Peter, you might find this essay informative: https://www.academia.edu/36564126/The_P…_the_Epicureans
Posts by Pacatus
Listen to the latest Lucretius Today Podcast! Episode 223 is now available. In this episode, we address Cicero's accusation that Epicureans Are Undergoing the Exertions Of Life for The Equivalent Of A Drop of Honey.
-
-
I have become, lately, more interested in Gaius Cassius Longinus – particularly the relationship between his anti–totalitarian (anti-Caesarian) politics and his Epicurean philosophy. There seems to be some question as to how much his Epicureanism informed (or at least supported) his extreme actions in support of the Republic – as opposed to Julius Caesars’s totalitarian quest.
An analogy that I thought of is Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s implication in the plot to assassinate Hitler (for which he died in a Nazi concentration camp).
Discussion?
+++++++++++++++++++
Do I need to say that I am not affirming political assassination as a moral choice? I am just asking the broader question …
His main biography is here: Gaius Cassius Longinus - Main Biography
-
So, Peter, in this “Epicurean ‘church’” you seem to espouse –
Would those who disagree with any of its tenets/creeds/commandments be told to simply “get in line, or get out?” Would that be a free choice, or come with threats – à la the Catholic Inquisition?
How authoritarian (totalitarian) would the kind of leadership hierarchy you seem to propose be?
Would there be some kind of incentivized informant network to identify heretics?
My eldest son identifies as a (neo-) Stoic: Would I need to shun him? Denounce him?
I have dear friends who identify as (liberal) Christians – do I need to mock/shun/denounce them?
You seem to think that people should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the prescribed “Epicurean” principles. Is that not just another demand for absolute allegiance to an idealism?
And what price personal integrity?
++++++++++++++++
I personally doubt that what would survive under your program (as outlined here) would be “Epicurean” except in name only, since I think that this philosophy is – at core – anti-idealist. And anti-totalitarian.
-
Twentier: If religious feelings (e.g. awe and wonder) and sentiments – and rituals and the like, inherited or your own – bring pleasure, then embrace them. I always liked “high church” services – Episcopalian – with the bells and incense, etc., after a priest friend described it all as “holy fun”. And I can still take pleasure in Gregorian chant. And I can find inspiration and intuitive insight in contemplating various archetypes of the “divine” as representing the highest blessedness and eudaimonia, or as aspects of nature – even if I don’t think they exist in reality (I tend to the “idealist” understanding, but I also maintain a certain agnosticism on the subject), with what I take to be an Epicurean attitude (a strict-atheist psychiatrist that I briefly knew – not as a patient – suggested similar contemplation as usefully therapeutic).
But when I could not believe in, and bind myself to (religare), the “cultic” rules and commands of the church – adherence to received theology and creeds without question, confession of sins for salvation, etc. – then it was time to extricate myself (even if that was painful at the time). I suppose that one might participate in such religious ceremonies as a (secret) Epicurean, but I could not (or at least I would have to eliminate for myself certain contents of the service, and just be quiet).
Having travelled a long way from a darker version of Christianity to a more enlightened, open-minded version to Zen to (briefly) a neo-Stoicism, I find Epicureanism to be a kind of Kuhnian “paradigm shift” in thinking – in many ways, including questions of gods and religion, and religious activity. And I found Joshua‘s point about pietas versus religio in post #25 helpful.
With all that said, I go back to Kalosyni‘s 5 points in post # 16: If they apply to your understanding of religion, then I have no problem (but, again, that seems to reflect a kind of paradigm shift from more conventional understandings of the word).
-
“The trouble may be cleared up by considering the terminology used by these two philosophers.”
Yes – as when the Stoics distinguish between pathe and eupathe, while the Epicureans treat pathe as such: signaling either pleasure or pain/disturbance (physical or mental).
The Epicurean division of aesthesis (sensus), pathe (adfectio) and prolepsis (intuitio) seems just, all round, more clear.
“Philodemus seems to make explicit the connection between affections and self-consciousness, and he identifies affections as ‘sense perceptions of themselves’ (ἑαυτῶν ἐπαισθήσεις, col. XII). This is underscored in col. XV, where Philodemus says that we have a perception of pleasure that is discrete from our perception of the object that produces it. In the same column, Philodemus makes another important claim: that “we also have a perception of (ἐπαισθάνεσθαι) the fact of seeing.”
