Posts by Cassius

Amid hopes and cares, amid fears and passions, believe that every day that has dawned is your last. Gratefully will arrive to you another hour unhoped for. As for me, when you want a laugh, you will see me in fine state, fat and flourishing, a hog from Epicurus's herd.

- Quintus Horatius Flaccus - Letter to Tibullus

jnamiotka - I know this is not Lucretius, but if you are up for it, I would be appreciative of your commentary on the passage from Horace which I see frequently quoted, but which I have always wondered as to the most literal way to translate. The above version is the one I have featured on the sidebar of this forum, but if it can be improved in accuracy it would be good to do that.

From wikipedia: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Horace

For example the "true" in "true hog" probably does not appear in the Latin.

The version at Epicurus.net is http://www.epicurus.net/en/tibullus.html -

Amid hopes and cares, amid fears and passions, believe that every day that has dawned is your last. Gratefully will arrive to you another hour unhoped for. As for me, when you want a laugh, you will see me in fine state, fat and flourishing, a hog from Epicurus's herd.

Another version (unclear as to name of translator): http://www.authorama.com/works-of-horace-8.html --

When you have a mind to laugh, you shall see me fat and sleek with good keeping, a hog of Epicurus’ herd.

Another version ("Letters of Horace Presented to Modern Readers")

A follow-on observation about working with (1) the choice of attitude and also (2) the choice in the particular instance:

(page 193 of the text)

On page 186 of his text, DeWitt cites this interesting quote from Diogenes of Oinoanda: "The secret of happiness is in the diathesis, of which we are sole arbiters." The quote is cited as fragment 57 from the inscription, but apparently a different numbering system is being used by Martin Ferguson Smith here, nor do I find the numbering to be the same in Chilton's "Diogenes of Oenoanda - The Fragments." Both of these works post-date DeWitt, so he must have been working from another source. Does anyone know a good cite for this or know the equivalent in Smith's translation?

Jnamniota: Actually I had not seen that list, or not recently enough to remember it. Thank you! I see it lists the translator as anonymous so apparently the translator is not a mystery only to me. I presume it's not Lucy Hutchinson since one of the plates does say "a new translation" and it appears her was almost one hundred years previously.

"If you're wondering about any particular passages in DRN, I'd be very happy to take a crack at them: just send them my way!" < I will take you up on that offer!

Some years ago I came across on Youtube this Latin poem "A Thousand Kisses" by Catullus sung in a catchy updated style. It has stuck with me ever since. Too bad, isn't it, that we don't have someone qualified to set some Lucretius to music like this?

[As Martin pointed out, not exactly "punk rock" as referenced on the youtube page, is it?]

Probably of all Lucretius this passage below would be one of the most useful ones to set to music, or even just to have someone read the Latin in an engaging modern way:

For those who prefer their "s" and "f" in a modern font, also with slight changes in the text. (note for example in the last line obteritur vs opteritur). This is Munro:

Also, Jnamiotka, I am not enough of a Greek scholar to understand the reference in your user name. What does it mean?

Thank you for being here jnamiotka and thank you for the background info! Most of us here are not trained professionals like yourself, so your expertise is very valuable here in addition to your classroom. There are many questions to ask over time, especially about Lucretius, but this one pops to mind due to my present attention to transcribing it:

Have you come across in the past the 1734 English edition of Lucretius published by "Daniel Browne" as linked here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wiki/doku.php?…ature_of_things

I have just a little formal training in Latin, and not nearly enough to trust my own translations, so in substitute I rely on cross-checking passages between Bailey, Munro, Martin Ferguson Smith, and anyone else I can find who I believe is trustworthy enough to consider. I recently came across this 1734 edition and find it to be pretty useful, but it frustrates me that I am not able to cite the translator - Daniel Browne apparently being the publisher. It's hard for me to believe that the title page and intro seem to make no reference to the translator.

I should mention I am also aware of the Creech translation, which I think was owned by Jefferson (maybe he had the Daniel Browne too) but I haven't yet tried to transcribe it, and if I remember correctly at those times I looked at it, the English didn't seem particularly better in any way than the others I've cited above.

