This will be the discussion thread for the blog article "Reality Does Not Require Being Eternally The Same" -
Discussion of Blog Article - "Reality Does Not Require Being Eternally The Same"
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
-
-
It should be made clear that the article is rather against Plato's idealism. Putting Kant in the same bucket as Plato is wrong because Kant removed the ideal forms and Plato's nonsense that reality is truthfully revealed only by the logic of philosophers like Plato. There are other issues with the text but just removing Kant from the text would already improve the credibility.
-
Please use this thread for discussion of the merits of the article and suggestions for substantive changes. Posts originally made in this thread regarding the use of AI in the blog post are being moved to the thread below, which begins with this Admin Note:
ADMIN NOTE BY CASSIUS -- I don't have the ability to create my own separate post here at the top of this thread so I am doing that in this ADMIN edit. I am moving all discussion of issues of the use of AI in two blog posts I generated in late March 2026 (of course it's applicable far beyond those) to this thread. I am posting in those original threads links to this thread. The original discussion threads for those articles should be used for discussing substantive comments, criticisms, changes, etc. Issues of the use of AI apply to both and should be made here in this thread entitled "Revisiting Issues of The Use of AI in Epicurean Philosophy"
-
It is exactly that sentence ("On one side stands a tradition stretching from Plato...") which is false because Kant rejected dogmatism and did not reject the senses. In Kant's view, we know about the world through the senses. His epistemology examines how we make sense out of the input of the senses. That sentence is false with respect to modern academic philosophy, too, and maybe even with respect to some Stoics.
A correct revision could be:
"On one side stands a tradition stretching from Plato through medieval theology into much of modern religion: the view that what is genuinely real must be eternal, unchanging, and accessible not through the senses but through some higher faculty — pure reason, divine revelation, or the intellectual intuition of necessary truths."In this context: The article is excellent with respect to Plato and Epicurus. My own position is that Epicurus extreme affirmation on the real world made sense at his time as opposition to Plato's nonsense, but it is obsolete now, thanks to Kant and others. As this forum is focused on authentic Epicurean philosophy I refrain from elaborating on my heretic view here.
-
Thanks Martin. I'll take a look at that aspect as I get time. I suspect in the end the issue might be summarized as "Kant rejected dogmatism and Epicurus embraced dogmatism."
Obviously to drill down into that the word "dogmatism" would have to be defined carefully. I don't know Kant at this point well enough to be sure, but given what you've said it seems you're indicatingthat to Epicurus "dogmatism" means held that "knowledge of some things is possible" and Kant held that "no knowledge of any kind is possible." It's possible that it would be better to state that as "Epicurus held that "certainty about some things is possible" and Kant held that "no certainty of any kind is possible."
If you think those are incorrect then maybe we could at least work toward a general division between the two positions. If you are saying that a significant aspect of Epicurus is obsolete then we ought to be able to at least get clarity on what aspect you're referring to.
My own position is that Epicurus extreme affirmation on the real world made sense at his time as opposition to Plato's nonsense, but it is obsolete now, thanks to Kant and others.
-
Those are incorrect. Whereas Plato's school apparently degenerated into plain skepticism, Kant's version of idealism was not that skeptic. Within Kant's epistemology, certainty with respect to knowledge about phenomena is possible but the metaphysical claim that that knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded. Moreover, Kant's epistemology can be restated in a materialistic framework. Therefore, the classification of Kant as an idealist is not relevant in this discussion.
With trivial matters, the distinction between knowledge about phenomena and how things actually are does not matter: When I am hungry, I eat, then feel full.
The distinction matters when we want to get a deeper understanding or when knowledge expands.
Maybe this example can clarify this:
If we kick a stone resting on Earth into motion on a horizontal surface, its speed will gradually decline and eventually stop. A simple theory can be stated that the natural state of non-living heavy things on Earth is to be at rest, and after they have been forced into motion, they gradually relax into their natural state of rest. (Aristotle came up with something similar to that). At that stage, people might have thought that the simple theory is the truth about how things actually are. Until a few hundred years ago, there was no experimental setup which could refute that theory. Even today, we could still use that simple (but ontologically wrong) theory for accurate solutions of engineering problems in cases which stay within its limitations. Newton had no way to experimentally refute it when he came up with a more general theory of mechanics of which the first "axiom" contradicts that simple theory. His theory was quickly accepted because it could explain more phenomena and at a deeper level. At that stage, people might have thought that Newton's theory is the truth about how things actually are. However, they had no superior knowledge from which they could justify that thought. Later, we found out that Newton's theory fails when high speeds are involved, contradicts electrodynamics and needs to be replaced by Einstein's special theory of relativity to resolve these issues. We might think that now, Einstein's special theory of relativity is the truth about how things actually are. But again, there is no superior knowledge from where we could justify that thought. -
Within Kant's epistemology, certainty with respect to knowledge about phenomena is possible but the metaphysical claim that that knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded.