And (although I could be wrong) I don’t see that “being aware of x” and “being aware that I am aware” and “being aware that I am also aware of the affect that being aware has upon me” necessarily leads to an infinite regression. Except in the most radically abstract application of logic.
-
Zeno was Philodemus' teacher.
-
An Ode on Philodemus and His Loves
Philodemus, how goes your bawdy verse
– on papyrus got from Egyptian trade,
scribed in that seaside villa, sun-awash’d,
at Rome’s lush Herculaneum retreat –
with that green-garth Garden in Athens laid?Did some rousing summer sirocco tease
memories to lyric erotic lays?
Or did you mean passion to celebrate
as natural desire – Venus enflesh’d?~ ~ ~
How did you with young Lysidikē fare?
Were you able to flee her suitors’ fire,
and then to bed – as with Xantho so fair
(honey-voiced muse, sensuously perfumed)
with candle snuffed in Aphrodite’s lair?Charito, still lusty at sixty years,
whose scintillating ambrosia you laud
– with her graceful and voluptuous form,
her robust bosom nor yet cumbered round –
why called you younger lovers to her door?(Had you by then attained a calmer age,
more suited to treatises penned in prose
than pursuing comely Cydilla’s charms,
or Heliodora’s shameless salt tears?)And what of that dark-skinned Philaeniŏn,
whose curly hair your ardor so enthralled?
Or all those Demoses, of whom you claim
– from Paphos, Samos, Naxos, Argos come –
tongue in cheek, are the meaning of your name?Or Lysianassa – five drachmas paid
for twelve hours of amorous, pure delight?
Did you treat her well? Did she, too, enjoy
the raptures you purchased – spare from your purse?(Also Philestion, who would not deign
take a lover who could not bear the price?)Italian-born Flora, inept to sing
Sappho’s opulent melodious odes,
uncultured as she was in urbane ways:
‘twas her body you ribaldly extolled,
likened to an Ethiopian queen.Was Xanthippe, whose deft fingers alight
– and her eyes with invitation aflame –
smoldered your soul as she strummed on her lyre,
your truest love: paramour without wane,
in saffron boudoir wooed with heartfelt troth?~ ~ ~
How might they to Leontion compare:
lost philosopher (courtesan perhaps,
like your own Thermiŏn) so richly-learned,
whose wit and wisdom Epicurus praised?Or Themista Lampascus – little known,
to able Leonteus wed? They both
jealous skeptic Cicero rudely mocked
for refusal to stand lower than men –
as he mocked their mentor, our Garden sage.Do we imagine them more churchly-chaste?
Was the Garden more convent in disguise
– more proprietous to puritan taste –
than friends who mingled freely as they pleased
in happy communion, meting no harm?(Ah, methinks they hewed to that kindly creed:
“Stranger, you are welcome to tarry here,
and would do well – as pleasure is our fare:
a simple table abundantly plied,
and pleasant talk to keep you entertained.”)~ ~ ~
O, none of those ladies let us rebuke!
Nor you, Philodemus, for your desire!
To latter-day judgments let us be loath.
Pleasure is pleasure – of body or mind –
so long as you suffer not, nor cause pain.Philodemus, philosopher refined:
author of the mnemonic fourfold cure
for maladies plaguing the human lot,
who wrote on inference as well as verse,on kings and piety toward the gods,
and of household property taking care
– in philosophy and poetic flair
ever the Garden’s guidings were your rede,lamplight oil burnt in the tablinum late –
while lively loving the women you loved,
as you flourished your threescore years and ten –
no forgiveness needed – to ask nor give.~ ~ ~
So we leave you now, in memory held,
our poet of pleasure fused in the flesh –
and curate of Epicurean lore
for the Romans of Piso’s porticos
before Vesuvius locked them in ash.Ashes to ashes – and in ash preserved,
the rolled scrolls on which you scripted your words:
foundlings for posterity to adopt
as we may, according to our own days.Fare thee well, Philodemus, fare thee well.
