Posts by Robert

Quote from Kalosyni

These two Wikipedia entries seems relevant for this section of Lucretius:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_reasoning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

Robert You made an interesting comment in last Sunday's meeting regarding inference, and if I recall it was something about the correct way or the steps for inference (though I don't remember if you went further saying what the steps were).

Also, thinking that we may want to see what Philodemus has to say about inference.

Hmm--did it have something to do with detecting celestial objects, as in the indirect detection of Neptune by observing anomalies in the orbit of Uranus? I remember mentioning this for some reason.

Very interested to see how Philodemus approaches the topic of inference!

Quote from Joshua

Robert From the Thread on Thomas More's Utopia:

Quote

[Utopus] made a solemn and severe law against such as should so far degenerate from the dignity of human nature, as to think that our souls died with our bodies, or that the world was governed by chance, without a wise overruling Providence: for they all formerly believed that there was a state of rewards and punishments to the good and bad after this life; and they now look on those that think otherwise as scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beast’s: thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society, or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth; since a man of such principles must needs, as oft as he dares do it, despise all their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made, that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites.

Thank you, Joshua! How familiar do you think More might have been with Epicurus? His argument seems almost a direct response to the position expressed in PD34 and elsewhere.

Cassius I can't help but be amused by Gassendi's tactic for defusing this problematic (from his point of view) Epicurean statement--blame it on the slanderous Stoics! But I notice that in "On the Nature of the Gods," it's Cotta the Academic Skeptic who references the controversial statement, not Balbus the Stoic. And Cotta gives the impression that the Epicurean saying was well-known, originated from Epicurus himself, and was often repeated by Epicureans.

He also makes the connection to Epicurean physics that you allude to above--no good can be experienced apart from sensation. Conversely, Gassendi's objection to the statement would reflect his objection to materialism. As you suggest, his religious biases come into play.

Cassius, thank you for starting this thread, and glad folks are finding the essay of interest! I became intrigued by Gassendi for reasons that have been touched on in the thread--i.e., he's a crucial link to the modern era. I was specifically interested in his take on "liberty" and how this links up with the modern understanding of the term. And then I noticed that "Happiness" had relevance to some of the things we have been discussing in the forum and our Sunday sessions.

Certainly some problem areas, as both you and Patrikios (and Karl Marx) have pointed out. So I'm also quite interested in the divergences, some of which you have identified already. Regarding Gassendi's dismissal of active pleasures, I see that he is going to great lengths to distinguish Epicurus from Aristippus, and maybe this leads him to overcompensate by implying that Epicureans were sort of proto-monastics.

I've only started exploring his work and don't have a good read yet on the availability of translation. I started with the 1699 text, then had a look at the PDF I shared and decided that it was reliable. It's certainly easier to read! But I'll continue poking around.

Patrikios, you've really got me interested now in Marx's take on Epicurus. The fact that Epicurus influenced thinkers as divergent as Jefferson and Marx blows my mind.

Sorry to jump in late here--many insightful points have been made already. In reflecting on the topic during the week, I had another look at the essays by Annas ("Epicurus on Pleasure and Happiness") and Sedley ("Epicurean vs. Cyreniac Happiness"). I also spent some quality time with Gassendi's "Happiness," in which he set out to present Epicureanism hedonism to a 17th-century (Christian) audience.

All three of these writers relate Epicureanism to the broader philosophical topic of "eudaimonia." I like Annas's formulation:

“Epicurus is telling us that we will be happy, have the best overall life, by having pleasure as our final aim, and that we shall achieve this by living according to the Virtues.” [We could add some other elements here, such as the tetrapharmakon, understanding of nature, etc.]

Gassendi begins his essay by explaining the relationship between eudaimonia and the summum bonum:

"Although happiness is properly the same thing as the enjoyment of the chief good, and therefore the best experience which may be desired, nevertheless because this state of enjoyment includes the chief good, happiness itself was made to be called the chief good. It is called the “chief of goods,” “the ultimate good,” “the end of the ends,” and “the end par excellence,” because all other things are desired and sought after for its sake, while happiness itself is ultimately desired for its own sake."

He subsequently builds the argument that pleasure is a valid "chief good." In doing so, he draws on the idea of pleasure as a broad category, as Kalosyni has done earlier in the thread.

I'm wondering, then, if the "branding" issue might be addressed simply by contextualizing the term--as these authors have done--and also explaining its relationship to Epicurean materialism, and to nature. While DaveT rightly expresses concerns about over-complexity, we could look to examples like Annas's above in order to see how to express things more pithily. If there are only two sensations (pain/pleasure), and Epicurean philosophy is about lived experience (that is, experience characterized by sensation), then it seems to follow that any summum bonum would necessarily revert to pleasure.

