Posts by Cassius

I agree with you I think Don, and I do see a distinction between long-term and longest time.

I also think that there is a possibility that this phrasing may be another targeted argument against Plato, and you'll recall that DeWitt discusses this as a point of contention, that Plato had argued that another reason that pleasure could not constitute the goal is that it is not always present (not continuous being the implication):

This first is from page 66

So while I agree with you again that there's a logical distinction between long-term vs longest, and duration of pleasure is certainly a legitimate consideration, I think this one may be parallel in nature to "absence of pain" - it may need to be "compartmentalized" as a logical rejoinder to an anti-Pleasure argument from Plato and the usual suspects, and as a result handled carefully outside that context, so as not to overstretch its application.

I am glad you posted that because otherwise I would not have gone back and looked up these sections in DeWitt, which I remembered only vaguely.

I think I am only now after 10+ years realizing the significance of some of these sections from DeWitt, and after our discussions here and in the Lucretius podcast. I read the words here, and I thought I understood them the first time, but it's really beginning to sink in to me how DeWitt is pointing out that Epicurus was both the ultimate pragmatist, and disdainful of dialectical logic, but also at the same time he responded directly to Plato in logical terms, playing Plato's own game. I think this explains some of the difference in interpretation that I still have in discussing these things with some other people. I am going to have to be more careful to both point out the inadequacies of "logic" while at the same time point how how Epicurus uses "logic" himself, as carefully as any of the Stoics or Platonists did -- just like DeWitt observed.

And ultimately that's my best argument against the "absence of pain passages" - that they are logical points being made in the context of refuting the anti-Platonic arguments, but were never intended to represent the full picture of the nature of pleasure any more than geometry or map-making can represent true reality - they are useful for discussing aspects of reality but they aren't reality themselves. So it may be that the "continuity" issue fits in the same category.

Here's a response worth preserving, and my response to that:

AT:

I do hope we can calm down those people who keep telling us that epicureans somehow prioritise short-term pleasure over long-term pleasure. I believe that deeply embedded in Epicurus’ thinking is the assumption that pleasure should be measured over an entire lifetime. Therefore anything that generates pleasure now while building up pain later is not a rational choice.

Cassius:

Andy thanks for the comment. I do think your first sentence is spot on, but I am afraid we can't count on "calming down" many of those outside the group - we seem to live in a sea of people who either (1) see Epicureans as "hedonists" in the common derogatory meaning of that word, or (2) see Epicureans as proto-stoics who prize "tranquility" above pleasure. It's going to be a constant struggle to point back to the texts and point out that Epicurus held clarity to be of prime importance, so that when he used the word "pleasure" he didn't actually mean "comatose." But the "struggle" is definitely worth it as this is the kind of philosophic exchange which can be both enjoyable and productive at the same time.

Interestingly enough on your second and third sentences, I used to say exactly the same thing myself, but I am no longer thinking that "an entire lifetime" is really the precise point, unless you qualify that "entire lifetime" might be very short. It's hard to escape that conclusion due this very clear statement in the letter to Menoeceus: "(But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. ***And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.***

I think that second sentence rules out a flat preference for "length of time of pleasure" as overruling all other factors. Epicurus was pretty precise that "the most pleasant" is the way to weigh the question, rather than the longest period of time. And I think we can see the logical basis of the point if we think about it. If we consider anything that is "outside of pleasure itself, such as "noble pleasures" or "virtuous pleasures" or "longest pleasures" then we logically put ourselves in the position of needing to understand the nature of "nobility" or "virtue" or "time" and that is going to require wisdom or knowledge of those other factors in addition to pleasure.

That's the logical trap set by Plato in the Philebus which you can find by reading that dialogue. Once you admit that there is a standard by which to measure pleasure that is different from pleasure itself, you box yourself in (logically, that is) to admitting that this other factor is as important as is pleasure. Once you admit that this other factor is "as important" then Plato will show you, logically again, that what you really need is knowledge of this mystical art of judging, more so than pleasure itself.

So from a practical point of view, definitely all of us judging our own lives are going to consider how long our future pleasures will last, and how long our future pains will last, and consider that in making our judgments. But one of the reasons we are here, and one of the main ways we end up understanding Epicurus and being able to fight off the attacks of those who elevate virtue or something else to the role of "ultimate good," is to study what Epicurus was saying and see that he was both practical and an expert at logical argument.

And what he was saying is clear: the ultimate good cannot be defined "universally" in more detail that "Pleasure." It's up to each of us in our own lives to come to terms with what that means to us, and apply it accordingly. That might mean choosing to live very simply and live so as to savor every last drop of a 100+ year life. Or it might mean, if we are so inclined at age 25, to strap a rocket to our back and fly to Mars so as to experience the delight of that experience, even if we know that the price will be we'll be dead in a year.

