Posts by Cassius

And applying that last observation about heaps and waterfalls to the statement in the letter to Menoeceus:

"When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind."

Given that we know that Epicurus DOES accept the pleasures of profligates and the pleasures of sensuality as pleasures, the better interpretation of what he is saying is incorporate Epicurus's position on the heap/river questions, to the effect that:

We should not identify the concept of pleasure as being limited ONLY to the particular pleasures of profligates or sensuality (such as sex, food, drink, etc) because that is not our definition of pleasure as the goal. The concept of Pleasure, which we take as our definition of the ultimate good, includes NOT ONLY those particular pleasures but ALSO all other pleasures, such as those of the mind, literature, art, calmness, etc. This "Pleasure as the good" does not exist as a Platonic ideal, it exists and is recognized only by our perception of many particular pleasures. The unifying characteristic of any set of particular pleasures is not that they reflect or partake of some ideal Platonic form or Aristotelian essence, but that we feel it to be pleasure, rather than feeling it to be pain.

It has always made sense to mentally insert an "ONLY" so as to read "When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean ONLY the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality..." given that we know that sensuality and even the things that profligates do are pleasurable. But placing this sentence in the context of the sorites/heap/waterfall/river question gives us a context in which to supply the missing "only." Waterfalls and rivers and heaps are not ONLY individual grains of sand or drops of water, they are a composite of the individual particles. Pleasure is not ONLY sensuality, but it is also all feelings of all experiences in life which are not painful, because that is a necessary deduction from there being only two feelings, pleasure or pain, into one of which category all feelings must be placed.

You can't recognize heaps or waterfalls or rivers without recognizing their components, and you can't recognize Pleasure as the good without recognizing all the individual pleasures of which the concept of Pleasure is composed.

Just to add this as a note for future thought and discussion, what we talk about in this podcast plays into our recent discussion of the sorites / heap question and how that is related both to the waterfall / bathing in the same river questions. And both of those play into the issue of seeing pleasure as both the composite ultimate good while also consisting of individual feelings of pleasure.

When Epicurus asked how he should recognize the good if not for the pleasures of sex, food, etc, that is essentially the same question as "how should he recognize a waterfall or a river if not for the drops of water that compose it?"

The point would not be that we should consider any individual drops of water to make up the whole waterfall, or any individual pleasures to make up the whole of good, but that the parts and the whole are both real and inseparably connected.

Our natural faculties allow us to assemble the notion of a "waterfall" or a "river" from the perceptions of the individual drops of which the waterfall or river is composed. Likewise, our natural faculties (perceptions and minds) allow us to assemble "the good" from the individual pleasures of which the notion of "the good" is composed. There is no conflict between saying that both individual drops and waterfalls exist and are real to us. Likewise it is proper to say that both individual pleasures and the overall concept of the good as pleasure exist and are real to us.

And just like a waterfall or a river or a heap exists through the movement of the particles that compose it, at least one type of living being could he held to exist indefinitely, analogous to a river or waterfall, if it could find a way to constantly replenish the movement of the particles that compose it.

But for the ethics question, which concerns more people today than the god question does, the point would be that the abstract good of pleasure can be said to exist only because it is a composite of all the constantly moving and changing particular pleasures that compose it. Were we to try to separate out all the individual physical and mental pleasures that compose it (such as sex, food, drink, calmness, delight, tranquility, etc) we would have nothing left by which to recognize the good. The concept of Pleasure as the good does not exist as a Platonic ideal, it exists and is recognized only by our perception of "Pleasure" as a composite many particular pleasures, in the same way that we perceive "heaps" or "waterfalls" or "rivers" as composites of many grains of sand or drops of water.

Quote from Julia

What gives you your certainty that this was not the case?

I may misunderstand your question (as to what "this" refers to), but my point of view is that while gosh knows a consensus of scholars over hundreds if not thousands of years can be wrong about major things, in this case there are few if any others who have held that Lucretius was anything but sincere in his admiration for Epicurus and his intent to convey Epicurus' philosophy faithfully. I am not aware of any significant writer who has ever taken any other position.

Further, in this case it's not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with what Lucretius is saying. Most scholars don't agree with Lucretius, but here the issue is not agreeing or disagreeing with doctrine, but interpreting Lucretius' "tone." Yes Lucretius uses a satirical tone in criticizing the opponents of Epicurus, but he's never disrespectful of Epicurean views.

It's almost always possible to argue many sides of the same question, so I am preferring a charitable interpretation of THM's argument. Yes Lucretius uses satire, but the purpose of the book is not to conform to a literary genre of satire, but to convey Epicurean philosophy using the poetic form.

Maybe THM ends up that way in his book, but if his book goes in the same direction as certain commens in the video, I doubt I will spend the time to read the book. No doubt it contains some good nuggets of information, but if the ultimate point is that "Lucretius was not sincere in his attempt to teach Epicurean philosophy faithfully" then I think THM picked an insurmountable mountain to try to climb.

I understand we have two significant birthdays today! Happy birthday Joshua and...

