Posts by Cassius

Update: A discussion plan for Chapter 7 of DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - on the subject of "The Canon, Reason, and Nature" is now posted here.

This is such an excellent question, and one that is asked so frequently, that I am creating a separate forum for others (especially new readers) to post their own versions.

KDF, here are my thoughts - not intending to be judgmental, and certainly I am not qualified to define who is and who is not an Epicurean. But based on my reading and study, here is what I would say:

What you have described is a set of attitudes toward your that certainly indicate that you are generally working to apply a pleasure/pain analysis to your life, and that of course is consistent with Epicurus' advice. But since the topic of your question is "Am I an Epicurean?" I think it would be necessary to know a lot more before answering. Of course not everyone who pursues pleasure is an Epicurean, and there is a lot more to the philosophy than that single ethical conclusion.

I think that's the consistent issue we run into that people need to think about more deeply - your answers indicate that you are probably on the Epicurean course ethically, but whether your particular decisions have been reached via a line of thinking that Epicurus would recommend depends on your circumstances, and on your foundations in the other branches of Epicurean philosophy.

For example you do not mention your view of "gods," or "fate," or the meaning of "death." And you do not indicate your view of the issue of knowledge/certainty/confidence, and of logic vs the senses, in your observations and your conclusions. I argue that "ethics" is far downstream of those more fundamental issues about the nature of life and the universe. Unless one has a grounding in those issues, and more or less accepts the Epicurean viewpoint on them, then it's likely that at some point of stress or misfortune that the person "falls away" from Epicurean philosophy, because they've never really understood the framework in the first place.

So my preliminary comment is that definitely your ethics are at least superficially reconcilable with Epicurus, but to answer "Am I an Epicurean" would require considerably more information. Feel free to elaborate or not, but thank you for posting!

I have accumulated my researchat the page linked below, but I am far from happy with my presentation of it, and the issue is going to probably consume the rest of my philosophical career What it boils down to in my mind is that:

1 - Plato and others had established a philosophical consensus in which pleasure could NOT be the guide of life due to a variety of *logical* arguments, especially that the desire for pleasure can never be satisfied, and that "something more" is needed in addition to pleasure.

2 - Epicurus knew that in addition to proof by pointing out that all nature at birth cries out for pleasure and against pain, he had to defeat the anti-pleasure *logical* arguments.

3 - What people (especially stoic-friendly people who are suspicious of pleasure) focus on today as "ataraxia" is nothing more than the commonplace observation that the maximum quantity of pleasure any living being can experience is that quantity he experiences when his experience is totally "full" of pleasures, without any mixture of pain left behind. This is a *logical* construct that shows that the desire for pleasure CAN be satisfied, and that nothing MORE is needed for the highest possible state of existence. No ancient Epicurean would have failed to understand that this is a debating device, because elsewhere, and otherwise, Epicurus was totally clear that *pleasure* as commonly understood is the goal of life.

4- But due to the tragic victory of Stoicism/Judeo-Christianity/Platonism, the victors got to write the history, and they erased virtually all of the foundation and context, preserving only what they wanted to preserve. And of course among the first things they chose to preserve the observation that "simplicity" is frequently the best course for maintaining steady pleasurable living. And worst of all, they ripped "absence of pain" totally out of context to imply that there is some mysterious "state" that his higher and different from ordinary pleasure which we should set as our goal -- transforming Epicurus directly into an anti-pleasure / anti-pleasure more potent than most of their own Stoic perverters of Nature! And THOSE two things (1 - simplicity, and 2 - the alleged goal of "painlessness") is all that 98% of people think is significant about Epicurean philosophy today!

http://newepicurean.com/foundations-2/…pleasure-model/

"An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a right action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that Nihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as an objection… What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure—as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for decadence, and no less for idiocy…" [Referring to Kant, but is the basic point not fundamentally Epicurean?]

Nietzsche, Antichrist, 11 - http://4umi.com/nietzsche/antichrist/11

This is spurred in part by Mark Cubbedge's link to a group offering "dialog" between Stoics and Epicureans, and part by the observation that if North and South Korea can be friends, then I can occasionally say something good about the Stoics. And here it is: I completely and fully agree with the following statement by Chris Fisher at "Traditional Stoicism. com":

"What is Traditional Stoicism? These posts [meaning his work and page] differentiate traditional Stoicism from the various modern iterations that diverge, often dramatically, from the essential elements of Stoic philosophy as historically understood. The assertion of traditional Stoicism is not that the philosophical system cannot change and evolve, nor does it assert that moderns must assent to everything the ancients did. Instead, traditional Stoicism rests on the demonstrable fact that the ancient Stoics built their philosophical theory and practice around a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of humankind and the nature of the cosmos. Those assumptions define Stoicism and empower its practice to affect change in lives. Clearly, our understanding of both human nature and the cosmos has increased over time and those new facts can be assimilated into the framework of the original system. However, in our current secular age, many want to abandon fundamental aspects of the framework itself because they conflict with their assumed worldview. The ancient Stoics denied that their system could be changed in this manner; traditional Stoics agree. Traditional Stoicism asserts that we must avoid the impulse to change Stoic practice into something which is no longer recognizable as Stoicism simply to make it more palatable for moderns."

