Posts by Cassius

Quote from Hiram

I think you should challenge yourself, though, on your unwillingness to address Epicurean doctrines

Ok I don't understand you here at all. I AM addressing Epicurean doctrine, and taking the position that "natural measure of wealth" is no different that natural measure of courage or friendship or anything else.

Quote from Hiram

The matter of economics and against limitless desires (which = anti-consumerism and related anxieties and false opinions) is a huge point where Epicurean teachings give moral guidance that is urgently needed in the modern world, as the Uruguayan ex-president has said before.

I think your citing this is further evidence of my concern. "Anticonsumerism" with which of course I agree is in no way near the most important issues involved in Epicurean philosophy, and what I am trying to say in a diplomatic way to you is that I disagree with efforts to reinforce that impression, which I believe will be a result of choosing to focus on this issue as if it is different from the general rule.

I think that's what you are interpreting as my "unwillingness." I am not unwilling to deal with and explore any Epicurean doctrines, but I do my best to nudge people away from paths which seem to me to be less productive.

Quote from Hiram

There is no reason whatsoever to confuse "absolute" for "natural", just as we don't confuse the terms when we speak of natural desires (we don't say "absolute desires")

For example, I agree with you that there is no reason whatsoever to confuse
"natural measure of wealth" with "austerity" or "minimalism." Where I disagree with you is that it seems to me that 98% of the internet commentary DOES make that mistake, and unless you first and foremost highlight that that is NOT where you are going, then the more times "natural measure of wealth" gets discussed WITHOUT that clarification, then it just digs a deeper and deeper hole.

Whenever we can it is good for us to promote the work for forum participants in spreading the word about Epicurus. I have neglected to link to Mike's blog, but I see he has a new post, and we ought to keep track of and comment on his posts as part of this forum too.

Here's his latest: https://epicureanmindset.blogspot.com/2020/02/here-i…get-rid-of.html

Quote from Hiram

Is /ought is a fetish among logicians

I completely agree. It is such a fetish that we probably need to develop a clear statement explaining the issue and pointing the way to an Epicurean position, just as on this "problem of universals."

I think I am agreeing with you Hiram, but I still sense danger in "wealth is preferable to poverty" and "this natural measure of wealth is not arbitrary." I agree that those statements can generally and easily be interpreted in a way that makes clear that the goal is pleasure and that all tools are subjective and relative to context.

However lots of people will make the leap on those to hearing "wealth is ALWAYS or INTRINSICALLY preferable to poverty" and "this natural measure of wealth is not arbitrary BUT ABSOLUTE" and I think we have to constantly be on guard against that. This is related to the entire issue of the natural and necessary categorization, which I also think is easily misunderstood to imply that there are bright lines such as a Platonist or Aristotelian or Stoic would assert (which they would assert derives from gods or from virtue).

In fact that's the danger I see in the phrase "natural measure of wealth" is that it will be misunderstood almost as much as would be the word "god" and so demands almost immediate definition in Epicurean terms.

And THAT's the issue I have with the article we're discussing -- it buries the conclusion under reams of details that most people won't read, and then when it gets to the end it doesn't even make the point clearly then.

I agree that it helps a lot to discuss these issues and strategies for presenting them because I think that there IS a hugely important issue here, which is that Epicurus doesn't advise poverty any more than he advises aiming for great riches. But that's what 98% of the people talking about Epicurus seem to think or advocate, so if you take up this issue and make the fundamental point then I really applaud the effort.

Quote from Martin

"To say that the objects of conceptual thought are always universals is not to assert that these universals exist as such in reality, independent of the human mind that apprehends them."

I agree with Martin and in the first draft of my post above I quoted that line myself as something I thought sounded good. But then when I read further I got less comfortable and didn't requote any of it.

Clearly conceptual thought about things that do not exist is not only possible but ordinary and useful. However if our subject is "universals" then I am not sure that observation really advances the discussion, and we really need to start back earlier to define what we are talking about with that word "universals."

Welcome to Episode Six 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 positions into Lucretius' or Epicurus' words.

