Posts by Cassius

I personally am in the camp of those who think that Lucretius did his dead level best to transmit Epicurus faithfully. Therefore whenever Lucretius says something clearly then I would wager that it reflects what Epicurus taught. But f someone were to ask me for an example of a line in Lucretius that has the most potential for deviating from what Epicurus himself taught, this - especially the part I underlined - would be the line that I would put under the microscope:

Quote from Lucretius 2:216

But if they were not used to swerve, all things would fall downwards through the deep void like drops of rain, nor could collision come to be, nor a blow brought to pass for the first-beginnings: so nature would never have brought aught to being.

But before I were to reach the conclusion that this deviates from Epicurus' own views, I would first want to examine the Latin original to see whether there is any chance of a subtlety of translation or other way to reconcile it. I presume that this isn't a scholium addition since it's poetry, but I presume that is not likely due to it being in poem form.)

Certainly like everything else swerves would go back infinitely in time, so there would have been no "first" swerve. As Sedley says it doesn't seem likely that Epicurus would have looked to the swerve as the reason why atoms come together in bodies, but maybe there's something even subtler going on that would have led him to think that it did. I don't gather that the letter to Herodotus is clear as to what it was that causes atoms to "stick" together after their initial collisions? That doesn't seem likely either, but maybe he was developing a theory that whatever causes the swerve has other emergent effects as well.

Are there other alternatives? Maybe Epicurus simply developed the swerve theory later in life and the Herodotus letter was earlier, and never revised, as Sedley seems to think? This calls for creative thinking.

For reference as to Lucretius saying the swerve initiates collisions, and as to whether a collision resulting from a swerve was necessary to initiate world formation:

EPICURUS’ REFUTATION OF DETERMINISM - David Sedley
1. The Swerve
A few facts are, I hope, uncontroversial enough to be set out without defence. Epicurus inherited Democritus’ atomic system, but modified it in a number of respects. In particular, he so vehemently objected to its rigidly deterministic laws as to postulate a minimal. ‘swerve’... in the motion of atoms, occurring at no fixed place or time — a doctrine which does not feature, in his meagre surviving writings but is nonetheless amply attested as his; and defended on his behalf by Lucretius (II 216-93). The swerve (a) _enables atoms falling through space at equal speed in parallel lines to collide occasionally and initiate cosmogonic patterns of motion_; and (b) somehow or other serves as a necessary condition for the behavioural autonomy of animate beings — a power often identified as ‘free will’.

...

I do not propose to expend much discussion on the swerve's cosmogonical function (Lucretius II 216-42), which I suspect to be a problem dreamed up with a preconceived solution in mind. Chains of atomic collisions in extra-cosmic space could have quite adequately been explained by the lateral intrusion of one or more atoms from elsewhere, despatched, say, by the break-up of a nearby world. The question of how such collisions ever started in the first place would not arise, given the infinity of past time and past worlds. That is, indeed, the view strongly implied by the Letter to Herodotus and the Letter to Pythocles, the physical epitomes which Epicurus wrote when he had already worked out his main cosmological views in Books I-XIII of his On Nature. Since these two works also contain no hint of the swerve doctrine, the likelihood is that it was his later work on psychology, apparently in the closing books of the thirty-seven book magnum opus, that led him to the innovation, and that it was only then grafted onto the existing cosmological scheme.

Bailey Lucretius Book 2 -

[216] Herein I would fain that you should learn this too, that when first-bodies are being carried downwards straight through the void by their own weight, at times quite undetermined and at undetermined spots they push a little from their path: yet only just so much as you could call a change of trend. But if they were not used to swerve, all things would fall downwards through the deep void like drops of rain, nor could collision come to be, nor a blow brought to pass for the first-beginnings: so nature would never have brought aught to being.

[225] But if perchance any one believes that heavier bodies, because they are carried more quickly straight through the void, can fall from above on the lighter, and so bring about the blows which can give creative motions, he wanders far away from true reason.

