Posts by Cassius

"Sometimes possessions cause more worries to us than actual enjoyment." << There's absolutely no doubt about that, and I've definitely seen that in my own life too. But I would be cautious about ever referring to asceticism as any more desirable than extravagance, per VS 63, which would appear to link the two as exactly analogous errors: "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."

And it's my observation that if we consider pleasure as widely as we should in terms of all emotional enjoyment rather than just money and things, that people today more frequently settle for LESS than they should, rather than seeking too much pleasure.

We're very together on the perils of money and the things money can buy, but I firmly believe (as I expect you probably agree) that the analysis of seeking pleasure goes much further than money, and to limit the Epicurean analysis to a criticism of commercialism is a vast underselling off the philosophy.

And internet discussion of Epicurus the proponents of asceticism outnumber the proponents of a full view of pleasure by a factor of about 1000 to one.

Is there a date for that Hiram? I presume they don't do it live, but presumably there's a release date so I'll watch for it.

OK I can't hit the "like" or the "dislike" button on that. Buffett has made more money than I'll ever dream of having, so who I am to question his success, but I'll still say that i've forsworn ever participating in the stock market again.

"As individuals we have free will, as a group our behavior is predictable."

Sounds to me like that means you are a market timer in your stock investments -- and that you probably would play indexes rather than individual stocks!;-)

I've been out of the stock market for many years for all sorts of reasons, but yes that is the attitude I would take if I were in it.

Great summary Florus! My comments would be:

(1) I dislike ever using the word "indifferent" myself, except in discussing Stoicism as you are doing. From an Epicurean perspective if something affects me or a friend at all, then I am never going to be "indifferent" to it - it is going to cause me either pleasure or pain, and not be "neutral" (which is related to the issue of there being only two feelings, I presume). Of course there are many things outside of our control, and uncertainty even in those that are largely within our control, but the word "indifferent" has such a stupid Stoic ring to it (sort of like "apathetic") that I recoil from using it is as proper attitude toward much of anything.

(1A) As a subpoint, depending on how the term is used I also think an Epicurean would not be quick to use the terminology of "indifferents" especially in examples such as you listed. If we go off to fight a war, we may not be able to control who wins and who loses, but we are darn sure going to experience pleasure or pain depending on the result. If something comes into our sphere of contact at all, it's not ultimately something to which we are indifferent, but something that as implications for pleasure or pain. Of course there are many facts and circumstances (far side of the moon, etc) that never come to our attention or have any real relevance to us at all. I suppose it would not hurt to say that we are "indifferent" to them, but the terminology strikes me as inherently perilous from an Epicurean worldview.

(2) Also when this subject comes up I like to refer people to A A Long's "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism." I think that article is very helpful in analyzing when Epicurus thought the swerve was of relevance, and when it was not, and I don't think that distinction is made obsolete by modern quantum physics. As Long points out, if Epicurus has taught that *everything* is effected by swerves, then there would be no regularity in the universe at all, and the rest of the Epicurean system based on properties and qualities of the elements would have been mercilessly attacked as impossible (which our surviving texts do not indicate was contended by Cicero or others).

Questioner:

What's the difference between chance and fate to an epicurean? Do Epicureans believe in chance? I know they don't believe in fate.

Answerer 1:

Whether they espouse it or not, they believe in the slings and arrows of fortune. You cultivate friendships and peace because you are getting buffetted from outside forces. Over which you cannot control...

Cassius Amicus

"Over which you cannot control..." UNLESS you develop friendships, and you take other precautions, to reduce the possibility of them occurring. If you do take steps, then you do reduce the likelihood of some problems. That is exactly how a prudent person acts, to take into our hands those things that are possible to control.

There's no "fate" by which gods or outside intelligent forces have complete control of the universe. There is an effective "determinism" however in certain non-living aspects of the universe, according to the letter to Herodotus (see below). This effective determinism in the way some things work does not however mean that intelligent animals don't have "free will" within certain limits, because we observe that they do, and we ascribe the cause of this to the swerve in the atoms from which the spirit is made.

