Posts by Cassius

First of what I hope are several "highlight" videos:

Also I should mention that in order to not get totally sidetracked on it we never read the full passage that is the source of so much discussion/argument. For the record it is this passage:

We must consider that of desires some are natural, others vain, and of the natural some are necessary and others merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life. The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfil the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure. And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.

And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest enjoy luxury pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equal to a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips. To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune. When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revelings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit.

I thought Charles had a great point of analyzing the issue here as one of the temptation to "idealize" a particular form or type of pleasure over all others. That's a point that I need to add into my most lengthy post on this subject: The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model

And really, as I think about it, Julie's emphasis on the implications of the "sober reasoning" part is really a good way of looping back the previously stated we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time.

Yes! When I put together that clip of Elayne, the "duh" clip from Julie was next on my list to do! And there were some really good lines by Charles and Martin as well. I think rather than make more highlight clips right now I am going to sick with adding notes (like these) to each podcast, and also setting up threads for upcoming podcasts, but I can't say how much I appreciate the input from Elayne and Julie and Charles and Martin in producing these.

Over time we need other formats where we can get others (like the two of you who commented above) involved in a more "ad hoc" way, but what I'm beginning to see is that getting a group of people to do this week after week after week builds up a - what would be the word - "style" or "consistency"? - that is really helpful.

Over time you also get to find out things about people that you had no idea were true. I was pretty sure from the beginning that Martin had very good expertise in physics, but I was very surprised when Julie in this episode displayed her knowledge of Zeno's paradox being based on infinitely divisible lines. And of course in this episode too Elayne surprised us with the "block" universe!

I see they have my mesh here: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/epic…ab1586e10521e36

and here: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/epic…c0469e112a8071b

LOL I see what you mean about maybe saying things differently now!

It looks like last October you were pretty much in a standard place where you were already sensing the contradictions between Epicurus and Stoicism without really articulating them. A true Stoic would worried about you and noted that you had a lot less to say about "virtue" than you should have from their point of view. And shockingly you seemed to be operating from the premise that the benefit of being a Stoic had something to do with the practical results of it, and that the goal of it all was to somehow be happy -- and of course that betrays your not being sold on true Stoicism!

It's also obvious that you were digging into the sources, and that's what I think has kept you here. Lots of people who find themselves in your position of last October are going to stay there if all they come into contact with is the Catherine Wilson / Time Okeefe approach. They will mind-meld Stoic and Epicurean views in one way or the other to conclude that Epicurus is focused on "simple pleasure," and that the Stoics didn't really mean what they said about virtue, and they would decide that the two are "close enough" to modern viewpoints so that the original points of the schools, and the differences between the two, can safely be ignored.

And there they stop, put the books back on the shelf, and move on to something else (unless they are paid by their college or university to write these superficial points of view for a living).

There is so much to reconsider and study about even the simplest of assertions that we take for granted, including even such a basic sentence as:

There are so many details of the philosophy to drill down to verify. Is the Epicurean goal properly described as "eudaimonia?" Would they have maintained that their goal, whatever the term used to describe it, was achievable by everyone?

I am not sure either of those statements apply to either the Stoics or Epicureans....

I just listened to this program, and my notes are below. Most of my comments will not be surprising; I find that the program focuses on many interpretations of Epicurus that I strongly disagree with. Catherine Wilson performs as she usually does - sometimes very well, but then ultimately just digging herself deeper into the well of (1) "absence of pain" as the focus of life rather than pleasure, (2) her list of political positions that she is confident that all Epicureans would agree with.

At one point around the 30 minute mark she starts down a very productive road of discussing how other Greek philosophers were hostile to pleasure, and she cited Plato's Phaedo beginning on that theme. That's a work I haven't checked and we need to investigate. Unfortunately she shuts herself down (or perhaps the interviewer clipped her answer) and she doesn't expand on what she is talking about or why her observation is important.

