We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Good points Oscar, especially as to the popular associations of the word "dogmatism."
Do you have thoughts that would be helpful to cover as to the proper meaning we should give to the word "know" as to what it means "to know something?"
I presume we are talking at least in part about level of confidence that we place in a particular opinion.
[ADMIN NOTE: To open this discussion here are some comments by "M.A." at another location, which I will paste here for reference. I personally don't have time right now to pursue this topic in detail, but it is definitely of interest, especially as to the intersection with Nietzsche, so this is placeholder to one day come back to it. In his opening post MA is referring to Elayne's article on An Approach to Reading Philosophy:]
M.A.: It's nice to learn you put Epicurus as the context of your deep investigation of science and philosophy. Your framework is best-suited for curious learners of Epicurianism. In my case, I've been to a very strange path. I was a radical Marxist-Leninist communist, became a Socratic skeptic, then a post-modern existentialist. It was at this point of being an anti absolutist I've come to appreciate and embraced the philosophy of Epicurus since he is also an ant-absolutist and as radical as Socrates. In fact, I personally regard Epicurus as the REAL father of existentialism and not so much of Utilitarianism as Utilitarians believe him to be.
Cassius:
I just saw M.A.'s post. I can see why Mike's comment makes sense, and I definitely agree with his last point that Epicurus was not the father of Utilitarianism. But I think Epicurus would recoil in horror, and vigorously denounce many / most of the conclusions that are associated with existentialism, such as this clip on angst. Unfortunately I doubt we can treat the subject of existentialism fairly in a subthread.
M.A. Response to Cassius:
Yes I agree with your observation. Actually, I do not see existentialism to be identical with Epcureanism as the former lacks the answer to the most of life's ultimate questions which the latter offers. But being the father of something doesn't mean they are the same thing. I just want to say that existentialists are "standing on the shoulder of a giant" who had already answered their questions even before they ever existed. Yes it is true of existentialism that life is meaningless and death is nothing. However, the point of human existence is not to ponder on the meaninglessness of life but to find the meaning through the pursuit of pleasure. Epicureanism being the father of existentialism doesn't mean the former takes care of that prodigal son. Rather, what I mean is that Epicureanism (not existentialism) was the first to have recognized that there is nothing to fear of death since there is no absolute and eternal damnation. My point is that existentialism is not the original discoverer of existential question of freedom from absolute God by saying that "God is dead". Rather, it is Epicureanism that originally discovered it by saying that God simply doesn't care about human affairs and is already happy elsewhere so we are on our own.
...
Perhaps, I should rephrase the term "father of existentialism" into the "original author of principles which existentialists are using to justify their random thoughts." Of course Epicureanism and existentialism are two different things because I wouldn't get to Epicureanism if not. I just see the connection that connects me from existentialism to Epicureanism. However, I totally disagree about the claim of Utilitarians that they consider Epicurus as their distant ancestor. What I see is that they are more connected with Aristippus. In fact, Utilitarianism promotes meritocracy which is counter to Epicurean prudence..
Cassius:
M.A. thanks for those posts. You seem to really be into this and I think your perspective makes sense. Seeing as you do from both sides of the issue, if you have the inclination to suggest anything in more detail, please consider suggesting a standalone post here, or posting at Epicureanfriends.com. I think many of us here would be interested in your thoughts on how at least some of these (Nietzsche especially) related to Epicurus. I've read myself most of Nietzsche's references to Epicurus, but I presume these others also referenced Epicurus. If you have observations as to how some of these flirted with Epicurus but then rejected him, and why, that could be very interesting. We don't want to sidetrack too far into Existentialism / Nihilism details that aren't relevant, but given your stated views I bet you have more good summary comments like those in this thread. At least from my point of view a major part of our target audience is people who are definitely not professional philosophers, but who are probably acquainted enough with terms like existentialism and nihilism to be aware that these are directions that they don't want to go - but they might not be exactly sure why.
