Posts by Cassius

Quote from Eugenios

I have to believe that Epicurus would have welcomed perceptions via scientific instruments to get at accurate pictures of what is real to combat supernatural thinking.

Absolutely no question - I accept this as a certainty. It is ridiculous to think that Epicurus was or would be against new technologies for gathering of more accurate information, but that comes up on occasion as part of the contention that Epicurus was against "education."

This is an area where I think DeWitt is especially perceptive in pointing out that Epicurus was not against "education in general" but particular types of study that are ultimately dead ends.

Quote

You are pleased to think him uneducated. The reason is that he refused to consider any education worth the name that did not help to school us in happiness. Was he to spend his time, as you encourage Triarius and me to do, in perusing poets, who give us nothing solid and useful, but merely childish amusement? Was he to occupy himself like Plato with music and geometry, arithmetic and astronomy, which starting from false premises cannot be true, and which moreover if they were true would contribute nothing to make our lives pleasanter and therefore better? Was he, I say, to study arts like these, and neglect the master art, so difficult and correspondingly so fruitful, the art of living?

No! Epicurus was not uneducated: the real philistines are those who ask us to go on studying till old age the subjects that we ought to be ashamed not to have learnt in boyhood.

(Torquatus / On Ends)

Great introduction - thank you for joining us here!

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I remember there was a thread where I quoted Torquatus that pleasure is the removal of pain, and there is no state between pleasure and pain.

I agree with what Elayne said, and would say this too:

In order to avoid confusion I think it is necessary to back up to decide what it is we are talking about - which is "feeling" - which is an experience (on pleasure and pain as experiences I would refer to the Wentham article.

We can discuss the question of how long a feeling continues to exist, but as for me, I do not think that the word "state" is particularly useful, because there is no bright line between a feeling of pleasure that lasts for a second or a minute or an hour or whatever period of time.

As to there being only two feelings, pleasure and pain, the most direct statement on that which I have found is in Diogenes Laertius:

"

The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined. Of investigations some concern actual things, others mere words. This is a brief summary of the division of their philosophy and their views on the criterion of truth."

And so I don't think it is good terminology necessarily to say that there is something "between" pleasure and pain as much as it would to say something like "all feelings are either pleasurable or painful" which makes the point that there are no other types of feeling that don't fit under one of the two labels.

Remember the basic point that "Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us" so anything that is not felt/experienced as pleasure or pain is "nothing to us" - which would cover anything that anyone wants to allege is neither painful or pleasurable to us.

Welcome Don ! And thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

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

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

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

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

Godfrey and Mike, we three here in this conversation are wrestling with the same issue, I think.

One thing I can add to the conversation as a result of having been involved in discussing this for close to ten years now is this:

It never seems to get easier to confront this, but it does get HARDER. As time goes by, everyone who is initially drawn to the picture that Epicurus painted have to confront the issue of whether they are willing to charge forward under the real issue (the feeling of pleasure) or whether to water it down with "happiness" or "ataraxia."

What I can tell you is that so many people who confront this issue end up falling away. They get tired; they just can't face the implication of being clear on this issue -- because it means being almost alone against the multitudes in academia AND religion. They burn up or burn out, stop fighting, and drift away.

I don't think it is possible to move forward in Epicurean thinking without being "faithful" to Epicurus on this point. I think it explains the downfall of the ancient Epicureans (much more so than the rise of Christianity) that the later Epicureans weren't able to keep Epicurus' focus on this key central issue.

This ('the feeling of pleasure") is the hill to die on for anyone who is really convinced that Epicurean philosophy is something special.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Therefore, it is wrong to use the phrases "greater pleasure" or "greatest pleasure" for they do not exist?

No, clearly from the individual subjective perspective some pleasures ARE greater than others. What is incorrect is to imply that the gradation from lesser to greater are the same for everyone - it clearly is not.

I realize that my answers seem so flatly stated that I must come across like Moses handing down tablets from Mt. Sinai. But really, isn't all this very obvious? I think the problem is what Godfrey is referencing, but in more stark terms:

"Pleasure" has been so demonized that we are afraid to use the term. I do agree that it is more accurate to saying something like "feeling" so as to encompass both pleasure and pain in the analysis, but I think we all see the issue.

This was being pointed out to me earlier today in regard to some of the presentations at the recent Athens symposium -- the word PLEASURE is almost never used. And that's a pattern we see repeated in so many different presentations.

