Posts by Cassius

This reference from Cicero's "On Divination seems fairly funny, and it might not even be demeaning to Epicurus, as Cicero can often be. But I bet there is more to the reference of "corn rising on the market" than is immediately obvious to me, so I thought I would post and maybe over time we can consult the Latin and track down a more precise meaning. As it is, this translation reference to corn (I think by Yonge) seems a little broad, so probably there's some subtlety to be dug out of it. I was just scanning over this looking for references to Epicurus and it's not immediately clear to me whether this is Cicero speaking for himself, or someone else speaking...

Agenda For This Episode

1. Did Epicurus Argue That Infinity Alone (given eternal time and boundless space, anything can happen, and anything includes life) is sufficient explanation for life in the universe? We'll respond to this argument as mentioned in this recent article, especially since this Wikipedia article suggests that this argument will appear later in "On The Nature of The Gods."
2. These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?
3. It was Anaximander’s opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?
4. Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?
5. XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.
6. Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.
7. Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?
8. Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.
9. Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

I've been reminded recently that our podcast is often the first point of contact that people have when they hear about EpicureanFriends, and that in the early months of the episode we used a longer introduction to each episode to address those new listeners.

Over time I shortened that just for the sake of time, but in this episode and probably for the foreseeable future we'll go back to a revised version of the old one for the sake of those new listeners. Regulars can skip over the first two minutes if they prefer, but I think the tradeoff is worth it for the sake of new people who decide to take a chance on the podcast, just like we include similar points for those who sample the front page of the forum.

The revised opening will be something like this:

Welcome to Episode 229 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, 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. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean.

For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

First: The opinions stated here are those of the people making them. Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which is often not the same as presented by many modern commentators. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and one of the best places to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts will shows that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.

Quote from TauPhi

I guess making shopping lists wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

A ha! A major confession! Tau Phi is not a LISTMAKER!

I begin over the years to think that some form of habit of listmaking or outlining is a requirement of being a "good Epicurean!"

Quote

[Letter to Herodotus 36] Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth. And in fact the accurate knowledge of details will be fully discovered, if the general principles in the various departments are thoroughly grasped and borne in mind; for even in the case of one fully initiated the most essential feature in all accurate knowledge is the capacity to make a rapid use of observation and mental apprehension, and this can be done if everything is summed up in elementary principles and formulae. For it is not possible for anyone to abbreviate the complete course through the whole system, if he cannot embrace in his own mind by means of short formulae all that might be set out with accuracy in detail.

Right the mind's direct reception of images is the really interesting aspect of the theory. I don't have a strongly preferred interpretation but I don't write it off as nonsense either.

Lots of good material there I want to think about. In the meantime as to whether the ancients saw gods, my general suspicion is that Epicurus probably didn't think they did either, and the images theory was a more general outgrowth of atomism, meant to explain the way the senses work, rather than focused on excusing hallucinations - I suspect if someone came to Epicurus in 300 BC and told him they had seen a god in their front yard that Epicurus would have considered that person just as unreliable as if someone told me that today.

Those are good questions and this following is a truncated answer. Aspects of all four are probably true, but with major qualifications in my own mind as to each one. For the time being:

1. There can never be another Epicurus, but there can be separate "schools" in all sorts of institutional forms, formal and informal, and they will want to (have to, to remain organized) spell out their own lists of important principles and understandings of Epicurus for the sake of their own clarity of association.

2. Sure I would think that cultural recognition in popular discussion would be an inevitable outcome of increased Epicurean activity.

3. Yes but I personally have never accepted that Epicureans lived in "communes." It's only natural and consistent with the last several PDs that people of like mind would want to live near each other for mutual support. Online is the starting point and then later should come geographic closeness. Until positions clarify as to more precise lines of what "Epicurean" means, it doesn't make sense to talk about anything closer than online. I've indicated before and still hold that many who claim to be of Epicurean attitude (but which I consider to be "quietist" or "tranquilist") I would personally want nothing to do with, just as I am sure that they would not want to associate with me. This issue is something that to me precedes in importance all the other questions and has to come first.

4. That would not be my idea of a major short term goal, and my favored governments would not be in the business of granting favors or privileges to religions, but similar to answer 2 in some circumstances I do think it should be normal for people to consider themselves as "Epicurean" and to be proud of that label.

That's a great summary and consistent with my experience too, and good advice, especially the part about making sure when you buy a phone that it's compatible with an alternative ROM, because otherwise vendors like Verizon tend to lock them down so they cannot be modified.