For all things that fall through the water and thin air, these things must needs quicken their fall in proportion to their weights, just because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot check each thing equally, but give place more quickly when overcome by heavier bodies. But, on the other hand, the empty void cannot on any side, at any time, support anything, but rather, as its own nature desires, it continues to give place; wherefore all things must needs be borne on through the calm void, moving at equal rate with unequal weights. The heavier will not then ever be able to fall on the lighter from above, nor of themselves bring about the blows, which make diverse the movements, by which nature carries things on. Wherefore, again and again, it must needs be that the first-bodies swerve a little; yet not more than the very least, lest we seem to be imagining a sideways movement, and the truth refute it. For this we see plain and evident, that bodies, as far as in them lies, cannot travel sideways, since they fall headlong from above, as far as you can descry. But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?

At present I am not finding a thread devoted specifically to the question of whether the swerve was required to cause atoms to come together into bodies, as Lucretius seems to say. Absent another thread that probably needs to be incorporated here too, or at least linked to another thread on that topic if it exists, so I will adjust the title further.

The reason atomic motion came up in the 12/11/24 Zoom is that we were discussing images, and the question arose as to whether images should be considered to be bodies subject to the kind of effects of motion that we observe at the level of bodies (we observe that objects "fall") or whether images travel like atoms at uniform speed in any direction without being subject to "falling" as they travel.

Aside from general interest in the physics involved in Epicurus' view of the movement of atoms, the question arises whether the movement of atoms is related to the movement of images (which was the subject of the Usener section).

Atoms travel at uniform speed, but collide with each other and that affects their direction. Did Epicurus think something similar happens with images?

What issues, if any, related to the movement of atoms and images need to be considered in the processing of images by the mind?

Also by Bryan:


Regarding the direction of the atoms, here Epicurus says that they continue in whatever direction they are going, until they have an impact.

This (below) was suggested by Bryan



Here Epicurus says that compounds move at different rates, but atoms move at the same rate. Even though compounds appear to stand still, their atoms are vibrating at that same rate.

Does Life Really Need Planets? Maybe Not

Can organisms generate their own self-sustaining ecosystems in space without a planet. Researchers say it's at least plausible.

www.universetoday.com

Does Life Really Need Planets? Maybe Not

Do we have a planetary bias when it comes to understanding where life can perpetuate? It’s only natural that we do. After all, we’re on one.

However, planets may not be necessary for life, and a pair of scientists from Scotland and the USA are inviting us to reconsider the notion.

We focus on planets as habitats for life because they meet the conditions necessary for life to survive. Liquid water, the right temperature and pressure to keep it in a liquid state, and protection from harmful radiation are the primary requirements for photosynthetic life. But what if other environments, even ones maintained by organisms themselves, can also provide these necessities?

Lucretius Today Episode 258 is now available:

"There Is No Necessity To Live Under the Control of Necessity - Part 2 - Conclusion"

Editing of Lucretius Today Episode 258 is just about complete, and it will be up later today.

In the meantime, the outline for Episode 259 is up in raw form here:

Nothing Comes From Nothing

Our purpose in this series is to highlight:

1. The reasons why the issue is important;
2. The background and contentions of others to whom Epicurus was reacting;
3. The major aspects of Epicurus' reasoning in support of the doctrine; and
4. Takeaway implications of the doctrine.

There's a limit to what we have time to cover, so with these major goals in mind please feel free to make suggestions for additions here in this thread.

We had a very good recording session for this episode, and editing is going well.

Before I forget I want to mention an important supplement to Dr Sedley's article which provided much of the focus of the episode. In addition to that article, i strongly recommend A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" which extends Dr. Sedley's reasoning as to the impact of the swerve.

The basic point is that not only does Dr. Sedley's argument that the swerve is not Epicurus' primary argument for "agency" make sense, but that it is important not to exaggerate the expected impact of any swerve that does exist. In Dr. Long's view, the swerve rarely "breaks through" into the universe that is observable at our level, and that in fact in Epicurus' mind the primary extent to which it does "break through" is in the agency available to intelligent animals. As Dr. Long points out, Epicurus could never have intended the swerve to be an ever-present force creating random events at all times and places, at that would have exploded the original reason for atomism in the first place -- that it explains the regularity - the "laws of nature" that we do in fact see in the mechanical operation going on around us.

