Episode 292 - TD22 - Is Virtue Or Pleasure The Key To Overcoming Grief?
Date: 07/26/25
Link: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/4637-episode-292-td22-is-virtue-or-pleasure-the-key-to-overcoming-grief/
Summary
Section titled “Summary”(Add summary here)
Transcript
Section titled “Transcript”Cassius: Welcome to episode 292 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius who wrote on the Nature of Things, the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the epicurean text and we discuss how epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of epicurus@epicureanfriends.com where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. This week we’re continuing our series covering Cicero’s Tussin Disputations from an epicurean viewpoint. We are in part three which addresses grief, and we’re going to be reading section 16 when we get to the text. But before we get to today’s text, I think it would be good to remind everyone that in this current discussion of grief to be followed by a discussion in part four of other types of mental distress, perturbations is the word that Cicero likes to use, and then ending up with the question of whether virtue itself is alone sufficient for happiness. These are topics that the ancient philosophers were hitting hard for hundreds of years. Cicero some 200 years after Epicurus is going through the same arguments that Epicurus himself had picked up from the way they were being debated by Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and the philosophers before them. So the thread of the argument is familiar to all of these philosophers but less familiar to us today when we see a discussion of grief, what we’re seeing applies to all sorts of emotional conditions that we will run into in our normal day-to-day lives. And something that’s really important to understand about the way Cicero is presenting this is we regularly are seeing him distance himself from the way the stoics are advocating you should handle something like grief. He’s appreciating it, he’s praising it, but he’s regularly saying that, I’m not sure I would say it exactly the same way and it’s here that it’s important for us. I think as we look at this from an epic curia viewpoint to take what’s being said very seriously and give them credit for having sincere beliefs even if we disagree with them, take their beliefs at their word and in the way they are stated. And then once we understand the positions that they were taking, we can analyze and decide which is the best for us. But I think it does a disservice to everyone, including the stoics, including the sacs, and certainly the epicureans as well, to take things too superficially and think that well a particular statement is over the top and I’m not going to take that seriously. We all know that everybody’s using more extreme language than they would prefer to be understood as using, but I think when we read what Cicero has to say and how he describes it, we can see that there are very deep issues involved that are not just superficial, and most of those issues generally trace back to your original presumptions and understandings about the nature of the universe, whether there is a divine creator, a supernatural realm, reward and punishment after death, the position you take on those questions is going to influence strongly your day-to-day decision-making. As we go forward for the next several sections, this dispute is going to get more and more heated and Cicero is going to denounce epicurus in stronger and stronger terms. Its opening on this issue of thinking about problems ahead of time, but that will just prove to be the opening disagreement and it will get stronger and stronger as Cicero brings out the difference that results when you believe that the purpose of life is happiness through pleasure versus virtue, piety or other goals that gain their legitimacy from some supernatural realm or supernatural platonic ideals that from their point of view override the natural feelings of pleasure and pain. So with that as introduction, let’s go ahead and continue the discussion with section 16
Joshua: In the first place. The epicureans are wrong in forbidding men to premeditate on futurity and blaming their wish to do so. For there is nothing that breaks the edge of grief and lightens it more than considering during one’s whole life that there is nothing which it is impossible should happen or than considering what human nature is on what conditions life was given and how we may comply with them. The effect of which is that we are always grieving, but that we never do. So for whoever reflects on the nature of things, the various turns of life and the weakness of human nature grieves indeed at that reflection. But while so grieving, he is above all other times behaving as a wise man for he gains these two things by it, one that while he is considering the state of human nature, he is performing his special duties of philosophy and is provided with a triple medicine against adversity in the first place because he has long reflected that such things might befall him, and this reflection by itself contributes much towards lessening and weakening all misfortunes. Secondly, because he is persuaded that we should bear all the accidents which can happen to a man with the feelings and spirit of a man, lastly because he considers that what is believable is the only evil, but it is not your fault that something has happened to you, which it was impossible for man to avoid or that withdrawing of our thoughts, which he recommends when he calls us off from contemplating our misfortunes is an imaginary action for it is not in our power to disassemble or to forget those evils which lie heavy on us. They tear vex and sting us, they burn us up and leave no breathing time and do you epicureans who order us to forget them for such forgetfulness as contrary to nature and at the same time to deprive us of the only assistance which nature affords the becoming accustomed to them. For that, though it is, but a slow medicine, I mean that which is brought by laps of time is still a very effectual one. You order me to employ my thoughts on something good and forget my misfortunes, you would say something worthy, a great philosopher if you thought those things good, which are best suited to the dignity of human nature.