I think Chris is correct about Stoicism, and I think we could rewrite that paragraph in EXACTLY the same form, just substituting "Epicurean Philosophy" for Stoicism":

"What is Traditional Epicurean Philosophy? These posts [advocates of true Epicurean philosophy] differentiate traditional Epicurean Philosophy from the various modern iterations that diverge, often dramatically, from the essential elements of Epicurean philosophy as historically understood. The assertion of traditional Epicurean Philosophy is not that the philosophical system cannot change and evolve, nor does it assert that moderns must assent to everything the ancients did. Instead, traditional Epicurean Philosophy rests on the demonstrable fact that the ancient Epicureans built their philosophical theory and practice around a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of humankind and the nature of the cosmos. Those assumptions define Epicurean Philosophy and empower its practice to affect change in lives. Clearly, our understanding of both human nature and the cosmos has increased over time and those new facts can be assimilated into the framework of the original system. However, in our current secular age, many want to abandon fundamental aspects of the framework itself because they conflict with their assumed worldview. The ancient Epicureans denied that their system could be changed in this manner; traditional Epicureans agree. Traditional Epicurean Philosophy asserts that we must avoid the impulse to change Epicurean practice into something which is no longer recognizable as Epicurean Philosophy simply to make it more palatable for moderns."

Of course I do not accept the need to refer to "Traditional" Epicurean philosophy. "Traditional" Epicurean philosophy - the kind that firmly asserts the absence of supernatural gods, freedom from "fate," this life as the only one we have, and the faculty of pleasure as the true guide to life - IS Epicurean philosophy. Rejection of those foundations "to make it more palatable for moderns" is not Epicurean philosophy at all.

So in this I say nothing but good about Chris Fisher's Stoic point of view.

STEP 2: A list of Stoic "Techniques" - I will update this list and try to create something worth responding to --

1. Negative visualization (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
2. The dichotomy of control – which Irvine turns into a trichotomy (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life) (This is the "good / bad / indifferent categorization?)
3. Fatalism (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
4. Self denial – “practicing poverty” (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
5. Striving to be free of the passions ("A Guide to Stoic Living" https://www.scribd.com/doc/77465459/A…ng-Keith-Seddon)
6. Meditation, (but I get the impression that by meditate they mean think about things a lot rather than sitting without thinking.) (From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life)
7. Live Simply / Live According to Nature (Keith Seddon / "A Guide to Stoic Living" https://www.scribd.com/doc/77465459/A…ng-Keith-Seddon )
   

STEP 1: I am going to try to organize some kind of comparison document contrasting Epicurean advice with Stoic "techniques." In preparation I posted this [at Facebook]. In subsequent posts here I'll try to compile a list:

Recent questions indicate that I need to devote some time to a written response to the Stoic "techniques" that we get asked about so frequently. I will try to work something up, so: (1) Does anyone have a link to a list of the primary Stoic "techniques" which I should be sure to address? Modern or ancient, either is fine, but I would prefer clarity above all so that I can be sure to hit the "high" points (or the "low" points, depending on perspective). (2) For those new to this exercise, I would be particularly grateful for any lists that include the Stoic equivalents to the first two Epicurean doctrines (A. That we owe nothing to and have nothing to fear from supernatural gods, and B. that our lives are terminated by death, so that all the "happiness" we will ever experience must be gained in THIS life.) I cannot imagine helping someone achieve pleasurable living without resolving those two issues first, so I am sure that there must be some much-vaunted Stoic doctrines that provide help similar or better than PD1 and PD2 - Correct? (Or is it possible that the Stoics don't see these two issues quite the same way Epicureans do?)

I ask our fellow Epicureans for their indulgence in this request, and that they tolerate the pain of what they may read for the sake of avoiding the greater pain and/or achieving the greater pleasure that comes from gaining for themselves and for their friends a better understanding of the issues involved.


Some responses:

(1) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…EgXD5xgUTMMxkO3

(2) From William B. Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life, we have these psychological techniques:

1. Negative visualization

2. The dichotomy of control – which Irvine turns into a trichotomy

3. Fatalism

4. Self denial – “practicing poverty”

5. Meditation, but I get the impression that by meditate they mean think about things a lot rather than sitting without thinking.

In terms of the first two principle doctrines, one source that I have describes the Stoic view of God as being the same as nature. Thus when they use the term they are referring to everything in the cosmos. They also believed that the soul survives death, but apparently there was disagreement on how long the soul existed and the author suggests that they believed in reincarnation. I wasn’t happy with the treatment of Epicureanism in this book, so I’m not sure how reliably accurate it is for Stoicism either. The book is The Systems of the Hellenistic Age by Giovanni Reale.

