Posts by Cassius

Let's see where to start! First, I considered this a first draft in posting it, and I look forward to revising it to sharpen the issues. I definitely did not intend it as an endorsement of Sparta over Athens, although i believe that given the contextual nature of what is virtuous, there are indeed times when being organized for war as were the Spartans can be more efficient than running an army by democratic vote. I often point out to my friends in local conversation that the example of the Romans was even to appoint a dictator in times when survival is threatened (the Cincinnatus story?). I doubt very much that Epicurus would say that any form of government is ALWAYS "the best" (other than that which best preserves our lives and ability to live happily under the circumstances.)

But my main target here was not praise of Sparta but to raise a question for debate as to when and how threats to our safety and happiness should be met by "force" and not just by "debate." I think our current times have brought so much material ease, and with it complacency, that we arguably have been, like the proverbial frog, boiled at low heat for so long that we tolerate far too many things that are - to us - "injustice" - because not conducive to our fundamental happy living.

I was more sensitive in putting this together to charges of "sexism," because surely especially in the modern world women are able to fight with much the same potency as men. And in that sense it is sometimes very hard to separate the "ladies" from the "men" when it comes to taking charge and leading active countermeasures against threats. So for my purposes in this draft, no subtext of women being weaker or relying on men for all fighting was intended. However I have no doubt that, regardless of our aspirations, in times of physical threats it is the traditional role of men to risk their lives first, and when the men choose to hang back, it is very unfair to call on women to do so in their place.

While the graphic may overwhelm the text, the text emphasizes Lucian praising Epicurus and Metrodorus as examples of the type of men who stand up with confidence against bitter enemies. And in the full context of Alexander the Oracle Monger, from which the text comes, the Epicurean given as an example risked his life in opposing the fraudulent religious impostor.

Those are some of the things going through my mind that I would like to frame in a graphic as a means of challenging us to think about our own situations in the way that Cicero addressed one of his most famous lines, to Catiline, to the effect -- "How long, O Catiline, will you go on abusing our patience?" At what point DOES our patience give out, and we resort to more active measures, rather than sitting stoically on our hands while our enemies surround us and choke us past the point of no return?

Yes I think so! Sex is definitely one of those activities that can be high risk, and therefore must be handled carefully. But no one who accepts pleasure as the goal of living, combined with the shortness of life and the eternity of death, and the pleasures of relationships that come from sex (not to mention the benefits of children!) is going to write it off completely as always prohibited.

Here is a link to a new article on Epicurus from India entitled "Epicurean Pleasure" along with my list of several quotes from the article that I think most call out for correction: https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/epicur…1502691281.html

Welcome @camarks !

When you have the opportunity, please let us know a little about your background and interest in Epicurean philosophy. Enjoy your stay here!

Epicureans in the ancient world lived through the complete collapse of their societies, and it is possible that we today are seeing the same thing. What does Epicurean philosophy have to say about how to deal with challenges to our societal structures? We frequently have new people ask questions like this: "I'm particularly interested in Epicurean ways of homesteading, as I am looking to leave the city for a more simple country life."

The first thing to remember is that according to Epicurus simple living (like virtue) is not an end in itself, but a tool in the pursuit of pleasure. But it's also clear that simplicity, independence, and self reliance are generally going to be critically important in sustaining a life of pleasure, and Diogenes Laertius recorded that Epicurus said specifically that the wise man will be "fond of the country."

Do any of our group members have personal experience in leaving the city for the country? We can discuss general issues of simple living, independence, self-reliance, etc., in this thread too, as they probably go hand in hand with the main topic.

If you've come to this group because you're looking for help in living a happy life, rather than a way to "please god" or "be a good person," then let's be clear, you're already well on your way to being an Epicurean and leaving Stoicism and Supernatural religion. That's because no one shows that the ultimate end of life is "pleasure," and that any other goal is error and leads to nothing but confusion, better than Epicurus, the master-builder of human happiness:

"So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it." - Letter to Menoeceus

PD22. "We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion."