Cassius: Thank you Joshua for reading that. And yes, I think we’re seeing the intensity of the dialogue pick up here even in section 16 because that last section you were reading is almost Cicero addressing epicurus face-to-face and accusing him of what Cicero was saying is ridiculous things when he says, do you order us to forget them for such forgetfulness is contrary to nature and at the same time, deprive of the only assistance which nature affords you, order me to employ my thoughts on something good and forget my misfortunes. You would say something worthy of a great philosopher if you thought these things good which are best suited to the dignity of human nature, all of which is rebuke to epicurus that don’t tell me that I can get rid of my grief by thinking happy thoughts. The only thing that nature provides to us according to Cicero is to get accustomed to all these bad things happening to us. And the way to do that is to think about them constantly, not attempt to put them out of our minds and move our minds to focus on something better that would allow us to put our misfortunes in their proper place. That’s what Cicero is saying. Epicurus is suggesting, and while Cicero is trying to paint this in the worst possible light, this is the continuation of what we talked about last week, the stoics and people of this disposition are so concerned about avoiding any kind of disruption to their mental calmness, are so concerned about experiencing any ups and downs of emotion that they want to withdraw emotion entirely from our lives and their conditioning of themselves. Their exercise and practice is not tuned towards making sure that we experience more pleasure than pain, making sure that we choose things and avoid other things so as to maximize happiness and reduce pain. That’s not the focus of the exercise that Cicero and the stoics are concerned about. The stoics and Cicero are not concerned about magnifying pleasure in life and minimizing pain. They are concerned about magnifying tranquility and calmness and wisdom and virtue and not the depths of emotion, good or bad that nature provides to us. And which epicure says the wise man is going to feel more deeply than others. So says that this is the special duty of philosophy and that it provides a triple medicine against adversity. Because once we reflect on things for a long time and once we are persuaded that we should bear all things that happen to us in a manly way and because we should realize that the bad things that happen to us are not our fault because from this perspective of fate and divine guidance, much of the grief we encounter is impossible for men to avoid. That’s the kind of analysis that the stoics and Cicero are suggesting is the way for wise men to proceed in their lives. And all of that is something that is rejected by epicurus. If something is truly painful, then thinking about it ahead of time is not going to do anything to lessen the pain that’s involved. It’s just going to add additional pain during the time that you spend thinking about this pain that may not occur at all these pains which you saddle yourself with unnecessarily in many cases because these events are not necessarily going to occur. And Epicurus is not telling us to appeal to manliness or virtue as the way to overcome the problems of life because virtue and these abstract ideals have no independent existence of their own. It’s only pleasure and pain that in the end nature has given us to judge what to choose and what to avoid. And certainly it does not make sense from Epic’s point of view to put all aside as something that you are not responsible for because it was impossible for you to avoid. Because as Epicurus says, there is no fate, there is no hard determinism in the universe, there is no divine guidance that makes things happen. Some things are within our control. There are some things that are not, but some things are. And our efforts need to be spent on arranging our activities so as to minimize the likelihood of bad things happening to us, many of which can be totally avoided. Not everything can be, but many things can. And Epicurus is telling us to look at nature, look at the way the world really is and take charge of those things that we can take charge of, use our minds in a way that does productively lead to greater happiness, greater pleasure and lesser pain, and not just suggest that virtue is something that if we focus on it will save us from all these problems, but to realize that virtue is in fact a description of those actions in life which we can use to organize our affairs and in fact experience more pleasure than pain. So Cicero is going to raise his voice against Epicurus further and further as we go, but here in 16 we see the start of it. Before I stop to go back to the beginning of what Cicero says, I find something particularly offensive here where he says that there is nothing that breaks the edge of grief and lightens it more that considering during one’s whole life that there is nothing which it is impossible should happen. I don’t know whether this is Cicero expressing his academic skepticism or whether he’s just resorting to his supernatural view of the universe, but absolutely it is a key factor from an epicurean point of view that there are things that are impossible should happen, that what can happen is controlled not by the whim of Gods or by chaos, but by the nature of the atoms and void which provide limits to what can happen and what cannot. The borderline, the benchmark set forever. As Lucious says at the beginning of book one of his poem in Epicurean philosophy, the soul comes to an end at death. It is not possible that we will be rewarded in heaven or punished for an eternity in hell and it therefore would make no sense whatsoever to worry about those things happening. But when Cicero says that we should believe that nothing is impossible, that is a view of the universe that is diametrically different from what Epicurus would suggest. So I’m sorry I’ve said a lot there Joshua, but lemme turn it over to you for further analysis of 16.
