Posts by Cassius

Thank you for that introduction Tim, and welcome! Please feel free to post any comments that you have in any of the threads, or make your own threads on any topic that comes to mind. I think that when people are first reading through a new work like the Dewitt book they have all sorts of thoughts that they have no one to express them to, but those are perfect for this forum -- it helps us to hear what people find to be of interest, so please feel free to think out loud here while you are reading. Again - welcome!

Thanks Joshua I had never heard of that. Probably if I could go back in my life and become an expert in a subject the study of ancient Rome (which connects with Greece too) would be one of the things I would have to consider as a focus. It's really fascinating - almost like life on another planet.

Good to hear, Lee! If you have any fresh observations on it please feel free to add them here as that would be helpful to others in the future: A Few Days In Athens - By Frances Wright

Well I am not sure that I should "Like" your last comment, Matt, but I do think that someone who thinks as you are currently thinking would find a lot to like in Lucian's Hermotimus  (which i think is ultimately pro-Epicurean):

Hermotimus. Oh, why but that I could cry like a baby? It cuts me to the heart, it is all so true; it is too much for me, when I think of my wretched, wasted years—paying all that money for my own labor, too! I am sober again after a debauch, I see what the object of my maudlin affection is like, and what it has brought upon me. [84]

Lycinus. No need for tears, dear fellow; that is a very sensible fable of Aesop’s. A man sat on the shore and counted the waves breaking; missing count, he was excessively annoyed. But the fox came up and said to him: ‘Why vex yourself, good sir, over the past ones? you should let them go, and begin counting afresh.’ So you, since this is your mind, had better reconcile yourself now to living like an ordinary man; you will give up your extravagant haughty hopes and put yourself on a level with the commonalty; if you are sensible, you will not be ashamed to unlearn in your old age, and change your course for a better. [85]

Now I beg you not to fancy that I have said all this as an anti-Stoic, moved by any special dislike of your school; my arguments hold against all schools. I should have said just the same if you had chosen Plato or Aristotle, and condemned the others unheard. But, as Stoicism was your choice, the argument has seemed to be aimed at that, though it had no such special application. [86]

Hermotimus. You are quite right. And now I will be off to metamorphose myself. When we next meet, there will be no long, shaggy beard, no artificial composure; I shall be natural, as a gentleman should. I may go as far as a fashionable coat, by way of publishing my renunciation of nonsense. I only wish there were an emetic that would purge out every doctrine they have instilled into me; I assure you, if I could reverse Chrysippus’s plan with the hellebore, and drink forgetfulness, not of the world but of Stoicism, I would not think twice about it. Well, Lycinus, I owe you a debt indeed; I was being swept along in a rough turbid torrent, unresisting, drifting with the stream; when lo, you stood there and fished me out, a true deus ex machina. I have good enough reason, I think, to shave my head like the people who get clear off from a wreck; for I am to make votive offerings to-day for the dispersion of that thick cloud which was over my eyes. Henceforth, if I meet a philosopher on my walks (and it will not be with my will), I shall turn aside and avoid him as I would a mad dog.

Welcome timrobbe! And 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.

Good to hear from you Matt and I hope you are well too. Someone recently raised the topic of this letter to Marcella and I see back when we discussed it earlier it appears we did not sufficiently cook it deeply enough, and the aroma of stoicism / neoplatonism lingers still around it, waiting to be separated and dispelled!

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

term "mindfulness" the way Zen Buddhists use it. Instead, I prefer the word "mindset" to describe the state of mind while in the process of prudence.

Excellent choice. My experience is very little with people who talk about Buddhism, but the Stoics love the term "mindfulness" so "mindset" seems a good way to distinguish it. Or simply "attitude" as I think DeWitt generally uses.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

nothing is divine in virtues like courage and temperance. They are just utilities for the pursuit of pleasure, hence nothing to ascend to.

Yes exactly. Such an obvious and simple point, and yet so hard to get people to come to terms with. They should be obviously not ends in themselves, so WHY do them? That question has an answer, and the answer is written inside every one of us, but woe be to those in the mainstream who would dare to admit that they are guided by "feeling!" The "mainstream" is nothing if not about denying oneself - and the Bible makes that very clear!!

