Posts by Cassius

Michael Carteron

March 5 at 5:19pm

In regards to Epicurean justice it is said that the harm of injustice only comes from the fear criminals feel at getting caught. Yet the philosophy acknowledges pain is bad as a core principle. So how is the harm of the various crimes (mental, physical, both) not also a part of injustice (a much greater one, in fact, as many criminals do not appear to fear their getting caught-sometimes reasonably)? Correct me if I have been mistaken about any aspect of Epicureanism.

LikeLike

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

4Jason Baker, Alexander Rios and 2 others

Comments

Cassius Amicus (1) "Yet the philosophy acknowledges pain is bad as a core principle." Pain is "bad," but it is sometimes / frequently chosen in order to ward off more pain or to experience greater pleasure. That applies not only to you but to other people.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:41pm

Michael Carteron Yes, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:19pm

Write a reply...

Hiram Crespo I Dont think the harm ONLY comes from fear of apprehension. There are other harms. Injustice is disadvantage. So depending on the kind of advantage that one has given up, one pays another price. One may have given up the feeling of safety or an important friendship.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 5:45pm

Michael Carteron Definitely.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:19pm

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus (2) While pain is "bad" and pleasure is "good" that does not mean that (a) your own pleasure and pain and (b) the pleasure and pain of your friends and (c) the pleasure and pain of strangers and (d) the pleasure and pain of enemies are all on the same level of relevance to you. In the absence of a supernatural creator and/or an absolute justice that links you, then I would think that your relationship with other people is governed mainly by the specific circumstances of those relationships and how those relationships affect yourself and your friends. There is no one in heaven keeping score, and no scorecard at all to add up at death who 'wins" and who "loses" to determine what is "fair."
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:45pm

Michael Carteron Sure. The pain to you, friends and strangers can all be factors that it seems would make injustice bad.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:20pm

Cassius Amicus But injustice is not bad IN ITSELF- only in its effects - PD34 is very explicit: "Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions."
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:01pm

Michael Carteron My point is that those effects include other things, which I laid out.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:02pm

Cassius Amicus Well certainly if you feel bad because of the pain you inflict, that is part of the equation, but that is very subjective and as you point out - most people don't feel bad in some situations, and some people NEVER feel bad about inflicting pain.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:04pm

Michael Carteron That's not what I'm suggesting.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:05pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Cassius Amicus " (a much greater one, in fact, as many criminals do not appear to fear their getting caught-sometimes reasonably)" << I think this is the part where the main difficulty comes in as the implication here is that this is"unfair." Again, given the absence of a supernatural judge or referee evening out the score at the end, it is entirely possible (but not likely) for a reprobate to live successfully, and if he does, then he does, and there is no "justice" which evens the scales at the end of the day.


Edit: "Evening the score" is "our" job - the job of those who are effected by the reprobate, and if they don't do it, the score doesn't get evened.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 5:50pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I'm not disputing that, just the specifics of what makes an injustice bad.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 6:20pm

Cassius Amicus in Epicurean philosoohy nothing makes it bad except the consequences: "Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which attaches to the apprehension of being unable to escape those appointed to punish such actions."
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:02pm

Michael Carteron I know, it's just there are consequences besides what the Principle Doctrines says it seems.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:03pm

Cassius Amicus Like a lot of other aspects, I think that Epicurus presumes that we keep the basics in mind as we get to the particular cases. And the basics ALWAYS IS: VS72 - "Every desire must be confronted by this question: what will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished and what if it is not?" If you always keep that in mind then you have all the bases covered
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:05pm

Michael Carteron I don't disagree with that, but I'm not sure how what I've said doesn't jibe with it.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:07pm

Cassius Amicus I think if you combine VS72 with PD34 you're totally in sync with it.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 7:14pm

Michael Carteron Okay.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:15pm

Write a reply...

Ilkka Vuoristo When we are talking about the Principal Doctrines, we need to remember that they are the condensed core of Epicurean Philosophy, and leave out much of the meat around the bones.


In the case of PD 34 the context is that the injustice is bad for the _offender_ because they can never be sure that they will not get caught. This fear will prevent the pleasant life that is the goal. (In real life it's possible that they are never caught, but the fear remains.)


For the _victims_ injustice is bad in other ways (physical and mental harm, loss of necessary property, etc.).


There is another aspect of justice that isn't specifically mentioned in the PDs: self-defense and the catching of offenders are _virtues_ in Epicurean Philosophy. Passively enduring crimes isn't conducive to a pleasant life either...
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 7:45pm

Hide 20 Replies

Michael Carteron I figured it would be considered bad for victims too, but that's not mentioned, hence the post.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:47pm

Ilkka Vuoristo The strongest motivation is always an internal one ("this thing is good for me. That thing is bad for me.") This applies to justice as well as to eating. In effect Epicurus is saying: don't be a criminal, because you're hurting yourself, too.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 7:52pm

Michael Carteron Well yes, that is often the case, but it's incomplete.
Like · Reply · March 5 at 7:54pm

Ilkka Vuoristo Welcome to the hunt for the lost pieces of Epicurean Philosophy!

Epicurus wrote at least two books on justice (Of Just Dealing, Of Justice and the other Virtues), which we no longer have access to. It's probable that your question was answered there.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:22pm

Michael Carteron Yes, very sad so many ancient texts have been lost. I'd be very surprised if he didn't include these as part of injustice.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 8:24pm · Edited

Andrew Wright Has anyone attempted to write these in modern times using Epicurus' ideas and ideals as a foundation?


I believe deeply in acting for a more just world. I believe there are injustices that hack away at our humanity, but that don't directly impact me in my white, middle class, male position. I don't believe I should turn away/ignore these even though acting will not necessarily bring greater pleasure to me, and could cause greater pain.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:47pm

Michael Carteron A good question. I'd be interested to hear the more experienced Epicureans' views.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:49pm

Ilkka Vuoristo What are you referring to with "these", Andrew?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:54pm

Andrew Wright By "these" I mean, has anyone had a go at recreating, or just setting out to fill the gaps you refer to, the lost works.


Sorry, now I re-read it, it's clearly ambiguous.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 8:55pm

Ilkka Vuoristo Yes, many of us are trying to fill the gaps by extrapolating from what we know from all the surviving sources and from what seems reasonable to have been the Epicurean position. I certainly don't have the hubris to try and re-create the actual works...


This group is one of those efforts.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 5 at 9:01pm

Cassius Amicus "I believe deeply in acting for a more just world. I believe there are injustices that hack away at our humanity, but that don't directly impact me in my white, middle class, male position. I don't believe I should turn away/ignore these even though acting will not necessarily bring greater pleasure to me, and could cause greater pain." <<< This recalls a debate we used to have several years ago about how to integrate the "live unknown" and other more complete texts that advise against a life in politics. Some take a strong view that it's not Epicurean to get involved in the community at all, but I take the other side, and I think that for the reasons you state (you get mental pleasure from acting, and pain from not acting) that one can easily justify many types of community involvement.


My standard example is Cassius Longinus who clearly knew his Epicurean philosophy and still (or even because of it) helped lead one of the sides in the Roman civil war. But I also think it is key that it is realistic to take action on the issue that brings the mental pleasure and pain. Unrealistic abstract logical constructs or other mental fantasies would seem to be definitely against the Epicurean view. For example we today can visit Pompeii and feel sorry for all the people who died in the eruption of Vesuvius, but should we spend our lives trying to develop a time machine to go back before the eruption help them? Very poor example, but unrealistic goals of any kind are not going to be productive of happy living. (Of course if we were some quantum theorist who had made actual progress with a time machine, then maybe that would make sense....)


