New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
So (it seems to me), “emptying” would be limited to those “torments” (e.g. fear of the gods) via application of Epicurean philosophy – and not some Buddhistic “empty mind.”
And in fact, there is no way to "empty" the vessel, short of death - because removing any amount of pain can only be done by replacing it with pleasure, as those are the only two alternatives.
Query: Does it make sense for a normal person to "empty the contents first" if there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain? Is emptying even possible or desirable?
I'm working on a long-form article which will be ready in a couple of days. In the meantime I'm watching and thinking and thought I would drop these two comments from elsewhere into the mix:
This last one reminds me of Cicero saying something to the effect that he was going to start his review of the various positions in On Ends because it is the easiest to understand.
Happy Birthday to Hubblefanboy! Learn more about Hubblefanboy and say happy birthday on Hubblefanboy's timeline: Hubblefanboy
Welcome to Episode 336 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 continue our discussion of 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:
Thanks Buck23 - not sure what happened but thanks for following up!
Episode 335 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Epicurean Analysis Of Stoic Claims About Notions And Memory"
Those who are following the "Untroubled" blog on Substack will see that Jack Gedney has updated his comments on whether Epicurean philosophy is primarily about absence of pain. He has reworded his title to focus on Epicurus "emphasizing "reduction of pain," which is somewhat better than "primarily" but not by a lot. In fact he says:
There are other topics than pain reduction in the whole philosophy, and “reduction” is more precise than “absence”—the overall emphasis is on what can be done, not just an all-or-nothing insistence on achieving complete absence of pain. Overall, though, I think all variations of the “primarily” claim are worth considering and not dismissing out of hand.
I find that to be consistent with the primary tone of this article, which is largely a defense of his original position and a criticism of the response that I wrote on my own substack blog.
I'll have a lot more to say about this but in the meantime thought I would post this to update this thread. I expect that there will be a lot of things to say by many people, and this thread is likely to grow lengthy, but it's probably best for someone who wants to undersand all the issues to have the entire discussion in one place rather than spreading it out over multiple threads. I'll probably reword the thread title to reflect that too.
Cicero's On Ends does not contain nearly as much information about the Stoic view of Kataleptic impressions (that we can use to compare against Epicurus' views) as does his "Academic Questions," but it does contain this:
5 He began: "It is the view of those whose system I adopt, that immediately upon birth (for that is the proper point to start from) a living creature feels an attachment for itself, and an impulse to preserve itself and to feel affection for its own constitution and for those things which tend to preserve that constitution; while on the other hand it conceives an antipathy to destruction and to those things which appear to threaten destruction. In proof of this opinion they urge that infants desire things conducive to their health and reject things that are the opposite before they have ever felt pleasure or pain; this would not be the case, unless they felt an affection for their own constitution and were afraid of destruction. But it would be impossible that they should feel desire at all unless they possessed self-consciousness, and consequently felt affection for themselves. This leads to the conclusion that it is love of self which supplies the primary p235 impulse to action. 17 Pleasure on the contrary, according to most Stoics, is not to be reckoned among the primary objects of natural impulse; and I very strongly agree with them, for fear lest many immoral consequences would follow if we held that nature has placed pleasure among the earliest objects of desire. But the fact of our affection for the objects first adopted at nature's prompting seems to require no further proof than this, that there is no one who, given the choice, would not prefer to have all the parts of his body sound and whole, rather than maimed or distorted although equally serviceable.
"Again, acts of cognition (which we may term comprehensions or perceptions, or, if these words are distasteful or obscure, katalēpseis), — these we consider meet to be adopted for their own sake, because they possess an element that so to speak embraces and contains the truth. This can be seen in the case of children, whom we may observe to take pleasure in finding something out for themselves by the use of reason, even though they gain nothing by it. 18 The sciences also, we consider, are things to be chosen for their own sake, partly because there is in them something worthy of choice, partly because they consist of acts of cognition and contain an element of fact established by methodical reasoning. The mental assent to what is false, as the Stoics believe, is more repugnant to us than all the other things that are contrary to nature.
"(Again,5 of the members or parts of the body, some appear to have been bestowed on us by nature for the sake of their use, for example the hands, legs, feet, and internal organs, as to the degree of whose utility even physicians are not agreed; p237 while others serve no useful purpose, but appear to be intended for ornament: for instance the peacock's tail, the plumage of the dove with its shifting colours, and the breasts and beard of the male human being.) 19 All this is perhaps somewhat baldly expressed; for it deals with what may be called the primary elements of nature, to which any embellishment of style can scarcely be applied, nor am I for my part concerned to attempt it. On the other hand, when one is treating of more majestic topics the style instinctively rises with the subject, and the brilliance of the language increases with the dignity of the theme." "True," I rejoined; "but to my mind, any clear statement of an important topic possesses excellence of style. It would be childish to desire an ornate style in subjects of the kind with which you are dealing. A man of sense and education will be content to be able to express his meaning plainly and clearly."
Lots of interesting stuff there thank you!
Happy Birthday to AxA! Learn more about AxA and say happy birthday on AxA's timeline: AxA
I can't get away from a belief that laws and morals are not REALLY established by social compact. Obedience to laws is by social compact, but the laws are not created that way. They are established by those who have power withinof the community by lineage, or military or economic might.
I might have said some of what Dave said differently, but I think this part I quoted is especially correct. Some laws may actually be by compact but the evolution of the laws as set out by Lucretius makes clear that force has always been a factor and is a factor that never really goes away no matter how much we might like it to do so. if we perceive that there is no actual thread of someone punishing us for committing a crime, that's going to make a big difference, and I presume that's why Epicurus says that such circumstances (as when we are confident we won't ever be discovered) pose more difficult questions.
