Welcome to Episode 334 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Book Two, where we will take up Section 8
Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here:
Yes, I'm picking nits but they're nits that deserve picking.
Yes I very much agree that this needs deep analysis.
Ok there Don you're addressing the full categorization scheme by referencing necessary/unnecessary.
What if we focus precisely on one of the aspects of what wbernys said:
Can something that is a "natural desire" turn into an unnatural desire?
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the appropriate thought that we ought to be able to construct a table with "natural desires" in one column and "unnatural desires" on the other so that we can see clearly what distinguishes the two categories.
If "desire for food" is natural but "desire for caviar" is not, then should we not be able to consider them as forever separate so that we can see what element or aspect must be "added to" the desire for food in order to identify something that is unnatural?
And we ought to be able to do that separate from considering the "necessary" part.
Separate and apart from any other topic, what makes something "natural" and something else "unnatural"? It's NOT simply a question of "is it present at birth?" Or is it?
I presume your "Yes" means you think that you don't think it is sufficient to say "the desire was present at birth."
Separate and apart from the necessary criteria, what does "natural" mean? Because I can see someone arguing that if it's natural, it's natural from the start and forever, just like atoms have shape, size, and weight.
Does Epicurus mean natural as innate or natural as in nature approves of it? I think Tim O'Keefe misreads natural desires as meaning innate, whereas it actually means "actually helps with pleasure", this is why natural desires can turn into vain or unnatural desires if they become sources of stress or likely to cause harm. It's natural and should be pursued when brining more pleasure than pain but unnatural when not and should be shunned. There is also the fact that i think Epicurus just outright disagrees that sex or lavish food is necessary for happiness and can't be eliminated and he seems to say the opposite below.
Depending on how many further responses we get on this I may move Wbernys' comments and responses on this topic to a separate thread given that it seems to regularly be of interest.
Especially the second sentence I underlined:
Can a natural desire turn into an unnatural desire? If so, what does that mean?
Does that mean that the true defining criteria of what should be classified as natural or unnatural is not whether the desire in question is with us at birth, but something about the way we pursue it?
Happy Birthday to Noah Calderon! Learn more about Noah Calderon and say happy birthday on Noah Calderon's timeline: Noah Calderon
I am really glad Don posted that article because otherwise I might not have seen it.
It very much helps crystallize my thinking about one of the most important moderating decisions I have to make in administering this forum.
If someone comes here thinking that "Epicurean 'hedonism' is primarily about the reduction of pain," then I would welcome them and welcome the opportunity to explain how that is an inversion of the truth and of the meaning of the reliable ancient texts.
However if someone comes here dedicated to and advocating the idea that "many correctly note that Epicurean 'hedonism' is primarily about the reduction of pain" then that is beyond the terms of our "Community Standards" and "Terms of Use" and our "Not Neo-Epicurean" statement, and their membership will be rescinded.
There are plenty of places on the internet where people can focus on suffering and devote their time to studying Buddhism and Stoicism to the exclusion of and with indifference to joy, delight, pleasure, and happiness as those terms are ordinarily understood by ordinary people.
The purpose of this forum is to study and promote Classical Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurus taught it. It is extremely important for us to grapple with Epicurus' framing of the term "absence of pain" and explain how Epicurus is about PLEASURE - which can indeed be defined for certain important uses as "absence of pain" or "reduction of pain." But to place PAIN in the center of the philosophy rather than PLEASURE is not what the ancient Epicureans did, and it's not consistent with the mission of this forum to allow for the regular advocacy of that position here.
Again, we'll talk about pleasure and absence of pain as often and as intensely as necessary, but if in the future some new person wishes to join and use their membership to cross over into advocacy for Epicurean philosophy is primarily about alleviation of suffering on a regular basis that's something that will not be allowed to continue.
Just to be clear - neither Don nor anyone else here has done that, nor are they anywhere close to doing so. I think it's likely that our "Community Standards" and "Terms of Service" and "Not Neo-Epicurean" statements that are stressed in our registration process have done their intended work, and we don't have dedicated advocates for that position here.
But new people come on the scene all the time, and this is a good opportunity to write something up to address this.
As administrator I have no right or ability to state flatly that "this is" or "this is not" true Epicurean philosophy for the general world and for all time. Everyone has to decide that for themselves. But I do have the right and ability to help steer this forum into the direction set for it when it was launched, and as long as I am here to administrate I will continue to do that.
Peace and love to all!
This is not meant to be nearly as negative as it is going to sound. Be sure to read to the last line of my post.
But - here's a quote from the article:
O’Keefe’s latest piece on Epicurean ethics is another work of helpful synthesis. While many correctly note that Epicurean “hedonism” is primarily about the reduction of pain, that bald summary can overlook the next layer of analysis: Epicurus believes that avoiding bodily pain is pretty simple, and that therefore most of our therapeutic attention should go to avoiding mental pain. The largest component of mental pain is fear. (Epicurus does also discuss other disturbing emotions such as regret and envy.)
"Correctly note that Epicurean "hedonism" is primarily about the reduction of pain!" ????
As a technical statement this means nothing different from saying "primarily about pleasure" because absence of pain and pleasure are the same thing.
As a choice of wording in presenting the philosophy it is disastrous. And the elaboration that follows it just digs the hole deeper. The whole line of thinking is not only inaccurate, but It encourages the worst tendencies of seeing the world as mostly suffering, as if through a Buddhist or Stoic prism.
