Posts by Joshua

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?

Quote

Kalosyni one of the closest threads is this one started by Joshua: Is Pleasure the Only Good?

I can't even make sense of that post, and I wrote it...

Quote

You have every right to call things what you choose, Joshua. But Secular Buddhists will probably continue to identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact those who follow Stephen Batchelor's line will say the Theravada tradition is NOT true Buddhism, that it suffers from translation errors that fundamentally distorted the Buddha's message, and also that the elements you describe such as karma and rebirth and so forth were NOT part of the Buddha's message at all but rather muddied their way into the Buddha's recorded teachings over time. Batchelor suggests this happened as part of an attempt to better conform the new "religion" to the widely accepted and deeply engrained soteriology in India thought.

That is all fair enough, and I have no dog in this fight. I read Buddhism Without Beliefs sometime--oh--ten years ago perhaps. I seem to recall that his views on the prevalence of rebirth in Indian thought at the time of the Buddha were somewhat controversial. But I may be mistaken in that.

What will be really helpful is to have not one outline, but three; Theravadin, Mahayana and Secular. And I will happily yield to whomever shall take the lists (pun intended!)

Quote

Legend tells that Aphrodite, filling her pail at the streams of the Cephisus, blew down upon the land temperate [840] and sweetly blowing breezes. And ever dressing her hair with a fragrant chaplet of roses she sends the Loves to sit at Wisdom's side, [845] joint workers in every kind of excellence.

-Medea, by Euripides

Another connection between Cephisus and Aphrodite.

Chapter 1 outline.pdf

I have put together a rough outline of the first chapter, if that be helpful. I will certainly be in attendance this evening!

"The Good Place" is indeed a worthwhile show, Don, and your question a good one!

I can give no answer to this objection: Epicurus assures us of the existence of his gods, but for me they are symbols merely; something imagined, and imaginary--but pedagogically useful, and to be kept, as it were, "before the eyes".

In view of the above list, you will apprehend the impossibility of removing rebirth, kamma [karma] or nibbana [nirvana] from Buddhism. They are integral. There are those in the secular community who keep the name of Buddhism for its ethics, or for its mindfulness, or for its psychology---but whatever it is that remains, it is not Buddhism.

I will attempt to take Cassius up on his request for an epitome of Buddhist teachings; assuming here that the Theravada school represents them best, and with the caveat that I have not studied these teachings for a number of years.

Let's pretend that what follows is the voice of a believer;

1. In spite of appearances, I am convinced after meditating deeply that I have no 'self'. ['No self' = anatta or no atta, Hindu atman]

2. Having no self, "I" shall not reincarnate; neither shall "I" die.

3. But something of me shall be reborn or passed on, the way the heat from one candle passes on to ignite a second candle.

4. I perceive other sentient beings; animals, and other humans, and also gods. I conclude that these also have no 'self'.

5. These, too, shall experience rebirth; even the gods are part of this cycle.

6. The condition of this cycle, from the lowliest cockroach to the wisest among gods, is the condition of suffering.

7. The way to end the cycle is to end suffering.

8. That part of me which has been reborn in this life cannot have ended suffering, else it should not have been reborn.

9. Therefore suffering leaves traces, a residue (kamma) and to end suffering I must erase the residue of suffering of my cosmic past.

10. If I can accomplish this, I will no longer be bound to the cycle: I will not be reborn, but will have achieved nibbana, a complete quenching of suffering.

11. This can only be achieved in a human rebirth; the lower animals have no ability to look beyond their immediate suffering, and as for the gods, they are too caught up in palliative pleasures to see the need to break the cycle.

12. To break the cycle is immensely difficult. It cannot be done in one life, but only by successive rebirths working toward the goal.

13. For most people it might not be possible at all---except that my master the Buddha has found the way.

14. He is not a god, nor a savior; he is only a guide. He attained nibbana, and tarried here long enough to show others the way, crying always, like a ferryman, "anyone for the other shore?"

15. I wish to end the cycle for myself; therefore, I am a Buddhist.

I take refuge in the Buddha [the awakened], the Dhamma [his teachings], and the Sangha [the body of his enlightened followers].

I will avoid the three fetters of 1. Belief in self, 2. Doubt, and 3. Attachment to rites and rituals.

I will avoid the three poisons of 1. Greed, 2. Ignorance, and 3. Hatred

I will follow the Noble Eightfold Path, of;

1. Right View

2. Right Intention

3. Right Speech

4. Right action

5. Right livelihood

6. Right effort

7. Right concentration

8. Right mindfulness

--------------

I can easily recommend Huston Smith's book on the World's Religions to anyone who wishes to know more, and I am happy to be corrected on any of the above points.

Quote

...then all we can do is point to modern science, which for moderate and severe levels of depression uses a combination of talk therapy and medication.

