Posts by Charles

Quote from Godfrey

The value of ataraxia is parasitic upon that of aponia, since the only ataraxia worth having is that which comes from pleasant memories and confident expectations of sensory pleasures of a painless kind. Thus the body's pleasures have pride of place.

This is an interesting point, for the longest time I had only considered that the static, or pleasures regarding ataraxia could only result from a recollection of previous pleasures, as noticed from Epicurus' Letter to Idomeneus. But having read other literature and sources that did not prove that this was necessarily so in every instance (Aristippus section from DL), it's always been clear that the two concepts are redundant, or at least aponia is, since ataraxia implies a state that pain would make impossible.

So then, the model of pleasure follows a route of continuous pleasure, found both in the sensory pleasures here and now, with the possibility of pleasure in the long run, or in the present when reflecting upon previous pleasures.

Perhaps we should make a new thread concerning the Cyrenaics, as I have a lot of material and small tidbits of information on them, as they're of huge fascination to me, contrary to popular belief, and perhaps some on this forum. I am inclined to believe that Epicurus took more inspiration and likeness towards the Cyrenaics than is often admitted.

As for the key differences between their approach to pleasure, where the Cyrenaics believed in only the pleasure of the moment whereas Epicurus believed in pleasures recollected and anticipated further and constant pleasure in the long run (not to be confused with time spent). Just as the Epicurean Canon is essential for understanding Epicurean ethics, so too must we understand the epistemology of Aristippus & his most immediate followers.

The first Cyrenaics were "empiric-skeptics", believing with certainty that your senses are accurate to what you are currently experiencing. But they do not regard the state, or properties of what they are sensing, and do not believe that knowledge can extend beyond your current state of sensational feeling. I had a brief conversation with someone on the subject of Cyrenaic pleasures & ataraxia quite a few months ago, and he cited a position taken by a researcher, that this sensation extant in only the moment becomes a verb, so that the experience of seeing yellow becomes "I am being yellowed", or to a more accurate example: "I am being pleasured", "I am pleased", etc.

With this in mind, its perfectly clear why the Cyrenaics would deny the possibility of pleasure that could be experienced with the mind, and thus, when the present has not occurred, in essence, a "static" pleasure, since as we have discussed, and made known, pleasure and pain to the first Cyrenaics, only consisted in smooth and rough motions.

Quote from Cassius

“Yes, but my plan for avoiding such treatment is this. I do not shut myself up in the four corners of a community, but am a stranger in every land.”

I'm seeing a parallel between this and Epicurus' advice to Pythocles: "Live Unknown" and "Steer clear of all culture"

Quote from Godfrey

1.2.1 Empedocles (494-c434 BCE), Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia, as described by Theophrastus, consider pleasure and pain as kinds of perception.

Quote

Among the early philosophers, says Diocles, his favourite was Anaxagoras, although he occasionally disagreed with him, and Archelaus the teacher of Socrates. Diocles adds that he used to train his friends in committing his treatises to memory. - Book 10, Epicurus

I think it's worth mentioning that according to DL, Anaxagoras and his pupil Archelaus were of particular favorites, or regarded with much sympathy by Epicurus. It's also interesting that Anaxagoras lived in Lampsacus for quite some time, though DL cites Favorinus via Metrodorus of Lampsacus, he is referring to Metrodorus the Elder, and not the friend and disciple of Epicurus. But his influence on the town may be the reason why Epicurus, when teaching and amassing a circle of friends in Lampsacus, was able to understand the former's philosophy.

Of course that section in Book 10, we may have to take it with a tiny grain of salt, as DL is citing Diocles of Magnesia, who wrote a biography of philosophers much like Laertius, yet nothing about him is known besides his work as a writer. Though Book 10 is not the only time where DL cites him, instead he cites him quite heavily in virtually every book regarding the Cynics and Stoics, barring a few.

Saving this thread for later, as the Cyrenaic line of thinking only survived three heirs: Aristippus, Arete, and Aristippus (the Younger).

It's important to understand their profound influence on Epicurus.

