Posts by Cassius

That's a great description of the process. We can combat overindulgence by trying to suppress the immediate pleasures by appeals to false religious/idealistic ideas, or we can combat it by acknowledging that pleasure really is our goal, and that if we really do want to maximize our pleasure we have to avoid going too far with certain activities that are beyond our ability to handle them without punishment through excessive pain. To me the latter argument is far more persuasive than the first.

It also helps a lot to be able to talk about and compare experiences with other like-minded people, so thanks for participating in allowing us all to do that here!

Thank you for responding Elli! Vince Cook is one of the most respected Epicurus students out there, so Nal if you know how he calculated it, let us know. I see on the moon calendar that there is a start and finish of the new moon over several days, so I can see that being a source of ambiguity.

Hi Nal! I am afraid that I was not able to calculate this myself, and was working with info provided by friends of Epicurus in Greece at this thread on Facebook. Also using this.

We initially calculated the 26th, but switched based on this comment: "But the right, and as Diogenis Laertius reports, is 7 days after the new moon in the month Gamelion, thus Epicurus birthday - for this year - is 23rd of January." That was the conclusion of two of our friends in Greece.

Do you know the basis of Vince's calculation? We'd certainly like to get it right! Thank you!

Welcome Nal ! When you have time, please let us know a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thanks for joining us!

This is a wide question and I bet others will have lots of perspectives. A thumbnail of my own approach is that I attempt to find some point of common ground to discuss first. For example many people in my area, even the very religious ones, were also raised to respect and admire Thomas Jefferson. So with those, one of the first places I start is to point out that Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence wasn't written without a context, and that Jefferson said some really great things about Epicurus.

If Jefferson could get elected president in a very religious country while still holding his Epicurean views, then we can be successful too. It might be, however, that like Jefferson, we have to be very careful with whom we discuss some of the details. No doubt some of the deeper implications should be held for discussion later, and at first only with those of us who are like-minded.

Another much lesser known example, but someone who is fascinating and probably appeals to a different group than Jefferson, is Frances Wright and her pro-Epicurean "A Few Days In Athens." She can be held up as a female example of someone who understood and promoted Epicurean philosophy with a great book in a time when most women did not do that kind of thing. In fact that book is a very good starting point for someone who doesn't read a lot of pure philosophy.

On the other hand if the person you're talking to has been studying a lot of philosophy, there's hardly a more prominent friend-of-Epicurus name to drop than Nietszche. And if the person you're talking to is a communist, you can even cite Karl Marx as someone who was interested in Epicurus!

So I think it is generally possible to start by building some bridges in areas of common ground, then expanding from that.

I want to hear others on this too so anyone reading this thread, please comment!

Possibly we ought to set up an "Epicurean Outreach" Forum, but for now probably this one: Special Challenges of the Modern World

I have fixed (I think!) my websites with this replacement for VS35:

DeWitt: We must not spoil the enjoyment of the blessings we have by pining for those we have not but rather reflect that these too are among the things desirable. Peter St. Andre: Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for. [The version of this text by Bailey appears clearly incorrect: “We should not spoil what we have by desiring what we do not have, but remember that what we have too was the gift of fortune.”]

Fixing the ebooks and other references points will be harder but I will track them down.

Absolutely. It would help so much to get to people much younger. I always remember that line from "ON ENDS" on that topic: “Was he, I say, to study arts like these, and neglect the master art, so difficult and correspondingly so fruitful, the art of living? No! Epicurus was not uneducated: the truly uneducated are those who ask us to go on studying til old age the subjects that we ought to be ashamed not to have learnt in boyhood!”

It's always complex to debate specifics, and the Japan example is no exception. Was it needed? Was it appropriate? My answer on those questions has varied over the years, but it is difficult to dispute that it did bring the Japanese warmaking regime to an end more quickly than otherwise. Not taking a position on whether that was the right thing to do under the specific case, though. Probably easier is just the hypothetical normal homeowner being invaded with intent to murder by a random burglar, with the homeowner shooting the burglar or otherwise simply inflicting pain in order to protect his / her young children. I think most would agree that in virtually all such situations the infliction of pain was "correct."

Even those situations can be analyzed further, but what Epicurus was really saying I think is that there's no absolute standard by which we can look at a situation from outside and make an absolute judgment of right or wrong. The burglar apparently thought it would enhance his pleasure to invade the home. The homeowner thought it would advance his pleasure to stop him. Each side is making choices based on their view of their best interest, and both sides have to live with the consequences.

