Posts by Cassius

Thanks for that analysis Todd. Yes these are the issues I am talking about.

I think the point that hit me today as important to address is what I think is a common perception: that Epicurus held that "justice" equates to "agreements not to harm and be harm." If we look at that very simplistically, then it would be easy for someone to say that once in that agreement, it is "unjust" to leave it.

But it seems to me the clear thrust of 37 and 8 is to emphasize exactly that people WILL not only occasionally but frequently go in and out of such agreements, with the temporary nature of them being the exception and not the rule.

So what then "is," or what "does it mean" for a thing to be "unjust." Is "injustice" really anything at all other than the perception that some person or group will be out to punish you for the action?

Maybe I am overthinking this, but my perception is that people who address these PD's at all treat them superficially and conclude that Epicurus held non-aggression compacts to be "good/just" and exiting from non-aggression pacts to be "bad/unjust" and I am thinking that such a deduction about Epicurus would be way off the mark.

I think Epicurus would agree with your criticism of common perceptions of the "social contract" theory, and that the extensive discussion of justice may be intended to emphasize the point that is clear elsewhere -- that "virtue" (any form of virtue, including "justice") really has no intrinsic meaning whatsoever divorced from the question of what pain and pleasure results from it.

In our Skype discussion today it was pointed out that "justice" may be somewhat unique as being traced to "anticipations," and that we have direct "feelings" of justice and injustice, but I am not sure both those observations don't apply to each and every concept that we fit within "virtue."

At any rate this is a subject that we haven't talked about very much, but it's one that I don't think should be considered off topic in the sense of normal day-to-day political issues. What we are talking about here is the more fundamental issue of even how to begin to analyze social relations of any kind; we're not criticizing or praising any particular form of social relation.

One more comment for now: To me, I see a thread running through the Epicurean texts of a deeply-felt concern for ALL life - both animal and human, and I think that they would share what I gather to be Nietzsche's detest for "nihilism" and "stoicism" from that perspective. Life is tremendously short and an eternity of non-existence is a very long time, so I think there is a strain of reverence and awe for LIFE which is built in to the respect for pleasure and pain as Nature's stop and go signals. And this is different from the Stoics looking at "the universe" as essentially a mechanistic god -- this is looking at LIFE / PLEASURE and seeing "Venus" as a "goddess" deserving heartfelt gratitude and energetic embracing. And that's why I really appreciate Catherine Wilson's slide from her recent talk:

Being "stoic" and unmoved by the possibilities of pleasure that life affords is a form of savagery, or madness. And so the reverse is also true, which is why they seemed to have embraced Epicurus as "godlike" and saw the goal as living "as gods among men" and not shrinking from emotion.

In fact I just re-scanned over Nate's post above and I agree with every word of it. We moderns are polluted in a sense with our upbringing (both academic and religious) and not only are we not the norm in human history, I am not sure at all that we are more advanced in our thinking, especially over the last hundred years or so.

Godfrey if you read any of my past commentary on this you probably will expect that I am someone who thinks that the Epicurean theory of divinity has important practical uses even today. My position is grounded on a number of different issues, some of which I will probably forget to list here, but mainly being (1) the desire to come up with a comprehensive theory of humanity's place in the universe (if we alone, then there is something special about us), (2) the desire to consistently apply our theory of observation on the widest possible scale (the isonomia issue - which is closely related to "nature never produces only a single thing of a kind, and also the issue of anticipating that life exists on a spectrum from low to high.

Quote from Godfrey

Community, shared belief, safety.... He says that there is an anticipation of the gods; could this be simply awe and reverence for the universe we live in?

I do not think that the issue is strictly related to "reverence for the universe" which is after all "just" a combination of matter and void, like we are. I think the issue more relates to reverence for "life" or even "pleasure" as for example considering pleasure to be a goddess (Venus). For example, why NOT live in a cave eating grain and scratch stick men on walls, if indeed we can fill our experience with simple physical pleasures, rather than worry about pleasures that are more mental? There is something going on in the minds of higher animals that causes them to work to improve their ability to experience pleasure and avoid pain, and even among humans there is a wide variety of patterns as to how to approach that issue ("progress"). Where does this come from? Religionists will suggest gods or ideal forms, but that's clearly not the answer, nor is it "random" - so a coherent explanation of why civilization life has (to some extent) "improved" over time that does not involve supernatural gods would be a logical question for a philosopher to consider.

