Posts by Godfrey

A particularly enjoying and illuminating episode!

I'm curious if somebody could find the Greek word used in the letter to Herodotus that has been translated as "seed," and share what the nuances of the original word are....

That certainly seems to me to be the case! The circumstances of our birth are preordained, but I can't see how one can say that our choices and avoidances are not up to us. That's how I read Epicurus as well, though I don't have a quote at my fingertips.

If we have no free will then what is the point of philosophy?

That's a great quote from Jefferson! I haven't, thankfully, read much Plato, but every time that I do I'm appalled by his sophomoric thinking. Jefferson expressed exactly what I would say if I had his skills, and it's reassuring to hear it from a respected historical figure such as him.

I, too, wonder what Socrates would have written. Holmes/Doyle is an excellent comparison. Not analogous but perhaps equally relevant is how what remains of the words of Epicurus have been muddled over time.

Thinking back on the path that led me to Epicurus.... From very early adulthood, Eastern philosophy somehow seemed more relevant than that of the West. After engaging with the East for a time I became frustrated with the obfuscation involved, some of it cultural and some of it inherent in the philosophies. This, and the timely popularity of the Stoics, led me to the Greeks and then to Epicurus. It wasn't until discovering Epicurus and his forebears and descendents that I realized the West actually did have a relevant philosophy.

Referring back to the piece I linked to at the beginning of this thread (which wasn't actually the point of the thread), it's truly amazing that so many of the ideas of Epicurus are generally accepted parts of modern culture. Except for his ideas relating to personal freedom and the good life. Attempting to understand the reasons for the widespread acceptance of Plato and of religion is an illuminating but exceptionally frustrating exercise to come to grips with how humanity wasted so much potential.

https://www.academia.edu/28366049/Epicu…e_Enlightenment

The author of the article linked above is of the “absence of pain” persuasion, but otherwise I found the article of interest as a general overview of the titular subject. The only reason I’m posting it here, however, is because it aroused my curiosity regarding Plato’s Republic, which has sat on my shelf unread for decades. We’ve discussed Plato’s thoughts on pleasure as described in Philebus here on the forum, but this article pointed out other topics of divergence between Epicurus and Plato, particularly these two:

1) "The purpose of the 37 volumes of his (Epicurus’s) On Nature is to free us from the fear of death and therefore from the control of priests and from the internal fears of the religion that Plato and his followers had in mind."

2) From the footnotes, regarding Plato’s use of the noble lie: "For a short and explicit statement of the ‘noble lie’, see Polybius: ‘But the quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is in my opinion the nature of their religious convictions. I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, which maintains the cohesion of the Roman State. These matters are clothed in such pomp and introduced to such an extent into their public and private life that nothing could exceed it, a fact which will surprise many. My own opinion at least is that they have adopted this course for the sake of the common people. It is a course which perhaps would not have been necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men, but as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held in by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry. For this reason I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs.’"

Could it be that Epicurus accepted the religious festivals in this civic sense? For those who hadn’t the sense to accept his philosophy and to thereby act civilly, let there be myths? Just a thought.

What follows are just some notes on the Cliffs Notes of the Republic (which has also sat on my shelf for decades, unread; I chose to read it rather than subject myself to several hundred pages of dialectic). In the following, the text in italics is paraphrasing and/or quoting from the Cliffs Notes (1963 edition). In general, I think the contrast with the thinking of Epicurus is pretty obvious and doesn’t need comment from me other than to say that my representation of Plato’s thought is grossly oversimplified. Also, I haven’t addressed the big topic of the actual state that Plato is proposing. In defense of his proposal (which to me is repugnant), I assume that he’s thinking of a city-state of 30,000 people or so. However the nature of his state certainly gave Epicurus much fuel for his contemplation of justice as an antidote to Plato’s idea.

