Posts by Don

I'll admit I was skeptical when I saw the post, but that was a very enjoyable piece of work! Greatly enjoyed the lyrics and music. Nice work!!

I would echo Joshua 's recommendations. I know Hiram Crespo published a book but I haven't read it. He also contributed a chapter to a recent book on life philosophies.

Honestly, my recommendation would be to stick to the reading list that Cassius has posted to this site. Read multiple translations of Epicurus's works and Lucretius.

Quote from Cassius

By emphasizing that the atoms have no color Epicurus is illustrating that there are in fact no contextless absolutes, either in heaven or inside an object. The statement that "Yellow does not exist apart from things that are yellow" has profound extensions far beyond the purely scientific question of how an atom might look under a microscope to most people most of the time.

In this I see reflections of the Buddhist concepts of dependent arising, no-self, and related ideas. The Buddha is said to have taught:

Quote

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.

That sounds a lot to me like "When I exist, death does not; When death is, I am not."

There's also the Epicurean doctrine of "The only thing that exists is atoms and void." I would add "... At the most fundamental level." This does NOT negate the everyday existence of planets, rocks, trees, and me! But qualities like color, size, shape, etc., arise from the coming together of various arrangements of atoms in the void. Those characteristics do not exist apart from those atomic arrangements, from the most subtle (consciousness) to the most physical (Mt. Everest).

Now, Buddha and Epicurus put those realizations to work in different ways! But it seems to me both were thinking along parallel paths at least part of the way.

That highlighted section sounds very reminiscent of Buddhism. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Quote from Cassius

Quote

Garden Dweller : Should the student of Epicurus carefully guard against anything that would disturb, modify or distort one's senses and sensory observation of the natural world?

Let's not skip over this last question, either, as I think this is an EMPHATIC yes! Now I am all in favor of painkilling drugs when needed, but the senses are vital to us, and efforts to dull them in general (which is essentially what the Stoics advocate) are exactly the wrong direction. Not to mention to problems that alcohol and other mind-altering drugs can lead to. We certainly aren't talking being Puritans, but I think it is pretty clear that overindulgence in mind-altering substances can be very harmful to our overall ability to lead a life of pleasure.

I think we have to be careful here. As Cassius says we're not Puritans. DL Lives X.119 says that "Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly." (my own translation of "οὐδὲ μὴν ληρήσειν ἐν μέθῃ"). This was from Epicurus's Symposium. So I think it's important to remember there is no Epicurean prohibition against drinking "strong drink" as far as we know, but, like all actions, one assesses the resulting pleasure and pain involved in moderate drinking vs overindulgence. And Epicurus reminds us to not act foolish.

I think you're onto something there, Godfrey . I like where you going if I follow you correctly. I also like that you're making a clear distinction between the faculty of the Feelings (pleasure and pain) and the desires. The Feelings are part of the Canon, how we decide what actions to take, i.e., in what desires to pursue and what to reject. The goal or telos is the living of a pleasurable life.

There's only one edit I'd suggest to your statement:

Quote

"the pursuit of desire fulfillment is guided by the experience of pleasure and pain,"

I sometimes forget that the "Feelings are two: pleasure and pain." Epicurus sees value in both pleasure and pain as criteria by which we make our choices and rejections. We should pursue a sustained pleasurable life as the goal but use the Feelings of both pleasure and pain (along with the Anticipations and Senses) to make the choices that will result in that goal.

Quote from Godfrey

The natural state that I'm referring to is the smooth and integrated functioning of the sensations, prolepses and feelings. So it would be the experience of pleasure functioning in a way as to be a proper guide for the pursuit of pleasure.

Got it! That helps, and well stated, Godfrey !

Godfrey : When you say:

Quote

To me the default and the general rule is the natural state.

Is the natural state the experience of pleasure, the seeking of pleasure, or something else? I'm not being critical! I just want to make sure I understand what you're referring to. Same with Martin , when he says "it's natural." Is it the experience or the pursuit of pleasure that is the natural state to which we need to return?

