Posts by Cassius

Hello and welcome to the forum @myonkers !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the forum!

Don I have good news and bad news:

(1) The bad news is that we were down TWO panelists today, so we have deferred talking about the color of the atoms until next week.

(2) The good news is that Martin and I decided to devote a lot of attention to your and Godfrey's post on the "Polyaenus question" so you should enjoy listening to that!

Yes It could well sound similar - not sure. But I think the significance and direction in Epicurean philosophy ends up to a large extent in going against Aristotle's "essences." My no doubt too overbroad thumbnail view is that Plato put his ideal forms in some otherworldly dimension, and while Aristotle rejected the otherworldly dimension, he did not really reject the "ideal forms" - he just mutated them into "essences" which he then theorized existed within particular things. The effect of the two ends up being much the same error, because it leads to absolutist thinking, with the only difference being the residence address of the absolute ideal form.

By emphasizing that the atoms have no color Epicurus is illustrating that there are in fact no contextless absolutes, either in heaven or inside an object. The statement that "Yellow does not exist apart from things that are yellow" has profound extensions far beyond the purely scientific question of how an atom might look under a microscope to most people most of the time. By drawing out the importance of the means and conditions of the observation, and the nature of our eyes and how they operate, the lighting, and all the other factors that may go into how we see color at a particular time, it should be much easier for most people to understand that there isn't a single "absolutely correct" answer to what color a thing "is." And if they understand that, then the path is open to seeing that virtue likewise is not a contextless absolute. And if they make that step, they are at the very threshold of seeing that feeling (pleasure) is what makes the living world go round.

Reference: A Few Days In Athens Chapter 15:

“By no means. No existence, that we know of, possesses creating power, in the sense you suppose. Neither the existence we call a man, nor any other of the existences comprised under the generic names of matter, physical world, nature, &c., possesses the power of calling into being its own constituent elements, nor the constituent elements of any other substance. It can change one substance into another substance, by altering the position of its particles, or intermingling them with others: but it cannot call into being, any more than it can annihilate, those particles themselves. The hand of man causes to approach particles of earth and of water, and, by their approximation produces clay; to which clay it gives a regular form, and, by the application of fire, produces the vessel we call a vase. You may say that the hand of man creates the vase, but it does not create the earth, or the water, or the fire; neither has the admixture of these substances added to, or subtracted from, the sum of their elementary atoms. Observe, therefore, there is no analogy between the power inherent in matter, of changing its appearance and qualities, by a simple change in the position of its particles, and that which you attribute to some unseen existence, who by a simple volition, should have called into being matter itself, with all its wonderful properties. An existence possessing such a power I have never seen; and though this says nothing against the possibility of such an existence, it says every thing against my belief in it. And farther, the power which you attribute to this existence — that of willing every thing out of nothing, — being, not only what I have never seen, but that of which I cannot with any distinctness conceive — it must appear to me the greatest of all improbabilities.”

“Our young friend,” observed Metrodorus, “lately made use of an expression, the error involved in which, seems to be at the root of his difficulty. In speaking of matter,” he continued, turning to Theon, “you employed the epithet inert. What is your meaning? And what matter do you here designate?”

“All matter surely is, in itself, inert.”

“All matter surely is, in itself, as it is,” said Metrodorus with a smile; “and that, I should say, is living and active.

Again, what is matter?”

“All that is evident to our senses,” replied Theon, “and which stands opposed to mind.”

“All matter then is inert which is devoid of mind. “What then do you understand by mind?”

“I conceive some error in my definition,” said Theon, smiling. “Should I say — thought — you would ask if every existence devoid of thought was inert, or if every existence, possessing life, possessed thought.”

“I should so have asked. Mind or thought I consider a quality of that matter constituting the existence we call a man, which quality we find in a varying degree in other existences; many, perhaps all animals, possessing it. Life is another quality, or combination of qualities, of matter, inherent in — we know not how many existences. We find it in vegetables; we might perceive it even in stones, could we watch their formation, growth, and decay. We may call that active principle, pervading the elements of all things, which approaches and separates the component particles of the ever-changing, and yet ever-enduring world — life. Until you discover some substance, which undergoes no change, you cannot speak of inert matter: it can only be so, at least, relatively, — that is, as compared with other substances.”

