Posts by Charles

There's not much from Lamy. It's clear from academic sources that Lamy was Christian and didn't deviate from Medicine, and that's where Mettrie comes in, and is very adamant about returning to Lucretius and bringing him back with him to the Enlightenment.

As a side note, Mettrie also mentions Ninon de Lenclos a fair amount of times, and I'd like to get started right away on his "Anti-Seneca" book when I get home from work tomorrow. The context of that one is that he was offered to write a biography about Seneca to restore his reputation, but chose instead to refine and even criticize Stoicism.

Lodging this in here for future use - some rare works from Guillaume Lamy, an un-apologetically Epicurean Physician who deviated from Gassendi and opted instead to turn to Lucretius, (Lamy) who would later inspire a certain Julien Offray de la Mettrie to uphold the hedonistic values of Epicurus rather than, as my academic sources say "natural sciences and simple mental pleasures through the removal of pain" (despite Mettrie being a Physcian and Materialist *of course he values natural science!*).

The books are:
"Explication Mechanique et Physique des Fonctions de L'Ame Sensitive; ou Des Sens, Des Passions. Et du Mouvement Volontaire. Ou l'on a ajoute une Description des organes des Sens."

(will add them later)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ti1gI…iew?usp=sharing

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

If happiness for Epicurus is Eudamonia, that doesn't mean pleasure is ataraxia the way the absence of pain doesn't necessarily mean pleasure.

I very much agree with you on this point. But it is established in multiple sources (Torquatus, LtM, PD, VS) that pleasure can mean the absence of pain, however that's not to undermine pleasure as the satisfaction and fulfillment of desire. Bear in mind, Epicurean Philosophy is hedonistic for recognizing that pleasure is the chief good. Getting stuck on minor definitions or playing word games can lead us in circles, whether its eudaimonia as the Greek language says it, or happiness, or bliss, or blessedness, the destination we should always find ourselves heading towards is pleasure.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

If that is the case, no words or knowledge can explain well what happiness really is.

Which is why practice and translating our words into living actions is of extreme importance

Welcome A_Gardner ! Thanks for signing up on the forums. It's great to have you here, and I hope that you'll find both great company and a plethora of knowledge & discussion here.

For those that don't know, Gardner is one of the mods (pretty much the only one) of the Epicurean Discord Server, and essentially the most reliable and knowledgeable user in there. I've urged him to sign up on here for a while and to become more involved within the wider EP community, for the other regulars here, you'll know him as very apt and genial.

But I'd like to give him the chance to properly introduce himself to everyone else below.

Not to derail the thread, but I hope I can eventually thread Epicurean Philosophy to the Enlightenment era thinkers, and hold them in almost the same regard as Cicero/Philodemus. Providing a clear path throughout history is extremely important and gives us the platform on which to oppose those who oppose and censor us.

Mettrie seems promising in this regard, a la "I ask you Anti-Epicureans" quote and numerous references to Lucretius and shared sentiments about Death and Pleasure (he may echo Metrodorus and he certainly did not believe that pleasure was the absence of pain).

Edit: by clear path I mean having a library of books that we can potentially cite, since the Stoics and Platonists have their volumes, we only have a few letters, epistles, and fragments, barring Lucretius.

Quick question Cassius

Why is it that we often cite Cicero? He was a Stoic and he absolutely loathed the Epicureans to no end. Is it because he wrote against them so prolifically? Or is it instead that in his refutations he presented the original ideas and opinions of the Epicureans that have otherwise been lost to history?

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Would you mean the definitions of both pleasure and pain or the differences between pleasure and happiness?

I'm referring to the multiple Epicurean sources that say

"Pleasure is the absence of pain" and that "pleasure is a feeling when desires are satisfied" (ie a more hedonistic pleasure)

Mike Anyayahan

I believe the Stoics are looking for Eudaimonia, Ataraxia is much more Epicurean.

I'm referring to the translator.

His work can be found here.

I'd like to hear from Elli on this matter, but if anyone else is familiar with him, please share.

Are his words accurate and are his translations of any use? (Particularly the Selected Fragments)

Since I'm not making much headway on the current translation of Mettrie, I'm releasing the first edition that consists of the first 31 paragraphs. It's only in minor relation to Epicurean Philosophy, as Mettrie later added much more in his book "Philosophical Works", of which the later additions were first implemented into his earlier book "Anti-Seneca". But I hope that it provides the mindset of Mettrie, who revolutionized materialism, revived interest in Epicurus and inspired the likes of both Frederick the Great and the Marquis de Sade, and all those who would look to Epicurus in the Enlightenment Era.

Google Doc Version, my preferred method
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jn…dit?usp=sharing

Google Published Version, like Vaughn's textbook from that thread
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2…XWh4EeOOYww/pub

Edit: My notes and citations are on my "master thread" detailing all 93 paragraphs, this new published doesn't have them.

We are on the same page, I'm just explaining how skeptical I am of the claim regarding Zeno and Metrodorus claiming indifference, since I could not find a proper source for Philodemus' "On Property Management" (On Household Economics), but what is perhaps worth looking into is the Woolf argument.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect Metrodorus would view this statement, as I do, as fairly ridiculous.

I'm fairly skeptical about that claim, especially since the author immediately points to Zeno and even admits that its a surprising conclusion to reach.

However, there were copies of "On Wealth" by Metrodorus at Herculaneum, so its more than likely that Philodemus was acquainted with it. Perhaps Hiram can provide some clearer explanations, as I'm not well versed in Philodemus.

Quote from Cassius

If you are focusing on THIS part

I'm focusing on it only to the extent in which it was quoted in Torquatus. I'm not looking into the merits of the argument, but the literary sources that espouse it.

