Posts by Eikadistes

Quote from Eikadistes

I'm going to condense all of this somewhere soon...

I did the thing. I came up with a more exhaustive list, and found corresponding quotes by Epíkouros and Epicureans that either support or conflict with Theravada Buddhist positions.

Quote from Zarathustra

(2) Nietzsche's relationship to Epicureanism

Welcome! Have you read Nietzsche and Epicurus by Vinod Acharya? I can share a copy if you haven't.

I also keep a collection of Nietzsche's commentary on Epicurus:

• The Anti-Christ
• Beyond Good and Evil
• On the Genealogy of Morals
• Human, All Too Human
• The Gay Science

Please let me know of or find excerpts that are missing! I'm actively searching.

Quote from wbernys

I've actually already read Gellar-Goad's article Don but sad to say I find it a little muddled and think we just need to accept the Epicureans we're wrong on this, they simply didn't have the tools we have. I think explanations of "real meaning" fall a little flat and remind me of how Christians explain Jesus failed apocalyptic predictions.

From my humble attempts at translating, I have never found a statement where Epíkouros positively says that the sun is a hot melon a few miles up. He never gives a definite size, suggesting that "the [Sun] in relation to itself, either [it is] greater [than] of that which is being observed, or slightly smaller, or [it is] as great as it happens to be." (Epistle to Pythokles 91). His thesis, as I read, is that astronomical objects are too distant to allow us to make accurate measurements.

(If disagreements in measurements between the JWST and the Hubble are any indication, we are still struggling over this point of contention, except on the scale of massive, cosmic filaments).

Even as a general observation, Epíkouros seems to indicate that the sun is "truly great", as he writes to Pythokles (so I've translated personally) "the size of both the Sun and of the rest of the glowers appears of such [great] size in relation to us [and] truly is so great" (10.91). Compared to other nearby objects, the sun cannot be easily "obstructed" behind a tree the way that a piece of fruit becomes completely obstructed. You need an eclipse; in other words, the only things big enough to block the sun other massive objects whose size we cannot accurately measure.

Also, just a quick side-note: we take "the size of the sun" for granted. It's not obvious. Consider neutron stars, which are the size of New York City, and can only shed heat on planets that orbit extremely close. Hypothetically, all this time of human history, prior to the 20th-century, the sun could have been a neutron star the size of New York City, and we wouldn't have known the difference.

I'd also like to add their context as naturalists and materialists. Epíkouros' personal philosophical hero was the naturalist Anaxagoras, who uniquely theorized that the sun was, at least, as big as a massive, geographical landmass (he names the Peloponnese). Further, having regularly sailed along the Ionian coast, Epíkouros (and the rest of the Ionians, I imagine) clearly witnessed mountains shrinking in the distance as they sailed, whereas the sun never shrinks. It would have been radically anomalous for Epíkouros to have suggested that the sun is smaller than mountains.

But he did get "heat" totally wrong. There are no "heat" particles. With respect, II think "the sun is a hot melon" is an attractive argument to opponents, but it is a colorful exxageration. There are plenty of other things Epíkouros got wrong that are educational points of comparison (like "heat").

Quote from wbernys

I was immediately enthralled but didn't immediately accept all the principal doctrines (especially 3 and 18)and even was a Cyrenaic for a little bit

We all go through a Cyrenaic phase. I won't hold that against you.

Quote from Kalosyni

Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two).

I include a brief mention of those parallels in my paper about holy shit. There is a historical possibility that Nāgārjuna (the founder of the Madhyamaka philosophy, one of the primary influences of Mahāyāna Buddhism which represents the majority of practitioners), was directly inspired or influenced by the works of Sextus Empiricus. He may literally have had physical access to translations of those works. Granted (so I think), Pyrrhonism was, in the first place, inspired by a tradition (or traditions) that shared similar philosophical positions as Buddhism, so there is a direct, historical exchange between ancient Greece and India when it comes to skeptical philosophy.

Huh ... I guess my brain is set to auto-update my file on the Dhammapada once a year.