According to this list, FIFTY-FOUR different verses, starting with:

Matthew 16:24   Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

Again, even "denying oneself is obviously not an end in itself, so why do it? That question demands an answer, and Epicurus was brave enough to give it.

I agree. I am not trying to be patronizing and I know that you are still reading DeWitt, but I think your observations are good and you have a knack for this Mike

I really don't think any of this is that difficult for anyone who doesn't get sidetracked on "minimalism at all costs" and "the goal of life is ataraxia."

"Minimalism" is the wrong goal for the obvious reason that the goal of life is pleasure, and the principle stated in VS 63. "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

"Ataraxia" is wrong goal as well, and in my view that's why so many people don't translate the word. That's often because the closer they come to having to explain "ataraxia" in understandable terms in their first language, the more they realize that they *can't* make it reconcile with "pleasure" as the goal, and then they realize that they ultimately can't reconcile it with the stoic paradigm they prefer. So they leave it untranslated and suggest that it means something like Stoic apathy.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Ascending seems too ascetic for my passionate character.

From Diogenes Laertius:

He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom. A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation.

I thought of that because of your comment about a passionate character, which seems to me to be consistent with being "more deeply moved by feelings."

After finding it and seeing the next sentence, I wonder if the thoughts are not related, and in fact I wonder if it is possible for a person who does not feel deeply to become wise! The apathetic distant diffident spirit may be among the types of physical constitutions that are obstacles to the wise pursuit of proper living according to Nature (which we can identify with being in touch with and wisely following our feelings).

Good catch Mike. I don't want to put too much pressure on a single word and maybe there is a translation issue, but yes, climbing a mountain toward virtue being at the summit seems to be a standard Stoic theme.

I recall Lucian using it to describe the Stoic figure in Hermotimus:

Her. Alas, Lycinus, I am only just beginning to get an inkling of the right way. Very far off dwells Virtue, as Hesiod says, and long and steep and rough is the way thither, and travellers must bedew it with sweat.

Ly. And you have not yet sweated and travelled enough?

Her. Surely not; else should I have been on the summit, with nothing left between me and bliss; but I am only starting yet, Lycinus.

Ly. Ah, but Hesiod, your own authority, tells us, Well begun is half done; so we may safely call you half-way by this time.

Her. Not even there yet; that would indeed have been much.

Ly. Where shall we put you, then?

Her. Still on the lower slopes, just making an effort to get on; but it is slippery and rough, and needs a helping hand.

Ly. Well, your master can give you that; from his station on the summit, like Zeus in Homer with his golden cord, he can let you down his discourse, and therewith haul and heave you up to himself and to the Virtue which he has himself attained this long time.

When did the Epicurean goal become "Reason" rather than "pleasure?" Answer: "it didn't, regardless of what is said here."

What? Is this saying that there is a "Divine" law higher than nature? Is that not the inference or "ascend?"

If so, then that is a TOTALLY non-Epicurean viewpoint and can be expected to corrupt all the rest of the analysis.

Weren't we talking recently somewhere about someone recently interested in this letter to Marcella? I still to this day have not spent much time with it, but it seems to me very dangerous to consider this an Epicurean work as it seems to have lots of unEpicurean thought mixed into it.

It would take almost a line-by-line analysis to go through it but I see this as an example which appears to me directly UNEpicurean, because if the gods have decided to give up food and sex for themselves, then the implication is that we should consider doing so in emulation, which I cannot believe that Epicurus would suggest as a model for humans. But is not this letter suggesting that humans should?

:

On the other this might seem to be an Epicurean quote at first glance, but is the "if it does not purge the PASSION OF THE SOUL" really well stated. That could be a translation issue, and if the meaning is "Disturbance" then all well and good, but if the meaning is "strong desire" then that sounds very Stoic to me.

:

I don't have more time for this right now but I would not consider this letter to be safe Epicurean teaching without a lot more study and possible clarification.

