Posts by Cassius

Welcome Max and glad to have such a distinguished person with us!

Dear Cassius,

I'm confirming that I registered for an account on Epicurean Friends. I mainly did so to let members of the community know about some scholarly articles I have forthcoming: one on why/how an Epicurean can die for a friend, and another on Epicurean approaches to sex. I'm also happy to provide some extra help with tracking down or translating sources if anyone needs; and I'd be happy to come on the podcast.

Wishing you well--and major kudos on your work popularizing Epicureanism! (In addition to being a scholar of Epicureanism, I do consider myself an Epicurean.)

Cheers,

Max DuBoff

Welcome Max DuBoff

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!

forum!

Welcome to Episode 340 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 start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues.

We are now in Section 9 of Book 2

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here:

• Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Quote from Noah Calderon

Despite this I find it very difficult to find places where I can provide a valuable input on the forum. I feel like most of my questions will eventually be answered by reading more.

Please don't hold back questions or thoughts! That's largely what we are here for and you've read plenty to have lots to say! Thanks for sticking with us!

Thanks wbernys you are right - I have fixed it now.

Episode 339 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Stoic Views of Knowledge And The Emperor's New Clothes."

Quote from Pacatus

I certainly can’t see this as consistent with Epicurus.

I don't see it to be consistent with Epicurus either, but it IS a good illustration (apparently) of how someone can use persuasive logic and reach disastrously wrong conclusions.

And I think that's why Epicurus held that it is not necessary (or perhaps even appropriate?) to construct elaborate logical arguments about why pleasure is the goal of life. It sounds like certain later Epicureans decided to try to do just that, and I wish we had more texts so we could judge how successful they might have been. But probably Epicurus was right that pure logic is not the best approach to this question, and that's one reason he warned against the improper use of logic.

Thanks for the cite there Pacatus.

Wow that is a good catch in the news!

After a long run with this thread, we are going to disable it unless and until we figure out how to stop including people who are long inactive on the thread. That will reduce the number of less-than-useful notifications all users receive.

Quote from Todd

To me, this is not the same question. As I understand it, the question is specifically regarding one's own life or death.

I could defend that being a related question in the sense that if you think life is not worth living in general then you're not likely to think it's a good idea to bring more children into the world. Strictly speaking I agree they are not the same question but I suspect the causes of one are related to the causes of the other.

Quote from Todd

nevertheless cling to it tenaciously, and live with the contradiction.

(Seems like an argument for psychological hedonism! )

But sadiy and tragically, some don't, and they carry out what Lucretius mentioned some do .... which is why i don't accept the persuasiveness of PH -- but let's not get sidetracked on that.

Quote from DaveT

Nice try Cassius but NO. I listened to part of the "debate" and came away with a yawn.

I'm glad you made that comment because I was not suggesting that people needed to watch that video to deal with this question. I thank Don for posting the link but I haven't been able to stomach Jordan Peterson myself enough to watch it.

I'm interested in the general commentary here. I presumed everyone would say "of course life!" but I'm not so sure any more that I should presume that.

Quote from Todd

It is quite possible to arrive at this conclusion without any logical inconsistencies.

I think you are right. Logic can be used in support of the idea that life is better than death, but it can also be used for the reverse. Ultimately it is not logic but FEELING which is the key element.

Quote from Todd

Such a person must be alive in order to say that, thus demonstrating their preference for being alive, and contradicting their claim.

Another excellent use of self-contradiction, showing that they are either not a consistent thinker or being intentionally misleading.

Presuming they are more on the "not consistent thinker" edge of the range, for reasons that we might choose to find sympathetic (so we continue to talk to them!) what else can be said to help them see that their position is damaging?

Or is this position so ingrained in the people who would ask the question in the first place that little help is possible?

I'm not trying to seed this just to start conversation but I can predict who among us might have some interest in this topic so I am going to go ahead and prod:

Pacatus ? Patrikios ? DaveT ?

These are just three that come to mind, but I think this is a basic question that most all of us need to be prepared to answer (if we're not already).

