Posts by Godfrey

Another source to consider is David Sedley's book Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. As I recall, in that book he constructed an outline of On Nature and compared it with De Rerum Natura. It's been a while since I read it but at the time it seemed to be something of a treasure trove: maybe not so much for specific translations but as an overall guide to review before starting to compile the fragments.

Just to complicate the discussion....

The statement was made that bodily feelings exist only in the present but mental feelings can be both anticipated and remembered. To my understanding, the body also has memory and anticipation of feelings. As one example, childhood traumas can unconsciously affect a person's health in numerous ways which can last a lifetime.

Although perhaps not available in Epicurus' day, current information indicates that the body and mind are intricately intertwined to the point where it can be difficult to separate mental and physical feelings. However this just reinforces Epicurus' contention that the mind and/or soul is physical. Going into more detail is only worthwhile to the extent that it increases one's pleasure!

Quote from Cassius

If that is correct, then the proper analogy would be that due to your faculty of preconceptions you have the ability to perceive that certain relationships and dealings with people are significant enough to perceive them as falling into a general category of relationships that we choose to call "justice." The particular preconception is a recognition that in the dealings of the people involved there is a relationship that we can expect to be repeated over and over and thus needs evaluation.

Cassius I agree with what you've written but I do question this quote. First, are you saying that we actually categorize something as part of a preconception? That seems to me to be done using reason: I understand a preconception as being more "primitive" than that, more akin to a sensation or feeling.

In your second sentence you seem to be saying that there's a projection into the future, which again seems more like reason to me. But you're also emphasizing relationship, which on the societal level is a component of justice.

Quote from Don

But there is an underlying "no harm to me, no harm to you" reciprocity at work, especially in the chimp and monkey examples. If you look at the definitions of δίκαιος, there's a maintaining a certain balance in society aspect. One chimp sees a group member being "harmed" by being denied food etc. Another member shares, maintaining balance in society. The sharing member also sets up the precedent for reciprocity from the other member in the troop.

"No harm to me, no harm to you" seems like a preconception to me, it just doesn't appear to necessarily extend to "no harm to others" unless perhaps one has been raised with that view and therefore it has become a default point of view. Chimps maintaining balance in society seems like it might be such a learned default. Or could it be explained as an innate sense of empathy?

To compare the two quotes, I see Don's as "one-offs" occurring in the present instant, similar to a sensation. There is also memory involved if you consider how one is raised as contributing to a preconception. But my understanding is that any recognition that this is "justice" or may be beneficial in the future occurs after the preconception, through reasoning. Am I mistaken in this?

At first blush, I would say not, that it varies from group to group and person to person. If chimpanzees could speak English, maybe they would say that what they're doing is "sharing". A case could be made that this is "not harming" but that might be a stretch. However it does appear to us to be just.

Another thought is that "justice" often involves harm to a particular party. Every war is considered by at least one side to be a "just" war. Chimpanzees (I think; it may be another primate) use violence to establish and maintain the social order of the alpha male. Corporal punishment is another example (not to be confused with Joshua's example of corporate punishment in the kids for cash scheme?)

Be sure to do your vocal warm-ups!

The point that Martin made about chimpanzees and justice points to a prolepsis of justice, which is one of the few specific prolepseis mentioned in the texts. That adds another layer to the discussion of justice! The discussion is quite enjoyable, by the way.

Addicted to power, addicted to money, addicted to work, addicted to alcohol.... Power, money, work and alcohol aren't bad in themselves, nor are the desires to attain them to some degree. I think part of what she was saying in the podcast is that what is not addictive for some people can be addictive for other people. I would add to that this is where wisdom comes in: the ability to recognize your personal limits (there's that word again!). Knowing these limits can inform one as to what is vain/unnecessary for their own well being.

I haven't yet made it very far into the podcast, but after around minute 23 or so she gave what to me could be a good description of vain or unnecessary desires. Isn't this, after all, what addictions and insatiability are?

Nice find!

It does seem like a good checklist when faced with a difficult decision. I agree with Don and Cassius that it doesn't seem utilitarian, which of course around here is a very good thing!

In contrast to Don, I can't say that I would get much pleasure out of those beers!

