Posts by Cassius

Here is a continuing issue which we need to address: Orientation for people who are new to Epicurus and don't know where to start.

Here's an analogy: Someone new finds out about Epicurus and wants to learn more. They come to Epicureanfriends.com, or to Epicurean sections on Facebook, or on Reddit, or on some other online location, and they find lots of detailed information about fine points of the philosophy. They quickly get lost in all the detail and get turned off by the amount of effort needed to get a big picture perspective.

There's no way to prevent this problem from happening. If we are doing our job, new people will constantly hear about Epicurus and want to know more. Just like the atoms, at no fixed time and no fixed place, new people are going to swerve into one of our public activities, and they are not going to know where to start. And Wikipedia is not only not going to get them where they need to be, it will probably discourage them from going further. Epicurean philosophy is not just another "ism" to read some ice-cold commentary and then put back on the shelf.

I can't imagine a more basic point than for us to repeat over and over: "If you have a question, ASK!" No sincere question, no matter how basic, will be turned away. If you're a troll, or wasting our time and yours, we will let you know pretty quickly. So I think that is the logical first line of response to new people.

The second line of response is where we really need more work. There is a FAQ set up at Epicureanfriends, and most of our Epicurean web pages have well-labelled directions on places to start. But there is a constant need for more and better material that summarizes the important points of Epicurean philosophy and bulldozes past the superficialities and misconceptions. This can be done through graphic memes, through videos, through audio presentations, and other avenues. Some of us are even talented enough to commit the core ideas to music, or to poetry.

So I write this to encourage our Epicurean activists to keep working on new and better material. And if you're reading this for the first time, don't hesitate to post a question in this thread, or wherever else you think appropriate.

Nate thank you for these!

I think it's pretty clear what meaning is conveyed by these, but can you tell us about the name "Drake Memes" and where that comes from?

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/image/283/

Over at another internet location, someone made a comment to the effect that "of the Greek philosophers, Epicurus (who advised his followers to "avoid politics") had gained the greatest political victory in the modern world."

The writer was from Cambridge England.

Here was my reply to him:

To the Poster from Cassius:

I see that you wrote that Epicurus gained the greatest political victory, and I also see that you are located in Cambridge. I've never been to England, so perhaps you can help me with a question I have. Suppose I decided to take a walk through downtown London, holding a big homemade sign that says:

1 - Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah are Mickey Mouse Gods!

2 - When you're dead, buddy, that's all she wrote, so forget heaven and hell!

3 - Your "virtue" is worthless unless it brings pleasure!

4 - Socrates was a liar, Plato was a faker, Aristotle was a wasted druggie, and Bertrand Russell was an ignorant boor!

After an afternoon walking through London with that sign, would the reaction I received confirm for me that Epicurus had the greatest victory and rules the capital of one of the greatest cities in the modern world?

What do you think?

Well what I am presuming to do is to scan to PDF, then OCR the result so that it is machine-readable.

Quote from Mousikos

That said, because of the nature of knowledge, we can make general statements about which choices would bring greater pleasure and happiness to the majority of people.

I just noticed this part. It's good and i would not suggest changing it. But when reading it , it occurs to me that it's possible that it might not be clear what the "nature of knowledge" means in this context. I am thinking that what we're really saying here is that because of the nature of reality (including humans) being a combination of things that are determined and "mechanical" and things that are not determined and mechanical, we are able to form opinions about future events based on experience with past events.

I say this largely because I am always on guard against the implication that "knowledge" is something that exists in the air as part of some network of ideal forms, or something that comes from gods, or even something that we are born with (in our anticipation discussion). I think it's more proper to think of "knowledge" as opinions formed in our minds that we are confident are true.

We form opinions about what is likely to happen in the future (not "certain" to happen, because there is no "fate") because we can accurately observe what has happened in the past, and over time we form understandings about how things generally work. And as we gain more experience we get more confident in predicting what that mix is likely to produce a result in the future. The consciously held opinions are probably what we refer to as "knowledge."