---------------

Some of the way I wrote my post was joking / sarcastic, but I do honestly think it would be helpful to draft a list of the "classic" stoic suggestions so that we can then comment and evaluate them in an Epicurean context. For example, you have listed "For example evaluating a thought for its rational content compared to accepting any emotional prompting." That is an EXCELLENT one to discuss, because I think there is clearly a different angle on that from an Epicurean perspective. But before I / we devote a lot of time to discussing your particular formulation of it, it would be most helpful to the most people if we found that kind of statement on some "authoritative" list of Stoicisms so that we can debate details while minimizing the response that "well that's Eric's position but "Epictetus didn't say that" or "Modern Stoics don't believe that." I know you're widely read in that -- other than going to Epictetus himself have you seen a site or list that does the best job of distilling this down into something that "most" Stoics would agree represents true Stoic views?

-------------

Maybe the most authoritative list is just to use the Enchiridion? Or is the modern stoic version so different from that as to make it a poor choice to start? http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

I haven't read all of this, but it appears to have some interesting material in it. Be forewarned, however, that it looks like the author can be expected to take the tiresome perspective that modern thinkers like Guyua / Bentham / Mill / Spencer were oh-so-much smarter than Epicurus and "corrected" Epicurus' errors.

https://www.academia.edu/36453917/Beyon…zsche_and_Guyau

Not so far. We've talked about recording them but not done that either so far. I agree it would be good to do it - I guess the outlines are a start.

In a private conversation this selection from Nietzsche's "AntiChrist" came to mind. I personally believe that if an ancient Epicurean were here to speak to us today, that Epicurean would agree both with Nietzsche's praise of Epicurus, and with Nietzsche's condemnation of the opposite:

"With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal… For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The "equality of souls before God"—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order—this is Christian dynamite… The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself…

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race…"

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/antichrist/62

Vatican Saying 33: "There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm."

Is it not clear that this conclusion follows directly from there being no god, no center of the universe, no absolute point from which someone can stand and say THAT, and ONLY THAT, is "correct?"

Of course that doesn't finish the point, and leads next to the question "if not absolute justice, then what 'justice' is there at all?"

And it seems to me that is just a subset of the "truth" issue: If not absolute truth, then what 'truth' is there at all?

It seems to me that the Epicurean answer to that is that "truth" to us is that which we perceive through our senses, and through our faculty of pleasure and pain (which aren't strictly the same thing as the senses), and our faculty of "preconceptions/anticipations."

Unfortunately there is not much text to explain what the third one means, and some are going to say that preconceptions and anticipations are nothing more than conceptions formed after thinking about past experiences. But just as "pleasure" and "pain" are to at least a large degree "preprogrammed prior to experience, I believe the direction DeWitt suggests is correct, and that humans (no less than dogs or cats or other animals) are born with genetic characteristics that dispose them to recognize abstractions in particular ways. However I would differ from DeWitt in calling these "innate ideas" - I don't think it is "content" or "propositions" that are genetically encoded, but the "principles of operation" or the "disposition to process abstractions in particular ways" (like a computer operating system) that is genetically provided.

At this stage of the argument I regularly cite Jackson Barwis in "Dialogues on Innate Principles"] arguing against the "blank slate" of Locke and Aristotle:

Here is a section of "Dialogues on Innate Principles" most directly related to this [Note: bold emphasis added by me, and of course the reference to a Divine Creator is not necessary to the argument]:

"... When I take a general view of the arguments adduced by Mr. Locke against innate moral principles; and when I see what he produces as the most indisputable innate principles, “if any be so,” I am inclined to think there must have been some very great mistake as to the true nature of the things in question: for he lays down certain propositions (no matter whether moral or scientific, so they be but true), and then proves that such propositions, considered merely as propositions formed by our rational faculty, after due consideration of things, as all true propositions must be, are not innate. Nothing more obvious! But surely those whom he opposes must, or ought to have meant, (though I cannot say I have read their arguments, nor do I mean to answer for anyone but myself) not that the propositions themselves were innate, but that the conscious internal sentiments on which such moral propositions are founded were innate.

He looked on me, interrogatively.

I said it might be so, and that I saw a great difference in those things.

Or perhaps, continued he, the mistake may have arisen from following too closely the mode, in which it is necessary to proceed, in order to acquire a knowledge of certain sciences, as in geometry: that is, by laying down some clear and self-evident axioms or rational propositions. But even here it should be remembered that, in the natures of things, there were principles which had existence anterior to the formation of these axioms or propositions, and on which they are founded, and on which they depend for their existence: as, extension and solidity.

I gave an assenting inclination of the head.

I cannot, therefore, conceive, added he, that what we ought to understand by innate moral principles, can by any means, when fairly explained, be imagined to bear any similitude to such propositions as Mr. Locke advances as bidding fairest to be innate, nor to any other propositions. That is, I cannot conceive that our innate moral principles, our natural sentiments, or internal conscious feelings, (name them how you please) which we derive, and which result, from our very nature as creatures morally relative, are at all like unto any propositions whatever.

