Posts by Cassius

Quote from TauPhi

It's morally acceptable to kill a mosquito but killing a cat is morally unacceptable. It was morally acceptable for Epicurus to own slaves but it's morally unacceptable for us. I'm giving these examples to show that human morality is liquid, ever changing set of societal rules arbitrary agreed upon by majority of people at any given time.

I think these are good points. In an Epicurean context where virtue (morality) is keyed to the production of pleasure rather than anything absolute, I suspect you're right to think that "morally incorruptible" wouldn't do anything more than point the finger back to the ultimate questions such as:

Can they sustain their lives of pleasure indefinitely, and is there any "natural law" reason that would prevent them from doing so?

We observe here on earth that all things that come together ultimately are broken apart, but I see no reason why that must translate into a law of nature that cannot be - through natural means - indefinitely postponed in time. Certainly I don't know how to do that myself, and I doubt it will be discovered in my lifetime, but I see no reason to postulate that it will always remain technologically out of reach.

The earth and sun and moon etc don't have the intelligence to alter the facts of nature that were started when they first came into being, but can we say for sure that intelligent beings can't develop to the point of doing so? I would say that the odds of that happening over infinite space and infinite time are actually pretty good, and I'm intentionally understating what the odds probably are in reality.

Quote from Cyrano

My entire page was too large.

This is actually a very common problem and it often traps me. The software does a good job of adapting to different screen sizes, but I think the designers generally work from good-sized screens, and if you don't know what to look for, you might never realize that there is something lurking just off the visible edge of the screen.

Quote from Don

The gods would have no more need of infinite lives than a mortal would,

Just to pick a random comment out to bounce off of ---

They would have no more need for infinite time in order to enjoy "complete pleasure" or "pure pleasure," but they would be able to do so for "longer," which would in itself be desirable, just like it is desirable for us to live pleasurable lives longer. We aren't missing anything by not living on, but that doesn't mean that living on longer is not desirable. That's the common sense way we live our lives - we want to continue living so long as the expectation of net pleasure can be achieved, and I don't see why that consideration would not apply to "the gods" or any other living thing.

And as for the "necessity" of all things eventually breaking apart, even our world, it seems to me that the texts are saying that this is a "necessity" only because the blows from the outside eventually overwhelm the structure of the living thing. Seems to me there is no reason to foreclose the possibility, and indeed I think it's likely, that ways can be found to continue to replace the lost / destroyed structure indefinitely. If the "world" is in danger of collapsing, then rational beings would leave the collapsing one and go to one that is not collapsing.

I know some of us are shying away from these conclusions, but I don't think that Epicurus would have shied away from them any more than from his other radical conclusions. This is a subject we need to examine much more closely but I see no supernatural force or "necessity" that any particular object must be limited to a set and particular life span.

The problem with "immortality" is that we don't see how it can be achieved naturally, but then we couldn't for a long time see how men could fly or go to Mars. I doubt there is a conceptual difference between going further and further out in space and extending life spans longer and longer. The issue is simply finding ways to replace the structure, like making sure that there is an endless supply of water and channeling it to continue flowing over the waterfall.

Welcome to the forum. Here are a few initial comments:

Q1 - Considering the materialist and empiricist characteristic of Epicureanism, how did Epicurus manage to arrive at the certainty that "nothing can be created from nothing". Indeed, his argument makes sense, but has this been empirically observed to be raised as a universal and indubitable certainty?

A1 - The short answer would be combine both observation and logic. First he trusted his observations that nothing that he experienced, or that reliably reported to him, established that anything ever comes from totally nothing. He also added a series of deductive questions and answers about how things would be different if things DID come from nothing, and likewise observe that those things do not happen. The longest list of these is in Book 1 of Lucretius, with some being included in the Letter to Herodotus. I understand that you are using a translator so "universal and indubitable certainty" may be overly broad, but it's also true that Epicurus used a 'reasonable' standard of proof and did not accept logical absolutes as required for holding something confidently to be true.

Q2 - Considering the argument that all things need a cause in order to exist, this opens up an opportunity for the existence of a creator, or creators. How did Epicurus, empirically or rationally, come to the conclusion that their interference in our lives is unlikely? How did he come to the conclusion that the gods he mentions in the letter to Menoeceus are blessed and only relate to their fellow men?

Your questions of course touch on why Epicurus was very different from the Stoics, and why the Stoics denounced Epicurus, because Epicurus rejected all contents that there is anything above or outside nature, or that nature was created by supernatural gods, and at root Stoicism is a "supernatural-based" outlook on nature and how to live.