“The classing of thought and life among the qualities of matter is new to me.”

“What is in a substance cannot be separate from it. And is not all matter a compound of qualities? Hardness, extension, form, color, motion, rest — take away all these, and where is matter? To conceive of mind independent of matter, is as if we should conceive of color independent of a substance colored: What is form, if not a body of a particular shape? What is thought, if not something which thinks? Destroy the substance, and you destroy its properties; and so equally — destroy the properties, and you destroy the substance. To suppose the possibility of retaining the one, without the other, is an evident absurdity.”

“The error of conceiving a quality in the abstract often offended me in the Lyceum,” returned the youth, “but I never considered the error as extending to mind and life, any more than to vice and virtue.”

Wikipedia's Entry as of 08/09/20:

Polyaenus of Lampsacus (/ˌpɒliːˈiːnəs/ POL-ee-EE-nəs; Greek: Πoλύαινoς Λαμψακηνός, Polyainos Lampsakēnos; c. 340 – c. 285 BCE), also spelled Polyenus, was an ancient Greek mathematician and a friend of Epicurus.

Contents

1 Life 2 Writings 3 Notes 4 References

Life

He was the son of Athenodorus. His friendship with Epicurus started after the latter's escape from Mytilene in 307 or 306 BC when he opened a philosophical school at Lampsacus associating himself with other citizens of the town, like Pythocles, Colotes, and Idomeneus. With these fellow citizens he moved to Athens, where they founded a school of philosophy with Epicurus as head, or hegemon, while Polyaenus, Hermarchus and Metrodorus were kathegemones.

A man of mild and friendly manners, as Philodemus refers, he adopted fully the philosophical system of his friend, and, although he had previously acquired great reputation as a mathematician, he now maintained with Epicurus the worthlessness of geometry.^[1][2] But the statement may be at least doubted, since it is certain Polyaenus wrote a mathematical work called Puzzles (Greek: Aπoριαι) in which the validity of geometry is maintained. It was against this treatise that another Epicurean, Demetrius Lacon, wrote Unsolved questions of Polyaenus (Greek: Πρὸς τὰς Πoλυαίνoυ ἀπoρίας) in the 2nd century BCE. Like Epicurus, a considerable number of spurious works seem to have been assigned to him; one of these was Against the Orators, whose authenticity was attacked both by Zeno of Sidon and his pupil Philodemus.

Writings

The works attributed to Polyaenus include:^[3]

• On Definitions
• On Philosophy
• Against Aristo
• Puzzles (Aporiai)
• On the Moon
• Against the Orators
• His collected Letters.

Don has summarized much of the reliable information about Polyaenus above. The following does not rise to the same level of authority, but Frances Wright devoted a section of "A Few Days In Athens" to this topic, and gave her opinion on how the story of Polyaenus's focus on mathematics after he became an Epicurean should likely be interpreted.

Most of Chapter 9 of A Few Days In Athens is relevant, but here is the central part as it relates to Polyaenus:

“But,” said Leontium, “the young Corinthian may be curious to know the sentiments of our master, and his advice regarding the pursuit of the sciences and the liberal arts. I can readily perceive,” addressing herself to Theon, “the origin of the two contradictory reports you have just mentioned. The first you would hear from the followers of Aristippus, who, though not acknowledging the name, follow the tenets of his philosophy, and have long been very numerous in our degenerate city. These, because Epicurus recommends but a moderate culture of those arts, which by them are too often made the elegant incentives to licentious pleasure, accuse him of neglecting them altogether. The cynics, and other austere sects, who condemn all that ministers to the luxury, ease, or recreation of man, exaggerate his moderate use of these arts into a vicious encouragement of voluptuousness and effeminacy. You will perceive, therefore, that between the two reports lies the truth. Every innocent recreation is permitted in the garden. It is not poetry, but licentious poetry, that Epicurus condemns; not music, but voluptuous music; not painting, but licentious pictures; not dancing, but loose gestures. Yet thus he displeases alike the profligate and the austere; for these he is too moderate, and for those too severe. “With regard to the sciences, if it be said, that they are neglected among us, I do not say that our master, though himself versed in them, as in all other branches of knowledge, greatly recommends them to our study but that they are not unknown, let Polyoenus be evidence.

