Posts by Cassius

On of the most on-point quotes on Eplcurean confidence. Cicero is intending it to be a slam, but coming from an Academic Skeptic like Cicero, anyone who takes a position on anything of sustance is a raving madman!

Quote

Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus! “I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination, such as the artisan deity and world-builder of Plato's Timaeus, or that old hag of a fortuneteller the Pronoia (which, we may render ‘Providence’) of the Stoics; nor yet a world endowed with a mind and senses of its own, a spherical, rotatory god of burning fire; these are the marvels and monstrosities of philosophers who do not reason but dream.

Velleius From On The Nature Of The Gods - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Episode 317 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "The Epicurean System of Counterbalancing In the Pursuit of Pleasure"

I'm taking the title of today's episode from the fact that both Yonge and King translate "system of counterbalancing" as the best English version of the Latin in section 33:

Totumque hoc de voluptate sic ille praecipit, ut voluptatem ipsam per se, quia voluptas sit, semper optandam expetendamque putet, eademque ratione dolorem ob id ipsum, quia dolor sit, semper esse fugiendum ; itaque hac usurum compensatione sapientem, ut et voluptatem fugiat, si ea maiorem dolorem effectura sit, et dolorem suscipiat maiorem efficientem voluptatem, omniaque iucunda, quamquam sensu corporis iudicentur, ad animum referri tam en;

Thank you Bryan! King's version makes much more sense to me.

In this week's episode, part of what we discuss is the following section from XXXIII which was new to Joshua and me when we came across it. In tonight's 20th Zoom there was a general idea that this is likely referring to sex / romantic relations, but all ideas will be appreciated.

There are two things going on here: (1) is that there's a significant difference between the Yonge and Loeb translations of the sentence before the one we're referring to ("and seem rather for lessening the number of them" vs. "yet all the same look out for a plentiful supply of them," where Yonge and Loeb seem to be at odds, and

(2) the sentence that contrasts "birth position and rank" to beauty, age, and shape." (the Loeb version) on which point Yonge largely agrees, but the question is "what exactly are they talking about?

Here's a video suggested to me by a forum participant. It's not Epicurean specifically or philosophy-oriented in general. However think the attitudes and issues discussed here would be very good to think about for anyone considering how Epicurean philosophy can lead to greater confidence in everday life:

A Special Birthday Greeting To James!

Today is not only the Twentieth of January, and a time of the year close to Epicurus' birthday, but it is the birthday of a 14-year-old who I don't know personally but am told (by his father) was introduced to Epicurus by my "Catius' Cat" poem some years ago.

I understand he is very much into Science, which is great, and also Math, which can also be good when kept on a tight leash! No doubt the story of Polyoenus is relevant here, and I think Frances Wright was likely correct when she wrote in "A Few Days In Athens" that Epicurus did not tell him to give up his studies so much as to be sure they were kept in proper proportion:

Quote from Frances Wright - A Few Days In Athens - Chapter 9

“With regard to the sciences, if it be said, that they are neglected among us, I do not say that our master, though himself versed in them, as in all other branches of knowledge, greatly recommends them to our study but that they are not unknown, let Polyoenus be evidence.

“He, one of the most amiable men of our school, and one most highly favored by our master, you must have heard mentioned throughout Greece as a profound geometrician.”

“Yes,” replied Theon, “but I have also heard, that since entering the garden, he has ceased to respect his science.”

“I am not aware of that,” said Leontium, “though I believe he no longer devotes to it all his time, and all his faculties. Epicurus called him from his diagrams, to open to him the secrets of physics, and the beauties of ethics; to show him the springs of human action, and lead him to the study of the human mind. He taught him, that any single study, however useful and noble in itself, was yet unworthy the entire employ of a curious and powerful intellect; that the man who pursued one line of knowledge, to the exclusion of others, though he should follow it up to its very head, would never be either learned or wise; that he who pursues knowledge, should think no branch of it unworthy attention; least of all, should he confine it to those which are unconnected with the business, and add nothing to the pleasures of life; that further not our acquaintance with ourselves, nor our fellows; that tend not to enlarge the sphere of our affections, to multiply our ideas and sensations, nor extend the scope of our inquiries. On this ground, he blamed the devotion of Polyoenus to a science that leads to other truths than those of virtue, to other study than that of man.”

