Posts by Don

Welcome aboard

"Is Cicero Right That Death a Better Place?"

I'm not saying Cicero uses the word, but if anyone tries to say something like "the afterlife is a utopia" remember that utopia literally means "no-place." Coined from Ancient Greek οὐ (ou, “not”) + τόπος (tópos, “place, region”). It's not spelled eutopia "good place." The afterlife is not a place, it does not exist. We do not exist after our death other than in the memories of the living. Make an effort to be memorable to your family, your friends. Be the best parent, partner, and friend you can be. That is your afterlife.

"ag dul siar ar bhóithrín na smaointe"

The Irish (Gaelic) phrase for reminiscing.

Literally, "going back down the little lane of thoughts; going back on the road of ideas"

bhóithrín "a small, quite often badly maintained track or lane, commonly found in rural areas."

Think of English "taking a trip down memory lane" but I like that idea that, even if the road is badly maintained, you're still going travel down it to visit a cherished memory.

(VERY roughly pronounced : ag dool she-ar air vo-run na shmin-cha)

That's fascinating, Joshua . You could very well be on to something, if for no other reason than (relative) safety in numbers.

That meme, though

οὐδὲν γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος

nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent.

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 38

There's also the sentiment expressed by things like "football is my religion"

Is football the universal religion?

The World Cup 2018 has had its share of iconic moments. Kelly Grovier picks out five striking photos from the tournament – finding their echoes in pious art.

www.bbc.com

Quote from Cassius

If it's an Epicurean argument, was Cicero extending it to the existence of souls on his own, without precedent from Epicurean texts, or is it likely that the Epicureans reasoned this way in regard to souls as well as gods?

I'm not convinced that the prolepsis of the gods includes their blessedness and incorruptibility. The prolepsis has to do with their existence. The blessedness and incorruptibility are the proper "beliefs" that we should assign to them. When Epicurus says (in the letter to Menoikeus):

believe that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing as is the common, general understanding of the god. You, [Menoikeus], believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. Do not attribute anything foreign to its incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the god!

He's using the word "believe" and "general understanding" and "attribute" not prolepsis. Then later:

Gods exist (θεοὶ εἰσιν), and the knowledge of them is manifest to the mind's eye.

That "enarges ἐναργὴς" or "manifest to the mind's eye" to me says that the existence of the gods is the readily discernible "knowledge" and nothing more. Then, by reason, we assign the proper common, general understanding of the god as incorruptible and blessed.

On the other hand, the "soul" (shudder... I *really* dislike using that loaded term) is apparent because we're alive. BUT *remember* neither Epicurus nor Cicero uses our Christian-laden term "soul."

Epicurus consistently talks about the ψυχή (psykhe - psyche) which is akin to the Latin anima. Both can refer to "the animating principle of a human or animal body, vital spirit, soul, life." The ψυχή can also be thought as the "mind" or where reason happens. It seems the big argument - then and now - was whether this seat of reason or the principle that gave animation and life to a body, human or animal, existed separately from the body or whether it came into existence with the physical body. Did it exist prior to the body or can it exist after the body decays? Or is it inextricably interwoven WITH the body, arising together and decaying together at death?

The difference between gods and the soul/ψυχή/anima is that we can see the latter at work every time we look at a living body... or sense our own existence for that matter! No prolepsis is needed. A body is animate, it has an anima/ψυχή. A body is dead, something happened to the anima/ψυχή.

Quote from Cassius

Key to this analysis is that I think most of us agree that the faculty of prolepses leads toward formation of opinions, but that a prolepsis is not itself an opinion. Cicero doesn't seem to accept this, and he seems to think that an Epicurean prolepsis is a fully formed opinion, and since all men have the opinion that gods exist and that souls survive death, that makes it true. I also think most of us agree that Epicurus would say that it doesn't matter how many people think a thing to be so, that's not sufficient evidence of its truth - we should require sound reasoning based on observations from the senses, prolepsis, and feelings, and these are not subject to majority vote.

Agreed. That's why I content that the prolepsis of the gods does not cover their blessed and incorruptibility.

Quote from Cassius

If you need any help getting started just let me know.

I may very well take you up on that. I'll noodle around and then try and send a message to you in the next weeks or so.

