Posts by Cassius

It might be asked: "If justice applies to people who consent, why would it not be seen as injustice to enforce rule over those that do not consent? Or does justice not apply to compact/consent at all?"

I don't think enforcing a rule over those who do not consent would be a matter of justice, would it? Probably that would be called "force" or something like that, but if the people involved have never consented to the agreement, then forcing them to do something is not a matter of "justice" at all, would it be? The point being that unless there has first been consent to an agreement, "justice" is not something that has any applicaion, because unless there has first been an agreement to bring into relevance a discussion of justice, then "justice" does not apply, as it does no exist in the air.

Also: "So if injustice is a term applied to those who withdrew consent, the individual who never consented to a compact could claim fault with an authoritarian system, but cannot claim it as "injustice" but rather must define the specific acts, like extortion or aggression etc.?"

Yes that is the way that I see Epicurus' formulaton applying. By no means am I suggesting that the person who never consented should not act to revolt against the authoritarian system, I am suggesting that the person who revolts should not view his actions in the prism of "justice" because that is a limited absract construction. The true and real analysis of all that matters in life is considered in terms of pleasure, pain, an

I think most of us would agree that this analysis of "justice" is largely foreign to modern minds. We tend to think there is something called "justice" floating in the air, which is absolute and to which we can look for sanction or disapproval of our actions. But there's no such thing as absolute justice anymore than there is "divine law," or Platonic "ideal forms," or Aristotelian "essences."

Someone asked me: Cassius, does the term compact = consent to you? 36 suggests to me that, although many people consent or compact with a State Government, there are minorities in that territory, which do not give consent or compact to the State government, thus are facing an injustice?

Here's my response:

Let's see -- thinking back to the prior statement in 32 as a starting point".....and likewise for those peoples who either could not or WOULD NOT not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm." In your question, you are talking about the common situation where not everyone agrees to the form of government. If they withhold their consent, then they withhold their consent, and the issue is what to label the situation. I think what Epicurus is saying that "justice" is a term that applies only to people who have consented to an arrangement. So in an example where there is a minority which does not agree to an arrangement, they will presumably react in various stages from silence to full-blown revolution, but whatever that reaction is, it is not something to be analyzed in terms of "justice or injustice." Meaning they should revolt or not, as they determine is best for them, but in doing so they do not appeal to "justice" as their reasoning, but to other factors, presumably their own view of the best way to their own happiness, which is all the justification they need in Epicurean terms.

Now if they originally agreed, but then withdraw their consent, then that might be closer to "injustice," but I also think that what they should do would hinge on the circumstances, because Epicurus makes clear that when circumstances change, then the aspects of "justice" change to.

In the end it seems "justice" appears to Epicurus to be just a variation of what we might consider to be contract law. Breach of contract is considered to be "unjust" in contract terms, but for those who have never entered a contract in the first place, there can be no breach. Which is as it should be, because that's the way Epicurus views all "virtues" such as "justice" - either they are instrumental toward happiness, or they are largely worthless.

Also:

Couple of things there -- to some extent some animals *can* make "compacts" with us, so that needs to be considered. Even to those animals that aren't subject to domestication or similar "compacts" there will still be a significant issues of pleasure and pain, just as you suggest. So again the main point is that there may be many ramifications to consider in dealing with a particular biting dog, but those ramifications do not include any concept of "justice" tied to supernatural beings or absolute standards of morality.

As to whether a particular action with a particular animal will lead to greater long-term pleasure or less long-term pain, that's going to be like most decisions -- subject to the circumstances and conditions then and there existing. I suspect your suggestion makes a lot of sense in most cases we ordinarily confront, but I would suggest also that it's generally dangerous to prejudge whether forgiveness or punishment is more likely to be the best course. That's because if you overgeneralize you are skirting near the error of thinking there is an absolute rule. It's always important to know the facts and not let rule-making get too abstract.

This thread is the place for discussion of the FAQ found here.

Can You Suggest A Reading List For New Students of Epicurus?