The issue of proportion is similar to the issue of timing, and that occurs to me as something to stress to a young person. While the goal of happiness through "pleasure" applies at any age, there are things that you can do only when you are young. I understand Martin has gone Zip-lining recently so's he's helping push the boundaries there, but certainly there are things like "having children" that can only be done before a certain age.

Diogenes of Oinoanda dedicated his inscription in part to future generations, and Epicurus provided for the children of Metrodorus and for the continuance of his school far into the future. In case that needs to be made plain, he didn't just say: "Ok guys and gals when this current generation is gone the school can go ahead and shut down because we will have accomplished all that needs to be done!"

So I want to say how much I appreciate hearing that someone as young as James has taken an interest in Epicurus, and I hope that will continue. I'm also aware that the daughter of Amrinder Singh (a member of the group who lost his life while properly pursuing a happy life that included ultralight aircraft), and I hope there are others. We need more children introduced to Epicurus both in our own families and beyond.

As a practical matter it's my goal in 2026 and beyond to make sure we at Epicureanfriends are focusing on introducing younger people to Epicurus. That would be right in line with Epicurus himself and Diogenes Laertius and I feel sure every other true Epicurean in the ancient world.

Torquatus: "Epicurus, then, was not destitute of learning; but those persons are ignorant who think that those studies which it is discreditable for boys not to have learnt are to be continued till old age."

One more thought / question on this point:

If we were to add a separate subforum on "Rhetoric" at some point (and not just under Philodemus) would that be clearly more appropriate for the "Ethics" section, or is it possible that it should be considered under "Canonics?"

That in itself is possibly an interesting discussion. Is part of the problem with "rhetoric" that it is being asserted to be a standard of truth? Or is it clearly and distinctly an issue of Ethics/Politics?

For the time being we'll move this to "On Rhetoric" because on first read that seems to me to be the focus of much/most of it.

Thanks again Eikadistes for writing so much about this. Maybe this will help in the "jelling" of exactly what it is that Philodemus' "On Rhetoric" is all about.

I think we have more of a fix on "Dialectic" being damaging because of it being an effort to allege that truth can be determined separately from the senses, just by playing word games and bouncing words off each other.

I don't think I can summarize what is meant by "Rhetoric" (or even whether "all rhetoric is bad(?)" nearly so easily. On that latter point, it seems Epicurus is pretty negative toward "dialectic" across the board (correct? maybe not?).

Is Epicurus also so negative about most/all aspects of "rhetoric?" Or is there "good/useful rhetoric" and "bad/destructive rhetoric?"

Oh this is excellent Ekiadistes thank you!

As to these first comments let me say:

1 - It's a long article.

2 - It's a difficult subject.

3 - It examines Philodemus' "On Rhetoric" which I find very difficult to process despite it existing in fairly well preserved form.

4 - Since I haven't really digested Philodemus on this topic I can't say that I've processed very well what Eikiadistes says here either.

However I will say that I don't think at least on first glance that it gets anywhere near violating our "No Politics" rule.

Seems to me this is a topic that deserves much more attention over time so I'll probably more it to some subforum of "Ethics" where we can eventually begin to deal with whatever implications the ancients found to be so interesting in this topic of "Rhetoric."

OK I read it. I won't echo "fascinating" but I'll certainly give it credit for "well-written" and "holds interest."

That said, I don't see why the whole issue isn't pretty much the same question as something like "what is the physical nature of thought or dreams?" or "does the brain work electrically, and if so, how long can the electrical function continue after the heart stops pumping?"

The article stays largely neutral, but even entertaining certain questions about the supernatural gives some of the positions a credence I don't think they deserve.

The field of studying the physical nature of thoughts and dreams is certainly valid and fascinating, and could lead to identifying consciousness as something in the brain that could lead to all sorts of "brain transplants to vats" and "vats to robots" and all sorts of possibilities that has in the past been explored in science fiction.