Quote from Cassius

I'm experimenting using the side-by-side format the possibility of making notes on each section of Tusculun Disputations as we go through it

This is a great idea!! Okay, I was stalling on my Menoikeus reformating because of all the hard html coding. But this text and note format has some potential as demonstrated right here by your work, Cassius . I need to go back and look more at that side by side ... software? Template? Thing? Thanks for the practical proof of concept!

Quote from Kalosyni

I see that today is International Happiness Day! Yay!!!

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats…ay-photos-smile

AND the first day of Spring! Hail Venus!

These are enlightening posts, Joshua . Thanks for pulling these individual authors out and highlighting them. This list would seem to lend itself as a starting point for a must-read list

For anyone interested in a little background:

Index Librorum Prohibitorum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brilliant having the dramatic reading. Much easier to follow the text.

Are you 3d printing? If so, would you be willing to share an an stl file?

Seen online...

Or in Scots: "Be happy while y'er leevin, fer y'er a lang time deid."

Fascinating Substack article on how the ancients learned Latin and Greek.

History Of Latin Pedagogy: Part One

How Did The Romans Teach Latin?

open.substack.com

Welcome aboard!

Quote from Martin

Quote

Epicurus got in (at least) one shipwreck.

There are texts in which Epicurus describes looking at a wrecked ship and which indicate that he took a ship at a season which was dangerous for travel by ship to flee from Mytilene. However, none of these texts indicate that he was himself in a shipwreck. What is the reference for him getting in a shipwreck?

https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/9341/4561

Link to Sailing to Lampsacus: Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 7 by Diskin Clay

Quote from Seneca

"Go to his Garden and read the motto carved there: 'Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.'

Seneca's Latin is:

HOSPES HIC BENE MANEBIS, HIC SVMMVM BONVM VOLVPTAS EST

I'd suggest the inscription would have been in Greek with maybe a Latin version later. In light of that, HOSPES is a Latin translation of ΧΕΝΟΣ (xenos). The concepts of the ΧΕΝΟΣ and ΧΕΝΙΑ (xenia) are applicable to this thread.

Xenia (Greek) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Xenia consists of two basic rules:

"1. The respect from hosts to guests. Hosts must be hospitable to guests and provide them with a bath, food, drink, gifts, and safe escort to their next destination. It is considered rude to ask guests questions, or even to ask who they are, before they have finished the meal provided to them.

"2. The respect from guests to hosts. Guests must be courteous to their hosts and not be a threat or burden. Guests are expected to provide stories and news from the outside world. Most importantly, guests are expected to reciprocate if their hosts ever call upon them in their homes."

As "strangers" learn about Epicurean philosophy - as they metaphorically pass by the gate to the Garden - they should be welcomed, we should be hospitable, answer questions courteously, etc. We should practice philosophical χενια.

PS. Note also that Seneca specifically uses SVMMVM BONVM, so likely that would have been ΤΕΛΟΣ in Greek. So, that last phrase could be interpreted as "Here, pleasure is the telos."

MANEBIS is Latin for ΜΕΝΩ "stay, lodge, linger, remain"

BENE translates ΚΑΛΟΣ (kalos) that slippery word denoting well, nobly, beautifully, etc.

Quote from Cassius

Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?

If so, how?

A valid question; however, my first reaction is going to respond to this a little sideways.

As I stated and from my perspective, "Pleasure is the telos" a fact of the natural world - like gravity or evolution - that Epicurus discovered and articulated through his philosophy. It's the way living beings work and how they interact with the world and each other.

Christians believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to have salvation and eternal life.

Muslims believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to serve Allah and to please him.

Buddhists believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to be released from this world of dukkha, of suffering and dissatisfaction.

Stoics believe they've discovered the way the world works and how humans need to act to align their lives to Nature and to live virtuously.

And so on.

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Stoics and the rest don't water down their underlying principles. They believe what they believe. If one sees value in their worldviews, that person accepts the "tenets of the faith" (so to speak) and is accepted into the community.

I don't see any difference with Epicurean philosophy.

"Here are the fundamental core principles of the philosophy. Do they resonate with you? Do they make sense to you? They do? Welcome! All are invited to explore the way of life the school offers."

