Posts by Cassius

Lots more good comments Eugenios - thanks for posting! I don't recall your mentioning DeWitt's article on Organization of Epicurean Groups -- I don't have time to check it for more footnotes but it's surely relevant to this part. DeWitt's "Organization And Procedure In Epicurean Groups"

Great observations, Eugenios, and those are very helpful to add here. I know when i first read the book that I did not go through the footnotes systematically so it is very helpful that you are doing so and posting about them.

i do think I remember also thinking that the letter-writing comment seemed stretched, so I am in pretty much full agreement with your comments here. I think the detail on the gods speaking Greek is in the chapter on the true Piety, citing Cicero's 'On the Nature of the Gods, but again I agree that more detailed footnoting throughout the book would have made our job today a lot easier.

Jon - Newepicurean was my original blog I have used since 2010. When I set that up I knew that the Dewitt direction I was taking would not be popular in Academia, and more than that I knew I wanted to clearly separate from the Stoic synthesizers.

After about five years I realized I was pretty clear about the ultimate issues and I knew I wanted to build more "community" so I set up Epicureanfriend.com for that purpose. I continued to use NewEpicurean at times but devoted most of my time here.

As far as Epicurusmagazine.com goes, that is a recent startup for the sole purpose if highlighting our best articles so people don't have to search too hare to find the starting points.

In terms of monitoring them, I will make sure that everything of significance starts here at Epicureanfriends, so if you check in here regularly you will catch everything.

All of this stems from the perspective that it is best to make the positions very clear on the deeper and more "divisive" as quickly and clearly as possible so that people can decide whether to invest more time in Epicurus, or consider him just another rosebud to pick from a smörgåsbord, which seems too often to be the general approach.

On May 19, 2020, new user Jon M posted:

Feelings and Kinds of Feelings

Hello, I am new here and am not quite sure how to use this Forum. Never mind.

I will introduce myself by making a comment on Elayne's excellent article 'On Pain, Pleasure, and Happiness'. I notice no one has commented on it for a while.

I have a suggestion for a tweak in her terminology.

Elayne, you quote Diogenes Laertius X.34 saying "the feelings are two, pleasure and pain" which is a literal translation, but Hicks translates "They [Epicureans] affirm that there are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain".

My guess is that he says there are two 'states' of feeling because to say there are two feelings (only) is counter to normal usage. In everyday speech we have lots of feelings: I feel warm, I feel angry, I feel flu-like, and so on.

Diogenes Laertius was a racy kind of tabloid-newspaper writer, and perhaps did not pick his words like a careful scholar. Also he is not saying Epicurus said this, only 'they' ie the Epicureans. So I feel happy, like Hicks, to tweak him.

If you say that pleasure and pain are two kinds of feelings, then this gets you out of lots of issues.

First it is more in keeping with normal English: I feel warm and it is pleasurable, ie pleasure is the kind of feeling it is. I feel angry and it is a painful kind of feeling.

More importantly, it allows you to talk about neutral feelings, which you and Cassius had some discussion about.

What I think you are saying, using my language, is that there is no third kind of feeling, often called 'neutral', neither pleasure nor pain.

I can agree that there is no third kind of feeling, while accepting the neutrality of my having no particular feelings about something. Certainly I will have no conscious feelings attached to the large number of inputs to my senses every second that I am not conscious of. And surely there are lots of things in the periphery of my consciousness that I am neutral about. I don't care one way or the other about that cup that my eyes have just glanced over.

But if my brain decides that any experience is salient enough to be picked out and focused on, then I will have one or more feelings about it, and of all the feelings I might have about that thing they will be divided into two kinds: pleasurable and painful.

I agree completely then that it is not productive to focus on the neutral or to try and be neutral. To blank out all feelings and remain conscious is impossible, and to attempt to find a third kind of feeling that is neutral, (adukkham-asukhā, as the Buddhists say, neither painful nor pleasurable), is what you call a 'fancy pleasure', a dead-end street leading to pain and quite counter to Epicurus.

