Posts by DaveT

I also am not well versed in ancient Greek culture. I tend to think the "eternal" Virtues of the ancient Greeks were the product of Socrates, Plato, and the other schools envisioned as eternal forms to guide public life and social structure. The focus on their Virtues would result in a social structure with guard rails designed to preserve what they believed was the unique status of being Greek.

On the other side of it, I tend to think of Epicurus, who preferred to avoid being a public or political person who thought more of virtue as subjective tools designed to improve the individual. Designed to perfect the individual's goal of happiness, rather than perfecting the social welfare of the city states and their colonies.

Am I close on this perspective or missing the mark by a mile?

Quote from Patrikios

Could you provide your definitions for these terms, or is there an Epicurean text that groups these 4 virtues as essential?

I googled ancient Greek Virtues and came away with those four. The search also identified Prudence as a subset of Wisdom. My personal definitions of those Greek’s Virtues? I’m not sure, but I’ll take a shot at it. Wisdom includes making choices based on what we’ve learned from experience to achieve our goals. Courage: the ability to apply what you’ve learned to achieve your goals even though the choice involves a hardship for yourself or those you act on behalf of. Temperence, I’m not clear how it differs from the first two. Perhaps it means the same as Prudence. And Justice, a recognition of the limits of your community’s rules on public behavior and behaving with those rules in mind.

So, Virtues are tools to achieve our goals. They are subject to individual interpretation. And if the way we think and interpret what our senses inform us about the world is shaped by nature and nurture, the process is subjective yet bounded by culture and upbringing, and our biology.

I can easily agree with the statement by@Godfrey that you quoted. Each of us undoubtedly can add virtues we can aspire to. For instance, I would add Kindness, and Empathy.

My own research on the peer reviewed research on the mythology of a historical Jesus, in addition to the questions of the accuracy of translations, I'm not even clear whether Thomas existed as a historical person.

Indeed, the line of thought that the Jesus narrative of the early Christian narrative copies so many concepts of various regional religions, I would not be surprised that the early Greek and Roman Christians took Epicurus into account before they settled on an agreeable account narrative of Jesus up to and at the Council of Nicea and continuing for the millennia that followed.

Quote from Joshua

That one is a fun read, I definitely recommend it!

Yes, I read it!

Joshua Thanks for your thoughtful post above. Your last line leads me to another question:

Quote from Joshua

Whatever else he was, Lucian offers an indispensable view into the Epicureanism of Asia Minor in the second century.

Do you mean Lucian's view as elsewhere stated? Because I was taking the thrust of his position as you stated to be applicable to Epicurus' school as well as other ones.

OK. I listened and read along for about half of the text intending to do so to the end. Then I couldn't put up with the verbal dialogue's pace and instead skimmed the rest of it by reading mostly Lycinus' commentary. I need some help here. I can't draw a firm conclusion of the value of the dialogue. Please give me a reason why this is helpful to a person, or put another way, what the author intended to say in far fewer words than he used.

Cassius Yes, as I am not familiar with his school, and I'd be interested in determining the extent of his influence on Epicurus' school, particularly since the Cyreniac school disappeared around the time period Epicurureanism was introduced and began to flourish

Quote from Kalosyni

people do not face the mental stresses and agitation that that kind of competition can bring on.

Quote from Kalosyni

[PD 21]"He who has learned the limits of life knows that that which removes the pain due to want, and makes the whole of life complete, is easy to obtain, so that there is no need of actions which involve competition."

The PD 21 speaks to me somewhat. As a small-town lawyer and then a writer and author, I understand you weren’t excluding any professions when you cited stockbrokers, etc. etc. as being the only ones subject to competition. I can add that in my Bar Association, there was an intense level of competition from the highest to the lowest for clients, fame, and community admiration. And in publishing, the competition among writers is a constant source of stress while trying to find a publisher and an audience.

And although I have no data to back me up, I think the population of the USA is acculturated to capitalism’s competition. And we are subject to the pressure of “keeping up with the Joneses” by measuring ourselves against the apparent material attainments of friends and neighbors, as well as depictions in advertising in the media. We can reduce stress to a degree by having the wisdom to understand necessary/unnecessary, natural/unnatural desires and their limitations to attain pleasure/happiness. But there are limits, stress causing limits on what we can actually do about it.

Unfortunately, given modern life, we can’t survive unless we compete for necessary things like jobs, better wages, more customers, which allow us to have decent food, clean water, secure housing and healthcare for ourselves and our aged family members.