Who can discover any similitude to any conscious sentiment of the soul in these strangely irrelative propositions:

“Whatever is, is.”

“It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be.” ?

Nobody.

The innate principles of the soul, continued he, cannot, any more than those of the body, be propositions. They must be in us antecedently to all our reasonings about them, or they could never be in us at all: for we cannot, by reasoning, create any thing, the principles of which did not exist antecedently. We can, indeed, describe our innate sentiments and perceptions to each other; we can reason, and we can make propositions about them; but our reasonings neither are, nor can create in us, moral principles. They exist prior to, and independently of, all reasoning, and all propositions about them.

When we are told that benevolence is pleasing; that malevolence is painful; we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions: but by an appeal to the innate internal affections of our souls: and if on such an appeal, we could not feel within the sentiment of benevolence, and the peculiar pleasure attending it; and that of malevolence and its concomitant pain, not all the reasoning in the world could ever make us sensible of them, or enable us to understand their nature.

I do not see that it could, said I.

Every being in the universe, continued he, must receive its principles from the Divine Creator of all things. The reason of man can create no principles in the natures of things. It will, by proper application, enable him to know many things concerning them which, without reasoning, he never could have known; and to explain his knowledge, so acquired, to other men; but the principles of all created beings are engendered with, and accompany, the existence which they receive from their Creator. And in a point so truly essential as that of morality is to the nature of such a creature as man; God has not left him without innate and ever-inherent principles. He has not left to the imbecility of human reason to create what he knew it never could create, and what we know it never can create.

Even in the abstracted sciences of arithmetic and geometry, reason can create no principles in the natures of the things treated of. It can lay down axioms and draw up propositions concerning numbers, extension, and solidity; but numbers, extension, and solidity existed prior to any reasoning about them.

And here I must observe that the assent or dissent that we give to propositions in these sciences, which are but little interesting to our nature, is drawn from a source widely different from that which we give to moral propositions. Thus, when we are told that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and see the demonstration; we say simply, true. That they are equal to three right angles; false. These things being irrelative to morals, they move no conscious sentiment, and do therefore only receive our bare assent or dissent as a mere object of sense; in the same manner as when we say a thing is, or is not, black or white, or round or square; we use our eyes, and are satisfied.

But the truth or falsehood of moral propositions must be judged of by another measure; through a more interesting medium: we must apply to our internal sense; our divine monitor and guide within; through which the just and unjust, the right and wrong, the moral beauty and deformity of human minds, and of human actions, can only be perceived. And this internal sense must most undoubtedly be innate, as we have already shown; it could not otherwise have existence in us; we not being able, by reasoning, or by any other means, to give ourselves any new sense, or to create, in our nature, any principle at all. I therefore think Mr. Locke, in speaking of innate moral principles, ought, at least, to have made a difference between propositions relative to morals, and those which have no such relation."

My video skills are abysmal, but I am posting this in hope it may be useful to someone. The page discussed in the video is live at http://www.newepicurean.com/overview.htm

Based on Alex's and JAWS's comments it looks like it makes the most sense to plan for either May 5 or May 12, with the probability that May 5 is probably the better of the two. Please comment on your preference, and in the meantime I will update the main announcement.

Today's chat generated some very good comments and questions. We can use the thread for each chapter to make note of them and continue the discussion in the thread. The questions/comments included:

1. How correct is it (either in DeWitt, or the way the outline is written) to conclude that topics like mathematics or rhetoric or poetry were totally off limits? Is the real answer that Epicurus just stressed that these topics had proper and improper uses? Necessarily a lot of speculation here....
2. Was DeWitt correct to see the commemoration ceremonies on the 20th of each month as "compensation" for lack of immortality?
3. The outline talks more about Epicurus' objection to the Platonic curriculum than it does about what was included in the Epicureans' own curriculum. We ought to have an idea (at least in outline) of how the Epicurean curriculum itself was structured.

(Gosh I know there were others and I am already forgetting them. In the future let's plan to make notes and extend the discussion thread after each discussion.)

I re-titled the "coordination" thread and linked it from the top-of-page announcement so we can find it in the future, so this will be the best place to continue the discussion on the next date and time: Planning for Upcoming Voice Chats on DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy

Wow that sounds like a great trip! Have fun and be safe! Like Alex suggested today, I think we should not wait a full month, so we'll probably set the next one for early May - hopefully you can join us then!

Today we had five in attendance and another good discussion. Let's start planning the next meeting. As Alex suggested we need not wait a month - how about Saturday May 5 at 5:00 PM EDT? Please post whether that will work for you and we'll announce an official plan once we have several indicate that that works for them.

(Sorry Alex I did not see your question about the link til now. I'll keep a link posted in the announcement box at the top of the forum.)

