Posts by Cassius

Happy Birthday to Pimagus! Learn more about Pimagus and say happy birthday on Pimagus's timeline: Pimagus

This is the level at which these issues of what "science" says really concern us. This, from that article, is what I would say Epicurus was concerned about too.

Quote

Bacon despised Aristotle’s ideas on deductive reasoning, not only because it was a direct contradiction to his methods of inductive reasoning, but also because he felt that it was more suited to disputation than for the discovery of practical facts. Additionally, Bacon saw syllogistic reasoning, which is a form of deductive reasoning that was widely used at that time, as “utterly useless for discovering the laws of nature and for applying them to the solution of practical problems”, which, as discussed before, was Bacon’s prime purpose for science. (Broad, 1958, p.51). This is because the general premises of which reasoned the conclusion were derived too rashly and were drawn from flawed observation, or worse, no observation and experimentation at all; he called this phenomenon the ‘anticipation of nature’. Furthermore, Bacon saw Aristotle’s procedures of syllogism as being circular: the premise of the syllogism was also a conclusion that had to be supported by premises; a process that would go round and round forever, never achieving any form of practical application (Dear, 2009, p.4; Bacon, 2020, sec.31). His solution was his method of inductive reasoning which started with the collection of data, followed by methodical, inductive investigation which produces applicable, practical knowledge (Klein & Giglioni, 2018, sec.5). Therefore, Bacon heavily criticised Aristotle’s method of deductive reasoning, as it did not serve the purpose of science and was highly inaccurate to deriving truthful facts and this criticism, he hoped, would convince the people of his time to use his method of inductive reasoning.

Quote from Rolf

it seems as if “absence of pain” as a concept denoting the limit of pleasure is primarily intended as proof that a life of consistent pleasure is possible and attainable. If pleasure had no limit, then we’d constantly be trying to fill our bottomless cup.

Since that is the analogy that is explicitly stated at the opening of Lucretius Book 6, I think you are on firm ground:

Quote from Lucretius Book 6 - Bailey

he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in.

also:

Quote from Rolf

As I’m writing this it doesn’t seem as clear to me as it did in my head… This seemingly simple topic makes me head spin!

What you wrote is very clear and makes complete sense. When you see that the vessel has a limit then you see that it can be filled. The problem comes in trying to stretch the analogy too far. Analogizing an Epicurean-inspired life to a well-formed jar solves the false allegation that a life of pleasure can never be complete, but it does not answer the question of what kind of pleasure you should use to fill your jar.

If any pleasure would do, what about the pleasure of thinking that god directs your life so that everything works together for good if you love the lord, or the pleasure of thinking that you will be lifted to heaven when you die? It is undeniable that those thoughts can be pleasurable too -- are you going to fill your jar with those kinds of pleasures?

The answer is "no," and while the vessel analogy can still be used to an extent (maybe you can say that those pleasures evaporate so the jar doesn't stay full) the vessel analogy can't fulfill every need for explanation of the issues.

This wouldn't be a problem except for those who want to suggest that "absence of pain" is a specific pleasure in itself. It is impossible to name such a pleasure, because all pleasures and pains are discrete experiences, and "absence of anything" doesn't describe a specific experience. Absence of a heap of sand doesn't tell you anything about what IS at the location you are discussing. Absence of pain tells you that pleasure is there, but ONLY because you have previously identified that whenever pain is absent, what is in that location is some form of pleasure. But you aren't stating what kind of pleasure is present without going into further detail, and if anyone wants to suggest that all pleasures are exactly the same then they are speaking nonsense. That's ust like Epicurus describes (in the letter to Menoeceus) the man who says that it is better to never be born, or rush to death. Such a man is talking lies or nonsense, because he could easily end is life if that is what he really thought.

I apologize to everyone who may have been affected, but unfortunately we have had to reset the forum to 3:20 AM Eastern time on September 21, 2025.

I have been monitoring posting and I do not think much new posting has been lost, and I am addressing the one post I know about with that user.

However I am not able to determine what may have transpired today in private conversations, so if you posted anything over the last 24 hours please check to be sure it is still available if it is of importance.

I very much apologize for this, which resulted from an update to a forum feature that has now been properly updated. It should not be necessary to deal with problems like this very often, but they do occur, so as a reminder if you do invest lots of time in composing material that is irreplaceable, it's always prudent to keep a local copy.

If anyone sees that they posted something in the last 24 hours that appears to have been deleted, please let me know and I will see if recovery is possible.

