Posts by Joshua

As promised, I have tracked down the quote that I attributed to Cicero around the 46:30 mark. It comes from his De Senectute, On Old Age, in a work that Cicero sent to Atticus. The main speaker of the work is Cato.

Quote

For these reasons, Scipio, my old age sits light upon me (for you said that this has been a cause of wonder to you and Laelius), and not only is not burdensome, but is even happy. And if I err in my belief that the souls of men are immortal, I gladly err, nor do I wish this error which gives me pleasure to be wrested from me while I live. But if when dead I am going to be without sensation (as some petty philosophers think), then I have no fear that these seers, when they are dead, will have the laugh on me!

Notice the snideness of that last remark. One of the pastimes of a certain kind of religious person is to mock the people who disagree with them with false certainty about that alleged afterlife. "Christopher Hitchens knows the truth now, and he's burning in hell!" In Cicero's hands it takes a slightly different form, prefiguring Pascal's Wager; "If Epicurus turns out to be right, he can have a good laugh at me." Obviously he cannot have that laugh, which is the whole point.

In the third century Tertullian, foreseeing the death of antiquity and the beginning of the long darkness, particularly relished the presumptive possession of this non-knowledge:

Quote

What a panorama of spectacle on that day! Which sight shall excite my wonder? Which, my laughter? Where shall I rejoice, where exult--as I see so many and so mighty kings, whose ascent to heaven used to be made known by public announcement, now along with Jupiter himself, along with the very witnesses of their ascent, groaning in the depths of darkness? Governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the name of the Lord, melting in flames fiercer than those they themselves kindled in their rage against the Christians braving them with contempt?

Whom else shall I behold? Those wise philosophers blushing before their followers as they burn together, the followers whom they taught that the world is no concern of God's, whom they assured that either they had no souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to their former bodies? The poets also, trembling, not before the judgment seat of Rhadamanthus or of Minos, but of Christ whom they did not expect to meet.

Then will the tragic actors be worth hearing, more vocal in their own catastrophe; then the comic actors will be worth watching, more lither of limb in the fire; then the charioteer will be worth seeing, red all over on his fiery wheel; then the athletes will be worth observing, not in their gymnasiums, but thrown about by fire--unless I might not wish to look at them even then but would prefer to turn an insatiable gaze on those who vented their rage on the Lord.

"This is He," I will say, "the son of the carpenter and the harlot, the sabbath-breaker, the Samaritan who had a devil. This is He whom you purchased from Judas, this is He who was struck with reed and fist, defiled with spittle, given gall and vinegar to drink. This is He whom the disciples secretly stole away to spread the story of His resurrection, or whom the gardener removed lest his lettuces be trampled by the throng of curious idlers."

What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest with all his munificence will ever bestow on you the favor of beholding and exulting in such sights? Yet, such scenes as these are in a measure already ours by faith in the vision of the spirit. But what are those things which "eye has not seen nor ear heard and which have not entered into the heart of man"? Things of greater delight, I believe, than circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium.

You know, the internet has given rise to an interesting and perhaps novel phenomenon. Christians and Muslims, each denying any contradictions in their own holy books, can now be found hunting up and parading the contradictions in the holy books of their adversaries.

You know that scene from 1984 during Oceania's Hate Week, when it is announced that the state is at war with Eastasia and allied to Eurasia? The crowed has just witnessed Eurasian prisoners of war being executed. Well it's like that. The only way to deny the contradictions that exist in both holy books is to willingly blind yourself to them. And, of course, to get angry when the contradictions are pointed out.

That's a good source Cassius, thank you! I've seen a few articles on the 'death of New Atheism' recently, but in reality this so-callled New Atheism is not new at all; it is identical to the old atheism, and is sure to co-exist with religion until the extinction of the species.

My father’s rejection of all that is called religious belief, was not, as many might suppose, primarily a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds of it were moral, still more than intellectual. He found it impossible to believe that a world so full of evil was the work of an Author combining infinite power with perfect goodness and righteousness. His intellect spurned the subtleties by which men attempt to blind themselves to this open contradiction. … His aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious excellencies — belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind — and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtue: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful.

-John Stuart Mill, Autobiography

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Euthyphro Dilemma also bears heavily on Cicero's claims about the source of morality.