Joshua: Well, my hope was to bring some clarity to the structure of his argument here, but I’m struggling to even do that. So he says here that we are always grieving but that we never do. So for whoever reflects on the nature of things, the various turns of life and the weakness of human nature grieves indeed at that reflection. But while so grieving, he is above all other times behaving as a wise man for he gains these two things by it and it’s these two things that I was trying to bring some clarity to. The first thing he says, one that while he is considering the state of human nature, he is performing the special duties of philosophy and is provided with a triple medicine against adversity in the first place of the triple medicine because he has long reflected that such things might befall him in this reflection by itself contributes much towards lessening and weakening all misfortunes. Secondly, as part of the triple medicine, because he is persuaded that we should bear all the accidents which can happen to a man and the feelings and spirit of a man. And lastly because he considers that what is blame is the only evil, but it is not your fault that something has happened to you, which it was as you said, Cassius impossible for a man to avoid. He’s using that word a lot. So that takes care of the first of the two prongs of what the wise man gains by the consideration of nature and the various turns of life. And I’m struggling here in the text to find the second thing that he gains and I’ve looked ahead several paragraphs and I cannot figure out where he takes this theme up again, but as I said, I’m having trouble understanding the structure of what he’s saying, but the effect of what he’s saying is, Epicurus, you are wrong for forbidding men to premeditate on futurity and blaming their wish to do so. We addressed this question last week and I can reiterate some of what we said last week, which is I think that Cicero though he has access to more texts than we do because of the time period he lived in, there is some aspect of Epicurean philosophy he is not understanding if he thinks that Epicurus forbade us from premeditating on futurity. In fact, it is the capability, it is the capacity of the human mind to project itself into the past and review experience as well as to project itself into the future to anticipate experience that is part of Epicurus procedure for setting pleasure against pain. And we see this in the letter he wrote the letter to Aeu on the last day of his life when he says that the pains from Strangly and so on that I’m experiencing in the present are so terrible that nothing could be added to them, but I set over and against them all the pleasures of the memory of our past friendship. So it’s the ability of the mind to draw on pleasure from the past, from the future and from the present that makes pain, which to the wise man is really only something we deal with in the present endurable. Now there is in the principle doctrine something that speaks more specifically on what Cicero is talking about and that is principle doctrine 20. This is the Bailey translation. The flesh perceives the limits of pleasure as unlimited and unlimited time is required to supply it, but the mind having attained a reasoned understanding of the ultimate good of the flesh and its limits and having dissipated the fears concerning the time to come supplies us with the complete life and we have no further need of infinite time. But neither does the mind shun pleasure nor when circumstances begin to bring about the departure from life, does it approach its end as though it fell short in any way of the best life? And for fairness, I will read two other translations. Let’s look at Hicks and young. So young translates principle doctrine 20. This way the flesh sets no limits to pleasure and therefore it yearns for an eternity of time, but reason enabling us to conceive the end and dissolution of the body and liberating us from the fears relative to eternity. Procures for us all the happiness of which life is capable so completely that we have no further occasion to include eternity in our desires. In this disposition of mind, man is happy even when his troubles engage him to quit life and to die. And to die thus is for him only to interrupt a life of happiness. And then we have the Hicks translation. The flesh receives again as unlimited the limits of pleasure and to provide it requires unlimited time, but the mind grasping in thought what the end and limit of the flesh is and banishing the terrors of futurity procures a complete and perfect life and has no longer any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless, it does not shun pleasure and even in the hour of death when ushered out of existence by circumstances, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life. And this is where I think Cicero has got epicurus wrong because it’s true Principle doctrine 20 does talk about something variously translated as banishing. The terrors of futurity liberating us from the fears relative to eternity according to Yang dissipating the fears concerning the time to come in the Bailey translation. So it’s clear that we’re dealing with terrors or things that we might fear about the future and he is using words like banishing them and I think Cicero is looking at passages like this one and he’s saying, Epicurus wants us to stick our head in the sand and turn a blind eye to what is coming right at us and we are going to take it straight in the teeth because epicure is wants us to put a blindfold over our eyes and pretend that it’s not there. I don’t think anything could be further from the truth. Cassius, I think that epicure is when he says banishing the terrors of futurity in