“He, one of the most amiable men of our school, and one most highly favored by our master, you must have heard mentioned throughout Greece as a profound geometrician.”

“Yes,” replied Theon, “but I have also heard, that since entering the garden, he has ceased to respect his science.”

“I am not aware of that,” said Leontium, “though I believe he no longer devotes to it all his time, and all his faculties. Epicurus called him from his diagrams, to open to him the secrets of physics, and the beauties of ethics; to show him the springs of human action, and lead him to the study of the human mind. He taught him, that any single study, however useful and noble in itself, was yet unworthy the entire employ of a curious and powerful intellect; that the man who pursued one line of knowledge, to the exclusion of others, though he should follow it up to its very head, would never be either learned or wise; that he who pursues knowledge, should think no branch of it unworthy attention; least of all, should he confine it to those which are unconnected with the business, and add nothing to the pleasures of life; that further not our acquaintance with ourselves, nor our fellows; that tend not to enlarge the sphere of our affections, to multiply our ideas and sensations, nor extend the scope of our inquiries. On this ground, he blamed the devotion of Polyoenus to a science that leads to other truths than those of virtue, to other study than that of man.”

“I am obliged to you for the explanation,” said Theon; “not because I could any longer have given credit to the absurd reports of your master’s enemies; but because, whatever opens to me the character and opinions of such a man, interests and improves me.”

“You will find this,” said Metrodorus, ” the more you consider them. The life of Epicurus is a lesson of wisdom. It is by example, even more than precept, that he guides his disciples. Without issuing commands, he rules despotically. His wishes are divined, and obeyed as laws; his opinions are repeated as oracles; his doctrines adopted as demonstrated truths. All is unanimity in the garden. We are a family of brothers, of which Epicurus is the father. And I say not this in praise of the scholars, but the master. Many of us have had bad habits, many of us evil propensities, many of us violent passions. That our habits are corrected, our propensities changed, our passions restrained, lies all with Epicurus. What I myself owe him, none but myself know. The giddy follower of licentious pleasure, the headstrong victim of my passions, he has made me taste of the sweets of innocence, and brought me into the calm of philosophy. It is thus — thus, by rendering us happy, that he lays us at his feet — thus that he gains, and holds the empire of our minds — thus that by proving himself our friend, he secures our respect, our submission, and our love. He cannot but know his power, yet he exerts it in no other way, than to mend our lives, or to keep them innocent. In argument, as you may have observed, he always seeks to convince rather than sway. He is as free from arrogance as from duplicity; he would neither force an opinion on the mind, nor conceal from it a truth. Ask his advice, and it is ever ready — his opinion, and he gives it clearly. Free from prejudice himself, he is tender to that of others; yet no fear of censure, or desire of popularity, ever leads him to humor it, either in his lessons or his writings. Candor, as you have already remarked, is the prominent feature of his mind; it is the crown of his perfect character. I say this, my young Corinthian, who know him. His soul, indeed, is open to all; but I have approached very near it, and considered its innermost recesses. Yes, I am proud to say it — I am one of those he has drawn most closely into his intimacy. With all my imperfections and errors, he has adopted me as a son; and, inferior as I am in years, wisdom and virtue, he deigns to call me his friend.”

Yes Don you understand in perfectly.

In addition to looking at it "practically" I think there is a natural tendency ("anticipation"??) to be drawn to thinking about questions like "divinity.". (" Are we alone in the universe? Are there higher beings?) And so I think it is natural to need a framework for dealing with those issues.

Joshua i see this comment added to the thread at Facebook. I don't recognize these two names:

Cassius I know that Swinburne and Pessoa also have poems of an Epicurean bent. May be worth looking into for inclusion!

Quote from Godfrey

As long as nothing is interfering with this process then no philosophy is necessary.

Godfrey how frequently do you think that this condition ("nothing is interfering with this process") will exist? Frequently enough that it ought to be considered a default position, on the order of observing that all young things at birth pursue pleasure and avoid pain? Or infrequently, but important to identify as the general rule? Or somewhere in between? What does the answer tell us about how we should state the general rule. Or is it useful or not useful to state a general rule?