This doesn't make into this episode but someone exploring the issues further would want to incorporate Dr. Long's article.

It should cheer all our regulars to know that Don and I are in complete agreement on the Oxford Comma!

Great find Don.

So where, if ever, in the ancient world do we have a variation of the word "tetrapharmakos" appearing on the same piece of paper as the four lines from Philodemus?

Are you then saying that the general idea of a "four-part-cure" originated with nothing to do with Epicurus whatsoever, and it is a generic term that commentators just came to apply to the passage from Philodemus after it was discovered in the modern world simply because it has four parts, just like we apply the word "kleenex" to any kind of tissue paper or "xerox" to photocopying?

Hey this might actually lead to something - but note the qualifying last sentence. I hope this doesn't lead us to find eventually that the term was intended by the christians who used it to be insulting, as one might read DeWitt to deduce....

So the name tetrapharmakos, and not just the details of the formulation, does appear in the Philodemus text itself?

--- For Comparison Purposes, Grok:

When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?
The word "Tetrapharmakon" (or its variant "Tetrapharmakos") was first used in the context of ancient Greek pharmacology, but its metaphorical use in Epicurean philosophy dates back to the 1st century BCE. Specifically, it appears in the works of Philodemus, preserved in the Herculaneum Papyri, where it refers to the four chief doctrines or remedies for healing the soul. This is documented in sources like the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, which lists the term and its uses, and various discussions on Epicurean philosophy websites.

Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?

After Philodemus, the next known mention of the "Tetrapharmakon" comes from the early Christian writers Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian, both of whom referenced it in their works critiquing Epicurean philosophy. This is based on posts found on X.

The "ultimate authority" in December 2024!

I asked:

When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?

ChatGPT said:

The word "Tetrapharmakon" (meaning "four-part remedy") is attributed to the later Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE). While it encapsulates key aspects of Epicurean philosophy, its formulation as a concise term may not have originated directly from Epicurus himself. The phrase is most famously associated with a poetic fragment found in Philodemus' works, which outlines four key maxims derived from Epicurus' teachings:

1. Do not fear the gods.
2. Do not worry about death.
3. What is good is easy to get.
4. What is terrible is easy to endure.

The earliest surviving textual evidence of the term is in Herculaneum papyri linked to Philodemus' writings, dating to the 1st century BCE. This suggests that the term gained currency among Epicureans as a way to succinctly summarize their core ethical guidance during or after Philodemus' time.

Cassius said:

Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?

ChatGPT said:

The term "Tetrapharmakon" is primarily associated with the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE), who utilized it to encapsulate four principal doctrines of Epicurean philosophy. The earliest known textual evidence of this term appears in the Herculaneum papyri, specifically in Philodemus' works dating to the 1st century BCE. Subsequent explicit mentions of the "Tetrapharmakon" are scarce in surviving ancient literature. While later Epicurean thinkers and commentators, such as Diogenes of Oenoanda in the 2nd century CE, propagated Epicurean doctrines, it remains uncertain whether they specifically referenced the "Tetrapharmakon" by name. Therefore, based on existing evidence, Philodemus is the earliest and, perhaps, the sole ancient source to explicitly mention the "Tetrapharmakon."

Yes I agree! I see his statement about "would never" as a personal opinion -- which sounds good to me -- but it sure would have been nice to cite for us where the name "tetrapharmakon" comes from!

And yes I agree too with the inconsistency that he cites it elsewhere more approvingly than I would myself. Again, not that I think that it can't be made to work quite nicely by those who know the big Epicurean picture, but that in its truncated form it can too easily be misunderstood by those who don't, especially if people get the impression it can take the place of the first four full doctrines. Nobody here does that, but it's very frustrating to read these generalist articles stating that the tetrapharmakon is all you need to know! It's a great summary of everything important that Epicurus had to say!

No, it's not!

Welcome -- we look forward to hearing more from you.

Welcome m.repetzki !

