We are going forward with planning for December 2nd for our first Friday Night Epicurean Happy Hour Zoom Discussion.
The main topic will be Epicurean Therapuetics: How might Epicureans deal with negative emotions. We will open up the discussion to a more intuitive approach while also remaining true to what we know of the extant Epicurean texts.
Idealist schools, nature lies to us constantly -- and if you are going to get at the truth you are going to have to penetrate the veil, see through nature into what lies on the otherside of nature (58:15)
At this point the image of this famous engraving popped into my mind:
the Flammarion engraving.
And thinking further as Epicureans, there is no veil, it is all just nature.
Second half of podcast notes:
35:05 -- One of the most controversial aspects. And there is major division of skepticism. Dogmatism.
True opinion -- Promulgated a dogmatic philosophy actuated by passion for inquiry to find certainty -- a destestation of skepticism.
False opinion -- he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy because he renounced inquiry and Epicureans unthinkingly accepted the positions.
36:35 -- The wise man will dogmatize -- the issue of dogmatism and what that word really means.
You figure out a set of axioms and then derive more than what was just there -- physics which establish a materialist worldview, and then derive everything else as was shown by Lucretius.
37:54 -- While the other schools of philosophy would rise and fall, the Epicureans had an unbroken line of scholarcs which seemed to go on and on, and it was the most enduring and robust school in the the ancient world. Dogmatism was an issue which may have supported that.
38:30 -- Methodology for evaluating competing claims. Methodology for remaining aloof from certainty when you couldn't be certain about which competing claim was true. The thing that you must avoid is to be enamored of the single cause. You have to remain aloof from a conclusion until you have enough good information to actually know what you think is true about you are observing.
39:28 -- The Catholic church (the Vatican) pronouncing the assumption of Mary into heaven is a good example of dogmatism. -- Epicurus is not articulating a position in this manner and does not take position when there is clearly not enough information to take a position.
43:23 -- Book 4 of Lucretius -- those people who say that nothing can be known are essentially standing on their heads and you can't even reason with these people because their own logic and argument makes no sense -- saying they are certain that nothing can be known -- they are talking in riddles and in circles. Radical skepticism.
44:04 -- Epicurus is rejecting two extreme positions -- rejecting the idea that nothing can be known and also rejecting the idea that there is a supernatural god delivering some kind of absolute truth on everything. And looking for a fair reasonable position that is supported by the evidence --when to be confident of taking a position on something and when not to be confident of taking a position on something.
45:40 -- Multiple causes
47:50 -- Epicurus is not telling you to go read all these books on other philosophers and then follow xyz lines of argument -- he is telling you an opposite approach which is to trust your own senses, trust your own observations, and use that as your ultimate standard for what you are going to conclude with confidence to be right or wrong -- not using some dead philosopher's arguments. It is more important for you to understand that your senses are trustworthy, that they are what you have to deal with nature as the basis for making decisions.
48:50 -- Epicurus' view of truth -- DeWitt says that Epicurus exalted nature as the norm of truth revolting against Plato who had preached reason is the norm and considered reason to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the use of sensations and their role in determining that which we consider to be true.
The false opinion was that Epicurus was a modern empiricist, and that he declared that sensation is the only source of knowledge, or even that "all sensations are true"
49:38 -- Truth -- Is there a norm, is there a standard against which you can ever arive about truth about anything -- What is truth? Frances Wright presented a version of Epicurus that was more steeped in an empiricist view than maybe he really was in antiquity -- because Epicurus thought that sensation was one leg of the tripod of epistemology -- the anticipations and the feelings -- nature furnishes the norm and nature gives us a tool kit for accessing and evaluating competing claims about everything, from ethics to explanations of phenomena -- and because we are natural, we derive from nature and we are part of nature -- pleasure and pain as guides to how we should live our lives makes sense for us, because that's the norm that nature gives us to make those kinds of decisions.
53:00 -- Epicurus' method for determining truth -- types of logic and how to pursue logic -- is logic a norm to be used as a ruler or standard -- canonics, a standard to be compared against -- in Epicureanism the word canon refers to a rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged (an entirely different meaning than the Catholic use of the word).
