Posts by Cassius

Here's another angle on that same point:

Maybe the Greeks were also used to debating these issues in terms of competing "gods." For example it's clear that in Philebus, Plato has Socrates and Philebus talking in terms of a competition between their patron gods / godddesses:

Quote

SOCRATES: Then let us begin with the goddess herself, of whom Philebus says that she is called Aphrodite, but that her real name is Pleasure.

PROTARCHUS: Very good.

SOCRATES: The awe which I always feel, Protarchus, about the names of the gods is more than human—it exceeds all other fears. And now I would not sin against Aphrodite by naming her amiss; let her be called what she pleases. But Pleasure I know to be manifold, and with her, as I was just now saying, we must begin, and consider what her nature is. She has one name, and therefore you would imagine that she is one; and yet surely she takes the most varied and even unlike forms. For do we not say that the intemperate has pleasure, and that the temperate has pleasure in his very temperance,—that the fool is pleased when he is full of foolish fancies and hopes, and that the wise man has pleasure in his wisdom? and how foolish would any one be who affirmed that all these opposite pleasures are severally alike!

Quote

SOCRATES: Nor would pain, Philebus, be perfectly evil. And therefore the infinite cannot be that element which imparts to pleasure some degree of good. But now—admitting, if you like, that pleasure is of the nature of the infinite—in which of the aforesaid classes, O Protarchus and Philebus, can we without irreverence place wisdom and knowledge and mind? And let us be careful, for I think that the danger will be very serious if we err on this point.

PHILEBUS: You magnify, Socrates, the importance of your favourite god.

SOCRATES: And you, my friend, are also magnifying your favourite goddess; but still I must beg you to answer the question.

And also Lucretius of course starts out his poem by talking about Venus.

So maybe where we find it artificial to talk about "Pleasure" as the goal, it was much more natural for the ancients to talk in terms of Venus symbolizing a guiding force or life force, as opposed to other gods (Zeus, or someone representing personified reason? -- Who is Philebus referring to as Socrates' favorite god?). So I wouldn't go too far with this at the moment without thinking further, but maybe for people who personified Pleasure as Venus it was much less of a problem to talk in terms of Pleasure or Venus / Aphrodite more interchangeably, and it was less of a mental hurdle than we have today.

At the very least I would expect that equating pleasure in one's mind as Venus was a much more reverential or "serious" way of thinking about pleasure than is evoked by the word in our minds today.

EDIT: Maybe this comment is another reason, in accord with my recent semi-joking comment, that it would be a legitimate option for some group of modern Epicureans to go ahead and embrace Venus as our "patron" goddess in a more actual "religious" sense. Even today it might be a lot more intellectually helpful to say that we "follow Venus" rather than "follow pleasure."

i think what you are talking about is that the needs of expressing a philosophy as a logical proposition are different from those needed for personal motivation among non-philosophers.

Torquatus' formulation to me now seems clearly contextual for the professional philosophy audience, which is also my view of the "absence of pain" statement. Neither are suitable for explaining to a layman what it means to be an Epicurean. Which I think helps explains why his school was called by his name, rather than the "Hedonist" or "Pleasurist" school.

It has always been true for me that "pleasure is the goal" is more of a rejection of rationalism and religion than it is a positive statement of what Epicurus is all about.

So in my view the whole discussion about pleasure is a component of the logical whole, not a standalone slogan, and I think I need to emphasize that more.

Can you suggest better wording? Just pull a phrase out of the letter to Menoeceus about pleasure being the alpha and omega of a blessed life? Of from the Torquatus letter that pleasure is ... (rewording only slightly) "the final and ultimate Good, and the End to which all other things are means, while not itself a means to anything else."

This is obviously a huge phrasing issue.... and maybe itself something for listing as alternatives withing such a "poll"

I am eventually going to expand this poll over to Facebook and perhaps other sites, but I thought this would be the best place to start so we can get an idea of what answers definitely ought to be listed in the checkbox options. What I am thinking of here is very general, and it's probably best not to overthink it. Everyone here is familiar with the basic doctrines of Epicurus, so please pick five from the following that you think are most essential to what "you" subjectively apply in your own mind as a test of what it means to be "an Epicurean." Don't qualify your answer in terms of "being an Epicurean today" or "being an Epicurean in ancient Greece," or in any other limited way. But don't totally redefine the word, either - let's use "Epicurean" in the way that Epicurus would have used it.