There's no way "logically" to make that decision as a universal for everyone. Nature does do it for us; nature leaves it up to us to do it. Everyone has their own personality and their own judgment about these things, and that's why I think Epicurus phrased things the way he did, and that's why this sentence and the others quoted above are very precise and do not provide a qualifier to the word "pleasure":

"We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. "

Aristotle the Oracle Monger is a good one to read in full - its the source of the "strike a blow for Epicurus" line that I feature on the home page.

I don't encourage anyone who is not currently using Facebook to use it, and I am gradually but progressively cutting back on using it myself. I mainly use it for "recruitment" to come into contact with people I never would otherwise, so I do monitor and help with moderating the page. As long as I have time I'll probably continue to do that, just like I encourage people, if they desire, to participate in Reddit or other forums where they might meet like-minded people who would be good to get to know. I consider this Epicureanfriends.com forum to be the place where I post everything of significance where I want to be sure that it is preserved and seen and discussed by like-minded people, but that doesn't mean we should ignore other places where we can find good people.

Today I posted this at Facebook, which I think is a useful reminder here at Epicureanfriends too:

Seems to me that it is time for a periodic reminder to current participants and applicants to the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group: At the top of our group page we have the slogan traditionally attested to have been the "motto" of the original school of Epicurus in Athens - "Stranger, here you will do well to tarry, here our highest good is PLEASURE." (emphasis added)

In other places around the internet you will encounter people who talk as if Epicurus held "painlessness" or "tranquility" or "stillness" to be the highest good, as if they know better than Epicurus what he "should" have said. This Facebook page is devoted to a classical interpretation that takes Epicurus at his word, and incorporates within his system all his statements about tranquility and absence of pain in a way that gives full effect to everything he said, without rewriting Epicurus to suit modern neo-Stoic idealism about the nature of virtue and pleasure.

The moderators maintain this group with that classical Epicurean view in mind. We welcome and encourage you to submit posts and participate in threads with the goal of pleasure in view. We are mindful that there are many who disagree with the "pleasure" emphasis, and we moderate the group to ensure that those of us who wish to associate with the classical view have a place here where we can do so with like-minded people. If you are firmly of the view that the word "painlessness" represents the ideal that you wish to be associated with in studying Epicurus, then you will find many other places on the internet and at Facebook where your arguments will be welcomed. We ask that you respect our goals within this group and post those arguments elsewhere.

Citations convince no one who has their mind made up on this subject, but for those who are new to the group or to Epicurean Philosophy, here are several of the most clear statements in the ancient Epicurean texts on this issue:

(1) Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus:

And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good.

(2) Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends:

I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.

...

The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

(3) Diogenes of Oinoanda, Fragment 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into "What is the means of happiness?" and they wanted to say "the virtues" (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not "what is the means of happiness?" but "What is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?", I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

---------

It's one of the purposes of this group to meet new people with whom to share our views, so these topics will always be welcome issues for discussion as we go forward. But as a result of our openness to meeting new people, you'll sometimes see debate about these issues from those who hold opposing positions, so please be careful to be sure you work to understand what you read. We'll appreciate your help and comments in moderating the group to keep the argument under control, and we ask your understanding that this group isn't a general philosophy forum where debate for the sake of debate, and argument for the sake of argument, is appropriate.

Note: I am only one of the moderators of the group, and I write here only from my own perspective about our goals and moderating guidelines. Please consult the "About" page and the opening post from Elli for a full statement of our long-standing guidelines.

Quote from camotero

thus, perhaps, trying to communicate it regardless of circumstances)

1 - I would generally say that looking at anything "regardless of circumstances" is going to be a bad idea. Even with pleasure, we sometimes choose pain.... so context is going to be important.

Quote from camotero

So the naturalists are the Democritean determinists?

Seems like I have seen some translations actually suggest other names for this, but I am coming up short on details other than that they're almost certainly determinists, though not necessarily Democritean. I wonder if "naturalists" is not a more modern term that might not be exactly correct.

Quote from camotero

Great pont and I will check that out, thanks.

Another example, camotero, if you are not familiar with it, is in Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle-Monger," where Lucian specifically criticizes an Epicurean for being too vocal in attacking the lead character at the wrong time and thereby almost getting himself killed. So to the extent your honoring your truth comment was directed at speaking out regardless of context, that example is going to be directly on point, if we consider Lucian to be reflective of Epicurean views. (Of course by making his statement he was disagreeing with the Epicurean he criticized, so there's a difference of opinion there apparently).

"what business had he to be the only sane man in a crowed of madmen...?"

http://epicurism.info/etexts/Alexander.html

Quote

As I have said, Alexander was much afraid of Epicurus, and the solvent action of his logic on imposture.