Great research, thank you! I was thinking that Frances Wright"s treatment was probably her own overlay and it sounds like it might be . A good hypothesis about the truth, but in the end a hypothesis.

Thanks for commenting on this because yes I think this was a very interesting discussion and something that needs to be articulated better. I'm not sure we really understand the Polyaenus example either. I know Frances Wright treats it at some length, and now her commentary has replaced in my mind what may be in the ancient texts from which we are working.

Don do you agree that that the Polyaenus illustration is pretty much exactly on point? When I get back to the computer later today I will try to gather the actual references. I think we can trace them through footnotes in DeWitt if nowhere else.

Episode 30 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available:

This (I think) is the Vasari material on Raphael mentioned on the Wikipedia page. I do not see it referencing Epicurus:

Quote from Don

I'm also skeptical whether Epicurus would have had so prominent a spot right down front if we take the traditional attribution.

That's another angle on this to consider. Which position is more "prominent"? The one down front with the pudgy wreathed figure, or the position located very close to the central figures of the fresco (even if somewhat obscured)?

OK I have to apologize to everyone because I have only now had the time to follow Don's original links to see what Joshua was commenting on..... Now I see where Joshua was coming from.

At least to organize my own thoughts, if not the thread as a whole, it seems we are talking about a series of things:

1. Did Raphael have access to good information as to what Epicurus really looked like?
   
   1. The context of that question is that clearly at some point in history various book publishers featured renderings of Epicurus which were apparently "reconstructed" as if they did not have access to good information about Epicurus' likeness.
   2. On the other hand, it appears to be the case that there were busts of Epicurus at the Vatican which survived from antiquity. If the memory was also preserved that these busts were of Epicurus (which needs to be determined) then at least some Europeans retained a correct knowledge of his likeness even while books were being published elsewhere with incorrect portrayals.
   3. Is it possible that Epicurus' true face was not known anywhere with confidence until the small bust inscribed with his name was found at Herculaneum?
2. Did Raphael convey to others who each of the figures in his fresco were intended to represent?
3. If Raphael did not convey his own views to others, is there a record of a historical tradition as to who each figure was?
4. We're presumably talking about the Wikipedia attribution. What authority does the Wikipedia page cite?
5. Is it possible that Raphael knew what Epicurus really looked like, but nevertheless portrayed him as the pudgy wreathed stenographer?
6. If the pudgy wreathed stenographer was not intended to be Epicurus, is there another likely candidate for that figure?
7. What case can be made that the figure which most resembles the actual Epicurus, the bearded figure in Orange to the left of Plato, was intended by Raphael to represent Epicurus?
8. What implications can be drawn from the placement of the figures and the context in which they are placed?

It's interesting that after more than three years we finally get a discussion going on this topic! This is what "forum" software is good for - asynchronous discussion! I particularly hope that now that we have called this to michelepinto 's attention he will keep the question in mind, as being from Italy he probably is uniquely position to raise this question every so often with people who are in a position to have some really keen insight into the question.

Admin note: At this point in this discussion I moved a series of posts in this thread over to the discussion entitled "Where is Epicurus in the School of Athens?"

OKAY now I understand based on those first two photos I presumed you were talking about something from Don's link but I wasn't diligent enough to try to figure it out. Now we have a basis to explore at some future point when we both have more time. I think I am going to move these posts to the thread on the painting where they will be easier to find. Thank you!

In terms of hugging are we talking about THIS figure with the blue top? I see the hand on "her" shoulder, but I would not think anyone is asserting that hand belongs to Epicurus (in orange, two figures away)? Or are they? I am referencing this comment here.

Well that is interesting and probably a new take in the conversation. You are suggesting that regardless of whether Raphael knew what Epicurus looked like, he might have wanted to embody the current thought as to his character.

I am afraid that I don't even really know the data as to whether Raphael himself ever gave a list of who was who, or where the list we are discussing came from. When I have time I need to start at the beginning and confirm the trail of who is or was asserting the identity of these peripheral figures. Presumably Aristotle and Plato in the center were never in doubt, but I don't know the trail of history of these designations.

Thank you Michele!

And hey that is a great new AVATAR you are using!