Posts by Cassius

WOW that is impressive!

Joshua and Don you'll be interested to take a look at this.

Thanks Tau Phi!

We are regularly running into the need for easy production of html pages which allow the side-by-side display of English translation with the original Greek or Latin.

I think the target probably needs to be two or three column - probably two so that it will be usable on portrait size portable devices.

It also probably needs to be somehow divisible by "cells," in that the English translation is frequently longer than the Greek or Latin, and so to keep the passages of text together it's necessary to be able to have the end result look almost like a "spreadsheet" so that the English and original passages stay together. It's possible that links or tags could be used to jump from place to place, but ultimately side-by-side is probably the most usable.

Optimum would be the ability to easily change out the columns, so that for example the first column could be Latin, then the second switchable between Bailey, Munro, etc., with the switching function not causing you to lose your place in the text.

Since we're talking wish-list here, what we need is a system wherein the texts can be prepared and edited either locally or on the internet version, and then the result easily convertible to an html page for posting.

Currently one system I am using is Emacs org-mode, where I can prepare a text and then export the result to an html page like so. It's possible that emacs could do what we want but it has a steep learning curve.

I'd like to employ such as system to deploy side-by-side versions of Lucretius, rather than individually as we currently have it.

I made an early effort in the direction of multi-column pages here. This is somewhat usable, but it's not by any means optimum. The columns don't stay together and the system I used was not user friendly.

I know others would probably find suggestions useful, as Don (for one) is thinking about side-by side versions of his letter to Menoeceus.

I don't have any illusions that this will be easy to do, but if we start the thread now then maybe over time people will come across examples of other sites that are usable for such a project and we can explore how they are made.

Thanks Joshua but I did mean it for this thread, Yes, Democritus is what brought it to mind, but this particular thought is really more focused on the overall evaluation of pleasure and happiness than it is on the Democritus discussion we had today.

Dropping a couple of things here for future thought:

1. In Episode 271, looking at Tusculum Disputations Part 1 at 34, we will come across an offhand reference to Epicurus disagreeing with Democritus. Apparently Democritus held that the soul may continue to exist for at least some period of time after death. Cicero points out that the Epicureans made clear their disagreement with Democritus on that point.
2. Democritus apparently tended to think that the only thing "real" is the atoms and void, and that everything else exists only by convention.
3. If we apply point (2) to the soul, then would we be concerned that Democritus held that the soul is not "real" and that the soul continues to exist in atomic form just like the decomposing corpse?
4. It is apparently clear that Epicurus wanted to escape from the skepticism that Democritus' views entailed for important ethical questions.
5. Dropping back to line 449 of Book one of Lucretius (which is presumably a condensation of Epicurus' On Nature), we have the discussion of properties and qualities of atoms and void. Too much to quote here in full, but in summary it looks like the point is that not only the atoms and void are real but also the properties and qualities of things are real. Epicurean theory seems to end up referring to these things as what we call "emergent qualities" and we consider them to be no less real than the atoms:. Quick summary:
   1. [1:449] Everything that we can name to exist has attributes that we consider to be properties or events/accidents of that thing. A property is something that cannot be separated from the thing without the thing being destroyed, such as you cannot separate weight from rocks, or heat from fire, or moisture from water, or touch from bodies, or emptiness from void. On the other hand, events/accident can be separated from a thing without destroying it, such as slavery, poverty, riches, freedom, war, and peace can be separated from people without destroying the person himself.
   2. [1:464] Time is an example of an event that does not exist by itself, but from our feelings about the motion or stillness of things. For example, consider the Trojan War, which does not exist in itself, but as an event of things that occurred in the past. The people involved in that war are long dead, and the Trojan War is but an event of the people and things that were involved at the time.
   3. [1:483] Bodies are therefore not only the atoms that compose them, but thing things that are created when the atoms combine. In the world around us everything is porous, but by reasoning we will see that the atoms themselves are not porous, and from them everything we see is created.
6. Diogenes of Oinoanda emphasis that happiness is a life of pleasure: in Fragment 32: "Fr. 32 … [the latter] being as malicious as the former. I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now. If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.
7. Torquatus in On Ends appears to equate a life of happiness with a life of pleasure
   1. Book 1 Line 32: [32] X. But that I may make plain to you the source of all the mistakes made by those who inveigh against pleasure and eulogize pain, I will unfold the whole system and will set before you the very language held by that great discoverer of truth and that master-builder, if I may style him so, of the life of happiness.
   2. [54] But if the encomium passed even on the virtues themselves, over which the eloquence of all other philosophers especially runs riot, can find no vent unless it be referred to pleasure, and pleasure is the only thing which invites us to the pursuit of itself, and attracts us by reason of its own nature, then there can be no doubt that of all things good it is the supreme and ultimate good, and that a life of happiness means nothing else but a life attended by pleasure.
8. Switching contexts again, most of us agree that Epicurus was experiencing happiness, even on his last day, when we was wracked with pain of kidney disease.
9. Going back to Lucretius, quoting this time from Bailey: [449] For all things that have a name, you will find either properties linked to these two things or you will see them to be their accidents. That is a property which in no case can be sundered or separated without the fatal disunion of the thing, as is weight to rocks, heat to fire, moisture to water, touch to all bodies, intangibility to the void. On the other hand, slavery, poverty, riches, liberty, war, concord, and other things by whose coming and going the nature of things abides untouched, these we are used, as is natural, to call accidents. Even so time exists not by itself, but from actual things comes a feeling, what was brought to a close in time past, then what is present now, and further what is going to be hereafter. And it must be avowed that no man feels time by itself apart from the motion or quiet rest of things.

