Posts by Cassius

Poster: we are looking at “rationis egestas.” Egestas is “poverty, lack, need.” Ratio is what the brain does... so “poverty of thinking... lack of thought.. in need of reason.” I agree “Reason alone” is bad philosophically, and happily that is not what the Latin says. So Bailey added “alone” from his head, and the “sense” in the second translation is “mental sense/thinking” not the sensations/senses.

Cassius: I think someone in tune with Epicurean philosophy would likely have the same reservation about "all such power belongs to reason alone" (Bailey) or "Why do you hesitate, why doubt that reason Alone has absolute power? " (Humphries) so that implies that our anonymous author (1) understands Epicurus very well, (2) is very good with Latin and his doing his best to be literal, or (3) both of the above. I am hoping this translation is going to be very valuable for another good perspective in English.

I've continued to Google and found nothing as to the translator - even in WORLDCAT there is no reference to the author, as it seems highly unlikely that Daniel Browne is the author. I have a friend near London who may be able to find something - this is something that needs to be corrected. Scanning through it so far, it seems to me the work is very high quality and the author deserves recognition. Probably there is mention of this by Bailey or Munro in their discussion of prior editions, and it will just be a matter of slewthing around to figure it out. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…jbET6WPnZN6CA4n

Explanation for the Temple Bar reference:

OK - according to John Mason Good in 1805, the TRANSLATOR (with colleagues) IS Guernier! Unless Good too is confused by the title page, but that would seem to be unlikely. SO WHO WAS GUERNIER!??

Next page ..... with the insufferable Good claiming that it is impossible to do justice to Lucretius except in poem form. Maybe so, but Good's version is now consigned to the dustbin it deserves, along with his footnotes that overwhelm the text itself. The prose edition by Guernier is worth 100 times Good's attempt at poetry.

Maybe Good IS wrong? In the 1871 Dictionary of Biographical Reference there is only one Guernier, and he is Renee, a French Engraver

Poster: Before these conversations and your explanations, I just looked at the ethics part of Epicurean philosophy but it seems I am beginning to agree that the physics of Epicurus is just as important and perhaps is needed for the ethics to make sense and not just be an abstraction such as Virtue as an end. There is no natural law or nature that dictates that virtue is some end of human nature, it is simply an abstraction but it can be a useful one if used for the tool of the true end, pleasure.

Cassius Amicus And it is not necessary to get caught up in "atoms" vs "molecules" vs subatomic particles and all those details. The point of the physics is to provide ONE rational explanation of the universe operating on natural principles, but they knew that the details were uncertain, just as they said that the planets and star movements could be caused for a number of reasons. The important thing is to find at least one explanation that is consistent with the facts, explains them adequately, and shows that it is not necessary to presume that a supernatural god is behind everything. That is the starting point for all the rest of the chain argument which then provides the presumption that there are no gods or "ideas" which set out what "virtue" really is. If you don't have that starting point you're blowing in the wind to talk about anything (ESPECIALLY ethics), and nothing can ever be 'resolved' to anyone's satisfaction.

If abstractions without evidence are just as valid as reasoned conclusions based on evidence, then there's no way to ever be sure of anything. And of course if there COULD be a god and there COULD be a heaven and hell, then any prudent person is going to take that possibility into account and hedge his / her bets, and pay homage to the gods (which is not nearly so important to them as that you pay homage and your money to the PRIESTS - both of the church and of Academia). Only an understanding of the universe that frees your mind from these obligations can really provide freedom from them.

As to: ".....the true end, pleasure." Yes, that is the conclusion. But it is OH so critical to understand the sweeping mental and physical scope of the word "pleasure" so that you aren't intimidated into equating it with sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll! Edit: .... to continue the sentence: " or - to "absence of pain"! [Rewrite: But it is OH so critical to understand the sweeping mental and physical scope of the word "pleasure" so that you aren't intimidated into **equating** the word "pleasure" with sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll - or, to 'absence of pain'!]

Here is the original entry page at Archive.org, but it doesn't seem to list an author, so I don't even now how to cite this edition - https://archive.org/details/tlucretiuscaruso00lucr

To me this is very impressive. It is essentially a line-by-line version, with an effort apparently made to translate each sentence - and even each word in each sentence, to a degree - from Latin into English, and at least somewhat literally. With this arrangement it is much easier to check the Latin to see if the translator has added or omitted or massaged the original words. This is exactly the way I would set up a reference edition myself. It's not clear to me whether the original text had clear sentence breaks, so maybe we are relying on someone's interpretation of where they break, but as long as the original latin words are left in order, that also can be crosschecked.

