Posts by Cassius

You're touching on many many things Godfrey. Some points / questions:

1. You mention Dewitt, Gosling and Taylor, and Wenham. Mentioning Wenham tells me specifically that you have read Wenham's point that pleasure is an "Experience" and that it makes no sense to discuss a pleasure that is somehow not experienced. So we are together there.
2. You mention G & T. I presume you are reading their chapter on K & K that is here in the forum, and not the whole book? If so, keep in mind that while it is good to read that chapter, it is a part of the much longer story of Greek views of pleasure to that point, so you're necessarily "starting in the middle."
3. As to DeWitt, i think I probably know the references you mean.
4. You do not mention Nikolsky. If you will add that to the pot at some point, he does the best job of describing where the division came from (Carneades) so that adds perspective and takes away the otherwise perceived necessity of making Epicurus fit into that box.
5. Also, to add to the maze (I am afraid) I really think it's critical to become at least superficially familiar with the thrust of Philebus. There you will see Plato/Socrates arguing against pleasure as the good in full force, and I think THAT is probably the essential background as much as anything else. Unless we start with the knowledge that the Greeks prior to Epicurus were arguing directly against pleasure being a candidate for "the good" we can make the major mistake of thinking that Epicurus thought that the issue was "a given." In fact it appears to me the opposite was true. Yes Epicurus was giving us who accept the legitimacy of pleasure tips on how to live more pleasurably, but he had a more basic and important goal first -- to establish that pleasure can even be considered as a legitimate goal.
6. So if 5 is true as I think it is, the continuous pleasure part (and this is something DeWitt points out) was intended as a logical argument against Plato more than it was something that was intended as a "practical tip"
   
   (I better save this for a moment - I will add more)

So then YES - I completely agree with this! -->

Quote from Godfrey

Sopleasure is pleasure. Some pleasures are the result of continuouseffort, some are more immediate. Some are mental, some are physical. Some pleasures are attained by removing things (fear of the gods,fear of death, other mental disturbance, illness, etc.) and some byobtaining and/or consuming or doing things (food, water, reading agood book, going skiing). Some are necessary for life, some makelife more fun. Taking care of things that pain our bodies or disturbour minds brings us pleasure: health and serenity are our naturalstates and feel good. When our bodies and minds are free of pain anddisturbance we can especially enjoy other pleasures, particularly ifthey outweigh any pain involved. As the sky has much variety but isall the sky, so goes pleasure.

And I think that is a large part of exactly the conclusion we are supposed to draw, in response to Plato saying that pleasure cannot be the goal because it cannot last (the continuity aspect) and also that some pleasures are of an entirely different type than others (and therefore we need "reason" in order to distinguish and rank them).

And so therefore I think that while the points made here are true ----

Quote from Godfrey

Using my examples above: 1) Havingsettled on a strategy for my finances, there are “chores” which Iperform weekly, some which I perform quarterly, and some that I doevery six months. Notably the chores aren’t necessarilypleasurable in themselves, but they do lead to pleasure/peace ofmind. 2) Having found a solution to a chronic health problem, onemust continuously monitor one’s diet, exercise, sleep, take one’smeds if applicable, etc. 3) Similarly, philosophy requires continuedreading, contemplation and ideally discussion to really take root andflourish.

..... I think it would be a mistake to think that these are the primary reasons that Epicurus made these points. The primary reason for the discussion is that in response to the attacks of other philosophers, "pleasure" must first be established as the legitimate goal in philosophical terms.

In other words we COULD just choose to observe that all young animals, before they are corrupted, pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and we could say "That is all the evidence I need" and the disengage from the philosophical argument as a waste of time.

But Epicurus lived in Athens where the schools were competing, and rightly so, for intellectual dominance, and he was not going to give up the field of intellectual warfare when he saw that he could defeat them on their own terms, and satisfy the intellectual needs of his students to understand why Plato and the others where wrong.

So in sum my point is that yes I think your conclusions as to practical application are correct, but do not forget the background of the argument and why the discussion is needed in the first place. If not for the negative programming we have all received from religion and ascetic philosophies, much of this issue of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain would all be pretty much a matter of "common sense" that a child would be ashamed not to understand.

