Posts by Cassius

Observation: Both the letter to Pythocles and the letter to Herodotus start out with a specific detailed greeting explaining the purpose of the letter and saying that these people are being provided a summary of a part of Epicurus' philosophy.

The letter to Menoeceus, in contrast, does not start the same way. It does not identify the reason that prompted the letter, state the purpose of the letter, or refer to it being a summary of the principles of ethics.

The second paragraph does imply that what follows is in explanation of the things Epicurus "used unceasingly to commend to you..." but this is after an introductory paragraph that seems to be floating out of context. Is something missing, or was there something about the rationale of the letter to Menoeceus, or about Menoecus himself ("that I used to commend to you"), that is relevant for us to keep in mind?

This is in contrast to the letter to Herodotus:

And the letter to Pythocles in particular mentions this context, and even refers to the letter to Herodotus - but does not refer to the letter to Menoeceus:

I know nothing about that Thomas Moore novel. Have you read any of it?

Thanks again Joshua. I set up a new subforum "Notable Opponents of Epicurean Philosophy" and moved this thread there.

How do you interpret that Joshua? I am not sure I understand the meaning.

Joshua I think you will really enjoy the Parthenon. I have been there twice and it's really monumentally impressive. The statue on the inside is also huge, if perhaps a little plasticy-looking (if I remember). But I go by there any chance I get and I highly recommend it.

Joshua I meant to ask - how did you take those pictures - carry a real camera with you?

Wow those pictures are great Joshua! Great for computer screen backgrounds too.

And you too, Charles, have a good Thanksgiving.

I bet that must be some beautiful scenery out there. Send us some scenic views sometime!

I want to look at some of Joshua's links and comment further. I am sure that I agree with the central point being made by Elli / Haris / Nate, but I also experience my own feelings that people I otherwise find to be reasonable might find the distinction to be overly fine. As I see it we have a "usage" issue which is very contextually dependent, and also a deeper philosophical issue about attitudes toward the nature and use of system-building which is extremely important and should not be dealt with strictly with terminology. I need to think about this further. Nate's article, with it's in-depth approach, is the way I am thinking - in other words explain in-depth what the issue is without necessarily saying that it is a bright line that must be followed by every person in every instance. In particular, I think that to make the distinction quickly, in a situation where you don't have time to explain what you are talking about, can come across as committing the "sins" that Joshua is concerned about.

Outstanding work Nate! Well reasoned and persuasive!

Are you pasting that into Reddit or providing a link to here, perhaps setting up a new thread with one of these as the first post ? I probably should mention that the current default "style" here is light, and I bet you are using dark, as the use of the yellow fonts is fairly hard to see on the white background.

But this is great work and I feel sure Elli will approve!

I think most of us who frequent here are probably based in the USA, other than Elli and Michele, so I suspect we will see some variation in posting over the coming week as people go on vacation and have either more or less free time. I should be maintaining pretty much my normal schedule, but in case I miss some of you who leave for vacation, have safe travels and a happy holiday with family and friends.

Anyone have any special plans?

Daily Lucretian - Monday November 25, 2019 (Continuation of Book Three, Daniel Brown 1743 Edition)

Besides, we often seen men perish by degrees, and lose their vital sense limb by limb; first, the nails and toes grow black, then the feet and legs rot; at length the traces of cold death proceed on, step by step, over the other parts of the body. Since therefore the soul is divided, and does not at such a time continue whole and entire, you must pronounce it mortal.

But if you think the soul retires out of the dying members into the more inward parts of the body, and contracts its seeds into one place, and so withdraws the sense from the rest of the limbs, yet that place to which the soul retreats, and where so much of it is crowded together, ought to enjoy a more lively and brisker sense; but, since there is no such place, it is plain, as we said before, it is scattered piecemeal through the air, and therefore perishes. But suppose we grant which is false in itself, and allow that the soul may be huddled up together in the bodies of those who die one limb after another, yet then the soul must be confessed to be by Nature mortal. For it signifies not whether the soul dies scattered through the air, or perishes with its parts contracted into one place, while the senses steal away from the whole body more and more, and the powers of life by degrees appear less and less.

And since the mind is a part of man fixed in one certain place, as the ears, eyes, and other senses that preside over life, and as the hands, and eyes, and nose, when separated from the body, are incapable of sense, or even to be, but must in a very short time corrupt and putrefy; for the Mind cannot subsist of itself without the body, (or even be in the man) which is as it were a vessel to the soul, or anything else you can conceive more closely united to it; for it sticks inseparably to the body, and cannot be divided from it.

