Posts by Don

Very nice!

I agree that that's the general tone of Wilson's book. For someone who's never heard of Epicureanism, maybe it could be an entry point for further exploration? From my perspective, that's why it's important. It's really the first book to get some popular press coverage for Epicureanism after the glut of Stoicism books for so long.

Quote from JJElbert

I haven't read any of these yet...

I've read Wilson's and the relevant passages in Hadot. Haven't read Crespo or Dimitriadis in full.

Frankly, I wanted to read the ancient texts first, get some opinion of my own from them, then read modern commentators. I haven't always stuck to that but that was my strategy.

Quote from Godfrey

The link to Hadot appears to be to a book of the same title but by different authors. I've never heard of the linked book or it's authors. Is anybody familiar with it/them as being useful?

I changed the link to the correct book on AbeBooks. Thanks!

Quote from Cassius

OMG what a terrible typo! Though come to think of it maybe it was a Freudian slip! Simple loving without the romantic overload might be just what the doctor ordered!

Let's stick with "it's a typo" for now

Quote from JJElbert

Quote

simple loving

I feel certain that he meant to type "Simple living".

LOL!!! That makes sense now!

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

The standard suggestions you will read about "simple loving" and the like in other books

?

...please explain, or if you can reference to a link in the forum explaining this, thanks

I was going to ask Cassius the same question.

Quote from Don

“with an untroubled breast” (placido cum pectore, 6.75)

This is a reminder that Epicureans felt the mind resided in the area of the heart, so this phrase makes perfect sense in that context.

I differ with the author's translation of αταραξία (ataraxia) as "impassiveness" and would use something like "tranquility," but I find the paper overall very compelling and thought-provoking. Final excerpt below:

"While making his final catechistic efforts in Book 6, the poet can legitimately hope that his student sees the true nature of the imperturbable gods and approaches their shrines “with an untroubled breast” (placido cum pectore, 6.75) – which, of course, cannot be done by common worshippers and could not be done by the reader himself at the start of his textual pilgrimage. Creating an untroubled breast (or placidum pectus) is the fundamental purpose of all the six books of De Rerum Natura, whose contemplative devices are carefully modelled on the traditional Epicurean practice of philologia medicans – the therapeutic reading, analysis, and memorization of Epicurus’ writings that, as Lucian reminds us, could “produce peace (εἰρήνη), impassiveness (ἀταραξία), and freedom (ἐλευθερία) in readers”.¹⁰¹

This was one of the interpretations we talked about in episode 92 of the podcast:

"As Alessandro Schiesaro pointed out, the plague episode is Lucretius’ “final spiritual exercise” for the reader, who is led to see in the very textual structure of De Rerum Natura – from the opening hymn to Venus’ creative force to the final disintegration of the ville lumière of Greece – the cyclical movement of nature.⁸¹"

This is such a rare occurrence to run into this sentiment below in an academic paper that I'm pulling out this long quote to highlight it. See the paper itself for the references in the footnotes:

"One should wholeheartedly agree with Elizabeth Asmis that “the picture that has been painted of Epicureans as living in alternative communities, separate from the rest of society, needs to be corrected”, as Epicureanism “keeps a person integrated in the daily routine of ordinary life while shifting his or her aims away from those of the rest of society”.²⁷ A committed Epicurean was typically asked to absorb, and meditate on, Epicurus’ teachings in order to reorient his thoughts, emotions, and preferences in the everyday flow of moral experience. In order to reach this goal, a coherent set of psychagogic methods and stochastic techniques was developed by Epicurus and later Epicurean instructors.²⁸ Recent scholarship has demonstrated that even the Epicurean injunction to “live unnoticed” (λάθε βιώσας) and “not to engage in politics” (μὴ πολιτεύεσθαι) – two expressions that are never attested in Epicurus’ Key Docrines, but only in later sources – does not amount to anything like a general a priori rule.²⁹ Building on the earlier surveys of David Sedley,³⁰ Miriam Griffin,³¹ and Elizabeth Asmis,³² among many others, Geert Roskam and Jeffrey Fish have pointed out that Epicurus’ caveat against the dangers of political life was not dogmatic. Rather, Epicurus’ followers were expected to make their choices on the basis of a situation-based hedonic calculus, taking into account their natural disposition (φύσις or διάθεσις) as well as the exact time (καιρός) and circumstances (περίστασις) of their acts.³³ Most of the times, the hedonic calculus will suggest avoiding the turmoil of politics. But there will be moments when the sage will be called to step into the public arena, for his own good or for that of others – as happened to Epicurus himself, who praised Metrodorus for ransoming Mithres, Lysimachus’ minister, from the hands of a Macedonian general.³⁴ The history of modern scholarship on Epicureanism is replete with discussions of possible “exceptions” to the Epicurean rule of political isolation. Efforts have been made to excuse – or to blame as unorthodox – the behavior of avowed Epicureans such as Idomeneus and Mithres (who held public offices in the early Hellenistic period),³⁵ Antiochus IV Epiphanes (who was converted to Epicureanism by Philonides of Laodicea-on-Sea),³⁶ Colotes (who dedicated his work on good kingship to Ptolemy II Philadelphus),³⁷ Cassius (who planned Caesar’s assassination),³⁸ and Calpurnius Piso (who supported Philodemus’ contubernium while serving as magistrate in Rome).³⁹ Yet there is no need to quibble about exceptions, betrayals, and philosophical heresies if one recognizes that Epicureanism was a non-dogmatic and non-isolationist doctrine that approached moral issues such as marriage, political involvement, and the use of poetry from a supremely rational and pragmatic perspective.⁴⁰"

"...the Epicurean quest for enduring (or ‘katastematic’) pleasure could not adopt any other strategy than the rational construction of a mutually supportive community"

I don't know whether I've read the translation of katastematic as "enduring" before. I find that an intriguing nuance.

"In Epicurus’ own words, “the same conviction that inspires confidence that no evil is eternal or even enduring, also makes us aware that in our limited conditions of life friendship affords us the most perfect security”.²⁴"

Tutrone's translation of PD28

"Roman readers seem to have discussed with fervor Cicero’s work On the Commonwealth (De Re Publica), which strongly advocated the importance of political commitment as an altruistic, law-abiding service and warned against the risks of contemplative isolation.² Cicero’s main target in the first polemical part of On the Commonwealth were the Epicureans, who – as Cicero himself says elsewhere – took Italy by storm and founded several communities of wisdom-practitioners in imitation of Epicurus’ Athenian garden."

I was unaware of this work by Cicero. Maybe worth finding, and it may be worth finding out if this was written pre- or post-de Finibus. So, Cicero really didn't like Epicureanism even with Epicurean friends.

A View From the Garden: Contemplative Isolation and Constructive Sociability in Lucretius and in the Epicurean Tradition, in R. Matuszewski (ed.), Being Alone in Antiquity: Ancient Ideas and Experiences of Misanthropy, Isolation, and Solitude, Berlin

N.B. These are the uncorrected proofs of the above-mentioned article. It is often assumed that Epicurean philosophy and its foremost Roman prophet, T.…

www.academia.edu

Fabio Tutrone. A View from the Garden: Contemplative Isolation and Constructive Sociability in Lucretius and in the Epicurean Tradition

An interesting paper that lays out a thought-provoking perspective on a number of points. Haven't read it completely, but I liked the parts I've read so far including a nuanced view of "live unknown." The author talks about its contextual nature.

Just realized there are a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS in my post #94. I did not mean to yell that much Passions can get the best of you when you post later at night. I agree with everything I wrote... Just maybe need to dial back the expression of it.

Interoception: the hidden sense that shapes wellbeing

There’s growing evidence that signals sent from our internal organs to the brain play a major role in regulating emotions and fending off anxiety and depression

www.theguardian.com

So, this is a "listen to your feelings" concept I can get behind. This is the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett too:

'I'm extremely controversial': the psychologist rethinking human emotion

How we interpret our feelings depends on where and how we’re brought up, says professor Lisa Feldman Barrett - and not understanding this is making our lives…

www.theguardian.com

Quote from Cassius

We cross posted -- much of the answer to your question is in the "animality objection" in post 82 above.

Quote from Don

I thought the "All pleasure is good" precluded the ranking of pleasure.

