Posts by Cassius

I generally don't purchase antique / antiquarian books, but several years ago on ebay I saw listed a copy of Lucretius translated by John Mason Goode and published in 1810. The binding and format looked impressive and I had not heard of this edition, so I bought it. It has forever soured me on "poetic" translations of Lucretius, because I took an immediate dislike to it and have got very little benefit from it over the years. Goode takes what seem to me to be extreme liberties in converting the text into English poetry, and as if to one-up his questionable translation, Goode tended to add the most incredibly tangential footnotes I have ever read in a Lucretius translation. They seem much more oriented toward making Mr. Goode look like a man of the world rather than a classical poetry scholar.

At any rate, I decided to check Goode's notes on this topic and what do you know he actually wrote a fairly lucid note that is probably helpful enough to include here. In the end his point seems to be "Epicurus' theory may be nonsense but those that came afterwards have been just as bad" but I do think the part that is his comparison to Plato and Aristotle on the theory of ideas is actually pretty insightful. I don't know that this puts him in either Munro's camp or Bailey's camp -- possibly slightly closer to Bailey than Munro, but in the end, it seems to me Goode is focused on the images more in the respect that they end up being a component of "analysis" or "truth" than their being the main mechanism of general "thought."

A perfect example of my frustration with Goode is that he starts his note off by referencing the exchange between Cassius and Cicero, which as noted above i think is right on point, but he manages to cut out Cassius' reply and thereby omits to say that Cassius *denied* what Cicero was alleging about the images. Seems to me a rather surprising omission.

Anyway, maybe someone will find a scan of this to be a little thought-provoking. (Attached)

I feel like the comment below underlined in red is HIGHLY justified, if Goode's note-writing is any indication:

Quote from Titus

because in my understanding this is a key part of Epicurean philosophy.

I don't doubt that that is your understanding at all, as that is the prevailing view in the academic world at large. That's why we're very clear in our terms of service and our welcome post and in the "Not Neo Epicurean Graphic" and the "Our Posting Policy" graphic that that is not the prevailing view here, and at some point we limit the continued argument for that position.

Now of course in saying all that I'm not intending to say that you have approached the line or in danger of that in any way, but just to acknowledge the truth that the academic world is hugely hostile to the view of Epicurus taken by Norman Dewitt and the writers listed in the "Don't be a Stoic in Disguise" Post in the right sidebar on the front page.

Basically the main reason this forum was founded and has sustained itself to date is in opposition to that view and to provide a place for those who think differently to compare notes and arguments against that viewpoint.

Note: I realize in this post and in what I am quoting from yours there is a danger in losing the focus on what "this" is. To summarize once again, possibly the best way of stating what I am arguing for is a "common sense" definition of the word pleasure, as ordinary people understand that word, which includes BOTH pleasures of "rest" and also "joy and delight" from the point of view that "all pleasures are desirable" and the only reason that one might choose not to pursue certain pleasures is that in the context of that person the pursuit would bring more pain than pleasure. This is the opposite of the "minimalism for the sake of minimalism" approach or any approach that embraces asceticism as the true end, rather than pleasure. But of course that's just a brief summary of the viewpoint you can find (hopefully!) permeating the great majority of posts on this forum.

Here's another example of my ongoing dispute with Bailey, from the next page after what is quoted in the last post:

Why, Mr Bailey, are you so certain that Lucretius / Epicurus chose to "go off into side issues" rather than "the main theory of thought?" Maybe it is you, Mr. Bailey, who misunderstands what the main issue is, and that that main issue is not "thought" at all, but the issues which Lucretius chooses to discuss?

Following what I always think should be one of the most important rules of construction, maybe we should give Lucretius the benefit of the doubt and presume that he knows a little more about Epicurus than we do, and that if Lucretius chooses to say something and go off in a particular direction, that he has good reason for it?

Here is side by side comparison of the commentary of Bailey (white, left) vs Munro (colored, right) on this same section. Compare how Bailey categorizes the entire discussion in terms of "thought" while Munro does not mention the words "thought" or any variation of "thinking," but deals with the subject as if it is just another variation of sensation, not something different in kind.

I also added underlines in Bailey which emphasize where Bailey is presuming his conclusion in his description. In passages marked 2 and 3 I also question the presumption that it is necessary for sensation and thought BOTH to be "set in action" and "stirred" by emations from outside. Yes as to sensations, but why does the action of the mind have to be in reaction to something OUTSIDE. I see no reason whatsoever in the rest of Epicurus to think that the mind cannot generate its own actions, and I would presume as devoted as Epicurus was to "agency" that the mind DOES initiate its own thoughts, in addition to responding to things that it perceives, just as we in this thread are both initiating our own comments and responding to the comments of each other.