This has become a long first post, but thanks to you and Cassius for maintaining a splendid website. It is good to see such high-quality writing about Epicurus all in one place.

-- Jon M

Thank you Jon, for your post and your supportive comments. Welcome and we look forward to many discussions about Epicurus. Your post in comment on Elayne's article is now here here: Discussion of Article: "On Pleasure, Pain and Happiness"

Also, Jon M , may I ask, did you find this article here at the forum, or on Epicurusmagazine.com? It would help our "advertising" efforts to know how you found this.

Hello and welcome to the forum Jon M !

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!

Thank you Godfrey. Sounds like you are making some progress in TGOP. That book has a ton of good detail and I don't think it gets the prominence it deserves. Very hard to find even in libraries.

In this episode we got off onto a side discussion of Lucretius' reference to fires starting naturally from the tops of trees rubbing together in the wind. We discussed whether that actually happens or not, and went looking for links.

Here is one, but not authoritative: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-forest-f…due-to-friction

If anyone has any better info on whether this actually happens, please post.

http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/agriculture/ag…forestfire.html

Episode 18 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available.

"Opiate of the people" is both unforgettable and very descriptive.

Very interesting Martin! Those word corrections do make it more clear. I doubt I will ever be much of a fan but his observations on religion may indeed be useful in some ways.

1) NEVER be concerned about being critical of me! I make more mistakes than most! And I am glad you called this out -- you are quite right that we needed a section where "ataraxia" is actually used.

2) Take a look at it now. I just included the english of the full section. This may not be optimum either, but really the full section is relevant so rather than try to cut and paste it probably makes sense to just cite the whole thing.

Updating and revising now...

Possibly this is a better choice, but after more reflection I think it would be best just to include the full section....

127-8) Ἀναλογιστέον δὲ ὡς τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ κεναί, καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαί μόνον· τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν. τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ πάντα πράττομεν, ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν. ὅταν δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται, λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμών, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς ἐνδέον τι καὶ ζητεῖν ἕτερον ᾧ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἀγαθὸν συμπληρώσεται. τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· <ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν> οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα.

127-8) One should keep in mind that among desires, some are natural and some are vain. Of those that are natural, some are necessary and some unnecessary. Of those that are necessary, some are necessary for happiness, some for health, and some for life itself. A correct view of these matters enables one to base every choice and avoidance upon whether it secures or upsets bodily comfort and peace of mind – the goal of a happy life. Everything we do is for the sake of freedom from pain and anxiety. Once this is achieved, the storms in the soul are stilled. Nothing else and nothing more are needed to perfect the well-being of the body and soul. It is when we feel pain that we must seek relief, which is pleasure. And when we no longer feel pain, we no longer need pleasure.

Eugenios I am to blame for that use of that particular quote. Haris submitted the text to me without a graphic, and I put together the final article in a hurry this morning, using that quote, made from this version: http://wiki.epicurism.info/Letter_to_Menoeceus/ , due to the "by pleasure we mean" structure of the sentence.

Would you suggest a better passage that uses ataraxia itself?

As to your questions in the second paragraph, I don't have a good ultimate answer but I think those comments go in a promising direction, especially in light of thinking about the distinction made by Konstan we have been discussing recently: Managing Expectations In The Study of Epicurus

Joshua speaking only for myself I know that I too consider myself out of my depth in dealing with Marx because I haven't studied him nearly well enough to know where to attack the problem.

But I do know this: I can't read that excerpt without sensing something very "off" -or at least, very different from - Epicurean analysis.

A sentence like "It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality" seems totally disconnected from the kind of clear and direct analysis which is characteristic of Epicurus. What is "human essence"? What is "true reality"?

"The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

There seems to be a lot of "poetry" going on here which doesn't seem calculated to enlighten, but to grip the emotions - maybe the word is mesmerize, and I can't help but think about Lucretius' descriptions of Heraclitus' appeal to people who are overly impressed by word play.

I am very open to finding helpful applications of Epicurean philosophy wherever I can find them, but I have never been able to find anything particularly helpful, at least for me, in Marx's analysis. They Utilitarians (as discussed recently in other threads) definitely yes, but not in Marxism.

