Posts by Godfrey

Now that it's not so early, the book cover doesn't look like Epicurus. As for #12, the shape of the head seems wrong and he's way too stern to accord with the images of Epicurus that I'm used to seeing.

A large part of the problem could be that different artists had different interpretations. Or different levels of skill. How many statues of contemporary athletes have you seen that look nothing like the athlete?

BTW there's a YouTube video of James Corden showing David Beckham a goofy version of his statue before the unveiling, which is a great send up of the modern athlete statue.

On the book cover his right shoulder is much higher so they are would appear to be different sculptures. However after examining #12 above and then looking at the book cover, the book cover looks more like Epicurus

But it's early here, and I'm looking on my phone, so there's much squinting involved.

Interesting that the PDs are referred to as "sentences." In the Saint-Andre translation I quickly counted only 5 as having more than one sentence. This may help to explain, at least to a degree, how they were divided into the current 40 PDs: the original groupings may have simply been separated into sentences.

Somewhere I read, although I can't remember where, that the authorship of the PDs was in question. Wherever I read it, I think a footnote connected the idea to an Italian source. Tantalizing, but not much help!

To me, Epicurus has a slightly thinner face with slightly more pronounced cheekbones than the figure in #5 and #12; I would not say that that is Epicurus. Looks much more stern than Epicurus as well. But if the image is labeled "Epicurus," that could explain how it ended up on the Guyau book cover.

Cassius do you use LibreOffice Draw for your highlighted and underlined text clips that you post? For your other posted graphics? I use other aspects of LibreOffice but haven't tried Draw.

If you zoom in on the images in my original post, you can see tiny numbers beneath the sculptures. Descriptions of these are in the text to the left of the two Epicurus images.

Yes. Sorry for the poor image quality!

Today I was in an out-of-town bookstore with my family and ran across this book, which is the catalog from the exhibit at the Getty in Malibu a few years ago:

Buried by Vesuvius: The Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum - Google Books

It may be of interest in itself, but what I noticed while quickly browsing through it was a few images in particular. Pardon my poor photo quality; the store was one of those great rabbit-warrens of books and lighting wasn't a prime concern in the design....

(L-R, top to bottom: Epicurus, Epicurus, Hermarchus and Demosthenes)

Here's an image of the pig. In case it's not legible, the dimension given is the height, which is 40cm (15.75") including the base.

And the prosciutto. The height is 11.3cm to which the ring adds 2.5cm; the width is 7.8cm.

Not to repeat myself, but this also relates to my comment elsewhere:

Post

RE: PD01 - Gratitude and Weakness (Especially In Relation to the Gods)

This brings to mind pleasure ethics v duty ethics: if you consider it to be your duty to do a particular thing then you're likely to pursue it regardless of the pain involved. Compare this to pleasure ethics, where minimizing pain is a concern: you may achieve the same thing, but often much more pleasurably for all involved. Or you may choose to flee from the particular thing if you judge it to be a corrosive desire.

Godfrey

May 14, 2023 at 7:27 PM

This brings to mind pleasure ethics v duty ethics: if you consider it to be your duty to do a particular thing then you're likely to pursue it regardless of the pain involved. Compare this to pleasure ethics, where minimizing pain is a concern: you may achieve the same thing, but often much more pleasurably for all involved. Or you may choose to flee from the particular thing if you judge it to be a corrosive desire.

I'm just hoping that one isn't required to know Latin to participate Not being a scholar, and all.

It does sound like it would have a lot of overlap with the podcast and the forum.

What exactly is a "text-in-translation" reading group? Is that a specific way of saying that they'll be reading it in English?

Quote from Cassius

Can you summarize his view of the difference?

To add to what Pacatus just said....

The book is part of a reworking of a dissertation that Guyau wrote, which was a critique of utilitarianism. He considered Epicurus to be the first utilitarian philosopher. In Book 4 of this book he looks at 17th and 18th century utilitarian/Epicurean thinkers. Since I'm not well versed in utilitarianism, or in the other philosophers he discusses, I can't comment very intelligently (assuming that I ever comment intelligently ) on those subjects.

I agree that we can critically personalize our approach in the context that Pacatus describes, subject to continual verification. We on this forum don't always agree on everything and we rarely agree with the academics: this necessitates that we form our own opinions. And of course philosophizing is thinking, not copying. This book is a useful vehicle for stimulating thinking and for examining Epicurus in a historical context which begins with Epicurus and ends with Guyau.

So, to answer your question Cassius , I was referring specifically to the subject of pleasure. The way that I read Guyau, he thinks that Epicurus tends toward tranquilism. But he thinks that tranquilism is incomplete and he embraces an inclusive view of pleasure, much as we do. So we can disagree with his interpretation of this, while at the same time agreeing with his conclusion.

Having now read further in Guyau it appears that he interprets Epicurus one way, but understands Epicureanism another way. His thoughts on Epicurus don't always agree with ours, but his thoughts on using the philosophy seem to.

Part of his approach is that philosophies, like organisms, grow and evolve. So in reading the book it's possible to take issue with some of his interpretations and still get a lot of benefit from his presentation.

Once one has children, keeping one's calm becomes a natural and necessary desire. When looked at in this way, it bumps it up in the list of priorities to be dealt with.

I wish I'd understood this while rearing my kids, but I was stuck in the mindset of duty ethics. Fortunately I'm beginning to figure this out, now that further challenges await (as they always will).

