

    otherwise avoidable atrocities

    Quote from camotero

    justify otherwise avoidable atrocities. But, what I'm gathering is, that within the framework of EP, anything is justifiable, as long as you were true to your sensations and feelings?

    It's key to realize that "atrocity" is a relative term. What is an atrocity to one person (flying a plane into the world trade center) is an act of highly pleasurable "patriotism" to others. It's key to see that there is no universal definition of "atrocity" any more than there is of "virtue." That doesn't mean that those terms are not useful, and that we should not consider things to be atrocious or virtuous, but the issue is that we have to understand that these things are so from OUR point of view, and not necessarily from the rest of the universe's point of view.

    I wouldn't quite say that "being true to your sensations and feelings" is exactly the way to say it -- the point is just that the sensations and feelings of individuals are the only factors in play by which to judge anything as "good" or "bad," and that's just the way living beings operate.

    Quote from camotero

    From all these readings I'm getting a greater importance is put on virtue than I initially thought there would be in EP.

    But it is critically important to see that "virtue" too is totally relative toward whatever goal is chosen. In Epicurean philosophy the goal is more pleasure/less pain so that is the ultimate standard according to which an action is virtuous or foolhardy.

    Quote from camotero

    if lived using the criteria. If not lived using the criteria, it's just a missed chance to live a more rational, conscious existence, controlled experience. Interesting

    Again the goal is not to live a "more rational, conscious existence, controlled experience." The goal is judged entirely by whether it in practice results in more pleasure less pain. Certainly the rational pursuit of that goal is generally going to be more successful than the irrational pursuit of it, but it is critically important never to confuse the end with the means.

    Quote from camotero

    Perhaps there could be a scenario where our freedom could be curtailed in order for some other basic pleasure be continued (either immediately or later on)?

    Absolutely yes. Just like the Romans had dictators when war made it necessary as one example, but the bottom line is the conditions dictate the appropriate response, and even though freedom is generally highly valuable for pleasure, there are going to be times when practicality requires group action inconsistent with "normal" freedoms. PLEASURE is the goal, not freedom.

    Quote from Don

    It's not that virtue isn't important, but virtue can be instrumental to our pleasure.

    I flagged this due to the word "can." I think a reading of the Torquatus section that Don is quoting from shows that for a thing to be virtuous it has to be in fact instrumental toward pleasure, otherwise it is foolishness, because the only legitimate goal is pleasurable living, not "glory" or "duty" or anything else that might tend toward an absolutist view of what is virtuous in any situation.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Quote from camotero

    I think I can agree with this definition. Is this an interpretation of yours Cassius or is it shared by others in this group? Is there evidence among the texts that this is a definition that aligns with Epicurean Philosophy without the risk to becoming too intangible?

    There are probably several texts that can be used in support of this point, but one of the clearest is where DIogenes Laertius says "The internal sensations 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." That's Bailey, but I think we've discussed recently that most translators use "feelings." That means EVERYTHING we feel, from whatever source, mental or bodily, is either pleasure or pain.

    There is also Torquatus' characterization of Epicurus:

    "Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature. What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?


    Also From Torquatus:

    (1)The Ends of Goods and Evils themselves, that is, pleasure and pain, are not open to mistake; where people go wrong is in not knowing what things are productive of pleasure and pain.

    (2) Again, we aver that mental pleasures and pains arise out of bodily ones (and therefore I allow your contention that any Epicureans who think otherwise put themselves out of court; and I am aware that many do, though not those who can speak with authority); but although men do experience mental pleasure that is agreeable and mental pain that is annoying, yet both of these we assert arise out of and are based upon bodily sensations.

    (3) Yet we maintain that this does not preclude mental pleasures and pains from being much more intense than those of the body; since the body can feel only what is present to it at the moment, whereas the mind is also cognizant of the past and of the future. For granting that pain of body is equally painful, yet our sensation of pain can be enormously increased by the belief that some evil of unlimited magnitude and duration threatens to befall us hereafter. And the same consideration may be transferred to pleasure: a pleasure is greater if not accompanied by any apprehension of evil. This therefore clearly appears, that intense mental pleasure or distress contributes more to our happiness or misery than a bodily pleasure or pain of equal duration.


    Quote from camotero

    So, from my understanding so far, yes, everything has to end in something physical, to be real. Literature and music produce emotions in us, that are atoms (molecules if you will) that make them real. What other "pleasures of the mind" can we think of to see if they hold up to this test? Can you tell me of some pleasures of the mind that stay just there, as mental constructions and as such "are pleasant" without producing an effect in our bodies?

