Posts by Cassius

For someone debating whether to comment on this article, here again is one of the key paragraphs:

Quote

However, note that if Warren is right, the Epicurean seems to lack a clear reason to avoid a painless death. Why should she skip town when she hears that the local tyrant has a penchant for killing aspiring Epicureans painlessly in their sleep? If painless deaths are not bad, then why should she carefully label and store the fast-acting, tasty poison, rather than leave it in the open and accessible to young children? One must wonder what protects the Epicurean from happily courting a painless death. If she does not bother to protect herself against such deaths, then the objection that the fear of death is good if it helps us avoid deaths worth avoiding reasserts itself.

The question comes down to: It's *not* the fear of pain, alone that should cause us to not want to diie. But if our only distinction in discussion fear of death is whether the means of death is painful or not, then we're left in the position of not having a good reason (if fear of pain is our only motivation) to avoid a painless death.

Austin is pointing out that this is a problem for those who think that Epicurean philosophy is about nothing more than "fleeing from pain," and she suggests - I think properly - that this could not have been Epicurus himself would not have reasoned in that way and left his followers with no reason not to avoid a painless death.

As I see it this is related to similar issues in the regard to how to articulate "satisfaction." Yes I want to be satisfied at all times which my life in the past and present. but that doesn't mean that I don't want to live another day and experience more pleasure tomorrow.

Neither "deah is nothing to us" nor the various statements about satisfaction should be interpreted in a way that implies that the Epicurean should be indifferent to whether he is alive or dead tomorrow.

Here is an excerpt from the article, which comes after she states that in theory, of course, it would be preferable to live in an actual Epicurean garden:

Quote

However, most people do not happen to chance upon a Garden. The paucity of safe refuges, then, explains the standard Epicurean advice to abstain from political involvement in non-ideal circumstances, unless failure to be involved is a greater threat to one ’ s safety than participation (cf. fr. 133 Us.).

This underlined statmeent is consistent with the position taken by Aioz and Baori in their "Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy," and they provide many more citations to establish it firmly.

As a reminder, the reason policy against the discussion of contemporary partisan political issues. The reason for that policy is that individual circumstances vary greatly. It's not Epicurus but Cicero who held that there is a law of god which is the same for all people at all times and all places. It simply not possible here to take sides in immediate political issues without causing harm to our ultimate mission. But we can certainly bring people together who share core Epicurean values that there are no gods or ideal forms, that life ends at death, and similar core issues. Once people are on basically the same page they are free to, and in my strong opinion should, form local bonds with like-minded and like-situate people to preserve their own security and pursue their own interests.

Certainly there are no supernatural gods or forces that are going to do that for you, and I think it's an important part of Austin's article to note that if we take Epicurean philosophy seriously then we're as individuals going to act to maintain our security and happiness.

Also Eikadistes you have raised one of the subtleties of the article that is not apparent til you read it thoroughly.

The issue is not simply limited to "we are afraid of dying a painful death because we don't want pain."

As Austin points out, if that were the only issue, there would no reason for us ever to be concerned about a painless death, even if we are 20 years old or even if we are good health and something happens to cause our death tomorrow.

We're not "afraid" of death, we act to postone and avert death not just in those cases where the process of dying is painful. We want to live because Nature has programmed us to "live for pleasure" (the subtitle of her book).

This should not have to be debated or discussed, but it does, and I think it's fair to say that appears to be the ultimate motivation of her article.

Hello jcblackmon in case you tried and were not able to post you should be able to do so now!

Quote from Eikadistes

Superficially, I'm not sure I like the idea of identifying"fear" as the motivating factor behind preventing preventable death, versus, perhaps, rational avoidance.

Great post, Eikadistes, and I want to emphasize how much I share this view. I am not "afraid" of pain because I know it can be overcome or escaped. But even though I am not "afraid" I am sure as heck motivated to act against it and make sure that I don't have to suffer any more than is necessary. This is simply rational, and it's not the attitude of a ostrich or a cat constantly running from pain as if in a panic. Once we learn the facts of nature we don't have to be "afraid," but we sure as heck ought to be motivated to take our wisdom and act, not just "think" about our problems will eventually go away on their on or at death.

JCBlackmon tells us in part:

I am interested in Epicurus for two main reasons. First, I very much admire stoicism; second, I think it can be shown how an empirical and mathematical equivalent of Einsteinian relativity can be derived from his atomism, particularly his isotacheian postulate--all atoms have the same speed. I realize this can sound like something a crank says, but it's easy to show, and I've recently done so in (peer-reviewed) publication. I'd like to share the idea under Physics here and see if others are interested. What I show is that the Epicureans were just a few algebraic steps away from the Lorentz transformation, the equation by which we calculate time dilation.