56:25 -- Epicurus says: nature is the proper place to look for that authority for right and wrong (Plato takes the position that logos or reason in itself is superior to nature as this norm of truth -- Divinity, or God as a source of truth)
57: 15 -- How you view basic metaphysical claims about what nature is -- does nature have any existence independent from the human mind, does it have any existence independent from abstract principles, like reason or divine fire, is nature merely an ephemeral mirage that actually conceals the truth rather than revealing it to us, is nature merely creation and therefore simply one aspect of revelation from god but does not answer the total purpose of revelation. So these are all the competing ideas about the role of nature in the spirit of inquiry, whether we can learn anything from nature or not. Idealist schools, nature lies to us constantly -- and if you are going to get at the truth you are going to have to penetrate the veil, see through nature into what lies on the otherside of nature (58:15) -- God, ideal forms, or divine fire, or any other of the competing ideas.
58:29 -- Latin: nil ultra -- nothing higher -- is there anything higher than nature itself as a standard of truth. Plato -- logos is higher than nature, logos created nature, and god is behind nature, superior to nature. The telos -- what is ultimately your final authority for determining something to be right or wrong -- is it some standard that logic has revealed to you, or that religion reveals to you, or is some standard that nature gives to you -- nature gives us no guidance on what to choose or avoid other than pleasure and pain -- nature is the ultimate standard of authority, then you take the faculties that nature has given you as a starting point for making all the decisions for what to choose and what to avoid.
1:00:36 -- Next week: the method for determining truth
1:01:10 -- Polemic: words of strong attack -- Books that begin with the word: "Against"
1:05:10 -- We are still on the synopotic view
1:06:29 -- Epicurus is anti-dogmatic -- but people who take the position that things can be known, that some truth is possible to optain, are refered to as "dogmatic" -- axiomatic is a good synonym to dogmatic.
We may not have it every Friday. Thinking perhaps on December 2nd, but looking to add in a few more people, or at least one more. The hope is that we all feel comfortable with eating, drinking, and talking all at the same time during the Zoom 
Notes of the first half of the podcast:
True Opinions vs False Opinions
1:02 -- We are on chapter 1 and this is for people who haven't read a lot of Epicurus, we are starting at a very general level of the significant aspects - and this is to provide background
2:20 -- False opinion: that Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism.
Truth: Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism, Epicurus does not come after the Stoics in terms of time. He comes immediately after Plato and Pyhrro. He was reacting against Platonism (ideal forms, absolute truth) and Skepticism (no truth is possible to ever understand and therefore the best we can hope for is tranquility, and to get out of the mind controversies among competing arguements about what is true or false.
3:26 -- Epicurus place in Greek philosophy - a strong rebel against the consensus of other philosophers
4:10 -- How the false opinions arose -- Cicero writing dialogs in which competing schools of philosophy are arguing against each other
5:10 -- What Epicurus was really doing was responding to Plato -- To what extent do we need to be reading Plato in order to understand Epicurus?
6:33 -- Plato's work of Philebus -- a long discussion of the nature of pleasure
8:18 -- The Epicurean response to Plato. All of philosophy is simply a footnote to Plato (Whitehead). So reading Plato will help you have a better context. According to Martin unless you are going to debate philosophy then it is not necessary to go too deeply in Plato.
11:45 -- On Famous Women -- contains a biography of Leontium
13:50 -- Epicurus was reacting against idealism -- absolute right and wrong that we derive from eternal forms
15:15 -- Epicurus' attitude toward learning -- he was well educated and he was a thinker, very methodical. The false opinion was that he was an enemy of all culture and education, and rejected all forms of logic. The wise man will not write poetry but will be able to understand it.
17:40 -- possibly a reaction against the way that children were educated in Greece -- the Gymnasium system
19:28 -- the goal of education in ancient Greece was focused on the political, to produce a good citizen and good Greek city-state that would function the most successfully according to their view, bringing the individual into conformity with these predetermined ideas of how the correct state should be and should function, and to create worker bees, solders, or conventional "philosopher kings" -- so Epicurus challenged this -- charge your course for the correct goal of a happy life (Polyannus example).
22:03 -- Martha Nussbaum presents idea in Therapy of Desire that students in the Epicurean Garden were not allowed to speak up or challege and they were intimidated into following Epicurus' position -- this is another example of a very wrong attitude. Correct view is that in Epicureanism nothing more important in life than to use your senses and use your reasoning to examine things, to challenge things, to question authority.
