Posts by Don

Here's a book that can be checked out from Internet Archive that could prove interesting:

Paul and Philodemus : adaptability in Epicurean and early Christian psychagogy : Glad, Clarence E : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xiv, 414 pages ; 25 cm

archive.org

παρρησία "Frank speech" isn't a pleasant way of speaking. In many cases, it's uncomfortable and can be biting. It's compared in the text to a doctor administering a remedy that may be painful but necessary. It's often even translated as "frank criticism."

It appears that Philodemus's "On Frank Speech" is based in large part on his notes of lectures given by his teacher Zeno of Sidon

Zeno of Sidon - Wikipedia

If that's the case, this practice or method of instruction would have been widespread.

For my part, I think we have to consider any Epicurean texts from ancient Greece or Rome as early extant texts, with the caveat to understand how much is reconstructed from fragments and how much still appears as full paragraphs and pages. One thing that looking at the manuscripts has shown me is that even Diogenes Laertius and Lucretius have issues and questions when it comes to their texts. We have so few texts widely available that when we find translations of On Nature or Philodemus, we need to mine them for all they're worth. We have lost so much.

I see the practice of frank speech in the Garden as a natural outgrowth of wanting one's friends and students to stay on the path. The Garden provided opportunities for much more social interaction and one on one time than we will most likely ever have. I don't think we should think of frank speech between teacher and student as "confession," which perverts the notion of correction and instruction to a means of punishment and shame. It strikes me that the Garden provided an environment where the student genuinely wanted to follow the path of Epicurus, and the teacher genuinely wanted to help the student. Some students may have been more amenable to this correction than others, but that didn't stop the teacher from administering the medicine.

See also

Parrhesia in Cassius Dio [in C.H. Lange and J.M. Madsen (eds), Cassius Dio – Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician (Brill's Historiography of Rome and its empire Series 1), 2016]

http://www.brill.com/products/book/cassius-dio

www.academia.edu

Thoreau, Parrhesia, and the Socratic Tradition of Philosophy

Most objections against Henry Thoreau aim at his "unfriendly" provocations. In this article, I argue that we need to situate his exhortative style in…

www.academia.edu

Abstract Most objections against Henry Thoreau aim at his “unfriendly” provocations. In this article, I argue that we need to situate his exhortative style in the context of practicing parrhesia or the bold expression of truth in the Socratic tradition of philosophy. Philosophical parrhesia can be defined as the practice of speaking the truth with an eye to bringing home the realization that one must change one’s life. The transformation Thoreau has in mind is hinged upon acquiring the practical knowledge of cultivating the senses through what he calls “excursion.” This, I argue, is his key contribution to the said tradition.

btw here's the LSJ entry for parrhesia "frank speech"

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, παρρησί-α

"outspokenness, frankness, freedom of speech, claimed by the Athenians as their privilege"

So, frank speech was not something unique to the Epicurean school, but they definitely seem to have raised it to an integral part of their instruction.

As you'll see there are a number of citations in that definition entry to other authors, including:

Euripides, Hippolytus

they may live in glorious Athens as free men, *free of speech* (παρρησίᾳ) and flourishing, enjoying good repute where their mother is concerned.

Euripides, Bacchae

I wish to hear whether I should tell you in *free speech* the situation there or whether I should repress my report,..

Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae

Have we not the right to speak frankly at this gathering?

Plato, Republic

“It is plain,” he said. “To begin with, are they not free? and is not the city chock-full of liberty and freedom of speech? and has not every man licence1 to do as he likes?”

Demosthenes, Philippic 2

I vow that I will *boldly tell you the whole truth* and keep nothing back.

Quote from Cassius

I don't see much deviation in Philodemus - as to "frank criticism" I see that as largely common sense and totally consistent with Epicurus' emphasis on clarity and honesty.

Agreed. On Frank Speech is an interesting read.

Quote from Godfrey

Don I just have to ask if there's any particular meaning to the name Surupice

Read it backwards LOL!! I misspelled it...

Epicurus!!

Surucipe!!

I had forgotten about this Sedley paper:

Epicurus and the mathematicians of Cyzicus

Epicurus and the mathematicians of Cyzicus

www.academia.edu

It provides some tantalizing facts about Pythocles but also how the philosophical schools interacted with each other.

Philodemus's On Frank Speech περί παρρησία is mentioned on p.46 but the biographical info on Polyaenus and Pythocles is fascinating!

Ex.

Fr. 49: ...that Heraclides is [praised] because, deeming the censures for the things that would be revealed to be less {important} than their benefit, he disclosed to Epicurus his errors. Polyaenus too was such a man, who indeed,

when A[polloni]des was remiss, [would go] to Epicurus...

Fr. 55: ...and they (present] for frank criticism what concerns themselves in the presence of the students, to be put before Epicurus and for the sake of correction.

Quote from Kalosyni

Is it not true that we have no evidence of what was happening in the original Garden regarding special consultation or counseling?

Philodemus quotes Epicurus as well as uses specific examples of interactions in the Garden with Epicurus, Metrodorus, Leontion, Pythocles, etc. to illustrate the practice of parrhesia, frank speech. I see no reason to think Philodemus didn't know about the practice firsthand since he trained in the Garden in Athens before coming to Herculaneum.

