Posts by Cassius

The issue that arises endlessly is whether we are discussing pleasure as a term that ordinary people understand when they hear the word "pleasure" or whether we are discussing "something else" which is what an ordinary person is going to query when he or she hears "absence of pain." In normal everyday conversation a thing is never fully described as "absence of something else." Now Epicurus had a very good reason for doing so in describing a measurement situation between 100% and 0%, and in stressing that one characterizes our feelings when the other is absent. That is exactly the kind of discussion that is necessary when we want to reply to Plato and show that pleasure DOES have a limit (as Plato famously argued in Phaedo does not exist) by establishing that it is not possible to exceed 100% or to drop below 0%.

That is the context in which the issue of "two states of feeling" comes up. Epicurus argued clearly that pleasure is the guide of life, and that "virtue" is an abstraction empty of real meaning except insofar as it describes a tool for us to achieve pleasant living. In that context hypothetical claims of "more than two states of feeling" are then seen to be an attack on the point of view that by nature we only have the faculty of pleasure and pain as a guide to life. For if there are more states that pleasure and pain, how do we know them, and how do we rank them? Does our reasoning about them supersede the ultimate guidance of pleasure and pain given us by nature?

The letter to Menoeceus was written to a student familiar with the doctrine and the debate with Plato, as all Epicurean students would have been. But this measurement/limit issue is not what the vast majority of people rightly understand the conversation to be about. They rightly (since the debate with Plato is long forgotten, and the goal is practical results and not just speculation) understand the conversation to be "what is pleasure?" and "is there something else or higher than pleasure that I really should be aiming at?"

And that is the only question that makes any difference to ordinary people uncorrupted by the word games of philosophy. They understand the issue to be: "Is pleasurable living the highest goal of life, or is there some god to which I need to kneel, or some 'virtue' or "worthy living" that can be defined and should be my goal?"

As you presumably well know, the Stoics attack pleasure in general as at best a distraction from worthy living, and they specifically attack the idea that pleasure is the guide of life (they substitute "virtue" or "wisdom"). It is essential in responding to that attack to show that the faculty of pleasure is indeed the guide of life. Yes, as part of an academic discussion of the background of pleasure it is important to show that pleasure and pain operate reciprocally and that the sum total can never exceed 100%. Stated differently, it is important to show that our total experience is always composed of either pleasures or pains such that the two always total the same 100%. But that is a background issue that arises only when dialecticians like Plato posit that there are "higher" states, and that pleasure cannot be the goal of life because there is always "more" to look for.

The real **foreground issue** that takes precedence in the discussion is the definition of the word "pleasure." Is it a word that means what we ordinarily understand it to mean- as it is given to us by the faculty of nature to understand - or is it something else. Does pleasure include sex, drugs and rock and roll (if one wants to be graphic), or does "pleasure" have some abstract meaning that it is necessary to logically factor out like the geometric theorems that Plato loved so much. Does "pleasure" refer to something as attainable and reachable as dancing and eating and enjoying picnics with friends, or does it mean "flourshing" and "living well" and require wealth and status as the Aristotelians and their progeny insist?

Epicurus identified that the faculty of perceiving pleasure and pain is the starting point of all thinking about ethics and how we should live our lives. It is to the faculty of pleasure and pain, and not to man-made abstractions, to which in the end we should reconcile all our choices and avoidances. Opponents of this theory don't always attack it head on - they seek to undermine it through logical nitpicking, and we have to be alert to put arguments in context so that we apply them in the appropriate context.

Wiki anouncement coming soon

http://newepicurean.com/happy-twentiet…-overcome-pain/Peace and Safety to the Epicureans of today, no matter where you might be - Happy Twentieth!

On this Twentieth of June I want to introduce you to the newest member of the Cassius family, pictured nearby. He (as yet unnamed) brings with him the unusual feature that he is blind. We found him three weeks ago among the mostly-feral barn cats that run near where we live, with his eyes already in terrible shape. When we took him to the vet we were told that he might well not live, and he certainly wouldn't live if we returned him to live outside. We also knew that with his blindness he'd be next to impossible to adopt out, but we made the decision to nurse him back to health and let the future take care of itself.

On a regular basis I like to drop back and summarize what I understand to be some of the key differences between Epicurean and other philosophies. This weekend I put together the following brief chart. There should be nothing on it new of different from things I have discussed on my blog before, but this format might be helpful for discussion and fine-tuning some of the terminology. As usual, there will be those who dispute my characterization of Stoic philosophy. Some of those challenges may be more or less valid - if you have a challenge to any of my formulations, please comment in the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook Group. If you do, it would be helpful if you would cite a reference to a recognized Stoic authority to show why you believe my summary is not accurate.

Everything here is a summary or paraphrase so no doubt much of it could be improved. If the chart serves as food for productive thought on these topics, then it has achieved its goal.

Click to view full size:

Cassius Amicus

May 8 at 10:22am

As we parse true and false definitions of "god" in the Epicurean context, there is a very explicit section near the end of Book 2 of "On The Nature of Things" to consider. Here, Lucretius calls Epicurean physics (eternal and infinite universe) to the task of overthrowing the standard definition of universe-creating supernatural gods. He then applies another physics principle (nature never creates only one single thing of a kind) to establish that the universe as a whole is teeming with life. Having set the context that there are boundless life forms in the boundless universe, Lucretius then sums up his argument that supernatural gods do *not* exist by appealing to the calm and undisturbed nature of the *true* Epicurean gods which *do* exist. Here are three different translations for comparison:

Munro:

Yet how little, you know, wearied as all are to satiety with seeing, any one now cares to look up into heaven’s glittering quarters! Cease therefore to be dismayed by the mere novelty and so to reject reason from your mind with loathing: weigh the questions rather with keen judgment and if they seem to you to be true, surrender, or if they are a falsehood, gird yourself to the encounter.

For since the sum of space is unlimited outside beyond these walls of the world, the mind seeks to apprehend what there is yonder there, to which the spirit ever yearns to look forward, and to which the mind’s emission reaches in free and unembarrassed flight. In the first place we see that round in all directions, about above and underneath, throughout the universe there is no bound, as I have shown and as the thing of itself proclaims with loud voice and as clearly shines out in the nature of bottomless space. In no wise then can it be deemed probable, when space yawns illimitable towards all points and seeds in number numberless and sum unfathomable fly about in manifold ways driven on in ceaseless motion, that this single earth and heaven have been brought into being, that those bodies of matter so many in number do nothing outside them; the more so that this world has been made by nature, just as the seeds of things have chanced spontaneously to clash, after being brought together in manifold wise without purpose, without foresight, without result, and at last have filtered through such seeds as, suddenly thrown together, were fitted to become on each occasion the rudiments of great things, of earth sea and heaven and the race of living things. Wherefore again and again I say you must admit that there are elsewhere other combinations of matter like to this with ether holds in its greedy grasp.

Again when much matter is at hand, when room is there and there is no thing, no cause to hinder, things sure enough must go on and be completed. Well, then, if on the one hand there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living creatures cannot reckon up, and if the same force and nature abide in them and have the power to throw the seeds of things together into their several places in the same way as they are thrown together into our world, you must admit that in other parts of space there -are other earths and various races of men and kinds of wild beasts.

Moreover in the sum of all there is no one thing which is begotten single in its kind and grows up single and sole of its kind; but a thing always belongs to some class and there are many other things in the same kind. First, in the case of living things, most noble Memmius, you will find that in this sort has been begotten the mountain-ranging race of wild beasts, in this sort the breed of men, in this sort too the mute shoals of scaly creatures and all bodies of fowls. Therefore on a like principle you must admit that earth, and sun, moon, sea, and all things else that are, are not single in their kind, but rather in number past numbering; since the deep-set boundary-mark of life just as much awaits these and they are just as much of a body that had birth, as any class of things which here on earth abounds in samples of its kind.

If you well apprehend and keep in mind these things, nature free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods. For I appeal to the holy breasts of the gods who in tranquil peace pass a calm time and an unruffled existence, who can rule the sum, who can hold in his hand with controlling force the strong reins, of the immeasurable deep?

Humphries:

And yet, a sight like this, Marvelous as it is, now draws no man To lift his gaze to heaven's bright areas. We are a jaded lot. But even so Don't be too shocked by something new, too scared To use your reasoning sense, to weigh and balance, So that if in the end a thing seems true, You welcome it with open arms; if false, You do your very best to strike it down.

The sum of space is infinite, reaching far Beyond the ramparts of the world; the mind Persists in questioning: what can be there?

What is there so far off, toward which the urge Of the free spirit flies?There is no end, No limit to the cosmos, above, below, Around, about, stretching on every side. This I have proven, but the fact itself Cries loud in proclamation, nature's deep Is luminous with proof. The universe Is infinitely wide; its vastness holds Innumerable seeds, beyond all count, Beyond all possibility of number, Flying along their everlasting ways. So it must be unthinkable that our sky And our round world are precious and unique While all those other motes of matter flit In idleness, achieve, accomplish nothing, Especially since this world of ours was made By natural process, as the atoms came Together, willy-nilly, quite by chance, Quite casually and quite intentionless Knocking against each other, massed, or spaced So as to colander others through, and cause Such combinations and conglomerates As form the origin of mighty things, Earth, sea and sky, and animals and men.

Face up to this, acknowledge it. I tell you Over and over - out beyond our world There are, elsewhere, other assemblages Of matter, making other worlds. Oh, ours Is not the only one in air's embrace. With infinite matter available, infinite space, And infinite lack of any interference, Things certainly ought to happen. If we have More seeds, right now, than any man can count, More than all men of all time past could reckon, And if we have, in nature, the same power To cast them anywhere at all, as once They were cast here together, let's admit - We really have to - there are other worlds, More than one race of men, and many kinds Of animal generations.

Furthermore, Adding up all the sum, you'll never find One single thing completely different From all the rest, alone, apart, unique,

Sole product, single specimen of its kind. Look at the animals: is this not true Of mountain-ranging species, and of men, Of the silent schools of fish, of flying things? Likewise you must admit that earth, sun, moon, Ocean, and all the rest, are not unique, But beyond reckoning or estimate. Their term of life is definitely set And so remains, their substance is of stuff No less ephemeral than what we see In the teeming multitudes of our own earth.

Holding this knowledge, you can't help but see That nature has no tyrants over her, But always acts of her own will; she has No part of any godhead whatsoever. By all that's holy in the tranquil calm Where the gods pass serene eternal days I ask you - which of them is strong enough To rule the sum of things, to hold the reins Of absolute profundity, or move the skies To turn together? Who can warm the lands To fruitfulness with fire sent down from heaven? Who can be immanent in every time, In every place - to cloud the world in dark, To shake the quiet areas of sky With terrible sound? Who sends the lightning's blast Even at his own temples? Who departs To wilderness, but as he goes, in wrath, Lets fly the bolts that pass the guilty by And murder undeserving innocents?

Bailey:

Yet think how no one now, wearied with satiety of seeing, deigns to gaze up at the shining quarters of the sky! Wherefore cease to spew out reason from your mind, struck with terror at mere newness, but rather with eager judgement weigh things, and, if you see them true, lift your hands and yield, or, if it is false, gird yourself to battle.