But I don't think we would ever get to the point of being able to say that anything is "knowledge" if our minds were not first programmed with some kind of organizing operating system to combine observations into concepts in certain ways. I continue to think it is a valid analogy to compare this process to our eyes being programmed to observe shapes and colors and shades in particular ways. The eyes then report that data to our minds, where the mind processes the data into something that ultimately we turn into concepts and words. I think the analogy is that there is a faculty of anticipations which leads us to observe "relationships" that we would not otherwise ever recognize as having any useful aspect to them. Try as they might, my cats and dogs are unable to arrange the things they see and hear and smell into the same kind of eventual conclusions that a human baby can do, and in observing the distinctions between humans and animals I think we are talking about a "faculty" that Epicurus thought deserved a category of its own.

I note that we got right off onto the topic of anticipations due to Michele's comment, but I should also say that I think the rest of the outline too is very good.

So when Michele says this:

Quote from michelepinto

I think there are not innate ideas or genetically transmitted knowledge. I think there is not an universal sense of justice.

I think we all would agree that not every person has the same sense of justice, nor is everyone born with specific "knowledge" of particular facts. But that's far from the end of the story, and it is probably equally clear that human minds are born with capacities and patterns of behavior just as are human eyes, ears, noses, and the rest. None of our faculties have come into contact with outside stimuli at birth, but all of them are genetically coded to operate within set guidelines and capacities.

I have heard of that book by Pinker and seen it cited, but not read it. I tend to think that "blank slate" is somewhat like "free will." it's one thing to say that babies are not born knowing the complete works of Shakespeare, or even that 2 +2 = 4. But to say that they are born as absolute blank pieces of paper, without any predispositions to understanding how paper and writing instruments can be used, is also going way to far. And when we consider how easy it is for us to accept that animals are born with certain patterns of behavior, it becomes pretty close to preposterous to think that humans are not born with similar faculties.

We're pretty much at this point stating positions before getting into details, so here's another "position" that i think is deeply involved in this -- and that is the "blank slate" position that I gather Aristotle took..

Another issue that has to be resolved is what to make of Diogenes Laertius' description of Anticipations:

"By preconception they mean a sort of apprehension or a right opinion or notion, or universal idea stored in the mind; that is, a recollection of an external object often presented, e.g. Such and such a thing is a man: for no sooner is the word “man” uttered than we think of his shape by an act of preconception, in which the senses take the lead. Thus, the object primarily denoted by every term is then plain and clear. And we should never have started an investigation, unless we had known what it was that we were in search of. For example: The object standing yonder is a horse or a cow. Before making this judgment, we must at some time or other have known by preconception the shape of a horse or a cow. We should not have given anything a name, if we had not first learnt its form by way of preconception. It follows, then, that preconceptions are clear. The object of a judgment is derived from something previously clear, by reference to which we frame the proposition, e.g. “How do we know that this is a man?” Opinion they also call conception or assumption, and declare it to be true and false; for it is true if it is subsequently confirmed or if it is not contradicted by evidence, and false if it is not subsequently confirmed or is contradicted by evidence. Hence the introduction of the phrase, “that which awaits” confirmation, e.g. to wait and get close to the tower and then learn what it looks like at close quarters."

This description has to mean something, even if we follow the DeWitt view.

In my view, this description by Diogenes Laertius is a description of the process of "conceptual reasoning." We gather input, we form an "idea" in our mind, and we store it and pull it out in the future where applicable.

I do not think that this process is what Epicurus would have considered to be a PREconception, or an anticipation. I think that we are talking about two separate things (1) conceptual reasoning, which we all understand to be the process of forming and using ideas, and (2) a faculty that disposes us to organize observations in particular ways, resulting in ideas later, but more akin to "feelings" about the idea, and separate from the idea itself. In other words, I may not be able to describe a situation in words as being just or unjust, but as I gather observations about a situation I begin to organize them "subconsciously" at which point I am already aware of feelings about what I am organizing. And my mind in processing these inputs is processing them along pathways that are set in motion innately, just as my eyes process light in ways that are innately determined by the makeup of my eyes.