We have been browbeaten into submission, but I see no way back but to charge directly into the center lines of the opposition and start explaining the heart of the matter, rather than continuing to run from it,

I am all in favor of explaining things in terms that people can understand, and maybe at times that means first being diplomatic. But if we never get around to stating the heart of the issue; if our diplomacy never gets to the point of clarity, then we are wasting our time.

And I personally am more aware of that every day. Every day I get older, and I see how much time has been wasted dancing around the real issue - -which is what we are discussing here now.

Also - if there WERE an "outside ranking" that would tell us how to rank pleasures, then the knowledge of that ranking system would supersede pleasure as the ultimate test. That is pretty much the trap that Plato set in "Philebus" -- because if you accept that premises that there is something outside of the generic term "pleasure" by which pleasure must be judged, then that outside standard becomes the rule of life.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it often is. [Restated: It is not necessarily the case that all pleasure requires some pain, but it is often the case that achieving certain pleasures requires some amount of pain.]

Should I anticipate that you are thinking that pleasures which cost nothing in pain are somehow superior than those which require pain? I don't think that there is any reason to say that at all. There is no objective ranking of pleasures by any outside factor -- and i think that that is where DeWitt is going with his "Unity of pleasure" chapter.

There is no way to say absolutely that one pleasure is greater than another. The pleasure of smelling a rose has no objective sanction to be greater, or lesser, than the pleasure of standing on top of Mount Everest. In a universe in which there is no center or no creater telling us that a single perspective is the correct one, it is in the nature of things that every being gets to make its own estimation of what is, to it, the pleasures worth striving for.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

And if not any of them were true, who exactly is Epicurus then since he is not a minimalist, not a moderate, and not even an extreme hedonist?

I think he was someone who first and foremost knew that he had only one life to live, and that in a world in which there is no divine or ideal standard with which to comply, the best he or anyone else can do is to make the most out of life by experiencing as much pleasure, while at the same time experiencing as little "unnecessary" pain, as possible.

The trick seems to be that some people want to say that pain is so bad that it must be eliminated at all costs, including at the cost of pleasure. What is "necessary" in the estimation of one person is "unnecessary" in the estimation of another.

I think Epicurus was realistic in recognizing that a certain amount of pain is required in order to achieve pleasure. That calculation/estimate/feeling however is going to differ from individual to individual, as is the amount of pain involved in any particular activity. Some people are going to choose to accept less pleasure in order to suffer less pain, but some are going to deem that more pain is worth it if greater pleasure can be obtained, and the activities in which they choose to pursue and accept pain are going to differ too.

I am thinking that the real problem here is that people are looking for a "rule" that tells them how much pleasure is worth how much pain, and which activities they should choose to pursue. However it is the nature of an atomistic universe that such a rule does not and cannot exist.

Also, of the three terms you chose, I definitely do not believe that moderation or minimalism describes Epicurus. The problem with the third term, "extreme hedonism," is that the term "hedonism" is so polluted as to be unacceptable, but it is the closest of the three you gave. Part of the problem here too is that Epicurus' view is so foreign to us that we aren't used to describing in common words what we are talking about when we say that "pleasure" is the goal, even at the cost of some pain. Pleasure is an extremely wide term, covering every physical and mental experience in life, but we have been browbeaten into equating it with sex drugs and rock'n'roll so long that we are ashamed of the word, and that is a crime that has to be fought back against.

Welcome to Episode Eight of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who lived in the age of Julius Caesar and wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you line by line through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean. 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.

Before we start with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not to put our own opinions into the word of the poem.

Second: In this podcast we won't be talking about modern political issues. Over at the Epicureanfriends.com web forum, we call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, or Marxism - it is a unique philosophy of its own, to be understood on its own terms, not in terms of conventional modern morality.

Third: Lucretius will show that Epicurus was not focused on over-the-top luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach a minimalist lifestyle, as other people say. Epicurus taught that feeling - pleasure and pain - are the guides that Nature gave us to live by, not gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Remember that our home page is LucretiusToday.com, and there you can find a free copy of the version of the poem from which we are reading, and links to where you can discuss the poem between episodes at Epicureanfriends.com.