"...I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness." -- Torquatus/Cicero in "On Ends"

And why do I put "pleasure" in quotes? Because we're not talking only about sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll (although those ARE pleasant). If you study Epicurus you will see that the word must be broadly understood, to include all kinds of mental and physical pleasures - with the common theme that whether it be the finest work of art or the simplest food, things that are pleasnt are united by nature - not by god and not by abstract reasoning - due to the fact that our **senses** perceive the thing as pleasurable. No need for priests bribe us with false promises or threaten us with hell, no need for academicians to confuse us with endless words that lead nowhere.

Comment:

I suggest that you should put up an FAQ or list of common errors about Epicureanism, since the same things seem to come up repeatedly. For instance, I thought some pleasures were disdained as they caused more pain, right?

Cassius: No - All pleasures are pleasurable - but some pleasures lead to more pain than they are worth. But you don't know that because some pleasures are intrinsically "bad" - you only know that due to the contextual result of the pain being worse than the pleasure is worth to you. And if you make the error of thinking that some pleasures are bad in themselves, then you've set up a false abstract standard higher than pleasure, and Epicurean philosophy denies any such thing exists.

This is so canonical that it is in the top ten: PD8 "No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."

Comment: Right, that's what I thought.

For others reading this it is crucial that this not be dismissed as playing with words. As PD10 says, even the activities that we consider to be most "depraved" are bad not because they are not pleasurable, but because in virtually every case they bring painful consequences that outweigh the pleasure. To accept that there is some outside standard that says "XXX pleasure is always bad" would be to accept some kind of supernatural or ideal abstraction which the nature of the universe as infinite, eternal, and uncreated renders impossible.

Comment: It seems that's exactly why so many people have a difficulty understanding this. The idea of such values has been ingrained deeply in Western culture by Christian doctrine. Epicureanism thus seems very alien to them, and they try squeezing it into the same mold (although this makes no sense).

A Post Devoted to Our Epicurean Facebook Friends:

I don't think I have ever in my life seen political emotions in the United States as hot as they are right now, and all indications are that they are going to get hotter before they cool off. I also think it would be irresponsible of those of us who promote Epicurus to act as if Epicurean philosophy has nothing worthwhile to consider on this subject. To the contrary, the fundamental principals set forth by Epicurus are the starting point for EVERY day to day decision, including one's day to day political stance. The very suggestion that Epicurean philosophy has nothing to offer on burning issues of the day is offensive to me.

My personal goal will always be to refrain from arguing my personal contextual political opinions, not because I think that is necessary for an Epicurean to do so, but because it is critically important that we protect our fellowship. I therefore think we need to follow our long-established precedent: refrain from day-to-day "politics" in this group. Political personalities and issues that come and go are purely contextual to the individuals involved, just as the emergent qualities of combinations of the combinations of atoms come and go and are perceived differently according to context. My feelings of pleasure and pain are as real to me as yours are to you, and that goes for everyone in or out of this Facebook group. On the other hand some months ago a number of us did set up an "Epicurean Natural Justice" group on Facebook for discussion of issues related to "justice." I recommend that anyone who has a burning desire to talk about Epicurean principles of justice post there, at the link below.

Maybe everyone here would have continued to ignore the current political situation in the USA, and this post was unnecessary. I also know that this is a worldwide group, but the reality is that probably a significant majority of people who read this group are USA-based. I hope no matter how hot emotions get, we will not forget that "of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is friendship."

We have a very clear outline of Epicurus' views on Justice in the final ten Doctrines. Failing to consider them in the current context would fly in the face of our desire to study Epicurus and apply his wisdom to our lives. Even more, to insist on a stony silence would be to give in to the worst of the Stoicizing tendencies which we always face from modern academic Epicureans. But for further discussion of these principles in the current context I would advise use of the Natural Justice group linked below:

31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.

33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.

34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.

35. It is impossible for a man who secretly violates the terms of the agreement not to harm or be harmed to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure that he will not be detected.

36. In general justice is the same for all, for it is something found mutually beneficial in men's dealings, but in its application to particular places or other circumstances the same thing is not necessarily just for everyone.

37. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

38. Where without any change in circumstances the things held to be just by law are seen not to correspond with the concept of justice in actual practice, such laws are not really just; but wherever the laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for that time just when they were advantageous for the mutual dealings of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they were no longer advantageous.

39. The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another; and their enjoyment of the fullest intimacy is such that if one of them dies prematurely, the others do not lament his death as though it called for pity.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/514380772274183/

Please note remember that posts on this topic are welcome at the JUSTICE forum at EpicureanFriends.com

First effort at a meme:

Probably best answer: "Both have their uses, but I'll take Adrenalin any day!!" Probably a flunking / Stoic answer: "Give me the tranquilizer!!!"

Also: Hows that for a catchy acronym? .... C.D.E... Too bad this would be just slightly off: B - A - C - D - E !

Although the thrust of this Greek / English initiative is to encourage translation of short comments / questions / discussions, we are also aware of significant longer pieces in Greek or other languages which would be great to translate and discuss. For example, we have several times in the past referenced a Thessalonikan by the name of George Kaplanos, and here is a link to one of his significant recent artlcles with side-by-side Greek and English (courtesy of Google Translate). The google translate gives an idea of the content but needs dramatic improvement.

It would be great to see if we can find bilingual English / Greeks who could help us correct this copy. In the past, people like Panos Alexiou have been willing to help, but we can't impose on a single person. If you are yourself Greek/English bllingual, or know someone who is and who could help, please let us know. This is an important article and covers some important and controversial topics. If you can help, please paste proposed sections of text here and I or someone will edit the main copy. (Or what would be better, please download the document, post it to your own Google doc, and post a link to your revision.)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/157…dit?usp=sharing

Gratias!

Commentary on The Ultimate Tranquilizer cited by Elli here. Thank you Elli!

To repeat what Elli quoted: "Epicurus characterized the state of ataraxia as the absence of pain and freedom from all worry. He said that the condition in which nothing can discomfort you – whatever that thing is and however distressful it is – can be attained through philosophical contemplation." <<< The goal is to attain a condition in which nothing no matter how distressful can discomfort you???? Epicurus would have known just as surely as we do that the only way for a human to attain such a condition is to DIE -- and so unless DEATH was the Epicurean goal of life this assertion stated this way is totally bogus and misleading. Such a condition CANNOT be obtained through philosophical contemplation alone, any more than philosophical contemplation can stop a bullet aimed at your head or a cancer aimed at your vital organs.

Among the most important things he is confusing is this: Philosophical contemplation cannot make us superhuman. What philosophical contemplation can first do is to allow us to reason through and see the true goal of life, which is NOT to live for God, NOT to live for virtue, and NOT to live for absolute abstract ideals -- because those things have never existed and will never exist. Correct contemplation of nature and use of reason based on the senses allows us to see that LIFE is our most important asset, and that we are programmed by nature to spend that life pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and not chasing after nonexistent gods and virtues and absolutes. If we see and identify that goal, we will see that ACTION is necessary in real life to meet and defeat the problems of life -- not just sitting around CONTEMPLATING.

Now its probably also fair to say that Epicurus went further in deconstructing gods and virtues and ideals, and he further postulated that since those things do not exist, we need to define a goal - the kind of life in reality - towards which all our actions are directed. We can define that highest state of existence as that kind of life in which we have in REALITY eliminated pains and threats against us, and that we thereby achieve confidence in our ability to continue in such a state due to our ability to defeat those problems. Complete achievement of that state is what we would presume the life of a "god" would look like, and we can observe that in an infinite and eternal universe, some forms of life are better able to achieve that state in reality than others. So that way of life serves as our "ideal" to which we should strive in ACTION. This is stated clearly in the Epicurean section of "On Ends", where the highest life is described this way:

"The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement."

So there IS a sense in which this end result is accomplished in PART through philosophical means - as the coordinator and driver of our actons. But contemplation divorced from action is the key problem with what is suggested in that article. That is Platonism and other Greek variations - it is not Epicurus.

