Episode One Hundred Forty - The Letter to Menoeceus 07 - Completion of the Letter

Letter To Menoikeus: A New Translation With Commentary : Don Boozer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A new translation of the Letter to Menoikeus (Menoeceus) by Epicurus with commentary.

archive.org

[133] Seeing that, whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. [134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer; and such a one accepts that Fortune is not a god, as the hoi polloi understand (for a god does nothing in a disorderly or haphazardly manner); And it is not the uncertain cause of everything, for one cannot think it can grant good or evil for a person’s blessed life; however, it does furnish for oneself the starting point of great goods and great evils, [135] believing that it is better to be unfortunate rationally than fortunate irrationally because it is better to have been deciding the noble way in accomplishing one's actions and to have been foiled than having decided the bad way and to succeed by means of chance.

Meditate day and night then on this and similar things by yourself as well as together with those like yourself. And never, neither awake nor in sleep, throw yourself into confusion, and you will live as a god among humans; because no person who lives among eternal pleasures is like a mortal being.

Quote

Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

-Cicero, On Ends

Quality talk. I still have about 130 episodes to hear. I especially enjoyed the discussion on chance and the jump to Epicurus' classification of desires. I also recently read Lucian's "Alexander the Oracle Monger" (or did Charles mention Alexander the Great or both? But I definitely remember the mentioning of false and ambigious oracles) and I can tell you, it's a quite immersive experience listening to people talking about and interconnect all these issues as if they were grown up with. Living in the Epicurusphere. Brilliant.

To partially concur and partially expand on what has been said during this episode regarding the discussion of suicide as a sign that someone might have accepted the notion of fate, providence; in my experience, that is only rarely the case. Rather, suicide is the last line of defence, the ultimate boundary a person — a self, as opposed to a body — can set and enforce. As such, suicide as seen from the suicidal's perspective is (somewhat paradoxically) pseudo-healthy, in that they defend themselves and set a boundary against a pain which they predict to be both unbearable and highly likely. Except in extreme circumstances and terminally ill, their assessment of the future is usually riddled with cognitive distortions, such that they fail to see that we grow accustomed to prolonged intense pain, thereby reducing its severity, or that they predict something to be more likely than it actually is — those are, however, mere misconceptions; they are not usually indicative of an actual believe in fate. Furthermore, this last line of defense only happens after they have played all cards they can think of, done all they can think of to improve their perspective, their to-be-expected future. As such, suicide is typically quite calculated; almost always erroneous, but nonetheless calculated. This is also why there is an elation and relief once the solid commitment to end one's life has been made: knowing their suffering will end soon gives them a paradoxically positive perspective, and it is often the very energy and strength drawn from this that enables them to ultimately kill themselves. Suicide as seen from the suicidal's perspectie, then, is actually the triumph of free will, not it's absence. Furthermore, it is an established fact that antidepressants are associated with a higher risk for suicide during the first weeks and months, and it is generally thought the same mechanism is at work: energy increases faster than pain diminishes. This is not the case with antidepressants of the rapid-acting or psychedelic type, which despite eight decades of clinical research with astoundingly positive results are still uncommon in practise due to inhumane regulation, as those don't work by continuously drugging the patient. Rather than giving suicidal patients traditional antidepressants, my personal theory is that It might be much safer, healthier and more sustainable to challenge them out of depression by taking their comforts away, by forcing them out of their comfort zone, as depression thrives in a constricted, narrow world, whereas physically active people, who exercise or work physically, are strongly protected against it, and depression is mostly a phenomenon of modern societies, not of hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers who would starve if they didn't get out of the inner world of their minds and move their bodies, in reward for which they get the joy of food as a positive feedback. This general rule even applies to emotionally volatile people, including teenagers, those with a borderline personality pattern, some schizophrenics, and people addicted to certain types of drugs, except that in them, the distortion of reality might be even stronger, their perception of what they can do to improve things might be more limited, and their capacity to endure pain be smaller — however, they still act in defence, calculated according to their model of the world, which is why the best theoretical cure is the believable offer of another easy but life-affirming way out: If we could all ring a bell, upon which we'd be teleported to a new place, given a million dollars, our dream home, a set of genuinely caring friends, who would still want to kill themselves… That's not possible, of course, but the underlying idea can still guide the way: For example, in teenagers, it might help to tell them they can finish their high-school via distance learning, thereby avoiding the bullies without harming their future prospects.

It also brings to mind the Pirahã people, who were mentioned previously in the podcast by way of Everett's observations about their language: Their culture (allegedly) only allows for speech based on direct first-hand observation, which the exception of 2nd-hand observation in case of a particularly trusted intermediary: "If you didn't see it yourself, or at least I trust you a lot and you say your friend saw it themself, why should I even listen to you?" This, along with some other aspects, seems to focus them on their surrounding, the present and near future; not the past, not distant places, nor distant future. And as per an anecdote relayed by Everett, they laugh at the idea that Westerners would kill themselves — the idea itself is (allegedly) absurd and thus laughable to them. This squares nicely with what I have observed true about suicidal ideation, in which people seem to lose themselves in their minds, and stop focusing on doing their best with regards to their current and next few tasks. This is sometimes brought about by the current and next few tasks being highly unpleasant, inspiring their mind to start searching for a positive future, which it fails to find, setting off the unfortunate cascade — and once again can guide towards what might help: For example, in a relapsing adult, it might help to offer them to live quite rurally, such that drugs would no longer be readily available.