I don’t see how we have a choice to reduce that competition given the economics of modern life. This is not to belittle the wisdom of PD 21 as applied to the ancient Greeks, but perhaps it was easier for them to make the “whole of life complete” than it is for all the people who work for a living to attain the same ends. Perhaps the family structure of Athens was also a factor, but I do not know how it compared to our modern world.

Quote from Kalosyni

Perfectionism and black-and-white thinking (and other problems).

This quote from your post refers to Platonism/Aristotelianism. Indeed so! And can we agree though, that on some occasions we benefit from the black and white when we need to make a decision? Philosophically speaking I also find a significant degree of Epicureanism in Western culture, too. For instance modern clinical psychology's use of cognitive therapy and even the mindfulness culture focus on reducing pain (suffering) by focusing on being "in the present moment" to avoid dwelling on the past or being anxious about the future. I wonder how many other ways our culture encourages Epicurean lifestyles without naming it as such? Perhaps it would be an interesting exercise /discussion to make a list.

Agreed. I know we each are not what we do for a living, but rather we're people who do work or study or other pastimes that influence how we think. I like hearing other perspectives in the forum and knowing a bit more about other participants enhances my appreciation of their point of view, or expertise, and so on.

Cassius  Kalosyni I'm glad for the questions since it helps me clarify my own thinking.

Quote from Cassius

could you restate your ultimate conclusion or question?

I guess it is my inclination to look for clarity for modernity’s application of the ancient wisdoms that engendered my post. My tentative conclusion/question is: Why can’t we clearly state and attribute Epicurus’ teaching to his synthesis of the Greek culture he was raised in with his process of taking that culture of the ancient Virtues to the next level of WHY and HOW we attain happiness via minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure?

As Kalosyni pointed out in the Principal Doctrine she cited, there is no conflict in recognizing the Virtues of the ancients (and any virtues recognized by ourselves) and adhering to the Epicurean WHYs and HOWs to be happy.

You both do a wonderful job of clarifying the distinctions between the schools, full stop! Your work on the podcasts with Joshua illuminates so much for me and most likely many others. There’s so much there to learn about.

It bothers me somewhat to hear criticism of the other schools with a broad brush in response to their attacks on Epicurean thought. It might sound odd coming from a retired lawyer, but resolving one dispute needn’t solely focus on the misstatements and accusations of the opponents. That leads to arguments that never end (except in courtrooms where judgements can be final!)

So, my conclusion/question is the hope that we can sharpen the incorporation of virtues as described by the ancient Greeks with Epicurus’ concepts; how he took their ideas to the next step in the universally shared search for happiness for mankind. This, I hope, can happen by acknowledging how we simply can’t fully pursue pleasure unless we learn and incorporate the virtues of the society we choose to live in (or adapt for ourselves).

Wisdom (Prudence), Courage, Temperance, and Justice are ESSENTIAL root-tools for us to regulate our desires. We can recognize this and reject that they are eternal forms existing outside of the material world. That recognition is the genius of Epicurus, as he synthesized the earlier schools, taking what he agreed with and discarding the rest.

Cassius This closing item in the post seems so important to me. I'd like to pose questions on it BUT since you asked for comments on your summary, perhaps my reply ought to be somewhere else. Please move it if you think appropriate

Quote from Cassius

Understanding that the goal of life is happiness through pleasure allows us to see that virtue is necessary for happiness, but that understanding what virtue means is essential, in that virtue is not a set of absolute that is the same for all people in all places and at all times, but that virtue is contextual and is in fact whatever conduct that in practice leads to living happily.

Understanding that the goal of life is happiness through pleasure allows us to see that virtue is necessary for happiness, but that understanding what virtue means is essential, in that virtue is not a set of absolute that is the same for all people in all places and at all times, but that virtue is contextual and is in fact whatever conduct that in practice leads to living happily.

As I read the Summary, I looked for some sort of amalgam or a way to build Cicero’s Virtues into the above quote. For example, let me pose this question: What were Academic/Stoic Virtues? The Internet tells me they were Wisdom (prudence), Courage, Temperance, and Justice. I agree these virtues can change with cultures. Yet, in our school, we certainly must look to the culture we are actually living in for the definition of OUR virtues. A person won’t get far using deeply personal antisocial interpretations of virtues for himself and still find happiness via acquiring pleasure. More likely that person will end up incarcerated by the larger community.

