Posts by Titus

The closing passage of the introductory text from "Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matter" on page 16 states as follows:

"As I suggest in my conclusion to this book, it is worthwhile to think of De Rerum Natura not as a work of Epicurean philosophy or as a satire of it but, rather, as a work of Epicurean satire. The tools and tropes and texts of satire are deployed in the service of the Lucretian speaker's stated Epicurean goals, while the tenets and totems of Epicureanism are deployed in service of the speaker's satiric commentary on his society."

Quote from Joshua

I hope the autocorrect kicked in here on 'satirical', because if not I'm going to have to exercise my chivalry once more against Thomas Carlyle and his Sartor Resartus.

This is the work of the translation software I used to check my writing. Intuitively, I tried to write "satirical" but it always autocorrected me.

Quote from Joshua

The honorific 'soter' or savior has been totally subsumed into the person of Jesus of Nazareth, but in pre-Christian antiquity it was applied freely to gods, heroes, kings, and liberators. There would be nothing unusual about a devoted Epicurean honoring Epicurus in those terms.

Hopefully, the next time I am autocorrected to "soterial"

Ironically, his exuberant depictions of Epicurean philosophy as a remedy and Epicurus as the Messiah tell us that Lucretius was definitively not only someone who was well informed about Epicureanism but was also able to deliver powerful images to his audiences. This is one of the reasons why the poem has survived through the ages. I would argue that these powerful images could be interpreted in a sartorial manner, but they must have their source in a personality that is devoted to the subject.

Since I have access to the interlibrary loan system of our university, I am looking forward to diving deeper. (Additionally, I've also ordered a review of the book).

Quote from Titus

Quote from Cassius

Is this guy an absolute kook or someone trying to make money on esoteric speculation or what? It doesn't sound like a promising time investment for a Christiwn or an Epicurean or anyone else unless he's got *some* kind of textual basis for his ideas.

I would rather call him creative . His main argument is that the epistle of Thomas is a document preserving original sayings of Jesus. In contrast, he suggests that the four canonical epistles are later, mostly fictional stories. He further argues that there are hardly any references to God and supernatural experiences in the epistle of Thomas to find. The main topic of the epistle of Thomas is the "Kingdom of Heaven" and Hannah puts this into his construction of thought. He interprets passages according to his own claims. For example, when Jesus speaks of his father in heaven, this is not an all powerful god but an heavenly avatar.

Quote from Kalosyni

For Epicureans the opposite is believed...in De Rerum Natura, Book 3, the nature of the soul is mortal...it will die when the body dies.

This is extremely interesting, because Hannah develops further the theory of gods and heavenly realms in how they interact with the earthly realm. He argues that there is not only a flow of images to our world, but in the opposite direction, too. He mentions some references in the Herculaneum papyri to strengthen his arguments.

Hannah's key point is that Jesus teaches how to manifest yourself in the heavenly realm, where you go beyond mortality. You will not taste death.

As speculative as it is, Hannah still creates a quite attractive alternative story of salvation that is able to integrate Epicurean physics. Relating to St. Augustine: I would give him the palm

Display More

Quote from Twentier

I think Hannah set out to try to prove a highly imaginative fiction. He paints a colorful picture that would be the perfect topic for late night on the History Channel, but not something constructive to our study as Epicureans.

I did it again . This time I was able to read approximately half of the book before I had to return the interlibrary loan.

This was a journey into esotericism derived from Epicurean philosophy!

To keep it short, according to how I understand his writings: Hannah argues that Jesus' message opens the door to the heavenly realms of the Epicurean Gods. Everyone can build an heavenly avatar by sending images of oneself to the heavenly realms and this avatar continues one's life after the earthly death.

Hannah's claim is highly speculative, but indeed, from an Epicurean point of view this answers questions about the Christian faith, how the resurrection and the afterlife can be packed in a sound thought structure.

His arguments can hardly be proven, but they raise interesting questions: How did the early Christians imagine how the afterlife works physically? What is "heaven"? There are many questions on early Christianity and even theologians may have no clear view on how to solve these issues.

Quote from Godfrey

At the moment, I haven’t got much further than compiling this list. And of course many of the questions will only apply to a particular type of upheaval, and the answers will be different for everyone and in each situation.

I would like to emphasize Cassius' famous phrase: "Don't be a Stoic in disguise!"

The point is not to ask what's in my power and what is beyond my capabilities and to examine everything that comes to my mind according to this procedure. The key is to actually focus on what's important in life, what does have priority and what is established by nature as the foundation of life.

1. everything that natural, either necessary like to stay hydrated or 2. a tasty soft drink derived from that need what one could call not necessary. 3. Not necessary desires which are not to focus on.

I like this classification because it gives positive statements what to pursue. I know there is space for interpretation and to some degree in modern consumer society there is plenty of food, drink and clothing available. But perhaps this is exactly the trap: Thinking the easy things don't matter because they seem to be too easy to achieve!

In your case the message could be: Focus on a healthy diet, focus on your corporeal well-being, focus on your social interactions. Strengthen the foundation. So you don't get distressed by what's going on on the screens. The direct response you receive is that you (hopefully!) have plenty of food, drink and shelter as well as friends available and that is it what is first and what matters foremost.