Your journey ended – your essence dispersed
into the worldly-weaving universe –
only what has been writ do we retell.Fare thee well, Philodemus, fare thee well.
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
I have tried to name at least most of the women Philodemus wrote about as lovers (in italics, here, by name), in each case alluding to Philodemus’ verses. And there are oblique references and allusions (with some poetic license), with maybe a few pseudo-puns, from his erotic aphoristic poems.
You can read translations of the poems wherein the above-named women occur here: https://www.attalus.org/poetry/philodemus.html. (Also in Nate’s Hedonicon.)
“Venus” – a metaphorical usage, à la the opening lines of Lucretius.
Philestion: She is not included in the attalus.org collection, but is in David Sider’s translations (cited below); there is some disagreement over whether it was Philodemus who wrote of her, or another.
Re Flora: the implication is that she was a rustic Italian, who knew no Greek – as opposed to a cultured Roman. “Ethiopian queen”: Perseus’ queen Andromeda, who was Ethiopian.
Re Leontion as a “lost” philosopher: https://philosophynews.com/leontion-the-l…an-philosopher/
“…friends who mingled freely as they pleased / in happy communion, meting no harm” – This line, as it came, reminded me for some reason of Alice Walker’s novel The Temple of My Familiar (for any who might be – with that work – familiar).
“kindly creed” – from the quote: "Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure. The caretaker of that abode, a kindly host, will be ready for you; he will welcome you with bread, and serve you water also in abundance, with these words: ‘Have you not been well entertained? This garden does not whet your appetite; but quenches it.’" (Said to be the inscription on the Garden gate; recorded by Seneca.)
“essence” – atoms, of course.
+++++++++++++++
Written in a loose (syllabic) blank verse, with a liberal sprinkling of intermittent rhyme and slant rhyme – and a few archaicisms.
Additional reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/294819 “The Love Poetry of Philodemus” by David Sider.
Sider speculates that Xanthippe likely became Philodemus’ wife (or at least his last and monogamous paramour) – and that Xantho might have been a nickname for Xanthippe, rather than another lady (while noting that none of the names might be real, but poetic tropes). He also notes that the “I” of any given poem might not be (or not entirely be) Philodemus himself, but a character-voice the poet created.
Also: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3295958
I have also consulted Sider’s book: The Epigrams of Philodemus: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (Oxford University Press, 1997)
I took the liberty of using Genevra Catalano’s rendering of Philodemus under the title.
+++++++++++++
NOTE: Although Epicurus was criticized for not properly upholding the culture of male privilege, Philodemus seems – at least in his youth – to have taken full advantage, and even celebrated (even if, in his middle years, he settled down to a lifelong love). He is the author of a few poems whose voice is that of a woman addressing her lover.
-
“Women are the only exploited group in history to have been idealized into powerlessness.” Erica Jong
(I never really read her prose – e.g. her novel Fear of Flying – but I have her book of selected poems, Becoming Light, into which I delve for inspiration now and then. “I guess the thing that I'm most proud of is that I kept on writing poetry. I understand that poetry is sort of the source of everything I do. It's the source of my creativity.” Erica Jong)
-
Ah, ever the zealous romantic – I,
painting butterflies on philosophy,
whilst drawing on the Canon redes to keep
sane amidst the raucous insanity,
wonder on love: embrace, and laugh – and weep.+++++++++++++++
“rede” – (archaic) counsel, advice, guide.
-
Epicurean or not, women's lives were circumscribed within the general Greek culture.
Epicurus pushed the edges of such circumscription within the Garden (it seems to me) – and that’s clearly all he could do. But that “that’s all” can serve as an exemplar for when circumstances change – and the Leontion’s and Themistas of our time (and other strong women) can be celebrated.
-
the argument that he was a strong opponent or he forbid it is to me just more evidence of how hostile much of the academic world is to Epicurus
Even among scholars who, for one reason or another, carved out for themselves a niche in Epicurean scholarship. Even if sometimes it's a subconscious bias that creeps in. I hope Sider's work on the actual poems of Philodemus is better!