This list of eleven "True And False Opinions About Epicurus" taken from Chapter 1 of DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy," may be of general interest:

1. TRUE AND FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT EPICURUS:
   1. Epicurus’ Place In Greek Philosophy:
      1. True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus' chief abominations. Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.
      2. False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism.
   2. Epicurus’ Attitude Toward Learning:
      1. True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker.
      2. False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.
   3. Epicurus’ Goal For Himself And His Work:
      1. True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.
      2. False: Epicurus was nothing more than a philosopher who was ungrateful to his teachers.
   4. Epicurus’ Place in Greek Scientific Thought:
      1. True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.
      2. False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.
   5. Epicurus’ Role As a Systematizer:
      1. True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.
      2. False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.
   6. Epicurus’ Dogmatism:
      1. True: Epicurus’s strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.
      2. False: Epicurus’ demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.
   7. Epicurus’ View of Truth:
      1. True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
      2. False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
   8. Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
      1. True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
      2. False: Epicurus taught reasoning mainly by induction.
   9. Epicurus’ As A Man of Action
      1. True: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.
      2. False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.
   10. Epicurus’ View of Self-Interest
       1. True: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.
       2. False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.
   11. Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of Christianity
       1. True: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.
       2. False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”

Discussion Plan For Chapter 1 "A Synoptic View Of Epicureanism" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

Many thanks to BWDS for the first draft of this outline, which is available here!

The "interactive" version of this outline is available here.

1. Overview Of The Historical Background of Epicurean Philosophy

1. At the outset this must be emphasized: At one and the same time Epicurus was both the most revered and most reviled of all founders of Greco-Roman philosophical schools.
   1. For seven hundred years Epicurus was very popular throughout the Greco-Roman world; his images were displayed, his handbooks memorized and carried by students, and on the twentieth of every month his followers assembled in his name.
   2. Throughout the same period Epicurus' enemies ceaselessly reviled him, he was attacked by Platonists, Stoics, and Christians, and his name was an abomination to the Jews.
   3. Therefore much of what has been written about Epicurus in both the ancient and modern world is wrong.
2. Epicurus employed teaching devices which will are important for understanding his philosophy.
   1. Setting The 'Attitude' or (diathesis, Greek). This device stresses at the very beginning the attitude to take toward the subject, just as the first of the Principal doctrines set for the attitude to take toward gods, death, pleasure, and pain.
   2. Start With An 'Outline' or the 'Synoptic View.' This means starting with the 'big picture' before proceeding to detailed discussion of the finer points, so that the fine points are kept in perspective. Epicurus' teachings were therefore presented in order from the general to the particular:
      1. The Progression in Physics:
         1. The first principles of Physics were presented as the Twelve Elementary Principles
         2. The "First Epitome" of Physics was the Letter to Herodotus
         3. The "Second Epitome" of Physics is what we have today as the material adapted into poem form in Lucretius "On The Nature of Things"
         4. The Full presentation of Physics was the Thirty-Seven Books on Nature.
      2. (Note: Compare in Ethics: Ethical passages of 40 Doctrines > Letter to Menoeceus > Longer Works Now Lost. Compare in Canonics: Epistemological passages of 40 Doctrines > Epistemological passages in “On the Nature of Things” > the “Celestial Book” on Canonics now lost.)

2. Warning: View The Literature On Epicurus With Great Care

1. Little remains of the trustworthy texts other than a small amount of original material from Epicurus, supplemented by the poem of Lucretius. The secondary literature is mostly hostile and cannot be received uncritically. Most modern scholars prefer to “hunt with the pack” and take the secondary literature at face value. This results in the greatly distorted picture of Epicurus dominant today.
2. In separating out the false material it is useful to employ another device used by Epicurus: that of contrasting and opposing “True Opinions” against “False Opinions.”

3. TRUE AND FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT EPICURUS:

1. Epicurus’ Place In Greek Philosophy:
   1. True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus’ chief abominations.
   2. False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism. (False because Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.)
2. Epicurus’ Attitude Toward Learning:
   1. True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker
   2. False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.
3. Epicurus’ Goal For Himself And His Work:
   1. True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.
   2. False: Epicurus was nothing more than a copycat who was ungrateful to his teachers.
4. Epicurus’ Place in Greek Scientific Thought:
   1. True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.
   2. False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.
5. Epicurus’ Role As a Systematizer:
   1. True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.
   2. False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.
6. Epicurus’ Dogmatism:
   1. True: Epicurus’ strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.
   2. False: Epicurus’ demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.
7. Epicurus’ View of Truth:
   1. True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
   2. False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
8. Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
   1. True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
   2. False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction
9. Epicurus’ As A Man of Action
   1. True: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.
   2. False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.
10. Epicurus’ View of Self-Interest
    1. True: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.
    2. False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.
11. Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of Christianity
    1. True: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.
    2. False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”

4. The Cultural Context

1. Born in 341 BC, seven years after death of Plato and seven years before Alexander crossed Hellespont to conquer Persia.
2. Platonism was dominant in higher education.
3. When Epicurus arrived in Athens the Cynics were in revolt against conventional philosophy.
4. Epicurus owes debt to the later Aristotle in that Epicurus focused on organic life instead of inorganic, leading to setting Nature as furnishing the norm rather than hypostatized Reason as taught by Plato.
5. Chief negative influences of the time were Platonism and oratory, both of which were focused on the political.
6. Epicurus declared war on the whole system of Platonic education. More than half of Principle Doctrines are direct contradictions of Platonism.
7. It is a major mistake to consider Stoicism to be the primary antagonist of Epicureans - this ignores that Stoicism was developed after Epicurean philosophy: the main enemy of Epicurus was Platonism.