I've focused primarily on those old enough now to be in the public domain, as being freely usable, plus that of Martin Ferguson Smith, which I suspect might be the current champion for accuracy. If you teach Lucretius and have any comment on translations I would love to hear it.

To continue that last thought, my concern is that we are sort of "spread too thin" in our current internet efforts, or maybe worse, my concern is that Epicurean philosophy has been so intellectualized due to prevailing Stoic/Platonic attitudes that we don't even understand anymore what has been lost. The idea that spending all our time intellectualizing and debating fine points of the philosophy without actually taking any realistic steps to apply it is probably something Epicurus would find appalling, and would see as the victory of his main opponents.

Hi JAWS and good to hear from you. This is a good general question that people can give input on over time, and what I am about to say may be too specific to me (as a "blogger") and time-limited, but it's on my mind:

(1) In general, I keep up my reading by regularly going back over some of the core material, such as Lucretius and the Diogenes Laertius biography. I don't like to get too focused on the commentaries because I want to make up my own mind about what it means. Continuing to re-read the original texts reminds me that these were real people who lived this and not just professional pundits like we have today.

(2) Another thing that keeps all this real to me is to stay in touch with others on the internet. This is the department where I am not happy with the current situation. I don't think Facebook is really productive, but we don't have enough "critical mass" here on this forum yet - hopefully that will change but frequency of people posting isn't nearly as much as I would like to see. I doubt that will change until there is more "live" activity through audio interaction -- that can be saved and videos added to youtube and that will generate more interest over time, but we're not there yet.

(3) Those first two comments may not seem to address "practicing" Epicurean philosophy but in my case I do see it that way. Studying and discussing the philosophy is enjoyable in itself, and it's not necessary just to see Epicureanism as justification for a life of fishing and surfboarding (for example). For me, the activity or working together with people to promote the Epicurean outlook is just about all the reward I need.

(4) You probably saw we've had several recent threads about "politics." I do think that "practicing" Epicurean philosophy means applying it to real life, and I think an important part of that is working together with other people, not just reading about it and using it personally to relieve personal anxieties and assist in personal planning. I see those as very important, but I also think that the way events have evolved (over the long term of centuries, I mean) people who think in Epicurean terms have been marginalized to the fringes of society, and I think it's time to "push back" I intend to continue to explore ways to do that both online and in "local" ways, and frankly I expect that study and effort to be among the most rewarding ways to "practice" Epicurean philosophy.

Welcome jnamiotka! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and let is know about your background in Epicurus and areas of interest. Thank you for joining us!

Time to schedule the next event - tentatively Saturday August 4 at 6 pm. If this is a particularly bad time for someone let me know!

From a Facebook thread:

Jubert Cabrezos wrote: "I really like Epicurean philosophy as a whole, but I'm having a hard time accepting their refusal to participate in politics."

Jubert, do you think that human nature allows men to live happily without working to engage successfully with others? Or have you listened to so many Stoic and other philosophers that you have forgotten that you are a man? Despite what you are led to believe, Epicurus knew what human nature requires of men, and that being a man requires living in reality rather than holding endless arguments about fanciful ideals. Here is what Cosma Raimondi said about Epicurean vs Stoic views of life in 1429:

"I find it surprising that these clever Stoics did not remember when investigating the subject that they themselves were men. Their conclusions came not from what human nature demanded but from what they could contrive in argument. Some of them, in my view, placed so much reliance on their ingenuity and facility in debate that they did not concern themselves with what was actually relevant to the enquiry. They were carried away instead by their enthusiasm for intellectual display, and tended to write what was merely novel and surprising — things we might aspire to but not ones we should spend any effort in attaining. Then there were some rather cantankerous individuals who thought that we should only aim for what they themselves could imitate or lay claim to. Nature had produced some boorish and inhuman philosophers whose senses had been dulled or cut off altogether, ones who took no pleasure in anything; and these people laid down that the rest of mankind should avoid what their own natural severity and austerity shrank from. Others subsequently entered the debate, men of great and various intellectual abilities, who all delivered a view on what constituted the supreme good according to their own individual disposition. But in the middle of all this error and confusion, Epicurus finally appeared to correct and amend the mistakes of the older philosophers and put forward his own true and certain teaching on happiness."

