Posts by Cassius

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.

Welcome, Epicurusleif, and thank you for taking the initiative to introduce yourself! I hope you will enjoy your time with us an will post on any topic of interest to you!

Thank you Jnamiotka!

If you are a new student of Epicurus, Norman DeWitt’s “Epicurus and His Philosophy” is one of the first books you want to read. The book does not appear to be currently in print, but hard copies can be found at various stores across the internet, and reasonably priced copies can regularly be found at Ebay (tip – avoid the “new” reprints which are more expensive). The book is also available in PDF and Epub formats. A preview at Google Books can be found by clicking here. Another link where the book is available as of 12/2/20 is here. A short bio of Norman DeWitt is here.

DeWitt’s essay “Philosophy for the Millions” is available here at EpicureanFriends, and it summarizes some of the key aspects of DeWitt’s perspective. However the book is far more detailed, and it provides the best organized and most sympathetic presentation of Epicurean Philosophy you will find anywhere.

“Epicurus And His Philosophy” is one of the best antidotes you will to the dramatic misinterpretations that permeate most modern interpretations of Epicurus. If you haven’t read it, you haven’t read a reliable presentation of Epicurean Philosophy by a modern scholar.

OLDER DISCUSSION OF DISCORD READING GROUP:

Please consider joining us for online live discussion of Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - All of our sessions are informal discussions for those who are interested in learning more about Epicurean philosophy - no expertise required!

A discussion outline for each session will be posted here in the EpicureanFriends forum

For links to the discord group go directly here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…qgNvYdgMdp1xqew

Or follow this easier to remember link: http://www.newepicurean.com/discordapp

Start time is subject to change depending on who can attend and conflicts with other events. An announcement for the next meeting will be found in the Announcement Box at the top of the Forum home page and Dashboard. For the latest discussion of time and date and other details, please go to the thread for the particular chapter: Discussion Plan For Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy"

Our current dates and time are set to allow maximum participation both in the USA and in Europe. All scheduling is open to revision depending on participants, and once we complete one cycle through the book we expect to do this on a regular basis, and we can set dates and times accordingly.

Thanks for your participation!

I have posted a notice for the next DeWitt Chapter chat to be Saturday August 18th at 6PM Eastern. This will be Chapter 11 - "Soul, Sensation, and Mind." If anyone has conflicts and would prefer that we reschedule for another date or time, please post here.

I have posted a notice for the next DeWitt Chapter chat to be Saturday August 18th at 6PM Eastern. This will be Chapter 11 - "Soul, Sensation, and Mind." If anyone has conflicts and would prefer that we reschedule for another date or time, please post here.

I have posted a notice for the next DeWitt Chapter chat to be Saturday August 18th at 6PM Eastern. This will be Chapter 11 - "Soul, Sensation, and Mind." If anyone has conflicts and would prefer that we reschedule for another date or time, please post here.