Posts by Cassius

Godek I am not sure it is even a valid idea to list them by importance without defining your criteria for what is important. Since there is no Fate there is no single set of challenges that everyone will face in any set order. No doubt you could list "virtues" in order of number of times that they are referenced, or you could look for references to things which are stressed such as "prudence" in Cicero's "On Ends."

As I think of that reference, that might qualify as your "most important" but aside from a few references like that I am not aware of any list.

Of your list, I would question whether "moderation" is valid to include, or a virtue at all in Epicurean terms, since moderation itself is understandable only in relation to other ambigous terms (too much, too little, but is it not outside factors that determine all three?)

Cassius started a new event based on info from Takis Panagiotopolis

Event

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy - Athens, Greece

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy

February 9-10, 2019, Cultural Center of Pallini, Athens

Free entrance

The Symposium is annually organized, with free entrance, by the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy Garden of Athens and Garden of Thessaloniki under the auspices of the Municipality of Pallini. The Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy takes place every year in February, because Epicurus was born in that month, and always in Pallini, because that particular municipality of…

Sat, Feb 9th 2019, 8:00 am – Sun, Feb 10th 2019, 8:00 pm

Cassius

January 28, 2019 at 4:01 PM

Quote

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy

February 9-10, 2019, Cultural Center of Pallini, Athens

Free entrance

The Symposium is annually organized, with free entrance, by the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy Garden of Athens and Garden of Thessaloniki under the auspices of the Municipality of Pallini. The Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy takes place every year in February, because Epicurus was born in that month, and always in Pallini, because that particular municipality of modern Athens metropolitan area includes the ancient Athenian demos of Gargettus, from which Epicurus originated.

In regard to what it says about the social contract, I think it says at least in part that Jefferson saw that where a society has too great an extreme of wealth from top to bottom, with the majority of people at the bottom, that those who are at the bottom can be expected to revolt at some point, so that the society had better take steps to address that inequality if the society is going to survive. No matter what kind of "contract" the plutocracy thought it had, the majority who were barely surviving are not not naturally inclined to honor it in the long run given their own desire for pleasure and feelings of pain.

HIram has brought the "Real Hedonism" website to my attention, and I am posting this link, but not with an endorsement. In my view, their approach is a total dead end. Am I happy to see websites or individuals embrace "pleasure" as the goal of life? Yes. Do I think it will do them any good without first studying the nature of life and religion and the universe and clear thinking, as Epicurus taught? No I don't. There's a good reason why the ancient Epicureans referred to themselves as "Epicureans," and not as "hedonists." The "pleasure is good enough" approach will meet the same end as all others who don't take the time to study the full picture. And indeed, by that kind of reasoning, converting to Islam and pursuing eternal pleasure would be a perfectly valid approach.

Rather than dish up empty assertions, contrast what you read there to what the Epicureans saw in Epicurus:

"Indeed mankind, in wretched bondage held, lay groveling on the ground, galled with the yoke of what is called Religion; from the sky this tyrant shewed her head, and with grim looks hung over us poor mortals here below; until a man of Greece with steady eyes dared look her in the face, and first opposed her power. Him not the fame of Gods nor thunder’s roar kept back, nor threatening tumults of the sky; but still the more they roused the active virtue of his aspiring soul, as he pressed forward first to break thro’ Nature's scanty bounds. His mind’s quick force prevailed; and so he passed by far the flaming limits of this world, and wander’d with his comprehensive soul o’er all the mighty space; from thence returned triumphant; told us what things may have a being, and what cannot; and how a finite power is fixed to each; a bound it cannot break; and so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn; his conquest makes us equal to the Gods."

https://epicureanfriends.com/wiki/doku.php?id=browne_1

The "Real Hedonism" website: https://realhedonism.squarespace.com/

Looks like an interesting page and I am going to try to go through it. Will be interesting to see if he gives me any pause in my firm commitment not to use the word "hedonism" to describe myself or Epicurus. There are so many aspects to Epicurean philosophy other than "pleasure" that it's probably always going to strike me as too dangerous, and not worth the effort to try to change the definition of the word.

Great post Florius, and I also agree with Martin's point. "Common sense" gets thrown around to easily, but it does indeed seem to me to be "common sense" that "moderation" as an inflexible rule is as obviously subject to exceptions as any other inflexible rule.

Every time I think about this issues I can't get out of my mind the Barry Goldwater line:

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in pursuit of justice no virtue."

That line sounds (sounded) so smooth, and in some circumstances probably does ring true, and yet there are so many issues with it!

Wow a detailed discussion. TWO of us living in Thailand of all places? First Martin now Florius?

"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.

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/