Posts by Cassius

Production of this episode has been slowed down considerably by the impact of Hurricane Helene, but I hope to have it completed and posted by the end of today today.

Very good -- glad to have you SillyApe!

Thank you for responding SillyApe!

Your username is likely to raise some eyebrows, however.

Tell us just a little about your interest in Epicurus so we know you're a real person.....

Edit: I see this - very good - real person!

RE: What Would Epicurus Say To Someone Who Complains "The World Is Unjust / Life Isn't Fair"?

Quote from Kyle

He might disagree with the premise and instead argue we should be grateful and that Nature makes it easy to acquire the good and avoid the bad if we pursue natural and necessary desires.

Does that mean that if someone came up to an Epicurean and said "The World isn't just!" or "Live is Unfair" that a proper response would be. "You're looking at it wrong and you shouldn't see it that way...."

What if the person says further:

- What you're saying doesn't change anything about fairness or justice!

- So in fact you are agreeing with me: The World ISN'T just and Life ISN'T fair!

- That's what you're telling me?

Welcome SillyApe

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from Julia

Well, yes, but: What's the difference between this "modern orthodoxy" and "neo-Epicurean"?

I use those interchangeably, depending on whether I am in the mood to be charitable ("neoepicurean") or just want to refer to the groupthink aspect of it ("orthodoxy")

Yes Julia I need to be more clear and avoid irony / sarcasm in some formulations, and you are right that "orthodox" has confusing possibilities.

Most of the time I use the term I am referring to "modern orthodoxy," rather than an attitude of actually attempting to be true to the Epicurean views of 2000 years ago. In my experience "orthodoxy" has always had a very negative connotation, and that's why I tend to use it negatively and rarely if ever positively. But you are right, loose references are likely to be confusing, and I plan to work on avoiding the term unless I am very clearly spelling out the meaning I intend.

This is going to sound nit-picking but I'm just illustrating the limits of any single term.

"Physicalism," like "materialism," is a word that says nothing about:

(1) canonics - doesn't tell you anything much about the role of logic and reason and how to think.

(2) ethics - doesn't tell you anything about the role of pleasure vs virtue, and really doesn't say much even about the gods, because some (even the Stoics apparently) take the position that supernatural gods are physical.

(3) and it also doesn't tell you anything much, even in physics, about whether the universe is subject to "hard determinism" or whether there is any degree of free agency.

This kind of analysis can be done with probably any single word, because I'm not aware that anyone has come up with essentially the same (or even closely similar) combination of crucial elements that are combined into the philosophy of Epicurus.

Quote from Julia

Bit of a tangent, but I've been wondering for a while: Which adjective (like "orthodox") would best describe the Epicurean philosophy predominant here, on EpicureanFriends? Is there a list contrasting the main branches of Epicurean philosophy somewhere?

On the website I try to refer to it as "Classical Epicurean Philosophy" to distinguish it from the various brands of "neo-Epicureanism" that comes from the major commentators being much more Stoic or Buddhist friendly than down-the-line Epicurean. But that's just an approximation.

There really aren't many people devoted to reconstructing Epicurean philosophy in a pure form in the world today, so it's probably fair to draw the dividing line between those who make an effort to be across-the-board Epicurean, including in issues such as determinism and canonics, vs those who leave issues like that in the dust in favor of focusing on what "they" view as the central theme, which is to them "tranquility" / calmness, which usually boils down to a form of minimalism / asceticism which most any Stoic or Buddhist would be happy to embrace.

Given the open lack of desire of most commentators to embrace the whole sweep of the philosophy, "Classical Epicureanism" has seemed to be a workable label so far.

Quote from Julia

I used to not follow daily news at all. Through various ways, I slipped into this, and am now slowly, step by step quitting the vice again. The constant, instigated series of scandals and drama isn't worth my time and attention; it's just silly.

I think this is an area where it is very easy to go to unhealthy extremes. You're right there is a lot of silliness and total unproductiveness in following day-to-day politics. On the other hand I think it's important for everyone to have *some* idea of what is going on around them, because world events can definitely impact our daily lives, some of us more than others. And for those who are young enough and/or so inclined, I think there is plenty of evidence and precedent in Epicurean history to support just about any level of involvement that one wants to pursue in politics. The trick is knowing how much is productive and how much is not in your individual case, but contextual questions like that are always involved in all decisionmaking.

