Posts by Cassius

Thanks to Martin Kalyniuk for forwarding a link to an article about the poet Horace's well known phrase, "carpe diem." Because we're trying to keep the group aware of controversies in Epicurean interpretation, we need to point out that this is a link that needs to be considered with a strong dose of caution. It's the point of the article to argue that "carpe diem" shouldn't be considered to mean "seize the day" in an active aggressive action, but rather that it evokes "the plucking and gathering of ripening fruits or flowers, enjoying a moment that is rooted in the sensory experience of nature." The author also cites the familiar “Gather ye rose-buds while ye may” phrase. In other words, according to the author, Horace allegedly doesn't call us to action, but to "a far gentler, more sensual image than the rather forceful and even violent concept of seizing the moment."

There are many facets to translation issues, and it may very well be that Horace would say that his phrase had multiple meanings, including the one suggested by the article. However, to just enjoy sensations at suitable moments (e.g. while we walk through a park) does not mean that we should not take resolute action at other times when we pursue opportunities for hard work to assure future pleasures.

This article has a strong scent of being part of a widespread tendency to reduce Epicurean philosophy to a campaign against modern consumerist society. No one here (that I know of) advocates "consumerism," but to reduce the the philosophy to that issue alone trivializes it.

About Horace himself, Wikipedia says: "An officer in the republican army defeated at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC, he was befriended by Octavian's right-hand man in civil affairs, Maecenas, and became a spokesman for the new regime."

That is not a description of a wallflower who hides in his cave gathering pretty mushrooms. That is a description of a man of action, who may not have been thrilled with the results of the war in which he had fought, but by no means decided to sit and sulk, and made an entirely new and productive career for himself afterwards. Not the type of many to complain about "consumerism," but the type of man to "do something about it" if he had a problem.

In addition, it isn't clear why the author would think "pluck" is not an action word-- if you are plucking flowers, you are doing something - you aren't simply meditating like some would advocate.

It's not our goal to buy things we don't enjoy (or refrain from buying what we enjoy) just for competition, whether that's a competition to accumulate or minimize possessions. What we want is to choose the pleasure out of the offerings of the day, to pluck the pleasure and leave behind the rot.

Sometimes the wonderful flowers will have thorns but still be worth plucking... sometimes it's all flower. Then there's the planting and tending, for future flowers of pleasure.

But there's definitely a need to pluck whatever is in full flower now, not delay. Those flowers of pleasure don't last forever!

Here's the link and now you have the argument with which to keep it in perspective. Articles like this preaching passivism in the name of Epicurus are all over the place. Be careful of calls to inaction and don't let them get you down, instead - Seize the day!

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

Last year we held a series of discussions on the DISCORD chat service where we went through the Norman Dewitt book on Epicurus by chapter. Planning for Upcoming Voice Chats on DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy

We reached Chapter 12 and though we didn't finish the full book, I thought the chats were pretty successful and worth finishing and doing again. In fact, they are worth doing over and over as a general introduction to the philosophy.

This weekend it also occurred to me that even many of our most regular people have not completely gone through Lucretius' On The Nature of Things poem. We therefore need to set up a series of online to discussions to organize our reading of that.

Let's talk about setting these up. Here are some questions to consider:

1 - Do we pick up where we left off on the Dewitt book, or do we start over? We were going chapter by chapter. Does that method still make sense?

2 - Let's set up an entirely separate discussion program for Lucretius. We have access to several online free translations and it will be relatively easy to divide the books of the poem up into readable chunks. As is, I think each book is far too long and detailed to be covered in one session per book.

3 - What day of the week and time of day is best? Shall we try to do one of these per week, or one every other week so that we do one of Lucretius and one of DeWitt per month? What kind of schedule makes sense?

