Posts by Cassius

Hello and welcome to the forum @WFC !

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

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
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.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

Catherine Wilson Interview on "The Wright Show" (Robert Wright)

I wish she had not deferred so strongly to the interviewer. If you let a standard Stoic/Utilitarian moralist totally steer the conversation you will get a discussion of stoicism and utilitarianism. However in fairness to the interviewer, he is asking good and in many cases open-ended questions, but Ms. WIlson does not follow up as aggressively as she could to drive home the Epicurean conclusions.

Still, and regardless of her obvious political partisanship (she says she is not a card-carrrying Epicurean, but a card-carrying "Pacifist," and her enthusiasm seems to be for economic issues in the modern world) her approach to Epicurus is much better than most other academics. In my view she puts too much emphasis on avoiding pain, and she does not really embrace pleasure as the goal with enthusiasm, but - she is clearly not in the "tranquilist" camp.

I don't recommend this interview for someone trying to learn about Epicurus, but I do recommend it for someone who understands the basic issues and wants to think about tips on how not to get led around and painted into a corner by a modern moralist. She doesn't succeed nearly as well as she could, but still this is useful to think about how a more enthusiastic Epicurean could have replied.

At the end she says her next book is on Kant.

Notes:

2:00 She is not card-carrying anything except card-carrying Pacifist.

3:28 - Interviewer: Let's start out by talking about Pleasure.

4:07 Hedonism is pleasure taken to extremes and no Epicurean ever recommended that. 1 it gets you into trouble to do that and 2) there are ethical limits. Epicureanism gives you permission to enjoy "innocent pleasures." Don't see opposition between pleasure and virtue.

6:00 -7:00 Wilson said Stoics magnified difference between animals and humans; Epicureans think of emotions as like perceptions. IF you could take a pill to make yourself completely numb, then life would seem boring. Stoics go further than suppressing painful emotions and Seneca says that all emotions are diseases.

8:45 Interviewer wants to talk bout tradeoff between your own and others' happiness. Relationship to Utilitarianism? She says Bentham and Mill refer to Epicurus. Original Epicureans did not think in terms of measurements of

9:46 - Epicureans thought in terms of interactions between people who knew each other well.

10:17 Inter. says according to Utilitarianism no one person's happiness is more important than any other's happiness.

11:26 Utilitaransm leads to sainthood that you would spend all your time on other peoples' happiness. She says this is not Epicureanism.

13:12 Ethics says not to harm another, but that doesn't mean go along with Peter Singer Utilitarianism and give away all your money.

14:56 Epicureans did not teach vegetarianism.

16:10 Latter day Epicurean would be critical of prisons and slums and tenements especially because someone else is getting an advantage from it.

18:50 - Atoms and void came together randomly. No creationism and no intelligent design. Lucretius has natural selection theory.

20:20 Erasmus Darwin was a reader of Lucretius. Says it frustrates her how museums say that Darwin was the start of natural selecton etc.

21:52 He asks about "soul atoms" distributed

through the body. He says there is no afterlife. Was it atheistic?

23:00 She says Lucretius is different from Epicurus on the nature of the gods ??!!??? She is saying that Lucretius is more hostile to religion than was Epicurus.

24:50 She says morality is a convention set by society. "A social instrument for avoiding harm." Avoiding advantage-taking and avoiding exploitation.

26:00 Says she thinks the Epicureans supported central authority (???) but they saw potential for abuse... "labor slavery that we still have today..."

28:00 Morality is a set of beliefs in peoples' heads.

28:30 Compare and contrast Epicurus with Stoicism:

Epicureans atoms - Stoics have pneuma; a rational principal.

Stoics like Plato tended to see in the regularity of the heavens a pattern as to how things should be.

32:00 She contrasts Epicureans to Marcus Aurelius as Stoics being an impregnable citadel and Epicureans part of world. Epicureans considered Stoics barbaric.

33:50 Were stoics and Epicureans considered rivals? She says yes,and Cicero shows this by setting them against each other.

