New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Godfrey if you chave not read the article Don recently posted by Sedley on Epicurean vs Cyreniac happiness I hope you will, and comment.
I hadn't fully absorbed it when we recorded the podcast but I think it has additional insights into mental pleasure and the "big picture" that we will want to talk about further - probably this next podcast too.
A complete show transcript is available here:
Episode 269 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "By Pleasure We Mean The Absence of Pain."
Welcome Ken!
I'm very fortunate to live a primarily pleasant life, and I want to spread that and be around others who also feel this or who are at least open to the possibility of a mostly pleasant life
Thomas Jefferson's "head and heart" letter has a very good line to the effect that "the greater part of life is sunshine" as is also very useful in general on the point that the feeling of pleasure / happiness is more important to us than logical analysis. He stages a debate between head and heart and the "head" does not come out the clear winner over feeling
Welcome yankee
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!
Happy Birthday to Jasper Sky! Learn more about Jasper Sky and say happy birthday on Jasper Sky's timeline: Jasper Sky
Yes, as we know Herodotus wrote a book (Περὶ Ἐπικούρου ἐφηβείας), Hicks translates this tile On the Training of Epicurus as a Cadet. The
Bryan - is this also in book 10?
As to these, here are some personal comments. Not everyone will respond the same, and everyone has to do what they think is right with their own local group. With that caveat, here are some thoughts as to "some of the objections that came up:"
- Pain as a source of meaning vs boring bland state of continuous pleasure (I did not even get into the whole "pleasure as absence of pain" definitional issue, and this came up at the end and was never really addressed)
Yes, this is why it is necessary ultimately to get into this issue of what "pleasure" really is, and how it encompasses everything we find desirable in life, mentally and physically. There is literally no activity that anyone will find desirable for them to pursue that is not to them pleasure, and there is absolutely no reason for them not to be willing to pursue whatever activities that bring them pleasure, so long as they in fact bring them more pleasure than pain. It is a killer problem to be boxed into pleasure as being ONLY sipping win and eating cheese, and I would avoid that like the plague by taking it head on. Epicureans like Cassius Longinus and his friends certainly did not live that way, nor did those who engaged in spreading the philosophy through writing, and you can cite the examples given by Torquatus in On Ends Book One as to his ancestors who were military leaders being totally reconcilable to Epicurean philosophy.
Pain is not meaning in itself, it's just pain, and Epicureans are fully willing to embrace pain when the result is more pleasure (desirable living) than pain.
There is much that can and should be done to develop this point, and I would push back hard at it any time it raises its head. And it will raise its head, regularly, anytime a group gets started or new people come in, because this attitude is entrenched in the Stoicized view of Epicurus that has prevailed in the academic world for many years. Modern histories and commentaries on Epicurus are mostly written by people who disagree with large aspects of the philosophy, and who want to pick bits and pieces of it just to pursue their own agendas (primarily based on virtue-based ethics). Everyone is going to want to deal with this issues in their own way, but this is the reason for the part of our website which states that it is devoted to "Classical Epicurean Philosophy" and not "neo-Epicureanism"
- The necessity of dealing with violent external enemies raised on hate who will be "harder" than you chill garden people (I had to reassure this guy I'm not a pacifist, but it remains an issue how much to compromise in the name of defence)
Again this objection would be a killer if true, but there is no reason to accept it. THere is every reason to believe that Epicurus and his friends complied with their military service. No one ever accused them of refusing to serve when their time came, and you can be sure that would have been charged had it happened. As in the first answer, you can cite Torquatus, Cassius Longinus, and even Julius Caesar himself as people who were either explicit or implicit Epicureans. "Passivism" as a goal makes no more sense than "virtue," as a goal. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes a terrible idea. "Turning the other cheek" is Christianity, not Epicureanism.
- The value of spiritual beliefs and practices in comforting the afflicted (one participant gave an impassioned speech about the beauty of Aphrodite's grief over the death of Adonis and how oppressed women could find comfort in this. I had no response)
At a deep level you have to come to terms with whether a person is so afraid of pain that they want to adopt fantasy answers, or whether they want the truth. Not everyone wants the truth and those who don't are not going to be at home with Epicurean philosophy. Epicurus appeals mostly to those who see life as intrinsically pleasurable, rather than intrinsically suffering (such as Buddhism or the like) or those who would have preferred never to have been born, or who are in revolt against nature because they themselves think they are superior to nature. You could go on and on with this answer but this is a part of the reason that Epicurus advised not giving in to "the crowd" and to their false beliefs, and Diogenes of Oinoanda pointed out how the crowd catches the disease of false beliefs like sheep. You do your best to help everyone who wants to be helped, but there are lots who don't and you can't let them hold you and your friends back from living happily yourselves.
