Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Diogenes Laertius:

"...the Logicians [he called] ‘The destroyers,’"

[24] Metrodorus’ writings were as follows:

Three books _Against the Physicians. About Sensations. To Timocrates. Concerning Magnanimity. About Epicurus’ Ill Health. Against the Logicians._ Nine books _Against the Sophists. Concerning the Path To Wisdom. Concerning Change. Concerning Wealth. Against Democritus. Concerning Nobility of Birth._

[31] Logic they reject as misleading. For they say it is sufficient for physicists to be guided by what things say of themselves. Thus in _The Canon_ Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind. And this he says himself too in the summary addressed to Herodotus and in the Principal Doctrines. For, he says, all sensation is irrational and does not admit of memory; for it is not set in motion by itself, nor when it is set in motion by something else, can it add to it or take from it

All the "logic" references in Diogenes Laertius are "dialectic" (διαλεκτικός etc) in the original which I take refers to the conversational/dialogue method of getting at the truth, not Aristotelian formal logic.

Plus, induction is a kind of logic which appears to have been endorsed by the Epicureans.

Quote from Cassius

If the Authorized Doctrines be read item by item it may be observed that almost all are contradictions of Plato

I'm still not convinced of this.

Still reading, more later.

Quote from Joshua

I was somewhat critical of the 'mindfulness movement' that's been raging for the last decade and a half. But in this, as in all things, I take an Epicurean view of choice and avoidance. If mindfulness brings pleasure or removes or avoids pain, then pursue it! What I reject is specifically the idea that mindfulness is inherently good, or absent-mindedness bad

I'll be the first to say I find John Mulaney funny, and I agree that "mindfulness" may be overhyped or better stated, become just another commodity to be monetized. However, I believe it is objectively true that we can only live in the present moment (literally) because that's where we make our choices and rejections. There's nothing "wrong" with daydreaming and letting your mind wander ("not all those who wander are lost"). But we do that *now* and can make that choice now... Even deciding to "let it happen" is a choice of sorts.

I'm also intrigued by the interoception research going on and its connection to mindfulness (writ large) and that potential connection to Epicurus's philosophy of "listening to your feelings" of pleasure and pain: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/a…g-interoception

Quote from Cassius

That would seem to be either an error in the text or maybe different meanings of the word "quality." Is it "quality" in the senses of "properties of atoms v qualities of combined bodies," or "quality" in the sense of "purity" or maybe even "intensity?"

Good questions. Maybe a look at the original text. I haven't seen that yet. If I dig it up, I'll explore.

Chapter XXVI

LOL..

Quote

'For how many and of what sort were the atoms which the father of Epicurus poured forth from himself, when he was begetting Epicurus? And when deposited in his mother's womb, how did they coalesce, and take shape, and form, and motion, and growth? And how did that small drop, after calling together the atoms of Epicurus in abundance, make some of them into skin and flesh for a covering, and how was it raised erect by others turned into bone, and by others bound together with a contexture of sinews?

'And how did it adapt the many other limbs, and organs, and entrails, and instruments of sense, some within and some without, by which the body was quickened into life? For among these no idle nor useless part was added, no, not even the meanest, neither hair, nor nails, but all contribute, some to the benefit of the constitution, and others to the beauty of the appearance.

'For Providence is careful not only of usefulness, but also of beauty. For while the hair of the head is a protection and a covering for all, the beard is a comely ornament for the philosopher. The nature also of the whole human body Providence composed of parts, all of which were necessary, and invested all the members with their mutual connexion, and measured out from the whole their due supply.

Okay, that is *not* why I have a beard.

Also...Evidently, Eusebius not think much of human biology's role in human reproduction and development. egads... God did it!

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 14

Just going through chapter XXI here and this caught my eye:

Quote from Aristocles via Eusebius

some say that as the principle and criterion of choosing and avoiding we have pleasure and pain: at least the Epicureans now still say something of this kind: it is necessary therefore to consider these points also.

Aristocles is writing in the 1st c CE; Eusebius is quoting him in the late 3rd/early 4th c CE. I know I just recently did a timeline, but it never ceases to amaze me (and serve as a reality check) that Epicurus's philosophy was still seen as enough of a threat to the Christians in the early 300s CE that he needed to be refuted. Epicurus died in 270 BCE, over 500 years before Eusebius. And yet, Eusebius still saw him as a threat. Way to go, master-builder of human happiness!

Here are some other thoughts from the chapter:

Quote

it is reason that tells whether it is to be chosen or avoided.