Your goal is to use your life and your time as productively as you can to live as happily as possible, and happiness involves both physical and "mental" pleasures. Only you can make the final decision on how far to get involved in following or participating in politics will enhance your overall mental and physical well-being / happiness / pleasure. Some will want nothing to do with politics, and some won't be able to live with themselves if they aren't "doing what they can."

Quote from Julia

Somehow, the group of thoughts which happen in that diagram remained unconnected to there being limited time only.

I think orthodox Epicurean focus is partly to blame for this. I don't think Epicurus was focused on running from pain like a frightened cat. He was setting the playing field so we can *begin* the analysis of how we spend our time, and after we discuss supernatural interference in PD01, there's really no reason to look back and continue worrying about heaven or hell or anything after death. The focus is on what we do during life!

Quote from Julia

I wonder how I might go about establishing that habit.

A number of years ago I worked in an office building right next to a very old cemetery, and many days at lunch we would walk through the cemetery to get to restaurants downtown. I miss doing that because looking and at reading the tombstones is one of the best reminders that we will be there someday too!

I am not prepared to say that this does or should work for everyone, but I know what works best for me. So in regard to this:

Quote from Julia

On some days, it is very tempting to give up, because the self-defeating backward momentum/pull to try less, work less hard, exert myself less is always there, and always easy – unpleasant results, but easy to do! – and the only reason I don't give up is because I know full well how painful things get down that road.

When I am in those moods, the thing that works best for me is to do something to remember that the clock is ticking (even something like looking at a clock!), that I will never get lost time back, that I have a very limited time to do what I want to do before I die. Some will say this increases anxiety and should not be done for that reason. I reject that assertion because I reject that Epicurus taught "tranquility" as the goal of life. I believe he taught "pleasure," which means a full life in which any pain is more than compensated for by the rest. Pain isn't always bad, and it's there for a reason, and in my case reminding myself of limited time may be temporarily painful, but it is the ultimate motivator.

So among the passages that I find most motivational in these circumstances are:

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us. (Which I do not interpret primarily as a relief from fear of hell, since I already know from PDO1 that any kind of supernatural hell is impossible. Instead, I see this primarily a reminder that after death there is nothing, so everything that I want to do has to be done in this life, before death.)

VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied. Note 14. The Bailey version ends "without allowing himself leisure."

VS10. Remember that you are mortal, and have a limited time to live, and have devoted yourself to discussions on Nature for all time and eternity, and have seen “things that are now and are to come and have been.”

VS30. Some men, throughout their lives, spend their time gathering together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death.

VS31. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us, mortals alike, dwell in an unfortified city.

VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

I am sure there are others but those come to mind first. And if I am missing some obvious ones please let me know!

Unfortunately any single term (other than "Epicurean" itself) is going to have its own set of difficult associations. Hopefully over time the situation will improve as people talk about Epicurean philosophy more in "normal" circles.

Quote from Kalosyni

However I see a problem with that label because it has a double meaning (the belief that money and material possessions are the most important thing in life - which is not what Epicureans believe at all) and wondering if we could come up with a better label.

As for the "ghosts" issue, that strikes me as an example of how - despite the decrease in organized religion, at least in the USA - we still have a lot of people who refuse to give up on more generic "spiritual" ideas.

Quote from Eric

What are the philosophical implications if matter/energy is indivisible and what if it is not (other than whether Epicurus was right or not)?

As you indicated, I will answer this on a philosophical level without representing that I have any ability to argue the latest physics research. Keep in mind I don't represent that I am the reincarnation of Epicurus - I am just trying to do a reasonable job of reconstructing his thought processes, and offering one possible way of doing that. Your mileage will vary.

First, it is well document that Epicurus thought that taking positions on the implications of infinity was very important in constructing a rational view of existence in which we can hope to live happily. In doing so it seems he was as much concerned about the harmful implications of what I will call "inward" infinity as he was about the helpful implications of "outward" infinity.