What do you *feel in your gut* Epicurus himself would tell you is what it means to be an Epicurean?

Please comment to add additional options to the poll.

You may select a maximum of seven from this list.

Welcome to Episode Fifty-Eight of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any question about that, please be sure to contact us at Epicureanfriends.com for more information.

Podcast 58 - The Mind's Direct Receipt of Images

Latin Lines 722 - 822

Munro Notes

722-748: the mind too receives its impressions from images flying about on all hands, which however are much finer than those by which we see: images are of different kinds, some formed spontaneously in the air, some coming from things or formed from a union of several ; and thus we see centaurs and the like, though such never existed, from the chance union for instance of the image of a man and horse; the extreme fineness of such images makes them readily unite, and the wondrous agility of the mind itself at once receives them.

749-776: so far as what the mind sees resembles what the eye sees, their causes must be like: now the lion we sec in mind is the same we see with the eyes, both therefore are seen by images: and thus in sleep we see, for instance one who is dead, by images corning to the mind; the senses and memory being then inactive and not able to detect the absurdity: again images move as we see them in sleep, merely because some are coming others going every instant, so that they appear to be the same in different postures.

777-817: this question offers many difficulties: why does a man think of whatever he wishes to think, sea or earth or sky? while others in the same place have quite other thoughts: why too in sleep are these images seen to move rhythmically? are they forsooth trained by art? or is it that in the least sensible time many times are latent, in which many images can appear? the mind again, like the eye, in order to see must often attend and exert itself, else they will pass unheeded: again the mind adds many false inferences to what is seen.

818-822 (826): sometimes too a woman will change to a man, or the like, but in sleep we do not perceive the incongruity.

Browne 1743

And now attend, and observe in short, what things affect the mind, and from whence proceed those objects that make an impression upon it. First then, I say that subtle images of things, a numerous train of them, wander about in every way and in various manners. These, as they meet, easily twine and are joined together in the air, as threads of gold or the web of a spider; for these are much finer in their contexture than those images that strike the eye and move the sight. These pierce through the pores of the body and move the subtle nature of the mind within, and affect the sense. Hence it is that we see Centaurs, and the limbs of Scylla's, and the heads of Cerberus, and the shadows of those who have long since been dead, and whose bones are rotting in the grave; because images of all kinds are ever wandering about; some of their own accord are formed in the air, some are continually flying off from various bodies, and others rise from these images mixed together. For it is certain that the image of a Centaur never flowed from one that was alive; for there was never such an animal in nature, but when the image of a horse met by chance with the image of a man, it immediately stuck to it, which it easily does, by reason of the subtlety of its nature and the fineness of its texture; and all other monstrous figures are formed after the same manner. These images being exceeding light, and easily put in motion (as I observed before) each of them affects the mind at one stroke; for the mind is of a very subtle nature, and wonderfully disposed to move.

That the mind is moved, as I observed, by the images of things, you may easily collect from hence, that what we perceive by the mind is exactly like what we see with our eyes, and therefore they must of necessity be both affected by the same things, and in the same manner. And so, when I said, for instance, that I see a lion by means of the image that strikes upon the eyes, I know by the same rule that the mind is moved by another image of a lion, which it equally and no less sees, than the eye sees the image proper to it; with this difference only, that the mind can perceive images of a more thin and subtle nature.

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

And then it is no wonder that the images seem to move, and to throw their arms and the rest of their limbs to exact time, and thus they seem to do when we are in a dream, for when the first image is gone, and another springs up in a different posture, the first, we think, has changed its shape; and all this, you must conceive, is done in an instant of time. There are many other inquiries about things of this nature and we must enter into long disputes if we attempt to give a distinct answer to every one.

