Episode 271 - Understanding Epicurus Through Tusculun Disputations- TD 01

Welcome to Episode 271 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we begin a new series covering Cicero's Tusculun Disputations from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)
2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no)

As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.

It appears that the Yonge edition is the most readily available, and here is a set of links to where that can be found, along with our discussion guide:

Debating Epicurus In Tusculum

Our thread here at the forum specifically dedicated to Tusculum Disputations is here.

As usual, this guide is a work in progress, and at the moment the titles of the sections are in flux. Each bullet point contains a section of text referencing Epicurus, but the heading assigned may not reflect the full topic of the discussion. Feel free to make suggestions on the heading titles, additional surrounding text which should be included for clarity, or any other commentary that would be good to insert to explain each section, and we'll update the discussion guide as we proceed.

The current list of headings includes:

1. Epicureans argue that at death we neither become gods nor companions of gods, so death is not a better state for us
2. Epicureans charge Democritus with having said that the body has feeling after death.
3. No one but Epicureans read Epicurean texts
4. Epicurus gave in to effeminacy in fearing pain
5. Epicurus said there is no evil in infamy itself unless accompanied by pain
6. Epicurus is allegedly laughing at us in regard to pain.
7. Epicurus says that grief arises naturally when we imagine an evil.
8. Epicurus on anticipating future pains - he says it is folly to do so as the Cyreniacs suggest we should.
9. On the happy life according to Epicurus (and Zeno the Epicurean)
10. On Epicurus' consolation
11. Epicurus on attraction as physical
12. On Epicurus' alleged inconsistency
13. Epicurus on the wise man while being tortured
14. Epicurus on nothing good but pleasure
15. Epicurus on the division of desires
16. Epicurus on living in accord with local law.
17. Epicureans on the wise man being always happy.

For purposes of planning ahead, this series will be followed by a series on "Debating Epicurus in Academic Questions." A thread devoted to that series where you can make comments on what aspects of "Academic Questions" to include is here.

More thoughts prior to recording this episode on 3/9:

The first part of Tusculum Disputations focuses on death. Cicero actually seems to embrace some Epicurean arguments in support of the idea that death is not "bad" for us if we cease to exist. In the end however he seems to focus on the benefits of continuing to exist after death, and this is where Cicero says that he would rather be wrong with Plato than right with those (presumably including Epicurus) who don't believe that the soul survives death.

There are also a couple of comments about Epicurean criticism of Democritus in regard to death, and no one but Epicureans reading Epicurean books.

The majority of the material that is likely to be of interest to us however probably starts in Book 2 and is regard to how we should view pain. I think we are going to find that Cicero largely misrepresents how "pain-adverse" Epicurus is, but this is going to give us the opportunity to revisit in more detail many of the issues that we regularly have to address -- i.e., was Epicurus in fact fixated on avoiding pain in the manner of a hypochondriac or someone we might describe has having a "phobia," as Cicero wants to paint him, or was something else going on.

We often spend a lot of time talking about the desirability of pleasure, and this will give us the opportunity to talk about how we can explain the pleasure-pain calculation in a way that doesn't give in to negative stereotypes. These negative stereotypes are a major reason that "regular people" are initially persuaded that Stoicism is superior, and it will be good to talk about various ways to point out that those stereotypes are wrong. We have the examples and arguments cited by Torquatus in Book One to draw on, and if others have suggestions for us to include please let us know.

For example I regularly see references to the camp of Julius Caesar having turned into a breeding-down for Epicureanism among Cassius Longinus and others of Caesar's followers, so this will be a good episode to discuss the combination of Epicurean philosophy with strong action.

Other examples may include:

1 - Cicero's letter to Cassius Longinus, among other aspects of which includes Cicero's remark that he had apparently misjudged the vigor of Epicurean philosophy given Cassius' actions;

2 - Lucian's references to the Epicurean who stood up against Alexander the Oracle-Monger and almost got stoned for doing so, as well as Lucian's general reference that the situation with Alexander called for a Democritus or an Epicurus to stand up against Alexander and expose his fraud;

No doubt there are other example that can be used to show that being an Epicurean doesn't make one a pain-phobic pushover.