5. Epicurus Was A Man of Erudition

1. Some detractors of Epicurus claim he was an ignoramus and enemy of all culture. This is absurd.
2. Epicurus was precocious as a child and challenged his teachers on the origin of the universe.
3. Epicurus no doubt received Platonic schooling in geometry, dialectic, and rhetoric.
4. Epicurus shows great familiarity with Platonic texts and more than half of his doctrines are rejections of Platonic positions.
5. Epicurus declared dialectic a superfluity but criticized Plato with acumen and wrote against the Megarians, the contemporary experts in logic.
6. Epicurus rejected geometry as relevant to ethics but adopted the procedures of Euclid in his own textbooks. Epicurus refuted mathematicians’ claims that matter is infinitely divisible.
7. Epicurus was clearly familiar with Aristotle and adopted many of his findings.

6. Epicurus Was A Moral Reformer

1. Epicurus is criticized as ungrateful to his teachers and influences, but this is because he was a moral reformer, and reformers feel themselves absolved from debts of gratitude to those they are rebelling against.
2. The attitude of Epicurus might be compared to St. Paul, because Epicurus was delivering new truth that did not come from other men – but not in a “divinely revealed” way as claimed by religious imposters.

7. Epicurus Was A Man of Science

1. In role of natural scientist he became – in particular - the antagonist of Plato.
2. Prior to Epicurus there had been two major currents in Greek Philosophy:
   1. The first was that of the Aegean Greeks/Ionians, who were observational and speculative. These were interested in studying change in nature, and devoted to discovering what unchanging something underlay all changing things. This study led to the development of atomic theory – the universe as made up of divisible bodies that were themselves composed of indivisible atoms as the ultimate structure of universe. This is the line which includes Democritus and Epicurus.
   2. The later line was that of the Greeks in Italy – these were mathematical and contemplative rather than observational and speculative. These “Italian” schools were “addicted to the sitting posture” – they were not interested in physical change or natural processes, and instead focused on contemplation of 'forms' and geometry. This is the line which includes Pythagoras and Plato, who developed this into “absolute reason contemplating absolute truth.”
3. The key error of the Platonic line arose from their attempt to transfer the precise concepts of geometry to ethics and politics, just as modern thinkers attempt to transfer the concepts of biological evolution to history and sociology.
   1. Especially enticing as a mistake is to make improper use of “definition.” Definition is the creation of geometricians – created by defining straight lines, equilateral triangles, and other regular figures.
   2. Plato sought to transfer this process to ethics: If straight lines and equilateral triangles can be defined, why not justice, piety, temperance, and other virtues?
   3. The problem with this process is that it is reasoning by analogy, and reasoning by analogy is one of the trickiest of logical procedures: it holds good only between sets of true similars – and virtues and triangles are not true similars!
   4. It does not follow that just because equilateral triangles can be precisely defined that justice can be precisely defined.
4. The Deceptiveness of Analogy does not prevent it from flourishing, especially when combined with the method of analysis by question and answer: dialectic, which is the “dramatization of logic.”
5. The Platonists then fell for another huge error: The quest for a definition of a virtue, such as “justice” presumes the existence of the thing to be defined! If equilateral triangles did not exist, they could not be defined. But if we assume that “justice” can be defined, then we assume that “justice” exists just as equilateral triangles exist – and this is not necessarily so.
   1. The Platonic “theory of ideas” arose from the view of an “idea” as something having a shape or form with independent existence, and it is false to assume that justice or other virtues have an independent existence.
   2. Epicurus rejected this theory of ideas. Starting with a materialist view of the universe he denied the possibility of any eternal existences except atoms and space. Once “ideas” of this nature are rejected, we have no use for the tools by which ideas are constructed; we have no use for “dramatized logic” – we depend on science verified through sensation.
6. The Platonists inherited from Pythagoras the belief in rebirth/transmigration of souls, and the view that the body is a tomb or prison-house for the soul, which blurred our reason and prevented perfection of knowledge. Epicurus rejected all of this as skepticism.
7. The Platonists emphasized application of geometry to astronomy. Epicurus observed that Plato as assuming the validity of sensation in the study of astronomy, by denying the validity of sensation in the study of things here on Earth, and this was a glaring inconsistency.
8. The Platonists argued that circular motion was the only perfect and eternal motion and was therefore identifiable with reason itself, which meant reason was identifiable with the Divine nature, and planets/stars were declared to be gods. Epicurus held this to be absurd, not the least of which reasons was that it was absurd to consider gods to be hurtling balls of fire.