I am thinking that Daniel Browne must be the publisher rather than the translator?

I have never seen these assertions that Lucretius was educated in Athens, or those who were his teachers, or the reference to Cornelius Nepos talking about him. Is this correct or speculation?

Ah this is good too, that Lucretius did not commit suicide, but was given the "filtre" by his wife or his mistress to make him more passionate! Presumably more speculation, but maybe no less well grounded than the accusation of suicide?

Here is at least one instance in which I find this version superior to Bailey. Given the tension between Epicurus and dialectical logic, I have always thought Bailey's version of the following passage is misleading when he says that "all such power belongs to reason alone." "Reason alone" being a dangerous formulation. Whoever this translator is, he didn't go that way, and simply says "all this stuff is want of sense..." I think this version is much more accurate to the general tone of the philosophy. Here are the two versions - First Bailey

Then the "anonymous" translator, which I think is better for not implying a false estimation of "reason alone" -

This graphic is from page 4 of Epicurus And His Philosophy. I think DeWitt is right, and I think that Epicurean Philosophy is essentially one long chain argument that stands or falls with the foundational links in the chain. And one of the very first links in the chain, if not THE first link in the chain is NULLUM REM E NIHILO GIGNI DIVINATUS UNQUAM.

Whether you are "correct" or not from a wider perspective is for you and others to judge. But whether you are correctly following the argument that I personally think Lucretius and Epicurus were making, yes you are doing so very well.

However as to (1) when you say "natural limits of the universe" the phrasing might be improvable, because I think the context is that the universe itself has no limit in space or time, so we're always talking about "Nature" or "the universe" as the ultimate name for everything that exists. There's nothing "outside" or "beyond" or "higher than" the universe and nature.

Also when you say "everything that exists in this moment" the wider context is everything that has ever existed or will ever exist. You are right to focus on "the moment" as the focus of what we are able to verify now, but I think the ancient Epicureans automatically translated that mentally into confidence not only about the present, but everything that has ever existed or will ever exist. God did not exist in the past to create the universe and go away, not will God come into existence to start creating universes tomorrow.

Poster: This is a lot to digest, so please bear with me. The main points it seems are that 1. Everything has some cause and effect that can be located within the natural limits of the universe. 2. To say that something can be created from nothing or appear out of nowhere is on the same ludicrous level of people believing God made everything. 3. Point 1 can be observed in science but point 2 is speculation and theories with no grounding. 4. The central maxim to remember is that "nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes to nothing" meaning that everything that exists in this moment came from something else and was not "created" randomly or supernaturally and everything which exists right now will not disappear but simply become something else perhaps. Am I correct thus far or have I misinterpreted?

I have been looking for a long time for a side-by-side Latin-English translation of Lucretius, and searching Archive.org today I see for the first time one that I have never seen before. Does anyone know anything about this version? I can't even be sure who the translator is, but the introduction says that the Creech version was "many years ago" and this one is supposed to be more literal. Unfortunately it has the old "f" for "s" font style, but the eye adjusts to that pretty quickly, and the arrangement of the text does a pretty good job lining up the respective Latin and translated English. I've downloaded the PDF and I expect screen shots of this version will be helpful in the future. This provides the Latin and at least a starting point for translation, and then other translators (such as Smith) can be used to fill out the meaning. Thanks to Eoghan or I would not have found this!

Note: We really need the best public domian side-by-side Lucretius we can find for teasing out the meaning. I continue to look for an out-of-copyright version of the LOEB side by side edition from the 1920s, but I've not been able to find one on Archive.org or anywhere else. I watch this site (http://www.edonnelly.com/loebs.html) but they can't seem to find one either. If anyone has access to a library with an old collection of Loebs from which a PDF can be made of a public domain edition (not the more recent one which is copyrighted) then please post about it!

https://archive.org/stream/tlucret…age/n9/mode/2up

Martin thank you very much for posting this! This is exactly the kind of analysis which advances the ball of our work in studying and understanding Lucretius.