First then, it is asked, How is it that whatever we desire to think of the mind immediately thinks upon that very thing? Is it that the images are always ready at the command of the will? Does the image immediately occur to us the moment we desire? If we fancy to think of the sea, the earth, the heavens, of senates, shows, feasts, battles, does nature form these and provide them ready at our nod? Especially since the minds of others, that are in the same country and in the same place with us, think things quite different from these? And then, since we see images in our sleep to step to time, to move their pliant limbs, and throw about their tender arms alternately, and keep due measure with their feet, are they taught this by Art? Have they learnt to dance, that thus they play their wanton sports by night? Is not this the truth rather, that what we take for one moment of time, this present Now, has many parts included, as we find by reason? And therefore it is that in every instant there are a thousand different images always ready in every place, so numerous are they, and so apt to move; and then they are so exceeding subtle, that the mind cannot possibly perceive them distinctly, without the nicest diligence. And so those images die away unobserved, which the mind does not apply itself to receive, but it does apply itself closely to distinguish the image it hopes to find, and therefore sees it.

Don't you observe that the eyes, when they would discover an object exceeding small, contract themselves close and provide for it, nor can they accurately distinguish, except they do so? And you will find, even in things ever so plain, unless you strictly apply your mind, they will be as if they were utterly obscure, and at the greatest distance undiscovered. Where is the wonder then that the mind should lose the observation of all other images but those it particularly inquires after and is employed about? Besides, we often mistake small objects for great, and so we contribute to our own delusion and impose upon ourselves. It happens likewise that sometimes an image of a different kind presents itself to the mind. Thus the form that was before a woman now shows itself a man, or some other person of a different age and complexion, but this we are not to wonder at, since the senses are all asleep, and we are wholly in a state of forgetfulness.

Munro 1886

Now mark, and hear what things move the mind, and learn in a few words whence the things which come into it do come. I say first of all, that idols of things wander about many in number in many ways in all directions round, extremely thin; and these when they meet, readily unite, like a cobweb or piece of gold-leaf. For these idols are far thinner in texture than those which take possession of the eyes and provoke vision; since these enter in through the porous parts of the body and stir the fine nature of the mind within and provoke sensation. Therefore we see Centaurs and limbs of Scyllas and Cerberus-like faces of dogs and idols of those who are dead, whose bones earth holds in its embrace; since idols of every kind are everywhere borne about, partly those which are spontaneously produced within the air, partly all those which withdraw from various things and those which are formed by compounding the shapes of these. For assuredly no image of Centaur is formed out of a live one, since no such nature of living creature ever existed; but when images of a horse and a man have by chance come together, they readily adhere at once, as we said before, on account of their fine nature and thin texture. All other things of the kind are produced in like fashion. And when these from extreme lightness are borne on with velocity, as I showed before, any one subtle composite image you like readily moves the mind by a single stroke; for the mind is fine and is itself wondrously nimble.

That all this is done as I relate you may easily learn from what follows. So far as the one is like another, seeing with the mind and seeing with the eyes must be produced in a like way. Well then since I have shown that I perceive for instance a lion by means of idols which provoke the eyes, you may be sure that the mind is moved in a like way, which by means of idols sees a lion or anything else just as well as the eyes, with this difference that it perceives much thinner idols. And when sleep has prostrated the body, for no other reason does the mind’s intelligence wake, except because the very same idols provoke our minds which provoke them when we are awake, and to such a degree that we seem without a doubt to perceive him whom life has left and death and earth gotten hold of. This nature constrains to come to pass because all the senses of the body are then hampered and at rest throughout the limbs and cannot refute the unreal by real things. Moreover memory is prostrate and relaxed in sleep and protests not that he has long been in the grasp of death and destruction whom the mind believes it sees alive. Furthermore it is not strange that idols move and throw about their arms and other limbs in regular measure: for sometimes in sleep an image is seen to do this: when the first to wit has gone and a second then been born in another posture, that former one seems to have altered its attitude. This remember you must assume to take place with exceeding celerity: so great is the velocity, so great the store of things; so great in any one unit of time that sense can seize is the store of particles, out of which the supply may go on.