The implications of "outward" infinity of the universe is first of all logical (as a matter of definition, what could possibly be "outside" of everything that exists?). This approach to infinity gives us a means of explaining how our particular world came into existence from an eternal universe without the intervention of supernatural forces. This is a very powerful antidote to the "intelligent design" and similar arguments based on complexity and similar reasoning.

On the other hand, "downward" infinity would imply something at or very close to a violation of the "nothing goes to nothing" observation. The presumption that there is at some point a "smallest" that has an unchanging nature gives us an explanation for the regularity of the universe that allows us to have confidence that the regularity need not be supernaturally created and sustained. It doesn't matter whether the source of the regularity is at what we call today the molecular or atomic or subatomic levels. What matters is that "somewhere" on the way down there is a point of unchanging nature which sustains the regularity that we see at our level. It appears Epicurus was thinking that it is as important to have a reasonable theory to give us confidence in regularity of nature without supernatural control both on the upside and the downside.

I would equate this to why Epicurus thought it was important to posit the existence of life in the universe other than only here on Earth. The implications of thinking that we are the only living things in the universe, or that we are the highest, are too profoundly disruptive to ignore without taking a position.

In the end you're right that it doesn't matter to some people whether the mechanism of natural regularity is different from the way Epicurus explained it. It also doesn't matter to some people if the Earth is the only place in the universe where life exists. But many people (and I would argue it's the large majority of people) find that leaving such questions without an answer that comports with the logic of what we see around us is a very unsatisfactory thing to do. They want to know that they are living their best life, to the best of their ability given the information available to them, and they want a logical foundation for their decision-making while they are alive. They can't afford to wait for next year's or next decade's or next centuries' scientific research.

We've had numbers of discussions in the past touching on the overall issue you are raising. Epicurus was not primarily a Physicist. He was a philosopher whose major concern was doing the best he could for himself and his friends and anyone who would listen to come up with a rational way of life that makes the most sense for people who reject supernatural explanations which have no evidence to support them. I wouldn't go to Epicurus to construct a nuclear reactor any more than I would go to him for brain surgery.

It's two separate contexts: If someone's primary interest is the very latest research in physics, you go one place. If you want a rational evidence-based way to live your life, you go to another place. Everyone has to pick their focus and their goal and decide what is most important to them. There's no necessary conflict between the two, but if the ever-changing opinions of the latest physics research leads someone into radical skepticism, then that's a very bad result.

New Article on Redshift analysis - final sentence: 'It is necessary to have observational evidence to validate any model. So the observational data like redshift periodicity of a galaxy–quasar pair gives rise to a new challenge in observational astronomy for extragalactic objects and Big Bang hypothesis. "

Quantized redshift and challenges to Big Bang hypothesis

A Doppler shift is defined as a change of frequency of light or sound when an object is moving toward or away from an observer. Edwin Hubble observed in 1929…

phys.org

Quote from Eric

As far as I can observe and reason, the universe consists of atoms, void, energy and forces.

I know you said you don't represent your views on this topic as orthodox Epicurean, but your phrasing here made me think of an issue that applies outside your routine:

I see a parallel between the best way to discuss tranquility and pleasure and that of discussing atoms and void:

In Epicurean terms tranquility and all other nonpainful experiences are thought of as falling under "pleasure."

Likewise, energy and forces are best thought of as falling under "atoms" since as Epicurus meant the term it was simply indivisible particle, and we use "atom" to refer to a particular arrangement of particles "above" atoms.

Not suggesting you need to think that way yourself.....just thinking out loud about terminology.

It came to my attention to day that there is another "Frequently Asked Ethical Question" to which we should have a thread presenting an answer in Epicurean terms. I will set up a FAQ question and link to this thread as well as to what develops into the most likely/consensus answer.

The Complaint/Question/Issue is generally stated in terms of "Is There No Justice In The World?" or "Life Isn't Fair!"

What would Epicurus say to such a person?

I think one reason we haven't seen that discussed much in the forum on the past is that most well-read Epicureans will immediately see the many issues with such a complaint, but it's a common concern about life in general, so let's see what we can do to formulate a general response.

Let's keep this thread in "General Discussion" for a while so that it gets attention and some responses, and we'll eventually move it to the Ethics forum.