On one occasion, indeed, an Epicurean got himself into great trouble by daring to expose him before a great gathering. He came up and addressed him in a loud voice, ‘Alexander, it was you who induced So-and-so the Paphlagonian to bring his slaves before the governor of Galatia, charged with the murder of his son who was being educated in Alexandria. Well, the young man is alive, and has come back, to find that the salves had been cast to the beasts by your machinations." What had happened was this: The lad had sailed up the Nile, gone on to a Red Sea port, found a vessel starting for India, and been persuaded to make the voyage. He being long overdue, the unfortunate slaves supposed that he had either perished in the Nile or fallen a victim to some of the pirates who infested it at that time; so they came home to report his disappearance. Then followed the oracle [indicting the slaves with murder], the sentence, and finally the young man’s return with the story of his absence.

All this the Epicurean recounted. Alexander was much annoyed by the exposure, and could not stomach so well deserved an affront; he directed the company to stone the man, on pain of being involved in his impiety and called Epicureans. However, when they set to work, a distinguished Pontic called Demostratus, who was staying there, rescued him by interposing his own body; the man had the narrowest possible escape from being stoned to death—as he richly deserved to be; what business had he to be the only sane man in a crowed of madmen, and needlessly make himself the butt of Paphlagonian infatuation?

This was a special case; but it was the practice for the names of applicants to be read out the day before answers were given; the herald asked whether each was to receive his oracle; hand sometimes the reply came from within: To perdition! One so repulsed could get shelter, fire or water, from no man; he must be driven from land to land as a blasphemer, an atheist, and—lowest depth of all—an Epicurean.

Thanks for correcting me on the natural philosophers Don. I knew i was typing too fast earlier and I should have slowed down.

Quote from camotero

What is that yoke of destiny? I presume determinism.

Who are the natural philosophers? From DeWit I gathered (please clarify if I'm mistaken that Epicurus could be classified as a natural philospher since part of his philosophy was based on observations of nature as the norm.

I think you're correct on both.

Quote from camotero

A cause of good or evil? Or a cause of what?

I think he means an initiating cause of either. I think he's saying that "Fate" does not exist as a force, and therefore it does not initiate any kind of results

Quote from camotero

Who is he?

What could be that which is well-judged-in-action?

I think "he" is the figurative wise man who is living the best life possible

I think "well judged in action" refers to a conscious decision that is well judged and therefore comes as close to the desired goal (whatever it is) as possible.

Quote from camotero

it does look like the vallue of truth is relative, which may be something that makes us uncomfortable but it might none the less be true. Perhaps, the question should not be if the value of truth is relative, but rather if the value of us honoring our truth is relative, which it seems to be the case.

I think Epicurus would say that there is no such thing as "truth" in the abstract, and so it wouldn't make him uncomfortable at all to face that fact. As far as the second sentence goes it would probably be better to ask you to restate that to make it more clear.

This is a great question Camotero and a great use of the forum thank you!

Quote from Don

I don't see this as a question of the relative value of truth.

i believe I am willing to go further and affirm that "yes," so long as we are careful with the definition of 'truth," the value of "truth" is relative. Only "pleasure" is entitled to the status of being desirable in and for itself, neither "wisdom" nor "truth" should be viewed in that way, but as always the devil is in the details, or the definitions.

As Pontius Pilate asked, "what is truth?" In your example, rather than "truth," I would say that what you are talking about is "information" -- in this case information about the state of a disease and/or the state (if any) after death). As you say about this information "that good depends on your take of what is pleasurable or no." Certainly the information that the soul is mortal and does not live forever in the happy fields of an eternal hereafter is not "pleasurable" information to hear. It can and does often lead to more pleasure in the lives of many people, who then are freed from fear of hell and armed with the information live life more productively for pleasure. But the information itself is not pleasurable, any more than sitting next to the deathbed of the dying person and reading to them the telephone directory of New York City would be bring them pleasure. Yes the data in the phonebook is "truth," but it is not calculated, relative to the situation, to bring them pleasure.

So yes I would say that if the dying person is afraid of death due to fear of hell, then such a person would benefit from hearing the truth about the absence of an eternal soul. But in your example of a person who has lived their life in the illusion of an afterlife, and is now near death, then such a person would be brought only pain in learning that they have wasted their life and now have no capacity to recover any part of it.

I think many of us face this question in relation to our elderly relatives, and either have or will go through this. I know that I personally have not chosen to use my last hours with them to discuss the eternity of death, while on the other hand I think it is one of the most important issues possible to discuss with younger and healthier people who have the capacity to put the information to good use.

Edit: I realize that I misstated this originally, and this is more correct: "in this case information about the state of a disease and/or the state (if any) after death)." I tend to blend / confuse this question into the issue of "Do you tell someone they are about to die if they don't realize it?"

Welcome to Episode Thirty-Seven of Lucretius Today.

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 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.

Before we start, here are three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which may or may not agree with what you here about Epicurus at other places today.

Second: We aren't talking about Lucretius with the goal of promoting any modern political perspective. Epicurus must be understood on his own, and not in terms of competitive schools which may seem similar to Epicurus, but are fundamentally different and incompatible, such as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, and Marxism.