-
Whilst reading Sider on Philodemus poetry, I came across the following –
Sider (pp. 35-36):
“as both Chilton and Grilli agree, Epicurus does allow his followers to marry, although only in exceptional circumstances. This view is in line with the several other less than absolute strictures of Epicurus listed by Diogenes, including the general prohibition against writing poetry.38
“What these exceptional circumstances are neither Epicurus nor our sources spell out, but we may imagine that much would depend on the character of the woman. Since, moreover, women were welcome into the Garden for their intellectual abilities, these fellow Epicureans would seem to be obvious candidates for wives. Since, furthermore, women were appreciated for their bodies as well as their minds, sex being regarded as a providing a natural, albeit unnecessary, pleasure, sexual passion would not be expected to stop at marriage. …
“A woman who could satisfy both body and mind would make the ideal wife.”
Use of the phrase “allow … although only …” implies that Epicurus’ authority was such that he could also forbid (disallow) his followers from marrying.
++++++++++++++++++
Now the comments in this thread, including Cassius in post #8 and Don translations, indicate that no one here would be in agreement with such authoritarian innuendoes. Nor does Hick’s “Occasionally he may marry …” imply that.
But there seems to be some such authoritarian interpretation out there in the scholarly world.
++++++++++++++++++
I looked up the Chilton article, "Did Epicurus approve of marriage? A study of Diogenes Laertius 10.119" and found it here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181668…an_tab_contents
Chilton proffers the following interpretation: “In general the wise man will not marry but sometimes depending on the circumstances of his life, he will marry” – but then argues that it must be wrong.
Chilton also discusses the question of the wise man “turning away from his purpose,” etc., discussed in this thread above from post #5.
But Chilton does not – unless I missed it – suggest that Epicurus in some authoritarian manner allowed/forbade marriage unless some approved conditions were met.
+++++++++++++++
Chilton is also cited here, “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage and Children” by Tad Brennan: https://www.jstor.org/stable/270440?…an_tab_contents
Brennan says that Epicurus “advised against marriage … but permitted it in exceptional cases.” (p. 348-349) This could be taken as a somewhat weaker position than Sider’s – but seems a bit confusing.
He also says, referring to Epicurus’ will: "These texts, then, show that Epicurus did permit and indeed encourage marriage and child-rearing-not as a rule, but for certain Epicureans, in certain circumstances. And they also indicate what sort of circumstances these were.”
He concludes on marriage: “By and large, Epicurus will advise Epicureans not to marry, but sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, he will advise certain of them to marry.” (p. 350) Advise, not allow/permit/forbid.
All in all, Brennan seems at best sloppy on his use of language.
-
A quote from Sider’s book:
“In addition to the above considerations in the proper assessment of poetry, another important criterion requires that hearing or reading the poem in question provide its audience with pleasure of a correct Epicurean sort. In brief, as Asmis ably demonstrates, Epicurus, despite what later detractors said of him, was willing to accept poetry, although with reservations. In particular, the wise man could be trusted to have the proper attitude, able to listen to the recitation of poetry without succumbing to its Sirenic charms or accepting its claims to do anything more than provide harmless pleasure. Poetry, that is, can be classified in Epicurean terms as a natural but unnecessary pleasure. As such it was allowed a place at the banquets attended by Epicureans, where, at least originally, it was listened to but not subjected to immediate literary criticism, which would detract from the pleasure. … It is thus possible to apply Philodemos' general view of poetry to the epigram in particular, as the performance of epigrams at dinner parties (see above) fits perfectly into our picture of the symposia held in the Epicurean Gardens of Naples and surroundings.”
Joshua and I discussed some of this briefly before at RE: Introduction---Joshua's Notes on "The Good Poem According to Philodemus", by Michael McOsker
Another interesting comment by Sider in a footnote: “Like Aristotle, Philodemus demands ordinary human values. Differently from Aristotle, however, Philodemus clearly distinguishes the ‘thought’ of the poem as a whole, as presented by the poet, from the thought of the characters."
-
Anything significant you think worth discussion about that, please post a new thread - perhaps in the subforum on Philodemus
Will do. I'll keep this thread on topic to Philodemus' poetry.