- A sense that this philosophy is "for individuals" (or friend groups) and is somehow disconnected from wider politics, something that only the privileged can do, and that does not address world issues (my usual response to this is instead of trying to influence how people vote, which is "downstream" of their beliefs and values, I see more potential in going "upstream" to these beliefs and values themselves - imagine how a world of Epicureans would vote)
As to the philosophy being only for the privileged, that too comes from the false definition of pleasure as ONLY consisting of luxury and sensual stimulation. As for Epicureans being aloof from politics, that is a false idea in large part. Epicurus advised against pursuing a political CAREER, as that places you at the mercy of the mob, but he did not advise against action when action is appropriate. This is developed very well in the Boeri book referenced here on the cite ( podcast interview with the author is here):
As mentioned before, we have a rule against pursuing politics here at the forum, and I would advise something similar in any local group, especially in getting off the ground. But that is not a policy against individuals pursuing political issues outside the group, and in fact I personally advise engagement and participation in anything you think will truly lead to greater pleasure for you. The problem with allowing those discussions within the groups is that they are too divisive, and they will lead to the false perception that Epicurean philosophy is necessarily capitalist or communist or left or right or any other necessary grouping. There are clearly some things (primarily supernatural religion) which are off limits due to the philosophy itself, but like-minded friends can organize themselves in many different ways and still be entirely consistent with core Epicurean views. For those who want to debate, it's the aloofness and asceticism of Stoicism that would by nature lead to inactivity. David Sedley has a good article on "The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" which mentions how -- if you want to talk about resistance to 'tyranny' for example - it's the Stoics who generally postured rather than acted when action was deemed appropriate.
Other recommended books have been Cyril Bailey's "The Greek Atomists and Epicurus: A Study", Benjamin Farrington's "The Faith of Epicurus", and John M. Rist's "Introduction to Epicurus". Any feedback on these additional recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
All of these books you listed are certainly high quality. I'd recommend you read at least the first chapter of DeWitt, take a look at the table of contents to see how it's organized, and then decide if that is where you prefer to start. DeWitt will introduce you to virtually every aspect of the philosphy in a general way. That will give you a better view of the "forest" before you go into detail on issues such as theology like the Farrington Book or atomism like the Bailey book you mentioned. i'm not familiar with Rist's introduction so I can't help much with a comparison there.
You'll see we generally start out recommending the DeWitt and the Austin books, but you are a special case given your reading already and your preference for a more detailed approach over a "lifestyle" approach.
I am sure others will have recommendations, including Sedley's "Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom" since you already have some experience with Epicurus.
If you will let us know whether there are particular topics or aspects that interest you most, we can probably fine-tune the recommendations further.
Glad to have you IFancya! It sounds like you have made a lot of progress already.
Because you seem oriented toward the details, rather than the Emily Austin book I would recommend your going straight to the DeWitt book as the most meaty and sweeping of the two.
I would not worry about the Epicurea as it is more of a "glossary" and though it is organized by topic, it is not presented in a way to facilitate progressive understanding. It's more a reference for those who know what they are looking for to find supportive citations.
I'd also recommend anything by David Sedley, especially the Epicurus section of Long and Sedley's "The Hellenistic Philosophers."
I've also prepared a FAQ answer on that if you haven't seen it - let me find it.
Looks like the most recent update to the reading recommendation is at this link:
Bryan it has been my presumption that Plato's basic position was that words were dictated either by leading me (maybe we participation of gods?) and therefore as you say that no word is particularly better than another.
And that Epicurus' view was that words developed naturally due to local factors, including among them widening agreement on specific choices over time.
Is it correct that both of these views, including Epicurus, do involve some amount of convention/agreement, in that once introduced people had to begin to come to an agreement to use it? And that the main difference is the starting point, more so than agreement over time?
I'm wondering if it is not important to be clear that even under the Epicurean view that Nature itself is not "dictating" particular words. I can see how words can arise "naturally" based on the conditions of local people in a particular area, but I suspect your'e not thinking that there is a "Natural" word for a banana (for example). Correct or no?
So that others can more easily profit from the example in the future, the discussion of the development of AxA's Toronto group via meetup has been moved here:
Yes it sounds like you handled everything beautifully. i will split this off into a thread where it will be easier to find for people looking for this topic in the future.
Why should someone hold pleasure for evil ?
Some do it as Torquatus said because they do not know how to pursue pleasure inteliigently.