I haven't had a chance to re-read DeWitt, but am wondering if "life itself" might be a somewhat loose way of referring g to eudaimonia. Since life happens regardless of philosophy, it might make sense to specify "the good life" or "the well-lived life" or even "the pursuit of happiness" as a more precise goal.

Looking forward to today's discussion!

Happy birthday, Rolf!

Thank you, all! I have a clearer picture now of where things stand. Much respect to the scholars over the years who have put so much work into trying to piece this together!

Hello!


I'm interested in studying this text but so far haven't been able to find an English translation (or even a translation into another modern language). The 1916 scholarly edition by Diels (in German) is available, but while Diels provided extensive commentary, he didn't include an actual translation of the text on the columns, as fas I can tell. The author of the [wentiers blog has provided several translated extracts, from a paper by Essler, and I've read papers that cite this book by Philodemus--so it seems like a translation must exist somewhere.

It's odd that so little is available, as it seems like it could be one of our best sources available for understanding Epicurean theology, at least as interpreted by later Epicureans. It's interesting to pair it with Velleius's account in Cicero's "De Natura Deorum" as there are obvious points of alignment but also some interesting differences--vellius, for instance. asserts that the gods do not engage in any activity, whereas Philodomus denies that they are without occupation (assuming I've understood both authors correctly).

Hi, friends, I’m traveling at the moment and won’t be able to make it. Enjoy the discussion and the rest of the weekend!

Quote from Kalosyni

Epicureanism helps one make sense of death and desires, and that leads toward liberation without the need for years and years of long meditation sessions. You drop your mental worries because you have arrived at a sense of true personal sufficiency - through a combination of putting effort into setting up your life and lifestyle to be conducive to personal well-being and developing specific attitudes/understandings toward pleasure & pain and life & death.

I have a similar take. I do feel that the engagement with Buddhism helped prepare me, though--not sure what would have happened if I'd encountered Epicureanism first!

Quote from Kalosyni

But I feel like the meditation process which is based on sitting still, is training a certain part of your brain that is different than the part of your brain that is active when you are moving around doing stuff or talking to people. And you are still left with solving all the real-life issues that require a thinking, rational mind that needs to make choices and take action. If you are lacking in certain basic needs of modern life (work, monetary resources, friends, etc), then no amount of meditation will solve those problems. In fact it could end up causing you to "let go" too much, such that you aren't properly doing what you need to do to solve those life issues.

This makes a lot of sense. It also helps explain a phenomenon that used to puzzle me; I'd experience these very nice states of tranquility during meditation, often with a feeling of bliss mixed in there as well, and it would feel like I'd accessed some reservoir of inner peace. But then as soon as the meditation ended and I had to get back to worldly stuff, dealing with normal tasks and interacting with people, it all dispersed quickly and I'd even start to feel irritated and grumpy. And I'd think, "well, that didn't accomplish much, did it, since it's not helping me at all right now." But since, as you point out, different parts of the brain were involved, this is all easily explained.

I wasn't one of those virtuoso meditators, either--when I had a regular, daily sitting practice, I usually did about 10-20 mins. Some occasional experiences with longer meditations in a group setting. These days, I'd worry about dozing off.

Kalosyni, I'm always interested to hear about the experiences/trajectories of others who have been involved with Buddhism at some point, so thank you for sharing yours--and for the links. Some of those communities look inviting.

I still feel gratitude towards Buddhism; I learned a lot from it and it was my entry into philosophy.

Since Soto is so meditation-centric ("sit down and shut up!" as one teacher puts it), you must have spent much time on the zafu. What are your thoughts on integrating a meditation practice into Epicureanism?

Kalosyni Glad to meet another Epicurean former Buddhist! Were you affiliated with a particular Buddhist school/tradition? I started off with Zen but gravitated towards Theravada, in part because I like reading those ancient texts.

Yes, the idea of rebirth seems to founder on various paradoxes. We could say that the causal factors ("dependent origination") will spawn a new being, after I die, that inherits my karma. But since that new being doesn't remember being me, where's the continuity? And if it does remember, then there must be some vehicle for transmitting that memory, and doesn't that end up becoming a sort of Self -in-disguise? Questions, questions ..

Quote from Kalosyni

An major issue that I have with Buddhism is that it has an extremely "skeptic" take on the ability of the mind to understand things (as well as using skepticism as a method for how to overcome suffering through mental thought regulation rather than by taking actions). Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two). If a mentally unstable person practices this, it can have bad results (and likely bad results for a mostly mentally stable person also).

That was a concern for me also. Not only the skepticism that knowledge is possible, but the denial that it has actual value--things are only worthwhile if they aid in the escape from samsara. Knowledge negation is bound up with life negation.

Quote from Kalosyni

The idea of "samsara" is a very negative view of life, but yet certain people do have a lot of suffering depending on their circumstances (war, poverty, low wage-slavery, lack of sanitary infrastructure in third-world countries).