the Hicks translation, it’s not banishing thinking about the terrors of futurity. We’re not enjoined not to imagine them. We are instructed by epicurus to consider those terrors and what they hold and to come to an understanding that they hold no terror at all Really for us, when Epicurus says, accustom yourself to believe that death is nothing to you, that’s one way he’s dealing with something that is coming in the future for every single one of us and this is how he’s dealing with it, we’re not going to turn a blind eye. We’re going to look at straight in the face and we’re going to understand its nature exactly what Cicero is advising here and is saying this is characteristic of the wise man. Epicurus is already doing this. We see throughout Epicurus works and throughout the works of that community, a tendency to keep what’s going to happen always in view. It is this view that we use philosophy to understand and to reduce the fear of things that are coming in the future that are the basis of Vatican sayings like Vatican saying 31 for example. It is possible to provide security against other afflictions, but as far as death is concerned, we men all live in a city without walls. And finally, I would suggest we look at Cicero’s own words in on ends, which he puts into the mouth of the epicurean Torti when he says, let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures, a like of body and of mind undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain. What possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain. He will know that death means complete unconsciousness and that pain is generally light if long and short, if strong so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power. Let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to slip away but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement. This is a great passage from on ends and it encapsulates this view that I’m describing, this view of epicurean philosophy as a tool that allows us to look both backwards and forwards and to derive pleasure from both experiences even though we might more naturally be afraid of what we find there, right? Terrified of death, terrified of the idea either of being punished in the afterlife or of not existing. And Epicurus says that death is nothing to you. It’s not just that it’s not as bad as you think it is literally no thing, right? It doesn’t exist and it doesn’t exist because you don’t exist when you’re dead. So I think based on this and other things, I think Cicero is just misrepresenting what Epicurus is saying about the future. We don’t stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the griefs and evils and troubles are not going to come for us. We set sail in our own little bark and we prepare for those things to come by using philosophy and by providing security for ourselves, which epicure is certainly talks about in many instances. So I just think Cicero’s got it wrong.
Cassius: Yes, Joshua, I agree completely and I go further and say he has it totally disastrously wrong in confirming what you’ve just said. Again, I want to go back to the way this section starts because it’s ridiculous for Cicero to allege that Epicurus suggests that you should not think about the future and plan for the future. It’s so ridiculous that that’s not, I think what Cicero is actually trying to convey because I don’t believe he would expect any epicurean to accept this as an explanation of what Epicurus approach really is. The issue is not the desirability of looking to the future and planning for the future. Everybody, nobody more so than Epicurus knows that planning for the future and thinking about the future is a good idea. What the dispute is about is something that’s very direct and clear. When you read Cicero’s actual words in the Hicks translation, for example, the first sentence in 16 is translated in the first place. The epicureans are wrong in censoring the consideration of evils beforehand. It’s not just a matter of thinking about things that are going to happen in the future. What is specifically in issue is that suggesting that you should spend your time constantly thinking about bad things happening to you. And Cicero explains it in hicks’s words for there is nothing so well fitted to deaden and alleviate distress as the continual lifelong reflection that there is no event which may not happen. Now, continual, lifelong reflection sounds awfully close to me like this is what you’re supposed to be thinking about all the time and you’re not supposed to be limiting yourself to what is probable according to Cicero. What you’re trying to think about is that there is no bad thing which may not happen in yang’s words, nothing that is impossible to happen. So in other words, you are supposed to be thinking constantly about birding in the fires of Hades or constantly being in exile from your country, the death of your loved ones, torture pain for yourself. These are things that are not impossible to happen, so you should spend your time continuously thinking about them so that you’ll be ready for it and says that this is what philosophy is actually all about. Thinking about the weakness of human nature and the grievous things that can happen to us in life and realizing that this is the special duty of philosophy to provide medicine against all these bad things, not necessarily going to happen, not even probably going to happen, but could happen to you because you are so concerned about virtue, because you’re so concerned about your mind being calm and undisturbed, that you don’t want to take any chance whatsoever, no matter whether it’s for pleasure of any kind, for joy, delight, or any other kind of positive emotion. You want to focus all of your