Happy Birthday to Joshua! Learn more about Joshua and say happy birthday on Joshua's timeline: Joshua

Ok I've watched the full video. Here's my commentary:

The main thrust of the video with which I can completely agree seems to be that "satire" is used in Lucretius. Clearly Lucretius does "make fun" of opposing schools in a number of passages in the book.

However the title of the book "Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matters" and several comments in the video indicate that THM is making an argument that the entire poem should be taken less than seriously, and that it's more of a literary "satire" in the mode of Horace or similar, where it's maybe a side point to "make the world a better place" but the main point is more something like that of displaying the writer's literary talents.

Obviously I don't agree with that last point, but I can't tell how deeply the book goes into specifically arguing that Lucretius was in fact not a devoted Epicurean attempting to teach Epicurean philosophy, and that instead he was merely a poet following his muse to create a work of art.

If you're the kind of person who finds that kind of literary argument interesting, then you'll probably find the video interesting. If you're not, then you won't.

I do want to state that I was pleased to see that THM did include reference to his article on the size of the sun, and what he said was I thought "spot on" with his article: To say, as Epicurus' opponents did, that Epicurus thought the actual size of the sun was no greater than a "foot" or a basketball is absurd. Epicurus is quoted as saying that the sun is "the size that it appears to be" and this can easily be argued to be consistent with Epicurus always calling attention to the senses, and that the senses have to be used and processed properly, much as we have to process what a tower looks like up close to understand why it looks different at a distance.

I'll find a link to that article and link it here, with my recommendations that it's well worth reading.

Thread

"Lucretius on the Size of the Sun", by T.H.M. Gellar-Goad

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2792/

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2793/

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/2794/

I've just received this collection of essays, published in February, with an excellent paper concerning the size of the sun by one T.H.M. Gellar-Goad.

I may attempt an outline; in the meantime, here's a good bit toward the end;

[…]

aporia; doubt, or a difficulty in resolving the available data into established truth.

The author is thoroughly familiar with Epicurean…

Joshua

June 9, 2022 at 6:04 PM

Thanks Julia for pointing out this video, as I had not seen it.

Always keeping in mind here that his article on Epicurean views of the size of the sun is excellent.

To the extent he is arguing that Lucretius employs satire in his argument I have no problem with what I am hearing. To the extent he is arguing that Lucretius is not a devoted Epicurean and considers Epicurean philosophy cynically and as a laughing matter, I just respectfully think he is flat wrong.

But I am only 20 minutes in

Thanks for posting that - we have heard of and discussed Professor Gellat-Goad before, but I am not aware of this video. Will review and comment further later!

Eikadistes you are considerably younger than I am. Are the implications of "feeling no pain" changing among younger people? Would very young people today jump to the same association that "feeling no pain" still means "stoned" or "under the influence of some drug"?

Info from Joshua:

Julius Caesar | Act 4, Scene 2

If you do a control F search for 'Portia' it will take you to the part of the scene where Brutus first informs Cassius of his wife's death, and subsequently pretends not to know of it when a messenger brings news.

I was listening to an old song earlier this week, and one set of lyrics struck me as worthy of discussion here:

Quote from Harry Chapin: Sequel

You see, ten years ago it was the front seat
Drivin' stoned and feelin' no pain
Now here I am straight and sittin' in the back
Hitting Sixteen Parkside Lane

I think those lyrics are now so ingrained in me that I will never be able to disassociate use of the term "feeling no pain" in conversation from "feeling stoned." And I associate "stoned" as meaning "on drugs."

I expect that a lot of readers here will understand this association, but maybe this terminology has passed out of common usage and younger people don't feel the same association.

So this is a question to which I'd appreciate feedback. I expect different answers from different people, but I don't know exactly how those differences will break down.

I expect at some point this association won't be so automatic, and with the passing of boomers and subsequent generations the old association will break down. But I don't know how to test this other than ask.

The question is: To what extent does hearing someone say that they are "feeling no pain" automatically invoke an association that what they mean is that they are "stoned?"

Great catch! You don't see that in the duplicates but it adds to the piercing serious effect.

Thanks for replying Shier! Happy to have you here and look forward to hearing more from you.

Welcome Shierprism !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Well after further thought.... Social Media Can Be Anti-Epicurean - 101 Reasons Why (?)

It definitely has its uses when kept under control, and in the end this is probably another example of how a tool is neutral and its results for pleasure or pain depends on context / how it is used.

I suspect my comments seem self-contradictory but I think it's an essential point. The problems which we're pointing out result from how it is used. If used with great care, it can be very powerful for pleasure. We would not be here today in this forum were it no for the Facebook of the 2010 era.

I altered the thread title slightly to firm it up rather than say "considering," but I'm still not necessarily happy that "Social Media's Anti-Epicurean Aspects" is the ultimate title. Julia feel free to continue to adjust, especially with the goal of making it something that people are likely to find by searching. Given the content of the thread and the strong consensus I think most of us have that social media has major negative issues, I thought "considering" might not be strong enough.

Thank you Don! Looking forward to it.

Great post Julia! That really develops the detail of what I think most of us sense to be true but have not fully expressed. I'll look for a way to pin this one for greater exposure, and I also wonder if it doesn't point to the need for additional steps or conclusions of some kind.