(Note: I attempted to reduce my use of the word "state" due to the potential confusion that there is some absolute unchanging condition of perfection which is the goal. No! The atoms are forever in motion - NOTHING is ever "at rest." Life is change; life is movement, and to suggest that there is some final mountaintop experience in which a second is as good as an eternity is false. The word "state" *can* imply such an unchanging condition, but it can also be used to describe a continuing progression that continues without significant change. That latter is the way I am using it - NOT as a "one second is worth an eternity" / "salvation" type of experience. Epicurus would never have accepted such a formulation as the goal when the premises of everything is that the atoms of our being - and all atoms - are always and eternally in motion.)

...

There are so many issues involved in deconstructing a statement like "ataraxia is the goal of life" which can be viewed as correct from one perspective but totally incorrect from other perspectives. Yes, within a full framework of Epicurean perspectives on the nature of the universe, the nature of the gods, the nature of human life, and the nature of pleasure and pain, it is correct to say that "absence of disturbance" (probably the best translation of ataraxia) is ONE characteristic of the best way of life. But that is not the impression that such a statement leaves on 98% of the people in the world today, or on 95% of the people who read that statement even in this Epicurean group.

...

Words don't just have abstract meaning - they convey real conclusions to real people in real contexts - and to convey that "anesthesia" is the goal of Epicurean living is totally misleading. That's not meant as a personal criticism of the writer of this article or of any other example of this type of argument. The problem is that we don't live in an Epicurean world where people readily grasp the subtleties of the arguments that were used by Epicurus, and if we're going to be responsible to each other and faithful to the intent of Epicurus, we need to realize that drowning men and women don't need technicalities while they are thrashing about in the water -- they need a lifeline of clear help first, and technicalities later.

....

The article ends: "And is there anything better than inner peace and tranquility?" And my answer based on my understanding of Epicurus is "DAMN RIGHT THERE IS! And the answer is explained fully in the example of the highest life I have quoted above, in which peace and continuity without painful disturbance are aspects, but far from the whole and far from the core. It is THIS that is the highest life, and this is by no means anesthesia:

"Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement."

"NOT ADMIT OF FURTHER IMPROVEMENT" means *this* is the goal - not anesthesia!

I see that the article reproduces two accusations I find most irritating:

(1) that Epicurus "derided" mathematics, and

(2) that Epicurus "rejected" politics.

I continue to think that is misrepresentation. It is not "deriding" something to put it in its proper place, and it is not "rejecting" something in total to carve our a proper and an improper use for an activity.

It would be very helpful in promoting Epicurus to have a reference that articulately points out that Epicurus was not "anti-science" and "anti" all politics.

Wow that is quite a long article! I will bookmark to go through it more thoroughly.

Correct! But helping people deprogram themselves from a variety of backgrounds is a useful activity

For those who come here and are concerned for religious reasons that our souls are "spiritual" rather than material (the Epicurean view), you might find of interest this 1823 article by Thomas Cooper, friend of Thomas Jefferson, entitled "The Spiritual Doctrine of Materialism" where he argues that materialism is taught in the Bible. I have not found where Cooper and Jefferson specifically discussed Epicurus in their correspondence, but the implications of this argument are obvious, and might be of help if you are yourself (or deal with) Christians.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…OMAc0fMYso9ajYR

Good points Hiram. I don't think anything as basic as the swerve would post-date Epicurus, but I certainly agree with your major point.

Thoughts on this passage from "Antichrist": <<The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds and distances in feeling: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation — so great that it senses all resistance, all compulsion to resistance, as unbearable anguish (— that is to say, as harmful, as prohibited by the instinct of self-preservation), and regards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer necessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or dangerous — love, as the only, as the ultimate possibility of life. . . .

These are the two physiological realities upon and out of which the doctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation of paganism. Epicurus was a typical décadent: I was the first to recognize him. — The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain — the end of this can be nothing save a religion of love. . . .>>

This passage from Nietzsche causes me to also think about the discussion of the Cyreniacs in Diogenes Laertius which I was listening to yesterday in my car. I think the basic point I will be arguing is that we have to deal with the fact that - like what is said about the Bible - it is possible to take certain sections of the remaining texts and commentaries out of context and "prove" almost any position we want to take about Epicurus. We can redefine pleasure as "absence of pain" and therefore make Epicurus into a super-stoic, which is what I think Nietzsche was doing in passages like this.

