Posts by Cassius

Wow there is a lot of good stuff in that speech on exactly the point you say Nate! Now there is also a lot of "politics" that I think would be beyond the scope and interest our our Epicurean studies to explore, but you are very right to cite the key points that you did. I especially like this one:

Quote from Nate

. So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But [...] this [...] was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them [but] by those who moved forward - and so will space.

That seems to me to circle around the great debate we need to have in Epicurean phiosophy - whether life is ONLY about resting (as some advocate) or whether action (pleasurable action) is at least as important as rest. Both "rest" and "action" can be pleasurable, so we need both, but to imply that "action" is somehow non-Epicurean is the road back into the cave.

I haven't had a chance to watch this yet but thanks Nate! I will! Thanks!

Nate that is a very interesting point of reference. Do you have a place where you refer to that speech in writing, or do you watch it on youtube. If you have a preferred place to review it let me know as I would like to go back and check it out. Not sure I have heard anything but the shortest of quotes from it (is that where he said "before this decade is out.... put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth...." ?

Here's another particular important passage that has always to me had a troublesome translation, from Book 4. Munro and Bailey seem fairly understandable, but awkward. Humphries (as we referenced before) seems to go over the top with his "idiotic" comment.

But maybe the most difficult of the phrasing is the reference to "false senses" at the end of the line. "False senses" or any phrase similar to that jumps out at me as a huge red flag of possible confusion. Once again it seems to me that the Daniel Browne translator feels the same concern I do, and his "false representation of the senses" gives us a limiting word that helps explain that it is not the senses that are false, but our conclusions based on them. And to me that is a HUGE point of clarification which even Munro, who I think is the considerably more sympathetic to Epicurus than Bailey or Humphries, fails to make. So my practice nowadays is to compare any translation that I find to any degree questionable against the Daniel Browne version.

Quote

Munro:

And if reason shall be unable to explain away the cause why things which close at hand were square, at a distance looked round, it yet is better, if you are at a loss for the reason, to state erroneously the causes of each shape than to let slip from your grasp on any side things manifest and ruin the groundwork of belief and wrench up all the foundations on which rest life and existence. For not only would all reason give way, life itself would at once fall to the ground, unless you choose to trust the senses and shun precipices and all things else of this sort that are to be avoided, and to pursue the opposite things. All that host of words then be sure is quite unmeaning which has been drawn out in array against the senses. Once more, as in a building, if the rule first applied is wry, and the square is untrue and swerves from its straight lines, and if there is the slightest hitch in any part of the level, all the construction must be faulty, all must be wry, crooked, sloping, leaning forwards, leaning backwards, without symmetry, so that some parts seem ready to fall, others do fall, ruined all by the first erroneous measurements; so too all reason of things must needs prove to you distorted and false, which is founded on false senses.

Bailey:

Therefore, whatever they have perceived on each occasion, is true. And if reason is unable to unravel the cause, why those things which close at hand were square, are seen round from a distance, still it is better through lack of reasoning to be at fault in accounting for the causes of either shape, rather than to let things clear seen slip abroad from your grasp, and to assail the grounds of belief, and to pluck up the whole foundations on which life and existence rest. For not only would all reasoning fall away; life itself too would collapse straightway, unless you chose to trust the senses, and avoid headlong spots and all other things of this kind which must be shunned, and to make for what is opposite to these. Know, then, that all this is but an empty store of words, which has been drawn up and arrayed against the senses. Again, just as in a building, if the first ruler is awry, and if the square is wrong and out of the straight lines, if the level sags a whit in any place, it must needs be that the whole structure will be made faulty and crooked, all awry, bulging, leaning forwards or backwards, and out of harmony, so that some parts seem already to long to fall, or do fall, all betrayed by the first wrong measurements; even so then your reasoning of things must be awry and false, which all springs from false senses.

