Posts by Cassius

Life goes by so quickly and time is so short. I want to read that article as soon as I can but haven't yet..... What i AM convinced of, without reading the article, is that that's probably an Epicurus vs Plato debate going through the heart of the music issue.

I don't listen to Dave Ramsey very often anymore due to schedule changes, but I have to agree with you that his advice is generally very sound. He wears his religion on his sleeve and would say that it's inseparable probably, but if you can filter that out then a lot of what he says is helpful. Listening to some of the people who call in is pretty eye-opening about how stupid people can be. The one area that I found substantive disagreement with him was his confidence in real estate, and actually confidence in the stock market in general, always going up over the long term. I personally haven't been making "investments" of that nature in a long time, and I think his advice is probably the kind that gets people overconfident and in trouble. (I'm writing this mostly from my non-philosophical perspective, and maybe I ought not comment at all since I haven't listened recently. There are probably other objectional aspects -- as with his "Endorsed Local providers" and chummy relationship with people he pushes. )

Very nice!

Eikadistes - You kind of got the ball rolling on the subject of music with your music theory post, in response to my question about major and minor key. But aside from Post 11 above Music Theory And Epicurean Philosophy I am not sure I recall your weighing at a "high level" on this Philodemus discussion. I know I am distracted and probably making mistakes because I am not focused on this enough, but I would be interested in your (or any others' comments) organized like this:

(1) What philosophical positions on music were taken by pre-Epicurean / non-Epicurean Greek philosophers?

(2) What position did Epicurus take in response to those previous philosophers' positions? (I am presuming that Philodemus is following Epicurus, which I think we should presume unless there is some clear evidence otherwise, else this whole discussion is pretty hopeless.)

Other that questions which would arise from Epicurean rejection of Platonic idealism, such as "Can music embody a particular idea?" I don't even have a clear picture of what the issues are.

(I edited this to reference post eleven, and combine three questions into two.)

Ell I what do you understand the point of this material to be?

When I read a sentence like "The Epicureans do not underestimate music for lack of culture; to them, only philosophy counts", that means nothing to me at all, and I tend think the lack of meaning arises from the mangling of the text rather than from Philodemus.

I need to spend more time rereading the old academic article that Ed Lee posted because I am not comfortable with any of this yet. I will accept that the fault is mine but I can't yet with confidence state even the most basic position that is supposedly being made by Philodemus on music.

Unless I see exact quotes, with notes as to which words we're perfectly clear and which words were guessed at or even made up, very little of this has much credibility with me.

And one point keeps coming back to me: that these commentators Sen to agree that it was Philodemus' method to quote his enemies followed by his own views and go back and forth. Unless the surviving text is very clear it's possible that what it appears Philodemus is says may be him quoting something he does not believe.

But my main point is that unless we have a clear statement of what words were clear and what were "reconstructed" the final product is little more than speculation.

Correct. I have not set up an author account there, mostly as a matter of time priorities rather than for any other reason.

Hiram I am not saying this in frustration at you but at the situation - I want to see QUOTES!!

Unfortunately it's not at the top of my list to find a decent scanner, OCR, and then work through Google translate. At some point I probably will, but in the meantime I just have to wait before I form a firm opinion.

Quote from Hiram

Philodemus said that as far as philosophy, it heals through words, and I think I remember seeing the word logos.

I can imagine the possibility that he said exactly that, but I would not presume that he is endorsing words as the only way of engaging in philosophy. Is the study of nature limited to words, or is it not done primarily through the senses. Is the study of nature different from philosophy, or is one a part of the other? There are so many opportunities for false starts if we don't have reliable quotations.

Mousikos I read back through the thread to try to be sure I understand your point, but I am not sure that I do. Can you clarify what it is you are agreeing or disagreeing with. We are talking in layers here without quotes form Philodemus to be certain of what we are talking about. That's what bothers me about the whole issue of using these texts, though I understand and share the desire to try to use them.

I don't really know WHAT Philodemus is saying without precise texts to dissect.

So my question Mousikos is could you state more clearly your view? Are you disagreeing with Hiram's statement that music needs Words/Philosophy in order to be "healing"?

If that is what Philodemus said I would probably disagree with it too, but it's hard to even talk about this without listing out what Philodemus said with some degree of quotation.

Welcome @raytie ! When you get a chance, please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background and interest in Epicurus.

The groups are the only reason I am still there too - I try to never post anything personal

Joshua -- I agree with everything you wrote. We've had some people on the Epicurean boards over the years criticize the swerve, and I personally was a little disappointed that it did not spend more time on the basics of the philosophy. But that's looking a gift horse in the mouth - the Swerve introduced a lot of people to Epicurus and is generally very good (maybe more of a history of the middle ages, in some ways ) And although I haven't watched them in a while, if I recall correctly Mr. Greenblatt did some very good videos as well.

I think I could predict that those who first find out about Epicurus through the Swerve, and then read DeWitt before reading anything else, are probably the class most likely to grasp Epicurus most quickly and without many unnecessary detours.

Again, please feel free to make general comments here in this thread, but if you have a specific movie/book/character you would like to discuss, please start a thread here: Discussion of Movies / Books / Artwork Posing Questions Related to Pursuit of Pleasure

So Greenblatt wrote a book about Epicurus before the Swerve? I know I should google but if you could point the way....