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 a religion, it''s not Stoicism, Humanism, Libertarianism, 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 Six. 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):

I know it is hard to explain in Latin verse the dark and mystic notions of the Greeks, for I have things to say that require new words, because the tongue is poor, the subject new. But your virtue, and the pleasures I expect from tender friendship, make me bear the toil, and spend the silent night with wakeful eyes, studious of words and numbers I shall use, to open to your mind such scenes of light which shew the hidden qualities of things unknown.

These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made.

For hence it is that fear disturbs the mind, that strange events in Earth and Heaven are seen, whose causes cannot appear by reason’s eye, and then we say they were from Powers Divine. But when we rest convinced that nothing can arise from nothing, then the way is clear to our pursuit; we distinctly see whence every thing comes into being, and how things are formed, without the help and trouble of the Gods.

If things proceed from nothing, every thing might spring from any thing, and want no seed; Men from the sea might first arise, and fish and birds break from the Earth, and herds and tender flocks drop from the sky, and every kind of beast, fixed to no certain place, might find a being in deserts or in cultivated fields: Nor the same fruit on the same trees would grow, but would be changed, and all things all things bear. For had not every thing its genial seed, how is it that every thing derives its birth from causes still the same? But now, since things are formed from certain seeds, and first rise into light, where every being has its principles and matter fitly framed, from hence we see that all things cannot spring from every thing, since each has certain secret properties peculiar to itself.

Munro: 

Nor does my mind fail to perceive how hard it is to make clear in Latin verses the dark discoveries of the Greeks, especially as many points must be dealt with in new terms on account of the poverty of the language and the novelty of the questions. But yet your worth and the looked-for pleasure of sweet friendship prompt me to undergo any labor and lead me on to watch the clear nights through, seeking by what words and in ,what verse I may be able in the end to shed on your mind so clear a light that you can thoroughly scan hidden things.

This terror then and darkness of mind must be dispelled not by the rays of the sun and glittering shafts of day, but by the aspect and the law of nature; the warp of whose design we shall begin with this first principle, nothing is ever gotten out of nothing by divine power. Fear in sooth holds so in check all mortals, because they see many operations go on in earth and heaven, the causes of which they can in noway understand, believing them therefore to be done by power divine. For these reasons when we shall have seen that nothing can be produced from nothing, we shall then more correctly ascertain that which we are seeking, both the elements out of which everything can be produced and the manner in which all things are done without the hand of the gods.

If things came from nothing, any kind might be born of any thing, nothing would require seed. Men for instance might rise out of the sea, the scaly race out of the earth, and birds might burst out of the sky; horned and other herds, every kind of wild beasts would haunt with changing broad tilth and wilderness alike. Nor would the same fruits keep constant to trees, but would change; any tree might bear any fruit. For if there were not begetting bodies for each, how could things have a fixed unvarying mother? But in fact because things are all produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and goes forth into the borders of light out of that in which resides its matter and first bodies; and for this reason all things cannot be gotten out of all things, because in particular things resides a distinct power.

Bailey:

Nor does it pass unnoticed of my mind that it is a hard task in Latin verses to set clearly in the light the dark discoveries of the Greeks, above all when many things must be treated in new words, because of the poverty of our tongue and the newness of the themes; yet your merit and the pleasure of your sweet friendship, for which I hope, urge me to bear the burden of any toil, and lead me on to watch through the calm nights, searching by what words, yea and in what measures, I may avail to spread before your mind a bright light, whereby you may see to the heart of hidden things.

This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.Fear forsooth so constrains all mortal men, because they behold many things come to pass on earth and in the sky, the cause of whose working they can by no means see, and think that a divine power brings them about. Therefore, when we have seen that nothing can be created out of nothing, then more rightly after that shall we discern that for which we search, both whence each thing can be created, and in what way all things come to be without the aid of gods.

For if things came to being from nothing, every kind might be born from all things, nought would need a seed. First men might arise from the sea, and from the land the race of scaly creatures, and birds burst forth from the sky; cattle and other herds, and all the tribe of wild beasts, with no fixed law of birth, would haunt tilth and desert. Nor would the same fruits stay constant to the trees, but all would change: all trees might avail to bear all fruits. Why, were there not bodies to bring each thing to birth, how could things have a fixed unchanging mother? But as it is, since all things are produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and comes forth into the coasts of light, out of that which has in it the substance and first-bodies of each; and ’tis for this cause that all things cannot be begotten of all, because in fixed things there dwells a power set apart.

