Vaughn (Lewis) - "Living Philosophy"

Well this quickly illustrates what we were also talking about, how everybody in the world seems to share the same view that Epicurus's view of the ideal life was as an ascetic hermit cave-dweller. There's no wonder that so many people who read the modern material get the view that they do -- and why so many of them ignore Epicurus thereafter. I would certainly ignore him myself if I thought this was an accurate summary.

Read DeWitt and there is nothing whatsoever stated in summary form that looks remotely like this.
And if you read the Gosling & Taylor book, along with backup articles by Nikolsky and Wentham, you see that's there's very little justification for writing like this other than that you have a pre-conceived notion that Epicurus was essentially a Stoic.

There is no way that the ancient Stoics and Epicureans would have found among themselves like they did if this is what Epicurus taught, UNLESS they were simply playing word games and haggling over meaningless definitions, because a life such as is described here is indistinguishable from Stoicism.

Charles I was thinking about this further. You're less than 30 years old - a lot less. When I was 25 or so if someone had tried to tell me that the goal of life was moderate pleasure, avoidance of disturbance, "imperturbable emotional calm, "simple pleasures" a sensible diet, and a "prudent" moral life, I would have told them what they could do with their philosophy. There's no way that Epicurus could have taught that kind of asceticism and been widely applauded and followed as being the "master builder of human happiness" as Cicero recorded it. That description is Stoicism through and through, and no young person, young animal, or young of any kind, which is what we look to as the model to determine Nature's standard "before they have been corrupted" would ever buy into that unless and until they had been thoroughly corrupted by Stoicism/Platonism/religion. At this later point in my life I am much older than 30, but I still feel the same way.

I very much agree with your post, with these comments;

Quote from Charles

Clearly those two examples are gross caricatures,

In the case of the Stoics I do not think that the example you gave is a caricature. The entire thrust of Stoicism seems to have been explicitly to undermine emotion and convince people of its unimportance. Much of the Stoic literature survives in relatively intact form, and when i read Epictetus there seems no alternative but to believe that the common meaning of "Stoic" is not a misunderstanding, but is exactly what they were seeking to accomplish.

Quote from Charles

, or taking things only at face value.

If we examine the surviving texts, its easy to see why someone could come to that conclusion of the minimalist perspective

On this i would suggest that the issue is not that Epicurean philosophy is being taken at face value, but that it is being selectively read, from among fragments that has survived in large part because of their ability to be reconciled with Stoicism by taking them outside the context of the full philosophy.

As you have stated or implied, the thrust of Epicurus' conclusion was that pleasure (a feeling) rather than gods or idealism or rationalism/reason, deserves to be considered the goal Nature has set for life. The Epicureans devoted huge amounts of time to explaining that, most of which no longer exists. in explaining that it is pleasure as a feeling, rather than particular types of pleasure that are individually found to be most pleasing, Epicurus logically included mental pleasures as very important, and also that an environment suitable to enjoying pleasure without distraction (pain) is desirable. Those are the passages on which commentators have focused because they find them compatible with their own views, rather than those which clearly state such things as that Epicurus would not recognize the good without the feelings of sex and other feelings which any ordinary uncorrupted living things feels to be pleasurable.

Your excerpt from Vaughn illustrates the process. Instead of explaining how Epicurus was providing logical arguments for use in refuting Platonism, which places the letter to Menoeceus in context, Vaughn immediately jumps to an unintuitive conclusion which effectively reverses the meaning of the philosophy, amounting to an assertion that when Epicurus used the word "pleasure'" he did not really mean pleasure as we know it. The result is that no one who has not been corrupted by anti--pleasure philosophy is going to find Epicurus appealing, and he is abandoned to that segment of philosophical commentators who have no interest other than making Epicurus sound like he agrees with them - as Stoics.

I agree that you are probably correct Charles -- but for purposes of the thread (if you get a chance) on what do you base this statement? Are you thinking of a particular cite or comment about him?

Excellent Charles, thank you!

Quote from Charles

Metrodorus views (natural) wealth as a preferred indifferent of some sort.

I suspect Metrodorus would view this statement, as I do, as fairly ridiculous. No action or tool is "intrinsically" a pleasure, unless it is some form of pleasure itself. So Metrodorus would never call ANYTHING a "preferred indifferent" which is a peculiarly Stoic manner of talking in fairly ridiculous terms -- not terminology an Epicurean would use -- only someone who likes talking in pretzels, like the Stoics love to do.

Just to be clear, i am agreeing with you and what Metrodorus is saying, Charles. I am just saying that Metrodorus would not use the term "preferred indifferents" to express that weath is not INTRINSICALLY valuable. I think Metrodorus would say that of course wealth CAN have value, in order to purchase things for pleasure, but it may NOT have value if it used in a way that brings pain. That is how an Epicurean would evaluate any tool or any choice, contextually, rather than whether it fits in some artificial category of "preferred indifferent" which is Stoic terminology.

Are we together or still not yet? We may be talking about different things.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect Metrodorus would view this statement, as I do, as fairly ridiculous. No action or tool is "intrinsically" a pleasure, unless it is some form of pleasure itself. So Metrodorus would never call ANYTHING a "preferred indifferent" which is a peculiarly Stoic manner of talking in fairly ridiculous terms -- not terminology an Epicurean would use -- only someone who likes talking in pretzels, like the Stoics love to do.

Yes, that seems like something that the author who was commenting on the Philodeman scroll may have been saying, not something Metrodorus would have said. However, it's not inaccurate to say that Metrodorus would have "preferred" wealth over poverty, particularly considering that he was VERY concerned with autarchy.

It _would_ be inaccurate to classify wealth as an "indifferent" good from an Epicurean perspective. Philodemus classifies "the natural measure of wealth" as that which is needed to secure what is natural and necessary, and anything beyond that we can assume qualifies as natural and unnecessary wealth. Indifference is not a qualifier to us.

Quote from Hiram

Indifference is not a qualifier to us.

Yes that's exactly the point I agree with.