Posts by Joshua

Excellent thread so far!

Here's a short list off-the-cuff of things I personally consider to be non-negotiable. To be an Epicurean, in other words, is to embrace at least the following;

1. A thoroughgoing materialism. A universe that is strictly material, and strictly natural, with no supernatural element whatsoever.

2. A decisive rejection of an afterlife, and of the worry that there is anything to fear in death.

3. A full-throated endorsement of pleasure as the end or telos of human life. Number 3 seems to be the major sticking point for most.

These are not complete and sufficient Epicurean positions, but they are the major necessary ones.

If I added a 4th point, it would be the dismissal of Absolute Justice, Absolute Morality, Virtue, Duty, etc. These are, where they exist at all, conditional and not absolute.

People for whom point number 1 comes naturally find it increasingly difficult to accept 2, 3, and 4 as they move down the list. So they amend the texts, thereby counterfeiting the whole system, and pass it off as authentic.

And of course, I haven't even mentioned the Canon of epistemology!

I have dabbled in his letters to Atticus, and that might be a promising start for a deeper read. I recall enjoying the Everitt biography, Cassius, although it did take some getting through. I wish I could remember it better; another book lost to the flux of things!

Quote

There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived.

-Unto the Hills, Billy Graham

Mr. Graham's assertion is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but it has got me thinking about gaps in my reading. When it comes to the literature of Rome, Cicero looms large. I've read Anthony Everitt's biography. I've read a bit of On Ends, as it pertains to our school. I once had a joint copy of The Republic and The Laws, now lost.

The Loeb collection of Cicero's work runs to 29 volumes. Thanks to Billy Graham, I'll be looking to expand the pagan collection of my small library! I'm curious whether anyone has suggestions on where I should turn my gaze?

Quote

To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he’s a liar. His logic may be airtight but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic.

I tend to overuse this bit from Edward Abbey, but free will is one of the problems it seems especially to apply to.

The relationship of Socrates to his biographer is as striking to me as the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and his creator. Arthur Conan Doyle believed literally in fairies, seances, and the occult, but devised in fiction a character whose law was logic. He was a fantasist who wrote about cold reason in the same way that reasonable people write about fantasy.

It's a shame Socrates didn't write.

It has become rather fashionable among intellectuals to deny free will, hasn't it? Like Charles, I have a friend or two in that camp. Let me rephrase the syllogism in a way that balances the terms;

P1. Pleasure is the end (telos) in nature toward which human life is observed to incline.

P2. If there is an end observed in nature, then the decision to pursue that end is predetermined.

C. Therefore, the decision to pursue pleasure is predetermined.

It is a rather thorny question. Does the syllogism as I have expressed it assume (in premise 2) what it is asked to prove (in the conclusion)? In other words, does the second clause in premise 2 follow necessarily from the first clause? Could I not, for example, choose to pursue an unnatural end? Instead of a choice between pleasure and displeasure, could I choose a third way in which pleasure doesn't factor? Not because I expected a greater pleasure from this third way, but just for some other reason?

Another way of putting it; suppose I granted that pleasure as the telos provided a rationale for my decision; am I also granting, ipso facto, that my decision is predetermined? I'm not so sure.

To put it simply, I suspect that our imaginary interlocutor is begging the question.

We've been cut to 32 hours a week where I work. I've been spending my Monday off in reading; a book called Measuring America by Scottish historian Andro Linklater. There's a chapter here on the friendship between Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Condorcet and it's relation to the systemitization of measures. I was delighted to find that Cassius made a post on Condorcet in 2011 on his website.

This is the quote from the above link:

Quote

This resemblance between the moral precepts of all systems of religion, and all sects of philosophy, would be sufficient to prove that they have a foundation independent of the dogmas of those religions, or the principles of those sects. That is, in the moral constitution of man we must seek the basis of his duties, the origin of his ideas of justice and virtue: a truth which the sect of Epicureans approached more nearly than any other; and no circumstance perhaps so much contributed to draw upon it the enmity of all classes of hypocrites….

Happy Twentieth!

A.S. Kline, copyright 2003. Sorry, I should have included attribution!

I found this idly turning through an online collection of Horace's Odes. The last section has features of interest; a plea to quiet the tumult of war, an admonishment of false pride and narcissism, and a dismissal of 'wasted faith in mysteries' so transparently fraudulent.

I suspect that there will be many more fruits ripe for the picking! I'll order the Loeb edition for my collection.

BkI:XVIII Wine

Cultivate no plant, my Varus, before the rows of sacred vines,

set in Tibur’s gentle soil, and by the walls Catilus founded:

because the god decreed all things are hard for those who never drink,

and he gave us no better way to lessen our anxieties.

Deep in wine, who rattles on, about harsh campaigns or poverty?

Who doesn’t rather speak of you, Bacchus, and you, lovely Venus?

And lest the gifts of Liber pass the bounds of moderation set,

we’ve the battle over wine, between the Lapiths and the Centaurs,

as a warning to us all, and the frenzied Thracians, whom Bacchus

hates, when they split right from wrong, by too fine a line of passion.

Lovely Bacchus, I’ll not be the one to stir you, against your will,

nor bring to open light of day what’s hidden under all those leaves.

