Posts by Cassius

In this episode we mentioned but did not explore Cicero's unjust accusation that Epicurus held it to be sweet to be roasted in the bull of Phalaris.

I see that the Bernier/Gasssendi "Three Discourses addresses this directly on pages 6 and 7 (pdf pages 10 and 11). He doesn't call out Cicero directly, but the last paragraph here indicates that he may well have had Cicero's accusation against Epicurus directly in mind. I included the opening paragraph here because it shows that Bernier/Gassendi sees exactly what we are talking bout in the podcast that it's essential to define Happiness in practical terms and not in abstract absolute terms such as the Stoics want to do in seeing it as 100 percent good unmixed with absolutely any evil:

Quote

The Second is, That by this Natural Felicity that we here Treat of, is not to be understood such a state of Life as we can't imagine a better, a more pleasant, and more desirable; in the which we cannot apprehend any evil, nor think of any good thing which we shall not possess; nor of any thing that we have a desire to do, but we shall be able to accomplish it, and that it shall remain fixed and unchangeable. But we understand such a certain state of Life, in which we may be as happy as is possible; in which there are abundance of good things, and very few of any sort of evil; and in which consequently we may lead as easy, quiet and undisturbed a Life as the Condition of the Country, the Society we Converse with, the Constitution of our Bodies, the manner of our Life, our Age and other Circumstances will permit: For to propose to ourselves more than this, or to affect during the Course of our Natural Life the highest Felicity, is not to acknowledge, but rather forget our selves to be Men; that is to say, weak and feeble Animals, who by the Laws of Nature are subject to an infinite number of Mischiefs and Evils.

And in this sense it is that we usually say, a Wise Man, tho' tormented with exquisite Pains, may nevertheless be happy; not in a perfect and complete sense, but he may attain to that degree that we call Human Happiness, which the Wise Man always enjoys in that measure that the Circumstances will permit, because he doesn't increase his Misery, either by Impatience, or Despair, but rather abates it by his Constancy. And by this means he is happier, or to speak more properly, he is less miserable than if he suffered himself to be dejected, as others in like cases, who bear not their Misfortunes with the same patience and constancy of Mind, and who besides are not supplied with the same Encouragements from Wisdom as he hath; such I mean as an innocent Life, and a good Conscience void of offence, which always afford great quiet and satisfaction to the Mind.

Wherefore 'tis improper to use this kind of Expression; That it is the same thing for a Wise Man to be burning in Phalaris's Bull, as to be solacing himself upon a Bed of Roses; for it is of such things as Fire and Torments that he desires to be exempt, and wishes much rather that they were not, or that he might not suffer by them; but when they come upon him, he considers them as unavoidable Evils, and suffers them with Courage; so that he may say, Ʋror, sed invictus; I burn, it is true, and suffer, and sometimes I sigh and weep, but for all this I am not vanquished, nor overcome, nor do I suffer my self to be transported with Despair, which would render my Condition much more miserable.

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

Welcome to Episode 308 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 covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean perspective. Today we continue our discussion with the second half of section 10 of Part 5 where Cicero criticizes Metrodorus and Epicurus for allegedly making high-sounding statements by being inconsistent for involving pleasure and pain in them.

As we discussed last week, Cicero identifies this question of whether and how the wise man can always be happy as one of the most important - perhaps the most important - in philosophy.

Today we will look at the four points that are summarized all-too-briefly in the "Tetrapharmakon," and we will expand on the meaning of each branch by referring to the full text of the first four Principal Doctrines, supporting statements in the letters and fragments of Epicurus, and to where Cicero has Torquatus reference them in Book One of On Ends, including:

Quote

XIX. At the same time this Stoic doctrine can be stated in a form which we do not object to, and indeed ourselves endorse. For Epicurus thus presents his Wise Man who is always happy: (3) his desires are kept within bounds; (2) death he disregards; (1) he has a true conception, untainted by fear, of the Divine nature; (4) he does not hesitate to depart from life, if that would better his condition. Thus equipped he enjoys perpetual pleasure, for there is no moment when the pleasures he experiences do not outbalance the pains; since he remembers the past with gratitude, grasps the present with a full realization of its pleasantness, and does not rely upon the future; he looks forward to it, but finds his true enjoyment in the present.

Quote

XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. (3) Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because (2) death is apart from sensation, and (4) pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. When in addition we suppose that such a man is (1) in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

Episode 307 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "How The Wise Epicurean Is Always Happy"

If you get a chance it's always interesting and helpful to hear how new people came across the forum, and generally what part of the world they are in, and how they generally developed their recent interest that led them to dropping by.

We thrive on questions from new people, so don't hesitate to ask any you have, or make comments, as you read!

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

Happy Birthday to C. Florius Lupus! Learn more about C. Florius Lupus and say happy birthday on C. Florius Lupus's timeline: C. Florius Lupus

Please welcome AUtC who tells me:

Hello, I would like to learn more about Epicureanism. I want to talk to others that are also interested in the same things. I have no background or deep education on Epicurean, other than what I have read online in a few spaces.

Thank you.

Welcome AUtC !

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 24 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 and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and 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 already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

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!

As for me personally this may be why i think the word "Quasi" always sounds fake or negative:

kll, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasimodo

Eikadistes thank you for all that commentary!

I don't disagree with any of it but would mention only slight tone question as to "quasi." In my mind that word for some reason carries a negative connotation that evokes space ghosts, but I don't think what Cicero was conveying should be presumed to carry any baggage with it. I would infer it to mean only "something like" or "something analogous too" or "something that functions analogously" and I would not read more into it than that.

Having said that I agree with virtually everything you wrote there. *Everything* gives off images not just gods and not just things that are close or far away.

So Francois Bernier is the person to whom we owe so much here for access to this material:

François Bernier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bernier abridged and translated the philosophical writings of his friend Pierre Gassendi from Latin into French. Initial editions of Bernier's Abregé de la Philosophie de Gassendi were published in Paris in 1674 by the family Langlois and in 1675 by Estienne Michallet. A complete edition in eight volumes was published by Anisson and Posuel at Lyon in 1678; Anisson and Posuel joined with Rigaud to publish a second edition in seven volumes in 1684. Bernier objectively and faithfully rendered Gassendi's ideas in his Abregé, without editorial interjection or invention. However, Bernier remained uncomfortable with some of Gassendi's notions: in 1682, Estienne Michallet was again his publisher, putting forth his Doutes de Mr. Bernier sur quelques-uns des principaux Chapitres de son Abregé de la Philosophie de Gassendi.

Page 425

Clear evidence of Gassendi letting his religion get in the way of his reasoning:

Gassendi seems to specifically repudiate Epicurus on the swerve and liberty, leading up to this statement:

Page 405 -

On page 362 there is a discussion of Theophrastus taking the position that it is ok to lie for a friend because friendship is the higher priority. I'm not sure that I have seen where Epicurus commented on that kind of apparent conflict between Friendship and Virtue (honesty) but I suspect that the Stoics would be none to happy with Theophrastus and perhaps Aristotle over this (?)