Posts by Cassius

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.

In case anyone thinks I responded too mildly, I am fighting allergies / pollen season already!

How depressing to read answers like this:

Wow that is great -- keep us posted.

Elementary but a very good start! It's interesting to see what people think of to list at the very beginning of their thought processes about an outline.

I relate this in my mind to discussions I see when people talk about other philosophers and say that they were "essentially Epicurean." The question of "what is essential" and what is not is a very interesting one.

One aspect i don't see mentioned is the death is nothing to us / death is the end of our consciousness aspect. Something on that would be good to add.

And then perhaps some further explanation of what is meant by "pleasure...."

Those two -- death and the meaning of pleasure -- are among the most contentious areas.

Very good, Brad! Is that your son in the cover photo of your "wall" here?

I wonder if he is too young to appreciate "A Few Days In Athens"? Have you read that yourself - what do you think?

If we have the possibility here of testing out some potential Epicurean teaching on a real-life young person, we really ought to take advantage of that and get some feedback on what approaches might be most useful.

I hope maybe you can sign in on the 20th or do something else to mark it with your son and us together.

People regularly question to what extent Bertrand Russell should be considered to be Epicurean. No doubt he has some positions (such as disdain for the influence of common religion) that are similar to Epicurus, but there are many profound differences, and I am not aware that Russell labeled himself an Epicurean in any respect. On that topic, here are some quotes about Epicurus from Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" which do not indicate that Russell held Epicurus in high regard:

Russell asserts, ridiculously slanting the evidence, that Epicurus and his friends lived mainly on bread and water:

More negative commentary:

Here's another which is deeply off base - the only advantage of mental pleasure over bodily pleasure is that we have more control over it?

That's an interesting comment Bradley -- several of us here have backgrounds in dealing with Objectivism/Rand. Here are several articles I have written myself in the past on that topic. If there is a particular aspect of that in which you might be interested in discussing, it might be a good idea for you to start a separate thread.

https://newepicurean.com/?s=Ayn+Rand

https://newepicurean.com/assistance-for…ns-of-ayn-rand/

https://newepicurean.com/a-case-study-i…e-objectivists/

https://newepicurean.com/objectivism-th…phy-in-america/

2 - I have to confess I have no timetable for Catius' Cat having another story, but I will see what I can do!

1 - I am afraid I do not know much about Greek cheese's but I will see if I can get Elli to comment - she would definitely know! But as another possible food choice, it seems clear that Epicurus was partial to figs, so I would suggest you incorporate those even more than cheese.

Khoirul I have a feeling you would enjoy reading, and identify with, the lead character in Frances Wright's story "A Few Days In Athens" -- http://www.AFewDaysInAthens.com . It is written from the perspective of a young student checking out different schools. If you get a chance to look at it it would be great to hear your thoughts about it.

So Welcome!

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

Ok thanks Daniel!

Daniel have you put up a blog or website anywhere to organize the work you are producing?

This is a nicely done audiovisual but the message is hard to digest in any format!

Very good and thanks for posting Bradley!

Also:

- How did you get the forum post to provide only the title and hide the body til clicked? That is very useful?

- I don't have time to read the full essays at this moment but of course I applaud your efforts and hope you will expand them -- I certainly don't think there is only one approach and any efforts in any new direction are always appreciated.!

Daniel I have only started reading your posts but first -- it is good to see you again after such a long absence!!

Many good points in that article, but this is the heart of it and this is where it crashes and burns into stoicism / asceticism and the opposite of what Epicurus taught. Even before the article starts! Free ourselves of desire? Hardly! The issue is learning to pursue our desires with maximum net result, not "free ourselves of desire."

“I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.” - Epicurus

**Visualizing Principal Doctrine 7** This doctrine follows closely on the issue of self-protection presented in principal doctrine six, expanding it in an obvious direction while affirming that the ultimate test is always the result obtained, not conformity to an ideal:

"Some men wished to become famous and conspicuous, thinking that they would thus win for themselves safety from other men. Wherefore if the life of such men is safe, they have obtained the good which nature craves; but if it is not safe, they do not possess that for which they strove at first by the instinct of nature."

Epicurus had previously said: "To secure protection from men anything is a natural good by which you may be able to attain that end." "Anything" is a broad term, and would include even politics and dictatorships being natural goods - if they are successful. But we can't know in advance what the result of any one course will be. It is possible that we may pursue dictatorship or kingship and overcome all obstacles to success. If we do, and if we die in our sleep surrounded by friends after a long and happy life, then our pursuit of fame or kingship has proven to be an excellent course for us. In other words, if we succeed then we have achieved the goal for which we set out, regardless of the odds that seemed to be against us based on past experience.

But it is frequently the case that politics and dictatorship and kingship spur envy and ill will from other men. Whether that response is justified or not, it is frequently the case that dictators and kings meet a violent and unhappy end.

Both are true -- the generalization is valid as a generalization, but a generalization is not a guarantee that a choice will work out in every instance.

The point here is the same which is made throughout Epicurean texts: There is no fate, no divine creator, no realm of ideal forms which will inevitably lead certain choices to success or failure. The universe operates by natural principles, including the swerve in the atom, and we have freedom to influence some things in life, but not others.

The Epicurean message may seem scandalous to those who would prefer "justice" or "fairness" in the universe, but the message is clear, and it is consistent with what we actually observe. Some dictators / kings / famous people live long and happy lives after following paths that many would consider awful, while others who are paragons of morality crash and burn in the worst possible ways.

In an Epicurean universe we should not look for inevitable outcomes. We can estimate generalities and make predictions based on past experience, but the test of success is whether it in fact succeeds. There are no divine patterns which will always produce the happiest outcomes in life. If we wish to live happily we make our choices, we take our chances, and we work as diligently as possible for pleasurable living, always knowing that there are no guarantees in life except that it will eventually be over.

--------------------------

More graphics for Principal Doctrine 7 can be found here.