We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
As I listen to the episode, I begin to realize that we were very nearly describing the hedons and dolors of Utilitarianism--units of unmixed pleasure and pain. While in any given moment one can experience both pleasure and pain, a particular feeling is either pleasureable or painful.
I'm not sure this is a useful path to go down, but it's probably worth addressing because I can see this being a source of confusion given the differences between Epicurean philosophy and Utilitarianism.
In coming to terms with Cicero's loathing for pleasure, I thought of another reason beyond the ones that we have already discussed. We could probably make a list;
Another reason that occurred to me;
How do we square these considerations with VS47?
"47. I have anticipated you, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all your secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to you or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well."
Good evening!
As many have noticed, the forum was spammed by what was probably a bot at around 11:30 PM Eastern. I have attempted to delete all of the offending material. If anything is still showing up on your end please let me know. Site Administrator Cassius and Coordinator Kalosyni will proceed with a ban when they log on.
Thank you for your patience!
Joshua
I suspect that Paul wrote letters because he was responding to the same social and political pressures that the Epicureans were responding to, whether or not there was any connection between the two traditions--both groups were barred from teaching in the Gymnasia, the Agora, and the Roman Forum. So they found recourse in one of the only options left to them. This was a stroke of great luck for us, as Zeno's whole output from the Stoa is lost except in fragments while Epicurus' letters survive.
In the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, a similar phenomenon developed called the Republic of Letters, a complex web of private correspondence for the transmission of ideas. Ironically, the term was first used by Francesco Barbaro in a letter to Poggio Bracciolini, and in the very same year--1417--that saw the rediscovery of Lucretius by the latter. In one surviving letter, a friend of Poggio pleads with him to be more guarded in his writing--a letter stops being private if it falls into the wrong hands, after all.
Poggio's letter written in admiration of Jerome of Prague, a heretic murdered by the Church at the Council of Constance, is here.
Having listened to that portion now, I can say that I don't know how you managed to edit it in such a way that I nearly made sense in what I was saying! 
^ This is right. Bear in mind it won't show up correctly in preview, and after you post it you'll have to refresh your browser before it shows correctly.
I should caution the listener that my thoughts on 'meaning' are tentative at best, so take everything I say there, and regarding Thomas Carlyle, with a grain of salt. It does strike me as a conversation worth having, though!
I should note that the words 'kinetic' and 'katastematic' made a rare appearance on this week's podcast episode, along side a few quotes from John Stuart Mill. Most notably his claim that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
Thank you Godfrey, that one is worth saving. There are points in it that I might have emphasized differently, but it's not bad so far as it goes. It would take a reading knowledge of five languages to go through the author's sources, with a heavy reliance on Italian and German. Scholarship that lies, unfortunately, beyond the reach of most of us!
Unfortunately the subject of the gods is the one about which we have the greatest lack of source material. DeWitt (the Great Hypothesizer?) suggested that Lucretius' "lost" seventh book dealt with the gods at length. Epicurus wrote a scroll on the same, which really is lost, and we have two books from Philodemus on the Epicurean gods.
Diogenes Laertius does not record that Metrodorus wrote on the question specifically, but he did write a response to Plato's Euthyphro, a dialogue in which Socrates attempts to understand the meaning of Piety.
Lucretius, meanwhile, does give us in Book V a definition of Pietas which he contrasts with the Religio of Agamemnon in Book I;
O unhappy race of men,
when they ascribed such actions to the gods
and added to them bitter rage! What sorrows
they then made for themselves, what wounds for us,
what weeping for our children yet to come!
There is no piety in being seen
time and again turning towards a stone
with one’s head covered and approaching close
to every altar, and hurling oneself
prostrate on the ground, stretching out one’s palms
before gods’ shrines, or spreading lots of blood
from four-footed beasts on altars, or piling
sacred pledges onto sacred pledges,
but rather in being able to perceive
all things with one’s mind at peace.
Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) — or gods found in polytheistic religions — a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.
Deity:
A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred.
I suppose you could argue about definitions, but not without wholly muddying the waters. Epicureanism in non-theistic.
In another thread I made a post in which I compared a timeline of the Late Republic with Horace's literary output, and traced the inferred influence of politics on his Epicureanism;
Since the post is very relevant to this subforum, I am linking to it here.
Wasn't Epicurus's mother a purveyor of charms and oracles?
That's the story--that his father was an itinerant teacher and his mother sold charms, both occupations suggesting low birth. Given that;
The story is probably true enough so far as it goes. As for the VS, I suspect that there is a touch of irony in it. When Alexander the Great went to an oracle at the Oasis of Siwa, the prophets told him that he was not the son of Philip, but the son of a God. How convenient for both parties--it cost the Oracles nothing to say this, and earned them the patronage of the most powerful man on earth. If only the High Priestess at Delphi had thought of it first!