Thanks as always for your participation at EpicureanFriends.com!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that LaSage claimed that he had all the answers. As far as i know, he didn't invent an anti-gravity machine or do anything else to prove his theories with finality beyond advancing the general theory that gravity is explained by particle flows. Particle flows are phenomena for which we do have analogs in real-world experience, whereas those who suggest theories that have no experimental or analogical argument at all do not have such a basis.

The real issue here is not who has the final answer and who doesn't, but that of retaining confidence that there will at some point be an explanation which comports with that which we do observe, and not - at any point while we wait - defer to theories that are self-consistent but which have no contact with the reality that we do observe. Especially when those theories are used to undermine the confidence of laymen that there is a natural order to things rather than a supernatural or chaotic basis.

I consider all information about people like LeSage and others who explore rational explanations for phenomena that is poorly understood to be helpful to everyone as examples of the right attitude, regardless if they don't complete the job that we'd like to see completed.

Thanks Bryan! I have never heard of Le Sage but that gives me some reading to do. It is intuitively the most likely explanation without hocus pocus and presumably relates to magnetism as well. And it fits well with the modern tendency such as Krauss to talk about space not really being empty. Of course it's not, there are "particles" flowing everywhere and in all directions.

Quote

Le Sage's theory of gravitation is a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance.

Welcome to Episode 300 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we will commemorate our 300th episode and relate where we have been over the years to where we are now as we dive further into the details of Cicero's and Plutarch's criticism against Epicurus. We'll spend more time on the second of Cicero's criticisms as to absence of pain in Section XX, and develop a useful analogy between the teachings of Epicurus and the lesson of King Canute.

Quote from Don

Some may object to my saying mortals can never be free from all pain and say something like What's the use of Epicurus' philosophy then.

At least as to me I don't object to it, and I think most everyone here (where we generally have a realistic view of things) will agree. Total absence of pain is pretty obviously a theoretical goal more rather than established fact for any human being at any time. And it's confusion about that which is causing most of the debate and division on what Epicurus was talking about. (And that's most likely why you're concerned that "some may object to [your] saying that" because we can all observe that most of the world is talking as if Epicurus were in fact describing some real condition of total separation from pain.)

Last night in our zoom, Tau Phi offered the analogy that it is understandable that we are always feeling something because we are made up of atoms moving through the void, and the atoms never stop moving, and our sensations as emergent properties of these motions is going to naturally be always responding to internal and external motions so long as we are together and alive.

Similarly, I would expect there is another "physics" analogy on why we should not look to "ecstasy" as the best definition of the highest pleasure.

We talked last night about the "impossibility" of constant ecstasy, and I think we can also analogize that to physics terms. At least theoretically, the "gods" might be able to remain in constant ecstacy, if they so choose, because it's a characteristic of the intermundia (from Lucretius) that it supplies their every need and it is a totally friendly and supportive environment.

Our world, however, is not so constantly supportive. We're constantly buffeted by external and internal motions that would tear us apart literally and figuratively if we did not act to respond to them. A constant state of ecstasy in response to outside influences would not provide a mechanism for us to repair and sustain ourselves in the face of this buffeting. We can't constantly eat fish and drink wine and have sex because given the nature of our world that will lead to dissolution from any number of factors. We *must* take time away from being stimulated so as to exert our own actions to keep us as nearly as possible in constant pleasure, keeping in mind that there are many kinds of pleasures and that some are more productive of repair and regrowth than are others.

While we all recognize the benefits of ecstasy, we also have to keep in mind that we need to pursue other pleasures, and even at times pains, so as to keep our own atoms of body and mind in healthy condition and peak performance.

I think we'll be hearing more from Chump soon. In the meantime, here's what he's now sent me:

Quote

Hello, sorry for the late response I was trying to respond to the post in the welcome thread but I think my activation didn’t work. I have clicked the activation email.

For about me, my personal background is that I am a graduate student studying economics. Past reading that I have done is some of the vatican sayings but I am relatively new to deeper study of Epicurus. I have started reading Dewitt’s book as well as per the suggestion of this forum. Discovery of this forum happened while googling about epicurean groups.

Best

Welcome aboard Chump!

From our zoom discussion last night, here is another way of asking the question:

The average person likely presumes that "the highest pleasure," is what we might call "ecstasy," and Epicurus says something not far from that in U423 (from Plutarch) where Epicurus says that the meaning of good is the near escape from some disaster, which I think most people would consider to name a condition of jubilation at having been delivered from a calamity.

If ecstasy / jubilation is what most people - and even Epicurus - seem to identify as a specific condition of extreme pleasure, then why isn't that also "the highest pleasure?"

That's the normal approach that Cicero and Plutarch think the world will agree with, and they are probably right.