So it is important not to let the medicine intended to cure the philosophy students trip us up into thinking that there is some art here that is not pretty straightforward. I think it's easy to do that, and to think "Why is he saying all this?" "Surely this is obvious -- he must mean something mysterious. " And I think the answer is again as Torquatus said, that Epicurus was teaching something very simple, but which he expressed in egghead terms in order to help deprogram the eggheads -- which hopefully we can all see and not need after we understand the proofs:

If then the doctrine I have set forth is clearer and more luminous than daylight itself; if it is derived entirely from Nature's source; if my whole discourse relies throughout for confirmation on the unbiased and unimpeachable evidence of the senses; if lisping infants, nay even dumb animals, prompted by Nature's teaching, almost find voice to proclaim that there is no welfare but pleasure, no hardship but pain—and their judgment in these matters is neither sophisticated nor biased—ought we not to feel the greatest gratitude to him who caught this utterance of Nature's voice, and grasped its import so firmly and so fully that he has guided all sane-minded men into the paths of peace and happiness, calmness and repose?

Here's a quick and dirty summary based on Lucretius. Everyone studying Epicurus should have a goal of producing a more accurate one for themselves:

1 - It's pleasure, not "gods," which serves as the guiding force and controls living things in the universe;

2 - Supernatural religion is the true source of most of the evil in the world;

3 - The universe operates naturally, with the ultimate proof being that nothing comes from nothing, nothing goes to nothing, and everything in between arises as the natural function of the movement of the atoms;

4 - The universe is infinite in size, eternal in time, and therefore was never created by any gods

5 - Life is not confined to this earth, but can arise anywhere the conditions are right, and there are innumerable places in the universe like Earth

where conditions are right. God(s) did not create the Earth as someplace special as their plaything.

6 - The soul is made of particles and just as natural as the body, from which it cannot be separate. When the body dies, the soul dies.

7 - Consciousness is based on sensation and ends at death. All that is good or evil comes to us through sensation. When our sensations are over at death, we are over. There is no reward or punishment after death. Therefore THIS life is the only one we have.

8 - Sensations come to us through the movement of atoms. In order to understand how our senses perceive things, we must understand the movement of atoms and how illusions can arise. Once we understand the nature of illusions and perceptions, we can have confidence about which of our conclusions are true, and which much await further information for more understanding.

With all these as the clear foundation of a philosophy, how could anyone conclude anything other than it teaches us that it is supremely important to use our time prudently to live the happiest life possible?

And at the end of your life, is such a person going to be happy looking back and saying to himself "I did my best to escape from pain?" No! It is "pleasure" - broadly understood - that is the beginning and the end of what life is about.

I don't have time right now for anything than just to mark this as a placeholder. If the first paragraph is representative, the author is going to eventually defend Epicurus on parental love, but only after starting out by accepting the representations of a gang of anti-Epicureans. How counterproductive and tiring it is to approach Epicurus in this manner!!

https://t.co/VmfXelzKEt?amp=1

Outstanding - Thank you, good luck, and may Venus smile on every session!

The event is almost here! michelepinto if you are able to post any pictures as they are occurring either here or to Facebook or anywhere else, please let us know so we can discuss the event in real time as it is ongoing! I will make sure we get the pictures out widely.

Welcome @pwmckenna ! When you get a chance please let us know something about your background and interest in Epicurus.

It may be of help for me to say that I do not perceive this to be a view I have personally developed myself. I don't claim any creativity on my own. I attribute the line of thought mainly to Norman DeWitt having started in the 30's his "Epicurus and His Philosophy" (where he himself gives credit to some non-English works). Then the line is developed in Gosling & Taylor's more recent "The Greeks on Pleasure," to which Boris Nikolsky gives credit in his article "Epicurus on Pleasure" which alleges that the katastematic/kinetic distinction is not even Epicurean at all. The same conclusions are reached from a somewhat other direction in Wenham's article "On Cicero's Interpretation of Katastematic Pleasure in Epicurus." And to a lesser extent similar views are implicit or explicit in Frances Wright's "A Few Days In Athens" as endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. All of these are linked at various places here on the forum but if you have any trouble finding them I can provide direct links in this thread.

The problem I see over and over is that people who start their education in Epicurus with Okeefe or many of the internet articles or frankly almost any of the British authorities (I exempt Sedley from this). Those who read that group naturally end up obsessing on the contention that "pleasure doesn't mean pleasure but katastemic pleasure / absence of pain," which I think is close to the root of the problem. Going off in that direction most of that group then give slight attention to the physics and the epistemology, which would have made their error impossible if they had started off with those, as does Lucretius.