Every day and every moment I study the Epicurean texts I wonder about whether I am really getting the subtlety of the meaning of the text. With the Latin I have a small amount of independent ability to look at the words and test the meaning (or see if a word or phrase is left out in the translation, as often seems to be the case).

I completely agree with you that "must" and words of command are not consistent with the tone of Epicurean philosophy. I am sure that in particular writings and contexts that some Epicureans would take "poetic license" and use broad phrasing, but if there are indeed no gods and no ideal forms/ideas, then there is not going to be "one way" of doing anything, and the closer we get to making a particular technique sound universal, the more careful we need to be.

Other comments:

Your (2) - And I agree that "duties" is a word about which we always have to be careful. Self-imposed obligations are one thing, but "duties" in modern English implies universal requirements which would not be Epicurean.

Your (3) - When I was anticipating what your comments about VS41 would be, This is the one I definitely expected you to include. I think different people with different personalities are going to have different opinions about this. This is a compliment to you when I say that my wife is German, like you, and she HATES my "multitasking." It is against her personal nature to do anything other than focus precisely on whatever task is at hand. I can read her point of view in every one of your comments.

Your (4) - My wife would TOTALLY agree with you.

Your (5) - I suppose the key here is "missionizing." I fully agree that it is inappropriate to talk philosophy or anything else controversial with people who do not explicitly or implicitly invite our opinion. To do so is at the least rude, and generally unproductive. However I think the broader context is that whenever we do see an opening to speak with people with whom these ideas are of mutual interest, it can expand our circle of friends and therefore enhance our personal happiness if we are able to do so. Context will control here, as always.

Your (6) - Yes I think this is primarily for beginners and newer students, or also perhaps in those times of uncertainty when we want to retrace our thinking and get "back to basics." Here I recall the quote from Thomas Jefferson which I think is worth quoting here: "But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It’s crowd of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’ I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need." (Jefferson to John Adams, 1820)

----

So in sum my personal opinion is that the objections you raise are legitimate, but primarily the problems that you are citing are contextual and as you indicate also, matters which largely go to issues of translation and our own concerns that the Epicureans might be talking as (for example) modern Jehovah's Witnesses, who I think display most all of the irritating concerns you mention. So I think with clarifications to put it in a modern context, VS41 has a lot of good to offer.

And while of course neither I or anyone else has the right to say that you are or are not an Epicurean, I personally don't see your concerns as non-Epicurean at all. In fact your whole approach of scrutinizing the texts and comparing the translations to the reality that you observe yourself is, in my view, the very essence of what it means to be an Epicurean.

I am going to make another post on a book I found as a result of your question E., so I REALLY am glad you posted this question. But in THIS thread I want to cite the text from Lucretius, who introduced the subject of nothing from nothing in a way that shows how tightly it is connected with fighting false religion. The text is:

NULLUM REM E NIHILO GIGNI DIVINATUS UNQUAM.

I wish we could bold and highlight here, but one translation (not particularly literal or following the word order, is:

NOTHING WAS BY THE GODS OF NOTHING MADE

We aren't talking here abstract science - we are talking at the argument - from their lack of proof - that we throw at the god-mongers.

Thinking about my answers to this question last night, I think I probably wasn't clear on what is in my view of greatest practical importance. If there is anything unique about Epicurean philosophy, that gives body to the Epicurean way of thinking, and that represents what it is that the ancient Epicureans would have "gone back to" whenever they were challenged or had personal doubts, it is "nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes to nothing." And the reason is that THAT is the personally verifiable observation that serves as the starting point for everything else. Without that observation, that you can test for yourself and use to check all your other premises against, then all the rest of the framework that we talk about are simply arbitrary assertions with no way to "prove" their correctness. Opinions have no standards of correctness - and no reason for us to have confidence in their truth - unless we can compare them to observable, repeatable, facts - essentially the scientific method. Unless we have something by which to say "the idea of supernatural gods is wrong" and "the idea that there are eternal ideas/forms floating in the universe is wrong" then we have no ability to have confidence in our conclusions. On every streetcorner people are saying "My god reigns" and "Allah is great," and we can shake our heads and look down on their "lack of education," the ultimate answer is not how many books on Nature we can stack against their books on religion. The answer is "Show me your magic - Show me your God creating something from nothing. Show me your Allah destroying something to totally nothing." THAT is how we have confidence that the world operates on Natural principles - not because Einstein or a string of physicists said so.