Kalosyni the first two lines of that quote seem particularly spot on.

The attached thesis paper may be of interest, "Friedrich Nietzsche, The Presocratic Greeks, and Taoist Thought" by Deborah Theodore. I read it quite a while ago so I can't remember the details other than I enjoyed it and I believe it had some pertinent information in it.

I'm just speculating that when you believe in and promote something with no empirical basis, it would be natural to fear having your beliefs shown as groundless. Not an obvious fear on the surface but a deep seeded one that you would only become aware of by paying attention to your sensations, preconceptions and feelings.

I've noticed this in myself various times in different contexts. I may have a feeling that I'm digging my heals in about some issue, but when I examine my faculties I realize that I'm reacting this way because I don't have all of the facts and my ego is perhaps digging in. I'm describing this ego reaction as fear.

But for those who are promoting a "noble lie" in order to achieve certain ends, having their falsity exposed could truly be dangerous and worthy of fearing. At the very least it would be a threat to their power, which such a person would presumably fear.

Also, when I wrote that comment I was specifically thinking of religion. The fears inherent in that are, of course, fearing gods and death, as well as what I've just described.

I agree about rediscoverability, but on a less hypothetical note religion has become a dominant power structure and will always use any vestige of its tremendous resources to see that its ideas, and therefore power, prevail.

It seems to me that "realists" don't often see the need to fight for their beliefs as they are self evident. Meanwhile the "idealists" expend great effort defending and spreading their beliefs. Could this be due to the fears inherent in "idealism"? Particularly the fear of looking like a fool? This in addition to the craving for power.

Quote from Kalosyni

I need to study the basics more and take better notes, and learn how to present my ideas in a cleaner, clearer fashion.

If it's of any help, over the time that I've been posting here I've found a similar need to be more precise in my wording. But I've also found that that is part of the process of learning and communicating philosophy and has been very beneficial for me.

Quote from Kalosyni

...at what point does an Epicurean say: "I've studied the teachings and I've learned the teachings, now I will simply just live the teachings." Yet, one would not feel fully contented until one as established the fundamental material attributes underlying the Epicurean lifestyle.

One of the best ways that I find to understand the teachings is to try to live them and then evaluate the effects in terms of enjoying my life. Participating here is part of that process: instead of a physical Garden, we have this community where we can share ideas, get feedback and continue to study. So, to me, you begin living the teachings early on and continue to do so. And you continue to study indefinitely: there's always some new nuance to appreciate and incorporate into understanding and living. Understanding is continuously growing, branching out into new areas and providing additional pleasures!

Welcome boyh0wdy!

I'm curious as to what Stephen Bachelor has to say about Buddhism and Hellenistic philosophy. My limited understanding is that there was cross fertilization between Greek and Indian ideas. I thought, though, that that was quite controversial from the Buddhist perspective.

There doesn't seem to be much scholarship on the subject. To me it's a fertile area, though not so much for the similarities. Epicurus successfully developed and enriched ideas from certain of his predecessors. Knowing how these predecessors interacted with Buddhism could be fruitful for appreciating how Epicurus evolved particular dogmas.

The danger from a Greek point of view, as pointed out in previous posts, is that it's very easy to read similar ideas into different philosophies and leave it at that, without appreciating the nuance and development involved.

Anyway, that's my long winded way of saying howdy boyh0wdy!

Don I like how you've formatted your translation. It's nice to be able to read through it uninterrupted, and then refer to the translations as desired. Nice work!

Kalosyni thanks for the link. A very good take on tranquility!

Not to get political, but it also features Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure if that's him or Massey on the right in the still.

Excellent posts Joshua ! This really gets to the meat of the opposition to Epicurean justice. From what little I know of it, it goes back at least to Plato's Republic and the idea of the noble lie: the myth that is useful for governing the masses. Hence the fierce opposition to Epicurus, who sought truth and ended up shattering the "noble" myths.

This is pretty random, but we were watching Scooby-Doo with our son earlier today. Watching it, I noticed

- a dedication to observation and science over superstition

- a group of friends working together

- a perhaps overly gluttonous enjoyment of food

- and, of course, the pleasure of laughter!

Hmmm....