Quote from Cassius

Godfrey how frequently do you think that this condition ("nothing is interfering with this process") will exist? Frequently enough that it ought to be considered a default position, on the order of observing that all young things at birth pursue pleasure and avoid pain? Or infrequently, but important to identify as the general rule? Or somewhere in between? What does the answer tell us about how we should state the general rule. Or is it useful or not useful to state a general rule?

I think you raise good points, Godfrey , but I would posit that one's life doesn't have to be in shambles to need a philosophy of life to come back to. I'll freely admit that most people's default is simply to deal with life's situations at random as they arise. But how do we make sense of life's ups and downs? How do we deal with tragedy? How do we orient ourselves to have sustained pleasure? Do we experience pain and frustration and see no bigger reason for it?

I do think that as infants, animals (incl. humans) seek to have their basic desires fulfilled to achieve pleasure (look at the face of a sleeping infant when a full belly). But rapidly, humans are acculturated. We learn to rationalize, to subliminate, to hide behind facades. "Smiles, everyone," as Mr. Roarke used to say on Fantasy Island. I think the answer to Cassius 's question on how often there's no interference is rarely (if I understand his question )

[ADMIN EDIT: This is a copy of a post from Don that was placed originally in another thread.]

Poor Polyaenus! He has such an unfortunate English pronunciation to his name (Yes, evidently I'm 12 years old! "Many an.." you get the idea.) I saw the technical Latin pronunciation is po-lee-EE-nuhs. The Greek is Πολύαινος (Polyainos), something like pol-Ü-eye-nos in Ancient Greek or modern Greek sort of like pol-EE-ehnos (I think).

He's not mentioned a lot in the ancient texts, but I think the dictionary entry above doesn't include Philodemus. I seem to remember mention of him mentioning Polyainos in his works.

DL mentions him by name, X.24:

Quote

Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm.

and footnote 37 reads

Quote

One of the four pillars of the school : a great geometer until he became an Epicurean (Cic. Ac. Pr. 106 and De fin. i. 20). A letter of Epicurus to him is mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 18. 9).

Cicero's Academics seems to just mention him by name. De Fin has this:

Quote

It is also unworthy of a natural philosopher to deny the infinite divisibility of matter; an error that assuredly Epicurus would have avoided, if he had been willing to let his friend Polyaenus teach him geometry instead of making Polyaenus himself unlearn it.

and Seneca mentions this

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVIII) Even Epicurus, the teacher of pleasure, used to observe stated intervals, during which he satisfied his hunger in a stingy (maligne) fashion; he wished to see whether he thereby fell short of full and complete happiness, and, if so, by what amount be fell short, and whether this amount was worth purchasing at the price of great effort. At any rate, he makes such a statement in the well known letter written to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus. Indeed, he boasts that he himself lived on less than a penny, but that Metrodorus, whose progress was not yet so great, needed a whole penny. Do you think that there can be fullness on such fare? Yes, and there is pleasure also, – not that shifty and fleeting Pleasure which needs a fillip now and then, but a pleasure that is steadfast and sure.

That's not a lot to go on. There's the Wikipedia article that mentions an Italian translation of fragments.

I think it's also worth noting the "stated intervals" of Epicurus fasting or eating minimally. This implies that he in fact didn't live on bread and water all the time (as some try to say) but it sounds like he did experiment from time to time during "stated intervals" to ascertain his limits as to what would satisfy him and provide pleasure/absence of pain of hunger. (Side note: it appears the actual coin mentioned by Seneca is the Roman as: Epicurus didn't require a whole "as" but Metrodorus did: Et quidem gloriatur non toto asse se pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.Here is a site talking about the purchasing power of Roman coins.)

Poor Polyaenus! He has such an unfortunate English pronunciation to his name (Yes, evidently I'm 12 years old! "Many an.." you get the idea.) I saw the technical Latin pronunciation is po-lee-EE-nuhs. The Greek is Πολύαινος (Polyainos), something like pol-Ü-eye-nos in Ancient Greek or modern Greek sort of like pol-EE-ehnos (I think).