Three classes of "meritorious qualities";

• Dutifulness; "And this same reason has given man a yearning for his fellow men, and an agreement with them based on nature and language and intercourse, so that starting from affection for those of his own household and his own kin, he gradually takes wider range and connects himself by fellowship first with his countrymen, then with the whole human race, and, as Plato wrote to Archytas, bears in mind that he was not born for him-self alone, but for his fatherland and his kindred, so that only a slight part of his existence remains for himself."
• Truthfulness; "And seeing that nature again has implanted in man a passion for gazing upon the truth, as is seen very clearly when, being free from anxieties, we long to know even what takes place in the sky; so led on by these instincts we love all forms of truth, I mean all things trustworthy, candid and consistent, while we hate things unsound, insincere and deceptive, for instance cheating, perjury, spite, injustice."
• Indomitability; "Reason again brings with it a rich and splendid spirit, suited to command rather than obedience, regarding all that may happen to man as not only endurable, but even inconsiderable, a certain lofty and exalted spirit, which fears nothing, bows to none, and is ever unconquerable."

And a fourth quality;

• Orderliness; "And now that we have marked out these three classes of things moral, there follows a fourth endued with the same loveliness and dependent on the other three; in this is comprised the spirit of orderliness and self-control."

Bear in mind Cicero's project here; as he stated at the top of page 49, it is his opinion "that if I shew there is something moral, which is essentially desirable by reason of its inherent qualities and for its own sake, all the doctrines of your school are overthrown."

In his Republic, Cicero gives us a fuller description of this Natural Law, and the foundation of his morality;

Quote

There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature,

applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men

to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its

commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without effect upon the bad. To

invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to

restrict its operation , and to annul it wholly is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people

can absolve us from our obligation to obey this law, and it requires no Sextus Aelius to expound

and interpret it. It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be

one rule to-day and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and

unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common

master and ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this law, it interpreter, and its

sponsor. The man who will not obey it will abandon his better self, and, in denying the true

nature of a man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the other

consequences which men call punishments. (Cicero, THE REPUBLIC, II, 22.)

Display More

Lucretius' extensive treatment of early human history paints a very different picture; (Ian Johnston translation)

Quote

Then, once they had acquired huts, hides, and fire

and woman linked up with man and moved

into one [home and] learned [marriage customs],

and they saw themselves creating offspring,

at that point the human race first began

to soften. Fire meant their freezing limbs

could no longer tolerate the cold so well

under heaven’s roof, sexual habits made

their strength diminish, and children soon

shattered the stern character of parents

with their endearing charms. And then neighbours

began to join in mutual agreements,

seeking not to harm each other or be harmed,

and they entrusted children and the race

of women to the care of all, pointing out

with vocal sounds, gestures, and broken words

that it was right for all to have pity

on the weak. And though they could not create

universal harmony, nonetheless,

large numbers would faithfully keep their word,

or else the human race would, even then,

have been entirely killed off, and breeding

could not have kept up their generations

to this very day.

Display More

And finally, Lucretius' response to the claim that the gods will punish those who violate their law;

Quote

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.

Display More

Do we have a sense of how the forum handles internal links to threads that have been moved?

Given that work or toil is deeply connected to the meaning of this word, I proposed this morning that the Latin word Otium might make for an interesting comparison;

Otium - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It looks like the Greek word for leisure is σχόλη.

Quote

At some point you have to make a practical decision to "live," and that point is where we "trust the senses," which amounts to "trusting what Nature gave to us" for survival.

Yes, but this to me is tantamount to living with rational rather than absolute oughts.

My answer is very similar to yours; if I started every morning waking up to Hume's Guillotine, the problem of determinism, the claims made of simulation or the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment, Pascal's Wager, Last Tuesday-ism, Calvinist double-predestination, or idealism of any other stripe, I'd never get out of bed.

So, like Thomas Jefferson, I shove all that crap in a corner and

"recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, "I feel: therefore I exist." I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them "matter". I feel them changing place. This gives me "motion". Where there is an absence of matter, I call it "void", or "nothing", or "immaterial space". On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need."

Quote from Cassius

And joining the issue of Hume's "is - ought" question to this distinction, it seems to be that we have Epicurus saying that Nature has given us one faculty (feeling / pathe) by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid, and there is no question but that what "is" given (feeling /pathe) clearly "ought" to be followed.

And the question is not "whether" to follow it, but "how" to follow it successfully.

It sounds to me like Epicurus would not be very impressed with Hume's supposed problem, or at the very least he would say it has a very direct answer. The issue is not whether to comply with our natural faculties, but how to assess theories that there are considerations that trump our natural faculties (thereby elevating "Nature" over "logic" and "supernatural religion")

Other views on that?

"we have Epicurus saying that Nature has given us one faculty (feeling / pathe) by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid,"

But this is Epicurus' implicit ought, not a description of how things are.