22:29 -- Epicurus' goal for himself and his work, moral reformer rebelling against his teachers. False view -- that Epicurus was nothing more than a copy cat, ungrateful to his teachers. Epicurus asked his teacher about chaos, and challeged that (idea claiming that the primordial nature was chaos, but they can't even explain what it is). We are hanging quite a lot onto a very few words of Diogenes Laertius -- Epicurus denied his teachers and claimed to be self-taught, and we don't have this is Epicurus' own words.
26:02 -- the system which he had developed quite early on was sufficent to get him thrown out of town in one instance -- but he had a very devoted spirit of inquiry, and was not willing to settle for bad answers, answers like chaos that have no explanatory power, and from which you can't derive any inferences. So he developed his own system.
26:52 -- His own philosophy was different from what he learned. There were elements from his preceeding teachers but he made something different out of it -- and he completely changed such as his response to Democretus and hard determinism.
28:36 -- Would have made sense to use Democretus as a reference for atomism. But we now longer have all of Epicurus books, so can't know if he refered to to Democretus. Lucretius mentions Democretus.
29:48 -- When your observations change you modify your conclusions.
30:45 -- Epicurus' role as a systematizer - attempting to build a synthesis and a wide range of thought, a broad system, a worldview from the ground up. False view that he was sloppy and disorganized. Cicero accused Epicurus of not being concerned about definition, and other aspects of logical system building.
33:02 -- Letter to Pythocles, methodology for how you should evaluate competing claims. Study of nature.
34:17 -- the work of writing responses to other philosophers, for example Leontium writing against Theophrastus. An effort to respond to all of the ideas and claims swirlling around the Aegean at that time.
Hi Everyone,
I want to propose a possiblity for having a fun Friday Night Epicurean Zoom meeting, and this is for anyone who needs to liven up their Friday evenings! Everyone attending is encouraged to eat and drink the food and beverage of their choice during the meeting. This is open to all members (new members are welcome to attend also).
If at least 3 other people besides myself are interested in attending, then we will move forward with setting a time. The time will be determined according to who will be in attendence and what time zones people live in (so may be 6pm ET -- or later if there are folks on the west coast who would like to attend).
If anyone is interested, you can let me know in this thread or you can private message me. If there is enough interest then we can determine from there the day and time.
Just pointing out that the "true opinions vs false opinions" is correcting what later writers said about Epicurus, and the some of the sources of those erroneous ideas can be found in the fragments:
I would say this is "advanced level" Epicurean philosophy -- I don't think this is necessary, or even good for Epicurean newbies, because the basic philosophy needs to be understood first -- just my opinion.
I will post some rough notes soon (either tomorrow or Wednesday).
So, my take on all this? Epicurus is making a point in the "bread and water" sayings about enjoying the simply, everyday things (like the regular midday meal of the ancient Greeks on bread and beverage) as I mentioned in my translation. However, he's also specifically refuting Plato's ideal city-state as laid out in the Republic, what Socrates calls "the luxurious city," and is making a point of contrasting the overgrown city-state that imposes so many unnecessary desires and demands on its citizens, with what nature can provide.
I found that fascinating and worth investigating.
Thank you Don, and understanding this feeds back into making proper "choices and avoidances". From a modern perspective, the more luxurious tastes one has, then the more money one spends, potentially leading to credit card debt, or depleting back-up savings or retirement savings -- now with inflation being rampant, we all are probably paying a little more attention to evaluate what is necessary or not.
Also, I have been pondering the place of philosophy, and that some people might enjoy more indepth exploration, where as others (like me) prefer more simplicity and have a goal of practicality -- I "do philosophy" so that I can ponder and evaluate wise ideas for living a better life. I think that there a "levels" of intensity with regard to how to do philosophy. Some people also might enjoy holding and sifting through more details and facts than I do, and they have the mental capacity to do so. My own desire is to synthize and summarize the pearls of Epicurean philosophy and contemplating how to apply them to real life.
Such an ambitious goal
I am extracting only these few words, since I think there might be some validity. It is ambitious since it first requires people to feel comfortable in their connections with each other -- friendship -- and of course that is quite difficult to do over Zoom. So further anaylizing that it may be unrealistic. Just ideas and trying them out -- that is what is happening here on the forum -- testing out whether or not the Epicurean philosophy can be adequately elucidated -- and then seeing if they are of interest to anyone. If ideas are not helpful, there may not be very much show of interest.