As much as most people in the ancient world were quite immediately subjected to the forces of nature, and therefore benefitted from understanding them, people in current developed countries are quite immediately subjected to forces of rule — in my two examples: the need to attend school, and the legal constraints on just leaving town to build a simple dwelling in the middle of nowhere. This is to say, as much as the forces of nature shaped lives in the past, the forces of society shape lives in the present. This is why, in my personal opinion, gaining a greater understanding not just of nature but also of nurture, of society and culture, can show us solutions to problems we would otherwise have missed, which is why I personally enjoy complementing my studies of nature with studies of law, public policy and broader social forces, such that my mental model of the world is more functionally complete and thus better equipped for the present day life, which strikes me as being characterised equally, if not more, by government and regulation than by gravity and rain.

Quote from Julia

To partially concur and partially expand on what has been said during this episode regarding the discussion of suicide as a sign that someone might have accepted the notion of fate, providence; in my experience, that is only rarely the case. Rather, suicide is the last line of defence, the ultimate boundary a person — a self, as opposed to a body — can set and enforce.

Julia thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think that there are people on both sides of this saying that suicide is a choice and those that say suicide is not a choice because it seen as the only option.

When I attended a Buddhist group, there were two younger men who committed suicide a few years apart. I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

Yes as you say there are many cognitive distortions that need to be corrected, and also I think an important element is overcoming a sense of powerlessness and instead learning how to make change happen in one's life. By regaining a feeling of being effective and a sense of personal power to do what needs to be done to minimize pains AND increase pleasures, the suicidal thoughts can disappear. Life must have some sweetness in it, so regaining the power to experience pleasure is paramount.

Quote from Kalosyni

suicide is a choice and those that say suicide is not a choice because it seen as the only option

In my opinion, calling suicide "a choice" is simultaneously true and false, similar to how saying that addicts "choose" to pursue their drug is simultaneously true and false, because it glosses over the distinction between the inside-view of the affected person and the outside-view of a 3rd person, thus concealing from clear cognitive awareness the effects of the limits of free will (the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies, delusions, compulsions, addictions), but acknowledging them and accounting for them is key to overcoming the issue at hand. This is why I avoid reference to "choice" in either case: I think it is mischaracterising to the point of being counterproductive.

Quote from Kalosyni

I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

I agree. There is a stark difference between acknowledging and accounting for reality, versus passively accepting a situation and projected future. Establishing a realistic and specific goal of what one's good life could very-well look like (seeking pleasure) is absolutely key to developing and sustaining the drive and discipline required to get out the backward momentum, out of the gravity well of the black hole of misery.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think an important element is overcoming a sense of powerlessness and instead learning how to make change happen in one's life. By regaining a feeling of being effective and a sense of personal power to do what needs to be done

I agree (post #3). Regaining a sense of agency, of personal power to mold one's own future is key, so long as it stays realistic and specific, which is to say, so long as it does not sprawl into maladaptive daydreaming ("I will be rich and famous…"), which is a source of disappointment in itself ("…and once I'm rich and famous, I will be happy!"), and only serves to cement the delusions of powerlessness and hopelessness.

Quote from Kalosyni

When I attended a Buddhist group, there were two younger men who committed suicide a few years apart. I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

We learned that the leaders of a local Nichiren Buddhist community were unanimously engaged in discouraging the target of spousal abuse from seeking legal support when they showed the leaders the bruises on their body. There is nothing noble about that. (To be fair, upon learning this, a regional leader in the organization admonished the local leaders for their failure to prioritize the safety of an individual. Nonetheless, it seems like supernatural religion lends itself to misinterpretation).

Quote from Eikadistes

Nonetheless, it seems like supernatural religion lends itself to misinterpretation

Please be aware that phrasing it like this can be misleading with regards to cause and effect.

I posit that, because human nature is constant, it is a group's structure, which will dictate its behaviour in the long run. This implies that supernatural religions behave the way they do because of the structure of their social hierarchies and their group interests, not because they are supernatural religions. While it is possible for a group to hold a supernatural belief with no power structures, no hierarchies, no organisational interests (eg public image, spreading, political power), it is not possible for such a group to maintain its cohesion and coherence to one set of texts and one interpretation long-term. This is to say: Either you do not manage to keep the religion frozen in time, or you create a group structure which lends itself to abuse; to freeze a religious practice without creating structures which will invariably be abused sooner or later, is impossible.

