Posts by Cassius

Discussion Plan For Chapter 07 "The Canon, Reason, And Nature" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

CHAPTER VII - THE CANON, REASON AND NATURE

1. Introductory Points
   1. The Canon was not an afterthought, but occupied first place in the triad of Canon, Physics, and Ethics. This is because the Canon provides the test of the truth of the conclusions in the other two areas.
   2. The "canon" is a metaphor for the tools of precision for measuring truth - it is not truth itself. ("It is an even worse mistake to have confused the tests of truth with the content of truth, that is, the tools of precision with the stones of the wall. This was the blunder of Pierre Gassendi, who revived the study of Epicurus in the seventeenth century. It was his finding "that there is nothing in the intellect which has not been in the senses." From this position John Locke, in turn, set out as the founder of modern empiricism. Thus a misunderstanding of Epicurus underlies a main trend of modern philosophy. This astonishing fact begets an even greater concern for a correct interpretation, which may cause Locke to appear slightly naive.")
   3. The need for the Canon was provoked by the teachings of the Skeptics, primarily Pyrrho, but also in Epicurus' view Plato, because Plato belittled the senses and looked to "ideas" (which do not have a separate and independent existence outside of our minds).
   4. DeWitt sees anticipations as "a kind of intuition."
      1. "He made room also for a kind of intuition, which is incompatible with empiricism. He postulated that man was equipped in advance by Nature for living in his prospective environment, and not in his physical environment alone but also in his social environment."
   5. "Thus Nature, having equipped man with a triple contact with his environment, becomes a norm, while the Platonic Reason is eliminated along with the Platonic Ideas. "
2. The Dethronement of Reason
   1. The Canon makes no mention of reason, which means reason is denied rank as a criterion of truth.
   2. Of the 12 Elementary Principles "nothing exists except matter and void" (and others of the principles) are totally destructive of Platonic idealism (if only atoms and void are eternal, eternal "ideas" cannot exist; if the only thing that is incorporeal is void, there can be no incorporeal ideas or divine reason - they are absurdities). By the same argument the incorporeal soul is eliminated.
   3. For similar reasons, divine reason cannot be the cause of motion ("There is another of the Twelve Principles that has a specific bearing upon the Platonic concept of reason: "The atoms are always in motion." If we seek the implied negative of this positive statement — and Epicurus reasons after this fashion — it will be this, that nothing else in the universe is in motion, because the void is incapable of motion and outside of atoms and void there is nothing. It will follow also that no other cause of motion exists. It will be nonsensical, therefore, to think of divine reason as the cause of motion.")
   4. The idea of an ordering mind ("reason") as the cause of order in the universe is likewise absurd. ("There is yet another of the Twelve Principles that possesses a bearing upon the function of reason in the universe. The second Principle reads: "The universe has always been the same as it now is." 3 This principle is known to us as the law of the indestructibility and uncreatibility of matter. To Epicurus it meant that the idea of primeval chaos was absurd; the universe has always been a cosmos. Specifically, speaking of the various motions of the atoms, he said: "Of these there has been no beginning, the atoms and the void being eternal." To him the universe was a cosmos solely because of the various weights, shapes, and magnitudes of the atoms and their motions, all of which were constant factors. Consequently there was no need of the ordering mind (nous) according to Anaxagoras or of the divine demiurge of Plato. Both of these become absurdities. In the extant remains of Epicurus the word nous does not occur; it seems to have been deliberately avoided.")
   5. Of course ALL reason is not rejected by Epicurus - the purely human and mortal reason remains and is highly important. (While by this line of argument it will be observed that the incorporeal, eternal, and unerring reason of Plato and Aristotle is eliminated, the purely human, mortal reason remains. Even this is subordinated to the sensations: "Not even reason can refute the sensations, for reason depends wholly upon them." 8 This does not mean, as Gassendi imagined, that the whole content of thought is derived from the sensations, which was not the teaching of Epicurus, but rather that the deprivation of sensation is virtually death.8 The basic idea is the conviction that reason is incapable of making direct contact with reality; reason is active only when the sensations are active. Without the sensations reason possesses no criteria, since they along with the Anticipations and Feelings function as contacts with reality.)
   6. Error arises not in sensation but in human intelligence, because sensation is entirely non-rational (pre-rational).