I'll respond in a bit. A little busy right now.

While searching for the appropriate forum category for this post I discovered that you've cited him along that long list of quotations & citations for the fullness of pleasure model.

The Full Cup / Fullness of Pleasure Model

"Alciphron, Letters, III.55.8 (Autocletus to Hetoemaristus {“Gatecrasher” to “Prompt-to-breakfast”}): Zenocrates the Epicurean took the harp-girls in his arms, gazing upon them from half-closed eyes with a languishing and melting look, and saying that this was “tranquility of the flesh” and “the full intensity of pleasure.”

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva…/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Epicurus is name-dropped in another letter about Menander, but Alciphron should never be considered a good source, he was a sophist and there's virtually nothing known about his life, including the time he lived in.

Nothing is harder to please, it seems, than an old man who

is just starting to behave like a boy again.
How this Epicurus is controlling me, criticizing everything, suspecting

everything, writing me incomprehensible letters and

chasing me out of his garden. By Aphrodite, even if he

had been an Adonis, though nearly eighty years old, I

wouldn’t put up with him, this lice-ridden and sickly man

who is all wrapped up in fleece instead of felt. How long

must one endure this philosopher? Let him have his

Principal Doctrines on Nature and his distorted Canons, and

permit me to live according to nature, my own mistress,

without anger and violence. I really have such a besieger,

not at all like you, Lamia, have in Demetrius. It’s not

possible to lead a virtuous life on account of this man. He

wants to be a Socrates with his chatter and irony, and he

believes Pythocles is an Alcibiades and thinks he can make

me his Xanthippe. I will end up leaving for whatever place

and flee from land to land rather than to endure his

incessant letters.

But now he has ventured into the most terrible and

intolerable act of all, which is why I’m writing to you,

hoping you’ll tell me what to do. You know that handsome

fellow Timarchus from Cephisia. I don’t deny that I’m

quite familiar with the young man (I have for a long time

been truthful to you, Lamia) and I almost got my first lesson in love from him; he took my virginity when I was living

next door. Since that time he has never ceased sending me

all sorts of nice things like clothes, gold, Indian maids and

Indian servants. I won’t mention the rest.

But he anticipates the seasons in the smallest delicacies, so that nobody

may taste them before I do. So that’s the kind of lover

about whom Epicurus says, ‘Shut him out and don’t let him

come near you.’ What kind of names do you think he’s calling him?

Not as an Athenian or a philosopher *** or of

Cappadocia coming to Greece for the first time. Even if

the whole city of Athens were full of Epicures, by Artemis, I

wouldn’t weigh them all against Timarchus’s arm, or even

against his finger!

What do you say, Lamia? Isn’t this true? Am I not right?

And don’t, I beg of you by Aphrodite, don’t let this answer

enter your mind: ‘But he’s a philosopher, he’s distinguished, he has many friends.’ He may even take what I

have, and teach others. It is not doctrine that warms me,

but the object of my desire, and I desire Timarchus, by

Demeter! What’s more, on account of me the young man

has been forced to abandon everything, the Lyceum, his

youth, his comrades and friends, in order to live with Epicurus and flatter him and chant his windy doctrines. This

Atreus says, ‘Get out of my realm and don’t approach

Leontium!’ Like it wouldn’t be more fair if Timarchus said

‘No, don’t you approach mine!’ And the man who is young puts up with his elderly rival,

the latecomer, but the other can’t stand him who has a more rightful claim.

By the gods, I implore you, Lamia, what should I do?

By the mysteries, by the release from these misfortunes,

when I think about my separation from Timarchus I immediately turn cold, my hands and feet begin to sweat and my

heart turns upside down. I beg you, take me into your

house for a few days, and I’ll make him aware of what good

things he was enjoying with me in the house. He’s not

going to stand the boredom any more; that I know for sure.

He will immediately send out Metrodorus, Hermarchus

and Polyaenus as ambassadors. How often, Lamia, do you

think I’ve told him in private: ‘What are you doing,

Epicurus? Don’t you know how Timocrates, the brother of

Metrodorous, is making fun of you because of this, in the

assembly, in the theatre, in front of the other sophists?’ But

what can I do with this man? He’s shameless in his desire,

and I’m going to be just like him, shameless, and not let go

of my Timarchus. Farewell.

