Posts by Cassius

Thanks for this info Nate. i really think it would be helpful to have a subforum devoted to this topic so we could list each of the "Christian fathers" and Stoics others who specifically attacked Epicurus, and we'll be able to list and clarify their arguments and thereby better understand them and see how they flow to today, so I will set that up.

Done.

This question is right exactly in the expertise of Elayne but I know she has been very busy lately - no doubt she will weigh in when able.

My own sense of caution as to the first article would be on this premise:
 
"Human nature is complicated, no doubt, but most of us would at least like to think that people are fundamentally good. If you’re a big believer in humanity’s best qualities, a new study is backing up your beliefs in a major way. It appears that babies may be instinctively altruistic."

I think it's perilous to think in terms of "good" and "evil" and as to whether we approve or disapprove of the inclination being discussed, but at the basic level of there being any kind of inclination at all, as opposed to there being only a total blank slate, I bet the findings of the article do support a reasonable theory of "anticipations."

However - is this next quote true? Because I would expect a form of anticipations would probably exist in all higher animals, and perhaps in all life forms.

"Kindness towards others at one’s own expense is a uniquely human trait. While some primates have displayed a tendency to help each other out and share resources in certain situations, it is virtually unheard of across the animal kingdom for an animal to give up food he or she needs just because another is in need."

Excellent review. Thanks Lee!

Great point, and absolutely not! Cicero and Seneca were virtual role models of the Federalists!

All of what Hiram stated I agree with, while still repeating the importance of our having our own centers of study ("schools," if you like) where we maintain full control over the means of presentation and rights of participation. Those approaches aren't contradictory but mutually reinforce each other, especially at the current time when those who are devoted to a classical version of Epicurean philosophy are a small minority among those who generally represented on the internet and in public discussion. The internet has opened up the possibility for truly like-minded people to collaborate in ways that were never possible before, so we need to make intelligent use of it as we learn and grow.

Squadron of Cassius Longinus' men arriving for battle against the anti-Epicureans.

Along with some text that is not anachronistic:

[15.19] Cassius to Cicero

[Brundisium, latter half of January, 45 B.C.]

L I hope that you are well. I assure you that on this tour of mine there is nothing that gives me more pleasure to do than to write to you; for I seem to be talking and joking with you face to face. And yet that does not come to pass because of those spectres; and, by way of retaliation for that, in my next letter I shall let loose upon you such a rabble of Stoic boors that you will proclaim Catius a true-born Athenian.

2 I am glad that our friend Pansa was sped on his way by universal goodwill when he left the city in military uniform, and that not only on my own account, but also, most assuredly, on that of all our friends. For I hope that men generally will come to understand how much all the world hates cruelty, and how much it loves integrity and clemency, and that the blessings most eagerly sought and coveted by the bad ultimately find their way to the good. For it is hard to convince men that "the good is to be chosen for its own sake"; but that pleasure and tranquillity of mind is acquired by virtue, justice, and the good is both true and demonstrable. Why, Epicurus himself, from whom all the Catiuses and Amafiniuses in the world, incompetent translators of terms as they are, derive their origin, lays it down that "to live a life of pleasure is impossible without living a life of virtue and justice".

3 Consequently Pansa, who follows pleasure, keeps his hold on virtue, and those also whom you call pleasure-lovers are lovers of what is good and lovers of justice, and cultivate and keep all the virtues. And so Sulla, whose judgment we ought to accept, when he saw that the philosophers were at sixes and sevens, did not investigate the nature of the good, but bought up all the goods there were; and I frankly confess that I bore his death without flinching. Caesar, however, will not let us feel his loss too long; for he has a lot of condemned men to restore to us in his stead, nor will he himself feel the lack of someone to bid at his auctions when once he has cast his eye on Sulla junior.