OK, Oscar suggested that the specific epistemology discussion on knowledge and objective/subjective reality continue HERE: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020
I think that's a good idea and suggest people do that, but I also know that this issue is mixed together with this original thread on the 20 Tenets, so we'll do the best we can to keep things organized. However i have now copied (not "moved") several of the key posts into the Epicurean Canonics forum, so hopefully in the future this discussion can be found more easily.
So please note for people reading in this thread --- the conversation on the specific epistemology issue is likely to continue, and so look for further development, here: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020
OK: I have copied those posts and they are now at the following link. It would be best if continuation of this epistemology issue continued here: Exchange On Knowledge From January 2020
You're definitely correct, but I am not sure it makes sense to "move" those comments here since they re mixed in to the larger discussion of the SOE Tenets.
Maybe it works to provide this link to where the main exchange on knowledge starts? Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19
I think that's probably the right post (let me know, or post another link, if not)
And then maybe it might make sense to continue that part of the discussion here.....
Ok I checked and I can try to "copy" into new category. Let me see if that works...
Very good and thanks for spreading the word!
SOE17 To live pleasantly, we must have confident expectation that we will be able to secure the chief goods: those things that are natural and necessary for life, happiness, and health. Therefore, whatever we do to secure safety, friendship, autarchy, provision of food and drink and clothing, and other basic needs, is naturally good.
I wouldn't say whatever we do is good; I think Epicurus stated that in order to live pleasantly, you need to live justly, and without living justly you cannot live pleasantly.
This reminds me of a point I may have omitted to make before: I have a problem with the terminology "the chief goods." I do not recall this phrasing in the Epicurean texts, and it implies that there is a list of "goods" which is higher or more important than others. I think that's a repetition of the same issue commented on before.
"Pleasure" is the guide, and pleasure is the only thing desirable in and of itself. Even when we forgo a specific pleasure in order to avoid a specific pain or pursue a higher pleasure, the motivating force is still the feeling of pleasure, not some specific ranking of "goods" or even a specific ranking of pleasures coming somehow from outside our own feeling of pleasure. What is "chief" for me may not be "chief" for thee.
I am very reluctant ever to imply that there is an "objective" ranking of pleasures, and for the same reason I think it is perilous to suggest that there are "chief goods." I am not aware of Epicurean texts that would support that assertion, and I would dispute it if someone suggested that the "natural and necessary" method of analysis ultimately supports a ranking of "chief goods." Even "natural / necessary" as a method of analysis probably goes out the door when we decide that it is worth it for us to die for a friend, which is specifically contemplated as something an Epicurean might on occasion do.
The bottom line here is that i suspect that "chief good" is just a phase that has been picked up for convenience in Society of Epicurus discussion rather than being based on a clear text. As always, please correct me if I am incorrect.
This touches on Epistemology. My view is in line with the scientific understanding that objective reality exists independent of our sensations. That if life ceased to exist, reality remains. I do not subscribe to the salesperson's mantra that perception is reality, if you perceive yourself to be the Jesus Christ, I have bad news to tell you. I think objective reality can be understood through sensations and reason.
I completely agree with this very important point. A tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it does indeed make a sound. I think the issue is more that if one is coming up with a list of statements that are intended to be helpful philosophically, then it makes sense to address the point that is in philosophical contention, which in this case is that even though the vibrations created by the falling tree are of a particular "atomic" nature, different people are going to perceive those vibrations, or fail to perceive them, in different ways. So what we are trying to point out is that there are definitely things going on regardless of our perception of them, but at the same our own personal knowledge of those events arises through our perceptions.
Possibly the whole issue is being obscured, or not revealed clearly enough, by affixing the terms "objective" or "subjective" to "reality," without really stating what "objective" and "subjective" are intended to mean.
I agree with most of the above, though there's also quantum effects that new research, I don't really yet understand fully, suggests there may be more to say on this.
