Posts by Joshua

Empathy and Sympathy are Greek words originally. Don will be of more assistance on that point!

I thought I remembered you reading Eusebius, Don! A passage of his came up in the podcast recording this morning, perhaps you'll have some insight on that.

In a recent book discussion on Frances Wright's A Few Days in Athens, Scott was quite right to bring up the question as to whether 'compassion' was truly evident in Epicurus' teachings in the classical texts. Kalosyni had likewise raised the question in a forum post in the thread for the discussion. My purpose here is twofold; first, to thank both of you for raising the question (thank you!); and second, to reopen the discussion here with a handful of preliminary citations.

It is quite easy to demonstrate that Epicurus was motivated at least in part by concern for his fellow man; and clear, too, that he extended his concern beyond the pale of the professional philosopher. His introduction to the letter to Pythocles states his intent:

Quote

Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation.

The letter to Menoeceus expands on this further;

Quote

LET no one when young delay to study philosophy, nor when he is old grow weary of his study. For no one can come too early or too late to secure the health of his soul. And the man who says that the age for philosophy has either not yet come or has gone by is like the man who says that the age for happiness is not yet come to him, or has passed away. Wherefore both when young and old a man must study philosophy, that as he grows old he may be young in blessings through the grateful recollection of what has been, and that in youth he may be old as well, since he will know no fear of what is to come.

So much for the letters. This is perhaps not the full-throated endorsement of compassion we would like to see, but the idea of the thing is beginning to take shape; Epicurus believed that in sharing his philosophy, he was helping to bring good health to the souls of all who would listen. He did not seek to convince only those in traditional philosophical circles, but to bring this 'true health' even to the commoners; scholars and working folk, young and old.

Proceeding in good order, we turn next to the Principle Doctrines:

Quote

27. Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.

28. The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing we have to fear is eternal or even of long duration, also enables us to see that even in our limited conditions of life nothing enhances our security so much as friendship.

There is friendship, then; the greatest pleasure, and surest path to happiness.

Quote

31. Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.

And a sense of justice, too; predicated not on morality, or Natural Law, or divine intervention--all such suppositions being either false or arbitrary--but on harm. This is the kind of justice that is blind--that protects all people, not merely the pious or the powerful.

And in the Vatican Sayings;

Quote

29. To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many.

Here we begin to see a glimpse of a missionary attitude--the philosophy can bring help to anyone.

Quote

52. Friendship dances around the world bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.

66. We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern.

78. The noble man is chiefly concerned with wisdom and friendship; of these, the former is a mortal good, the latter an immortal one.

79. He who is calm disturbs neither himself nor another.

And we may hope that the great blessings of friendship may be available to all.

Next, we take the testimony of others; it is fitting that we start with Menander, as he and Epicurus were 'classmates'.

Quote

Hail, you twin-born sons of Neocles, of whom the one saved his country from slavery, the other from folly.

And Diogenes Laertius;

Quote

[Epicurus] has abundance of witnesses to attest his unsurpassed goodwill to all men--his native land, which honoured him with statues in bronze ; his friends, so many in number that they could hardly be counted by whole cities, and indeed all who knew him [...] the School itself which, while nearly all the others have died out, continues for ever without interruption through numberless reigns of one scholarch after another; his gratitude to his parents, his generosity to his brothers, his gentleness to his servants, as evidenced by the terms of his will and by the fact that they were members of the School, the most eminent of them being the aforesaid Mys ; and in general, his benevolence to all mankind.

Lucian;

Quote

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.

I'll expand on some of this tomorrow---my phone armed with more battery-life!

Chapter 2 Outline (slightly out of order with the text)

I. In the house of Epicurus, Theon meets three Scholars and two Problems

A. Sofron

1. Too eager to please (or too eager to trust?)

A. First to greet Theon

B. "premature affection"

C. "I hope [Theon] will judge all things, and all people, with his own understanding, and not with that of Epicurus"

B. Metrodorus

1. Too zealous to condemn (and too hesitant to forgive?)

A. "there are vices, different from those he saved me from, which, if not more unworthy, are perhaps more unpardonable, because committed with less temptation"

B. "Are we not prone,” said the sage, “to extenuate our foibles, even while condemning them? And does it not flatter our self-love, to weigh our own vices against those of more erring neighbors?"

C. Leontion

1. Appropriate; her bearing and conduct is in harmony with philosophy

A. "But I would not particularize Theophrastus for sometimes forgetting this, as I have never known but one who always remembers it." [on arguing with care and modesty]

B. "Such grace! such majesty! More than all such intellect! And this — this was the Leontium Timocrates had called a prostitute without shame or measure!"