For our mind now seeks to reason, since the sum of space is boundless out beyond the walls of this world, what there is far out there, whither the spirit desires always to look forward, and whither the unfettered projection of our mind flies on unchecked. First of all, we find that in every direction everywhere, and on either side, above and below, through all the universe, there is no limit, as I have shown, and indeed the truth cries out for itself and the nature of the deep shines clear. Now in no way must we think it likely, since towards every side is infinite empty space, and seeds in unnumbered numbers in the deep universe fly about in many ways driven on in everlasting motion, that this one world and sky was brought to birth, but that beyond it all those bodies of matter do naught; above all, since this world was so made by nature, as the seeds of things themselves of their own accord, jostling from time to time, were driven together in many ways, rashly, idly, and in vain, and at last those united, which, suddenly cast together, might become ever and anon the beginnings of great things, of earth and sea and sky, and the race of living things. Wherefore, again and again, you must needs confess that there are here and there other gatherings of matter, such as is this, which the ether holds in its greedy grip.

Moreover, when there is much matter ready to hand, when space is there, and no thing, no cause delays, things must, we may be sure, be carried on and completed. As it is, if there is so great a store of seeds as the whole life of living things could not number, and if the same force and nature abides which could throw together the seeds of things, each into their place in like manner as they are thrown together here, it must needs be that you confess that there are other worlds in other regions, and diverse races of men and tribes of wild beasts.

This there is too that in the universe there is nothing single, nothing born unique and growing unique and alone, but it is always of some tribe, and there are many things in the same race. First of all turn your mind to living creatures; you will find that in this wise is begotten the race of wild beasts that haunts the mountains, in this wise the stock of men, in this wise again the dumb herds of scaly fishes, and all the bodies of flying fowls. Wherefore you must confess in the same way that sky and earth and sun, moon, sea, and all else that exists, are not unique, but rather of number numberless; inasmuch as the deep-fixed boundary-stone of life awaits these as surely, and they are just as much of a body that has birth, as every race which is here on earth, abounding in things after its kind.

And if you learn this surely, and cling to it, nature is seen, free at once, and quit of her proud rulers, doing all things of her own accord alone, without control of gods. For by the holy hearts of the gods, which in their tranquil peace pass placid years, and a life of calm, who can avail to rule the whole sum of the boundless, who to hold in his guiding hand the mighty reins of the deep, who to turn round all firmaments at once, and warm all fruitful lands with heavenly fires, or to be at all times present in all places, so as to make darkness with clouds, and shake the calm tracts of heaven with thunder, and then shoot thunderbolts, and often make havoc of his own temples, or moving away into deserts rage furiously there, plying the bolt, which often passes by the guilty and does to death the innocent and undeserving?

JS

JS Cassius Amicus Are you saying that " *true* Epicurean gods which *do* exist" as ACTUAL LIVING DEITIES or what follows from the ETERNAL LAWS OF NATURE? I see no proof of living gods. Naturalism only holds the sovereignty of natural principles (e.g. gravitational constant, mu, fine structure constant and other real and scientifically proven fixed values...).

Like · Reply · May 9 at 12:18pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus First and foremost, I am saying that we can't clearly discuss the issue until we are clear on what the Epicureans actually believed and taught. Despite the immense hurdles involved given our own prejudices and definitions, I think we owe the Epicureans the respect to take them at their words and accept their definitions before we pronounce them "wrong."

Virtually every discussion, even here, seems to ignore the Epicurean definition of "god" in preference to the standard Jude-Christian-Islamic definition of the term. So for instance when you say "I see no proof of living gods" are you saying that you reject the probability of life outside of Earth? If you accept that life exists in other places besides Earth, do you reject the probability of there being life forms of greater lifespan and intelligence and technology (including ability to experience undiluted pleasure) than our own?

This selection from Lucretius is very clear as to the basis for arguing that forms of life "higher" than humans can with confidence be expected to exist elsewhere in the universe. That's not to say that we will ever find them ourselves, but that is not the fault of the argument, it is a result of our stage of technology.

As I read this, the Epicureans were saying that just as it is necessary (in the experience of most men, anyway) to have an answer to the question "Where did the Earth come from?" it is also necessary to have confidence in the answer to the questions "Are we alone in the universe?" and "Are we the highest life form within the universe?" I get the point that a lot of people think that it is sufficient to say "we don't know" to such questions, but it seems clear that Epicurus was driving toward the view that we should have confidence in those observations that are clear to us. Once the eternal / infinite universe is established by the "nothing from nothing" observation, it is a very short step to the conclusion that "we are not alone" based on the "nature never creates a single thing of a kind" observation.

It is not possible to take these speculations a lot further without descending into "the gods speak Greek" level of speculation, but that does not mean that one should not go as far as the evidence indicates. And what the evidence does clearly indicate to Epicurus seems pretty clear to me - that we are not alone in the universe, nor are we the "highest" form of life possible. Carrying the argument to that point and stopping short of the supernatural would have been within the capability of every ancient Epicurean. I believe it is mainly just our own corruption by Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism that makes the conclusion so difficult to accept today. But that difficulty is no reason to step back from it, and it is certainly no reason not to respect the Epicureans enough to state their position clearly before one dismisses (or embraces) it.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 9 at 1:26pm · Edited

JS

JS I agree that there is most probably many other life-forms. I intuit from the above you agree in the existence of extra-terrestrials which we deduce rationally by it's probability. However, do you believe these beings as "imperishable" (PD1)? If so, this is as unsupported as the other 5000 gods presently believed with no evidence.

Like · Reply · May 9 at 3:14pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus First of all, again, my goal is not to agree or disagree, but to understand and restate accurately the position of the ancient Epicureans.

Secondly, I think it is important to emphasize not "probability in general" but to cite the specific arguments that support the probability. (Nature never makes only a single one of a kind; also the "isonomia" argument which is considerably more difficult.)

But to deal with your specific question, I again think you are trivializing the argument of Lucretius unnecessarily. I don't care that you disparage whether I agree with it or not, but I do think that people who disparage it ought first to be able to state the Epicurean argument sympathetically before equating it to "5000 gods presently believed in with no evidence."

Neither Lucretius (nor I) have cited any **particular** "god" as imperishable or omnipotent or anything else. That would be the equivalent of asserting that Yahweh or Allah or some specific god exists. The argument is simply that it is probable to the point of effective certainty that there exists, within the natural universe, natural living beings which have reached the ability to regenerate so as to be deathless.

By analogy, I have never and will never see an "atom" (considered properly as an indivisible particle), and yet I organize my life with confidence that they exist. Some might say that it is not necessary to take a position on whether atoms exist, but the Epicureans considered it to be mentally healthy for confident living to be able to identify a mechanism by which the universe functions (1) without supernatural guidance but also (2) with repeatable regularity.

In the same way, I have never and will likely never see a deathless being that is entirely self-sufficient. Yet I can readily see how the Epicureans would have thought it mentally healthy to consider a proper definition of "godhood" in conformity with characteristics that we can understand. Agnosticism is entirely acceptable as an answer to lots of questions, but not when we are discussing the role of gods in nature and everyone around us is suggesting that we pray for rewards or cower in fear. In those cases, and those are the cases most men face, then "I don't know" whether such punishing and rewarding gods exist isn't a good enough response. In that context Epicurean "gods" serve a purpose similar to Epicurean "atoms." We cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear them, and yet we organize our lives as if they exist and we understand basic attributes of their nature.

Like · Reply · 4 · May 9 at 6:05pm · Edited

JS

JS

Like · Reply · May 9 at 6:20pm

JS

JS So then you must be convinced in deathless beings or gods. Fair enough. I have to say I'm unconvinced but am now more clear of your position here.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 9 at 6:21pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus In your last reply, you mix "deathless beings" which is a term consistent with the Epicurean position, with the indeterminate term "gods." By doing so you seem to insist on the standard Judeo-Christian-Islamic-monotheistic definition of "gods" - which is most certainly *not* consistent with the Epicurean position. What I am "convinced of" is that the ancient Epicureans were very sharp, and that those who sell them short before they take the time to attempt to understand their position do a disservice to both the ancient Epicureans and to themselves.

Like · Reply · 4 · May 10 at 8:19am

JB

JB Jerry, despite our previous disagreements I am sympathetic to your position on the gods. That said, as I repeatedly mull over the Epicurean concept of gods I find the Abrahamic concept of god becoming uprooted from my preconceptions as it is a deeply unsatisfying construct. The early cultural repetition of such a perverse concept is extremely difficult to let go of, but I'm finding that "... the study of philosophy pleasure accompanies growing knowledge; for pleasure does not follow learning; rather, learning and pleasure advance side by side."

Unlike · Reply · 4 · May 10 at 1:13pm · Edited

JS

JS JB I too have had to uproot theistic beliefs from my life. This has allowed me to truly find a happiness that comes from releasing the dread that comes from unsupported beliefs and opinions. Epicureanism answers the most basic questions of what is, how to think and live. The more obscure issues of physics and causes, I will leave to the province of the natural sciences.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 10 at 2:31pm · Edited

CJ

CJ JS You mention that you see no proof of living gods. In epicurean epistemology there is no need for such a proof, and even delivering such a proof would be unimaginable because gods are non evident. By definition such a proof not exist. Supposition about nonevident things is true when there is a possibility derived from and based on atomistic principles and there is no evidence of our senses that contest it. If we would dissmissed epicurean atomism like you suggest but at the same time we would keep leftovers from epicurean epistemolgy (after all most of it is mended together with physics so it have to go with it) then only HONEST answer would be something similar to answer of Protagoras: "We have no means of knowing whether they exist or not, nor of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life".

For the record orbiting teapots and spaghetti-monster are evident if there are any,

Unlike · Reply · 2 · May 10 at 2:26pm

JS

JS It is best to leave behind the meer question of a spaghetti monster or deathless being if the question itself creates turmoil in our minds. Tranquility is seated on the bedrock of a clear mind. "A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence." - David Hume.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 10 at 2:30pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus This gets to the root of the issue where Jerry and I differ: "It is best to leave behind the mere question of a spaghetti monster or deathless being if the question itself creates turmoil in our minds." I do not believe most people can or should approach life in this way. Most people are constantly confronted with issues which demand our attention and which are not in our power to ignore. Such questions, for most people, not limited to those who live in areas of religious fanaticism (where their very lives depend on understanding the issues) include questions about the origin of the universe and the existence of gods. Taking an "I don't know and I don't care" approach to the questions that vex most normal human beings is itself the trap door to falling into pits of anxiety from which there is no escape. Epicurean philosophy is not about evading questions, it is about finding answers to questions that will allow us to live our lives happily.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 10 at 2:47pm

JS

JS The best way to relieve fear is knowledge. PD 12 "One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure." https://web.archive.org/.../wiki.../Principal_Doctrine_12

Principal Doctrine 12 - Epicurus Wiki

One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG

Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · May 10 at 2:51pm

JB

JB Jerry, is it the question that causes turmoil or is it the lack of a satisfactory answer?

Epicurus tells us that the gods, as conceived by the many, do not exist and those who hold those beliefs are the ones who are actually impious. Biologically immortal beings exist here on earth, why shouldn't they exist elsewhere in the universe in a state of complete tranquility?