That would be correct if we considered all pleasure is good" to mean "all pleasure is THE highest good" but it is by no means clear (at least to me) that Epicurus was considering "good" here in that absolute sense, rather than in the relative sense in which there are many goods, some better than others. That's the reason for the SUMMUM in the "summum bonum" I think.

Okay, let me finally return to my "Oh, my"...

Pleasure is "THE highest good" not because it is the "Best Bestest Good Out Of All The Other Goods."

It is "The Good" because it is the good thing to which all other possible candidates for "The Good Thing" leads. It is The Good, the Tagathon, the Goal, the Telos at the End of every action or desire. It is NOT "good" relative to other goods. It is THE GOOD. There are no rivals.

Virtue cannot be The Good because ultimately we act virtuously because it is instrumental to pleasure.

Wisdom cannot be The Good because we act wisely ultimately because it is instrumental to feelings of pleasure.

Philosophy cannot be The Good because we follow a philosophy because it will lead us to pleasure.

EVERYTHING points to pleasure. Pleasure sits at the top of the heap of possible candidates for The Good BECAUSE it is the final destination, The Goal, the Telos, the End. That is why it's the SUMMUM bonum. It is at the summit of goods. All paths up the mountain pass virtue, wisdom, etc., along the way and what sits at the end of the path at the top... why do we do the things we do? ... To achieve pleasure! The SUMMUM denotes the top or the summit. It is literally the highest good. It is the good "at the utmost, at farthest." Every path, followed to its end, leads ultimately to pleasure. Pleasure is literally The End at the end of the path.

This is also an argument against viewing some pleasures being "higher" than others. PLEASURE writ large is the telos, the goal, the end, the highest good. We chase pleasure in all its myriad and varied forms.

Aristotle didn't accept pleasure as The Good because (according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) "pleasure cannot be our ultimate target, because what counts as pleasant must be judged by some standard other than pleasure itself, namely the judgment of the virtuous person." That's circular reasoning it seems to me. Pleasure can't be the ultimate good because there needs to be a standard of pleasure judged by some virtuous person?? That's one reason why Epicurus said Pleasure IS The Standard for our choices. There is no other "authority" - no virtuous person - judging our actions except does this choice lead to pleasure.

Now, this didn't deter Epicurus from saying, "Yes, all pleasure is good, but that pleasure you're thinking about choosing... Experience has shown that leads ultimately to pain, not the most pleasant life. Okaaay, you do the drugs all night, drink til dawn if you choose to. BUT you're going to pay a hefty price tomorrow and even more if you keep it up. But I will not argue that you aren't feeling pleasure in the moment. I'll let the Cyrenaics know you'll be knocking at their door."

Quote from Cassius

Another way of stating the question is that if he had been consistent, as soon as Epicurus formulated his philosophy he should have retired to his cave and lived a subsistence existence totally apart from the crowd. But he did not -- he lived a life of relative material luxury and devoted much of his time to philosophical controversy. Why - one naturally would ask? And I think the answer has to be in part that he valued the pleasures that he chose to pursue more highly - much more highly - than the pleasures he would have achieved had he retired to the cave on bread and water.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Epicurus talked the talk and walked the walk. He aimed to live the most pleasant life. Living an ascetic life in a cave open to the elements, alone, away from friends, on the edge of starvation, would not be pleasant. He knew that obviously. He set up shop right outside the walls of the city on the road to the Academy in relative affluence for the day. It has nothing to do with "higher" or "lower" pleasures. The life he led was the most pleasant for him and he chose that.

Quote from Cassius

And I would say that what seems like the obvious answer to me is that he chose the pleasures derived from the life of philosophical study and writing and controversy as much more pleasant to him than the life of "grazing in the grass."

Epicurus chose "the pleasures derived from the life of philosophical study and writing" precisely because he found it pleasurable. He obviously enjoyed teaching, writing diatribes against rival schools, welcoming friends into the Garden. I don't think he weighed living like a cow or a pig AGAINST a life of teaching and writing. He knew what would bring him pleasure and pursued that.

Moooooooo

PS. On second thought...Oink

LOL! Okay, it's my turn to say, "Oh, my! "

Off to work now, but I'll try to post tonight.