Posts by Cassius

[ Post by Elayne]:

Although I'm fairly active on various specific political issues that affect my life, I do not belong to a political party, because all of them contain heavy elements of idealism.

A party or political system I would regard as Epicurean would be recognizable by the _process_ members went through to reach their individual positions, from which they would negotiate with others-- not by their specific positions on the issues.

I decide my positions on issues according to my assessment of effects on my pleasure, which includes the pleasure of those I care about. But when I discuss politics with non-Epicureans, this is not how they are going about it-- they are approaching it as a team sport, rather than negotiating within their team and explaining to each other how they are conducting their hedonic calculus.

For a specific perspective on issue X, we could say maybe there are perspectives A, B, and C. Different Epicureans could take the perspectives A, B, or C because their pleasures differ, because the issue affects their pleasures differently, or because they are predicting the outcomes of action differently. For the first two possibilities, they may be able to negotiate based on give and take on a range of additional issues, commonly called horse-trading. For the 3rd, it could be very useful for them to compare how they are making their predictions of net effects of action, because they may learn from each other and change their minds based on scientific analysis. This last type of discussion is only possible if participants are willing to put their own pleasure ahead of idealism.

In a group of Epicureans engaged in politics, at least we would have the process of decision-making in common, and discussions would make more sense. But the excerpts from Wilson's book show that she is not using an Epicurean process at all-- she is not talking about what would give her pleasure. She is a social utilitarian.

This is the thread for discussion of the article: Political Division In The Promotion of Epicurean Philosophy: A Prescription For Disaster

That's right! It only seems like yesterday that the almighty god and supreme ruler of the universe woke up, discovered his mistaken creation, and sent his son to be crucified in a painful death to straighten it all out!!

How time flies when you are having fun!

Good catch Joshua. Yes that way of printing it does make it look like a quote -- either a fragment from a papyrus or perhaps someone's poetic freestyle translation of something from Lucretius.

But in either case I've never seen that version.

Please use this thread to discuss: On Pleasure vs. Tranquility - A Dialog With Southhampton

I have never seen that quote or anything like it attributed to Epicurus anywhere. "Objective" is not a term generally associated with Epicurean epistemology, and presuming that term is being used in an ordinary sense is probably contradictory to Epicurean epistemology. Also "proper" as a modifier to "nature of events" sounds suspiciously non-Epicurean. Translations can vary widely, but my tentative expectation is that this is an incorrect attribution.

Do you have any other information about this?

Welcome Diamat ! I see you have already posted, but when you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus.

Anything you can learn about the "suppression" of Epicurean thought would be of interest too. I think I keep reading that Octavian clamped down on "private associations" but i have never been clear about the evidence or relevance of that

sounds fascinating! Anything in writing you send we can try to run through Google translate.

welcome @michaelallan ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus.

At this point the answer is no, Hiram, but within the subforum dedicated to the book it is divided into chapters and the "outlines" we have prepared so far are there. As far as notes highlighting the discussions that would be great but at this point we don't have anyone doing that.

You can learn a lot from a person's voice and so it was great to hear from you directly!

Or to ask that question another way, are not these guys who extol "Ataraxia" as the ultimate life essentially ruling out (and looking down on) the choice to be an astronaut as a career? Or really, pursuing any hobby or lifestyle or choice that entails significant risk? I think that's the logical conclusion demanded by their train of thought, and I can't imagine that Epicurus would have agreed with that. The whole train of thought seems to me like a negligent (or more likely intentional) bastardization of what Epicurus taught.

Happy 20th to you guys too! Hiram at some point I'll probably move the posts in this thread about the Tsouna essay and make another thread under the Anticipations subforum so we can find these posts in the future. This essay is in important one that we'll keep coming back to.

Also: (1) We have a series of prior posts on the Tsouna essay which can be found here: The Anticipations There's a lot in that essay so it's difficult to summarize it without reading it in full - and as you noted it is long.

(2) I scanned your latest commentary on it that you wrote in this latest post, and I think I generally agree where you are coming from in your criticism and your conclusions. But to be even more clear, if I remember correctly, the controversy boils down to a difference of opinion between Tsouna and David Sedley, who she references in the article. I also seem to remember thinking that the real issue is also linked to whether to consider anticipations in any way "intuitive," which is the description DeWitt gives. There's a lot to unpack here and too much to cover without rereading the essay in detail. But DeWitt's warnings about converting anticipations into meaning nothing more than "concepts" are I think in line with your conclusions in your post. I am not comfortable that Tsouna shares that opinion, though, so I think readers need to be cautioned that her approach and analysis is likely in conflict with DeWitt and probably at least some of Sedley's work too.

And all this is related to the issue of whether there are FOUR criteria of truth, as Laertius says that "the Epicureans generally" (as opposed to Epicurus himself) held to be the case. I consider that to be probably the most dangerous aspect of all of this, and I agree with DeWitt that it is obvious why Epicurus held only three criteria, while the "other Epicureans" added the fourth. In order to eventually come up with a comprehensive view of anticipations I think those issues which DeWitt highlights need to be included in the analysis, and as I recall Tsouna fails to mention DeWitt or his views at all. (I need to check and will revise this if needed.)

Ok. Since that's a link to your own post, Hiram, I think we can presume that you agree with it. And with the title being "Happy Twentieth" that also gives us the subject. So in this case we'll waive the "no links only" rule, though even a short comment is always welcome.

Wow there is a lot of good stuff in that speech on exactly the point you say Nate! Now there is also a lot of "politics" that I think would be beyond the scope and interest our our Epicurean studies to explore, but you are very right to cite the key points that you did. I especially like this one:

Quote from Nate

. So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But [...] this [...] was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them [but] by those who moved forward - and so will space.

That seems to me to circle around the great debate we need to have in Epicurean phiosophy - whether life is ONLY about resting (as some advocate) or whether action (pleasurable action) is at least as important as rest. Both "rest" and "action" can be pleasurable, so we need both, but to imply that "action" is somehow non-Epicurean is the road back into the cave.

I haven't had a chance to watch this yet but thanks Nate! I will! Thanks!

Nate that is a very interesting point of reference. Do you have a place where you refer to that speech in writing, or do you watch it on youtube. If you have a preferred place to review it let me know as I would like to go back and check it out. Not sure I have heard anything but the shortest of quotes from it (is that where he said "before this decade is out.... put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth...." ?