4 And now to return to politics; please write back and tell me what is being done in the two Spains. I am terribly full of anxiety, and I would sooner have the old and lenient master [Caesar], than make trial of a new and cruel one. You know what an idiot Gnaeus is; you know how he deems cruelty a virtue; you know how he thinks that we have always scoffed at him. I fear that in his boorish way he will be inclined to reply by wiping our turned-up noses with the sword. Write back as you love me, and tell me what is doing. Ah! how I should like to know whether you read all this with an anxious mind or a mind at ease! For I should know at the same time what it is my duty to do. Not to be too long-winded, I bid you farewell. Continue to love me as you do. If Caesar has conquered, expect me to return quickly.

This probably fits under a category of "Jewish Opposition to Epicurus" such as is discussed in "Epicurus and the Judeans" but we can set that up later if needed. I don't know much about Philo of Alexandria and haven't been able to read yet more than the first few pages of this article. It came to my attention because it was sent to me by Academia.com as part of their daily email blasting. If you're ever lonely and don't get enough email, just subscribe to Academia and your problems will be over.

https://www.academia.edu/11824747/Moses…2?auto=download

Hercules and his labors are referenced in several places in Lucretius, in at least one instance comparing favorably to them the achievements of Epicurus. Someday when we have time we could pull together a list of references where they appear and see how many are actually referenced. I know I remember the Nemean lion, the Lernaean Hydra, and I think the Cretan Bull. This graphic doesn't show all twelve but it, along with this list tweeted by the Trimontium Trust, is still a good reminder. https://trimontium.co.uk/

A #Roman relief of the 12 labours of Hercules representing from left to right the Nemean lion, the Lernaean Hydra, the Erymanthian Boar, the Ceryneian Hind, the Stymphalian birds, the Girdle of Hippolyta, the Augean stables, the Cretan Bull & the Mares of Diomedes -3rd Century AD http://pic.twitter.com/XSAHLRjzpA

Opening of Book 5 (Bailey): "But a good life could not be without a clean heart; wherefore more rightly is he [Epicurus] counted a god by us, thanks to whom now sweet solaces for life soothe the mind, spread even far and wide among great peoples. But if you think that the deeds of Hercules excel this, you will be carried still further adrift from true reasoning. For what harm to us now were the great gaping jaws of the old Nemean lion and the bristling boar of Arcadia? Or what could the bull of Crete do, or the curse of Lerna, the hydra with its pallisade of poisonous snakes? what the triple-breasted might of threefold Geryon? [How could those birds] have done us such great hurt, who dwelt in the Stymphalian [fen], or the horses of Diomede the Thracian, breathing fire from their nostrils near the coasts of the Bistones and Ismara? Or the guardian of the glowing golden apples of Hesperus’s daughters, the dragon, fierce, with fiery glance, with his vast body twined around the tree-trunk, yea, what harm could he have done beside the Atlantic shore and the grim tracts of ocean, where none of us draws near nor barbarian dares to venture? And all other monsters of this sort which were destroyed, had they not been vanquished, what hurt, pray, could they have done alive? Not a jot, I trow: the earth even now teems in such abundance with wild beasts, and is filled with trembling terrors throughout forests and mighty mountains and deep woods; but for the most part we have power to shun those spots. But unless the heart is cleansed, what battles and perils must we then enter into despite our will? What sharp pangs of passion then rend the troubled man, yea and what fears besides? what of pride, filthiness and wantonness? what havoc they work? what of luxury and sloth? He then who has subdued all these and driven them from the mind by speech, not arms, shall this man not rightly be found worthy to rank among the gods? Above all, since ’twas his wont to speak many sayings in good and godlike words about the immortal gods themselves, and in his discourse to reveal the whole nature of things."

Yes that would be like going to a local library - it "might" be possible to draw some conclusions about the ideology or philosophy of the library by the mix of books, but if it is a good library it is going to have selections from many different perspectives, and I would expect Jefferson would have been the same way - wanting to read and test all the major perspectives, including the Plato and others that he talks to John Adams about reading.