Aristocles/Eusebius seems to think this is a "gotcha." Epicurus himself says practical wisdom (phronēsis) is a tool for making wise decisions... To guide one to a more pleasurable life. It's not phronēsis for phronēsis's sake.

Quote

For although they maintain that every pleasure is a good and every pain an evil, nevertheless they do not say that we ought always to choose the former and avoid the latter, for they are measured by quantity and not by quality.

I'm not sure what the argument is here if quantity vs quality. However, given some other discussions we've had on the forum, I thought making note of this may be valuable.

Quote

'While the senses are like the toils and nets and other hunting implements of this kind, the mind and the reason are like the hounds that track and pursue the prey. Better philosophers, however, than even these we must consider those to be who neither make use of their senses at random, nor associate their feelings in the discernment of truth. Else it would be a monstrous thing for beings endowed with man's nature to forsake the most divine judgement of the mind and entrust themselves to irrational pleasures and pains.'

This seems to be Aristocles/Eusebius main argument against the horror of using the feelings of pleasure and pain for anything.

If I continue reading, I'll post some more excerpts and thoughts to this thread.

§34. William Wallace. I. Philosophers. Vol. 14. The Victorian Age, Part Two. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes. 1907–21

William Wallace (1843-1897)

It also looks like the Society is still active.

Quote from Kalosyni

I looked over the outline...

...and now I must apologize...I have not yet read much of this, and now realize that I must read it first, before I participate.

That sounds like a good reason to go chapter by chapter in a "book discussion" group (btw I haven't read much of it either... It's on my list)

LOLOL Okay, *that* makes sense!

This is what I had found: https://www.nflshop.com/philadelphia-eagles/47/t-3444+br-479

And I see '47 is the brand!

*That's* what I get for being sports illiterate

Quote from Scott

47?

Is that a *Philadelphia* Eagles reference? (I had to Google it)

Quote from Cassius

posting a link publicly on the EP Facebook group.

Intriguing idea, but I would be careful and think twice about posting the zoom link publicly. I speak from experience! Back when COVID started, we hosted an online book club and our first one had a "zoom bomber" share their screen with ... how do I say this delicately ... extremely explicit video. We were VERY new to Zoom and it was disturbing and embarrassing. That's a risk with a public link.

However, that's not heard of as much anymore and zoom has put some safety protocols in place. There's never any guarantee though.

Are there any free registration platforms it there? That way, people would register and receive the zoom invitation in their email.

Just an anecdote and an idea.

Quote from Cassius

Note:. My gosh, after relistening to "Already Gone" I am immediately struck by the connection that comes to mind to a particular Vatican Saying! We could use Peaceful Easy Feeling as a background to any reference for Tranquility, but as a quiz, what Vatican Saying needs a particular type of song that fits Already Gone?

LOL! I'm assuming "I will sing a victory song!" came into play in your connection?

What about "Take it to the limit" for one of the PDs?

Quote from Godfrey

Having said that though, I can't say if that's what Epicurus meant or if he was focused on a philosophical argument. However in practical day to day terms I think your conclusion is spot on

Thanks, Godfrey . In answer to your question, I think it could be both. It was definitely a response to the Cyrenaics (and possibly other schools); but it could have had practical application as well in light of:

Quote

For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

First, I feel bad that we've strayed from Kalosyni 's original purpose for this thread, but that seems to happen one this freewheeling forum

I've also been letting the topic of this "there is no neutral position between pleasure and pain" roll around in my mind today. I originally, as I stated above, saw the "peaceful easy feeling" of taking a walk, lying in a hammock, taking a warm bath as the position identified by the Cyrenaics as the "neutral" position that Epicurus identified as pleasure. But I'm rethinking that now.

Those activities (walk/hammock/bath) are actively pleasurable. If I do those, I feel pleasure - a calm, peaceful, everything is right with the world, satisfying "aaaaaahhh" feeling that's easily identified as pleasure. Even the calm of meditation is a real, positive feeling.

The Cyrenaics' neutral position, I'm thinking now, is more the "I'm going about my daily routine not paying attention to whether I feel pleasure or pain... I'm not 'consciously' or 'actively' experiencing pleasure or pain right now." But Epicurus posited that you have to be feeling either pleasure or pain. So, I was sitting at work today working on tasks when this question hit me: "Am I feeling pleasure or pain right now?" Honestly, it was a difficult question to answer. I came down on the side that, if I was being honest with myself, I was mostly experiencing pleasure with a couple twinges of pain in my body and a couple minor turbulences in my mind.