Third: The essential base of Epicurean philosophy is a fundamental view of the nature of the universe. When you read the words of Lucretius you will find that Epicurus did not teach the pursuit of virtue or of luxury or of simple living. or science, as ends in themselves, but rather the pursuit of pleasure. From this perspective it is feeling which is the guide to life, and not supernatural gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. And as important as anything else, Epicurus taught that there is no life after death, and that any happiness we will ever have must come in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Now let's join the discussion with today's text:

Latin Text Location 1105 - End (1174)

Munro Notes:

1104 - 1174 And after our world was born, many elements were ever added to it so as to increase all its parts, until it attained its full growth : even thus things which you see growing take in more elements as food than they give forth, until they reach their maturity; then they gradually decay, and exhale more than they take into their veins; until from inward rarefaction and outward blows they perish completely : even thus will our world perish : already our earth has begun to fail, and can no longer produce what mice it did; tillers and vinedressers spend their labour in vain and regret the olden time, not knowing that the earth like everything else must come to an end.

Browne

Besides, after this world was formed, and the birthday of the Sea, the Earth, and the Sun was over, there were many particles of matter added to them from without, many seeds were received every way, which the infinite mass of universe constantly discharged; from whence the Sea and the Earth grew more strong and vigorous; from when the mansions of the heavens were enlarged, and raised their lofty arches higher from the Earth, and new air was produced. For from all the parts of the universe the proper seeds are distributed, and retire severally in all places to their proper kinds; the watery to the water, the Earth increases by earthy particles, the fiery produce fire, the airy air, til Nature, the parent and perfectress of all things, improves all beings to the utmost extent of growth they are capable of. This comes to pass, when no more is received into the vital passages, than what is perspired, and flies off; then it is that the growth of the creature is at a full stand, and nature restrains it from further increase.

For whatever creature you observe to thrive and grow lively and large, and by degrees climb up to a mature age, receives more particles into itself than it emits, because all the nourishment is easily distributed into the veins, and there confined, and the particles are not so widely scattered as in any proportion to fly off, and so receive a loss faster than they are supplied. For we must allow that many particles certainly fly off from bodies, but many others ought to be coming on, til the thing arrives to its utmost pitch of bulk. Then, by degrees, its strength and maturity of vigor decays, its age melts away and dissolves; for the larger any body is, the greater it is in size, when its growth is over, it wastes the more every way, and sends out more particles from itself; nor is the nourishment easily distributed into the veins, or nature sufficient to renew and supply those effluvia it throws off in such abundance, in proportion as the defect and the loss require. The animal therefore must necessarily perish when it is made thin by continual perspiration, and all things must at length fall by constant strokes from without; for the supplies from food must fail in old age, nor do bodies from without ever cease to batter and break to pieces all things with strokes not to be resisted.

By the same rule, the visible heavens, the surrounding walls of this great world, must tumble down by continual attacks, and fall to ruin. It is the nourishment that preserves things in being by constant supplies, but ‘tis all to no purpose: For neither are the veins capable to receive what is sufficient, nor can nature afford a proper and needful recruit. Even now, the age of the world is broken, and the Earth so feeble and worn out, that it scarce produces a puny kind of creatures, when it bore formerly a lusty race, and brought forth such prodigious bodies of wild beasts. Or I cannot think all species of creatures descended from the sky by a Golden Chain upon the Earth, nor were they by the Sea created, nor by the waves that beat the Rocks, but the same Earth which now supports them, at first gave them being. At first she kindly, of her own accord, raised the rich fruits and delightful vines for the benefit of men. She freely of herself offered her sweet produce, the corn and tender grass, which now scarce rise to perfection with all our labor.

We wear out our oxen, and the strength of our husbandmen; we can scarce find plowshares sufficient to till the fields, things are so averse to grow, and our labors are forever increasing. And now the lusty plowman shakes his head, and laments the pains he took was oft in vain; and when he compares the present times with the glorious days that are past, he blesses the good fortune of those that were before him; he talks loudly how the old race of men, filled with piety, no doubt spent their happy days within the narrow bounds of their own field, (for then every man's share of ground was much less than it is now) but has no notion, fond fool! that things by degrees decay, and, worn out by old age, hasten to ruin to the utmost period of their duration.

Munro:

And since the birth-time of the world and first day of being to sea and earth and the formation of the sun many bodies have been added from without, many seeds added all round, which the great universe in tossing to and fro has contributed; that from them the sea and lands might increase and from them heaven’s mansion might enlarge its expanse and raise its high vaults far above earth, and that air might rise up around. For all bodies from all quarters are assigned by blows each to its appropriate thing and all withdraw to their proper classes; moisture passes to moisture, from an earthy body earth increases and fires forge fires and ether ether, until nature parent of things with finishing hand has brought all things on to their utmost limit of growth. And this comes to pass when that which is infused into the life-arteries is no more than that which ebbs from them and withdraws: at this point the life-growth in all things must stop, at this point nature by her powers checks further increase.