   7. IMPORTANT: Epicurus denied that the "recognition" function of the intelligence was a criteria of truth. His later followers, however, changed this, and Dewitt suggests this was a major error of the later Epicureans. (This is a function of the intelligence and the recognition is "an immediate perception of the intelligence." Even to such a perception as this Epicurus denied the rank of criterion, though his successors did not, and the ground of his rejection is manifest. If the observer says, "It is a white ox," this is a judgment and as such it is secondary to the sensation itself and it can err. Thus it does not qualify as a criterion. The sensation, however, does not err. As Aristotle said, "The sense of sight is not deceived as to color, nor is that of hearing as to sound.')
   8. Epicurus identified three kinds of reason:
      1. A dependable kind that proceeds by deduction from first principles.
      2. An inferior kind that proceeds by analogy from the visible to the invisible and is thus subject to correction by the former, and
      3. ordinary human intelligence, which is normally automatic and hence fallible and is subject to correction by volitional intelligence.
      4. Justification for this division: "It remains to mention that Epicurus minimized the value of reason even in dealing with things beyond the range of sensation, whether too minute or too remote for observation. To denote the notions relative to these unseen phenomena he raised a familiar word to the rank of a technical term, epinoiai, which by virtue of the prefix means "secondary" or "accessory" ideas. This is the sense in the following pronouncement: "For all accessory ideas (epinoiai) are derived from the sensations by virtue of coincidence, analogy, similarity and combination, reason also contributing something." While this grudging concession to reason should be noted, it is observable also that procedures which employ comparison and analogy seem to Epicurus an inferior kind of reason. By analogy, for example, it should seem possible to have a heap of atoms, since we have heaps of dust, but a superior reason intervenes and reminds us that atoms are endowed with motion.13 Consequently, a heap of atoms is inconceivable. This superior reason employs the method of inference from the Twelve Elementary Principles. The procedure is deductive; Epicurus is not an empiricist."
   9. All forms of reason are faculties of the human mind and within the human mind. Outside of the mind there is no reason in the universe.
3. Ridicule
   1. Epicurus was considered heretical to have attempted to dethrone reason as the criterion of truth. "Few concepts are so flattering to the vanity of mankind as the hypothesis that the possession of reason exalts it above the brutes and offers it an affinity with the divine. Mystical notions receive a warmer welcome than cold facts and figures, divine creationism than biological evolution. Plato's mysticism exercised a subtle flattery all its own, especially by the separation of form and matter, by the assumption of a pure reason contemplating absolute truth, by the identification of reason with God. Part of its charm consisted in a vague self-pity for the soul imprisoned in the body, pondering wistfully on the theme of previous existence and future incarnations. To declare the soul corporeal and to make it the equal partner of the body seemed repulsive realism, more easily satirized than refuted"
   2. The Epicureans considered the Canon poetically as "fallen from heaven" given its importance. "The language of Epicurus sometimes swerves toward poetical diction, and in one of his more enthusiastic moments he seems to have been moved by gratitude to blessed Nature to characterize the Canon as diopetes, "fallen from heaven," as if it were a holy palladium. It was this epithet that Cicero was echoing when he dubbed it "the celestial rule" and more literally in another passage styled it as "fallen from the sky." ls Plutarch, who employed part of his leisure in digging up old slurs out of the archives, wrote scornfully: "It was not because Colotes had read 'the heaven-descended Canons' that bread was perceived by him to be bread and fodder fodder."
4. Nature as the Norm
   1. Aristotle had shifted the focus of the study of nature to organic life and away from Platonic ideas.
   2. Epicurus continued the shift away from Platonic ideas and built on the focus toward "creative nature." "It is this concept of creative nature that Epicurus took over. He calls the study of nature by the name physiology, the rerum natura of Lucretius, which includes nature in all manifestations, but he denied importance to the study of astronomy and eliminated mathematics from the curriculum of study."
   3. Epicurus taught that Nature should be considered to be benevolent. "Gratitude is due to blessed Nature because she has made the necessities of life easy to procure and what is hard to procure unnecessary." 21 The gratitude here signified exhibits an advance over the pagan gratitude to Mother Earth as the giver of bread. The word nature has taken on an ethical connotation. Nature is not merely the creatrix. She seems to be also benevolent and provident. The concept of her is close to that of Aristotle when saying "that Nature does nothing at random."
5. Priority of Nature over Reason
   1. Epicurus gives Nature priority as antecedent to rational activity, and as the key to establishing the identify of the end or telos.
