Posts by Cassius

In that last paragraph, "existence" is an easier word to grasp than "essence," with "essence" carrying a lot more controversial implication, I would expect, as in some contexts I gather "essence" is comparable to a platonic form, which Epicurus would/did reject. I gather that there is an Aristotelian sense of "essence" that Epicurus also rejected.

Surely in the ancient world the Epicureans also provided higher-level summaries for themselves, even before Diogenes Laertius did. And of course that is pretty much what the letters of Epicurus and the lists of doctrines were supposed to do. But I find that most people I talk to today are so distant from the Epicurean perspective that they have a hard time putting it together. Not necessarily applying to you personally, however, given all the reading you have done. But that makes your reaction to DeWitt of special interest to me, because I feel sure you will find his "take" quite different.

You will link that here when you post it?

Mike as you may have seen elsewhere in my comments i highly recommend the big-picture take on Epicurus found in Norma DeWitt's book "Epicurus and His Philosophy." You will not have any problem seeing the difference in his approach once you start reading it, and that book better than any other I am aware of will help with the "can't see the forest for the trees" problem.

In the end you almost certainly will not agree with every one of DeWitt's conclusions, but he does more than most books to give you a full picture, which then makes it much easier to see how the parts fit together. I continue to think it is very difficult to dive into any of the specific works, especially Lucretius, without a high-level map of how thinks come together as a consistent whole.

But enough of that for now -- welcome to the forum!

Outstanding and thank you Charles!!!

I seem to remember that Saint-Evremond was the one who was corresponding with Ninon De Lenclos and there is material from him mixed in with that material. The Ninon material is highly interesting but I just haven't had time to go through it or really to pin her down on how "Epicurean" she was in anything but ethics.

Ninon de Lenclos - Preliminary Thread

Elayne when you get a chance I'd like to see if you have a definition of "knowledge" that Oscar agrees with.

A lot of this is circular below. What are "facts"? What are "truths"?

Hiram what are you talking about here?

Quote from Hiram

which is basically a summary of Epicurus' sermon "On Moral Development".

Welcome Mike Anyayahan ! Thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.

It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.

We look forward to talking with you!

----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------

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 (3) Others?

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.

Yes this is a huge topic. I am thinking that one of the major issues here is that people have been browbeat into thinking that because they are not "god," because they do not have "perfect" knowledge, because there are facts that have not come to their attention (they aren't eternal or omnipotent themselves) then their "knowledge" is necessarily worthless and contemptible.

It seems obvious that this is a false standard of comparison, and that holding our knowledge up against a theoretical god's ominipotent and ominpresent knowledge is itself a contemptible exercise in stupidity. However, as always in an effort to make things easily understandable to average people, it would be very helpful to have an understandable description of "knowledge" that makes clear why the false perspectives on knowledge, at both extremes (religious and nihilist) are so "wrong."

Good points Oscar, especially as to the popular associations of the word "dogmatism."

Do you have thoughts that would be helpful to cover as to the proper meaning we should give to the word "know" as to what it means "to know something?"

I presume we are talking at least in part about level of confidence that we place in a particular opinion.

[ADMIN NOTE: To open this discussion here are some comments by "M.A." at another location, which I will paste here for reference. I personally don't have time right now to pursue this topic in detail, but it is definitely of interest, especially as to the intersection with Nietzsche, so this is placeholder to one day come back to it. In his opening post MA is referring to Elayne's article on An Approach to Reading Philosophy:]

M.A.: It's nice to learn you put Epicurus as the context of your deep investigation of science and philosophy. Your framework is best-suited for curious learners of Epicurianism. In my case, I've been to a very strange path. I was a radical Marxist-Leninist communist, became a Socratic skeptic, then a post-modern existentialist. It was at this point of being an anti absolutist I've come to appreciate and embraced the philosophy of Epicurus since he is also an ant-absolutist and as radical as Socrates. In fact, I personally regard Epicurus as the REAL father of existentialism and not so much of Utilitarianism as Utilitarians believe him to be.

Cassius:

I just saw M.A.'s post. I can see why Mike's comment makes sense, and I definitely agree with his last point that Epicurus was not the father of Utilitarianism. But I think Epicurus would recoil in horror, and vigorously denounce many / most of the conclusions that are associated with existentialism, such as this clip on angst. Unfortunately I doubt we can treat the subject of existentialism fairly in a subthread.

