Posts by Cassius

I need to find some kind of mapping / aggregation tool that hppefully allows people to create their own anonymous sign-in. I am pretty sure this forum itself does not offer it, but I will look.

Daniel that is a good start on an outline.

How do you perceive that Utilitarianism differs from Epicurus?

In my case, I know of no positions that are central to "Utilitarianism" other than the saw "the greatest good for the greatest number" that -- without a position on physics and epistemology, is hard to pin down as meaning anything in particular.

Yes definitely, if you think they are Ok with the publicity. I try to be very careful of the privacy of people so I try never to post anything without the permission of the people involved. But definitely it would be ideal to come up with a reference map with locations and points of contact.

WOW google translate does a great job. I will private message you about this --

No way we wait til 2030! It's been far too long a wait already. Surely by the end of 2020 at the very latest we can pull together something.

Talking to Michele today has reminded me that we need to pull together some kind of method for identifying where people are so we can work on finding mutually-workable locations.

Long ago I put together a section of the forum here to be divided geographically, but I bet we can do much better. Currently: Regional Epicurean Groups and Activities

I bet there this a way to do this graphically and make it into a feature of the forum. Presumably google maps or some other free service has a facility to pull allow people to mark themselves on a map and then provide a continuously-updated summary graphic. That we people could get an idea of how close they might be to pulling off a regional meeting. A sort of Epicurean Registry, but with good security and confidentiality to allow people to sign up without giving out their detailed person information.

If anyone knows such a thing, please let me know -- I will go looking myself in the meantime.

Very good -- I am Cassius@epicureanfriends.com

Your English seems very good -- very much more than adequate! And thanks for the link.

Yes I agree, but I this is an issue that I think it very important. I know that we all observe the emphasis on materialism in most people, and we see that they need to understand that it would be more efficient for their long-term happiness to put aside the materialism.

But among those of us who talk about Epicurus and understand at least the basics of the philosophy, I think we can also observe the reverse error, of thinking that living for simplicity is an end in itself. They take their eye off pleasure as the goal just as much as if they were pursuing pleasure in any other way incorrectly.

And I observe something else: that those people who seem to focus on simplicity also seem to combine simplicity with a passive attitude of resignation about what goes in in the rest of their lives and the world. Renunciation of materialism quickly seems to turn into renunciation of all social life and interaction with others. How else to explain the seeming passivity of people who like Epicurus but who seem to accept the idea that Stoicism is just another way to happiness?

We may agree with the stoics that living simply makes sense, but we do it so that we can remain independent of outside forces that would destroy our change to live as we like and pursue happiness as we like. We aren't running from emotion like the stoics - we are embracing emotions that make us happy and pursuing the joy of life while we are alive - which is our only chance.

Your general point is of course correct, Michele, but I think that Epicurus must have sensed the same concern I have for him to have come up with the statement VS63 "63. There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance."

I noted when I looked at your page Michele that the Google translate did a reasonable job from Italian to English. Do you have it online where we could try that?

That is a great idea. I know that there are two groups in Greece that hold regular live meetings. At the moment we really do not have any in the USA. Are you aware of any local groups in Italy or other areas?

Also Daniel, in regard to Godfrey's comment, have you sorted out in your mind whether you are primarily Epicurean or primarily "Utilitarian"? An outline of your thinking would help sort out the tension between the different labeling.

1- What kind of science major are you?

2 - " for the sake of accurate, precise language" << On this I am not so sure. Elli here likes to remind us that Epicurean philosophy doesn't fit neatly under an "ism" heading, and especially if what is meant by "hedonism" is "pleasure-ism." If we were looking for a larger umbrella term "Nature-ism" or something that is wider would probably be more appropriate, but I bet that is why the ancient followers of Epicurus were just called "Epicureans" since the philosophy has so many facets.

3 - i agree with all you wrote about formulating the categories in clear and appealing ways, but it goes through my mind a lot that there are profound implications of Epicurus demoting "reason" as not one of the elements of the canon, and talking so much instead about "Feeling." I think in the end we are persuaded of anything not so much by a dialectical reasoning exercise but by our personal "Feeling" that a thing is true. Of course that includes our observations through our senses, and also the "feelings" and the "Anticipations" that are part of the canonical faculties. The basic point I am making is that as we approach how best to introduce others to Epicurean thought, we ought to keep in mind that Epicurean thought is NOT a form of dialectical reasoning. Epicurus emphasized the importance of "feeling" (in a very broad sense) so I think we need to give at least as much thought to reaching people through a good "feeling" about the philosophy as we do chopping it up into logical parts. Remember how Lucretius talks about "rimming the cup with honey" as a means of getting across what is in some cases a bitter set of truths? I think that we ought to think about the implications of that perspective.

Also, good to talk to you right now, because as I type this Facebook is totally down!

More on the same topic as background, Daniel:

It's no simple coincidence that my icon is a Roman soldier putting on a helmet. I consider the rivalries and disputes between the philosophies and intellectual war, and I firmly believe that not everyone in the world has the best interests of Epicureans at heart. I think people like Cicero and Plutarch did everything they could, while maintaining their credibility, to place Epicurean philosophy in a bad light. I think the great majority of commentators since then have done the same, because they deeply disapprove of Epicurus.

That means that we have to take a fresh look at EVERYTHING, and accept none of the commentary (and even many of the translations) at face value. I don't think I would be here in the forum today, or even interested in Epicurus at all, if I had not come across the Norman DeWitt book that I promote so much, and seen how Epicurus stands apart and reacted against the earlier Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. There are so many modern presumptions about Epicurus (ie the interpretation of "absence of pain"!!!) that seem so wrong when viewed through the DeWitt perspective, that like I said it's necessary to start from scratch to really scrutinize what Epicurus really taught.