      1. Priority in time: "His most telling argument has been preserved by Cicero.22 Let it be assumed that a human being has been deprived of all his five senses. This is tantamount to death and the subject has ceased to be a rational creature. In a muddled paragraph our biographer Laertius ascribes to Epicurus the idea "that the Sensations lead the way." 23 In the present context this notion seems to have apposite application: the possession of sensation seems to be construed as antecedent to rational activity."
      2. Priority as to the telos: "The priority of Nature was also insisted upon in establishing the identity of the end or telos. Aristotle had furnished a precious hint in this connection; he wrote "that perhaps even in the case of the lower animals there is some natural good superior to their scale of intelligence which aims at the corresponding good." 24 To this principle Epicurus adapted his procedure. By the promptings of Nature alone, apart from reason, every animate thing, the moment it is born, reaches out for pleasure and shrinks from pain. Consistent with this reasoning is the steady practice of referring to pleasure as "the end of Nature," which occurs five times in our scant remains. As analogous phrases may be cited "the good of Nature" and "the pleasure of Nature," all of them implying that reason played no necessary role in establishing the truth. Similar is the implication of parallel phrases such as "the wealth of Nature," signifying that Nature and not reason reveals the true meaning of wealth; and also "the limits of Nature," implying that Nature and not reason teaches the true limits of the desires."
      3. The Actions of Nature precede all human institutions and advancement. "Another aspect of this priority of Nature over reason is manifest in the beginnings of human institutions. Since the sole cause of growth and change in the universe is the ceaseless motion of the atoms and this activity is nonpurposive, it follows that actions invariably precede thought. On this point the judgment of Epicurus is explicit: "Moreover, it must be assumed also that human nature by sheer force of circumstances was taught a multitude of lessons of all sorts and compelled to put them into practice, though reason subsequently contributed refinements and additions to these recommendations of hers, in some fields more rapidly, in others more slowly." 26 Lucretius in his fifth book enlarged liberally upon this theme: human beings wore skins before they manufactured garments; they lived in caves before they built huts; they employed clubs before they made weapons; they lived dispersed before they organized governments and built cities."
         1. Origin of language is an example of this. Language arises by nature, not by invention of reason: " The following quotation, though hardly a verbatim report, expressed his judgment: "These men did not assign names to things intelligently but stimulated by a natural instinct, just as men cough or sneeze, cattle bellow, dogs bark and suffering men moan." 28 Subsequently, the talented few, according to his account, taking their cues from Nature and impelled by expediency, by slow degrees brought human speech to its perfection among various races in various environments.29"
      4. Nature is the Supreme Teacher and Physics is the Supreme Science. ""Through this body of knowledge the force of words, the meaning of style and the distinction between the logically consistent and the logically inconsistent can be discerned." "
         1. "..Nature is neither a poet nor a rhetorician nor a dialectician. Words must be taken at their face value, just as Epicurus advises the young Herodotus. This means for one thing that the use of figures of speech is abjured. Although the wise man may become a good critic of poetry, he will not compose poems."
         2. "The writing of Epicurus was characterized by propriety, which means the avoidance of figures of speech. The critic Aristophanes is said to have censured it as "highly peculiar." 36 In this attitude toward style Epicurus was certainly influenced by the contemporary vogue of geometry, which instituted a way of writing unprecedented for its baldness, yet undeniably adapted to its needs. His declaration that the sole requisite was clearness, was no more applicable to himself than to geometers."
         3. "The same priority of Nature over reason that predetermined the right kind of writing and rendered rhetoric superfluous eliminated dialectic, but the logic of this judgment can be given more precision. The effect of the doctrine that nothing exists except atoms and void was to deny the reality of Plato's eternal ideas. Thus dialectic, which was the avenue to comprehension of those ideas, became a superfluity.
      5. It is more Epicurean than Stoic to assert that men should live "according to Nature." (As a parting comment it may be stated that, when once Nature has been established as the norm, it follows logically that man should live according to Nature, but the Epicureans seem never to have followed this inference through. It remained for the Stoics to identify Nature with Reason and to make a fetish of living according to Nature. They believed her supreme teaching was to be found in the divine order of the celestial realm, where Nature and Reason were at one." --- Note: Is this a correct deduction, or is this an artifact of most texts being lost?)