Hold back the savagery of drums, and the Berecyntian horns,

and those deeds that, afterwards, are followed by a blind self-love,

by pride that lifts its empty head too high, above itself, once more,

and wasted faith in mysteries much more transparent than the glass.

Welcome to Eugenios!

I'm still moving and shaking here in the Florida Panhandle. I recently bought a Dremel rotary tool—I'd like to play around with lost wax carving if I get the time. I really want to cast an Epicurean ring! I also downloaded Blender the other day. I tried a bit of 3d modeling, but that's all a bit over my head. Doesn't hurt to have a "cottage hobby" in a pandemic.

Unfortunately we'll probably never know; but here are a few lines of inquiry that remain open to us.

1. We can work to gather evidence of every John Miers ring known to exist.

2. We can attempt to trace the whole history of the ring from manufacture to museum.

3. We can compile a record of cameo rings from that period thought to be of Epicurus.

There is a "Sherlock Holmes" element in all of this that pleases me immensely—the game is afoot!

A good point, Eugenios; and another just occured to me. Bligh was the governor of a major new British Colony. He must have entertained all kinds of people. Some, no doubt, would have given gifts. Perhaps to curry favor, perhaps as tokens of esteem.

Or this; perhaps the ring has a more direct association with the the Rum Rebellion trial. A gift from an Epicurean friend gently encouraging him to get out of politics.

No, not Bligh himself. Joseph Banks was a London scientist, botanist, and Patron who sponsored Bligh's voyages to Tahiti for breadfruit. It was Banks' journal.

I also looked into the Joseph Banks connection yesterday. Banks kept a journal, and in one entry he records that a dinner guest was given the name of Epicurus on account of his enormous appetite. So that's likely a dead end as well.

But here's something interesting; Bligh died probably from complications of stomach cancer. Epicurus likewise died painfully of kidney stones and dysentery. And one of the historic associations of Bloodstone is to "strengthen the stomach". Is it possible that in his later years Bligh found a measure of solace in a philosopher who saw pain for an evil?

I spent more time on this yesterday as well.

Preliminary findings;

-The ring was made by John Miers of London, "No. 111, Strand, opposite Exeter Change." Miers lived between 1758 and 1821.

-The setting is Heliotrope, commonly known as Bloodstone. It's been used since ancient times, and has a variety of talismanic beliefs associated.

-John Miers is a name well known to history; 10 specimens of his work reside at the National Portrait Gallery in London. There are probably hundreds of surviving works in private collections and museums around the world.

-The Scottish Poet Robert Burns refers to Miers' shop by name in a letter to his wife. A jeweller for respectable people then; and best known for his work in miniatures.

-Samj and I had similar thoughts...perhaps we shouldn't assume that William Bligh was an Epicurean any more than we should assume that George Suttor was. Perhaps the ring was gifted to him.

Anyway, I'll have more later.

I always picture Marcus Aurelius with a rounder face.

I've been poking into it as well. Early thoughts;

-He does have a daughter named Frances, but there can be no connection to Frances Wright.

-I thought this interesting; "Bligh wrote a best-selling book, "The Mutiny On Board the HMS Bounty". In it he portrayed himself as the ideal Commander of a happy ship, only to be betrayed by "hedonists" who wanted to lead a carefree life in Tahiti." If he's using hedonism as a charge, it doesn't bode well for positioning him as an Epicurean.

-Bligh was known as a strict disciplinarian, and not well loved by the men under his command. Nevertheless he did command occasional loyalty: the history of the ring itself (below) is evidence of that.

-The ring is carved from Bloodstone, and set in gold by a London jeweller. The ring-box gives the jeweler's name, but does not identify the name of the figure.

-After Bligh's death, the ring was given by his daughters to a George Sutton, who had traveled at great personal trouble and expense by sea to testify on Bligh's behalf. The ring was a belated token of thanks to an old friend.

-Bligh's grave features an "eternal flame" sculpture, but not any prominent cross insignia that I can see.

-Now for the figure itself; the man is bearded, with a subtly aquiline nose and a full head of hair. The style is evidently Greek; either the figure was Greek himself, or perhaps a Roman from the Imperial period with Greek pretensions. If the latter, perhaps Marcus Aurelius or Hadrian, both Hellenophiles who were portrayed with beards.

If the former, probably Epicurus. Another possibility is that the ring is Epicurus, but the man who wore it had a different view. Maybe he fancied that the figure was Homer; a natural icon for any sailor. Perhaps he thought it was Xeno of Citium. There's a story on reddit about a young man with a large tattoo of Epicurus, which he got on accident thinking it was a Stoic. (Ha!)

No classical figure has been more prominently associated with cameo rings than Epicurus. For that reason, and the similarity with known rings and statues, I suspect that the ring is Epicurus. The mysteries that remain; why this Englishman, so abused by public life, should have persisted in it against the advise of the man on his finger-ring.

If we want to know the answer to these questions, we'll need further research into his life and times.

Sir William Temple; Upon the Gardens of Epicurus; 1692; English essayist and statesman who "Celebrates Epicurus and his philosophy." I have not evaluated this claim.

Text is Here.

I saw this the other day; I'm glad I was reminded to circle back and read it.

Thank you for taking the time, Elli. It is an interesting piece, and a timely one!