He's not mentioned a lot in the ancient texts, but I think the dictionary entry above doesn't include Philodemus. I seem to remember mention of him mentioning Polyainos in his works.

DL mentions him by name, X.24:

Quote

Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm.

and footnote 37 reads

Quote

One of the four pillars of the school : a great geometer until he became an Epicurean (Cic. Ac. Pr. 106 and De fin. i. 20). A letter of Epicurus to him is mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 18. 9).

Cicero's Academics seems to just mention him by name. De Fin has this:

Quote

It is also unworthy of a natural philosopher to deny the infinite divisibility of matter; an error that assuredly Epicurus would have avoided, if he had been willing to let his friend Polyaenus teach him geometry instead of making Polyaenus himself unlearn it.

and Seneca mentions this

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVIII) Even Epicurus, the teacher of pleasure, used to observe stated intervals, during which he satisfied his hunger in a stingy (maligne) fashion; he wished to see whether he thereby fell short of full and complete happiness, and, if so, by what amount be fell short, and whether this amount was worth purchasing at the price of great effort. At any rate, he makes such a statement in the well known letter written to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus. Indeed, he boasts that he himself lived on less than a penny, but that Metrodorus, whose progress was not yet so great, needed a whole penny. Do you think that there can be fullness on such fare? Yes, and there is pleasure also, – not that shifty and fleeting Pleasure which needs a fillip now and then, but a pleasure that is steadfast and sure.

That's not a lot to go on. There's the Wikipedia article that mentions an Italian translation of fragments.

I think it's also worth noting the "stated intervals" of Epicurus fasting or eating minimally. This implies that he in fact didn't live on bread and water all the time (as some try to say) but it sounds like he did experiment from time to time during "stated intervals" to ascertain his limits as to what would satisfy him and provide pleasure/absence of pain of hunger. (Side note: it appears the actual coin mentioned by Seneca is the Roman as: Epicurus didn't require a whole "as" but Metrodorus did: Et quidem gloriatur non toto asse se pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.Here is a site talking about the purchasing power of Roman coins.)

[Admin Edit: This post was copied and placed in the forum devoted to Polyaenus.]

This was a lively one!

I feel compelled to weigh in on the life of your fictitious scientist. I don't think one can just say that the pursuit of science bringing the scientist pleasure is the end of it. I seem to hear you saying that pleasure is the goal; the scientist experiences pleasure; that's it.

That's not the only aspect of the scientist's life we need to worry about. I agree that if the pursuit of science brings them pleasure, that's fine. But it cannot be the whole story and negate the need for the possession of a philosophy of life.

I would ask What is the totality of their life? How are they living it? Are they just? Are they making decisions to bring sustained pleasure to their whole life? The moment-by-moment experience of pleasure while researching or contemplating their scientific pursuit is not the goal. It is living a sustained pleasurable life. That's why Epicurus stressed that sometimes we should experience pain for the sake of later pleasure, and why we should abstain from some pleasure for more pleasure later.

It's not necessarily 24x7x365 immersion in pleasurable feelings all the time for your average human, Epicurean or not. The importance of a framework or philosophy of life is how you deal with life when it isn't providing pleasure. How do you return to that? How do you react when someone close to you dies? How do you experience hardship, disease, disappointment, and so on?

If experiencing individual pleasures is the only goal, and we come to this naturally (as I understand some of you were saying in this episode), of what use is Epicurus and his philosophy? If experiencing pleasure is the only important aspect of Epicureanism, and we naturally do this anyway, of what use is the philosophy at all? I have other things I could fill my time with.
I keep coming back to PD 10's "IF." IF the pleasure of the profligate dispelled their fears and anxieties, we'd have no quarrel with them. But their pleasures DON'T dispel their fears. But they're experiencing pleasure, so it's all okay then? I have to say no to that. I don't think that's the goal Epicurus taught. They are not living a life that can be sustained in pleasure. Now, if they were demonstrating they understood how to make prudent decisions to sustain their pleasure, that death is nothing to them and why, etc., and not simply running after every pleasure all the time, then, yeah, go forth and seize the day. I don't think that's what the "lost" (to translate the original word) are doing.