There's a section in the article about brain activity being stimulated by waves or something coming from outside, and I can see that possibility as being involved at least in part analogously to a form of magnetism or other radiation that is being received and processed by the brain:

That is a key tenet of the parapsychologists’ arguments: if there is consciousness without brain activity, then consciousness must dwell somewhere beyond the brain. Some of the parapsychologists speculate that it is a “non-local” force that pervades the universe, like electromagnetism. This force is received by the brain, but is not generated by it, the way a television receives a broadcast.

The brain being stimulated by something outside the brain like the eyes are by light or ears by sound seems to me to reasonable. In fact being influenced from the outside seems not only reasonable but likely, and that seems to me to be pretty much what Epicurus was saying about the brain receiving "images" directly. I gather there is already a lot of reproducible science about the brain being affected by cell phone radiation and other "electrical" influences.

But to take that outside stimulation and jump to the conclusion that "consciousness must dwell somewhere beyond the brain" seems to me to be going way too far and to be a non-starter.

You're definitely right that if we presume death is the shutdown of ALL systems then that answers the question. But the statements of Epicurus do not appear to be so sweeping - they focus on the end of "sensation" as sufficient to answer the question.

I think that the most obvious concern arises from the possibility that if Epicurus is focused only on "sensation" then what does that mean. Is the end of sensation sufficient to establish that absolutely no unpleasantness can occur after death? If consciousness exists totally independently from sensation, and an continue independently without any "new sensation" input, then the possibility would exist that consciousness could continue to rehash old experiences (old pains) from old sensations. If so, then someone might argue that death is not necessarily the complete insulation from all future unpleasantness.

There are various ways to deal with this question, but I do think the question is a valid one to ask. At least it will arise in the minds of some people given the way some people look at consciousness today as inexplicable and mysterious.

Probably related to this as well would be to consider the relationship between "the five senses" and "the feelings" and "the anticipations." Can or do the "feelings of pain and pleasure" and "the anticipations" function without "the five senses"?

In Dewitt's book he talks about them being dependent upon one another while not being identical.

That probably works, but we also don't want to be sure to steer clear of mystical "three in one" allegories.

In our conversation on the zoom there was considerable talk of consciousness being able to reflect upon "past" sensations without needing "new sensations" for added content. From that perspective, consciousness / awareness might be able to continue for some period of time without new inputs from the five senses.

But that doesn't "seem" to be the way that Epicurus was thinking in his statements, does it?

Joshuas list of words relevant to consciousness:

In our Zoom discussion of January 18 2026 we deviated from Lucretius and examined a question that Raphael raised in a video here. The title of the thread seems to be the best way to summarize the issue, but during the course of the discussion several other ways arose:

1. Can consciousness exist without sensation?
2. Does the end of (new) sensation bring the end of consciousness?
3. Does consciousness continue after sensation ends?
4. When Epicurus says that death is the end of sensation, does "end of sensation" in and of itself mean that consciousness ends at death?
5. What does Epicurus say about consciousness?
6. From the Sorites perspective: When you go down the list and subtract each of the five senses, is anything left of consciousness?
7. How does the Epicurean theory of images relate to this question? Can the mind receive images even when all five bodily senses are inactive?
8. Is "consciousness" a modern idea which the ancients would dismiss as a regression in thought?

In the end a lot revolves around "can consciousness exist without sensation?" but asking the question the other ways helps focus on the subtleties.

In the most practical of terms of immediate interest to the "study and promotion of Epicurean philosophy," however, the issue involves how Epicurus meant to be understood in PD2 and the letter to Menoeceus:

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.

Letter to Menoeceus: Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation.

Last week's Episode was entitled "Happiness Is The Goal of Life - A Life of Happiness Is A Life of Pleasure."

As we close in on the end of Tusculan Disputations, I'd like to continue to emphasize not only that each one of these two prongs is controversial, but that there is another prong that's equally or more important:

1 - "Happiness is the goal of life" is hotly disputed by religion (which claims piety) and humanism/Platonism/Stoicism (which claims "virtue" or "being a good person." Many people loosely agree that they want to be happy, but they view happiness is a very non-Epicurean way.