In the episodes so far here are the major topics we have covered:

• That Pleasure, using the allegory of Venus, is the driving force of all life;
• That the way to rid ourselves of pain is to replace pain with pleasure, using the allegory of Venus entertaining Mars, the god of war;
• That Epicurus was the great philosophic leader who stood up to supernatural religion, opened the gates to a proper understanding of nature, , and thereby showed us how we too can emulate the life of gods;
• That it is not Epicurean philosophy, but supernatural religion, which is truly unholy and prompts men to commit evil deeds;
• That false priests and philosophers will try to scare you away from Epicurean philosophy with threats of punishment after death, which is why you must understand that those threats cannot be true;
• That the key to freeing yourself from false religion and false philosophy is found in the study of nature;
• And that the first observation which underlies all the rest of Epicurean philosophy is that we observe that nothing is ever generated from nothing.

Now that we are up to date let's start today's discussion!

This is the text that will be covered in Episode Eight. The Latin version of Book One has this as beginning at approximately line 137 which can be found in the Munro Latin Edition here.

1743 Daniel Browne Edition (click link for English and Latin):

Add, here, that Nature dissolves all bodies into their principles again, nor can reduce things into nothing.

For if every being was liable to death through all its substance, snatched from our eyes, it would directly perish; no need of violence to make a breach in all its parts, and loose the vital bands. But now, since things are formed from eternal seeds, Nature wills that nothing be destroyed unless some force prevails, which beats with blows its outward form, or pierces through the pores, with subtle art, and so dissolves the frame.

Besides, such things as are removed by age, if time destroys them quite in all its parts, whence does the Power of Love restore to light the several races of beings? Whence the Earth, with nicest art, does nourish them when born, and makes them grow, and feeds with proper food each its kind? Whence do the bounteous springs and rivers, with their wandering streams from far, supply the sea? The air whence feed the stars? For that vast tract of time already past had long ago consumed things that were formed from mortal seed. But if those bodies which compose this universe of things were still supplied through all that space and periods of time that passed long since, they must surely consist of an immortal nature, and, from death secure, can never into nothing fall.

Again, the same violence would everywhere destroy all beings, if the eternal power of matter did not hold fast their close compacted frame in bonds more strong or weak; a single touch would surely be the cause of death, for things formed out of mortal seed by any force must perish, and their frame be quite dissolved; but now, because the union of seeds of bodies differs, which consist of matter eternal in its nature, every being is safe from danger ‘til some proper force, proportioned to its texture, makes the assault. So nothing can return to nothing; every thing resolves by separation of its parts into its principles from whence it sprung.

Lastly, the rains that Father Aether pours into the womb of mother earth do seem to perish there, but strait fair fruits spring up; the boughs grow green upon the trees, their limbs increase, and bend beneath a load of fruit; hence all living race of men and beasts are fed, our gallant cities filled with youth, our leafy woods resound with songs of birds new fledged; the weary flocks grow fat, repose their bodies on the fertile plains, while the white milky humour from their dugs distended flows; and hence their sprightly young, in wanton play, frisk with their tender limbs over the soft grass, cheering their little hearts with the pure milk; and therefore things we see do not entirely die. Nature still renews one being by another, nor does she suffer one thing to be, unless supplied with matter from something else that was dissolved before.

Munro: 

[216] Moreover nature dissolves every thing back into its first bodies and does not annihilate things.

[218] For if aught were mortal in all its parts alike, the thing in a moment would be snatched away to destruction from before our eyes; since no force would be needed to produce disruption among its parts and undo their fastenings. Whereas in fact, as all things consist of an imperishable seed, nature suffers the destruction of nothing to be seen, until a force has encountered lit sufficient to dash things to pieces by a blow or to pierce through the void places within them and break them up.

[226] Again if time, whenever it makes away with things through age, utterly destroys them eating up all their matter, out of what does Venus bring back into the light of life the race of living things each after its kind, or, when they are brought back, out of what does earth manifold in works give them nourishment and increase, furnishing them with food each after its kind? Out of what do its own native fountains and extraneous rivers from far and wide keep full the sea? Out of what does ether feed the stars? For infinite time gone by and lapse of days must have eaten up all things which are of mortal body. Now if in that period of time gone by those things have existed, of which this sum of things is composed and recruited, they are possessed no doubt of an imperishable body, and cannot therefore any of them return to nothing.

[239] Again the same force and cause would destroy all things without distinction, unless everlasting matter held them together, matter more or less closely linked in mutual entanglement: a touch in sooth would be sufficient cause of death, inasmuch as any amount of force must of course undo the texture of things in which no parts at all were of an everlasting body. But in fact, because the fastenings of first-beginnings one with the other are unlike and matter is everlasting, things continue with body uninjured, until a force is found to encounter them strong enough to overpower the texture of each thing therefore never returns to nothing, but all things after disruption go back into the first bodies of matter.