I think this is no longer to be considered a philosophical matter since it's now, I think for sometime already, a scientific matter.
Definitely the issues develop over time as we gain new instruments and new observations to consider. However I suspect that there is always going to be a philosophic aspect to this, as the developments of science never stand still, and new discoveries are made. So we are probably always going to be confronted with issues of what attitude to take toward "ultimate questions" which seem to be a moving target against new scientific discoveries. I suspect that Epicurus would say that this ultimate issue is much the same as what he himself confronted in considering the claims of the mathematicians of his own day.
This touches on Epistemology. My view is in line with the scientific understanding that objective reality exists independent of our sensations. That if life ceased to exist, reality remains. I do not subscribe to the salesperson's mantra that perception is reality, if you perceive yourself to be the Jesus Christ, I have bad news to tell you. I think objective reality can be understood through sensations and reason.
I completely agree with this very important point. A tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it does indeed make a sound. I think the issue is more that if one is coming up with a list of statements that are intended to be helpful philosophically, then it makes sense to address the point that is in philosophical contention, which in this case is that even though the vibrations created by the falling tree are of a particular "atomic" nature, different people are going to perceive those vibrations, or fail to perceive them, in different ways. So what we are trying to point out is that there are definitely things going on regardless of our perception of them, but at the same our own personal knowledge of those events arises through our perceptions.
Possibly the whole issue is being obscured, or not revealed clearly enough, by affixing the terms "objective" or "subjective" to "reality," without really stating what "objective" and "subjective" are intended to mean.
I agree with most of the above, though there's also quantum effects that new research, I don't really yet understand fully, suggests there may be more to say on this.
I think this is no longer to be considered a philosophical matter since it's now, I think for sometime already, a scientific matter.
Definitely the issues develop over time as we gain new instruments and new observations to consider. However I suspect that there is always going to be a philosophic aspect to this, as the developments of science never stand still, and new discoveries are made. So we are probably always going to be confronted with issues of what attitude to take toward "ultimate questions" which seem to be a moving target against new scientific discoveries. I suspect that Epicurus would say that this ultimate issue is much the same as what he himself confronted in considering the claims of the mathematicians of his own day.
It would probably make sense to launch this project with a major part of each episode devoted to a discussion first of The 40 Doctrines, the Vatican Sayings, and The 12 Principles of Physics, not necessarily in that order.
The suggestion has been made today by Elayne that we need to work on making a more accessible version of the core texts, probably by going through the available translations and then combining to produce a more modern English version, with commentary. That is essentially what I have worked on in the past under the "Elemental Editions" but a LOT more work needs to be done now that we have more people to draw on for support.
It probably makes sense to start with the Principle Doctrines, then move either to the rest of Diogenes Laertius or to the Vatican Sayings, and then move to other core texts (Lucretius, then major other texts such as Torquatus dialog in Cicero, etc.) In most all of those we have multiple public domain translations to choose between.
This post is just to start the discussion. Currently we have here at EpicureanFriends.com a "Core Texts" menu at the top of the screen which contains a very raw variation of this suggestion, with footnotes on many of the items to indicate controversies and alternate translations. This needs to be greatly expanded, and we can perhaps devote a podcast to discussing each of the 40 Doctrines, etc.