Had I not started my study of Epicurus with Norman Dewitt when I started ten years ago, I would have given up on Epicurus as a hopeless ascetic/quietist almost immediately. I think this line of thought best represent what the ancient Greeks and Romans saw in Epicurus, and explains why it became so popular in the ancient world. On the contrary its the emergence of the "modern" academic consensus following Cicero rather than correct Epicurean principles that explains why Epicurean interest has been in the doldrums for many many years. And to paint with a very broad brush, I sense that the problem has been developed and located geographically more in Britain, where Stoicism seems to be in the water, than anywhere else.

Dubitator I have one more recommendation on this issue. Probably the best academic presentation of the views I am advocating is contained in Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure." Here are two clips that summarize their view:

In case it is not clear on first read, they oppose all the views stated in this paragraph, and follow this with four objections that are very persuasive from my view:

And here is their positive statement of the correct construction of what Epicurus taught:

The full chapter can be read here.

My computer crashed when I was on 15 so I will have to come back to 15-41 later, but there are definite echos of Epicurean themes on no life after death and questioning of supernatural gods.

In 14 reference to Lucretius:

In the knowledge of barriers Bresche hit on the experience:
Lucretius and Locke brought us deep revelation:
They succeeded to cover the road to the goal.
Come, let them follow us, in the paths that have been paved, to show
man his own nature,
and finite destiny: let him see how he became,
and grew and matured in us, the spirit, where his whereabouts,
when once fell into dust this earthly body ,
With us he is born, strengthened, unfolds
with our sensory life and transforms himself,
Just as that transforms: tender in childhood,
just like our body, now fiery, cheeky kind,
Daredevil as long as adolescence lifts us;
Zag, flaccid in suffering, and again strongly enlivened,
As soon as it is at ease: plagues him frailty,
When he is reduced, falls into feebleness,
And so he goes with us. Thus
his fate always remains inseparable from our corporeality.

An explicit reference to Epicurus!

https://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/gedichte-5321/9

The Man Caesarions

(August 1745)

What do I hear? God, what a terrible word:

Caesarion is no more! Caesarion is gone!

You have lost the most faithful, best friend!

As if daggers pierce me a thousand times,

my heart twitches

in savage pain.

You are not anymore! that's how it will sound to me forever;

Your love will come to you after nothing.

As I honored you in life, honored,

so you are worth my heartfelt love.

How firmly did you look into the eye of death,

before which every man's heart dreads!

Supported by manly courage, guided,

your pure soul remained untouched

From that illusion of a hell

And a dark future of our soul.

In your happy hours of life you have

found the support of Master Epicurus;

How proud you have risen in death:

Since you outbid Zenos mental power!

Alas, this heart which struck so sublime,

What became of him? Who tells me? Who?

The Spirit

Who Carried Noble Thoughts, Is He Still Lived? Oh, is not he?

God, what a chasm! Everything is destroyed,

His spirit and His goodness! If he lived,

certainly, his shadow, his thought sought

night and death to me, yes, he hovered around

my woeful head: he would have set me up!

Sorrowfully remember, bitter chalice of sorrow!

And imagine, stupid Stoa,

you could be human souls in the long run

against the blows of fate?

How grief-stricken I think,

How strong - how unwavering -

And now, what must I experience now?

Defenseless, I am abandoned to the pain,

Destroyed, almost annihilated in

death by your death. -

Still, quiet! What is the mind still worth,

when it turns against feeling

and increases my grief with bitterness?

He tells me my everything is gone.

So far the world, so empty! And I, I am

orphaned, alone! I loved you so much -

How shadowy did the days blow,

because we, what pleases us, what saddens us,

how brothers divided; because in the same stroke

your heart and mine struck. My luck was yours.

How were we in each and every one, on a

large and a small scale; unclouded and clear,

the friendship sky remained forever.

The cheerfulness has always accompanied you,

your mind, well guided by beautiful books,

has like tamed, chivalrous and tender,

the cheerfulness, which often barks wildly.

It made you worthy of your noble custom

to join the illustrious spirits.