Quote from JAWS

I’m having a really hard time coming up with a character from a movie or literature who I think would be a decent depiction of Epicurean ethics, though. Can you?

JAWS has asked this question and it is a great way to come up with threads on separate books and movies.

If you have a suggestion to make, could you please start a thread in THIS forum: Discussion of Movies / Books / Artwork Posing Questions Related to Pursuit of Pleasure

Please start a thread with a title something like: "Gone With The Wind" - Scarlett O'Hara

That's simply an example and maybe not a good choice

But I think this would work best if each suggested Movie/Work/Character had a thread of their own, and we come back over time to develop each thread, rather than smash every suggestion into a single thread. We could go on and on and on with this topic on many different movies/works of art.

OK?

(As one example of a good depiction, although not in fiction, think of the depiction of Atticus in the "Life of Atticus" by Cornelius Nepos, which describes in detail how a devoted Epicurean lived many aspects of his life.)

Quote from JJElbert

. I'm a long-haul trucker with a BA in the humanities (a double major in History and English Literature, more specifically).

I do ALL my best thinking when I am driving!!

Quote from JJElbert

When a Harvard Professor I quite admired (from Will in the World) wrote a book on Epicureanism, I was intrigued. I read it. I read it again. I ordered a copy of Lucretius and read that; and when I soon after read the seminal work of Norman Wentworth DeWitt, I was converted. It was strange; I had been to Herculaneum. To Athens. How had I missed all this?

Wow - I want to know more! Who was the Harvard professor to whom you refer?

As to audiobooks, a large part of my "conversion" came from listening to Lucretius via Chartleton Griffin's version at Audible.com. Today I find it a little to "over the top" for my taste, but LISTENING to it read, without my having to pace and reconstruct the sentence structure in my mind, was the first time I really made progress with Epicurean philosophy.

There is a very useful discussion going on about this at the Facebook page, and there are posts there which really need to be preserved for future reference, against the day that Facebook decides to delete that group. I dislike linking to the facebook page, and I also dislike cutting and pasting from other places to here, but sometimes it's necessary. When that discussion cools down I will find a way to preserve the core parts so that the discussion can continue here. In the meantime:

HumanismPost.pdf

JJEbert I am not an expert on poetry so my reaction is not worth much, but it immediately strikes me that what you are saying is *understandable.* I I think you are off to a good start!

Welcome Joshua ! I see that you have already posted, but when you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus.

Also - and I know this is one of your favorite sayings, Hiram, that we should not use "empty words." In naming a philosophy or an outlook, the word is intended to summarize the core idea. Probably if one were looking for a single word for Epicurus, the word would be more like "Naturist" or something that identifies the entire sweep of the philosophy - even more so than "pleasure." Putting the word "Human" in that role puts more pressure on it than it can bear, because there is so much more to the universe than humanity. Yes, all that really matters to us is "us," and from a certain perspective "man is the measure of all things" but I don't think Epicurus would have looked at it that way.

If Epicurus had thought that gods created the universe he would have been a theist. If Epicurus thought that there were a realm of ideas he would have been a Platonist. If Epicurus had thought that playing word-games was of supreme importance he would have been a Stoic. But I think he was focused on the big picture of physics, epistemology, and ethics, and selecting out "human" from the picture ends up misrepresenting what it is all about. In fact it begs the question of categories as well, because how do we know what a "human" is, or how a human should live, without answering all those other questions?

I know you are right that most people consider Epicurean philosophy to be both Humanist and Hedonist, but I think it's our job as Epicureans to point the way to a more clear understanding of the big picture. We are not subsets of them - they are a false and narrowed perspective that stand in the way of a more complete understanding.

Let's anticipate an argument: "You can't cite Nietzsche for an Epicurean position! Nietzsche thought that suffering (pain!) was good, and Epicurus thought that ABSENCE of pain was the greatest good."

To unwind that you would have to step through many issues, but here are two important ones:

(1) Epicurus said that we specifically at times choose pain, when the choice leads to greater pleasure or less pain in the end. Epicurus did not advocate the elimination of the ability to feel pain - that would be anaesthesia or death.

(2) Despite what the choir of academics say, "absence of pain" is not the definition of the Epicurean goal for living. The Epicurean goal of living is "pleasure," and "pleasure" and "absence of pain" are not strict equivalents. Epicurus is very clear throughout his writing that pleasure is a *feeling* that all of us understand through our senses. "Absence of pain" is (in my view) best understood as a *concept* which has an important use in showing that pleasure has a limit and can thus be defined as the goal of life.

Concepts are abstractions useful for producing pleasure; concepts are not pleasures in themselves. Words on a page are not pleasures unless we experience them. The reason it is useful to establish a "limit of pleasure" conceptually is to deal with irritants like Plato and Seneca who chatter that nothing can be considered a highest conceptual goal if it can be made better by adding something else to it (i.e., if it has no "limit"). Epicurus points out that all experience is either pleasurable or painful, so when pains are eliminated from experience, then experience is by definition full of pleasures. At that point, experience has conceptually reached its limit of pleasure - its fullest potential - and the Platonists and Aristotelians and humanists are left to walk around endlessly arguing about the meaning of "good."