One point that I think noteworthy that I have not seen before occurs at 11:30 when the interviewer leads David Sedley to agree that the infinite universe argument leads one to conclude that eventually enough monkey will compose the Aenid. I do NOT believe that Epicurus would have agreed with that, and I would cite the arguments in Lucretius about the LIMITS of what combinations of atoms can do. This is an important point because it is related to issues of chance and chaos and determinism and I was very surprised that David Sedley did not swat it down.

The introduction is a mix of typical misleading superficialities about bread and water and cheese.

7:15 - Atomism. Very good discussion by Catherine Wilson. No souls, no ghosts, no supernatural divinities; no action at a distance, no sorcery. Interviewer accuses of contradiction with emphasis on senses; Wilson defends well.

11:30 Asks David Sedley about the swerve. He links to Heisenburg. Points out that Epicurus bases his argument on infinite universes. Problem: He agrees with interviewer on the Monkey typewriter argument!

14:18 Sonja talks about Philodemus not being an "atheist" in the standard sense. Interviewer pushes argument that Epicurus was hiding his true beliefs on gods. Sedley says Epicurus might have considered them just concepts - he says jury is out and you must read between lines. Wilson refers to On The Nature of the Gods and common impression of mankind. Wilson argues that Lucretius is different from Epicurus and more anti-religious (I disagree that there is difference).

19:02 - Reader reads the Iphinessa passage from Book One (not sure what translation).

20:23 - Interviewer asks decent question about pleasure but NO! Wilson insists it is more important to focus to minimize pain than to pursue pleasure! Says also friendship is the greatest good!

27:08: "True happiness found in friendship and simple things in life"

27:39 - Sonya says that Epicurean pleasure is a "subdued sort of pleasure."

28:10 - Sedley says "when all pain is gone" this is the greatest pleasure. He says that adding things through luxury is just variety, not greater quantity. Sedley's explanation is not entirely clear

30:00 Wilson says that Epicurus had a modest view of pleasure, but she also says that the commentators have been hostile (cites Phaedo as ranting against pleasure). If she had gone further she was going in right direction!! But she stopped!

30:52 Sedley talks about reducing needs and doesn't answer the question qbout accepting an upgrade to a nicer seat on a flight. Free upgrade would be fine but not every time. Sonja says that you would not ASK for it! Sedley agrees.

32:00 Discussion of Stoicism starts. Wilson says stoicism is training your mind not to care about misfortune. Epicureans were "somewhat skeptical" of this - then Wilson stops!

34:00 Sedley says appeal of Epicurus to Italy is that it is easy to get started; no lessons in logic required;

34:30 Interviewer sees this as grass roots rather than top down philosophy. Sonya agrees; says Cicero was an elitist.

35:30 Sedley cites 1417 rediscovery that kickstarted Epicurean revival.

36:32 - Reading of atoms swerving from Lucretius Book 2

39:36 discussion of why people are interested in Epicuran ethics rather than physics

41:00 Sonya says that her students find Epicurus more interesting than most. They see it as a foil to the material world they live in because you don't need a lot to be happy (good grief).

42:30 Catherine Wilson says No wars for ideology, no autocratic leaders, nobody would try to amass great quantities of wealth, poeple would accept science, people would choose friends by who they liked, People would be ecologists. Epicureans emphasize making do with less and focusing on books and conversations and that we should scale back expectations and ambitions.

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

Released On: 02 Apr 2020

The popular view of an Epicurean is that of somebody who focuses on pleasure as our guiding principle, indulging in the finer things of life to achieve happiness. And yet what the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus understood by pleasure was far more nuanced. In fact, Epicurus and his followers advocated a simple lifestyle, withdrawn from society, where we are content with little.

What is perhaps less known is how Epicurean writings on physics foreshadowed some of the most significant developments in early modern science – including Darwin’s theory of evolution and even Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Joining Bridget Kendall is Catherine Wilson, visiting Professor at the Graduate Centre of the City University of New York, and the author of various works on Epicureanism, including How to Be an Epicurean: The Ancient Art of Living Well; Dr Sonya Wurster, Honorary Fellow at La Trobe University in Australia who’s working on a book about the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus; and philosopher and historian David Sedley, Emeritus Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and the author of numerous publications on Greek and Roman thought.

