Posts by Cassius

That sounds fascinating! Not much I can do myself with the French but I am optimistic that there is a lot of unrecognized high-quality material especially in the French writers.

That is an excellent collection of links Charles - thank you!

I am sorry to have been away but my power has just now returned after being off for most of two days. I will catch up as quickly as I can!

Quote from Charles

. Man was born to think & to act, & Philosophy is made to regulate the understanding & the will of man: everything that deviates from this goal is frivolous.

Wow that is quite a non-Epicurean start, in my humble opinion! I have not had a chance to read the full article but I will. Thanks for posting this Charles because I think it is very helpful to post and go through as many of the older "encyclopedia" entries that we can find.

If I am delayed in responding to more posts in the next 24 hours or so don't be concerned:-) My area had a tornado come through with a wide power outage and I am having to ration my cell phone battery!

Edit: I first added this as a comment in the thread on Chapter 2, but I see it needs to be here on Chapter One more so than on Chapter two:

I now realize that part of what we may be observing here is that DeWitt wrote the early chapters, as he says, following the model of Epicurus himself, starting with a synopsis of the whole, at a higher level of outline, while reserving the details of his analysis for later chapters. So DeWitt's reasoning on "sound mind - sound body" takes place much later in the book, under Chapter TWELVE - "The New Hedonism" - rather than in the highest-level outline, which is Chapter One. He makes the assertion in Chapter one, but reserves the backup detail for Chapter twelve.

Rather than being a defect this is intentional and I think beneficial. The Epicurean model was to make sure that the final conclusions were not buried under mounds of notes and academic verbiage. You play fair with the reader by telling him very early where you are going. Then if the reader wants to stick around for the evidence that supports the detail, he can do so, but the primary outline of Epicurean philosophy is not buried under tons of words that only the hard-core academic is going to dig out. That's the way life is - we only get a short time to engage with any one person before they tend to move along to something else, so you need to tell them as quickly as possible what is important about the detail, so they can choose whether they want to pursue it.

So that's the most general answer to this comment:

Quote

Quote from Eugenios DeWitt's penchant for making assertions with no context or citations or context.

- Yes, I can see how what you observe in Chapter one could be confusing when contrasted with the academic approach, but this is the "multi-level outline" model as suggested by Epicurus himself in the letter to Herodotus:

Quote

But those also who have made considerable progress in the survey of the main principles ought to bear in mind the scheme of the whole system set forth in its essentials. For we have frequent need of the general view, but not so often of the detailed exposition. Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered, if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail.

This is what I recall as to "sound mind in sound body" --

I now realize that part of what we may be observing here is that DeWitt wrote the early chapters, as he says, following the model of Epicurus himself, starting with a synopsis of the whole, at a higher level of outline, while reserving the details of his analysis for later chapters. So the quoted part takes place much later in the book, under Chapter TWELVE - "The New Hedonism" - rather than in the highest-level outline, chapter one.

Rather than being a defect this is intentional and I think beneficial. The Epicurean model was to make sure that the final conclusions were not buried under mounds of academic verbiage. You play fair with the reader by telling him very early where you are going. Then if the reader wants to stick around for the evidence that supports the detail, then he can do so, but the primary outline of Epicurean philosophy is not buried under tons of words that only the hard-core academic is going to dig out. That's the way life is - we only get a short time to engage with any one person before they tend to move along to something else, so you need to tell them as quickly as possible what is important about the detail, if they choose to pursue it.

So that's the most general answer to this comment:

Quote from Eugenios

DeWitt's penchant for making assertions with no context or citations or context.

- yes that's the "multi-level outline" model as suggested by Epicurus himself in the letter to Herodotus.

As far as Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine, I read the essence of the criticism to be that you are saying that DeWitt implies that they "had Epicurean affinities." I don't recall in my reading of DeWitt that this was confusing - everyone knows that the early "fathers" were bitter enemies of Epicurus, and Dewitt is just making the point that they sometimes expressed grudging respect for Epicurean social values. I did not come away from these references thinking that DeWitt was over the line or confusing the points, both of which (they were bitter enemies; they respected certain non-theological aspects) would appear to be true.

As far as a sound mind in sound body I thought I remember DeWitt saying explicitly that this phrasing does not occur, but that it is a logical implication of Epicurean philosophy, which it certainly seems to me to be. I wouldn't doubt also that Juvenal could sound Stoic, as I have not read him in detail, but I do not think that Juvenal's being of mixed mind would undercut DeWitt's point. Were it not for DeWitt stressing the differences between Epicurus and the Stoics, as he does throughout the book, many readers of Epicurus would be stuck in the modern "they're essentially the same" mindset.

As far as persuading "human nature" rather than nature" I recall that section being rather clear too, that he was making the point that Nature has no mind and is thus not something that can logically be persuaded, but that "human nature" is the sum of individual human minds and thus is the only logical meaning of a reference to "persuading."