A big part of classical Epicurean practice in the original Garden through the time of Philodemus and beyond to even Oenoanda appears to be the one on one consultation or counseling between student and teacher to correct mistaken views and actions. Philodemus outlines this practice and its implementation and importance in On Frank Speech. That is a major component that is lost in our current moment, not to say that we don't help each other hone our understanding, but there are no teachers with authority per se.

Some quotes from On Frank Speech:

Even if we demonstrate logically that, although many fine things result from friendship, there is nothing so grand as having one to whom one will say what is in one's heart and who will listen when one speaks. For our nature strongly desires to reveal to some people what it thinks.

Fr. 40: ...for it is necesssary to show him his errors forthrightly and speak

of his failings publicly. For if he has considered this man to be the one guide

of right speech and [action], whom he calls the only savior, and {to whom},

citing the phrase, "with him accompanying {me},"

he has given himself over

to be treated, then how is he not going to show to him those things in which he

needs treatment, and [accept admonishment]?

Fr. 45: ...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and

when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become

eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey

Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live, as even..

And so on.

Quote from Cassius

Of course this invites the question, "Then why does it exist in our world?"

The vicissitudes and randomness of cultural evolution.

Surupice's world would no doubt have some weird ways of thinking that would make us scratch our heads... But don't scratch using your tail because according to Nomromism the tail is an outward sign of purity and must be tied in a knot and tucked in your hat... Or some other bs like that.

Not having read Wright, that quote above is very helpful! I'm obviously biased, but the character seems to have a point, especially in relation to Epicurus's philosophy.

Epicurus's whole point was to get rid of the indoctrination imposed by society and culture and reveal and practice the faculties provided by nature, use pleasure and pain as guides to living. Rejection of that indoctrination could conceivably occur naturally.

I've liked Ricky Gervais' take on science vs religion on Stephen Colbert (fast forward video to 3:40)

Again, I may be biased, but I could see something like Epicurus's philosophical path be recreated after everything was destroyed because in many ways he's relying on biology, psychology, physics, cosmology, etc (at least at the understanding he could have in 3rd c BCE Greece) to build the path he offered. I could see an alien Epicurus coming up with a similar path light years away, let's call them Surucipe. All biological organisms will have to experience pleasure and pain to exist. That's the first building block of the philosophy. Some details of Surucipeanism would differ from Epicureanism but they could still posit atoms, see the value in pleasure (what Surupice calls positive affect), etc. I sincerely doubt anything resembling Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would exist in Surupice's world, maybe some form of Buddhism with its concentration on consciousness and awareness (not the Tibetan variety but a basic early form). But this is the kind of thought experiment I can get behind

Great episode. I really like the readings of the text interspersed with the discussion. That helps to keep things on track and keeps the text close to the commentary. Nicely done.

Some thoughts and additional resources:

For those who have the fortune to have NOT seen the bumper sticker that Joshua was talking about in the episode:

The discussion of death has prompted me to share some resources on the "death positive" movement - started in the 1970s - that tries to bring conversations about death and dying to wider audience:

Death Positive Movement | The Order of the Good Death

Building a meaningful, eco-friendly, and equitable end of life.

www.orderofthegooddeath.com

(also has a page of resources)

https://caitlindoughty.com/

(one of the well-known authors, speakers, and YouTube personalities of the movement)

A Lively Party Game to Share Stories and Beliefs About Death

The Death Deck is a new party game that lets you tap into stories and ideas you’ve never heard your friends and family share before about life and death!

thedeathdeck.com

(a way to engage conversations about the topic)

Great conversation at the end about the necessity of philosophy!

Quote from Kalosyni

Is philosophy the love of knowledge or is it the love of wisdom?

This is a great question. Technically and etymologically, philosophy is literally "the love of wisdom" > philia + sophia

φιλία philia "affectionate regard, friendship"

σοφία sophia

• skill or cleverness in carpentry, music, or other crafts
• skill related to everyday life: sound judgment, prudence
• knowledge of a higher kind: learning, wisdom

So, technically, philosophy is having an affectionate regard, a friendship if you will, with wisdom in the sense of having sound judgement, and putting that 'wisdom' into practical use in being skilled in living.

I think I agree, in part, with both Joshua and Kalosyni . I do think people can be happy, or at least feel happy, without "studying philosophy." And I can see Joshua's hesitancy in trying to tell people they're not *really* happy, they just think they are. They *really* need XYZ to be *really* happy; otherwise, they're fooling themselves. That does seem condescending. I know better than you, so to speak.

However...

I think a lot of people don't even think about if they're happy or not if you would ask them the question "Are you happy?" "Sure, I'm happy." If you start asking them questions (IF they are amenable to questions being asked!), they might find that they have subconscious biases, fears, anxieties, etc., that are curtailing their potential happiness. I think there could be degrees of being conscious of one's happiness.

That's what the study of "a philosophy" (not just "philosophy") can provide: A framework within which to study one's preconceptions, to thing about big questions, to find ways of questioning or to find some answers.