Thanks for posting this! I am in the middle of something else but will come back with more comments. Did you record yourself?

I have been thinking again about how to prioritize time among projects.

Charles made a comment in the most recent Lucretius Today podcast that 98% of the people who come into his Discord or Reddit groups, or the Facebook group, are essentially "NeoEpicurean" in their thinking. They have little interest in the physics or the epistemology, and they think that they have captured Epicurus fully in a couple of remarks about "absence of pain" or "tranquility." We have much better percentages here at EpicureanFriends.com, but that's because we started by actively recruiting people who we knew had read DeWitt or had otherwise shown by long-time posting that they were really motivated to dig into the details of the philosophy.

Elayne made a comment in the same podcast that I thought was so worth emphasizing that I highlighted it in a short three minute video:

Given that so many people who are curious about Epicurus are so far off base to start with, probably the best thing we can do for them is to highlight ways that they can consider that there might be more to Epicurus than they realize. I posted about that previously in: How To Convert A Neo-Epicurean Into A Classical Epicurean

But beyond reading list suggestions, I think by far the best thing to do is to continue working on the Lucretius podcast, which is going to end up producing a long series of educational shows that will step people back through the basics. I may make some more short "highlight" clips like the one above, but primarily what I think needs doing is to both set up new episodes and then make more notes and extend the discussion on each one.

With the results we will have a full step-by-step progression through the philosophy, from which we can make quizzes and use as "lectures" or background material for more organized presentations such as the as-yet-unlaunched EpicurusCollege.com website with a more extensive on-line learning system.

So for the moment I think we're on the right track by going through Lucretius in detail and that seems to me to be the thing to focus on for a while.

But the big holdup in making progress on these and other initiatives is "content," so if you have any extra free time here are things I would ask people to consider doing:

1. Post comments and questions on the existing episodes of the LucretiusToday podcast. Those are organized by topic, so each episode can have here on the forum an active discussion of the topics in each show.
2. Post comments and questions about each of the Twelve Fundamentals of Nature, the Principal Doctrines and the Vatican Sayings. Eugenios lately has been doing some of this, and I know other people have too. Rather than post in the "General Discussion" forum, if you post under the individual Doctrine or Saying then we develop a database on the particular items. I took the time to set up a separate subforum, rather than a single thread, for each of these doctrines and sayings so that we can carry on detailed discussions over time.
3. Post comments and questions about anything that interest you in terms of Art and Literature from the past and present. There's a lot of fascinating material to be dug out of the history books like Joshua and Charles and others have been doing, and the place to post those is here.
4. We don't have an immediate schedule but we need to open up on-line live discussion to more people. The place to post about that is here: EpicureanFriends Open DIscussion

If you have ideas about things to be added to this list please post here. Thanks!

Back in 2013 or so this is the website I used: https://web.archive.org/web/2012100104…3dapp.com/Catch

It's Autodesk (not Adobe as I said earlier) and you took a series of pictures from all angles, uploaded them, and it automatically generated the mesh.

The website is no longer there (at least in the old form) and I am not sure what technology has replaced it. I have access to a decent 6 inch bust of Epicurus that I could re-photograph if needed, but that may not be the best way.

As far as I am concerned most ideal would be to find a way to get scans of this one because as I understand it that is just the way it came out of the ground in Herculaneum, so there's no possibility that we are working with the interpretations of a modern reproduction (and that's what I think that mine is - a modern reproduction.

I feel sure that Elli and some of our other friends in Greece, including maybe @Michele in Italy, probably have access to better originals from which we could work.

Updated software info here:

https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/123d-apps

https://3dscanexpert.com/123d-catch-alt…droid-workflow/

Wow look at the prices: https://www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview

I am sure there must be free alternatives.

michelepinto

do you know anything about access to 3d sources for busts of the founders and/or the leaping pig, or the Boscoreale cup?

Here is a link where the mesh I produced can be downloaded. Caveat is that I have not looked at this in six or seven years so I am no longer sure it is usable - if any tries to open it and gets any benefit out of it please post your results so that I will know whether to remove the link or leave it up.