I have found basic knowledge of Linux to be invaluable, and though I am by no means an expert, "By the way I use Arch" is a worthwhile nerdy joke if you can find the time to invest.

First - I agree with most of that, so that's my primary comment ***but*** :

Quote from Don

They were all swept up in a world not of their making and hostile to their teachings. To paraphrase Star Trek's Borg "Resistance was futile."

NEIN!

Captain Kirk would ha e found a way! (That's why I stopped watching after TOS - that confident and positive spirit - which Cicero denounced in Velleius, and Lucian mentioned in Alexander the Oracle Monger, and.which I strongly associate with Epicurus - seemed missing.)

Quote from Don

I've said elsewhere that we will never reconstruct The Garden. We don't know enough to reconstruct the administration

No it won't be recreated exactly - but it can be recreated in spirit and in new and even better ways if capable and dedicated people come along to work hard enough. All the primary elements survive and they provide the keys to reconstruct the rest

To take the attitude that failure is inevitable would be to give in to a fatalistic determinism that Epicurus was right in rejecting.

I use Newpipe on Android and Freetube on Linux because there's no way I am going to watch all those Youtube ads!

Several years ago I ran Cyanogen on my cell phone but I haven't done that recently - need to get back to it.

Lot's of good stuff on F-droid, and I favor free open source software whenever possible.

Quote from Don

During Epicurus's lifetime,

My impression (just an impression) is that in Epicurus' time he wasn't facing organized region-wide central opposition from opposing radically intolerant schools (religions) of his day, and that the final submersion of the school coincides with the rise of that centralized and radically intolerant religious authority. So in fairness to Epicurus and the early leaders, they didn't have much reason to expect the rise of opposing and intolerant forces that couldn't be dealt with, even in an extreme situation, simply by moving to another city or region.

The successful emergence of Judeo-Christianity as a "worldwide" force of intolerance, and the institutions that that it set up to enforce compliance, weren't yet on the horizon in 250 BC. So any "failures" to adapt (and I am not trying to be critical of any individuals, just noting that it occurred) was something that happened significantly later. Apparently through as late as 40 or so BC in Cicero's time, and probably later, an argument could be made that Epicureanism and organized teaching of it was still very successful. So fingering the critical time period and the critical inability to adapt / respond in some way (even by moving to another region in rough analogy to Mormonism) would come much later than the founding period.

Adding these:

12 - All meetings will be conducted primarily in English. We will regularly discuss the translation of Latin and Greek words, but the majority of our participants are primarily or fluently English-speakers, so efficiency and consideration requires that we communicate primarily in English.

13 - It is not necessary to attend every session in order to attend any sessions. Participants are welcome to attend as their schedules allow. Participants should, however, familiarize themselves with the published agenda of the meeting they attend so that they can interact appropriately and on topic with other participants.

This is a great project Joshua and very worthy of continuing!!!

Quote from Joshua

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

I presume there are all sorts of ways to come at the overall argument, but I wonder if the very first assertion ("by definition") does not already set the tone of the entire problem. The assertion that our placing a label on something creates a physical reality seems to me a possible place to start.

"Definition" seems to me to be an apparent word game, and it probably ought to be seared into everyone's mind from an early age that words may be used to describe reality but do not constitute reality -- the "map is not the territory" observation that we have discussed many times before.

But no doubt there are many ways to get at the problems here and I hope you will continue.

It has been suggested that we post a public list of "protocols" or "etiquette" so that people who attend our EpicureanFriends zoom meeting will know what to expect. We've received a number of comments about how appearing live on camera can be intimidating for new people on a first time visit, so this document will allow us to explain the ground rules and hopefully lessen any anxiety that might hold back someone from participating. This will likely be revised over time, but for now the list is as follows. Please feel free to comment in the thread below if you have any comments or questions about this.

