Posts by Cassius

An additional fly in the ointment is that in reading ahead to a section where Velleius is being attacked, it seems that I remember seeing another reference to these images and the gods, and that in the second reference the preposition goes the other way.

Of course I don't have the cite on the tip of my tongue and without it this comment is useless, but I will see what I can do, and Joshua and I can look for it as we go further in OTNOTG.

Edit - it might be this from later in Book One, but I may remember something even more definite. Plus this is Yonge and I may be remembering Rackham:

XXXVII. “They have nothing to do,” your teacher says. 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.

But let it be as you would have it, that the Deity is in the form and image of a man. Where is his abode? Where is his habitation? Where is the place where he is to be found? What is his course of life? And what is it that constitutes the happiness which you assert that he enjoys? For it seems necessary that a being who is to be happy must use and enjoy what belongs to him. And with regard to place, even those natures which are inanimate have each their proper stations assigned to them: so that the earth is the lowest; then water is next above the earth; the air is above the water; and fire has the highest situation of all allotted to it. Some creatures inhabit the earth, some the water, and some, of an amphibious nature, live in both. There are some, also, which are thought to be born in fire, and which often appear fluttering in burning furnaces.

In the first place, therefore, I ask you, Where is the habitation of your Deity? Secondly, What motive is it that stirs him from his place, supposing he ever moves? And, lastly, since it is peculiar to animated beings to have an inclination to something that is agreeable to their several natures, what is it that the Deity affects, and to what purpose does he exert the motion of his mind and reason? In short, how is he happy? how eternal? Whichever of these points you touch upon, I am afraid you will come lamely off. For there is never a proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation; 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.

Edit TWO == same implication of direction from the gods:

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.

There are not many books like "Living For Pleasure" which I personally would recommend. Haris Dimitriadis' "Epicurus and the Pleasant LIfe" probably would be next on a list geared to your specifications. You might also like Catherine Wilson's How To Be An Epicurean.

The recommended reading list in our FAQ is geared toward helping people read the works of the ancient Epicureans directly, as that is a far more accurate way to find out what Epicurus really taught:

Can You Suggest A Reading List For Learning About Epicurus? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Less in line with your specifiication to be short would be:

1 - Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy, which is the best "textbook" treatment of Epicurean Philosophy

2 - A Few Days in Athens - which conveys Epicurean philosophy in Fiction form but is probably the most true-to-form original work on Epicurus written since the ancient world. You can read that online here: AFewDaysInAthens.com

That is a good video UnpaidLandlord thank you! The video producer seems to know the topic and I expect he is largely expressing it well. On that basis if we conclude that the essence of Camus' advice is to take a radical "WHO CARES?" position, then I have to affirm my earlier disposition that this Camus is about as much a reverse-Epicurean as you can get.

Sounds like the producer is correct that Camus is more like a "Stoic on Steroids" in expanding "indifference" to a whole new level of nihilistic glory. Camus might object to nihilism, but I hear no praise of pleasure or any other justification for going through what pain does exist in life.

In the apparent emphasis on "freedom" as an end in itself, rather than because freedom brings pleasure, I see nothing good at the end of that tunnel at all. Sounds like just another arbitrary "virtue" being elevated without regard as to its foundation or why we should do so.

This video also does a better job of contrasting Camus against Nietzsche. In my mind the issues the producer brings out are to the credit of Nietzsche and demerit of Camus.

What I am hearing is reminding me also of why i have never been a fan of "modern atheism" for example of the Sam Harris type. Pointing out the erroneous nature of supernatural gods is all well and good, but to live happily we have to replace that void with something to organize our lives. Epicurus shows how pleasure and pain fill that role, but I don't see how Camus is doing anything but destroying, and failing to replace it with anything. As Epicurus said, there are indeed worse things than conventional religion. Epicurus put his finger on hard determinism as an example of something worse, but I would not be surprised if he would put radical "Who cares?-ism" at or near that same rank.

All this is why I see it is as so important to embrace a positive and understandable worldview, like Epicurus taught, rather than just act the bull in a china shop running around destroying without ever providing a reasonable basis for hoping to succeed in living a happy life. No one I am aware of comes close to Epicurus in that regard.

I am pretty sure the video I watched was this one - although for some reason as I listen to it tonight the voice seems a little different than I remember. But the video background appears clearly the same, so this much be it. Seemed pretty evenhanded as best I could tell:

I watched a Youtube video on Camus tonight and i get the impression that interpretation of him is all over the board, all the way from existentialism, which he apparently strenuously denied, to there not being a dimes worth of difference between Camus and Nietzsche. It all seems to hinge on exactly who or what is being labeled as "absurd," and why, and that's where the lack of clarity is so glaring, much like the ambiguity of the legacy of Democritus leaves everyone wondering whether he was laughing "with" humanity or "at" humanity. I tend to think after brief exposure that Camus doesn't deserve to be considered to be on the "nihilist" team, but it also does not seem likely to me that his work could be interpreted so broadly if there were not some smoldering coals that create the smoke that surrounds him. I am thinking (so far) that there is probably a lot to learn from taking apart his views, but probably not much to be gained by holding up any system that he created as a model to emulate.