I think people can become fondly acquainted with practical wisdom on their own and be happy... up to a point. And maybe that point works for them. I don't think we can second-guess people if they say they are feeling happy or content... But I also don't think we have to take people's verbal assurance at face value. Sometimes we have to ask, "Are you trying to convince me or yourself that you're happy?"

Quote from Kalosyni

can we say that the goal in ancient times was to discover the best way to live a good life?

(And in comparison, that there are other goals in modern philosophy).

It seems to be that philosophical schools in ancient Greece worked a little like churches do nowadays. Schools had definite paths to follow, they "fought" with rival schools for "converts," you could "convert" from being a Stoic to being an Epicurean, and so on. Each thought they taught the best way to live and actively promulgated their doctrines ...believing that they had the best way to live!

Modern philosophy as an academic discipline is far removed from this mode, although more and more academics and practitioners are trying to get back to that old Greek way of thinking about philosophical paths... present company included!

Quote from Cassius

What's generally wrong with Oracles?

My take was that oracles are often misunderstood by people because of their cryptic pronouncements.

"If you go to war, a great empire will fall" (Oh, it's my empire and not my enemy)

"Rely on your wooden walls!" (Oh, the Oracle means to rely on our ships!)

"Socrates is the wisest!"

I take it that Epicurus called it like he saw it but was often misunderstood by the hoi polloi. But he didn't worry about that but tried to be as frank as possible: Death is nothing to us! Oh he can't mean that there's no life after death. We don't like that.

Alternative translations:

Epicurus - Vatican Sayings

29. To speak frankly as I study nature I would prefer to speak in oracles that which is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise that comes from the many.

Epicurus.info : E-Texts : The Vatican Sayings

29) To be frank, I would prefer as I study nature to speak in revelations about what is of advantage to all men even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the scattered praise that is broadcast by the many.

Vatican Saying 29 - Epicurus Wiki

Analysis

A laud to frankness, the cardinal Epicurean virtue of parrhesia: it is best to speak of natural matters frankly (i.e. in a manner that is void of any superstition) than to cater to popular beliefs, however false those might be, in order to garner the applause that the multitudes are so ready to confer upon anyone who agrees with their prejudices.

The paradoxical argument is that this, rather anti-populist position the true philosopher ought to assume, ultimately is the one that is indeed beneficial to all people. It is better to speak in a manner that seems "oracular" and might not be understood by many, rather than to take the facile approach of consenting to all sorts of popular misconceptions.

Greek text:

παρρησίᾳ γὰρ ἔγωγε χρώμενος φυσιολογῶν χρησμῳδεῖν τὰ συμφέροντα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις μᾶλλον ἄν βουλοίμην, κἂν μηδεὶς μέλλῃ συνήσειν, ἢ συγκατατιθέμενος ταῖς δόξαις καρποῦσθαι τὸν πυκνὸν παραπίπτοντα παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἔπαινον.

FYI: χρησμῳδεῖν =

A.deliver oracles, prophesy, Hdt.7.6, Ar.Eq.818 (anap.), Pl.Cra.396d; τι X.Ap.30; τισι Pl.Ap.39c; “τὰ συμφέροντα” Epicur. Sent.Vat.29; “χ. ἐμμέτρως” Plu.2.623c:—Pass., “κεχρησμῳδήσθω” Pl.Lg.712a; “τὰ κεχρησμῳδημένα” Id.Ep.323c.

II. Pass., to be inspired, receive a divine revelation, Ph.2.384.

When Epicurus says he would prefer to speak in an oracular fashion and frankly ( VS29 uses παρρησίᾳ parrhesia "Frank speech") is he talking about the cryptic way in which oracles spoke? He prefers to convey his teaching on nature as he sees fit even if some don't understand and he doesn't "reap the showers of praise"?

Wasn't Epicurus's mother a purveyor of charms and oracles?

Here's Saint-Andre's note for VS28

Quote

[28] I have translated τοὺς προχείρους ("those who are ready", here in the sense of "over-ready") as "those who grasp after" because χείρ is the word for hand. There is also a play on words in the second clause, where χάρις (grace, fortune, pleasure) is used in the sense of "delight" and in the sense of "for the sake of"; to preserve the pun, I have translated both instances using the word "pleasure". I take the meaning as related to an idea from Principal Doctrine #8: we must pay for the long-term pleasures of friendship by venturing the possibility of some short-term pain ("risking some pleasure"); see also Letter to Menoikos, Section 129 and Vatican Saying #73. This is enlightened hedonism at its most social, if you will.

I wanted to add that I am coming to really like Lucretius's vessel metaphor.

The image of cleaning and repairing the vessel as a metaphor for learning and internalizing the teachings of Epicurus with the resulting clean pot filled with clean liquid symbolizing the calm waters of ataraxia shows that ataraxia is not a sudden epiphany. It takes work to achieve and maybe even maintain.

My only suggestion would be that vase 1 in the graphic needs some slime, muck, mud, or just nasty things clinging to the rim and sides and sliding into the liquid (pleasure), contaminating it.