Posts by DaveT

Quote from Cassius

I interpret that as being on he same page with most everyone. Since you Dave are one of our most recent additions, I'd be particularly interested in what you get out of the article if you get a chance to read it.

I had already begun the article before commenting earlier. However I decided it wasn't worth my brain buster skills to follow along and I stopped without finishing it. If I was asked by Emily Austin what I thought about it, I'd ask her in turn, why she bothered to address that issue and publish it. (The same could be asked of her interlocutors)

If I knew her and could be frank, I'd say it was not exactly sophistry in the negative connotation, though it was an argument for the sake of argument in order to prove an opinion. Could there be a nugget later on that made it useful to me? Perhaps, but overall the paper didn't make me care enough to find out.

Perhaps reminding ourselves that Epicureans believe he meant what he said, and he said what he meant. Fear of Death is definite. If he didn't say fear of dying, then he didn't mean to infer it within the concept of fear of Death. Sometimes I think academics who are subject to publish or perish search for distinctions between themselves and others academics so they have something to write about. Sure, I'm not as knowledgeable as the experts, but I try to remind myself to "Keep it simple, sugar!"

I'll have to miss the Zoom this Sunday.

During this week, I was thinking this paragraph by paragraph review of De Rerum Natura has been and promises to be rewarding, while it has illustrated some possible inconsistencies in the surviving original Epicurean writings.

Do you think it might be helpful to us, to compare the reviewed paragraphs of Lucretius' poetry each week against specific Principal Doctrines, Letters, and some of the Vatican Sayings? It might illuminate where Lucretius is being interpretive or appears to be inconsistent with what we believe are actually Epicurus' thoughts and writings.

Admin Note: This thread was split off from an earlier thread regarding the Role of Reason vs the Senses.

Quote from Don

These practices seem well-attested by the author of On Piety (it could have been Phaedrus or Philodemus, but now traditionally attributed to the latter) but they seem at odds with Lucretius in his scorn for religious practices in book V: 1198-1203: "It is no piety to show oneself / Bowing with veiled head towards a stone, Nor to be seen frequenting every altar, Nor to fall prostrate on the ground, with palms outspread ..." It seems Epicurus himself would have done these and encouraged his school to do so. I'm certain Epicurus ascribed different motivations for bowing, sacrificing, etc than would the hoi polloi but he seems to have taken part in all that.

So, clarify for me, please. Am I correct that neither author above was a true fan of Epicurus? If yes, then Lucretius is more correct? Or is Lucretius off base attributing to Epicurus, and imploring the reader toward either agnosticism or atheism?

Cassius It looks good. Please indicate how I would get to that page from the home page.

Here's an interesting recent paper out of Germany on three different levels or degrees of consciousness in humans and some animals. The discussion deals with some Epicurean concepts as it posits the physical capabilities of consciousness that humans have developed by the process of evolution. As for the ability of humans to replicate and transfer the consciousness of one person to another being, I have to chuckle. Respectfully, aside from the use of vast computing power that virtually no one will be able to use even if it became possible, the hubris of those who create such a capability is laughable. What does it matter anyway to the universe? Are we, flesh and blood and all the components of living humans so important to a universe destined to swallow itself one way or another? I think not. The sooner we accept that death means nothing to us, the more satisfying everyone's life will be, as limited at it is.

Here's the link to the study:

Examining why some species developed consciousness while others remained non-conscious

What is the evolutionary advantage of our consciousness? And what can we learn about this from observing birds? Researchers at Ruhr University Bochum published…

phys.org

My advice to anyone enduring extended suffering mentally, or experiencing ongoing significant physical pain is to share it. By this I mean, tell someone you love or trust about your situation. For those of us who have the means in WEIRD societies (western educated industrialized rich and democratic) or who have state provided care, "get professional help" can ease the burden sometimes. But for them, and most of the rest of the world; loved ones and trusted ones may help too, in the absence of professional care.

For me, the realistic goal is to experience living with more contentment (read as pleasure by the Epicurean) than pain/suffering. To try to attain the former permanently, or to banish the latter completely is unrealistic, perhaps a further cause of suffering, yet completely Epicurean, when you think about it.

How one might do it for themselves, during self talk, is a more individualized task, and if one technique works for a while, and then doesn't, my advice is keep exploring alternatives until you improve and can enjoy life better.