Anyway, I came back to ask myself the exact opposite question, for an unrelated reason, and I came across these verses that strike me as being very "epicurean" in tone:

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive at the essential.

12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the essential.

24. Ever grows the glory of him who is energetic, mindful and pure in conduct, discerning and self-controlled, righteous and heedful.

26. The foolish and ignorant indulge in heedlessness, but the wise one keeps his heedfulness as his best treasure.

28. Just as one upon the summit of a mountain beholds the groundlings, even so when the wise man casts away heedlessness by heedfulness and ascends the high tower of wisdom, this sorrowless sage beholds the sorrowing and foolish multitude.

41. Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.

66. Fools of little wit are enemies unto themselves as they move about doing evil deeds, the fruits of which are bitter.

67. Ill done is that action fo doing which one repents later, and the fruit of which one, weeping, reaps with tears.

68. Well done is that action of doing which one repents not later, and the fruit of which one, reaps with delight and happiness.

73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries, and honor among householders.

76. Should one find a man who points out faults and who reproves, let him follow usch a wise and sagacious person as one would a guide to hidden treasure. It is always better, and never worse, to cultivate such an association.

81. Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.

84. He is indeed virtuous, wise and righteous who neither for his own sake nor for the sake of another (does any wrong), who does not crave for son, wealth, or kingdom, and does not desire success by unjust means.

101. Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

102. Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.

110. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled.

116. Hasten to do good; restrain your mind from evil. He who is slow in doing good, his mind delights in evil.

123. Just as a trader with a small escort and great wealth would avoid a perilous route, or just as one desiring to live avoids poison, even so should one shun evil.

127. Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean, nor by entering into mountain clefts, nowhere in the world is there a place where one may escape from the results of evil deeds.

128. Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean, nor by entering into mountain clefts, nowhere in the world is there a place where one may will not be overcome by death.

131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.

141. Neither going about naked, nor matted locks, nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal who has not overcome doubt.

157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.

206. Good is it to see the Noble Ones; to live with them is ever blissful. One will always be happy by not encountering fools.

280. The idler who does not exert himself when he should, who though young and strong is full of sloth, with a mind full of vain thoughts — such an indolent man does not find the path to wisdom.

290. If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.

328. If for company you find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, you should, overcoming all impediments, keep his company joyously and mindfully.

333. Good is virtue until life’s end, good is faith that is steadfast, good is the acquisition of wisdom, and good is the avoidance of evil.

365. One should not despise what one has received, nor envy the gains of others. The monk who envies the gains of others does not attain to meditative absorption.

I'm going to condense all of this somewhere soon, but I this is a great repository for review, so I wanted to place it here, first ... to the growing list of things I keep re-forgetting.

What's up, chump!

Happy Eikas!

Happy birthday, phílos Bryan !

I've consolidated all of my sources here and formatted the names into an ascending list.

At this point, I say no, it does not have something to teach us about preconceptions. I think it's like trying to learn about the physics of stars by observing Van Gogh's painting Starry Night. No matter how advanced or well-defined our models, they are still (for now) just models and analogies.

Maybe it does, insofar as it can teach us what a preconception is not.

As Diogénēs describes of a preconception, it is a "memory of the appearances from abroad", so being able to experience/process sensation, as I read it, is a necessary precursor to a preconception.

In an Epicurean sense, I don't think it's accurate to say that LLM's can have "preconceptions" because they are prone to error. Rather, it looks to me like they are being programmed with "opinions", some of which are true ... but they are not, themselves, standards of truth. They lack the standard of sensation, so they're at the whim of their programmers' memories.

We'll need to get to the point where an android organically dreams of sheep.

If I were on Picard's Enterprise-D, I would, personally, trust Data, but not the ship's computer, even if 99% of their knowledge-base were shared. If I'm going to risk losing my arm, I'm not going to take advice from an armless thing. Give that thing an arm to lose, and then see how it thinks. Likewise, I'll trust Data's description of the texture of kitten fur before the computer's, or the flavor of Picard's tea (probably bitter Earl Grey), over anything else for which it lacks its own sensory organs.