And since we've been talking about justice, what if no one works to enforce the law and keep criminals from running over other people at will?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 9:57pm · Edited

Michael Carteron Good point. Apparently the historians debate how much Cassius's Epicureanism affected his politics however.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:04pm

Cassius Amicus Yes apparently they do, for the same reasons those issues are debated today. And yet it is clear from Cassius' letters with CIcero that Cassius understood Epicurus well enough to debate one of the most educated philosophers (or pseudo philosophers) of his day (Cicero) and that Cassius understood the issue of living for virtue vs living for pleasure, and that Cassius had read Catius and would have had access to the leading Epicurean authorities. So I will put my money on Cassius understanding Epicurus rather than putting my money on the modern commentators who live and breath stoic/ religious / anti-Epicurean views and read nothing but fragments
Like · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:17pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I shall take your word for it. Many of the historians I've read who mentioned Epicureanism say things which clash with the original material you've shown, to be sure. I wonder why-don't historians read things anymore?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 10:18pm

Jason Baker Michael Carteron They do, but historiography has shown that narrative building is more important than integration of all information available. We have a strong desire for narratives, they're important to our identity. We're trying to reweave one here from the disparate threads cut and scattered to the winds so long ago by historians who wanted to erase Epicurus from history.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:16pm

Michael Carteron What use is a narrative if it ignores facts?
Like · Reply · March 5 at 11:18pm

Ilkka Vuoristo None. It's propaganda. (I think all of it begins with the false idea that pleasure is evil. After that all the facts in the world can't save people from error.)
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 5 at 11:24pm · Edited

Michael Carteron I wonder how this idea developed.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 5 at 11:25pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Michael Carteron a question for the ages....
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 6:57am

Hiram Crespo I think it has many roots. platonism (which Michel Onfray calls "the great neurosis at the heart of Western civilization) had a hand in promoting it because it does not want us to trust our bodies and our faculties and our instincts. Plato is an attempt to deny our real (animal) nature, it is anti natural. But also I think many people with repressed libido (the kind that head the churches today) have always held positions of power in prominent schools and written theology in lonely monasteries and have done their best to poison the pleasure of everyone else by calling it evil because they resent their own inability or unwillingness (perhaps due to abuse or mental health issues) to enjoy delights. This is one of the Nietzschean explanations. I think there may be other roots to this problem but here are two main ones.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 6 at 8:25am · Edited

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa I read comments here again of some persons that insist that there are gaps that occcured by the missing works of Epicurus and the Epicureans. But this happens because they do not see the Epicurean philosophy as a whole !


There are not gaps in the Epicurean philosophy if you connect the physics, the ethics and the Canon and see our philosophy as a whole !

Specially with the usage of the Epicurean Canon and the method of the analogy we have not any gaps on any issues that are not obvious or obvious in our era too..


On the issue of justice :

Examine the meaning of the words that are based on your prolepsis (preconceptions or anticipations) and your experiences to realize what usually happens to the just persons and what happens to the unjust persons. Remember when you were a child and you were playing games with some children who made tricks against the rules of the game, as their desire was to gain unjustly. Remember on how the rest children put them out of the game. Because that was something that did not pleased the whole team. These were some exersices/experiences to put us in mind that that Epicurus said as "prolepsis".


The procedure of the Canon within we can use in all the issues of our life is this :

Use your senses to examine carefully the General Picture, remember your prolepsis what brought to you pleasure and what pain.

then examine carefully the parts,

then synthesize the parts to give you at least the same General Picture. and finally use your prudence to measure again among pleasure and pain for now and then.


After this, a question on the General Picture arises : How many criminal personalities have been escaped from the punishment ? Is there any criminal to not be found never ? Has ever been exist that is called "the perfect murder ?

The statistics on criminal actions show to us definetely that are few those that can be escape. But as they are few PARTS do not synthesize the General Picture.

Did you measure properly among pleasure and pain ? Is any criminal personality to not be troubled, agitated and in pains ? IMO no, thrice NO !

"Crime and Punishment" is a good novel written by Fyodor Dostoyevsky to read shades of the inner psychological situation of a person who made a criminal action.

Thanks.

Boris Nikolsky - Epicurus on Pleasure

Boris Nikolsky - Epicurus on Pleasure - ABSTRACT: The paper deals with the question of the attribution to Epicurus of the classification of pleasures into 'kinetic' and 'static'. This classification, usually regarded as authentic, confronts us with a number of problems and contradictions. Besides, it is only mentioned in a few sources that are not the most reliable. Following Gosling and Taylor, I believe that the authenticity of the classification may be called in question.

The analysis of the ancient evidence concerning Epicurus' concept of pleasure is made according to the following principle: first, I consider the sources that do not mention the distinction between 'kinetic' and 'static' pleasures, and only then do I compare them with the other group of texts which comprises reports by Cicero, Diogenes Laertius and Athenaeus. From the former group of texts there emerges a concept of pleasure as a single and not twofold notion, while such terms as 'motion' and 'state' describe not two different phenomena but only two characteristics of the same phenomenon. On the other hand, the reports comprising the latter group appear to derive from one and the same doxographical tradition, and to be connected with the classification of ethical doctrines put forward by the Middle Academy and known as the divisio Carneadea. In conclusion, I argue that the idea of Epicurus' classification of pleasures is based on a misinterpretation of Epicurus' concept in Academic doxography, which tended to contrapose it to doctrines of other schools, above all to the Cyrenaics' views.

Shana HT March 6 at 5:35pm

How do you use Epicurian philosophy? How do you apy it to difficult situatuon? Any examples?

For instance, my kids are now ripping the cushions of my expensive leather sofa. They are little, I tried to explain, but they think its hillarious, as they found a hidden zipper.

Jason Baker It has been my experience that wanting nice furniture when having children or animals is a desire that will lead to suffering. My wife and I have leather furniture too. Two sofas, a loveseat and chair, all bought before we had dogs. All of them are dog seats now except for the chair which is too small for either dog to find it comfortable. Buying dog beds didn't help and we didn't have the willpower to keep them off the furniture. We now have covers for them when company comes over. What can you do, besides train them from the get-go to not be destructive?

Alexander Rios As Epicurus said: "Do not desire the impossible."

Jason Baker "If you want Pythocles to have nice furniture, do not give him children or animals..."

Cassius Amicus Same with cats.....

Shana HT so dont desire and youll be happy? so how do I stop desiring?

Cassius Amicus

Cassius Amicus This is probably a case where the desire is impossible to achieve, such as to live forever and never die, and those have to be recognized as impossible

Jason Baker Desiring luxury furniture when your living circumstances don't allow for it is an unnatural and unnecessary desire. You're setting yourself up for failure by pursuing it anyway.

I've put the desire for nice furniture away for when I no longer have any pets, since punishing them retroactively by limiting their access now is cruel. Once my circumstances allow for it, I'll likely refurnish my living room. Until then, my dogs bring me more joy than my formerly nice couches do.

I don't need nice furniture to be happy, the fact that I don't have nice furniture now is a small price to pay for cohabiting with little monsters.

Alexander Rios Ha! Seriously though. You are harmed by their actions? Rightfully so, because you have finite resources to share with them, and so if they spend their resources on this zipper exploration, you'll all have less resources for future situations. Think about the consequences of these current actions on future freedom, to enjoy. Money misspent here, means less money to have for future fun, and future needs.

Mish Taylor The kids, cats and dogs are more important than than the sofa's. There will come a time when you are glad to see the back of your sofa's, that won't (or shouldn't) be the case for the kids, cats & dogs.

Jason Baker Absolutely! Every animal I've had to bury has brought me to my knees with tears. Not so my furniture! Commodity items can be easily replaced.

Joe Balbontin Jr I agree with Jason Baker. Living things have far more importance than non-living things.

