Posts by Godfrey

Yes. Another good one!

A few thoughts....

I'm not sure about Lucretius' era, but in ancient Greece everyone was speculating beyond the evidence. Which just reinforces the point that the methods of inference are perhaps more important than the actual conclusions reached.

When using the feelings as a measurement of truth it's extremely important that the "input" (sensations, data, facts, etc) is as extensive and accurate as possible. With pure reason this doesn't seem to be the case, which can be rather dangerous.

So it's only natural that as input improves over time, so will the conclusions. But during the podcast I kept thinking of the implications of this in terms of our fractured society and the plethora of "alternative facts" circulating. Without getting into politics (!!!) I think that this may illustrate how EP can and should apply on a societal level in addition to being *just* a personal philosophy.

This translation by Strodach seems clearer to me, although not any shorter:

"24. If you summarily rule out any single sensation and do not make a distinction between the element of belief that is superimposed on a percept that awaits verification and what is actually present in sensation or in the feelings or some percept of the mind itself, you will cast doubt on all other sensations by your unfounded interpretation and consequently abandon all the criteria of truth. On the other hand, in cases of interpreted data, if you accept as true those that need verification as well as those that do not, you will still be in error, since the whole question at issue in every judgment of what is true or not true will be left intact."

We're very grateful for nerdiness here!

Quote

Regarding gratitude, I don't agree that this emotion in the subject implies or requires an object.

Well put Joshua! A key word that you used is "emotion."

I would add that one can be grateful for without being grateful to. Religion teaches that a person should give thanks, but what is important is to feel thankful. The emotions are central to being human; the more we are in touch with them the better. Unlike the Stoics.

Great link Don. I'm out of my depth on that as well, which is why I asked the question.

A further thought on "necessary and sufficient" is that that is a logical exercise where DeLacey 2b seems to be a Canonic exercise. So I'm curious if considering the two might shed some light on the extent of reason in determining truth using EP.

Cassius this is a fascinating and important topic and I look forward to episode 33! I actually listened to 32 twice. Between the podcasts and the forum l, for one, am getting a lot more clarity on the topic. Even if it's not *resolved*.

Is there any relevance of the idea of "necessary and sufficient" for items in category 2b? (Full disclosure: not being a philosopher, I'm unaware of the detailed ramifications of the necessary and sufficient argument. So I'm definitely asking a question and not proposing an argument.)

It seems like 2b describes a "sufficient" condition for truth. However I think there may be many instances where "necessary" is implied. For instance with the void it seems that part of the argument of Lucretius is that the void is necessary for motion. Likewise, and I guess where I'm going with this, is an atomist universe "necessary" to describe a world in which things don't appear out of nothing, at random, or disappear into nothing?

"Necessary and sufficient" is different from verification and lack of evidence to the contrary. I'm curious if it has a place in the Epicurean methods of inference or if verification and evidence completely supercede it.

Well done Joshua! You present a remarkable amount of information which brings far more to the poem than I would have gleaned.

This is meandering somewhat in that this doesn't directly discuss philosophy. About midway through this podcast there is a discussion of the reasons rulers embraced monotheistic religions instead of local gods. Simply put: to consolidate power.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/podcast-g…-the-year-1000/

It's been a while and I don't recall the details of the Santayana essay. What's interesting to me in this discussion is the connection between excellent scholarship in some aspects of the essay combined with the total dismissal of Epicurus in other parts. It seems as though one devoted to excelling in scholarship just can't comprehend or stomach the ultimate simplicity and obviousness of Epicurus' insights.

Of course part of Epicurus' project was to show the futility of over-reliance on the intellect. So the intellectual probably feels compelled to demean and discredit Epicurus. The tragedy, to me, is how over the millennia those who make a fancy argument can blind so many to basic truths.

Yes I made it through the whole thing. I kept expecting it to get better but it never did.

I'd suggest bailing on reading it and wait for what Joshua has to say. I imagine he'll be able to discover some nuance in the piece, at least more than I could!

