Posts by Cassius

Thank you for all you do Eikadistes.

This past weekend I listened to a computer tech podcast (The "Ask Noah Show") which mentioned the use of Googles' "Notebookllm" for generation of AI summaries.

The podcast discussed many ethical issues surrounding AI, and I very much recommend their discussion. The podcaster who gave most of the discussion is an employee of "Red Hat" (a major linux/computer company owned by IBM). and their episode can be found here.

Those podcasters decided to see what AI would do with their own work, and based on their example, I did the same thing with two of our Lucretius Today podcasts.

Of course I think our own live podcasts are better, but if you compare the summary to original I think you'll find that the Ai summary is shockingly good. And this is not just a text summary -- this is a live dialogue between two very professional sounding AI voices.

While the result is far from perfect, the ease with which this was produced is very worrying.

Here are the links:

Both episodes revolve around the absence of pain issue, with 295 devoted to Plutarch and 294 devoted to Cicero. I am not making these videos publicly findable on the Youtube page, but the private links above are available for comparison.

These are great questions! Let me go through them and give you what I think is the answer. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but I think what I am about to say is the clear implication of what Torquatus was explaining to Cicero:

I think we better start here:

Quote from Rolf

1) There is only pleasure and pain.

This is not so simple that we can stop without explanation, and failure to clarify it is a source of much problem. Yes, Epicurus says that nature gives us only pleasure and pain as feelings by which to know what to choose and what to avoid.

But you are asking a series of questions about "Pleasure" and "Pain" with capital "p's" -- You are asking about the concept of pleasure and the concept of pain. As a concept which serves as a stand-in for the "goal of life," "Pleasure" is a conceptual term which encompasses all possible experiences of pleasure, from the longest and most intense to the shortest and least intense. All pleasures are conceptually part of "Pleasure," but all pleasures are not by any means identical. The same thing goes for pain.

A large part of the problem in general discussions of Epicurus is that people are talking about "Pleasure" as the conceptual goal of life without making clear that the goal of a real person's real life is not a "concept," but a set of real experiences that cannot be described completely in the term "Pleasure" any more than a map constitutes every detail of an area of land that is being mapped.

And not separating those two contexts leads to most of your questions:

Quote from Rolf

3) Let’s say my hunger and thirst are satiated, my body is healthy, I have good friends, and I fear neither gods nor death.

4) This being the case, I am experiencing the absence of pain/fullness of pleasure, am I not?

The answer to (3) is "not necessarily." We are philosophers, and you have not stated in 3 that you are not suffering any pain. Torquatus' examples, including the comparison of the host pouring wine and the guest drinking in, are stated in the context that the example includes as a premise that they are otherwise without pain. Anyone who is "without pain" is therefore definitionally and conceptually at the height of pleasure, because you are speaking in broad definitional terms. Pure pleasure - 100% pleasure - cannot be made more pleasurable by removing impurities, because "pure" means without impurity, and 100% means a mathematical limit for any given subject.

So I would say that your conclusion in (4) is not properly established by (3). you have listed a number of pleasurable conditions, but you have not by so doing confirmed that your "jar is full" and that there is not more room for more pleasure in your life.

Quote from Rolf

Do you agree that the conditions listed in point 3 are all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain? If so, and if that is the limit of pleasure, why do you also press that these things are not enough, and that Epicurus also encourages these “active pleasures” like playing and dancing?

So the answer here is that I do not agree that the points listed in 3 are "all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain" in total. They could be if you also stated that the person was without pain, but unless someone is affirmatively stating that the person is "without pain" then you don't know.

This would apply to the Chrysippus hand challenge. We know that the hand was at the "height of pleasure" only because the hypothetical was that the hand was "in its normal condition" and not in pain. Could any particular hand get more pleasure from a warm massage rather than in its normal condition? I think the answer is clearly yes, but that doesn't mean that the point made by Torquatus is incorrect. "Pure" pleasure does not necessarily equate to "most intense," or "longest duration" or "largest part of the body affected." Torquatus did not say that the hand was experiencing any of those -- not the most intense please, nor the longest, or the most extensive. The debate about the hand was in terms of the "height," or as in PD03, the "limit of quantity." These are technical terms suitable for philosophical debate, but they don't tell you the difference between good heath and a good massage.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”?

Per PD09, pleasures differ from each other in at least the qualities of intensity, duration, and part of the body affected. Some particular pleasures ARE more intense, or last longer, or involve different parts of the body, and only an idiot would deny that. But all pleasures are unified in being feelings that we find desirable, and thus one of them is not more conceptually "pleasure" than is another.

