I'm reminded of a section in the opening chorus in Handel's Acis & Galatea.
For us the zephyr blows,
For us distills the dew,
For us unfolds the rose,
And flow'rs display their hue.
For us the winters rain,
For us the summers shine,
Spring swells for us the grain,
And autumn bleeds the wine.
I am gathering that is your point but I am not sure whether you are saying that she gives the wrong impression on what she does say, or just that she left out an important aspect?
I think she left out an important aspect, namely justice and moral relativity and how specific Epicurus' advice can be applied to his own time period versus their application to today's world. That's something she did bring up though with the fear of death and increased scientific understanding. But other than that, I can't really quite comment on what her thoughts may or may be aside from just the contents in the book which is a casual introductory into the philosophy. Maybe that'd be something to ask her.
Does this seem like a ping pong game? It's a terrible idea to try to "translate" the ten commandments but at the same time it's a great exercise!
I do think both perspectives are true and this highlights how central "context" is to the Epicurean worldview. You've picked a particular context and within that context we can work toward something that's helpful, but at the same time we have to realize that out of its context it could actually be harmful.
I really do think this is why the PDs read as they do. They are sort of "principles" that don't necessarily lead TO a particular direction for a particular life, but they lead AWAY from major pitfalls that are pitfalls for everyone.
As much as I like the initiative of this thread, and the list is well-put together. I think it runs into the same issue of the Tetrapharmakos. The ten commandments are backed up by numerous stories, contextual lessons, and the entire framing of the bible itself. The same can be said about the four part cure to the numerous Epicurea fragments, contextual readings of the PD's, and the entire framing of the philosophy itself. See the similarities?
In fact, the commandments seem to be more of a self-didactic reminder. Teaching brunt simplicity reinforces uncritical acceptance.
My biggest issue though, are her chapter(s) concerning politics.
I forgot to elaborate on this. Her issue with politics in the philosophy is that she spends so much time focusing on ethics, specifically the categorization of desires and that section from Torquatus about reform being insufficient, rather than justice and the inherent individualism found within Epicureanism. If I remember correctly, she does briefly bring up the flexibility of the philosophy in the face of Athens facing sieges and blockades, but over the few years I've come to see some of the wisdom in Will Durant's criticism: "...it provides an excellent design for bachelorhood, but hardly for a society."
I feel déjà vu in saying an Epicurean Government may be an unfeasible concept. However, an Epicurean society is perhaps much easier to adopt, envision, or mold into than many other philosophies or ideologies. When we think of Epicurean morality, we (as in the forums here) tend to focus on the fact that there is no absolute pleasure. I think the desires are categorized because of this. What may be unnecessary for some is necessary for others. What is unnatural in one culture may be necessary in another to conform without risk of greater pains. Which leads us to the phrases "Live unknown" and "Escape all culture", of which we all know their meaning. Yet Epicurus himself approved of the religious festivities in Athens, and partook in them, while living outside the walls of the city. There are other examples of social conformity such as the advice of paying court to a king, if need be, fulfilling an obligatory military conscription, or engaging with the conventions and customs of marriage by providing dowry, etc.
An Epicurean society is political in the sense of caring for the well-being and health of their country. Its citizens would not be ignorant or secluded from the world around them, on the contrary, they would have knowledge of the various figures and events around them. Epicurus was well read on Plato and his contemporaries; he could not have rejected them and devised the system of the garden had he chosen to completely and utterly withdraw into isolation.
The same applies to civic government and culture. The only difference is that our activism is within the interest of the garden and the safeguarding of our pleasure, not partisan issues that ebb and flow with each week and month. I think focusing on the desires in the scope of a political society is a bit tunnel visioned. What matters more is the culture that surrounds an Epicurean, and whether their pursuance of pleasure is admonished, encouraged, or ignored. The doctrines concerning justice and no absolute pleasure are the remedy to this. That's the key to flexibility and ultimately the answer of politics within the philosophy.
Edit: I brought up the Will Durant quote to emphasize why the question of an Epicurean society is so hard to answer satisfactorily. It's a question that has been bothering me for years now. I think Austin struggled with it too in her scope of interpersonal ethics applied en masse.
Just returning to this article after being busy with other projects. While ruminating on the subject I thought maybe this has to do with a sort of split between Newton and Gassendi, branching off into two distinct yet both causally deterministic paths that left Lucretius and Epicurus behind: the one of god's iron will and predictable physical mechanics.
Food for thought.
The scholarly impulse to portray him as an ascetic sometimes seems like an interpretive overcorrection to the long-standing, much greater misunderstanding that he was a sex-crazed glutton.
Finally, someone said it.
It's pretty good so far, very simple and glossing over some finer points, such as putting far too much trust in the Vatican Sayings. Though that is to be expected for a casual introductory book. My biggest issue though, are her chapter(s) concerning politics.
The metaphysics of the seventeenth century, as specially represented for France by Descartes, had materialism for its antagonist from its hour of birth. In person this antagonist confronted Descartes in the shape of Gassendi, the restorer of Epicurean materialism. French and English materialism always remain in close relationship with Democritus and Epicurus.
