Posts by Cassius

I have set up this thread as a place to discuss holding a live seminar somewhere in the United States in 2019 if possible. Presumably we need a place that is easy to get to (centrally located) relatively inexpensive, and yet also a scenic attraction that is sufficient to motivate people who might want to combine the seminar trip with some other kind of site-seeing. We have people currently interested in Epicurus spread out over most of the country, on both the West and East coasts and numerous locations in between.

I'll be posting more ideas in this thread but for the time being this is just to set it up.

The first sentence of that excerpt is a list of Greek words which describe the various functions within the framework. Could someone who knows Greek help us come up with a list of each Greek word and the corresponding English translation? It looks like they are probably arranged from most mature to newest. Thanks! I will get to work on it myself at some point but I still don't have a good system set up even for typing the Greek characters.

This article is important enough to have its own thread in this subsection. Here is the final paragraph as a summary: the full text is here.

Thanks Michele. I guess we don't even really know the points that Bignone was making in his book, so it probably doesn't make sense to try to speculate about what his real intent in the book was without reading it. Presumably he didn't write his book just to show that Epicurus had only some of Aristotle's work -- that would be a pretty narrow topic! Presumably he was making all sorts of points about what Epicurus taught, and what Aristotle taught, for purposes of better understanding both, so I would think we'll just have to dig into the book to find out.

Great! Glad you are here.

I've never heard of this work of art before today , but it sure brings to mind the invocation in Book 1 of Lucretius!

Since Thou alone dost govern Nature’s laws, and nothing without Thee can rise to light, without Thee nothing can look gay or lovely; I beg Thee a companion to my lays, which now I sing of Nature, ..... Mean time, the bloody tumults of the war by sea and land compose, and lay asleep. For Thou alone mankind with quiet peace canst bless; because ‘tis Mars Armipotent that rules the bloody tumults of the war, and He by everlasting pains of love bound fast, tastes in Thy lap most sweet repose, turns back his smooth long neck, and views thy charms, and greedily sucks love at both his eyes. Supinely as he rests his very soul hangs on thy lips; this God dissolv’d in ease, in the soft moments when thy heavenly limbs cling round him, melting with eloquence caress, great Goddess, and implore a peace for Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Being_Disarmed_by_Venus

Quote from Oscar

I'm interested to hear more.

I bet you will get your wish, Oscar!

Michele:

Hiram wrote:

I found a synopsis in Italian, put it through google translate, and got this: "First published in 1936, this essay soon became a classic of Aristotelian exegesis. The basic thesis of Bignone, still persuasive, is that the philosophical formation of Epicurus unfolded through a very close comparison only with the dialogic works (now lost) of the young Aristotle, who at the time was still a Platonic all-round student. In essence, Epicurus could not know the most important Aristotelian treatises (such as the "Metaphysics", the "Physics", the "Ethics"), which would have constituted for him a far more solid and articulated dialectical shore." https://www.ibs.it/aristotele-perduto.../e/9788845259944.

ibs.it

L' Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro - Ettore Bignone -…
L' Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro - Ettore Bignone - Libro - Bompiani - Il pensiero occidentale | IBS

This seems hard to believe: "In essence, Epicurus could NOT know the most important Aristotelian treatises........?" He is suggesting that Epicurus was not aware of THE MOST IMPORTANT works of Aristotle? That seems hard to understand.... Perhaps a Google translate issue?

Alas Michele, their work is mostly in Greek only. Two years ago they live-streamed an event on Youtube, and they are getting better at adding videos to the internet, but so far they are only in Greek and they have not had the resources to add subtitles. Making progress in that direction is certainly something we need to work on.

Also I should add that there are two groups: The Garden of Athens, in which Christos is active, and the Garden of Thessaloniki, in which Elli and others are active.

Wow thank you for that picture Michele! All sorts of nice surprises today (combined with the Italian song!)

Quote from Matthaeus

But I’m an oddball of the group.

