Posts by Cassius

(a) I am pretty much ok with using concepts from the past, but it depends on how clear they are in the modern context. It appears that already in the past and even in his own time Epicurus was accusing others of misrepresenting him, so the essential issue is clarity. And I don't mind the healing attitude, so long as the remedy is clear. And possibly the issue is not so much "formulating solutions" as it is, in the first place, providing solid fundamentals that aren't just a response to problems but positive assertions in themselves.

(b) Only a little. I think i understand the Sydney group to be largely social in orientation, which is fine. The Greek organizations are much more philosophically aggressive, but I don't have a good fix on exactly where they are and where they are going. I am aware that there are divisions of viewpoints over there, and the place to start would be to get a better understanding of what those divisions are, which I have some hints of but am not sure I understand at this point. It appears from a distance that they probably wrestle with some of the same issues we are wrestling with, and I don't understand them to be as "rebellious" of other Greek schools as I perceive the need to be. But I frankly am not sure.

(c) I have heard people make comparisons to the AA approach, and I sense that that would be a productive approach, but I have not had time to pursue it myself.

This is an excerpt, with my quick comments, from Tim Okeefe's entry on Epicurus in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. It's my view that any set of core principles of Epicurus needs to at least lay the foundation, if not make totally clear, that these conclusions are wrong: https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#H5

Titus -- In further response to your question, the need to focus on a few core ideas is why I added the graphic that appears at the top of the right sidebar on the home page now. I am sure the list could be tweaked and wording improved, but at the moment these four are my best effort at selecting the most important distinguishing issues about which there ought to be unity. In my view the "tetrapharmakon does not cut it for this purpose, because (1) the focus on pleasure as the goal needs to be more clear and explicit, and (2) the separate of Epicurus from "virtue-based" reasoning is probably so important as to be in the main list. The "all good and evil consists in sensation" doesn't include the word virtue but it does provide a direct quote which seems a good starting point (as with the 'blessed life" quote). I would be tempted to substitute Diogenes of Oinoanda's "shout" quote, to clearly set out that virtue is a means to pleasure and not the end in itself, but that's probably too long for a pithy summary. However if there were one I would be tempted to change if the space allowed it, it would probably be to try to incorporate a short version of the "shout" quote or something from Torquatus on virtue. As it is, I would just use the Diogenes "shout" or explanation from Torquatus in explaining what the "good and evil" statement means.

So this is my best effort currently.

Quote from JJElbert

These categories are observations to aid with the business of living, not premises to aid with the business of Logic.

Yes I completely agree with your full post Joshua and this part in particular. It is sort of a theme of my recent Epicurean thought that it is key to watch out for the lines between logical analysis vs more strict canonical Epicurean analysis so as to avoid confusion. I do think it is necessary to play in both camps so as to be able to communicate with those on "the other side" but if you're not constantly on the lookout for the limits of logical reasoning then you're apt to be trapped. I would think this was a problem in Epicurus' day as well, but maybe it was easier to avoid when there were so many other Epicureans to assist in making sore that errors were quickly corrected.

I believe that this instance (natural and necessary) constitutes a prime example where Epicurus was willing to talk in terms that would be apt to be misconstrued if one didn't understand his premises and realize that he could NOT be talking about universally absolute standards. In my own mind I put this example next to what I think is a parallel example: that of the "limit of pleasure is the absence of pain" which cannot have been meant to convey the extreme minimalism that could be construed from it if one puts aside the bulk of the rest of the philosophy. Just as with "natural and necessary" the device can be very useful in certain types of analysis if one keeps ones head and doesn't lose sight of the big picture.

Yes "virtue-signaling" has a modern political charge to it which I don't mean to invoke in any direction. It is fairly well descriptive though, which is why I have used it somewhat, especially since the issue of 'virtue' is so closely associated with stoicism and the direction Epicurus sought to break away from.

It would definitely be good to develop additional terms to describe the overuse of "virtue-based-analysis"

Quote from Don

So, to respond to your specific questions: I think you can do both. Ideally, one increases the other. The more friends/contacts you make, the deeper one's knowledge of philosophy becomes.

Yes that's totally the way I see it, plus also the angle that you do what is possible. So far, it's really only been "possible" to get together by internet. I would like for much more, but at least internet is the start.