Oh - one more point about Elayne's numbered list suggestion: I've already been working on the FAQ which is here https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?faq/

So it's kind of natural to coordinate these two efforts. I don't think at this point that it makes sense to merge the documents, because the "Not Neo" document is more targeted to quick response and inoculation against common fallacies. It's a summary of major errors/problems, and needs to be separate so that we can refer to those all in one place with people who are more experienced in reading the standard academic material.

On the other hand the FAQ is targeted to a more general audience looking not only for responses to negative issues but also positive statements, and less in need of immediate "deprogramming." This is more like the group of people who read DeWitt early in the process, never get led too far astray, and so don't need to be hit immediately with a list of mistakes.

But it's easy to see that a FAQ could point to items in the Not-Neo list and how they complement each other.

Quote from Godfrey

Also there's some excellent content on the forum already: there must be a way to get some of it into the mainstream or on to Academia or Jstor or similar sites or journals.

Godfrey this is an interesting point and one I think about a lot. No doubt we do want to get some of these alternate ideas into the "mainstream" and/or academia. On the otherhand, what we are talking about is essentially the "belly of the beast" --- Academia is fully invested in the Stoic model, and they are not going to take kindly to contradiction.

Already DeWitt, Gosling & Taylor, Nikolsky, and Wenham have published excellent articles with no discernable impact on "academia."

What I am getting at here is that it may well be a doomed plan to ever expect our "enemies" to embrace this point of view. After all, it's not rocket science, and in fact it doesn't take much effort at all to see the errors of the mainstream approach.

There is more going on here that innocent error, and that means we need to think intelligently about the proper strategy. And that strategy probably includes going "around" them, with our own websites and content-generators, rather than ever expect any help from academia. And not only can we probably not expect help, but I feel absolutely confident that if / when we ever come to their attention, we will meet a solid phalanx of outraged opposition.

Of course at this point I don't have any "magic bullets" and so we ought to entertain all suggestions.

Quote from Elayne

Perhaps we could assign a number or nickname to each error type-- corresponding to the Not Neo-Epicurean list? And then note some common patterns by the same shorthand-- "this is the 1-2-5 error", etc.

Back when I was politically outspoken on my prior FB personal page, I got tired of making repetitive rebuttals to nonsense. So I wrote a long, numbered "note" with all my arguments, evidence and references included. Every time someone would use one of the arguments I'd already countered, I would just post a link to my note with the relevant number. Occasionally there were long conversations in which my opponents kept repeating the same long fallacious statements, nothing new or creative, and my responses were only numbers, often the same numbers repeated.

That is an excellent idea Elayne. At present it is easy enough for me to add new material to the Not Neo list here, which is in fact what we planned. If it gets too unwieldy, or to make it easier we want multiple editors, I can add it to the wiki and share permissions to that. But for the time being I will add to the document here and consider it to be the main copy: Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean

Godfrey I can't remember if I have posted this elsewhere but a quick search doesn't turn it up. This article follows much the same standard pattern that I wrote down earlier after reading the Sonya Wurster article:

Philodemus and Epicurean Philosophy: Changing Perceptions - Sonya Wurster

It gets tedious to make the same observations over and over and over and yet I think the pattern is clear. The issue is how best to address the pattern clearly and concisely in a single place to which we can point over and over to prevent reinventing the wheel each time.

Oh I see! Great catch Godfrey! That probably explains why the article is kind of a summary without any real point and with absolutely no "conclusion" at the end. He's an eclectic working on researching as many competitive strategies as he can, which he will then meld together into his own religious stew.

WHO IS MIKE?

For over 30 years I have been full-time engaged in cross-cultural ministry both overseas and in Australia. I have taught courses at Moore Theological College, Christ College Sydney, Sydney Missionary and Bible College, Wesley Institute, Brisbane School of Theology and overseas. Subject areas include Ministry Across Cultures, Understanding Buddhism and Old Testament.

I lived in a Muslim country for many years. For 12 years I provided training, consultancy and resources for ministry to migrant peoples for churches in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. Then for 8 years I coordinated cross-cultural ministry for the Presbyterian Church of NSW. I have served as a Regional Ministry Director (NSW/ACT/QLD) for SIM Australia and am now helping SIM to connect with and serve churches.

