Posts by Cassius

Quote from Julia

I think it's very important to note that the act of making a Choice / Avoidance decision is itself a pleasure, because that immediate gratification conditions the brain towards making Choices / Avoidances in the first place.

Here's a first effort at a response:

On a very basic level I'd start off observing that it seems to me that Epicurus is saying that simply being alive and not in pain is pleasurable, so the act of choosing / avoiding would also be classified as pleasurable unless there's something specifically painful about the situation.

Now it is necessary at times to think about this to realize it, because some choices may not involve immediate mental or physical stimulation, and the standard philosophical position other than Epicurus was/is that there is a neutral state where you are experiencing neither pleasure nor pain.

So I do think it's correct to say that in general being alive and making a choice / avoidance is pleasurable, and it's important to think that way. But to suggest to someone that exercising choice is going to produce immediate pleasurable "stimulation" in the sense of eating candy isn't likely to be the way to look at it.

So I see this as an occasion to be very clear about what is meant by pleasure.

Very helpful!

So to what extent did Democritus keep his atomism essentially theistic?

Was Democritus laying the groundwork for a no supernatural universe, or just laying the groundwork for today's theists to say that God works not in mysterious ways but through atoms?

Simply referring to Democritus as a great man is not very clarifying in terms of what he actually believed.

Happy Birthday to Remus! Learn more about Remus and say happy birthday on Remus's timeline: Remus

Quote from Bryan

The topic of Democritus' zombies is interesting, great sources for that! "Stories of people who appeared to have died and then came back to life were collected by many of the ancients including the scientist Democritus in his writings...

Bryan I have the feeling that there is more going on here than I understand. I would think that anyone of normal experience would know that there are "degrees" of sickness and disease, including being "knocked out" and in "comas" that would present interesting questions of how "far gone" a person is before death. That wouldn't seem to me to be so exotic as to pose a particularly difficult question, and I think we have instances in Lucretius where it is spoken of that the spirit retreats within the body.

I suppose everyone was interested in this just as to what it says about how life operates, but I don't necessarily see why the Epicureans would be critical of Democritus on this unless Democritus were trying to draw from this some conclusion about the soul to which the Epicureans objected.

Do we really know and understand Democritus' religious views? Just because he was an atomist, does that mean that he had rejected all supernatural influences, or did he perhaps try to integrate the supernatural with his atoms, perhaps due to some issue deriving from his determinism and skepticism?

I sure wish we had more info on Democritus!

Episode 271 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Understanding Epicurus Through Tusculan Disputations," which is an introduction to our new series of episodes.

Quote from Bryan

In the Cratylus, Plato goes over how well formed language is, and agrees it must have been by purposeful design... and in the end he decides the purposeful designer did such a good job, that he must have been a god.

I think we've talked about this before so my comment here is not a new observation, but this would go a long way toward explaining why Lucretius spends so much time addressing the formation of language - the issue goes right to the heart of whether there are supernatural intelligent forces controlling or guiding human life.

The discussion of teleology that previously was here has been split off into a separate thread:

Thread

Epicurean Views of "Teleology"

Admin Ediit: This thread was split off from a discussion of a book by John Masson on atomism

[…]

Here's a sentiment I can fully endorse, and it might reveal a weakness of our presentation here at the forum. We need to find a way to clearly address Aristotle's teleology! If Lucretius' objection to what DeWitt calls "Purposiveness" in Nature is not of first-tier importance, as are those doctrines in the image below, then it certainly merits a place in any proposed second-tier list of doctrines.

[…]

Joshua

March 13, 2025 at 8:56 PM

Lightly indeed:

Add this from Torquatus:

Quote

[33] But in truth we do blame and deem most deserving of righteous hatred the men who, enervated and depraved by the fascination of momentary pleasures, do not foresee the pains and troubles which are sure to befall them, because they are blinded by desire, and in the same error are involved those who prove traitors to their duties through effeminacy of spirit, I mean because they shun exertions and trouble.

In contrast to the idea that no teleological causes exist at all, however, how would we classify this from Torquatus:

Quote

[30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions.

Does that amount to DeWitt's term of "teleology at a minimum."?

Some things, like hammers, are in fact shaped by intelligences, and it is appropriate to understand them based on the reason that they exist. So"teleoglogical thinking" is not always wrong in itself, or is it?

What and where is the dividing line? And where if anywhere do we see Epicurus stating a principle of division?