In my view, the DeWitt position is strongly rejected by people like Bailey and most modern academics because they accept the Aristotelian blank slate, and they consider "reason" and "logic" to be the important thing about the human mind-- so they identify preconceptions with the art of conceptual reasoning.

But it is clear that Epicurus did not hold "reason" and "logic" in the same esteem that these others hold it, and so it seems very likely to me that Epicurus held a view of preconceptions which don't fit into the Socratic/Platonic/Arisotelian paradigm.

Yes that would be great. Maybe you could include a part on GREEK Epicureans too!?

Yes Mousikos I agree with you and my position is pretty much DeWitt's. Unfortunately this is an area of controversy that isn't likely to be resolved short of finding new texts in Herculaneum which address it.

There are a series of posts in this forum on it The Anticipations

But we can discuss details anywhere you wish.

The anticipations issue is very complex and I don't think that Michelle and I have gone through it in detail, so I look forward to reviewing where he and I are on that topic, and how it compares with the DeWitt version, which is of course not the same as other versions.

I have to run to lunch as I type this but I do want to go ahead and suggest that I too question that "ideas" is the right word, although I think DeWitt does use that word. My personal preference to describe the issue is "disposition" or something to that effect, in an analogy to eyesight -- the eyes are programmed / disposed to see in certain ways (wavelengths) but not at others. So the eyes are not born with the content of seeing a tree, but they are born with the equipment that is programmed in a way that allows us to see trees,

There is a lot to discuss here.

Yes I did Hiram, and again thank you for recommending it. I have not had time to dig into it like I need to. I am looking for some kind of preliminary discussion of the source material, perhaps in the introduction, that will specify the issues I'm talking about -- what and how it was reconstructed, etc? Do you have a suggestion for a part of the intro where to start. I don't know yet how I am going to get it into a format in which I can run it through google translate.

It is good thing that envy is not singled out as a sin in Epicurean philosophy, because I envy you guys being in Italy with such close at hand access to so much opportunity to study Epicurean material!

Thank you Michele! As you say:

Quote from michelepinto

"I understand that being a good Epicurean does not mean either being dissolute or monastic in the severity towards myself, but letting myself live with subtle fatalism, without falling prey to anguish."

OH NO! "subtle fatalism"!!!!! As you say Michele, not the right words at all!

Perhaps this person should have started out by questioning her premise of whether it is a good idea to simply give each philosopher a week at a time. Those were a lot of wasted weeks until she got to Epicurus!

Michele that reminds me -- have you read Lucian's "HERMOTIMUS" which has parallels to this (the question of how to choose among philosophers)?

It is one of my favorite Lucian essays, and a favorite of Elli as well!

Mousikos thank you for pointing this out, I had not focused on it earlier. I agree with your conclusion and I am always very suspicious when an Epicurean text is translated as extolling "only reason" over feeling. Yes reason is important but it is not one of the three canonical faculties listed by Epicurus, and I suspect mangling or alteration when I see a quote like that.

Before I accept that quote as accurate I would want to have access to the original material and see what part of it is "reconstructed" from fragmentary text. I would want to see what the text before and after this section said. And absent firm and clear textual evidence that this translation is well supported, I would not consider it to be consistent with what I understand to be Epicurus' position or worthy of equal status as other, better supported Epicurean texts..

In fact, in focusing on "reason" vs. "unreason" and talking about "words" and "perfection" -- this sounds more Stoic to me than Epicurean.

[Mousikos - Part of the background of this discussion is that I presume this comes from the French collection of Epicurean fragments by Delattre that Hiram and I have discussed elsewhere. I now have a copy of that book but I don't read French and have not yet found passages which describe the origin of the texts it quotes and what part are reconstructed. I thank Hiram for finding this book and pointing it out, but until I see some of this material documented in English with descriptions of what part is reconstructed and what is not, I have to consider this material as only semi-reliable at best. And even if this part quoted in blue is correct, who is to say that the paragraph before it did not say "And now I am going to quote from ___ the Stoic, who was truly an imbecile."]

Quote from michelepinto

And she at start appreciates Epicurus teaching about desires, then she discovered it is not enough for happiness and went further.

Yes, that seems very close to the point I was trying to make, so I would be very interested in reading the translation.