35:00 Stoics focused on virtue. He asks a good question and she hesitates and does not IMHO give a clear answer. This is possibly this is the least effective part of her responses. ... Epicurus did not speak on war (?) Epicureans said dont join the army... Find your happiness at home....

39:00 One reason we don't have much left is that Epicureanism could not be reconciled with Christianity. He asks what made it incompatible!?! He realizes his question is foolish...

40:19 She says no such thing as natural law; law is human convention and agreement. No natural rights either! (Very good analysis here!) There is regularity (sheep give birth to sheep) but this is not "law."

42:00 (He says) Stoicism is deterministic and Epicureanism is less so - chance - He doesn't understand why Epicureans were not deterministic. He says this is quirky; She cites the swerve as the basis of free will but says he does not explain this. They do believe in free will. She does not seem enthusiastic.

44:00 Stoic Universalism vs Epicurean relativism. Stoics saw extension of roman system to the whole world.

44:45 He asks about family life. She thinks Lucretius is different from Epicurus!?! Epicurus thought free love was the ideal situation and marriage and children would just bring vexation. She says Lucretius is more friendly to family and children.

46:08 Suicide. Epicureans dubious of political reasons for suicide. Cites Seneca as committing suicide. Epicureans say get mixed up in politics and you are asking for trouble.

48:00 Stoics saw suffering as inevitable; Epicureans saw suffering as minimizable. He cites Buddhism and mental attitude toward pain. She distinguishes. Says stoics cannot avoid troubles but can avoid suffering through willpower. Epicureans say you can do a lot of things to avoid or get out of trouble and that is more important that rearranging your head.

50:00 He says she thinks Epicureans are skeptical of nationalism and would have liked international law (central authority to prevent people from harm) Epicureans would like the UN if it were more effective. As to Patriotism Epicureans would say "What is a country?" It's atoms! It's arbitrary! Why would you have emotional attachment to such a thing! (This is her opinion and not necessarily accurate. We have emotional attachments to lots of things.)

52:00 Death: Epicureans think everything has limits and will pass away. She thinks trying to live extended / prolonged lives is unEpicurean.

53:30 17th century thought influenced by Epicureans - Galileo Descartes Newton; they add to that "laws of nature" which is not Epicurean.

54:30 Also utilitarianism in 19th century were influenced. Morality based on human agreement. Also evolution theory.

56:30 Trying to write a book now on KANT against materialism.

This is a fascinating comment about contrasting this to Stoicism

I apologize for the poor copy but it is the best I seem to be able to do. If anyone has a source that is more clear please post.

What follows are notes from Cyril Bailey in his most extensive edition of De Rerum Natura. I tend to discount Bailey's interpretations as much less reliable than Munro, but the notes may still contain helpful elements. If others know of commentaries on this section I would appreciate your adding references to the thread. For MUNRO, who is much more sympathetic to Epicurus and therefore more likely to be correct, see the next post.

Today's discussion of Lucretius (Episode 12) contains a couple of really deep issues worth noting before we start:

1) The difference between the PROPERTIES of atoms that are unchanging, and The QUALITIES of BODIES that do change and vary by situation. We are going to have to look closely at whether ATOMS have qualities, or whether only BODIES (combinations of atoms) have qualities, which I think is the case. We also need to look at the terminology because I personally think that EVENTS which is used by Daniel Brown (and closer to the Latin) is much better than ACCIDENTS as used by Munro and Bailey and many others.

2) this section contains the very interesting discussion of the Helen / Trojan war reference, and gathering what it means is not easy. I think he is using this to again get at the issue of "Existence" and what that word means. I think he is saying that we need to be careful to make sure we do not think that the story of the Trojan war "exists" as some archetype or in another dimension, and he argues that by saying that the events of the Trojan war are long gone and no longer "exist" in real form.

3) Last point maybe is to point out that he says that TIME does not exist except as a function of the movement of bodies. That one may actually be easier, and this is mentioned in the letter to Herodotus that we can compare.

