Posts by Cassius

Very interesting quotes.

Got to hand it to this guy that I think he's as wrong as he can be, but he follows ever wrong lead to its logical conclusion!

Quote from bradley.whitley

As much as we ascribe good and bad to hypothetical states of being,

I think over time that is one of the most important lessons of all. How can there be something good and bad in itself, if there is no central authority stamping "good" and "bad" on it? Which means that ultimately it's only pleasure and pain given to us by Nature that serves as the "stamper." But then we go and get confused and think that our particular stamp does or should apply to everyone. Yes it's true that it does seem to apply to people who are like ourselves, but to people who are raised or for whatever reason see things differently, their view is as justified for them as our view is to us.

Have a blessed day, Brad!

Quote from Daniel

the command of God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

Even if the heavens were to open and Jesus were to appear to me personally I would never buy that this was a legitimate position for "God" to take.

Link to the full text of the book: St Paul and Epicurus

Not everyone is interested in this topic, but many people are, and those may find that a connection between Epicurus and apparently-obscure verses in the Bible will push them over the line into reading more about Epicurus.

So in the interest of preparing a list of "highlights," let's prepare a list of the verses, with the verse itself, that DeWitt suggests refers to Epicurus or Epicurean philosophy. DeWitt has a table of all verses cited in his book on page 194. It appears, however, that this is a full table of all verses referenced, and most readers will be more interested in only that selection that seems to directly refer to Epicurus.

Here is a link to view the table being worked on at Google Docs. If you would like to help add to the list, please send me a private message and I will send you a link with edit capability. Thanks!

Excellent stuff Elli ---

Before I forget where I was going originally, let me put this back out there again. Did the Greek gods feel pain? Did a Greek god ever choose to die? Is it possible that an Epicurean god could die if he chose, and feel pain if he chose, but simply chooses not to and has the ability to carry out that choice?

I think the practical application of that question is as above: "What, in Epicurus view, did "the gods" have that humans cannot experience? Is the only or main difference that the gods can experience pleasure longer and with more variation? Our variation is limited by our lifespan, in that we cannot control our atoms so as to self-renew our bodies. The "gods" can do that, and thus have unlimited variation.

Is it possible that this perhaps the main difference between us and the Epicurean "gods"? That may not be at all true, but if it were, certain comments like the "gods among men" comment would be more understandable.

Yes I live in a similar community and people many people here like nothing better than talking about possible identifies of Antichrists, and "Princes of Power of Air" and stuff like that

Oscar I think you are right that the days of the free-market-libertarian "my money is as good as yours" approach are over. With the flood of information available to so many people we now see very clearly what is behind a particular product or service, and we know the political agendas of those with whom we deal.

This is a two-edged sword and people of all political persuasions can play it, but I don't think there is any getting this sword back in its scabbard, and I doubt that would be a good idea if we could. We're all just going to have to deal with the ramifications of a free flow of information. I think the total result of that will be much for the good, and that this is going to assist everyone in applying the last two PD's.

39. The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another....

Quote from Daniel

a happy accident of chance

Same comment on this as before in my reference to A.A. Long. I think it is a common theme among religious opponents of Epicurus that they like to attribute the fact of life to "chance" rather than to the natural properties of the elements. "Chance" seems to carry a derogatory weight that they like to exploit.

Elli also what about the point of whether any gods in Greek religion died, or chose to die?

Do I take it to be obvious that the Greek gods experienced pain of some degree, in that they were always fighting among themselves and being mad at each other?

Again, I am wondering about the context that was familiar to Epicurus when he started thinking about this subject.

You said a lot there Elli but here's one among many:

What do the gods have that humans cannot experience but more variation? Our variation is limited by our lifespan, in that we cannot control our atoms so as to self-renew our bodies. The "gods" can do that, and thus have unlimited variation.

But as Epicurus said, variation, while desirable, does not fill a vessel past the point of being full. The gods have an unlimited sized vessel, ours is of limited size. Is this perhaps the main difference between us and "the gods"?

Elayne, I completely agree with your view stated this and similar ways: "For me it is more like I have pleasures _in spite of_ unavoidable pains of the past or present, not _because of_ these pains. "

The part where I am not sure is that saying that we only have pleasure because of the existence of pain (and therefore we need pain) might not be the only way to read what Wright is saying. (Although I agree that it seems she is saying that)

Where I am thinking there may be validity is to ask a similar question:

Does matter exist because there is void? Does void exist because there is matter? It may be that Wright senses that Epicurus was saying that reality is the way it is because of Nature and that we should be grateful to Nature that reality is the way it is (various sayings I think would support that including the one to the effect of being grateful that what is good is easy to get and what is bad is not ....... -- I need the exact translation here.

So it might be possible that Wright is extrapolating from that.

Here it is:

From Elli:

When the parents feel the great pain of the loss of their child the psychologists suggest "the displacement" i.e. the transference of their feelings of love that had for their lost child to the rest of the children in their family. This procedure produces a healthy family environment and IMO is the real doctor that is able to cure their wound.

For the parents to lose their child is a great pain indeed, because it rejects the parents' hope to feel and share their child's pleasures in the future...But in parallel, the same parents reject the pleasures that they've shared with that lost child in the past.