As to "chance" there's also no god or outside intelligent force rolling dice. There is, however, the swerve, and the main way we see the swerve manifest itself in real life is that intelligent animals have a degree of free will,and are therefore unpredictable.

If you're a particle physicist then you can also discuss swerving at that level, but in the everyday world around us most things we see are the result of natural forces which can or could be predictable if we had enough understanding of all the variables involved.

Or at least that is my understanding of the texts.

Ref - Letter to Herodotus: "Hence, where we find phenomena invariably recurring, the invariability of the recurrence must be ascribed to the original interception and conglomeration of atoms whereby the world was formed."

Lucretius Book 2: "I desire you would attend closely upon this subject, and observe that bodies when they are carried downward through the void in a straight line, do at some time or other, but at no fixed and determinate time, and in some parts of the void likewise, but not in any one certain and determinate place of it, decline a little from the direct line by their own strength and power; so nevertheless, that the direct motion can be said to be changed the least that can be imagined.

[221] If the seeds did not decline in their descent, they would all fall downwards through the empty void, like drops of rain; there would be no blow, no stroke given by the seeds overtaking one another, and by consequence Nature could never have produced any thing.

....

[251] Besides, were all motion of the seeds uniform, and in a straight line, did one succeed another in an exact and regular order, did not the seeds, by their declining, occasion certain motions, as a sort of principle, to break the bonds of fate, and prevent a necessity of acting, and exclude a fixed an eternal succession of causes, which destroy all liberty, whence comes that free will, whence comes it, I say, so sensibly observed in all creatures of the world who act as they please, wholly rescued from the power of fate and necessity? That will by which we are moved which way soever our inclination leads us? We likewise forbear to move, not at any particular time, nor at any certain place, but when and here our mind pleases; and without doubt, the will is the principle that determines these motions, and from whence all motion is conveyed to the limbs. Don't you observe, when the barriers of the lists are thrown open of a sudden, the eager desire of the horses cannot start to the race with that celerity as their mind requires? Because the spirits, or particles of matter that maintain the course, must be got together from all parts of the body, and stirred through every limb, and fitly united, that they may readily follow the eager desire of the mind. You see then the beginning of motion rises in the heart, proceeds then by means of the will, and is thence diffused through every limb over the whole body.

Ιπποκρατης Μπουρνελης:

This is for Elli , the Phaeacian Princess

When my hero Odysseus met her

Προς την Ναυσικα ( Meeting Nausicaa )

οὐ γάρ πω τοιοῦτον ἴδον βροτὸν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν,

οὔτ᾿ ἄνδρ᾿ οὔτε γυναῖκα: σέβας μ᾿ ἔχει εἰσορόωντα.

Δήλῳ δή ποτε τοῖον Ἀπόλλωνος παρὰ βωμῷ

φοίνικος νέον ἔρνος ἀνερχόμενον ἐνόησα:

Τέτοιο θνητό ποτέ τα μάτια μου δεν έχουν δει, μήτε άντρα

μήτε γυναίκα αλήθεια᾿ θάμπωσα θωρώντας σε μπροστά μου!

Μονάχα στο βωμό του Απόλλωνα, στη Δήλο, κάποια μέρα

μιας φοινικιάς βλαστάρι νιόβγαλτου να ξεπετιόταν είδα᾿

These eyes of mine have never gazed upon [160]

anyone like you—either man or woman.

As I observe you, I’m gripped with wonder.

In Delos once I saw something like this—

a youthful palm-tree shoot growing up

beside Apollo’s altar.

• Elli Pensa Wow, good catch my friend Ιπποκρατης. Let’s interpret these verses by Homer in consistency with Epicurean Philosophy.
  
  In the book “beyond good and evil” by Friedrich Nietzsche, we read the aphorism 96 which says :
  
  “One should depart from life as Odysseus departed from Nausicaa-- blessing it rather than in love with it.”
  
