Posts by timrobbe

Dear friends,

In my readings I more than often read quotes from Victor Frankl. I am sure you heard of him. His view is that the meaning of life comes from 1) a significant other, 2) labour you love doing or 3) suffering. Happiness is a byproduct according to him. It is of course the Stoics that like to quote Frankl.

My view is that the greatest good is life and the means by fully living a good life is living a pleasurable life. Significant others, as in friends, are important, but means to this end. The same goes for doing labour you love. This gives pleasure and therefor you love doing it. With suffering there seems to be a problem. How are suffering and EP to be reconciled? I think that suffering itself is evil (every pain is an evil in itself), but if suffering leads to feelings of, say, fortitude and invincibility or (the opposite) humility etc. then suffering as a pain is endured to ultimately experience pleasure.

Any comments?

Kind regards

TR

Quote from Cassius

I think it's a huge issue as to why, once we find that we can have pleasure even living in a cave on bread and water, we would ever decide to venture out for variations in pleasure. There are many practical reasons, of course, but I do think there is an inner drive to "self-improvement" that is associated or part of this pleasure drive. Variation may not be necessary, but there's no commandment or reason to settle for "simple pleasures" when there are other pleasures that you decide are within your reach at a reasonable cost in pain and that you judge (or feel) would be rewarding for you to have. And of course the aspect of "visualizing goals" seems to be deeply rooted in human psychology.

I am currently writing a Ph.D thesis on the politics, law and sociology of distributing scarce resources (more specifically the distribution of 'limited rights' like grants and subsidies by governmental agencies). That is why this quote by Cassius resonated with me.

Scarcity as a concept was unknown in traditional communities. People pursued goals and used certain means. Only with the introduction of modern economics did problems with scarcity arise. The goals people can choose to pursue became limitles in number. This makes the means scarce by definition. For modern economics, scarcity in means is therefor onotological. John Rawls writes about a dialectic of faculties and desires. He assumes that people always want to improve themselves (more). However, this goal also becomes limitless in the framework of modern society and economics. However, the means, the faculties of (wo)man are limited by nature. Rawls thus legitimizes scarcity and legitimizes the current economic system, including its negative effects. One can get very frustrated, even violent, seeing others improve themselves even more. Aristotle, but especially Epicurus, shows that scarcity is not ontological at all. After all, it is not about scarcity in means, but about limiting your goals. PD29 is indicative of this. In current society and economics and in Rawls' conception of self-improvemebt there are the dangers of limitless goals. I think Epicurus really wanted to warn us about these concepts. Indeed, be thankful for the faculties and talents given to you by nature and beware of wanting more than you can become and have.

Thanks Cassius .

Immediately went to my copy of DeWitt and started rereading.

To summarize in my own words. EP states we can reach conclusions about gods through the anticipations. Gods are blissful and are not immortal per se, but have reached a level of competence which enable them to stop their body from 'falling apart' and die (so to speak). As simulacra in dreams about gods are insufficient proof of their existence and/or their properties we cannot infer that by simulacra in dreams about dead people, dead people have exist or have the same properties.

Correct?

Hello friends,

I have a question on EP physics. Please correct me if I am wrong in my premisses and conclusion. I want to resolve something I find to be contradicting.

According to EP when the body dissolves in its atoms the entity dies and will never live again.
The gods are perfect entities and therefor never die.
We know of the gods because in our dreams we receive simulacra of the atoms making up the bodies of the gods.

Now, I know EP says that we do not see the dead but we see simulacra “residue” so to speak. The dead are, well, dead.

My question is: what is the difference between the gods and the dead? If we know of the gods because we see them through simulacra in our dreams and they are alive, why does EP not use this proof to postulate the dead are also alive (eg with the gods in Intermundia) because we see them through simulacra.

Hope to hearing from you guys.

Ok! Great! I will make some arrangements and do some prep work. What time zone are you in? That will be a challenge: finding a time slot that suits us both :-). I am on GMT + 1.

No problem. We could do audio. How do you record your podcast?
The written q&a is the thing I would like to do in a soundrecording then. I would also like to publish it on YouTube so we can use subtitles.

Cassius would you be interested in a short interview with me on the basics of Epicureanism for a Dutch audience? I could facilitate a Zoom call, record it and publish it on the Twitter feed. We could do a 20 minute session or so in which you explain the basics and relevance for people in everyday life. Would be nice.

I know Cassius. But as a lawyer (as you are as well I believe) I know when to argue and when not to argue

Hi Cassius,

No sense in arguing with one of the Epicurean masters :-). Changed the banner...

KR

Tim

Hello everyone,

Didn't know where to put my message, so I put it here. I trust Cassius will rearange the post if necessary.

I started a twitter account specifically for tweeting on Epicurus and Epicurean thought. I'll post in both Dutch and English. Please feel free to follow and tell others.