Looking forward to being a contributing member here.

Welcome jcblackmon !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Glad to hear it! And we look forward to your posting with any comments or questions you have as you read it or read other threads on the forum. It's a big part of he enjoyment we get from the forum to hear what others are thinking and respond to comments and questions. And if you have any difficulties or questions in using the forum please let us know.

Quote from DaveT

Perhaps reminding ourselves that Epicureans believe he meant what he said, and he said what he meant. Fear of Death is definite. If he didn't say fear of dying, then he didn't mean to infer it within the concept of fear of Death. Sometimes I think academics who are subject to publish or perish search for distinctions between themselves and others academics so they have something to write about. Sure, I'm not as knowledgeable as the experts, but I try to remind myself to "Keep it simple, sugar!"

I interpret that as being on he same page with most everyone. Since you Dave are one of our most recent additions, I'd be particularly interested in what you get out of the article if you get a chance to read it.

Quote from Don

Okay, now I need to read the paper before I comment anymore

I don't think reading the paper will change anything you've written, which I think is correct. What reading the paper might do, andi hope it will, is to get you to comment on exactly what viewpoint by some modern scholars of Epicurus she thinks needs to be opposed.

Quote from Kalosyni

I looked up the difference because I don't use those words in everyday life, and wanted to get a better understanding:

A priori and a posteriori claims are types of knowledge distinguished by how they're justified:

A priori knowledge is independent of experience (e.g., math, logic, definitions like "bachelors are unmarried"), known through pure reason; A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical experience and observation (e.g., "it's raining," scientific facts). The former relies on thought, the latter on senses or data from the world.

I want to strongly agree with this comment. "A priori" and "A prosteriori" are certainly very useful terms in the right circumstances and of course thanks to Joshua for pointing them out. But as Kalosyni says, practically no normal person in real life uses these terms or anything close to them. Not that I am a good model for anything but they just don't connect with me even after years of reading them. I therefore think they aren't the best way to explain this issue to the kind of regular people who are the target audience of Epicureanfriends.com .

On the other hand the issue being discussed is of huge importance to our target audience. I am hoping we can continue to refine how we explain these issues without reference to Greek or Latin words which smack of "lingo" with which normal people will never be able to be comfortable.

This is maye the key distinguishing feature of what Epicurean Canonics is all about and we need clear and ordinary terms by which to explain it.

Quote from Don

I need to re-read Austin's paper and refresh my memory. I vaguely remember seeing it several years ago (I think)? Or maybe I bookmarked it in Academia.edu and didn't get back to it.

Tau Phi's point on "fear of death" is correct and I think all of us (even Warren and the people holding the viewpoint that is the target of the article) are all agreed on that.

The reason I don't recall discussing this previously, and the reason I think the article needs more discussion now, is that the main point of the article is not necessarily to make the point which we all agree. The point of the article is to point out that there is a specific position taken by major writers on Epicurus (including Warren) with which Emily Austin disagrees.

We discussed this a little on Wednesday night but haven't fleshed it out in writing. They key section revolves around whether Epicurus held all "fear of death" or "fear of dying" to be "eliminable" through philosophy.

It's going to be necessary to be precise about the implications of both "fear" and "death vs dying" but it seems clear that Austin's reason for writing the article was her intent to state a disagreement with a "mainstream" position, and it's in areas like that where I think her work is most valuable.

We won't even begin to discuss her point til are able to see clearly what she states is her intent in writing the article and what (and who) she thinks she is writing against. The article covers lots of topics so it takes some effort to get to that point.

I would say that Austin's level of analysis and willingness to depart from the mainstream here is a good example of why "Living For Pleasure" is by far the best recent book on Epicurus.

Note to Kalosyni and other admins: If the discussion of the religion angle takes off (and that's perfectly fine if it does) - Dave is raising a good issue) we'll probably split that part off into a separate thread to keep this focused on the "reason/sensation issue"

Quote from Don

Your experience with Philodemus' On Methods of Inference seems like it would be directly relevant here:

Ah yes and you are reminding me that we have never made much effort to go through that, even though there are long and well preserved sections.

Joshua we are going to have to figure out where to put this in the list of things to talk about. Probably we need to pull out David Sedley's "On Signs" in addition to all the extensive discussion in the Delacy translation!

Given the interest in this subject maybe we need to bump it up on this list, but it will definitely take preparation, and probably some review of Sextus Empiricus as well. And it may even be possible that we ought to visit "Academic Questions" first because in a sense that's really the issue that Cicero summarizes for us there.