Even looking back at Japan vs USA, same analysis. Japan's leaders saw their interest one way, the USA's leaders saw it differently. One side one, and the other lost, but neither can legitimately claim that God or ideal virtue justified their side, because those things simply don't exist.

When I use progression I did not mean to imply evolution in particular, which is probably your concern there(?) just that we can observe variations in degree, regardless of what caused them.

Here's my initial thought: "If pain is an evil, then inflicting it on others is immoral." That is probably very over-broad, because, for example, shooting a burglar or injuring someone trying to kill you would not be immoral. I think there are several texts we could cite in support of that.

I think we also have to be careful with the word "evil" in this and lots of contexts. Yes our feeling of pain is always undesirable, and from that point of view we consider it evil, but "evil" often implies much more - a religious or idealistic imperative never to do it under any circumstances. And there is no religious or idealist realm or function which establishes that, so that connotation of "evil" is not valid in Epicurean terms.

So issues with that part of the comment flow through to "But inflicting pain on others is questionable if it denies their option of accepting it for that later avoidance."

Depending on the context, we often probably are not concerned whether our infliction of pain on others, in our own defense at least, limits the other person's response options.

Referring to this, which is where I think the issues are:

"Necessity of existence of all possibilities is consequence of infinity of universe. What forbids those possibilities to realize when appropriate bodies meet each other at some place. Appropriate bodies cannot be exhausted because there are infinite. There is sufficient amount for space and time for them to make such and such combinations."

I guess the key word here is "possibilities." You aren't saying that everything IMAGINABLE is possible, only that if it is possible, then it has occurred in an infinite and eternal universe. Of course it is core doctrine, as Lucretius said when he listed things (Centaurs?) that not everything we can imagine is possible - the possibilities are limited by combinations of the atoms. Certainly there are many more possible combinations than we have observed here on earth, but that doesn't mean ALL combinations we can imagine are possible.

So when you say "existence of all possibilities" you are excluding imaginary things that aren't possible. And we have to have an argument that deathlessness and perfect happiness is possible and not imaginary. And I presume you're saying that the proof that deathless divinity is possible is that it's just a perfection of a progression that we see already in place here on earth toward longer lifespans and greater variety of pleasures in some living things.

Is that the direction you are going Maciej?

Also Maciej: When you say: "2. What is conceivably possible to exist in infinite universe necessarily somewhere exist."

I gather this is the step to which Hiram objects, and I am not confident of it either. Can you state the basis for your confidence in it?

When one of us has time we ought to include in this thread what are the three interpretations you refer to here "This is what in my opinion is the problem with so called third interpretation." I presume you're probably referring to Hiram's article(s) - I will have to check.

Maciej -- By this:

"except I think that epicurean gods are deathless and painless by nature and not by success "in those fields" through progress or evolution as you seems to imply"

I presume you mean that you think gods did not have a beginning point? In other words, you think because they are deathless they have no end point, but because you think that they are that way "by nature" that the gods have always existed and did not have a beginning point. If that is your view, do you mean "all gods" or "particular gods" never had a beginning point?

I think I may agree with you, especially on the implication that one or more of these gods (maybe not all) have always existed. Deathless may be an attribute that might be evolvable over time, but one of the considerations of infinity is "no beginning point" so you are probably right to emphasize that there was no point in the past when there were no "gods"

It appears to me that we have a real problem with Cyril Bailey's translation of VS35, which speaks of "Fortune" in a way that seems positively un-Epicurean. Here are my notes so far, but I would appreciate the help of anyone and everyone in tracing down authoritative alternate translations, and also seeing if there is some reason for Bailey's use of "gift of fortune."

Bailey translates 35 this way: "We should not spoil what we have by desiring what we do not have, but remember that what we have too was the gift of fortune."

The translation that seems to be preferred on other websites, which is much more consistent with Epicurean philosophy, is: "35. Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for."

Peter St Andre: "Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for." Peter adds the note "[35] The word translated here as "ruin" (λυμαίνομαι) means, at root, to mistreat. The implication is that not honoring the good things you have achieved is a sign of disrespect and shows a lack of appreciation. See also Vatican Sayings #69 and #75.

Epicurism.info - the Epicurism Wiki

Thread at Facebook

DeWitt, Page 326:

In thinking about the alternative version (Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for.) I wonder if DeWitt (We must not spoil the enjoyment of the blessings we have by pining for those we have not but rather reflect that these too are among the things desirable) might be more correct. Does it make sense to say that "the things we have are what we one hoped for" when "the things we have" could be cancer, disease, hunger, etc?) We could presume that "the things we have" refers to good things, but Dewitt's version links "the blessings we have" with "these too are among the desirable" so in the Dewitt version there is (arguably) less ambiguity. What do you think? I would like to see how other "authorities" translate this for comparison.