Protocols and Etiquette For Attendance At EpicureanFriends Zoom Meetings

1. Eligibility For Attendance: As explained in various rules below, we restrict participation in our Zoom meetings to those who have a good faith interest in Epicurus and general agreement with the Rules of the EpicureanFriends forum as included in our About page. Those who wish to attend who have not previously participate should message Cassius or one of the other Moderators for information on attending. Requirements for attending our Wednesday meetings are more relaxed than those for attending our "Twentieth" meetings, which we generally reserve for regular participants on the forum. New participants in the forum are encouraged to attend a "First Monday" meeting where we especially address the welcoming of recent participants on the forum.
2. Unless stated otherwise, all of our Zoom meetings are largely informal. We will have an agenda and a general understanding of topics to be covered, but all of our meetings are intended to be relaxed discussions. We generally have from five to ten participants, with some meetings considerably larger. Special programs which are primarily lectures or presentations could be larger, but these rules apply primarily to our regular informal meetings.
3. Our meetings generally last about an hour, but they have been known to go as long as an hour and a half. Feel free to leave meetings early, and if you choose to do so it is not necessary to announce that you are leaving. However a text message in the meeting chat that you are about to exit would be appreciated.
4. At the beginning of each meeting we will start with a welcome, and we will introduce anyone who is new to the Zoom sessions. While we don't want to consume each meeting with a re-introduction at length of all participants, we find that it is interesting and helpful even for our regular members to summarize who they are and why they are participating, so if a meeting has new participants please expect to say a short hello about your background and interest in Epicurus. We do not seek or encourage the exchange of personally identifying information, especially as to specific geographic location, but we do encourage you to let us know about your region of the world (we have participants from across the globe) and at least a little about your level of education and interest in Epicurus. Please select a screen name that does not reveal personal information. If you have not previously attended a Zoom session, it would be desirable to let the moderators know the Zoom name you intend to use. We use the "waiting room" feature of Zoom, and so as to avoid "Zoom bombing," user names which are not recognized may not be admitted into the meeting.
5. It is not required that you turn on your camera and participate in the video feed. We encourage those who wish to do so to use video, as that helps with the flow of conversation and helps to build friendships more quickly. However while most of our participants do generally use video, some do not. We would prefer to have you without video than not have you participate at all.
6. Especially if you do not use video, please use the "raise hand" feature, and or type into the meeting chat, to let us know that you wish to speak. We have a very diplomatic and considerate group and do not generally have too many issues with people trying to speak over each other. We try to allow everyone to participate and to say what is on their minds about a topic.
7. Please understand that because we are in many cases using video, and in all cases we have a live audio feed, we must use caution to ensure that everyone who participates is doing so in good faith. For that reason we do not distribute the link to the session to anyone who has not previously registered on EpicureanFriends and given us at least a short summary of their background and interest in Epicurus. Zoom links can and do change over time, so we generally use a forum "conversation" to distribute the meeting link on the day of each meeting. If you do not have the current Zoom link for the meeting that you wish to attend, please message one of the moderators, and they will get back to you as appropriate.
8. Our Zoom sessions are not debates. We encourage the expression of differing opinions, but as with all aspects of EpicureanFriends, we expect participants to be at least somewhat familiar with and supportive of core Epicurean ideas. All regular rules of participation at EpicureanFriends, especially as to avoidance of discussion of contemporary partison politics, remain in effect during our Zooms. If you disagree substantively with opinions that are being expressed you should do so considerately and without unduly negative and extensive commentary. If your find yourself in fundamental disagreement with a core aspect of Epicurean philosophy you should be considerate in the way that you express that disagreement, keeping in mind that the purpose of EpicureanFriends and its Zoom meetings is to allow for the exchange of ideas among those who are supportive of Epicurean philosophy. If you find an opinion that is a significant part of Epicurean philosophy to be offensive or intolerable to you, you are probably not in the right place to attend the EpicureanFriends zoom meetings (or for that matter, to participate on the Forum). There are many other opportunities to discuss opposing philosophic views on the internet, and to pursue eclectic blends, and if you are regularly inconsiderate of this rule then your invitation to attend will eventually be revoked.
9. Almost every Zoom meeting is preceded by a meeting announcement posted at least several days in advance. If you have suggestions for items that you would like to see discussed, please add a message to that thread and let us know so we can update the agenda beforehand.
10. Given that our main goal in our regular Zoom meetings is to participate in the study of Epicurus in a supportive environment, please remember that a tone of supportiveness and considerateness should be maintained at all times. One of our moderators will act as facilitator of the meeting and attempt to both keep things on track and allow everyone to speak, but please be considerate of others in avoiding monopolizing the conversation and avoiding getting too far off topic.
11. If you have distracting background noises, please mute yourself until it is appropriate for you to speak. If you are falling asleep or working on something else, please consider closing your camera for the duration of that distraction.
12. All meetings will be conducted primarily in English. We will regularly discuss the translation of Latin and Greek words, but the majority of our participants are primarily or fluently English-speakers, so efficiency and consideration requires that we communicate primarily in English.
13. It is not necessary to attend every session in order to attend any sessions. Participants are welcome to attend as their schedules allow. Participants should, however, familiarize themselves with the published agenda of the meeting they attend so that they can interact appropriately and on topic with other participants.