Mish Taylor Loose covers until they grow out of messing with the zip, or, alternatively, get the kids a zip each of their own and utilize it as a learning tool. As with all minor annoyances, this phase will pass. I had a relative who kept her new sofa covered in a clear plastic cover for protection, it looked silly and was terrible to sit on.

Shana HT I was hoping for a general idea of how to apply the philosophy...

I've pretty much decided the sofa is just their toy now and the destruction a measure of their enjoyment

Alexander Rios Distract them. Tell them an Epicurean story. Tell them that they can tear it apart, but that the eternal elementary particles will never be destroyed, and they will always reside in our universe. Tell them that the wood particles will be eaten and dispersed by the wood eating insects and bacteria, and decomposed to molecules and carried far away by the birds who eat those. Some might fall, by poop, into rivers and be carried away to oceans, some will feed fish, who feed people, and that maybe their grandchildren will eat some of those molecules one day. Tell them that one day, the sun will vaporize the steel in the zipper, but that those chemical atoms (iron and carbon) will still exist, until our Sun falls into a giant star that explodes by supernova, fusing those into heavier chemical atoms, until one day a black hole tears those chemical atoms into quarks, leptons and photons. But that no matter what, they do to the sofa, those elementary particles will exist.

Alexander Rios How old are your children? What ages?

Cassius Amicus But these examples do illustrate the general rule. I suspect we're not communicating if you think otherwise. What do you think is missing and we can answer further?

Cassius Amicus Shana HT given your comments earlier I think it would be helpful to say this: One of the BIG differerences between Epicurean philosophy and what you are probably reading in modern stoicism is that you are probably presuming that both of them are telling you that the goal is to be happy and thus they are going to show you how to live happily.

That may or may not be true as to modern stoicism (I know there are those who take the traditional stoic route, and say that the goal is not to be happy but to be virtuous). Some will then say that happiness comes as a byproduct of virtue, but that is where you begin to see the lack of clarity, because that is not at all what the ancient stoics who started the philosophy said. They followed their logic consistently to conclude that the goal of life was to be virtuous, and happiness (especially pleasure of any kind) was essentially a distraction, acceptable only if it does not get in the way of virtue.

Epicurean philosophy is all about establishing from the beginning what the goal of life is. It starts with specific observations about the nature of the universe (atoms, void, nothing comes from nothing, nothing goes to nothing, eternal and infinite universe). It them explains to you how these observations lead one to conclude that the universe is not supernatural, and that you are not bound by fate or determinism - that you have at least some control over your own life (at least if you are a normal healthy person) and that you should have no fear of death because there is no life after death. [All of these conclusions are very different from traditional Stoicism.]

Epicurean philosophy explains these physics to you by showing you why abstract logic and religion are not the key to knowledge, and that knowledge does exist, but that it must be established through the faculties given you by nature - the five senses , the "anticipations" and the sense of pain and pleasure. It is through this course (the Epicurean canon) that you learn to see that abstract logic not based on firm evidence of the senses is dangerous, and that all true reasoning must be based on the reality revealed to you through these three faculties.

Finally there is of course an ethics based on these observations, and this is the conclusion that pleasure is the guide of life, with all questions to be answered by projecting what will happen as a result of any choice, with all selections evaluated by whether they will lead to more pleasure or more pain. The sum of Epicurean ethics is really not much more complicated than that, with all the subtleties simply being extensions of this one general principle.

Epicurus held that this system provides confidence and is not open to being accused of being an arbitrary assertion - being based every step of the way on evidence that Epicureans contend is compelling. And Epicurus provided specific responses to Platonic and other attacks on the idea that pleasure can be the guide of life, which is where the details about limits of pleasure, purity of pleasure, oneness of pleasure, absence of pain, etc. all come into play. Those are details and responses to specific philosophical issues, and they in no way contradict the central point that pleasure is the guide of life.

So when you ask about applications, we can definitely give answers, but the context of the question is vastly different between Epicurean and Stoic and other philosophers. Epicureans insist that living happily means living pleasurably. Other philosophies, even modern stoicism in the hands of those who follow the Stoics, have a much different definition of living happily. Epicureans would generally contend that those non-Epicurean definitions of the goal of life are confusing at best and disastrous at worst.

Ron Warrick I would also like to know how the Stoics can make the claim that they are living in accordance with nature. That seems to me to just not fit with anything else in the philosophy.

Cassius Amicus It appears to me Ron that they are, like Donald Robertson, defining Nature as the source of the call to excellence/virtue, so they say they are living in accord with nature by pursuing excellence/virtue. (The old stoics were much more clear that this is divinity - I gather the modern stoics prefer to hedge on that.) And thus the epistemological question of how we know what excellence is. That's why Nietzsche's quote hits home:

"You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima."

Ron Warrick Cassius Amicus Exactly.

Ron Warrick Convert to stoicism. 1f603.png:-D

Matt Jackson Disciplne? Lol

Theo Kouk yeap a leather couch is an unnecessary desire. let them rip up leather 1f603.png:D

Cassius Amicus Don't take this as being disagreeable, Theo, but your use of the "smiley" after the categorization of the leather couch as "unnecessary" is I think a very good example of how we have to be careful with the natural/necessary categories. Yes they are helpful, but they do not immediately lead to a conclusion on their own. They *help* us think about the quantity of pleasure and pain that we can expect to occur from a choice regarding the couch, but they only *help* - they do not answer the question fully at all. Labelling the couch as unnecessary is perhaps the start of an analysis, it is definitely not the end. There are many circumstances which might make it worthwhile to secure a particular couch from damage even from our most beloved children or pets - perhaps it has some huge market value that itself would secure the future material well-being of the children and pets, which otherwise would be jeopardized. I gather Shana HT is looking for some very specific rules on how to proceed (she comes from stoicism, after all!) so i would not want her to think that the natural/necessary categories take precedence over the general calculation of pleasure vs pain that has to take place in evaluating every decision. We can remind her what the goal of life is, and we can suggest some "rules of thumb" but it is very hard to tell specific people at specific times how they should resolve their own calculations.

ADMIN EDIT: There is a lot of material on this topic buried within the "School of Athens" subforum, but the topic is broader than the fresco so we need another place to cover all the facets of the question of knowledge of the true face of Epicurus. We can start with the obvious statement that those who knew him knew what he looked like, and it appears that numerous representations of his face were produced in antiquity and were reproduced for at least several hundred years. We also know that a small version of his appearance inscribed "Epicurus" was found in the Herculaenum digs. We can also presume that not all of the ancient representations of Epicurus perished over the years, but that is much harder to trace and would be the purpose of this thread. We also have to deal with the fact that artists in England or France or right down the street in Rome might choose to portray Epicurus in a speculative way, even though a bust with his name on it might have existed in some other place but unknown to them. We probably should not also exclude the possibility that some representations of Epicurus were intentionally misrepresented. So this will be the master post in this thread. The article by Takis is HERE How Became Known To Is The Portrait of The Athenian Philosopher Epicurus - Takis Pangiotopoulos.

It seems to me that the several most clear and important leads to pursue are:

1. The inscribed bust from Herculaneum
2. The inscribed herm from Rome (Maria Maggiore)
3. The reference in Frischer of there being a gem or ring inscribe Epicurus
   

Among the main resources by which to pursue these questions are:

1. Takis P's article "How Became Known to Us...."
   
2. Bernard Frischer's Article "On Reconstructing the Portrait of Epicurus"
   
3. Bernard Frischer's Book "The Sculpted Word"
   
4. Bernard Frischer's Article "Semiotics of Epicurus' Portrait"
   
5. Pictures of Busts from Book by Richter
   
6. British Museum page on bust of Epicurus, with extensive notes
   
7. Do we have something on Roman Gems?
   

Cassius Amicus

March 7 at 5:45pm

We recently discussed the location of Epicurus in the famous "School of Athens" artwork, and as part of that discussion it came to light that Takis Panagiotopoulos has produced a lengthy summary of the history of our modern knowledge of the true face of Epicurus. Takis has kindly allowed us to post the PDF in our files section, which I am about to do and will link below. However I want to be sure everyone sees not only the full article, which is excellent, but the attached modern portrait of Epicurus which is featured in the article, by Evi Sarantea. Thank you Takis for bringing all this to our attention!

