About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Martin:

Thank you for your very interesting and insightful essay!!!

You have motivated me to go on to read the writings of Epicurus and what others have had to say about his philosophy.

Cheers!!!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Younkins on 11/18, 5:35am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Martin, thanks!  My next Loeb's Classic will be De Rerum Naturum.  I almost bought the Stoic Meditations of Marcus Aurelius with a 25% off coupon from Borders, but now I am glad that I did not.

Also, on the latter of "libertarian" philosophy among the ancients, do you happen to have Diogenes Laertius's Lives of the Eminent Philosophers?  I have a suggestion.  As interesting as DRN may prove to be, I have already found another ancient who presages much of what we believe about human relationships, Aristippus of Cyrene.


Post 2

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a very interesting essay. I knew next to little about Epicurus and now I want to know more.

I wonder if Rand knew much of him, or if she made deductions from his predecessors similar to his own.

Michael


Post 3

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's about damn time someone wrote an article about this! In the future, a modified form of Epicureanism is almost certain to give Objectivism a run for its money. Depend on it. The problem here is -- the mystery cultists and early religionists of Greece and Rome knew their enemy when they saw it. Pure evil does tend to recognize pure good when it comes across it. And then it takes vigorous action.
 
So the vast majority of ingenious Epicurean thought seems to have been tragically and irretrievably burned. (Still another reason to truly hate religion.) This unspeakable and heart-breaking loss especially applies to the center of this applied-Aristotelean philosophy and its most innovative part: the ethics. But as bad as this is, "god" -- or at least the evil liars who pretend to believe -- did something still worse, which was alluded to by Michael M above: these religiosos really killed Cyrenaicism. We essentially don't even know what this is any more -- except that it must've been good.
 
But in the end, the egoist/hedonist/Epicurean/Cyrenaic axis will almost certainly spring most vibrantly back to life. This is so even tho' much of the ethics and spirituality will have to be reinvented.
 
One friendly piece of advice to all hard-core Objectivists out there: You better be ready! And as for all you sicko self-sacrificing ARIan types: Be prepared to crank that intellectual suppression, emotional repression, and psycho-spiritual desiccation of yours very high indeed!  


Post 4

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In addition to Aristippos of Kyrene, I recommend Parmenides of Velia.  I wrote this a few years ago in a discussion of quantum mechanics:

On the other hand, objective metaphysics (as developed from  Parmenides of Velia to Ayn Rand of New York) asserts this:  that which is true is both logical and observable. So, any  apparent difference between a "rational" statement and an  "empirical" perception results from incorrect logic and/or  incomplete observation.
We get caught up in Plato and some Aristotle, but there was much more.  All we have are fragments.  In fact, as for Aristotle,  nice as all that is, you know that the best copies of his works were stored underground by the Macedonian ruling family which "treasured" what they could not understand.  When dug up, the manuscripts were worm-eaten.  There has never been a truly faithful production of his works.

I recommend Diogenes Laertius and I also recommend Ancilla to the Presocratic Philosophers by Kathleen Freeman.  (Originally Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by Diehls.)

Do not read about.  Read the words as close to the original as you can.

Researching an article about Diogenes the Cynic, I found wide deviations from the only source.  Every writer re-interprets. 
Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy, called Diogenes "the son of a disreputable money-changer who had been sent to prison for defacing the coinage."  According to the Encyclopedia Americana: "Diogenes is said to have gone to Athens as an exile with his father, when either his father or he himself was accused of counterfeiting or tampering in some other way with the currency of Sinope."  In The Life of Greece, Will Durant called Diogenes "a bankrupt banker from Sinope."   The citation in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy  says that he was "... an eccentric tramp at Athens and Corinth, defacing the conventional human standards -- as he or his father, Hicesias, was supposed to have defaced in some way the currency of Sinope..."  Yet another spin comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia:  "Almost certainly forced into exile from Sinope with his father... He made it his mission to 'deface the currency,' perhaps meaning 'to put false coin out of circulation.'  That is, he sought to expose the falsity of conventional standards and to call men back to a simple, natural life."