For whatever things you see grow in size with joyous increase and mount by successive steps to mature age, take to themselves more bodies than they discharge from themselves, while food is readily infused into all the arteries and the things are not so widely spread out as to throw off many particles and occasion more waste than their age can take in as nourishment. For no doubt it must be conceded that many bodies ebb away and withdraw from things; but still more must join them, until they have touched the utmost point of growth. Then piece by piece age breaks their powers and matured strength and wastes away on the side of decay. For the larger a thing is and the wider, as soon as its growth is stopped, at once it sheds abroad and discharges from it more bodies in all directions round; and its food is not readily transmitted into all its arteries and is not enough, in proportion to the copious exhalations which the thing throws off, to enable a like amount to rise up and be supplied. For food must keep all things entire by renewing them, food must uphold, food sustain all things: all in vain, since the arteries refuse to hold what is sufficient, and nature does not furnish the needful amount. With good reason therefore all things perish, when they have been rarefied by the ebb of particles and succumb to blows without, since food sooner or later fails advanced age, and bodies never cease to destroy a thing by thumping it from without and to overpower it by aggressive blows.

In this way then the walls too of the great world around shall be stormed and fall to decay and crumbling ruin. Yes and even now the age is enfeebled and the earth exhausted by bearing scarce produces little living creatures, she who produced all races and gave birth to the huge bodies of wild beasts. For methinks no golden chain let down to earth from heaven above the races of mortal beings, nor did the sea and waves which lash the rocks produce them, but the same earth bare them which now feeds them out of herself. Moreover she first spontaneously of herself produced for mortals goodly corn-crops and joyous vineyards; of herself gave sweet fruits and glad pastures; which now-a-days scarce attain any size when furthered by our labor:

We exhaust the oxen and the strength of the husbandmen; we wear out our iron, scarcely fed after all by the tilled fields; so niggardly are they of their produce and after so much labor do they let it grow. And now the aged plowman shakes his head and sighs again and again to think that the labors of his hands have come to nothing; and when he compares present times with times past, he often praises the fortunes of his sire and harps on the theme, how the men of old rich in piety comfortably supported life on a scanty plot of ground, since the allotment of land to each man was far less of yore than now. The sorrowful planter too of the exhausted and shriveled vine impeaches the march of time and wearies heaven, and comprehends not that all things are gradually wasting away and passing to the grave, quite forspent by age and length of days.

Bailey:

And since the time of the world’s birth, and the first birthday of sea and earth, and the rising of the sun, many bodies have been added from without, and seeds added all around, which the great universe in its tossing has brought together; that from them sea and lands might be able to increase, and from them too the mansion of the sky might gain new room and lift its high vault far away from the lands, and the air might rise up. For from all places all bodies are separated by blows each to its own kind, and they pass on to their own tribes; moisture goes to moisture, with earthy substance earth grows, fires forge fires, and sky sky, until nature, parent of all, with perfecting hand has brought all things on to the last end of growing; as it comes to pass, when there is now no whit more which is sent within the veins of life, than what flows out and passes away. Here the growth of all things must stop, here nature by her powers curbs increase.

For whatsoever things you see waxing large with joyful increase, and little by little climbing the steps to full-grown years, take more into themselves than they send out from their body, so long as food is passed easily into all their veins, and so long as the things are not so widely spread that they throw off much, and cause waste greater than that on which their growth feeds.

For of a surety you must throw up your hands and grant that many bodies flow away and pass from things; but more must needs be added to them, until they have reached the topmost point of increase. Then little by little age breaks their powers and their full-grown strength, and wastes away on the downhill path. For verily the huger a thing is and the wider it is, when once its bulk begins to go, the more bodies now does it scatter abroad and throw off from itself, nor is its food easily dispersed into all its veins, nor is there store enough, whence matter may arise and be supplied to equal the vast ebb which it gives out. With reason then they perish, when all things have been made rare by the ebb, and yield before the blows from without, inasmuch as at last food fails the aged life, nor do bodies from without cease to thump upon it, and wear it away, and to overcome it with hostile blows.

Thus then even the walls of the wide world all round will be stormed and fall into decay and crumbling ruin. For it is food which must needs repair all things and renew them, food must support them, and food sustain all things; yet all is vain, since neither the veins can bear to receive what is enough, nor does nature furnish all that is needful. Yea, even now its life is broken, and the worn-out earth scarce creates tiny animals, though once it created all the tribes, and brought to birth huge bodies of wild beasts. For it was no golden rope, I trow, which let down the races of living things from heaven above on to the fields, nor did the sea or the waves, that lash the rocks, create them, but the same earth conceived them, which now nourishes them of her substance. Moreover, at first by herself of her own accord she created for mortals the smiling crops and glad vine-plants, herself brought forth sweet fruits and glad pastures; which now scarce wax great, though aided by our toil:

We wear out our oxen and the strength of our husbandmen: we exhaust the iron ploughshare, though scarce supplied by the fields so much do they grudge their produce and increase our toil. And now the aged ploughman shaking his head sighs ever and again that the toil of his hands has perished all for naught, and when he matches the present days against the days of the past, he often praises the fortunes of his father. So too gloomily the planter of the worn-out, wrinkled vine rails at the trend of the times, and wearies heaven, and grumbles to think how the generations of old, rich in piety, easily supported life on a narrow plot, since aforetime the limit of land was far less to each man. Nor does he grasp that all things waste away little by little and pass to the grave foredone by age and the lapse of life.