March 7 at 5:47pm

Takis Panagiotopoulos: "How Became Known To Us The Portrait of The Athenian Philosopher Epicurus"

EPICURUS_BUSTS_2017_en2-TK.pdf
PDF

Cassius Amicushttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…BUCghCc-SyEIDck
Like · Reply · March 7 at 5:48pm

Elli Pensa

March 6 at 4:34pm

For my epicurean friends of here I translated into the English language some pages of the article entitled “Epicurean philosophy or Epicureanism”, by Dimitris Altas a physician cardiologist and member in the Garden of Thessaloniki.

In a recent debate in the Garden of Thessaloniki a question was placed : If the Epicureans could be a political party on the political scene of the country. Our friend George Kaplanis was the first that replied that this could not be done, because the Epicurean philosophy is not an ideology, but philosophy and as philosophy is be or it should be located in the political background itself, as in the same way that philosophy as it is not a science is located in the background of all the sciences .

If philosophy provides at the science the method of research , thus provides to the policy the method of analysis of the political and social affairs and the moral framework of the decisions taken.

The background of the policy of the Newgreek state -and NOT only the New Greek state - is purely idealistic since the dominant religion and the Platonism and the Stoicism which surviving through the religion have a strong influence on the political scene of the country. But the materialist philosophy of Marxism which is affecting the Left part has also strangely mutated in an idealistic ideology.

But from what does the ideology qualifies ? According to Theodosis Pelegrini’s dictionary of the philosophy in the corresponding entry with the word “ideology” generally meant a set of ideas, concepts and positions, operating as a single system, which is displayed as the true picture of the reality. Those who adopt it are required to think and regulate their lives in accordance with it. All ' ISMS' are basically ideologies and are inherently dogmatic and metaphysical i.e, they are based on unproven mental schemata (patterns of thought) which perceive as a reality relegating the material reality at the level of a caricature of these mental schemata.

The ideologies are necessarily causal and teleological. This means that they admit a purpose which necessarily tends the universe, and by extension the society and the human . The purpose has been placed by a Creator or a dire necessity in the sequence of events. As owners of the absolute truth the ideologues do not tolerate and do not discuss the opinion of the others in the sense that if someone is not with us is against us . This is the logic of the black and white of good and evil that flows from the principle of the excluded third of Aristotle. So it is common that the ideologues are using in their confrontations the " wooden " and negative language to sloganeering and give at their opponents characterizations and "signs" that have nothing to do with reality, leading of the demonization of them .

So the frequent outcome of the ideologies and the religions which are also ideologies, is the obsession and the fanaticism, leading to the blind passion and hatred against any claims and opinions different from their own beliefs.

The ideologue simply believes in his chimeras without seeking evidence and documentation for the object of his faith. The result of this attitude of ideologues and their inability to submit events to the suffering of sober calculation and judgment, based on the reality data that are available. They are the same people who become easy victims of propaganda or interests that the ideologies exploit to gain social and political power promoting their selfish purposes.

At the level of politics, the ideologues discounted each real problem of society as an ideological resulting sterile and endless debates with their opponents, so eventually the real problem to drag on, to be forgotten and remain unresolved. (Eg the immigration issue)

Another principle by Aristotle which is also in the background of Modern politics and not just a perception, is the Golden mean or the middle way that someone should choose to resolve issues and avoid extreme judgments. This translated into politics issues, as the tendency to round the things and issues in order to gain common acceptance. Or taking vague positions on the key issues, and requiring groundbreaking solutions. The proposed solutions, usually foggy and long fruitless, to leave ostensibly at least, just to be all the people satisfied. Always follow the consensus and not to go into ruptures. Always take into account in decision making so-called political cost. Ultimately they're doing nothing! Other expressions deriving from the Golden Rule is the non-existent average person, the apolitical middle ground and so on. The decision by that politician Metaxas to dismiss the Italian ultimatum and put Greece in the throes of war was an extreme decision. But how many Greeks would argue that it was a correct decision? But it is true that it would be grossly unjust if Aristotle ascribed to him the apotheosis of mediocrity that characterizes Modern society!

And the Epicurean philosophy? This is not an ideology. There is not Epicurean-ISM. Because this philosophy is neither inspired the Modern politics but often defamed when was not ignored by the spiritual leadership. Never in the Constitution of Greece has provided as the purpose the Wel-Being citizens, as it has provided in the US Constitution. It is true that the Epicurean philosophy has been characterized dogmatic because it rejects apri ori divine intervention in Nature, divine providence and the immortality of the soul. But this conclusion leads after thorough research and observation of Nature. Certainly the Epicurean position is less dogmatic than the position of Plato and the idealists through the centuries of the purely mental constructs and have supported their whole philosophical edifice on unsubstantiated beliefs.

Epicurus said that philosophy is action that serves the happy and pleasurable life. (Sextus Empiricus To Mathematicians XI 169). It is a personal and selfish philosophy. Epicurus is not primarily interested in the society as a whole, but the constituent unit of the person. A persons stripped of titles, social status, sex, material possessions. Epicurus was trying to protect the person towards of his most primordial fears of the gods, natural phenomena and death, but also against the most deadly passion of greed,and his primordial fears that are caused insecurity to the person. A central element of the Epicurean philosophy, helps the person to evaluate his needs with prudence and sober calculation. Enjoying the pleasures that are available to him, and to avoid those that would lead to a greater pain. The friendship is a virtue, but it also has selfish motives and seeks the feeling of personal safety. Beyond the social contract friendship and justice which it imposes between people and ensure the safety living in the wider society.

(to be continued)

LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare

5Jason Baker, Δημήτρης Λιαρμακόπουλος and 3 others

Comments

Elli Pensa https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206767096319065&set=g.646764225372541&type=1&theater

‎Elli Pensa‎ to Epicurean PhilosophyAugust 2, 2015 ·

The Epicurean philosophy does not deal with political ideas. Because ALL the political ideas, as it has been proved for a million of times, are consisting of de...

See More

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 · March 6 at 4:38pm

Ron Warrick An Epicurean (if I may use that term) will probably find that a libertarian or classical liberal party will fit his preferences best).
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 4:51pm

Hide 47 Replies

Panos Alexiou If they already have a lot of money as sure...
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:31am

Panos Alexiou If not, then something that provides safeties such as good healthcare, access to education and work, coverage of basic needs (eg a UBI) community services etc and based on material analysis of society as a natural phenomenon and not as ideology would probably be more appealing.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:33am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou "What is necessary is easy to get." This is more true today than ever, unless one is among those unfortunates who has been raised to believe the world owes them a living. Such people are owed nothing, though they will probably be saved through charity.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:48am

Panos Alexiou I don't know how easy it is to get what is necessary if you don't have a job or healthcare and you get sick, or if you are made to work most of the day in uncertain conditions etc.