LOL

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Garden of Athens in collaboration with the Greek branch of UNESCO and under the auspices of the Mayor of Athens and of the Mayor of Pallini will organize the 1st Panhellenic Meeting of Happiness "Happiness is a Human Right" in order to discuss philosophically and scientifically about happiness and present the Declaration of the right of happiness in the European Union. On the 20th of March (International Day of Happiness) we will announce the details of the 1st Panhellenic Meeting of Happiness which will take place on April 14.

Thank you for introducing yourself! One thing that would be of interest would be how your found this site.

I suppose to a certain extent it's all just a question of what you think is important enough to focus on persuading people about.

I personally think it is much more satisfying/pleasureable to me to focus on showing people the truth about how nature operates, and that based on those truths we property (according to nature) focus on the happiness of ourselves and our friends rather than trying to "save the world" which is not a goal that is likely to be attained at any rate.

I've said elsewhere and this discussion of and England-based philosophy is a good place to repeat it that the British "stiff upper lip" approach seems to continually get in the way of their good sense and lead them to stoic-like views.

To be charitable, maybe they were under more pressure than other places to conform to Christianity or Christian/Humanist idealism, but for whatever the reason they do not seem to have been able to keep Epicurean views unpolluted from Stoicisms. (I do need to exempt Frances Wright from that generalization!)

Here is a comment about scholarship in England made by DeWitt in the intro to his book - I wish I could read Italian - maybe michelepinto could tell me if he has read Bignone and likes him!

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

It is an abstract ideal - driven by emotions rather than nature.

Yes Daniel, that is a reminder of something important -- that ideas/abstractions generate emotions every much as strong (or more) than physical feelings. So it is not enough to say that something "is an abstraction so therefore it isn't real" -- Abstractions may not have physical reality independent from us, but they can certainly generate strong feelings nevertheless.

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

There is much they have in common - we have just been discussing what major differences they have. I think there is far more common than not.

I have long been an admirer of some of the work of John Stuart Mill -- I am less familiar with Bentham. But certainly in general to the extent they are both aimed after "happiness" they have much in common. The old saying "the devil is in the details" applies.

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

In my mind, the ideas fit together perfectly. If one places "greats happiness for the greatest number" at the center

Yes, that IF in that statement is the big hurdle.... and that IF is really at the center of much of the rest of the issue. Who has the "right" to enforce their view of the greatest happiness of the greatest number on everyone else who disagrees?

Quote from Godfrey

Regarding the greatest good for the greatest number, there's a rather famous short story by Ursula LeGuin that I recommend reading. It's titled " The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and I believe you can find a free copy online. It's an interesting take on the idea.

Is it a book? Do I not also remember that Spock said something to the same effect in that movie where he "died" in the vacuum chamber?

As far as observations and consequences, it seems to me that that is so clearly of importance to be unquestionable. In fact, seeing your cites, it seems to me that probably Frances Wright incorporated some of that in her discussion of causation in A Few Days in Athens. And those influences shouldn't be surprising since she dedicated her work to Jeremy Bentham (and so she certainly shared your enthusiasm for at least some of that work).

As to holding the happiness of the entire world as equal to that of my own and my family and friends, that's equally clear - but in the reverse -- most people do not hold to that opinion at all except an abstract ideal that they know does not comport with reality. In fact, that seems to me to be much more of an artifact of Christianity or some other type of universalist religion than something that I observe to be true.

I guess you could say that because I believe in observations and in observing the consequences of actions in the real world, I could never hold the happiness of every member of the entire human race in abstract as entitled to my equal concern as the happiness of my family and friends. And of course taken to its logical conclusion, the happiness of the "greatest number" FAR outweighs the happiness of myself and my friends, in quantity.

Which is why Daniel, with all due respect to you, I have always found the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" to be nonsense, or worse. It seems to me that it's a prescription for the worst kind of totalitarian despotism which could only work by a small elite deciding what the "greatest good of the greatest number" is by fiat, and then enforcing that (by force) on everyone else.