Here is the information from Gassendi's Life of Epicurus - Chap 2. The Time of His Birth:
Epicurus was born (as Laertius relates out of the Chronology of Apollodorus) in the 3rd year of the 109th Olympiad, the 7th day of the month Gamelion; at whose birth, [30] Pliny saith, the Moon was twenty daies old. Hecatombeon (the first month) this year falling in the Summer of the year 4372. of the Julian Period, (now used by Chronologers) it is manifest, that Gamelion the same year, being the 7th month from Hecatombeon, fell upon the beginning of the year 4373, which was before the ordinary computation from Christ 341 compleat years. Now forasmuch as in January, in which month the beginning of Gamelion is observ’d to have fallen, there happened a new Moon in the Attick Horizon, by the Tables of Celestiall Motions, the fourth day, in the morning, (or the third day, according to the Athenians, who as [31]Censorinus saith, reckon their day from Sun-set to Sun-set) and therefore the twentieth day of the Moon is co-incident with the three and twentieth of January; it will follow, that Epicurus was born on the 23rd of January, if we suppose the same form of the year extended from the time of Cefar, upwards. And this in the old style, according to which the cycle of the Sun, or of the Dominical letters for that year, (it being Biffextile) was BA, whence the 23rd day of January must have been Sunday. But if we suit it with the Gregorian account, which is ten daies earlier, (now in use with us we shall find, that Epicurus was born on the 2nd of February, which was Sunday, (for the Dominicall Letters must have been ED.) in the year before Christ, or the Christian computation, 341. and consequently in the 1974th year, compleat, before the beginning of February this year, which is from Christ 1634. Some things here must not be passed by.
First, that [32] Laertius observes Sosigenes to have been Archon the same year, wherein Epicurs was born, and that it was the 7th year from the death of Plato. Moreover, it was the 16th of Alexander, for it was, as the same [33] Laertius affirms, the year immediately following that, in which Aristotle was sent for to come to him, then 15 years old.
Secondly, that [34] Eusebius can hardly be excused from a mistake, making Epicurus to flourish in the 112th Olympiad; for at that time, Epicurus scarce had pass’d his childhood, and Aristotle began but to flourish in the Lyceum, being returned the foregoing Olympiad out of Macedonia, as appears from [35] Laertius.
Thirdly, that the error which is crept into [36] Suidas, and hath deceived his Interpreter, is not to be allowed, who reports Epicurus born in the 79th Olympiad. I need not take notice, how much this is inconsistent, not onely with other relations, but even with that which followeth in Suidas, where he extends his life to Antigonus Gonotas: I shall onely observe, that, for the number of Olympiads, Suidas having doubtlesse set down ςθ, which denote the 109th Olympiad, the end of the ς was easily defaced in the Manuscript, so as there remained onely ο, by which means of οθ, was made the 79th Olympiad.
Fourthly, that it matters not that the Chronicon Alexandrinum, Georgius Sincellus, and others, speak too largely of the time wherein Epicurus flourished, and that we heed not the errous of some person, otherwise very learned, who make Aristippus later then Epicurus, and something of the like kind. Let us onely observe what [37] St. Hierom cites out of Cicero pro Gallio; a Poet is there mentioned, making Epicurus and Socrates discoursing together, Whose times, saith Cicero, we know were disjoyned, not by years, but ages.
Fifthly, that the birth-day of Epicurus, taken from Laertius and Pliny, seems to argue, that amongst the Athenians of old, the Civill months and the Lunary had different beginnings. This indeed will seem strange, unlesse we should imagine it may be collected, that the month Gamelion began onely from the full Moon that went before it; for, if we account the 14th day of the Moon to be the first of the month, the first of the Moon will fall upon the 7th of the month. Not to mention, that Epicurus seems in his Will to appoint his birth to be celebrated on the first Decad of the dayes of the month Gamelion, because he was born in one of them; and then ordaineth something more particular concerning the 20th of the Moon, for that it was his birth-day, as we shall relate hereafter. Unlesse you think it fit to follow the [38] anonymous Writer, who affirms, Epicurus was born on the 20th day of Gamelion; but I know not whether his authority should out-weigh Laertius. Certainly, many errours, and those very great, have been observed in him, particularly by Meurfius. I shall not take notice, that the XXXX of Gamelion might perhaps be understood of the 20th of the Moon, happening within the month Gamelion, from Cicero, whose words we shall cite hereafter. But this by the way.