Bailey is insisting that in all cases the the receipt of images in the mind and the receipt of vision by the eyes are linked together in result, and I certainly see the passage that he is referring to it, but by no means does it follow (in my view) that this process is going on in *everything* that our minds think.

On the issue of whether this process of working with images is the same or similar to that of preconceptions, it would be good to review Voula Tsouna's article. In posting this today I scanned through it to look for whether it equated image processing with preconceptions. It doesn't jump out at me that she does, but I may have missed it. I do note, however, that in her table of keywords I do not see "images" or its equivalent.

Norman DeWitt: Epicurus On Appearances

Article on Epicurus' views on logic / reasoning by Phillip de Lacy:

Diskin Clay on "An Epicurean Interpretation of Dreams. My comment on this one is that Diskin Clay impresses me a lot but I sense a pattern in his writing that he takes a very winding path to get to the important parts of an article. You probably need to skim over the first sections before you get to what is of interest here. As indicated on the first page, he starts off talking about Sigmund Freud and takes his time getting to the good stuff.

Elisabeth Asmis on "Lucretius' Explanation of Moving Dream Figures"

Here is Munro's commentary. I trust Munro's interpretations more, but he came before Bailey and his commentary isn't as detailed: See attachment for full section

Ok, with the caveat that in my humble view Bailey is not the most sympathetic interpreter of Epicurus, such that his opinions need to be hanlded with care, here is Bailey's commentary on these passages. I clipped the first page as a jpg -- see the attachment for the full section.

Another implication is that we need to keep in mind that unless we are going to equate this process with that of "anticipations / preconceptions" then whatever this process is it has nothing to do with the "Canon of Truth" since it is not included within in. If so, what would that mean?

Note: Don and I cross-posted on essentially the same point.

Quote from Elayne

Besides that, when he explains visualizing (imagination) of an actual type of thing as images re-entering, that whole process relies on memory! If I want to think of a cow, how would I do it without memory of what a cow looks like? And he said that is a process of deciding to see the thing and that image is instantly available. Not that the memory of what a cow looks like comes from inside a storage in the mind!

Yep - that's the kind of observation that makes it clear that there's more to this picture / spectre / image than we're currently seeing!

Over my years of reading about Epicurus and talking about him on the internet I have always realized that images were one of the most challenging topics, right up there with anticipations (maybe for good reason).

Certainly we're not alone in seeing this as challenging, and I feel absolutely sure that there are a lot of commentaries focused on these passages that will save us some time, at least in integrating other relevant passages, no matter whether we agree with the commentators' conclusions or not.

So I will start looking through the basics (Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, Munro, Bailey, and also on JSTOR) and I am sure we will find some helpful material to post back here. Anyone who can help with that will of course be welcome!

Well in the same way that Epicurus held the swerve to exist without suggesting a mechanism for it, I would think that he would presume that there is a method of storing pictures in the mind, even if he dd not suggest a mechanism. I believe in my own introspection that I can picture in my mind a picture of the Mona Lisa, for example, and I can call from memory what seems to be a "picture" of it, which I see no reason not to consider as related to storing "images."

Maybe we are thinking of images differently, in that I see them as simply variation of the particles that are also seen and heard, not as something fundamentally different that would require a different storage mechanism, although certainly that's a possible reading of what it going on here.

My main issue is that I think that there is clearly a mechanism of memory for things we see, we hear, and touch, and taste, and I don't see any reason to conclude that memory of those sensations should be presumed to be consumed by this mechanism of the effect of images on the mind, which seems to me to be a separate category of phenomena on its own. Having some kind of general memory function is so basic to human operation that it would be impossible either to write the poem or read it and get any understanding of it unless we had a fundamental capacity to remember things that happen to us, so it seems to me to be highly unlikely that such a fundamental capacity would escape mention until the latter part of book four in these passages.

If that were what was meant by this aspect of Epicurus theory I would think the mechanism would be much more prominent in other parts of the texts

(Oops I missed seeing Don's comments, let me address those too)

Quote from Don

There's also the Sedley idea of one sending images *to* the gods which sounds like we can create images in our minds.

I had not thought of this but yes I can see that being a possible explanation of the "to" issue. In that context I was presuming that we were referring the particles that make up the images that float through the air as something that the gods were accessing directly to replenish their own particles, kind of like sucking static electricity out of the air, so it wouldn't make any difference to them what images they used to replenish themselves. But you are right that that "to" indicates something else.

And to add to this mix of confusion in my mind I can't help but this this could be related to the process of forming anticipations, but on the other hand I remember from the first time I read DeWitt's book (i would have to now look for the reference) that DeWitt didn't think that Lucretius addressed anticipations anywhere at all in the poem, so apparently DeWitt himself didn't relate this section to anticipations.

Of course all of us are capable of being wrong so any or all of my current thinking on this could be incorrect.