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 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!

Quote from Don

it was definitely in use and in circulation among the wider Epicurean community. It's authenticity as an Epicurean "memento" verse is indisputable

Don aside from the papyrus we are talking about what citations can you provide for that? Possibly they are in the thread above and if so I will delete this post... (But after looking I don't see anything.)

I cited in this post above that Bailey does not mention it appearing anywhere else. But maybe someone has found another cite. Can anyone provide a cite to where this appears other than the papyrus? I seem to recall there might be something brief in Cicero but not even a full recitation that would verify that this is the version. But by all means let's keep an eye out to track this down.

Post

RE: Diving Deep Into The History of The Tetrapharmakon / Tetrapharmakos

In Bailey's "Epicurus, the Extant Remains" there is no reference to any appearance of this formulation anywhere in the ancient world other than the above-referenced Herculaneum scroll:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/231/

Cassius

February 2, 2019 at 2:29 PM

In the intervening time since this thread was started we have spent a lot of time with Cicero and he quotes Epicurus in great detail but does not ever give this formulation the kind of central estimation of being a summary of the whole philosophy that it receives in the modern world. Cicero lets Torquatus and Velleius go on and on with apparently reliable explanation of many without any reference to this formulation.

If some combination of Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda or Diogenes Laertius or any similar figure were found to have cited this formulation I would feel entirely differently.

Quote from Don

Hmmm... The general rule I see in play here is "Overindulgence leads to pain

While it is true that overindulgence does generally provide pain, I would see that as an uncontroversial point and therefore unlikely to be the reason for its inclusion , and especially for its inclusion in the manner it is written.

This exchange may seem pedantic but I think there is a lot more going on here than just the two of us talking shop so I think it's very useful!

My motivations are directed at what I perceived is a problem that I link to Martha Nussbaum's "Therapy of Desire." I think it helps to consider whether Epicurus was primarily a clinician or a revolutionary philosopher. In the end he is both, but the modern worlds excess emphasis on the clinical aspect has in my view led to under-appreciation of the revolutionary implications of the philosophy.

"Everyone" accepts that overindulgence leads to pain, but "pleasure is the highest good" and "even the pleasures that some deplore are acceptable if they bring happiness to the person we think deplorqble" are words that wars get fought over.

Quote from Don

BUT - if one thinks they're going to be the exception to the general rule, they're usually disappointed.

I think you and I and probably all of us in this discussion are going to reach the same conclusions 99 out of 100 or maybe 100 out of 100 times.

But since one of our goals here is to be as clear as possible for ourselves and for others who are reading, we need to be clear: What really is the "general rule" that we are discussing?

As I see it, the most important general rule is that pleasure is desirable because it is pleasure. That's a flat assertion with no exceptions whatsoever.

Some pleasures are not sometimes undesirable or painful -- that never is the case, and thus there are no exceptions.

We shift the terminology when we talk about choice and avoidance. Many things - most things? - all things? can be either choiceworthy or non-choiceworthy depending on the circumstances. And we're probably in complete agreement about the probabilities of what is likely to bring more pain than pleasure.

Where Cicero and the majority of the rest of the world try to attack Epicurus is in conflating all these issues together and therefore asserting that "pleasure" is not the best term for the ultimate good. If we agree to that, then we invite in all sorts of logical problems that ultimately make it untenable to maintain that "pleasure" is the ultimate good or ultimate goal.

So I think there's very good reason for being an absolutist and a literalist on Epicurus' statements about pleasure. And that's why I am also very comfortable with "in-your-face" interpretations of PD10 and other aggressive assertions (pleasure IS the absence of pain; the sun IS the size it appears to be; all sensations ARE true; death IS nothing to us, gods ARE living beings blessed and imperishable; the virtues (including wisdom, justice, friendship, and the rest) ARE nothing more than tools for pleasure; etc.). That kind of assertiveness is necessary to get the point across because most people don't think that way, and with them you have to "philosophize with a hammer!"

(Credit goes to someone in the last Wednesday Zoom for bringing up that Nietzsche hammer allusion...)