Welcome @Joy X!

Welcome Mathitis Kipouros!

Inspired by Robert Hanrott and Mike Anyayahan I decided to finally make my own blog, hopefully I will remember to update it (the daily epicurean was an open domain but I thought that was too much).

https://weeklyepicurean.wordpress.com/

I did this as I felt compelled to write some more as well as brush up my skills with wordpress. Feel free to share this on the FB Group.

Welcome CraigontheCoast!

Interestingly enough, I went through the rest of the collection and found a feature of Epicurus as well as one on Metrodorus, though Hermarchus & Leontion were nowhere to be found.

I don't have any reason to believe that the print of Metrodorus is none other than Metrodorus the Younger. There have been other Metrodorus' throughout history but none have been as significant or recorded as much as the disciple and best friend of Epicurus, no doubt because of Laertius and Cicero.

I found a series of prints used for gem engravings in the British Museum, it dates back to 1766 and features 180 different prints with reference to Greek & Roman Figures as well as some mythological/animal prints, Horace is among them.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/obj…9-0709-891-1071

I came across Bayle some time ago, I remember his Dictionary to be disappointing and his mentions of Epicurus is usually in response to religion, such as conflating his defense of Epicurus as a means to target Nicolas Malebranche, a theologian during his time (as well as his work on King David). It seems that when discussing Epicurean Philosophy from the Enlightenment, there are three categories: materialist physics, ethics, Epicurus as a living weapon against religion. The bulk of this comes from the 18th century, though less focused on the physics (England in the 19th century would take that route) and more so on ethics of pleasure and embracing atheism.

It's also very important to discern whether or not these authors throughout history were *actually* Epicurean. For a while I had been convinced that Jean Meslier had some Epicurean influences, as it was a common subject to learn about in France. But, I came across some papers and it was made clear that in his private bookshelf there had been no copies of Lucretius or of Laertius. The point is that we look at those who very clearly espoused Epicurean ideas before determining how useful their works are, though the micro-discoveries we make on here are enough to make it all worth it.

Pío Baroja seems promising, since I keep seeing Spanish translations of Epicurus all the time (Epicuro). I'm not familiar with Spain and its history with Epicurean Philosophy but I know a link exists, perhaps with writers during the time of Bourbon Spain. Nice find!

I'm familiar with ClassicalWisdom, it's owned by a LC based in Ireland as well as by Anya Leonard. Though I don't really consume their content, as it's too entrenched within a Stoic and Aristotelian view, though I believe this is mainly due to the guest writers who subscribe to those philosophies (Donald Robertson & Stoicism for example).

They have very few articles on Epicurus, though mostly on Lucretius or by name-dropping Epicurus when it comes to Hellenistic (classical) ethics, I read them early on last year during my self-guided study prior to discovering the forums, even then I found it odd to sublimate ancient ethics into modern political ideas, like how Velleius calls out Chrysippus for claiming Homer & Hesiod were Stoics. Regardless, the dedicated articles to Epicurus at the time were disappointing.

https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/epi…american-dream/

https://classicalwisdom.com/people/philoso…cated-hedonist/

Welcome @Jovany!

I think what's notably significant here is Boyer's position and especially, his interpretation of Epicurus, simultaneously venerating him while Boyer himself wrote Libertine novels and was highly critical of the Church and of spirituality in general.

These letters with the following text from Ocellus Lucanus (Boyer came into contact with the Pseudo-Ocellus Lucanus) dates back to 1761 and yet his reading of Laertius seems to follow the absence of pain perspective that we have come to recognize as misleading. I'm not sure if Boyer was genuinely an Epicurean as determining his views is difficult enough as it is without looking past attacking La Mettrie to defend himself. It should be known however, that Epicurean Philosophy was thriving, more or less in France throughout the early to mid 1700s, though at the time of this writing Boyer was the Royal Chamberlain for Frederick's Court (In Berlin) and had been for quite some time for 19 years.