Episode 35 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available.

Unfortunately what mostly come to mind are trendy slang words, like "right-size" -- but that doesn't do it either!

To make matters worse, what comes next are those cat videos where cats squeeze themselves into boxes and glass bowls to fill every inch!

Our minds are hopelessly polluted!

Yes I do still approve. The wording we are looking for in english is more like "set the parameters" or "define the target" or even "Triangulate" -- still missing the best term. We're looking to define the playing field, or the rules of the game, so that we can then know best how to play the game.

Very very well stated Don. It seems so obvious! And yet, here we are in a corner of the internet while every academically-trained student or teacher is teaching or studying something much different than that. I suppose it would be helpful to diagnosis how we got here, but probably the first order of business is to stop the bleeding and look first to the development of a stable community of people who see things differently, and are willing to stand up for that position.

Sometimes I feel like hoisting a pirate flag and adopting some kind of "'men' without a country" imagery

Absolutely no doubt that some of us -- maybe a lot of us - need to "reduce" certain desires that bring us pain. On the other hand many of us - lots of us - need to ratchet up our desires in those areas that would really bring us pleasure before we face the eternity of death. It's all in the circumstances, but darn it, just like some people want tot dwell on "painlessness" because they are hurting so badly, similarly some want to dwell on "reduction" because they have foolishly targeted their time. In both cases they project their problems on everyone and then proclaim that "everyone" should reduce their desires / pleasures. I think we can intelligently deal with this without making a rhetorical mistake on either side, but I know -- or at least I sense -- which side the danger is on in the field of Epicurean "evangelism."

Welcome to Episode Thirty-Six of Lucretius Today.

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 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.

Before we start, here are three ground rules.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which may or may not agree with what you here about Epicurus at other places today.

Second: We aren't talking about Lucretius with the goal of promoting any modern political perspective. Epicurus must be understood on his own, and not in terms of competitive schools which may seem similar to Epicurus, but are fundamentally different and incompatible, such as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, and Marxism.

Third: The essential base of Epicurean philosophy is a fundamental view of the nature of the universe. When you read the words of Lucretius you will find that Epicurus did not teach the pursuit of virtue or of luxury or of simple living. or science, as ends in themselves, but rather the pursuit of pleasure. From this perspective it is feeling which is the guide to life, and not supernatural gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. And as important as anything else, Epicurus taught that there is no life after death, and that any happiness we will ever have must come in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Now let's join the discussion with today's text:

Latin Text Location 1048-1104

Munro Notes

Munro Summary:

1048-1066: space then being unlimited on all sides and atoms infinite in number, it is not likely this world should be the only one in being, since it was formed by a mere chance combination of atoms: there are then in other parts of space other like combinations of matter.

1077-1089: again there is nothing that is sole in its kind, man beast bird or fish ; and so is it also with heavens earths seas suns and moons; they are all without number; since they have all birth and death on the same conditions as each thing here on earth.

1090-1104: the knowledge of these things will rid you of fear of the gods; for how could any being rule these numberless heavens and earths ? how could he hurl his bolts at once in so many places, bolts which often destroy the innocent and miss the wicked ?

Browne:

Now turn your mind, I pray, to a true reasoning. For a truth wondrously new is struggling to fall upon your ears, and a new face of things to reveal itself. Yet neither is anything so easy, but that at first it is more difficult to believe, and likewise nothing is so great or so marvelous but that little by little all decrease their wonder at it. First of all the bright clear colour of the sky, and all it holds within it, the stars that wander here and there, and the moon and the sheen of the sun with its brilliant light; all these, if now they had come to being for the first time for mortals, if all unforeseen they were in a moment placed before their eyes, what story could be told more marvelous than these things, or what that the nations would less dare to believe beforehand? Nothing, I trow: so worthy of wonder would this sight have been. Yet think how no one now, wearied with satiety of seeing, deigns to gaze up at the shining quarters of the sky! Wherefore cease to spew out reason from your mind, struck with terror at mere newness, but rather with eager judgement weigh things, and, if you see them true, lift your hands and yield, or, if it is false, gird yourself to battle