8. Epicurus as Philosopher

1. The most preposterous criticism of Epicurus is that he was a dullard or charlatan. In truth Epicurus was among the greatest synthesizers of philosophy.
   1. Epicurus saw error in separating phenomena from matter: he saw how ridiculous it was to allege, like Plato, that “horseness” was a real existence, but that horses were mere apparitions.
   2. Epicurus saw error in thinking that justice could exist apart from conduct.
   3. Epicurus saw error in thinking color has existence apart from arrangements and motions of atoms comprising the thing that we see as having color.
   4. Epicurus saw that “some form of religion” is indispensable (while excluding divine government of universe, regimentation, political enforcement, forced belief)

9. The First Dogmatic Philosophy

1. Moral reform requires dogmatism, and requires more than speculative thinking. Philosophy must be useful for happiness and this is impossible without faith, and faith is impossible without certainty – therefore philosophy must be dogmatic: "The wise man will not be a doubter but will dogmatize."
2. Dogmatism is the reaction to skepticism. The man who denies the possibility of knowledge is challenging others to declare that knowledge is possible. Epicurus took up this challenge and fought against it in Pyrrho, Plato, Aristotle, and even Democritus.
3. Epicurus was alerted to the challenge of skepticism by his teacher Nausiphanes, who admired the placidity of Pyrrho but rebelled against his skepticism.
4. Nausiphanes erected a criterion of truth he called the Tripod, which was so named because it stands on three legs.
5. Epicurus took the Tripod and elaborated it into his own Canon of Truth, composed of:
   1. The Sensations – The evidence furnished by the five senses.
   2. The Anticipations – The evidence furnished by innate ideas (such as in field of justice) which exist in advance of and anticipate experience.
   3. The Feelings - Pleasure and pain – Nature’s educators – her “Go” and “Stop” signals.
6. Epicurus is criticized for supposedly discouraging inquiry, but it should be recognized that (like Plato) Epicurus distinguished between people of different levels of education. However Epicurus saw no need for deception, and insisted his teachings were for all men, with simply differences in level of detail as set by their own capacities and opportunities.
7. Epicureans were not limited in any way and free to pursue their own tastes and talents, just as Lucretius pursued poetry, Polyoenus was an expert in geometry, and Asclepiades was an expert physician. Epicurus himself was an expert researcher into natural science.

10. The New Order of Nature

1. Especially important in the Epicurean canon is that "Reason" is not included as a criterion of truth.
2. The Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings are the only direct contact between man and his physical and social environment. Because they are direct contacts, they acquire a priority over reason and elevate Nature over Reason as affording a norm of truth.
3. The Platonists followed the “Italian” Greek school model of Arithmetic to Geometry to Astronomy to find an inflexible Celestial order of nature.
4. The Ionians followed the model of studying nature chiefly here on Earth, taking reason for granted as a faculty and applying it to observe inorganic, and then organic, nature, leading to the conclusion that Nature does nothing at random – a Terrestrial order of Nature.
5. Epicurus followed the Ionian pattern and extended the Aristotelian model, concluding that Nature provides the norm rather than Reason as argued by Plato.
6. This difference in perspective between the Terrestrial Order and the alleged Celestial Order led to the distinctly different philosophical directions of great importance, for example:
   1. In the interpretation of "Living according to Nature":
      1. The Platonists and Stoics argued that living according to Nature meant imitation of inflexible celestial order by a rigid and unemotional morality.
      2. Epicurus argued that living according to Nature meant living in accord with the laws of our being, centrally including the emotions as a normal, integral, and guiding part, undeserving of suspicion or distrust.
   2. In the interpretation of “Justice”:
      1. The Platonists require a definition of justice and they invoke dialectic as the tool and (for example) devote ten books of the Republic to the quest. In the background of their analysis are the mathematics of ration and the musical notion of harmony. After great examination they eventually conclude that justice is a harmony of the three parts of the soul: (1) reason, (2) passion, and (3) desire, and that “justice” in the state is a harmony of the constituent classes.
      2. Epicurus, in contrast, looked to the feelings as the criterion, and observed that “injustice” hurts as an injury, and “justice” promotes happiness feels pleasant. In this analysis “justice” is the agreement among people not to injure or be injured. This comes directly from Nature and no dialectic is needed to discover it – only observation. The sense that allows us to translate justice into a pleasant feeling and injustice into an unpleasant feeling is innate – it is an Anticipation or Prolepsis that exists in advance of and anticipates experience. Even certain animals, including elephants, have such an innate capacity.
7. Plato was complicating philosophy for the sake of the few who find self-gratification in complexity; Epicurus simplified philosophy for the sake of the many who wished to live by it.
8. Epicurus analyzed human nature just as Aristotle analyzed plants and animals, and in so doing Epicurus:
   1. Categorized man’s direct contacts with nature into Sensations, Anticipations, and Feelings;
   2. Categorized desires into natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, and neither natural nor necessary.
   3. Categorized the causes of injury inflicted by men as caused by (1) hatred, (2) envy, or (3) contempt.
9. The Canon was attacked, but the Stoics adopted the idea of the prolepsis/anticipations, and this view appeared commonplace to Cicero.
   1. The reliance on the sensations was attacked by misrepresenting that Epicurus held all sensations to be true. (The fallacy of this is apparent – would Epicurus have contended that our vision informs us no more correctly about a cow at twenty paces than at half a mile?)
   2. The Canon was misrepresented to be a substitute for logic. This is false because the function of ancient logic was to score debating points against opponents; the Canon is an individual test requiring no opponents. This the way a modern scientific researcher approaches his work – through hypothesis, putting it to test, and observing (through the senses) the reaction.