    I think you are probably trying to separate out mental and bodily pleasures in a way that would contradict the position just stated in the above quotations. If one feels pleasure it can be from any source, mental or bodily, and this I think is playing in to your resistance to the saying that the wise man will on occasion die for a friend, which is something that can be extended very far into war, etc. If in our own personal calculatons/feelings we would feel so awful if our friend died when we could have attempted to do something about it, then for some number of people such a result would mean such agonizing pain for the rest of their lives that they would rather die. That's the comparison that each person has to make for themselves, weighing the result of each action in terms of total future pain and pleasure (and this again is a situation where I think duration - length of time - is only one of the factors involved).

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Lots of good material in the recent posts and rather than just "like" I want to emphasize:

    (1) Dons post #23 is exactly on point in explaining the direction I think is implicit in Epicurus. This is not something easy to do because I like presumably everyone here has been brought up in a "natural rights / human rights" environment that talks as if these are self-evidently true. Yes most of us agree that these are desirable, and that they bring us pleasure, and therefore we should "fight" for them as appropriate, but the starting point for the analysis is that the things that bring us pleasure frequently require action on our part to obtain, and they are not handed to us free by god or nature - they require effort. So I strongly think we *should* pursue these things, and I think Cassius Longinus is an example of doing that. We aren't always going to be successful, and we have to make our decisions in the full context of our circumstances, but we don't need fictional gods or fictional myths to justify these actions - we need to ground them in what is real -- which is our "feelings" about them (pleasure and pain).

    (2) In post 24 I think Camotero is raising issues that need further discussion. If the issue he is raising is why "justice" gets special treatment as an abstraction, I think he is on the right track of implying that it should not. I think we need to articulate better that "abstractions" are not by nature bad or inappropriate - they are very useful tools for pleasure and they can also cause great pain. So we need to be careful in implying that abstractions are somehow something to be avoided. This is as in many other cases, so long as we observe the limits of what they are capable of, they are important tools. It is when we elevate them to ends in themselves, not under the supervision of pleasure and pain, they they become loose-cannon monsters. We probably need to discuss this further if Camotero will elaborate on his question.

    (3) In post 26 I think Don does a good job of dealing with the problems of utilitarianism. The main issue comes down to the problems of "greatest good for greatest number" as he observes. Of course being a utilitarian can bring great pleasure and happiness to the utilitarians who agree on the things to pursue, the problem is that those who don't agree cannot be expected to go along and give up their own views of pleasure and pain. Which is not to say that utilitarianism is any worse than any other form of government, but only to say that you have to examine the specific implementation and judge it according to the results in that context. We can probably generalize from the PD's and other texts that the greatest happiness of the greatest number would result from each of those involved achieving the most pleasure and the least pain for themselves and their friends, but that doesn't end up producing a real-world rule that can be used to make specific day to day decisions. This is the point that is exactly opposite to that made by Cicero in his "true law is right reason in accord with nature,..." where he says that such law is the same in Athens and Rome and the same for all people at all times, all places, etc, and that it is enforced by god.

    (4) Don's post 27 does an excellent job summarizing the practical result, so Camotero if you have specific questions or concerns about what is said in that one, that's a good place to pull out quotes and ask.

    All this is VERY helpful and absolutely within the scope of things that are proper for this forum. This is not partisan politics or the type of "careerism" that I think Epicurus was mainly warning against. This is basic-level theory that in my mind is closely akin to the observation that friendship is among the most important tools for achieving happiness. Practical reality is that we are social animals and we need to understand the implications of that in an atomist universe.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Quote from camotero

    I presume there’s nothing pleasurable in taking part in war, and it could only be if there was some level of sociopathy/psychopathy, but perhaps I’m not seeing something.

    Yes this is the place where I think we have to begin. I think the difference here stems from too narrow a definition of "pleasure" -- in my view of Epicurus' teaching, pleasure is EVERYTHING that we find to be desirable, including our attachment to our friends and our family and our "country" and innumerable other things. I think it is dangerous to narrow the definition at all beyond "what we feel to be desirable" and that means that certainly mental constructs and abstractions are pleasurable and desirable too. Remember, the Epicureans held that mental pains and pleasures can be / often are more intense than "physical" ones. We don't have much problem seeing that in terms of visual art and music and dancing, but it also extends to literature and to any and all other forms of abstractions as well. So in sum for this paragraph, I would say that Epicurus was not in any way at war with "abstractions" or with "logic" in general - he was at war with misuse of them for goals other than pleasure, at war with setting them up as ends in themselves, or as mechanisms that supercede feeling.