Why should that line of thinking be considered to be incorrect? Why is "Ecstasy" not the highest / greatest pleasure?

Quote from Adrastus

The pleasurability brought about by clearing the mind and setting the Epicurean student on the reasonable approach to life using the Doctrine and other sources of Epicurean philosophy, ought to be, philosophically and teleologically, a distinct state of affairs from the myriad of ideas one could bring to the table about Pleasure and Pain and pathos in general.

Now there is a statement that deserves more comment, because I place that framing squarely within the "heap" / sorities framing. Like grains of sand, there are myriad experiences that can be described as pleasure, and yet "happiness" or "the best life" or "the highest pleasure" is not found in any one of them, any more than "heapness" is found in any particular grain of sand.

It is surely legitimate to talk about heaps as real, and likewise talk about happiness or "the greatest pleasure" as real, and yet the latter (happiness, the highest pleasure) are not found in any one single experience, or set of experiences.

And that's why it is necessary to be clear to people that "heap" is a concept rather than a particular "thing," just like happiness and the highest pleasure are not particular "things."

Last week we spent the entire time continuing to discuss the question of comparison of pleasure between a physicist and a lion.

This week we'll first see if there is any followup to that, and after that we'll cover the topic originally scheduled for last week:

"Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time"

Discussion Guide: Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time

Hello chump! I received your initial email but did not receive anything in response to my request that you tell us more about your background and interest in Epicurus. Please do that here - we look forward to hearing from you.

Welcome chump

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum 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 and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and 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 already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

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. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

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.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Don

That's the point. What they rightly subjectively perceive as blahness isn't the highest pleasure. They are not really free from all pain. I would go so far as to say that none of us are ever going to be at the highest pleasure.

I agree with that.

But ok, where's the disconnect? Torquatus is making these statements very "flatly," He's speaking almost literally "The absence of pain is pleasure - in fact it's the highest pleasure." And I'd say that Epicurus is doing the same thing in the letter to Menoeceus. There's an explanation for the different perspectives, but I don't think we are yet articulating that explanation as Epicurus would.

For the generic man-on-the-street "I feel no pain" doesn't translate into "you are experiencing the height of pleasure" without more explanation that tells them how they are "looking at things" wrong. And leaving out the explanation as Cicero and Plutarch do makes Epicurus looks ridiculous. In the case of Epicurus' letter to Menoeceus I think we can excuse the omission on the grounds that Menoeceus was to all appearances a student, for whom this letter was a summary, and he would be expected to know the full explanation. But for those of us reading Cicero or Plutarch or reading the letter out of context, there's much more to be said.

Quote from Don

"It depends how you look at it" plays into the other person's hands. You've accepted their terms and are agreeing to play by their rules on their turf.

Ok that's why I am thinking that the approach would be controversial, but I am not yet sure that it isn't essentially what Epicurus is saying. Again playing off Joshua's observation, we'd have to deal with the subjectivity of the whole question and whether it is every appropriate to tell someone that what they are feeling is different from what they perceive it to be.

We can definitely dispute about "opinions," but I am not sure that it makes sense to say essentially "if you think about it this current feeling that you perceive as blahness is really the greatest pleasure anyone can experience in life!"

Don I note you did not comment on this:

Quote from Cassius

Would it start with "It depends on how you look at it"?

Would such a start be obvious, or controversial?

Does that mean that you think "it depends on how you look at it" would be incorrect?

In this case we're not talking about physics, where the ultimate questions certainly don't depend on how you look at it. Atoms and void don't exist or not depending on how we look at them.

And we're not really talking about individual feelings of pain and pleasure, which like snow is white honey is sweet are unmistakable.

But in regard to "pleasure" conceptually as the guide of life or "happiness" as the goal, does it in fact depend on how you choose to look at it?

Quote from Don

Nothing. I am in a neutral state, I am feeling neither pleasure nor pain.

Then you are not alive but dead.

Harrrrumph! Well, the absence of pain is not the highest pleasure.

If you are alive, you are *feeling*, experiencing sensations. Someone who is alive is always feeling...

As to especially "then you are not alive but dead" and also "someone who is alive is always feeling," that is not the way most people talk, and Cicero is going to win that argument every day of the week in front of most juries, Greek, Roman, or today. When it's Epicurus' turn to speak, he's going to have to give more explanation than that to satisfy any fair-minded jury.

In a recent zoom meeting TauPhi raised this issue in regard to "the size of the sun is as it appears to be" (and perhaps as to other contexts as well). He said in essence that "sloganeering" can be fun but it is not persuasive.