Further, the vital powers of the body and mind exert themselves together, and live united by the strongest bonds; neither can the nature of the Mind alone dispense the vital motions of itself without the body, nor can the body, void of soul, continue or use the faculties of sense. For as the eye, torn out by the roots and separated from the body, can see nothing, so the soul and mind cannot act of themselves, because they are spread over all the body by the veins, the bowels, the nerves, and bones. Nor could the seeds of the soul exercise those vibrations that produce sense, were they disposed at wide intervals, and enclosed by no solid body. They show those sensible motions because they are shut up close, which they cannot exert when they are forced out of the body into the wide air after death, because they are not under the same restraint as they are within the enclosure of the body; for the air would be an animal, if the soul could be confined within it, and maintain those motions of sense which before it exercised in the nerves and through the limbs. You must confess therefore, over and over, that the mind and soul (for they both make up but one substance) must needs be dissolved, as soon as they are stripped of the covering of the body, and their vital powers thrown out into the thin air.

Fascinating. Thanks Charles!

Great idea Joshua! Let me know if you'd like subdivisions or other structure that the forum software can help with. Like you said it probably makes sense to just list things first, then we can break down by category and maybe provide more in depth descriptions.

Personally I am somewhere in the middle on this myself. I see the point being made by Elli and Haris (I had forgotten that Haris joined in on this, and I am really glad Nate reminded me of that. It is helpful validation to have TWO Greeks who are proficient in English to make the same observation) . I tend to think that the Greeks sense something deeper going on, and that the English ear is being tuned by something in the background that needs to be identified and resisted. (Yes, I can feel my "all Brits are Stoic" antenna coming into play even though that is my own heritage.)

But Joshua's point is correct too - In normal ordinary conversation I think that most English speakers (at least Americans) probably consider the terms "Epicurean Philosophy" and "Epicureanism" to be absolute equivalents. For that reason the effort to distinguish the two rings somewhat false and weird in American ears.

But maybe this is an area that the English-speakers have by force of habit accepted a viewpoint on "isms" that ought not be accepted in the first place. Even though the"ism" suffix does have a negative connotation in English, it is used interchangeably as designating any system --- perhaps that is part of the problem? Why use a negative term as an equivalent to a term that ought to be positive or at least neutral? (Is it possible that we have absorbed some kind of British cynicism / eclecticism that we need to root out and trample underfoot?)

Maybe any use of an "ism" ought to have an absolutely negative connotation, as it appears to have in Greek, and any use of that suffix ought to be clearly understood to be used as a denunciation.

Now the fact of the matter is that most Americans won't understand that point immediately - but maybe that is something that we all profit if we point out to them.

So while I agree with Joshua that the effort to distinguish sounds weird in English, I do think there is an issue here that can be helpful to address.

Wow that's great memory and/or record-keeping Nate -- thanks!

Quote from Hiram

So it's useful, but it's best used as a source of traffic into our other content.

That's the way I see it too.

But I'll add something that continues to be a topic of my own debates with myself. "Source of traffic" is not always a good thing, when the traffic consists mostly of people who are so committed to other approaches that it becomes a waste of time to engage them.

At the moment in my own mind the calculation comes down to "engagement is good, but at the same time up-front clarity is essential" so that we should engage where it makes sense, but as soon as possible, weed out the people who unlikely in the long term to become allies.

For the foreseeable future, depending on the venue, we can count on - what - maybe 75% of the people who we come across - are primarily committed to religion or some other incompatible view of life. I think we should be nice and cordial but also firm in weeding them out so we can focus on people who "get" the message at a pretty deep level.

And one of the more interesting things to me is that it appears there are pretty good "associative indicators" of where someone is going to end up. For example, someone's general disposition toward Nietzsche seems pretty indicative. He is very difficult to interpret or agree with all the time, but I attribute the association to a certain "intensity" that people see in him, regardless of whether they always agree. For example, writing a book with a title and theme like "Antichrist"!! That took a lot of courage and intensity for his time and place -- not to mention his deep understanding and distaste for Stoicism. So deep I would almost call it "instinctive."

We may disagree with particular people in their application of "feeling," but I think that it's one of the fundamentals that we deal with is that we have an affinity for people of strong emotion more so than the aloof cerebral types. And is that not a good description of the ("British") stiff-upper-lip approach?

Posted by Elli:

I would like to share some of my thoughts that are based on my personal experience. When it happens to lose a loved one, the feelings of sadness i.e. these painful feelings should be felt like a burst/explosion of feelings that reach to the point, and to such an extent to be deflated. And that also means that when one holds or hides or buries the feelings of the pain/sorrow, these will be out, and on the surface of his life, in another way and another time, in which this person could not know what is happening to him and what is the first thing to blame! Because the subconscious did not bury the feeling of pain that the conscious tried to bury. The dreams of the person who buries his emotions are usually images of these buried/hidden emotions as well as a hidden fear of death. Epicurus exhorts: Of course, you'll feel the pain, you'll feel your anger - that this anger is usually remorse if there was a postpone of something to share with our friend- and at the same time, do not feel for your friend as were to be pitied. Because if he lived pleasantly and was safe all of his life, you have to do the same too i.e. you will continue your life without to postpone your joy and pleasure, and creating or maintain such relationships to feel safe and content.

