Search Results

Welcome to Episode 176 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread f…

In our discussions we spend most of our time talking about Torquatus' positive presentation of Epicurean ethics in Book One of "On Ends," but there is a lot of material also in Book Two. In this episode of the podcast DeWitt reminds us of the criticism that Cicero raised that we should not be calling a state of absence of pain as a positive pleasure. Cicero knew that it is important to Epicurean theory that we be able to do just that, so to be sure we are on top of this issue here is some of the…

Thank you Don for tracking that down. I have never previously taken the time to track it down. Having now seen it I think it is worth us considering the full attack: (Quote)

I think a lot of More's problem can be traced back, and thus met head on, by identifying that his argument rest on an absolutist viewpoint: (Quote) And yet never in this argument does he identify what the good is, or what the evil is, other than hint that it exists somewhere and that Epicurus is a fool for not realizing it. Probably the rest of the book includes something that would tell us whether More is a skeptic, and maintains that good and evil really don't exist at all, or (more likely) th…

I'm now out of time to read further in More, but boy he seems to exemplify all that goes wrong when you start out thinking that Epicurus is all about running from pain. The ethical ideal of the garden is summed up as "living unknown?" Really? (Quote)

Editing of this episode is not complete but is going pretty well. I do see that I need to apologize however that I was sick for this episode and my congestion comes through - so please remember when you start listening to it that both Don and Joshua were present for this podcast, as well as Martin and Kalosyni, and once you get past my initial introduction the rest of the podcasters pick up the slack very nicely.

I think the line from Torquatus referenced above deserves emphasis for a while, and I've added it to a rotation for the top of the front page. Here is the Latin of Torquatus' response to Cicero: "Non prorsus," inquit, "omnesque qui sine dolore sint in voluptate, et ea quidem summa, esse dico." Pretty clear and direct and without much effort to massage into good English: All who are without pain are in pleasure, and in that which [is] highest! Omnes qui sine dolore sint in voluptate, et ea quidem…

Santa Claus would be proud!

Closing in (hopefully) in completing editing of this episode, I am going to cut out a lengthy tangent in which we tried (pretty unsuccessfully) to decode Cicero's statement in Tusculun Disputations 5.9.24-25 (attributed to Theophrastus, I think?) to the effect that: "the happy life cannot mount the scaffold to the wheel" Rather than delete it entirely, however, I want to preserve it here, because DeWitt mentions it in this section and it would probably be a good idea to get a grip on the meaning…

Thanks Don. As i said i left some of the discussion in the podcast, and it will be interesting to hear what other people think. At the moment I am thinking that since the theme of the section revolves around the possibility of continuous pleasure / happiness, and that Epicurus' opponents would have wanted to argue that happiness is not possible while being tortured, and that the imagery is intended to stress that point - that continuous happiness is NOT possible in life due to events such as tor…

Episode 176 of the podcast is now available! spreaker.com/episode/54065241

I am seeing a clear parallel between this sparring over three states or two with the similar definition issue of the nature of the Gods. I share Epicurus' view of the true nature of both, but I also accept the fact of life that Cicero is right that the vast majority of normal people do not speak that way, either as to pleasure or as to gods. And I have to admit that in Book 2 Cicero states a powerful case that it is Epicurus who is doing violence to normal terminology. So as an advocate for Epic…

This is powerful stuff, and it demands a clear answer: (Quote from Cicero To Torquatus, in Book 2 of On Ends) But when I go through the letter the Menoeceus, and the positive sections of Torquatus in Book One and Two of On Ends, the statements I am listing below are the only "explanations" that i find. These are not really explanations at all, but a series of "assertions" that are united only by the connection that we have defined there to be only two feelings, pleasure and pain, with no middle …

Martin: Can you help me figure out if there is a more "symbolic" way (algebra or whatever, with symbols) to express the following: Let the universe be A and B and nothing else. Let A be defined as the opposite of / negation of B with no ability to combine the two. (1) Therefore absence of A = B (2) Therefore absence of B = A For any universe composed of only A and B and nothing else: (1)The maximum A is the absence of B. (2) The maximum B is the absence of A. (3) In the absence of A and B there…

(Quote from Godfrey) Godfrey I agree that is the *best* way, and I think that is what Torquatus is reporting was insisted on by Epicurus himself in stating that no more proof is necessary or appropriate than pointing to animals and pleasure and snow and the like. But it's not the **only** and as Torquatus said it appears the later Epicureans (and I think Epicurus himself too) decided that for multiple reasons we cannot abandon the field of logic and philosophy itself to the pin-head Platonists. …

(Quote from Godfrey) I find this very interesting, and I agree that there is a significant segment to which this will appeal and we need to develop it. But in the end I don't see Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda or whoever the original source of Torquatus' words was showing evidence that they themselves were primarily pursuing that kind of approach. I see where Cassius Longinus wrote that the philosophy of virtue is hard to understand, while the philosophy of pleasure is not, and that might be …

Right to all. I am using "logic" loosely for dialectic or just generally these elaborate and abstract constructions that we get into as we go back and forth dealing with the assorted traps and diversions that people like Plato or Paul or Plotinus create.