The gods:

In educating the future leaders, they must have proper ideas of the gods. The gods can’t possibly do wrong if they are really gods, plus that would be a bad example. (Book II)

One noble lie, fear of death:

Future leaders must not be afraid of death in any way, for they must grow up to be brave enough to die for their country. Therefore they mustn’t be told any frightening stories of the afterlife and the underworld. (Book II)

Another noble lie, the afterlife:

The chief rewards of living a just and good life come after death. To prove that the soul survives the body: each thing has its own particular evil, which is the only thing that can destroy it. The evil of the soul has previously been proven to be injustice. But injustice does not destroy the soul in the way that sickness destroys the body, so the soul cannot be destroyed by anything and must be immortal. (Book X) This is why I don’t read dialectic.

The greatest rewards will come after the death of the body as the afterlife is described in the Myth of Er. Er is a brave soldier who died in battle, travels through the various realms of the afterlife, and returns to life to tell of what he has seen. This ranges from eternity in hell to rebirth in the form of one’s choosing.

Another noble lie, the Myth of the Metals:

Justice is the most important virtue as it lies at the root of all other virtues. What makes a society just is that each citizen performs only the one role in life to which he is best suited. A state, as a person, is like a structure with particular parts. If the parts don’t function well, the whole structure breaks down. (Book IV) This is the theory, not the lie.

Similar to a state, the mind of a person is made up of parts. The three parts of the mind are 1) reason, 2) emotion, 3) desire. These correspond to the three classes of the state: reason to rulers, emotions to auxiliaries, and desire to craftsmen. In a “well-ordered soul” the three parts must all perform their proper function, under the leadership of reason. (Book IV) More theory. I’m curious if the Canon of Epicurus is a direct response to this as well as to the theory of forms….

And now, the lie: The three classes of society must not meddle in each other’s business. To prevent this they should be taught to believe in a “grand and noble lie,” the Myth of the Metals, in which all citizens are created by the gods and some citizens have gold in their veins, some silver, some bronze and some iron. (Book III) These metals correspond to their place in society.

The Theory of Forms:

A Form, or quality, is something that is common to a number of different things. It does not just exist in the things which share the quality, but has an eternal and independent existence of its own. The everyday things that we perceive are merely “images;” to get to the truth we must look beyond the “images” to the things that they represent. One who is able to do that is a true philosopher. (Book V)

There are four types of “objects”: 1) Goodness, which is a Form, 2) the other Forms, 3) ordinary things, 4) shadows and images. The first two of these are objects of knowledge, the second two are objects of belief. This is then developed in the “Allegory of the Cave.” (Book VI) So reality is belief, and belief is reality….

To be a philosopher one must grasp the nature of Reality. To do this one must understand the Forms, and to do this one must learn the science of arguing logically: dialectic. (Book VII) Could this partly explain the academic bias against EP?

Pleasure:

There are three types of pleasure: 1) the pleasures of knowledge, the pleasures of success, 3) the pleasures of gain and satisfaction. Only the pleasures of the just man, the pleasures of knowledge, are real pleasures: all other pleasures are somehow unreal or “illusory.” Some pleasures are not really and truly pleasant; they only seem to be by contrast with pain or uneasiness. For instance, if you are very hungry, then eating a piece of stale bread will seem to be a pleasure.” (Book IX) This is part of a section describing the neutral state between pleasure and pain; it is specifically stated that the absence of pain is not pleasure and the absence of pleasure is not pain.

Most bodily pleasures are not truly pleasant, but the pleasures of knowledge are true pleasures. And the objects of knowledge are “real,” the objects of desire are just “images.” (Book IX)

Miscellany:

The science of astronomy did not exist in the time of Plato. For the purposes of astronomy Plato didn’t consider it necessary to observe the stars very carefully: he considered calculation more important than observation. (Book VII)

When distilled, it's hard to believe this philosophy survived at all, let alone became dominant. It must come down to the power structure and the noble lie.

This seems to confuse desire with pleasure.

From Google, desire is defined as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Pleasure is defined as "a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment."

The Epicurean pursuit of pleasure involves understanding and working with desire and could therefore be considered an exercise of free will.