Now, I should be glad to know - since, without the walls of this world, the visible heavens, there lies an infinite space - what is contained there. This the Mind desires eagerly to search into, and, by its own vigor, to range over freely, and without obstruction. And first, since there is no bound to space in any part of it, on no side of it, neither above or below it, as I have proved, and the thing itself proclaims it, and the very nature of space confirms it; we are not to suppose, (since this space is infinitely extended every way, and the seeds innumerable fly about this mighty void in various manners, urged on by an eternal motion) that this one globe of Earth, and the visible heavens only, were created, and that so many seeds of matter that lie beyond do nothing; especially since this world was made naturally, and without design, and the seeds of things of their own accord, jostling together by variety of motions, rashly sometimes, in vain often, and to no purpose, at length suddenly agreed and united, and became the beginning of mighty productions, of the Earth, the Sea, and the Heavens, and the whole animal creation. Wherefore, it needs must be allowed, there were in many other places agreements and unions of the seeds of the same nature with this world of ours, surrounded as it is with the fast embraces of the heavens above. Besides, since there is a large stock of matter already, and a place suitable, nor is there anything or cause to hinder and delay, things must necessarily be produced, and come into being. Now, since there is so great a plenty of seeds, that all the ages of men would not be sufficient to number them, and the same power, the same nature remains, that can dispose the seeds of things in any other place, by the same rule as that united in this world of ours, we must needs confess, that there are other worlds in other parts of the universe, possessed by other kinds of inhabitants, both of men and beasts.

Add to this, that in the universe there is no species that has but one of a sort, that is produced alone, that remain single, and grows up by itself; but whatever species things are of, there are many more individuals of the same kind. This you may observe in the animal creation, this you will find to be the state of the wild beasts, of the human race, of the silent fish, and the whole brood of birds. By the same reason you must own, that the heavens, the Earth, the Sun, the moon, the Sea, and all other beings that are, do not exist singly, but are rather innumerable in their kind; for every one of these have a proper limit fixed to their beings, and are equally bound by the general laws of nature, with all those whose species include a numerous train of individuals under them.

These things, if you rightly apprehend, Nature will appear free in her operations, wholly from under the power of domineering deities, and to act all things voluntarily, and of herself, without the assistance of gods. For Oh - the undisturbed bosoms of the powers above, blessed with sacred peace! How they live in everlasting ease, a life void of care! Who can rule this infinite Universe? Who has the power to hold the mighty reigns of government in his hands over this whole mass? Who likewise can turn about all these heavens? And cherish all these fruitful globes of Earth with celestial heat? Who can be present at all times, and in all places? To darken the world with clouds, to shake the vast expansion of the serene heavens with noise; to dart the thunder, and often overturn his own temples, to fly into the wilderness, and furiously brandish that fiery bolt, which often passes by the guilty, and strikes dead the innocent and undeserving?

Munro:

For since the sum of space is unlimited outside beyond these walls of the world, the mind seeks to apprehend what there is yonder there, to which the spirit ever yearns to look forward, and to which the mind’s emission reaches in free and unembarrassed flight. In the first place we see that round in all directions, about above and underneath, throughout the universe there is no bound, as I have shown and as the thing of itself proclaims with loud voice and as clearly shines out in the nature of bottomless space. In no wise then can it be deemed probable, when space yawns illimitable towards all points and seeds in number numberless and sum unfathomable fly about in manifold ways driven on in ceaseless motion, that this single earth and heaven have been brought into being, that those bodies of matter so many in number do nothing outside them; the more so that this world has been made by nature, just as the seeds of things have chanced spontaneously to clash, after being brought together in manifold wise without purpose, without foresight, without result, and at last have filtered through such seeds as, suddenly thrown together, were fitted to become on each occasion the rudiments of great things, of earth sea and heaven and the race of living things. Wherefore again and again I say you must admit that there are elsewhere other combinations of matter like to this with ether holds in its greedy grasp. Again when much matter is at hand, when room is there and there is no thing, no cause to hinder, things sure enough must go on and be completed. Well, then, if on the one hand there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living creatures cannot reckon up, and if the same force and nature abide in them and have the power to throw the seeds of things together into their several places in the same way as they are thrown together into our world, you must admit that in other parts of space there -are other earths and various races of men and kinds of wild beasts.

Moreover in the sum of all there is no one thing which is begotten single in its kind and grows up single and sole of its kind; but a thing always belongs to some class and there are many other things in the same kind. First, in the case of living things, most noble Memmius, you will find that in this sort has been begotten the mountain-ranging race of wild beasts, in this sort the breed of men, in this sort too the mute shoals of scaly creatures and all bodies of fowls. Therefore on a like principle you must admit that earth, and sun, moon, sea, and all things else that are, are not single in their kind, but rather in number past numbering; since the deep-set boundary-mark of life just as much awaits these and they are just as much of a body that had birth, as any class of things which here on earth abounds in samples of its kind.

If you well apprehend and keep in mind these things, nature free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods. For I appeal to the holy breasts of the gods who in tranquil peace pass a calm time and an unruffled existence, who can rule the sum, who can hold in his hand with controlling force the strong reins, of the immeasurable deep? Who can at once make all the different heavens to roll and warm with ethereal fires all the fruitful earths, or be present in all places at all times, to bring darkness with clouds and shake with noise the heaven’s serene expanse, to hurl lightnings and often throw down his own temples, and withdrawing into the deserts there to spend his rage in practicing his bolt which often passes the guilty by and strikes dead the innocent and unoffending?

