Posts by Cassius

I prepared an updated draft of a FAQ answer on this "Meaning" question. We can discuss this both in this thread and in the Zoom Sunday:

Orientation To EpicureanFriends

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

Just as a reminder we'll be doing our 12:30 PM EDT meeting again this Sunday 5/25 (in Central Europe that would be 6:30 PM CEST). For anyone whom this time is convenient, please feel free to join us.

My current thought for organizing a plan for this and future "Sunday Zoom" discussions will be to devote approximately the first twenty minutes to "What's up in your Epicurean thinking lately?" - with the remainder of the time devoted to reviewing one of our Frequently Asked Questions. We can use the discussion to update the FAQ, and that will both provide good conversation and help us help build out the FAQ for everyone's future use.

Why don't we start this week with "What Would Epicurus Say About the Search For 'Meaning' In Life?"

The full FAQ is here:

Note: We distribute the Zoom link via private conversation. If you have an account at EpicureanFriends and would like to attend, please message a moderator or ask for the link in this thread.

Quote from Robert

If I'm thirsty, and convince myself that I need to have soda, beer, or whatever, might that also be an example? After all, very often a glass of water will do just fine.

I think that here we're talking about the necessary / unnecessary / etc analysis, which yes addresses the problem that through our own mistake, or through outside conditioning, we end up thinking that we have to have X in order to be satisfied, but in truth Y would produce a better overall pleasure over pain result.

The thing I like to caution against, though, is thinking that what a person should target is "just enough to get by" as if "just enough" is the goal. The goal is choosing the "most pleasant" option, rather than the "just enough" option, and I would argue that there is a very important difference between the two. Sometimes the soda, beer, etc., is in fact the most pleasant option and worthy of being chosen.

As VS 63 is usually translated, "Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess."

Welcome to Episode 282 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 human life (Death, Pain, Grief/Fear, Joy/Desire, and Virtue) with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

Today we continue in Part 2 - "Is Pain An Evil?," picking up with Section XI, where Cicero attacks Epicurus for saying that pain is the greatest evil.

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

Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…lish/section:12

And a side-by-side version with comments is here:

EpicureanFriends SideBySide Commentary on TD

Rolf

PD01. The blessed and incorruptible nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak. ^[1]

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.

Exhibit A to my last post. If anyone wants to comment on it I'll crosspost this to physics, but the number of similar articles is innumerable and this is of note only because it's new. These guys have been organized for 2000+ years and the drumbeat never stops - so neither can our organizing an immunization.

There's also another important - but a little less pleasant to discuss - side of things. Not everyone in this world is, or wants to be, or is going to be your friend. Nor are you going to succeed in making them so, no matter how you might try to do so. Epicurean philosophy teaches you to be aware that many contentious issues such as supernatural gods and life after death are not just neutral, take-it-or-leave-it, or compromisable issues.

One analogy I think I can make without offending anyone is as to cigarette manufacturers, who apparently at this point in history are acknowledged to have made their products more addictive even while knowing that they were deadly. Without harping on one example, I think there are plenty of instances where we have to recognize that not everyone is supportive of everyone else's best interests (to say the least). Epicurean philosophy teaches you to immunize yourself against many impositions by giving you a basic orientation toward the universe that helps defeat those negative forces in life.

That's a huge point, and arguably in the ancient Epicurean calculus of higher priority even than identifying happiness as your goal. The major doctrines all fit together logically, hand in glove, but the first and second most important doctrines on the list are telling you to first and foremost watch out for those who would manipulate you with bad motives.

That's an attitude toward the world that needs to be constantly a part of how we live our daily lives, and I consider it along with the swerve free will / personal responsibility) to be one of the most distinctly Epicurean characteristics.

I should have added that early in my study I printed out some pictures, worked on some 3d busts, etc. I never graduated to ring or pendants but those are good too, ieth the basic idea that its a good think to have occasional reminders in your surroundings that the philosophy is more than just an idea but that real people - lots of them - engaged in it too in the past, and you can be a part of that self-chosen group no matter how distant. I like thinking that I am part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I don't think of myself as having particular structure, but in my case I am pretty much constantly working with this website and reading and studying the texts and thinking of new ways to present it and talking to people about it. I suspect that the normal days of Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda or Philodemus would have been pretty similar. The word "ritual" evokes a lot of both positive and negative connotations given the way we think of rituals working in the standard supernatural religions, and I tend to avoid those personally.

The most on-point advise that I recall is:

VS41. We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

To me, this kind of approach means that everything you do is folded into the master plan of living happily according to Epicurus' worldview, but on the other hand almost nothing you do is hard-wired to a particular absolute "ritual," because that's not the way life is - you're always adjusting to circumstances to produce the best result. You're either living by Epicurean ideas consciously and intentionally moment by moment, or during those deviations you're not really living by Epicurean ideas at all, no matter what "ritual" you might be engaged in.