I think that any collective decision we make should be based on an ana...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:56am

Elli Pensa Mr Ron Warrick the social contracts with such kind of laws and constitutions is not good to be based on fortuna - fate and the charity ! These are words of the stoical cosmotheory.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 8:57am · Edited

Ron Warrick Elli Pensa Right.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:02am

Panos Alexiou And so as not to be confused, I'm not talking about charity, I'm talking about organized efforts to effectively alleviate real dangers. No one person as strong and individualistically proud they are can save themselves from eg nuclear war. Shouldn't ea...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:02am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I think anyone who is willing to make themselves useful to others will get by. Any disincentives in this regard are likely to lead to societal collapse. At the moment we can see that the Social Security, Medicare, etc. that so many are dependent upon are unsustainable. I shudder to think what will happen politically when this becomes widely apparent. We can already see the war of all against all beginning.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:13am · Edited

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I don't see any collective dangers worth my putting a lot of effort into avoiding, though I do try to avoid the flu. I think classical liberals are as interested in avoiding nuclear war and environmental problems as any collectivist, and more likely to come up with the best response.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:24am · Edited

Elli Pensa The solution would not come from any political party. This is the epicurean perspective based on evidences (historical facts) with all the consequenses.


Doctrine 27. Of all the things which the wise man seeks to acquire to produce the happiness of a complete life, by far the most important is the possession of friendship.


Doctrine 28. The same opinion that encourages us to trust that no evil will be everlasting, or even of long duration, shows us that in the space of life allotted to us the protection of friendship is the most sure and trustworthy.


Doctrine 29. Of the desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural but not necessary, and some are neither natural nor necessary, but owe their existence to vain imagination.


Doctrine 30. In the case of physical desires which require intense effort to attain and do not lead to a sense of pain if they are not fulfilled, such desires are due to idle imagination. It is not because of their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but because of the empty imaginings of the man.


Doctrine 31. Natural justice arises from a covenant between men for their mutual advantage to refrain from harming one another.


Doctrine 32. For those living things that are unable to enter into a covenant to refrain from harming one another, nothing is just or unjust, and this applies also to those men who are either unwilling or unable to enter into such a covenant.


Doctrine 33. Justice has no independent existence, but results only from the agreement of men to enter mutual covenants to refrain from harming one another.


Doctrine 34. Injustice is not evil in itself; it is evil because fear of not escaping punishment necessarily arises from it.


Doctrine 35. It is not possible for men who secretly violate a mutual covenant not to harm one another to believe that they will always escape detection. Even if they have escaped it ten thousand times already, so long as they live they cannot be certain that they will not be detected.


Doctrine 36. In general, justice is the same for all, for justice is a mutual advantage in the dealings of men with each other, but in different nations and under different circumstances, the application of justice may differ.


Doctrine 37. Among those actions which the law sanctions as just, that which is determined to be of mutual advantage is in fact just whether or not it is universally regarded to be so. But if a law, once established, is determined not to be mutually advantageous, then it is by nature unjust. As to those laws which were at first just, but later become unjust, such laws were in fact just for the period in which they were of mutual advantage, at least in the eyes of those who do not confound themselves with empty words, but look to the actual facts.


Doctrine 38. Where actions which were formerly considered to be just under former circumstances are seen not to accord with the general concept of mutual advantage, then they are seen not to have been just. But actions which were in fact of mutual advantage and therefore just at one time under former circumstances, but cease being of mutual advantage under new circumstances, cease also being just.


Doctrine 39. He who desires to live tranquilly without having anything to fear from other men ought to make them his friends. Those whom he cannot make friends he should at least avoid rendering enemies, and if that is not in his power, he should avoid all dealings with them as much as possible, and keep away from them as far as it is in his interest to do so.


Doctrine 40. The happiest men are those who have arrived at the point of having nothing to fear from their neighbors. Such men live with one another most pleasantly, having the firmest grounds of confidence in one another, enjoying the full advantages of friendship, and not lamenting the departure of their dead friends as though they were to be pitied.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:33am

Panos Alexiou You 'think' that everyone will get by. I'll take a wild guess that you've never been in a society that collapses economically as many of us have seen in Greece.


As with the fear of God that is alleviated by knowing nature through natural science, so fear of the large social phenomena can be alleviating by studying social science. We are collectively pretty decent at fighting against natural disasters (eg relief for tsunami victims, building of huge sea walls to keep the Netherlands dry etc) but we don't even want to hear about looking at social phenomena. Because of ideological taboos.


Social security and Medicare are indeed impossible in a classical liberal world because they produce better quality of life and not profit. They cannot exist within this system, and that's why we can't have nice things for all in this system. If your whole world theory is based on profitability I don't see how it can be used to put a break or a steering wheel to where we are heading fast, which is sociatal collapse and war. Pretending nothing is wrong is ideologically soothing, pretending it's the fault of social programs is profitable for some and devastating for the weakest among us.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:33am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa these are all fine if the person that can harm you is at most your next door neighbor or the guy 5 city states away, but how do you reconcile this with me and all my friends losing my job to a robot created to produce more profit?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:36am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I'm not familiar with the situation in Greece, but my impression is that the government made economic decisions that no government is qualified to make. The same has happened here, and similar problems will eventually happen here.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:37am

Panos Alexiou The government, the banks, the people in power, the owners, put it any way you want. The economic decision they shouldn't have made was to take part in the farce of the world financial system, bailing out banks and following orders from international economic vultures such as the IMF. But of course this is not a realistic choice since it would create more pain to the people because these vultures are strong and love punishing anyone that tries to keep them far away for their own safety.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:43am

Panos Alexiou My point here being that you personally can do everything right and try to be safe but since we are forced in this specific ruleset we are going to suffer as the rich play their game. We have a little power to change the ruleset maybe we should try and do it. And that's all politics boil down to imo.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:45am

Elli Pensa The problem is not in a robot. my friend Παναγιώτης. And 10 million robots to be constructed the human brain can't be changed to be opened seing with prudence the reality and where are the chances to grasb these chances. It is sad that there are not many resourceful Odysseus to construct a Trojan horse again.The system as you say has its weak points. Find them with your friends.

Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:46am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou As I understand it, you are free to move anywhere in the EU where things might be better for you. With your excellent knowledge of English, I would think you could make a living. Of course it is hard to leave one's homeland.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:48am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa the resourceful Odysseus that finds the magic solution needs the thousands of poor dead soldiers that were dragged to Troy without having a say.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:49am

Elli Pensa I am unemployed too Παναγιώτης but I do not growl saying around that a fantastic system is false. I do not recognize any system ! This is a closed thing and the Nature is vast opened. There are many causes that provoke many effects too. This is not chaotic, this is to understand that you have many options to chose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Αλεξίου That's life my friend !
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:50am

Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick I've already emigrated to the US. It's actually my 3rd time moving to a foreign country. But I don't think I can always outrun the collapse. I move and I see the same thing happening around me.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:50am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou You will be fine. You would be better off if the governments did not tax you and throw the money away on useless things. Yes, we are in the process of destroying the system of liberty that produced the standard of living we have (or had).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:53am

Panos Alexiou I would rather pay more taxes and have a safety net personally. Liberty didn't get you the standard of living, being the sole country not destroyed by world war and being the financial hub of half the world did. Empire is a dangerous game!
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:55am

Panos Alexiou On that note, I need to get back to working for that Yankee dollar, so I'll talk to you all later. Enjoy and be safe.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 9:55am

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou I didn't mean just the US. I meant Western civilization generally.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:56am

Elli Pensa I hope this collapse would be the collapse of any ISM of every political system that has not any solution. It is in our hands to know each other better and with much more attention. I posted somewhere this. And this is my solution too. https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1246761308706160/
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:59am · Edited

Ron Warrick Panos Alexiou If you could have kept the money you paid in taxes, I'm sure you'd be ahead of the game.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:57am

Panos Alexiou Ron Warrick not really... My most important asset which has kept me ahead of the game is my education. Which was given to me free in Europe. I've used this education opportunity to work. My parents could have never afforded the US system for example....See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:01am

Robert Stock I am learning about the Epicurean philosophy and am a member of the Libertarian Party USA. I see no contradiction. Although most Libertarians I know follow Objectivism. There is also a large group of Christian believers. I am not aware of Epicurean philosophy being promoted by Libertarians.


