Posts by Cassius

Given what appears to be the declining importance of Facebook, I have put back up the Google Adwords advertisement that I experimented with earlier. I think even a brief introductory podcast made from one of our sessions would be helpful for getting the word out on a place for positive discussions of Epicurus. (I say "positive discussions" because I can frankly do without those who want to asset that"absence of pain" divorced from pleasure is the full meaning of life). More material in which we highlight the other aspects of Epicurean philosophy (aspects which combine to make that interpretation absurd) are probably the best way forward.

I especially think that single page graphical memes which can be circulated on Twitter and similar places are probably a good place to start.

Isn't it probably safe to say that the main goal of this forum is to bring us into contact with more people who have the same general approach to life that we have? If so, lots of discussion should always center around how we go about expressing the core principles in easy-to-grasp form.

Yes. Elli is out for now, and I feel like Ilkka is really stressed to make it, and Martin is traveling, so we should probably now focus on a time that works for the Western Hemisphere. Of course that would then primarily mean you, me, Eric, Julie, and Jason (if he is available). However it might not be a bad thing for us to work together more closely, and perhaps record one of these sessions to make into a podcast.

This is to pose a series of questions about one of the most famous passages of the American "Declaration of Independence." As discussion develops on one or more of these in particular we can split the discussion into separate threads, but to start here is a list of questions:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

1. What do we know about whether this paragraph was written entirely by Thomas Jefferson, or contains modifications from others?
2. Would an Epicurean agree that what follows in the paragraph after the first phrase are "self-evident?" What does "self-evident" mean?
3. Would an Epicurean agree that "all men are created equal." It is absolutely clear that all men are NOT created equal in every respect (health, sex, race, capabilities, preferences, etc.) It is also clear to an Epicurean that men are not "created" if that term implies a supernatural god. In what respect, if any, would an Epicurean say that "all men are created equal."
4. What does it mean to say "endowed by their Creator?" Would an Epicurean use this phrasing? If so, what would an Epicurean mean by "their Creator?"
5. What are "inalienable rights"? What is a "right"? How is a right "inalienable"?" It seems clear that this cannot be read superficially, as much of what we think of as "rights" are certainly taken from people all the time and thus are not "inalienable." In what way, if any, can this phrase be reconciled with Epicurean philosophy?
6. What does the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean in Epicurean terms?
7. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This passage is perhaps easiest to reconcile given the Principle Doctrines on "justice." How could we elaborate on this in Epicurean terms as to the meaning of "just powers" and "consent of the governed?"
8. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Again, this passage seems directly supported by the Principle Doctrines on justice. How would an Epicurean elaborate on the meaning of this passage?

I'm revising a thread originally started in 2018 to serve as a focal point for finding Jefferson's Epicurean-related writing. At the moment, the best collection of Epicurean-related fragments that I've put together in the past is located here:

Jefferson – NewEpicurean

Unfortunately that's not particularly well formatted, so I will work on improving that and adding it here at the forum.

Also, I'd like us to use this as a thread to assist in research and discussion of what we can reconstruct about Thomas Jefferson's interest in and development of Epicurean ideas. What can we reconstruct as a timetable as to when Jefferson first began to become familiar with Epicurean ideas, leading up to his 1819 letter to William Short where he wrote "I too am an Epicurean?" Jefferson died in 1826, so the 1819 letter was near the end of his life.

Looks like at this point we better plan for April 21st. I'll put up a notice at the top of the EF page, and also post to Facebook in a couple of days. The "announcement" at the top of the page has now been added, and I will add a Facebook notice next week. In the meantime let me say this: We can make a pragmatic judgment call on how many people we need to indicate that they will attend before we schedule, and if we need to do so we'll postpone til we have more. But if we do, it will be just that - a postponement - because while we may be delayed, we will persevere until we have the numbers to go forward!

More on Elena Nicoli, someone definitely worth following! https://radboud.academia.edu/ElenaNicoli

Based on her public posts on her facebook page, she is VERY active in Epicurean scholarship - https://www.facebook.com/elena.nicoli2

CV listing her articles: https://portal.ru.nl/people/cv/665145.pdf

This is a thread to discuss the presentation material posted by Jason Baker entitled "The Pleasure of Knowledge: Reassessing Nussbaum’s Interpretation of Epicurean Therapy" by Dr. Elena Nicoli, Radboud University, subtitled "A Contested Influence. Hellenistic Philosophy and Modern Thought from Nietzsche to Nussbaum." This is not the full lecture, but summarizes the main points with some excellent citations to Epicurean literature.

The original post is here:

File

The Pleasure of Knowledge. Reassessing Nussbaum's Interpretation of Epicurean Therapy - Elena Nicoli

A Contested Influence. Hellenistic Philosophy and Modern Thought from Nietzsche to Nussbaum

jbaker

April 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM

All of us get discouraged at times, but we shouldn't be tempted to think that we need a fraudulent Jewish ghost or a mindless Christian ethical system. We are fighting for the people and the things that we love in life, and that is more than enough reason to fight. All the evidence our heart needs come from the pleasure we feel in that which we love, and the pain that we feel in losing it. And all the evidence our mind needs starts with the fundamental Epicurean observation we make with our own eyes: that nothing comes from nothing, and nothing goes to nothing.