I think I have one more thing to say for now about this very murky subject. I have long believed and still maintain that Bailey's version of anticipations = "conceptual reasoning" which occurs after you see five cows, form a word-picture in your mind of a cow, and use the word cow -- My view is that that process is by no means a complete description of what pre-conceptions means. That process DOES exist, and it is VERY IMPORTANT, but that is "conceptual reasoning."

PRE-conceptions, on the other hand, would (following DeWitt) be something "intuitive" that serves as an input or a disposition toward conceptual reasoning, and does not constitute conceptual reasoning itself.

I repeat this just because I think there are TWO very important things to discuss here, which are closely related but not identical: (1) conceptual reasoning, and all that goes with that, and (2) preconceptions, which is a "faculty" equivalent to seeing or hearing or feeling. I think if we jam both of these two together as if we are talking about the same thing then we lose sight of what Epicurus was talking about as PRE-conceptions.

Lee:

I am vigorously hoping that someone is going to drop in and enlighten us and in a few sentences answers all our questions.

Failing that, however, I think you are going to find probably the best material answering your question in that DeLacey commentary, for example. All of this is very technical and as usual we are relying on commentators, some of whom are more sympathetic to Epicurus than others. I can't vouch for DeLacey but I remember thinking when I finished reading this work several years ago that DeLacey's interpretations seemed sound to me. This following clip is part of the material I linked in the last post above:

There is discussion in DeLacey's commentary on Philodemus which is relevant to this question:

Excellent question and very deep subject Lee. I will be interested to see what others have to say.

It would probably help a lot to attempt to come up with a more clear statement of what the "problem of universals" really means, because I agree that you are right to see all this as of critical importance.

Plato suggested that some form of universals exist in his realm of ideas; Aristotle suggested that some form of universals exist in his "essences" - I am not sure we have really established what exactly Epicurus held on the subject other than inferentially from the observation that nothing has eternal unchanging existence except the elemental particles. I think that has very clear implications for certain definitions of "universals," but the full impact of the foundation depends entirely on the definition given to that term.

I would think that we could find some academic articles on the subject too, so we can look for that over time.

In the meantime, the place that I am familiar with that has the most bearing on this and where Epicurus comes in is the section beginning at the link below from DeLacey's analysis of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus, in Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" -

https://archive.org/stream/philode…ge/120/mode/2up

Ok this is the final paragraph, which seems to me to summarize that nothing new is being added: the ultimate point is that wealth is to be judged just like any other choice, by the amount of pleasure and pain that it brings:

I don't have anything really negative to say about the article, and all the detail is certainly interesting from many points of view. But what I do have a problem with is essentially the same as the Epicurean criticism of Socrates: Don't hide the ball. Make your point and explain at the outset where you are going and the ultimate point so that the reader can process the information efficiently. There is nothing strange about the "Epicurean measure of wealth" any more than that there is an "Epicurean measure of ice cream." To me, it is distracting and disconcerting to go on and on with details about translations and what other people argued without being clear what the ultimate point is.

And in fact in this closing point, the writer is actually DISMISSING the ultimate point as if there is some reason not to keep that front and center.

OK with all that being said there is a lot of good material here for discussion as an example of the Epicurean calculus of action, but NOT toward the direction of poverty that the writer seemed to want to plant in the reader's mind as Epicurus' viewpoint!

THAT seems to me to be the correct point, but also a fairly obvious one. Is there really anything going on in this discussion OTHER than this point?

Two more points here: (1) the writer is again being ambigous and tending to make people think that the acquisition of anything by means of ANY harm (pain) is to be avoided, when that is clearly not the case.

(2) I think that this distinction about "the sage" is a dangerous distinction to. No doubt Epicurus did consider at time what the "founder of a school" might do different from any other wise person, but a philosophy oriented toward founders of schools is worse than useless -- Epicurean philosophy is oriented toward wise people in all stations of life, not specifically concerned with "sages"

I also find these sections in red borderline ridiculous, and this emphasizes to me that it is useless and counterproductive to keep talking about "measure of wealth" without defining what we mean. How is this "measure of wealth" any different from any other measure of any other tool for happiness in the Epicurean perspective? I don't think it is, so why imply that there is some magic here? (talking to the writer, not to you, Hiram).