Most of this and probably all of it don't strike me as particularly urgent to resolve quickly, but I would like to make some progress on the issue of determining how likely it is that the operations being discussed here constitute a complete description of human memory and/or the operation of the mind in general. I think whether we are just trying to reconstruct Epicurus or whether we are stating our own views based on all sources of information up through today, we ought to be able to articulate a description of what memory seems to us to be, and I think this discussion is showing that we have some basic gaps in that description as to what memory appears to be. Are we remembering pictures, or not? And what is the relation to "images" in this part of the discussion to "pictures"? Is there any at all? - perhaps "pictures" is applicable only to what the eyes process, and "images" in this context is a deceptive word for this use in English.

So at this point I am not satisfied either with our articulation of what memory is, or of what Epicurus is saying, much less how the two come together.

Apparently the gods and/or Epicurus were thinking ahead to this technology:

https://www.livescience.com/66060-pentagon…king-laser.html

Quote

{Norman Dewitt)

In dreamful sleep, according to Epicurus, the erring, automatic mind alone is active. Bodily sensation, memory and volition are all quiescent. Under these circumstances the stage is cleared for the entrance of all the random, floating idols that survive from the swift, coherent streams that under waking conditions press upon the organs of sense and register themselves as sensations. Of these errant, subsensory idols the passive mind, partly because of its relief from interference and control, and partly because of the supermobility and supersensitivity of its component atoms, alone is capable of taking cognizance. Thus it functions as a supersense.

Quote

[15.19] Cassius to Cicero

[Brundisium, latter half of January, 45 B.C.]

L I hope that you are well. I assure you that on this tour of mine there is nothing that gives me more pleasure to do than to write to you; for I seem to be talking and joking with you face to face. And yet that does not come to pass because of those spectres; and, by way of retaliation for that, in my next letter I shall let loose upon you such a rabble of Stoic boors that you will proclaim Catius a true-born Athenian.

2 I am glad that our friend Pansa was sped on his way by universal goodwill when he left the city in military uniform, and that not only on my own account, but also, most assuredly, on that of all our friends. .....

Well at this point it appears that only Cassius the First, Cassius the Second, and Norman DeWitt seem to see a role for "memory" separate and distinct from what is being described here in the function of the mind receiving images directly. I am still at the moment of the opinion that the extension of this function from (A) a description of what I see as primarily significant for a relatively narrow set of examples of the mind receiving images directly in dreams and/or of the gods (which apparently I am also in a minority in thinking plausible) to (B) constituting Epicurus' complete description of the operation of all of human memory, is something that is so dramatic that - if true - would have been documented extensively by every ancient and subsequent critic of Epicurus who ever lived, not just in the private joking of Cicero and Cassius!

So for the time being I'm not sure whether DeWitt is correct in referring to a distinction in automatic/volitional operations of the mind, or whether there is some other logical division, but I can't see this being a description of something as crucial as all of human memory. But that's why we talk together and compare notes, becomes it's all to easy to make mistakes and the best way forward is comparing observations with others who are on the same path!

Note: This was also in Episode 58: "Nor from any other reason is the mind awake when the body is asleep, but because those very images affect the mind which were used to move the sense when we were awake, so that we fully believe we see a person who has been long since dead and buried in the grave; and it cannot well be otherwise, because all the senses of the body are obstructed and bound up by sleep, and therefore have no power to convince us of the contrary. Besides, the memory is feeble and languishes by rest, and makes no objection to satisfy us, that the man has been long in the arms of death, whom the mind really believes it sees alive."

I do agree that there is probably more to this than just the issue of the gods, but I don't think we have a good grasp on the role of memory, or on how the mind is using past images to store up something that it uses in the present. In other words, I am not convinced that he is not saying that these images I(such as the image of walking) are not stored and then summoned from within, rather than having to be picked out of an apparently infinite number of images floating in the air currently. Perhaps there is some combination involved, but I am thinking that there's got to be an image storage system involved as well.

And I think a significant part of the difference in where we are at the moment may be in the question of what it is that the mind is storing, because I think it is more likely that Epicurus considered most of what is stored in the mind to be some kind of "pictures" or "images" and I don't think we're all on the same page on that.

Much more for me to think about (and to think about the process of thinking and memory)!

What we're discussing is a very interesting and continuing issue of how to express things. It certainly is clear that the "natural / necessary" analysis is in the texts and must be important, yet no matter how much someone talks about it, I've never really met anyone who actually follows that path to its logical extreme if taken literally. So I agree that when we're talking among friends we're really talking about wording issues as much as anything else.

I came across this article with high hopes that it might have some useful analysis, but it is based on the view that the goal of life is ataraxia, so it focuses on whether it is necessary to spend more than a moment in ataraxia in order to have a full life, rather than a more helpful analysis.

