Posts by Cassius

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/

I do not think this strays too close to the line of contemporary politics for this group, but I have what I think is a good reminder of the application of the last ten Doctrines of Epicurus.

Many of you (the Americans, anyway) may have heard the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." That comes from a 1949 Supreme Court case on free speech by a justice who is long forgotten, but here is the same sentiment stated in very clear terms by the only president who ever declared himself to be an Epicurean, Thomas Jefferson.

Yes it has "political" application, but do you see how it is a direct slap in the face of Stoicism and Platonism and all the "isms" which allege there to be some immutable law and "virtue" for all people at all times and all places?

When the time comes for action, an Epicurean is not limited by false devotion to the supposed "laws" of god or of men. And in the great crisis of his own life, even a Platonist like Cicero came to the same conclusion, as he executed the Catalinian conspirators and cheered on Cassius in the revolution against Caesar. Epicurean philosophy doesn't guarantee us success in life, but it frees us from the false blinders that many seek to impose on us.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-03-02-0060

As to the implications of the discussion in Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus and in Lucretius, I have a couple of comments:

In the Epicurean texts the parallel to quantum indeterminacy is in the section of Lucretius referencing the swerve, which I attribute to Epicurus (even though the text for it is lost) because I feel certain that Lucretius would never expand beyond the master on something so important. All the context indicates to me that he gets this directly from Epicurus, and this is one of those areas that like DeWitt suggests we should just presume that Epicurus thought was a topic that was more advanced and thus not included in the letter to Herodotus. If I had to speculate more I would say that Epicurus probably presented the topic with more explanation that did Lucretius, and that he probably added much more to the argument for its existence in addition to Lucretius' "it MUST be there else where would we get free will, and why would the atoms not just fall in a straight line." He would at least have explained in this context that this is an example of deductive reasoning and probably have gone off into the explanation of why deductive reasoning is valid in this instance. Probably even referencing canonical issues of how we determine what is "true" and what is not.

But in the matter of combining the references to the swerve to the issue of primary and secondary qualities, I think we have an area that is ripe for confusion, given my belief that quantum indeterminacy and the swerve have to be kept in context and their limits clearly in mind. As I always do I refer back to AA Longs "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" for the argument that the Epicureans emphasized the extremely minor deviation of the swerve. The reason for that emphasis is that we must remember that the swerve does not "break through" into ordinary affairs and cause chaos in the things we see around us. If so, the entire philosophy would fall to the ground. The truth is that what we see around us in normal affairs is almost totally determinable and predictable from prior events. Yes, one day the solar system or our universe will explode into its component parts, as all things that come together eventually dissipate, but in the interim MOST things at our level of sensation (other than the free will / higher intelligence in animals) is almost totally predictable.

To me that means that rather than the issue of primary/secondary qualities being a reference to indeterminacy, the meaning is probably the OPPOSITE -- the issue that I think Lucretius and Epicurus were stressing is how the things around us at our level of sensation have a strong level of determinacy that exists through natural means, and NOT through divine guidance. The issue that they needed to present to the world was the alternative to religion, and they had to explain how what we see in the regular motions of the stars and planets and developments here on earth arise from the motions of combinations of atoms, with the things we see changing, but with the atoms beneath the surface remaining unchanged except for their combinations and "un-combinations" and related movements.

So to say this another way, the real importance of this section is not to draw analogies to indeterminacy, which can be used as menace to confident planning and thinking about the future, but the opposite -- to provide an explanation of how the atoms work and how they combine into emergent properties and rise to the level of our senses (which is what I think the "shores of light" references in Lucretius mean). In other words, this is the explanation of how the things we see can be transient and changing, while the means by which they operate (the elements) remain eternally unchanged.

Thanks Hiram. I am going to work on getting something set up. I think what would work best to start is that if we work with JAWS to set up a list of her questions and then we organize them and get her to read them and explain them, then we go around the table giving comments and responses. It will take some time to set up but would be very worthwhile.

On the evening of September 1 four of us from across the world had a very good discussion about Chapter 11 ("Soul, Sensation, and Mind") of DeWitt's book. In addition to that we began discuss that it would be desirable to have a special discussion focusing on some harder / application issues.