Quote from Julia

You see: Even if SoE reject whatever we suggest, that's still dialogue and they might have a counter proposal. Other than "this feels like a waste of time" (which is fine to feel that way) I don't see what we have to lose

While I would be shocked if there were wide consensus among existing Epicurean aficianoados, I still think the exercise is very useful. I almost see it as a "Rorschach test" of what individuals see as the most important aspects of Epicurean philosophy. It's amazing how people look differently even at the general subject of talking about how symbolism should work. Should the symbol be related to something that is "unique" about Epicurus, or is it ok for it to be about something that he's often associated with (atomism) but not at all as the trailblazer (that would have to go to Democritus or one of the eariler atomists.)

So I have no real hope of any consensus arising in the near future, but at the same time I think the exercise is great food for thought for everyone.

Quote from Julia

I'm willing to try – it's not like we need to invest our life savings or anything – and just see where we end up

As Don would say BY ZEUS that's the kind of attitude we need here on lots of things!

Episode 281 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today we begin Part Two of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations with an episode entitled: "Is Pain The Greatest Evil - Or An Evil At All?"

Julia have you seen Bryan's more recent work in making rings/jewelry? Bryan I know we have seen some of that in the Zoom meetings but maybe you could point us to a current location?

Quote from Don

3. If a human wanted to use that AI-generated image as a prompt to create a line drawing, I would find that preferable.

That's the part I didn't understand - got it!

Yes these considerations reflect some of our recent discussions.

It is desirable to:

1 - Discourage AI artwork here.

2 - Promote Epicurean Philosophy.,

If the use of AI legitimately in any respect serves goal 2 better than any alternative that is currently available to us, then I would put priority 2 first. Of course that's not generally going to be the case. In this case, the artwork is genuinely useful, I think, plus is it indicative of what others are seeing as to AI as to Epicurus. That in itself is a huge topic that I do not think we can ignore, just as we can't ignore wikipedia.

But of course, having noted all the above, that artwork will never be adopted here as a symbol associated with Epicureanfriends. A profile of some type might at some point be something good to use, but it won't be that one.

I realize that this might prompt renewal of that discussion and if so I'll move that part to the AI discussion thread if needed.

Quote from Don

I despise AI for artwork on a number of levels... But that's not bad. I'd certainly prefer someone using that as a prompt and not using that.

Perhaps a typo there Don ? Not sure what you mean....

@Steve - As far as I am concerned that is one of the best line drawings I have seen Steve. Can you get it to reprint with the word "Epicurus" under it - which might make it more usable in more situations? I know in my experience it's not easy to get an AI to redraw from an original.

Quote from Rolf

Related question: How does a modern-day Epicurean reconcile a) the predominant theory that the universe has a beginning with b) the Epicurean idea that the universe has no beginning and end?

Speaking for myself only, i consider this to be the intersection of philosophy vs "science," the latter word of which i find to be a word that is very ambiguous, easy to employ for political purposes, and thrown around far too loosely even by people who don't think they have an agenda. Some of that is discussed here.

It doesn't bother me that the "predominant" theory is that the universe had a beginning because I take the position that these proponents are not addressing the question of "what caused or what was prior to that beginning." Unless they are willing to go on record that "what was before the beginning was god" - which is really what they are implying - then they are just kicking the ball down the road and adding nothing to the conversation. The question is not "how many times has our section of the universe knowable to us expanded and contracted. The question is "what put the whole thing in motion in the first place" and that is best answered by something to the effect that in all human experience nothing has ever been observed to come from nothing, and as a matter of principle I'm not going to entertain speculation without evidence.

As Eikadistes said, much of the apparent turmoil comes from people taking the "observable universe" and not limiting their conclusions to "the observable." Yes, the "observable" universe may be expanding and contracting, but that does not mean that what is beyond the observable is expanding and contracting in the same direction. Epicurus is talking about "the all" when he says that the all is eternal and infinite, not any particular part of it.

I was raised at a time when "universe" was meant to refer to "the all." I realize that people today talk about multiverses and the like, but that just kicks the ball down the road again. I see no need to depart from traditional usage -- universe means "all that exists" and I see no persuasive evidence that indicates that Epicurus was wrong that "the all that exists" has existed for ever, and will exist forever, and that it has no limit in terms of space or time.

You'll find rhat in Epicurus' own time he and others (Lucian for example) were engaged in battles with the "scientists of their day" who were using mathematics and geometry to speculate that the stars were gods, and reach conclusions that contradict basic Epicurean physics as to the natural basis of the universe. There are always going to be such conflicts, just as there are now, and the way to deal with them is through understanding Epicurean canonics as standards of proof for what is and is not real, and how you deal with theories based on limited information which would appear to contradict fundamental conclusions that are based on repeatable observation and have proven their usefulness over the ages. One such observation is "nothing comes from nothing" and until an instance of that can be established to occur then nothing that contradicts that premise should be entertained to even be possible.

That list of connections is interesting in itself.

Of these, how many are distinctly Epicurean?

I'm asking in general now, what widely-known positions of Epicurus are distinctly Epicurean?

1. The Swerve (anyone disagree?)

2. ?

3. ?