I could go on and on about this but I think the essential point is clear. Without "nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes to nothing" Epicurean philosophy is nothing more durable than the latest fad self-help book at the local bookstore, and it's a lot less memorable than most of them. Nothing from nothing and nothing to nothing is our essential statement of commitment to and reliance on evidence - on science, rather than on wishful thinking.

Another point: When I refer to not everyone agreeing, I think there are two classes-

Group (1): There are those who really are faithful to the core Epicurean teachings that everything is Natural, and they just presume that whatever happened to "create" the universe in an instant from nothing is also natural, and they don't think it's that big a deal - they don't think that undercuts the basic premise that there are no supernatural gods or total "chaos" that should be of any concern. I think most people here in this group who don't take my position are like that, and I don't have any problem with that at all. The reason I am not in that camp is that I think that there is another group -

Group (2) thinks (rightly or wrongly, as you prefer) that the possibility that the universe was created at random from nothing IS a really big deal. They think that we should be concerned that just as the universe as a whole rose up in an instant, it could disappear in an instant, and that as a result we really shouldn't be certain or confident of anything. These people are very likely in my view to combine this opinion with militant anti-dogmatism. They are the true crusading skeptics who see Epicurus' concern and take up the position he wanted to rule out. And in fact some/many of them also what to do it for precisely the desire to keep open the gnawing doubt that there IS something "supernatural" and maybe even "spiritual" that explains the universe. That's the group that I DON"T think is Epicurean - they are basically Aristotelian prime movers or Stoic divine firers or pure religious nuts (spoken fondly, of course ) - and they know it and they argue their positions to shake our confidence in Epicurean philosophy.

A reply to the above post at Facebook:

"Not only are the elemental particles always in motion, but the universe itself is not only eternal in time but infinite in space, so we know that there can be no central point, no overarching creating god, from which any perspective can be viewed as permanent or final. It is therefore absurd to suggest that there is any “absolute truth” or “universal reason” or realm of “ideal forms” against which our own feelings of pleasure and pain may be compared and found invalid."

While I agree that the universe is eternal and that there are no supernatural gods or supernatural elements at all, what, if anything would change if it was "proven" that the universe had a definitive starting point?

Also, if the big bang is ever proven to how the universe came into being,, do we still consider the universe eternal because it existed in a different form before it became as it is now? On my first question I mean, how much do our views change if the universe isn't eternal?

And my response:

Cassius:

There is a lot of disagreement on that ____. Just to be clear, in what follows I speak only for myself. Let's first be very clear that when we use the word "universe" I mean EVERYTHING that exists. I know that there is a modern scientific trend (which I find to be perverse, in destroying a perfectly good existing definition) to use other terms like "multiverse" to describe "everything" - but when I say universe I mean "Everything."

So having said that, my personal view is that we have to look beyond the current state of physics to the larger philosophical question that physics has not answered in the past, cannot answer today, and will not answer in the future. Physics can always look further outward, it can go in deeper and look further inward, but as we see there always seems to be another step further out, and another step further in. In the meantime, we have to live our lives, and decide what we think physics is telling us about "our" reality.

And that was the purpose of Lucretius' Javelin analogy, which doesn't provide a real "answer" to anything, but points out the problem: We are always going to be left with that undefined "next step" about which we don't have a "final" solution. And what position are we going to take about that, in the absence of absolute final knowledge of the entire universe, which is by definition an impossibility?

And that is where I think Epicurus would say - and did say - that we have to look at the world around us that IS clear to us, and look to see how it operates. Do we see random things popping into existence out of the air? Do we see birds rise out of the sea? People grow to adulthood in an hour, oranges come from apple trees?

The answer is we don't, and as we make similar observations over and over we gain confidence that there are no gods behind the curtain pulling strings, and that things don't truly happen "at random" but by natural processes.

So how does that apply? The answer to Epicurus is that we have to make our decisions based on observable facts, and in the absence of observable facts we work from analogy, and comparison, and even with an assist from "reason" (which has to be defined carefully). And from that sequence we conclude that we have never seen ANYTHING ever rise up from totally nothing, or go to totally nothing, and that we therefore take confidence that what has never happened in the past of such a dramatic nature is not going to happen in the future. Sure the frontiers of science are always expanding, and even now we can't predict earthquakes and volcanoes and lots of other things with certainty. But we have confidence at this point that even these operate by totally natural processes, and that they aren't totally at "random," and that they aren't generated from totally "nothing."