What Hume is actually asking is how do get from something like this;

"Some things cause pain."

To this;

"We ought to avoid things that cause pain."

Why should we avoid things that cause pain? You might say, because Nature has given us pain a guide. Okay, why should we follow Nature? Because that is the surest road to the life of happiness. Okay, why should we pursue happiness? Because the happy life is the best of all possible lives. Okay, why do we want to live the best life? Because it's the most pleasant life. Why do we want the most pleasant life? Because it's the best life. Why--

--because I said so!

The problem is unsolvable in Hume's terms, not just for Epicurus but for everyone. There's nothing wrong with that--I actually think we're better off without absolute oughts, which is the same thing as saying that we're better off without absolute morality. If God commands you to sacrifice your firstborn, even allowing a God there is no absolute morality to say that you should follow his whims.

This is why Euthyphro is my favorite Socratic dialogue. Even assuming the existence of a God, we are still left with only rational oughts. If I was Epicurus' lawyer I would tell him to take that deal. Take the deal that leaves you and everyone else, even God himself if he was real, on the same footing. If I want to live a blessed life, then I should live a life of pleasure, and for all the reasons Epicurus states. But I accept this knowing that it was my choice--and that if even the gods were real, they would choose it for themselves.

"What would the "two natures" be?"

You know, Lucretius uses almost that exact phrase;

Sed neque Centauri fuerunt nec tempore in ullo

esse queunt duplici natura et corpore bino

ex alienigenis membris compacta, potestas

hinc illinc partis ut sat par esse potissit.

id licet hinc quamvis hebeti cognoscere corde.

But Centaurs ne'er have been, nor can there be

Creatures of twofold stock and double frame,

Compact of members alien in kind,

Yet formed with equal function, equal force

In every bodily part- a fact thou mayst,

However dull thy wits, well learn from this:

There are interesting parallels here; in the above passage from book 5 Lucretius is concerned with the question of tracing the living thing back to its proper seed. In a separate passage in book 4, the poet uses the Centaur to make a different point;

nam certe ex vivo Centauri non fit imago,

nulla fuit quoniam talis natura animata;

verum ubi equi atque hominis casu convenit imago,

haerescit facile extemplo, quod diximus ante,

propter subtilem naturam et tenvia texta.

cetera de genere hoc eadem ratione creantur.

quae cum mobiliter summa levitate feruntur,

ut prius ostendi, facile uno commovet ictu

quae libet una animum nobis subtilis imago;

tenvis enim mens est et mire mobilis ipsa.

For soothly from no living Centaur is

That phantom gendered, since no breed of beast

Like him was ever; but, when images

Of horse and man by chance have come together,

They easily cohere, as aforesaid,

At once, through subtle nature and fabric thin.

In the same fashion others of this ilk

Created are. And when they're quickly borne

In their exceeding lightness, easily

(As earlier I showed) one subtle image,

Compounded, moves by its one blow the mind,

Itself so subtle and so strangely quick.

In the first passage, Centaurs are declared not to exist because no such disparate seeds as those which produce men and horses could conceivably commingle in the way necessary to produce a man-horse. In the second passage he is giving an explanation of how the legend came to be in the first place; it was not seeds of men and horses that mingled and produced the centaur, but images of men and horses that mingled and produced the illusion of the existence of the centaur. These, the same images which we depend upon for knowledge of the gods?

Edit; I see Bryan and I crossposted with reference to the two passages on centaurs.

That reminds me, Don, I found a good video (with spoken Greek) on the Anabasis by Xenophon which we were discussing the other evening;

Mary Porter Packer's essay on Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethics;

File

CIcero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - By Mary Porter Packer (1938)

A study based primarily on De Finibus I and II

Cassius

February 16, 2022 at 1:27 PM

Yes, and Cleopatra has received similar treatment - a seductress, luring illustrious Roman men away from their duty. Per usual, it is the woman to blame in these affairs.

In the same book in which Boccaccio slandered Leontion, he also heaped abuse on Cleopatra. It was an English poet who finally conceded to show her in better light: Geoffrey Chaucer. He laid the blame for Antony's infidelity at his own feet, and held Cleopatra to have lived and loved more nobly and more faithfully than any man.

What she really was is of course far more inspiring; a wry wit, a student of international politics, a scholar in the tradition of her earlier ancestors, a capable successor to the middling heirs of those same ancestors, a wartime commander in the field at both land and sea, and a strident negotiator with the ruling power in the Mediterranean. While she conversed with these Roman generals in her native Koine Greek, she was also said, though accounts differ, to be the only Ptolemaic ruler to have gone to the trouble of studying the local Egyptian language.