For those who think only the wealthy are members of the Libertarian Party. I am relatively poor for an American. I make between 18 to 20 thousand dollars a year. I am happy with what I have. To make more money than that would bring stress and headaches that would diminish my tranquility.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 7 at 10:13am · Edited

Panos Alexiou I don't see a contradiction either, I just don't think it's the most closely fitting ideology beyond the surface.


There's definitely an anarcho- thread running through epicurean teachings, but the part that comes after the dash is the most important one...
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:07am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης where do you see anarcho-thread in friendship as a mean, where do you see in prudence, and where do you see anarchia in the pleasure as a goal ??? This is natural things and issues to consider, I suppose.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:11am

Elli Pensa Mr Robert Stock The more you study carefully the epicurean philosophy so much more you will find contradiction with any political Party that exist in your country too.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:19am

Robert Stock Elli Pensa I am continuing my studies. I enjoy politics but realize that politics is not the way to bring individuals happiness.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:25am

Panos Alexiou Elli I find the thread in the 'no baseless authority' that is at the base of every anarchism. Also at the autonomist and self reliant aspects of the philosophy which fit pretty well with most anarchisms.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 10:25am

Panos Alexiou Robert Stock agreed, politics imo is a necessary evil that has to do more with protection from some pain rather than bringing happiness. Politics is the fence that allows breathing space to cultivate your plot of happiness.
Like · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 10:27am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης No, there was not anarchy inside the Garden. Maybe you did not study "the frankness of speech" by Philodemus. There were rules inside the garden, and they were persons that placed and some rules. There was respect to the older friends from t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 11:00am · Edited

Cassius Amicus Robert Stock for a fan of Rand who is into Epicurus check here -https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…RxGASd54Jg40paA and there are a couple of other similar resources
Nietzsche, Rand, and the Ethics of the Great Task
This essay traces a trajectory of ethical thought from Epicurus through Friedrich Nietzsche to Ayn Rand. Nietzsche originally celebrated Epicureanism as a form of refined heroism but subsequently repudiated Epicurus for being overly concerned with mere happiness. Out of Nietzsche's turn away from Ep...
STPETER.IM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 7 at 11:29am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa I believe you are not very familiar with what anarchy entails. It's not 'no order' it is 'no order without a practical reason for it to be there'. For example, 'I'm accepting the doctors authority to tell me what medicine to take because I accept that they know better how my disease works' but I don't need to have some random authority figure such as a politician, a priest, a king, a boss etc what to do because I don't believe they do know better. When it comes to them, they have to use force to impose their authority (do this or else ...)


It's a misconception that anarchy advocates for 'no rules at all'. In reality it advocates for no rules without a real reason for them to exist. And here you may see the similarity of using method/canon to identify DEMOCRATICALLY what rules/authorities are useful within each community as a debated and decided social contract. This is the thread that I see running through both philosophies/ideologies.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:43am

Panos Alexiou For example in this here group people listen more to the people that have read more, the kathegemones as you say. And they do exactly because they know more. But if you made a rule that said 'every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them' then you would have created an authority without practical base which in my opinion would be illegitimate.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 11:45am

Robert Stock Cassius Amicus thank you for the link to the article. It is very helpful. I am finding Epicurus superior to Rand. Rand's disdain for emotion was always troubling to me. Since human emotions are part of human biology isn't repressing emotions denying re...See More
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:14pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Frankly, I do not understand the meaning of your phrase : "every member needs to defer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them"

Do you mean to refer to the knowledge of everyone that joined before them ??
Like · Reply · March 7 at 12:10pm

Panos Alexiou Yes Elli Pensa I will write the same in Greek if its easier.


Η αναρχία δεν έχει να κάνει με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή, αλλά με το να μην υπάρχει καμία αρχή χωρίς πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης. Δηλαδή πχ. εδώ μέσα αποδεχόμαστε την γνώμη κάποιων μελών περισσ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:30pm

Elli Pensa Στην ουσία δεν διαφωνούμε Παναγιώτη καλέ μου φίλε. Εκεί που λες αρχή δίχως πρακτικό λόγο ύπαρξης συμφωνούμε απόλυτα. Αρχή στην επικούρεια φιλοσοφία είναι ο σοφός Επίκουρος που με τη φιλοσοφία του μας λυτρώνει από τους φόβους και τα καταστροφικά πάθη τ...See MoreSee Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 12:47pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Read this phrase to see what were the greeks during the Roman empire: HUMBLES. <<A humble Greek instructing a powerful Roman aristocrat may pose ticklish problems in a hierarchical society>>. ====> For this I hate this word. "Humble" becaus...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:08pm

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa agreed, I don't think we disagree either. I was more trying to expand on the ideology/philosophy of anarcho- things and how they fit within epicurean thought and not the other way around.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:17pm

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Do you agree with my opinion that Epicurean philosophy is false to be called as Epicurean-ISM ??
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:22pm

Panos Alexiou In the same way that I don't think there should be a Marx-ism but Marxi-an economics or not Darwinism but Darwinian evolutionary theory, yes I agree. Meaning that framing something as an open system that studies phenomena scientifically. I would not as...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 1:33pm

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Are those persons of this political party talking about Epicurus and his philosophy ? If yes, how many of them know about the epicurean philosophy and what is their real goal ?? Do you know many of them in person Mr. Ron Warrick ???
Like · Reply · March 6 at 5:37pm

Ron Warrick Unfortunately I do not know any personally. But you can see the party philosophy here: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%…hPm9Q5HWXssO3t4

2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign…
LP.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · March 7 at 9:45am

Panos Alexiou Elli Pensa in Greece that party is led by one Tzimeros and is pretty small (less than 1%). Libertarians within bigger parties are Andrianopoulos, Stefanos Manos, and to a smaller extent the Mitsotakis clan (Bakoyanni, Kyriakos etc).
Like · Reply · March 7 at 10:05am

Elli Pensa Παναγιώτης Αλεξίου Ι see the "company" of whom is consisting. Thanks to show me the persons just for doing a comparison who are the libertarians.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 1:25pm · Edited

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Hi my friend Dimitris Altas I did not manage yet to translate in english all your remarkable and outstanding article if the Epicurean Philosophy could be called as any ideology Epicurean-ISM. However, there is a need that many of the discussed and written issues has to be translated in english too. Many kisses to all the friends.!= Γειά σου φίλε μου Δημήτρη, ακόμη δεν κατάφερα να μεταφράσω στα αγγλικά όλο το αξιόλογo και εξαιρετικό άρθρο σου εάν η Επικούρεια φιλοσοφία μπορεί να λέγεται όπως κάθε ιδεολογία Επικουρισμός. Ωστόσο υπάρχει, όπως φαίνεται, μια ανάγκη να μεταφραστούν πολλά θέματα των εισηγήσεων σας και στα αγγλικά. Πολλά φιλιά σε όλους τους φίλους. See Translation
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 5:49pm

Dimitris Altas Γειά σου Έλλη μου! Με τιμάς ιδιαίτερα και με συγκινείς που διάλεξες το άρθρο μου να το μεταφράσεις στα Αγγλικά! Κάνεις πολύ καλή δουλειά. Είσαι η γέφυρά επικοινωνίας μας με τους ξένους φίλους μας. Σε αγαπάμε και σε έχουμε πεθυμήσει πάρα πολύ. Μας λείπει το ταπεραμέντο σου και η σπιρτάδα σου! Εύχομαι να βρεθούμε σύντομα να απολαύσουμε ένα κρασί μαζί σου!Hello my Ellie! Honor me especially and I'm touched that you picked my article to translate it in English! You're doing a great job. You are the bridge to our communication with our foreign friends. We love you and we miss you very much. We're missing your temperament and your wit! I hope we meet soon to enjoy a wine with you!Automatically Translated

Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 6:00pm

Translate All Comments

Elli Pensa Dimitris Altas wrote to me : Hello my friend Elli ! I am honored and very touched that you chose one of my articles to translate it in the English language! You do a very good work. You're our bridge of communication with our foreign epicurean friends. We love you and we miss you too much. We miss your temperament and your brilliance! I hope to meet together soon to enjoy a glass of wine with you !
Unlike · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:06pm

Elli Pensa Look how the epicurean friends are speaking to each other !! Look how they're practicing their philosophy in their real life !! It is true that many of us, here in the internet, we cant share a glass of wine or a dish with some food. But we' ve exchan...See More
Unlike · Reply · 6 · March 6 at 7:20pm

Jason Baker
Like · Reply · March 6 at 8:43pm

Elli Pensa Jason Baker
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:00am

Write a reply...