II. Epicurus answers the two philosophical problems

A. Problem; “I know not,” resumed Leontium, “that I should this evening have so frequently thought Theophrastus wrong, if he had not made me so continually feel that he thought himself right. Must I seek the cause of this in the writer’s or the reader’s vanity?”

1. “Perhaps,” said the master, smiling, ” you will find that it lies in both.”

2. "The mode of delivering a truth makes, for the most part, as much impression on the mind of the listener, as the truth itself."

B. Problem: “Whether the vicious were more justly objects of indignation or of contempt: Metrodorus argued for the first, and I for the latter. Let the master decide.”

1. “He will give his opinion certainly; but that is not decision.”

2. "Had I regarded the vicious with indignation, I had never gained one to virtue. Had I viewed them with contempt, I had never sought to gain one.”

III. Zeno's Virtue and the lies of Timocrates

A. Theon: "I have long owned the power of virtue, but surely till this night I never felt its persuasion.”

B. Epicurus, on Timocrates; “And so I do. I answer him in my life. The only way in which a philosopher should ever answer a fool, or, as in this case, a knave.”

C. Epicurus on Zeno; "Don’t you know that who quarrels with your doctrine, must always quarrel with your practice? Nothing is so provoking as that a man should preach viciously and act virtuously.”

Chapter 2 outline.pdf

Outlining is a good practice, I never realized before that Sofron, Metrodorus and Leontion seem to be presented in goldilocks-style contrast.

Summary of Pyrrhonism

From the Wikipedia article on Pyrrho;

Quote

A summary of Pyrrho's philosophy was preserved by Eusebius, quoting Aristocles, quoting Timon, in what is known as the "Aristocles passage."[7] There are conflicting interpretations of the ideas presented in this passage, each of which leads to a different conclusion as to what Pyrrho meant.[7]

Whoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.

Why did I bring the flat earth into this?

Quote

The 1876 Larousse dictionary, p. 1479, wrote thus:

The name of zététiques, which means seekers, indicates a rather original nuance of skepticism: it is provisional skepticism, it is close to Descartes' idea about doubt as a means, not as an end, as a preliminary procedure, not as a definitive result. If all skeptics really were zététiques and only zététiques, they would have said with Pyrrho: "We do not arrive at doubt, but at the suspension of judgement" ... skeptics literally mean examiners, people who think, reflect, study attentively; but in the long run they take a more negative than doubtful stance, and has meant that those who are under the pretext of always examining never decide. ... the word zététiques is not made to resolve the debate between the two meanings of all these terms ... Moreover, the name zététiques has remained on the ground of the school that created it; and, despite its wide expansion, which would have helped make the term general for all seekers of truth in all fields, it is exclusively applied to skeptics, and we could even say to Greek skeptics or Pyrrhonists.

That may sound well and good; but enter Zetetic Astronomy, and see where it leads.

Zetetic Astronomy

Quote

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (/ˈroʊbɒtəm/;[1] 1816 – 23 December 1884, in London) was an English inventor, writer and socialist[2] who wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe under the pseudonym Parallax. His work was originally published as a 16-page pamphlet (1849), and later expanded into a book (1865).

Rowbotham's method, which he called zetetic astronomy, models the Earth as a flat disc centered at the North Pole and bounded along its perimeter by a wall of ice, with the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving only several thousand miles above the surface of Earth.

Quote

In his lectures and writings, Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, repeatedly emphasized the importance of sticking to the facts. He called his system “zetetic astronomy” (zetetic from the Greek verb zetetikos, meaning to seek or inquire) because he sought only facts, and left mere theories to the likes of Copernicus and Newton. Rowbotham devoted the entire first chapter of his magnum opus to praising facts at the expense of theories, concluding, “Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”

The sad story of Lucy Harris in the early history of Mormonism may furnish one example of this. Her husband's unfortunate credulity cost them first the farm and then their marriage.

I am persuaded by observation that St. Paul and the Catholic Church actually make a good point when it comes to marriage and relationships.

Quote

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

I do not, of course, accept his definitions of "light" and "righteousness". And not everyone will be flattered by the image of yoked oxen as a metaphor for marriage.

But there is something to the idea that a compatible foundation of values and beliefs about 'the constitution of the world' is important to long-term happiness and cooperation.

I do not say that it cannot work; only that it will be very difficult to make it work. And this may partly explain the reluctance of some people to pursue marriage, for who can say what changes may develop in the space of decades?

Quote

It is the color of paper that the Church of Scientology's Ethics Department prints its Suppressive Person Declares on, giving rise to the term "golden-rodding".

I see that goldenrod is also a badge of honor! 😅

A simpler option is this ⟐, done in the same style.

Because saffron has religious connotations in the East, and I don't know the names of very many colors!

Whatever best matches the ceramic on attic pottery would be my choice.