And you are quite right Titus to observe that (at least speaking for myself) participating in the weekly recording of the call has been extremely satisfying, and essentially a new weekly "ritual" for me that has been extremely motivational.

We have been doing monthly skype calls on the twentieth (to which anyone who would like to join should message me) but i strongly think that extending our efforts to more online get-togethers would be very helpful.

Titus:

Yes I am definitely thinking of "maps" and other curated materials, rather than just a huge database of documents. That's an issue that has been at top of my mind recently -- a huge database is as useless as a book on a shelf if it is not being used, and the accessibility tools to actually use it make all the difference.

As to question two I think the real hurdle, and thus what has to be tackled mostly, is the content and focus. There's a real tension involved here because real-world group activity requires a consensus and a goal, and it's hard to get around the problem that when you get real people together in a real local and targeted group, then that group will likely have specific goals and targets that other groups won't agree with. I see this as directly related to the "politics" question --- by marking political issues off limits we allow a consensus to grow and people to work on very high-level goals, but as soon as we start talking the kind of real local activity that we traditionally associate with local groups, you end up with divergent immediate interests and the possibility for "conflict" within and among the local groups. In order to make it work there will have to be a balance where we find a way to agree to focus on high-level goals while at the same time agreeing that we won't agree on the immediate "local" goals. We can all agree, for example, that life is short and for an eternity we exist no more, but when the question turns to how we use our limited time, we'll find much divergence of opinion, and we can't let that divergence prevent us from working together when working together is not only possible, but necessary for the survival of the philosophy.

Actually if I were being really thoughtful about the idea of focusing a program of some type on Epicurean perspectives on Romantic Love, the format would not be so much an "advice column," but instead some kind of general commentary / outline of topics / commonly confronted questions. That way a structured program could be set up around an outline of common issues or commonly asked questions, such as, for only one example, what we mentioned in this episode, the question of proper perspectives on "soul-mates."

As we continue to review the end of Book IV, I would appreciate everyone's help in considering the following:

A. Possibly the biggest obstacle to greater adoption of Epicurean philosophy by young people / people in the prime of life is the dominant view that "absence of pain" means that an Epicurean primarily runs from pain rather than pursues pleasure.

B. Romantic love is of greater intense interest to people than most any other subject.

C. The end of Book 4 clearly and forcefully makes the point that it is natural to pursue intense pleasure, and that Epicurus' advice is not to give up pleasure for the sake of experiencing no pain, but to pursue pleasure wisely so as to enjoy the pleasure (if you deem that pleasure worthwhile) without unnecessary pain.

D. This example and arguments at the end of Book 4 show in dramatic terms that the dominant interpretation of Epicurus is wrong.

E. Therefore a program of explaining Epicurean philosophy through its position on sex/romantic love would be one of the most effective ways of dealing with the biggest obstacle to wider adoption of Epicurean philosophy.

------------------

Would anyone question the proposition "that Epicurus' advice is not to give up pleasure for the sake of experiencing no pain, but to pursue pleasure wisely so as to enjoy the pleasure (if you deem that pleasure worthwhile) without unnecessary pain"?

Episode 62 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's episode, our second on the "romantic love" section of Book IV, we cover several techniques recommended by Lucretius for avoiding the pitfalls of romantic love while still experiencing the pleasures. Please let us know if you have comments or questions in the thread below, or at the permanent link here: We will be covering this topic for the next several weeks, so please be sure to let us know if you have any comments or questions, and we will try to address them over the next several episodes.

This is a new release by a respected member of the current activists for Epicurus in Greece. I have not had a chance to read it myself but it comes well recommended! It is always great to see new "popular" works on the modern relevance of Epicurus.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YDLZLHS/…15396045&sr=8-1

Just for clarification, you may sometimes see some of us refer to the author as "Babis." Here's the explanation: "Good evening dear friend! Yes this is my name. Charalambos Patzoglou. Babis or Mpampis came from Charalambos."