Maybe that's what Epicurus is calling us to do by eliminating a "neutral" position. *Really* understand your body and your mind. The feelings are two. How are are you really feeling, right now. Do you have a healthy body? Is your mind untroubled? If the answer to either of those is "no," your life is not as pleasurable as it has the potential to be. What needs to change? What choices and rejections do I need to make?

Thoughts?

Quote from Kalosyni

in renaming the "neutral" as being a pleasureable tranquility...I would agree, but caution against putting too much on this, as this mind state only naturally occurs in very short intervals.

Thanks for the response. I would add here that it was the Cyrenaics and others that called it neutral, not Epicurus. Epicurus's position was that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain. Therefore, you can't say you're "neutral." That "calm, tranquil" feeling - what The Eagles called "a peaceful, easy feeling" - is pleasure.

I'm also not talking about the tranquility found in meditation. I think he's referring to the state of the body and might working correctly. I would include this calm tranquility in taking a walk or a relaxing bath. That relaxation is what I'd describe as calm and tranquil.

Quote from Cassius

Yes, and the key world there is "including"

No question.

Even at its most basic wording, we need *both* "the health of the body *and* the tranquility of the mind" for our well-being. That's why Epicurus's definition of pleasure in the letter to Menoikeus does not include an "endless string of drinking parties." That would be detrimental to the health of the body at the very least.

Quote from Cassius

Don is very much with us that a life of total contemplation might or might not be hypothetically the one some of us would choose, but as with the Bliss machine hypotheticals, is not practical for most any of us.

I'm with you, but...

A life of "total contemplation" sounds Aristotelian in his promotion of wisdom and "philosophy" as the highest good. That's not what Epicurus was advocating. Epicurus was not a navel-gazer nor did he advocate removal from all distractions in a cave (to use Cassius 's favorite metaphor).

That being said, Epicurus's insistence that we strive for the "health of the body and tranquility of the mind" has led me to understand he was including a calm mind in his definition of what it means to lead a pleasureable life. In looking at various sources, ancient and modern, I think Epicurus was specifically including that "intermediate state," described by the Cyrenaics, "in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm" as a pleasure and that it is, in fact, that state which is the natural, biological homeostasis in the body.

Approaching life with a calm, tranquil mind makes us much better equipped to make choices and rejections for what will lead to a pleasurable life. A calm and tranquil mind is a base of operations from which to encounter the "slings and arrows" of our daily existence. It's not living numb in the world. It's like a lens through which to clearly encounter and evaluate what needs to be done. If our minds are disturbed, troubled, turbulent, it's like driving through our lives with a dirty windshield in a snowstorm. There is nothing wrong or improper about trying to have a tranquil mind. I think it can allow us to experience life more fully, more pleasurably. That's my summary take on this tranquility discussion.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

if I want complete tranquility, I would simply kill myself

That's not tranquility; that's non-existence. Be very careful about throwing around casual statements like this. That is also, if I remember, a Cyrenaic argument against Epicureanism.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

if you want to find tranquility, then you go into an isolation cell in a prison

I also have to take issue with this one as well.

Epicurus specifically took a stand against the Cyrenaics that what they called the neutral place between pleasure and pain, that tranquil balance was a pleasure. This section from Eusebius that I recently found gives a good summary:

Quote

For he said that there are three states affecting our temperament: one, in which we feel pain, like a storm at sea; another, in which we feel pleasure, that may be likened to a gentle undulation, for pleasure is a gentle movement, comparable to a favourable breeze; and the third is an intermediate state, in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm.

That was the Cyrenaic position. Epicurus said, no, the calm we feel is pleasure, too.

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 14

I did another version of this timeline a year ago, and thought it needed a revision. With a "snow day" off work, this felt like a good time.

This chronology is meant to put historical people into a more relatable context. For me at least, it’s hard to remember who would have been contemporaries of whom, especially when there are BCE and CE dates involved. It’s also helpful to sometimes have a more firm grasp on how far apart people were from each other. How long was it between the time Epicurus lived and when Cicero and Plutarch were writing treatises against his school?

Let's imagine Diogenes Laertius is putting together his chapter on Epicurus right about now (i.e., 2022):

• Epicurus would have lived around the same time as Columbus was making his voyages across the Atlantic Ocean to North America.
• Philodemus would have been active around 200 years after Epicurus; or, in our alternative scenario, around the time of Isaac Newton. Cicero was a contemporary of Philodemus.
• 400 years after Epicurus, Plutarch could still be vehemently anti-Epicurean. Plutarch lived around the early-mid 1800s in our alternative timeline, making him active during the time of the American Civil War.
• Diogenes of Oenoanda would have been commissioning his wall around the 1950s or mid-20th century generally. He lived 500 years after Epicurus.
• Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius died in 1984 in our alternative timeline, the same year as the pro-Epicurean satirist Lucian of Samosata.
• Our contemporary Diogenes Laertius, beginning to compile his notes for his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, is working 600 years after Epicurus. Epicurus’s philosophy was still vibrant after six centuries! In the next few decades, the spread of the philosophy will come to a screeching halt with the “triumph” of Christianity all but snuffing out the flame of the Epicurean school.