Part of me wants to come up with a "Live like an Epicurean for a Week" annual event
We need to do that every February! The week preceeding Feb. 20th. or at least an EpicuruCon.
"The Epicurean Friendship Meeting Handbook" or maybe just "The Epicurean Meeting Handbook"
Thinking a 12 (or eight) week overview of Epicureanism, alternating with 12 (or eight) weeks focusing just on just ethics -- and repeat that pattern throughout the year. Or maybe every fall focus on the overview and every spring focus on ethics. Of course this will probably end up being online.
Then the summer is open for "an Epicurean travel exchange" in which Epicureans invite other Epicureans to travel and spend a few days at their own house, and everyone takes turns hosting one or more visitors.
I was thinking the title could be something like: "The Epicurean Friendship Meeting Handbook" or maybe just "The Epicurean Meeting Handbook" -- and it would have a guide for 12 weeks of meetings, including handouts with info of what will be studied that week. The difference between Zoom and in person meetings would be that food would be part of an in-person meeting
We had four in attendance during the last Wednesday Night Zoom meeting, on November 2nd, and we ended up discussing which Epicurean books we have read and recommend:
Wednesday Zoom Comments:
On the issue of what book to read first, Onenski comments that A Few Days In Athens has strengths as a first book to read because it is approachable. Given that the ethics is what interests lots of people, AFDIA sort of takes that approach.
Onenski also says that in his case he first read Hiram's book as a general introduction. He would still recommend it to some audiences; today he might also recommend.
Kochie says that he has seen some Catherine Wilson videos and that he books might be a good place to start. He himself however likes the Epicurus Reader, and he likes the introduction to that which is also on the Epicurism.info website.
Our next Zoom meeting (click here to find out more) is coming up Wednesday November 9th, and I already have in mind a good topic to discuss, and also we will open it up to anything further based out of this Episode 146. Hope to see you there!
Notes from Podcast 146:
1:40 -- The Three Divisions of Epicurean Philosophy -- As presented by Diogenes Laertius and other Epicurean documents such as the poem by Lucretius On the Nature of Things, and also the Inscription of the Wall of Oenoanda.
--The Physics - the nature of the universe as a whole, the examination of the way things are and how things work from a natural basis as opposed to a supernatural basis, and place of humanity in the world and on the earth.
--The Epistemology and the Canonics - the science of how you know anything at all (what knowledge is possible and how you gain knowledge). How you gather evidence and process evidence, and form opinions.
--The Ethics -- how you should live after you understand the nature of the universe, and how you think about things through the canonics.
3:15 -- We are organizing our presentation according to the commentary of Norman DeWitt and we have talked about why that book is a good place to start. However some students who are serious in their studies are going to want to read the original extant texts as quickly as they can.
3:34 -- Books with which to begin Epicurean studies:
Lucretius' poem was Cassius first reading. For Joshua it was Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve, and then the Stallings translation of Lucretius, and then Principle Doctrines and Vatican Sayings (Diogenes Laertius). Martin started with Epicurus' Extant Texts by Kraut (similar to Bailey) and recommends to read DeWitt next. Kalosyni started with How to Be an Epicurean by Wilson and the text of the Principle Doctrines and Letter to Menoeceus.
8:59 -- Discussing Epistemology and Canonics at the same time - Letter to Pythocles -- manifold causes
13:28 -- 12 Fundamentals of Nature -- the ultimate distillation of his principles. That document does not exist today, but has been reassembled from information extracted from Lucretius' poem On the Nature of Things and Letter to Herodotus.
14:43 -- a second (large) epitome of physics which Lucretius used. 37 books on Nature by Epicurus.
15:53 -- Ethics -- 40 Doctrines and Letter to Menoeceus
16:11 -- Canonics -- The Celestial Book (which was lost)
16:40 -- Philodemus work On Signs; On Methods of Inference
17:43 -- Epicurus' relationship to Plato and Aristotle, and Pyrrho
18:49 -- Letter to Herodotus may have been the first litrature that was put into the hands of any potential Epicurean
21:26 -- Death is nothing to us (and the Tetraphamacon)
Understanding first about the way the universe works before jumping into this material
22:58 -- Letter to Herodotus and Letter to Pythocles gives a foundation that informs everything else
23:08 -- Joshua comments on Lucretius' poem -- lost 7th book might have been on the nature of the gods -- something to be studied later on in the study. And Joshua comments about how things are presented in A Few Days in Athens.