Thank you Pacatus for the kind words!

There's a pleasurable aspect to gratitude as well, such as the gratitude of waking up to a beautiful day in a beautiful place. Whereas normal folk may feel a pleasing sense of gratitude in this case, apparently a god would experience the pleasure but no gratitude.

I hope you amass many "utils" from reading it I certainly have!

More food for thought: Guyau on the gods. The idealist v realist debate has gone on for at least 150 years…. Notes from Book Three, Chapter 4 - “Epicurean Piety. The Struggle against Divinity understood as Efficient Cause”

- Even if there isn’t a divine creator, this doesn’t have to lead to atheism.

- If it’s a fact there all men believe in the gods, in order for the philosophy to be founded on facts it must take this into account.

- Creation doesn’t require divinity. And according to Epicurus the supreme happiness of the gods would preclude them from taking on the task of creating and managing the universe.

- Epicurean theory of the gods seems rather strange, but it follows “logically from the principles”. It attempts to interpret superstitious beliefs that come from “hallucinations”.

(Note: apparently utilitarianism has a definition of "interest" which I think is something like "self-interest" and contrasts with "obligation". In utilitarianism, it seems that this self might be a person, a group, a nation, or whatever particular entity is being considered.)

- Oddly “for a utilitarian system, religious sentiment and the cult of divinity become entirely disinterested.”

- Whereas prayer typically involved fear and petitioning the gods, Epicureans consider the gods to be indifferent to their concerns. “Prayer becomes, then, useless and absurd; pure worship replaces it, but a form of worship detached from every personal feeling. Vulgar piety is always mixed with feelings of fear and hope. People pray to the gods in order to obtain the goods they desire, or to eliminate the evils they fear. The Epicurean, on the other hand, does not fear anything coming from the gods, nor does he expect anything from them, and nevertheless, he worships them. Why? Because they are [the expression of] an ideal form of happiness and serenity; because they represent that which the Epicurean ought to be; because they are beautiful to contemplate, and they enchant our own thoughts, just like the marbles of Phidias please our sight.

- According to Seneca, Epicurus removed disinterestedness from his ethics, but then he placed it in his piety. Seneca objects to this. Guyau: “However, the piety of the Epicureans is indeed less astonishing than it seems, especially if one realizes that it does not cost a great deal of effort [to them], [or] if one realizes that effort and trouble would be much greater if one were to succumb to vulgar beliefs. Their piety also seems less astonishing if one realizes that these beliefs themselves have a natural ground and are quite rational in their principles. The gods really exist according to Epicurus; they are beautiful and happy. They are like an embellished image of ourselves: why wouldn’t we, then, bow before them?”

- Guyau dismisses the idea that Epicurus was insincere in his presentation of the gods and was actually an atheist.

- “If Epicurus clearly affirmed the existence of the gods, if he consecrated a full work to piety, and if he offered his life as an example of the piety he praised in his writings, this is because he really believed in the existence of the gods, which he worshipped as genuinely real beings.”

- Lange (a contemporary of Guyau) came up with the idealist interpretation of the gods: Epicurus’ gods did not have real existence: they were simply ideals. ‘Undoubtedly, Epicurus honoured the belief in the gods as an element of [the] human ideal, but he did not see in the gods themselves exterior beings. Epicurus’ system would reveal itself as fully contradictory were we not to look at it from the perspective of this subjective respect for the gods, which creates a harmonious agreement within our soul.’ According to Lange, while the many worshipped the gods because they believed in their existence, Epicurus did the opposite: he did not believe in them, but nevertheless worshipped them. When Epicurus revered the gods for their perfection, ‘it mattered little to him whether this perfection showed itself in exterior acts, or if it was employed only as an ideal within our thought’.

- But Lange had no textual basis for his theory, he based it on resolving what he saw as a contradiction in the system. Guyau believes that this contradiction doesn’t exist. “We have seen that, on the contrary, Epicurus’ doctrine does not contain any contradiction but only a certain number of unsound deductions." I'm assuming these are unsound based on modern science, but his wording is unclear.

- "For Epicurus, the gods certainly represent an ideal, but it is a realized ideal, as well as a living ideal.”

- "His system rests precisely on the identity of the subjective and the objective, for he claims that every sensation necessarily corresponds to a reality. Additionally, according to him, given that every idea has its roots in sensation, the human mind cannot have any ideal superior to reality itself. It is from reality that our mind borrows the ideal it conceives.”

- “Epicurus’ gods were not mere ideals and, as we have seen, they even nourished themselves with very real food, like simple mortals. Philodemus even asks himself whether or not the gods sleep. Ideals do not eat or sleep. We should not attribute modern doctrines to Epicurus, doctrines that are born from the progress of the sciences and of thought. Epicurus’ system, with its strong and weak points, simply accords with its own time.”

Since there is ambiguity surrounding the original Greek words and the dearth of extant texts (made worse, as you point out, by rival misinterpretations and the undue acceptance of these) it would seem that the best clarification of pleasure would be in outline form that builds up to a precise explanation.

I'm time crunched at the moment, but post #13 would be a piece of that: relating pleasure to the doctrines of desire and to modern understanding as well as to the extant texts. Having a document showing how the pieces fit together in the comprehensive philosophy, but focusing on the ethics of pleasure to present a logical argument.