Cassius I appreciate your effort to provide citations that you hope will clarify my understanding of the doctrines. But on this topic of pain/pleasure in the Tetrapharmakon, they are not persuasive. Since I've survived more than 3/4 of a century, my past experiences tell me that generalized doctrines expressed in the language of absolutes don't always hold up as universal truths.

I know personally, and have seen innumerable times that the following assertion is not true. "4) pain when lasting is usually slight," it is not usually slight. Sometimes it is, but not usually.

And further, the quote that [pain] "when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity,..." Again, sometimes, but as a premise to further doctrinal beliefs, it can't believably be stated as a universal truth.

And, I have to say that the earlier quote that when pain is oppressive: "4) he does not hesitate to depart from life, if that would better his condition." Really? Being dead betters one's condition? Sure, it stops the pain, but you're dead!

I don't object to a person making a rational, competent decision to end their life, even absent pain or suffering. However, those quoted thoughts, as a proof that there is a good alternative for one pursuing happiness if their severe pain lasts beyond a short time and it is "oppressive", seems to me to be a superficial and dismissive attitude by those speakers. This, I think, is especially so to someone who tries to bear chronic pain, or to cope with ongoing knowledge that their unstoppable progressive disease is making them less and less able to live like they used to live, someone who tries to find some modicum of daily joy, but doesn't want to call it quits. That suffering person, seems to me to be far more common than someone who is willing to take the needle and end it all. So, Epicureans must speak to this person, too, rather than offering them the choice to commit suicide if you are struggling to find pleasure.

Does this appear to be disdainful of the entire tetrapharmikos? Perhaps to some, but not to me.

@Eikadistes Thank you for taking the time to address my questions in detail.

Quote from Don

I'm not sure what you mean by "hard to measure."

I was thinking it is hard to restrain yourself, the temptation is always "just a little bit more"

Quote from Don

Again, I don't think a stereotypical Epicurean is going to cheat on their taxes or lie for lying's sake because the Epicurean is going to have that nagging doubt about getting caught.

Here, respectfully, perhaps we are both so deep in our opinions neither can offer a generalized proof. I only speak from my experience, and aside from major antisocial actions that overwhelmingly will be discovered immediately, or sooner or later, the fear of being caught is by and large written off as "who will know?" And those kinds of secretive actions, are ones that are pervasive, and corrosive on an interpersonal or communal level. After all, the major Abrahamic religions to my knowledge rely on an all seeing god, who never misses a thing you think or do to enforce societal norms punishable in eternity. And even then, people cheat, or lie when they judge that the consequences to them outweigh the negative effects on other individuals, family, or community.

A true Epicurean to me is a worthy idea to try to emulate, but even one such as they (a rarity in a real world) must sometimes make zero sum decisions where there are "winners" and "losers".

Don For me, as I learn more about Epicureanism, I identify with most of the tetrapharmikos.

There is nothing to fear from gods or natural phenomenon, yes.

There is no afterlife of which to be suspicious, yes.

And Pleasure is easy to obtain, yes, but it's hard to measure.

while Pain can be easily endured, no, I'm not willing to acknowledge that this is a universal truth.

With respect, your reference to PD 31 doesn't address my question. It says: "The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage, to restrain men from harming one another, and save them from being harmed." So, for example: Divorce may be a good for each party, yet it just as easily can be a disaster for the other one. That is either an intended or unintended consequence.

Furthermore when looking at the communal impact of an individual pursuing pleasure/good, "justice" in PD31 doesn't address the small things in life that impact us and others, sometimes in a big way. The agreed upon "crimes", PD 31 applies. Kill and you go to jail. But cheat, or lie in mostly undetectable ways, say on income tax returns, and Epicureanism seems to fail the reality test of bad communal consequences of those seeking the pleasure of more after tax income (justified because the rich get away with it all the time). If enough people do the small stuff that society can't touch or punish, you have everyone out for themselves in one way or another. Could it be that a weakness in Epicurus' teaching is that it can't apply to any community larger than the Garden?

@Eikadistes Yes, thank you. I understand your reply, but can you address my use of the Internet description of divine simulacra:

Quote from DaveT

"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs."

And then can you address my question earlier, if divine simulacra stream from those "quasi-bodies" of the gods (in the quote above) does Epicurus consider that the simulacra comes from the gods.?

And if Epicurus does consider it so, if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?