In fact, though I am surely no fan of conventional religion, that passage almost makes me think that conventional religion might be in some respects more "sane" than Marx himself. I am not sure I can imagine Marx making the kind of remark that Epicurus made in the letter to Menoeceus about it being better to believe the myths of religion than the views of hard determinism.

Please use this thread for discussion of the article posted here: "Challenging Ataraxia" - By Haris Dimitriadis

In regard to expert testimony in court, here is a summary as to the current state of federal law, applying the well known "Daubert" case and criteria:

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insi…pert-witnesses/

These are all "threshold" issues on which the judge has to pass before the expert is even allowed to testify at all to the jury, and I think there is a strong analogy here that applies to Epicurus' view of what kind of evidence should be considered. Then as a second step there are going to be issues about what happens if the evidence does meet this criteria, but seems to conflict with other evidence (presumably evidence of the senses), and how we then choose to weigh and balance which to believe. Because of course "admissible" does not mean that the jury has to believe and follow the testimony of the expert.

Rule 702 – Testimony By Expert Witnesses

Rule 702 is arguably the crux of Article VII, as it guides the court’s analysis in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. It states that an expert’s opinion is admissible if:

1. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue
2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
4. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case

The overarching aim of Rule 702 is to establish the relevance and reliability of the expert’s opinion. Rule 702 was amended in response to the seminal Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which outlines a non-exhaustive list of factors for the courts to consider when determining the expert testimony admissibility.

Hello and welcome to the forum Kguilfoy !

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!

Eugenios likes this.

Thanks Eugenios. I think this is really the topic of Philodemus' "On Methods of Interfence" and does not in any way contradict your statement "one would think Epicurus would want to get the most accurate view of the universe." I completely agree with you.

The issue as I see it is sort of a preliminary rule of evidence, like a judge ruling on what comes into court. As you probably know there are elaborate rules of evidence about things such as hearsay that have evolved over time so that certain kinds of out-of-court statements are allowed in fully, or allowed in for limited purposes, or are kept out entirely.

And there is also a court parallel in regard to expert testimony as a whole, with very elaborate rules about when and how experts are allowed to testify, so that the expert does not do things such as "invade the province of a jury."

Another consideration that these rules of court apply to is to prevent "speculation" by the jury, in order to ensure that all decisions of a jury are based on evidence, and not left to simple speculation without evidence on which to ground it.

As I see it, it will never be possible to develop exact rules of "what comes in" and "what doesn't come in" and so in court, judges have to examine the facts of each case and take testimony and hear both sides and then evaluate whether to let the jury hear the testimony at all, which serves as a sort of "gatekeeper" function.

That's where I think Epicurus was going. He was saying that we all need "rules of evidence" so as to decide what kind of evidence is open to any kind of consideration at all, and what kinds of "evidence" should be thrown out of court and not even considered. Issues of claims of divine revelation would probably fit the type to throw out entirely - unless there is some other proof of the communication being claimed, someone saying "God told me to" is not even going to be listened to as evidence, other than perhaps evidence of insanity.

It will take a long thread and discussion to go through all of the examples, but as I understand part of the crux of the problem was that unlike our mathematicians and geometers of today, those "scientists" of that period were using math and "science" to argue that the supposed "order" they were finding was proof that the world was governed by divine commandment. They were arguing that the alleged hugeness of the stars was evidence of their divinity, and that the earth's place in the center of the universe was proof that it was specially ordained by god.

As such, Epicurus might not have been concerned with their calculations as such, but he was concerned with OVERREACH of their calculations to support theories that were not in fact supported by their contentions. I think that excerpt from Lucian maybe illustrates this as much as anything other.

I realize so far that we've barely introduced the topic, much less made any headway in discussing it, but it's my understanding that this probably lies behind the ejection of "reason" from the canon, and many other attitudes by Epicurus. Again, the best text I have found so far to discuss this is "On Methods of Inference" and the DeLacy commentary at the end of this edition.