I'm writing this brief and abridged summary both as a reference for new-comers or for those unfamiliar with this point in (relative) Epicurean history and for potential future use, on top of forcing myself to publish my thoughts. I'm writing this at work, and I'll likely update it with more robust references, quotes, and examples when I have the time.
Something that has often been discussed, particularly on the Lucretius Podcast, and by me whenever I am discussing 18th Century Epicureans, almost exclusively those in France, is the development and theory of atomic physics. There was a definitive shift in between the atomic swerve of Epicurus and even Lucretius, to the mechanism and materialism of the Enlightenment. The key difference between these is not only in their approach and theory, but primarily when it comes to the question of free will and determinism. For the sake of eliminating redundancy, I won't be explaining much of the source material we know from Epicurus and Lucretius, instead I'll focus on the brief history and overview of the evolution of atomic physics from the many Epicurean thinkers of the Enlightenment, and how it differs.
Let us here now admire the wisdom and the foresight of the great Creator of nature, that in regard all our actions and operations are of themselves painful and troublesome, and these also.., being natural, as seeing, hearing c. He hath caused them all to be sweetened with pleasure; and the more necessary these operation are for the preservation of our species, the greater pleasure nature hath allotted them; otherwise all creatures would neglect or forget not only the act of generation, but even eating and drinking itself, if there were not certain natural instigations that stir and move us, and by causing some kind of pain and uneasiness, minds us of the action, which the pleasure that ought to appease this pain and uneasiness, doth promote and encourage.
It was Gassendi who brought Epicurus from the brink of obscurity throughout the late Middle Ages and Renaissance and into the Enlightenment. His staunch opposition to Aristotelian Teleology and Cartesianism and his insistence on natural philosophy led to him adopting Epicurus and fashioning him in a much more palatable, Christian version. First by playing the apologist and defending the life of Epicurus, citing Laertius among others the truth behind his biography and dispelling the myths and negative connotations associated with his mere name. Then, by merging the power of God's creation to extend into the creation of atoms, and then the hedonism of men. Although much of Gassendi's work on Epicurus was written in the later end of his life in scattered writings, it wasn't until after his death that his works had been collected and published together. Giving us a time frame of the late 1660's as a starting point. Despite the recuperated form of Epicureanism, Gassendi is rightfully credited with the revival of Epicureanism as a philosophy whose ideas had merit and were worthy of great study and scrutiny. Yet it is from this point, that we see the starting point of a deterministic view of Epicurean materialism.
A contemporary trend growing around this time was also the development of mechanism. Some of its earliest proponents included the likes of Bernard Lamy, Newton, Descartes, and to a lesser extent Leibniz. The basic premise of mechanism is that throughout nature, there are certain processes that, which are inter-linked, are all the result of mechanical principles and sequences in a sort of causal manner. The earlier thinkers applied mechanism almost exclusively to nature and not to human nature. Both are extraordinarily deterministic no matter how these mechanistic processes are designed and executed. Yet alongside this growing theory, some applied it to human nature. Among the first was Hobbes, but later, and more importantly was Julien Offray de la Mettrie, whom I've written about and have made many threads about on this forum.
La Mettrie, a somewhat radical Epicurean, advanced the field of mechanism and materialism with the publishing of his book "Machine Man" (or Man a Machine). Which advocated the idea that all human functions can be reduced a series of chemical and mechanical principles acting upon one another, that the soul itself is made of matter, and that it is in our nature to pursue pleasure. In addition to denying the feasibility of free will through the logic of these biological principles. Although this position was not unique to La Mettrie, as contemporaries and some before him had advocated this idea before, La Mettrie is being mentioned solely for his self-professed Epicurean beliefs.
That is certainly the most that can be said in favor of the existence of God: although the last argument is frivolous in that these conversions are short, and the mind almost always regains its former opinions and acts accordingly, as soon as it has regained or rather rediscovered its strength in that of the body. That is, at least, much more than was said by the physician Diderot, in his “Pensées Philosophiques,” a sublime work that will not convince a single atheist. What reply can, in truth, be made to a man who says, “We do not know nature; causes hidden in her breast might have produced everything. In your turn, observe the polyp of Trembley: does it not contain in itself the causes which bring about regeneration? Why then would it be absurd to think that there are physical causes by reason of which everything has been made, and to which the whole chain of this vast universe is so necessarily bound and held that nothing which happens, could have failed to happen, causes, of which we are so invincibly ignorant that we have had recourse to a God, who, as some aver, is not so much as a logical entity? Thus to destroy chance is not to prove the existence of a supreme being, since there may be some other thing which is neither chance nor God—I mean, nature. It follows that the study of nature can make only unbelievers; and the way of thinking of all its more successful investigators proves this.”
[...]