Humphries:
And if your reasoning faculties can find

No explanation why a thing looks square

When seen close up, and round when farther off,

Even so, it might be better for a man

Who lacks the power of reason, to give out

Some idiotic theory, than to drop

All hold of basic principles, break down

Every foundation, tear apart the frame

That holds our lives, our welfare. All is lost

Not only reason, but our very life,

Unless we have the courage and the nerve

To trust the senses,

If a building

Were planned by someone with a crooked ruler

Or an inaccurate square, or spirit-level

A little out of true, the edifice,

In consequence, would be a frightful mess,

Warped, wobbly, wish-wash, weak and wavering,

Waiting a welter of complete collapse -

So let your rule of reason never be

Distorted by the fallacies of sense

Lest all your logic prove a road to ruin.

Display More

So here again I like Browne, which seems to me at least a little more clear:

And though reason is not able to assign a cause why an object that is really four-square when near, should appear round when seen at a distance; yet, if we cannot explain this difficulty, it is better to give any solution, even a false one, than to deliver up all Certainty out of our power, to break in upon our first principle of belief, and tear up all foundations upon which our life and security depend. For not only all reason must be overthrown, but life itself must be immediately extinguished, unless you give credit to your senses. These direct you to fly from a precipice and other evils of this sort which are to be avoided, and to pursue what tends to your security. All therefore is nothing more than an empty parade of words that can be offered against the certainty of sense.

Lastly, as in a building, if the principle rule of the artificer be not true, if his line be not exact, or his level bear in to the least to either side, every thing must needs be wrong and crooked, the whole fabric must be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, because the whole was at first disordered by false principles. So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses.

Quote from JJElbert

He explains the substitution of Superstition for religio in a footnote, but I don't think it adequate.

Yes I have that version too, and yes I have always thought that "superstition" was a copout.

I don't think i have ever read the Stallings version, and I don't think i have a copy. I've eventually come to the view that for me there's probably not a single "best" version, and what makes the most sense is to be sure to check a literal one (Martin Ferguson Smith, or Bailey, or Munro) and then compare the other editions to see which option seems most consistent with what seems to be the main thrust of the philosophy. I've grown particularly pleased with the 1734 "Daniel Brown" edition due to some of its editorial decisions.

For example this line has always bothered me from Book 2:

Quote

Munro: "But if we see that these things are food for laughter and mere mockeries, and in good truth the fears of men and dogging cares dread not the clash of arms and cruel weapons, if unabashed they mix among kings and caesars and stand not in awe of the glitter from gold nor the brilliant sheen of the purple robe, how can you doubt that this is wholly the prerogative of reason, when the whole of life withal is a struggle in the dark?"

Bailey: "But if we see that these thoughts are mere mirth and mockery, and in very truth the fears of men and the cares that dog them fear not the clash of arms nor the weapons of war, but pass boldly among kings and lords of the world, nor dread the glitter that comes from gold nor the bright sheen of the purple robe, can you doubt that all such power belongs to reason alone, above all when the whole of life is but a struggle in darkness?

I have always been suspicious of those two on the grounds that I think Epicurus would have been very slow to praise "reason alone" given his views of the role of reason vs the senses. It might be explainable by concluding that Lucretius was referring to "true reason" in the sense of reason tied to the senses, but I think I recall reading that there are instances where he refers to "true reason" but this Latin doesn't include that modifer.

For that reason I prefer the Daniel Browne version:

Quote

But if these things are vain and all grimace, and the truth is that nor the fears of men, nor following cares fly from the sound of alarms or cruel darts, but boldly force their way among the kings and mighty of the earth; nor do they homage pay to shining gold, nor the gay splendor of a purple robe. Do you doubt but all this stuff is want of sense, and all our life is groping in the dark?

I can't recall tonight that I have looked back to see what the Latin looks like, and I am not good enough at Latin to have a strong opinion, but the Daniel Browne translator seems to have my same concern and came up with wording that avoids implying that "logic" or "reason in the abstract" are the things to which to look for a final answer.

Yes Joshua we are going exactly in the same direction. Eating and drinking do produce life-sustaining results, and are at times (most times) pleasurable. But I think if we rigorously track down the WHY of everything we do, we always come back to "the feeling of pleasure" as the reward. Were it not ultimately for the feeling of pleasure, there would be no reason to do anything --- I doubt it is valid even to consider that without the feeling of pleasure we would be mechanisms or robots, because in order to exist I think it is implicit that those machines had intentional creators, the existence of which Epicurean physics would deny.