This is to experience in our everydays lives. As the natural desires usually give a direct response related to our senses, hopefully this can be a strategy to go skip the abstract fears in one's head.

(I've just mentioned the very essentials of life, but this doesn't mean to not focus on other pleasurable experiences. This is just a personal preference.)

Fill yourself up with the fullness of pleasure, so the emptiness of the world cannot enter!

Quote from Martin

Trying that for aspects which are out of the scope of science is sometimes called Scientism, too, but the people who apply science out of its scope are usually not scientists because scientists usually know the limits of their profession.

This is a key point I think, of what I would call "Scientism of the streets" and this is also what comes in my mind when talking about "Scientism". But I think there is discrepancy in the original Scientism too, but because you can argue with one hypothesis this year and with another one a few years later, argumenting the results have changed. But perhaps just your opinions have and you changed the way you constructed your research.

Quote from Martin

To answer whether an adherent of Scientism lacks the right telos and overall understanding of human existence, we would need to pick specific people and answer the question for each individual.

It seems the devil is in the details, especially when talking about something so difficult to grasp like "Scientism". I just find it interstesting, because many people of today argument with science as the backbone of there argumentation.

We are convinced that Epicurus' philosophy is probably the most realistic approach to life and the one most closely orientated to human needs.

As we know, it allows for numerous interpretations, but conversely also assumes generalities and generalisations.

Epicurus' philosophy is very strongly orientated towards the correct perception and interpretation of our environment and derives the guidelines of ethics from this: Could we also speak of Scientism here? Where do we draw the dividing line? Is the main difference that scientist-scientists use science as a rhetorical tool to realise their goals, as it has become common in debates to underpin everything ‘scientifically’ with research and statistics?

Ultimately, at first glance, Scientism does not seem so far removed from Epicurus' way of thinking of deducing everything from nature and observations. But do scientist-scientists simply lack the right telos and overall understanding of human existence?

What do you think?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Quote from Cassius

Not a word, as far as I can tell, that would give a police officer a moral compass on how to do his or her job, just a standard recitation of "virtue" as "the only true good," as if virtue exists apart from a view of what good is being targeted for accomplishment

Isn't this the very characterisation of Stoicism? It gives a framework, but the space in between is empty. This leaves room to any kind of interpretation. The main thing is that you adapt to your environment, regardless what kind of matter it represents. This might be especially attractive for a civil servant.

Quote from Cassius

Then I would point out that never does Epicurus himself ever state that these four short statements are his "capital doctrines:" There is *one* occurrence of a formulation similar to this, in a Herculaneum scroll, and no other ancient source contains this formulation. Yes it's arguable that the actual doctrines can be construed to say something similar, but they say much more, with much different connotation.

In general, I found the video quite appealing and every of the four points of emphasize was embedded in explanations and references to the letter to Menoikeus. The author also delivers graphics which give more color to the topics.

I do agree that the Tetrapharmacos formula falls short of delivering the whole curriculum of Epicureanism and we even don't know exactly the context in within it is delivered. On the other hand it catches topics that are of great importance in both Menoikeus, PDs, DRN. I still find it valueable as a formula for repetition and "meditation" on Epicurean ethics.

Quote from Cassius

This is the real heart of the problem. This slide and the audio overlay state that these are the two kinds of pleasure that Epicurus promoted, and this is simply not correct.

I agree with you that it is problematic and the video's author isn't doing a good job in explaining what he is probably trying to argue. I like Don's statement:

Quote from Don

That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life.

For the lay people who aren't familiar with Epicurus at all it's important to know, that pleasure isn't simply eating ice-cream or drinking wine. That's probably why the video's author mentioned it.

My main issue with the video is, that it doesn't promote this forum where to find more nuanced and source-orientated discussions, that leave behind the simplistic terms for the laymen.

Quote from Cassius

Let's remember to discuss this quote in this episode:

Post

RE: Benefits of Memorizing and Remembering Specific Epicurean Verse

[…]

Did you manage to discuss the line?

Titus

April 9, 2024 at 4:17 PM

The panelists had so much to say about pleasure, either in general or in the particular, when it is a question of definition!

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Titus

"They have nothing to say about pleasure."

We might have to steal that line and feature it our our podcast tomorrow, which we are recording with Don ! thanks for the reminder!

Did you manage to discuss the line?

I especially like the new find of Herculanean scripture: "They have nothing to say about pleasure." This is a simple but very powerful statement that unveils the emptiness of every argument that isn't rooted in our fundamental nature ( the opponents would disagree, but it's still hard to disagree with something elemental like searching for positive emotions).

Quote from Joshua

Very cool! There are some good articles in that book, I'm happy to see it accessible to a wider audience!

This is off-topic and I don't have time for further discussion at the moment:

On page 40 one of the authors is arguing that Cicero often disguises the Epicureans with phrases instead of naming them directly. The author states this is some kind of a rhetoric method.