A2 I don't think that Epicurus accepted that "all things need a cause in order to exist." There is no reason to accept the possibility that the particles have not existed eternally, and there are sound logical reasons for believing the opposite, again as listed in Book 1 of Lucretius and the Letter to Herodotus.

As to the interference of the gods, Epicurus held that any gods that exist would logically be completely happy and deathless in themselves, and they would accordingly have no reason to be interested in making trouble for enemies or rewarding friends, because making trouble or rewarding friends is a characteristic of beings who would not be complete within themselves.

Welcome MellrehTheHermit

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 72 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Also - Joshua's reading from Aristotle on the Soul come from the source linked below:

The Internet Classics Archive | On the Soul by Aristotle

One of the subjects discussed in the latter part of this episode is whether Epicurus' statement that gods are living beings blessed and imperishable is a conclusion of the mind, or somehow a fact embodied in something engraved on men's minds, as some commentators tend to apply.

I think most of us here at Epicureanfriends take the position that ALL of the data provided by the faculties - including the faculty of anticipations - is PRE-rational and does not contain it's own conclusory "statement of fact."

So related to that topic I've started a separate thread, to be continued beyond the scope of this episode, entitled:

Thread

Clear But Not Convincing Evidence

In the context of a portion of Lucretius Today Episode 250 I want to start this thread to focus on the possibilty that significant parts of the use of Epicurean prolepsis, including discussion of "gods," needs to be evaluated with the understand that evidence can be "clear" but not "convincing.

For example, in evaluating: "For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision." (Bailey) But does "knowledge of them by clear vision" indicate that everything which is alleged by some…

Cassius

October 14, 2024 at 2:49 PM

In the context of a portion of Lucretius Today Episode 250 I want to start this thread to focus on the possibilty that significant parts of the use of Epicurean prolepsis, including discussion of "gods," needs to be evaluated with the understand that evidence can be "clear" but not "convincing.

For example, in evaluating: "For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision." (Bailey) But does "knowledge of them by clear vision" indicate that everything which is alleged by some people to be clear to them is true? Epicurus may say that god being "immortal and blessed [is part of a] common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds," but does that mean that "ideas" in the form of fully-formed conclusions of fact are "engraved upon men's mind?" What about the false ideas of others about gods rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies? Were those false ideas just invented from whole cloth, or is it possible to that these false opinions were developed as a result of defective processing of certain other prolepses - prolepses which should have been rejected as part of the overall reasoning process?

This is something we discuss in Episode 150 so I want to post this to begin to accumulate discussion of how it is possible that evidence can be considered "clear" and yet not worthy of belief. There are many more that can be found, but the following points come up immediately from a GOOGLE Ai search based primarily on theories of evidence in American law. By no means is this discussion determinative of anything, but I think it's good food for thought:

1. An example of evidence that is clear but not convincing could be a single, isolated eyewitness account of a significant event, especially if the witness has a history of unreliable testimony or if their account lacks substantial supporting details, leaving room for doubt about the accuracy of their observation; even though the witness clearly states what they saw, the lack of corroborating evidence might not be enough to fully convince a decision-maker.
   Here are a few more examples:
   1. A single, ambiguous text message: If someone is accused of threatening behavior based on a single text that could be interpreted in multiple ways, the text itself might be clear but not convincing enough to prove a threat without further context or supporting evidence.
   2. A circumstantial piece of evidence without a direct connection: Finding a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene could be clear evidence of their presence, but if there's no other evidence linking them to the crime, it might not be convincing enough to prove guilt.
   3. Hearsay testimony: Even if a witness clearly states what they heard someone else say, this testimony might be considered clear but not convincing because it is not directly observed evidence and could be subject to misinterpretation or distortion.
2. Key points to remember:
   1. Lack of corroboration: Clear evidence often needs supporting details or other pieces of evidence to be considered convincing.
   2. Potential for bias: Even if evidence is clear, it might not be convincing if there is a strong suspicion of bias from the source.
   3. Context matters: The same piece of evidence could be considered clear but not convincing depending on the situation and the standard of proof required.
      

Lucretius Today Episode 249 is now available: "The Relationship of "Images" To All Human Thought - Not Just To "The Gods."

For the Latin scholars, who can opine on which of the three is most authentic or appropriate, I suppose this is our sestercentennial / semiquincentennial / bisesquicentennial episode!

The United States Semiquincentennial,^[a] also called the Bisesquincentennial, the Sestercentennial or the Quarter Millennial, will be the 250th anniversary of the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence. Festivities will be scheduled to mark various events leading up to the anniversary on July 4, 2026.