Not saying that you or Epicurus are sloganeering or not being a fair-minded juror of course, but I think you know what I mean! What we have looks like sloganeering because the enemies of Epicurus have selectively preserved the part they want to keep without the part that explains it.

When people of good faith are being approached with something new, they have to be brought along at the right speed. I'm thinking more along the lines of the way Frances Wright has Epicurus speaking to Zeno in A Few Days In Athens, there needs to be a "wind-up" before the pitch. "If you are alive you are feeling something" and "absence of pain is pleasure" and "absence of pain is in fact the highest pleasure" are smoking-hot fastballs on which most batters are going to strike out.

But we're not trying to deceive the batter and strike him out by throwing it past him. We're trying to telegraph the pitch, and deliver it right over the plate so the batter can hit it out of the park.

Quote from Don

The fact - yes, fact - is that if you are alive, you're feeling something positive or negative. There is no "middle ground" and no "neutral" feeling. "Meh, I'm okay" is still positive, albeit at a low level of intensity.

Maybe what I am saying is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.

I'm looking for "what would Epicurus have said himself if he had been present with Cicero or Plutarch and been allowed to speak further beyond what Torquatus was allowed to say, or beyond what Cicero or Plutarch quoted of him.

When Cicero/Plutarch said "everyone knows that there is a state between pain and pleasure where we aren't feeling much of anything," and "everyone knows that absence of pain is certainly not the height of pleasure," what's the first thing out of Epicurus' mouth?

Would it start with "It depends on how you look at it"?

Would such a start be obvious, or controversial?

Don -- Yes that circle represents another model. Like any other model I would expect that the author of the model would say that it is grounded in reality, so I would say the original question remains.

For example, all of those headings around the circumference are labels that the model-writer has assigned based on his or her experience. Would it be any less legitimate to assign them differently?

So the question that I underlies the whole discussion is: What is the authority or foundation of this or any other model?

Are both Epicurus' model (with no middle ground) and the majority model (with a middle ground) equally legitimate in terms of evidence, differing only in conceptual labelling?

Epicurus obviously thought that it made sense to use a model in which there is no middle ground. Plato, Cicero, et al. prefer a model in which there is a middle ground. Is there really a difference in real-world evidence that says that one model conforms with reality more than does the other?

Now obviously I think the Epicurean model provides a far superior method of analysis. By affirming that there is a bright line between pleasure and pain you can make everything fall on one side or the other and see much more clearly that even non-stimulated situations are pleasure or pain. But i also think it is important to state that this is a model that our minds need to comprehend, and not leave it to speculation that there might be some kind of natural law or evidence or force that compels us to say that this model is "true to the evidence" while the other model is "false to the evidence."

As Joshua stated several times in the episode, I think Epicurus and we agree that pleasure and pain are highly subjective, even in terms of likes and dislikes as to food. So who are we to say to Cicero "No you wrong - when you're not in stimulative pain or pleasure, you must still use the same terms (pain or pleasure) to describe the condition that you are in."

Cicero and Plutarch are leaving out that what Epicurus is not saying "You're missing the obvious - when you think you are in neutral you are the same as if you're eating the best steak of your life!"

Instead, what Epicurus is doing is stating a conceptual framework that allows us to analyze the full problem more productively. Epicurus isn't exactly saying to the world: "No, when you're not being stimulated one way or the other, you may not realize it, but you're still being stimulated." The world says that's not true because they know the difference between numbness and eating the best steak they've ever had.

What seems to be in issue is labeling rather than evidence. And what we're arguing about with Cicero as to what to label is what constitutes a healthy state of peak performance of mind and body.

The problem facing us is that the view that "all you have to do is remove pain and you are in the greatest pleasure possible." That's being taken by some as a statement that you can reach the highest pleasure possible by numbing your mind and body as with a drug.

I think we're saying pretty much the opposite - that you want your mind and body to be MORE sensitive to what's going on in them and whether they are healthy or not. In the case of Chrysippus' hand the assertion is that the hand is in its normal operating condition, which in the case of the limited abilities of a hand a statement of peak condition. In the case of the mind, however, the mind isn't in peak condition unless it understands how the universe operates,that we aren't subject to supernatural gods or punishment/reward by supernatural forces after death, and that we can have the confident expectation of remaining in that condition.

That latter condition of the mind is the opposite of "emptying" or "numbing" the mind so as to allegedly automatically achieve its peak pleasure. That peak performance of the mind is going to require understanding of the nature of things (as listed above) which requires intellectual effort.

And it seems to me that in order to explain the model it is helpful to make clear that what we're talking about isn't that the general public has defective senses, but rather what they are missing is a conceptual model that is required for the proper understanding of the best life.