 So, I went to that source, the Loeb Classic Library edition of Lives of the Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius.  I did my own work.

 

Another way to approach the matter is to look at the specific wording of the source documents.  Where the translator says "adulterate" the Greek word is "parachaksas” PARACAXAS.  In modern Greek this is understood to mean "forge" in the sense of "fake" or "counterfeit."

            However, we need to appreciate the sense of it in the context of the ancient world.  There is a cliché: "The Greeks have a word for it."  The ancient Greeks, living in changing times, took delight in making up new words.  They attached prepositions to roots and they stuck roots together to form compound words.  We can do both in English, as well, and we often use Greek (or Latin) when we do.  We know "para" from paradox, paraphrase, and parasol.  The root "charaks" means cut or dig and appears in our word "character."  The ancient Greek word "para-charaksas" could have meant "deface" or even "counterstamp."  The Anglo-French word "counterfeit" could be considered as a direct translation of "paracharaksas."  

That is it.  From that, Bertrand Russell -- no friend of commerce -- and the others all drew their inferences. Epicurius?  Epitectus?  Epicharmus?  How do you know what they taught?

 


Post 5

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also wish to thank yo for this nice piece.

Post 6

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To all: glad you liked the piece!

Michael: If you want to buy De Rerum Natura, I would suggest you try another version than the Loeb (translated by W.H.D. Rouse). I have about a dozen different versions in English at home, and I find most are not very well written. I can't judge the accuracy of the translation - although I studied Latin for four years in high school, I forgot most of it! But the text is often obscure, the phrases convoluted, etc., and I believe most readers will simply be bored, even though it's an amazingly interesting work.

The two translations that stand out as excellent are the one by R.E. Latham in Penguin Classics and by James H. Mantinband published by Ungar. The first is still in print and easy to find; the second out of print, but perhaps you can find a used copy.

Ed: The best book I have read that gives a general view of Epicurus' life and tries to reconstruct his philosophy is Epicurus and His Philosophy by Norman Wentworth DeWitt. But this one too is out of print. You will unfortunately be able to find dozens of books on ancient philosophy where Epicureanism is presented in a totally distorted form, or where it is simply described as more or less irrelevant except for a few questions like the Epicurean attitude towards death.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hoy.
I read the Penguin On The Nature Of The Universe at first because my friend in the US said it was par for the 1st year undergrad' course at her university and I didn't want to be outdone by Americans. The intro says this book is rivaled in its philosophical poetry only by Plato's Phaedo and in my reading experience this is so.
Marx found in Epicureanism a materialist conception of nature that rejected all teleology and all religious conceptions of natural and social existence
Teleology rejected? I Don't see that.
a modified form of Epicureanism is almost certain to give Objectivism a run for its money
Pish! Doubt it! Although, the power of Lucretius' conviction is on the Randian scale (or is hers on his?)

- When humans were crushed by the dead weight of superstition a man of Greece was first to raise mortal eyes in defiance
- The vigour of his mind prevailed against the odds
- He ventured beyond the frontiers and voyaged in mind throughout infinity, returning victorious to tell us what can and cannot be
- Superstition lies crushed beneath his feet

Good call Mr Masse
 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Martin,

Nice job. Just one question. In the following quotation

"Epicurus had reacted against the Platonic concepts of Reason with a capital R, the Good, the Beautiful, Duty, and other absolute concepts existing in themselves in some supernatural world"

Shouldn't "duty" be "truth" or did I miss your meaning? I can't recall Socrates talking much about "duty" and certainly not in the Kantian sense.

Fred

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred: Perhaps I should have put Truth instead in this list of central Platonic ideas. But Socrates and Plato both did have this concept of moral duty toward society, duty to obey the state. And what I had in mind was to show how foreign such a concept was to Epicurus, for whom it would have made no sense at all to talk about a duty toward a larger collective entity. For him, individuals only look for pleasure and tranquility of mind and are not morally bound to do anything for anybody else, except to do no harm so as not to be harmed.