Welcome Matthaios! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and let is know about your background in Epicurus.

Someone else I respect leaving facebook - Steve Wozniak -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/201…book/497392002/

I am looking into this and will report back! I too am concerned.

I begin to think that at various parts of my websites I am going to replace quotes that focus narrowly on pleasure with quotes that highlight the physics / canonics basis of Epicurean philosophy, not out of concern about pleasure but so not to play into the hands of those who argue that pleasure is the only subject Epicurus addressed. And then, at the same time and in parallel, pursue how "pleasure" covers much more ground than it appears.

This thread is to kick off discussion of how to approach discussing Epicurus with someone who is a Stoic, or a fan or student of some other anti-Epicurean philosophical school.

It's possible that a table of comparisons like the following might be helpful: A Comparison Chart: Stoic vs. Epicurean Philosophy

This is a kickoff thread -- please add your suggestions.

This thread is to kick off discussion of how to approach discussing Epicurus with someone who is secular humanist / atheist.

This would seem to be a category that almost doesn't have to be discussed, because secular humanists/atheists are often thought of as already Epicurean. In fact, however, it has been my experience that this is far from the truth. Secular humanists often adopt Judea-Christian ethics almost totally, simply dispensing with the idea of a supernatural god. That's a good start, but in Epicurean terms it doesn't go nearly far enough to firmly endorse pleasure as the guide of life, death as the end of consciousness, and - even more controversially - the Epicurean view of Justice as not built on abstract absolutes, bu on the individual happiness of the people concerned.

For example, it is possible that in dealing with someone of this background that there are references in Nietzsche, or Dimitri Liantinis, which would point the way more directly to Epicurus.

Anyway this is a kickoff thread -- please add your suggestions.

This thread is to kick off discussion of how to approach discussing Epicurus with someone who is religious.

Although the case will probably differ with type of religious background, it would be helpful to have a list of major points to make early in the discussion process, plus a suggested reading list of articles and books.

For example, it is possible that in dealing with a American of Christian background, reference to something from Thomas Jefferson, or even Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" (which is not Epicurean) would provide a foothold for extending the argument further.

Another approach might entail pointing the religious persons to collections of contradictions within the Bible, or lists of outrageous ethical statements in the Bible. Anyway this is a kickoff thread -- please add your suggestions.

I am going to do that eventually once I make a final evaluation of whether I can restrict its use to "advertising." Lot's of people here I probably never would have "met" except for Facebook's groups feature, but that period is coming to a close.

Shall we start planning for another Discordapp discussion of the next chapter of DeWitt's book? I think the last time we talked we discussed skipping over several of the "life of" chapters and going straight to the meatier chapters, probably the next one of which is Chapter 6 - Sensations, Anticipations and Reason. How about either the 14th or the 21st? Leave comments and we'll pick one.

I would recommend starting with the Pontius Pilate question: "What is truth?"

Many people accept the standard implication that "truth" requires identification of something that is true at all times, places, and for all people, but is such a thing even possible? If not, what IS possible? Think about the discussion of images and illusions in Lucretius. The awning at the spectacle casts a color on the Senators. Did that "truly" make the Senators that color?

As for anticipations we have much less to go on, but I follow the DeWitt theory and you should at least consider it before deciding. The issue here revolves around whether anticipations are (1) simply what is referred to as conceptualization after experience (I see these animals standing in the field and I names them cows) or whether (2) they are indeed PREconceptions which operated prior to experience. Again, be sure to read and consider DeWitt on this topic before you accept the majority "conceptualization" view.

What I need to write on this is a book, and not a short post, but this is all I have time for at present. I reflect a lot about what might be missing from the modern interpretation of Epicurus that explains why some of us can find it so compelling, yet many others find it not worth a second thought. In the ancient world there were MANY who found it compelling, and even more who found it outrageously evil and worth tremendous effort to stamp out.

There are no doubt many factors that explain the discrepancy, but one I find most likely: the narrow meaning and implication assigned to the term "pleasure" in modern discussions of Epicurus.

I think Epicurus intended "pleasure" to include everything in life we find worthwhile - which by Epicurean definition means everything that gives us pleasure of any kind, not just physical but also mental / emotional. If we find something lovable in life, that response within us is a subset of pleasure. That means everything we find in life that is motivational, from art and science to politics and fame (the latter of which are deemed unacceptable in the modern orthodox interpretation) are desirable because they bring pleasure. There are many passages from which it ought to be clear that NOTHING that brings pleasure is undesirable in itself, and it is only in the likelihood (but not certainty!) that some choices will bring inordinate pain that we are well served to avoid them. That means that the decision to pursue any choice in life which we find to be pleasurable can be understood to be consistent with Epicurean philosophy - it is simply up to us to deal with the consequences if we choose unwisely and our choices bring more pain than we anticipated.