But regardless of whether I am right or wrong on that, the most important part is that I do observe that not everyone agrees with that formula. So to subject ourselves to that formula while the great bulk of humanity rejects it seems to me to be foolhardy at best. But since I am sure that the originators of Utilitarianism were no fools, just like the founders of Abrahamism were no fools, I feel sure that they had another agenda -- likely the same agenda as the Abrahamists. And I think these same observations are why you won't see any sense of "greatest good of the greatest number" in Epicurus at all. You find emphasis on personal pleasure and the pleasure of your friends (which really derives from the first) but you find little if any reference to the rest of the world in abstract, except to note that some people cannot be made friends and must be treated with distance, or as enemies.

**Visualizing Principal Doctrine 8** "No pleasure is a bad thing in itself: but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures."

This doctrine has many implications, of which two are not to be missed. The first implication is the most familiar: some pleasurable experiences bring with them more pain than they are worth. That point may seem obvious, but it is clear that many of us need constant reminders! The second point comes first in position, but is frequently overlooked or downplayed because people who look to religion or "virtue" find it unattractive: No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. The reason for this statement is that as Epicurus points out, Nature gives living things only one test - the feeling of pleasure or pain - for whether a thing is ultimately "bad" or "good." If a thing is pleasurable, then we know that by Nature, and the feeling of pleasure is itself the ultimate judge of what is "good."

The issue, as Epicurus points out, is not that there is a list or ranking, either by the gods or by "reason" of "things which are good" and "things which are bad." The issue is instead, and simply, that the pursuit of some experiences which are good/pleasurable brings more experiences that are bad/pain than they are worth to us.

Epicurus has previously in the Principal Doctrines pointed out that Pleasure should not be thought of as insatiable and therefore rejected as the goal of life. A life of pleasure is a reasonable goal because it is attainable: Pleasure has a natural limit, in that when our experience is filled with pleasure, no greater pleasure can be experienced - the content of our experience (seen as a vessel) is then full, and only the details can be varied. Here Epicurus tells as that any and all pleasures are good, and can theoretically be part of that full pleasure experience, but that some pleasures, if chosen, will make detract from optimum pleasure, because they bring more pain than they are worth.

The point that some pleasures bring more pain than they are worth is one we need to constantly remember, but most of us understand it and appreciate that it is without question true.

The point that no pleasure is intrinsically bad, however, is one that many people fail to appreciate, or worse - they reject it as incompatible with their theology or their sense of "virtue" or "being a good person." Such people want to think that there is a god, or some eternal ideal, which justifies their own ranking of activity as "morally worthy" or "morally unworthy." That is the point which most people need to really think about and let sink in. No god and no set of ideal forms validates their choice of how to live. In reality, there is only Nature, and Nature gives only pleasure and pain by which to decide how to live.

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

More graphics for Principal Doctrine 8 can be found here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/in…e-list/195-pd8/

1-

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

"once the general happiness is recognised as the ethical standard

Yes this is exactly what is in contention and is not self- evident. Many people do not recognize "the general happiness" as the ethical standard, and if he is simply asserting it without some kind of proof then he is without foundation.

As to truth that applies to all places, times, and circumstances and it truly universal (throughout the infinite and eternal universe) I think we are far from being able to establish anything in those terms, especially in the field of ethics. The life of the "gods" is different from the life of "men" because of their circumstances, not because there is a universal force which makes it so. It is certainly possible to generalize within a certain set of facts, such as "all humans eventually die" and "death is nothing to us" but those general observations are based on experience rather than a force which would allow us to say that such and such "always must" be the case. That is the difference between reasoning by observation, while keeping in mind the limits of observation, vs attempting to call into existence "universal principles" which exist only in our minds and have no true existence outside our minds.

Diogenes Laertius: "They [Epicureans] affirm that .... there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words."

Letter to Herodotus: "In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning. For the primary signification of every term employed must be clearly seen, and ought to need no proving; this being necessary, if we are to have something to which the point at issue or the problem or the opinion before us can be referred.

Someone wanting to research into this question could refer to Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" for a part of the Epicurean argument on this.