Although the opening of Lucretius can appear muddy due to the nature of "the gods" I think it's important and correct to lead off with a hymn to "pleasure" as the motivating force of all life.

Although it would be off course and a wide tangent to follow it now, I presume that given the eternal / infinite universe Epicurus would say that it is incorrect to talk about there ever being a "first" pleasure or a "first living thing" --- which I think makes for an interesting topic of conversation (maybe another thread) about the implications of that.

Do you have a copy of the Rolfe Humphries version in full? That's the first one that really hit home to me, as it is the one used in the Audible.com version.

As with all of them there are high spots and low spots, and I think the Humphries version sometimes plays too fast and loose with the meaning. One example that immediately comes to mind is that he made major changes to the famous line about evil being caused by religion which I didn't see any use in doing at all:

Munro: "So great the evils to which religion could prompt!"

Bailey: "Such evil deeds could religion prompt."

Browne: "such Scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!"

Humphries: "A mighty counselor, Religion stood With all that power for wickedness" <<<< That's just WEIRD!

Even the name of the book from "The Nature of Things" to "The Way Things Are" -

- I actually like that, and think it helps convey the intent, but wow that is some literary license!

I agree with all the comments and think that the basic thrust is a problem with definitions. We know what pleasure is because we feel it, but we don't know what "good" means because it is an abstraction. That means our definitions of "good" have to be very careful, and it may not be going too far to say that that was what Epicurus was warning against, and that "good" really has no "intrinsic" meaning at all. Does any abstraction have meaning other than what we say it means? But pleasure is not an abstraction - pleasure is a feeling which we don't require abstractions to perceive.

Today the following has been added to the community standards:

Quote

5) Do not create posts composed of nothing other than links. Any links to locations outside the forum must contain comment on whether they are endorsed or criticized which explain how they relate to the forum. (Added 09/15/19)

This change in policy is implemented to prevent the forum from being flooded with academic posts which argue positions hostile to an activist and positive interpretation of Epicurean philosophy. This rule has not been enforced in the past but as the forum grows in size and there are more posts from newer people, it is not going to be possible to stay on top of every post and read the link to provide immediate commentary. This rule has been adopted over at the Facebook forum with good effect, and it is time to adopt it here.

Very few people are creating posts with nothing but links, and the ones who are doing so currently are doing it with good intent. However we need to look to the future and to apply rules evenhandedly, so that's the reason for this rule.

Note to self: I like memes/graphics with astronauts in them. I think it should be very hard to reconcile "astronaut" with the idea that Epicurus preached quietism, passivism, minimalism, and seclusion.

If I read this article correctly (admittedly I am skimming, because I refuse to devote more time to this) it ends with an endorsement of SKEPITISM. Wow. So the article appears to the another brick in the academic wall of shutting off all hope of pleasurable living by redefining pleasure as nothingness.

All moving toward the same negative goal, as if Epicurus were an angst-ridden snowflake whose only concern was to quell his own fears:

The typical modern call to passivism:

Great -- hope you are doing well!

I see we are back to normal avatar, with dog. Excellent! Dogs are always welcome too - instinctive Epicureans!!

Does that mean that you didn't do well? That would be surprising!

I have only started working on that "feature" of the forum so I hope to put up some more (and harder!) ones!

Caution to readers of this book as to Strodach's personal attitude toward Epicurus:

George Strodach: “Though based on the pleasure-pain principle, it [the life of the sectarian Epicurean] was not what we would ordinarily call a pleasant life. In Nietzche’s terms, it did not say YEA to life but NAY. It was largely negative, escapist, self-protective, and therapeutic. By withdrawing from the active concerns and responsibilities of the citizen, it remained socially and politically immature. These are the traits summed up by Gilbert Murray in his brilliant phrase “the failure of nerve.”” Introduction to “The Philosophy of Epicurus” / “The Art of Happiness.”