...

"If we were indeed composed solely of a mind, I should be inclined to call Regulus `happy’ and entertain the Stoic view that we should find happiness in virtue alone. But since we are composed of a mind and a body, why do they leave out of this account of human happiness something that is part of mankind and properly pertains to it? Why do they consider only the mind and neglect the body, when the body houses the mind and is the other half of what man is? If you are seeking the totality something made up of various parts, and yet some part is missing, I cannot think it perfect and complete. We use the term ‘human’, I take it, to refer to a being with both a mind and a body. And in the same way that the body is not to be thought healthy when some part of it is sick, so man himself cannot be thought happy if he is suffering in some part of himself. As for their assigning happiness to the mind alone on the grounds that it is in some sense the master and ruler of man’s body, it is quite absurd to disregard the body when the mind itself often depends on the state and condition the body and indeed can do nothing without it. Should we not deride someone we saw sitting on a throne and calling himself a king when he had no courtiers or servants? Should we think someone a fine prince whose servants were slovenly and misshapen? Yet those who would separate the mind from the body in defining human happiness and think that someone whose body is being savaged and tortured may still be happy are just as ludicrous."

Also on this topic: I bet some people think that the fact that we discourage discussion of modern political issues in this group is a reflection of the idea that we think Epicurus discouraged participation in all "politics." At least for me, and I think probably many of the other regular participants in the group too, that's not true at all. I think our primary reason for steering clear of divisive issues is that we have a core goal of promoting the "eternal" ideas of Epicurean philosophy, and we won't succeed in doing that if we are constantly tearing ourselves apart over day-to-day "localized" issues that come and go with the times.

But here's my own view of an important second reason: Epicurean philosophy observes that all living things are programmed by nature to pursue pleasure, avoid pain, and thereby seek to live "happily." But because there is no divine order, no realm of ideas and forms to which all men are led to the same specific conclusions about what is pleasurable and painful to them, and what it therefore means to live "happily," people are going to reach dramatically different conclusions about what "happiness" means to them personally, and that is going to translate into the "political" positions that they decide to hold. An Italian is going to reach different specific conclusions about how to run his/her life than a German, or an Englishman, or a Canadian, or a Mexican, and it seems clear to me that those decisions will lead to different forms of government, and different "politics."

One example of this that applies directly is that it seems clear that there were committed, well-educated Epicureans on both sides of the Roman Civil War. We know for sure that Cassius Longinus was a committed Epicurean among the Senatorial forces, and he vouched for another Senatorial general as an Epicurean (Panza). Although I don't know the details the commentators seem convinced that Caesar's forces had a significant number of Epicureans, and we know that Caesar's father-in-law was an Epicurean, and that Caesar himself was alleged by Cicero not to believe in an afterlife. The point here is if committed Epicureans with access to much more authentic Epicurean material than we have could come to blows on opposite sides of a civil war, then that ought to tell us that Epicurean reasoning can be used to justify many different sides of political issues, according to the interests of the specific people involved.

Does this mean that Epicurean philosophy is of no use in politics, or tells us to refrain from all politics? I think absolutely not. But it tells us that Epicurean philosophy applies to *everybody*, and that we shouldn't be surprised to find Epicureans of many different political stripes. We can probably exclude religion-based politics from the scope of what an Epicurean would follow, and if we think hard about it we should also probably exclude "idealism-based" politics (those which would argue that there is a single ideal way or life or form of government for all people at all times and all places to follow). But even if you exclude those two major types of thinking, it seems to me there is still a huge variety of options from which to choose. People in Seattle or San Francisco may think that it is a good idea to ban drinking straws, while people in Dallas or Atlanta may find that idea ludicrous. But depending on the people and circumstances involved, I can see Epicurus telling people in any of those cities to pursue their happiness as best they see fit to do, even if they come to totally opposite conclusions about how.