"But at other times, both in these works and others where Epicurean doctrines, though not the focus, still come under some consideration, the interlocutor regularly invokes the Epicureans obliquely, using a periphrasis that identifies them as “those who refer all things to pleasure” or the like. Cicero uses a formulation of this sort at least twenty times in his theoretical works."

It strikes me, because this is something DeWitt suggests St. Paul is doing the same way in his epistles!

Quote from Don

I would agree that there may be some word games going on, but "flourishing" seems to be the academic consensus of what word to use for eudaimonia.

Okay, so Prof. Eller relates to an already established term.

Quote from Don

But then you're back at square one in needing to define what the "good life" is.

Quote from Peter Konstans

For the ancient Greeks,
however, eudaimonia, which is usually translated by ‘happiness’ but which
rather should be translated by something like ‘human flourishing’, was not an emotional state, but rather about whether a human being had attained virtue and excellence, achieved his aims, and truly made the most of his life.

The same question (what the good life is) hit my brain when I answered for the first time in this thread. I remember Prof. Malte Hossenfelder arguing, that eudaimonia was an unifying aim of all the Hellenistic philosophies (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Scepticism, Cynicism) to show a way to the "good life". Obviously, they differ in their methods and what they define as primary goal or content of the good life.

From my point of view, as a comparative term, taking different traditions into account and the possible motivation of a seeker and to-come diciple of a philosophical sect, flourishing doesn't fit so badly. Conversely, as a word defining the end of eudaimonia in itself as defined by a specific tradition, more substantive content is needed. For Epicureanism this might be defined as "fullness of pleasure".

Quote from Don

Flourishing is primarily defined as (Merriam-Webster) "marked by vigorous and healthy growth" (a flourishing garden); "very active and successful."

I could maybe accept it if one goes with the sense of "successful" as in " having attained a desired end or state of good fortune" but I don't normally get that sense from "flourishing." To me, that definition is better attached to "well-being" "the state of doing well especially in relation to one's happiness or success"

Although I assume a philologist to be sensible about words, this could simply be an issue of word games because Prof. Erler isn't a native speaker of English. I remember that the tenor in the German literature on eudaimonia tends to interpret the term as "living/having achieved the good life", which is close to your definition, Don.

In this episode I learnt that I don't have to listen to the approximately 200 episodes I've missed so far to experience the maximum of this pleasurable podcast

Quote from Cassius

As Dawkins says "we feel as if we are not deterministic -- and that's all that matters."

Isn't this the position of Epicurus in the Letter to Menoeceus?

"(He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame." (Bailey translation)

I especially remind a German translation by Laskowsky. He renders the bold print as follows:

"und es an uns stehe, ob wir uns einem Herrn unterwerfen wollen!"

"and it is up to us whether we want to submit to a master!"

Laskowsky's translation might be questioned, but I like his wording very much, because it centers self-reliance and independent personal reasoning. It's in particular important, because I think otherwise we are in danger of appreciating every kind of logic that is approaching us in an beguiling way.

It's how Ca(t/ss)ius Cat would tell us: "And yet others will say that, "No thing can be known!" All the while they will offer their own truth to loan."

Quote from Cassius

It may be that one's mix of stimulative pleasures and pains changes constantly, but if you are wisely philosophical about life then you are constantly appreciating that you are alive and that certain parts of your mind and body are functioning well even while others are not, and you consider yourself happy no matter how bad the temporary painful stilmulations are because, all things considered, you focus on the many types of pleasures available to you while you are alive, and you realize that stimulative pains are short if intense and manageable if long.

EP is like a toolbox which enables us to fix any broken part. Knowing to have such a powerful item in your hands, you're able to confront any given difficulties with a positive attitude. Therefore one could say, happiness is always within reach.

Quote from Cassius

"You have said Ataraxia is desirable. Is all Ataraxia the same?" How should I consider any differences in the experience of ataraxia in determining how I am going to live my life? Does the pleasantness of my experiences while I am not disturbed have anything to do with it? Am I supposed to consider the location, duration, and intensity of pleasures, or are all pleasures of equal significance to me so long as I am not disturbed?

How would you articulate the answer to that question to someone?

Have we already discussed PD 18? There, Epicurus states after reaching the quantitative maximum of pleasure it only differs in quality.

It seems to me, as long as I am mentally undisturbed and in a state of corporeal well-being, pleasureful sensations are "adding up" as an optional seasoning. This may be practically adressed in PD 29, where the natural but not necessary category of pleasures addresses also a qualitative matter. We can find relieve from thirst by simply drinking water or we could also spice our experience e.g. with additional flavour to our drink, heating or cooling it.

I think we also have to take into respect, that this is not only a theoretical discussion of ideas, but of experiences that are fundamental to our being. The idea of fulfilling natural and necessary needs while sitting in a cave by drinking water and eating bread is a state of idealized sanctification. While it focuses on the relatively low hardware requirements concerning human material needs, it ignores all the other variables to our lives in our ever-changing material conditions.

While the natural but not necessary entities are somewhat "optional", they reflect our interaction with our environment. There we have to make decisions continously. So while ataraxia seems to me somewhat equal as a comparable term, it is also confronted by a physical reality that has to be adressed by personal choices and avoidances.