This is Pleasure with a capital "P" - conceptual pleasure - all of which carries the same definition of a desirable feeling. The concept never changes, even though the particulars can and do change.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”? How does this fit together with absence of pain being the limit of pleasure? And if the jar can be full while containing different levels of pleasure, then what is it even measuring?

A jar which can contain only "Pleasure" and "Pain" cannot be defined as full containing different levels of "Pleasure," for reasons that are obvious - we are defining the possibilities and there are no options outside our hypothetical. But different jars of "Pleasure" can and certainly will contain very different mixtures of difference types of pleasurable experiences.

We all know this to be true, but what you're asking is the right question. How can different jars be other than the same if they all are full of "Pleasure?" And the answer is that pleasures are not "just" concepts. Pleasurable experiences are what is real, while "Pleasure" is a concept that philosophers use in debate. The same goes for "Happiness." The wise man can by "Happy" even which tortured on the wrack or in the throws of dying from kidney disease, because "happiness" is a concept we can define as an overall assessment of more reason for joy than for vexation, while "a feeling of happiness" is not what is generated by torture machines or kidney stones.

Quote from Rolf

I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here in order to understand the logic. Again, I agree with the conclusions. But I’m having trouble seeing how it all fits together. It feels almost a little contradictory.

Everyone ought to be asking these questions, because unless you demand consistency and clear answers, no one ever gets anywhere. And far too many people outside this forum are ignoring these issues and thinking that they can wink and smile and fool others - and themselves - into thinking that Buddhist nothingness / Stoic apathy really is super pleasurable.

And that's in my view why Epicurean philosophy has been stuck in the mud ever since the last of the ancient Epicureans passed away.

No one except a confirmed Buddhist or Stoic or Sadist really believes that "absence of pain" understood as 99% of the world understands it is really worth being a goal in life. But the majority of Epicureans have fled from the idea that "absence of pain" really means "pleasure" because that would not be respectable, or virtuous, and to say so would earn them the disapproving frowns of the intelligentsia.

In my view, you can either demand consistency and clarity, in which case you come around to seeing that these are definitional and philosophical issues. Once you accept that, "absence of pain" becomes nothing more than technical terminology for exactly the same thing expressed by the word "pleasure."

The reason you've chosen technical terminology like that is because you are philosopher, and you're dealing with technical objections from the Platonists and others who demand to know "the limit" of pleasure. Absence of pain is highly useful for answering that question - for identifying the theoretical limit.

But "absence of pain" in this context is conceptual, and this conceptual answer does not tell you whether to stop when you're not thirsty or hungry. You have to apply also the rest of the conceptual framework, in which you're previously identified that all pleasure is desirable, and that there would never be any reason whatsoever ---but one -- not to seek to obtain all the pleasure you can. And that single reason not to pursue a particular pleasure is that you evaluate that pursuing that pleasure would result - in the end - with bringing you more pain than pleasure.

I suppose I should address too the related question of how long you wish to live, or how much pleasure you wish to experience while you are alive. To me, the answer Epicurus points to is that "satisfaction" comes from realizing the limit that you are human and mortal and that nature allows you to live and pursue pleasure for only a certain period of time in good heath. You don't need to be king or the most famous person in the world to consider your jar of life to be full of pleasure. But if you have consciously avoided, through fear or otherwise, stepping up to experience the pleasures that are possible to you, then the reasonable and thoughtful person is going to naturally feel regret at passing over pleasure for no good reason. And "regret" is a pain.

Edit: As always, I'm not Epicurus and can't speak for him. These answers are just the best I can do today given my state of analysis and reading from all the various materials.

Quote from DaveT

I am enjoying this discussion. I recently read that a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicureans was that the Stoics focused on a public, civic-minded orientation, and thus a belief in virtue as a goal to that end. And that the Epicureans’ belief in more private life promoted pleasure etc. and friendship for personal happiness. I know this may sound simplistic, but that comparison helps me understand why the two philosophies were so different in the view and uses of virtue.

I think that's definitely true - that they had a different orientation toward public life. That seems like an innocuous enough distinction, but then you get to the question of "why' they had a such a different attitude. And I'd say that stems directly from the physics as to the nature of the universe. If you think there's a "Providence" that has designed the universe and everything in it intelligently, then you're going to want to work to bring not only yourself but also your society into conformity with those views.

If you think that there is no central intelligent designer, and that nature works through practical experience in many different ways according to circumstances, then you're going to be much more willing to "live and let live" and let each person pursue their own personal view of what makes them happy.