I'm not saying we should be combative or be argumentative or should beat people over the head or even start conversations with "You're wrong!" or "You're lying to yourself!" That is certainly not the way to make friends and influence people, as the saying goes.

But I also don't advocate a watered-down, kumbaya, join hands, we're all one approach either. Epicurean philosophy has to stand for something, and the current round of podcast episodes has been doing a good job of staking out some turf on the fundamentals. "Pleasure is the telos" is a fundamental, and I would say a fundamental of human existence and not just one option among many equally-valid options.

Epicurus' Garden had a welcome sign posted, but once you were inside the walls, everyone got taught that "Pleasure is the goal."

"Go to his Garden and read the motto carved there: 'Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.'

So, to respond directly to:

Quote from Cassius

Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?

If so, how?

Not everyone is going to be attracted to Epicurean philosophy, and, in fact, many may be hostile to the philosophy. The only solution, from what I can see, is to be visible in the marketplace of ideas, to make the philosophy known, to welcome people who find themselves Epicurious.

I have a friend with whom I've raised my Epicurean leanings. He has shared some therapy methods like ACT and the positive psychology concept of "savoring" that he said remind him of what I've brought up about Epicurean philosophy. One thing I've mentioned is that there are a lot of Epicurean-adjacent ideas that don't get credited to Epicurus but that resonate with the philosophy. That has opened up a dialogue between us to explore some ideas. It's a way into the philosophy possibly for him. I didn't come out all barrels blazing with "Pleasure is the telos." But I'm not going to compromise. If at some point I bring it up and he pushes back (He's a very smart guy), I hope I can come up with cogent arguments, etc. for what I believe. If he comes up with better arguments, I remain open to exploring outside the school. For now, Epicurus makes the most sense and provides a guide for life that resonates with me.

Quote from Titus

I speak from a perspective of Epicurean "universalism".

I would argue that even if they say they pursue the afterlife and are not seeking pleasure they are lying or not recognising their reality. It's as obvious as water is wet and the sunlight at noon is bright to me.

I agree with you, that the stories may misguide them but on the other hand the force of our innate pleasure-pain-mechanism is immensely powerful. No-one can escape this reality.

Quote from Cassius

I think some of this discussion revolves around the issue of "psychological hedonism" and I will be the first to admit that I have never found "psychological hedonism" to be a very helpful way to analyze things.

Saying that "You're doing what you're doing - whatever you're doing - because you think it will bring you pleasure" does not seem to me to be a very helpful way of looking at much of anything. I realize that many people that this helps them defend "hedonism," and if so than I suppose whatever floats one's boat is good.

But to me, it's an argument that smacks of circularity and even disrespect for the other person who is earnestly suggesting that whatever they are pursuing is not pleasure at all.

I'm all for a very wide perspective on what the word "pleasure" includes, but once you've come to the place in a discussion where you disagree with someone on their definition, it doesn't seem to me that anything helpful is achieved by saying "you really agree with and you're just not willing to admit it."

I'm going to go on record to say that I lean heavily toward what Titus wrote. From my perspective, Epicurus was not positing a philosophical position in that "pleasure is the telos." He was identifying a universal trait of human beings - in fact, a trait of all living beings.

I sincerely don't care if Epicureanism is defined as "psychological hedonism" or Axiological hedonism or Ethical hedonism or whatever-ical hedonism or hedonism at all. Epicurus had an insight into the motivation of all living beings that they move toward pleasure and move away from pain, and he used this starting point to shed light on how living beings interact with their world and ultimately what is the goal of life of living beings, with humans being able to take that information and to move toward eudaimonia.

The meaning of the telos or the "supreme good" is that thing which is the telos or the "supreme good" is that for which ALL actions are ultimately motivated by. One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.

People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!

I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure. The feelings are only two after all. BUT Epicurus calls us to make prudent choices, to live nobly, well, and prudently, to try to fill our lives with more pleasure than pain. That's what I believe ALL living beings are doing. And Epicurus was brilliant in his attempt to explain this. Not everyone is going to listen. Not everyone is going to be convinced. Not everyone is going to accept that universal truth. But that is exactly what I believe is going on in the psyche of every living being.

Whether we should try to convince them of that or whether they'll accept it... that is a completely different discussion. But truth is truth, and I think Epicurus squarely hit the proverbial nail on the head.