Yes, Kalosyni, I think that is the best and wisest course!

Don, I was not able to read that in time for recording, but thank you for posting it! I still need to read Sedley.

Show Notes:

Thank you to Marco for supplying my deficiency last week in reference to the story about the wild horse!

Lucretius in the context of Roman Handbooks

--De Rerum Natura, On the Nature of Things, compared with;

--De Aquaeductu, on the Roman Water Supply

By Frontinus

--De Agri Cultura, on Agriculture

By Cato the Elder

--De Rei Militari, on Military Matters

By Vegetius

--De Medicina, on Medicine

By Cornelius Celsus

--De Architectura, on Architecture

By Vitruvius

--------------‐--‐---------------------‐---‐-----------

Lucian's Alexander the Oracle-Monger

Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus

Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

---(I have searched in vain for a more even-handed [i.e. non-Epicurean] account of how Marcus Aurelius fell into Alexander's trap, and can find none. Perhap's our listeners can do better. Add to the comments!)

Letter to Herodotus

Wherefore since the method I have described is valuable to all those who are accustomed to the investigation of nature, I who urge upon others the constant occupation in the investigation of nature, and find my own peace chiefly in a life so occupied, have composed for you another epitome on these lines, summing up the first principles of the whole doctrine.

First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words, in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning.

For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference. (translated by Cyril Bailey)

Thank you Marco!

Determinism makes shipwreck of "choice and avoidance", for one thing. And I agree with Cassius on the moral question; there are no "moral people", by any reasonable definition of morality. Actions can be moral or immoral, according to convention; people are just people.

"Then why punish them?"

I don't think we should punish perceived immorality--I think the law should intervene in case of harm, defined broadly enough to mean harm done to persons, property, institutions and governments. Fringe cases to include harm to one's self, harm to reputation, harm where consent is not considered to be possible...etc.

With all of the above to be determined, in Epicurus' view, by human convention.

Is this solution perfect? Naturally not. No thing human ever is!

The kernel of this idea is so pervasive even today, that it remains an argumentative ploy for the supernatural. How many best-selling books have been trafficked under the paradigm?

"I was dead---" sometimes the word clinically or medically appears here, sometimes the word literally "---for 11 minutes and I went to heaven"---sometimes saw my past/future lives, or experienced the whole of being or some such. Generally the 'experience' is culturally and religiously dependant.

Clinical death is misleading, precisely because it is not necessarily death. If you've come back to tell me what happened while you were dead, you weren't dead. Your brain yet lived.

Interestingly, the brain was sometimes dealt with in a rather cavalier fashion in antiquity, not just in the Mediterranean but all around the world--in a procedure called trepanation, holes were drilled through the skull to relieve pressure or headaches, to release evil spirits, or to repair damage to the skull itself. Surprisingly, people actually sometimes survived!

Then there is the story of the birth of Athena, clanking around in Zeus' head in a full suit of armor until he (Zeus) asked for it to be cracked open like an egg. Make of that what you will!

Ironically, Don, John Mulaney cited meditation as being helpful in his rehab efforts. So I didn't tell the full story there

In recent news, Thich Naht Hanh has died this weekend at the age of 95. I've listened to a great many of his talks and read a few of his books. I'm hesitant to suggest that what he has to say will easily integrate with what we're trying to do here, but if this is something that interests people I can easily recommend his works, as well as those by Jon Kabat-Zinn.

Quote

His idea, that the Sun is as big as it seems (—> DeWitt), is very naive...

Quote

...even in the ancient world.

I might agree with the first part, but not as much with the second.

It's important to consider the whole proposition. Epicurus thought that the sun was;

1. Wholly material

2. In constant but not uniform motion

3. In a centerless cosmos

4. Governed by the same laws as things on Earth

5. Arose out of matter, and has a finite period of existence

5a. But its matter will recombine into other things

6. About as big as it seems.

Compare Aristotle's sun;

1. Made of aether, an element that didn't exist on earth

2. In constant and uniform motion (because aetherial)

2a. Set in motion by unmoved mover (god)

3. Orbiting a stationary earth that was the center of everything

4. Governed by different laws than Earth (the laws of the aether)

5. Exists in perpetuity (because aetherial)

6. Size uncertain (not mentioned, as far as I can tell)

______________________

In view of the above, I think Epicurus came out alright.

That's a lot to get through in an hour!

This anecdote seems suggestive!

But Wittgenstein was by all accounts deeply troubled. He was a tortured, misunderstood genius. 3 of his 4 elder brothers died by suicide, so you've got profound misery in circulation there.

He wrote expressly that he was not happy--that unhappiness was one of the great problems of his life. He had need of Epicurus:

"Vain are the words of that philosopher that do not relieve any human suffering."