And here many questions present themselves and many points must be cleared up by us, if we desire to give a plain exposition of things. The first question is why, when the wish has occurred to any one to think of a thing, his mind on the instant thinks of that very thing. Do idols observe our will, and so soon as we will does an image present itself to us, if sea, if earth, ay or heaven is what we wish? Assemblies of men, a procession, feasts, battles, everything in short does nature at command produce and provide? And though to increase the marvel the mind of others in the same spot and room is thinking of things all quite different. What again are we to say, when we see in sleep idols advance in measured tread and move their pliant limbs, when in nimble wise they put out each pliant arm in turn and represent to the eyes over and over again an action with foot that moves in time? Idols to wit are imbued with art and move about well-trained, to be able in the night-time to exhibit such plays. Or will this rather be the truth? Because in one unit of time, when we can perceive it by sense and while one single word is uttered, many latent times are contained which reason finds to exist, therefore in any time you please all the several idols are at hand ready prepared in each several place. And because they are so thin, the mind can see distinctly only those which it strains itself to see; therefore all that there are besides are lost, save only those for which it has made itself ready. Moreover, it makes itself ready and hopes to see that which follows upon each thing; therefore the result does follow. Do you not see that the eyes also, when they essay to discern things which are thin and fine, strain themselves and make themselves ready, and without that we cannot see distinctly? And yet you may observe even in things which are plain before us, that if you do not attend, it is just as if the thing were all the time away and far distant? What wonder then, if the mind loses all other things save those with which it is itself earnestly occupied? Then too from small indications we draw the widest inferences and by our own fault entangle ourselves in the meshes of self-delusion.

Sometimes it happens too that an image of the same kind is not supplied, but what before was a woman, turns out in our hands to have changed into a man; or a different face and age succeed to the first. But sleep and forgetfulness prevent us from feeling surprise at this.

Bailey 1921

Come now, let me tell you what things stir the mind, and learn in a few words whence come the things which come into the understanding. First of all I say this, that many idols of things wander about in many ways in all directions on every side, fine idols, which easily become linked with one another in the air, when they come across one another’s path, like spider’s web and gold leaf. For indeed these idols are far finer in their texture than those which fill the eyes and arouse sight, since these pierce through the pores of the body and awake the fine nature of the mind within, and arouse its sensation. And so we see Centaurs and the limbs of Scyllas, and the dog-faces of Cerberus and idols of those who have met death, and whose bones are held in the embrace of earth; since idols of every kind are borne everywhere, some which are created of their own accord even in the air, some which depart in each case from diverse things, and those again which are made and put together from the shapes of these. For in truth the image of the Centaur comes not from a living thing, since there never was the nature of such a living creature, but when by chance the images of man and horse have met, they cling together readily at once, as we have said ere now, because of their subtle nature and fine fabric. All other things of this kind are fashioned in the same way. And when they move nimbly with exceeding lightness, as I have shown ere now, any one such subtle image stirs their mind; for the mind is fine and of itself wondrous nimble.

That these things come to pass as I tell, you may easily learn from this. Inasmuch as the one is like the other, what we see with the mind, and what we see with the eyes, they must needs be created in like manner. Now, therefore, since I have shown that I see a lion maybe, by means of idols, which severally stir the eyes, we may know that the mind is moved in like manner, in that it sees a lion and all else neither more nor less than the eyes, except that it sees finer idols. And when sleep has relaxed the limbs, the understanding of the mind is for no other cause awake, but that these same idols stir our minds then, as when we are awake, insomuch that we seem surely to behold even one who has quitted life, and is holden by death and the earth. This nature constrains to come to pass just because all the senses of the body are checked and at rest throughout the limbs, nor can they refute the falsehood by true facts. Moreover, the memory lies at rest, and is torpid in slumber, nor does it argue against us that he, whom the understanding believes that it beholds alive, has long ago won to death and doom. For the rest, it is not wonderful that the idols should move and toss their arms and their other limbs in rhythmic time. For it comes to pass that the image in sleep seems to do this; inasmuch as when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. And indeed we must suppose that this comes to pass in quick process: so great is the speed, so great the store of things, so great, in any one instant that we can perceive, the abundance of the little parts of images, whereby the supply may be continued.