Based on the above:

1. To what extent would it be appropriate to conclude that Epicurus is considering "happiness" to be an "emergent quality" - an event - of a life of discrete pleasures? In this case I would see happiness as an emergent property of the "event" kind rather than the permanent kind because happiness is not destroyed by the existence of some degree of pain, even by a tremendous amount of pain such as when under torture.
2. The main reason I ask this is to consider whether Epicurus viewed "happiness" as a real thing, distinct from pleasure, by means of being a emergent quality that could not exist without the underlying discrete pleasures (accompanied by pains). Is this comparable to how the human body would not exist but for the existence of the underlying atoms and void? Given Epicurus' intent to correct the errors of Democritus leading toward skepticism and determinism, Epicurus would have been able to employ the relationship between atoms and bodies in physics to describe in ethics how the concept of happiness arises from the experience of discrete pleasures.
3. Would these points be helpful in describing the relationship between happiness and pleasure?

Thanks for the information! I am hopeful that "we" will eventually expand into livestreaming or other more informal discussion of how to apply Epicurean principles, but I think it's key that we first set a baseline of what Epicurus really taught from the texts. That's become more our "niche" in the Epicurean world and will likely continue for a long while. There's a tremendous amount of material that rarely gets discussed on Youtube or the general philosophy podcasts. In my own experience, the more deeply you read the more it becomes clear that superficial readings can't come close to doing justice to Epicurus.

Episode 270 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today's episode is entitled: "Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time."

Happy Birthday to Shierprism! Learn more about Shierprism and say happy birthday on Shierprism's timeline: Shierprism

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.

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.

Also Pimagus, just out of curiosity how did the find the forum? I think some people actually find the podcast first and then the forum, so it's interesting to hear what ways we come to the attention of people.

Good to have you Pimagus!

Welcome Pimagus

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 72 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 / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

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 some 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 other viewpoints, 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 by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being 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 have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

Please check out our Getting Started page.

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!

I thought I would clarify a statement I made tonight:

Bryan raised the point that the swerve was not discussed at length in the section of Lucretius devoted to the operation of the soul/mind. i raised that I thought the swerve was mentioned in regard to the racehorse analogy and that I thought that might be in book two but wasn't sure.