United States Semiquincentennial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also: 250 years. Sestercentennial. To express 2+1⁄2 in Latin it would be expressed as "half-three". The term relates to being halfway [from the second] to the third integer. In Latin this is "Sestertius", which is a contraction of semis (halfway) tertius (third)—hence Sestercentennial.

Patrikos unfortunately there is neither audio or video of that available. We opted not to record it so as to let the conversation flow as freely as possible. Thanks for asking though - I am hoping that we can do more with Emily Austin in the future.

Additional References from Aetius / Placata:

§25 Epicurus (says that) the gods are human in form, and are all observable by reason (only) because of the fine particles of which the nature of their images consists. The same (philosopher says there are) four other classes of natures that are indestructible: the indivisibles, the void, the infinite, and the similarities; these (natures) are called homoiomereiai (‘having similar parts’) and elements. (P9,S24)

4.8 On Sensation and Sense-Objects (P,S)

§2 Epicurus: ‘sense/sensation is the (bodily) part which is the faculty, and the sensory recognition which is the activity’; so it is spoken of by him in two ways: sense as the faculty, sensory recognition as the activity. (P2,S2)

...
§10 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) that sensation and thought arise from images that approach from outside, for neither of these can occur to anyone without the image falling upon him. (P4,S13)

4.13 On Vision, How We See (P,S)
§1 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus believe that the visual sensation is the result of the penetration of images. (P1,S1)

4.14 On Reflections in Mirrors (P,S)
§1 Empedocles (says they come about) by the effluences that come together on the surface of the mirror and are compacted by the fiery stuff discharged from the mirror, which transports across with itself the air lying before it towards which the streams travel. (P1,S1)
§2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) the reflections in mirrors come about through the manifestations of the images, which move away from us but come to be on the mirror which sends them back. (P2,S2)

5.2 How Dreams Occur (P)
§1 Democritus (says that) dreams occur through the manifestations of eidola (images). (P1)

Lucretius Today Episode 249 is now available: "Are the Epicurean Gods Totally Inactive, And Are We To Emulate Them By Laziness?"

This thread returns to my mind as I am completing editing of Episode 249.

Quote from Patrikios

the pursuit of inner peace, the importance of friendship, the value of rational thinking, and the focus on achievable, natural pleasures rather than vain desires. It provides a strong historical and philosophical foundation for our approach to stress management and the pursuit of happiness.

That quote is a pretty good summary of what people generally read about Epicurus. And it is very true, I think, as far as it goals. The ambiguity that I find of most concern when I talk to people (especially when the conversation includes emphasis on such things as "stress management") is often expressed something like:

"What does 'the pursuit of happiness' really mean in concrete terms for what I should do with my time today? Stop talking in platitudes, Epicurus! (... or Aristotle, or anyone else who talks about happiness or eudaemonia. Give me something concrete. Tell me how I myself should spend my own time to achieve "the greatest happiness" or "the greatest pleasure."

The reason this returns to mind in episode 249 is that one statement of Cotta is:

Quote

XXXVII. ... Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity.

This is essentially the charge that is also leveled against Epicurean ethics in general -- that "pleasure" (or any form of"happiness" linked to pleasure) is for the lazy and slothful, fit not as a goal for man, and certainly not fit as a goal for a god, and thus the entire Epicurean position is fit only for the lazy and worthless.

Talking about stress management and balance is all well and good for those who are primarily motivated by escape from pain. But the task at hand that Cicero doesn't allow Velleius to present, and Cicero allows Torquatus only to present briefly, is what kind of action is involved in this best life of pleasure and happiness.

Are we talking the pleasure of indolence, or the pleasures of pleasurable actions, and how do we explain the difference.

Cicero doesn't allow Torquatus or Velleius to say much like this following statement by Thomas Jefferson to William Short, but I think it's an example of how to point in the right direction.

Quote from Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Short

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up.....

This thread returns to my mind as I am completing editing of Episode 249.

Quote from Patrikios

the pursuit of inner peace, the importance of friendship, the value of rational thinking, and the focus on achievable, natural pleasures rather than vain desires. It provides a strong historical and philosophical foundation for our approach to stress management and the pursuit of happiness.

That quote is a pretty good summary of what people generally read about Epicurus. And it is very true, I think, as far as it goals. The ambiguity that I find of most concern when I talk to people (especially when the conversation includes emphasis on such things as "stress management") is often expressed something like:

"What does 'the pursuit of happiness' really mean in concrete terms for what I should do with my time today? Stop talking in platitudes, Epicurus! (... or Aristotle, or anyone else who talks about happiness or eudaemonia. Give me something concrete. Tell me how I myself should spend my own time to achieve "the greatest happiness" or "the greatest pleasure."