So for the above reasons I personally don't even entertain the possibility that science will ever give any indication that everything we see in the universe spontaneously arose from nothing in an instant, as if at the whim of a god, or at random. Sure there are natural processes that create and destroy suns and solar systems and galaxies, etc. But even though we can't explain and predict them with true specificity, we have confidence that they are the result of natural processes.

The suggestion that "everything" can come from "nothing" is very close to a religious assertion. It has NO evidence in anything we can actually see happening. It is THEORIZED without practical evidence in the same way that preachers speculate about heaven and hell - totally without evidence and totally without credibility.

I consider myself a "fan" and a proponent of science every bit as much as anyone, and that includes geometry and math, and I believe that Epicurus was too. I believe it is a malicious slander of anti-Epicureans to suggest that Epicurus denied the practical benefits of any science, but I believe that Epicurus drew the same line we are talking about here: that the use of ANY scientific technique to obtain practical knowledge and employ it for practical benefit is to be applauded, and that applies to every field of science including "logic." But no tool can be allowed to mutate into something more than it really is, and no tool of the human mind is capable of exceeding the factual evidence that we can put into it.

So "the universe" is as much a logical concept as it is a set of stars and galaxies. And while all the stars and all the galaxies are constantly changing and moving and growing and dying and exploding into new ones - all of that is local. As a WHOLE, "the universe" cannot logically have had a beginning based on any of the evidence available to us, or for which we can give any reason to think may possibly ever be available to us.

I started to comment too Hiram on the part about "stake in the future." If I recall correctly isn't this touched on in the Diogenes of Oinoanda inscription, where there is discussion of the pleasure we get today thinking about how how actions today will work out positively in the future. You aren't there to experience it yourself, but the anticipated future can still have a major impact on your life today.

In yesterday's discussion of Chapter 8 (Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings) of Norman DeWitt's book, the comment was made that there is likely a lot of confusion about what is meant by the "Canon of Truth." The word "canon" is rarely used today, and when it is used it generally has the meaning listed first at Dictionary.com: "an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope." In fact there are fifteen separate definitions listed at Dictionary.com all but one of which would be misleading if we applied it to Epicurus' canon (see below).

Before getting to those modern usages, it is helpful to look at DeWitt's observations about the Canon. DeWitt devotes a full chapter to the subject, but it seems to me that three of his points are probably the most important: They are (starting at page 121 of Epicurus and His Philosophy) -

As I understand DeWitt, the points he is making are:

1. The Epicurean Canon of truth is NOT a set of conclusions or opinions about any subject or object whatsoever. The Epicurean Canon of truth is a set of three tools of precision, or measuring devices, analogous to yardsticks, straight edges, plumb lines, or any other type of measuring instrument by which we receive data which is only thereafter evaluated by the mind. Modern technology has added many other tools which could be used as other analogies, for examples those which are included at this Wikipedia article, which opens with the following, much or all of which probably applies to each of the three canonical faculties: "A measuring instrument is a device for measuring a physical quantity. In the physical sciences, quality assurance, and engineering, measurement is the activity of obtaining and comparing physical quantities of real-world objects and events. Established standard objects and events are used as units, and the process of measurement gives a number relating the item under study and the referenced unit of measurement. Measuring instruments, and formal test methods which define the instrument's use, are the means by which these relations of numbers are obtained. All measuring instruments are subject to varying degrees of instrument error and measurement uncertainty." The takeaway is: Do not look to the Canon of Truth to give you a conclusion or an opinion. The task of forming conclusions and opinions is in the mind; the task of providing data for those conclusions comes through the canonical faculties. Smell the apple, feel its firmness, taste its flavor, look at its color, feel whether it is pleasing to eat - but do not expect these measurements alone to tell you whether to eat any particular apple.
2. It is a major mistake to confuse the tools of precision, or the measuring devices, with the objects which they are designed to measure. In DeWitt's words, the "tests of truth" are not to be confused with the "content of truth." For modern examples, a speedometer measures speed, but is not itself speed. An pedometer measures paces, but is not itself paces. A ruler measures length, but is not itself the thing that has the length we are measuring. A straight edge is an indication of straightness, but is not itself the straight (or crooked) item that is being judged. So in Epicurean terms, the Canon of truth is a set of measuring devices by which we receive data about those things with which we come into contact, but the Canon is not itself those things which we are measuring. Our sight of a bird is data about its color, shape, size, texture, and the like, but our sight of a bird is not itself a bird. Our feeling of pleasure at seeing a bird is a measure of our mental and physical positive reaction at, for example, seeing a bluebird, but which might be a negative reaction if what we see is not a bluebird, but a vulture. Our reaction to the bird, however, is an instance of experience that is being measured, it is not equivalent to some quantity of pain or pleasure inherent within the bird. The subject of our "anticipation" in regard to observation of a bird is controversial, and our interpretation will depend on our personal reading of the Epicurean texts and our position on what an "anticipation" really is. Regardless, however, whether an anticipation is a "concept," as some argue, or an intuitive faculty of some kind (as DeWitt argues) the anticipation is NOT the same as the bird itself. The takeaway is: do not think that the measuring device is the same as the thing being measured. Measure the apple to estimate its size, but do not expect to eat the measurement.
   