  And here is the above by Nietzsche according to the Epicurean saying 47: “But when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived”.
  
  Τhe greek word [ευλογώ] i.e “I blessing”, has a synonym greek word [υμνώ] that means “I sing a hymn i.e. a glorious triumph-song”.
  
  So, lets read the Epicurean Doctrine 20. "The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time: but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short in any way of the best life".
  
  And now let’s see these verses by Homer that describe the feelings of Odysseus (that is the man - the human being)
  
  These eyes of mine have never gazed upon
  anyone like you—either man or woman.
  As I observe you, I’m gripped with wonder.
  In Delos once I saw something like this—
  a youthful palm-tree shoot growing up
  beside Apollo’s altar.
  
  What Odysseus saw upon Nausicaa ? A beautiful woman? No, Odysseus makes it clear “my eyes have never gazed anyone like you-either man or woman”. What Odysseus saw upon Nausicaa actually? Odysseus saw the LIFE itself and the PLEASURES that life has. And how Odysseus is being described here? As being in the situation of “ataraxia” or the “absence of pain” when he consciously saw Nausicaa i.e. the LIFE itself ?
  
  No, Odysseus gripped the life with WONDER, and that means he was ASTONISHED, he was FASCINATED from the life and pleasures that life has. He was so grateful that he was born to see the LIFE as : “ the youthful palm tree shoot growing up beside Apollo’s altar”. Apollo means the “mind” i.e. the consciousness, and the realization of the goal of life that is described with the island of DELOS. What means DELOS ? Delos means the CLEAR and the OBVIOUS.
  
  So, according to ED 20 : “with his mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good (i.e. pleasure) of the flesh and its limits”.
  
  Thus, Odysseus makes it clear and obvious that the goal of life is pleasure, and nothing less or more. And when Odysseus departed from life, he feels completed i.e. consciously fully satisfied on how pleasantly he lived. So, according to the PD 20 we read : “and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time: but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short in any way of the best life”.
  
  Conclusion : From the epoch of Homer those were the Hellenes as the man Odysseus was, and in this way they were departed from life: grateful that were born singing a glorious triumph song on how PLEASANTLY they lived. (y) 1

Why do I post this picture of the Erechtheion in an Epicurean philosophy revivalist group? Because we need some practice before we take on the goal of rebuilding the Parthenon.

From Diogenes Laertius: "[The Wise Man] He will have regard to his property and to the future. ... He will be armed against fortune and will never give up a friend. ... He will take more delight than other men in public festivals. ... The wise man will set up votive images."

Happy Twentieth! For this 20th I would like to remind friends of Epicurus of the Greek tradition of considering Epicurus and Epicureans as“Phaeacian.” This label may not have been attached as a compliment by those who first used it, but the label helps us triangulate on how the ancients understood Epicurean philosophy and Epicurus’ view of the goal of life. The following excerpt from a work by Pamela Gordon (her article “Phaeacian Dido“) gives us the passage from Homer which Epicurus apparently adopted for himself, and which was applied to him as a summary of the Epicurean goal.

"I maintain there is no telos more pleasing than when good cheer fills all the people, and guests sitting side by side throughout the halls listen to the bard, and the tables are loaded with bread and meat, and a steward drawing win from the bowl brings it around to fill our cups. To my mind this (telos) is something most beautiful."

https://newepicurean.com/happy-twentieth-of-january-2019/

   

Wow I have just learned that C. Florius Lupus is a published author in LATIN! Thanks Elli for pointing this out to me! And I just realized it is on Amazon!

I was joking before about Latin names but now I see I am in the presence of a real expert. My two years of Latin in high school and two courses in college pale in comparison -- So that leads to all sorts of interesting possibilities to talk about --

1) How should we address you - Caius? Florius? I've never understood how the Romans parsed their full names into familiar forms.