I suspect we will never have much data on what I am about to mention, but the reference to Epicurus' house being in ruins at the time of Memmius raises questions as to whether the successor leaders of the Epicurean school failed to make proper use of their inheritance from Epicurus, or whether perhaps the house was destroyed in a war, or whatever led to it (and/or the garden property) not being maintained over that period.

One of the subtexts that anyone who is interested in a revitalized Epicurean school, as opposed to simply personal self-help, is the question of whether the organization of the ancient Epicurean school failed in some way, or whether its demise was entirely the fault of outside pressures, or some combination of both. Presumably a combination is more likely, but that leaves the question for future discussion of what steps might have been taken then, or should be taken now, to enhance the survivability of Epicurean organizations.

I can imagine a couple of questions here:

1. Do the terms "good" and "evil" even apply to elements/ atoms / void / matter, or are those things "neutral" in some way?

2. Does that answer differ among the Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean Schools?

3. Do we have specific quotes where this issue is specifically addressed?

It seems to me it's not necessarily obvious even in Epicurean terms how "good" and "evil" should be used. Pretty clearly Epicurus said that nature gives us only pleasure and pain in order to know what to choose and what to avoid, so are "good" and "evil" only "abstractions added on to the pleasure / pain base? Do we have specific quotes that show Epicurus talking about how pleasure and pain relate to good and evil?

In terms of the Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics, who are into "virtue" as an end in itself, then the terms "good" and "evil" seem much more natural and easy to apply. It seems to me that all three of them are essentially equating their god/prime mover/ divine fire as the ultimate source of "good," so they can slap that label onto something without all the contextual evaluation (evaluation in terms of pleasure and pain) that is involved in Epicurean philosophy.

i tend to question, along with the tile of Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil," whether Epicurus was not either (1) rejecting the whole "good vs evil" paradigm that was common to the other schools, or (2) redefining those words (good and evil) in terms of pleasure and pain just as he was redefining "gods" and the meaning of "pleasure."

Precision here is probably of particular importance since the Stoics were apparently trying to rehabilitate matter themselves, and perhaps considered matter to be part of divine fire and perhaps therefore "good" in a way that may have distinguished them from Platonics/Peripatetics(?)

Is he correct at the 2:20 point in the video to say that "matter in the Platonic worldview is EVIL?"

I am not doubting that as a general summary, but if there are quotes stating that explicitly, those would be good to have - and to know also whether that applies to the Aristotelians and Stoics.

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

This is probably too deep in the weeds to be of immediate use, but since I found it, here is a philosophy professor's attack on a book which is apparently well-thought-of by the website that published the attack on Epicurus:

https://fitelson.org/dembski.pdf

What is of immediate relevance is being articulate with the allegation that Epicurus' views of the nature of the universe have been refuted by modern physics and no longer serve as a sound basis for arguing against intelligent design.

We ought to be able to state Epicurus' position clearly and show that it is neither refuted nor no longer relevant to the "creationist" argument.

And in that respect I think the monkeys and typewriters will serve to illustrate the proper (and improper) way of looking at "randomness" as an aspect of Epicurean physics.

Quote

But new discoveries seem to have finished what the Big Bang theory started. It is becoming increasingly undeniable that the building blocks of life are far too unlikely to emerge by chance even in a universe as large and old as ours.

For a long time, Epicurus’ version of the universe seemed probable to many. After natural philosophers realized how vast the universe really was, and again after the existence of atoms was confirmed, Epicurus seemed to be vindicated. But now, we have discovered that however vast the universe may be, it is finite, and its size does not hold a candle to the vast improbability of the miracle that is life. After more than 2,000 years, the original foundation of materialist naturalism in Western thought seems to be crumbling. The question is: how long will it take for the worldview built on that foundation to crumble too?

So what IS this guy's point? Is he arguing for intelligent design? A quick scan of the website "about" section does not make clear the site's orientation.

OK I guess the site does contain clues:

This link originally came up through a Google search, so that's how I found it.