I did not realize that Panagiotis Pagagiotopoulous, who is active with the Athenian Epicureans, had a personal interest in Thomas Jefferson's Epicurean influences, but I see he has prepared a book on the topic - in English - which I am glad to share news of to the group. The Jefferson connection was one of my own first introductions to the importance of Epicurus, and it appears from the table of contents that Pan has covered much of the important material. Jefferson's letters contain numerous references to his preference for Epicurus and his criticism of Platonism and other anti-Epicurean views, and for those (especially Americans) who have friends who they've wanted to introduce to Epicurus, this book could prove to be very useful. Once I am able to read it myself I am sure I will have more to say about it.

The purpose of this book is to highlight the enormous influence of the ancient Greek civilization and Epicurean philosophy on the great historical figure of Thomas Jefferson and, through him, on modern society as a whole. I hope you’ll enjoy this journey into the thoughts and actions of Thomas Jefferson through his life and writings presented from a different aspect. Thomas Jefferson studied the ancient Greek and Greco-Roman civilization and the knowledge gained from that became the foundation for his inspiration and conduct. His excellent command of both Greek and Latin enabled him to read from the original texts; an ability that helped him discern which of the ancient writings led to the transition from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. The most important result of his study was that, by utilizing this knowledge, he shaped himself into an enlightened person with the aim of establishing a free society that would offer everyone the possibility of personal happiness.In a letter, dated October 31, 1823, to the Greek scholar, Adamantios Korais, who was credited with paving the way for Greek Independence, Jefferson wrote:«Nothing is more likely to forward this object than a study of the fine models of science left by their ancestors, to whom we also are all indebted for the lights which originally led ourselves out of Gothic darkness..». Jefferson delved deep into the study of antiquity by examining much of the history, poetry, architecture, and philosophy of that time. However, he clearly showed a preference for a particular philosophical school. In a letter to William Short, dated October 31, 1819, he states:“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us”.Jefferson applied his philosophy, both on an individual and collective level, throughout his entire life. He supported the idea that the individual should enjoy a lifestyle through which his mind might be as fulfilled as his body. The pleasure of reading and contemplating upon universal truths through the study of texts was to be accompanied by necessary material goods and exercise to maintain the health of the body. These were the principles through which he aimed to lead humanity on an evolutionary course of exploration to identify the fundamental elements for the creation of a civilization that would ensure the happiness of people more than any other system of his time.To these ends, he was fortunate to be born in the New World, on a continent far away from the ideological chains that held Europe captive and prevented the application of the enlightened and progressive precepts of the time. Distance afforded him to be unaffected by the rivalries between the theocratic Middle Ages and the Renaissance which, despite the important role it played in history, did not manage to transcend its own biases. Jefferson was able to see the ancient world with a clear mind and thus managed to proceed "undefiled" and without hesitation to definitive conclusions concerning the happiness of the individual and that of society in the contemporary epoch. P.P.

https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jeffers…15713935&sr=8-1

Thanks for bumping this thread Titus after almost for years - it is of continuing interest for the reasons that you say. Skimming over what I wrote four years ago I would say basically the same thing, but I think today I have a greater appreciation of the "natural and necessary" discussion being a useful teaching and application method. My concerns have always been more targeted on how I think the observation is used nowadays more than anything else. Sort of like my view of the tetrapharmakon, my concerns are not so much that there are things lacking in the way they were originally presented as much as how attitudes I think are prevalent today encourage their misinterpretation.

Even though no specific list that fits everyone everywhere and all the time is practical, certainly the idea of evaluating our choices according to whether the choice is necessary for life, and whether it stems from needs that are "natural" to all of us, will be of assistance in calculating expected costs and benefits from selecting particular choices. My concern that people should not expect to discover a "magical" list does not take away from the real benefit that someone who approaches the questions properly can gain from the analysis. I do still think that this is one area that Cicero relayed pretty faithfully, and that it is accurate to say that "the principle of classification [is] that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered."