H - De Witt's translation of the word "εὐκταίων" as "the gift of fortune" is not correct in strict sense. The word "εὐκταίων" is used today with the same meaning as " the things I wish(ed) for". De Witt may be right if we expand the meaning of the word and assume that our wishes are materialized through good fortune.

Cassius Amicus H - I think you have the names reversed - the "gift of fortune" comes from Bailey rather than DeWitt. I have not yet found anyone else who refers to fortune besides Bailey, but I am still looking.

Cassius Amicus And given the other clear admonitions in Epicurean texts against relying on Fortune, or thinking that it is as force at all, I am thinking that any positive references to "Fortune" must be severely scrutinized and presumably avoided. I would expect Dewitt to have a similar attitude because of his respect for Epicurus. I am afraid the same cannot be said for Bailey. Bailey's primary motivation to be accurate was probably academic respectability, rather than any respect for the consistency of Epicurean doctrine. So I would think that "if we expand the meaning of the word and assume that our wishes are materialized through good fortune" is the very thing we would not do if we were looking for a consistent interpretation across the texts(??)1

Cassius AmicusGroup Admin I hope we can find some other academic translations of the Vatican Sayings. I have never found too much on them other than Bailey's collection, which presumably is based on Usener (?) I would think there would be numbers of articles about how and where it was found, what the text looks like, where it is now, etc.

I have added paragraph numbers to the "Terms of Use" page to make any section of it easier to discuss should anyone have any questions, suggested changes, etc.

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?sc-terms-of-use/

From the point of view that new users coming to this website may not be familiar enough with the expected conversations to understand the "latest posts" listed only by date/time, let's move that feature to the DASHBOARD only and remove it from the HOME page, so that the HOME page shows the list of ten latest TOPICS from the General forum, and then the popular posts from the other forum.

After this switch New people visiting the home page see the topics at first, and can then decide whether to read the threads. So for regulars who know everyone and what's being discussed and want to bookmark and return to the list of the most recent POSTS, like I do, please use the DASHBOARD as the landing page. The only page that in my mind competes with the Dashboard as the place to visit first is the NOTIFICATIONS page (listed directly beneath the Dashboard in the Menu), but that doesn't seem optimum and has a lot of user-control-panel controls which are static and not part of an update page.

Give me some feedback on whether that's a good chance to keep - especially if there is any missing box or arrangement issue that prevents the Dashboard from being a good central place for returning users to check first every time they come to the site.

That first quote from DeWitt ("He so interpreted the significance of infinity as to extend it from matter and space to the sphere of VALUES - perfection and imperfection...") I think is purely DeWitt's suggestion, if the text is only this:

“Surely the mighty power of the Infinite Being is most worthy our great and earnest contemplation; the Nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things. From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals. Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.

In talking about "values" I think DeWitt is making a reasonable guess, but as I see it the paragraph breaks down into four observations:

1 - the Nature of which we must necessarily understand to be such that everything in it is made to correspond completely to some other answering part. - everything has a corresponding answering part (?)

2 - "This is called by Epicurus ισονμία (isonomia); that is to say, an equal distribution or even disposition of things." - equal distribution

3 - From hence he draws this inference, that, as there is such a vast multitude of mortals, there cannot be a less number of immortals.

4 - Further, if those which perish are innumerable, those which are preserved ought also to be countless.

My reading of these points is that we see things here on earth exist on a scale of COMPLEXITY and/or "SUCCESS" in their achievements. For examples worms on one end and men on the other, on the scale of living beings, minnows vs dolphins, etc. This is hard evidence of a scale of progression in things like acuity of sight, acuity of hearing, physical abilities, and mental abilities.

I gather that Epicurus argued that from this scale of progression here on other it is proper to infer that that scale extends higher in other parts of the universe where life exists. Given that the universe is eternal in time and infinite in space, we should expert the scale of progression to extend these complexities and accomplishments to what we would consider an extreme degree. At the higher end of the scale of progression we should expect to find beings that are far higher in complexity and ental and physical success in humans. And as our human goal is to live as long as possible, and to live in as much pleasure/little pain as possible, it is to be expected that somewhere there are beings which have succeeded in those fields to the point where they are both deathless and painless. And that even though we might not be able to see these beings with our own eyes in the light of day, we should deduce that they exist from the things that we do see in the universe, just as we deduce (on the simple/primitive end of the scale) that atoms exist without seeing them. So in that way inferring the existence of deathless and painless beings is just the flip side of the process of inferring the existence of atoms.