26:20 -- Best way to study is a brief overview and then move to the details. But the poem of Lucretius needs some preparation before reading to avoid being confused regarding the nature of the gods, that the gods are not interfering in human life.
27:40 -- the reason you shouldn't fear the gods, given in the Letter to Menoeceus and the Principle Doctrines, is that the gods aren't what we think of them; the gods are not involved; a perfectly blissful being would not take any interest in rewarding friends or punishing enemies on the small planet earth -- it is not an appeal to just a physics argument, but a logical argument derived from physics. Epicurus may have been talking to people who were all ready been familiar with physics of Epicureanism (12 Elementary Principles, etc) before coming to the understanding that that the gods aren't supernatural and not interfering in our lives.
29:27 -- The goal of pleasure -- as the right way to organize your life, how pleasure relates to happiness. Once you have eliminated the idea of following god or working hard to get into heaven. Feelings (pleasure and pain); calmness and tranquility; peace of mind; how pleasure relates to happiness.
30:55 -- good to start with reading a general summary. A map of the direction in which you are going, and what to study. Joshua mentions that there is a very good summary in Stephen Greenblott's The Swerve
.
32:20 -- Material written by people who were hostile to Epicurus. May have been recorded accurately, but the way they present it is in a critical manner (such as Cicero). In some translations of Lucretius, the translators distance themselves in the prologue (Bailey is not supportive of Epicurean Ethics). So any commentary present by these writers may not be consistent with what Epicurus actually presented.
34:58 -- There is a long list of denunciations of Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy out there in western literature -- Thomas More's Utopia, Dante's Inferno. When they come to a subject in this way, then their opinions and conclusions need to be scrutinized.
35:23 -- Lucretius was best accepted by his peers during his time, praise him and his ideas, compared to what we find during the Renaissance and the modern age, such as with Hutchinson, Lamban, Brown.
37:10 -- DeWitt says French and Italians more sympathetic to Epicureanism than the English - Pierre Gassendi (reintroduced Epicurean studies into the west) and Montaigne quotes Lucretius a lot and quite appreciatively.
37:43 -- Next Week: True Opinions vs False Opinions about Epicurus -- understanding this will help provide a framework for study.
"Sextus Empiricus was a Pyrrhonian Skeptic living probably in the second or third century CE, many of whose works survive, including the Outlines of Pyrrhonism, the best and fullest account we have of Pyrrhonian skepticism (a kind of skepticism named for Pyrrho (see entry on Ancient Skepticism)). Pyrrhonian skepticism involves having no beliefs about philosophical, scientific, or theoretical matters—and according to some interpreters, no beliefs at all, period."
It looks like there is a possibility that Sextus Empiricus could be the possible source of the "Epicurean paradox" or "Epicurean dilemma". Doing a quick Google search you find it sometimes stated as some kind of fact that it was written by Epicurus. However, no extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument and it is possible that it has been misattributed to him.
"The “Epicurean paradox” is a version of the problem of evil. Lactantius attributes this trilemma to Epicurus in De Ira Dei:
"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"
"Perhaps the earliest expression of the trilemma appears in the writings of the sceptic Sextus Empiricus (160–210 AD), who wrote in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism:
"Further, this too should be said. Anyone who asserts that god exists either says that god takes care of the things in the cosmos or that he does not, and, if he does take care, that it is either of all things or of some. Now if he takes care of everything, there would be no particular evil thing and no evil in general in the cosmos; but the Dogmatists say that everything is full of evil; therefore god shall not be said to take care of everything. On the other hand, if he takes care of only some things, why does he take care of these and not of those? For either he wishes but is not able, or he is able but does not wish, or he neither wishes nor is able. If he both wished and was able, he would have taken care of everything; but, for the reasons stated above, he does not take care of everything; therefore, it is not the case that he both wishes and is able to take care of everything. But if he wishes and is not able, he is weaker than the cause on account of which he is not able to take care of the things of which he does not take care; but it is contrary to the concept of god that he should be weaker than anything. Again, if he is able to take care of everything but does not wish to do so, he will be considered malevolent, and if he neither wishes nor is able, he is both malevolent and weak; but to say that about god is impious. Therefore, god does not take care of the things in the cosmos."