But is it also possible to see Epicurus as a technician fixing a broken machine, or doctor healing sick body, who has to start with what he was given at that point in Greek philosophy and deal with errors before he can emerge into a new totally different healthy creation. As I have said many times before I think the primary reason Epicurus discussed "Absence of pain" the way he did was because he knew he needed to "Deprogram" Platonists and Aristotelians who had taught everyone that pleasure cannot be the goal of life because pleasure supposedly has no limit, and he wanted to draw attention to the natural limit of pleasure (which is the life full of pleasure when all pain is gone). Similarly there were all sorts of Greek dialectical "trick" arguments which led toward nihilism and doubting the senses and toward oppressive gods and toward determinism, all of which he had to deal with to heal his students.

Where I am going with this is that these parts of the philosophy were the major parts of interest to the anti-Epicureans, so they are the only parts that have survived to us. I think the parts we have lost would have been expansions on the PROPER way of life and thought, which is what proved attractive to the ancient world and made it popular. Most of the ROMAN examples we have fit that mold - people who were aggressively living life and in no way afraid of pain if it meant more successful pursuit of real pleasure. We don't seem to have many examples of GREEK lives to use an an example, but I don't doubt that they existed.

The result of the problem is that the Roman examples are today made out to be "bad Epicureans" while the only examples of people who are praised for their Epicurean comments are people like Marcus Aurelius who were a mishmash or actual Stoics.

I think Nietzsche could have come to the conclusion I'm suggesting here but decided rather than fight the establishment he'd just jettison the problem and not worry about crediting or rehabilitating Epicurus and just go forward under his own name with his own version of correct philosophy.

In my view the version of Epicurus praised by the majority IS decadent, and their version has to be rejected clearly and affirmatively. That's the path that has been started only recently by DeWitt, and by virtually no one else other than the works by Gosling &Taylor and by Boris Nikolsky, which consists in untangling Epicurus from the rest of Greek philosophy.

So to repeat my view is that Nietszche was discussing the establishment's version of Epicurus, the establishment's version IS decadent, and it should be rejected because it is not historically correct.

(Edit: my comment about the Cyreniacs is a reference to the fact that many of Epicurus' views clearly were originated by them earlier, and in order to understand how everything fits together we need to consider not only the prior ANTI-pleasure arguments, but the prior PRO-pleasure arguments. That way we see what Epicurus was facing and how he pulled everything into a final package.)

"Now now, little Tommy, no more running and playing ball on the playground. No more playing like you're an astronaut going to the moon, or a cop fighting a robber, or an explorer going to a new land - just go over there and sit in the corner with your nose to the wall, and you'll experience no pain whatsoever! Trust me - sitting there with your nose to the wall is not only the best way to avoid pain, it's the highest pleasure possible to you!"

For a philosophy that would teach anything like that, "decadent" is far too nice a word. And yet that is *exactly* what the mainstream view of Epicurus amounts to.

Normal nice people resist the idea that such an extreme perversion is possible, since it cannot have been by accident, and it is hard to go against the crowd when it is in such a large majority. But that is exactly what has happened with Judeo-Christian religion -- a total lie that has prospered for 2000+ years now.

And that probably played into some of Nietzsche''s negativity, and may be why he had bad things to say about "Darwinism" -- because we can just look around us to see that the "true" and the "better" do not always prevail (and thus he questioned whether "evolution" leads upward).

More detail from the letter from which this quote comes makes clear that Jefferson was willing to apply the point and give examples of it -- examples you couple apply directly in explanation of PD's 30-40:

I had never read that "Letter to John Colvin" until today. Wow, it is striking that the circumstances of "General Wilkerson" discussed in paragraph two almost exactly mirror those of Cicero in the Cataline conspiracy.

Another link to the letter: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/docume…-john-b-colvin/