Quote

...his depiction of Epicurus won't win him any friends here.

That would be me. I read this essay a few months ago and was extremely put off by it. That being said, I'm interested to hear your take on it Joshua.

This made me quite happy!

Looking again at my statement, it's actually circular in that the pursuit of something is guided by the experience of that thing. I think it's better stated as "the pursuit of desire fulfillment is guided by the experience of pleasure," and this could be an extremely critical point.

It's important to separate the faculty from the action, and if I'm not mistaken this is exactly what Epicurus is doing when read carefully. I've tended to conflate pleasure and desire. However he ranks desires (not pleasures) into the categories of natural and necessary, natural and not necessary, and vain. Pleasure itself (the faculty) is uniformly good. (I'm writing without referring to the texts so I could be putting words in his mouth, but this separation is how I've been thinking about the philosophy lately. I'm not sure if the Greek backs this up or not . Or maybe it's obvious and I'm just a tad dull. )

The natural state that I'm referring to is the smooth and integrated functioning of the sensations, prolepses and feelings. So it would be the experience of pleasure functioning in a way as to be a proper guide for the pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Or is it useful or not useful to state a general rule?

To me the default and the general rule is the natural state. Beyond that, as with many things, I don't think it's useful to state as a general rule. However for me, personally, and probably for most of us in the forum, there is a great deal of baggage (cultural and/or otherwise) in the way of returning to this state and EP is the most valid philosophy for doing so. But there is no way to objectively determine whether or not a person is living in the natural state. I could think of a few acquaintances that seem to be, but if I asked them they may disabuse me of that idea! The opposite goes for the scientist in question: there's no way to judge the fullness of his cup.

Quote from Don

I would ask What is the totality of their life? How are they living it? Are they just? Are they making decisions to bring sustained pleasure to their whole life? The moment-by-moment experience of pleasure while researching or contemplating their scientific pursuit is not the goal. It is living a sustained pleasurable life.

So these questions from Don are the questions we need to ask of ourselves, discuss, and promote. But it seems pointless to try to ascertain how frequently the natural state is retained or under what conditions.

Quote from Cassius

In addition to looking at it "practically" I think there is a natural tendency ("anticipation"??) to be drawn to thinking about questions like "divinity.". (" Are we alone in the universe? Are there higher beings?) And so I think it is natural to need a framework for dealing with those issues.

I totally agree with this. In fact our scientist is likely getting pleasure from dealing with these very questions, which relates to PD 10. So I guess my point is that we can't tell and shouldn't assume from someone's lifestyle whether or not they are living a life of pleasure, or how close they may be to the natural state.

Just finished listening; great discussion!

To me, Martin said it most accurately and concisely: "it's natural." Epicurus didn't invent the Canon, he observed and articulated it. It's a natural process involving pleasure. As long as nothing is interfering with this process then no philosophy is necessary. But when wrong thinking, fears, religion and such interfere with the process, then correct philosophy is the medicine to get back on track.

So, at least for now, I'm with Elayne and Martin. Don's points are well taken however and bring the discussion to the fullness of pleasure. If the scientist has arranged his life to maximize pleasure then there's no reason to change. But if his marriage is a shambles, he's living on the streets, he's an alcoholic, etc, then he probably could use a philosophical intervention. In the latter case his cup of pleasure is full of muddy water.

Well produced; the images worked nicely with the audio. And well stated. 👍👍

I'm not.

For this particular presentation I think it's helpful to have text and images. Often I'm not a fan of that, but for what you're doing I liked being able to read the text as you read or referred to it. Same with viewing the painting.

There is a podcast that I follow (typically one hour + in length) which streams on Google Podcasts as well as YouTube; in that case I listen to the audio stream and only rarely watch the video if there's something specific that I want to see. In your case I think the visuals are pretty integral. Having a purely audio stream might make it easier to access (in the car, for example) but as long as the length is around ten minutes I for one would watch the video.

Enjoyed it Joshua! I'm actually not familiar with the poem, so this is a great introduction. Looking forward to the next one. 👍👍