2020-01-02/03
You can see next years here http://www.numachi.com/~ccount/hmepa/numachi.com
The day of moon calendar begins from the afternoon so 7th gamelion is from 2 until 3 January on this year. For 2021 the 7th gamelion is from afternoon of 20 January until next afternoon 21 January.
Γᾰμηλῐών • (Gamēliṓn) (genitive Γᾰμηλῐῶνος)
Τhe seventh month of the Attic calendar, corresponding to the lunar term around January and February during which many weddings were customary, because it was the anniversary of Zeus and Hera's weddings but also because wars usually stopped when the winter began. Thus, the couple were enjoying themselves as newly married but also seeking to acquire children - also this period had several celebrations and there were not many agricultural works.
Thank you Takis and Elli! I am going to go ahead and mark our calendars for January 2, 2020, and January 20, 2021! Thank you!
Welcome and be sure to let us know how we can be of help. There are definitely some references that can make things easier than others so if you have areas of particular interest let us know.
Welcome Egghead! Thanks for joining us! When you get a chance, please tell us about yourself and your background in Epicurean philosophy.
It would be particularly helpful if you could tell us (1) how you found this forum, and (2) how much background reading you have done in Epicurus. As an aid in the latter, we have prepared the following list of core reading.
We look forward to talking with you!
----------------------- Epicurean Works I Have Read ---------------------------------
1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.
2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt
3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius
4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?
9 Plato's Philebus
10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.
Oscar I have heard the terms analytic v continental but I freely admit as to myself you are way over my head. I would certainly be wary myself of anyone who is "anti-natalist." Do you believe Onfray is anti-natalist?
I see that a google of analytic vs continental brings up a huge amount of material. If at some point (probably not New Years' Eve!) you are aware of an article that summarizes the issues in a way that you find helpful that would be a good addition to the thread.
Elli when you get a chance - how would you render the full set of lines in that picture in English?
Sam Harris has ALWAYS ignored or been ignorant about Epicurus and is 100 % sold on secular Buddhism.
WHY? Sam Harris is obviously a very smart guy, and he has no doubt been exposed to a reasonable degree of fundamental material on Epicurus.
I would put Ayn Rand in the same category. Smart person, no doubt exposed to core Epicurean ideas (at the very least through Nietzsche and no doubt much further, and superficially in tune with "happiness" being the goal of life.
And yet SILENCE where there should be ringing endorsement. WHY? I cannot but tend to put people like this into the category of those who are not "mistaken" but fully and consciously help obscure the history because they disagree with Epicurus on a fundamental level.
This plays into several threads we are talking about -- we are not going to convert people like Sam Harris, or Ayn Rand (even if she were alive) but especially those who embrace some form of nihilism / nothingness like runs rampart through the "eastern" viewpoints. So I don't see the need or desirability of "engaging" them other than publishing our own analysis and trying to get it into the hands of people who need it. But I don't expect those affiliated with the Sam Harris type of establishment to help me do it, nor would I devote any more attention to their opposing views than what is necessary to dissect, lay out the error, and point out the correct to anyone who might have gone their way but still be open to reflection.
if the people who adhere to a perspective of "friends of Epicurus, enemies of Plato" do not become proficient at employing the arts of historiography in the same manner as Platonists have become proficient (history is written by the winners, and they HAVE BEEN the winners so far), then we don't have a right to complain that our views are invisible and attacked and mis-represented.
OK there are at least two things going on here:
(1) I am in favor of engagement wherever possible and wherever it makes sense to do so. The primary problem I have is as you alluded to in a recent post -- the call of ordinary life limits our resources tremendously and we have to decided what is the best use of time. And that leads to (2) --
(2) I do not think the statement above logically follows. Your premise seems to be that in order to be effective we must constantly engage with people who are at best ambivalent toward us or worst are absolutely committed to some opposing position. That's the point raised by Frances Wright in A Few Days in Athens: Argument does NOT generally result in conversion of one side to the other. It often WIDENS the distance between the sides, because in fact many positions are not reconcilable.