Quote

Quote Moreover, you must firmly grasp this point as well; we must not look for time, as we do for all other things which we look for in an object, by referring them to the general conceptions which we perceive in our own minds, but we must take the direct intuition, in accordance with which we speak of “a long time” or “a short time,” and examine it, applying our intuition to time as we do to other things. Neither must we search for expressions as likely to be better, but employ just those which are in common use about it. Nor again must we predicate of time anything else as having the same essential nature as this special perception, as some people do, but we must turn our thoughts particularly to that only with which we associate this peculiar perception and by which we measure it. For indeed this requires no demonstration, but only reflection, to show that it is with days and nights and their divisions that we associate it and likewise also with internal feelings or absence of feeling, and with movements and states of rest; in connection with these last again we think of this very perception as a peculiar kind of accident, and in virtue of this we call it time.

There are lots of aspects of all this to consider but one is "Who would argue that 'actions of themselves subsist, as bodies do, or are in nature (such as is a void)?"

Is that a reference to Platonism?

Then there is the background of monism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

Welcome to Episode Thirteen of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, author of "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 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. Find out more about the nature and goals of our podcast at Lucretiustoday.com, where you can download a copy of the text that we read from each week.

In previous episodes we have discussed:

• (1) Venus / Pleasure As Guide of Life: 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;

• (2) The Achievement of Epicurus: 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;
• (3-4) So Great Is The Power of Religion To Inspire Evil Deeds! That it is not Epicurean philosophy, but supernatural religion, which is truly unholy and prompts men to commit evil deeds;
• (5) On Resisting The Threats of Priests And Poets: 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;
• (6-7) Step One: Nothing Comes From Nothing. The first major observation which underlies all the rest of Epicurean philosophy is that we observe that nothing is ever generated from nothing.
• (8) Step Two: Nothing Goes To Nothing. The second major observation is that nothing is ever destroyed completely to nothing.
• (9) The Evidence That Atoms Exist, Even Though They Are Unseen. The next observation is that we know elemental particles exist, even though we cannot see them just like we know that wind and other things exist by observing their effects.
• (10-11) The Void And Its Nature. We also know that the void exists, because things must have space in which to move, as we see they do move.
• (12) Everything We Experience Is Composed Of A Combination of Matter And Void. Everything around us that we experience is a natural combination of atoms and void.

In this Episode 13, we move to a discussion of Epicurus' view on whether reality is objective or subjective, and we explore how Epicurus categorized the things we experience around us as being either (1) the properties (also called essential conjuncts, which are essential and unchanging) or (2) qualities (also called events, which are inessential and changing depending on context) of the bodies that make them up. Whether properties or qualities, all our experiences arise from the nature, movement, and combinations of the atoms, and cease to exist when the atoms which compose the bodies disperse. Today we will discuss Epicurus' views on this issue, and apply it to the example that Lucretius gave us: the story of the Trojan war.

Our text today begins at at approximately line 439 of the Daniel Brown Edition.

Let's now join our discussion, with Elayne reading the text:

Review the prior sections of Book 1 of Daniel Browne by clicking here.

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

[439] Again, whatever is must either act itself, or be by other agents acted on; or must be something in which other bodies must have a place and move; but nothing without body can act, or be acted on; and where can this be done, but in a vacuum or empty space? Therefore, beside what body is or space, no third degree in nature can be found, nothing that ever can affect our sense, or by the power of thought can be conceived. All other things you'll find essential conjuncts, or else the events or accidents of these. I call essential conjunct what's so joined to a thing that it cannot, without fatal violence, be forced or parted from it; is weight to stones, to fire heat, moisture to the Sea, touch to all bodies, and not to be touched essential is to void. But, on the contrary, Bondage, Liberty, Riches, Poverty, War, Concord, or the like, which not affect the nature of the thing, but when they come or go, the thing remains entire; these, as it is fit we should, we call Events.

[460] Time likewise of itself is nothing; our sense collects from things themselves what has been done long since, the thing that present is, and what's to come. For no one, we must own, ever thought of Time distinct from things in motion or at rest.