Haze Elle I am an epicurean and an anarchist, and I not only see these two goals as inked, but inextricable. I base my anarchism on VS13, which shows that mutual advantage is the base of all justice, and justice, as VS12 and VS5 say, is necessary for a life of a...See More
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 7 at 6:21pm · Edited

Haze Elle oof sorry for this wall of text. i will put a paragraph break into this
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:21pm

Cassius Amicus Haze Elle I agree with much of what you wrote but how do you propose to protect yourself from criminals and enemy invaders who do not wish to be your friend?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:21pm

Haze Elle I take my guidance on this from PD14: "Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude." So there are two things going on here. The first is that we have the right to self-defense, and self preservation? This seems obvious to me in light of the sensual basis of epicureanism. We don't fear death, and are secure from it, but neither should we depend on luck. We should make ourselves secure against it how we can, in this case community self-defense (a militia of friends perhaps?)


The second thing happening here is material prosperity - to me this means the communism of simple needs. (PD15 is useful here) We don't need much, but still, much of what we call crime, theft, murder, comes from a confusion of natural and necessary desires, but also from a lack of the natural desires. If we all provided these to all of us, then the second isn't possible, and if we have little, but are prosperous in it, then others will have no need of our simplicity.


The third part is that very rarely do those who do not know you trouble you. Fame, being wealthy, these cause issues, not living simply and without contact with the great mass of people.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:28pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus Well I personally totally agree with your first paragraph, but disagree that your second and third paragraph assertions would be effective. You are aware that Epicurus told his students not to hold their money in common, because that is not how friends treat each other?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:37pm

Haze Elle Holding money in common and not having money at all are two very different things! Do you have a source for that quote by the way?
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:48pm

Jason Baker I too agree with the first without reservation.


Could the second be rephrased to "having no access to fulfillment of natural and necessary desires?" I think there is a systemic lack of access in our society that needs to be addressed, but I'm not 100>#em###...See More
Like · Reply · March 7 at 6:49pm

Haze Elle Cassius Amicus Another answer to your first point is in PD 39. "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even t...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 6:57pm

Cassius Amicus Haze Elle - Diogenes Laertius: " He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…55x8eAZnQj-NCSE

The Life of Epicurus - EpicureanDocs.com
NEWEPICUREAN.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 7 at 6:59pm

Haze Elle Cassius Amicus On the other hand, in his last will he writes that "none of those members of the school who have rendered service to me in private life and have shown me kindness in every way and have chosen to grow old with me in the School should, so far as my means go, lack the necessaries of life."


I also think that Epicurus is, there, arguing for an even more expansive form of sharing than holding in common, where we always have the trust that what our friends have will be shared with us, and we dont need to bank on it being in common to assure this.

Mish Taylor Personally, I find no fault in having, adopting or acquiring a positive mental attitude, this to me is one of the main things that comes across in the philosophy of Epicurus. Most forms of 'talking therapy', self help & etc are simply old ideas dressed up in modern language.
Unlike · Reply · 4 · March 6 at 1:45pm

Donald Robertson I'd say that's half-true. Modern therapy recycles many old ideas. However, it's definitely not true that no progress occurs. To pick the cliched example... It used to be believed that panic disorders were biologically determined and virtually untreatable by talking therapy. (For several reasons.) However, in the mid 1980s a huge advance was made by David Clark in the UK, which took the therapy for this condition from "zero to hero" and it is now shown to have one of the highest success rates of any form of psychological therapy.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 10:21pm

Write a reply...

Elli Pensa Donald Robertson Your are kindly requested to not call Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ISM. Epicurean philosophy has nothing to do with ideologies or obsessions like Communism-Nazism-Capitalism, Christianism, Budhism, Islamism etc,. Because Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy that is confirmed by the the science and has the suffix "Y" as we say PsychologY, PsychiatrY, NeurologY, EndocrinologY, PathologY etc, we say the SAME the Epicurean PhilosophY. Thanks in advance for your understanding.


If someone would like to find a list with -isms he will find here in this link :https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…xmhcTGzFQPTyuAQ


As we realize there is not at that list the Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ism.

but there is the "stoicism" and is explained as "a belief in indifference to pleasure or pain" !!

Word List: Isms

Definition of words for belief systems and isms

PHRONTISTERY.INFO

Like · Reply · March 6 at 2:41pm

Hide 23 Replies

Ron Warrick This is hypersensitive, methinks.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 2:46pm

Elli Pensa No, this was not any hypersesitive thing Mr. Ron Warrick. It is after analysis, after examination on the words. After some written articles and works by our epicurean friends. And finally after many hours of conversations made among our epicurean friends in the greek Gardens and the Symposia.Thanks.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 2:59pm · Edited

Shana HT but where is the science, then?
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:03pm

Elli Pensa Shana HT In the usage of the Epicurean Canon is the whole science my dear.

Do you know how to use this epistemic tool ?? Did you read something for this method ?
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:07pm

Donald Robertson Well, I don't want to offend anyone but to be honest, I don't really share your beliefs about the connotations of those words. As I understand it most authors still use the term "Epicureanism", and find that accepable, so I think eliminating it would be a bit cumbersome and seems unnecessary. But what do others think? Is this a common feeling among your group?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 3:19pm

Ron Warrick Donald Robertson This is the first I have heard of the complaint, but it is something we can take up in the group later. No need to involve you just now.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 3:43pm

Jason Baker Why not just shorten it to E-ism and Epicurus to Mr. E?


Looking at the late date that -ism entered the English language, it likely doesn't have the same connotation when we use it as when our Greek friends use -ismos in their own language. Given our wholesale appropriation of Greek morphology, I'm happy to defer to the original understanding and use the preferred Greek form Epicurean philosophy instead of Epicureanism when discussing it here amongst friends.


Perhaps if there ever were an incorporated Epicurean Church, using the -ism form in reference to it would be appropriate. In the meantime, does shortening it to Epicureanism save us so much time that it serves our purposes to be so imprecise? Precise language is one of the things that differentiates the ancient Epicurean school from the rest, one of the main complaints against the Garden by its detractors even, iirc.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 4:12pm · Edited

Cassius Amicus I see Elli posted more on this at the link below, so I will add my comment there - https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/permalink/1251189141596710/‎Elli Pensa‎ to Epicurean PhilosophyMarch 6 at 4:34pm ·

For my epicurean friends of here I translated into the English language some pages of the article entitled “Epicurean philosophy or Epicureanism”, by Dimitris A...

See More

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · March 6 at 4:40pm

Hiram Crespo I don't feel strongly about 'isms', but I understand that some others do. It may have to do with the Platonizing influence of language in the abstract of in the singular instead of plural. It helps to more accurately describe nature.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:07pm · Edited

Elli Pensa Platonizing yes, but also it has to do with the masses Hiram.and our philososphy has first priniciples to start from the PERSON and his uniqueness.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 6:39pm

Elli Pensa As we read in Liantinis’ book entitled : “STOA & ROME”, we see that the suffix –ism has its origin from the Latins !