Yep this is a very practical exercise and I have always found it very clarifying in the handful of times i have done it. Great advice Godfrey. When we compile lists of "things every Epicurean should do" this has to be on them.

Yes that Warren passage does resonate with me, and reminds me of my currrent favorite David Sedley quote, which also fits the conversation:

34 DAVID SEDLEY - EPICURUS' REJECTION OF DETERMINISM:

Epicurus’ response to this is perhaps the least appreciated aspect of his thought. It was to reject reductionist atomism. Almost uniquely among Greek philosophers he arrived at what is nowadays the unreflective assumption of almost anyone with a smattering of science, that there are truths at the microscopic level of elementary particles, and further very different truths at the phenomenal level; that the former must be capable of explaining the latter; but that neither level of description has a monopoly of truth. (The truth that sugar is sweet is not straightforwardly reducible to the truth that it has such and such a molecular structure, even though the latter truth may be required in order to explain the former). By establishing that cognitive scepticism, the direct outcome of reductionist atomism, is self-refuting and untenable in practice, Epicurus justifies his non-reductionist alternative, according to which sensations are true and there are therefore bona fide truths at the phenomenal level accessible through them. T

We will also want to consider Jeffrey Fish's "Not All Politicians are Sisyphus," as well as the Boeri book "Theory and Practice in Epicurean Political Philosophy" released last year. From the Fish article, which suggests that we reconsider the standard interpretation of Lucretius' reference to Sisyphus:

I don't think we can unwind all this without getting back to exactly what it was that Sisyphus is alleged to have done to be set up for the punishment which now defines his whole life.

Sisyphus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's hard for me to see as all bad a figure who tricked Hades into ENDING death on earth at least for a while. And whose sin seems to consist significantly in not yielding to the orders of the gods.....

In a companion thread we are mentioning Sisyphus, and this thread will be the place to explore that in more depth so we have a thread to cite in the future.

I know Lucretius mentions him but we need to start earlier to get the back story.

Lots of good material to discuss coming from this. We need a thread specifically on Sisyphus, so I will set that up.

Thread

The Meaning Of the Story of Sisyphus

In a companion thread we are mentioning Sisyphus, and this thread will be the place to explore that in more depth so we have a thread to cite in the future.

I know Lucretius mentions him but we need to start earlier to get the back story.

Cassius

July 5, 2024 at 12:52 PM

Please don't take these or my prior remarks as being unfriendly, because I do not mean them in that way at all. All of us have gone through different philosophies in the past and we would not be here now if we have not.

Having said that, this is an Epicurean forum, and not a generalist philosophy group where all philosophies are equally "respected" and discussed dispassionately. And therefore I would say:

Quote from UnPaid_Landlord

As I understand it, it's more about accepting the reality with it's absurd nature and still living passionately

This is exactly the point in issue --- life does NOT have an absurd nature, from my point of view, and from what I read of Epicurus, he would say the same. Giving in on the question of whether "life is absurd" and not challenging that perspective is to give up the issue at the beginning.

Quote from UnPaid_Landlord

but I think it need not be a pessimistic philosophy, I don't why some people just misunderstand many things as negative, for example I have personally met some fellows who think Buddhism is really negative and pessimistic, and I can't understand what them at all,

Same perspective here, but in the reverse. I DO see Buddhism as essentially negative and pessimistic, and I cannot understand at all why someone would view it otherwise.

To repeat, we have all gone through different phases and perspectives and I don't make these statements to be argumentative. If we didn't have discussions with people who come to Epicurean discussion with different views, then we'd never give anyone the opportunity to engage with pro-Epicurean positions and potentially change their minds.

But we would not be an Epicurean forum if we did not --- at the same time that we welcome people who are not currently in tune with Epicuruean views - state clearly how we see Epicurus' views compare with others, and if we did not advocate for Epicurus' position, rather than accept very contradictory positions as if they were equally valid.

In this thread we're focusing on Absurdism and digging directly into the negative aspects, and it is unfortunate that we're doing so without having first engaged with you (talking to Unpaid_Landord) on the commonalities between what you're saying and Epicurus. I hope that you'll not get such an immediate bad impression from this thread that you don't continue to keep an open mind about this forum and Epicurus in general.