Source: Lectures Bureau
Some further thought:
1. I may have added in a few ideas which are not backed by Epicurean sources, and I need to be clear about what the sources actually say (and what they don't say).
2. I need to be clear if what I wrote is correct.
3. Now in our present time, is this helpful or needed? Will anyone find this useful? What parts of the philosophy are the most helpful or needed?
Is the outline: (1) How I Think I Should Live? or (2) The Important Aspects of Epicurus, or (3) What I Would Say To A Friend About Epicurus If I Only Had Five Minutes .... or something like that.
For me it is what I think are good points -- and what I would say to a friend. But I still need to flesh out a lot more.
And maybe it would be good if when someone posts an outline that they also say what their goal is.
Here is a new personal Epicurean outline. I wrote everything just off the top of my head, and some areas still need more study. Also some things are my own ideas (such as the last point at the very end of the outline).
My New Outline of Epicureanism -- November 3, 2022
I. The Life of Epicurus and Flourishing of Epicureanism
A. His place in history (facts)
B. He challenged others and was challenged (and was both revered and reviled)
C. Epicureanism flourished and spread far and wide
D. Written sources of Epicurean philosophy
II. The Philosophy
A. Cosmology and Natural Physics (World View)
1. A materialist and non-supernatural understanding of the universe.
a. understanding the natural world as arising out of atoms and void and having knowable causes (very similar to our modern scientific understanding of the natural world)
b. there were some of Epicurus' ideas that we know are incorrect now that we have modern science.
2. There are no creator god(s) and god(s) are not involved in the lives of humans. Epicurus' own view of the gods is unclear (if they exist in actuality or in only as objects of dreams).
B. Epistemology/Canonics
C. Ethics
1. Pleasure is the natural innate goal of human (and animal) life
a. We naturally seek out pleasure and naturally seek to avoid pain
b. We can observe this instinct in animals and in babies and young children
c. As we mature learn that at times it is better to forego some pleasures so that we can have even greater pleasures in the future
d. And we learn that sometimes we must endure pains so that we can prevent worse pain, or for the possibilityexperience pleasure, in the future
2. The Tetrapharmakos (attributed to Philodemus)
a. There is no need to fear the gods
b. There is no need to fear death
c. What we need to stay alive is readily available
d. We need not fear pain because strong pain is brief and light pain can be overcome by pleasure.(And also now we have modern medicine/pain medications)
3. Correct Understanding of Justice
a. since gods are not involved with humans it does not come from god(s)
b. It does not exist abstractly in a Platonic sense
c. It is determined by feelings of pleasure/pain and mutual benefit
d. It is upheld by agreements between humans
4. A Pleasurable and Content Life
1. Pleasure is an enjoyable feeling of the senses
2. Ataraxia is an enjoyable feeling of the soul
3. We make use and enjoy everything that comes our way, but we don't depend upon luxurious foods or lifestyle for pleasure if we don't have the money to buy expensive things
4. There are things beyond possessions which lead to a happy and content life -- correct understanding of the nature of the world, friendship, self-sufficency, and wise choices and avoidances (these are "natural goods").
5. There are natural needs, which are natural and necessary for life and happiness of the body and soul, and for these we can go out, put effort into, and find fulfillment.
6. There are also human cravings which are based on false opinions and lead to more pain than pleasure -- the desire for power and fame. These can only be eradicated by proper refutation.
a. the pursuit of power and fame can require one to forego the natural (instinctual) animal movement toward pleasure and avoidance of pain, and instead adopt an absolutist and "stoic" harshness to accomplish one's goals.
b. The natural goods which lead to a pleasureable lifestyle will need to be set aside -- friendship becomes a means to an end and not a pleasure
c. self-sufficiency must be set aside to make pacts and obligations with others to "further the cause". Power and fame requires one to be beholden to others to "get ahead".
d. It may require the violation of others to get ahead or maintain control, resulting in bad consequences (and causing a life of unhappiness).
This website has been up for a while, but wanted to add here for easy reference.
"This translation renders selected fragments of Epicurus from Greek into English. The numbering follows that of Hermann Usener in his 1887 volume Epicurea."