Mike you have read her books, watched her videos, or some combination? Regardless of what anyone else says or does in this thread you should feel free to invite her yourself. I don't consider myself to be much more than a website administrator with too much time on his hands sometimes, so you should never feel you need to wait on me to take initiatives. In fact that is one thing I've always tried to do more than anything else, to encourage people to do their own blogs and pursue their own initiatives, because in the end that's the only way that an "Epicurean movement" will grow, or makes sense. Yes individual leaders are needed but in the end it's an atomistic universe and "central direction" is not in our blood

OK I finished it am and glad to see that he cites DeWitt, and I see several reflections of DeWitt in the text.

Yet i still can't shake the view that his praise of "Foodies" is largely un-serious.

I think you said it best Godfrey when you said:

Quote from Godfrey

This essay was a nice accompaniment to my tea and dark chocolate this morning

I'm not sure exactly what audience I would suggest this to, but I do agree that to the extent he is making a serious point, he shows a lot of influence from DeWitt and his points are consistent with a DeWitt view of Epicurus as not being an ascetic at all

I Still get the impression he is joking, but in this excerpt I think he is exactly correct in criticizing these "authorities":

Godfrey I just started reading but already I am not sure if this is sort of tongueincheek. I agree with his contention that enjoyment of food has been misrepresented downward, but to place it at the CENTER of the philosophy? That seems almost like a joke. I will have to read more

This discussion is probably going so far from the original topic that it needs another thread. I will split this one up and start one under and "Outreach" section.... Just a minute.

Interesting thing to think about Mike. I have not been in contact with nor have I invited anyone who qualifies as an "academic" in the past, and to my understanding she IS an academic, is she not?

Not that I necessarily have a rule against inviting academics, but given my observation of the percentages that would probably be about like going to the Stoic groups and inviting them.

It's an interesting idea though to bat around.

Donald joined at a time that we weren't as strict in our membership criteria as we are now. It's a continuing subject of debate and fine-tuning as to how to set membership standards. In Donald's case he doesn't post frequently, but when he does he generally does so cordially, and his posts give us an opportunity to further clarify issues with someone who clearly represents (or maybe I should say, SHOULD represent) the opposing viewpoint.

There are many competing considerations, some of the most basic being that the FB forum is one of the very few places on facebook where authentic Epicureans won't be drowned out by Stoicism. Then there is the need to continuously educate new people to the issues involved in why Stoic and Epicurean philosophies are in fact so far apart, as opposed to closely related as so many people are led to believe.

The big negative factor is that fighting can be distracting and off-putting and just generally isn't as "fun" as interacting with like-minded people. Epicurus specifically advised that we talk about these issues with like-minded people, and he prepared lots of written material to educate students against conflicting ideas, but to my knowledge there is no evidence that he invited Stoics or Platonists into the Garden for regular debates or even social occasions. Inviting people who are open-minded and sincerely interested in reconsidering issues is one thing; inviting people who are committed to opposing ideas is something very different.

So proper membership and moderation is a moving target that's we're always recalibrating.

It's worth noting that there's nothing in Epicurean philosophy that would support the idea that "democracy' is always the preferable means of governance. So as long as the moderating panel itself remains firmly Epicurean, and we can't be "outvoted" by the masses of Stoics and/or eclectics, we can afford to let a few in at times to keep us on our toes.

These Stoic vs Epicurean issues will never go away, and each new "generation" of members will have to be educated on it.

I don't recommend that anyone who is not already with Facebook join it, and I am trying to minimize my use of it. But the fact is that we've made a lot of contacts there, so everyone has to make the best decision for them.

Mike so far, the full conversation is pasted above, directly from the postings at Facebook. Unless it goes a lot longer in ways that are difficult to paste, I will be sure that the full conversation is pasted here.

My response to Donald:

My general response to all of these is that I thought the point of our dicsussion was to decide whether Jefferson was more Stoic than Epicurean! What I have done in the article is to point out that (1) Jefferson fully understood the basic differences between Stoics and Epicurus, and that he sided with Epicurus on every fundamental point and (2) that on the points where Epicurus agrees with a Stoic phrase, the point behind the Stoic phrase is obvious and is not related to the core of Stoic belief. I may go back and prepare some more detailed comments to several of Don's points here, but I am already very comfortable that a reader who checks the material I have quoted from Jefferson will find that I am correct.