Likewise, the Letter to Menoikos:

Quote

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, as is believed by those who are ignorant or who don't understand us or who are ill-disposed to us, but to be free from bodily pain and mental disturbance. For a pleasant life is produced not by drinking and endless parties and enjoying boys and women and consuming fish and other delicacies of an extravagant table, but by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul.

So the scientist's finding pleasure or joy in their work is fine as far as it goes. One should not tell them to stop. But pleasure or joy in that one thing is not the entirety of life.

Quote from Cassius

That's another angle on this to consider. Which position is more "prominent"? The one down front with the pudgy wreathed figure, or the position located very close to the central figures of the fresco (even if somewhat obscured)?

Oh! Good point!

I must admit I'm intrigued by Elli 's conjecture. That robed figure off to the side fits the bill for Epicurus, down to the cleft beard. I'm also skeptical whether Epicurus would have had so prominent a spot right down front if we take the traditional attribution.

As for the Boccaccio illustration, it doesn't appear Epicurus is even mentioned in Leontium's entry. I've attached my scan. I would think it more "scandalous" if it was just a random "John" sexually assaulting Leontium.

For those interested, here's the Internet Archive link to the Greek Anthology. Joshua 's discovery is #324.

The section the epigram is in is the Planudean Appendix:

Quote

EPIGRAMS OF THE PLANUDEAN ANTHOLOGY NOT IN THE PALATINE MANUSCRIPT The Anthology of Planudes is in seven Books, the contents of which are as follows : I. Declamatory and Descriptive Epigrams ; II. Satirical Epigrams ; III. Sepulchral Epigrams ; IV. Epigrams on monuments, statues, etc. ; V. Christodorus' description of the statues in the gymnasium of the Zeuxippus (= Anth. Pal., Book II.), and a collection of Epigrams from the Hippodrome in Constantinople ; VI. Dedicatory Epigrams ; Vil. Amatory Epigrams. As will be seen, while the other Books contain only a small number of Epigrams not included in the Palatine MS., almost the whole of Book IV. is absent from the latter, and we can only conclude that a Book of the Anthology of Cephalas was missing in the MS. of which the Palatine MS. is a transcript.

It seems the compiler of the appendix was similar to Diogenes Laertius in bringing together disparate sources so it might be impossible to have context. The epigram may have been literally on a pencil found somewhere.

Here's also an interesting post on Leontion from the British Museum.

The poem was new to me!

Excellent work, Joshua !

I was completely ignorant of the poem and you appear to have begun to provide a solid explication.

I listened to the "episode" on my walk this morning to see if I could follow along without the visuals. No problem! Your tone and cadence made it both enjoyable as well easy to follow.

My only suggestions would be:

You do jump right in. A little more context on who Lucretius was at the beginning might help those who are new to the poem and Epicurean philosophy. You do give excellent information as the episode goes on! If you post on a website, did you plan to give an intro to the episode in textual form? I think that might be enough to provide that context I'm talking about.

I am sincerely looking forward to episode 2!!

Just saw this article and seemed relevant here:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a…than-christians

The two parts that stuck out:

Quote

As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

And

Quote

Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.

It made me wonder: What differentiates an "atheist church" from an Epicurean "garden" if the church-goers don't accept any supernatural causes? What do "we" offer as a distinct philosophy to secular "nones"?

I have some ideas but I pose the question for discussion. I also thought our international friends might have thoughts.

Great point, Joshua .

There is power in poetry, its succinct concentrated language.

That also reminds me of our conversations elsewhere on the forum about the prolepsis of "awe" or the "divine".

Solid episode, gentlemen, although Elayne leaves a hole in the conversation. Look forward to hearing her again.

On the modern use of divine metaphors and analogies, I seem to remember Dr. Michio Kaku getting heat for using phrases like " the mind of God" and "Creation." He was obviously using them in poetic ways and not literally but some in the science community asserted you can't talk like that. They said I seem to remember that they think it misleads people. I think a little poetry is fine personally. (cough... Lucretius... cough)