Please consult the links and material on this page, keeping in mind the following preliminary recommendation:

The ancient Epicurean texts that remain to us today are available freely on the internet in many different translations. There are many websites and articles available on the internet with many varying opinions as to the true teachings of Epicurus and many varying evaluations of the merit of those teachings. Unless you are already familiar with the major issues of Greek philosophy, it is very helpful to start the study of Epicurus with a sympathetic overview which attempts to present the full picture of Epicurean philosophy as an ancient Roman or Greek would have known it. That overview can be found in Norman DeWitt’s Epicurus And His Philosophy. Only when you have heard the Epicurean side presented fairly are you equipped to deal with the legions of critics of Epicurus, and only then can you develop your own fair verdict on Epicurus’ conclusions. A taste of Professor DeWitt's approach and assessment of Epicurus can be found in his article “Philosophy For The Millions.”

If you do not have immediate access to DeWitt's book, a second source that provides a very accessible picture of the sweep of Epicurean Philosophy is Frances Wright's A Few Days In Athens. The full book is available here

Wright's book is a fictional story about a young student in ancient Athens attempting to pick from several competing schools, and she does a great job of contrasting Epicurus with the alternatives, especially with stoicism. Wright's book is highly recommended, and like DeWitt does not lead the reader off into a rabbit chase after ataraxia / "absence of pain" as the goal of life.

So as an initial list in the order I would suggest a new student of Epicurus start, I would list:

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt - If you are already "into" philosophy and want a sweeping textbook approach.
2. "Living For Pleasure" by Emily Austin - If you are new to philosophy and want a conversational, engaging, and easy-to-read approach.
3. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright - If you would prefer to read a fictional story written by a dynamic woman who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and far ahead of her time.

Recommended Reading List (books and texts). 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)

As a starting point, DeWitt's introduction in the opening chapter of his book can be read for free here or in article form here.

Here is a "library" page with links to many primary sources available for free on the internet.

This thread is for discussion of the FAQ entry here.

Can You Provide A Simplified Outline of The Most Important Principles Of The Epicurean System?

1. The Universe Operates on Natural Principles And There Are No Supernatural Gods
   1. Gods Are Never Observed to Create Something From Nothing Or Destroy Anything to Nothing
   2. The Universe Operates Through Natural Processes Based On Combinations Of Matter And Void
   3. The Universe As A Whole Is Eternal And Was Never Created From Nothing
   4. The Universe Is Infinite In Size And There Are No "Gods" Outside Of it
   5. True Gods Would Be Self-Sufficient And Would Not Meddle In the Affairs Of Men
2. There Is No Life After Death
   1. All Things In The Universe Which Come Together Eventually Break Apart
   2. The Soul Is Born With The Body And Cannot Survive Without It
   3. Death Is The End of All Sensation, And There Is No Consciousness Without Sensation
   4. There Is After Death No Heaven or Hell For Reward or Punishment
   5. Life Is Short And Therefore Our Time Is Too Precious To Waste
3. The Standards of Truth Are the Senses, The Anticipations, and the Feelings, Assisted By Reason
   1. He Who Argues That Nothing Can Be Known Contradicts His Own Argument
   2. Reasoning Is Based On The Senses And Is Not Valid Without Them
   3. The Sensations Are Without Reason, Incapable of Memory, And Do Not Inject Error Through Opinion
   4. The Reality Of Separate Sensations Is the Guarantee of The Truth Of Our Senses
   5. Not Only Reason, But Life Itself, Fails Unless We Have the Courage To Trust The Senses
4. The Guide of Life is Pleasure
   1. Pleasure, Along With Pain, Is A Feeling, One Of The Three Standards Of Truth
   2. Pleasure and Pain Include All Types of Physical And Mental Experiences
   3. The Mental Pleasures And Pains Are Frequently More Intense Than The Physical
   4. Feelings Of Pleasure Are Desirable And Serve As The Guide of Life
   5. Pain Is To Be Avoided But Is Accepted For The Sake of Greater Pleasure Or Lesser Pain
5. The Goal of Life Is Happiness -
   1. Happiness Is a Life In Which Pleasure Predominates Over Pain
   2. If We Have Happiness We Have All We Need; If We Lack Happiness We Do Everything To Gain It
   3. There Is No Absolute Virtue, Piety, Reason, Or Justice To Serve As the Goal of Life
   4. Virtue, Piety, Reason and Justice Are Valuable Only Insofar As They Bring Happiness
   5. All Actions Are To Be Judged According To Whether They Bring Happiness

This thread is for discussion of the FAQ entry here.

This thread is for discussion of the FAQ entry here.