After checking, yes, the famous references to the swerve comes near the beginning of Book TWO, while the majority of discussion of the Soul/mind is in Book THREE.

And that reminds me that I find it tricky to fit the six books into neat packages. Book two seems to be more of a discussion of the movement of atoms, while three is more focused on the human soul. But while it's pretty easy to see that Book three is focused on the soul being mortal and leading to a discussion of death at the end, It's not so clear to me how Lucretius came to a decision in his own mind as to what to include about the atoms in book one as against book two.

• [2:216] But atoms are not carried downward in a straight line at no fixed time and no fixed place, the atoms swerve slightly from the fixed path downward, and we know this because if they did not do so, no collisions would ever occur to bring all bodies into being.
• [2:225] Do not think that these collisions could have been brought about by heavier atoms falling onto lighter ones, because all atoms move through the void at equal speed. It is the swerve that brings about collisions, but this swerve is no more than the very least change in direction, and certainly not sideways. We can plainly see that bodies on their own cannot travel sideways, but our senses are not strong enough to detect the deviation of the swerve from the straight downward path.
• [2:251] If all motions were predetermined from prior motions without any swerve of the atoms, all events would be decreed by fate, and there would be no free will for living things, but due to the swerve we have free will to move and follow pleasure where it leads our minds to choose.
• [2:263] An example of this is the racehorse, straining against the barriers, which desires first in its mind to burst forth from the gates before the movement is carried from the minds to the body and limbs.
• [2:271] Another example is how we can decide in our minds to resist blows or forces from outside ourselves.

On March 12 we will pick up in the PDF around topic 25.31 - Emergent Causation.

Happy Birthday to UnPaid_Landlord! Learn more about UnPaid_Landlord and say happy birthday on UnPaid_Landlord's timeline: UnPaid_Landlord

Well here's a chapter heading from Gassendi that looks like it could have influenced Jefferson's outline especially as to referring to "felicity" and "indolence" -

Quote from Kalosyni

Especially the phrase "the genuine, not the imputed doctrines" --- and this would refer to "the actual" rather than anything that detractors would say.

Also, "actual" as opposed to what is imputed both by (1) detractors who intentionally misrepresent, and (2) by those who think they re interpreting fairly, but who are mistaken. Not so many detractors nowadays take the time to argue against Epicurus directly. Of those who are actually writing about Epicurus there may be more in the "mistaken" camp than in the "unfriendly" camp.

Ilkka V. and I put a lot of effort into attempting to make a digital readable copy of Gassendi's work on Epicurus, but the end result was probably not worth the effort.

No doubt there remain a lot of interesting issues to explore, including (1) following the threads of Gassendi's influence on others, and (2) seeing if Gasssendi referenced sources that were available too him but not to us today.

I've placed a copy of the latest transcription work here, if anyone decides at any point to explore it further. The text is a mess and needs lots of work, but it should be largely readable in parallel with the PDF when there are obvious errors.

I would recommend that anyone working on this use the transcription as a guide to the contents but ultimately link to and reference the PDF at Archive.org.

Public Copy of Gassendi's Epicurus - His Life And Doctrine

The scanned PDF from which we are working is here, where it can be downloaded in PDF format::…

docs.google.com

Author's final paragraphs are ambiguous, but his answer early in the paper (with which I agree) is clear: No.

Titus' question is a good one and I too am interested in the answer. However since you're brand new and referenced societal issues let me be cautious and remind you to please be sure that you steer clear of contemporary "politics" in your answer due to our forum rules.

As I often repeat, Epicurean philosophy definitely does have "real-world" implications for societal issues, and people can and should discuss them.

But those are best discussed privately off-forum so that we can keep the forum itself aligned towards promoting a renewal of Epicurean philosophy, and that goal is important enough not to jeapordize it by mixing with issues that are primarily limited to shorter-term circumstances.

Thanks.