What we're talking about now is here in Lucretius Book Five:

Quote from Lucretius / Bailey

[823] Herein you must eagerly desire to shun this fault, and with foresighted fear to avoid this error; do not think that the bright light of the eyes was created in order that we may be able to look before us, or that, in order that we may have power to plant long paces, therefore the tops of shanks and thighs, based upon the feet, are able to bend; or again, that the forearms are jointed to the strong upper arms and hands given us to serve us on either side, in order that we might be able to do what was needful for life. All other ideas of this sort, which men proclaim, by distorted reasoning set effect for cause, since nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

[843] But, on the other side, to join hands in the strife of battle, to mangle limbs and befoul the body with gore; these things were known long before gleaming darts flew abroad, and nature constrained men to avoid a wounding blow, before the left arm, trained by art, held up the defence of a shield. And of a surety to trust the tired body to rest was a habit far older than the soft-spread bed, and the slaking of the thirst was born before cups. These things, then, which are invented to suit the needs of life, might well be thought to have been discovered for the purpose of using them. But all those other things lie apart, which were first born themselves, and thereafter revealed the concept of their usefulness. In this class first of all we see the senses and the limbs; wherefore, again and again, it cannot be that you should believe that they could have been created for the purpose of useful service.

[858] This, likewise, is no cause for wonder, that the nature of the body of every living thing of itself seeks food. For verily I have shown that many bodies ebb and pass away from things in many ways, but most are bound to pass from living creatures. For because they are sorely tried by motion and many bodies by sweating are squeezed and pass out from deep beneath, many are breathed out through their mouths, when they pant in weariness; by these means then the body grows rare, and all the nature is undermined; and on this follows pain. Therefore food is taken to support the limbs and renew strength when it passes within, and to muzzle the gaping desire for eating through all the limbs and veins. Likewise, moisture spreads into all the spots which demand moisture; and the many gathered bodies of heat, which furnish the fires to our stomach, are scattered by the incoming moisture, and quenched like a flame, that the dry heat may no longer be able to burn our body. Thus then the panting thirst is washed away from our body, thus the hungry yearning is satisfied.

What do you think is the broadest statement of the principal that is still useful that we might look for in the texts:

• - that Nature has no purpose of itself?
• - that the Universe has no purpose of itself?

As we discuss this it seems to me that we will want to be very clear what we are talking about. For example do we agree with this from chatgpt?

Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose or design in natural phenomena. It comes from the Greek words telos (meaning "end," "goal," or "purpose") and logos (meaning "study" or "reason"). In teleological explanations, events or objects are understood in terms of their intended purpose or final cause rather than solely their material or mechanical causes.

In classical philosophy, Aristotle distinguished four causes, one of which was the final cause, referring to the purpose or function of a thing. In contrast, modern science often rejects teleological explanations in favor of mechanistic or causal accounts, especially in fields like physics and chemistry. However, teleology remains relevant in areas such as biology (where functions of organs or behaviors may be described in terms of their evolutionary purpose) and ethics (where discussions of human purpose or the "good life" arise).

Epicurean philosophy generally rejects teleology, especially in a divine or cosmic sense, emphasizing that natural phenomena occur due to atomic interactions rather than serving a predetermined purpose.

I am seeing lots of discussion among commentators about Cicero writing this at a time of great stress for him. I am not very familiar with the history of the times, and what happened with Cicero AFTER he wrote Tusculun Disputations.

I was about to get the impression that he wrote these just before dying, and that he was in a "I'm giving up state" - but I see a LOT happened after he wrote these and before his death.

I found this video that shows how much was going on in the last couple of years of his life. Sounds like he was highly engaged and fighting right up til the end, so it would probably be a mistake to think that he had already "given up" and had totally "retreated" to philosophy when he wrote these books. As I understand it none of the philosophical works mention the death of Caesar, presumably meaning they were written before that occurred, and the events in this video happened:

I suppose one possibility would be the part in Lucretius where he talks about "Calling upon Neptune / Ceres if you like but don't be superstitious" (I'm remembering Humphries) Let me get that, but it probably goes to 2 and 3 and isn't exactly that nature is nonpurposive.

Note: it's from Book 2 and actually closer than I remembered (Humphries)

Let a man
Call upon Neptune, if he likes, say Ceres
When he means corn or wheat, miscall his wine
By an apostrophe to Father Bacchus,
Let him keep on repeating that our globe
Is the gods' mother - but let him, all this while,
Be careful, really, not to let religion
Infect, pollute, corrupt him. Earth indeed
Is quite insentient, has always been,
And as possessor of all particles
Sends many forth in many ways to light,
No consciousness about it.