Here we are...


from a remarkable excerpt of Dimitris Liantinis book "STOA AND ROME":

[...“ The big difference at the spiritual attitude of the Greeks and the Romans”.

This difference is indicating at the type of the linguistic fossils of the two cultures that survived in the modern world. The Global Greek words like music, philosophy, theater, geometry, mathematics, physics, astronomy, political, architecture, demos-democracy, words that they declare a youth's shininess and a weight of quality towards to the conditions that the Latin language has saved. Under the conventional shape of : “ismus” the rescue to the terms of the Latin language expresses : the team, the indiscriminate, the unexceptional. But the enviable uniqueness is missing. Eg rationalism (ratio), potentialism (potentia), Imperialism (imperium), socialism (socius), Pacifism (pax), militarism (miles), Realism (res), pessimism (malus), optimism (bonus) etc...]

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

According to the above excerpt of Dimitris Liantinis, when we say epicurean-ISM we are missing this “enviable uniqueness of the person”. And the epicurean philosophy, has for first principles the uniqueness of the PERSON and not to the impersonal of the MASSES. Thus, for our proper thinking if we use epicureanism and not epicurean philosophy in our terminology and in our reference... our view for the Epicurean Philosophy collapses...and collapses (to use one of his own Liantini's words ) συγκορμοδεντρόριζη “syngormodentrorizi”(=tree trunk with its roots). Thank you !


«I was never anxious to please the mob. For what pleased them, I did not know, and what I dο know, was far removed from their comprehension (Epicurus). All the above was in one of my comments as stated from 23 of July 2014.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 7:00pm

Ron Warrick I think it is a category error to conflate a philosophy and its adherents. The adherents may be individuals while the philosophy is uniform.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 8:46pm

Elli Pensa Who said that we the epicureans are adherents or followers? We are students and we study the specific, genuine, and true hellenic philosophy that was given by Epicurus and his friends who are studied the Nature. The epicureans keep their first principles, and among other pupils of other philosophies were, are and will be the only persons who keep the scientific method all of their written works to be based on sources and making reference to these sources.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 8:59pm

Ron Warrick Elli Pensa Fine. Change the word to "students" and I still stand by my point.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 9:03pm

Elli Pensa I do not understand your point on the issue of our epicurean first principles. As we say our first principles start from the person, Epicurus addressed to the person and not TO the masses. He had not a willing to be a leader. He was a philosopher and every individual studies his philosophy which is based on the observation of Nature.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 9:09pm

Jason Baker This reminds me so much of the arguments about collective vs. individual rights in Con Law.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 9:30pm

Ron Warrick Elli Pensa I don't think an "-ism" implies anything about whether the ideas are for the individual or for the masses.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 10:01pm

Donald Robertson It seems to me that in modern English -ism is just a generic suffix that's commonly used to denote a cluster of ideas related to the root word. And it's commonly used precisely to avoid any specific connotations about the sort of thing being referred ...See More
Like · Reply · March 6 at 10:26pm

Elli Pensa Donald Robertson I explained further with an article that I already posted what means ISMS and where they lead...TO THE IDEOLOGIES. As it is well known the Epicurean philosophy is not an ideology and is not addressed to the masses but in the person. As...See More
Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 10:56pm

Elli Pensa And here is another book by an outstanding scientist who wrote for Epicurus these words : .

Unlike · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 10:59pm · Edited

Donald Robertson Elli Pensa Sure but I disagree with your claim about what the suffix ISM means. As I understand it, the English suffix doesn't necessarily refer to an "ideology" but is broader in scope than you're suggesting.
Like · Reply · March 6 at 11:20pm

Donald Robertson Elli Pensa Sure but that doesn't make Epicurean philosophy itself a "science" does it? It would be more accurate to say Epicureans have a philosophy or set of doctrines that has some historical links with science or can potentially be supported with f...See More
Like · Reply · March 6 at 11:22pm

Elli Pensa Donald Robertson Right. The epicurean philosophy is not a science itself. But where I did say that ? I copy paste here of what I commented to you exactly :"You are kindly requested to not call Epicurean Philosophy as Epicurean-ISM. Epicurean philosoph...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · March 7 at 5:50am

Write a reply...

Matt Jackson I do have a question for Donald, I'm not well read in Stoicism. But I have a pretty strong background in Neoplatonic philosophy. I was wondering how Stoic thought might relate to Neoplatonic concepts of virtue? Is there a commonality or a big difference?


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3…dCwLoXlz0RN6rIo
The Enneads of Plotinus: THE FIRST ENNEAD: SECOND TRACTATE: Section 1
The Enneads of Plotinus, at sacred-texts.com
SACRED-TEXTS.COM

Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 · March 6 at 2:53pm

Donald Robertson Ok. As I understand it the admins are happy for me to answer these questions here. I'm no expert on Plotinus but it seems to me that his Platonic concept of virtue is more abstract than what the Stoics have in mind. Stoic virtue is knowledge, which consists in applying preconceptions correctly to specific situations in life. I think Plotinus probably means something more like a mystical participation in the Divine. There's bound to be overlap and similarity depending on who you ask and how they interpret the two philosophies, though. On the face of it, Stoic Ethics appears less mystical, but then on closer inspection it does have a sort of mystical quality as well. Virtue is a sort of harmony between the individual and the universe as a whole, or the cosmic Logos, at least from one perspective.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 10:34pm

Write a reply...

Matt Jackson Virtue, like Beauty and other positive qualities are emanations of the One, they bring about a Likeness to the Divine Principle. Is there any commonality of thought in Stoicism? To Plotinus and others like Proclus, the One is the source of the Good in this world. Is there anything in Stoicism that mirrors that? Is there a "God" principle in Stoicism?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · March 6 at 4:11pm · Edited

Donald Robertson Yes, this isn't as much the focus of Stoic Ethics as it is in Plotinus but the Stoics believed in Zeus, whom they equate with the Logos, and virtue is an imitation of the Mind of Zeus by mortals, and also consists in piety and harmony with the cosmos taken as a whole, which as pantheists (or panentheists) they basically equate with Zeus. (That's not usually the aspect of Stoicism that's at the fore in writers like Seneca or in modern approaches to it, though.)
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 10:37pm

Matt Jackson Awesome, thank you for the reply. It sounds in some way very similar in some respects to Plotinian thought, though there is some different terminology. What would you equate the Cosmic logos to? Like the Tao? Or the Dharma? Not really a sentient Cosmic Nous?
Like · Reply · March 6 at 10:41pm

Matt Jackson The Neoplatonists had the idea that the Nous was a creative element in the Universe, it was an active mind. Is the Logos something similar? Or impersonal like the Tao?
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 10:43pm

Matt Jackson Getting these answers will really help me "grasp" Stoic thought. So i thank you.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 10:44pm

Donald Robertson Matt Jackson The Stoic Logos is equated with the Mind of Zeus, who is a rational animal that encompasses the whole universe. I don't think I'd describe it as "personal", though, it's a bit more of a philosophers' god than that, although it's probably more pantheistic than Plotinus' philosophy. It's ultimately drawn to a large extent from Heraclitus.
Like · Reply · 1 · March 6 at 11:14pm

Matt Jackson Yes it seems like Zeus or the Logos is a whole that is fragmented into "us." Like a organism with individual parts. So in that way it seems that virtues are derived from human reason not a divine hypostasis.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 11:32pm

Matt Jackson Plotinus was far more panentheistic in the sense that the 3 main hypostasis are separate, though immanent in all things. Therefore, the Cosmic Nous is separate from Man, yet man takes part in it.
Like · Reply · 2 · March 6 at 11:34pm