It is impossible for an off-course essay like this NOT to include the kinetic/katastematic distinction, and here it is:

And then he proceeds as normal to minimalism, which deserves little comment.

Then he proceeds to this ridiculously unfounded statement about only three things being necessary:

However this is well stated and exactly on point as to "virtue":

Next is an important paragraph, but the author is exactly wrong. Not only is he wrong to say "clearly," but "stretching" the meaning of pleasure to "comprehend all value" is exactly what Epicurus does. If we value something, it is simply and solely because it brings us pleasure / reduces pain / allows greater pleasure. The issue is the feeling, not any other consideration, because in the end all consideration comes down to feeling.

On the other hand, this is AWFUL - an allegation that materialism cannot serve as a basis for ethics.

On the other hand this is looks like a worthwhile citation to Mill (haven't checked it yet):

But here comes the typical nod to asceticism:

OK this is WAY off course. Epicurus had a NEGATIVE view of nature??

And here's the expected modern emphasis, turning everything on its head:

Thanks Hiram. This one seems to be a kind of rambling overview rather than making any particular point. I find it to be pretty much just a compendium of the ordinary observations, many of which are highly questionable.

One thing that catches my eye is this statement about Epicurean "communities":

Followed by this later in the article:

His cite for that is to Erler in the Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Here is the relevant paragraph:

I note that this allegation is to "Epicureans" and not necessarily to "Epicurean Communities" which is the issue that frequently gets raised (were there actual Epicurean "communities" outside the Garden in Athens? Does the Garden itself count as a community?)

I have to stop tracing references at the moment but wanted to note that this appears to be another example where an allegation of Epicurean "Communities" is unsubstantiated.

And these are the views of the author of the "Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism!"

Extremely well written Joshua, thank you.

It boggles my mind that a reputable scholar would suggest that an Epicurean would be so irresponsible as not to care what happens to his property and his friends after his death.

To me this is a reminder of what we are up against in rehabilitating a common sense view of Epicurean philosophy. It is and will be worth it, but we shouldn't be blind to how entrenched the opposition really is.

An absolutely ridiculous article, and this is by a leading British writer on Epicurus!

I've seen pictures of you Nate and you're so thin I can't believe that dieting ever enters your mind!

Welcome @ismaelfonseca ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus!

I've read a pretty good amount from Jason Fung and other low-carb doctors, and I gather that they say that sometime when we are losing weight the cholesterol numbers can go up. I am certainly no expert but I wouldn't give up without researching that aspect further, because the benefits of a method that actually works ought to be worth temporary number changes. I know in my own experience I have tested my blood sugars after a variety of types of high carb vs low carb foods, and so I have seen for myself how high-carb makes the blood sugar numbers skyrocket. To me doing the tests on your own body to see how you react to types of food is an excellent illustration of an Epicurean attitude in gathering evidence for oneself.

Yes the religious association is a major turnoff. I am trying to get on a one meal a day schedule to lose maybe 15 pounds and so far working very well.

I have traditionally not been interested in exploring fasting, in significant part because I associate it with asceticism and/or mystical eastern religious practices. I've been a reader and fan of low-carb diet theory, but I've not expanded that to fasting.

In recent years however I've become interested in the work of Dr. Jason Fung, especially with intermittent fasting such as here. Anyone here have any experience with that? Here's their main Facebook group, which I hate to recommend but which has good info.

This is a placeholder for discussion of vegetarianism, which some assert was practised by Epicureans, but for which there is little if any textual support for that conclusion.

Here is a post by Hiram on the topic. This is the only reference I've seen to vegetarianism being discussed, and it is far from clear that it supports the conclusion that most or even a significant number of Epicureans were vegetarian. I recall nothing in Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, or Lucretius which supports vegetarianism.