The topic of Artificial Intelligence is going to consume a lot of bandwidth as time goes by, so posts concerning it will be consolidated in this subforum dedicated to the topic:

Artificial Intelligence and Epicurean Philosophy

The many issues generated by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) present very complicated questions. Technologies are changing rapidly, as are the consequences of the use of AI. This subforum is the place to discuss issues surrounding the use of AI, and this pinned post is a first attempt to set forth posting policies to respond to these issues. Adjustments will be made over time as we receive additional feedback and the situation changes.

AI TEXT

In general, the use of AI to generate forum posts is discouraged. With proper labeling, some use of AI for compilation of difficult to find information is acceptable, but conversational posts not identified as AI are strictly prohibited, especially when submitted by new participants in the forum in place of posting their own ideas.

Posts which are clearly labeled as containing AI and are combined with the personal commentary of the poster about the AI content can serve a legitimate purpose, especially if the point of the post is to discuss the impact of the AI on the study of Epicurus. Our general intent is to prohibit the use of AI-generated opinion as a substitute for the personal thought of our forum participants.

If you use AI for your research and wish to share those results on this forum, please include the AI result within quotes so that the forum software will reformat the material into a box that will take less space.

AI AUDIO/VISUAL/GRAPHICS

Use of AI-generated images, videos, and sound pose many additional issues. Once such issue is that such material frequently involves large file sizes which consume forum resources. In most cases where you want to share media materials, the best practice will be to post it to a video site such as Youtube (or an alternative) or an image hosting service (click here for alternatives). You can then post a link to that location and the forum software will embed the media and the post without consuming forum resources

In addition to copyright and resource concerns, audio-visual-graphics are generally a matter of personal preference, and their use should be closely related to the study and promotion of Epicurean philosophy. AI artwork is a particularly difficult line to draw, but we discourage slavish use of AI as a substitute for artistic talent or creativity.

We will continue to monitor developments in AI technology and update this policy as circumstances change.

Quote from Matteng

Another caveat is that these classifications were often made by philosophers for whom virtue represented the highest good (so be careful when it is about Pleasure or Piety for Gods) .

I would say that's the most important point, and if forgotten it turns the whole classification process into a problem rather than a help. I like to outline and classify things too - so long as I don't forget they the purpose of the outline is to help in application, and not to uncover some hidden power from the classification itself. It's easy to get lost in classifying and the Stoics are a great example of not seeing the forest because they spend too much time classifying the trees.

Quote from DaveT

A general usage to me is that I’m skeptical of any proposition that seems to lack proofs, and I’m willing to suspend my belief or disbelief until I see enough proof to satisfy me

I would say that is exactly the right attitude, but unfortunately in philosophy skepticism has a very specific logical extreme which is a well established school of its own and which goes far beyond the common sense version you're describing.

Quote from Pacatus

Who wants a GPT Epicurus?

If there's not already one, there almost certainly will be. And that's going to put the ball in the court of those who think that the available Epicurus-bots aren't the place to get info about Epicurus.

I have com across several things I want to post about just in the last 24 hours, and I am thinking of taking this thread and perhaps several others on the topic and moving it into a special section. i'm debating whether to keep that special section as "Level 3" (where the general public won't see it) or move into a more public area given the importance of the concerns. Many of the posts made already are excellent and of general interest and importance. If anyone has posted anything in this thread that they would prefer to remain in Level 3, please let me know. Otherwise I think this is such a hot topic that we ought to make these posts, and the development of an "Epicurean based strategy for dealing with AI" easier to find.

I have to repeat how much I agree with this chart from Don's post above, and I'm going to post it at the Epicurean facebook group with this comment:

A friend has pointed me to the graphic I am posting below. It comes from an article against the dangers of AI. The article has a small amount of political content that is against our group rules to highlight, and I deliberately omit referring to that here. But the majority of the article is non-political, and it describes the real--world effects of "collapse of confidence in reality" which AI has the potential to encourage

The reason I am posting this is not to comment on AI, but that I don't think this chart is limited to describing problems with AI. I'd say this chart is exactly what has happened to the West as a whole since about 100 AD and the wide suppression of the growing Epicurean movement. It's just this series of disasters described in the chart that Epicurean philosophy was developed to oppose. The big issue is that we shouldn't see this as a modern phenomena that began or got worse with AI. These disastrous attitudes are inherent in every form of skeptical / mystical / absolutist philosophy such as what Epicurus revolted against. And these problems are inherent in post-Epicurean western civilization for the last two thousand years.

