Posts by Cassius

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

I agree with Kalosyni but thanks for posting it Tau Phi! It's a recent attempt at a general presentation on Epicurus by a professor, and he's honest that he doesn't represent himself to be presenting Epicurus favorably. It's good for us to see these and think about how they could be done better.

One initial thought I have is that he is clearly aware of On Ends Book One and how Torquatus sets up the issue (asking what is the highest good) but instead he just cherry picks some points (the natural and necessary division and friendship) and as a result of losing their context what he picks out seems incoherent.

And he never once says (as far as I picked up) that Epicurus advised that we will sometime choose pain in order to achieve a pleasure that is worth more to us than the pain that is involved.

So "Luck" likely falls under this as well, right?

I added that to the outline and if you have recommendations as to the Latin, please do....

Thank you Don! Added.

Like last week as to Idealism vs realism I will work together to put together an outline of topics to cover. In the case of "Fate," I'd like to be sure we spend enough time talking about the real-world / psychological aspects of accepting there is such a thing as "fate," rather than spend all the time on the swerve and how Epicurus rejects determinism. I think there's a lot of "connection" we need to draw in the harmful psychological aspects that we don't normally talk about as much as we should.

Here is first draft of the raw outline. I will fill it in with sources and other topics as we proceed toward Sunday's recording.

Lucretius Today Episode 257 - Fate, Necessity, Determinism

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

Too bad it doesn't mention Epicurus, but the sections "Anger as Morally Virtuous" and "Creative Anger" seem very good to me.

In preparation for this episodes I put together a page of notes about the Realist v Idealist question in a format which may be useful even in a preliminary form.

Here's a link where it can be found:

Lucretius Today Podcast - Epicurean Gods: Real Or Ideal?

Links to the sections of the Rackham translation:

• Paradox 1 - Only What Is Morally Noble Is Good -
• Paradox 2 - The Possession of Virtue Is Sufficient For Happiness
• Paradox 3 - All Transgressions Are Equal And All Right Actions Are Equal
• Paradox 4 - Every Foolish Man is Mad
• Paradox 5 - Only The Wise Man Is Free, and Every Foolish Man Is A Slave
• Paradox 6 - The Wise Man Alone Is Rich

Thanks Tau Phi! I had heard of the Downloebables website but not that one.

From the Rackham edition intro - this is interesting - I have read the slashing and burning attack on Stoicism in the latter parts of On Ends - so what explains the discrepancy, and what was Cicero's true opinion?

Quote

This book consists of six short essays setting out the most striking ethical doctrines of the Stoic school of philosophy : that virtue is the sole good, and the sole requisite for happiness; that all good deeds are equally meritorious and all bad deeds equally heinous; that folly is insanity and slavery, wisdom the only freedom and the only riches. In other writings Cicero criticizes these doctrines as extravagant and pedantic — see especially De Finibus iv. 74-77 and Pro Murena 60-66 ; but in his preface here, § 4, he expresses his warm acceptance of them.

Thank you for posting this Matteng! This is not something I recall running into recently, and I think it will serve as a very good thing for us to review. I haven't yet had a chance to read the full article, but I see that the full work being referenced is available in a Rackham translation here, pages 252-305.

As you indicate, we will definitely wish to go through these and discuss what would be the expected Epicurean response to each one. I think we'll likely want to devote one or more podcast episodes to this as well. This list makes it easy to highlight the Stoic-Epicurean divide.

The wikipedia page is here, giving the following summary of the five major propositions, of which on first glance I would say -- just looking at the tities -- that Epicurus would definitely dispute 1, 3, and 6, on their face. The others are also dependent on the meaning attached to the word "virtue," but on first glance I'd say would require more explanation than do 1, 3, and 6, which I'd say are flatly wrong on their face. I am very tempted to put 2 in the same category as flatly wrong, but a complete discussion of it would require going through PD05.