Notes for the section to be discussed in this episode:

Section XXXII

1. Cotta accuses Velleius' argument of being based on logic - a technique that the Epicureans allegedly oppose - rather than on the senses.
2. Cotta agrees with Velleius that the gods are happy, that without virtue no one can be happy, and that virtue requires reason. Cotta disagrees with Velleius, however, that the gods are of human form, and he alleges that this is a leap which is not justified.
3. Cotta asserts that Velleius says that the gods are of human form, when he could just as easily have said that men are of godlike form. This is petty wordplay, because when two things are similar to each other, it makes no difference which order you state the things that are similar to each other.
4. Note that Cotta asserts that the gods always existed, which is required if they are immortal, and therefore existed first before men. It is not clear that this is Velleius' position, especially when you ask about "particular gods" rather than gods as a class, or human beings as a class. If "human beings" is a term that applies only to people of Earth, then yes that class had a beginning after the earth was formed, but that does not mean that there are not other human-like beings in the rest of the universe, or that the class of human-like beings has not always existed, just like the class of the gods.
   1. [Letter to Herodotus 73 ] - "And in addition to what we have already said we must believe that worlds, and indeed every limited compound body which continuously exhibits a similar appearance to the things we see, were created from the infinite, and that all such things, greater and less alike, were separated off from individual agglomerations of matter; and that all are again dissolved, some more quickly, some more slowly, some suffering from one set of causes, others from another. [74] And further we must believe that these worlds were neither created all of necessity with one configuration nor yet with every kind of shape. Furthermore, we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world; for indeed no one could prove that in a world of one kind there might or might not have been included the kinds of seeds from which living things and plants and all the rest of the things we see are composed, and that in a world of another kind they could not have been."
   2. [ Lucretius 2:1048 ] [1048] *First of all, we find that in every direction everywhere, and on either side, above and below, through all the universe, there is no limit, as I have shown, and indeed the truth cries out for itself and the nature of the deep shines clear. Now in no way must we think it likely, since towards every side is infinite empty space, and seeds in unnumbered numbers in the deep universe fly about in many ways driven on in everlasting motion, that this one world and sky was brought to birth, but that beyond it all those bodies of matter do naught; above all, since this world was so made by nature, as the seeds of things themselves of their own accord, jostling from time to time, were driven together in many ways, rashly, idly, and in vain, and at last those united, which, suddenly cast together, might become ever and anon the beginnings of great things, of earth and sea and sky, and the race of living things. Wherefore, again and again, you must needs confess that there are here and there other gatherings of matter, such as is this, which the ether holds in its greedy grip. [1067] Moreover, when there is much matter ready to hand, when space is there, and no thing, no cause delays, things must, we may be sure, be carried on and completed. As it is, if there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living things could not number, and if the same force and nature abides which could throw together the seeds of things, each into their place in like manner as they are thrown together here, it must needs be that you confess that there are other worlds in other regions, and diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts. [1077] This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

5. Cotta asks how this extraordinary good fortune (of the existence of men and gods) came about, because you Epicureans deny that reason had anything to do with the formation of things. What was this extraordinary fortune? Are we to suppose the divine seed fell from heaven upon earth? Cotta says that Velleius does not assert this (though Cotta would welcome it) - Cotta asserts that Velleius alleges that this happened "by chance." Surely you can't be serious! Cotta says in effect: "I wish it were as easy to show what is true as it is to show that what you say is false!

   
   