I don't recall whether I got to watch that full debate last time but I'll get to it this time. Thankfully Jordan Peterson seems to be fading away. Hopefully we can express some of the issues in this thread for those who don't watch the video or just want to grapple with this directly.

Stated another way, such a person might say:

1. There is nothing preferable about being alive over being dead.
2. The status of being dead and being alive are essentially equal.
3. Since we are going to be "dead" or "not alive" for a lot more time than we will be "alive," it is important for us to see being dead as not in any way less preferable than being alive.
4. Since Epicurus says that there is no harm in death to us, it should not matter to us whether we are alive or dead.

How would Epicurus react to this point of view? This is not just an off-the-wall hypothetical - I think we essentially this attitude held sometimes in the most unexpected places.

Quote from Kalosyni

The implication here is that "externals" are not important,

As Joshua likes to say on the podcast - "WHAT!!!????"

I don't see that implication at all. There's no presumption that you have lived in a bed of roses, only that you would prefer to live and experience SOME pleasure, even at the cost of some pain, rather than not live at all.

I think what we see in these discussions is that people are presuming lots of things about their own orientations that are not necessarily entailed at all in the summary statements.

Certainly to say something like "it is better to be alive than dead" cannot be analyzed without reference to presumptions. Someone can have all sorts of different pespectives on various parts of life but "it is better to be alive than dead" is a generalization that has to be understood as a generalization. It IS valid and helpful to make generalizations even while at the same time we recognize that there are exceptions. In fact, that is why it is the "exceptions that prove the rule." We are able to geeneralize and reach a rule exactly because we are able to separate the concept of "always" from "most of the time." "Most of the time" is a perfectly valid concept even though what is being referenced is not "always" the case.

So there is no implication that there are not circumstances in which we would be better off dead, but those situations are the minoority of cases. There is no fatalism OR determinsm that requires that we obtain bad results in life.

We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and say yes "sometimes" terrible pain is in face inescapable and we are better off dead, but that "most of the time" terrible pain is not inescapable and we are NOT better off dead.

Nietzsche is all over the board at various phases of his life but I find this to be consistently stated by every commentator I have seen, so I think it is correct:

Its purpose is to test your life-affirmation;

In other words, it is a test for your appreciation of whether you really find your life desirable, in that if you do you will want the opportunity to live life as long and energetically as possible.

Or as Epicurus says, you will find that life is desirable. There is nothing to harm us in being dead, but unless we are in some unusual situation where life is not worth living (which Epicurus says would be the charactistic of a very small man - who has many reasons for ending his life) then the focus is on the fact that death holds no pleasure - nothing positive - for us either.

Quote

[126] But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

And he who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but ‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’.

[127] For if he says this from conviction why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them.

Vatican Saying 38: "He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life."

Edit: It seems I can never find this reference when I am looking for it because I forget the "good" so I am typing this to help future word searches. This saying explains why only a small man will have many reasons for ending his life.... many reasons to commit suicide.... many reasons to end his life.... lots of reasons to commit suicide...." and this is part of the analysis in the letter to Menoeceus that life is desirable.

While the "big picture" issue of how to present Epicurus was what spurred my additions to this thread, I do think it is probably also worth confirming issues raised in the quoted section which presumed a negative answer:

(1) Would we wish to live indefinitely (or immortally) if we could?

(2) If we did remember past lives and knew that we would return after death, would that be viewed as a good thing.

I would say the answer to (1) is clearly yes, and the answer to (2) is only slightly less clear.

As with any hypothetical the devil is in the details.

Option one is not altogether different than the decisions we already make which influence how long we are going to live. We can eat right and exercise and take care in our activities and live longer, or we can disregard those and say "we don't care" how long we live. So option one is easier to relate to without hedging too much on the details of the hypothetical.

Option two would require more definition of the hypotheticals terms, but I think that too can be viewed relatively simply (as Nietzsche seemed to be doing it). It can be framed simply as if your consciousness could return in the same form as you are now in some future world, would you want that to happen? Given a basic framework of the desirability of life I would say that too is a clear yes.

But I won't be surprised if there is some discussion needed on these.