Until I can determine how to include an IFRAME here so that the following text will expand and collapse within this site, this link will take you to the master collapsible single-page outline.

I have set up a separate forum for the Book Discussion project, and set up a separate thread for each of the first six chapters. I also prepared an outline for Chapter 6 - here: Discussion Plan For Chapter 06

I will go back and look for the outlines that other people prepared for the earlier chapters. If anyone has ready access to those and wants to post them in the respective thread, feel free! thanks!

Discussion Plan For Chapter 05 (Needs Completion)

CHAPTER V - THE NEW SCHOOL IN ATHENS

1. The School Property
2. Ranks And Titles
3. Personnel And Students
4. Reverence
5. Images
6. Friendship

Discussion Plan For Chapter 04 (Needs Completion)

CHAPTER IV - MYTILENE AND LAMPSACUS

1. The New Philosophy On Trial
2. The Sorites Syllogism
3. Homer A Hedonist
4. Rhetoric
5. Lampsacus
6. The Lampsacene Circle
7. The Regenerate Epicurus

Discussion Plan For Chapter 03 "Colophon: Development of Doctrine" (Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy)

Outline by - and thanks to! - JAWS

Chapter III: Colophon: Development of Doctrine

1. Introduction
   1. 321-311 BC - Epicurus was in Colophon with his family
   2. During this time he fully developed an independent doctrine
   3. Synoptic view of this period
      1. 322 BC Athenians evicted per Antipater - Epicurus’s father finds refuge in Colophon
      2. 321 BC Epicurus joins his family in Colophon - Epicurus likely begins to study under Praxiphanes but his studies with him were short-lived
      3. Epicurus enrolls in school of Nausiphanes of Teos
         1. Nausiphanes was a student of Democritus
         2. They explored concepts such as free will, determinism, and the function of philosophy
         3. Hostilities arose between Epicurus and Nausiphanes
         4. Epicurus may have done some teaching in Colophon
      4. Colophon still an intellectual Ionian city
      5. It was common to take one’s time when studying philosophy
2. Praxiphanes
   1. Praxiphanes was one of the foremost teachers of the time
   2. Praxiphanes was a Peripatetic
      1. He was a critical student of literature (Homer & poetry)
      2. Separated literary rhetoric from political rhetoric
      3. To him grammar = good writing
   3. Praxiphanes was critical and did not get along well with Epicurus
   4. Carneiscus, an Epicurean, later condemns Praxiphanes in a biography of another Epicurean friend, thus providing evidence of Epicurean hostilities
   5. Epicurus denies tutelage to Praxiphanes by arguing that he was self-taught
      1. The potential of Praxiphanes of being a pupil of Theophrastus would support the claim that Epicurus did not study under Praxiphanes
      2. It is more likely that Praxiphanes studied under Aristotle and that Praxiphanes and Theophrastus were contemporaries
   6. The skill in writing that Epicurus exhibits in his Letter to Menoeceus supports the claim that Epicurus studied under Praxiphanes
   7. Letters included in the wall at Oenoanda suggest that Epicurus spent some time in Rhodes
   8. Letter from Epicurus to his mother helps establish him as the author of the letter that mentions time in Rhodes
   9. The second letter expresses gratitude to a woman with whom the author stayed with in Rhodes.
   10. The importance of the letters is that it would put Epicurus in Rhodes at the same time as Praxiphanes suggesting that he did study with him
3. Nausiphanes
   1. Pamphilus was a Platonist; Praxiphanes was a Paripatetic; Nausiphanes was a Democritean atomist
   2. The above list is given in chronological order of the assumed teachers of Epicurus. Epicurus and Nausiphanes did not part well.
   3. Teos was populated by people from the home of Democritus, Abdera. Nausiphanes was known for teaching rhetoric
   4. Nausiphanes was greatly influenced by the imperturbability of Pyrrho - as was Epicurus
      1. This is a possible origin of the Epicurean doctrine of ataraxy - tranquility of the soul.
      2. Pyrrho recommended abstention from public life which mirrors Epicurus’s disapproval of public careers.
4. The Quarrel
   1. Epicurus is eventually disgusted with Nausiphanes, calling him lung-fish, dumb animal, imposter, and prostitute
   2. Epicurus and Nausiphanes agreed on some things:
      1. Opposition to skepticism
      2. Acceptance of dogmatism
      3. The source of their quarrel may have been over a topic they disagreed on
         1. Free will and determinism
         2. The function of philosophy
   3. Nausiphanes has a canon of knowledge called the Tripod
      1. Epicurus has his canon of knowledge also
         1. Sensations