Quote

It seems Epicurus himself would have done these and encouraged his school to do so. I'm certain Epicurus ascribed different motivations for bowing, sacrificing, etc than would the hoi polloi but he seems to have taken part in all that.

I'd like to see this part of the conversation be very clear. I suppose that it is possible but I am not convinced that it would make sense to tag Lucretius as being significantly different from Epicurus on this. I'd say it is very possible that they are both saying the same thing, that it is ok to engage in religious-associated practices so long as you don't take seriously in your mind what some are saying about those practices. In other words it's perfectly fine to talk about Venus and Mars and Neptune and Ceres as long as you don't take seriously the idea that those are truly supernatural gods who will respond to your prayers and intervene in human actions.

Quote from DaveT

So, clarify for me, please. Am I correct that neither author above was a true fan of Epicurus? If yes, then Lucretius is more correct? Or is Lucretius off base attributing to Epicurus, and imploring the reader toward either agnosticism or atheism?

There are a lot of ways to read Dave's question and we probably need to be very clear if someone is inferring that Lucretius' antipathy toward false religion is stronger than that of Epicurus. I see a lot of danger in that direction and very little reason to emphasize it without very strong evidence on which to do so. As far as I know we don't have a lot of specific information at all on Epicurus endorsing any specific mystical practices, and a lot of evidence that he opposed the mystical basis that was being used to justify them.

Quote from Joshua

This is fundamentally the difference between a priori and a posteriori claims of knowledge, with Epicurus largely rejecting the former but endorsing his own philosophical interpretations of the latter.

On the earlier point that Kalosyni raised and Joshua addressed, we probably should discuss at some point whether saying that Epicurus was opposed to "formal logic" would also be accurate:

Quote

Formal logic, the abstract study of propositions, statements, or assertively used sentences and of deductive arguments. The discipline abstracts from the content of these elements the structures or logical forms that they embody. The logician customarily uses a symbolic notation to express such structures clearly and unambiguously and to enable manipulations and tests of validity to be more easily applied. Although the following discussion freely employs the technical notation of modern symbolic logic, its symbols are introduced gradually and with accompanying explanations so that the serious and attentive general reader should be able to follow the development of ideas.

Formal logic is an a priori, and not an empirical, study. In this respect it contrasts with the natural sciences and with all other disciplines that depend on observation for their data. Its nearest analogy is to pure mathematics; indeed, many logicians and pure mathematicians would regard their respective subjects as indistinguishable, or as merely two stages of the same unified discipline. Formal logic, therefore, is not to be confused with the empirical study of the processes of reasoning, which belongs to psychology. It must also be distinguished from the art of correct reasoning, which is the practical skill of applying logical principles to particular cases; and, even more sharply, it must be distinguished from the art of persuasion, in which invalid arguments are sometimes more effective than valid ones.

I think I am agreeing with Joshua when I say that I think most of us are on the same page that small "r" practical reason based on the evidence of the senses, anticipations, and feelings is a good thing to Epicurus, and he use it all the time.

The bad thing seems to be focused on propositional logic where the propositions are not tied to repeatable sensations, anticipations and feelings.

And that's related to why there can be "true reason" as opposed to "false reason." It's possible to do reason right and to do reason wrong. But the general term of "reason" as a reference to mental calculation in itself is not always a negative term at all.

Quote from Don

Isn't virtue itself a concern of humans?

Presumably he'd say that animals don't have the same kind of virtue and classify virtue with the divine (?)

Ok so you're focusing on the title rather than the content. The article itself seems clear enough to me, but I haven't had a lot of time to digest it and it's possible I'll reread and change my opinion letter.

On first reading of the article and your comment i'd say that the both of you are coming from the same perspective. There's nothing to be concerned about after death (incorrectly thought of a "being dead") but there's a lot to be concerned about in terms of how and when we die.

And I read the takeaways of her article to be that is is ridiculous to conclude that Epicurus taught the same attitude toward "being dead" as he did toward how long we live and the circumstances under which we stop living. But that's exactly what many seem to be doing, and it turns the philosophy on its head to take that position.

Quote from TauPhi

I find it quite misleading because to my understanding Epicurus tried to remove (1) the fear of being dead. He never tried to remove fear of dying (2), (3), (4) because process of dying and everything connected with it belongs to the living and is painful and human beings can't switch off pain at their will.

I read that statement (and everything you wrote after it) as exactly the point of her article, Tau Phi. And she is criticizing as misleading the position taken by Warren and others for doing what you too are criticizing.

So you are agreeing with her? Or are you saying that her article is what is misleading?