So, given our Western Industrialized Educated Rich Democratic culture, which sets the guidelines for our behavior, assume that the four virtues are uniformly agreed upon. Now, can we not agree that those four virtues are the necessary, and I mean necessary, virtues we each need to pursue in order to find happiness as Epicurus defined it?

This gives us each an indispensable mechanism to pursue pleasure. It uses the virtues to help us define and use to acquisition of pleasure. Epicurus, as far as I understand him, has no problem acknowledging the usefulness of the virtue of Prudence to achieve his definition of happiness. So would he not object to the following statement?

As a practical matter, the Epicurean pursuit of pleasure DEPENDS on each of us gaining some measure of the four virtues in our private lives in order to experience pleasure.

Cassius I understand what you are saying and completely agree with your statements. Can I conclude that Prof Nail's essay under consideration here is not relevant to whether Lucretius ignored Epicurus' atomism? I think the answer is that it is not.

P.S. I think it was Degrasse-Tyson who said something like: our universe does not need God in order to exist.

PPS Also, I recently read that Karl Marx's doctoral dissertation some time in the 1840s was a comparison of Democritus' and Epicurus' atomism, finding Epicurus' teaching was consistent with the Young Hegalians philosophical views which he favored.

I’ve read all the posts above. And I have a question that I’d like clarification from any/all among us.

First my question, and then my reasons for asking it.

Question: Why should anyone dwell on whether Lucretius accurately interpreted Epicurus’ book Nature?

Reasons for the question: Neither Epicurus nor Lucretius had data understandable to the senses about the components of atoms and their sub-atomic particles. Neither understood that photons (light) are both particles with mass (matter), and waves (energy) with no mass. I don’t see why one must believe Epicurus was right about atoms and their movement to be adherents to his ethics, canonics, etc.

Einstein’s theory has demonstrated that matter and energy are interchangeable, rendering Epicurus’ belief in eternally unchanging elemental particles unnecessary. Indeed, what we ought to depend upon is his mode of discovering nature by our senses and power of deduction. I think he, as well as every formal scientist today, shares a willingness to be proven wrong in the advancement of additional evidence of how the world works.

So, back to the thrust of my question above: Why should anyone dwell on whether Lucretius interpreted Epicurus wrongly or indeed intentionally declined to include Epicurus’ atomism?

I enjoy these kinds of topics. It seems to me the wonders of nature always seem to be one step ahead of us as we consciously think about ourselves and our relations to nature and to each other. We can catch up on our perceptions and predictions to some degree that satisfies us individually. On a micro level, I need to adjust my relationships with my loved ones and friends to keep myself and the relationship on a smooth course. On a macro level, and I'm not sure this is relevant, but on a macro level, our astronomers see stars etc. millions of light years away but we can only perceive what they looked like millions of years ago, and we can make predictions of their changes over time.

Quote from Kalosyni

Now what do you do when when the quanties of food available are so great, and eating becomes a desire for experiencing various tasty things... "just one more bite" or "just one more taste of this or that"...

One of the great attractions of Epicurus’ teaching for me is that it seems so grounded in common sense. He clearly was not an ascetic, denying himself even simple pleasures, even acknowledging the “pleasure” of enjoying unnecessary pleasures. Of course, we all know this. I don’t understand the complexity of the mind/body process that tells us we need to eat to live. I understand that even a single bite of that barely nutritious but wildly sweet or savory food can satisfy me. So, rather than “just one more bite,” perhaps just one bite (or what the heck—two or three) can be the answer while enjoying friendship and family during the holidays.

Quote from Kalosyni

Likely some aspects of the paper will be used more "lightly" and other aspects more "deeply", so my goal is not to only approach it from an "academic" aspect, but also from human life and feeling.

Yes, that seems to be a very reasonable way to springboard a conversation. I, as one closer to death than most of our friends, I "try" to not fear death, and while seeking support for that in Epicurus, I submit to it's inevitability. No big issue there, certainly. At the same time, I might worry in a small way that there might be something I might lose an opportunity before a sudden death, to say, or do, or mend a fence before I get around to it. And this, I think is the lighter approach, the common sense that we all possess, whether Epicureans or not, to address the fear of dying unexpectedly. And I don't think the deep treatment of that issue was needed in Austin's paper, written as a dialogue among professional philosophers.

I'd like to add that for me, overcoming the fear of death, is less than overcoming a feared cessation of living. It is more a confident denial that there will be some consequence for me after death when my sins are weighed against the rest of my life with a thumb up or down and it is too late to make amends.

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!"

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?