Posts by Cassius

Here is a very general point that applies to the first part of 34 -- "injustice is not an evil in itself" -- that's hugely important on it's own, but it is really nothing more than application of the physics that there are no eternal rules or supernatural gods dictating what is "good" and "evil" in itself. Ultimately Nature has only given us pleasure and pain by which to judge what is desirable and what is not, so neither "injustice" or anything else is "evil" in itself, with the closest to "evil in itself" being only pain, which is always undesirable, and yet sometimes we even choose that in order to gain greater pleasure or avoid worse pain.

So the main point -- injustice is not evil in itself - stands alone, with the rest of the explanation of why injustice is "evil" or "undesirable" being to point out that the undesirability comes from other factors besides supernatural prohibition or violation of any kind of absolute rules.

As for how it relates to 32, 32 is supporting the point that what we consider to be "just" and "unjust can be judged only in terms of whether there are breaches of agreement, because there are no supernatural or absolute obligations which can be breached.

One more point -- That's why I think that the 12 Fundamentals of Nature should always be included in discussion of the 40 Doctrines. What we are discussing here derives directly from the Epicurean physics, which confirms the nature of the universe as natural, and eliminates the possibility of supernatural or universally absolute law. If you try to divorce the discussion of justice from the nature of the universe as if they were separable, you tear away the support and foundation of the conclusion, and leave it dangling and appearing to be arbitrary.

Yes Hiram does a great job at outreach on places like that. We really need to step up my gain on search engine operation here, so that's good information - thank you!

Godfrey, you mentioned that you are not a Facebook person -- do you mind my asking how you found this forum? We need to "get out the word" as best as possible, so I am interested to know if your way of finding us can be leveraged and expanded. Thanks!

I have not highlighted this project in the past because I know it can be vastly improved, but I am starting this thread as a place to organize the improvements, discuss the existing version, and hopefully provide inspiration to others to prepare superior material.

The website is: http://www.catiuscat.com

The video location at Vimeo is: Thus Purred Catius' Cat and Catius' Cat and the Forty Mice

The video location at Youtube is: Thus Purred Catius' Cat and Catius Cat and The Forty Mice

A page for the full text of Thus Purred Catius' Cat

A page for the full text of Catius' Cat and the Forty Mice

The videos themselves (Vimeo versions):

The only changes I have made in the original text since posting these approximately six years ago has been to alter paragraph 76 of "Thus Purred Catius' Cat." In order to avoid implying that Epicurus taught that we should pursue ONLY natural and necessary pleasures, I have made the following revision:

I have not yet been able to revise the video, but I will do that as soon as possible.

Thank you Godfrey! Glad to have you hear and we look forward to working with you. Your story about dissatisfaction with stoicism is a common one! Please feel free to start threads in any section by posting your thoughts or asking questions. That's what is going to help us build critical mass here - just dig in whereever is of interest and even if someone doesn't respond immediately, over time we'll have a resource that people can come back to and learn from, and meet people and have a good time along the way. Look forward to working with you!

Welcome Godfrey ! When you get a chance, please say hello and let us know a little about your background and experience with Epicurus!

Pending Hiram answering that question, I'll just post that other than a few, most of Philodemus' surviving writings are pretty fragmentary, so you have to know where to look, and decide which reconstructors to trust.

Very interesting comments! I was beginning to think it might be unanimous for dark, but I see Martin has voted light. Martin, can you say why you think light might be attractive to more people on first look?

With the recent upgrade of the forum software, let's get the advice of users on a style question: It's easy to set a personal preference for the theme and color of the website by selecting "Change Style" at the bottom right of each page. Once you are a registered user, this style selection also carries over for use of the site on a phone or any other device. This question is to ask your opinion as to what should be the default theme for new users before they register and make a personal selection. In other words, which style (Light or Dark) do you think is most attractive to most people, and most likely to be found inviting and to lead to new users coming back for more. In years past, I would have said light themes are "standard" for a reason, and that most people like them. However today I really prefer dark themes, and this software has an excellent one where you can pick your accent color. So which do you think is the best setting for new visitors - light or dark?

Tyler philosophy is not a magic bullet, and when someone has a medical issue they always need to be relying on professional medical help. So I urge you to be sure you (or anyone with a clinical problem) is getting professional help and following those professionals' advice.

That having been said, much of Lucretius is devoted to using reasoned observation to study what goes on in nature, and with the senses, so as to better know how to process the perceptions we get from our senses.

Welcome Domagoj ! When you get a chance please let us know your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for using the forum!

That last post is an excellent example of how alone we are, and how important it is to work together to help develop an alternative.

On Knowledge Elayne wrote: 8. In isolation, each way of perceiving the environment can lead to errors of understanding the world. Then reasoning, both fast and slow, can add more errors of interpretation, both individually and in groups. 9. Despite these potential routes of error, we have so many different means of experiencing the world that it is pragmatically reasonable to accept certain redundantly confirmed conclusions as factual. I agree with Gould that a “fact” Is something so likely to be true that it would be silly not to accept it.

On a similar train of thought Diogenes of Oinanda wrote:

Fr. 5

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Other comments:

12. People who have meditated extensively or done other practices to change their brain functioning will often tell others that now they know the truth and that typical human brains operate under an illusion or delusion. In fact, these people have inactivated some of their brain functions. This does nothing to invalidate ordinary human experience or knowledge. <<< I COMPLETELY agree with this!

3. Feelings are more important to typical humans than living longer. YEP!! Letter to Menoeceus: "And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest."


Now that I have finished reading the entire list I'll just say in summary that it is really excellent. No doubt any list can be nit-picked but on first read-through absolutely none of them jump out at me that would be something hard to reconcile with what I believe to be true about Epicurean philosophy.

Oh this prompts me already to say this:

4. At the subatomic particle level, unexpected events occur which appear as random or chance. It is not yet clear what this really represents.

Elayne I always recommend the article "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism" by AA Long for a very interesting discussion of how to reconcile "the swerve" and the indeterminacy which is implied there, with the determinacy that is also implied by that natural laws of physics which Epicurus also studied. If this is an area that interests you, I think you will find the Long article very helpful for an explanation of how BOTH exist within Epicurean philosophy, and how the ancients who had full access to Epicurean texts understood how Epicurus' position was not self-contradictory. I will find a link to that article and link it here. It is HERE in the files section of the main Facebook group.

Wow thank you for this detailed post! I know I will have lots more to say about this, but I wanted to go ahead and thank you for the time in posting this!

Thank you Elayne! It is great to have you hear and I hope it will be a long and enjoyable trip!

Welcome Elayne ! Thank you for joining us here. Our group of users here is somewhat different than the Facebook page, so if you get a chance and could say a few words about your background and interest in Epicurus please do!

Thanks Hiram -- I intend to link in response to this question some of our earlier discussions. For the time being I have just set these questions up first and will come back to them as time permits.

It is with great pleasure that I post this link to a new presentation by Christos Yapijakis, founder and leader of the Athens Garden of Epicurus, entitled "Epicurean Philosophy, Modern Science, and Life." Not only is the article/presentation extremely interesting, but the question and answer session afterwards contains fascinating exchanges with Christos defending Epicurean philosophy against challenges from several quarters. Thanks to Christos for letting us know about this article and giving his permission for us to feature it here! The presentation is here.

What did Epicurus say about the size of the sun and whether the Earth was round or flat?