THESE PROBLEMS are the enemy that Epicurus fought against with his physics and canonics, and it's why we need to emphasize all aspects of his philosophy. If we understand Epicurean physics and canonics we'll end up with a sound understanding of Epicurean ethics. If we don't understand the physics and canonics, Epicurean ethics is arbitrary and can be twisted into something far worse than worthless, as it has become in the writing of many commentators.

Over on Facebook someone posted this. There are certainly people here who are much more familiar with Hobbes than am I. Anyone want to propose some comments in answer:

Quote

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes seems to follow a materialistic philosophy that aligns with Epicurean thought. Since he was writing in a Christian context, he couldn’t be completely open about it, often couching his materialism in scriptural language. His reduction of spirit to matter and denial of incorporeal entities was viewed by his contemporaries as dangerously close to atheism. Would you say Hobbes’ philosophy is in harmony with Epicurean philosophy?”

Thanks for letting us know -- safe travels and see you again soon!

I'd say Epicurus identifies some very important situations where there are only two choices, so all binaries are not false:

- atoms and void

- pleasure and pain

Welcome to Episode 296 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

Once again this week Joshua is away, and in the absence of our other podcasters today I want to use the time we have to take a look at some of the extensive comment and discussion we've had as a result of last week's episode.

The topic we'll focus on this week is primarily Plutarch's allegations in Section 7 and 8 of his essay "That Living According to Epicurus is Not Possible. In those sections Plutarch alleged that even the animals pursue joy and delight when they have satisfied their essential needs of life such as for food and water, but that Epicurus - according to Plutarch - would deny his followers those same pleasures, on the grounds that the Epicurean goal is "absence of pain" rather than pleasure in the sense of joy and delight.

We had many good comments from our forum members since the release of that podcast, and we'll discuss a number of them here today.

In responding to the same allegations made by Plutarch, we'll also consult a reference that professor Norman Dewitt. In his book "Epicurus and His Philosopher," DeWitt cited an allegation by P.E. More, an academic authority who wrote in his 1923 book: "What, in a word, is to be said of a philosophy that begins with regarding pleasure as the only positive good and ends by emptying pleasure of all positive content?"

The full passage will examine is quoted in last week's discussion here:

Post

RE: Episode 295 - Plutarch's Absurd Interpretation of Epicurean Absence of Pain

This is a long quote but think the forum software will provide a collapsible box so it doesn't break the flow of the thread. The analysis is perverse just as DeWitt describes it, but it's well worth reading in full as an expansive interpretation in modern language of Plutarch's criticism. This is a position that is widespread and if you're a fan of Epicurus you need to understand the argument and have a position on why it is wrong. Rolfe who is asking the question and Don who read Plutarch…

Cassius

August 22, 2025 at 8:38 AM

In the absence of Joshua and Don I'll probably provide more questions than answers, but we can discuss these issues on the forum and in future podcasts when Joshua and Don return. Even if we don't provide any brilliant new insights today, the material we'll discuss present questions that have stark and conflicting possible answers, and every student of Epicurus has to answer these for themselves if they really want to understand what's at the heart of Epicurean philosophy.

This week's meeting will be on the Epicurean view of virtue and the general concept of good and evil, and here are some notes in preparation:

1.1. Discussion Guide

1.2. Lucretius Today Podcast 267 devoted to this topic

Epicurean philosophy has shocked the sensibilities of conventional thinkers for two thousand years by committing itself boldly to the conclusion that "virtue" is not absolute or an end in itself, and that Nature alone provides us the proper guide of life.

As with "gods," Epicurus held that "virtue" is a useful concept, but one that has been drastically misunderstood. True "virtue" is not something given by divine revelation, or through logical analysis of ideal forms, but is instead simply a set of tools for living the best life possible. Epicurus held that virtue is not the same for all people, or the same at all times and places, but that instead what is virtuous varies with circumstance, according to whether the action is instrumental for achieving happiness. Good and evil are not absolutes, but instead consist in sensation, as Epicurus explained to Menoeceus: " "Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality." (124)

Likewise, even something as highly regarded as justice is not absolute, but observable only in practical effects: "In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all." (PD36)

One way to frame the question (and rehabilitate Horace's statement) might be:

It's clear that Epicurus held the term "pleasure" to include many more experiences in life than what most people include when they think of pleasure. Is it also true that Epicurus held the term "pain" to include many fewer experiences in life than what most people include when they think of pain?