[465] For when the poets sing of Helen's rape, or of the Trojan State subdued by war, we must not say that these things do exist now in themselves, since Time, irrevocably past, has long since swept away that race of men that were the cause of those events; for every act is either properly the event of things, or of the places where those things are done.

[472] Further, if things were not of matter formed, were there no place or space where things might act, the fire that burned in Paris' heart, blown up by love of Helen's beauty, had never raised the famous contests of a cruel war; nor had the wooden horse set Troy on fire, discharging from his belly in the night the armed Greeks: from whence you plainly see that actions do not of themselves subsist, as bodies do, nor are in nature such as is a void, but rather are more justly called the events of body, and of space, where things are carried on.

Munro:

[439] Again whatever shall exist by itself, will either do something or will itself suffer by the action of other things, or will be of such a nature as things are able to exist and go on in. But no thing can do and suffer without body, nor aught furnish room except void and vacancy. Therefore beside void and bodies no third nature taken by itself can be left in the number of things, either such as to fall at any time under the ken of our senses or such as any one can grasp by the reason of his mind. For whatever things are named, you will either find to be properties linked to these two things or you will see to be accidents of these things. That is a property which can in no case be disjoined and separated without utter destruction accompanying the severance, such as the weight of a stone, the heat of fire, the fluidity of water. Slavery on the other hand, poverty and riches, liberty war concord and all other things which may come and go while the nature of the thing remains unharmed, these we are wont, as it is right we should, to call accidents.

[460] Time also exists not by itself, but simply from the things which happen the sense apprehends what has been done in time past, as well as what is present and what is to follow after. And we must admit that no one feels time by itself abstracted from the motion and calm rest of things.

[465] So when they say that the daughter of Tyndarus was ravished and the Trojan nations were subdued in war, we must mind that they do not force us to admit that these things are by themselves, since those generations of men, of whom these things were accidents, time now gone by has irrevocably swept away. For whatever shall have been done may be termed an accident in one case of the Teucran people, in another of the countries simply.

[472] Yes for if there had been no matter of things and no room and space in which things severally go on, never had the fire, kindled by love of the beauty of Tyndarus’ daughter, blazed beneath the Phrygian breast of Alexander and lighted up the famous struggles of cruel war, nor had the timber horse unknown to the Trojans wrapt Pergama in flames by its night-issuing brood of sons of the Greeks; so that you may clearly perceive that all actions from first to last exist not by themselves and are not by themselves in the way that body is, nor are terms of the same kind as void is, but are rather of such a kind that you may fairly call them accidents of body and of the room in which they severally go on.

Bailey:

[439] Or again, whatsoever exists by itself, will either do something or suffer itself while other things act upon it, or it will be such that things may exist and go on in it. But nothing can do or suffer without body, nor afford room again, unless it be void and empty space. And so besides void and bodies no third nature by itself can be left in the list of things, which might either at any time fall within the purview of our senses, or be grasped by any one through reasoning of the mind. For all things that have a name, you will find either properties linked to these two things or you will see them to be their accidents. That is a property which in no case can be sundered or separated without the fatal disunion of the thing, as is weight to rocks, heat to fire, moisture to water, touch to all bodies, intangibility to the void. On the other hand, slavery, poverty, riches, liberty, war, concord, and other things by whose coming and going the nature of things abides untouched, these we are used, as is natural, to call accidents.

[460] Even so time exists not by itself, but from actual things comes a feeling, what was brought to a close in time past, then what is present now, and further what is going to be hereafter. And it must be avowed that no man feels time by itself apart from the motion or quiet rest of things.

[465] Then again, when men say that ‘the rape of Tyndarus’s daughter’, or ‘the vanquishing of the Trojan tribes in war’ are things, beware that they do not perchance constrain us to avow that these things exist in themselves, just because the past ages have carried off beyond recall those races of men, of whom, in truth, these were the accidents. For firstly, we might well say that whatsoever has happened is an accident in one case of the countries, in another even of the regions of space.