I don't think Epicurus would advise starting out tacking divisive subjects immediately, so this turn of discussion is probably unfortunate. But I think Epicurus would say that when clear issues arise, and others are watching (this is a public forum that anyone can read) it's best not to gloss over and defer deep issues for a later time that may never come. That's one reason why so much of the preliminary materials on this website that people go through in the registration process are geared toward putting such issues front and center, so they get discussed early.

If someone were to ask me: "Give me a cite to an Epicurean or someone writing about Epicurus who says something like the rant you just wrote" my first response would be Frances Wright in Chapter 10 of A Few Days In Athens. I think this section does a great job of capturing the flavor of what is explicit and implicit in the surviving texts, and which rejects the nihilism and absurdism and similar modern "isms':

A reasonable-length excerpt from that to quote here would be:

Quote from Frances Wright - A Few Days in Athens

Should we, then, to avoid the evil, forego the good? Shall we shut love from our hearts, that we may not feel the pain of his departure? No; happiness forbids it. Experience forbids it. Let him who hath laid on the pyre the dearest of his soul, who hath washed the urn with the bitterest tears of grief — let him say if his heart hath ever formed the wish that it had never shrined within it him whom he now deplores. Let him say if the pleasures of the sweet communion of his former days doth not still live in his remembrance. If he love not to recall the image of the departed, the tones of his voice, the words of his discourse, the deeds of his kindness, the amiable virtues of his life. If, while he weeps the loss of his friend, he smiles not to think that he once possessed him. He who knows not friendship, knows not the purest pleasure of earth. Yet if fate deprive us of it, though we grieve, we do not sink; Philosophy is still at hand, and she upholds us with fortitude. And think, my sons, perhaps in the very evil we dread, there is a good; perhaps the very uncertainty of the tenure gives it value in our eyes; perhaps all our pleasures take their zest from the known possibility of their interruption. What were the glories of the sun, if we knew not the gloom of darkness? What the refreshing breezes of morning and evening, if we felt not the fervors of noon? Should we value the lovely-flower, if it bloomed eternally; or the luscious fruit, if it hung always on the bough? Are not the smiles of the heavens more beautiful in contrast with their frowns, and the delights of the seasons more grateful from their vicissitudes? Let us then be slow to blame nature, for perhaps in her apparent errors there is hidden a wisdom. Let us not quarrel with fate, for perhaps in our evils lie the seeds of our good. Were our body never subject to sickness, we might be insensible to the joy of health. Were our life eternal, our tranquillity might sink into inaction. Were our friendship not threatened with interruption, it might want much of its tenderness. This, then, my sons, is our duty, for this is our interest and our happiness; to seek our pleasures from the hands of the virtues, and for the pain which may befall us, to submit to it with patience, or bear up against it with fortitude. To walk, in short, through life innocently and tranquilly; and to look on death as its gentle termination, which it becomes us to meet with ready minds, neither regretting the past, nor anxious for the future.”

Note: As per earlier commentary on Wright by me and others here on the forum, it is questionable whether it is necessary to go down the road of arguing philosophically that the "good would not exist but for the bad." However as a practical argument to focus the mind that we have to make choices and set our own attitudes, and that we might not understand the pleasure so well without the experience of pain, I think this argument in Chapter 10 works extremely well.

Here's more commentary on what I perceive to be one of the larger problems this discussion brings up. I'm not criticizing Camus, because I don't know that he himself took these positions. But this is based on what I would expect the word "Absurdism" to convey to the average man-on-the-street in 2024 English.

The meaning I get from the term "absurdism" is:

"When I look at the world I see horror and injustice and sadness all around, sprinkled with a few dots of pleasure that are ridiculously insignificant in comparison with the pain. I don't think it's worth worrying about whether I can explore nature and understand the way the world works so as to reduce the pain and increase the pleasure. The horror and sadness are so overwhelming that there is no alternative but wall it off from my mind and paper over the wall with an attitude of considering everything to be "Absurd." That way I don't have to think about taking responsibility for my role in the problem, or for the fact that it is *my* assessment that the world is such a horrible place. I will just occupy my mind with thinking how useless and absurd the universe is and how insignificant I am and just do the best I can to survive."