I am of the age where I have gradually had to accept that virtually every religious and ethical proposition I was taught when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's was wrong. As an adult, like everyone else, I witness that public discussion (the media) is totally devoid of "objectivity." The truth of *any* significant matter, if it can be found at all, comes only after intense individual study of competing opinions.

Epicurean philosophy is revolutionary because it teaches that the ethical and political norms which we were taught as children were not grounded, as we were taught, in "god" or "absolute truth" or "natural law." In fact they are grounded in NOTHING. Once we accept the Epicurean world view that a life that there IS no absolute justice, or absolute ethical truth, and instead it is the pursuit of pleasure as we find it that is everyone's true goal, we see that there is no reason to conform to existing norms and orthodoxies if they do not bring us happiness. That's the realization that the world is wide open to *our own* decision and action as to how we pursue our own happiness.

This leads in my mind to the *reverse* of the standard opinion that Epicurean philosophy leads to passivity and withdrawal. Once we grasp the Epicurean insights into the nature of the universe, from which we see that there is no god or central point of reference from which any truth can be deemed absolute, we ought all begin to wake up from our lethargy. Add to that the realization that this is our ONLY life, that for an eternity afterward we will be no more, and that if we don't act to live THIS life to the fullest then there is no god or "force" that will come to our aid, and what do we have? We have a prescription for the most liberating and motivational and *activist* philosophy of life ever invented!

Many in the ancient world saw that, and many adopted that viewpoint, especially the Roman Epicurean examples about which we know the most. But for those Stoics and Religionists who wanted no part of the Epicurean view, we ought to ask ourselves what they would have likely chosen to do in response. What would the more intelligent of them thought to be the most effective way to undercut the philosophy at its start?

I suggest that what the enemies of Epicurus decided to do (remember, he warned against this very thing in the letter to Menoeceus) was is to spread the word that Epicurean "pleasure" amounts to nothing more than sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. Spread the word that love of wives, love of children, love of family, love of friends, love of one's county, love of one's way of life, love of one's own view of art, love of one's own striving to make oneself better - spread the word that THESE were no part of Epicurean philosophy! Spread the word that Epicurus taught that we should do nothing to gain these, or to protect them when we gain them. Spread the word that Epicureans were lazy, good-for-nothing parasites off the main body of the community, contributing nothing to defend it, nothing to keep it going, playing no role in forming or supporting the organizations that can alone keep us safe from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I'll end these thoughts at this point, but I think the lies we see spouted about every political, religious, and philosophical topic today are not new. Not only are they not new, these same attitudes have been working overtime for 2000 years to keep the majority of people "in line" and "in conformity" with groundless orthodoxies that would be blown away by the slightest breeze of reasoned analysis. Remember Alexander the Oracle-Monger - that story is repeated thousands of time daily in the modern world, but there are few who stand up to it in the spirit of Epicurus!

If we're to rediscover the key to what made Epicurean philosophy so successful in the ancient world, and light that flame again today, it's time to rethink and redefine our understanding of "pleasure."

Good to hear from you TD76! Here are my thoughts on each of your sections, again remembering that there's two ways of looking at these things: (1) Do they accurately reflect Epicurus? and (2) Do we think personally they are correct? My comments are primarily from perspective one:

(1) This one seems very complete, very accurate, and well stated.

(2) This section is probably more difficult, and that's reflected in the brevity of your treatment. What you've said of course is fine, but it's the implications of this section that are the beginning of the stark difference in approach as against the modern world. One of the most important aspects is to address the place and role of "reason" and "logic," and it would be good to expand this section to address that. It's also important to address what Epicurus meant by "truth," whether it is "relative" or "absolute," etc.

(3) I think perhaps because section (2) is a little abbreviated, section (3) is where you need to probably give the most attention. I grant you that your statements after the first two are consistent with the majority view that you'll find on the internet, but I would suggest to you that once in section (2) you fully take leave from any ideas of "absolute" truth or "absolute" justice or "absolute" morality, you'll have reason to reconsider some of your "must" phrasing in section 3. That's the first question I would pose to you - are these "musts" or are they "should probably depending on the circumstances" rules of thumb? Converting them from "musts" to "tools" helps refocus the emphasis from the "tool" to the result, which is going to vary widely according to circumstances.

I would say the same comment especially applies to "live unknown" and "avoid politics." Those are two of the most common deductions of the "passivist" view of Epicurus, to which I personally suggest people keep an open mind toward whether they might be substantially off base, especially if considered to be "musts." We have many examples in the ancient world of Epicureans who did not "live unknown" or "avoid politics," even including the founders, and certainly considering prominent Epicureans in the Roman world.

So in general I think your comments are a great start at a good outline, and the process of working through it and talking about it will be good for you (and all of us who participate here) because these same questions arise over and over.

When you say you are "still thinking about some things" -- are there any in particular that would be good to discuss?