He thought these Platonic ideas (or the moral rules supposedly handed down by Gods) were only superstitious nonsense. Social peace would be achieved not by following absolute rules and selflessly fulfilling one's duty toward society, as authoritarians of every stripes have been telling us for millennia, but by rationally looking to achieve peace of mind and living the good life surrounded by friends.

That's how we can say that his social philosophy is based on his hedonism, his utilitarianism and his radical individualism. Employing political means (i.e., coercion) to attain a better society is for him irrelevant, and in this sense, he is a precursor of libertarianism. Much more coherently so, it seems to me, than Aristotle for example, who advocated state schools to brainwash children into becoming good and obedient citizens.


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A superb study "Epicurus and Rand" was published in 1995 in Objectivity.

http://www.bomis.com/objectivity/abstracts.html#EPICURUS

The author was Ray Shelton. He argued meticulously from texts of Epicurus that in basic theory of value Rand is quite similar to Epicurus and that her theory is much closer to his than to Aristotle's. The article contrasts Epicurus' conception of the good to those of Plato and Aristotle. It displays how Epicurus bases his theory in biology.

To obtain a copy of this landmark study in the relation of Rand's ethical theory to that of Epicurus, write to me at boydstun@rcn.com or visit the Objectivity site and follow the directions there.

Stephen


Post 11

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,
Interesting journal. Odd I hadn't run across it before. I'll be looking into this.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Martin,

Your essay sheds new light on Mises' thinking.  And Epicurus and his school deserve more attention than they have been getting.

What is your view of Julia Annas's book, The Morality of Happiness?  I've found it useful because it explores the major eudaimonistic schools (Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism) in depth and shows how their ideas were interrelated.

A few thoughts:

1. The metaphysical side of Epicureanism (ancient atomism) may appeal to Marxists because it is reductionistic and anti-emergent.  Objectivism does not include a worked-out philosophy of mind, but ancient atomism and modern "physicalism" are both pretty obviously incompatible with Rand's ideas.

2. Although they arrived at their conclusions by different routes, the Epicureans agreed with the Stoics that anger is a bad thing, and not part of a flourishing life.  Objectivism is a lot closer to Aristotle on this issue.  Indeed, Randians are inclined regard anger as an appropriate response to a lot of things.

3. Is it really correct to call a point of view utilitarian, if it does not incorporate some (purported) way of calculating "the greatest good of the greatest number"?

4. Epicurus reportedly taught his followers to memorize his key sayings, and made arrangements so he could be worshipped as a god after his death.  This brings to mind a certain brand of Randianism...

Robert Campbell

PS.  Although Christians were hostile to Epicureanism, I doubt that the loss of nearly all Epicurean books can be attributed to book burning, as Andre Zantonavich suggests.  Not a single treatise by any of the earlier Stoics has been preserved, even though the Stoics believed in a providential god, and their moral views would have been more acceptable to Christians than those of the Epicureans or the Aristotelians.  We're damn lucky to have entire dialogues from Plato, and lecture notes from Aristotle (as edited in ancient times).


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anger is judgmentalism of a negative - it's usefulness then is best if as giving impetus to exacting a positive  from therein... since Objectivism is more than Epicureanism a solution oriented philosophy, can see more usefulness from it in flourishing - whereas it strikes me that the Epicurean is more an avoidance oriented, seeking flourishing thru discarding the negative...

Post 14

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Campbell - you write, "I doubt that the loss of nearly all Epicurean books can be attributed to book burning, as Andre Zantonavich suggests. Not a single treatise by any of the earlier Stoics has been preserved, even though the Stoics believed in a providential god, and their moral views would have been more acceptable to Christians than those of the Epicureans or the Aristotelians."

What makes you think that the average early-medieval Christian, and especially an average one in a book-burning mob, was literate enough to tell the difference? Typically they burned whole libraries, not individual books...


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.