And in these matters many questions are asked, and there are many things we must make clear, if we wish to set forth the truth plainly. First of all it is asked why, whatever the whim may come to each of us to think of, straightway his mind thinks of that very thing. Do the idols keep watch on our will, and does the image rise up before us, as soon as we desire, whether it pleases us to think of sea or land or sky either? Gatherings of men, a procession, banquets, battles, does nature create all things at a word, and make them ready for us? And that when in the same place and spot the mind of others is thinking of things all far different. What, again, when in sleep we behold idols dancing forward in rhythmic measure, and moving their supple limbs, when alternately they shoot out swiftly their supple arms, and repeat to the eyes a gesture made by the feet in harmony? Idols in sooth are steeped in art and wander about trained to be able to tread their dance in the nighttime. Or will this be nearer truth? Because within a single time, which we perceive, that is, when a single word is uttered, many times lie unnoted, which reasoning discovers, therefore it comes to pass that in any time however small the several idols are there ready at hand in all the several spots. So great is the speed, so great the store of things. Therefore when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. Again, because they are fine, the mind cannot discern them sharply, save those which it strains to see; therefore all that there are besides these pass away, save those for which it has made itself ready. Moreover, the mind makes itself ready, and hopes it will come to pass that it will see what follows upon each several thing; therefore it comes to be. Do you not see the eyes too, when they begin to perceive things which are fine, strain themselves and make themselves ready, and that without that it cannot come to pass that we see things sharply? And yet even in things plain to see you might notice that, if you do not turn your mind to them, it is just as if the thing were sundered from you all the time, and very far away. How then is it strange, if the mind loses all else, save only the things to which it is itself given up? Then too on small signs we base wide opinions, and involve ourselves in the snare of self-deceit.

It happens too that from time to time an image of different kind rises before us, and what was before a woman, seems now to have become a man before our very eyes, or else one face or age follows after another. But that we should not think this strange, sleep and its forgetfulness secure.

Ok I found my original video which I will post here for now unless and until someone complains. We're obviously not making any money from this and it is purely for academic research / fair use purposes.

I tweaked the wording of the original hymn in this version, and applied a new set of subtitles to illustrate how little change might be needed to show the parallels:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/g2j7sERfXFlc/

https://lbry.tv/@epicureanfriends:9/FlyToVenus:2

https://open.lbry.com/@epicureanfrie…1eQ5NAqsuUWJc6t

https://lbry.tv/@epicureanfriends:9/FlyToVenus:2

Now maybe if someone could SING we could get a good version with the new words

Does anyone here have anything more than passing knowledge of Mormon theology? What I am referring to here is that it is my understanding back some years ago when I was reading into Mormonism that there were some relatively striking ways in which Joseph Smith seems to have copied aspects of Epicurean physics. For example, I believe I have read that the Mormons hold that:

1. There are multiple gods rather than a single pre-eminent god.
2. That the gods have existed eternally
3. That the universe has existed eternally
4. The universe is infinite in size
5. Life exists throughout the universe
6. That the gods are not necessarily supernatural at all, in that men can become gods at some point after death and have their own planets
7. That the universe is composed of matter and void
8. There is no heaven
9. There is no hell

For example, here is the text of the Mormon hymn: "If You Could Hie To Kolob"

1. If you could fly to Venus In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward, With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you would ever, Through all eternity,

Find out a generation where gods began to be?

2. Or see a grand beginning, Where space did not extend?

Or view a last creation, Where gods and matter end?

Me thinks that Nature whispers, “No man has found new space,’

Beyond an outside curtain, Where no thing has a place.”

3. The universe continues, And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and regression, Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;

There was no time before time; Time has no “end” to face.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to light.

There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to “right.”

There are no bars to Nature, as He alone has proved,

Or deep-set markers shaken, which gods or man can move.

5. Our Nature is our glory; Our lives are ours to love;

There is no fate to tame us; There is no Heaven above.