But there are large numbers of people who are by disposition or training (mostly training) who think that asceticism is preferable, because they hate the world and life in it. The Epicureans may not have had much experience in confronting large numbers of those people, or more likely the Epicureans were being charitable by not focusing on them, but this latter is by far the more dangerous group,
Emily Austin on this point, from her Chapter 14:
Epicurus considers the fear of death one of the greatest impediments to the tranquil life. Deep and persistent fear puts tranquility out of reach. Just to be clear, though, Epicurus is like most people—he really enjoys living, and he’s therefore in no rush to die. Some contemporaries and predecessors of Epicurus did run around telling people that life is bleak, and that death is a welcome reprieve from human suffering, but Epicurus thinks that’s nonsense. The Cyrenaics were a competing hedonistic philosophical school and numbered among them was a man dubbed “Hegesias the Death Persuader” for the power of his argument that life is more painful than pleasant.2 Hegesias was reportedly run out of town for his effects on the young. That life is unpleasant is an odd view for a hedonist, and Epicurus felt at pains to deny it.
...
Here again, the importance of limits for psychological well-being plays a role in Epicurus’ claim that happiness does not require more time. He writes that “unlimited time and limited time contain equal amounts of pleasure, if one measures by the limits of reason.”16 On the surface, this appears false. If our pleasures are additive, then when I combine yesterday’s pleasures with today’s pleasures, I have more pleasures because I have lived longer. That means that the me of today has experienced more pleasure than the me of yesterday. If life were unlimited, then pleasure would be as well.
Epicurus claims, though, that our reason tells us that tranquility is a stable and complete state, not an additive state. Enough is enough at every moment we have it. We do not have more tranquility or more happiness by having it longer. In that sense, we do not have more “enough” tomorrow. We have enough all the time we live. He develops this thought at greater length in Principal Doctrine 20.
I just noticed the abstract to the Sedley article: a very good summary especially the first sentence:
Eudaimonia, happiness, is a property of a whole life, not of some portion of it.
What can this mean for hedonists? For Epicurus, it is made possible by the mind's capacity to enjoy one's whole life from any temporal viewpoint: to relive past pleasures and enjoy future ones in anticipation, importantly including confidence in a serene closure. Enjoying your life is like enjoying a day as a whole, not least its sunset. Although pleasure is increased by greater duration (contrary to a more favoured reading), and premature death therefore better avoided, the finitude of human life as such does not lessen its value, and even a premature death need not prevent a life's being enjoyed as 'complete'. In this chapter, the above interpretation is documented, explained, and contextualized in terms of Epicurus' diametrical opposition to his contemporaries, the Cyrenaics.
-----------------
Brilliant summary. Flies in the face of much prominent academic orthodoxy. Prompts me again to say that David Sedley is at or near the top of greatest living writers on Epicurus. Without him and a few others we'd have a largely stoicized Epicurean academic world taking the position that duration has no relationship to pleasure.
"The confusion stems from the (perhaps deliberate) parallel construction, by which the sum total of pleasures is related to the sum total of the sentient human."
I think that's a particularly important observation. I'm not able to validate that it is true from the Greek, but I think that the description of what Epicurus is doing is accurate. It looks to me like Epicurus is definitely evaluating "the sum total of pleasures" in relation to "the sum total of the sentient human."
To me, the comparison of the "sum total of pleasures" to the "sum total of the sentient human" is the "vessel" analogy. Just as the example is given in the opening of Lucretius Book 6, you can view a human life as a vessel (jar / vase / whatever) and realize that a vessel or a life can only be filled so far with pleasures.
After you pour in pleasures and fill the vessel of life to the rim, you can vary the pleasures by pouring in more pleasures, but some of the existing pleasures will overflow over the rim (the same quantity that you pour in will be expelled). The vessel can never get "more full."
When the "sum total of the sentient being" is full of pleasure, it is full of pleasure, and you can never be more full than full no matter how much time you spend pouring in new pleasures.
In a worldview where life is finite, infinite time does nobody any good.
Godfrey if I am reading this correctly then I think you are right in the same way as Don's point in several posts above. Pleasures differ from one another in terms of duration, intensity, and parts of the experience that are involved. For a being with a finite life span, infinite time before and after our lives is of only intellectual relevance. Those are correct and important points.
I also agree that this phrasing amounts to a "shibboleth" - a challenge to think more deeply about the problem analogous to "the sun is the size it appears to be."
But I think there is also more that is going on. While it is true that (1) our bodies have finite lifespans and (2) that pleasures differ (which means that we have to choose intelligently among those pleasures), there is still the question of "Is it better to live a longer time than a shorter time?" which needs to be answered.
Epicurus' wording of this section of the PDs can be read productively and be seen to address this, or the section can be read as ridiculous on its face and used to attack Epicurus, as Cicero is doing.
Appearing to assert that "infinte time contains no greater pleasure than finite time" (as if length of time has no bearing on our experience of pleasure), has very much the same effect as appearing to assert that "the sun is the size it appears to be" or that "by pleasure we mean the absence of pain."
These statements are either profoundly helpful if you understand that they are challenging you to reason about these issues properly, or they are ridiculous on their face if you think they mean what people who doesn't understand or accept the way nature really works think they mean.
See what you think when you've read the Sedley article that Don just linked to from Academia.