    So absolutely I think that a person can employ Epicurean philosophy not only to die for a friend, as Epicurus specifically included, but also to die for any number of things if we find our value (our pleasure) to be deep enough in that objective.

    I would cite two texts in support of this:

    First, remember what Torquatus had to say about his ancestors and the way they acted in war:

    Quote

    "But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

    This being the theory I hold, why need I be afraid of not being able to reconcile it with the case of the Torquati my ancestors? Your references to them just now were historically correct, and also showed your kind and friendly feeling towards myself; but the same I am not to be bribed by your flattery of my family, and you will not find me a less resolute opponent. Tell me, pray, what explanation do you put upon their actions? Do you really believe that they charged an armed enemy, or treated their children, their own flesh and blood, so cruelly, without a thought for their own interest or advantage? Why, even wild animals do not act in that way; they do not run amok so blindly that we cannot discern any purpose in their movements and their onslaughts.

    Can you then suppose that those heroic men performed their famous deeds without any motive at all? What their motive was, I will consider later on: for the present I will confidently assert, that if they had a motive for those undoubtedly glorious exploits, that motive was not a love of virtue in and for itself.—He wrested the necklet from his foe.—Yes, and saved himself from death. But he braved great danger.—Yes, before the eyes of an army.—What did he get by it?—Honor and esteem, the strongest guarantees of security in life.—He sentenced his own son to death.—If from no motive, I am sorry to be the descendant of anyone so savage and inhuman; but if his purpose was by inflicting pain upon himself to establish his authority as a commander, and to tighten the reins of discipline during a very serious war by holding over his army the fear of punishment, then his action aimed at ensuring the safety of his fellow citizens, upon which he knew his own depended.

    And this is a principle of wide application. People of your school, and especially yourself, who are so diligent a student of history, have found a favorite field for the display of your eloquence in recalling the stories of brave and famous men of old, and in praising their actions, not on utilitarian grounds, but on account of the splendor of abstract moral worth. But all of this falls to the ground if the principle of selection that I have just mentioned be established,—the principle of forgoing pleasures for the purpose of getting greater pleasures, and enduring, pains for the sake of escaping greater pains.


    And I think this issue shows up even better in the correspondence of Cassius and Cicero, which I've included and referenced here, but I want to include some particularly apt parts here, especially Cassius' reply below showing that Cassius saw himself in specifically Epicurean terms:

    In the end the argument goes in the direction Torquatus points -- Epicurean philosophy can be used to justify leading a war, or even executing your own son, in appropriate circumstances. If we think that there are any absolute bright lines at all then we're forgetting the basic premises of the Epicurean system. It is only the circumstances and events and the "feeling" of the individuals involved at the particular time and place that can provide us answers on how to live.

    Also I want to add that I think this statement from Cicero is highly relevant:

    Quote

    ...In this formula the words "within this year" are not usually added; so even if it is now two or three years since, bewitched by the blandishments of Pleasure, you sent a notice of divorce to Virtue, I am free to act as I like. And yet to whom am I talking? To you, the most gallant gentleman in the world, who, ever since you set foot in the forum, have done nothing but what bears every mark of the most impressive distinction. Why, in that very school you have selected I apprehend there is more vitality than I should have supposed, if only because it has your approval.And I think that is relevant because it is the mistake that many people make, to underestimate the power of feeling to serve as the guide of life. As a result they make the mistake of underestimating the "vitality" of the school of Epicurean philosophy, because they put aside feeling when they should realize that feeling is in fact the center of everything that makes life worthwhile.

    But this is a logical mistake to make if someone thinks that "painlessness" or "absence of pain" or even "immediate bodily pleasure" is the goal of Epicurean philosophy. I think Epicurus was very clear from his deeds and words that such asserts are dramatic misunderstandings, but they will recur so long as people talk about Epicurus in these terms instead of diving deeper into the text to see the underlying role of feeling as the true guide of life rather than virtue/ being good / being holy / being reasonable etc.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Quote from camotero

    I'm sorry to come late to this discussion, but I thought it was better to continue this thread than to open another one.

