Posts by Charles

Quote from Cassius

Thanks to Charles for this research on Iphianassa:

It was Elayne, not me.

Quote from Cassius

Charles: Do you know yet, in outline, the basis for saying how he deviated from Gassendi?

The only evidence for a claim is that Lamy was very much interested in the Physics of Epicurean Philosophy and applied the physics to his medical & chemical work, including the soul. He was frustrated over how Gassendi had "watered-down" Epicurus' Atomism and tried to bring it back to its original form, despite being Christian in the same way Gassendi was, I can't say whether or not (yet) he looked to Lucretius like Mettrie did, though the latter was also taught by Herman Boerhaave, who took a mechanistic approach to medicine.

No, I've only found footnotes and citations. But my English copy arrives tomorrow, in addition to just about everything he wrote (all translated in English). I'd like to write them out on a google doc or pdf and share them here.

Edit: that also includes Discourse on Happiness, which he considered his masterpiece

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).