3. The Epicurean Canon of truth is a triple contact with your environment. In DeWitt's words, nature has equipped man with the canonical faculties as a triple contact with his environment. The "triple contact" part if clear enough, but the "with his environment" is frequently overlooked. The Canon of Truth is not a mystical compilation of information about about the universe at large. The Canon of Truth was not enough to enable an ancient Athenian to determine what the other side of the moon looked like - many things are beyond the reach of our present observational faculties. For those things beyond the reach of direct observation, we must resort to comparison, analogy, and other methods of reasoning based on inference (such as is discussed in the surviving portions of Philodemus' On Methods of Inference). Our conclusions about those matters are necessarily speculative, and we must consider the principles of inferential thinking preserved in PD's 22 - 25:
   
   1. PD 22. We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.
   2. PD 23. If you fight against all your sensations, you will have no standard to which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those sensations which you claim are false.
   3. PD 24. If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to distinguish between opinion about things awaiting confirmation and that which is already confirmed to be present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any application of intellect to the presentations, you will confuse the rest of your sensations by your groundless opinion and so you will reject every standard of truth. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not avoid error, as you will be maintaining the entire basis for doubt in every judgment between correct and incorrect opinion.
   4. PD 25. If you do not on every occasion refer each of your actions to the ultimate end prescribed by nature, but instead of this in the act of choice or avoidance turn to some other end, your actions will not be consistent with your theories.

The takeaway from point three is: The Canonical faculties are our direct contact with our environment, and all inferential thinking (that is, all reasoning) depends on the accuracy of the data we get from the three canonical faculties. Truth is not revealed to us by contact with Platonic ideals (forms; divine revelations), nor can we derive truth based on logical calculations if the premises on which those calculations are based are not grounded in accurate observations through the canonical faculties.

-----

To conclude this post, it's interesting to note that Dictionary.com lists fifteen separate definitions, most of which are not at all what is referred to in the context of the Epicurean canon. A quick review of the list shows that only one (item five - standard; criterion) is reflective of Epicurean usage:

Stan85 I think you raise great questions, but as you would expect I see the answers differently. Out of curiosity, how old are you (generally) and what is your religious background?

I am almost 60, and was raised mainline/conservative protestant in the USA.

I ask because of course while I agree with you about the unsettling nature of the Epicurean view, I think a lot depends on one's background and how long they have been under the influence of religious or humanist worldviews that focus on god and universal morality. I think that over time and after study it begins to sink in that the craving for immortality is just not realistic, and that we aren't fundamentally different than all the pet dogs and cats and other animals that we get so attached to in life, but have to leave so frequently behind as they pass away faster than us. Of course that's only one minor aspect of the big picture, and I disagree with the "we are ants in an infinite cosmos argument" that wants us to view ourselves as totally insignificant. These issues seem to rotate around getting a grip on the meaning of "significant" and the meaning of "meaningfulness" and "knowledge" and what is reasonable to expect out of life and what is unreasonable. I am sure there are many different perspectives on how best to do that, depending on individual background, but ultimately a commitment to "truth" rather than to "wishful thinking" about how to spend our lives.

All of these are just preliminary comments but what you have raised will hopefully spur a much longer discussion over time.

Welcome Stan85! Thank you for introducing yourself! Thank you for joining us!

Glad to have you Stan85! I will set up a Welcome message like I do for everyone, but thank you for introducing yourself first!!