One thing is for sure - there are no supernatural forces that will punish us, so there have to be real-world factors in play to cause us real concern.
A special welcome to our latest participant from the land of Diogenes of Oinoanda!
I am not fluent in the Turkish naming system so until I learn better I will refer to her as Dr. Erkizan!
Dear EpicureanFriends Team,
Thank you for your message and the invitation to join the forum.
I am an academic in philosophy, with a focus on ancient philosophy, especially Aristotle, Epicurus and Diogenes of Oinoanda. I am particularly interested in Epicurus' ethics of pleasure and ataraxia, the Herculaneum papyri, and the reception of Epicurean philosophy in later traditions. In addition, I am trying to develop a "Life Impact Approach," which explores how ancient philosophical ideas can be understood as practical frameworks for contemporary living.
I look forward to participating in the forum and engaging in discussion with its members.
Kind regards,
Prof. Dr H. Nur Beyaz Erkizan
Welcome h.nur beyaz erkizan !
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!
Happy Birthday to m.dango! Learn more about m.dango and say happy birthday on m.dango's timeline: m.dango
Bryan has graciously allow us to post here his Interlinear Translation version of Lucretius. We will keep this post updated with the latest version.
In today's Sunday zoom we spent virtually the entire session addressing the question of how to separate sensations from prolepsis from concepts. I am posting this in the podcast thread because it relates directly to what we are currently discussing in Cicero's "Academic Questions." I am taggin the main participants in today's zoom: Martin, Raphael Raul Patrikios Bryan . Of course anyone else is welcome to respond too.
In this podcast episode Joshua and I struggled with this following paragraph (among others). It is critical to understand that this is Lucullus speaking from a Stoic perspective, so the following is not the Epicurean view, but similar issues are being addressed so we need to compare the terminology especially where underlined:
But such as those things are which we say are perceived by the senses, such also are those things which are said to be perceived, not by the senses themselves, but by the senses after a fashion; as these things — that is white, this is sweet, that is tuneful, this is fragrant, that is rough. We have these ideas already comprehended by the mind, not by the senses. Again, this is a house, that is a dog. Then the rest of the series follows, connecting the more important links; such as these, which embrace, as it were, the full comprehension of things; — If he is a man, he is a mortal animal partaking of reason: — from which class of arguments the notions of things are impressed upon us, without which nothing can be understood, nor inquired into, nor discussed. But if those notions were false, (for you seemed to me to translate ἔννοιαι notions,) if, I say, they were false, or impressed, or perceptions of such a kind as not to be able to be distinguished from false ones; then I should like to know how we were to use them? and how we were to see what was consistent with each thing and what was inconsistent with it?
It can become very difficult to speak precisely about these things, but here in this paragraph we seem to have (if Yonge translates correctly) every one of these underlined references being referred to as, or close to, "notions."
We need to be clear from an Epicurean perspective the extent to which Epicurus would agree or disagree with this paragraph.
To make the distinction sharper, we can ask the question: Of the underlined illustrations, which if any, are in Epicurean terms:
1) sensations
2) prolepsis / anticipations / preconcepts
3) "notions"
4) concepts
Which of the underlined illustrations fit in one or some or all of these categatories?
(PS. I realize Homer isn't a philosopher, but this seemed appropriate in light of the direction of this thread)
Yes that's an important distinction.
just a brief comment on where we are going on the podcast at the moment:
1 - We're going through Academic Questions to help us get a general grounding on the issues of knowledge and skepticism as they were understood at the time that Epicurean philosophy was flourishing in the ancient world.
2 - When we finish what we decide to do with Academic Questions (we don't have the time to go through every word of it), we are going to be in a position to tackle - and we will tackle - what's left of Philodemus' "On Signs" / "On Methods of Inference"
3 - And in case it's not clear where all this leads:
As best I can tell, those who claim to be modern Stoics have pretty much abandoned any interest in the true Stoic theory of knowledge. I am sure that there are many reasons for that, but I strongly suspect that one of the primary reasons is that modern Stoics in general run from the truth that Stoicism is essentially a theistic philosophy that makes no sense outside a supernatural-based intelligent design view of the universe.
We - at least the EpicureanFriends forum in general - are not going to take that position of neglect and supression in regard to Epicurus. The main hurdle we have is not that Epicureanism starts with a false view of the universe, or that we suspect the truth of the radical skepticism that overtook the Academics and other ancient philosophers. Our hurdle today is that for generations everyone has chosen to focus exclusively on tranquility and other issues which can be reconciled with the dominant Judeo-Christianity and Humanist mix that passes for moral consensus. As a result, most of us have very little understanding of the fundamentals what Epicurus was actually teaching - even in ethics. In canonics, most of us have only a tenuous idea - at best - of what the "prolepsis" discussion is all about.
By the time we finish with "On Signs" we should have a very clear understanding of the general direction of the Epicurean theory of knowledge. At that point I expect that most of us will then be in a position to confidently assert the Epicurean view of knowledge as one of the foundational aspects of Epicurean philosophy that it certainly is. And the rest won't have any reason for confusion about what it is they are actually rejecting.
To close with a good word for those who are "actual" Stoics - even today -- At least they aren't radical Skeptics! 
Welcome Buck. I bet others will have good commentary on printed versions. If you mean actual paper copies there is the "Hedonicon" issued by our friend Eikadistes in recent years, or the collections such as the Epicurus Reader. At this point I mainly rely myself on the PDFs of the public domain versions by Bailey and Rackham or the like, or in the case of Lucretius the Martin Ferguson Smith edition by Hacket Publishing.
Any particular printed work or collection in your mind?