Saint-Andre says:
"I made the first version of this translation in 2011; as of 2018 I am adding more fragments."
Fragment 2 -- Lack of mental disturbance and lack of bodily pain are static pleasures, whereas revelry and rejoicing are active pleasures involving movement.
Here we have a definition of "static" and "active" pleasures which is very simple.
The link to his translation:
I was just reading a thread about the Tetrapharmakos (and how it is a quick way of summarizing the first four Principle Doctrines) and in this thread an important point about outlines and summaries is brought up:
Quote by Cassius:
It's possible to summarize or to abstract too strongly to the point where essential details get left out, and that's what I think is defective in both of these two formulations.
I am a big fan of outlining and I love to do it, but part of the trick of doing it right is to distill the elements down to the essentials without cutting too much, or without cutting too little.
Also note that you must click directly on the pointer icon and not the full text of each line.
Thanks! I see that clicking on the tiny pointer icon is the magic key to getting the outline to unfold.
I think it would be a great project for anyone (and many people) to organize their Epicurean research and produce public "live" outlines that can be viewed at varying levels.
I will definitely see what I can do, and will be a matter of finding the right app for that
Notes from Episode 145 - The Philosophy of Epicurus by Norman DeWitt -- Chapter 1 -- the Synoptic View of Epicureanism (Part 1)
(Revised version 10/30/22)
0:30 -- This podcast is an attempt to provide a more general perspective for the generalist listener/reader who does not have a lot of background, and this will be based on the organizational plan used by DeWitt.
2:12 -- The book preface states DeWitt's purpose of writing this book:
1. To organize surviving data into a biographical sketch of Epicurus to show throw some light on the growth of his personality and the development of his philosophy.
2. To give a new interpretation based on less amended, less revised remains of Epicurus' writings.
3. To bring attention to Epicureanism as a bridge of transition from classical philosophies of Greece to the Christian religion. (which is not part of the goal of this podcast).
4:40 -- Epicurus as the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in Greco-Roman world.
5:24 -- Most revered and how Epicureanism spread and flourished
6:27 -- Epicurus differed significantly from Plato as to his ideal forms, and Epicurus comes along and brings up a much different approach philosophy, and interest in Epicureanism spread to all corners of the known world.
8:05 -- He was reviled -- Jewish scholars applied the word "epikoros" (heretic).
10:45 - Now online you can read things about Epicureanism and the uncontroversial goal of how best to live happily -- so it seems Epicurus should be held in high regard. Why would there be any problem at all?
11:28 - Stoics, Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and others saw some something deeper and more threatening in the Epicurean rejection of Platonism, the rejection of idealism of forms, and the rejection of a supernational creator that started the universe in motion and providentially attends to it, as well as the shift from absolute morality to contextual morality. So Epicureanism contains explosively devisive ideas then (and now) and could get you exiled from your community.
14:05 - Epicurean philosophy actually constitues a complete restructuring of the mental framework of how we should think about the most funatmental things -- everything from nature itself, to human societies, to the nature of the gods -- this is a radical reformation of thought at the time, and it's mostly because of that that we have this interesting dicotomy between the people who love what he is doing, like Lucian, and the people who hate him as much as they hate anything (that would be Alexander in this case).
15:02 -- A reform movement -- Epicurus realized what he was doing and was writing letters, articles and books -- writing against other philosophers and as campaigner for his own views. So there was this missionary/evangelization aspect and a number Epicureans were engaged in spreading their views and being pampleteers -- engaging in spreading their message to correct improper beliefs about supernatural gods, incorrect views about life after death, and expressing new views about how to live life as a whole.
16:45 -- A Synopotic View of Epicureanism -- using the analogy of Henry David Thoreau's looking glass story as a clear way of expressing what a synopotic view is -- seeing things together and seeing them in their proper relations to one another.
19:00 -- This way of seeing things is important to Epicurus and we see this in the Letter to Herodotus, that we should use outlines so that we can know what the important points are and understand how things fit together.
20:15 -- DeWitt is supplying a broad outline, and over time will add things in to fill in the details. This is similar to building a robot -- starting out with a skelleton and then add things on top of it. You can't see the forest if you stand six inches from a tree -- so we will start out with looking at the big picture, and then add in more details around what the important points are. We will attempt to provide an overall general perspective on Epicurus.