[251] Lastly, rains die, when father ether has tumbled them into the lap of mother earth; but then goodly crops spring up and boughs are green with leaves upon the trees, trees themselves grow and are laden with fruit; by them in turn our race and the race of wild beasts are fed, by them we see glad towns teem with children and the leafy forests ring on all sides with the song of new birds; through them cattle wearied with their load of fat lay their bodies down about the glad pastures and the white milky stream pours from the distended udders; through them a new brood with weakly limbs frisks and gambols over the soft grass, rapt in their young hearts with the pure new milk. None of the things therefore which seem to be lost is utterly lost, since nature replenishes one thing out of another and does not suffer any thing to be begotten, before she has been recruited by the death of some other.

Bailey:

[216] Then follows this, that nature breaks up each thing again into its own first-bodies, nor does she destroy ought into nothing.

[218] For if anything were mortal in all its parts, each thing would on a sudden be snatched from our eyes, and pass away. For there would be no need of any force, such as might cause disunion in its parts and unloose its fastenings. But as it is, because all things are put together of everlasting seeds, until some force has met them to batter things asunder with its blow, or to make its way inward through the empty voids and break things up, nature suffers not the destruction of anything to be seen.

[226] Moreover, if time utterly destroys whatsoever through age it takes from sight, and devours all its substance, how is it that Venus brings back the race of living things after their kind into the light of life, or when she has, how does earth, the quaint artificer, nurse and increase them, furnishing food for them after their kind? how is it that its native springs and the rivers from without, coming from afar, keep the sea full? how is it that the sky feeds the stars? For infinite time and the days that are gone by must needs have devoured all things that are of mortal body. But if in all that while, in the ages that are gone by, those things have existed, of which this sum of things consists and is replenished, assuredly they are blessed with an immortal nature; all things cannot then be turned to nought.

[239] And again, the same force and cause would destroy all things alike, unless an eternal substance held them together, part with part interwoven closely or loosely by its fastenings. For in truth a touch would be cause enough of death, seeing that none of these things would be of everlasting body, whose texture any kind of force would be bound to break asunder. But as it is, because the fastenings of the first-elements are variously put together, and their substance is everlasting, things endure with body unharmed, until there meets them a force proved strong enough to overcome the texture of each. No single thing then passes back to nothing, but all by dissolution pass back into the first-bodies of matter.

[251] Lastly, the rains pass away, when the sky, our father, has cast them headlong into the lap of earth, our mother; but the bright crops spring up, and the branches grow green upon the trees, the trees too grow and are laden with fruit; by them next our race and the race of beasts is nourished, through them we see glad towns alive with children, and leafy woods on every side ring with the young birds’ cry; through them the cattle wearied with fatness lay their limbs to rest over the glad pastures, and the white milky stream trickles from their swollen udders; through them a new brood with tottering legs sports wanton among the soft grass, their baby hearts thrilling with the pure milk. Not utterly then perish all things that are seen, since nature renews one thing from out another, nor suffers anything to be begotten, unless she be requited by another’s death.

Good grief how ridiculous! Thank you for posting that!

That does look promising!

Yes exactly the same issue in play over the course of multiple philosophers, with the position opposite of Epicurus taken by Hieronymus:

Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

Right -- and I suppose that another ambiguity is the "untroubled." It might not be possible to say that a pleasant emotion is "troubling."

But regardless of that, it's not easy at all to square that with Diogenes Laertius saying that Epicurus held that "He [the wise man] will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom" so it does seem clear that Epicurus diverged significantly from Democritus on this.

I'm not sure what Democritus held on whether the soul could be eternal even in an atomistic world, but it seems clear that if you start with Epicurus' position that "For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation" from the letter to Menoeceus. Presuming that we take "emotions" as being very closely related, and/or essential to, sensations, then it seems impossible to think that Epicurus would wind up with absence of emotion as being the goal of life or the definition of happiness.

I am sure that some people will try to go in the direction that this is explained by "ataraxia" which they hold to be some type of happiness totally divorced from sensation and normal emotions, but for reasons we discuss regularly that seems to me to be a very unpersuasive argument.

Done - added to Epicurustoday.com.

I added Epicurean Mindset blog to the list of links here and will see if I can also update my other lists of links: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?links/

Mike is there a link for an RSS feed? I don't immediately see one but will add it to Epicurustoday.com as well if you have one.

Mike your wording is really very good already. Also - I presume English may not be your first language? If not, that makes your command of the language particularly noteworthy.