Godfrey has reminded us that we need to keep in mind a comparison of Lucretius's commentary on this subject with Plato's views --- which he says may be in Phaedrus, but unfortunately I don't know much about his views beyond the generic definition of "Platonic love" RE: Episode Sixty-One - The Perils of Romantic Love (Part 1)

I'll see if i can find some basic info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

Platonic love (often lower-cased as platonic love)^[1] is a type of love that is not sexual. It is named after Greek philosopher Plato, though the philosopher never used the term himself. Platonic love as devised by Plato concerns rising through levels of closeness to wisdom and true beauty from carnal attraction to individual bodies to attraction to souls, and eventually, union with the truth. This is the ancient, philosophical interpretation. Platonic love is examined in Plato's dialogue, the Symposium, which has as its topic the subject of love, or more generally the subject of Eros. It explains the possibilities of how the feeling of love began and how it has evolved, both sexually and non-sexually, and defines genuine platonic love as inspiring a person's mind and soul and directing their attention towards spiritual matters. Of particular importance is the speech of Socrates, who attributes to the prophetess Diotima an idea of platonic love as a means of ascent to contemplation of the divine, an ascent is known as the "Ladder of Love". For Diotima and Plato generally, the most correct use of love of human beings is to direct one's mind to love of divinity. Socrates defines love based on separate classifications of pregnancy (to bear offspring); pregnancy of the body, pregnancy of the soul, and direct connection to existence. Pregnancy of the body results in human children. Pregnancy of the soul, the next step in the process, produces "virtue"—which is the soul (truth) translating itself into material form.[3] "... virtue for the Greeks means self-sameness ... in Plato's terms, Being or idea."(106)[3] Eros Pausanias, in Plato's Symposium (181b–182a), defines two types of the love known as "Eros": vulgar Eros, or earthly love, and divine Eros, or divine love. Pausanias defines vulgar Eros as material attraction towards a person's beauty for the purposes of physical pleasure and reproduction, and divine Eros as starting from physical attraction but transcending gradually to love for supreme beauty, placed on a similar level to the divine. This concept of divine Eros was later transformed into the term "platonic love". Vulgar Eros and divine Eros were both considered to be connected, and part of the same continuous process of pursuing perfection of one's being,[4] with the purpose of mending one's human nature and eventually reaching a point of unity where there is no longer an aspiration or need to change.[5] "Eros is ... a moment of transcendence ... in so far as the other can never be possessed without being annihilated in its status as the other, at which point both desire and transcendence would cease ...

Godfrey if that is a theme of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" - which I have never read - I would be interested in whether there are also paralllels to Lucian's "Hermotimus" - if you have read that. I think of Hermotimus as one of the best arguments against chasing too many rabbits, but I did not realize that that was an aspect of "ZATAOMM"

Great point Godfrey. "Platonic love" must have its origin somewhere, so we need to look that up. Hard to believe we didn't comment on that aspect and I'll try to remember for the next episode as it is always good to contrast Epicurus with Plato.

Quote from Don

They like simple answers to complex questions. Black and white, not grey. Epicureanism makes you do the work.

Yep I think it is a combination of SIMPLE plus (to many) "distasteful," and I think probaby the "distaste" outweighs the "simplicity" issue. On that point here's one of the sections of "A Few Days In Athens" I think is well stated:

Quote

“It might seem strange,” said Metrodorus, “that the pedantry of Aristotle should find so many imitators, and his dark sayings so many believers, in a city, too, now graced and enlightened by the simple language, and simple doctrines of an Epicurus. — But the language of truth is too simple for inexperienced ears. We start in search of knowledge, like the demigods of old in search of adventure, prepared to encounter giants, to scale mountains, to pierce into Tartarean gulfs, and to carry off our prize from the grip of some dark enchanter, invulnerable to all save to charmed weapons and deity-gifted assailants. To find none of all these things, but, in their stead, a smooth road through a pleasant country, with a familiar guide to direct our curiosity, and point out the beauties of the landscape, disappoints us of all exploit and all notoriety; and our vanity turns but too often from the fair and open champaigne, into error’s dark labyrinths, where we mistake mystery for wisdom, pedantry for knowledge, and prejudice for virtue.”

“I admit the truth of the metaphor,” said Theon. “But may we not simplify too much as well as too little? May we not push investigation beyond the limits assigned to human reason, and, with a boldness approaching to profanity, tear, without removing, the veil which enwraps the mysteries of creation from our scrutiny?”

“Without challenging the meaning of the terms you have employed,” said Metrodorus, “I would observe, that there is little danger of our pushing investigation too far. Unhappily the limits prescribed to us by our few and imperfect senses must ever cramp the sphere of our observation, as compared to the boundless range of things; and that even when we shall have strained and improved our senses to the uttermost. We trace an effect to a cause, and that cause to another cause, and so on, till we hold some few links of a chain, whose extent like the charmed circle, is without beginning as without end.”