(Another example of how to chase rabbits through "ataraxia" rather than focusing on pleasure as the goal)

Nevertheless it seems to contain some good research for someone looking into the issue.

https://www.academia.edu/1327824/Philod…=download-paper

This morning I was cleaning up some old files and I came across this list which I had prepared some years ago. It's not very good, but rather than just delete it I will post it here in case someone who is working on a better list might find small parts of it useful.

Recommendations for Happy Living

1. First, last, and always remember that pleasure is the goal of life. Do not allow yourself to be distracted from this goal. Do not think that virtue is an end in itself. Do not try to reason yourself to something higher and more worthy. Pleasure is the guide given you by Nature. Follow Nature intelligently, and not just for the pleasure of the moment, but for a lifetime. Remember always, and shout to the world, that pleasure is the goal of the best mode of life.

2. If you are not thoroughly convinced that there is no god who wants to reward or punish you for your actions in this life, then drop everything and get your heart straight on this. It is impossible for you to live happily if you fear reward or punishment by gods. The best way to convince yourself of these truths is to study nature. You will find that the evidence confirms in your mind that the universe as a whole has always existed, and it was not created by any god to make you a plaything. Another way to understand this is to remember that almost all people who believe in a supernatural god believe that he/she/it/they are both immortal and blissfully happy. Why would an immortal and blissfully happy god want to spend time harassing you or making your life miserable, or hoping you will tell him "thanks for everything?" Work on this until you have thoroughly understood what is at stake.

3. If you are not convinced that this life is the only one you have; if you think that your life is just a warm-up for the big event to come later in heaven; if you think that you are just a speck of dust in an infinite universe and your life means nothing - drop everything and get your heart right on these issues. You are not going to be punished or rewarded after your death. Your death ENDS your consciousness. Period. Nothing afterward. Nothing! That is not a problem, because you won't be there to know it, but if you don't understand that the time you have in this life is all you have, then you are wasting time. Work on understanding that pronto before you waste another minute thinking that you have all the time in the world.

4. Do not be discouraged by those who tell you that pleasure should not be your goal because the desire for it can never be satisfied. You are a human being and you have a limited lifetime and a limited capacity. You can work to experience all the pleasure that is possible to you, and you can work to reduce the pain that you experience to pay for that pleasure to a minimum. That is the goal nature set for you. Don't argue with her.

5. Do not spend your life obsessing about running from pain. Any pain that comes your way that is terrible will not last long - it will kill you and you won't know it anymore. Any pain that comes your way that is not terrible will be manageable, and you will learn to bear it if you keep in mind that you will experience nothing after death, so that pleasure experienced now is worth the bearable pain that it costs you.

6. Keep in mind that in order to live happily you must live wisely, honestly, and justly. You can't live happily unless you do, but IF you do, you WILL live happily. But don't get confused. You are NOT living in order to be wise, honest, or just. You are living in order to be happy. If you forget the priority and reverse them, you will end in disaster. And that is why you must:

7. Never forget that other people are NOT all your friends, and many of them will try to take advantage of you in many ways. You must protect yourself from these people, and ANY means that you find necessary to protect yourself from them is sanctioned by nature.

8. Do not let the world convince you that fame and status and power will make your life happy. Many people pursue that and are totally miserable. You have to judge the proper amount of all of those to pursue according to one goal: living pleasurably under your personal circumstances.

9. As you pursue pleasure, don't let someone else tell you that what you find pleasurable is no good. ALL pleasures are good, but some pleasures come at a cost of pain that you will find to be too great. Judge the things you choose and avoid solely by that criteria: how much pleasure and pain will result from the action I am about to take?

10. Don't allow yourself to stress out that you aren't achieving what you think is some totally blissful pleasure. Remember that if you attained a state where you were overwhelmed by that pleasure and experienced nothing else, you would never be able to experience other pleasures. That would get boring very fast. No matter how cute she is.

11. If you haven't yet convinced yourself that pleasure is the goal of life, remember again that ALL PLEASURES ARE GOOD, and the ONLY guide Nature gave you to life is the faculty of perceiving pleasure and pain. If the pleasures of pulling the wings off flies IN FACT led to happy living, no one would have any right to laugh at you for spending all your time doing that. But you have to eat. You have to get clothing and shelter. You have to learn to protect yourself from whooping cough and sleep apnea. If you spend all your time pulling the wings off of flies, you will never learn to do those things, and you will wake up all night wheezing and with a terrible Antisthenesheadache in the morning. Don't let that happen to you.

12. Prepare an outline of your understanding of Epicurean philosophy to enhance your understanding, because as Epicurus said in the letter to Herodotus, you don't frequently need all the details, but you do frequently need to refer to the main points and be able to find the rest.

13. Surround yourself as much as possible with beneficial images (visual) and thoughts (philosophy).