Four Points of Emphasis At EpicureanFriends.com

Those are valid points, Titus. You'll note that the heading is as to four points of emphasis "at EpicureanFriends.com." The reason for that prepositional phrase is that the forum itself has to take into account its role as a place for voluntary discussion of a viewpoint which is highly controversial but yet about which there is a large degree of diverging interpretation. There are a lot of considerations involved in that, and one of them is that we want to be as clear as possible as quickly as possible to new readers that we're trying to be as accurate as possible in making what Epicurus taught the center of activity here. As you know, Epicurus himself did not write the abbreviated "four part cure," and while many of us really appreciate it, it is so broadly stated that it does not convey the reasoning that is present in the first four Principal Doctrines.

We regularly have people come here to the forum who are aware of little more than that in the modern world Epicurus has a reputation for providing advice in treating anxiety. More than once we have had people join the forum and start posting before realizing that their strongly held supernatural religious views are totally incompatible with Epicurean philosophy. To be courteous to both them and to our existing participants, we want everyone to understand that the focus here is:

- that the reason the gods are not to be feared is that there are in fact no supernatural providential gods;

- that the reason death is not to be feared is that there is in fact no existence at all after death;

- that the reason "the good is easy to get" is that the good is pleasure and that there are many ways to achieve it; and

- that the reason "what's bad is easy to endure" (if you accept that formulation as true to Epicurus at all, which I doubt as to the word 'easy') is that sharp pain is usually short, long-term pain allows for a predominance of pleasure, and if things get totally out of hand you can exit the theatre when the play ceases to please you.

Let me always include the caveat when I make a statement like that that I do not doubt Philodemus himself. I question the intent of this formulation given the fragmentary out-of-context state in which it comes down to us as part of a treatise in which Philodemus is criticizing the failure of some Epicureans to study the original texts. You will note that when people talk about the Tetapharmakos they generally do not refer to the name of the scroll from which it comes as anything more than "Herculaneum Scroll 1005." That's because the topic of the scroll is apparently "Against.." something, and to "admonish those who call themselves Epicurean but do not know the writings and doctrines," and who prefer outlines that generalize, also warning about incomplete sources. More past discussion of these issues is here.

The last two in particular require a subtlety of explanation which many of us still struggle with after years of reading. Discussion and explanation are what we do here, but we also have to be careful that people realize as quickly as possible the "limits and boundaries" within which we operate.

Quote from Cassius

we want to be as clear as possible as quickly as possible to new readers that we're trying to be as accurate as possible in making what Epicurus taught the center of activity here

I totally agree, that for this purpose the "four points" do a great job. On the one hand, I could imagine formulating the key issues of Epicurean philosophy quite the same way. On the other hand, the "four points" give me the impression of reading the articles of faith of any Atheist/Humanist club. I know, the study of the deeper concepts makes the difference, but it just sounds too plain for my taste. But for sure, for your intended purpose, they serve quite well.

Quote from Cassius

I question the intent of this formulation given the fragmentary out-of-context state in which it comes down to us as part of a treatise in which Philodemus is criticizing the failure of some Epicureans to study the original texts

You're joking . Philodemus thus indirectely critizises the recipients of his own text when they pick only fragments.

" I see people asking "what do the moral topics of good and evil have to do with sensation?" "

Is that not exactly what they *should" ask?

This is a good issue to discuss because as I recall Frances Wright has her Epicurus say explicitly that there is no good but pleasure and no evil but pain. Ultimately after thinking it through I think I am currently at the view that this is the necessary conclusion - if for no other reason than to attack fhe Platonic sounding idea that good and evil have absolute meaning.

Also Don, if those words are not in fact pleasure and pain in the Greek, do you not worry that the change you adopted compromises the value of your translation on a core issue of philisophy?

It would almost be desirable for translators (not referring to you) to provide a "list of emendations."

And one final question - why do you say that the Tetrapharmankon does not in fact mean good and evil as well? Are the Greek words different? I would think they are referring to exactly the issue we are discussing , the philosophic question of the ultimate ends.

Since comments in a thread don't always get picked up let's ask @Nate what he thinks here as well.

Good material to discuss.

Quote from Cassius

Frances Wright has her Epicurus say explicitly that there is no good but pleasure and no evil but pain.

And I think that's what I'm doing with my translation. There is no "good" or "evil" apart from the sensation/perception of pleasure and pain. There is no abstract Platonic Good or Evil floating around as ideals. The Good ταγαθον (tagathon < to agathon) and The Terrible το δεινον (to deinon (see English dino-saur)) of the Tetrapharmakos are specifically referring to pleasure and pain. The good things and bad things of the Menoikeus are referring to pleasure and pain. It's also simplistic (but very easy) to translate agathos and kakos (the ancient Greek words used) as "good" and "evil" and can convey a moralistic/ethical paradigm that is convenient to modern sensibilities. Agathos and kakos have a much wider semantic field that just "good" and "evil." Maybe "positive" and "negative" would be better, but even that doesn't get at the all-encompassing nature of those two words. Epicurus's revolution was to demand that ALL our experience of the world, all of it, every last bit of it, both the positive aspects and the negative aspects, is predicated on our sensing it or perceiving it. We are ALWAYS experiencing either a positive or negative affect due to the fact of our being alive, of being able to sense and perceive. The ideas of morality are overlaid on top of that fundamental perception, but they need not be. Just go back to the perceptions of pleasure and pain, the positive and negative.

That's a start, and I know you raised more concerns, so I'll come back and address some of the others.

Yes we agree exactly that Epicurus stands for the proposition that there is no good apart from what arises from pleasure and no evil apart from what arises from pain.

But like in a lot of other issues, we have a playing field in which "good" and "evil" are really the ultimate pawns in the chessboard. Plato et al (really everyone, pretty much) are setting up the game for people to understand that good and evil have absolute meanings and reference points, and that is a **huge** problem, because once you accept Plato's points of reference then every time you use 'good" and "evil" you are digging yourself deeper. I think that Nietzsche was correct on this exact point and thus his work on "Beyond Good and Evil." Those terms as commonly used are deadly for the reason that motivates you to try to avoid them in this translation.

But Epicurus is pushing back, from what seems to me to be the point of view that when terms like "good" and "evil" and evil are so entrenched, you can't just ignore them, you have to redefine them or define them accurately, as Epicurus does with "gods" and "virtue." He doesn't stop using those words, he uses them because they connect with people, and they find those words useful, but Epicurus insists that these words do not mean what the majority think they mean, and that the words need to be defined properly.

So we are in agreement as to the ultimate meaning of what Epicurus thinks, but I don't think it's what he did, or possible, or desirable, to simply take the words that people use and stop using them. People have to be reeducated on proper meanings and connotations, and it IS permissible to talk about "good" and "evil" when they are properly expressed as stemming from pleasure and pain, which is what both Epicurus and the Tetrapharmakon (of course I hedge in taking that for an authority seem to be doing,

So I would see this as a case where if the words good and evil are dropped, a large part of the meaning and intent - to draw very clear and philosophical distinctions - are also lost.