If you're read any of the DeWitt book you probably know what I mean, if you haven't yet, I urge you to take a look at it, because his perspective is truly different from OKeefe and Warren and most modern perspectives.

Daniel to repeat I don't mean to be critical of you for calling it that, because I know many people fluent in philosophy do so. Categories can be useful things and I understand why they want to put Epicurus in that box. However my personal preference is dealing in a world of non-professional philosophers who are looking for practical ways to organize their lives. You are right that the "pleasure" focus is only a part, but an important part, of Epicurus, but what distinguishes him almost as much are his positions on the universe being natural/non theistic (atomism) and his views on the role of reason and the senses in his epistemology.

I'm mainly just saying that in the circles I come into contact with it is confusing to use the term hedonism, especially since its connotation in English is so negative. The word carries no positive connotations whatsoever in my mind, or in the minds of people I generally deal with. That's unfortunate, but since there is no evidence that the ancient Epicureans used the word to describe themselves, I see no reason to fight a battle over that word when there are so many other battles to fight.

Beyond the rhetorical considerations, I really don't think that Epicurus himself would approve of it. The role of pleasure in ethics is certainly an important conclusion, but I feel sure that he considered his conclusions on how to think, and how the universe operates, to come before his contributions on ethics. I gather that the experts think that the letter to Herodotus was the first in time that he wrote, and the letter to Menoeceus probably among the latter. Herodotus, like Lucretius' poem, certainly mentions the role of pleasure, but places at least as much emphasis on the physics and epistemology.

But you're attacking an area I think is super-important: how to approach new people, and it seems to me the best way to start off with them is not to allow them to be distracted by a word that might turn them off before they've understood the other fundamentals of the philosophy.

Now I will be the first to admit that you may operate in different circles, and the new people you are talking to may have no issues with the word "hedonism" at all. So if you think that is true, you should definitely proceed in the way you think best, using hedonism.

One thing I firmly believe is true is that there is no single "best" way to pursue the promotion of Epicurean philosophy, so it is good to have alternative approaches.

Welcome @Berlin45 ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background and interest in Epicurus.

Daniel just time for a quick comment, but in my own discussions I do not like to use the word hedonism. I don't think the texts of Epicurus indicate that the ancient Epicureans referred to their philosophy as hedonism, as Epicurean philosophy is much more complex than that. I'm not saying that to be critical of what you just wrote, because I know many people in philosophy approach the subject that way, and there are many approaches that can be productive. Just personally for me I don't find talking about hedonism particularly effective.

Also: I have no experience and have not given too much thought to issues involving age here on the forum, but it strikes me Bradley that as your children get older and you introduce them to the internet it would be great for some of us to be able to talk philosophy with them here! Most all of our content is already family-friendly , but perhaps at some point we could set up a "children's section" where people of a certain age could only see that or limited other sections.

As many of you know I have been thinking in terms of "Epicurus College" as a project for ongoing learning for us adults, but it would be a desirable and inevitable part of any true Epicurean "movement" to experiment and work toward methods of introducing Epicurus to younger people.

I have a Lidl less than a mile from where I live. I don't get there often enough, but it is really interesting how different they are from American supermarkets!

1 -- Brad, I am sure you can tell I am on a long-term campaign to find and unite the Epicureans of the world who understand Epicurean pleasure positively, and not as a gateway drug to asceticism. There will likely always be a multi-track approach where people are inclined to asceticism consider themselves Epicurean, and some of them can be brought along to a wider understanding of Epicurus. BUT some won't, and when confronted with the "Epicurus meant what he said about pleasure being understandable" attitude, they fall away from "the flock" So as we proceed down the road please help me keep that in mind and help me, to the extent you can, figure out how to pursue that more productively!

2 -- in the same vein, I reposted my comment over on FB and one of the replies contained such good info about Buddhism that I had to past it here. I'll do it without attribution since the person isn't a member here (as far as I know):

"Depressing is right! The person who was discussing Buddhist meditation, asceticism, and the achievement of jnana caught my interest. I studied the Buddhist teachings that he references for years, and though I meditated daily, I never went on intensive meditation retreats where a person might be able to finally reach those meditative states. I felt like a bad Buddhist because I had no desire to give up some of my pleasures and attend retreats where I might attain those states that the Buddha talked about. Eventually I began to question the worldview of Buddhism, and the practice of meditation, and I gave up my study and practice. The teachings of Epicurus, I've been happy to discover, affirms the world, our place in it, and our desires for pleasure in a positive way.

In Buddhism tanha (which translates as thirst, desire, longing and craving) is what leads to suffering (dukkha). We are taught that desire for sensual pleasures can never satisfy us, and we are to aim for the state of equanimity, where we neither grasp pleasure or push away unpleasantness. People like to think of Buddhism as a philosophy of becoming one with everything, but actually the Buddha's teachings, as recorded in the earliest form of the Pali Canon, were only for those who had renounced the world and become ascetics. Laypeople were to make merit by providing everything that the monks and nuns needed so that they could spend their time meditating as much as possible. If the laypeople spent their lives doing good in this way, perhaps in the next life they could become monks or nuns themselves and strive to reach enlightenment. I cannot see any way that Buddhism and the teachings of Epicurus can be harmonized, though sometimes people try to do so.