Thanks Hiram. THIS statement from that article is RIDICULOUS, which is why we need to process this material and not accept the existing discussions at face value. And more than that, we have to keep in mind that the majority of such articles are statistically going to be written expressing this kind of ridiculous opinion. Ridiculous, of course, unless we are going to accept that Epicurus was a total hypocrite by amassing the slaves and wealth that he held at the time of his death:

Hiram anything on Horace is presumably fully in public domain with cites to the full text where everyone can read the original and see the original context. Do you have cites for those?

I note also that the third link does not work.

Quote from Hiram

knowledge outside of this unnecessary, not necessarily rejected.

Yes I think that is the distinction.

Quote from Hiram

Because La Mettrie is adamant that happinenss must be felt, that we can't reason our way to happiness.

OK I agree that that position is very consistent what what I read Epicurus to be saying. If you have passages that make that precise point then that would be very closely related to the comments in Torquatus that Epicurus denied the necessity of logical argument to establish that pleasure is desirable, and it would relate to the apparent debate between those who agreed with that position and those "other Epicureans" who thought that logic and reason COULD be used to establish that point. I think that debate is of very great importance so fleshing out the respective positions would be very helpful for understanding the place reason / logic in the Epicurean canon.

Certainly I agree that any reliable text material should be explored and discussed, so I will try to follow along and comment on anything you post in this area. I know my comments may appear to be negative but I do not intend them that way -- as long as we can present reliable and verifiable material to work with, and we make clear the limitations and what part is speculative and what part is clear, and what part is our own speculations, I'm all in favor of the discussion.

That's a good summary Hiram and reinforces the need for the full text to be made available in English so that it can be scrutinized in detail, such as this paragraph:

"One final note concerning how, in my view, La Mettrie’s epistemological approach is essentially Epicurean despite his hesitation to call himself a dogmatist: to him, knowledge that does not bring pleasure is rejected–and it is rejected BECAUSE it does not bring pleasure! In paragraph 26 he contrasts the pleasure of being in nature with trying to understand everything rationally, which is more an act of power over nature rather than blissful immersion in it:"

Let us take things for what they seem to be. Let us look all around us: this circumspection is not devoid of pleasure and the sight is enchanting. Let us watch it admiringly, but without that useless itch to understand everything and without being tortured by curiosity, which is always superfluous when our senses do not share it with our minds.

Is it indeed Epicurean to say that "knowledge which does not bring pleasure is rejected?" I know that the statement was made that Epicurus would "spit upon the beautiful if it did not bring pleasure" but that too is a fragment without a lot of context. Would the point be that any knowledge that does not EVENTUALLY bring pleasure is not needed - because perhaps that knowledge does not lead to immediate pleasure but does lead to eventual pleasure and/or lesser pain? Is your statement (the first paragraph quoted) a good summary of the statement from La Mettrie?

This is interesting material and I hope over time we can really dig into it.

I have a copy of that but I have only scanned it. I think there is or would be a TREMENDOUS amount of interest in anything reliably handed down by Philodemus, but not when

(1) the Academic world keeps the material under wraps and makes it impossible to study freely by anyone, and

(2) what is left is so fragmentary that the narrative is largely a matter of speculative reconstruction so that you don't really know whether to trust the rendering or not.

For example this is what I see as to what you just quoted. The parts in brackets are reconstructed, but what about the rest of the text? What does the piece of paper or papyri that bears these characters look like? Is this a penciled version made by those who unrolled the text 100+ years ago? How do we know that they deciphered the texts correctly? As far as being instructed to write outlines, we know that Epicurus says that in the letter to Herodotus. But these words "to hand down a tradition" are in brackets - what is the basis for this reconstruction? Sounds reasonable, but how do we know?:

So as far as I can tell the best way to change and expand the level of discussion would be to find a way to bridge the gap between what we have free access to and the original sources.

In writing this I mean no criticism whatsoever to anyone, Hiram or Voula Tsouna. All I am saying is that reliance on heavily reconstructed texts is perilous without a clear chain documenting the evidence at every stage. And maybe equally importantly, having it only be the available only at significant cost makes the work much that harder.

Perhaps these texts are in fact available somewhere on one of the public websites, but tracking down that chain is a large part of the work that needs to be done.