OK I certainly agree with that point - clearly we must be aware of all reasonable possibilities that could occur and arrange our actions accordingly. So considering "expect the worst" to mean "consider all reasonable possibilities, including the worst," and "plan so as to minimize the worst possibilities" and similar, yes I definitely agree. Is that more in line with what you are thinking?

Excellent questions Godfrey. I know it is commonly discussed that Epicurus diverged from Democritus on free will / the swerve, but this is a topic that I've read much less about.

I agree with the drift of your direction, but I'll have to pull out Diogenes Laertius to scrutinize that passage. Is it possible that the part you quoted is intended to only apply to "painful" emotion, or does it mean ALL emotion?

New post from Mike here: "How To Remove Your Fears And Worries" - https://epicureanmindset.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to…DvNHRgrRuXLEKZY

My comments:

Quote

We can’t get rid of risk. What we need is to manage it in order to reduce the eventual pain and to increase the greatest possible pleasure. This reality of infinite uncertainty should not trouble us because it is what nature really is.

Very well stated and a foundational point - relates also to recent discussions with Godfrey about the Stenger book and alternate viewpoints on "origin" of the universe.

Quote

Instead, we must prepare our mind for future surprises so we can better construct an alternative response that can immediately address every potential problem. In other words, expect the worst and execute your best response.

Ha - that reminds me of "expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed" which is probably a little off because both "pessimism" and "optimism" are probably inferior to being as "realistic" as possible.

Quote

This means that doing what is good is synonymous to living in fear either in the fear of god or in the fear of invented justice.

I wonder if some people might lose track of the chain of thought and misunderstand that sentence, since the peer-pressure to "do what is good" is so strong and taken for granted. I think you are saying something like: "That means that if you follow conventional thinking "doing what is good" would be synonymous with living in fear, either in fear of god or in fear of unfounded views of "justice."

Quote

The root of all such fears is the fear of death. We humans have been taught to become afraid of death so that our avoidance of it will lead us to the obedience to an abstract codes of conduct.

This is another good point that might benefit from clarification. Something like: "The root of many such false fears is fear of death, and of what will happen to us when we die. We as humans have been taught to fear death, and so our avoidance of death leads us to accept and obey unfounded and false codes of conduct that are ultimately harmful to our ability to live happily."

Quote

Our natural courage has been removed from us and is objectified into an abstract concept such as virtue.

So much good stuff here, I just have to restate for emphasis: "Our natural vigor and motivation to embrace the deepest and most pleasurable feelings of life have been purged, and removed from us, to be replaced with sterile and lifeless obedience to abstractions such as "virtue," which are meaningless when detached from a proper understanding of the goals of life provided by nature."

Quote

The problem is when we fear something that we can hardly sense. This is why it is more difficult to measure the risk of an abstract threat than of a real threat. Dying is real, but death is abstract. Death is nothing to fear. In it, there is no feeling of pain since our sense organs will disintegrate into atoms along with our sensation when we die.

I think there is a subtle point here that we here at Epicureanfriends need to discuss further to put a finer point on the contrast we are making between "real" and "abstract." There is "real" in the sense of something that can be felt with the five senses, but it is probably a little off to say that everything that is abstract is "unreal." Abstractions can bring us great pain or pleasure. Is that pain or pleasure "unreal" because it comes from an abstraction rather than from the smell of a rose or the taste of an ice cream cone? This is something that Elayne has posted about too and I think we can improve on this distinction.

As for "death is nothing to fear" my view is that the most important meaning of this is "the 'state of being dead' is nothing to fear because you don't exist anymore." The process of dying, which a lot of people are going to lump into "death" can be extremely painful and is certainly something to "fear" or at least to work very hard to avoid

Quote

Instead of living in fear, spend your life in pursuing pleasure. This is possible if you remove the troubles in your mind with the help of philosophy and the study of nature. By knowing the truth of reality, you will get rid of superstition or false knowledge that generates unnecessary fears.

Nothing wrong with that one but to emphasize: Instead of learning to cope with the pain of unnecessary fears, spend your life eliminating those fears that are unnecessary and pursuing the pleasures of life. No one is given any guarantees of good health and long life, but you can maximize your chances of success by organizing your life using a sound philosophy based on the study of nature. Once you learn for yourself that the true reality is that this life is your one chance at happiness, and that nature has given you through the feeling of pleasure and pain your ultimate guide for how to pursue happiness, you can banish from your concerns the false claims of supernatural religion and nihilist philosophies that generate many of the most troublesome fears in modern life.