So "knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded"
is a "metaphysical claim" which is "unfounded."And as science advances still "there is no superior knowledge from where we could justify that thought."
That certainly sounds to me like the equivalent of making the assertion that because we observe progress in science we cannot claim "knowledge" of anything physical. And since the physical is this world, and we can't claim knowledge of it.
That sounds like the functional equivalent of saying that there is in fact a "true world" which is inaccessible to the senses and toward which we can never do anything more than approach knowledge.
And I would say that it sounds like the equivalence of saying "nothing can be known" to any regular person who has to choose how to live today based on whether there is a supernatural god and reward/punishment after death.
If that kind of formulation appeals to a certain type of "scientist" who are happy to have a theory that makes them feel good, then more power to them. But so far Kant adds up to me exactly as Nietzsche describes him.
As you've said earlier Martin this isn't the time or place for an extensive exploration into how to advocate for Kant. People can go outside the forum for that, where it is readily accessible.
But if you Martin or anyone else who has established that they are well disposed toward Epicurus want to add additional info about exactly what about Epicurus Kant makes "obsolete" then as far as I am concerned the floor will continue to be open to pursue this further.
-
I would like to see one aspect of this discussion of Epicurean vs Kantian perspectives in this or another thread on the forum.
I know comparatively little about Epicurus and less about Kant. However, I sense that the current distinctions between the schools being discussed carry an unspoken acknowledgment. Newer philosophies have been influenced to the good by earlier deep thinking. As much as E. differed from Socrates, he had to have been influenced to some degree by him.
If students of either school are inclined to do so, I'd enjoy reading relevant comparisons between E and Kant (and other more modern philosophers) that shows how they are similarly focused. Can it be done without avoiding the differences yet at the same time avoiding disputation?
-
I'd enjoy reading relevant comparisons between E and Kant (and other more modern philosophers) that shows how they are similarly focused. Can it be done without avoiding the differences yet at the same time avoiding disputation?
I definitely think it can be done, and that it would be helpful to do exactly that.
Differences can be sharpened in an unbiased unemotional way. Once we have a sharp view of the differences, then we can pretty easily find the line where we cross into advocacy of anti-Epicurean positions. Those who want to advocate core positions that are clearly anti-Epicurean can receive our best wishes and proceed to do that elsewhere for as long and passionately as they want. And those who conclude that an Epicurean framework allows for the best living can do so here.
For example it seems to me that it should be relatively easy to articulate positions on such core Epicurean views as "error is not in the senses but in the mind. "
Likewise it ought to be possible to articulate what it means to "prove" something.
On that last point I'm see the issue arise regularly: "Epicurus can't prove that the universe is infinite in size or eternal in time."
In my view, Epicurus had very sound reasoning as to why the universe as a whole cannot be otherwise. Obviously there are many local phenomena with specific circumstances which scientists are exploring. In Epicurus' time the question was the size of the sun, how magnets appear to generate action at a distance, and other poorly understood issues such as are listed in Book 6 of Lucretius.
Epicurus was very familiar that there are real-world issues like those for which we currently don't have adequate physical explanations.
But that didn't stop Epicurus from concluding that at the "ultimate" level of the universe as a whole, the javelin argument and similar hypotheticals are sufficient to conclude that we can be certain that no matter how far we go in space there's either "something" there or it not. Epicurus makes no claim to itemize what the various "somethings" might be, but he's say that from our human perspective it makes sense to categorize those things that affect us as "something" and those things that don't affect us as "nothing to us."
That is a kind of working real-world perspective that will take us through life with a practical frame of analysis. It doesn't exclude the possibility that there are in fact advanced civilizations that can create and destroy solar systems and living beings like we can only do in movies. I think Frances Wright was correct to include that possibility in her book. But such beings are not "supernatural" from the "universe as a whole" perspective. The possibility that such beings exist does not therefore negate the "universe as a whole" being eternal or infinite in size.
But getting back to what it means to "prove" something: Suggesting that Epicurus' framework is not "proven" seems to me to be missing Epicurus' point entirely. It's rejecting his combined logic-human experience perspective and suggesting that we require a level of proof that is clearly impossible for a human to possess. It's ultimately "otherworldly" in nature, highly damaging to human happiness, and exists mainly to sneak in a form of absolute morality or Judeo-Christianity-lite just as Nietzsche was suggesting as to Kant. (There's no god to justify my viewpoint, but I still think everyone should reach the same moral decisions - I'll just call it "categorical imperative"! )
Not everyone is going to agree completely with how to analyze these basic issues, but I firmly think that a forum that is dedicated to promoting Epicurean philosophy is going to at largely end up in the same place on the general outline.
It appears to me that the ancient Epicureans thought it makes no sense whatsoever to allow such people to argue such things without pushback, as if they occupy some kind of Stoic / moralist high ground.
So I do think it's important to dispassionately clarify where the issues really are found. After that we can passionately take sides as to the implications of those issues - after we are clear on what they really are.
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.