Hmmm -- the file in the first link is to an .obj file. I no longer recall what the file extensions mean.

Here is a link to an "stl" file.

Also of course there is the image i feature on the home page. This one is either not my mesh, or was modified to remove the base:

Depending on the size and the material used, the result from the mesh I produced back then was decently acceptable. But the technology of the camera resolution I used, and the free adobe (I think) software to render the mesh, I am sure is vastly better now. I think I know at least one person who produced another mesh so I will see what I can find, but the best thing to do would be to start comparing notes on the current best way to do this.

I have a friend who produced this version a few years ago. I need to ask him if he used his own mesh or the one I did

Here is my post about my efforts seven long years ago! The results were not very good but seemed better than nothing at the time - the technology is far advanced since then!

I see that I still have a copy of the 20MB mesh file if anyone would like it - just email me and I will post it to a new link for download, but I don't recommend it -- we need a new one with new technology

https://newepicurean.com/three-dimensio…-now-available/

Ah I see the getty photos now.

This is one of my FAVORITE views of Epicurus, good intense look in eye but still a friendly look i think; it has a nice base, name inscription - the full 9 yards! I think it is the one that the line drawing that I frequently use in graphics is based on. THIS is the one I would love to see 3d duplicated as much as any of them:

Godfrey some years ago I remember seeing a 3d version of the leaping pig online, from which this photo was made, but I can no longer find it online anywhere.

I know that there are replicas out there, some better than others, which ought to be doable. I remember seeing one once on ebay but i missed getting it.

I have one myself, but unfortunately it does not include the correct base. However if push came to shove it is pretty good of the pig, so I have one myelf that would make a start.

Thanks Godfrey and Charles! Godfrey I think in order to create a new mesh we'll probably need lots of photos from all angles, but I did not know that there was a reproduction at the Getty so that is valuable info.

And Charles wow I had not seen all those links!

It looks like this one might be the best: https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-prin…-london-uk-6093

But this one SHOULD have been the best given the starting point: https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-epicurus-25611

It looks like we have more work to do to get a recommended mesh,

Please please please keep us posted on that Joshua. I would love to do that myself but I just can't find the time. We really need to develop 3d models of some of the major artifacts, the most doable of which appear to be the Epicurus bust and the leaping pig statue, because we have decent copies floating around which we can photograph from all angles.

The ones I did years ago are hopelessly primitive, and it would be a real service to the cause if we could make good new "meshes" freely available.

I also smiled sarcastically when I saw this clip:

Of course, Slattery means "materialist" in an entirely different way than did Epicurus -but Epicurus is nothing if not a "materialist!"

People like Slattery in this work reduce "materialism" to "commercialism" and act as if it's just impossible for them to avoid buying those shiny trinkets in the window, and THAT is the major issue of the modern world. Geesh.

But understanding Epicurus really doesn't matter for someone whose goals are essentially political ("green" in this case) and aimed at "quieting desire" -- which is pure Buddhism.

There are many books out there like this, which start with a preferred social/political viewpoint, and try to enlist Epicurus in aid of their own conclusions. This is not a helpful approach - at all. Catherine Wilson does some of this too, but at least she spends much more time explaining the details of the philosophy, and I always get the impression, at least in watching her videos, that she knows she is over the line and is even somewhat embarrassed because she realizes that she isn't REALLY following Epicurus.

I don't think i have seen mention of the book, but Luke Slattery's video comes up regularly:

https://www.lukeslatteryauthor.com/epicurus

I have not seen him as having lots of promise due to comments like this:

The video is professionally done but as I was listening to it in the background I pick up things like "...withdrew into his garden...."

So I personally don't recommend this video, but commentary on it is definitely worthwhile for pointing out the issues, so that people who come across it can more easily see the issues.

Given how often Luke Slattery comes up I have moved these comments to a special thread under modern works.

Episode Twelve - Nothing But Combinations Of Matter and Void - has now been released. Our full panel begins the discussion of the implications of the Epicurean doctrine that all things are composed of matter and void. Please let us know your comments below, and if you have questions, please let us know and we will work to address them either here or in the next podcast.