M.A. Response to Cassius:

Yes I agree with your observation. Actually, I do not see existentialism to be identical with Epcureanism as the former lacks the answer to the most of life's ultimate questions which the latter offers. But being the father of something doesn't mean they are the same thing. I just want to say that existentialists are "standing on the shoulder of a giant" who had already answered their questions even before they ever existed. Yes it is true of existentialism that life is meaningless and death is nothing. However, the point of human existence is not to ponder on the meaninglessness of life but to find the meaning through the pursuit of pleasure. Epicureanism being the father of existentialism doesn't mean the former takes care of that prodigal son. Rather, what I mean is that Epicureanism (not existentialism) was the first to have recognized that there is nothing to fear of death since there is no absolute and eternal damnation. My point is that existentialism is not the original discoverer of existential question of freedom from absolute God by saying that "God is dead". Rather, it is Epicureanism that originally discovered it by saying that God simply doesn't care about human affairs and is already happy elsewhere so we are on our own.

...

Perhaps, I should rephrase the term "father of existentialism" into the "original author of principles which existentialists are using to justify their random thoughts." Of course Epicureanism and existentialism are two different things because I wouldn't get to Epicureanism if not. I just see the connection that connects me from existentialism to Epicureanism. However, I totally disagree about the claim of Utilitarians that they consider Epicurus as their distant ancestor. What I see is that they are more connected with Aristippus. In fact, Utilitarianism promotes meritocracy which is counter to Epicurean prudence..

Cassius:

M.A. thanks for those posts. You seem to really be into this and I think your perspective makes sense. Seeing as you do from both sides of the issue, if you have the inclination to suggest anything in more detail, please consider suggesting a standalone post here, or posting at Epicureanfriends.com. I think many of us here would be interested in your thoughts on how at least some of these (Nietzsche especially) related to Epicurus. I've read myself most of Nietzsche's references to Epicurus, but I presume these others also referenced Epicurus. If you have observations as to how some of these flirted with Epicurus but then rejected him, and why, that could be very interesting. We don't want to sidetrack too far into Existentialism / Nihilism details that aren't relevant, but given your stated views I bet you have more good summary comments like those in this thread. At least from my point of view a major part of our target audience is people who are definitely not professional philosophers, but who are probably acquainted enough with terms like existentialism and nihilism to be aware that these are directions that they don't want to go - but they might not be exactly sure why.

OK, Oscar suggested that the specific epistemology discussion on knowledge and objective/subjective reality continue HERE: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020

I think that's a good idea and suggest people do that, but I also know that this issue is mixed together with this original thread on the 20 Tenets, so we'll do the best we can to keep things organized. However i have now copied (not "moved") several of the key posts into the Epicurean Canonics forum, so hopefully in the future this discussion can be found more easily.

So please note for people reading in this thread --- the conversation on the specific epistemology issue is likely to continue, and so look for further development, here: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020

OK: I have copied those posts and they are now at the following link. It would be best if continuation of this epistemology issue continued here: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020

You're definitely correct, but I am not sure it makes sense to "move" those comments here since they re mixed in to the larger discussion of the SOE Tenets.

Maybe it works to provide this link to where the main exchange on knowledge starts? Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19   

I think that's probably the right post (let me know, or post another link, if not)

And then maybe it might make sense to continue that part of the discussion here.....

Ok I checked and I can try to "copy" into new category. Let me see if that works...

Very good and thanks for spreading the word!

Quote from Oscar

SOE17 To live pleasantly, we must have confident expectation that we will be able to secure the chief goods: those things that are natural and necessary for life, happiness, and health. Therefore, whatever we do to secure safety, friendship, autarchy, provision of food and drink and clothing, and other basic needs, is naturally good.

I wouldn't say whatever we do is good; I think Epicurus stated that in order to live pleasantly, you need to live justly, and without living justly you cannot live pleasantly.

This reminds me of a point I may have omitted to make before: I have a problem with the terminology "the chief goods." I do not recall this phrasing in the Epicurean texts, and it implies that there is a list of "goods" which is higher or more important than others. I think that's a repetition of the same issue commented on before.

"Pleasure" is the guide, and pleasure is the only thing desirable in and of itself. Even when we forgo a specific pleasure in order to avoid a specific pain or pursue a higher pleasure, the motivating force is still the feeling of pleasure, not some specific ranking of "goods" or even a specific ranking of pleasures coming somehow from outside our own feeling of pleasure. What is "chief" for me may not be "chief" for thee.

I am very reluctant ever to imply that there is an "objective" ranking of pleasures, and for the same reason I think it is perilous to suggest that there are "chief goods." I am not aware of Epicurean texts that would support that assertion, and I would dispute it if someone suggested that the "natural and necessary" method of analysis ultimately supports a ranking of "chief goods." Even "natural / necessary" as a method of analysis probably goes out the door when we decide that it is worth it for us to die for a friend, which is specifically contemplated as something an Epicurean might on occasion do.