[472] Or again, if there had been no substance of things nor place and space, in which all things are carried on, never would the flame of love have been fired by the beauty of Tyndaris, nor swelling deep in the Phrygian heart of Alexander have kindled the burning battles of savage war, nor unknown of the Trojans would the timber horse have set Pergama aflame at dead of night, when the sons of the Greeks issued from its womb. So that you may see clearly that all events from first to last do not exist, and are not by themselves like body, nor can they be spoken of in the same way as the being of the void, but rather so that you might justly call them the accidents of body and place, in which they are carried on, one and all.

[ADMIN NOTE: The material below will be discussed in Episode 13, rather than 12:]

Today's discussion of Lucretius (Episode 12) contains a couple of really deep issues worth noting before we start:

1) The difference between the PROPERTIES of atoms that are unchanging, and The QUALITIES of BODIES that do change and vary by situation. We are going to have to look closely at whether ATOMS have qualities, or whether only BODIES (combinations of atoms) have qualities, which I think is the case. We also need to look at the terminology because I personally think that EVENTS which is used by Daniel Brown (and closer to the Latin) is much better than ACCIDENTS as used by Munro and Bailey and many others.

2) this section contains the very interesting discussion of the Helen / Trojan war reference, and gathering what it means is not easy. I think he is using this to again get at the issue of "Existence" and what that word means. I think he is saying that we need to be careful to make sure we do not think that the story of the Trojan war "exists" as some archetype or in another dimension, and he argues that by saying that the events of the Trojan war are long gone and no longer "exist" in real form.

3) Last point maybe is to point out that he says that TIME does not exist except as a function of the movement of bodies. That one may actually be easier, and this is mentioned in the letter to Herodotus that we can compare.

Quote

Moreover, you must firmly grasp this point as well; we must not look for time, as we do for all other things which we look for in an object, by referring them to the general conceptions which we perceive in our own minds, but we must take the direct intuition, in accordance with which we speak of “a long time” or “a short time,” and examine it, applying our intuition to time as we do to other things. Neither must we search for expressions as likely to be better, but employ just those which are in common use about it. Nor again must we predicate of time anything else as having the same essential nature as this special perception, as some people do, but we must turn our thoughts particularly to that only with which we associate this peculiar perception and by which we measure it. For indeed this requires no demonstration, but only reflection, to show that it is with days and nights and their divisions that we associate it and likewise also with internal feelings or absence of feeling, and with movements and states of rest; in connection with these last again we think of this very perception as a peculiar kind of accident, and in virtue of this we call it time.

There are lots of aspects of all this to consider but one is "Who would argue that 'actions of themselves subsist, as bodies do, or are in nature (such as is a void)?"

Is that a reference to Platonism?

Then there is the background of monism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/04/0…eality-of-time/

After editing and then posting this, I have just listened to the final product. I think we are getting better as we go, and I have to say that other than my own ramblings, which I will exclude from praising, I think this is an excellent episode and I would recommend that if you've been considering listening to one of these, but haven't, this is an excellent one to check out. Thank you Julie and Elayne and Martin and Charles!

Episode Eleven is now released!

Yes I think that makes perfect sense. I think the issue of "logic" and what Lucretius meant by "true reason" and all those related issues as to dialectical logic and so forth are difficult for many people to accept at first, and in fact they are difficult issues to express even for people who are familiar with the issue, so I was just checking!

I think DeWitt's chapter on the canon, with his emphasis that "reason" is not a part of the canon, is really helpful in setting the course to understand that Epicurus did not view "reason" or "logic" as direct connections with reality outside our minds.

Anyway, very good!

Thanks for adding that Melkor. It certainly seems to me from what you've written that you're covering the major bases of Epicurus. If there is one that is a little abbreviated it is number three, and I am thinking that this sentence might be worth qualifying and/or making more precise: "The trick is to train the mind using tools like mathematics and logic to have correct conclusions about existence and specifically how to life a pleasurable life."

But in general it looks like you're going to have a lot of good things to contribute even beyond Tolkeinian linguistics!

Quote from melkor

essentially an Epicurean ought not plug oneself into this machine that promises pleasure,

I think Melkor's summary is correct, but in reading it I think it's important to understand that we are making presumptions about the pleasure machine scenario that are very important. Is it inherent in the scenario that the issue with the pleasure machine is lack of variety? (IE, that there are pleasures we would want that the pleasure machine would not provide?)