attention on this ephemeral idea of virtue because that’s alone what makes life worth living. And that’s again how Cicero tries to pin epicurus to the wall with this final statement, which in Hicks’s translation is you Epicurus bid me, reflect on good, forget evil. There would be something in what you say and something worthy of a great philosopher. Were you sensible that those things are good, which are most worthy of a human being? In other words, if you want me to think about what’s good as a way of getting past the pain of my life, that’s fine. If you’re telling me to look to virtue and courage and wisdom and think about these things that make a man what a man is, but don’t tell me to look on happiness, don’t tell me to look on any kind of pleasure, whether it be bodily or mental or any other kind of pleasure. No, those things are not worthy. You should spend all of your time that you possibly can thinking about misfortunes and bad things that are going to happen to you. And those things are actually going to give you an opportunity to display your virtue and to display your wisdom and calmness and overcoming them. And that is what makes you a man. Now, I don’t think I’m overdramatizing what Cicero was talking about here. This again is not Cicero just standing up in the forum and saying whatever comes to mind. This is Cicero distilling the wisdom of the main line of stoic reac, Socratic platonic Aristotelian philosophy and trying to blame Epicurus as being outside of reputable viewpoints because you don’t understand what it is that’s really good. You don’t understand what is best suited to the dignity of human nature. You are basically an animal trying to get people to go down to the level of animals rather than someone who appreciates the divine trying to lift humanity up higher to the aspiration of platonic ideals and these other aspects of supernatural religion. So I think it’s hard to overestimate the significance of what is being talked about here and the significance of the emotion that in fact Cicero is displaying in denouncing epic u’s point of view here. So as we go into 17, Cicero is going to keep the intensity level high. And there’s one phrase that Joshua will read for us in just a moment that evokes almost a religious call to action by Cicero where he says, quote, there is great power in the virtues rouse them if they chance to droop. It reminds me almost that there’s power in the blood, power in the word that evokes a sort of religious call to something higher than this world that just drips from everything that Cicero is saying here.
Joshua: Yeah, he’s also going to say in 17 that the students of Epicurus are continually telling me that I don’t understand what he’s saying. And that’s certainly true with our experience because there are times when Cicero seems to not understand what Epicurus is saying in 17. He says this, should Pythagoras Socrates or Platos say to me, why are you dejected or sad? Why do you faint and yield to fortune, which perhaps may have power to harass and disturb you but should not quite man you. There is great power in the virtues rouse them if they chance to droop, take fortitude for your guide which will give you such spirits that you will despise everything that can befall man and look on it as a trifle. Add to this temperance which is moderation and which was just now called frugality, which will not suffer you to do anything base or bad for what is worse or baser than an effeminate man. Not even justice will suffer you to act in this manner. Though she seems to have the least weight in this affair, but still not withstanding even. She will inform you that you are doubly unjust when you both require what does not belong to you in as much as though you who have been born mortal demand to be placed in the condition of the immortals. And at the same time you take it much to heart that you are to restore what was lent you. What answer will you make to prudence who informs you that she is a virtue sufficient of herself, both to teach you a good life and also to secure you a happy one. And indeed if she were fettered by external circumstances and dependent on others, and if she did not originate in herself and return to herself and also embrace everything in herself so as to seek no adventitious aid from any quarter, I cannot imagine why she should appear deserving of such lofty pan EICs or of being sought after with such excessive eagerness. Now epicurus, if you call me back to such goods as these, I will obey you and follow you and use you as my guide and even forget as you order me, all my misfortunes and I will do this the more readily from a persuasion that they are not to be ranked amongst evils at all, but you are for bringing my thoughts over to pleasure. What pleasures, pleasures of the body I imagine or such as are recollected or imagined on account of the body? Is this all? Do I explain your opinion rightly for your disciples are used to deny that we understand at all what epicurus means, this is what he says, and what that subtle fellow Zeno of Pson who is one of the sharpest of the epicureans used when I was attending lectures at Athens to enforce and talk so loudly of saying that he alone was happy, who could enjoy present pleasure and who was at the same time persuaded that he should enjoy it without pain either during the whole or the greatest part of his life, or if should any pain interfere if it was very sharp, then it must be short. Should it be of longer continuance, it would have more of what was sweet than bitter in it that whosoever reflected on these things would be happy, especially if satisfied with the good things which he had already enjoyed. And if you were without fear of death or fear of the gods.