2 - The dispute about prong one is why prong two is bitterly opposed. "A life of happiness is a life of pleasure" is exactly how Diogenes Laertius and Torquatus interpret Epicurus, but many - especially today - want to play word games and cite "absence of pain" or "tranquility" as the goal of life, and push "pleasure" off to the side and safely out of sight. And as a result they live lives that are very different from those which Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and the Epicurean leaders of the ancient world pursued.

3 - Prong three, which we need to address in this and coming episodes, is to emphasize that when Epicurus held that there are only two feelings with no middle ground, that means "pleasure" is everything not just physically but also mentally that we find to be agreeable. Far too many people hear the word "pleasure" and all they hear is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll." That's the way Cicero and most opponents of Epicurus chose to interpret him, and that's wrong, but it's pervasive.

We can say "Happiness is the goal of life," and "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure" all day long, but unless we can articulate the full meaning of pleasure as Epicurus advocated for it, the other two statements are largely worthless. "Happiness is the goal of life" can and has been said by many different types of philosophers, and "A life of happiness is a life of pleasure" is 9 times out of 10 going to be understood as the slogan of a party animal.

Only a clear and full explanation of Epicurus'' use of the word "pleasure" can give legitimate meaning to "happiness is the goal of life" and "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure."

Torquatus and Diogenes of Oinaoanda were able to do it, and the existence of legions of other intelligent Greek and Roman Epicureans are evidence that many others could too.

We today can do the same.

Episode 316 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "The Goal of Life Is Happiness - A Life of Happiness Is A Life Of Pleasure"

Welcome to Episode 317 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.
   
We are closing in on the end of those portions of Tusculan Disputations that are most relevant to Epicurean philosophy today, so we'll pick up this week with more on Section 32 of Part 5.

XXXIII.

You see, I imagine, how Epicurus has divided his kinds of desires, not very acutely perhaps, but yet usefully: saying, that they are “partly natural and necessary; partly natural, but not necessary; partly neither. That those which are necessary may be supplied almost for nothing; for that the things which nature requires are easily obtained.” As to the second kind of desires, his opinion is, that any one may easily either enjoy or go without them. And with regard to the third, since they are utterly frivolous, being neither allied to necessity nor nature, he thinks that they should be entirely rooted out. On this topic a great many arguments are adduced by the Epicureans; and those pleasures which they do not despise in a body, they disparage one by one, and seem rather for lessening the number of them: for as to wanton pleasures, on which subject they say a great deal, these, say they, are easy, common, and within any one’s reach; and they think that if nature requires them, they are not to be estimated by birth, condition, or rank, but by shape, age, and person: and that it is by no means difficult to refrain from them, should health, duty, or reputation require it; but that pleasures of this kind may be desirable, where they are attended with no inconvenience, but can never be of any use. And the assertions which Epicurus makes with respect to the whole of pleasure, are such as show his opinion to be that pleasure is always desirable, and to be pursued merely because it is pleasure; and for the same reason pain is to be avoided, because it is pain. So that a wise man will always adopt such a system of counterbalancing as to do himself the justice to avoid pleasure, should pain ensue from it in too great a proportion; and will submit to pain, provided the effects of it are to produce a greater pleasure: so that all pleasurable things, though the corporeal senses are the judges of them, are still to be referred to the mind, on which account the body rejoices, whilst it perceives a present pleasure; but that the mind not only perceives the present as well as the body, but foresees it, while it is coming, and even when it is past will not let it quite slip away. So that a wise man enjoys a continual series of pleasures, uniting the expectation of future pleasure to the recollection of what he has already tasted. The like notions are applied by them to high living; and the magnificence and expensiveness of entertainments are deprecated, because nature is satisfied at a small expense.

Yes I see we have two valued members with the same birthday. Happy birthday to Onenski and DaveT!

JC, FWIW, I happen to be aware that Martin is traveling this week and likely away from internet access so if he is delayed in responding that may well be a factor.