         2. Anticipations
         3. Feelings
      2. One source suggests that Epicurus took his canon from Nausiphanes’ Tripod
   4. The charge of imposter and prostitute may be related to vices of Nausiphanes, specifically homosexuality (adolescent lads) and drinking. Epicurus: Intercourse never was the cause of any good and it is fortunate if it does no harm.
   5. Epicurus was an irritating pupil.
      1. He had a negative view of most people as slaves who surrender their freedom to Fate - fatalism
      2. Or of the Platonists who surrendered their freedom to the pursuit of power, fame, or wealth
   6. Epicurus then retreated to Colophon for independent study
      1. He may have offered public instruction in rhetoric
      2. Recreational style of education - to make play hours of study hours
   7. Thus started a period of incubation when Epicurus could work out the details of his doctrine
5. Self-Taught
   1. Epicurus denies tutelage to Nausiphanes and claims to have been self-taught
   2. This section discusses the Canon, Physics, and Ethics of Epicurus highlighting what is different (original) from other teachings, thus supporting a claim of self-teaching
   3. Canon
      1. We don’t have evidence of what Nausiphanes’s Tripod actually was
      2. It is likely that Epicurus’s demotion of Reason and promotion of Nature is likely not something Epicurus was taught by any of his instructors as none of them was involved in the research of zoology which is the only other place this idea came up
   4. Epicurus agrees with Democritus save two concepts: skepticism and physical determinism.
   5. Skepticism
      1. Democritus’s belief that all existence other than atoms and void and that everything else existed by convention committed him to skepticism
      2. To Epicurus, “belief or disbelief was a matter of morals and the happiness of mankind”
      3. “Knowledge must not only be possible, but also have relevance to action and to happiness”
   6. Physical determinism
      1. Moral reform implies conversion, and conversion presumes freewill. Thus Epicurus could not tolerate an attitude of determinism
      2. The addition of human volition was a new innovation for his ethics
   7. Hedonism
      1. Plato suggested the calculus of advantage and the classification of desires but was not a hedonist
      2. Epicurus differed from both Plato and Aristippus in his definition of pleasure - neither of which believed the continuation of pleasure was possible
      3. Epicurus developed his own division of pleasure
         1. Basic: being sane and in good health
         2. All others are decorative and superfluous
      4. This was an Epicurus original
   8. Epicurus’s original teleology
      1. Other philosophies based on adaptation of organ to function (Aristotle) or where no teleology was possible as with determinism (Democritus)
      2. Epicurus’s teleology based on natural laws
      3. Only rational human beings are capable of intelligent planning for living and thus a telos is possible and this telos is pleasure as ordained by Nature
      4. This was an Epicurean original
6. The Function of Philosophy
   1. Epicurus believed philosophy was only good if it healed suffering of the soul. To Democritean skepticism he was especially impatient as skepticism paralyzes one from taking action.
   2. Epicurus as a pragmatist
      1. “Impatient of all knowledge that lacks relevance to action”
      2. Answering questions like What is the meaning of ‘good’? Are useless endeavors
      3. Supreme urgency: happiness of mankind
   3. The pragmatic philosophy of Epicurus was for all mankind including women, children, and slaves and a parallel between medicine and philosophy was born. “There is no one for whom the hour has not yet come nor for whom the hour has passed for attending to the health of his soul.”
   4. Epicurus was likely developing the above sentiment while still under the tutelage of Nausiphanes which may have been a source of friction between them. It is also likely that word of it preceded Epicurus to Mytilene and thus setting up hostilities against him.
   5. Epicurus likely finished developing his doctrine in Colophon as he immediately offered himself as a public teacher in Mytilene.
   6. Once in Mytilene a gymnasiarch either threatened or lodged an indictment for impiety.
      1. This implies that Epicurus’s doctrine already included the denial of divine participation in human affairs
      2. This denial was an integral part of the freedom of man - to be happy, man must be free to plan his whole life
   7. Free planning of life requires rejection of determinism, both divine or physical, and the belief in the possibility of knowledge. The possibility of knowledge required the canon of truth.