    Camotero I meant to comment on this earlier. I think I have turned off the forum software's warning against posting in old threads. You didn't see that warning did you? Because if you did, or people see it elsewhere, I need to work harder to turn it off.

    There are some hazards even for us in reusing in old threads, because I realize that what was said back when the thread started has now slipped my mind, and I needed to refresh myself on why the subject came up. But in general I don't see this as a software support or other type of forum where information becomes obsolete. in general much of what we are discussing is as close to timeless as you can get, so there's no harm and much good in reusing old threads, even those which are much older than this one, so people should feel free to comment on any thread, no matter how old.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Well stated Joshua! Of what you wrote I would particularly echo this;

    Quote from JJElbert

    The men and women of the European Enlightenment needed there to be inalienable rights; they did not have the luxury of choosing between the best of all possible political theories.

    I think what you just referenced has to be kept in mind in a lot of what we read in commentators on Epicurus too. For most of the last 2000 years, even today in many instances, the circumstances in which people live dramatically colors what they find to be important and what they are willing and able and "need" to say.

    Referencing the American founders again, there was a lot of talk in that period about freedom OF religion, but not quite so much about freedom FROM religion. So when we cite them (even some of Jefferson's statements) we find them talking more about neutrality between opposing religious sects more frequently than they talk about liberating people from ALL of the oppression of all the religious groups, no matter whether those groups are familiar and local or unfamiliar and exotic. And so now we have enshrined in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) a provision that gives shelter to all kinds of practices and viewpoints that would otherwise be outlawed but for the protection of religion.

    But the point is that everyone lives in a certain context, just like we do today, and people are going to use whatever tools are at hand to achieve their goals. During the "enlightenment" it appears that natural law theory gave them an opening against religion that was harder for the church to refute (given that god supposedly acts through nature), so they used that opening for its immediate effect rather than worrying about what it might mutate into later.

    I think many people use Epicurus in the same way -- they see an argument for "absence of pain" or "tranquility" and they employ Epicurus' name, regardless of whether they really agree with Epicurus' underlying assumptions and direction.

    And that's why many people who talk about Epicurus stop short and don't ever want to talk about the last ten PD's, or many of the other and deeper implications of Epicurean philosophy. They are employing Epicurus for a totally different purpose and direction than he intended, and they end up with a monster (like "natural law") that in its own turn will have to be dismantled when it turns on them in a way that they did not necessarily intend or anticipate.

    "Painlessness" as the ultimate goal, with its implication of desirability of lack of sensation, when sensation is the foundation of life, is as much of a monster as is the concept of a "natural law" when "law" of the type we are discussing is an entirely human creation, which "nature" of itself has no necessary connection, any more than do supernatural gods.

  • George Carlin - You have no rights -- reactions?

    Thanks for the list of links Don. It's *always* good to compare various translations. I generally default to the Bailey translations first, since they are the most recent "published" public domain translations that I know of, but the more the better. I have most of the Bailey versions transcribed into the menu above under "Core Texts" https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?texts/

    I default to Bailey for the reason stated, but he is by no means my favorite, and I am not sure there is any list anywhere that I fully endorse. Almost all of them seem to have issues and that's why I ended up setting up a subforum for each of the Doctrines and well as each of the Vatican Sayings so we could explore them in detail over time. DeWitt did not produce his own list, and I've for a long time meant to go through and pull out of his texts all of those that he translated (which are many) but I have not found the time to do that. In most cases he has creative ways of looking at them that I think are very helpful. I think a LOT more work needs to be done on almost every one, with a commentary on each one, which I don't think is currently available anywhere.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Philodemus' "On Anger" - General - Texts and Resources 20

      • Cassius
      • July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM
    3. Replies
      20
      Views
      6.9k
      20

    4. Kalosyni

      July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM

    2. Mocking Epithets 3

      • Bryan
      • July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      395
      3

    4. Bryan

      July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM

    2. Best Lucretius translation? 12

      • Rolf
      • July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      1k
      12

    4. Eikadistes

      July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM

    2. The Religion of Nature - as supported by Lucretius' De Rerum Natura 4

      • Kalosyni
      • June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM
    3. Replies
      4
      Views
      931
      4

    4. Godfrey

      June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM

    2. New Blog Post From Elli - " Fanaticism and the Danger of Dogmatism in Political and Religious Thought: An Epicurean Reading"

      • Cassius
      • June 20, 2025 at 4:31 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      2.3k

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:

  • First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
  • Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
  • Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.