There is no Hell below us; There is no fortune bless’d.

And only through His vic’try, are men’s hearts brought to rest.

So much of that has parallels with Lucretius that it would be natural to ask if Mormon theology is copied from Epicurus and Lucretius. I had not re-read this text for a while but does not the line "There are no bars to Nature, as He alone has proved, Or deep-set markers shaken, which gods or man can move..." just jump out at you as being a reflection of the opening of book one of Lucretius where he is talking about Epicurus?

As you might expect I have reasons for asking this question, but let's defer the reasoning for now. For now, I would appreciate anyone's help in developing the facts - we can interpret them later. So the question is: "What parallels exist between Mormon theology and the Epicurean worldview?"

I first wrote about this nine years ago (also here) and I would like to pick up the thread again. Unfortunately I am not sure that I can find my subtitled video anymore, because the mormons complained to youtube and I had to remove the video

Episode Fifty-Seven of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's podcast we will continue to discuss the operation of the senses. As always, let us know your questions and comments in the thread below.

Protonus I almost listed LinkedIn in the poll but I decided against it as not really being social media. I have always had a negative impression of it as a huge spam generator - do you use it productively for more than just looking up people?

As if to show that I have a trivial thought for every occasion, I want to share this clip of a line I think is appropriate to the thread.

We're early in the work of trying to reinvigorate an Epicurean school on the internet, but as opportunities arise I think this cliche will apply ---

And that is: if anyone sees an appropriate place for philosophical discussion where it would be helpful to take quick action to bring up Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy, they should not wait for orders from "headquarters," and they should even say "to the devil with the orders" - they should use their best judgment and "ride to the sound of the guns."

Well I have managed to lose the material I typed so far so I have to begin again, but that's fine. In the meantime I would like to know if people have other ideas as to platforms that ought to be on the radar. Let me start a poll:

Just like you've done yourself Matthaois, most people are probably going to word search for Epicurus and find any Epicurean subgroups that way. Then it also seems most of the time there are going to be group descriptions that tell when the subgroup is about. I think the truth is that in every case a local group on a particular page is going to be unique, but it can still point to resources for further reading, such as we do here in regularly mentioning the Norman DeWitt book or other core resources, and it's in that context that this Epicureanfriends forum can be listed as a place for more in-depth discussion.

That's probably the best general guideline for proceeding in any context - just go ahead and mention Epicurus / Epicurean/ or Lucretius in the name so it's searchable, then point out that anyone not familiar with the philosophy should take the time to look up the details, and then refer to the links and reading material such as here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?faq/#entry-24

Argh the day is pretty much gone and I only got about 1/3 of the way through what I wanted to type, going through all the platforms I have participated in and my thoughts on each. I will finish it and post it hopefully tomorrow morning.

In the meantime another general comment: I think all of us who have been at this a while are sensitive to how difficult it is to keep together a community and keep it from fracturing over issues that really are not central to the community itself. There's probably no way to incorporate those divergent interests - it's a lot easier to say "stick to the very basics" and exclude everything else than it is to try to come up with compromise solutions. Even here on Epicureanfriends it's been tempting to set up sub-forums on topics and say "let's have those who think XXX post here" and "let's have those who think YYY post there" but that would probably create more hard feelings than would be worth it.

And I am not even really talking about controversial political issues -- even issues like discussion of different views of the Epicurean gods can create a lot of heat.

So I think in general the best answer to all these questions comes down to something like encouraging everyone to post where-ever they want, and where-ever they can spread the general message about Epicurus through their own local communities, but to always point back here as the place where at the very highest level we'll remain devoted explicitly to the philosophy as a philosophy, and cooperate on learning and understanding the basic doctrines, while leaving the "local application" to the individual locales

I'll leave it at that for now but i do have a lot more to say about the latest developments in platforms and censorship issues. So far we're pretty isolated from those because very few people know who we are, but I want us to dream big and hope for lot wider impact as time goes by, and I remain convinced that even though we're off everyone's radar right now, if we ever were to break through into a wider community we too would come under the full-force scrutiny of modern censorship. Right now in the USA we face virtually no censorship issues ourselves today, but already in many places in the rest of the world we'd fall under some types of blasphemy prohibitions, and/or be at risk for our personal safety for Epicurean religious views. I want us to have a world-wide reach and also to make the core Epicurean documents available everywhere, so the issue of how to do that without becoming captive to other agendas is a huge one. And that may make for some strange bedfellows or unconventional methods.