I've read enough of OKeefe over the years to think that this problem isn't attributable to Jack Gedney, but rather it's the sense I've gotten from reading O'Keefe directly. This is exactly why I take O'Keefe very cautiously and do not prefer to cite his articles, even though they often contain very good research and information.
I don't think this is the way Emily Austin conveys Epicurus ("Living for Pleasure") and I would consider her work head and shoulders better than OKeefe's.
Other than that I applaud Jack Gedney (I don't know who he is either) for his activity!
This thread is for discussion of the Blog article:
Happy Birthday to chuchunix! Learn more about chuchunix and say happy birthday on chuchunix's timeline: chuchunix
Hello Griffin happy to have you!
Griffin tells us:
Hi Cassius,
I live in the Wasatch Mountains in Utah.
I came to Epicurus the way most serious things find you - sideways and without warning. I've been self-studying philosophy for over a year starting with the ancient Greeks, working through Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, logic and rhetoric. My entry point into the ancient world was history, specifically the Peloponnesian War and classical Greece, and Epicurus kept appearing at the edges of everything I was reading.
I'm currently going down the Epicurean rabbit hole and finding that I genuinely connect with his teaching, especially on pleasure and pain, the classification of desires, and what it actually means to live well without supernatural scaffolding holding the whole thing up.
I'm glad to have found a community committed to studying Epicurus seriously and on his own terms. Looking forward to learning more.
Welcome @Griffin
There is one last step to complete your registration:
All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).
You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.
Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.
This forum 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 and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.
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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and 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 already have.
You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.
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.
"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.
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. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.
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.
(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).
Welcome to the forum!
Episode 333 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Epicurus Disputes The Stoic View Of The Sensations and the Anticipations."
Happy Birthday to ernesto.sun! Learn more about ernesto.sun and say happy birthday on ernesto.sun's timeline: ernesto.sun
I don't think that's overly harsh. Of course when the Terminators take over they may not agree 
This is like living through the industrial revolution and radio and tv and internet all in one - or more.
The points it picked up from you are good for it to pick up so the world is better that you wrote them.
I have no idea where all this leads. In the meantime I guess we do the best we can.
Great points. I certainly can't speak definitively but I gather some people think that Epicurus was frequently talking about "sages" in the sense of dedicated lifelong philosophers. There's a book out there "Epicurus The Sage" and i have never liked that title or term. I personally don't think Epicurus applied his teachings only to a very small category of super-high-achieving people.
it sounds to me like this notion that the sage is some superhuman specimen has some Stoic connections. In recent reading of On Ends for the podcast, I've come across the contention that Chrysippus held wise men/sages to be as rare as a phoenix, which presumably means extremely rare.
I think Epicurus was describing a philosophy for ordinary people of ordinary intelligence, so I feel sure that his general advice was the same on marriage as on anything else: Ask yourself what will happen if you pursue a particular course, and if can reasonably be anticipated to lead to more pleasure than pain, then it makes sense to pursue it. Of course marriage (depending on society) has more long-term and deep consequences than most any other relationship, so you should be particularly careful. But "be particularly careful to examine your circumstances" does not change the general rule, which is to do your best to anticipate the consequences and act accordingly to pursue the happiest life possible to you.
As I've said ad nauseum in the past, the Principal Doctrines were not originally verified.
Far be it for me to question anyone's typing but perhaps you meant a word other than "verified"?
Happy Birthday to Keith! Learn more about Keith and say happy birthday on Keith's timeline: Keith
So removal of pain does remain a goal even if we can be "happy" without it, since we want to be even happier and have more pleasures to achieve complete happiness where nothing torments us and we can enjoy pleasures undiluted.
I agree firmly with the idea that getting completely rid of bodily and mental pain constitutes the goal, and that having such a goal serves a very real purpose as identifying an organizing principal, and as I think that you mentioned earlier this is part of the "gods" analysis - the gods serve as a way of thinking about shooting for the highest possible goal.
All of these concepts have details about them that help us use them as targets that we'd like to approximate as closely as possible.
Probably the real practical problem is that as humans we can't practically speaking avoid all pain (and I know you are very young wbernys so speaking as someone whose a lot closer to his end than to his beginning the pains really begin to stack up the older you get!).
I think the struggle occurs because many people would like to have a firm set of Do's and Don'ts -- Ten commandments so to speak - that would prioritize for us exactly when some pleasure is going to cost more than its worth. The natural/necessary categories help with that, but even there we don't have a rigid set of rules like the religions tend to offer.
And in the absence of set rules, people struggle with whether they should "avoid pain at all cost." I think the friendship example, or lesser questions such as "Should I get a dog even though he'll only live maximum ten years and then I'll be heartbroken when he dies." helps crystalize that yes, we DO choose things that we know will cause us pain when the pleasure we get outweighs the cost in pain.
Just brainstorming here but it would be very helpful to come up with other illustrations of the same principle (examples of discretionary actions where we clearly choose to accept some pain). We often use the examples of "going to the dentist" or "getting surgery" and those are useful, but to really dramatize the point it would be good to point to examples where we could walk away from the situation without pain, but we choose to go forward anyway (friendship, pets, etc......)
Thanks for that clarification. Presuming that it is possible for one day to be happier than another, and that "happy" here doesn't imply a superlative state, then I sure would be happier without kidney disease than with it!
But back to the more basic and at the same time more urgent point to be clear about: Happiness, which is what Epicurus says we do everything to obtain, does not require complete absence of pain.
Are we agreed on that?
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.