I: Virtue is the only good

In this book Cicero presents the Stoic classifications of what elements of life are genuinely good, and what elements are not good. There are three different qualities of something being genuinely good: righteousness (rectum), intrinsic honor or nobility (honestum), and intrinsic virtue (cum virtute). This can be understood as the inner person, and the choices and actions that they engage in.

Pleasure and wealth cannot be genuine goods because they lack the crucial properties that a genuine good should have.^[3] Genuine goods should satisfy desire and make their possessor happy.^[3] Spurious or apparent goods do not satisfy desires, but rather, arouse yet more desire, as well as fear that one might lose these things that they presently possess.^[3] Cicero also argues that something cannot be a good if an evil person can possess it.^[3] Thus wealth and pleasure cannot be a genuine good.^[3]

Humans alone among all animals possess reason, and this alone allows humans to pursue the good.^[5] The good therefore should be defined exclusively in rational terms and thus the moral life should be ordered according to reason.^[5]

II: Virtue is sufficient for happiness

Virtue is all that is needed for happiness.^[8] Happiness depends on a possession which cannot be lost, and this only applies to things within our control.^[5]

III: All the vices and all virtues are equal

All good deeds are equally meritorious and all bad deeds equally heinous.^[4] All virtues are equal as this corresponds to the same impulse towards the good.^[5] Cicero does not attempt to defend the Stoic position of the moral equality of all offenses; instead he offers a weakened version that offenses of the same sort are equal.^[3] He notes the Stoic position that all crimes are equal since they all involve the same intent to break the law, but he then argues that crimes do not bear the same penalty since the matter depends on the status of the person injured and that of the criminal.^[5] Thus he ends up imposing gradations of vice based on external factors.^[5]

IV: All fools are mad

There is a substantial lacuna at the beginning of this section.^[3] The remaining part argues that every fool is an exile and the wise person cannot be harmed.^[3] Cicero attacks an unnamed personal enemy for causing his exile.^[5] The essay is thought to be a thinly veiled attack on Cicero's enemy Clodius.^[4] Cicero asserts that his own exile was not a hardship since he possessed the correct Stoic wisdom and virtue.^[5]

V: The sage alone is free

Only the sage is free and every fool is a slave.^[8] Cicero attacks an unnamed military leader who is unworthy of command because he cannot control his passions and thus is not free.^[5] The target here may be Lucullus.^[4] Cicero satirizes costly luxury and affectation of connoisseurship in collecting works of art.^[4] Freedom involves the rational control of one's will. Only the sage is free since he freely chooses the good.^[5]

VI: Only the wise person is rich

If a rich person's wealth is measured by the quantity of their goods, then a wealthy person with no virtue is poor, since virtue is the only good.^[3] People confuse reasonable needs with unreasonable desires and this leads people in power to pursue irrational passions.^[5]

Cicero De Oratore, Vol.-ii : H. Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.186497dc.contributor.author: H. Rackhamdc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-07T20:01:20Zdc.date.available:...

archive.org

Alternate Translation by Cyrus Edmonds:

Cicero's three books Of offices; or, Moral duties; also his Cato Major, an essay on old age; Laelius, an essay on friendshisp; Paradoxes; Scipio's dream: and Letter to Quintus on the duties of a magistrate. Literally translated, with notes, designed to…

52

archive.org

Cyrus Edmonds commentary on Stoicism from this text page 264:

Quote

The ethical doctrines of the Stoics have attracted most attention, as exhibited in the lives of distinguished Greeks and Romans. To live according to nature was the basis of their ethical system ; but by this it was not meant that a man should follow his own particular nature ; he must make his life conformable to the nature of the whole of things. This principle is the foundation of all morality; and it follows that morality is connected with philosophy. To know what is our relation to the whole of things, is to know what we ought to be and to do. This fundamental principle of the Stoics is indisputable, but its application is not always easy, nor did they all agree in their exposition of it. Some things were good, some bad, and some indifferent ; the only good things were virtue; wisdom, justice, temperance, and the like. The truly wise man possesses all knowledge ; he is perfect and sufficient in himself ; he despises all that subjects to its power the rest of mankind ; he feels pain, but he is not conquered by it. But the morality of the Stoics, at least in the later periods, though it rested on a basis apparently so sound, permitted the wise man to do nearly everything that he liked. Such a system, it has been well observed, might do for the imaginary wise man of the Stoics ; but it was not a system whose general adoption was compatible with the existence of any actual society.