2) You're much studied in philosophy than most of us here (including me, at the very least). I don't want to ask you to go into details you'd prefer not to give, but can you tell us more about your book and your current thoughts? Is your current interest in Epicurus new, old, or come after wide and long study of the overall topic? I am sure many of us here would be interested to know more about your background and journey to today. (I see you just published these in the spring of 2018 so you have been busy!)

thanks!

Wow that is a great video! Thanks!

As of today we have opened the discussion, but not really gotten started, into Chapter 12. We discussed at some length the reasons why the issue of a "neutral state" is controversial, but there is much more to discuss on this chapter. We'll come up with a date and time for the next session and schedule it soon. Thanks!

Yes again welcome Florius. I hope you'll let us know if there are any particular aspects of what you see here that you might be particularly interested in. For example, we are having a live chat tomorrow morning at 10 AM eastern on Discord, and there should be at least four or five of us present. Our topic is Chapter 12 of the DeWitt book, but I am sure the discussion will be mostly a general discussion of the nature of pleasure, so even if you have not read that it should still be of interest. But in general, if you see any particular area of interest in which you'd like to participate, please be sure to let us know.

Thanks for the kind words C. Florius! I didn't see this before I posted the "welcome" message just a moment ago.

I bet you know what I will say to this part: "I generally agree with Epicurus with the exception of Epicurus' assumption that there is no pleasure beyond the avoidance of pain...." I will repeat what I say all the time -- that I don't think Epicurus thought that at all, and that the problem is the meddling of anti-Epicurean commentators. I hope you will join me in the quest to redeem Epicurus from the misinterpreters -- you and I see that this point is obvious, so I feel sure Epicurus did too, and the opposite interpretation is just misrepresentation - mostly intentional.

And of course I completely agree with this: "Therefore withdrawal from society and a passive life to avoid any unpleasant adversities is not the ultimate goal of happiness."

Have you read the Boris Nikolsky and the Wentham articles in the files section here? Or the excerpts from Gosling & Taylor? Or the DeWitt book?

I have been collecting the cites I have found supporting the view of pleasure we are discussing here:

https://newepicurean.com/foundations-2/…pleasure-model/

You are very welcome! Your comment calls to mind why I think it is so important not to underplay the role of Epicurean physics. We don't just start with abstractions and manipulate them, we start back at basics of elemental particles and void and the absence of an overall supernatural creator, and the absence of a center to the universe. Within such a universe how could it even be conceived that there would be "one size fits all" arrangements?

But the key to me was to help me break out of the "Either chaos or divine creator" alternative. These don't have to be the only alternatives, even though there is massive pressure to force us into one of those two paradigms. Some things are in fact determined and "necessary," while some others are not.

In this context I always remember the Rolfe Humphries wording of the passage from Book 1 of Lucretius about "what can be, and what cannot...."-

So his force,

His vital force of mind, a conqueror

Beyond the flaming ramparts of the world

Explored the vast immensities of space

With wit and wisdom, and came back to us

Triumphant, bringing news of what can be

And what cannot, limits and boundaries,

The borderline, the bench mark, set forever.

Religion, so, is trampled underfoot,

And by his victory we reach the stars.

Welcome C. Florius Lupus ! I like good Roman names! When you get a chance please tell us about your background and interest in Epicurus, and your mastery of Lucretius which no doubt you read in our mother tongue!

No problem about delayed responses - my life interferes with my philosophy time too!

However at times it's good to refocus in ways that just scrolling back over the thread doesn't fix.

In this case, I think you're probably thinking of some practical applications of these ideas that it would be good for us to pursue.

We started off talking about the dead end of valueless virtue. I think most of our discussion since then has revolved around how there are both "guard rails" or "banks" that lead generally in the same directions for everyone, but with a wide flow with lots of room for individuality within the banks.

One implication of this is to reinforce the conclusion that one size doesn't fit all in the field of ethics, but I bet you are thinking about other applications. What do you think?

What do you guys think of the phrase 'Pre-Verbal Memory'?