I tend to take Epicurus exactly at his word, and to discount explanations that suggest that he was scared of hemlock or the like (I agree with Nate's comments above on this).

It seems to me that some people just don't seem to be concerned, especially nowadays, about issues of "who created the universe" and "why" and so forth. But I tend to think personally that that number of people, even today, is really smaller than some of us in the highly developed nations might think. I think those are compelling questions which demand a coherent explanation, and "I don't know" just isn't good enough.

Yes Godfrey that is the direction the question is going. In a very general sense, I am trying to frame the question: If justice is something that happens by agreement, then is it going to be appropriate to call every breach of every agreement "unjust."

Maybe it is just me thinking about this for the first time, but it seems to me that it would be logical for someone to reach that conclusion if they are not careful.

As far as "social contract" theory goes it would be necessary to define what one means by that in order to make any sense of the discussion, but the basic issue is that it does not seem correct to presume that Epicurean justice is totally or even primarily a matter of contract. Because if you can walk out of the contract at any moment that you find it to be of disadvantage to you, then it hardly seems possible to call every walk-away from every contract "unjust."

And so either (1) "agreement" is not really the heart of the issue, or (2) "justice" is a word that REALLY has little meaning, compared to what "regular people" we think it does.

I am beginning to think that (2) is the real issue.

Welcome Bob ! When you get a chance, please introduce yourself and let us know your background and interests in Epicurus. We hope you will enjoy your stay here, and we invite you to open threads on any of the topics here which interest you.

Cassius started a new event:

Event

Part 2 of Online Book Discussion - DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" Chapter 14 - The New Virtues - Skype

Discussion Plan For Chapter 14 "The New Virtues" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

Sun, Nov 3rd 2019, 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Cassius

October 13, 2019 at 12:39 PM

Quote

Discussion Plan For Chapter 14 "The New Virtues" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

In the Skype discussion this morning of DeWitt's Chapter 14, we raised the question "Is Every Breach of Every Agreement Unjust?"

This relates also to whether Epicurean theory is classified as supporting "social contract" theory. Is every withdrawal from every social contract "unjust?"

What happens when parties enter an agreement and one side decides later that it is no longer in his/her advantage to remain? Is every withdrawal "unjust"?

Quote

37. Among actions which are sanctioned as just by law, that which is proved, on examination, to be of advantage, in the requirements of men's dealings with one another, has the guarantee of justice, whether it is the same for all or not. But if a man makes a law, and it does not turn out to lead to advantage in men's dealings with each other, then it no longer has the essential nature of justice. And even if the advantage in the matter of justice shifts from one side to the other, but for a while accords with the general concept, it is nonetheless just for that period, in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty sounds, but look to the actual facts.

38. Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions which were considered just have been shown not to accord with the general concept, in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions which were sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, they were just at the time, when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow-citizens with one another, but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

I think the answer most likely has to be "every withdrawal is not unjust" but it is interesting to consider what circumstances make withdrawal just or unjust, or whether justice applies at all either to (1) the withdrawal or (2) the period after the withdrawal.

Here is the Epicurism wiki:

So my tentative observation is that the focus here cannot solely be on the question (1) was the agreement violated? but must also equally consider (2) the existence of harm or disadvantage. In other words, it would be wrong to consider every breach of every agreement, or every withdrawal from every social contract, to be "unjust."

We discussed also that since justice is something that arises from anticipations, it is by nature something that is "felt," and therefore like any other feeling is subject to immediate change.

My thoughts are not at all fully developed on this but I wanted to make this post to preserve and start the discussion here.

What do you guys think?

Just glancing over the forums I see the thread is entitled "...Finding THE Path." Maybe that is one of our points here, that there is not a single path for everyone, not even a single best bath for the same person. However, maybe no matter the number of paths, it is correct to call it direct or straight(?)