Would you be so kind to send me the links to the Lucretius podcasts? I'll put them up when they are published.

To find the account: @HEpicurus

Kind regards,

Tim

Thanks Cassius. As I am reading the book, the position of the writer seems to be that fear of death underpins limitless desires that are both unnatural and unnecessary (wealth and fame). By living according to the teachings of Epicurus, anyone can live the good life: death is nothing to fear so the unnatural and unnecessary desires become unimportant. One can focus on the good life. I am now reading up on why, if this is a rationally clear and easy to understand position, many people seem to be unable to live accordingly.

I have already learned a lot, but much more needs to be learned

Friends,

I am now reading Konstan’s “Life worthy of the Gods”. Interesting piece of work. It combines Epicurean works, Lucretius and psychology. Has anyone already read this book? Care to share your thoughts?

KR

Tim

Quote from Cassius

Must there be something in the nature of certain elements that tends to produce organization?

I think so. As to my understanding, EP holds that different atoms have different properties. I do not know whether modern physics concurs. I do know that theories on complex adaptive systems explain emergent properties of these systems by looking at the autonomous parts of the system using simple rules when reacting on each other. So the nature of the autonomous parts, the rules they follow within the system when reacting on other parts, is essential for complex systems to exist and evolve. There is a great book on the subject by Thomas Schelling, “micro motives and macro behaviour”. I see some overlap between the theory and EP.

Will do Casius!

I was just watching some video’s in which scientists explain that the odds of monkeys typing Shakespeare are indeed astronomical. Interestingly, they also explain this doesnt mean seemingly random events cant lead to complex results. If there would be forces at work penalizing monkeys for not typing correctly and rewarding them for typing correctly, this would greatly increase the odds. This ofcourse relates to evolution theory. What do you think could be the importance of this for EP, if any?

Cassius  Don Thanks for the replies. I see what you mean reading the Lucretius part. And indeed the difference between Shakespeare and a monkey typing Shakespeare.

Cassius I do have a copy of DeWitt. Do you know by heart where in his book he writes on the subject?

Hello everyone,

As you may have seen, I am from the Netherlands. I was looking for Epicurean communities or experts over here in the Netherlands, but couldn't find them. Does anyone within Epicureanfriends know of Dutch (or Dutch speaking) communities or experts? If there aren't any, well then I will have to start building my own (isn't that what Epicurus urges us to do?).

Thanks for any tips or advice.

KR

Tim

Nice episode. In the end you speak on eternity and therefor an almost certainty extraterrestrial life exists (although we will almost certainly never know it). I think this is true. I think it was Bernard Shaw who stated that given enough time, a monkey would type a copy of Shakespearean works. Eternity would certainly be enought time.

I understand Epicurus deduced God(s) must exist because atoms and void are both eternal and limitless (leading to PD 1). This however contradicts the notion that we have only one life. Given that atoms and the void (and the swerve) are eternal and limitless, it is an almost certainty that after death our atoms once again will eventually form out bodies and minds again. I mean this as a materialistic reality, not an 'afterlife' as in religious doctrine. Woudln't it be, given eternity, like aforementioned monkey eventually typing out an exact copy of a Shakespearean work? And what would this deduction mean for the notion to live your life because you only have one life to live?

Hello everyone,

I have the following question. I am trying to set my mind to Epicureanism. I carry the tetrapharmakos with me, have a picture of Epicurus hanging on my wall and try to meditate on the philosophy on a daily basis. I am looking for routines or habits other Epicuranists use to fully engaga in the philosophy, as Epicurus himself advises (was it Metrodorus?) to do in his letter on ethics.

What are your routines en habits?

KR

Tim

Hello,

My name is Tim. I am 42 years old, from the Netherlands, married, three children. Occupation: lawyer.
I have been reading philosophy and religious texts from the age of 12. Strangely enough, Epicurus did not get that much attention in the books and magazines I read. Socrates, Plato and Artistotle seemed (and seem) to be the “big three” in Greek philosophy. About two years ago I was really looking for guidance, and stumbled on the stoics: Seneca, Marcus and Epictetus. I found stoicism to be inspirational, but a little grimm. Seneca and Marcus refer to Epicurus ocassionaly, so I became curious. Then I found the book “how to be an Epicurean” (as a reply to: “How to be a Stoic”). The first things I read on Epicureanism made me wonder if it would be as inspiriatonal as stoicism, but more realistic as for the role of human emotions and pleasure. It does. Throug a Google search I found this website. And I am now reading De Witt’s “Epicurus and his philosophy”. So, I am new to Epicureanism but not a total novice on philosophy and religion (I already was an atheïst and materialist by the way).
Looking forward to learning from you and your site. What I have read until now feels like coming home.
Kind regards.