JAWS has suggested that she might be able to help us put together a list of questions that are of concern to her. It seems like a good idea to consider a "round table" or similar format where she poses those questions and gets a series of suggested answers in response.

We've talked for quite a while about recording such a session and editing into a format suitable for publishing on Youtube and/or as a podcast.

I think this is an oustanding idea and I'm committed to doing my part to pull it together. Please post your comments here (and I'll crosspost this on Facebook) and we can begin to plan the details. No doubt this will take weeks and even months for us to put together, and in the meantime we can continue to hold our regular sessions as we complete the remaining chapters of DeWitt's book.

This is a great idea and I'd love to see Hiram and Elli and EricR and others who haven't been regulars on our DeWitt discussions participate as well.

Let's talk about how we can put this together.

Aside from this being funny, I think it illustrates the powerful pull of pleasure, even across species, and reminds me of Lucretius' empathy for the cow that had lost its calf to the wasteful slaughter of the religionists. So the next time you see a scowling religionist or stoic, keep away like a goat would!

http://www.irishnews.com/magazine/scien…-happy-1418729/

I just noticed that I had the title of Chapter 11 wrong in the "Announcement" box at the top of this page. I have now corrected it -- Chapter 11 is "Soul, Sensation, and Mind"

I just noticed that I had the title of Chapter 11 wrong in the "Announcement" box at the top of this page. I have now corrected it -- Chapter 11 is "Soul, Sensation, and Mind"

Hi Jnamiotka! We will proceed with the one we skipped - Chapter 11 - "Soul, Sensation, and Mind." Hope you can join us.

Oh my gosh the 20th is almost over here in my time zone and I haven't issued a "Happy 20th" myself here at Facebook or Epicureanfriends.com, or seen anyone else do so! Life come at you hard sometimes with so many distractions, but I am in my eighth+ year of hard-core Epicurean studying, and I can say without reservation that it has changed my life for the better. I hope your time with Epicurus does as much for you as it has for me. Happy Twentieth and never forget what Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus did for all of us!

Someone asked about the Cyreniacs and my view is:

Diogenes Laertius thought this was the most significant difference, which sounds likely. Key points are that Epicurus endorses BOTH pleasures of the mind and those of the body, which the Cyreniacs only endorsed those of the body, and Epicurus held that pleasures of the mind can be greater than those of the body, while the Cyreniacs apparently held a different view: "Such are his {Epicurus'] views on life and conduct; and he has discoursed upon them at greater length elsewhere. He differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest, but only that which consists in motion. Epicurus admits both; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene.

So also Diogenes in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta, and Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are: “Thus Pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest.” The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are : “Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity.”

He further disagrees with the Cyrenaics in that they hold that pains of body are worse than mental pains; at all events evil-doers are made to suffer bodily punishment; whereas

Epicurus holds the pains of the mind to be the worse; at any rate the flesh endures the storms of the present alone, the mind those of the past and future as well as the present. In this way also he holds mental pleasures to be greater than those of the body."

http://www.epicurus.net/en/lives.html#F

I can see room for reasonable discussion between Cyreniacs and Epicureans as to which pleasures are more intense, as I think that is going to differ with individual context - at least our choices among them will. I can also see reasonable argument about the meaning of pleasures at "rest" for reasons we have discussed many times - any discussion of that turns on definitions of what pleasures of "rest" really are, and from the point of view of life being dynamic and ever-changing, nothing is really "at rest." But these are issues among friends who see the bigger and deeper points - that there are no religious gods or ideal forms of conventional philosophy which tell us what pleasure is, or that we should pursue something other than pleasure.

My guess is that of every ten new articles you see on Epicurus, eight of them are going to leave a totally false impression of what Epicurus really taught, such as this one, which makes Epicurus sound like an ascetic competing with stoics and monks to see how many desires he could suppress. And as usual the inaccurate conclusions can be traced back to the single misunderstanding -- the "BUT....." --- that seems to impress ascetics most: "“Epicurus’s version agrees that pleasure is the greatest good and the best life is the most pleasant life,” says James Warren, professor of Classics at Cambridge University. “But he thinks the highest pleasure you can achieve is the absence of pain. Once pain has been removed, you don’t increase pleasure from that point on, you just vary it.”