11. Epicurus as an Educator

1. Epicurus took over textbook form from Euclid. Plato had embraced geometry but employed artistic prose for his proofs. Epicurus rejected geometry, but embraced the bald and clear style of Euclid in composing his proofs.
2. Epicurus looked to Nature as the teacher which revealed the true meaning of words and the right kind of style: the sole requisite of writing is clarity. Epicurus denied that Nature was either a dialectician or a rhetorician or a poet.
3. Epicurus encouraged memorization of the fundamental axioms as an aid to applying them properly.
4. The Epicurean method stresses deductive reasoning from first principles. The Twelve Elementary Principles were stated and demonstrated as theorems, and each theorem became a major premise for the deduction of further theorems, which were then confirmed by the evidence of the Sensations, which operate as a criteria.
5. Epicurus was NOT an empiricist: the status of Sensations is that of a witness in court limited to confirming the truth (or falsity) of given proposition.
6. The Epicurean method of teaching is preserved to a significant extent in Philodemus, “On Frankness of Speech” recovered from Herculaneum

12. The First Missionary Philosophy

1. Epicureanism was the first and only real missionary philosophy produced by Greeks.
2. Plato had founded his Academy despite the absence of any (known) model for a school.
3. The model the Greeks were most familiar with was the city-state, and this model was pursued by Pythagoras.
4. The Cynics had escaped the political obsession of Plato and similar Greeks. So did Epicurus.
5. Epicurus believed a certain modicum of governmental control was necessary but rejected doctrine of Plato and others that the state stood in the place of a parent.
6. A closer model probably in Epicurus’ mind was the example of Aristotle, whose school was more of a research institution and less of a one-man enterprise than Plato’s Academy. Epicurus had with himself three colleagues from the beginning, and those left in Lampsacus continued to study and write separately.
7. Most likely model for Epicurus was the Hippocratic medical fraternity. Epicurus saw his mission as extending to all mankind, not just within a certain political limit.
8. If philosophy is to heal maladies of soul, must be divorced from politics…healing was for all people, regardless of political affiliation
9. Every Epicurean convert was a missionary. Philosophy should begin at home and be disseminated from the home. Thus the philosophical movement was independent of schools and tutors.
10. Epicurus is falsely denounced as effeminate and moral invalidism, but the truth is that Epicurus had a crusading spirit that endowed Epicureanism with a tenacity unequaled by rival creeds, leading it to flourish for almost seven centuries, in contrast to Stoicism which was in vogue for a much shorter time.

13. The First World Philosophy

1. Epicureanism is for all people and not limited to any political system.
2. System of pamphlets and handbooks made Epicureanism readily transportable.
3. Epicurus is misclassified as "egoistic hedonist" – when Epicurus embarked on a campaign to “awake the world to the blessedness of the happy life” his philosophy became a “higher hedonism.”

14. Predecessor Of Christianity

1. Spirit, procedures and certain doctrines were adopted by Christianity
2. Both sects (Christianity and Epicureanism):
   1. Appealed to lower and middle classes;
   2. Held meetings in private houses;
   3. Held ceremonies to performed in memory of their founders;
   4. Carried small images of their founders.

15. The World Perceived Two Faces of Epicurean Philosophy

1. The Repellent Side:
   1. Rejection of immortality and judgment after death
   2. "Hedonism"
   3. “Apolitical stance”
2. The Attractive Side
   
   1. Ethical creed of love / friendship
   2. The kindly social virtues than make for peace and good companionship.
3. Epicureanism won numerous followers but many enemies, especially among scholars, and the candid student should be warned repeatedly against their tendency to malign and misrepresent true Epicurean philosophy.

16. Survival

1. Epicurean philosophy continues under different names in many places.
2. In friendly terms in some parts of Christianity and mixed philosophies
3. In unfriendly terms in most Jewish, Christian, and opposing school literature
4. In political teachings such as Locke and Jefferson.

Thanks again to BWDS for the first draft of this outline!