-
While working on my Philodemus poem, I just stumbled on the book The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary by David Sider. Now I feel the need to read it before continuing. But, in the early pages, he broaches a very interesting topic: that the relationship between various sub-schools of Epicureanism was not all peace and light. Philodemus was loyal to his teacher Zeno of Sidon, and engaged in “much internecine polemic” with the Epicureans of Rhodes (where Philodemus may have also studied for awhile).
-
The esteem of others is outside our control; we must attend instead to healing ourselves.
I really like this rendering. "Improving" is good -- and perhaps better in breadth -- but, for that very reason seems to me (personally!) more abstract.
heal | Search Online Etymology DictionaryThe online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words,…www.etymonline.com -
Epicurean Ode to Philosophy (Prose Poem by Kalosyni)
Prose poetry is not that easy to pull off; Robert Bly did it well. (I’ve tried my hand a time or two – with, at best, mixed results.) This is good. I especially liked: “When the healthy pulse of the body holds the highest truth.” And there is nice alliteration there (as elsewhere in the poem). (Only editorial comment – about which things I myself am very stubborn: you could maybe lose the third “the” – or maybe not: the rhythm holds.) I also like the metaphor of pleasure as “a flower which blooms again and again.”
Anyway, makes me want to try my hand at a prose poem again – when the opportunity presents itself.
-
"I will be obedient to Epicurus, according to whom I have made it my choice to live.”
I actually hate that oath – and any similar oaths. If something does not resonate, there is no reason to cling to it like some immutable creed. (Did that enough times in my erroneous past.) I do not commit myself to the idea that Epicurus must have been right about everything – and so will not “troth” myself to any such oath or vow. Epicurean philosophy (and therapy) does provide a kind of lodestone now for me in guiding my life – richly so. But any “religio” – in terms of binding myself to some creedal requirement – that I reject (again, been there). If it works for you, under your own understanding, that’s great. No judgment on that. Truly.
I also am steeped in the idea of the evolution of language, and such things as metaphorical and analogical usages (as well as the vagaries of translation). (And one of my pleasurable games as a poet is to find and resurrect archaic usages in English from time to time.)
Note: Not only (as I noted earlier in this thread) have I thumbed-up posts on both side of this discussion (including yours), I appreciate your work – especially relevant to here, in the Hedonicon. So any interpretation of what I say here that might imply less than a high personal regard would be just wrong.
-
Homely Fare
I twist the corkscrew to open
a saved bottle of dry Syrah.Our chosen entrees differ: I
opting for a seasoned filet,
you for vegetarian grill –
both from our own galley kitchen,
with fresh vinaigrette salad greens.We celebrate our festive meal,
as always, with a toast: “¡Salud!” –wishing each other well-being
and health – and long life together:
after all these years being near,pleasure is yet homely fare shared.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Homely" is a bit of a pun: it can mean homey and comfortable, or simple and plain, or untidy and unattractive.
-
Kalosyni (from post #16 above, which I already quoted): “2. If you are dealing with very troubling issues, you visit a therapist rather than rely upon Epicurean teachings (and rather than relying on religious rituals or potentially relying on "teachers" who are not therapists).”
I just wanted to add a few comments to this particular point:
Many therapists (if not most) are also teachers; mine (who also later became a friend) was – even as he disclaimed the usage that Kalosyni seems allude to here: he said, “I am not, and will not be, your ‘guru’.” There are, of course, many theories and styles of therapy. My guy was pretty eclectic, rather than dogmatic (in the modern, generally pejorative, sense).
Also, from my experience in 12-Step rooms (which I will not detail): a few were quite religious in nature; the one in which I was most comfortable was not. Many of the people were religious (in a “higher power = god” sense) – but a number were not; and there was no pressure at all. Also, the steps were generally seen (in that room) as suggestions, not rules – and a number of “old-timers” freely said that they drew on them to make their own, personal “program,” taking what was useful and leaving the rest. I still draw upon a 12-Step daily meditation source that is geared toward agnostics and atheists (but without rejection of the more religious).
Finally, I see Epicurean philosophy as a therapeutic source to draw upon for my own ongoing “recovery” (from whatever – in the 12-Step usage of that term).
With that said, I repeat that I found Kalosyini’s points in the above-referenced post to resonate the most to me – in words that I cannot improve upon.