If I were to rewrite that from what I would expect Epicurus to say, it would be something like:

"When I look at the world I see both terrible and beautiful things. I also see Nature as the originator of everything, and I see that nature has no intention to create things that I think are horrible. I see that Nature works through regular and understandable means, and that tells me that I can work *with* nature to increase the number of things that I see that are pleasing, and to reduce the number of things that I find to be sad. I do that because I see that the pleasing things in life are far more significant and important to me than the painful things, and I see that I can have an effect upon my world and that I have a limited time within which to experience and increase pleasure and minimize those parts that painful. The pleasure I get from the pleasing aspects of life so far outweighs the painful that I am more than happy to choose the painful, at time, so that my overall life contains more pleasure. I will therefore explore nature and work to understand the way the world works so as to reduce the pain and increase the pleasure that I find in it. The last thing I will do is close my mind to facts and laugh at the seriousness of my desire to obtain pleasure or eliminate pain. And since nature is what it is, and I have the power to assess it pleasurably, even though some who call themselves "absurdists" assess it negatively, I will take responsibility for seeing that so long as I am alive and can experience life with more pleasure than pain, then I will see life as pleasurable to me, and do everything I can to stay alive to enjoy it as long as I can. I will do the best I can, not resigning that I have no hope to succeed, but confident that I do have the free will and ability to live happily even though I know I will encounter pain along the way. And I will hold in contempt those who are so "otherworldly" minded that they rebel against the way things are and label it "absurd."

Just to be clear despite my initial negative remarks I do think this thread will be very helpful. It sounds like the questions everyone is asking are very logical and exploring this will lead to identification of why Camus (and maybe Nietzsche too) seemed to drift "away" from Epicurus. So far in my book this issue stems from seeing Epicurus as "sad" and "retreating" (which i would argue is extremely mistaken) and is at the core of many problems.

Both Camus and Nietzsche seem to have some very good points, but my current speculation would be that when they ran into the "absence of pain" problem, rather than rejecting the orthodox academic interpretation of Epicurus, they dropped Epicurus hlmself. They should have embraced the interpretation preserved through Torquatus that life in the "absence of pain" IS pleasurable -- and that this position is logical, straightforward, and without any hint of irony or sarcasm or logical double-dealing or word-gaming.

Rather than interpret Epicurus sympathetically, they decided that Epicurus was essentially a deeply sad and fragile "snowflake" (need another synonym there to avoid the current political overtones of that word) who adopted as his primary goal in life that of walling himself up in a garden so as to flee from every drop of pain. That's the problem interpretation we are regularly running into, and for Epicurus to be seen as life-affirming and happy and positive, that interpretation has to be combated and exposed as erroneous.

From Wikipedia, i find this to be an interesting and appealingly practical quotation from Camus. This and some of the other material about his later life doesn't sound to me like someone who was totally dedicated to framing life itself as "absurd." I presume like everyone else, Camus was a complicated figure:

Quote

In one, often misquoted incident, Camus confronted an Algerian critic during his 1957 Nobel Prize acceptance speech in Stockholm, rejecting the false equivalence of justice with revolutionary terrorism: "People are now planting bombs in the tramways of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother.

Quote from Little Rocker

Because I suspect Epicurus is truly concerned to find a response to that particular absurdist worry.

Having now finished the paper, and not finding more so far on Camus talking about Epicurus directly, I very much agree with this statement. At this point Epicurean philosophy does not appear to me to be in any way similar to Absurdism, it is the cure for Absurdism.

This article would lead me to believe that Camus has picked up fully on the aged and deteriorated side of Nietzsche's views of Epicurus without any of Nietzsche's appreciation for Epicurus' battle against otherworldism that Nietzsche seemed to appreciate in Epicurus and Lucretius. My assessment of Nietzsche is that N. bought into this same view of Epicurus as someone who was running in fear of pain, which I reject entirely, rather than as a crusading reformer against felonious philosophy in which "absence of pain" is completely synonymous with pleasure, and a recognition that life can be and is and should be viewed as pleasure itself - and the opposite of "absurd."

I will be very interested to see what else people might come up with in regard to Camus, but these quotes from Don's article indicate to me that Camus was as far from being an Epicurean as one could possibly be. Just based on this I would say that Epicurus's attitude toward Camus might parallel his attitude toward determinism, in that there would be little worse than looking at life with "dreadful sadness," and that it would be better to believe in the untrue myths of the gods than to look at life this way:

Quote

The starting point for Camus’ analysis is Epicurus’ “dreadful sadness” (85).

Camus believes that “anxious fear of death” is the root of Epicurus’ sadness.

It is clear from this interpretive summary that Camus’ Epicurus is not a metaphysical rebel. His repressed fear and bitterness lead to ratiocinative defense mechanisms, not open condemnation of the universe and its makers.

His physics and ethics extinguish desire for joy the world cannot provide, while hardening the body against suffering; and his theology eliminates hope.

I find nothing whatsoever "sad" about Epicurus' ultimate viewpoint on life, and I see Epicurus' conclusions as the ultimate rejection of sadness as the proper attitude toward it. Calling something absurd can be very useful, and I can see Epicurus liking that word, but as a weapon against the false philosophies and religions, not as a summary as one's attitude toward life.

Of course the writer of this article could be misinterpreting Camus, so I'll suspend judgment pending more information.

Lots of good information. Thank you Matteng!

Thank you Don! That Sextus Empiricus reference is particularly interesting and helpful!