23:35 -- DeWitt says it is important to establish an attitude toward a particular subject. For example: The correct attitude to be taken with regard to the gods, how they are not to be feared, and the reason why not to fear them -- if a disciple could maintain this attitude it was felt that he would be rightly disposed to receive subsequent instruction about the nature of the gods.
25:53 -- So the attitude you take at the outset is going to color the way that you (or readers) interpret the subject matter. You can notice if a particular writer is hostile or not Epicureanism.
27:27 -- Something about pleasure -- Epicurus is tagged with immediate pleasure. There is much less coverage of Greek philosophy in schools and often a younger person knows nothing of Epicurus.
28:20 -- The people who do somehow look up about Epicurus on the Wikipedia page will end up reading that Epicurus and his followers were known for eating simple meals and discussing a wide range of philosophical subjects, and the goal of philosophy was to attain ataraxia and aponia, and live in tranquility and self-sufficiency surrounded by friends. All of this was obvious and inoffensive. Who doesn't want happiness and freedom from the fear of death, and it seems like those are such general goals, unbelievable that anybody would ever have anything to say against Epicurus.
29:25 -- Development of the philosophy went beyond the set of philosophies that were taught at that time. It went beyond beliefs of supernatural gods who intervened and beyond fate and a deterministic aspect of life in which you were fated to have a particular result or the gods would intervene, as if all these assertions were true. And Epicurus was examining the foundations of these philosophies.
31:53 -- It matters where you start -- that the first step is going to make a difference. On the EpicureanFriends forum, this book has been recommended for a very long time.
33:00 -- Otherwise we might jump in at the same place that Wikipedia jumps in: the goal of life is pleasure, the highest pleasure is absence of pain -- and this would be in isolation with the rest of the philosophy.
33:40 -- Even today the commentary that we read about Epicurus is largely written by people who do not agree with some of the major aspects of Epicurus' philosophy, especially the morality, because they say that we have to pursue the good (virtue) as the ultimate goal. But we don't really know what it means to pursue the good. We don't know what the good (virtue, or the will of god) is because these are generalities that are not a given -- that have no meaning or have no ability of being defined in the real world, through the evidence of the senses and the logical approaches that Epicurus was pursuing.
34:50 -- Epicurus becomes the best guide of going back to nature for the answers - not nature as created by a supernatural god or nature with ideas floating around (ideas about virtue that existed from the beginning of time). So it is important to understand the revolutionary nature of Epicurus' philosophy.
35:30 -- Chain arguments, deductive reasoning, if this then that - general to the particular. (observation, evidence, observation). Canonics - test of truth -five senses, anticipations and the feelings as the basis of everying. Observation by the eyes doesn't tell you what it is you are observing.
37:20 -- DeWitt -- all sensations are true or not -- various meanings to all sensations are true. Epicurus never declared sensations to be only source of knowledge. Our interpretations of sensations are not necessarily trustworthy. So like a witness testifying in a case - all sensations are reported honestly but because of distortions may not be the clearest view and take further observations before you come to a conclusion about what actually is true - weighing the evidence is a different process than gathering the evidence.
41:35 -- Philodemous talks about Epicureans in his time taking the synoptic view as good enough and just moving on. and not filling in the details. We need to take the whole thing in view and have a necesary education in the broader context, and then continue to study deeper.
43:20 -- Epicurus did a broad study of nature, but also the study of human nature. And it is important to understand your own thought processes and your own sensations, your own sense organs -- in order to use them successfully -- and also the way our mind operates.
45:40 -- DeWitt has attemped to provide almost a textbook of basic positions of Epicurus - perspective, structure, and sweeping background.
46:06 -- This philosophy is meant to be helpful on life decisions. Vain is the philosophy which does not provide for the health of the soul
49:08 -- Practical use of Epicurean philosophy that is useful for regular people.
50:02 -- Largely accurate, but Cicero and others were writing to refute Epicurus.
51:45-- Synoptic view is no substitue for the details -- but details are no substitute for the outlines. You need a foundation of course, but must take the final step to apply and impliment what you are studying -- the map is not the territory.
54:25 -- general assessment of your life and happiness, taking in an overview -- higher viewpoint understanding your place in nature and come to a feeling of tranquility and calmness.