Notes: Any circa dates have used the specific year for calculation of the "modern" years.

Dates are from the person's Wikipedia article for consistency within this timeline. For more information, refer to Wikipedia.

Within the entries, I've included the alternative dates; the actual dates of their lives; and their age. Surprisingly, it's not uncommon for these people to have lived into their 60s and 70s and beyond.

If you see a mistake in my math, please don't hesitate to comment, and I'll be happy to edit this!

Enjoy!

• Heraclitus of Ephesus (1235-1295; c. 535 – c. 475 BCE (60))
• Anaxagoras (1270-1342; c.  500 – c.  428 BCE (72))
• Empedocles (1276-1336; c. 494 – c. 434 BCE (60))
• Socrates (1300-1371; c. 470–399 BCE (~71))
• Democritus (1310-1400; c. 460 – c. 370 BCE (~90))
• Plato (1342-1422; 428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BCE (~80))
• Aristotle (1386-1448; 384–322 BCE (62))
• Pyrrho (1410-1500; c. 360 – c. 270 BCE (90))
• Epicurus (1429-1500; 341–270 BCE (71))
• Polyaenus of Lampsacus (1430-1485; c. 340 – c. 285 BCE (~55))
• Zeno of Citium (1436-1508; c. 334 – c. 262 BCE (72))
• Metrodorus of Lampsacus (1439-1492; 331/0–278/7 BCE (53))
• Hermarchus (scholarch of the Garden) (1443-1518; c. 325-c. 250 BCE (~75))
• Colotes of Lampsacus (1448-1500; c. 320 – after 268 BCE (~52))
• Polystratus (scholarch of the Garden) (c.1470-1550; d. 218/9 BCE)
• Dionysius of Lamptrai (scholarch of the Garden) (c. 1493-1563; d. 205 BCE)
• Basilides (scholarch of the Garden) (1518-1593; c. 250 – c. 175 BCE (75))
• Chrysippus (1489-1562; c. 279 – c. 206 BCE (~73))
• Apollodorus (scholarch of the Garden) (fl. early 1600s; fl. 2nd century BCE)
• Zeno of Sidon (scholarch of the Garden) (1618-1693; c. 150 – c. 75 BCE (~75))
• Phaedrus (scholarch of the Garden) (1630-1699; 138 – 70/69 BCE (69))
• Patro (scholarch of the Garden) (fl. early 1700s; contemporary of Cicero’s)
• Philodemus (1658-1728; c. 110 – prob. c. 40 or 35 BCE (~70))
• Marcus Tullius Cicero (1662-1725; 106 – 43 BCE (63))
• Julius Caesar (1668-1724; 100 – 15 March 44 BCE (56))
• Titus Lucretius Carus (1669-1713; c. 99 – c. 55 BCE (~44))
• Quintus Horatius Flaccus ("Horace") (1703-1760; 65 – 8 BCE (57))
• Plutarch (1814-1887; 46 – after AD 119 CE (~73))
• Epictetus (1854-1939; 50 – c. 135 CE (~85))
• Diogenes of Oenoanda (wall dated around 1950s (mid-1900s); lived 2nd century CE)
• Marcus Aurelius (1925-1984; 121 – 180 CE (59))
• Lucian of Samosata (1929-1984; c. 125 – after 180 CE (~55))
• Diogenes Laërtius (fl. early-mid 2000s; fl. 1st half of 3rd century CE)
• Athenaeus (fl. late 20th/early 21st century; fl. late 2nd/early 3rd century CE)
• Eusebius (will be born in 2064; AD 260/265 – 339/340)

Quote from Matt

I’ve been looking for that ring…Saruman the White told me to use the palantir to find it. Expect the Nine to arrive soon.

No one gets my preciouss. Nasty Sarumans can't haves its but the Eyes is always watching us, isn't he, my precious.

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 14

This is a link to Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel, Book XIV, which has extensive commentary on Epicurus and his school.

I recommend doing a "Find in page" search for epicur find all the mentions of Epicurus and Epicurean(s).