The Epicurean preconception of gods is far more interesting to discuss with someone from the Abrahamic faiths than my usual atheism. I enjoy having an answer to their questions about gods instead of what amounts to a dismissive non-answer from their perspective. The former primes them to think about their conceptions, the latter makes them combative, generally speaking.

Unlike · Reply · 1 · May 10 at 3:35pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Context makes a tremendous difference. I grew up and live now in a very religious area where I am constantly confronted by discussion about "god." Many places in the world are like that. On the other hand, there are apparently places where society has largely deemed talk of religion to be irrelevant, and the majority follow some form of "atheism." For those in such an area I can certainly see that discussion of godhood is largely irrelevant except as a very abstract matter.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 10 at 4:08pm

HD

HD JB

''Biologically immortal beings exist here on earth''. This statement is contrary to the epicurean canon of truth. Do you have any evidence? Otherwise we enter into idealism and in very dangerous waters. Epicurus assumption for their existence has been found false and therefore his conclusion. Do you still believe in the reality of dreams? Or the preconceptions of gods? We live in 2016 not in 300 bc!

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 12:13am

JB

JB Turritopsis dohrnii, for one. Here, I did some Googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

Like · Reply · May 11 at 9:38am

HD

HD This reference is unrelated to gods.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 9:43am

JB

JB Jerry was talking about deathless beings. We have those here, within our local environment. Is it so difficult to think that others may exist elsewhere in the universe in a form more advanced than they do here?

All living things, even hydras and jellyfish, shun pain and pursue pleasure. Is it entirely inconceivable that something like a hydra or jellyfish might fulfill the concept of a perfect being, an Epicurean god, if it were found immortal and in a state of complete tranquility? Forget needing five senses or being a chordate. Why does a god need to resemble humanity in any way to serve as an example to emulate? All it has to possess is the experience of continuous and unperturbed tranquility for eternity, the details are quite irrelevant.

Personally, while I find the Epicurean argument on gods /more/ useful when arguing religion with my Abrahamic friends, I still remain effectively an atheist. Statistically, the chances of us (as a species) ever meeting an extra-terrestrial intelligence, much less encounter one that might meet the definition of an Epicurean god is so vanishingly small that it may well be an impossibility. I suspect that if one or several even exist in our universe that we would never even be able to encounter them because they would have secured themselves to such an extent that it would be impossible.

Gods have always just been a thought experiment Haris, despite any arguments to the contrary. They serve a purpose as such, but are nothing more.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:00am · Edited

HD

HD Thinling is an idealistic attitude in reaching truth. Also the techniques of analogy, induction and so on, are prone to errors. So we need evidence, in the epicurean sense. Otherwise we are mere idealists.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:01am

JB

JB I'm not certain what you mean by "evidence, in the epicurean sense."

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:19am

HD

HD the senses and real life experience.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:21am

JB

JB So, evidence.

There's a lot of analogy and induction used in Epicurean philosophy, I'm not certain that it should be discarded due to being prone to errors. Thinking about gods is an error, but it causes lots of harm to people so it's useful to analogize and use inductive reasoning to ease their suffering when dealing with an idea that is completely imaginary.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:28am

HD

HD No one nowadays excepts the validity of this technique. It is out of the question in the era of scientific explosion.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:33am

JB

JB Supposition is the basis from which we develop testable hypotheses. Analogy (mathematics and geometry are analogs of real phenomena) is useful to explain things that are difficult to grasp when direct observation is difficult due to perspective.

A map with errors still can be useful, particularly when new observations are used to update it. Some times "here be dragons" suffices to mark a place when direct observation isn't currently possible. We know something is there, we just don't know what form it takes but it might still be useful to make an educated guess. Kind of like the recent Kepler announcement about potentially habitable planets.

Like · Reply · May 11 at 10:49am

Cassius Amicus

Write a reply...

Choose File

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Haris what is your reasoning behind this statement? "Epicurus assumption for their existence has been found false." What assumption are you referring to specifically, and how has it been "found false"?

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 6:42am · Edited

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus As for biological immortality I know nothing but what is in this wikipedia article so I am interested in Jason's response. It sounds from reading this that it might be better to refer to these examples as "approaching" immortality because they can certainly be killed. However the example of these very-long-lived beings provides observation from real life that life-span is not limited by supernatural forces. Thus in the right environment (speculated reasonably but perhaps primitively to be "between the worlds" by the Epicureans) effective immortality might be achievable. And it is my understanding that the concept of isonomia and/or anticipations in this department would be built on/reinforced by just such observations (that some things have short lifespans but others have long ones, indicating a spectrum from lowest to highest in lifespans).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

Like · Reply · 2 · May 11 at 6:52am · Edited

HD

HD The conclusion of Epicurus that gods exist (1,2) is based on the assumption that dreams are true and represent reality(3,4). So as long as we the modern humans are concerned to accept the conclusion have to accept the reality of the dreams, which has been rejected. Hence, we have to reject the conclusion for the existence of gods as well.

1. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions;

2. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing,

3. For the presentations which, for example, are received in a picture or arise in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind or by the other criteria of truth, would never have resembled what we call the real and true things, had it not been for certain actual things of the kind with which we come in contact.

4. Even the objects presented to madmen and to people in dreams are true, for they produce effects—i.e. movements in the mind—which that which is unreal never does.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 11 at 7:01am

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus So you discount totally the statement in Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods":

“But the mind strives to strengthen this belief by trying to discover the form of god, the mode of his activity, and the operation of his intelligence. For the divine form we have the hints of nature supplemented by the teachings of reason. From nature all men of all races derive the notion of gods as having human shape and none other; for in what other shape do they ever appear to anyone, awake or asleep? But not to make primary concepts the sole test of all things, reason itself delivers the pronouncement. For it seems appropriate that a being who is the most exalted, whether by reason of his happiness or of his eternity, should also be the most beautiful; but what disposition of the limbs, what cast of features, what shape or outline can be more beautiful than the human form? You Stoics at least, Lucilius, (for my friend Cotta says one thing at one time and another at another) are wont to portray the skill of the divine creator by enlarging on beauty as well as the utility of design displayed in all parts of the human figure. But if the human figure surpasses the form of all other living beings, and god is a living being, god must possess the shape which is the most beautiful of all; and since it is agreed that the gods are supremely happy, and no one can be happy without virtue, and virtue cannot exist without reason, and reason is only found in the human shape, it follows that the gods possess the form of man. Yet their form is not corporeal, but only resembles bodily substance; it does not contain blood, but the semblance of blood.

“These discoveries of Epicurus are so acute in themselves and so subtly expressed that not everyone would be capable of appreciating them. Still I may rely on your intelligence, and make my exposition briefer than the subject demands. Epicurus then, as he not merely discerns abstruse and recondite things with his mind's eye, but handles them as tangible realities, teaches that the substance and nature of the gods is such that, in the first place, it is perceived not by the senses but by the mind, and not materially or individually, like the solid objects which Epicurus in virtue of their substantiality entitles steremnia; but by our perceiving images owing to their similarity and succession, because an endless train of precisely similar images arises from the innumerable atoms and streams towards the gods, our mind with the keenest feelings of pleasure fixes its gaze on these images, and so attains an understanding of the nature of a being both blessed and eternal.Moreover there is the supremely potent principle of infinity, which claims the closest and most careful study; we must understand that it has in the sum of things everything has its exact match and counterpart. This property is termed by Epicurus isonomia, or the principle of uniform distribution. From this principle it follows that if the whole number of mortals be so many, there must exist no less a number of immortals, and if the causes of destruction are beyond count, the causes of conservation also are bound to be infinite.

And you discount also, from Lucretius, this elaboration:

"Moreover in the sum of all there is no one thing which is begotten single in its kind and grows up single and sole of its kind; but a thing always belongs to some class and there are many other things in the same kind. First, in the case of living things, most noble Memmius, you will find that in this sort has been begotten the mountain-ranging race of wild beasts, in this sort the breed of men, in this sort too the mute shoals of scaly creatures and all bodies of fowls. Therefore on a like principle you must admit that earth, and sun, moon, sea, and all things else that are, are not single in their kind, but rather in number past numbering; since the deep-set boundary-mark of life just as much awaits these and they are just as much of a body that had birth, as any class of things which here on earth abounds in samples of its kind."

And in discounting these arguments in the texts, you limit the proof of "gods" to be solely based on "dreams," despite these references and despite Epicurus' citation of anticipations in his letter to Menoeceus?

It seems that the crux of our disagreement is that you limit the proof you are willing to consider of the existence of Epicurean gods to "dreams." And by that I gather you mean the ordinary term of "dreams" and not the "images" discussion. I would maintain that the texts show that the Epicureans did not limit their argument to dreams (arising from images) at all, and that the far more important part of their argument were their natural observations as referenced above.

We will certainly agree to disagree, but it is helpful to everyone to state the relevant positions clearly.

Like · Reply · 2 · May 11 at 9:23am

HD

HD There is also the canon of truth regarding the external environment, that introduces the criteria of 1)confirmation and 2) non contradiction. Non of these abide with the existence of gods. By appying the epicurean rules we dissaprove the epicurean claim for the existence of gods. This shows that his assumptions were false.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 9:31am

HC

HC Speaking of immortals... http://www.livescience.com/53178-hydra-may-live-forever.html

Hail the Hydra, an Animal That May Be Immortal

LIVESCIENCE.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · May 11 at 11:28am

JB replied · 6 Replies

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus It appears to me here, Haris, when you say "There is also the canon of truth regarding the external environment, that introduces the criteria of 1)confirmation and 2) non contradiction. None of these abide with the existence of gods." ...that you are presuming that we have proof of the "external environment" so superior to the ancient Epicureans that we can be certain that they were incorrect. While we certainly have methods of searching out into space that are far superior to those of the ancient Epicureans - presuming that you adhere to the Epicurean boundless universe theorem - then we cannot by definition claim to know what exists in the boundless space that is beyond our ability to pierce even with our current technology.

Second but related, I presume also that you do not believe that we on Earth are the only living beings in the universe. If we are not the only living beings in the universe, are you prepared to say with confidence that none anywhere are higher? Are you prepared to say with confidence that none have achieved deathlessness in their own environments?

An argument is frequently made (it is not my favorite, by the way) that men should keep themselves in perspective because our earth is but a speck in the universe. That is not my favorite argument because it can be used to demean the importance of life too far. But I believe the Epicureans saw (see the Lucretius passage) that it is damaging to believe that Earth is the only location of life in the universe. Such a conclusion is so counter-rational to the infinite/boundless/natural universe theorm that it plays directly into the hands of those who argue that the Earth was created supernaturally for our own benefit.

If for no other reason than the one I just stated, it seems to me to be very important to preserve the Epicurean argument in its purity. As for me, I step back from presuming that our technology, while superior, can claim things that it manifestly cannot claim (to be able to see into "ALL" of the universe and know ALL things that are far out in space, and to therefore establish the counterintuitive - the conclusion no deathless beings exist anywhere.)

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 11:48am

HD

HD Cassius,

We should not use the same arguments both to defend ourselves and attack our idealistic opponents. If someone claims that something exists he has to present his arguments and evidence to support his views and not expect the others that he's wrong.

Epicurus was interested in knowledge that potentially influence human happiness. He showed no interest in knowledge that did not affect directly or indirectly one’s life. If there is sensual or scientific evidence that convince me that a knowledge is related to my happiness then I may be interested in examining it. We are not to study anything without the criterion of utility. So this issue of immortality does not affect my well-being at all. Neither it serves as a convincing proof that other entities of any nature exist.