I think the pre-verbal part is descriptive as one part of the process we're talking about, but I am not sure it conveys the full scope. And in regard to the memory part I am not sure that that would be correct. I realize it is not a given that anticipations are going to be parallel in every respect to the feelings, and to the sensations, but I think Epicurus seems firm that both the feelings and the sensations are incapable of memory, and I suspect that as a faculty of the canon of truth that anticipations would not be capable of memory either.

• Actually that observation goes right to the heart of the DeWitt objection to the DL description of anticipations as a stored picture (presumably stored in memory).
  
  There's absolutely no doubt that we do have a faculty of memory, and that we do store pictures, and that we do use stored pictures to process our thoughts. The issue continues to be whether THAT PARTICULAR process, which clearly exists, is what Epicurus was referring to. The DeWitt position, by which I am still persuaded, would be that we're talking about a faculty that is different from the storing and processing of pictures. The DeWitt position would likely be stated that the faculty enables us to assemble all sorts of separate sensations into a form that we then store, and it is the process of assembly, not the storage, that is the faculty of anticipations.
  
  The analogy Nate would be that you, as an artist, hear all sorts, of sounds, but that you organize only certain sounds into a composition that you store in your mind, and play on your piano, as music. The storage and repetition certainly occur, but the "faculty" part that even gets you to the party is that you have a "knack" for assembling sounds into music.
  
  Same with a painter. The painter's eyes see all sorts of colors ands shapes, but there is some faculty within the painter's mind that selectively observes only some of them, and assembles them into the picture in his mind that he then paints again and again. The issue of remembering the picture is of course part of our mental processes, but our minds would never have assembled what our eyes report to it into a picture unless our minds had knack for assembling disparate pieces into a whole.
  
  It seems to me that to parallel with sensations and feelings in terms of having no memory, and in terms of having no opinion, anticipations have to be a "faculty" constituting "the knack to assemble" rather than any single picture, or any single memory of a picture. Once we make judgments to assemble something into a word, opinion has necessarily been a part of that, since words are not universal symbols.

Nate I am concerned my suggestions are probably too much work, so don't worry about them of course if you don't have time. I just wanted to post these thoughts for future use when we have time. I particularly think it will be good for future use to be able to clip out "scenes" from within the total, and that way regularly post parts that point back to the whole.

Nate I woke up this morning thinking further. Yes it will be good to have a final product with blank boxes to allow sort of like a "coloring book" effect -- people can write out their own description.

But I also realize that the graphics lend themselves to breakdown into individual panels, each of which illustrate some aspect of the Epicurean story. And the bubbles can effectively be what the lead character is thinking (or a description of the scene).

In other words, as you have said, the first panel illustrates the young animal at birth. The important thing here is that all animals pursue pleasure and avoid pain at birth, before they are corrupted by false religion and false philosophy.

Then each panel along the way, the animal (animalS????) confront a hazard and then deal with it using an Epicurean doctrine. They confront the scary Grim reaper, but defeat him (move past him) by realizing that death is nothing to us/absence of sensation, and so on.

That's the main thought, but not I realize another thought. Perhaps this is not possible/doable, but maybe the answer to the theme that draws everything together is to carry through the progression that what we have here is a GROUP of young animals, and it is the GROUP that goes through the progression, and that throughout the progression it is the PIG (representing Epicurus) who calls out the answer to each challenge.

In other words the fear/incorrect view could be placed in the mouth of some other animal, while the hog/Epicurus points out the answer, all the way through. I say hog because perhaps the best image for the Epicurus/hog as the panels progress is not some chubby round pig but a Razorback hog, or other obviously strong and fearless hog, that the young pig grows into over time.

The drawing of Gullenbursti as pointed out to me by Jason - https://newepicurean.com/slashing-anoth…of-a-norse-god/

I think you are probably limited by the program in terms of the Graphics that you can use, but I'm mainly just thinking out loud.

Already your graphic can be used in this way ; i am thinking in terms of how we can capture individual parts and then post those regularly as separate illustrations, which then can also be added together into the big picture.