The Use of Negation in Epicurean Philosophy Concepts

Or as Cicero wrote:

Cicero, In defense of Publius Sestius, 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures.

Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

Don any thoughts on this? Maybe you have something to add about the use of negation in ancient Greek language, and the pattern of words that often occurs?

I'm sorry, Kalosyni. This flew under my radar. I don't have any thoughts off the top of my head, but I'm intrigued. I'll share any I might discover. Maybe Bryan or Eikadistes would have thoughts?

That said, great posts here on this thread. Y'all are providing some solid summaries of the "absence of pain" idea.

Rolf For recently joining our little online Garden, your contributions are insightful and greatly appreciated. Glad to have you aboard.

As I've observed with other philosophers, Epíkouros is no stranger to capitalizing on Hellenic word formation by coining his own phrases with affixes , so he does occasionally throw the prefix ἀ- to render "not [this]" when re-naming a positive idea and re-framing it as a negation. I don't necessarily think that is a defining quality of his literary voice, but it may reflect his philosophical approach.

The one thing I definitely see in terms of negation is his reasoning:

I. "A is the case."
II. "If B were the case, we would observe Y."
III. "In fact, we observe X, not Y."
IV. "Therefore A is the case."

For example:

I. "Particles have a maximum, tiny size."
II. "If they didn't, we would see particles with the naked eye."
III. "We cannot see particles."
IV. "Therefore, particles have a maximum, tiny size."

Now, all that said, who you really want for this discussion is Nietzsche. 100%. Epicurean theory of language is about frankness. All words are indicative, and each word reflects exactly one object or idea with a 1:1 evaluation. Preconceptions reinforce this, that there are universal notions that all humans shared based on similar experience, and those notions are positive indications of what is. Nietzsche, on the other hand thrived with linguistic negation. He has an extensive discussion of language and the development of speech wherein he proposes (this is key) that "truth is a mobile army of metaphors", meaning that every word is figurative, and can only be defined in relation to what is not. He might suggest that "blue" is less usefully defined as "the dark, cold color" or "cloudless sky", and is more usefully defined as "not red-orange-yellow-green-violet": (EDIT: Or, a better example, he explains that you cannot define a word without using other words that don't mean what that word means.)

Come to think of it, Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, has a great discussion about this idea. I forget where (I want to say a TV interview?) but he proposes that every word is a metaphor. This, however, contrasts with the Hegemon, who sees metaphors as potential slippery-slopes to myth. Of course, Joseph Campbell sees everything as the function of a myth ... so there's that:

“Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short, a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adorned, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions." (Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense)

And, not like anyone was asking (and forgive the shameless self-promotion) but I came across this idea about Nietzsche, in particular, while writing a kind of manifesto once upon a time. It started as a songbook for my music, but eventually developed into a 30,000 essay on language and culture.

It's sort of written from a kind of post-structuralist point of view. My thesis was that everything humans produce is "poetry", including our maths and sciences, and everything we've ever been exposed to, whether Noah's Ark or the Big Bang, each are their own kind of "myth".

I also spend time reflecting on Elvish history in Lord of the Rings and Led Zeppelin, among other things. I take liberties. It deals a lot more with reflections on aesthetics than physics and epistemology, but, if you're interested in the Nietzsche thing, I'll stand behind what I wrote.

Ultimately, I maintain that the function of our "poetries" are to express ourselves as accurately as possible, and that accuracy should be a reflection of the reality of our experiences: "In writing with purpose, we commit to hydrate forgotten passions that have grown arid with age. We write to polish petrified fossils and wage an unending campaign to animate identity. We write to dismantle the many mistaken assumptions embedded within mere “empty sounds” (Epicurus, Letter To Herodotus) ."

The whole thing isn't exactly Epicurean, more of an art project, but, still, thought I'd share.

Eikadistes while I will bow to the common view that Nietzsche is a mixed bag, I personally very much agree that a knowledge of Nietzsche is very helpful for understanding Epicurus, and I am not just talking about his pro-Lucretius and anti-Stoic comments.

The helpfulness of Nietzsche is a view shared by Elli in Greece, who I think has internalized the intensity of Epicurran philosophy so well at least in part because of her affinity for Nietzsche and also for the Greek version of Nietzsche, Dimitri Liantini.

Quote from vlasalv

Can we say then that "one cannot understand Nietzsche without understanding Epicurus"?

Well I wouldn't go that far. No doubt understanding how subtle Epicurus can be would help understanding Nietzsche to some degree, but Nietzsche sure didn't approach the idea of "clarity" the way Epicurus did.

So I'm not sure that it's a good idea to look at Epicurus as a prerequisite to Nietzsche. At first thought I tend to I think the main issue is the common devotion to "this world" and to the intensity of warfare against "otherworlders." Nietzsche's "AntiChrist" to me is a good example of that, and of course that's one of Nietzsche's most clear commendations of Lucretius.

Greetings to all epicurean friends,

Nietzsche is ultimately contradictory in many aspects with all philosophers. While in other works he speaks very highly of Epicurus, in his work "The Antichrist" he characterizes Epicurus as "decadent". However, Liantinis did not agree with Nietzsche on this point at all. Here, in this Facebook post, I respond to Nietzsche with a letter as if it were written to him by Epicurus.

Epicurean Philosophy | A letter with a response to Nietzsche for his characterization against Epicurus as decadent, in his book entitled "Antichrist": | Facebook

A letter with a response to Nietzsche for his characterization against Epicurus as decadent, in his book entitled "Antichrist": Epicurus to Nietzsche…

www.facebook.com