Oracles in the ancient world were flatterers; politically useful, the lent an air of pious gravitas to any worldly endeavor. DeWitt cited Demosthenes to this end;
It is just and right and important, men of Athens, that we too should exercise care, as you are accustomed, that our relations with the gods shall be piously maintained. Therefore our commission has been duly discharged for you, for we have sacrificed to Zeus the Saviour and to Athena and to Victory, and these sacrifices have been auspicious and salutary for you. We have also sacrificed to Persuasion and to the Mother of the Gods and to Apollo, and here also we had favorable omens. And the sacrifices made to the other gods portended for you security and stability and prosperity and safety. Do you, therefore, accept the blessings which the gods bestow.
In one of my favorite anecdotes, Heraclitus hid a scroll in a temple where it would be discovered and passed off as divine utterance.
For every ten thousand seers, there is but one Lucy Harris to steal the pages from the "prophet", in her case Joseph Smith, and challenge him to reproduce the results.
But now to the point. Whatever else he might be, Epicurus is not a prophet, an Oracle, or even (though he was given the title Soter) a Messiah or heavenly savior. But he was a voice, and he cried out in the metaphorical wilderness of ancient superstition. And those who were 'well disposed', as the inscription in Oenanda puts it, to hear his words may have thought that not everything they were hearing was good news.
He offered pleasure, but it was pleasure only in this world; death, he said, was nothing to be feared, but neither was there hope for a life to come. The universe was infinite and eternal, and if that failed to cheer you up, there was more; neither our world nor our species was morally, physically, or theologically at the center of it. As for the gods, they do exist; and while they do not punish us, neither will they answer our prayers. Supplication is futile; there is no hope for intercession in times of need, and no justice for the victim of the evildoer in the judgment of the afterlife. Logic and dialectic, which had seemed the surest route to knowledge, truth, and virtue, in fact brought us no closer to the end that we sought for. And if divine friendship is the richest and deepest fountain of pleasure, what hope can we have that the fountain will not run dry tomorrow? Seeing that the utter finality of death will not only take our friends from us, but also poison our happiness with an impossible longing to be reunited.
Only a beast unfit to be called a philosopher could teach a way of thinking so unworthy of the human soul. But for the Epicureans themselves, it must have been Lucian of Samosata who best captured their feeling;
The fellow had no conception of the blessings conferred by that book upon its readers, of the peace, tranquillity, and independence of mind it produces, of the protection it gives against terrors, phantoms, and marvels, vain hopes and inordinate desires, of the judgement and candour that it fosters, or of its true purging of the spirit, not with torches and squills and such rubbish, but with right reason, truth, and frankness.
***
But secondly I was still more concerned (a preference which you will be very far from resenting) to strike a blow for Epicurus, that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him.
The bible also talks in several places about cracked pots and burst wineskins. Apparently it's a popular metaphor.
Rousseau is sometimes called an Epicurean, and seldom more-so than by his contemporary critics.
Here is a quote from one of the "Fragments to Emile";
This passage was edited according to the footnote, where an earlier edition had the sentence "Every consistent Epicurean is necessarily a Stoic."
I actually don't know anything about this book or these "Fragments", so take it with a grain of salt.
I should also note that today is one of the "accepted" dates for the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. The Spartans were late to join the battle on account of a festival, and since the date of the festival is known in their lunisolar calendar (and we can calculate moon phases across a great stretch of time), a 19th century scholar worked out that same day in the Julian calendar.
The Athenian victory at Marathon had several important consequences;
The results will be subjected to further testing, but an analysis of the light spectrum of this planet has indicated the presence of dimethyl sulfide, a molecule produced by phytoplankton. There could be a world-ocean under the atmosphere of this planet. Very cool!
https://maa.org/press/periodic…hout%20citation.
I've long remembered this second quote from Albert Einstein, and had it in mind when we recorded this episode. I'm probably simplifying too much, but it seems to be saying an axiomatic mathematical discipline like geometry cannot be a perfect representation of the things in nature. This is a very nuanced and subtle argument, but for ancient thinkers like Pythagoras and his followers, geometry allowed them to deduce a priori that the number of the celestial spheres was 10 because 10 was the perfect number--it is the sum of a point (1), a line (2), a surface (3), and a volume (4).
Epicurus admired Euclid's unadorned literary style, but found no value in the claim that reasoning deductively from geometry could actually give you new information about nature. And while these and other disciplines have their uses, they are not and cannot be Canonic because they are not primary sources of information about the world, they are secondary. Their value as cognitive tools depends on our ability to evaluate their premises and conclusions using the senses, the feelings, and the prolepsis.
The Grecian are youthful and erring and fallen gods, with the vices of men, but in many important respects essentially of the divine race. In my Pantheon, Pan still reigns in his pristine glory, with his ruddy face, his flowing beard, and his shaggy body, his pipe and his crook, his nymph Echo, and his chosen daughter Iambe; for the great god Pan is not dead, as was rumored. No god ever dies. Perhaps of all the gods of New England and of ancient Greece, I am most constant at his shrine.
It's interesting that while Lucretius records that magnets were so named because they came from Magnesia, Pliny the Elder quotes Nicander of Colophon as suggesting that magnets got their name from a shepherd named Magnes, whose iron studded shoes stuck to the ground on Mount Ida.