Brilliantly illuminating Hellas and Paris,

Oh, and your heart: to place you among those

whose friendship the songs announce to us, the

little band of high-minded heroes, honored

for their faithfulness.

If I knew how to strike the lyre of Horace,

Truly, the echo of the Parnassus should

lament to me this heart's longing

which remains with you without ceasing;

More than Achates you were, I would say,

More than a Pylades, Pirithous;

So in love fieriest outpouring

Singing should be immortal,

What adorns you throughout your life.

I can see the sun and you no longer!

So it is true, only too true, that he,

the inexorable, without difference, pulls the

most beautiful into nothingness.

Whether value, whether worthless! Honor or shame!

Who asks after that on the Cocytusstrande:

What has Achilles, what Hector Thersites

advance? I, too, are walking at a rapid pace toward

the home, the dark; Days, hours

are how they came, escaped me in flight.

Half way through is the life path,

and close and closer to the target approaches.

Patience! Not much longer lasts, so I greet you

in the dark shadow kingdom, to be heartfelt

With you in gloomy peace-freedom There

the friendship to erneun

And on and on

you to be close to loving.

But as long as

fate holds me captive in this world ,

your image will never be forgotten.

So long there's no luck, which ever

relieves Me my burning pain.

Let

my head lower me under your grave-cypresses ; unmeasured

Let my painful desires be!

There I want hot tears of heart

And sigh of you from never

longed sinews And deep-felted songs christmas,

With myrtles then and flowers - look, it still shine

my tears on it - Your grave wreath.

And yet, I blissfully

expose him , The serene forehead with the nobility of the soul

Death may face death,

A knight without fear and reproach.

From the third Rheinsberg (October 30, 1737)

(all my pastes here will be google translate):

O you who are my only deity,
you God of joy, reward my faithfulness!
Give me what is the summit of all pleasures,
O give, that in the midst of enjoyment
a blessed forgetfulness and rapture
delight me to ever new desires!

I see Frederick's poem can be found in part here: https://www.historytoday.com/frederick-greats-erotic-poem and perhaps in full (in German) here: https://www.zeit.de/2011/38/Schossgebet

If this is indeed a basically a very direct poem / love letter targeted at a particular lover, that would also lead me away from, rather than toward, considering Frederick a full and complete Epicurean philosopher.

Argh! I just noticed that the lines in this version rhyme, which indicates to me that the writer has not translated it literally, and that causes me to wonder whether this is accurate to the meaning:

Quote

From Königsberg to Monsieur Algarotti, Swan of Padua
This night, vigorous desire in full measure,
Algarotti wallowed in a sea of pleasure.
A body not even a Praxitiles fashions
Redoubled his senses and imbued his passions
Everything that speaks to eyes and touches hearts,
Was found in the fond object that enflamed his parts.
Transported by love and trembling with excitement
In Cloris’ arms he yields himself to contentment
The love that unites them heated their embraces
And tied bodies and arms as tightly as laces.
Divine sensual pleasure! To the world a king!
Mother of their delights, an unstaunchable spring,
Speak through my verses, lend me your voice and tenses
Tell of their fire, acts, the ecstasy of their senses!
Our fortunate lovers, transported high above
Know only themselves in the fury of love:
Kissing, enjoying, feeling, sighing and dying
Reviving, kissing, then back to pleasure flying.
And in Knidos’ grove, breathless and worn out
Was these lovers’ happy destiny, without doubt.
But all joy is finite; in the morning ends the bout.
Fortunate the man whose mind was never the prey
To luxury, or grand airs, one who knows how to say
A moment of climax for a fortunate lover
Is worth so many aeons of star-spangled honour.

Display More

Frederick's father was portrayed very nastily in that movie, Martin, at least in the way that he treated his son. If you have seen it or ever get a chance to I would be very interested in your commentary.

I just happened to come across this following link in my morning reading due to a link from Elayne:

https://theconversation.com/humans-arent-d…p-trying-119262

I cite it here because I believe THIS is the real issue we are discussing here. We are discussing a conflict between basic views of life in which one side is arguing that there are no gods and no ideal forms, and the in fact only the feeling of pleasure is given us by nature for purposes of us learning to live happy life. The other side, exemplified by Stoicism but also by most of the rest of Greek and non-Greek religion and philosophy, rejects happiness as the goal and asserts something else. They aren't any smarter than you or anyone else is -- they just want you to "stop trying." Sheep who "stop trying" are much easier to slaughter.