There are multiple sources that conflict with this, both from Epicurus and those later, maybe I should make a thread like mine with the obscure Epicurean books, detailing every slight mention of this dualistic statement (Pleasure is the feeling of desires satisfied & pleasure is the absence of pain)

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I"m not sure whether it has o double meaning or a problem in translation.

The past week I've been exploring this topic and the misconceptions that arise from it.

The first paragraph of Chapter XI from Torquatus ends with a section that echoes a point established in L to M.

"The pleasure we pursue is not that kind alone which directly affects our physical being with a delightful feeling,—a positively agreeable perception of the senses; on the contrary, the greatest pleasure according to us is that which is experienced as a result of the complete removal of pain. When we are released from pain, the mere sensation of complete emancipation and relief from uneasiness is in itself a source of gratification."

It's definitely worth looking into, perhaps another translation can clarify. I'm of the opinion that the school held both (methods of arriving at pleasure) in high regard.

Maybe a thread, or an inclusion in the thread concerning pleasure, we should note the "moving" and "static" definitions and how they're limited (as opposed to how much credit Neo-Epicureans give them).

Cassius here are the proper sources

More sensual claim: Cicero's De Rerum Deorum, Chapter 40, paragraph 113, 2nd to last line prior to Chapter 41

"As for Metrodorus, Epicurus's co‑partner in philosophy, he supplied him with many still more outspoken quotations; in fact Metrodorus takes his brother Timocrates to task for hesitating to measure every element of happiness by the standard of the belly, nor is this an isolated utterance, but he repeats it several times. I see you nod your assent, as you are acquainted with the passages; and did you deny it, I would produce the volumes. Not that I am at the moment criticizing your making pleasure the sole standard of value — that belongs to another inquiry."

Poverty claim: Philodemus, On Property Management, XXV 3. Philodemus' Approach to Property Management and the Debate between the Epicureans and the Cynics.

I don't have the actual pdf of Philodemus, or rather one that is unrestricted. But here's the citation.

"The debate between Metrodorus and the Cynics focuses on the issue whether wealth has any value and, if it does, of what kind. While the Cynics are staunch advocates of πενιά or πτωχεια, "poverty or pensury [sic]," denying that wealth has any value at all, Metrodorus treats it as an instrumental good whose practical value is determined by its good or base use. His position is closer to Zeno's position than one might expect: like Zeno and other Stoics, Metrodorus views (natural) wealth as a preferred indifferent of some sort. Philodemus highlights that aspect when he suggests that, on the one hand, the wise man will be hopeful and content with a frugal life, but, on the other hand, "he feels more inclined, prompted by his will, toward a more affluent way of living" (XVI.4-6) Woolf (2009) argues that this was Epicurus's position as well"

Maybe I can look into Raphael Woolf, to find that argument and see if it points to any other sources.

Edit: The Woolf Section cited is from "The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism", Chapter 9 which was written by Woolf titled "Pleasure and Desire" (Which right away opens with "pleasure is the absence of pain").

Fragments of Metrodorus' books were found at Herculaneum, likely that Philodemus was versed or had access to them.

Its worth adding as a final touch, that the intellectual heir of Epicurus, Metrodorus, espoused a sensual hedonism. He also disavowed the asceticism and poverty of the cynics in favor of affluence while also maintaining that wealth was not the means for happiness.

Well said Cassius.

I think there are two parts to the most common misconception, the first being revisionism and strawman-esque argumentation against the philosophy. If Epicurean Philosophy was the minimalist life built on virtue and freedom from mental disturbances, then surely the only point of contention between the dominant Hellenistic philosophies would have been the epistemology and physics, yet the argumentation and disagreements always seem to boil down topleasure. For the Stoics always say that you should be indifferent to pleasure, but not pursue it, and the others say that pleasure itself is evil, but why antagonize the Epicureans as overindulgent hedonists like Diotimus the Stoic did, because if its to be "expected" that they weren't the overindulgent hedonists, he would have been laughed at and his trial would've ended with an innocent verdict.

No, its far easier to mis-characterize your opponents arguments so that you may better defeat them. For us the Stoics are the unemotional and uncaring husks who say

"Do not worry that your sister fell ill, be virtuous and all will be well"

Or the Platonists, in which our straw man might appear as: pseudo-mystics who only speak of philosophy in tricky games to confuse all others to give the image of intelligence

Clearly those two examples are gross caricatures, but the point still stands. It makes little sense to say that Epicurean Philosophy is somehow both the overindulgent and ultra-hedonist school of red wine waterfalls and brothels for every street corner while simultaneously being the school of frugal minimalism where even a grand feast is bread and water, and socializing consists of only platonic friendship, and that we must all limit our desires and pursue only the smallest, and static pleasures of the mind.

Obviously this false schism must be mended. Since EP can only resemble one side to this broken dichotomy, which one is it? This brings me to my next point.

The second reason why I think this misconception could happen is that it is a matter of unwilling ignorance, or taking things only at face value.

If we examine the surviving texts, its easy to see why someone could come to that conclusion of the minimalist perspective, especially when we read L to M, Laertius, and a few of the Selected Fragments (Ive only read Peter St. Andre).

But it's just that, the face value. The same source telling us Epicurus ate only bread and water also tells us that he wrote over 300 books, of which a vast and overwhelming majority has been lost, and only very recently have the papyrus scrolls in Herculaneum begun to be deciphered through new methods of technology that preserves them and reveal the charred characters.

Throughout all of history until perhaps the 20th century (barring DeWitt and a few others), Epicurean Philosophy was always seen as the indulgent hedonist school rather than the Neo-Epicurean one we see today. To assume that EP is the minimalist & removal of pain school given the surviving sources is as ridiculous to assume that its the ultra-hedonistic school that would make even Sade blush.