This loss of their child rejects the feeling of the continuity of their genes in the present and in future...But in parallel, they reject that they may have in their family and other children that continue their genes in the present and in future. When the parents lose their child they also feel as being empty-handed and all the efforts they did were in vain... But in parallel, they reject their offering that was this great gift that is called LIFE to a child as long as was alive. Since they do not see that for a being for not living at all, it is like the darkness of the abyss.

Those parents also feel guilty and remorse that they did not offer more things and feelings to that lost child when was alive... But in parallel, they are focusing on the suffering and not on the pleasurable moments they offered and shared with the child when was alive. And if the parents have other children, with their continuous mourn, they make the other of their children to feel guilty and remorse too when those children want to feel pleasure in their life... So in parallel, those parents reject the fact to feel and share the pleasures with the other of their children and the real fact of the continuity of parents' genes that is still remaining in the present and in the future. For this reason, we see also many cases when the parents have lost a child, they're going to the procedure to have a new one.

I had the experience to lose my brother in a car crash, and through the empathy Ι felt my mother's pain that was indescribable, but during the time of the years that have passed, her great pain was decreased through the sharing of the pleasurable feelings of love with me, my sister and our children, i.e. her grandchildren as a real fact in the continuity of her family in the present and in future.

So, in that painful situation when the parents lost a child and have no other children or can't have a new one, it might be helpful and pleasurable to those parents for being more closely to their relatives' children for sharing the happiness and love they've lost. For this reason, the other relatives might be beneficial and good for them to speak to their children to be more closed to those relatives that had lost their only child.

For this Epicurus remarks in the starting point of his letter to Meneoceus: "we must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it".

Yes, positively, the transference of parents' feelings of love that had for their lost child, and as they are offering this love to the rest of the children in their family is going along with all the efforts to win their happiness again. And that is because Epicurus is sure that happiness is connected with pleasure, and it is so recognizable as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure, we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. So, pleasure is born within us, it remains inside us as long as we live, and its power shows up, as it is enriched and developed when is shared with the next others.

More from Elayne:

Thinking about my own life, I do not sense that the ability to experience pleasure requires pain first. Pleasure is a positive, active sensation, not only a relief from prior pain. There have been at least some times in my life when I have had no pain of body or mind, only pleasure, but when this was a less intense pleasure-- like the satisfaction at the end of a good day-- I was still able to feel bursts of more intense pleasure, such as when seeing beautiful colors of a sunset. When I am satisfied, I feel no urge to go looking for more pleasure-- which is, we think, dopamine related, the wanting. But already being completely happy does not prevent me from feeling "liking" pleasure (serotonin, oxytocin, endocannabinoids, endorphins?) if it happens to show up.

I think of pain as a danger signal of injury or impending injury-- which would have evolved because heeding it helped humans avoid damage. We pull away from a hot fire instead of being burned.

It just doesn't feel intuitively correct to me to think I would need to be burned before I could enjoy a pleasurable skin sensation-- or that I would need to lose a loved one to feel the pleasure of love.

What the knowledge of possible loss does is add some sense of urgency-- pleasure now or maybe never-- but I generally enjoy pleasure more when I am _not_ thinking about losing it. Urgency has a slightly anxious quality that's not pleasant. So I don't like to use that anticipation of grief on myself-- the Stoic practice.

Talking about pain as if it is necessary for contrast, to make pleasure possible, instead of necessary as a warning signal IF damage happens or is imminent -- that is what leads people to think they need a "balance" of pain and pleasure. I had not gotten that impression from Epicurus.

I definitely don't expect life to be free of pain-- that's not realistic. But I do a lot better when I don't imagine happiness requires pain. From trial and error.

For me it is more like I have pleasures _in spite of_ unavoidable pains of the past or present, not _because of_ these pains. There's a big difference.

Quote from Godfrey

Can our Greek friends provide any insight on this point?

Another specific point on which our Greek friends might help would be: "Is there precedent in Greek religion for a god dying (or choosing to die)?

I don't think that would be determinative of what Epicurus thought, because he clearly rejected many/most of the common attributes of gods, but if there are examples of such things (in Homer especially?) then that might be evidence to add to the discussion.

We presume that gods must be omnipotent and omniscient due to the influence of the major world religions. Is it possible that "immortal" and/or "eternal" is another attribute that we should not presume Epicurus accepted?

I have an open mind on this issue. I also have an open mind on whether a Epicurean gods are "eternal" (no beginning or end) or simply "immortal" (no end, but having a beginning). And that would have to be answered both for an individual god as well as for "the gods as a group"

Aside: DeWitt's own full translation of the letter to Menoeceus is in the appendix of his "St Paul and Epicurus" book.

In agreeing with these last two posts, one point that strikes home to me is that there clearly are certain types of depression which are clinical/biological/genetic or whatever other "medical problem" term would be appropriate. And in those situations while a philosophy might be of some minor help, the ultimate problem is medical and has to be addressed medically.

Oscar I hesitate to ask this because you seem very well read, but just to be sure, have you read the full poem of Lucretius? There is certainly a lot of material on death to be discussed from there too.

One aside: If Epicurus thought that the gods do at least occasionally experience pain, that would have obvious implications for his "gods among men" statement, or even Lucretius saying that Epicurus was essentially a god -- it would make both comparisons much more plausible.

Dewitt mentions a number of times that he thought the texts indicated that the intermundia was a place where the forces of preservation prevailed over the forces of destruction. That is not at all the same as saying that the forces of preservation *eliminate* the forces of destruction. I am not sure what the texts really say on this.