This thread is for discussion of the FAQ here

Given the feedback so far I have switched the default at least temporarily to dark. Over time if the remarks change it is easy to switch back.

This is a chart I prepared some time ago and featured at NewEpicurean.com.

Here is a very general point that applies to the first part of 34 -- "injustice is not an evil in itself" -- that's hugely important on it's own, but it is really nothing more than application of the physics that there are no eternal rules or supernatural gods dictating what is "good" and "evil" in itself. Ultimately Nature has only given us pleasure and pain by which to judge what is desirable and what is not, so neither "injustice" or anything else is "evil" in itself, with the closest to "evil in itself" being only pain, which is always undesirable, and yet sometimes we even choose that in order to gain greater pleasure or avoid worse pain.

So the main point -- injustice is not evil in itself - stands alone, with the rest of the explanation of why injustice is "evil" or "undesirable" being to point out that the undesirability comes from other factors besides supernatural prohibition or violation of any kind of absolute rules.

As for how it relates to 32, 32 is supporting the point that what we consider to be "just" and "unjust can be judged only in terms of whether there are breaches of agreement, because there are no supernatural or absolute obligations which can be breached.

One more point -- That's why I think that the 12 Fundamentals of Nature should always be included in discussion of the 40 Doctrines. What we are discussing here derives directly from the Epicurean physics, which confirms the nature of the universe as natural, and eliminates the possibility of supernatural or universally absolute law. If you try to divorce the discussion of justice from the nature of the universe as if they were separable, you tear away the support and foundation of the conclusion, and leave it dangling and appearing to be arbitrary.

Yes Hiram does a great job at outreach on places like that. We really need to step up my gain on search engine operation here, so that's good information - thank you!

Godfrey, you mentioned that you are not a Facebook person -- do you mind my asking how you found this forum? We need to "get out the word" as best as possible, so I am interested to know if your way of finding us can be leveraged and expanded. Thanks!

I have not highlighted this project in the past because I know it can be vastly improved, but I am starting this thread as a place to organize the improvements, discuss the existing version, and hopefully provide inspiration to others to prepare superior material.

The website is: http://www.catiuscat.com

The video location at Vimeo is: Thus Purred Catius' Cat and Catius' Cat and the Forty Mice

The video location at Youtube is: Thus Purred Catius' Cat and Catius Cat and The Forty Mice

A page for the full text of Thus Purred Catius' Cat

A page for the full text of Catius' Cat and the Forty Mice

The videos themselves (Vimeo versions):

The only changes I have made in the original text since posting these approximately six years ago has been to alter paragraph 76 of "Thus Purred Catius' Cat." In order to avoid implying that Epicurus taught that we should pursue ONLY natural and necessary pleasures, I have made the following revision:

I have not yet been able to revise the video, but I will do that as soon as possible.

Thank you Godfrey! Glad to have you hear and we look forward to working with you. Your story about dissatisfaction with stoicism is a common one! Please feel free to start threads in any section by posting your thoughts or asking questions. That's what is going to help us build critical mass here - just dig in whereever is of interest and even if someone doesn't respond immediately, over time we'll have a resource that people can come back to and learn from, and meet people and have a good time along the way. Look forward to working with you!

Welcome Godfrey ! When you get a chance, please say hello and let us know a little about your background and experience with Epicurus!

Pending Hiram answering that question, I'll just post that other than a few, most of Philodemus' surviving writings are pretty fragmentary, so you have to know where to look, and decide which reconstructors to trust.

Very interesting comments! I was beginning to think it might be unanimous for dark, but I see Martin has voted light. Martin, can you say why you think light might be attractive to more people on first look?

With the recent upgrade of the forum software, let's get the advice of users on a style question: It's easy to set a personal preference for the theme and color of the website by selecting "Change Style" at the bottom right of each page. Once you are a registered user, this style selection also carries over for use of the site on a phone or any other device. This question is to ask your opinion as to what should be the default theme for new users before they register and make a personal selection. In other words, which style (Light or Dark) do you think is most attractive to most people, and most likely to be found inviting and to lead to new users coming back for more. In years past, I would have said light themes are "standard" for a reason, and that most people like them. However today I really prefer dark themes, and this software has an excellent one where you can pick your accent color. So which do you think is the best setting for new visitors - light or dark?