Quote from Don

Now, if you want to compare it to taking pleasure in a sunset that was unplanned and due to random fluctuations in the atmosphere... okay? In relation to that AI poem, you - the reader - are imbuing that poem with meaning. The "author" of the poem is NOT trying to communicate their feeling to you. The AI poem is a Rorschach Test. A random inkblot that you can look at and say "that looks like a bee resting on a flower" or read a poem and say "Oh, this reminds me of a day I spent in the sunshine." YOU are imbuing algorithmically-selected words with meaning. Granted, we do SOME of this with all poetry, but the author has an intention of what they wrote if it's a human author.

You and Pacatus are building a strong argument in favor of judging whether you want to participate in a pleasure by an across-the-board requirement that the source from which it comes NOT be AI.

I definitely sign on to that viewpoint to the extent that you have to understand the source of a pleasure in order to evaluate whether in the end it is going to cause you more pleasure than pain.

But isn't that just the same question just stated differently(?) Don't we have to be certain that *all* AI generated pleasure is going to harm us more than help us in order to reach that conclusion? Because certainly there are *some* major benefits to AI or else it would not be "taking the world by storm." Are we to adopt Cicero's viewpoint on Epicurean philosophy and go on a crusade against AI? I'm all for crusades in the right context.

But that's where I think the debate is still open. I don't yet have the sense that by necessity all use of AI is so dangerous that it should be banned (and we're not just talking the forum but society as a whole). I would think that there's a lot of subtlety on where to draw the line.

And my gosh this debate is everywhere. It's hard to read a list of articles on any subject at any time day or night without some part of this debate being brought up.

Thanks again Don, those are very helpful leads and we can pursue this into the future as time allows.

Yes it seems to be commonly noted that Horace was more Epicurean when younger than older, but I've never seen much explanation behind those general comments.

Below is more of the Latin from your wikisource link. So there's clearly a first imperative clause that reads spurn pleasures / "Sperne voluptates.... followed by a new thought.

I would think that the best hope for a saving construction would be that the clause/phrase after that is intended to restrict the meaning to "spurn those pleasures that cause more pleasure than pain." My Latin is not good enough to be confident of any construction, but it sure doesn't look at first glance like his choice of words goes in that direction. In fact at this point it's hard to imagine much of a different construction - everything adds up to something like "Spurn pleasures; pleasures acquired by pain are harmful." And I see that as entirely contrary to the heart of what Epicurus was saying. Life constantly presents options where choices have to be made whether to engage in activities that are painful in order to acquire pleasures that are more worthwhile.

It's possible that as a mirror to the redefined meaning of "pleasure" there was also a redefinition of "pain" so that all sorts of effort that we would consider struggle and involving pain might fall outside the Epicurean definition of pain. However I don't see the texts going in that direction - does anyone? Given the expansive definition of pleasure we should probably be open to concluding that Epicurus had a narrow reading of "pain," but if so I'm not sure the texts we have really indicate that interpretation. I know there's reference to not needing to pursue desires involving "struggle" so maybe the possibility exists that the argument was being made, by Horace or others, to the effect that painful exertion which causes greater pleasure in the end should not be considered pain at all. But at the moment I don't see that as likely.

If so that's definitely something for us to pursue and clarify, but it seems more likely that this is more attributable to Horace being depressed post-Philippi.

Nodictionaries has the component words as:

More of the Latin:

Quote

Non domus et fundus, non aeris aceruus et auri
aegroto domini deduxit corpore febris,
non animo curas; ualeat possessor oportet,
si comportatis rebus bene cogitat uti. 50

Qui cupit aut metuit, iuuat illum sic domus et res
ut lippum pictae tabulae, fomenta podagram,
auriculas citharae collecta sorde dolentis.

Sincerum est nisi uas, quodcumque infundis acescit.

Sperne uoluptates; nocet empta dolore uoluptas. 55

Semper auarus eget; certum uoto pete finem.

Inuidus alterius macrescit rebus opimis;
inuidia Siculi non inuenere tyranni
maius tormentum. Qui non moderabitur irae,
infectum uolet esse, dolor quod suaserit et mens, 60
dum poenas odio per uim festinat inulto.

Ira furor breuis est; animum rege, qui nisi paret,
imperat, hunc frenis, hunc tu compesce catena.

Display More

Thanks Don! Lots of clearly correct material in there. But this crucial line in narrower context still seems objectionable to me, so I'll try to dig further into whether the Latin justifies it. If the Latin does, I would still fault Horace for this formulation, which is perhaps worse even that the first suggested translation:

Unless the vessel be sweet, whatever you pour into it turns sour. Despise pleasures, pleasure bought with pain is hurtful. The covetous man is ever in want; set a certain limit to your wishes.