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

Quote from Pacatus

And I disagree that there is (or can be) some non-contextual definition of “happiness” that can be applied except in the most abstract of cases.

Which leads to the question: Do we stop trying, or do we simply define our terms as we think best, such as "believe that a god is a living being blessed and imperishable" or "by pleasure we mean the absence of pain."

I think Epicurus is with you, and that he therefore - rather than give up or give in to false presumptions - determined that he was going to state his own terms to explain the answer to contentious questions.

I therefore think Dons "subjective wellbeing" helps explain the issue, but in Epicurean terms Epicurus decided the best term for this either is or falls under "pleasure."

Cute comment by Cicero:

Quote from Cicero On Fate I

The method which I pursued in other volumes, those on the Nature of the Gods, and also in those which I have published on Divination, was that of setting out a continuous discourse both for and against, to enable each student to accept for himself the view that seems to him most probable; but I was prevented by accident from adopting it in the present discussion on the subject of Fate.

I am setting up this thread in preparation for devoting one or more episodes of the Lucretius Today podcast to the sections of this work devoted to attacking Epicurus. I'd like to add here quotes that are relevant either to Epicurus directly or to issues where Cicero is directly contradicting Epicurus. This collection will then be used to develop the outline for the podcasts devoted to this topic.

A transcribed copy of the Yonge edition is here. At that location you can also find a link to the Rackham / Loeb edition.

Welcome to Episode 259 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we are continuing our review of the key doctrines of Epicurus that are featured here at Epicureansfriends on the front page of our website.

This week we will address what Epicurus and Lucretius use as the starting point for the discussion of Epicurean physics: nothing can come from nothing.

Full show notes here: Lucretius Today Episode 259 - Nothing Comes From Nothing

Welcome to Episode 258 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week, now that we have completed Book 1 of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," we are going to move to a discussion of some of the most important doctrines of Epicurus as listed on the front page of our website.

This week will be the continuation and conclusion of our discussion on the Epicurean rejection of determinism.

Lucretius Today Episode 257 - Fate, Necessity, Determinism

Lucretius Today Episode 258 is now available:

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

Welcome to Episode 257 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week, now that we have completed Book 1 of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," we are going to move to a discussion of some of the most important doctrines of Epicurus as listed on the front page of our website.

This week we will be discussing Epicurus' refutation of determinism.

A discussion guide for this episode is here:

Lucretius Today Episode 257 - Fate, Necessity, Determinism

Welcome to Episode 256 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week, now that we have completed Book 1 of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," we are going to complete our series on the Epicurean gods by addressing a common question: Did Epicurus think that his gods had real physical existence?

Today's Text

We are bridging over from the following contained at the very end of Book One of On The Nature of The Gods:

XLIV. ...

But Epicurus, you say, has written a book concerning sanctity. A trifling performance by a man whose wit is not so remarkable in it, as the unrestrained license of writing which he has permitted himself; for what sanctity can there be if the Gods take no care of human affairs? Or how can that nature be called animated which neither regards nor performs anything? Therefore our friend Posidonius has well observed, in his fifth book of the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus believed there were no Gods, and that what he had said about the immortal Gods was only said from a desire to avoid unpopularity. He could not be so weak as to imagine that the Deity has only the outward features of a simple mortal, without any real solidity; that he has all the members of a man, without the least power to use them—a certain unsubstantial pellucid being, neither favorable nor beneficial to any one, neither regarding nor doing anything. There can be no such being in nature; and as Epicurus said this plainly, he allows the Gods in words, and destroys them in fact; and if the Deity is truly such a being that he shows no favor, no benevolence to mankind, away with him! For why should I entreat him to be propitious? He can be propitious to none, since, as you say, all his favor and benevolence are the effects of imbecility.