To me this issue under discussion has to do with our own perceptions and influences and not with any real reason. So Epicurus would advise to look into our own perceptions instead of trying to claim something that has no proof and is only conceptual reasoning.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 12:12pm

JS

JS Asserting infinite beings and asserting in deathless beings are two species of arguments with the later having no other claim then baseless opinion.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 1:21pm

JB

JB Jerry, I concur with infinite beings, no such thing can even exist in a material universe such as ours, given the preconditions. Physical immortality on the other hand isn't beyond the realm of possibility at least to the extent that internal factors aren't the cause of death as evidenced by recent discoveries right here on Earth of creatures that can continually regenerate given sufficient energy input. Perhaps if they were in possession of the ability to defend against chance, as the wise man is exhorted to do, they might achieve a true immortality not dependent on circumstance. There may very well be some sentient creatures out in the infinitude of space that have achieved this particular combination of attributes that also are in a state of perpetual ataraxia.

That's certainly something worthy of emulation, the sole purpose that the concept of gods serve in Epicurean philosophy if I'm not mistaken, contra the Abrahamic conception of gods which forever remains out of reach given the impossibility of a supernatural existence.

Let us not borrow concepts from religious systems. The utility of discussing Epicurean gods is in presuming a conception that is consistent with the evidence at hand and extrapolating from there in order to give us a basis from which to experimentally test for their existence. You cannot test the supernatural. Let's not get stuck on those non-atomistic concepts!

This is why we need to talk about Epicurean gods. Our concept of the gods has been perverted through polluted thinking that has infected our culture. It's far easier to just ignore it and say we're atheists and Epicurus was a closeted atheist, but that shuts down conversation and leaves very real suffering unsalved. Supposition is the cornerstone of discovery and without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure. I think the idea of extra-terrestrial Epicurean "gods" is an (but not necessarily the only) elegant solution that fits well in an atomistic theory of the universe. How arrogant to think that we're the highest form of life in the infinitude!

Unlike · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 4:57pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Jerry: Who has asserted "infinite beings??" Certainly not me! I realize the difficulty of talking through an issue where the Epicurean definitions are different from the common ones, but it is essential not to track back and forth, and I am trying to be as clear as possible that I am sticking with *Epicurean* definitions of godhood, not the common one.....

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 4:55pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Haris please be assured I mean nothing here as an *attack* on you or anyone who disagrees with me. I find this discussion very helpful because I believe it is an important comment. With that prelude let me comment on a couple of your points. JB has stated several of them, but let me address them too:

" If someone claims that something exists he has to present his arguments and evidence to support his views and not expect the others that he's wrong." >>>

"Epicurus was interested in knowledge that potentially influence human happiness. He showed no interest in knowledge that did not affect directly or indirectly one’s life." >>

"If there is sensual or scientific evidence that convince me that a knowledge is related to my happiness then I may be interested in examining it. We are not to study anything without the criterion of utility. So this issue of immortality does not affect my well-being at all. Neither it serves as a convincing proof that other entities of any nature exist. To me this issue under discussion has to do with our own perceptions and influences and not with any real reason. So Epicurus would advise to look into our own perceptions instead of trying to claim something that has no proof and is only conceptual reasoning."

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 5:16pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Keeping in mind that I think our first and foremost inquiry ought to be that we *understand* what the Epicureans held, before we *judge* what the Epicureans held, here is a section from DeWitt directly on point:

EXISTENCE OF THE GODS

Those who are bound to make an empiricist of Epicurus have been compelled to represent him as finding the evidence for the existence of gods in vision. This is an error and a curious one; it was Eudoxus and Plato who appealed to vision as evidence of the existence of gods.12 The former declared that it mattered little what a man thought of the gods of Greek mythology but it mattered much what he thought about the visible gods, that is, the planets. It was on account of his revulsion from this teaching that Epicurus damned the Eudoxans as "enemies of Hellas." «

So far as vision is concerned, Epicurus denied that the gods were visible to the physical eye, though he did think them visible to the mind when operating as a supersensory organ of vision. The value attached to this evidence, however, was strictly limited. It served two purposes: first, to furnish a hint concerning the form of the gods, and second, to awaken in the minds of men the innate notion of the divine being there residing. This innate notion, Prolepsis or Anticipation, was the prime and primal evidence of the existence of gods. According to this notion the gods enjoyed perfect happiness and were immune to corruption. Add to this the information that they were anthropomorphic, gleaned from visions whether of day or night, and this is the sum total of knowledge attainable without recourse to reason and deduction.

The first approach, as in the letter to the lad Menoeceus, is dogmatic: "For there are gods, because the knowledge of them is manifest." u This is the appeal to the authority of Nature. The recognition of the existence of gods is apparent among all races. Cicero makes the meaning clear: "For what race is there or what breed of men that does not possess what we may call an Anticipation of gods, which Epicurus calls a Prolepsis?"1B This is what Epicurus calls by way of description "the universal idea" of the divine being. Its validity, however, depends only in part upon its universality; its main validity derives from the fact that the human being is believed to be preconditioned by Nature for the reception of the idea in advance of experience. For this reason the idea is called an Anticipation or Prolepsis. This priority to experience is part of its qualification as a criterion.

By Cicero's time, however, the syncretism of Stoic and Epicurean ideas had long been in progress, and he erred in saying that Nature had "stamped" this idea of the divine upon the minds of men as if with a seal upon wax.16 Such a comparison, it is true, was known to Epicurus but he employed it to illustrate the precision of the impression made upon vision by the pressure of the streams of images or idols which account for the sense of sight. Cicero went even farther astray when he wrote of the notion of godhead as "incised" or "engraved" upon the mind.17 The word he employed, insculpsit, could by no interpretation connote faintness or dimness of outline, which was an essential implication of the theory of Epicurus.

The semantic area in which the terminology of Epicurus belongs is that of biology. He thinks of the beginning and growth of the Prolepsis as a genetic process. The newborn infant lacks the use of certain senses, not to say reason; he is only potentially a rational creature. Still, just as the use of the senses exists potentially in the infant and so precedes and anticipates experience, so the capability of apprehending abstract ideas exists potentially from the first and only by degrees becomes actual in pace with experience, instruction, and reflection. As already mentioned, the idea of god is thought of as emerging in the mind just as the network of veins emerges in the embryo, prefiguring and anticipating the development of the whole organism. The mistake of Cicero was to intrude the Stoic idea of the mind as a tablet, capable of receiving impressions. This was not Epicurean.

Once this "universal idea" of the divine being, congenitally existing in the minds of men, has been assumed to precede and anticipate experience, the question that next presents itself is by what agency this potential experience is made actual. Bearing upon this question is the belief of Epicurus that the stimulus to thought and action of necessity comes from without; even the act of walking is believed by him to be preceded by images of the person in the act of walking, a preview of modern gestalt psychology.18 It is consistent with this belief in the external stimulus that Sextus Empiricus, who is a rather careful citator, informs us that according to Epicurus man derived his idea of godhead from the visions of sleep, the assumption being that these correspond to external realities.19 This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Lucretius.20

In scanning the latter's testimony, however, the reader must be on guard to observe that true religion and false religion took their start from the same experiences, and the poet is chiefly concerned for the moment with false religion. Nevertheless, he is in accord with the evidences above quoted when he heads his list with visions of the gods witnessed by day or more often by night. It was from these that men first learned of the form of the gods, their stature and beauty. The rest of the passage belongs to the story of superstition.

In respect of the evidence afforded by dreams it is timely to issue a general and a specific warning: the general warning is against the assumption that the doctrines of Epicurus are easy to understand; the specific warning is against assigning more than a minimum value to the evidence of dreams. The vision of gods seen in a dream is no more evidence for the existence of gods than a vision of centaurs is evidence for the existence of centaurs. Only two functions are assigned to dreams in the extant authorities: one function, as gleaned from Sextus Empiricus, is to act as a stimulus to the innate Prolepsis of godhead, which up to a point is merely potential, and thus render it actual;21 the other function is to furnish a hint, and no more, of the form of the gods, as Cicero informs us.22 More will be said of this under the heading that next follows.

Confirmatory evidence for the existence of gods was found in logical deduction; this will be discussed in the section on Isonomy and the Gods.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 5:21pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Also from Dewitt:

ISONOMY AND THE GODS (part 1)

In spite of a supercilious opinion to the contrary, Epicurus was not a muddled thinker but a very systematic one. He enunciated his Twelve Elementary Principles and adhered to them closely. Two of these, the fifth and sixth, asserted the infinity of the universe in respect of matter and space. To this idea of infinity he ascribed fundamental importance. He exhorted the young Pythocles to study it as one of those master principles which would render easy the recognition of causation in details.68 Cicero must have been recalling some similar exhortation when he wrote: "But of the very greatest importance is the significance of infinity and in the highest degree deserving of intense and diligent contemplation." 69 He was quoting Epicurus.

It was from this principle that Epicurus deduced his chief theoretical confirmation of belief in the existence of gods. It was from this that he arrived at knowledge of their number and by secondary deduction at knowledge of their abode. He so interpreted the significance of infinity as to extend it from matter and space to the sphere of values, that is, to perfection and imperfection. In brief, if the universe were thought to be imperfect throughout its infinite extent, it could no longer be called infinite. This necessity of thought impelled him to promulgate a subsidiary principle, which he called isonomia, a sort of cosmic justice, according to which the imperfection in particular parts of the universe is offset by the perfection of the whole. Cicero rendered it aequabilis tributio, "equitable apportionment." 70 The mistake of rendering it as "equilibrium" must be avoided.

The term isonomia itself, which may be anglicized as isonomy, deserves a note. That it is lacking in extant Epicurean texts, all of them elementary, and is transmitted only by Cicero is evidence of its belonging to higher doctrine and advanced studies. Epicurus switched its meaning slightly, as he did that of the word prolepsis. To the Greeks it signified equality of all before the law, a boast of Athenians in particular. It was a mate to eunomia, government by law, as opposed to barbaric despotism, a boast of Greeks in general. That Epicurus thought to make capital of this happy connotation may be considered certain. He was vindicating for Nature a sort of justice, the bad being overbalanced by the good. It is also possible that he was remotely influenced by the teachings of Zoroaster, well known in his day through the conquests of Alexander, according to whom good and evil, as represented by Ormazd and Ahriman, battled for the upper hand in mundane affairs.

Whatever may be the facts concerning this influence, Epicurus discovered a reasonable way of allowing for the triumph of good in the universe, which seemed impossible under atomic materialism. Thus in his system of thought isonomy plays a part comparable to that of teleology with Plato and Aristotle. Teleology was inferred from the evidences of design, and design presumes agencies of benevolence, whether natural or divine. Epicurus was bound to reject design because the world seemed filled with imperfections, which he listed, but by extending the doctrine of infinity to apply to values he was able, however curiously, to discover room for perfection along with imperfection.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 5:24pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Isonomy and the Gods - Part 2

That he employed isonomy as theoretical proof of the existence of gods is well documented. For example, Lactantius, who may have been an Epicurean before his conversion to Christianity, quotes Epicurus as arguing "that the divine exists because there is bound to be something surpassing, superlative and blessed."71 The necessity here appealed to is a necessity of thought, which becomes a necessity of existence. The existence of the imperfect in an infinite universe demands belief in the existence of the perfect. Cicero employs very similar language: "It is his doctrine that there are gods, because there is bound to be some surpassing being than which nothing is better." 72 Like the statement of Lactantius, this recognizes a necessity of existence arising from a necessity of thought; the order of Nature cannot be imperfect throughout its whole extent; it is bound to culminate in something superior, that is, in gods.