Section XXXIII

1. Cotta says that Velleius' history of philosophers regarding the nature of the gods is so good that he is surprised to see so much learning in a Roman. (Sort of weird statement - isn't Cotta Roman too?)
2. Cotta asks Velleius if he thinks those philosophers who held that gods can exist without human attributes (hand and feet) were madmen? Don't you understand that the gods have no need of hands and feet like humans do? (Cotta is alleging that gods are supernatural and don't need such things.)
3. Cotta says: "The same may be asked of the other parts of the body, in which nothing is vain, nothing useless, nothing superfluous; therefore we may infer, that no art can imitate the skill of nature." What does "No art may imitate the skill of nature" mean? Rackham translates "so that no art can imitate the cunning of nature's handiwork."
4. Cotta says he mentions tongues and teeth and jaws and heart, lung, liver, and says "I mention these because you place them in the Deity on account of the beauty of the human form." -- This is also petty - Velleius made no such specific assertions - only that the gods had some kind of bodies similar in appearance to humans -- not that the gods bodies contained the same exact characteristics as humans.
5. Cotta characterizes Epicurean reasoning as dreams, and calls Leontium a harlot who presumed to write against Theophrastus. The Garden of Epicurus *abounded* with these criticisms of the other philosophers. Cotta then gives a list of other philosophers Epicurus attacks, which would seem to imply confirmation of what Diogenes Laertius has to say about Epicurus calling the other philosophers names.

Yes this is an interesting question, even though detailed. It might be correct that he did not state what the "unit" was (in other words he didn't say it in feet or inches or millimeters or whatever) but he definitely, at least to me, appears to be saying that there is an indivisible limit - he just doesn't try to measure it or give it another name beyond indivisible.

Am I saying that correctly?

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Do you even accept the terms of things needing "meaning"?

Right, I would first question the terms of the debate. "Meaning" to whom? Jordan Peterson and others of either an explicitly religious or a "humanist" bent look for standards of moral worthiness in gods or idealism. Epicurus taught that nature gives us only pleasure and pain by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid. Therefore we don't look to supernatural gods or rationalistic ideals; instead we each individually have to look to the guidance that we feel inside as to physical and mental pain and pleasure for the ultimate answers to all questions of how to live.

I don't doubt that there is a "meaning crisis," but it is a crisis of the creation of the people you listed and their predecessor schools. They won't get past it until they abandon their search for answers in divine revelation and rationalistic idealism. The people you listed are highly unlikely to make that change, so they will just keep at their task of wringing their hands over their self-created angst.

And since I think it's an important part of this discussion I will restate it: the "secular humanists" are just as guilty of this problem as are those preaching supernatural religion. The secular humanists talk like they offer an alternative to revealed religion, but then they turn right around and adopt the central core of the morality of the people they claim to oppose. I think Epicurus would say that all attempts to replace the guidance of nature (through pleasure and pain) with some other standard is doomed to ultimately being unsatisfying.

I started to type "doomed to failure" in that last sentence, but I suppose since the people I am criticizing have been the viewpoint of a large majority of people for 2000+ years, it's hard to say that they have "failed" in their goal. The problem is that their goal is manipulation and suppression of people holding viewpoints not to their liking, and in that respect unfortunately they have largely been successful.

I doubt that I will pursue this myself much further, but since I wrote this up as a comment to graphic I thought I would post it separately in case someone thought it was helpful for their own thinking. I'm not at all sure that such a thing would be practical, but thinking about the factors that would go into any such system is probably a good exercise:

I wish we had some shorthand way of indicating a reasonable level of confidence for a particular passage of text. Maybe we ought to create a thread to explore some kind of ranking system that would include factors like:

1. A rating of how intact the text is vs how much is reconstructed.as a percentage of words and whether those reconstructions are of critical portions.

2. A rating as to whether they key point of a text is repeated in other reliable authorities.

3. A rating of the reliability of the supposed original author (with Epicurus being the gold standard and someone like Horace being less reliable)

4. A rating of the "transmitter" that takes into account the viewpoint of the transmitter (those such as Diogenes Laertius being most likely to attempt to be correct while someone like Plutarch being inclined to cast negatively)

5. This would probably be hardest, but Perhaps even a rating of the "reconstructer" as to how well established they are or their level of "favorability" toward the point of view under discussion. For example the point of view of someone like David Sedley on the texts is more known, but that of others is less known (or so I expect). Another example is Bailey, who was personally pretty disdainful of Epicurus' ethics and therefore might not work as hard to present them sympathetically, despite his general professionalism and credentials. Another example is the John Mason Good translation of Lucretius, which very non-standard (and not in a way that seems reliable or insightful).

No system would be perfect but maybe would be helpful. Not at all sure it would be practical, but some kind of shorthand way to indicate when texts are doubtful and when not would be useful. Even a description of such a standard would make an interesting reference article.