A few humans have an intense drive towards power, and most humans have an intense drive to conform. Furthermore, it is not just that power attracts the corrupt, it is also that the majority of humans (including good people) will become corrupt and abusive if they are given power (and having a firm ideology, religious or otherwise, guards and assists an individual against this). This is why a group's structure will eventually be exploited, unless it is built in a way that specifically prevents that. Supernatural religion, by attracting certain types of personalities more than others, is almost always build to freeze the religion in time and to support positions of power. Furthermore, organised religions exhibit the same tribal effects that every organisation has: expand in size, expand in reach and power. This, too, is part of human tribal nature. This is why we see these things happen in religion time and again; but it is neither due to nor limited to religion, supernatural or otherwise.

Once the individuals have made up their mind, they will twist words and misinterpret their sources, to make them fit; but this is a rationalization, it happens after they made up their minds. The same order of events is at work in secular organisations which commit heinous crimes: First they decide, then they rationalize.

If anyone wants to dig deeper, here are a few links to start out with:

• Ash Conformity
• Milgram Experiment
• Stanford Prison (note how hard it was for some to quit after it was aborted)
• Hofling Hospital
• Strip Search Phone Calls

Being very clear about cause and effect here is important, because secular groups can be just as vicious and harmful; the 20th century is riddled with examples of that, and we have yet to see the end of history. This means we should remain aware of the mechanics at work, because similar things can happen pretty much anywhere, any time.

(1) Every set of ideas, by being coalesced into an ideology, will have a power structure, because it is the defining nature of an ideology to no longer have free discourse amongst equals; an ideology says of itself: "We found the truth, and it is xyz."

(2) The stronger the hierarchies in a group are, the more likely, the faster, the worse will the abuse be that happens in that group.

(3) Each ideology and group attracts a certain type of person more than other types. Supernatural religions and fascism attract (a) people who love to have authority and (b) people who sheepishly follow authority. They do not attract people who seek equal footing and open discourse. Furthermore, fascism and most supernatural religions attract people who enjoy external validation of their own "superiority" over everyone else.

Putting those three ingredients together is a surefire way for disaster.

However, note how they apply equally to Catholicism and Nazism. The label of "religion" is not required; a cult, corporation or even a nation can serve as the highly-hierarchical group, too. The ingredient of "supernatural" is not required, and as as a matter of fact, it is a mere correlate, but not causal at all, as can be seen in indigenous tribes, in Icelandic folk superstitions, in Wicca (I think) and other supernatural believes, which are not ideological, hierarchical, authoritarian, or "superior".

Quote from Cassius

Is that ("finding the truth and saying it is xyz") not exactly what Epicurus does when he says things like:

It is; however (and I will use "dogmatic" in the modern sense here):

1. It's one thing to say "Nature shows that…" and another thing to say "I command that…".
2. Epicurus was was not dogmatic such as to shut down any discussion; nor was he dogmatically closed-minded, ever willfully ignorant of evidence that might persuade him to change his position.
3. Epicurus was dogmatic about that we ought to think for ourselves, use our own sources of evidence (senses/feelings/anticipations) and our own mental faculties in the proper way (how to think). As such, he was dogmatically anti-ideological.

Do you see the difference? Epicurus was like maths, in the sense that mathematics is dogmatic about the fact that 2+2=4 and that everything else is, by necessity, wrong – but this follows clearly from the assumptions (which take the place of the canon), and it is reasoned with proper logic, not with magical thinking or invocation of authority; and anyone is welcome to debate the issue, try to make their case for 2+2=5 as best they can (and be proven wrong).

The leaders of organised religions do not give reasons, not even if they change their mind (eg Papal infallibility), and they do not permit doubt, not even with good evidence (eg Giordano Bruno). They simply assert out of the blue, and that's the end of it. They invoke authority.

Did Epicurus say: "Death is nothing to us because I said so"?
Did he say: "There are infinitely many atoms because the gods told me they tried to count them but couldn't"?

The "dogmatism" of Epicurean philosophy is neither authoritarian nor prescriptive, and as such has nothing to do with that of organised religions or contemporary ideologies, other than having historically been called using the same word, which has since shifted meaning considerably. This difference in the type of "dogmatism" is analogous to that of mathematics versus organised religion/modern ideology.

Quote from Cassius

"give definite teaching and not profess doubt?" (Diogenes Laertius 121)

And you yourself always say that one has to keep in mind the entirety of the sources; when the evidence is insufficient, that doubt may well be expressed, eg in the form of multiple possible explanations. Again, this is more like maths, where there are countless unproven hypothesis and various theories about them, each with their own reasons for and against.

Contrast that to cults, organised religions, or contemporary ideologies: They claim their truth is absolute and complete. They claim to have it all figured out.

Epicurean philosophy is a dogma in method, from which content derives (like maths). Organised religion and modern ideologies are dogmas in content, which is simply declared and to be taken at face value. And just like mathematicians are to be dogmatic about 2+2=4 and are to continue to profess that at every chance they get, so should we "never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." The defining feature is not just knowing where you are, but also knowing how you arrived at where you are…

…to which Christianists would, of course, retort "I got here by reading the Bible", but I think you know what I'm getting at there is no need for trust, faith or believe in Epicurean philosophy (nor is there such a need in maths); there is no need for authority, hierarchy, power or a sense of superiority, either; not in the way this is true about cults, organised religions or modern ideologies.