This exchange so far is actually kind of amusing in seeing that Donald does not accept my quotes from Jefferson as bearing on the issue, or that they need additional "argument" from me. The reason for that goes back to the comments about my opening - Donald and I have a very different understanding of what Stoicism is. When I say "Stoicism" I mean the very clearly defined positions of the ancient Stoics; when Donald says it, he seems to primarily mean Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, tinged with selected aspects of Stoic views toward suppression of emotion.

I don't read anything in these series of comments from DR that make me think my article needs adjustment or supplement to assist a fair reader. Yes, Jefferson was widely read and appreciated some selected quotes from Stoics that are little more than common sense observations. Jefferson didn't and wouldn't deny that the sun rises in the east just because a Stoic said it, but at the same time he was fully aware of the true meaning of Stoicism and totally rejected it.

Donald Robertson's responses:

You place a lot of emphasis at the beginning on your claim that Jefferson is a clear thinker compared to what you call the muddy thinking of Marcus Aurelius. But I think anyone reading that first letter you quote to William Short is going to find that clashes very much with the claim because what Jefferson says there most people will probably find very muddy indeed. He both criticizes and praises the Stoics repeatedly in the space of a few sentences but by the end he hasn't stated clearly what the reasons for his disagreement, if any, actually are. Surely you have to admit that most people reading that are going to be left scratching their heads if asked to explain what Jefferson is actually saying about the Stoics?

Donald Robertson With respect, I also think very few people will agree with your premise stated at the outset: "both Cicero and the Stoics saw themselves as continuances and extensions of the Platonic line, so that every time Jefferson attacks Cicero or Plato, he is attacking the Stoics as well by implication." You'd have to try to substantiate that somehow. As it stands, I would think most readers will find that a questionable basis for the argument that you're making in the rest of the piece.

Then we get the criticisms of Plato's Republic. But the Stoics were not Platonists. They argued fiercely with the Platonists. Their school originated with Zeno's critique of Plato's Republic. So unless you can provide some argument to prove that Jefferson's criticisms fall equally on the Stoics, I doubt most people reading this will go along with you this far in your argument.

Donald Robertson "Their supreme wisdom is supreme folly; & they mistake for happiness the mere absence of pain." Strangely, on the face of it, that sounds a lot more like a criticism of Epicurean ataraxia than of Stoic virtue. It seems to echo the typical wording of ancient criticisms of Epicureanism. It's not a criticism normally levelled at the Stoics because it doesn't seem to correspond with what they actually believed. In this letter, Jefferson perhaps sounds more like Cyrenaics criticising the Epicureans than an Epicurean himself.

Donald Robertson "in denying to you the feelings of sympathy, of benevolence, of gratitude, of justice, of love, of friendship, she has excluded you from their controul." - I thought Epicurus denied the existence of a natural bond of affection between friends and argued instead that friendship was a sort of social contract based on the utility of friends in securing the goal of ataraxia.

Donald Robertson "Never spend your money before you have it. << A commonplace observation not intrinsically Stoic at all", etc. I did not claim that those statements were intrinsically Stoic. So this part of your article contains a series of Straw Man fallacies.

Donald Robertson "Take things always by their smooth handle. << A common sense observation not intrinsically Stoic." - I think most people will recognize that's a reference to Epictetus' Enchiridion, the book Jefferson says he admired, recommended his friends should read, and which he had intended to translate himself. The historian I cited who edited his papers, and others, have already made this point. So, again, I think you'd have to make a case for your skeptical position by providing some sort of argument.

Donald Robertson "Conclusion. Thomas Jefferson fully understood the essential characteristics of Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, and he emphatically embraced Epicurus and condemned Stoicism and its variants. You should too." -- Wait, what happened??? You didn't actually seem with respect, to provide any argument at all. Just a lot of quotes, which certainly don't appear to contradict what I wrote in my article. I hope you don't mind me pointing this out but you didn't actually directly address the evidence or arguments I cited in the article.