Quote from Titus

I just wanted to share my thoughts on a topic that has been on my mind for a long time.

Really cool thought, though! It's at least worth the thought experiment.

Perhaps the Eureka! moment of a life-changing discovery is more like an intellectual orgasm.

Or maybe it's like getting "abducted by aliens". If you genuinely believe you gained new perspective, you experience both (1) the excitement of certainty, and (2) the fear of social ridicule.

Quote from Cassius

The Epicurean texts don't describe "the best life" in any but very general mental and bodily terms, culminating in the description of 100% pleasure 0% pain, which we ought to recognize is the best terminology that by definition can be achieved.

Indeed! I read this earlier today by coincidence: "He (sc. Metrodorus) [writes] that, although he likes the idea that the [best] life is the one that is [accompanied by tranquillity], peace, and cares that cause minimal trouble, it does not seem that this goal is achieved at least in this way, namely, if we avoid all those things over which, if they were present, we would sometimes experience difficulties and distress. For in truth many things do cause some pain if they are present but disturb us more if they are absent. Thus, health does involve some care and effort for the body but causes unspeakably more distress when it is absent" (Philódēmos, On Property Management, Col. 12-13)

Later (of interest) he adds, "one must not avoid all things that, if they are present, may cause all kinds of troubles, concerns, and worries. On the contrary, [one must accept] some things, among which is in fact wealth, that are less of a burden when they are present" (Ibid., Col. 13)

Quote from Don

Quote from kochiekoch

Epicurus beer!!!

Epi-Coors-us?

Funny you should mention it...

Quote from Don

Quote from Cassius

"Trust" or "Faith" implies an object which we are trusting or having faith in. As general term in an Epicurean context, what would be that object?

Nature as in "the way things are."

I'd also add, the Canon. We trust in the reliability and consistency of our senses, which reveal Nature, just as we reject scriptural inerrancy and its self-described revelations as a criterion of knowledge.

This is where there's a certain balance in one's choice of translation.

There will never be an absolutely "true" translation, because any receiver of a text is receiving that text through the filter of their own linguistic, cultural, generational, and academic contexts. Granted, there are definitely plenty of "false" interpretations ... but others are good, and some are better.

I present Epicurean pístis as "faith" to Christians to challenge their pre-existing assumption about the nature of "faith". With other Epicureans, we tend to avoid religious jargon and speak frankly, so "faith" is a much less helpful term. To those unfamiliar, "faith" might be a confusing translation.

Just an etymological note, the word used throughout the New Testament for "faith" (πίστις or pístis) is also used by Epíkouros throughout his Epistles, and once in the Key Doctrines:

1. Epistle to Herodotos 63:

“Then it is necessary that those [who are] comprehending [all of this] are [always] referring to the sensations and [the faculty of] feeling — for the firmest faith will thus be established — seeing that the soul exists through a finely-grained body [that is] spreading [throughout] an amalgamation [of flesh].”

2. Epistle to Pythokles 85:

“So then, the first goal of knowledge about the meteoric, either [to] speak in conjunction [with facts] or to independently practice [science], is nothing else than tranquility and firm faith, just as in the case of the rest [of our investigations].”

3. Key Doctrine 40:

“Those who keep the means to be prepared enjoy the most confidence out of coexisting with other people, in this way also those who live pleasantly among one another keep steadfast faith, and engender the fullest intimacy so as not to mourn lamentably for those who died before their time had come.” (10.154)

Quote from Bryan

This is excellent -- great idea to have each one link to the specific papyri.info page!

P.Herc. 908 may actually be by Demetrius Lacon. The content is interesting -- the topic is on sex, and it is very medical/gynecological (rather than moral/ethical).

Thanks! Let me know if you see anything in need of revision. The site does host some information that seems to conflict, especially between Latin and Greek translations (where they are).

I've finished updating the list of P.Herc. fragments.

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I've organized the Herculaneum scrolls by number, and linked each one with the fragment that is hosted online in ancient Greek.

I'm still working on Philódēmos. Most of the scrolls are his.