Edit; the range of colors that meet that criteria is of course quite broad, going from buff through yellow and into the reds.

Quote

I'm curious if any of the newer members of the forum have ideas on a "symbol/logo" for Epicureanism.

I have an idea for a flag, if that counts!

A piglet, in attic-black, wreathed with laurel styled the same, on a field of goldenrod.

Piglet;

Wreathed in Laurel;

In Attic Black-Figure;

On a field of goldenrod;

The best thing the History Channel ever did, in my view, was a program that ran for one season called Engineering an Empire.

Go Here and at the 25 minute mark there is a good little bit on how the keystone arch transformed Roman architecture.

A metaphor for the relationship between the three core components of Epicurean philosophy.

The keystone arch was a Roman invention, and a gateway to the building of the palatial domes and vaulted ceilings of Imperial architecture. For us, it may stand as a symbol for the careful balance of the Epicurean system.

The keystone, or capstone, is clearly supported by the stones on either side. But just as the apex of the span is supported by the lower elements, it supports them also in its turn; the arch, though classified into parts, is in truth a single self-reinforcing whole. The Physics may stand alone, but standing alone it is weakened; and the same with the Canonics. Together they hold up the higher order function of the Ethics, and, so doing, hold each other up as well---and so without the Ethics, the system falls.

Very good! The language requirements for being a good classicist are staggering. Not only Latin and Greek, but English, French, and German are essential for getting a handle on the bulk of the commentary. Then the scripts--Roman and Greek, Linear B, Demotic--and the particular forms that were standard in inscriptions and graffiti.

Thank you, Don! I am of a kind with Shakespeare on this point; "small Latin and less Greek," or so Ben Jonson styles it.

Quote

On the Pleasure of Choice:

That is interesting.

I knew the word αἱρέσεις, "choice", because of its modern English derivative; Heresy. Your translation seems to my ear to invite the comparison, as it was precisely the pleasure of choice that would have been so anathema to later Christians.

Quote

If the Inquiry into Natural Causes (is) Useful in Regard to Moral Philosophy

This is interesting as well, and bears on our most recent and upcoming podcast episodes. We'll have a lot to talk about on this question on Sunday!

Thank you again for your efforts!

Quote

Diogenes. . .waged from the mountain fastness of Oenoanda his own war against the superstitions of his age: the base popular conceptions of the gods, oracles, dreams, and the philosophers' belief in the transmigration of the soul.

The article is worth it for this sentence alone!

4321-15447-1-PB.pdf

Haven't finished this yet, it may give us nothing new. @Nate has already done quite a lot in this area.

A minor curiosity;

It appears that Galen wrote several treatise's on Epicurus (almost certainly lost).

Perhaps Don can help with these. I read it (badly) as;

XVI. On the philosophy of Epicurus [anekonta?]

On Epicurus' Eudaimonia and the Happiness of Life

two: On Epicurus [?] Pleasure: [can't make anything of this...something about making and pleasure and imperfection]

On Choosing Pleasure: [?] The usefulness of Physiology in Moral Philosophy

On the (seven books? of the) Sophists

Metrodorus: Epistle to Celsus the Epicurean: Epistle to Pudentianus the Epicurean.

Quote

It’s not my place to point out that the book conveniently disregards a key part of Epicureanism, ataraxia, that urges us to withdraw from the world and to "be indifferent to suffering and death in other people" — a disturbing apathy at odds with much of modernity, not to mention the civic ethics of the early modern period. "De rerum natura" actually proposes an apathetic, anesthetized calm that is as incompatible with empathy, compassion, affection, bodily pleasure, or joyful happiness as it is with pain. Hardly inspiring, and hardly an improvement on, well, anything.

Cassius' recent mention of Stephen Greenblatt has reminded me of one of my favorite hobby-horses---Greenblatt's detractors.

The above quote comes from an article in Vox, written by (of course) a Medievalist.

More:

Quote

I am not a classicist or a philosopher, so I won’t go into how actual philosophers point out that Epicureanism wasn’t anywhere as widespread in the classical world as Greenblatt suggests [...]

Why it should be the province of philosophers to determine this 'fact' is beyond my power to say. But I am interested in the question. How should we go about determining how widespread Epicureanism was in Antiquity?

We know that geographically we can place ancient Epicureanism on three different continents. We can place them as far north and west as Autun in France, and as far south and east as Alexandria. We know from Cicero that the oldest Latin texts in his day were written by Epicureans (Amafinius?)

We know also from Cicero that Epicureanism was popular among the hoi polloi, and from Plotina herself that an Empress of Rome was sympathetic to them. Gravestones, finger rings, busts, papyrus scrolls...is there a way to collate all this information?