The reason this returns to mind in episode 249 is that one statement of Cotta is:

Quote

XXXVII. ... Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity.

This is essentially the charge that is also leveled against Epicurean ethics in general -- that "pleasure" (or any form of"happiness" linked to pleasure) is for the lazy and slothful, fit not as a goal for man, and certainly not fit as a goal for a god, and thus the entire Epicurean position is fit only for the lazy and worthless.

Talking about stress management and balance is all well and good for those who are primarily motivated by escape from pain. But the task at hand that Cicero doesn't allow Velleius to present, and Cicero allows Torquatus only to present briefly, is what kind of action is involved in this best life of pleasure and happiness.

Are we talking the pleasure of indolence, or the pleasures of pleasurable actions, and how do we explain the difference.

Cicero doesn't allow Torquatus or Velleius to say much like this following statement by Thomas Jefferson to William Short, but I think it's an example of how to point in the right direction.

Quote from Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Short

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up.....

(I added this post also to the thread for Episode 219.)

Welcome to Episode 250 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 have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 37 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will eventually be put together here.

Today's Text

XXXVII.

... for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting.

XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion; but you term it “the approach and entrance of images into the mind.” Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say, in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that the Gods are happy and eternal.

Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected, yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of, or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect. For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore, can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells us that there never was such a person as Orpheus the poet; and it is said that the verse called Orphic verse was the invention of Cercops, a Pythagorean; yet Orpheus, that is to say, the image of him, as you will have it, often runs in my head. What is the reason that I entertain one idea of the figure of the same person, and you another? Why do we image to ourselves such things as never had any existence, and which never can have, such as Scyllas and Chimæras? Why do we frame ideas of men, countries, and cities which we never saw? How is it that the very first moment that I choose I can form representations of them in my mind? How is it that they come to me, even in my sleep, without being called or sought after?

XXXIX. The whole affair, Velleius, is ridiculous. You do not impose images on our eyes only, but on our minds. Such is the privilege which you have assumed of talking nonsense with impunity. But there is, you say, a transition of images flowing on in great crowds in such a way that out of many some one at least must be perceived! I should be ashamed of my incapacity to understand this if you, who assert it, could comprehend it yourselves; for how do you prove that these images are continued in uninterrupted motion? Or, if uninterrupted, still how do you prove them to be eternal? There is a constant supply, you say, of innumerable atoms. But must they, for that reason, be all eternal? To elude this, you have recourse to equilibration (for so, with your leave, I will call your Ἰσονομία), and say that as there is a sort of nature mortal, so there must also be a sort which is immortal. By the same rule, as there are men mortal, there are men immortal; and as some arise from the earth, some must arise from the water also; and as there are causes which destroy, there must likewise be causes which preserve. Be it as you say; but let those causes preserve which have existence themselves. I cannot conceive these your Gods to have any. But how does all this face of things arise from atomic corpuscles? Were there any such atoms (as there are not), they might perhaps impel one another, and be jumbled together in their motion; but they could never be able to impart form, or figure, or color, or animation, so that you by no means demonstrate the immortality of your Deity.

Programming note: Production of this episode is almost complete, and it will be out later today. We devoted the majority of this Episode 249 to the discussion on Section 37, so in Episode 250 we will continue into Section 38.

SillyApe You're certainly right that our current situation is going to be difficult to change, and any changes will be slow and come only with lots of effort. But we today have offsetting technologies and situations that have never before been available in human history, so there's good reason to be hopeful that progress can be made. Even the work we are doing here together would have been impossible much more than a decade ago. it's now so much easier to share information and group-source the research and other work that needs to be done that it's a total game-changer. There are dark clouds of censorship and opinion suppression already here and more on the horizon, but they don't dominate yet, and there is hope that we can stay ahead of that censorship through even better technology.

Patrikios It has been a great regret of mine that except for communications with Christos and Elli Pensa and perhaps a few others, we've never been able to establish much communication with the Epicurean activists in Greece. Christos certainly does excellent work and I hope over time that will change too. That said, there are definitely different opinions about Epicurus even among those of us who are "activists" on the topic. Christos is excellent in his medical practitioner approach as to the benefits of balance. From a personal point of view -- almost a "self-help" kind of view - I see appreciate the benefits of that approach. In addition to that, however, I see the goal of "balance" as being only one part of the benefit of Epicurean philosophy. Yes you definitely want "balance" as you live your life and respond to its challenges.