Discussion Plan For Chapter 02 (Need Completion)

CHAPTER II - SAMOS AND ATHENS

1. Samos: Childhood And Adolescence
2. The Schoolteacher's Son
3. Schooling
4. The Paideia Fallacy
5. Geometry, Rhetoric, Dialectic
6. Cadetship In Athens, 323-321 BC
7. Epicurus And Menander
8. Loyalty

Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Chapter Six - The New Education

1. Summary Introduction:
   1. Epicurus developed an integrated program for teaching the Canon, Physics, and Ethics
   2. This program was implemented by graded (progressive) texts.
   3. The program was designed to rival and replace the Platonic program of education.
      1. The Platonic program was: music, gymnastic, rhetoric, dialectic, mathematics (especially geometry).
   4. The Epicurean objective was not to produce a good citizen (Plato's objective) but to produce a happy and contented man.
      1. Gymnastics/exercise was accepted as part of Epicurean program.
      2. Music would also be an accepted part of Epicurean program
      3. Likely hostile to poetry.
      4. Rhetoric denied a place in Epicurean curriculum
      5. Dialectic was rejected.
      6. Mathematics was rejected (?)
2. The Heavenly Apocalypse
   1. Epicurus employed the analogy of being able to fly through the heavens to observe them from great height as a means of teaching how the details fit into the big picture and the big picture relates to the details. (Example in Lucretius Book 1)
3. The Tour of the Universe
   1. The wise man not only ascends but explores the heavens - so the trip is not only up, but through so as to see the details and how the large scale map fits with the small scale map (the Big Epitome and the Little Epitomes)
   2. This is a reference to the use of outlines to ensure that we can grasp not only the details but the fundamental principles.
4. The Use of the Epitomes
   1. The brief summaries provide the most panoramic and commanding view of the truth, such as the letters to Menoeceus, Pythocles, and Herodotus.
   2. However they are not primers to be mastered and laid aside, but serve as syllabuses to be kept on hand as a summary map of the whole.
   3. The Twelve Fundamental Principles of Nature are also an example of this.
   4. The method is not from the particulars to first principles, but from first principles to particulars -- DEDUCTIVE, not INDUCTIVE reasoning.
   5. This use of the Epitomes shows that Epicurus was not an "Empiricist" as that term is used today.
   6. The function of the sensations as part of the canon is to test the correctness of the inferences drawn from the Twelve Principles, but these principles were not themselves based on evidence of sensation - their truth was demonstrated by deductive syllogism.
5. The New Textbooks
   1. Three classes of textbooks, all under the direction of the single organizing mind of Epicurus:
      1. Dogmatic
         1. Textbooks on the Canon, Physics, and Ethics mostly by Epicurus himself, such as the 37 books on Physics
         2. Included works on sensations, physical change, images,etc
      2. Refutative
         1. Series of attacks on other schools, especially the Platonists, such as "Against the Philosophers in Mytilene." Much use of satire.
         2. The purpose of these was to inoculate the minds of students against arguments from other schools.
         3. Lucian: "Well let us be of good cheer, my dear friend, we possess a powerful antidote for such poisonous influences in 'the truth and the philosophy that is invariably right.'"
      3. Memorial
         1. Eulogistic biographies of deceased members of the school.
         2. Secured a form of immortality for members of the school.

Quote from AlexanderRios

I like what you wrote. Or better said, I like how I feel, when I consider what your wrote, in support of PD39. Considering that seems to wake me (the "divine" animal in me) up.

Yep that is the way I see the issue too. In terms of waking up "the divine animal" to me there is nothing more effective than to consider that this short span of time is all we have to experience all the pleasure we'll ever experience. That's the antidote to the lethargy brought about by religion and the idea of eternal life -- religion is indeed the opiate of the people. At that's why it alternately amuses me and enrages me when I read the argument the Epicurean philosophy is all about retiring from the world and avoiding pain.

Short of Christianity and the havoc it has wreaked on the civilized world for 2000 years ( and I am following Nietzsche / Antichrist here ) I can't thing of an idea more sweepingly perverse and "evil" than the suggestion that "avoiding pain" should be the sum total of life. If Christianity ever loses its force and the forces of conformity can rely on it no longer, I would expect as major resurgence of the idea that "avoiding pain" is the goal of life -- and I suspect that explains the blessings given by Imperial Rome to Stoicism in the ancient world, and the endorsement given to modern Stoicism today by large parts of the secular "establishment" today.

Ok now I finished it. I suspect most everyone here (everyone who reads this) probably considers themselves a nonconformist. (I know I do!) But I don't think that the theory expressed in the video from Becker (which seems to be a call to "personal heroism" or "uniqueness" is really Epicurean. In fact the video even warns that non-conformity for the sake of non-conformity is circular and doesn't make sense. So the video to me clearly has this Platonic/Stoic sense that there is some "ideal" form of human character that we should all strive to attain.

But I don't think Epicurus describes life that way - certainly not that there is an absolute form of ideal - even of "uniqueness" to which we should (ironically, which is the position of the video) conform.

Instead we are born with a faculty of pleasure and pain that applies in all our mental and physical activities, and is partly genetic, partly conditioned, partly arising from our experience (and maybe other factors) but which all adds up to a sum in which we have our own perspective on what will make us happy (give us the most pleasure and least pain).