Book 2 at 644 Bailey

[644] Yet all this, albeit well and nobly set forth and told, is nevertheless far removed from true reasoning. For it must needs be that all the nature of the gods enjoys life everlasting in perfect peace, sundered and separated far away from our world. For free from all grief, free from danger, mighty in its own resources, never lacking aught of us, it is not won by virtuous service nor touched by wrath. Verily, the earth is without feeling throughout all time, and ’tis because it has possession of the first-beginnings of many things, that it brings forth many in many ways into the light of the sun. Herein, if any one is resolved to call the sea Neptune and corn Ceres, and likes rather to misuse the title of Bacchus than to utter the true name of the vine-juice, let us grant that he may proclaim that the world is the Mother of the gods, if only in very truth he forbear to stain his own mind with shameful religious awe.

It would also be very interesting to get the full Bacon quote referenced in that excerpt from page 168, because i think there are lots of subtleties in that too.

One such subtlety is that the statement as quoted doesn't necessarily address the issue of whether the "final cause" is true. if in fact some supernatural force as a "final cause" does exist, then I am not entirely sure myself whether it would make sense to worry about the intermediate physical causes.

i can see a good argument that It's the fact that the supernatural final cause does not exist that makes knowledge of the intermediate physical cause particularly important.

Which means to me that it's really important to be clear and state the uitimate conclusion (that the final cause does not exist) as you are saying.

Joshua:

1 - That question mark in the margin is the author, questioning himself? The issue of how to interpret Caesar's actions and the civil war of the time has always been very difficult for me to understand. So the author is supporting Caesar or not? The question of when a pre-existing constitution should be overturned is always sticky, but as the doctrines on Justice say, that which has ceased to be of advantage for the people involved is no longer "just." The part of the doctrines in the 40's that talks about the justice of nature being in agreeing not to harm is one thing that is often emphasized in discussion, but those doctrines that say that agreements cease to be just when they are no longer of mutual benefit indicates that the label of "just" can change very easily. I suppose that's the ultimate way to evaluate Caesar's actions, not by an absolute standard but by the details of the time, which are very difficult for us to evaluate today.

2 - The non-purposiveness issue is something that ought to flow from the implications of the first and second and third of these statements, which are pretty much quotes, but they require some explanation to see that. i agree that the quote from page 168 is very good. Dewitt's summary is also good, especially "This amounts to saying that a nonpurposive Nature had produced a purposive creature, for whom alone an end or goal of living could have a meaning. This is teleology at a minimum." I agree that it would be good to emphasize this more. Are you aware of a pithy quote or near-quote that makes this point from Epicurus or Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda? As it is, I'll probably modify the existing explanation of the statements in 1, 2, or 3 to include it.

Is the issue summarizable by referencing how the Stoics make Nature divine and essentially a god and imply that divine fire is intelligent, which is just step further than Aristotle's prime mover? i think we all agree that Epicurus rejects this as implications of what is stated in the principles of 1,2, and 3, but does he state this separately and explicitly anywhere?

in plain English, does it come down to the point that Nature is neither conscious nor intelligent and is not goal-driven?

yep!

"a nobler, fuller, and stronger nature"

Hard to say what that is even about, but it moves the book significantly down on my "to-read" list.

I've moved this thread into the general Books area so that it will be more findable. It does look to me like there is a lot of good material here on Epicurus' Atomism.

Here is another review of the topics and significance of TD:

Tusculan Disputations

Tusculan Disputations is considered by many to be Cicero’s richest and most profound philosophical work. This new, original translation is available in Kindle,…

qcurtius.com

Welcome to Episode 272 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)
2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no)

As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.

These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read and discuss Sections V through IX where the question is framed and the discussion begins:

In these sections, the student raises to the teacher the proposition: "To me death seems to be an evil.

• Cicero first argues that this means that everyone is miserable, because everyone dies.
• Cicero asks his student if he believes the stories about monsters in the underworld, and the student says of course he does not.
• Cicero then argues the Epicurean position (without crediting Epicurus for it), that when we are dead we no longer exist.
• Cicero argues that principles of logic require that a thing asserted either be true or false.
• The student retreats to the position that life is made miserable by realizing that we must die.
• Cicero tells the student that if this is so, then death delivers us from a miserable life.
• Cicero cites Epicharmus, who said that "I would not die, but even so I am not concerned that I will be dead."
• The student hears this but challenges Cicero to prove that anticipating death is not miserable. Cicero says he will prove that this is so by showing that death is not only not evil, but a good.
• Cicero goes on to explain that death is the departure of the soul from the body.

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

We'll be reading from the Charles Yonge edition.

Here is a link to our discussion guide: Epicurean Views Of Tusculan DIsputations

Our thread here at the forum specifically dedicated to Tusculan Disputations is here.

For purposes of planning ahead, this series will be followed by a series on the Epicurean-relevant material in CIcero's "Academic Questions." A thread devoted to that series where you can make comments on what aspects of "Academic Questions" to include is here.