Tusculum Disputations Section 1

XVII. But I return to the ancients. They scarcely ever gave any reason for their opinion but what could be explained by numbers or definitions. It is reported of Plato, that he came into Italy to make himself acquainted with the Pythagoreans; and that when there, amongst others, he made an acquaintance with Archytas and Timæus, and learned from them all the tenets of the Pythagoreans; and that he not only was of the same opinion with Pythagoras concerning the immortality of the soul, but that he also brought reasons in support of it; which, if you have nothing to say against it, I will pass over, and say no more at present about all this hope of immortality.

A. What, will you leave me when you have raised my expectations so high? I had rather, so help me Hercules! be mistaken with Plato, whom I know how much you esteem, and whom I admire myself from what you say of him, than be in the right with those others.

Here is a Greg Sadler / Stoic view of Tusulun Disputations. This of course is from a Stoic point of view but it does a good job of explaining the significance of what is in the book. I see that Sadler is particularly focsed on the latter parts of the book on virtue, but I think the former parts on death and pain will interest us as Epicureans even more. I have reviewed the first book today and it's very interesting how the topics Cicero deals with, in attempting to prove the immortality of the soul, are so similar to what Lucretius deals with in his poem and Epicurus deals with in Herodotus and Menoeceus.

I think we'll get a lot out of going through this book closely. Other than Diogenes of Oinoanda and Plutarch, this might be the last major philosophic work that took Epicurus seriously (even in opposition to him) and so it puts Epicurean philosophy squarely in the spotlight of the most advanced philosophic thinking of the ancient world before things deteriorated.

Editing this first episode is taking a little longer than normal as i think about what this book is all about and how to break it down.

Each of the five parts is divided between an opening discussion that has some interesting information but which is unrelated to the topic, followed by a specific topic.

It's probably going to make sense after this general introductory episode to focus on the main topic of each section, and then come back at the end and mop up the interesting but random details in the introductions.

With that as the organizing theory, the topics that will be addressed can be seen to be major issues of relevance to Epicurus as to all schools:

** Is Death An Evil?
** Is Pain An Evil?
** Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear?
** Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire?
** Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life?

CIcero presents the Epicurean view on all of these after setting up the question, and he contrasts the view of each school on these topics. These amount to the kind of "practical question" that many of us here want to focus on, so i think it will make sense for us to read Cicero's presentation word for word, like we did in Lucretius, so we'll probably go back to what we were doing in On Ends and On the Nature of the Gods and organize each week according to a specific section of text.

That means that unless something happens during editing and I find that we'll be backtracking too much, we'll start the next episode in Part I, section V:

A. To me death seems to be an evil.

M. What to those who are already dead? or to those who must die?

A. To both.

M. It is a misery then, because an evil?

A. Certainly.

M. Then those who have already died, and those who have still got to die, are both miserable?

A. So it appears to me.

M. Then all are miserable?

A. Every one.

Here is another review of the topics and significance of TD:

Tusculan Disputations

Tusculan Disputations is considered by many to be Cicero’s richest and most profound philosophical work. This new, original translation is available in Kindle,…

qcurtius.com

Episode 271 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Understanding Epicurus Through Tusculun Disputations," which is an introduction to our new series of episodes.

Quote from Bryan

The topic of Democritus' zombies is interesting, great sources for that! "Stories of people who appeared to have died and then came back to life were collected by many of the ancients including the scientist Democritus in his writings...

Bryan I have the feeling that there is more going on here than I understand. I would think that anyone of normal experience would know that there are "degrees" of sickness and disease, including being "knocked out" and in "comas" that would present interesting questions of how "far gone" a person is before death. That wouldn't seem to me to be so exotic as to pose a particularly difficult question, and I think we have instances in Lucretius where it is spoken of that the spirit retreats within the body.

I suppose everyone was interested in this just as to what it says about how life operates, but I don't necessarily see why the Epicureans would be critical of Democritus on this unless Democritus were trying to draw from this some conclusion about the soul to which the Epicureans objected.

Do we really know and understand Democritus' religious views? Just because he was an atomist, does that mean that he had rejected all supernatural influences, or did he perhaps try to integrate the supernatural with his atoms, perhaps due to some issue deriving from his determinism and skepticism?

I sure wish we had more info on Democritus!