Intuitively (since my skills as a logician are nonexistent) we know that this is false by observing any Stoic or Platonist, among others. Observing myself, having been reared in the yoke of the Platonic worldview, I find it quite challenging to re-orient myself to navigating life through pleasure. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm exercising free will, but it would seem that one pursuing virtue, duty or the like would disprove the idea that pursuing pleasure is predetermined.

You're quite welcome!

Happy 20th!

Attached is an image of Epicurus which works well as wallpaper for a phone. It came from the BBC podcast with Catherine Wilson, David Sedley et al. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ww3cszjv4)

I hope all are well!

Be safe!

I just took the quiz for Episode 2, and missed question 5.

I think I missed two of the "which of these is not X" questions. Most of the questions are pretty obvious, but a couple zeroed in on the text more than the general ideas and those got me. I could have reviewed the text, but didn't.

The same for me: I completely took the physics for granted. Nice podcast!

Here are more examples, some with more complex shapes:

https://sketchfab.com/lacma

This article just showed up in my feed; it's an example of creating a 3D model from photos:

https://unframed.lacma.org/2020/04/02/anc…hree-dimensions

The software mentioned is:

https://www.agisoft.com/downloads/installer/

The demo is free. The pro version is $3,499, however there's a standard version for $179.

I assume that the model can only be as good as the photos, so there's that....

Cassius your efforts look quite good, a bit more detail would finish it off nicely. It seems like a pass or two in Z-brush or Blender is all it would take. Unfortunately I'm a NURBS guy; I'm pretty helpless when it comes to meshes.

The piglet at the Getty was part of an exhibition which has closed and isn't there any more. I believe it was lent from the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.

Here's a link to the exhibit: http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/villa_papiri/index.html

They also had a little head of Epicurus, from the same museum in Naples. There's a great photo of it in the middle of this page (2D of course...): http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/villa_papiri/inner.html

The best bet might be if someone can get to the Naples museum with a handheld scanner. They might not allow that in the best of times, let alone in our current pestilent state

Regarding the piglet, I took photos of three sides of it at the Getty Herculaneum exhibit last year if they're of use. Not the greatest photos, but I shot the front and both sides. Forgot the rear end for some reason.

I haven't seen this before, and I particularly like it as well!

Don you're creating a useful resource. Carry on!

Quote

...we need to extend the principles and do a lot more discussion on the emotions at a very basic level.

Exactly. I think that it's ultimately of limited use to try to dissect an individual emotion but is of great value to understand the factors which contribute to various emotions. For example a proper understanding that death is nothing to us has an underlying relationship to particular instances of grief, among other things. Understanding the nature of desire has an underlying relationship to envy, among other things. And so on. It seems to me that examining the nature of things as contributing factors is where the useful discussion can occur. This discussion could be carried out with regard to factors underlying particular emotions in particular instances, however I've found that just increasing my understanding of nature, pleasure and desire has gone a long way toward making me a "happier" person.

Returning to the initial post in this thread, I think it's instructive to compare EP to the Stoics. Stoicism involves (often miserable) mental training practices to prepare one for future adverse situations. In contrast, Epicurean practices involve training in understanding the underlying "nature of things": by having this understanding, the Epicurean removes some underlying causes of painful emotions and is therefore free to experience both painful and pleasurable emotions more fully.

To my limited understanding, fear is an underlying contributor to anger. So removing fear where appropriate is much more therapeutic than trying to decipher whether a particular form or degree of anger is "okay" or not. Removing fear goes deeper in that it works to transform a person from an "angry person" to a "not so angry person". But anger is by no means the only emotion. We would also need to deal with sadness, grief, depression, longing, envy and on and on. And what about positive emotions?

The primary fears are considered to be those of the gods and of death. Next comes a proper understanding of pleasure and pain. These are addressed in PD 1-4. We have the rather glib tetrapharmakos, but I'm speculating that the Epicurean theory of the emotions is based on these four doctrines and that they were further developed in writings lost to us and in life, with frank speech, in the Garden. A deep and voluminous subject on this forum is the proper understanding of pleasure which goes way beyond "pleasure is easy to obtain". I'm wondering if similar depth of study in all of PD 1-4 isn't where the Epicurean theory and therapy of the emotions lies.