It is possible to attain more precision in the exposition. Cicero, though brutally brief, exhibits some precision of statement. The infinity of the universe, as usual, serves as a major premise. This being assumed, Cicero declares: "The nature of the universe must be such that all similars correspond to all similars." 73 One class of similars is obviously taken to be human beings, all belonging to the same grade of existence in the order of Nature. As Philodemus expresses it in a book about logic, entitled On Evidences, "It is impossible to think of Epicurus as man and Metrodorus as non-man." 74 Another class of similars is the gods. This being understood, the truth of Cicero's next statement follows logically: "If it be granted that the number of mortals is such and such, the number of immortals is not less." 75 This reasoning calls for no exegesis, but two points are worthy of mention: first, Cicero is not precise in calling the gods immortals; according to strict doctrine they are not deathless, only incorruptible of body; the second point is that Epicurus is more polytheistic in belief than his own countrymen.

The next item, however, calls for close scrutiny. Just as human beings constitute one set of similars and the gods another, so the forces that preserve constitute one set and the forces that destroy constitute another.

At this point a sign of warning is to be raised. There is also another pair of forces that are opposed to each other, those that create and those that destroy.76 The difference is that the latter operate in each of the innumerable worlds, while the former hold sway in the universe at large. For example, in a world such as our own, which is one of many, the forces of creation have the upper hand during its youthful vigor. At long last, however, the forces of destruction gradually gain the superiority and eventually the world is dissolved into its elements.77

In the universe at large, on the contrary, the situation is different and the forces opposed to each other are not those that destroy and those that create but those that destroy and those that preserve. Moreover, a new aspect of infinity is invoked, the infinity of time. The universe is eternal and unchanging. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The sum of things is always the same, as Lucretius says. This truth is contained in the first two of the Twelve Elementary Principles. In combination they are made to read: "The universe has always been the same as it now is and always will be the same." 78 This can be true only on the principle that the forces that preserve are at all times superior to the forces that destroy.

It follows that Cicero was writing strictly by the book when he made his spokesman draw the following conclusion from the doctrine of isonomy: "And if the forces that destroy are innumerable, the forces that preserve must by the same token be infinite."79 This doctrine, it is essential to repeat, holds only for the universe at large. It is not applicable to the individual world and it does not mean that the prevalence of elephants in India is balanced by the prevalence of wolves in Russia. Isonomy does not mean "equal distribution" but "equitable apportionment." It does not denote balance or equilibrium. No two sets of similar forces are in balance; in the individual world the forces of destruction always prevail at last, and in the universe at large the forces of preservation prevail at all times.

By this time three aspects of the principles of isonomy have been brought forward: first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, "that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better"; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction.

All three of these are direct inferences from the infinity and eternity of the universe. There remains to be drawn an indirect inference of primary importance. Since in the individual worlds the forces of destruction always prevail in the end, it follows that the incorruptible gods can have their dwelling place only outside of the individual worlds, that is, in the free spaces between the worlds, the so-called intermundia, where the forces of preservation are always superior. There is more to be said on this topic in the section that follows.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 5:24pm

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Reading over this reminds me how influential Dewitt has been on my thought patterns. I wish I had done a more articulate job of representing these passages, particularly in regard to the important point that Epicurus himself did not call the "gods" "deathless." That observation points out the necessity of being very careful about the word "immortal" too. The principles we are discussing here have sweeping implications far beyond just their use in opposing "false religion."

Like · Reply · 1 · May 11 at 5:30pm · Edited

HD

HD I feel that we disagree to disagree, as we search truth by different means. Your documentation is excellent from an ancient epicurean point of view, which had to employ hypothesizing, reasoning and a lot of phantasy. From the other hand I look for truth by modern means such as science, supported by sensual and empirical data. None of your arguments is based on any of these contemporary criteria, so I cannot agree with them, although I find them interesting out of mere curiosity.

We should be though very considerate when we use reasoning to find truth for this is not the recommendation of the epicurean philosophy. Instead it suggests to use science, the senses and experiences. Logical reasoning was the only means of the ancients that’s why they made some crucial mistakes, such as the size of the sun, or the existence of gods. By employing reasoning today we run the risk to accept the christian god, or afterlife. I don’t see the difference between a humane immortal god and a spiritual Christian god, as long as the proof in both cases is reasoning. To me overuse of reasoning leads to stoicism, Platonism, and in any sort of reasonable philosophy.

The fundamental premise of the epicurean philosophy is to rely on the truth of the senses and not of reasoning. If we cross this line we enter in alien waters.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 12 at 1:29am

JS

JS "Intuition untested and unsupported is an uncertain guarantee of the truth." - Bertrand Russell

Like · Reply · 1 · May 12 at 11:11am

CJ

CJ but russel wasn't sure that it is uncertain because he did "not feel absolutely certain of anything" . And BTW famous people are not certain criteria of truth, that I am certain of" smile emoticon

Unlike · Reply · 1 · May 12 at 2:36pm

JS

JS He was certain there was no teapot revolving around the sun. A good criterion of logic here is venerability and no infinite beings cannot be discerned from the present knowledge of science. For instance rules of Blackbody Radiation and Thermodynamics rules out an "impermanent being."

Like · Reply · May 12 at 5:28pm

CJ

CJ JS And other rules accept that at the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded, that one-dimentional objects exist and that you can drill a hole in space... and accept all this without evidence.

The raven calling the crow black.

But there is other implication in your answer that is intersting. If scientific laws are capable of ruling something out they are themselves criteria of truth. very unsure, sometimes contradictory and changing in time but criteria of truth nevertheless.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · May 12 at 6:41pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus Very profound, IMO, Cyryl, " If scientific laws are capable of ruling something out they are themselves criteria of truth..." and very consistent with DeWitt's interpretations. Your point illustrates why "scientific laws" were *not* listed as part of the Epicurean canon of truth, but the senses/anticipations/feelings of pain-pleasure *were.*

Like · Reply · 2 · May 12 at 8:16pm

JB

JB Science is less a noun than a verb. It's a method of exploring and describing the universe in human-relatable terms. It's the map, not the territory. We see the map and the territory with our eyes, but we don't confuse the two when we're in the midst of the area it depicts. Confusion happens when we get really invested in the map being correct when there's a lack of evidence and we haven't explored the territory.

Talking about scientific laws, Jerry, what do you think of the ongoing kerfuffle over the Cosmological Constant? Have you taken a side? Despite my amateur interest and participation in historic astronomy, I don't know any astronomers personally to ask their professional opinion.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · May 12 at 9:32pm

CJ

CJ Cassius Amicus I would go further and say that in Epicurean Physics there are no scientific laws in modern meaning of the term. There are limits of nature that are reflected by thinking mind by unconceivability. The word unconceivable, unimaginable and similar words are used many, many times in Herodotus, Pythocles and DRN and Philodemus Method of Inference to set natural limits of thing itself, its quality or attribute. Modern scientific laws do not qualify to be criteria of truth. They are from canonical point of view opinions and as such they can be true or false, in contrast to sensations, ideas and feelings which are what they are. This is my take on the issue.

Saying this I really like the metaphore that JB draws with map and territory. It illustrates the essential difference of perspective of philosophy (not just Ep.) and science and our discussion here is really about relation of those two. It brings to mind picture of cartographer and wanderer arguing about what is behind the next hill. Perspective is different but as long as subject is the same this discussion will continue, hopefully without bad feelings but with good will and aprreciation on both sides.

Like · Reply · 1 · May 13 at 4:29pm

JS

JS The cosmological constant was never proven and was the fudge factor Einstein called his major blunder when he visited Mt Palomar and saw proof of an expanding Universe. Einstein hoped to find a static Universe. But present data of distant Quasars shows a repulsive force does exist. We are living in interesting times where our instruments are having us redefine the very existence of energies that we have no clue what they are. I can't wait to see what we learn next!

Like · Reply · 2 · May 13 at 7:10pm

"Happiness is prior to being tranquil"-Is this right?

IV: In terms of the conceptual hierarchy, it's not right. "Happiness" is at the top, as the ultimate goal. Tranquillity is below it.

In practice, they happen at the same time. Happy people are also tranquil. Which is why we sometimes see tranquility equated with happiness.

There is also a certain degree of fuzziness in these words, and only when we talk about the conceptual hierarchy greater precision is usually needed. As an Epicurean I don't usually use "tranquility" because it is so fuzzy...

Cassius Amicus I agree with IV's answer, and would add my personal opinion about the key words in the sentence:

"Happiness" - I believe in Epicurean terms this means "living pleasurably," which can be done in innumerable ways, since there are so many mental and physical possibilities in life. Epicurean happiness is to be contrasted with Arisotelian happiness, which requires much more than pleasure and ends up requiring many types of social and economic goods. It should also be contrasted with Platonic and Stoic happiness, which end up being a rigid and formal set of abstract principles - "virtue," in their terms. And of course you can carry the analogy much further and point out that religions define happiness as serving god, etc. So any discussion of happiness has to first define the word happiness.

"Tranquil" - I believe the focus of meaning here is on "smooth" and "uninterrupted," so that "tranquil" is best seen as an adjective describing the best way to experience pleasure/happiness, rather than as a independent state by itself. "Yellow" cannot be separated from "things that appear yellow." Yellow is neither an ideal form, in Platonic terms, nor an "essence" in Aristotelian terms. So as with "yellow," I don't think "tranquil" describes an independent separate state either. Neither tranquility nor "yellow" exist in the air. Yellow is an attribute of specific things that we perceive in the light to be yellow, and tranquility is an attribute of experiencing specific mental and physical activities smoothly and without disruption. There is no tranquility in death. Personally, I think "aponia" (absence of pain) is in the same category as tranquility. In Epicurean texts, painlessness seems to describe the state of experiencing pleasures (any number or type) **without any pain accompanying that experience.** Neither "tranquility" nor "painlessness" tell you anything about the positive state of what your mind or body are doing - those words simply tell you that whatever you are doing is not accompanied by disruption/turmoil or pain.

"Prior to" - Given the way I've described happiness and tranquility, ranking happiness and tranquility (or painlessness) on the same scale would be like ranking "oranges" (the fruit) with "things that are orange" (the color). "Tranquility" and "painlessness" are not complete states in themselves, but ways of describing the purest experience of pleasure: The purest experience of pleasure (any kind of pleasures) is when pleasures are experienced without disruption/turmoil and without pain.

We frequently get into discussions in which some people contend that the goal of life is to achieve implacable emotionlessness. The Epicurean view of "tranquility" does not require this, because the meaning of tranquility consistent with the rest of Epicurean philosophy is better understood as "unbroken" and "smooth." In support of this we know that Epicurus called his students to "continuous pleasure." Under the influence of Stoic hostility to emotion, however, many people exalt emotionlessness as the goal. They argue that avoidance of pain is the true goal, and that therefore emotionlessness is superior to the joys and ordinary pleasures of life.