Happy Twentieth of May!

Epicurus is famously known to written: “To sea with your swift ship, blessed boy, and flee from all education (paideia, also translated as culture).” This remark come to us with no context, as our only source is D.L. 10.6, which combines it with a slam from Epictetus, translated at Perseus this way: “And in his letter to Pythocles : “Hoist all sail, my dear boy, and steer clear of all culture. Epictetus calls him preacher of effeminacy and showers abuse on him.”

Because the traditional commentaries since the Epicurean age have been written by Stoics and other anti-Epicureans, this passage has been used to bolster the argument that Epicurus advised that we should live in isolation, figuratively (if not literally) walling ourselves off from the outside world.

Norman DeWitt rejected that argument as follows, concluding that it was Epicurus goal – not to retreat – but to establish a new culture which would compete with the prevailing culture:

DeWitt continues with his analysis in Chapter Two of his book, but for purposes of this post I just want to emphasis the ramifications. Epicurus devoted his life to an extensive campaign of book-writing, letter-writing, and lecturing. We know little about the personal life of Lucretius, but what we do know is that his “On The Nature of Things” was a monumental effort. Of the other Epicurean lives we know enough about to cite, we know that Titus Pomponius Atticus was extensively involved in the cultural affairs of his time, and we know that Gaius Cassius Longinus was intimately involved in the political affairs of his time. One could argue that the absence of knowledge of the details of the lives of the greater number of Epicureans is evidence of their choice to live obscurely, but there is nothing in the surviving literature to indicate that an isolated or uneducated or hermetic lifestyle was extolled as an example for Epicureans to follow.

What we have instead is the great body of Epicurean philosophy, which when taken seriously leads to the opposite conclusion. Those who took Epicurus seriously will also take their own lives seriously, and lived those lives to the fullest extent possible. If we start with first principles, how can we not live our lives as vigorously as possible? Consider just a few of the Epicurean starting-points:

1. There are no supernatural gods steering the universe for us or against us – neither the universe, nor we ourselves – are slaves to inexorable fate.
2. To the contrary, like the universe itself, we are ourselves composed of combinations of elemental particles which are controlled only by natural principles, much of which is within our power to understand and to shape.
3. What is not within our power is to stop the motion of these particles, and there is no final place of rest for them, or for us – so we know that our lives must be lived and our goals must be achieved during the limited time when we can sustain our own individual combination of particles.
4. Not only are the elemental particles always in motion, but the universe itself is not only eternal in time but infinite in space, so we know that there can be no central point, no overarching creating god, from which any perspective can be viewed as permanent or final. It is therefore absurd to suggest that there is any “absolute truth” or “universal reason” or realm of “ideal forms” against which our own feelings of pleasure and pain may be compared and found invalid.

----------

As Seneca recorded: Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus! So do all things as though watching were Epicurus!

And as Philodemus wrote: “I will be faithful to Epicurus, according to whom it has been my choice to live.”

Additional discussion of this post and other Epicurean ideas can be found at EpicureanFriends.com.

***"They mistake for happiness the mere absence of pain"** We have had several threads lately relevant to the argument as to whether reason or the emotions take precedence in Epicurean philosophy. If you're not familiar with it, and if you continue to be surprised at the Epicurean answer, be sure to check out Thomas Jefferson's famous HEAD AND HEART letter which I will submit to you follows Jefferson's Epicurean understandings. He's not criticizing Epicurus in the passage I quote - he's SUPPORTING Epicurus. The full letter is too long to post here in this thread but be sure to read far enough to see which gets the upper hand. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion but please read the whole letter:

Heart. "... Let the gloomy Monk, sequestered from the world, seek unsocial pleasures in the bottom of his cell! Let the sublimated philosopher grasp visionary happiness while pursuing phantoms dressed in the garb of truth! Their supreme wisdom is supreme folly: and they mistake for happiness the mere absence of pain. Had they ever felt the solid pleasure of one generous spasm of the heart, they would exchange for it all the frigid speculations of their lives, which you have been vaunting in such elevated terms."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0309

Shall we abandon Epicurean philosophy due to the latest big thing going around that tells us to doubt the senses? (if someone has a better link please post) of course not, but we need to understand the implications and appropriate response to issues like this.

https://twitter.com/CloeCouture/st…1473152/video/1