There's no question that this text contains an immense bias and Watson is quick to disclaim that there are plain contradictions within what Boyer wrote when sourced back to verifiable information about La Mettrie. But still, it remains an interesting read and proof of some of the accessibility of the Epicurean texts during the Enlightenment, having at least: Epicurus' Will, 4 Letters, The Principle Doctrines, the biography itself, and of course, Lucretius.

Despite the site at Herculaneum having been rediscovered in 1709, it wouldn't be until a year after La Mettrie's death in 1751 would the papyrus scrolls be recovered, and even then I doubt even the first models of the unraveling machines would've produced anything groundbreaking besides fragments of Philodemus.

Going off topic for a conclusion, when d"Argens was working on Ocellus Lucanus, its worth knowing that Charles Batteux also published a translation on the Pseudo-Ocellus Lucanus' On The Nature of the Universe. We know Charles Batteux as "Abbe Batteux" who Ive recorded on this forum for having written a moral defense of Epicurus and of Epicureanism from various attacks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ps…dit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2…URydR6yDCd9/pub

D’Argens “Sacrifices” La Mettrie

(Bold denotes Watson, Italics denote Boyer, Bold Italics denote La Mettrie)

Jean-Baptiste de Boyer, Marquis d’Argens (1704-71) is possibly now best known as a possible author of the libertine novel Thérèse Philosophe, but he wrote a number of famous works, including the Letteres juives. As with Diderot, d’Argens crossed paths with La Mettrie in the game of attributing anonymous works (he is named in the first English version of La Mettrie’s Man a Machine as its author), and likewise seems to have felt a strong need to disassociate himself from him. As a courtesy to the late La Mettrie’s friend and protector (and his own patron), d’Argens detailed his reasons for so severely attacking La Mettrie in a letter to king Frederick dated 11/03/1761:

I have been busy translating the most ancient Greek philosopher still extant, called Ocellus Lucanus...Not a single month has gone by that hasn’t seen the publication, this year, of some libel against the philosophers...Their great war-horse is La Mettrie’s work; but, far from defending him, when I came to this point, I choice rather to prove that La Mettrie had never spoken or thought in line with the philosophers, but that, in many things, he made the same mistakes as the theologians…

And in a follow-up letter on 11/12/1761

I have been obliged to abandon La Mettrie; he is a lost child whom I have had to sacrifice in the war. But, if he became such a necessary victim, at least I have watered his tomb with the blood of the theologians, and I hope that in the future it will cease to be said, as the author of the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques has, that we may judge the manner of thought of the Philosopher of Sans-Souci and the men of letters who approach him, by the works of doctor La Mettrie.

And so, the piece that follows should, I think, be read as a hit piece, especially since some of what he says is plainly contradicted by the facts (for example, what he says about La Mettrie’s education and his language skills). Interestingly for so severe a critic, d’Argens was also an inheritor of part of La Mettrie’s royal pension (see his letter to King Frederick II, 10/21/1752 (in Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand, Vol. 19.)

From Ocellus Lucanus (1761), pp. 236-62

Boyer d’Argens

...Here, then, is the morality of the philosophers who have denied Providence. It’s easy to judge that those who have known it have had principles no less useful for society: this can be seen with Cicero, Epictetus, and Seneca. As for the modern philosophers, they have lived in too enlightened an age to have failed to lay the foundations of the most rigid morality in all their writings. In order to be convinced, all it takes is to see what Spinoza, Hobbes, and Collins have written, when discussing virtue.

I will respond to the only objection that might be raised, and with one stroke I will destroy the bitter rebukes which certain a writer’s delirium has attracted for the past few years against the philosophers, and nullify all the slanders which have been spread, and which equal doses of dishonesty and ridiculous ostentation. By now it will be clear that I am referring to the Doctor La Mettrie. This man, as was wisely said by a philosopher who had been attacked on his account, composed many books during fits of madness, in which morals, probity and the most essential rules of morality were attacked. These works aroused the indignation of the public. Indeed, what good citizen would not shudder in horror while reading fearsome thoughts like these?