If we presume that that is the case, then yes an Epicurean would not choose the pleasure machine.

However I do think we need to be careful to state that detail of reasoning, because if we agree that pleasure is at least somewhat subjective, then it might well be acceptable for an Epicurean to decide that the pleasures provided by the pleasure machine would provide him a better life than some other alternative, and choose the machine.

Stated differently, "if" we found that we derived great pleasure from staring at a candle, and "if" we could postulate that we had circumstances which allowed us to sustain that pleasure indefinitely, would Epicurus say that Nature requires or guides us to reject that option?

Remember PD10: "10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life."

It seems to me that this is a reminder that our problem with being a worm or staring at a candle is not that being a scientist or an astronaut or a great artist provides "intrinsically" superior or more intense pleasure that is choiceworthy for everyone because of its superiority or intensity. It seems to me that as a practical matter, and from the "point of view of Nature," staring at a candle is not a human-sustainable lifestyle, while pursuing a career as a great artist or astronaut or scientist is or can be both intensely enjoyable and sustainable. So while I don't think we can say that the candle-starer is "objectively" wrong to pursue a life of that kind of pleasure, at least for myself I can and do state emphatically that a life of five years of being an astronaut is something I would choose over 50 years of staring at a candle.

But to repeat one more time, "IF" we stipulate that the person staring at a candle is indeed experiencing pleasure, then we may not personally be impressed, but there's still no god or realm of platonic forms justifying us in saying "that person isn't living right."

Quote from melkor

the resource for learning Tolkienian linguistics

Hey, that's what we're here for - Tolkienian linguistics!

This is the "Welcome" thread for Melkor so feel free to turn it into whatever you like!

Probably one thing it is definitely turning into is "How to pick your user name so you get the most enthusiastic welcome!"

Or a "Treasure hunt!"

Quote from Eugenios

Honestly, I interpreted "the best life (possible)" as simply an Epicurean one, one that applies the philosophy taught by Epicurus. That's the way to achieve "the best" of possible ways of living a human life.

Yes, no doubt that's the first part of the answer, then comes the harder part!

I will also go ahead and give my tentative answer to "how much time do we need to live the best life?"

Consistent with my comments in the last post I don't think that this question as a definite "objective" answer either. I do not think that Nature has established an set of definitions to which we can look for the "best life," but rather given Pleasure/feeling as a guide to do the best with which each individual is able to do.

I think it is pretty clear that it is more desirable in general to live a longer pleasurable life than a shorter pleasurable life, but since pleasure is inherently subjective (again, there is that issue) then there is no "objective" measure of "how much time do we need to live so that our life is complete."

So my general framework is to question whether these "matter of fact questions" such as "What is the best life?" " What is the complete life?" What is "the good?" would be something in which Epicurus would engage discussion without first laying the groundwork as to the limits of the usefulness of the discussion.

I don't mean my question to be a trick one, so I will go ahead and say that I think that the question "What is the best life?" may not be a valid question, in that the term "best life" is probably like the term "the good" in at least several respects:

(1) that whatever conceptual definition we give to it is inherently going to fall short of describing reality, just like math doesn't give a full description of reality, for which reason Epicurus was so suspicious of abstract logic,

and

(2) If we presume (we should not presume, this needs to be nailed down) that feeling (including Pleasure) is, at least within limits natural to a species, something that is inherently subjective, then "the best life" (which surely in Epicurean terms is also defined in terms of pleasure) is also going to be something that Epicurus would have viewed as inherently subjective.

So the term "best life" is going to have lots of aspects to consider before it can even be clearly discussed.

Quote from JJElbert

Banks kept a journal, and in one entry he records that a dinner guest was given the name of Epicurus on account of his enormous appetite.

That's certainly interesting though. So are you saying that this is a record of events in Bligh's ship, or in his presence, in which someone was given the name Epicurus? At least it indicates that he knew who Epicurus was.