In response to those contentions, I frequently cite the following passage on "feelings" from Diogenes Laertius, and it is important to point out how this passage links to even more fundamental Epicurean doctrine. The graphic below shows the Bailey version of two passages, with the Greek original of the payoff passage. Think carefully about the implications of this linkage: Not only should we never forget that emotion (passion / feelings / pleasure / pain) are not a **hindrance** to wisdom -- more importantly, the wise man will experience these passions more deeply than other men! That is because emotions/passions/pleasure/pain are the **guides of life**. OF COURSE Epicureans will take the OPPOSITE view of the Stoics.

Epicureans will experience passions MORE DEEPLY than other men, because emotions/passions/pleasure/pain are Canonical foundation of all that we decide to choose and to avoid!

NewEpicurean post: http://newepicurean.com/emotionlessnes…nce-of-emotion/

Also, every post and comment, no matter how small, helps in understanding how the forum software works and allows me to fine-tune it, so thanks for both the comment and the "likes" so we see how the like mechanism works.

Cassius Amicus J. when your write ""By pleasure, we mean this: freedom from pain in the body and freedom from turmoil in the soul" I would not say you are "misreading" it as much as I am saying that it cannot be taken out of context and treated as if it is disconnected with the rest of the philosophy. There are MANY quotes where Epicurus discusses pleasure in the "normal" sense of that term as sex, food, dancing, etc. And it is clear that Epicurus considered pleasure to be a sensation that we all understand through experience. All of these statements must be reconciled to a coherent whole, and a construction of this particular passage that reads the others out of existence cannot be accepted as logically coherent - and if Epicurus was anything, he was logically coherent, or he would have been laughed off the philosophic stage.

The stoic-sympathetic moderns write off these other passages as unimportant, rather than taking them into account and treating the pleasure= absence of pain as a purely quantitative, not qualitative, measurement. Taken as a quantitative measurement, and starting from the premise that we have only two "passions" - pleasure and pain - then the measure of pleasure is *quantitatively* the absence of pain, just as pain is *quantitatively" the absence of pleasure. And then it has to be remembered that neither calculation has any meaning to the dead, so it must be kept in mind that the entire discussion applies only to those who are living, with all that that entails.

For the reasons I cite in my article (and I am really just pointing back to Gosling and Taylor and other authorities, not saying anything original myself) I believe it is wrong to take the quoted sentence out of context. The best and most authoritative explanation of this comes from "The Greeks on Pleasure", the full text by Gosling and Taylor, but I have done my best to summarize the argument on my page.

Cassius Amicus I am still working to develop new analogies to drive this point home, but I would cite as an analog what Dewitt says in "Epicurus and His Philosophy" about the Canon of Truth. Here is DeWitt pointing out that the canon is the "TEST of truth," not the "CONTENT" of truth.

"It is an even worse mistake to have confused the tests of truth with the content of truth, that is, the tools of precision with the stones of the wall. This was the blunder of Pierre Gassendi, who revived the study of Epicurus in the seventeenth century. It was his finding "that there is nothing in the intellect which has not been in the senses." From this position John Locke, in turn, set out as the founder of modern empiricism. Thus a misunderstanding of Epicurus underlies a main trend of modern philosophy. This astonishing fact begets an even greater concern for a correct interpretation, which may cause Locke to appear slightly naive."

The analogy to the present discussion is that the statement "pleasure = absence of pain" is true **quantitatively** because there are only two "passions/feelings" - pleasure and pain. If we are alive and we feel anything at all, we feel either pleasure or pain, so in quantitative terms of measuring the total of our "feeling experience," the presence of one is the absence of the other. But this statement of quantity tells us nothing about the "content" or the "quality" of the pleasure or pain that is being experienced. That is an entirely different analysis and requires that we enumerate all the normal experiences of pleasure in the form of sex, food, music, dancing, or pain in the form of the many varieties of physical and mental pain.

So as Dewitt points out, the canon of truth is the TEST of truth, but the formula(s) which constitute the canon are not the CONTENT of truth. The "truth" revealed to us through use of the canon varies infinitely with the context of the matter being examined.

I submit we should look at Epicurus' statement by analogy: The formula "pleasure = absence of pain" is an accurate quantitative "test" or measurement of feeling, but it is only a formula. As a formula, the statement does not describe the CONTENT of the pleasure that is being experienced. The content of the experience varies infinitely with the context of the pleasure (or pain) being experienced.

And if we forget that it is the CONTENT that is the really significant thing, we end up obsessing over the tools of precision, and we entirely miss the goal. And the goal is not the tools themselves, but the successful living of life, which is the reason we picked up the tools in the first place.

Thanks and welcome!

Welcome new participant Leontius of Ockham. Please say hello and tell us a little about yourself when you get the chance.

Excerpts from Facebook discussion:

HDJ: I'd like to add my two cents from a bystander's point of view. There are many rigorous scientific articles showing many benefits of the act of sex. Maybe Epicurus might have chosen his words differently with the knowledge we have today?

Cassius Amicus I agree with what I think you are saying, HDJ, but I think the problem is not so much that he chose his words poorly (and that might be an issue with translation) but that we only have fragments without the overall context. He seems to have been addressing someone who was clearly so over-indulging in this department that he was causing trouble for himself or others (else why would the topic even be addressed?). I don't think Epicurus was unaware of the benefits of sex and certainly he was not unaware of its pleasure. But it seems that the parts of Epicurean texts which survive are heavily slanted toward Epicurus warning someone *against* doing something in particular that is pleasurable, while those which certainly would have existed *encouraging* the pursuit of pleasure are only the general statements.

I think we could compare the phrase that is preserved about Pythocles, that "if you wish to make Pythocles rich, do not give him more money, but restrain his desires." To me, this is one of those sayings that CLEARLY can be only understood if we know the pre-existing state of Pythocles. Is he rich and cynical and degenerate from wasting money? Then yes, restrain his desire for money. But is Pythocles poor and at the point of death and wishing only for a few of the common ordinary "luxuries" of life? Then I cannot imagine that Epicurus would say such a thing to such a pitiful person.

I strongly suspect that the surviving fragments come to us reflecting "cherry-picking" by stoics and their sympathizers who wanted to preserve sayings from Epicurus with which they agreed, or which they could shape to their own uses.

Fortunately someone also preserved for us VS 63. "There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance." I think VS63, if thoroughly considered and applied, is the key to blowing away all the stoicisms that have clung onto Epicurean theory like barnacles.

And if you apply VS63 to your question you come up with the same conclusion you have reached, that ALL activity, even/especially sex, has to be evaluated in context of the situation that applies. And as you note, in general, sex is a natural and healthy and pleasurable part of life.

http://newepicurean.com/the-wider-impl…assionate-love/

Cassius Amicus 03-5-2016 0 Comments

One of the most troublesome topics used by those who erroneously advocate the view that Epicurus taught "ascetic quietism" is the advice given in Vatican Saying 51. Here is Vatican Saying 51 in three different translations:

Vatican Saying 51:

Epicurus.net: "[addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm."

Cyril Bailey (Epicurus The Extant Remains): "You tell me that the stimulus of the flesh makes you too prone to the pleasures of love. Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbors or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please. Yet it is impossible not to come up against one or other of these barriers: for the pleasures of love never profited a man and he is lucky if they do him no harm."

Epicurus.info: "I learn that your bodily inclination leans most keenly towards sexual intercourse. If you neither violate the laws nor disturb well established morals nor sadden someone close to you nor strain your body nor spend what is needed for necessities, use your own choice as you wish. It is surely difficult to imagine however than none of these would be a part of sex because sex never benefited anyone. It would be better if it did not harm you.

In this post I won't recite the lengthy exposition of the subject in Book IV of Lucretius, but the Bailey translation of this discussion can be foundat this link beginning with the phrase "There is stirred in us that seed..."

Rather, what I'd like to submit is that this passage should not be singled out as a special condemnation of "love," or "sexual relations," or even what we might refer to as "romantic love." My reasoning goes like this:

First, the pleasures of these activities are no less desirable than any other pleasures, for we know from the Letter to Menoeceus that "all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good," and we know from surviving fragments from Epicurus' treatise "On the Ethical End" that he taught: "I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, sexual pleasures, the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form."

Our starting point is therefore the desirability of pursuing pleasure all pleasures, limited not by our on concepts of "good" or "worthy" or "noble" or "virtuous" pleasures, but only by an intelligent analysis of whether indulgence in any pleasure will lead to greater pleasure or to its reverse - greater pain, This is of course the analysis expressed by Epicurus himself in the Letter to Menoeceus:

"While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is should be chosen, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. Sometimes we treat the good as an evil, and the evil, on the contrary, as a good."

Seen in this way, Epicurus is doing nothing more in regard to passionate love than he is doing to any other passionate activity that may lead to pleasure or pain depending on the circumstances involved. In the passage cited above to the "young man," we could just as easily substitute any other pleasure which can be experienced in such intensity that it can become intoxicating - not only sex, but also alcohol, or race-car driving, or mountain-climbing, or snow-skiing - any activity that contains within in both thrills and danger.

If we play that substitution game, do we find that Epicurus warns us never to engage in such activities because they involve danger? No! We can and should apply the warning Epicurus gave to the "young man" whether our passionate interest is in sex, drugs, rock and roll - or pursuing "virtue" through asceticism. The analysis follows the same pattern:

1) "Does your activity violate the law?" If it does, you can be sure that its dangers are well defined in terms of the punishment you will suffer if you are found out and reported to the authorities. Sometimes laws can and should be broken, depending on the situation, but it is very prudent to ask at the beginning of the analysis whether there are in fact laws that would be broken by the activity.

2) "Does your activity disturb well-established morals?" If we presumed that Epicurus considered "well-established morals" to be legitimate expressions of common sense in human relations, rather than the arbitrary norms we often associate with religious or social rule-making, then we can see again that violation of common sense in dealing with other people is going to lead to friction and a negative reaction from them, which is just the kind of thing we can expect to detract from our calm experience of happy living. The issue is not that arbitrary rules are broken, but that in violating these rules we can expect painful reactions from the people we are involved with in the rule-breaking.

3) "Does your activity sadden someone close to you?" If we take "someone close to you" as referring to a friend, then we can easily see the problem, because it is clear in Epicurean theory that our friends are among our most important possessions. If "someone close to you" refers to a non-friend, then we also can see the likely problems that will occur from that person deciding to retaliate.

4) Does your activity "strain your body?" This part of the test seems clearly to relate to current or future physical pain, and needs no elaboration.

5) Does your activity "spend what is needed for necessities?" Here we see (Bailey uses the word "waste") that the test derives from the long-term analysis of the pleasure or pain that results from the activity. The question is not posed in a way that indicates that "no" possessions should be spent on the activity, but whether the expense threatens our long-term survival (our "necessities"), or is "wasted" in terms of the pleasure that is gained. Worthwhile purchases are the stuff life is made of and which we should choose to pursue. Loss of necessities or "waste" means the focus is that the result in pleasure is no worth the pain that will received as its cost.