O you who are so often called “unhappy”, and who truly are unhappy vis-a-vis society, you may rest easy, when face to face with yourself. All you need to do is to stifle your remorse ny reflection (if you have the willpower), or by habits that are able to contravene and overpower it. If you had been raised without the ideas that form its basis, you wouldn’t have this enemy to contend with. That’s not all: you must despise life itself as much as you do public esteem. Then, truly I maintain: you parricides, incestuous, thieves, miscreants, notorious criminals; you who are righly despised by the good: you will be happy anyways. For, what unhappiness or sorrow can be caused by actions that, as black and horrible as they are thought to be, would not leave (in this hypothesis) any trace of crime in the soul of the criminal? But if you want to live, be careful: the law is less accommodating than my philosophy is. Justice is its daughter; the hangman and the gallows stand ready: you should really be more concerned about them than about your conscience or the gods. - La Mettrie, Discours sur le bonheur (Anti-Seneca)

Here are the false and baseless arguments of a man, whom the enemies of philosophy call an Epicurean philosopher. Let us destroy from bottom to top, the frightful views of this frenzied man, using those of Epicurus: after this, will they go on saying that he was the latter’s disciple? “The just man,” says this wise philosopher, “is the only man who can live without trouble and without disorder: the unjust on the other hand always lives in fear and agitation.” - (Diogenes Laertius, Book X)

Before I come to the personal side of this madman, who was set up as a philosopher by those who were delighted at the mortification which these views inspire, in those who detest them; let us compare his opinions with those of Lucretius on the subjects of voluptuousness and temperance; our frenzies author says:

And you, you voluptuary, since without pleasures you could never live a happy life, leave your soul behind and Seneca too; all the Stoic virtues are nothing to you? Think only about your body: what you have by way of soul does not really deserve to be distinguished from it. Prejudice, teachers, and fanatics will mobilize against you, but even if all the elements joined with them… What can rain, hail, and unbridled winds do to Tibullus when he’s in the arms of his Cloris? They add to his felicity, which can handle anything that comes. So enjoy the good times, whenever and wherever they come your way; enjoy the present; forget the past which is no more, and don’t worry about the future. Remember that the grains of wheat still land outside the field’s boundaries are still wheat; that nature is no more concerned about a lost grain than the sea is to lose a drop of water; that its whole delight is pleasure, and that n0thing is against it, except pain. May pollution and enjoyment, these lecherous rivals, take turns melting in voluptuous delight by day and night, making your soul, if possible, as greasy and lusty as your body is. Finally, since you have no other option, go ahead and revel in it: drink, eat, sleep, snort, dream; and if your brain flickers once in a while, let it be between two wines, and always keep it fixed on the pleasures of the moments, or on some desire you’re saving for the next hour. Or, if perfecting the great art of voluptuousness isn’t your thing, maybe villainy and debauchery are: stench and infamy will be your reward; wallow like a pig, then, you'll be happy like one. - La Mettrie, Discours sur le bonheur (Anti-Seneca)

Would a madman born and raised from infancy in the worst part of Paris, be able to speak any differently? O you who want to slander the philosophers, how can you base your critique on the writings of a man whose folly is visible in each of his thoughts, whose style shows how drunk his soul is? Now, listen to a real philosopher on the same subjects that you criticize. Epicurus says:

We must accustomed ourselves to eat soberly and simply without seeking out all these delicately preserved meats; health finds in this frugality its preservation, and man by this means becomes more robust, and much better suited for all the actions of life. That is the cause why by intervals a better meal is found, and is eaten with greater pleasure: but the principal thing is that by this aid we won’t fear the vicissitudes of fortune, because, being accustomed to content ourselves with little, whatever abundance it removes from us, it will only restore us to a state that it cannot take away, by the praiseworthy habits that we have adopted. Thus, when we assure ourselves that pleasure is the aim of the happiest life, we must not think that what is meant is the pleasures that are found in the enjoyments of love, or in lusts and excesses of feasts, as some ignoramuses have sought to insinuate, as well as the enemies of our sect, who have imposed in this way, by an ill-intentioned interpretation of our opinion. This pleasure, which is the center of our happiness, is nothing but having the mind without any agitation, and that the body be exempt from pain; drunkenness, excessive eating, that criminal commerce of women and boys, the delicacy of drinks, and all that seasons feasts, contain nothing that leads to a pleasant life, only the frugality and tranquility of the mind can produce this happy effect; it’s this calm that facilitates the enlightenment of things which must determine our choices, or thoise from which we should flee; and it is by this that do away with those opinions that trouble the disposition of this motor of our life. (Diogenes Laertius, Book X)

Here is another comparison between reason and madness; La Mettrie says:

All the wicked, can be happy, if they can be wicked without remorse. I also venture to say that he who feels no remorse, who has such familiarity with crime that vices are his virtues, he will be happier than anyone else, who after a fine deed will not repent of having done it.

This is vice, as explained by the voice of a twisted mind: here is virtue, will speak by the organ of wisdom. Epicurus says that:

Philosophy is the source of all the virtues, which teach us that life is unpleasant, if prudence and honesty and justice do not guide all our movements; but by always following the route they trace out for us, our days will flow with this satisfaction from which happiness is inseparable; for these virtues are part of a life full of happiness and pleasantness, which can never be without their excellent practice. (Diogenes Laertius Book X, Section 132)

La Mettrie is, therefore, no Epicurean. And it is wrong to rebuke him with such bitterness against the philosophers. This man resembles a disciple of Epicurus, as Father Malagrida resembles a Minister of State for the Court of Portugal.

... (Skipped 8 pages to bring discussion back to Epicurus - Charles)

...But the philosophers don’t need this argument, as convincing as it might be, since they rightly deny that La Mettrie ever possessed the least notion philosophy; they prove this by showing that his opinions are directly opposed to those of every philosopher, among whose number their enemies want to place him.

On the contrary, it is among certain theologians that La Mettrie must be ranked, it’s with writers like Samual Sa, Delrio, Aquapontanus, Bellarmine, Molina, Salmeron, Gregory of Valencia, Mariana, Scribiani, Juan azor, Gretzer, Vasquez, Suarez, Jean Lorin, Lessius, Tolet, Santarek, Tonner, Becan, Pirot, Escobar, Tirin, Busenbaum, Lacroix, the journalists de Trevoux, those apologists and panegyrists of Busenbaum and Lacroix: it’s with all these theologians who teach that a ruler may be killed, where La Mettrie should be placed; for, instead of speaking like the philosophers, whom he has maintained precisely the same view as the authors of these books, who have been convicted by an arrêt du Parlement of teaching that it is permissible to kill a king. On this subject La Mettrie explains himself as clearly as these Theologians. Listen to him speaking, one would think they were reading a passage from Mariana or Busenbaum.

Prince, I won’t take away the cursed impulses that drives you, how could I? They’re the source of all your wretched happiness. Bears, lions, and tigers love to devour other animals; since you’re ferocious like them, it is only right for you to indulge the drives that you share with them. I only feel sorry for you, the way you feast on public calamities; but who wouldn’t feel even sorrier for a state where no man could be found, a man with enough virtue to deliver it, even at the peril of his own life, from a monster like you? - La Mettrie, Discours sur le bonheur (Anti-Seneca)

Look who’s arguing as a Molinist theologian; but if La Mettrie had wanted to speak like an epicurean philosopher, he would have joined Epicurus in saying that the wise man should not mingle in state affairs, and that he should always obey his prince.

Neque accessurum ad rempublicam, neque tyrannidem quaesiturum. (Diogenes Laertius Book X, Section 119); Principem in tempor obsequio culturum. Section 121.

(Kirk Watson translations)

“Nor will he take part in politics, nor will he make himself a tyrant”

“He will pay court to a king, if need be”

- "A Hazardous Materialist: Le Mettrie's Life and Ideas", Kirk Watson