As we prepare for episode four we need to remember the comments made by Elayne after listening to Episode three, starting with this post: Episode Three - The Lucretius Today Podcast Let's continue the discussion here, but leave those posts in place since they do refer to Episode Three:

Quote

I admit to issues with my auditory attention span. I have major trouble not taking off with a thought from the discussion and then I miss bits of it. When I'm actually participating it's not an issue, but I've always had this problem with podcasts.

I say this because you may have discussed what I had planned to contribute re Iphianassa and maybe I zoned out. I didn't hear it, either way.

My point if I had been able to be on the call was to remind people to ask how they recognize what was done to Iphianassa was terrible. It's presented as an assumption that religion led to this dreadful thing, but there's no discussion in that part of the poem about how we recognize it as awful.

I think this is a critical place to bring the whole philosophy into interpretation. We don't say "oh, that's terrible" because of any set absolute definition of terrible.

We say it bc as humans with typical empathy, the story causes us pain even to imagine killing a daughter, and even more so because we know it was for naught.

The action fails the immediate, intuitive sense of right and wrong because it is painful to us. Then it fails the hedonic calculus because there's no beneficial effect from the imaginary gods.

It would be incomplete of me not to say there could have been social benefit, social pleasure, to Agamemnon for putting his people's lives before his daughter's. Same for Abraham. But that social pleasure depends on an illusion. Clearly, removing the false belief in supernatural gods would result in the greatest pleasure for Agamemnon, Abraham, and all in similar situations.

Even today, we have parents disowning and abandoning teens who fall away from religious teaching. There are homeless gay teens kicked out because of religion.

Without supernatural religion, there would be more total pleasure for those parents. They could have social pleasure from their community support and family pleasure with their kids. Nobody getting sacrificed. Definitely, the kids are getting more pleasure in that non religious scenario-- it's clear what Iphianassa would prefer! I've always wondered if Jacob ever went hiking with his dad again 😃, or turned his back. I sure wouldn't have.

Display More

Cassius:

Yes - and that reminds me too that we should compare this with the story of Torquatus' ancestor, who had his son executed for disobeying orders in a war, and how that compares / differs from the Iphanessa story

Quote from Elayne

It would be incomplete of me not to say there could have been social benefit, social pleasure, to Agamemnon for putting his people's lives before his daughter's. Same for Abraham. But that social pleasure depends on an illusion. Clearly, removing the false belief in supernatural gods would result in the greatest pleasure for Agamemnon, Abraham, and all in similar situations.

Yes - and that reminds me too that we should compare this with the story of Torquatus' ancestor, who had his son executed for disobeying orders in a war, and how that compares / differs from the Iphanessa story

We had four on the call tonight and had a very good time; so good we never got around to discussing the passage from Herodotus. It was fascinating to hear background and interests from Lee and it would be a lot of fun to do this with other new people. We'll work on scheduling another one for sure.

I have updated the first post in this thread, but just to make the news easier to find, this is to point out that Episode Three is Now Live!

Excellent points, Elayne, and that is why I've already made preliminary plans to continue this topic, and integrate it into everything we've discussed so far, in the draft notes for Episode Four

As far as I can tell the point you are making is one of the major "big picture" items that people fail to recognize due to the cliche that it is sometimes hard to "see the forest for the trees."

The point that FEELING is the true guide of life, as opposed to "logic" or "reason" or "idealism" or "divine revelation" or any number of other suggestions is maybe the most profound insight of Epicurean philosophy. It's necessary to establish that this is so, and so we have to talk about lots of details and points that can seem isolated, but they all come together in supporting the conclusion that feeling - pleasure and pain - is ultimately the test by which we judge every "good" and "bad" thing.

We'll definitely go back over this point in the next episode before we go further in the poem.

As for it being an obvious parallel, it's almost as if a certain segment of the Jewish leadership read Lucretius and said:

"So you don't like child sacrifice? WE'LL show YOU what a REAL child sacrifice looks like!"

And we didn't mention it in this Episode 3 that is about to be released! THAT oversight will be corrected in the next episode!

(Of course there's a good reason that LUCRETIUS didn't mention it, but not for us to omit discussing the obvious parallel.)

Elayne and Julie would have never let that get past us but they couldn't make this episode.... sheesh....