-----

In general sum at the moment I do want to say that I do think it is great that you are writing up these concerns in detail and I think it will be a valuable contribution to address any and all of them, so thank you! By no means do I think that the DeWitt book is perfect so it is helpful to be able to discuss and look into all details. The value of the DeWitt book is not that it is perfect, but that it raises issues and arguments that are almost totally excluded from contemporary writing about Epicurus. We just have to read and judge for ourselves how much value those arguments have. As for me, they are hugely valuable, and made the difference between my writing off Epicurus as a passive decadent, as I read Nietzsche to have done, vs. reading him as a philosophical and social revolutionary, worthy of deep and extensive study, as DeWitt saw him. Quite possibly it depends on one's background as to how one reacts to DeWitt's interest in comparing Epicurus with Christianity. My personal background led me to find his "St Paul and Epicurus" very interesting and helpful, but ultimately the implications of Epicurus far transcend the issue of whether early Christians viewed Epicurus as an antichrist. On this I take the side I perceive DeWitt and Nietzsche both to be on, which is that Epicurus was aggressively battling in pre-existing forms the worst corruptions that plague human existence, and that it is the opposite of the truth to see Epicurus as essentially leading a bunch of elderly people in a nursing home justifying their having wasted their lives by fancying that they should be satisfied with a cave, bread, water, and a couple of friends (the modern non-DeWitt consensus).

Quote from Eugenios

The items I've found just through Chapter 2 give me pause and make me feel that I can't quite take what he writes at face value.

As general comments on all of the post, until I have time to come back to the details - it is certainly true that no reader should take any commentator on Epicurus at face value without reading into the details and judging for himself. The allusions to Christianity in DeWitt are a direction I personally would not have gone, but no one who understands Epicurus is going to be confused about Epicurus' attitude toward supernatural religion, which is the ultimate point. The references I remember from deWitt relate mainly to issues of social relationships and interactions and those strike me as at least partially true, but ultimately largely irrelevant to the big picture. The ultimate question in evaluating DeWitt is whether he gives the reader the broader understanding that people are just not going to get if they fixate on the ethics of "absence of pain" and ignore the rest of the philosophy and the history.

As to "enemy of religion" I would have to look at particular passages but as a general rule I think DeWitt was making an important point - the Epicureans viewed "religion" as differently as they viewed "gods" and within their context they were devoutly religious. We may have difficulty explaining that to modern ears but that's not necessarily a fault of the Epicureans.

As far as the comments on the missionary / evangelizing aspect, I find DeWitt's comments to be generally consistent with what I read in other commentators, as there seems to be a general consensus that Epicureans were very interested in spreading the word to others, not the least of the evidence in support of which appears to be the many books of Epicurus and Lucretius' poem itself. To me, it is natural that this perspective creates in the person who digs into it a desire to talk about it to others, obviously not indiscriminately, but to anyone you are seriously concerned about as a friend.

And as to Stoicism, I think DeWitt is primarily referring to it as an organized school consistent with the founding. Modern Stoics hardly deserve the name at all, and even Marcus Aurelius was a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. In fairness to DeWitt I would interpret his comments as referring to the end of the organized school coinciding with the emergence of Christianity or whatever period seems consistent with the end of its pure form. As to Epicurean philosophy one could also take the position that the essence of Epicurus is found in the atomistic non-supernatural universe, which was not so amenable to being melded in with the emergence of Christianity. What came afterward in the vague adoption of "happiness" as the goal of life hardly deserves the name of Epicurean philosophy any more than does the modern version of Stoicism deserve the name Stoic.

Hello and welcome to the forum @moldovanyi !

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!

1. No, you can't go back to reading De Rerum Natura until you're finished reading the Norman DeWitt book!

2. Based on my limited knowledge of Buddhism I do see why you draw the similarities, which I recall doing in this podcast with Elayne. As more time goes by my perception is that the big point is not so much that there are technical similarities on these points as in the place where you end up after factoring in the details. My perception (unfair or fair as it might be) is that the Buddhists end up in a place of "Stoic-like" acceptance and resignation that becomes hard to distinguish from passivity and resignation. Whether this results from their conclusion being that they are somehow one with the universe and just want to accept their fate, or not, I leave to someone who knows better, but that is my perception of the demeanor and attitude that I associate with Buddhism.

And I see that same attitude in the "Tranquility" emphasis that some want to read in Epicurus. My own perception of Epicurus is that the tranquility angle is not correct, or at least it is by no means the majority, and that Epicurus meant what he said about (1) pleasure, and (2) the shortness of life, so that rather than passivity and resignation and acceptance of fate, an Epicurean will "seize the day" and make the best of the life that is available to him or her, seeking to fill the life that is available with the most pleasant experiences as they subjectively judge those to be valuable to them.