[These are just my personal views, but I think it's an important subtext to the "What did Epicurus say about politics?" issue. And I don't want it inferred that because we don't discuss political issues here that none of us are willing to defend Epicurus against the charge that he preached seclusion from society. Epicurean philosophy is *not* limited to good food and good music and sunsets on the beach.]

A recurring controversy in Epicurean philosophy is the extent to which it makes sense to be involved in "public affairs." In this thread let's simply set up a reference point to list names, involvement, and references, and later we can compile this into a chart.

For example, the basic information we need is:

Name: C. Velleius. Public Position: Roman Senator. Reference: Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods, paragraph V / five, Yonge translation: "I found him sigging in his study, and in a discourse with C. Velleius, the senator, who was then reputed by the Epicureans the ablest of our countrymen."

No need to paste pictures of the references in this thread, but it would be very good to quote the relevant part.

Other possibilities to add are:

Cassius Longinus (Senator?)

Julius Caesar's father-in-law (Senator?)

Juilius Caesar himself (not clearly an Epicurean, although he was accused of Epicurean tendencies in Cicero's orations re Cataline Conspiracy)

Plotina, wife of Emperor Trajan

Yes I agree Hiram. Sort of like we are doing here by setting up discussions here, and articles on our websites, that maybe only a few are reading now, but we can hope will reach others in the future.

Think for a minute about all the specific types of beauty that there is all around us in the word, from sunsets to all sorts of natural and man-made beauty. Then think for a moment about all the specific examples of nastiness, ugliness, death and destruction. What is it *within ourselves* that tells us on which of these two sets of pictures we should focus, which of these two is of importance and on which we should spend our time? And while you're thinking about that question, think about this from the opening of Lucretius Book 6:

"Now unless you drive from your mind with loathing all these things, and banish far from you all belief in things degrading to the gods and inconsistent with their peace, then often will the holy deities of the gods, having their majesty lessened by you, do you hurt; not that the supreme power of the gods can be so outraged that in their wrath they shall resolve to exact sharp vengeance, but because you will fancy to yourself that they, though they enjoy quiet and calm peace, do roll great billows of wrath; nor will you approach the sanctuaries of the gods with a calm breast, nor will you be able with tranquil peace of mind to take in those idols which are carried from their holy body into the minds of men as heralds of their divine form. And what kind of life follows after this, may be conceived."

Is there not a relationship between (1) how we orient our minds to judge the things around us and (2) what we think are the ultimate highest forms of life to which living beings can attain? And is it not important for us to affirm that we have clear and specific knowledge of the heights to which we can and should aspire?

Time for a reminder of one of the most precise formulations in the Epicurean texts. The issue is NOT "How do we achieve happiness?" And the reason that's NOT the question is that "happiness" is an ambiguous term that means very different things to different people. Rather, the issue IS: "What is happiness?" and "What is the ultimate goal of our nature?" The Epicurean answer to those questions is contained in one word: "Pleasure" - which is not "chocolate cake" but instead one of any number of pleasurable feelings we perceive through the faculties given us by nature. The choice here is not cake vs pie vs art vs music, the choice is "revelation" vs "virtue" vs "the natural faculty of pleasure." Which means the choice is God/Allah/Yahweh vs humanism/virtue ethics/conventional morality vs Epicurean philosophy. No need to trust me on this, look to Diogenes of Oinoanda speaking for Epicurus from stones 2000 years old, translated by Martin Ferguson Smith:

"If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end."

Or if you prefer Cicero/Torquatus speaking for Epicurus in On Ends: "If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on pleasure, whereas pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure."

http://www.english.enoanda.cat/the_inscription.html

"Atheism for Epicurus would be at bottom an attack on the reliability of sense perception."

That's an aggressive way of stating it, but I don't really disagree. Certainly Epicurus wrote (Bailey):

More comments:

NB: I think it's crucial to deconstruct "belief" as we typically employ it. With respect to Martin K., I think that the "gods" part of his statement is on the money, BUT, "belief" in our society tends to indicate 'faith', with a connotation of 'dogmatic' or 'blind faith' in a supernatural sense. This wouldn't jive with Epicureans from any age.