Cassius Thank you for the deep dive above. I read all of the selections until Cicero, when I got tired and skimmed his take.

My take away from the selections is kind of like: Epicurus: What's good for me is good and what's bad for me is bad with proportions of each depending on prudence. And if everyone does it that way; "what a wonderful world it would be." (to borrow a phrase from a popular tune.)

While contrarily, Cicero is saying: Sure, I get that, sort of; but let's get real here. Everyone in the world can't be allowed to judge on their own, we'll have chaos. We need clear standards of right and wrong.

And then, I start to remember that when we do act for our own good, whether judged by pleasure, or by adhering to Virtues, there sometimes are unintended bad or evil consequences for others. And that leaves me wondering how to reconcile both Stoic and Epicurean real world consequences of individual as well as communal actions.

Quote from Patrikios

I am better able to understand what the 'divine simulacra' are implanting in my mind.

This made me wonder both what it is, and where it comes from in Epicurus' worldview. and then this next sentence:

Quote from Patrikios

The text in this chapter makes clear that our knowledge of Epicurean gods comes through prolepsis—a criterion of truth formed by repeated perceptions of divine simulacra striking our minds.

made me wonder if the author you reference, or Epicurus himself, defined a simulacra the same way as the following definition I quickly scooped from the Internet:

"Ancient Philosophy (Epicureanism): In Epicurean philosophy, "divine simulacra" (or eidola) were believed to be fine atomic emanations that constantly stream from the "quasi-bodies" of the gods and strike human perception. Perceiving these simulacra was a way for humans to form a concept (prolepsis) of the gods, who were seen as models of perfect happiness and imperturbability, but who did not actively intervene in human affairs.
Platonic Philosophy: The term "simulacrum" (from the Latin simulacrum, meaning "likeness, semblance") originates in Platonic philosophy, where it meant a copy of a copy of an ideal Form, often considered an inferior representation."

I left the Plato reference in there because it seemed to clarify the term a bit for me, but focusing on the definition from the Internet on Epicureanism, I'm wondering if his philosophy considers that the simulacra comes from the gods. And then if the gods are indeed influencing mankind's actions in a passive sort of way, isn't this opposite from being indifferent, as I thought Epicurus declared?

@Eikadistes After following the thread here, I'm concluding that you have two minds on the message attributed to Velleius by Cicero.

Is it fair to say that the practical follower of Epicurus may take delight in the lampooning of Velleius' targets?

And is it fair to say that the academic who teaches and /or writes on the contested philosophies should footnote Cicero's possibly fictive discourse by Velleius as suspicious and motivated by antagonism?

And if I'm concluding fairly on the academic's suspicious view, why ought the message be suspect? Where does that take the student? Should they not simply rely on the meaning of the words used to decide on the value of the message.

I finished listening just now. I enjoyed this audio and found it easily understandable, especially with the subtitles.

My first reaction to Cicero's style while writing as Vellius, was that he could have been a writer for the late American comedian George Carlin. Real biting logic and cynical style of humor to make his points. I was intrigued on several practical points as I listened, so, to our Epicurean friends, can you answer some history questions for me?

• How could Cicero know so much detail of the views of so many Greek thinkers on the divinities he referred to in this narrative?
  • Were these views in kept in writings widely owned by people like Cicero?

  • If he wrote this in the last two years of his life, how did he have time to collect and actually study those others, and then write so specifically and style-wise authoritatively?

    • Where might he have found the time to compile his notes, too?
      • Or was he not so conversant about the others, and rather was he willing to exaggerate their views to make his argumentnative points while speaking as Vellius?

    
    

Don Your comment is fair on the weakness of the statement "the goal of life is life while you have it" Perhaps a deeper dive like: The greatest good, is to live out your life as Nature intends. sits a little better? Not that anyone should interpret Epicurus in that fashion, but it does resonate better with me.

Cassius And perhaps clarifying my reference to Brian Greene: it was for his view that he doesn't worry about an afterlife, knowing that he is fulfilling Nature's laws that upon death, he will return to the stuff of the stars, the stuff he is made of while living. Not that he is an Epicurean, but that his sentiment on Nature is Epicurean.