And since there are no absolutes, ideals, or supernatural gods to tell us what is "right" for us, we have to decide as best we can what to pursue, and we have to understand that others will act the same way.

These videos are definitely NOT a waste of time - they focus the question in a way that makes the issue sharp I think! This is definitely a major issue for all of us -- how do we define and apply what we learn from Epicurus? Do we really have to be "unique" in order to live the most pleasurable life? What is the life best lived? All those questions we struggle with all the time.

And as this thread continues in the future, someone will no doubt want to suggest that the story of Socrates and his forced suicide is directly relevant to this. As we know the Epicureans were not too fond of Socrates. I doubt that many of them would have endorsed his death the way it happened, but I can see them asking whether indeed there was not some justification for what happened to him. Do those who see their greatest pleasure in being unique really have the "right" to expect those who disagree with them to "put up with" their crusading non-conformity?

I typed that before listening to all of the second video, and even now I haven't heard all of it, but now I hear "nonconformity is such an important ingredient in a life well lived."

Now that CLEARLY to me as a non-Epicurean ring. I have not listened further to how he is going to define it, but it certainly has a Platonic/Aristotelian/Stoic ring that isn't obviously based on pleasure. But let me listen further....

I just saw the second video. For example in line with my prior thoughts, I see the slide: "it is the nonconformists who bring forth the new ideas, creations, and ways of living that produce a vibrant society."

That is EXACTLY the issue that is raised in the HG Wells "Things to Come" that we discussed several months ago on the facebook group. In that movie, Passworthy (and in more extreme form, Theophilus) represents the often large number of people who want the world to "stop" and always say the same - they want "rest" rather than what we think of us pleasure.

But if THEY think of "rest" as their highest pleasure, are we to say that they are wrong? They are wrong TO US, yes! but are they wrong for themselves? I "think" the answer Epicurus would give is that they need to be very careful about their choice (as do we!) but that if indeed those people do find more "pleasure" in "rest" then FOR THEM that may be the choice they should pursue.

Yes I was thinking based in part on our past discussions that you were probably considering whether this is an example of the development of attitudes over time that might factor into anticipations. And I think I agree with that.

I am sure you and I share the same view that freedom is pleasurable and restrictions are painful, and so we would act from that basis to try to live in a society that honored those same views. Like you say a mix of private property where we can be "king of our own domain" plus the ability to easily mix with others (preferably those who are our friends who see things the much the same as we do).

But what I think Epicurus may also be saying is that not EVERYONE sees things that way, and some indeed find pleasure in conformity and even restrictions. If such people do exist (and I think they do - e.g. in Islam?) then what does that mean to us? I think it means as in PD39 that we have to accept that some people not only aren't going to be compatible with us, but are actually going to be our enemies, from whom we have to protect ourselves.

So while of course we would prefer if everyone had our same thermometer of pleasure and pain, I think Epicurus would tell us that various people are "wired" very differently (just like cats and dogs are wired differently, and various breeds of cats are wired differently from others, just like breeds of dogs, etc)

And if this line of thinking is correct, this is pretty challenging in a modern world where the prime directive seems to be that everyone must get along no matter what degree of difference of opinion they have. Maybe the best example is the hardest: In the end can dedicated Islamists get along with dedicated secularists or people of other religions? I suspect the answer is no, and the best option is as in PD39 - "....and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life."

Martin and Alexander have posted on the Facebook page that they would prefer a 5pm Eastern Start time. Is that OK with you, Brett, and/or anyone else?

Alex I picked out a couple of themes. Was one or more of these what you refer to as compatible with Epicurean theory?

1. Freedom is important to animals and especially people.
2. But people can grow acclimated to control.
3. There are many ways that society conditions people to accept their submission to control.
4. Some individuals instinctively rebel against servitude.
5. Those who instinctively resist servitude often spend their time encouraging others to be free.

All of the ones I listed seem apparently true and therefore would be consistent with Epicurean theory, which does nothing if not observe what occurs and acknowledge it.

One thought going through my mind in all of these is that while there are some who reject control "instinctively" (and I bet most all of us "Epicureans" fit that mold) there is also a much larger group which accepts controls, grows accustomed to it, and I would dare say even finds it pleasurable. So as the video goes through listing different types of societies, it seems to me that all of those types can be described as pleasurable to at least some significant part of the population, while other parts find the same society oppressive.