Cassius: Okay, Joshua, thanks for reading that. Let me say first of all, this is packed with important information and we’re not going to finish it today. So the few things that we’ll say for the remainder of this episode will be the preliminary discussion of this section which we need to go through with the proverbial fine tooth comb because as I said before you read it, this is Cicero basically ending every sentence with a hallelujah. There’s power in the virtues according to Cicero. And he’s going through each of these virtues from temperance and prudence and wisdom and frugality and talking about how wonderful they are, exactly what Quais accused him of doing in own ends of being beguile by the glamor of a name. That virtue is so excellent that we should just bow down before the very idea that this type of virtue is what all of human existence is all about. And that if we don’t understand that we’re not even a human being, we’re basically just an animal because I’ll do anything for this kind of virtue. I’ll even be like you epicurus and I’ll put aside my pain, but not for the good things that you epicurus say are the good things, but for the good things that I know to be good through virtue, justice, wisdom, courage, prudence, all of the virtues that are the essence of living life as a human being. This is an intense call to some type of higher plane of existence which is at stake in everything we talk about because from the epicurean perspective, that kind of thing just does not exist. It is a flourish of words. It is a word game that has no real existence as in the final words of Brutus saying that virtue was, but a name you can work yourself up into a frenzy as Cicero is actually doing. You can work yourself up into all sorts of intensity in saying that this type of virtue is what life is all about. But in the end, you’re brought back to reality to have to understand that in the end you have pleasure and pain and the things that nature gives you, and you can weave your words together as Cicero does here, as Plato does in the most beautiful of language. But in the end, it’s still just a word game that seeks to pull the wool over people’s eyes about the way the world really works. Now, as you mentioned, Joshua Cicero brings in Zeno OFin, one of Epicurus renowned successors at the time of Cicero that Cicero himself had attended when he was younger in Athens. And we have here at the end of this passage, a good summary of what again was stated previously in own ends about how to wrap up epicurean philosophy into a manageable number of sentences and understand what it’s all about. But there’s just an awful lot here.