As we come to the concluding passages we have to look carefully at the translations, because some imply that Epicurus is saying that it is "impossible" not to be checked by one of these warnings and that "sex never benefited anyone." I am not competent to provide a better translation so I will not attempt it, but I will say that Epicurus would not have been considered the great philosopher that he was if he had produced a passage on such an important topic that was inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy. It seems to me that the focus of the Epicurus.net translation is the closest to the probable intent, because it has Epicurus saying to apply the tests he has listed and then, if the circumstances of the activity indicate a likelihood of greater pleasure than pain, then "use your own choice as you wish."

It would be very helpful if we had a thorough and well-researched analysis of the final phase which Epicurus.net translates as "It is surely difficult to imagine however than none of these would be a part of sex because sex never benefited anyone. It would be better if it did not harm you." In order to grasp the shades of meaning we would need to pick through the various meanings of "sex," of "benefited anyone," and "it" in the dangling phrase "It would be better if it did not harm you."

It seems to me that the correct interpretation is to view the discussion about sex as an integrated part of Epicurus' overall teaching - that pleasure should be pursued intelligently, with "intelligently" defined as "can I reasonably expect the activity to lead to greater pleasure, or greater pain." From the Letter to Herodotus and everything we know about Epicurean physics and epistemology, we know that circumstances control the outcome of all ethical decisions, and that no set of choices are ever singled out for "always bad" or "always good" treatment. The idea that sexual relations is an exception to this rule, and that it is "always bad" flies in the face of the rest of Epicurean philosophy, and should be rejected as an unfortunate result of the fragmentary nature of our surviving texts. In fact, the final passage of Lucretius' Book IV is devoted to an illustration of how romantic love, when it is enduring and therefore real, wears away the hardest obstacles.

Seen in this way, the tests that Epicurus applied to sexual relations should be considered for its wider implications, and not just as a special commentary on sex. We should keep an open mind about engaging in any activity until the circumstances are fully evaluated as Epicurus advised. But once the circumstances are evaluated, and we determine that the benefits in pleasure will outweigh the penalty in pain, then use your own choice as you wish. Sexual relations, is not only not an exception to this rule, it is one of the most basic pleasurable activities of life - the sort of activity without which we would not even know "the good."

MC: Aristotle spoke of eudaimonea, translated as a state of being happy. Is this the same word the Epicureans used to describe their goal, and how does the Epicurean conception differ exactly?

PA: Literally means being in good spirits.

RW: The goal that is actively aimed for by Epicurus is avoidance of physical pain and mental anxiety. If, as is likely, eudaemonia ensues, that is a kind of bonus. But if it never occurred, you'd still be fine.

PA: Ataraxia is the goal.

TH: I kind of wish you could have avoidance of physical pain and mental anxiety AND eudemonia!!! Maybe we should start a new philosophical school of thought? By the way, my spelling of the word is via the dictionary. May not be the Greek way though.

IV: "Eudaimonia" as a word means "happiness" (alternatively flourishing etc.) The main difference between the philosophical schools is the definition they offer to that word. For the aristotelians, this would be a life of "virtuous action in accordance with reason", while Epicureans say that it's a life "free of pain in the body and anxiety in the mind". When ancient philosophers say "eudaimonia", it's like they were saying "my car". Obviously they are talking about a similar thing, but also about a different car. I think that Epicureans shouldn't use "eudaimonia" for the reason that it _will_ be confused with aristotelianism. We ought to use the word "ataraxia" because it defines a discussion along Epicurean lines.

Cassius Amicus: TH need not start a new school of thought, because pursuit of pleasure AND avoidance of pain IS Epicurean philosophy. As IV says, in modern discussion (and a I probably don't need the "modern" qualifier) eudaemonia is an Aristotelian-associated word that comes loaded with all sorts of requirements IN ADDITION to pleasure, notably including all the virtue/reason idealism that Aristotle inherited from Plato and which Epicurus rejected. RW's formulation, which never uses the word pleasure and in fact reads normal understanding of the word "pleasure" out of the equation, is what happens when you take a Stoic-inspired view of Epicurus and try to conclude that "avoidance of pain" is the complete meaning of Epicurean philosophy, which it most certainly is not. It's necessary to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and that means never forgetting the numerous statements of Epicurus such as "Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing." Of course those who insist on arguing that pleasure = nothingness will never agree.....

RW: "Seeking pleasure" implies having a desire which is unfulfilled, i.e., pain. Satisfying a necessary desire and ridding ourselves of its pain, in an intelligent way, is pleasurable. But since many desires can be resolved by realizing they are unnecessary and that satisfying them or attempting to satisfy them will have further painful consequences, it makes sense to describe avoidance of pain as primary. The question that arises is whether it makes sense to seek pleasure in the absence of any desire. It does, if the pleasure is thoughtfully chosen with the object of fortifying us against future pain. (Just as it sometimes might make sense to choose a somewhat painful activity for the same purpose). Such pleasures largely comprise those we share with others as part of the creation and maintenance of friendship, which is our bulwark against future pain.

Cassius Amicus: ""Seeking pleasure" implies having a desire which is unfulfilled, i.e., pain" NO! Incorrect! A standard example of how this is wrong is the pleasure of smelling roses, which is pleasurable but certainly not something that you "lacked" or were "in pain for" before smelling those roses. The "replenishment" theory of pleasure is so full of holes that only my friends the Stoics find it servicable, and if you read Gosling & Taylors the Greeks on Pleasure you will find ample documentation how inadequate it is to explain pleasure in that way. What you are doing RW is placing pain as the center of universe for life, and the guiding star of all. You are certainly not alone in doing that and there are many philosophers who do, but I can't think of any way to be more anti-Nature or anti-Epicurean than that. But again, this chain of discussion is very useful because it shines the light on a path of thought that is absolutely incompatible with identifying pleasure as the guide of life. Some people said "No, Epicurus was wrong to say pleasure was the guide." The worst of his opponents never had the guts to make the argument while he was alive, but the moderns have slyly twisted his words. Black is white! Up is down! And "Pleasure" they say, is **nothing more** than the absence of pain." Hogwash. HD, I hope you are feeling MY pain! wink emoticon Do you see what is happening here Haris? And Ron is NOT being insincere or willfully obtuse. RW's Epicurus is who Epicurus is to at least 80% of those who know anything about him in the world today! (And my number is probably too low a percentage....)

RW: Consider: I spoke of "seeking pleasure", in response to your claim re same. Experiencing pleasure may or may not be the result of "seeking pleasure". There are fortuitous pleasures as well. I haven't claimed Epicurus believed all pleasure is "nothing more than" the absence of pain, only that the sort of pleasure that counters present or future pain is largely the only sort worth the effort of seeking.

Cassius Amicus: In other words, the activity of pursuing relief from pain is the only kind of activity worth pursuing (????)

AR: Seeking pleasure is not less important than avoiding pain. "...decide what to choose and what to avoid by referring to the goal of obtaining a body that is healthy and a soul that is free from turmoil, since this is the aim of living happily. It is for the sake of living happily that we do everything, as we wish to avoid grief and fear. When once we have attained this goal, the storm of the soul is ended, because we neither have the need to go looking for something that we lack, nor to go seeking something else by which the good of our soul or of our body would be improved. For you see when we lack pleasure and we grieve, we have need of pleasure, because pleasure is not present. >>> On this account we affirm that Nature has provided that Pleasure is the beginning and end of living happily; -Epicurus, LTM"

RW: Cassius Amicus Or avoidance of future pain, yes. Of course I interpret pain broadly, as I believe Epicurus does, to include any sensation of disturbance or lack, even the slightest. It doesn't take much to nudge us to seek pleasure or relief.

Cassius Amicus: And thus in the space of this short thread we observe how Epicurean philosophy, which had swept the world by clearly pointing out that the purpose of life is to BOTH seek pleasure AND avoid pain, as normally understood by normal people, devolved into word game, of interest mainly to those disaffected Stoics who desperately sought to mask their own morbid fascination with emotionlessness by renaming it "pleasure."

RW: My impression is that you insist on seeing differences between our viewpoints that may not exist, or are at worst minor quibbles. I see no Epicurean point in your insisting that I should seek more intense pleasures or my insisting that you should seek fewer, as long as both of us are living prudently. And certainly no point in suggesting the other is pathologically deviant.

Cassius Amicus: RW I hope you see that my problem is not focused on you but in the fact that the viewpoint you are stating is that of the "orthodox" commentators such as Rist which I cited in the nearby post and with which you appear to agree. Look at how you phrased your last comment - "as long as both of us are living PRUDENTLY....." The test of the goal is whether we are in fact living happily/pleasurably, not prudently or wisely. Yes prudence and wise living are necessary to living happily, but there is no test for prudence and wisdom other than how successfully we achieve pleasurable living. Maybe you think I am splitting hairs but this is the central argument of much of what we know from the texts (Torquatus, Diogenes oinoanda, et. Al) and so it is worth emphasizing. In fact, I would argue that no one who does not understand it really understands the central message of Epicurus. Wisdom and the other "virtues" are desirable only because they lead to pleasurable living, not the other way around.

Peace and Safety to the Epicureans of today, no matter where you might be - Happy Twentieth!

Here's a point on which I sometimes see confusion:

The Epicureans held that the faculty of pleasure and pain given to living things by Nature is the only "real" standard for what is desirable and what is undesirable. In other words, the faculty of pleasure and pain is the only direct contact with reality - the only "sense" - which we have as the basis for knowing what things in life are to be chosen and which are to be avoided. Epicurus went to great lengths to explain how this faculty must be used intelligently, and how we sometimes chose pain, and sometimes avoid pleasure, in order to - over time - achieve greater pleasure or avoid greater pain. But in the end, the key point remains that there is no "real" standard higher than pleasure and pain by which to judge our goals in life. This summary should be plain from the texts, but a good point of reference for this is the Epicurean speaker in Cicero's "On Ends." There, Torquatus says:

Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature. What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance? Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason. Accordingly they declare that the perception that the one is to be sought after and the other avoided is a notion naturally implanted in our minds. Others again, with whom I agree, observing that a great many philosophers do advance a vast array of reasons to prove why pleasure should not be counted as a good nor pain as an evil, consider that we had better not be too confident of our case; in their view it requires elaborate and reasoned argument, and abstruse theoretical discussion of the nature of pleasure and pain. Here's the issue that is potentially confusing: Does the fact that pleasure and pain are our only Natural standard mean that in fact all humans make all decisions based on pleasure and pain? The answer to this question was as obvious to Epicurus as it is obvious to us - of course not!

First let's fill in a gap that many people today have been "educated" to ignore. Epicurus held that humans have "free will" - they are not preprogrammed by Nature or anything else to inflexibly be controlled by their environment, or their genes, or their upbringing. All of these are influential to varying degrees, but Nature has not dictated that men must follow the faculty of pleasure and pain. That's why it is necessary to repeat, as Epicurus did, the truth that freedom of thought is an essential part of the human makeup:

Who, then, is superior in your judgment to such a man? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Fate, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he scorns, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach. It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath that yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honor the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties. Nor does he hold chance to be a god, as the world in general does, for in the acts of a god there is no disorder; nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil. He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.