The bottom line here is that i suspect that "chief good" is just a phase that has been picked up for convenience in Society of Epicurus discussion rather than being based on a clear text. As always, please correct me if I am incorrect.

Quote from Oscar

This touches on Epistemology. My view is in line with the scientific understanding that objective reality exists independent of our sensations. That if life ceased to exist, reality remains. I do not subscribe to the salesperson's mantra that perception is reality, if you perceive yourself to be the Jesus Christ, I have bad news to tell you. I think objective reality can be understood through sensations and reason.

I completely agree with this very important point. A tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it does indeed make a sound. I think the issue is more that if one is coming up with a list of statements that are intended to be helpful philosophically, then it makes sense to address the point that is in philosophical contention, which in this case is that even though the vibrations created by the falling tree are of a particular "atomic" nature, different people are going to perceive those vibrations, or fail to perceive them, in different ways. So what we are trying to point out is that there are definitely things going on regardless of our perception of them, but at the same our own personal knowledge of those events arises through our perceptions.

Possibly the whole issue is being obscured, or not revealed clearly enough, by affixing the terms "objective" or "subjective" to "reality," without really stating what "objective" and "subjective" are intended to mean.

Quote from Oscar

I agree with most of the above, though there's also quantum effects that new research, I don't really yet understand fully, suggests there may be more to say on this.

I think this is no longer to be considered a philosophical matter since it's now, I think for sometime already, a scientific matter.

Definitely the issues develop over time as we gain new instruments and new observations to consider. However I suspect that there is always going to be a philosophic aspect to this, as the developments of science never stand still, and new discoveries are made. So we are probably always going to be confronted with issues of what attitude to take toward "ultimate questions" which seem to be a moving target against new scientific discoveries. I suspect that Epicurus would say that this ultimate issue is much the same as what he himself confronted in considering the claims of the mathematicians of his own day.

Quote from Oscar

This touches on Epistemology. My view is in line with the scientific understanding that objective reality exists independent of our sensations. That if life ceased to exist, reality remains. I do not subscribe to the salesperson's mantra that perception is reality, if you perceive yourself to be the Jesus Christ, I have bad news to tell you. I think objective reality can be understood through sensations and reason.

I completely agree with this very important point. A tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it does indeed make a sound. I think the issue is more that if one is coming up with a list of statements that are intended to be helpful philosophically, then it makes sense to address the point that is in philosophical contention, which in this case is that even though the vibrations created by the falling tree are of a particular "atomic" nature, different people are going to perceive those vibrations, or fail to perceive them, in different ways. So what we are trying to point out is that there are definitely things going on regardless of our perception of them, but at the same our own personal knowledge of those events arises through our perceptions.

Possibly the whole issue is being obscured, or not revealed clearly enough, by affixing the terms "objective" or "subjective" to "reality," without really stating what "objective" and "subjective" are intended to mean.

Quote from Oscar

I agree with most of the above, though there's also quantum effects that new research, I don't really yet understand fully, suggests there may be more to say on this.

I think this is no longer to be considered a philosophical matter since it's now, I think for sometime already, a scientific matter.

Definitely the issues develop over time as we gain new instruments and new observations to consider. However I suspect that there is always going to be a philosophic aspect to this, as the developments of science never stand still, and new discoveries are made. So we are probably always going to be confronted with issues of what attitude to take toward "ultimate questions" which seem to be a moving target against new scientific discoveries. I suspect that Epicurus would say that this ultimate issue is much the same as what he himself confronted in considering the claims of the mathematicians of his own day.

The suggestion has been made today by Elayne that we need to work on making a more accessible version of the core texts, probably by going through the available translations and then combining to produce a more modern English version, with commentary. That is essentially what I have worked on in the past under the "Elemental Editions" but a LOT more work needs to be done now that we have more people to draw on for support.

It probably makes sense to start with the Principle Doctrines, then move either to the rest of Diogenes Laertius or to the Vatican Sayings, and then move to other core texts (Lucretius, then major other texts such as Torquatus dialog in Cicero, etc.) In most all of those we have multiple public domain translations to choose between.

This post is just to start the discussion. Currently we have here at EpicureanFriends.com a "Core Texts" menu at the top of the screen which contains a very raw variation of this suggestion, with footnotes on many of the items to indicate controversies and alternate translations. This needs to be greatly expanded, and we can perhaps devote a podcast to discussing each of the 40 Doctrines, etc.