But I also think now that there is no way to dig in and then unravel these details without solid grounding in the physics, which if accepted totally disabuse one of any post-death existence, or any reason to live whatsoever but for pleasure, and someone who doesn't start with that orientation will happly sit round the campfire, arm in arm with a Stoic on one side and a Buddhist on the other chanting "cum-bay-ya my lord" til dawn. To each his own, but that is not how I want to spend *my* life, and I don't think that's what most ancient Epicureans understood the message to be either.

Thank you for listening and for the very helpful comments!

Episode 13 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, we discuss how Lucretius explains the Epicurean analysis of the things we experience as either being properties or qualities of the bodies that arise from combinations of atoms. We'll discuss how we use this knowledge to come to an understanding of how human experiences are subjective, while the atoms themselves exist independently of our experience. And we'll apply this perspective to analyzing how human events such as the Trojan War, no matter how significant, do not have an eternal separate existence of their own. We hope you will enjoy this episode and that you will leave us comments, suggestions and questions in the thread below.

A thorough review of all of Horace and Virgil would no doubt produce tremendous numbers of interesting and relevant quotes. Also, I know I have learned so much from reading the full "On Ends" by Cicero that I want to try to read as many of his works as possible. I wish my college reading in classics had been much better or I had a new lifetime to devote to it. Please be sure to post whatever you find.

Who is the translator, Joshua?

I don't often post screen clips from other locations, but I don't think this person participates here, and I have to preserve his comment along with my response:

There was a major disagreement between Epicurus and Aristotle/Plato as to the role of "reason" and "logic" in the determination of "truth."

This is described clearly in the following excerpt written by Phillip DeLacy in his book "Philodemus - On Methods of Inference." I have underlined in red the critical parts, in which DeLacy concludes that Aristotle held that "knowledge can be obtained only through a combination of observation and reason" and "inferences from signs are not reliable except in cases where the inferences may be converted into valid syllogisms."

Compare that to the position of Epicurus as stated by Diogenes Laertius, in which "reason" is not a part of the "Canon of truth," and "it is the reality of separate perceptions that guarantees the truth of our senses," as well as "For all our notions are derived from perceptions, either by actual contact or by analogy, or resemblance, or composition, with some slight aid from reasoning."

You can decide for yourself whether you agree with Epicurus and how to apply this distinction, but this difference in viewpoint has huge implications in seeing how far Epicurus diverged from the other Greek philosophers.

References:

Here is the appendix of Philodemus: On Methods of Inference by Phillip and Estelle De Lacy

Here is a direct link to its location in the PDF.    The basic point De Lacy is making is that Aristotle (and even more strongly, Plato) held that "truth" can only be established "where the inferences may be converted into valid syllogisms." This leads to the conclusion that "knowledge can be obtained only through a combination of observation and reason.

But first before reading DeLacy remember the position of Epicurus, as stated by Diogenes Laertius, here in the RD Hicks translation, that "reason" is not a part of the canon of truth:

Now here is the De Lacy commentary on Aristotle, showing that reason/logic is essentially the ULTIMATE test of "truth":

Quote from Godfrey

I could have reviewed the text, but didn't.

And of course getting people interested in reviewing the text is ONE, but not the ONLY one, of the goals of the quiz. Lot's of balancing to do here; thanks for calling it to my attention.

Godfrey yes as to question 5, Episode two, I can see how that one is not so easy. I think that Elayne helps stress in that episode how the issue with Agamemnon's example is not "all child sacrifice is offensive" because that would be an absolute bright line that would imply an absolute morality. The issue is much more: "child sacrifice offends our feelings at least in most cases." That focuses on feeling as the root of Epicurean morality and gives us an emotional example that no matter how strong our feelings are in a particular situation, that never crosses over into a bright line that "all killing of children at all times for all reasons by all people in all places" is intrinsically "bad" or "evil."

And that is a huge point to be made and drilled in for a proper understanding of Epicurean ethics.

I can see that that one is difficult, especially given the way I wrote the option regarding Agamemnon. That's an example of how I will need to weigh and balance the purpose of the quiz and how easy we want scoring to be. I'll definitely mark that one as one to consider as we move forward.

Thanks for letting me know! Definitely the "which are not" are going to be more tricky. Let me look into the individual questions and also think about how "hard" they should be, our target audience, etc.

This is a thread for general discussion of the use and revisions to the quiz function of the forum. I would appreciate over time if people would let us know comments, questions, suggestions, etc, about this function. And here's one good use of this thread: I just recently added the first two quizzes for the Lucretius review. I checked the results and see this for the BOOK ONE PART ONE Quiz result:

Uh-oh, for Eugenios and Godfrey to get exactly the same 77.8 percent result, there must be a particular question or two that may be weirdly worded or even wrong. I am not sure that I have the ability to check individual test results to see what questions caused the issues. Can you guys let me know if I have a question or two you disagree with?

One of these days I will move these questions into a full-blown "Moodle" or similar computerized learning format, so anytime someone sees a particular question which could be improved, let me know.