Joshua: Yeah, as you said, we’re going to have to go through this with a fine tooth comb next week. Where I want to start is with prudence. He hangs so much on prudence here and then says, now Epicurus, if you call me back to such goods as these, I will obey you and follow you and use you as my guide. So let’s look at what Cicero says about prudence and then let’s look at what epicure says about prudence and let’s just compare. So Cicero says again, he says, what answer will you make to prudence who informs you that she is a virtue sufficient of herself, both to teach you a good life and also to secure you a happy one? And indeed if she were fettered by external circumstances and dependent on others, and if she did not originate in herself and return to herself and also embrace everything in herself so as to seek no adventitious aid from any quarter, I cannot imagine why she should appear deserving of such lofty panger or of being sought after with such excessive eagerness. And that’s the point when he comes in and says, now Epicurus, if you call me back to such goods as these, if you call me back to prudence and the other virtues, I will obey you and follow you and use you as my guide. In a passage coming up here in this text, he’s going to say that Epicurus is the best of men, that no crime or misdemeanor can be laid at their feet. That this is the most peaceful and community oriented community in the ancient world, that he cannot really criticize them for their behavior. And he’s confused as to why their philosophy, which is so terrible does not lead to poorer behavior. But we’re going to get to that later. What Epicurus says about prudence, he says partially here in the letter to EU in sections 1 31 and 1 32 of the Bailey translation, Epicurus says this. He says, when therefore we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligate and those that consist in sensuality as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. Or it is not continuous drinking bouts and reveling nor the satisfaction of lusts nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table which produce a pleasant life. But sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance and banishing mere opinions to which are due. The greatest disturbance of the spirit of all this, the beginning and greatest good is prudence. Therefore, prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy for from prudence are sprung all the other virtues. And it teaches us that it is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly nor again to live a life of prudence, honor and justice without living pleasantly for the virtues. This is the part I suspect that really upsets Cicero for the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life and the pleasant life is inseparable from them. There’s a passage in Francis Wright’s novel a few days in Athens when she has a fictionalized account of Epicurus talking about the virtues. And in that book she says this, from the flavor we pronounce of the fruit from the beauty and the fragrance of the flower and in the system of morals or of philosophy or of whatever else, what tends to produce good, we pronounce to be good, what to produce evil, we pronounce to be evil. I might indeed support the argument that our opinion with regard to the first principles of morals has not to do with our practice. That whether I stand in my virtue upon prudence or propriety or justice or benevolence or self-love, that my virtue is still one and the same, that the dispute is not about the end, but the origin that of all the thousands who have yielded homage to virtue, hardly one has thought of inspecting the pedestal. She stands upon that as the mariner is guided by the tides though ignorant of their causes. So does a man obey the rules of virtue though ignorant of the principles on which those rules are founded. And as we return to the letter to mania, we see that for Epicurus, the principle upon which virtue is founded is pleasure. Virtue exists in support of pleasure, and he says the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life and the pleasant life is inseparable from them. And as always, when we return to the letter to Manus, I always want to read the last paragraph. He says, meditate, therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself and with a companion like to yourself. And never shall you be disturbed, waking or sleeping, but you shall live like a God among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings, he’s not like unto a mortal being. It is not at all the case that Epicurus denies the virtues just as it is not the case. As Cicero insinuates that Epicurus is trying to bring his thoughts exclusively over to the pleasures of the body, the momentary transient pleasures of the body. Epicurus is quite happy to incorporate the virtues into his understanding. Both of his philosophy and of pleasure and the pleasure he advocates is not, as I just read in the Occus once again is not an endless succession of drinking bouts and so on. It is looking on all things with a master eye and a mind at peace. It is meditating on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself and with one that is like to yourself and you will live like a God among men. I think that’s going to be my consistent response to Cicero in this, is that you are just misrepresenting what Epicurus is saying and you’re doing it repeatedly and you’re doing it in a very insidious way that I find very irritating as I read through it. So that’s my response to this chapter, which as you said, Cassius, we’ll have to spend a lot more time on Cicero’s arguments here, but the one that leaps out to me is this discussion of prudence of virtue upon which Epicurus and his opinion could not be more clear.
Cassius: Okay, Joshua, like I said, in the interest of time, we’re going to need to come back next week and take up additional details in section 17 because Cicero is only getting warmed up and when he gets to 18, it’s going to get even more intense in criticism of Epicurus. So we need to make sure we understand the foundation that Cicero is laying here. Before we go further, one of the things you just said reminds me again of equip from Norman Dewitt that Cicero could not have misrepresented Epicurus so effectively had he not understood so well. I do not think this is misunderstanding on Cicero’s part. Cicero understands exactly what is at stake here. He’s not even quoting the stoics. He starts out by referring to Pythagoreous, Socrates and Plato as his authorities for this position. That virtue is everything. Cicero knows exactly what he’s doing here. He’s setting up false comparisons and misrepresenting what Epicurus is saying for purposes of discrediting him. We’ll get into the more of that, complete it and then move into section 18 next week. In the meantime, we invite to drop by the Epicurean French form and let us know if you have any comments or questions about anything we’ve said in our discussion of Epicurus. Thanks for your time today. We’ll be back again soon. See you then. Bye.