In fact, if what thinks in my brain is not a part of this organ and therefore of the whole body, why does my blood boil, and the fever of my mind pass into my veins, when lying quietly in bed, I am forming the plan of some work or carrying on an abstract calculation? Put this question to men of imagination, to great poets, to men who are enraptured by the felicitous expression of sentiment, and transported by an exquisite fancy or by the charms of nature, of truth, or of virtue! By their enthusiasm, by what they will tell you they have experienced, you will judge the cause by its effects; by that harmony which Borelli, a mere anatomist, understood better than all the Leibnizians, you will comprehend the material unity of man. In short, if the nerve-tension which causes pain occasions also the fever by which the distracted mind loses its will-power, and if, conversely, the mind too much excited, disturbs the body (and kindles that inner fire which killed Bayle while he was still so young); if an agitation rouses my desire and my ardent wish for what, a moment ago, I cared nothing about, and if in their turn certain brain impressions excite the same longing and the same desires, then why should we regard as double what is manifestly one being? In vain you fall back on the power of the will, since for one order that the will gives, it bows a hundred times to the yoke. And what wonder that in health the body obeys, since a torrent of blood and of animal spirits forces its obedience, and since the will has as ministers an invisible legion of fluids swifter than lightning and ever ready to do its bidding! But as the power of the will is exercised by means of the nerves, it is likewise limited by them.....
In borrowing heavily from Holbach and making an allusion to a quote found within his System of Nature, La Mettrie makes his stance clear. “Nothing which happens, could have failed to happen.” In a Materialist philosophy, Nature reigns supreme, and if Nature is the regarded as the creator of all things chemical and physical in plant, animal, man, and even matter and energy, then every person would be comprised of the same constituent parts. It is only their unique combinations that serve to separate one from another. As such, these constituent parts are also what compel us towards pleasure and drive us from pain. This was the position taken by many of the Enlightenment era thinkers inspired by Gassendi and Lucretius within the context of France's own budding field of natural philosophy and science.
For now I'll publish the thread, but throughout the weekend I'll try and update it with some further alterations and compare the different developments from other self-proclaimed Epicureans, such as Holbach, Boyer, or Sade. Hopefully by the end of this little endeavor there will be a consistent trend and timeline in the advancement of this idea from Epicurus into the Enlightenment. I personally suspect that the increasingly popular and common usage of "Nature" as a shoe in for a creator or deity bears some responsibility for this difference.
As far as virtual environments, I don't think they include the Garden (game is set earlier) but the YouTube channels that provide tours of ancient Greece via the game Assassin's Creed: Odyssey are pretty cool:
I'm not a player myself but from what I understand they've done a good job of reconstruction.
I've played Odyssey before. It's pretty accurate and some of the dialogue itself is mixed with Greek alongside English (or whatever language is chosen.) Samos is included in the game's map, but like you said it's set earlier, during the time of the start of the Peloponnesian War, thus, Samos is known more for its wine and for Pythagoras.
I've never heard of Zero A.D. but the first thing that came to my mind was Second Life and similar games such as VRChat or other outlets such as a MC Server & even GTARP. I've thought there to be some potential in MC or VRChat, as even during the pandemic some were switching boardroom and conference meetings via zoom/skype to Among Us or Garry's Mod.
That being said, while a (further) digital community might be out of the picture for now, it would be entertaining and quite novel to see a replication of famous Epicurean sites in one of these, the ruins of Herculaneum or a depiction of the Garden in Athens, etc.
Here's the Yonge translation of Laertius. I highly recommend the Aristippus section and to see how the Cyrenaic's evolved throughout its hundred or so years. I always take note of the similarities between Anniceris & Epicurus.
I'll be able to attend.
I don't believe we do. But I would check out "The Sculpted Word" and "The Mask of Epicurus", and I recall some project online that sought to use 3-d modeling to reconstruct statues and busts that had some Epicurean works.
Other than that like Cassius said there's likely a catalogue or collection in Italy or Greece that we may be unaware of.
Well I intend to comment for the sake of the article. It was an interesting read, and within the past few months, and perhaps to no surprise to some from the podcast. Love and I have had a reconsideration. To be brief, I think it possible for an Epicurean to engage in romance and romantic love, provided under pliant usage of prudency and the predominance of pleasure over pain, especially over a long term.
At some point relationships may or may not, and for better or worse become stale, and if they do then at this point the perilous and painful emotions and desires have been dulled, and the possibility of an easy breakup is on the table. If not, then a renewal of vows or casual equivalent only heightens the pleasurable aspects of the relationship that brought pleasure to begin with.
If one is love-sick then we need only to refer to PD4.
Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh.
I did some digging on this piece today since I figured I'd upload it to the gallery. It's from a Dutch Almanac from 1803. "Almanak, van vernuft en smaak, voor het jaar MDCCCIII" (Almanac, of ingenuity and taste 1803 Volume 1). While reading through it, I discovered an 8.5 page long section titled "Epicurus bij Leontion" which is just the same as the illustration. Since I cannot read Dutch I don't know what the text says, however it appears to be a casual reading of the subject of the philosophy. Once I get a translation down from my Dutch friends I'll post it here.