Thinking about this further, I believe Epicurus’ focus on understanding nature as the foundation for his belief system is parallel to the modern focus of science. And this includes physics, which wants to understand and apply natural laws. To paraphrase physicist Brian Greene’s statement: he is content to know that he is composed of particles of matter formed by natural processes from star formation. Since matter can only be converted to energy and vice versa, his atoms exist forever. Can’t be more Epicurean than that!

This seems to me to fit into the parallel concept I’m examining. Within the lifetime greatest goal of focusing on nurturing your life, there exists the means to that goal. The means are by increasing/decreasing pleasure and pain. The two are related to each other, like matter and energy; one can be converted to the other, but neither can be escaped from or done away with.

Life as the goal does not suffer from the truly rare exceptions of giving up one’s life for a friend or to avoid pain by suicide. Rather, it gains with the understanding of the means of nurturing life with pleasure that is totally within your personal control.

But back to explaining Epicureanism and focusing on a belief that life is the greatest good. That it can be a better conceptual declaration of what is the goal of life for the modern Western mind might bear out. (Again, only as a preliminary statement to anyone inquiring about it.)

Perhaps the above introduction should be accompanied with an explanation of the Epicurean awareness that when you are dead, you’re dead, which clarify the discussion to the goal of life is life while you have it.

And then, perhaps Epicurus’ observations in his Ethics might become less abstract, and clearer when expressed as: So enjoy your pleasurable thoughts and your well considered pleasurable activities. Your life deserves the best you can offer it.

Don  Patrikios Well, what troubles me, is that quoting Epicurus, and his followers leaves the modern sensitivities at the mercy of modern language. For example: my point is that deep explanation of the word pleasure is a turn off to the newly exposed person. To have to point to Epicurus saying "we do not say" is taking up the language connotations of the "opposition" unnecessarily. The prevailing undercurrent of meaning, shamefulness, is fighting on the other side's home turf as it were. I like better Patrikios personal approach than the rote explanations for what Epicurean pleasure means and doesn't mean. And to repeat my intention in my earlier post; thinking that Epicurus celebrated life as a goal, per DeWitt, is the more satisfying explanation. As I was saying, my approach is not for the purpose of evangelizing this philosophy to the masses, it is for an alternate approach to answering the new inquirer's question of what's it all about, and explaining my own attraction, in casual conversation with friends, about of some of Epicurus's ethics that I try to adopt in my own life.

@Eikadistes Thank you for taking the time to respond to the above questions. I think your explanations were instructive to me and also they solidified my instincts. Additionally, (and however) I think the point of this thread is not explaining Epicurus to the masses.

Quote from Eikadistes

He also says, "Never did I reach to please the masses, for truly what pleases them, I did not understand, but what I understood was far away from their perception" (Usener 187).

On the contrary, the focus at least for me, is to address the newcomer to EpicureanFriends, as well as when I'm explaining my beliefs to a friend in casual conversation.

The Pleasure/Pain focus, rather than the absolute truth of his belief, is not the most pressing issue for the modern day understanding of Epicurus’ brilliant analytic methods. And I thought when@Cassius was asking for feedback at the Zoom meeting for ways to give clear and concise explanations of Epicureanism to newcomers, it was an important topic.

I think understanding of Pleasure/Pain motivations for living happily should depend less on a reliance on defining Pleasure over and over with one caveat after another and which every reader may interpret in their own way depending on their life experiences and depend more on the overall truth Epicurus discovered.

De Witt, in Philosophy for the Millions, says: “In spite of this teaching it was not the doctrine of Epicurus that pleasure was the greatest good. To his thinking the greatest good was life itself. (Italics added) This was a logical deduction from the denial of immortality. Without the afterlife this present life becomes the concentration of all values...."

My guesstimate is that the newcomer to Epicureanism is seeking clarity of purpose. And therefore they may be best served by a response focused on an overall belief that the “greatest good” is “life itself”. Phrased that way, that avoiding suffering and finding happiness are the tools to the greatest good, seems a far better approach to me.

Final note: When you want to win an argument with detractors, and we understand there have been over two thousand years of detractors who (still) have won over the western world culture, you don't repeat the very word they demean when you respond to attack. The ingrained inference that pursuing pleasure is shameful in a world where sacrifice to attain the next life is simply too strong a current to swim against by giving deeper and deeper explanations of the meaning of the word. Sometimes you need to cede the battle of "well pleasure does not mean...." and move on to building a better understanding of Epicureanism with alternate words like Life Itself is the Greatest Good.