The reason that you Hiram and I (and others) are able to make some progress in these discussions is that we are already starting with positions that are relatively close in many cases (though it may not seem like it sometimes.) It's my view that you do not recoil at the humanism and the "absence of pain" position of the Cambridge Epicureanism (I am brushing broadly, I know) because you do not personally have it in you to accept the nihilism and the suppression of emotion that is at the root of their version of Epicurus. I am paying you a compliment by saying that you shrug off the implications because you cannot accept that most people would accept the implications of the position that they are arguing, but I think you are wrong about that.
Our differences here are among people who are arguing about strategy toward pursuing pleasure / happiness. Outside this corner of the world, the suppression and historical sidelining of Epicurus has come at the hands of people who are absolutely outside that tent and know exactly what they are doing, and that's why I and others draw such a bright line and refuse to make common cause with them.
IT seems as if in the ancient world Cicero and even Julian the Apostate remarked that it was primarily the Epicureans themselves who read Epicurean literature, and I think that relates to our strategy disagreements. I don't think that trying to storm the walls of Cambridge or the Humanist Alliance (a name I made up for the occasion) is likely to be the best way to reach more people with epicurean philosophy (if we want to define our goal that way.) I think that "normal" people outside of academia and outside of the hothouses of issue advocacy, many of whom are (or should be) totally turned off by the alternatives are the ones we we will find the most honest and open reception.
On the example of Michael Onfrey, you have convinced me that there is doubtless some material in his work that would be helpful. But it is not easily accessible in English, Onfrey did not thoroughly embrace Epicurus as far as I can tell, which limits his usefulness, and unless someone has a special interest in pursuing Onfrey I personally can't rank that high on the list of things I would urge everyone to read.
So that's an example of my analysis -- more power to you if you are able to find good things in Onfrey and bring them to the table, but we all have to do our best to make our best use of our own time. And that's why I do not at all consider anything I am doing as "censorship." I see it the opposite -- there are reams of material devoted to commentators on obscure topics which enhance their resumes in the academic world, but which don't do a think to bring Epicurus into sharper focus for the "everyday person" who most needs the help.
I did not know that about Hicks, Oscar, thank you. I do think I had noticed that Hicks seemed to have a Stoic disposition, and that personal detail may indicate something of relevance.
I think your point is relevant to all the texts but in particular to those from Herculaneum. As I understand it everyone is working from penciled notes made in most cases by some of the original researches years ago, in which each character is transcribed to something new, such as the facsimile on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapharmakos
...meaning that this caption of this photo is certainly NOT accurate:
but rather what the photo shows is the sketched reconstruction of the researchers -- the original is charred black.
Now for all I know the reconstructionist had the best eyesight and the best knowledge of ancient greek and the best understanding of Epicurus humanly possible -- but I suspect that on all those counts skepticism is warranted. But even if so, this facsimile does not tell us the degree to which these characters were clear, or surmised, and of course there is no context whatsoever before or after this passage. We simply don't know who was writing this, or why, and so to take from this facsimile as it it was handed down from heaven:
.....seems to me to be something very careful about, especially since it is the natural human tendency to scrutinize each word for subtleties of meaning which we simply cannot be sure where intended by the original Epicureans.
So in this case we have to check these transcriptions and translations about other parts of Epicurean philosophy about which we have confidence, and yes the suggested translation is reasonably possible. But it is at best a truncated version of the first four doctrines, and what do we know about how and for what purpose this truncation was derived? Was someone suggesting that this is all that was important to know? Was that person suggesting that this was *most* important? For whom was this summary intended?
All these questions have to be considered in all of the translations, and Elayne's suggestions are pretty much exactly the way I approach things too.
| Don't fear god, Don't worry about death; What is good is easy to get, What is terrible is easy to endure |
Ἄφοβον ὁ θεός, ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον, τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐκαρτέρητον |
Welcome Darius, and post as frequently as your time allows.