In addition, however, there are major philosophical issues that Epicurus was addressing that tend to get crowded out if one focuses only on "balance" or "tranquility" or any other single tool toward the ultimate goal. I suppose one might say that it is important to take a "balanced" approach even to balance, and to recognize that there are many other day to day decisions that must be made on which Epicurus had very many important things to say.

Many of these are very complicated philosophical problems require very uncomfortable decision-making given our current world circumstances. The more one thinks about it, the more the difficulty that faced Epicurus comes into focus. What single word, with what kind of definition, can possibly express adequately the complete meaning of "the highest good" or "the goal of life?" "Happiness" is far too ambiguous. It is claimed by far too many contradictory schools and viewpoints. Only "pleasure," which is tied tightly to the natural faculty of pleasure and pain, can do that job clearly. And even then, "pleasure" can full that role only if it is adequately placed in the context of holding that life itself is the irreducible requirement of anything that is desirable. Only In the context of seeing that life-after-death and supernatural realms are equally fictitious, can we see that any kind of life at all, so long as it is not dominated by pain, is worthy of being considered a happy one. Of course we each have opinions as to what type of pleasures suit us best, but it is "pleasure" that is the general category that makes life worth living. "Happiness" and many other words can be helpful, but only if they too are tightly tied to the natural feelings of pleasure and pain as Epicurus did. To cite what Torquatus says in On Ends, the wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation.

I think if Epicurean philosophy is ever to break out of its current "backwater" in popular discussion, we'll need to address the whole spectrum of what Epicurus had to say. There are very many excellent minds in the modern Greek Epicurean world and I hope over time we can engage with more people around the world who are interested in this project. That will involve everyone including especially younger people who are not so easily taken in by thinking that "tranquility" is enough of a goal for their lives. On the other hand, neither will they embrace "Pleasure" unless it is explained to them the sweeping nature of the term in Epicurean philosophy. I am convinced, however, that the texts support ample support for the interpretations of "tranquility," "pleasure," "virtue" - and yes, even "gods," which Epicurus advocated. As SillyApe said, it's not going to be easy, and many texts have been lost, but what remains - combined with the same common-sense reasoning Epicurus exhibited - are more than enough to reconstruct what is needed.

Quote from SillyApe

On another note, sadly, I don't think Epicureanism is going to be as popular as Stoicism or Buddhism are nowadays, for the simple reason there's not much commercial appeal to it.

I think you're almost certainly right as a practical prediction, and substantially right that Buddhism and Stoicism appeal to a larger group of people, but I do think it is reasonable to work toward a future in which Epicureanism was as much "a player" as it was in the Roman world of 50 BC and thereabouts.

As I see it the number one hurdle to get across - with nothing else being close - is that of arguing the evidence supporting the view that Epicurus' "absence of pain" does not mean "absence of activity," but instead embraces *every* activity of human life that is not painful. The switch has to be made from thinking that Epicurus was preaching tranquility and asceticism as his goal to understanding it as it appears the ancients understood it: "Pleasure" includes every aspect of life that we find valuable, and given the shortness of life, every mental or physical activity that doesn't lead to "net pain" (when all consequences are considered) is in fact within the term "Pleasure." We even choose pain on a regular basis, when we expect the choice to eventually lead to net pleasure.

There is no reason whatsoever that every normal, vigorous, fundamentally healthy in mind and body, person of any age would not profit from realizing that there is no supernatural god, no absolute virtue, no ideal forms, nor any other supernatural or authoritative force to which we are required to conform, and that our happiness is predominantly in our own hands and within our own control.

Epicurean philosophy will start appealing to a much larger number people when we finally begin to push back against the Platonizing and Stoicizing and Supernaturalizing majority that dominates the world today. As long as the false focus on "tranquility" and "simplicity" and other aspects that are not ends in themselves remains the standard interpretation, Epicurean philosophy will remain in the shadows. However there is no "fate," and the fact that a vigorous Epicurean movement flourished in the ancient world shows that it is possible. What has happened once can happen again, and in fact since we know it is possible, we can infer that it has already happened and will happen in the future an infinite number of times.

I'm going to have to reread this to get the most out of it, but I want to state already:

• I am very appreciative of your going through old episodes and adding commentary like this! We're doing a better job nowadays in discussing the episodes in real time, but there are a lot of old episodes with great material but little commentary, and this helps a lot.
• This post immediately strikes me as similar to your excellent and recent archery post pointing out how the archery researcher went back and looked at very old historical records and reinterpreted them to find out things that most were missing (and how much information had been lost). Developing analogies like this is a great way of understanding the topic and prompting others to think about the parallels and take them even further.