Which reminds me to compare this passage from the opening of Lucretius 6:

Munro: "

He therefore cleansed men’s breasts with truth-telling precepts and fixed a limit to lust and fear and explained what was the chief good which we all strive to reach, and pointed out the road along which by a short cross-track we might arrive at it in a straightforward course; he showed too what evils existed in mortal affairs throughout, rising up and manifoldly flying about by a natural –call it chance or force, because nature had so brought it about – and from what gates you must sally out duly to encounter each; and he proved that mankind mostly without cause arouse in their breast the melancholy tumbling billows of cares."

Bailey:

"And so with his discourse of truthful words he purged the heart and set a limit to its desire and fear, and set forth what is the highest good, towards which we all strive, and pointed out the path, whereby along a narrow track we may strain on towards it in a straight course; he showed what there is of ill in the affairs of mortals everywhere, coming to being and flying abroad in diverse forms, be it by the chance or the force of nature, because nature had so brought it to pass; he showed from what gates it is meet to sally out against each ill, and he proved that ’tis in vain for the most part that the race of men set tossing in their hearts the gloomy billows of care."

Daniel Brown 1743:

"

And therefore he purged the mind by true philosophy, and set bounds to our desires and our fears. He laid open to us the chief good, that point of happiness we all aim at, in what it consists, and showed us the direct way that leads to it, and puts us into the straight road to obtain it."

Thanks GD. The voice is far from ideal, but I actually like its "neutrality" in many ways, as a means of focusing on the words and not about who the speaker is, or where they or from, or those kinds of issues.

And I also think that hearing it read at least once, even in this way, helps when we get to the point of reading it aloud ourselves.

I think that's a good start on a practical approach, and it certainly illustrates the process!

This reminds me Garden Dweller of our fairly recent discussion of a "Pleasure Maximizaton Worksheet." If you have not seen that you might find it interesting to bounce your current thinking against that approach. I did not end up developing it further for a variety of reasons, but what you are doing is similar to any approach which provides suggested guidelines and suggests a way to weigh and balance the result: A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

DAILY LUCRETIAN SATURDAY OCTOBER 12 2019

For as boys tremble, and fear every thing in the dark night, so we, in open day, fear things as vain and little to be feared, as those that children quake at in the dark, and fancy advancing towards them. This terror of the mind, this darkness then, not the sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day can scatter, but the light of Nature and the rules of reason.

First then, I say, the mind of man (which we commonly call the soul) in which is placed the conduct and government of life, is part of man no less than the hand, the foot, the eyes, are parts of the whole animal; though many of the philosophic herd have fancied that the sense of the mind is not fixed to any particular part, but is a sort of vital habit of the whole body, which the Greeks call Harmony; and thence flows all our sense, and the Mind has no particular place for its abode. As when we say health belongs to the body, yet it is no part of the body that is in health, so no particular part, they tell us, is the residence of the mind. But in this they seem to be egregiously wrong, for often when some visible part of the body suffers pain, we feel pleasure in some other part to us unseen; and the contrary often happens in its turn, that a man disturbed in mind is perfectly well all over his body, in the same manner as when a man has the gout in his foot, his head at the same time is free from pain.

Besides, when our limbs are given up to soft sleep, and the wearied body lies stretched at length without sense, there is something within that in the very time is variously affected, and receives into itself all the impressions of joy and empty cares that torment the heart.

But to convince you that the soul is a part like other limbs, and not as a harmony, takes up the whole body, observe first that many members of the body may be cut off, yet often life remains in the rest; and again, the same life, when a few certain particles of vital heat fly off, and our last breath is blown through the mouth, immediately leaves possession of our veins and bones. And this will give you to understand that all the particles of matter are not of equal consequence to the body, nor do they equally secure our lives; but the particles of our breath, and the warm vapor, are of principal concern to preserve life to us in all our limbs. This warmth, this vapor, therefore resides in the body, and leaves our limbs as death makes approaches towards us.

Just noting this as it seems relevant to several of our discussions, including (1) how there are two feelings, (2) whether we can feel pleasure and pain at the same time, (3) whether we measure feeling in total, offsetting discrete feelings one against the other, etc.