Bailey:

For our mind now seeks to reason, since the sum of space is boundless out beyond the walls of this world, what there is far out there, whither the spirit desires always to look forward, and whither the unfettered projection of our mind flies on unchecked. First of all, we find that in every direction everywhere, and on either side, above and below, through all the universe, there is no limit, as I have shown, and indeed the truth cries out for itself and the nature of the deep shines clear. Now in no way must we think it likely, since towards every side is infinite empty space, and seeds in unnumbered numbers in the deep universe fly about in many ways driven on in everlasting motion, that this one world and sky was brought to birth, but that beyond it all those bodies of matter do naught; above all, since this world was so made by nature, as the seeds of things themselves of their own accord, jostling from time to time, were driven together in many ways, rashly, idly, and in vain, and at last those united, which, suddenly cast together, might become ever and anon the beginnings of great things, of earth and sea and sky, and the race of living things. Wherefore, again and again, you must needs confess that there are here and there other gatherings of matter, such as is this, which the ether holds in its greedy grip. Moreover, when there is much matter ready to hand, when space is there, and no thing, no cause delays, things must, we may be sure, be carried on and completed. As it is, if there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living things could not number, and if the same force and nature abides which could throw together the seeds of things, each into their place in like manner as they are thrown together here, it must needs be that you confess that there are other worlds in other regions, and diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts.

This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

And if you learn this surely, and cling to it, nature is seen, free at once, and quit of her proud rulers, doing all things of her own accord alone, without control of gods. For by the holy hearts of the gods, which in their tranquil peace pass placid years, and a life of calm, who can avail to rule the whole sum of the boundless, who to hold in his guiding hand the mighty reins of the deep, who to turn round all firmaments at once, and warm all fruitful lands with heavenly fires, or to be at all times present in all places, so as to make darkness with clouds, and shake the calm tracts of heaven with thunder, and then shoot thunderbolts, and often make havoc of his own temples, or moving away into deserts rage furiously there, plying the bolt, which often passes by the guilty and does to death the innocent and undeserving?

Great work assembling that! Thanks! Of course what you're saying in the final analysis is that Epicurus did not use the same word when describing all these different situations, so it is dangerous and really improper of us to use the same word in those instances without noting that the meaning is different.

It's almost as if "limit" in English came to be a fetish and got overused for too many cases, especially when over the same years its primary meaning as a verb came to be thought of as "to reduce" more so than "set a boundary."

Of course over those same years the primary religion was Christianity and the primary philosophy was some form of Platonism / Stoicism.

I am *sure* that there's no coincidence that all those things were taking place over the same period

I think that one real issue in discussing "limits" is that in English there is a connotation to "to limit" means "to reduce." And of course in discussing limits of pleasure, there is an inference that we draw from use of this term in discussing desires and pleasures that it would be a good thing for "pleasure" to necessarily be "reduced" -- and I don' think that was the intent of Epicurus at all.

FIrst of all, "reduce" and "limit" aren't necessarily the same thing.

We've been distinguishing desires from pleasures, and it certainly makes more sense to "Reduce" desires than it does to "reduce" pleasure. In fact the supposed reason to reduce desire in the advice of Epicurus is in fact to **increase** pleasure.

We're making very useful observations about limits and their importance, but as we do so I think the elephant in the room that must be avoided is implying that by using the concept of limits (and I think limits are a concept) we not accept the stoic desire to see limits of pleasure or limits of desire as being chains that tie us down from experiencing the type of full pleasurable life that might otherwise be possible.

As for me I agree that as used in English the word "desire" definitely implies something different than a "pleasure." I see the contrast being that between a fully formed mental concept (desire) vs an automatic "feeling" (Pleasure).

I say "in English" because Don's list of greek words has me concerned about being too broad!

Quote from Godfrey

I would react that using pleasure as the active principle is certainly more empowering and, well, pleasurable.

I absolutely agree with that and would say it is so blindingly obvious as to not need saying, except that we are confronted with a real life situation (in which there are apparently as many as there are professional philosophers) in which we DO have to say it.

I think you're on the right track to say that there are all sorts of types of pleasures, and some occur with the removal of pain, and some occur when we shift our attention from one pleasure to another.

As I understand it a classic example of a pleasure that is not a removal of pain or want is that of smelling a rose. The smell does not necessarily remove a pain, and we weren't "in lack of a good smell" before smelling it. Our attention turned from one pleasure to another without any removal or displacement of any sort of pain.

Again I think we generously acknowledge that there are all sorts of pleasures, without ever flipping all this on it's head by saying that the goal is "absence of pain." The goal is technically only "absence of pain" from a very very limited perspective - when we are talking about the total quantity of human experience and we're observing that we want the totality of experience to be pleasure(s) with as little pain(s) as possible (preferably, but perhaps not practically for a human, zero).