Doctrine 40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbours, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

One passage I like to quote in response to questions like this is from Frances Wright's "A Few Days in Athens, where she has Epicurus address the pain of losing a close friend. This is not from an ancient text but I think does a good job of applying some of his principles on how to view a loss that is not fixable:

But there is yet a pain, which the wisest and the best of men cannot escape; that all of us, my sons, have felt, or have to feel. Do not your hearts whisper it? Do you not tell me, that in death there is yet a sting? That ere he aim at us, he may level the beloved of our soul? The father, whose tender care hath reared our infant minds — the brother, whom the same breast hath nourished, and the same roof sheltered, with whom, side by side, we have grown like two plants by a river, sucking life from the same fountain and strength from the same sun — the child whose gay prattle delights our ears, or whose opening understanding fixes our hopes — the friend of our choice, with whom we have exchanged hearts, and shared all our pains and pleasures, whose eye hath reflected the tear of sympathy, whose hand hath smoothed the couch of sickness. Ah! my sons, here indeed is a pain — a pain that cuts into the soul. There are masters that will tell you otherwise; who will tell you that it is unworthy of a man to mourn even here. But such, my sons, speak not the truth of experience or philosophy, but the subtleties of sophistry and pride. He who feels not the loss, hath never felt the possession. He who knows not the grief, hath never known the joy. See the price of a friend in the duties we render him, and the sacrifices we make to him, and which, in making, we count not sacrifices, but pleasures. We sorrow for his sorrow; we supply his wants, or, if we cannot, we share them. We follow him to exile. We close ourselves in his prison; we soothe him in sickness; we strengthen him in death: nay, if it be possible, we throw down our life for his. Oh! What a treasure is that for which we do so much! And is it forbidden to us to mourn its loss? If it be, the power is not with us to obey.

Should we, then, to avoid the evil, forego the good? Shall we shut love from our hearts, that we may not feel the pain of his departure? No; happiness forbids it. Experience forbids it. Let him who hath laid on the pyre the dearest of his soul, who hath washed the urn with the bitterest tears of grief — let him say if his heart hath ever formed the wish that it had never shrined within it him whom he now deplores. Let him say if the pleasures of the sweet communion of his former days doth not still live in his remembrance. If he love not to recall the image of the departed, the tones of his voice, the words of his discourse, the deeds of his kindness, the amiable virtues of his life. If, while he weeps the loss of his friend, he smiles not to think that he once possessed him. He who knows not friendship, knows not the purest pleasure of earth. Yet if fate deprive us of it, though we grieve, we do not sink; Philosophy is still at hand, and she upholds us with fortitude. And think, my sons, perhaps in the very evil we dread, there is a good; perhaps the very uncertainty of the tenure gives it value in our eyes; perhaps all our pleasures take their zest from the known possibility of their interruption.

What were the glories of the sun, if we knew not the gloom of darkness? What the refreshing breezes of morning and evening, if we felt not the fervors of noon? Should we value the lovely-flower, if it bloomed eternally; or the luscious fruit, if it hung always on the bough? Are not the smiles of the heavens more beautiful in contrast with their frowns, and the delights of the seasons more grateful from their vicissitudes? Let us then be slow to blame nature, for perhaps in her apparent errors there is hidden a wisdom. Let us not quarrel with fate, for perhaps in our evils lie the seeds of our good. Were our body never subject to sickness, we might be insensible to the joy of health. Were our life eternal, our tranquillity might sink into inaction. Were our friendship not threatened with interruption, it might want much of its tenderness. This, then, my sons, is our duty, for this is our interest and our happiness; to seek our pleasures from the hands of the virtues, and for the pain which may befall us, to submit to it with patience, or bear up against it with fortitude. To walk, in short, through life innocently and tranquilly; and to look on death as its gentle termination, which it becomes us to meet with ready minds, neither regretting the past, nor anxious for the future.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…Irmz33x9uCaCzg1

To start, Epicurus held (according to his biography) that the wise man (the Epicurean) will feel his emotions more deeply than will other people. So the first point of observation is that it is entirely appropriate to feel loss in those situations you mention. To attempt to suppress a natural and appropriate emotion would be Stoicism, not Epicurean philosophy.

Next, and others will have many other ideas, it would be natural to ask whether the situation can be changed or not. Loss of a friend or pet may not be, but if you mention anxiety or a temporary situation that can be changed, then Epicurus is all about using your faculties to take control of what can be controlled (since he does not believe in fate) to take appropriate action (such as medical care if the anxiety or condition stems from something that is treatable) or simply acting to deal with the situation, like changing jobs or some other action appropriate to the situation.

So what I want to stress in this preliminary response is that Epicurean philosophy is not about "enduring" any pain that can be fixed, nor is it about suppressing feelings of pain that are legitimate under the circumstances.