The redefinition of "pleasure" as "tranquillity" is in my mind just another arrow in the quiver of opponents of Epicurus. The world is full of ascetics preaching resignation and withdrawal and the impossibility of happiness. I don't believe Epicurus would ever have emerged from all that muck to make the mark that he did if in fact he did not rebel against every single bit of that.

My view on that, Dubitator, is on several levels:

I first ask myself - Who is likely to understand Epicurus better? We today who have only fragments plus a huge assortment of negative commentary from opposing schools? Or ancients who had full access to texts and living, competent, Epicurean teachers in the direct line of the Epicurean school? To me that answer is clear.

I next ask myself - What is more consistent with the basic Epicurean view of the universe? If this life we have is the only one we will ever have, does it not make the most sense to live this life to the fullest? Would any sane person knowing that this is his only opportunity for pleasure willingly sacrifice himself to oppression when alternatives are available? To me that answer is clear too.

And I also ask myself - When there are alternative ways of interpreting the existing texts, why would one not interpret them consistently with the examples from the past and the Epicurean view of the universe? The passivist/quietist viewpoint can certainly be supported by taking some texts and elevating them outside of their original context. But the full context of all Epicurus' writings makes clear that "pleasure" and not quietism or even tranquillity is the goal. it is only by adopting a non-intuitive definition of "pleasure" that people can say with a straight face that Epicurus advocated tranquillity as the goal of life when he was also saying that “I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.”  

Again citing back to your original question, I myself conclude that in an atomistic universe where there are no absolute guideposts but only contextual pleasure and pain, no position can be construed to be consistent with that starting point which attempts to assert ANY absolute guideline but looking to the ultimate result of the action and judging it in terms of pleasure and pain. That is what Epicurus said over and over and that is what makes sense based on his starting point.

And Epicurus also said over and over that death is nothing to us because it is the absence of feeling. The logical implication of that is that life is all about feeling, and that means feeling the rewards of pleasure and the negative aspects of pain. "Feeling" is something we all understand, just like all young animals do before they are perverted -- I am of course citing here from the opening of the Torquatus narrative of "On Ends." There is no way in my mind that feeling - based on the bedrock of sensation which is again stressed over and over - can be reasonably mutated into quietism / passivism / meditation-above-all-things.

And to close this particular post I would cite Torquatus' question that describes the ultimate life. This is not a life of withdrawal and resignation but one of active pleasure:

The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

I have collected cites that support this argument in this article: The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model

Quote from Dubitator314

I thought along those lines with respect to his admonition to avoid the public life due to the chaotic times after the death of Alexander the Great,

I think this, along with all the "crisis of confidence" generalizations about this period of Greek history, is part of the popular modern mythology that is incorrect, at least as it applies to Epicurus. There were Epicureans involved in court government (in that of Antiochus Epiphanes, for example) and there are the well known examples of Cassius Longinus personally and other Epicureans with the camps of the Roman civil war (Horace). Those men had full access to all Epicurean teachings and were by all account confirmed in their Epicurean beliefs, and they were in the center of public controversies.

As with the question that started the thread, the question is one of context, and in my view an Epicurean who sees it in his or her interest to do so can be just as involved in political affairs as anyone else. Of course if someone wants to look at this from the Stoic perspective of devoting oneself to "public service" or "the good of the state" and wants everyone to be a good political drone, they are going to look at Epicurus and be disappointed.

Even this clip from Epicurus.net, while citing the example of Antiochus Epiphanes' court, wants to take the position that we today better understand Epicurus than those who lived and breathed the authentic ancient tradition.

Joshua your deep dive into the words reminds me that it is not clear to me whether Epicurus is referring here to a philosophic leader of a school, like himself, or to a more or less average person who, while wise, has not set out on a course of leading a school. I could easily imagine that the advice would differ according to these categories. Marriage might be fully appropriate for Metrodorus' daughters while not appropriate for someone dedicating them to leading a philosophic movement.

Consistent with the premises of the philosophy it is probably a guaranteed error to ever conclude that there is a "one size fits all" rule in any area of life. Only feeling itself - pleasure and pain - are entitled to the role of providing an ultimate standard - all else is contextual in support of the ultimate goal.