That's why it has always seemed to me that the Epicurean principles of "justice" emphasize that arrangements are based on agreement rather than on absolute justice. If a majority (which has sufficient force) finds an arrangement pleasurable to them, they will naturally seek one form, while the minority finds the same arrangement painful. Since there's no god and no vindicating central force, the people involved then have to personally measure their best judgment as to what is worth fighting for and what is not. No one can count on gods or ideas to vindicate them.

But that's probably not touching on your question. What part were you thinking about?

Here is something else that I think is an aspect of this that we have seen on the Facebook group: When the stress is on "I've made the mistake of chasing commercialism / the rat-race and now I see that simple is beautiful" we come at the entire philosophy from the point of someone who has made incorrect decisions and to a greater or lesser extent warped their personality and/or emotions into focusing on the pain of their mistakes. Such people are naturally looking for help - for medicine - and their focus is on reducing pain as their primary goal. And such people are naturally going to think that the full message of Epicurus is "live simply so as to avoid pain."

But what if we approached the philosophy as they must have for generations in the ancient world? What if we approached it as emotionally healthy people - as many if not most young people are because they have not yet been "damaged" by incorrect thinking? What if we approached this from the point of view: "I am young and healthy and happy and I am not afraid of anything - I just want to know how to live my life so I can take charge of it and pursue life with all the gusto I can give it!"

The non-warped, non-damaged person doesn't start from the presumption that life is all about avoiding pain. Such a person wants to know a framework of analysis from which he or she can decide for themselves what to pursue, and how to pursue it. Such people want to know whether the best life is dictated by a god, or by society, or by "virtue" or by some other set of absolute abstractions that they have to follow in order not to waste their lives.

And the answers that such people are looking for in Epicurus include (1) this is your ONLY chance at life (2) there's no god telling you what to do (3) there are no universal abstractions telling you what to do, (4) NATURE tells you what to do through pleasure and pain, and (5) if you grasp the true implications of all this, you are going to pursue pleasure as aggressively (while yes, also intelligently) as you can. And they will realize that the ONLY reason we "live simply" is so that we can maximize pleasure, because otherwise if our goal were solely to avoid pain, we would commit suicide and be done with life.

So not only will the points of interest be different depending on how badly warped the audience is, but the conclusions to be drawn about how to pursue pleasure, and why, are likely to be drastically different depending on that same factor.

I don't believe that Epicurean philosophy would ever have been popular in the ancient world, and certainly not in the Roman world, if the positive/activist interpretation I am describing were not understood to be the real message of Epicurus.

At least for myself, I want to devote at least as much attention to putting forward the positive full framework that explains WHY the ethical conclusions are correct as I do to helping people who just want a short-cut out of their latest wrong turn.

I think so too, Jason, in practical conclusion, but not in terms of thinking that the conclusions are correct simply because thy amount to "goodness" vs "doing wrong. In that sense Cicero's final conclusion seems to me to be nothing at all but circular. This is a topic for a lot of discussion because these points are pretty much disputed by large numbers of people, especially in the financial world. A large part of the big picture revolves around how we should apply the advice about people who we can't make friends and what that means for how we should treat them, which is a huge issues in MANY ways, not the least of which in terms of Islamic migration to the West.

I am not sure that I have written anything that develops this that would be useful. There is a lot of raw material in the Thomas Jefferson collection I put together, especially in the "earth belongs to the living" argument in the letter to James Madison - I thought I had on my page but don't! Especially the part about "I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. "

This is a huge topic for which there is a lot of material. Almost every time I type something I think "this is why I wanted to set things up as a forum like this so we can start talking and lay the groundwork where we can return and find it and build on it. "

I agree definitely that the audience and the situation determines the context. Talks which assume that pleasure and happy living are the goal are very useful. However the pattern that I see, and that I think far outweighs in number anything else, is that if we only stay on this level most people see this as just another "self-help" class to be filed away on their bookshelf with 100 others. Of course "most people" are not necessarily sitting in the audience - people who have the initiative to come to a philosophical presentation may already be in the camp of presuming that pleasure is good. On the other hand, it might be the opposite- that people who come to a PHILOSOPHICAL presentation presume the standard view - that "virtue" is the good, and that "happiness" is not defined in terms of pleasure, but in the standard non-Epicurean ways.

In short I think we definitely need both types of presentations.

Great comments, Hiram! I especially think that this observation "We are endowed with nature with certain instincts and faculties and tendencies, and (a very strong case can be made) with a sense of morality and justice, but not with rights, inalienable or not" is of huge significance, and once we understand that our entire perspective on justice changes.