This is Lucretius Book Three, approximately line 112 (1743 Edition):

First then, I say, the mind of man (which we commonly call the soul) in which is placed the conduct and government of life, is part of man no less than the hand, the foot, the eyes, are parts of the whole animal; though many of the philosophic herd have fancied that the sense of the mind is not fixed to any particular part, but is a sort of vital habit of the whole body, which the Greeks call Harmony; and thence flows all our sense, and the Mind has no particular place for its abode. As when we say health belongs to the body, yet it is no part of the body that is in health, so no particular part, they tell us, is the residence of the mind. But in this they seem to be egregiously wrong, for often when some visible part of the body suffers pain, we feel pleasure in some other part to us unseen; and the contrary often happens in its turn, that a man disturbed in mind is perfectly well all over his body, in the same manner as when a man has the gout in his foot, his head at the same time is free from pain.

This is the first ready-for-use production of a video using Kyle's script. It still uses the computer voice, which is not ideal, but it provides a better version of the Vatican List of Sayings than was previously available. Hopefully we will get volunteers to record human-spoken versions of this text, and we can generate new editions with all sorts of audio and graphic refinements. But for the moment, he is "The Vatican List of the Sayings of Epicurus."

I very much agree with your take Joshua. No doubt there are elements that can be pulled out (I am thinking at the moment of passages that seem to lament that the Earth is no longer able to give rise to as hardy races/animals as in the past) but those fit well into the larger context that you are describing.

After all, the Epicurean physics has long before this point in the analysis established that all things that come together from the elements eventually dissolve back to those elements, so why should mankind, animals of any kind, life on earth, or the earth itself deviate from that pattern?

In fact I think Lucretius makes clear that we can expect the Earth to dissolve to nothing at some future point, and with it the end of the human race at least as we know it now here on earth. There's no reason to think that up to that final point of destruction there would be a steady upward climb, certainly not in every particular area, and probably not in humanity as a whole either. That kind of analysis fits into the theistic model of a supernatural god having a plan of progression, but not at all into the Epicurean model.

I'll say it again here too: we can dismiss the "physics" as hopelessly obsolete in details if we like, but if we don't ground ourselves in the basic understanding of the premises and implications of a totally natural and atomistic universe then we - consciously or otherwise - hold open the door to "maybe there is a spiritual realm" or "maybe there is a realm of ideals / ideal forms" and we thereby miss the crux of what Epicurus was all about, because it was only after establishing those ground rules that we get to the point of identifying pleasure as the guide of life, and interpreting what that means.

Thanks for the correction on 80 Kyle. I am in the process of regenerating it now. The problem was in the file I used in Ivona, as you suggested.

Proof Of Concept: "The Vatican List of the Sayings Of Epicurus." Thank you Kyle! This is my first extended test of the scrolling text video generation system. It still has rough edges but many of those will be smoothed away, and hopefully soon the computer voice will be the thing of the past. Thanks to Kyle it is now easy to mate any text with any mp3 recording of a voice, and have the text scroll to match the voice in front of any custom background. I will experiment further with more prototypes but if you have been interested in recording a selection of the Epicurean text with your own voice, please consider sending me the MP3, along with the text you're reading from, and a proposed graphic, and we can create videos suitable for posting on Youtube.

Quote from Godfrey

It's easy to take the physics for granted as it's more or less accepted scientific knowledge these days.

I've been thinking a lot about this. It is certainly true to a degree, but there are important limitations. It is almost like, today, many of the details have been accepted, but the implications have been divorced from them and totally lost.

With the advent of the omnipotent / omniscient version of god, the problem of "how does a god control what we now know to be atoms, and to be endless space" has been overthrown. No one cares that the universe is endless, or eternal, and so they do not realize that Epicurean physics makes universe-creating gods impossible, of means that humans are not at all alone in the universe, or that the Earth is not at the center and therefore the center of God's attention. Much less the idea that the constant movement of the atoms means that nothing that comes together stays together, nothing is immortal except the universe itself, or that - with nothing conceivable to exist except atoms and void - there cannot possibly be any eternal absolute "ten commandment" rules that apply to all people at all times and all places.

So we may not need to read the details of Epicurean theories of thunder and lightning, but we definitely still need to step through the process to make sure we understand the same implications that they did -- implications that make most of the ethical and philosophical conclusions of the modern world absolutely absurd.

Also, it may seem trite to cite this one, but I think the points in the last post add up to this one, Vatican Saying 71:

Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”

That may not seem like much help as a general rule, but it reinforces how circumstances are subjective and will lead to different choices in different situations.