But whether they choose willfully, or whether in individual cases they feel constrained to do so, many people in fact do NOT in fact identify a life of pleasure as "good," or the avoidance of pain as "bad." Indeed most philosophies, with Stoicism being a prime example, are rooted in the goal of suppressing the idea that pleasure is to be followed, or that pain is to be heeded! Need I mention that religion is fundamentally the same in naming the pursuit of pleasure as an evil? The thread that unifies all of these is that through the manipulation of "reason" or "divine revelation" they seek to substitute some other standard in the place of the standard Nature herself has set.

If you are among those who react with "Life isn't like that!" when you hear that pleasure and pain are the only natural faculties, be assured that Epicurus knew that too, and so much of Epicurean philosophy is geared toward diagnosing and explaining how other factors "beyond" pleasure and pain have come to be substituted for Nature's standard. At the time of Epicurus the dominant view of ethics was derived from "virtue" (for the Stoics) or derived from "ideals" (for Plato) or derived from "essences" (for Aristotle). One of the great benefits of studying Epicurean philosophy is that of learning how the Epicureans ripped these false standards to shreds by pointing out the illusions and errors on which they are based.

So don't for a minute think that Epicurus held that everyone in fact acts all the time according their feelings about pleasure and pain. Epicurus taught that we are born with the goal of living life to use these faculties intelligently to live a life that is both as pleasurable as possible while also as painless as possible - "a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures." As Torquatus said, "Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict."

Yet while all living things are born this way, false philosophy, false religion, and false "culture" easily corrupt and confuse many people as to their proper goal. Against these obstacles we have to fight escape corruption and perversion, and find our way back to the goal of Nature. There is no better leader in that fight, no better guide to that path, than Epicurus.

(the photo for this post comes from the excellent music video "Ode to Lost Joy")

Over time the chart for comparison of Epicurus with Stoicism needs to be expanded to other philosophers. I have set up a template but hardly made any progress beyond that. The template is here and if anyone would like to help, please let me know and I can grant access to the Google Doc.

This page is a work in progress and is in early stages of development! Suggestions are welcomed. Each line is a paraphrase of a line from an ancient text. Cites will be added and each line is being worked into more modern paraphrase, but for the time being cites to the ancient texts for each line can be found at the corresponding location at the NewEpicurean Narrative outline here or the NewEpicurean Fundamentals outline here. At present, the best way to read through the outline is simply to click down each item in the index to the left. Many more hyperlinks will be added in the future. ▸ The Message Of The Epicureans ▸ Epicurus Overcame The Terror Of Religion And Showed Us How To Live According to Nature ▸ The Teachings of Epicurus About Knowledge ▸ Knowledge Is Based On The Senses, Not on Reasoning Alone ▸ Confidence Is Built Step By Step On The Conclusions Established By The Senses ▸ The Teachings of Epicurus About the Nature of the Universe ▸ Nothing Comes From Nothing ▸ Nothing Is Destroyed To Nothing ▸ The Universe As A Whole Has Always Existed, and Will Always Exist ▸ Nothing Has Eternal Independent Existence Except the Elemental Particles ▸ Combinations of Matter and Void Are Perishable And Do Not Last Forever ▸ All That We See Around Us Arises From The Properties And Qualities of Combinations of Particles And Space ▸ The Elemental Particles Are Constantly In Motion ▸ Elemental Particles Have the Capacity To Swerve At No Fixed Place Or Time ▸ The Universe As A Whole Is Boundless ▸ The Universe Is Populated With Life In Other Worlds ▸ In Other Worlds There Are Beings Lower and Higher That Ourselves, Some of Whom Have Attained Immortality and Perfect Happiness ▸ Although We Lack Evidence About The Things We See In The Sky, Many Natural Explanations Are Possible ▸ Knowledge of the Universe Is Gained Naturally, By Intelligent Use of the Images We Receive In the Flow of Elemental Particles ▸ The False Threat Posed By Religion ▸ The Teachings of Epicurus About Nature's Goal For All Life ▸ Life Begins When Our Bodies Are Formed And Ends When We Die - Death Is Nothingness To Us ▸ The Goal of All Living Beings Is to Live Pleasurably ▸ Reject The Argument That Pleasure Is Not the Goal of Life Because Pleasure Has No Limit ▸ Reject The Argument That We Should Pursue Virtue Rather Than Pleasure ▸ Nature Calls All Living Beings to Pursue Pleasure Intelligently ▸ Mental Pleasure And Pain Are More Intense Than That of the Body ▸ In Pursuing Pleasure Intelligently Sometimes We Will Choose Pain ▸ "Fate" Does Not Exist - We Have Much Freedom To Choose Our Path In Life ▸ Life Is Desirable So That We May Live Pleasurably ▸ Wise Men Pursue Pleasure Through Reasoning And Not Through Chance ▸ Wise Men Live According To Their Means And Circumstances ▸ Wise Men Embrace Emotion And Do Not Seek To Suppress It ▸ Life Is Short So It Must Be Used Wisely To Maximize Happiness ▸ Store Up Good Memories To Enjoy When Times Are Bad ▸ Treasure Friendship As Essential To Happiness ▸ Treasure Freedom From the Crowd And Proclaim True Philosophy To Those Who Will Listen ▸ Reject the Argument That There Is Single Absolute Justice And A Single Way For All Men To Live ▸ Treasure Your Community Of Friends And Protect It From Those Who Would Harm You ▸ The Epicureans' Great Commission For Life According to Nature

Outline location for current version

Initial version as of 2/7/16:

The students of Epicurus considered him to be a father figure who had left them the most precious of gifts: a true philosophy which allowed them to understand how to live their lives. Key aspects of this philosophy were:

1. Religion is an oppressive and terrorizing weight which prevents mankind from studying and understanding the true ways of Nature.

2. Epicurus' life was devoted to the study of Nature, and this allowed him to discover the laws of Nature which determine what things are possible and what things are not possible.

3. Epicurus' study of the laws of Nature allowed him to see that the fears and anxiety which torment mankind can be fought successfully.

4. Epicurus therefore taught that in order to live successfully, we must see:

A) That the desire for pleasure can be satisfied, and the fear of pain can be extinguished, if we consider our natural capacities and limits as human beings. Once we understand these capacities and limits for desire and fear, we are able to see that it is possible to achieve a life of continuous pleasure in which pleasure is maximized and pain is minimized.

B) That there is in fact a highest good toward which all should strive, and it is happiness. If happiness be present, we have everything; if happiness be absent, all our actions are directed toward attaining it.

C) That Nature provides to all living things a faculty of pleasure and pain by which to assess happiness. This faculty of pleasure and pain is the ultimate guide of life by which we must intelligently decide what we should choose and what we should avoid.

D) That evil in life arises by our own actions, or by force of Nature, or by chance, and not by the actions of gods.

E) That the most reliable way to maximize pleasure and at the same time to minimize pain over our lifetimes is to study and apply the lessons of Nature so that we can better decide what to choose and what to avoid.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References:

Lucretrius Book III

THEE, who first was able amid such thick darkness to raise on high so bright a beacon and shed a light on the true interests of life, thee I follow, glory of the Greek race, and plant now my footsteps firmly fixed in thy imprinted marks, not so much from a desire to rival thee as that from the love I bear thee I yearn to imitate thee; for why need the swallow contend with swans, or what likeness is there between the feats of racing performed by kids with tottering limbs and by the powerful strength of the horse? Thou, father, art discoverer of things, thou furnishest us with fatherly precepts, and like as bees sip of all things in the flowery lawns, we, o glorious being, in like manner feed from out thy pages upon all the golden maxims, golden I say, most worthy ever of endless life. For soon as thy philosophy issuing from a godlike intellect has begun with loud voice to proclaim the nature of things, the terrors of the mind are dispelled, the walls of the world part asunder, I see things in operation throughout the whole void: the divinity of the gods is revealed and their tranquil abodes which neither winds do shake nor clouds drench with rains nor snow congealed by sharp frosts harms with hoary fall: an ever-cloudless ether overcanopies them, and they laugh with light shed largely round. (Munro translation)

Lucretius, Book I:

At a time when humanity lay prostrate upon the Earth, crushed down under the weight of religion, it was Epicurus - a man of Hellas - who first dared to lift up his mortal eyes and stand up - face to face - this hideous threat scowling down from heaven upon men. Epicurus was not discouraged by the fables about the gods, or by thunderbolts, or by any of the threatening roar of heaven. These served only to spur him on, filling him with courage and the desire to be the first among men to burst the bars holding tight the gates of knowledge about Nature. Thus the living force of his soul won the day, and through mind and spirit Epicurus traversed the immeasurable universe, far beyond the flaming walls of the world, and returned again to us - a conqueror - to relate those things that can be, and those that can not, and to tell us on what principle each thing has its powers defined - its boundary-mark set deep. By his victory Epicurus trampled the terror of religion underfoot, and in turn lifted up to the stars those who follow his example.***

Epicurus then looked around him and saw that mortals had attained those things which their needs required, that their lives had been established in safety, and that they abounded in wealth and honor and fame, and were proud of the good names of their children. Yet Epicurus also saw that despite this, the hearts of men were filled with anguish, and all lived with tortured minds, without respite, and raging with complaints. And then he understood that it was a false understanding of Nature that wrought the disease that corrupted the vessel of life and tainted all that was gathered within it, and that this false view of life rendered the vessel so leaky and full of holes that it could never be filled.***

So with words of truth Epicurus purged the hearts of men, showing the limits to desires and fears, explaining the truth about the highest good toward which we all should strive, and pointing out the path whereby we may work toward that goal on a straight course. He explained the nature of evil in mortal affairs, and that these evils come to pass by chance, or by force of Nature, rather than by the will of the gods. Epicurus then showed us from what gates we must march forth to combat each of these evils, proving to us that it is mostly in vain that we toss our hearts in gloomy billows of care. For just as children tremble and fear everything in the dark, so do we - even in the light - dread things that are not a bit more to be feared than the imagination of children. These terrors and darknesses of mind must be dispelled, but not by gleaming shafts of daylight. Terrors such as these can only be scattered by study of the laws of Nature.

***

And so Epicurus taught us to grasp the principles of things above, the principles by which the sun and moon go on their courses, and the forces by which every thing on Earth proceeds. And he taught that above all we must find out by keen reasoning the nature of the soul and of the mind, and the nature of those things that frighten us when we are under the influence of disease, or buried in sleep, or when we seem to see or hear those who are long dead, and whose bones the Earth holds in its embrace. ***

Letter to Menoeceus:

So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.

...Therefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing.

Principal Doctrine 3:

The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.

Principal Doctrine 4:

Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.

Principal Doctrine 9:

If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another.

Principal Doctrine 11:

If we were not troubled by our suspicions of the phenomena of the sky and about death, fearing that it concerns us, and also by our failure to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we should have no need of natural science.

Principal Doctrine 18:

The pleasure in the flesh is not increased, when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.

Principal Doctrine 19:

Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures by reason the limits of pleasure.

Principal Doctrine 20:

The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited, and unlimited time is required to supply it. But the mind, having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come, supplies us with the complete life, and we have no further need of infinite time: but neither does the mind shun pleasure, nor, when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short in any way of the best life.

Principal Doctrine 21:

He who has learned the limits of life knows that that which removes the pain due to want and makes the whole of life complete is easy to obtain, so that there is no need of actions which involve competition.

Boris Nikolsky - Epicurus on Pleasure

Thanks for the kind words about the forum, and Welcome to the most conscientious observer of the Twentieth that I know!