When Antony was slain and with him her last hope for her people's freedom and security, she died, a martyr in Chaucer's words, at her own hand.

Quote

I shall not deprive my own grandfather of the honourable mention which I should give to a stranger. Gaius Velleius, chosen to a most honourable position among the three hundred and sixty judges178 by Gnaeus Pompey, prefect of engineers under Pompey, Marcus Brutus, and Tiberius Nero, and a man second to none, on the departure from Naples of Nero, whose partisan he had been on account of his close friendship, finding himself unable to accompany him on account of his age and infirmities, 2 ran himself through with his sword in Campania.

LacusCurtius • Velleius Paterculus — Book II, Chapters 59‑93

On poems:

La poesia : PHerc. 188 e 1014 : Demetrius, Lacon, active 2nd century B.C : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

328 pages ; 24 cm

archive.org

Greek text starts on page 94ish. (Borrow for 1 hour)

Quote

A fun way to practice is just write English words using the Greek letters like a code. It reinforces the system. in 7th grade, high school, through college, I'd take notes in class in Greek letters, and I still run across those notebooks in a drawer once in awhile.

I can't remember where I saw this (textbook, website, etc), but it was a set of famous speeches in English but in Greek script. The Gettysburg Address for example is rather well known, and if you already know the words you can work out the Greek letters without much trouble.

I can't find it with Google, but maybe I still have the book.

Bernard Frischer of The Sculpted Word is still at it with visualizations of classical antiquity;

Digital model of Ancient Rome released

Rome Reborn 4.0, a digital model of Ancient Rome has just been released by archaeologist, Dr Bernard Frischer.

www.heritagedaily.com

Thank you! Cassius has previously said that our timeline of Lucretius 》Torquatus 》Letters of Epicurus 》DeWitt would be good preparation for Cicero in Book II, and I think he was right. Some of these arguments require a more researched response, of the kind that gets easier with time and reading.

A mention of Mys.

Quote

There were not a few other slaves too afterwards who became famous philosophers. among them that Menippus whose works Marcus Varro emulated in those satires which others call "Cynic," but he himself, "Menippean." Besides these, Pompylus, the slave of the Peripatetic Theophrastus, and the slave of the Stoic Zeno who was called Persaeus, and the slave of Epicurus whose name was Mys, were philosophers of repute.

On the diversity of opinions on pleasure;

Quote

Diverse views of eminent philosophers as to the nature and character of pleasure; and the words in which the philosopher Hierocles attacked the principles of Epicurus. As to pleasure the philosophers of old expressed varying opinions. Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good, but defines it as σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα, or "a well-balanced condition of body." Antisthenes the Socratic calls it the greatest evil; for this is the expression he uses: μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην; that is to say, "may I go mad rather than feel pleasure." Speusippus and all the old Academy declare that pleasure and pain are two evils opposed to each other, but that what lay midway between the two was the good. Zeno thought that pleasure was indifferent, that is neutral, neither good nor evil, that, namely, which he called by the Greek term ἀδιάφορον. Critolaus the Peripatetic declares that pleasure is an evil and gives birth to many other evils: injustice, sloth, forgetfulness, and cowardice. Earlier than all these Plato discoursed in so many and varied ways about pleasure, that all those opinions which I have set forth may seem to have flowed from the founts of his discourses; for he makes use of each one of them according to the suggestion offered by the nature of pleasure itself, which is manifold, and according to the demands made by the character of the topics which he is treating and of the effect that he wishes to produce. But our countryman Taurus, whenever mention was made of Epicurus, always had on his lips and tongue these words of Hierocles the Stoic, a man of righteousness and dignity: "Pleasure an end, a harlot's creed; there is no Providence, not even a harlot's creed."

And finally, Gellius is at his wit's end with philosophers;

Quote

But the Stoics maintain that voice is a body, and say that it is air which has been struck. Plato, however, thinks that voice is not corporeal: "for," says he, "not the air which is struck, but the stroke and the blow themselves are voice." Democritus, and following him Epicurus, declare that voice consists of individual particles, and they call it, to use their own words, ῥευμα ἀτόμων, or "a stream of atoms." When I heard of these and other sophistries, the result of a self-satisfied cleverness combined with lack of employment, and saw in these subtleties no real advantage affecting the conduct of life, and no end to the inquiry, I agreed with Ennius' Neoptolemus, who rightly says: Philosophizing there must be, but by the few; Since for all men it's not to be desired.