We may translate Epicurus in 'Letter to Menoeceus' as recommending "belief" in a natural "God", but we can confirm that Epicurean epistemology does not accept 'faith' as a reasonable criterion of knowledge. In other words, we don't need to "believe" in something with which we have direct experience.

Therein, I think, lies the key: *whatever* he was talking about is grounded in natural experience. Whether we're discussing happy space beings, or the prototype of a superhuman ubermensch, or Star Trek-ish energy beings of pure pleasure, or preconceptions experienced in dream states, 'belief' is not required.

Cassius Amicus: " BUT, "belief" in our society tends to indicate 'faith', with a connotation of 'dogmatic' or 'blind faith' in a supernatural sense. This wouldn't jive with Epicureans from any age." I COMPLETELY agree with you Nathan, and in my humble opinion I think Epicurus would to - as I think Martin Kalyniuk probably does too.

MK: Spot on! Epicurus doesn't think faith is a valid vehicle to knowledge.

His argument for thinking there are gods is that we have such a deeply chiseled impression of them on our minds as human beings.

Any concept we have must have come somehow from outside us from something materially real. Therefore there are really gods.

For Epicurus - as for Aristotle - the senses are always substantively correct. Mistakes are made in the interpretation of the knowledge they yield to us. But if all men claim to see substantially the same thing, say, "white" or experience something, perhaps, "being cold." They might misinterpret the details or the how and why, but not the phenomena itself.

Atheism for Epicurus would be at bottom an attack on the reliability of sense perception.

A poster at Facebook wrote on this topic:

I have wanted to say something since seeing the notification, but did not want to gloss so serious a subject. I have time at the minute though, so here I go!

Reflex reaction: yes. Dispensing with all talk of the Epicurean gods is certainly to lose sight of something central to the school.

Face value, the answer is simple. To be an authentic Epicurean requires a firm grounding in the classics.

This is fairly obvious to me anyway. How you can know who Epicurus is but not Zeus would be beyond me.

Anybody actually interested must know who or what Lucretius or Philodemus speak of when writing. You cannot meaningfully read the Epicurean literature outside the classical context, really.

To claim the Olympians are culturally irrelevant or incomprehensible is ridiculous. Why are you reading an ancient Hellenic thinker at all anyway then?

As for the non-intervention of deities equalling the non-existence of them - it's a patently poor argument. Epicurus himself saw a definite difference. Don't think much of his reasoning powers: why are you here?

In the original comment quoted I provided two ways in which Epicurus insisted on the gods' importance to his thought: anthropological aetiology and top standard of ataraxia.

They are complimentary sides to a single coin. We can aspire to perfect equanimity because we are physically and mentally like the beings that already live it. Take away the latter, the former becomes a sizably trickier task.

Are we fitted for that state? Or is it a superhuman impossibility engendered in the same way as superhuman beings by the brain of primitive homines sapientes? An Epicurean's top task becomes a mimetic delusion à la Dawkins.

As for the factual existence of the gods, I wouldn't like to go to war for them on this front. Still, a religious quality of commitment to atheism is at least as narrow-minded as an Abrahamic monotheism.

Most educated people in Western societies today tick "Spiritual but not religious" when asked. I don't know that it is helpful to be dismissive of the ubiquitous human experience here. Particularly with such crushing and uncomprehending condescension.

What one senses staring out from Delphi or up at the ceiling standing in the centre of the Pantheon, has precisely fuck all to do with knowing what makes thunder.

An ideal Epicurean would see the legitimacy of mythos, and the gods in them as powers personified, for education and reflection, poetic and philosophical. The same could be said of the ideal applicant to Oxford or Cambridge 70 years ago. Couldn't read Greek, need not apply. Sad the state of affairs presently in academia.

Finally, so far as I can tell, nobody has engaged with Epicurus' argument for that there are in very fact gods. I outlined it in the relevant earlier comment.

If you are a thoroughgoing materialist, it is tremendously difficult to account for the universal scale of the human experience here. Where the concept comes from, why it is not culturally confined, its persistence across literally all recorded time.

If you face facts and the only explanations allowable are material causality: how do you escape his conclusion that they must have some basis in physical reality?