Quote from michelepinto

We all see it all the days, it seems that everyone tells us earn as much money as you can and spend them all on useless things. The voice of Epicurus is out of this chorus and is therefore appreciated.

That is of course true, and I am glad that people get that message. But again, it makes me mad that this is the point at which a lot of people stop their study of Epicurus. To be blunt again, this ought to be shockingly obvious, and it should not take the brilliance of an Epicurus to understand this. It is a testament to the sorry state of modern civilization that so many people do not understand even this basic point.

But in addition to this "basic" point, there is a universe of additional truth inherent in atomism, and the infinite eternal universe, and the non-existence of supernatural gods, and the true understanding of pleasure and pain, and the role of the senses vs. "logic" -- etc etc etc. Those are the areas where Epicurus' brilliance really shines, and I think he would be far more proud of his work in those areas than in his "natural and necessary" desire classification.

So I think he would be shocked to hear on what we focus, and he would ask "You need ME to explain THAT to you?"

Ha I just remembered that Michele just recently posted this, and it's right in line with my text. My point is NOT to be critical of this, but to go further -- as Michele is a perfect example of doing, with his detailed and excellent blog, and his other work in progress!

We have recently been discussing the challenges that people run into in writing about Epicurean philosophy. Here's another aspect I think is worth pointing out:

Many people, especially those who just find out about Epicurus, seem to have the impression that the brilliance of Epicurus is summarized in the observation "Don't eat too much ice cream or you'll get sick."

It amazes me how many people seems to think that Epicurus was needed to come along and make this point. They seem to think that prior to Epicurus no one had corrected the Stoics for drowning their pain in too much alcohol, or the Platonists for having too much sex with their shared wives, or the Aristotelians for stressing out over their political organizing, or the Pythagoreans for placing too much reliance on their magic numbers. Apparently many modern philosophers want us to believe that it was a novel and blindingly impressive idea to observe that "focusing on the basics" is an effective way to increase happiness and reduce stress.

"Thank goodness Epicurus came along to show us that eating too much ice cream makes us sick!!" seems to be the attitude of these people. And so people who follow their lead endlessly repeat the same superficial points about Epicurus over and over - points that as Cicero's Torquatus truly observed, we "ought to be ashamed that we did not learn as children."

We have people reading my post here from all over the world, and for some of them English is not their first language, so let me be clear:

I am being totally sarcastic! If we were to picture Epicurus here today, seeing what people consider to be his most important teachings, no doubt the pose he would assume would be the classic "face-palm" -- he would be shocked and amazed to see how the world had trivialized his philosophy.

My point here is that when we think about talking to other people about Epicurus, don't start and stop with non-controversial points like the "natural and necessary" categories. Not only was this not one of Epicurus' primary conclusions, if you were listing his major doctrines in order you would have to go over TWENTY-SEVEN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT POINTS before heard any mention of "natural and necessary."

The problem with Stoicism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and other philosophies is not that they don't understand that eating too much ice cream makes you sick. The problems with those philosophies are much more profound, and the insights of Epicurus in defeating them are much too important, to get stuck on points that are obvious even to children.

So I suggest you ask yourself: (1) "Why does the modern world praise Epicurus to the skies for a point that any child learns quickly by personal experience?" and (2) "Why does the modern world ignore and disparage the major points that made Epicurus famous in the ancient world?"

The answer isn't hard to find, and it's not because the modern world is filled with people who have a problem eating too much ice cream. So let's move past the basic and obvious points, and discuss the points that about Epicurus that much of the world wants to suppress.

I was glancing around and saw this graphic. In Epicurean terms, what "matters" should be no different from "what leads to more enjoyable living." The interesting thing is that I don't think Epicureans have any problem seeing the unity of those goals. But boy oh boy many of the "virtue" crowd will read you the riot act if you take that position publicly. "How dare you suggest that pleasure is the goal of life," they will say! Thinking about why THAT kind of reaction happens helps us get to the heart of what Epicurus, feeling, and pleasant living are all about, and what separates us from Stoicism and most of the rest of modern and ancient philosophy.