We're all aware of the highly-charged political issues that get labeled as fake news or historical revisionism of many types Well my view is that no matter what issue you want to name, and no matter how politically incorrect it is to take a position on something today, all of those pale in comparison to the "historical revisionism" that would result from someone making a full 2000+year review of world history from an EPICUREAN perspective. It's kind of ironic, but by sticking to the core doctrines we can seem like at the moment that we're being "safe," but in the end the core doctrines are really more explosive than any of today's charged political issue you'd care to name. I think we need to look at these issues from that perspective and plan accordingly.

OK this is a deep subject about which I have a lot to say. I am going to set this here for the moment and then compose a long post and come back. First, however, thanks to Matthaios for bringing up the topic and offering to help with publicity, and thanks to Titus for pointing out that there is a link to us on the wikipedia page. I am not sure when that was added or how, but glad to see it there. In general I agree with Elayne's comments, but I want to go into a lot more detail about my thoughts. More soon.....

Thsnks for all the references on empty. After reading them I am still left with the feeling that it is easy to misuse the word except in a context that is pretty clear like for example the void. - now there "empty" rings true, or in discussing "virtue" detached from a specific goal. Maybe its just that the English has a different connotation but in combining it with words that have a more positive connotation it smacks to me as being more moralistic and judgmental than helpful (again maybe just in English). Even the phrase "empty desire" sounds more like something s Buddhist or even stoic would say.

But anyway now we're probably reaching the point where this tangent is empty of additional benefit!

Great to hear from you! Participate anytime you can. Your story is in many ways a familiar one - seems like many have traveled a similar path!

What I remember is Hiram referring to it fairly regularly, but I don't recall his context. Here is one example:

Which comes from here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.0…iew=fulltext#N4

That distinction could in fact be a very good one when used very clearly like that. An "empty" pleasure makes no sense to me. An "empty desire" might make sense, but even then I can't see "empty" being the best word to describe the problem. Why use a word like "empty" when it is pretty darn easy to be clear that the issue is that the decision may lead to more pain than pleasure, and that THAT is the issue.....?

Maybe I will chase that rabbit next, but maybe not

Ha - I don't mean to be argumentative here -- just thinking that this is one of those areas where I've seen in the past (not YOU!) use of the word "empty" in ways that made me uncomfortable, so I think it's good to think through the issues involved.

Quote from Don

Pleasure is the good toward which all our actions point, but that doesn't mean *every* pleasure is desirable or choiceworthy.

We are totally in agreement as to this result, but I do sense that the way the point is made is very important and can be confusing if the phrasing is unclear enough to imply in some way that pleasure is not pleasure, and that is where I think "empty" is uncomfortably close to implying that the pleasure is not in fact a pleasure, but only a "shell" of pleasure without any substance. Pleasure in fact presumably has no substance other than pleasure itself.

Well yes that last comment goes to the heart of the issue -- the word "empty" in English at least to me is indicating that it is not in actuality what it represents itself to be, and that is not my understanding of what Epicurus is saying as to pleasure. No pleasure, no matter how much pain the choice may later bring, is devoid of pleasure, and that would be what I would infer from use of the term "empty." Yes a particular pleasure may be unchoiceworthy in that it brings excessive pain in a myriad of ways, and that kind of analysis is core Epicurean thought, but a pleasure would NOT be labeled "empty" because the pleasure does not bring pleasure, because if that choice or action were not pleasurable then it would not be pleasure.

If the meaning to be conveyed is "don't choose it because it doesn't bring net pleasure" or anything that means something similar, then I am all ok. But that is not what the word "empty" conveys to me ,or to what I would wager would be a large number of people in common understanding. That's why I recoil from it.