Another point --- It's very easy to simply say. "Follow pleasure!" and things like "Do what makes you happy!" but to have a philosophical movement, you have to explain why your point of view is correct, and why the absolutist ethical viewpoints are not valid. It can be very easy and superficial to talk about pleasure and happiness -- everyone sort of acknowledges the desirability of those things - but Epicurean philosophy is really a comprehensive view of the nature of the universe that when followed to its logical conclusions totally invalidates the absolutist approach. When you start talking in those terms, you pretty quickly move from being an amusing oddity to the establishment toward being a revolutionary threat to everything they believe in and hold dear, and that's a totally different ballgame.

Not many people are ready or willing or able to take Epicurean philosophy to its logical conclusions. Anchoring and lleaving the discussion at the "Follow pleasure" level guarantees that most people won't give a second thought to taking you seriously.

In these categories (secularists, humanists) and in the two names you mentioned (i've left out freethinkers), I think there is a key problem in that there is not yet a full and dramatic separation from the "virtue ethics" approach that's probably close to the root of Stoicism. For example I have a lot of appreciation for Catherine Wilson but I think her books fail to draw a distinction between her own personal social preferences (which we all have) from the philosophical underpinnings. Every time we represent our own ethical choices to be "the Epicurean view" on an ethical controversy, I think we bury the ultimate point deeper -- that there is no basis in the philosophy for representing that our own choices are the "correct" one. In that I think each of the categories are adopting the Stoic "one size fits all" approach, and that's deadly for the contextual and sensation-based roots of Epicurean thinking. In my view they are essentially Stoics, just taking the position that their own view of what's pleasing to them should be adopted by everyone as part of the philosophy. I'm no expert on Kant but wasn't that his view -- to be valid a position has to be extensible to everyone everywhere all the time?

I think to be philosophically consistent you have to do both -- affirm (1) that you understand that there is no single "good" for everyone, and your choices are no more justified by gods or idealism than anyone else's, while at the same time (2) asserting that your and your friends who see things the same way are going to pursue, to the best of your ability, your own version of the best way of life independently from those who see things differently.

Quote from Don

I suppose a natural audience would be secularists, humanists, and freethinkers.

It's so frustrating because one would think exactly that, but in my experience those groups have been no better than average, or maybe possibly worse as target audiences. Possibly in large part because many who have joined those camps have done so more due to their rejection of establishment morality as a personal preference rather than because they recognized that there is no idealist or religious basis for the establishment view. Either they are into virtue ethics and remaking the world in their own vision, or they are rebels without a cause, rejecting Epicurean efforts at systematic thought as much as they reject any other.

Quote from Don

referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP is off-putting. It's very in-group jargony with no semantic content to a wider world.

Quote from Don

What's the natural audience for Epicureans? (I genuinely don't have an answer. Thoughts?)

I think these questions are related. I agree that the issue of the "ism" terminology is lost on most modern English speakers (hard for me to be sure about other languages) and I don't think the question should be made a priority in dealing with someone who doesn't see the point. I do think that some interesting points can be made by discussion the question of "isms," because there are lots of aspects of Epicurean philosophy beyond just the role of pleasure and pain, which is why a label such as "Pleasurism" or even"Hedonism" doesn't work for me, and why I never use the "Hedonist" label. Discussing the issue of what "Epicureanism" is helps flesh out that it's more than just a system of ethics. But the way most people understand the "ism" suffix (in my experience) is that it just means "system of thought" and there's nothing necessarily negative about that.

The natural audience probably would be a subset of whatever type person it is who wants a coherent system of thought - not everyone seems to want or care about having one. I don't know that this should always be true, but it seems to be a lot easier to identify the type of person who is naturally "not an Epicurean" than "naturally is an Epicurean." There's definitely a list of attributes that can be identified, though, and among them would be the degree to which a person values thinking independently from the larger group. The issue isn't a matter of objecting for the sake of objecting, or naturally being uncooperative, but more a matter of determination to follow one's own sense of pleasure and pain rather than taking those cues from the larger society.