Thus the standard way of misrepresenting Epicurus that leads to his embrace by the ascetics and his dismissal by those who have the intelligence to see that this formulation cannot be what Epicurus really taught:

"Pleasure IS the goal of life, but Pleasure ISN'T what you think it is! Pleasure is really a zero!"

On the contrary, what Epicurus taught is that pleasure IS what you (the person uncorrupted by a false philosophy like asceticism) think it is, because you FEEL it and need no academic expert to interpret it for you!

From De Finibus: "This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict. Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them."

https://qz.com/1356786/hedoni…sons-you-think/

Due to several conflicts we have rescheduled the August 18th discussion to Saturday September 1. Notices posted here and at Facebook.

I note the excerpt above said he fled "without his shield" but no telling what role he really had: "Horace later recorded it as a day of embarrassment for himself, when he fled without his shield, but allowance should be made for his self-deprecating humour. Moreover, the incident allowed him to identify himself with some famous poets who had long ago abandoned their shields in battle, notably his heroes Alcaeus and Archilochus. The comparison with the latter poet is uncanny: Archilochus lost his shield in a part of Thrace near Philippi, and he was deeply involved in the Greek colonization of Thasos, where Horace's die-hard comrades finally surrendered.""

OK so THIS explains the self-deprecating ending of the letter to Tibullus on sleek and fat:

Suetonius: "In person he was short and fat, as he is described with his own pen in his satires6 and by Augustus in the following letter: "Onysius has brought me your little volume, and I accept it, small as it is, in good part, as an apology. But you seem to me to be afraid that your books may be bigger than you are yourself; but it is only stature that you lack, not girth. So you may write on a pint pot, that the circumference of your volume may be well rounded out, like that of your own belly."

I've not attempted to read much into Horace's background; probably it would be good somewhere to list some links to good references to his life beyond just wikipedia. Surely there will be some articles too which explore specifically his Epicurean aspects. I believe I remember reading that Horace had perhaps been a soldier on the Republican side at Philippi? OK:

"Rome's troubles following the assassination of Julius Caesar were soon to catch up with him. Marcus Junius Brutus came to Athens seeking support for the republican cause. Brutus was fêted around town in grand receptions and he made a point of attending academic lectures, all the while recruiting supporters among the young men studying there, including Horace. An educated young Roman could begin military service high in the ranks and Horace was made tribunus militum (one of six senior officers of a typical legion), a post usually reserved for men of senatorial or equestrian rank and which seems to have inspired jealousy among his well-born confederates. He learned the basics of military life while on the march, particularly in the wilds of northern Greece, whose rugged scenery became a backdrop to some of his later poems. It was there in 42 BC that Octavian (later Augustus) and his associate Mark Antony crushed the republican forces at the Battle of Philippi. Horace later recorded it as a day of embarrassment for himself, when he fled without his shield, but allowance should be made for his self-deprecating humour. Moreover, the incident allowed him to identify himself with some famous poets who had long ago abandoned their shields in battle, notably his heroes Alcaeus and Archilochus. The comparison with the latter poet is uncanny: Archilochus lost his shield in a part of Thrace near Philippi, and he was deeply involved in the Greek colonization of Thasos, where Horace's die-hard comrades finally surrendered."

Also I see there is a reference to Suetonius' "Life of Horace" (Latin, but we need English ) Loeb (limited access)

Here we go - Life of Horace at LacusCurtius

Interesting thought to look for parallels like that. Here is the Munro edition of the final passage of Book VI

Along with the opening:

That's a great question that I am far from resolving to my own satisfaction.

Both the way it ends as the end of the chapter, and as the end of the book, seems questionable, but not so stark that the issue is clear. I'd have to go back and compare the details of the way the first five chapters close, but the way the details of the plague of Athens are recited without quite as much commentary seems to me to indicated it might have been intended to have a special impact fitting for the end.

On the other hand there seem to be references sprinkled in the poem to more discussion of the gods to come, which never seems to appear.

So at the moment I personally tend to think that while the chapter ends well enough as a chapter (in comparison with the way the other chapters end), I'm not convinced that Lucretius planned it to be the end of the book as a whole.

I too would be very interested in the reactions of others.