An interesting question here about how philosophy and/or religion address this kind of suffering. Buddhism sometimes seems close to Stoicism in that it teaches us to overcome suffering by devaluing it. You don't need to grieve for your lost friend or loved one--he or she was just another transient being. Poverty, ill health, slavery (wage or otherwise) are the fruits of bad karma. The hope offered is that by taking refuge in Buddha you'll have less of this next time around.

How should an Epicurean address it? We have the tetrapharmakon. But is it sufficient in some of the extreme cases you mention?

Eikadistes

This thread is of great interest to me. I was involved in Buddhism, fairly seriously at one point, for more than a decade. It's what finally led me to Epicureanism: in a nutshell, I saw that Epicureanism contains many of the things I like about Buddhism (you've touched on some of these in your comparison of the respective wisdom models), without some of the things I dislike.

I see the incompatibilities as stemming from the fundamentally different premises of the two systems. Buddhism is predicated on the idea that conscious life doesn't end with the breakup of the body; rather, we (viewed in Buddhism as compounds that lack an intrinsic Self) get regenerated again and again in various planes of existence, most of them painful. The life-negating aspects follow from this premise. I've noticed that more modern, "secular" approaches to Buddhism that downplay samsaric rebirth are also less negative in their appraisal of life, and closer to Epicureanism.

Regarding the austerity of Buddhist ethics, the traditions I'm most familiar (Indian and Chinese) do hold up monasticism as the ideal. A monastic is seen as a kind of spiritual hero who has resolved to escape samsara once and for all. Laypeople aren't expected to abide by the monastic code, as you noted--the Buddha set out a more relaxed ethical regimen for "householders," consisting of five precepts. But there's a clear implication that someone practicing at that level is settling for a lower-level aspiration--i.e., to gain a favorable rebirth and hopefully to complete the path in some later incarnation.

The idea is that such a person lacks insight into the nature of samsara--if they were to gain that insight, they would abandon worldly pursuits and ordain. Indeed, in the traditionally Buddhist countries it's not uncommon for layfolk to ordain later in life. The model works and has sustained Buddhism for millenia, yet I'm not intellectually comfortable with it--I don't feel inspired by a system that demands such an extreme degree of renunciation as the pre-req for deeper insights and sagely bliss. Maybe I'm being too demanding.

Anyway, I look forward to more additions to the repository!

Thank you for these resources, and for the topic! The question has been on my mind as well, as I've been seeking to learn more about the vectors o influence that connect Epicurus with later empiricists, e.g. Locke. I know very little about Locke, hut when I read summaries of his thought I see lots of stuff that seems like it could have been lifted from Epicurus more or less wholesale.

Who do you think had greater influence on development of science--Epicurus, or Aristotle?

Traveling today and won’t be able to make it—sorry to miss!

Thanks very much! This was a really nice surprise! And I love the e-card, with the depiction of Epicurus looking out over the Saronic Gulf (at least that's how I interpret it...but correct me if I got this wrong!).

Hope everyone is having a pleasurable week. I've been enjoying the great company each Sunday.

Quote from Don

Quote from Sam_Qwerty

Sometimes there is guilt at feeling pleasure or happiness after a loved one passed away. I told myself, "how can I feel happy after losing my father?" But he wouldn't have wanted me to stop living just because he is no longer alive.

Agreed. I've actually found over the last few funerals I've been to, that sharing stories about the one who died, especially when coupled with photos or a slide show of photos, is helpful and bittersweet, and pleasurable. Giving people a conversation starter with the photos is good. The first time I remember this is putting together the photos for my grandmother's funeral. Family joined in. But after the funeral, it can be hard. Epicurus' philosophy drives home though the preciousness of life, both remembering the life of the one who died and the life we go on living. We should not feel guilty for going on living. The dead live through our memories of them. That's the only afterlife we get. Famous people may leave books and writing and now video and audio, but they're still only memories.

It also, I think, drives home the importance of cultivating good relationships with people while they are alive. The more joyful the relationship, the more consoling are the memories. And when you lose someone with whom you're estranged to some degree, the sting is that much more painful.

Thanks, everyone!

Hello everyone:

In my readings to this point, I've noticed that Epicurean therapy concerning death mostly relates to fear of our own death. The Epicurean argument is that we should not be afraid of it because we will lack sensation and perception after we have died. I find this argument convincing.

However, we will not lack sensation and perception when those around us die--e.g. friends, family, or pets. How does Epicureanism approach this problem? What are some relevant passages?

Nature shows us that people are resilient in the face of loss, but we usually go through a grieving process. Grief could be considered a kind of disturbance and thus a hindrance to attaining or sustaining ataraxia. How is this apparent dilemma addressed?

I have a hunch this is discussed in a thread somewhere on the site, so please feel free to direct me accordingly.

I