Posts by Godfrey

There is so much here to digest, I'll try to narrow down my comments and questions as much as possible to help wrap my head around things. (Cassius, your comments on pleasure are quite interesting and could make another thread in themselves!) For the most part I totally understand and agree with the points made. I'd like to focus on 1) an infinite system, 2) chance, and 3) isonomy.

1) In EP, the number of atoms is infinite. The types of atoms are innumerable. If my thinking is correct, the types of combinations of atoms would therefore be innumerable but not infinite (innumerable type x other innumerable type = seriously innumerable). If the types of combinations were mathematically infinite (although it could be said that, practically speaking, they are infinite) then the probability of any given thing existing in the universe would be 100% and if I'm not mistaken this doesn't seem to be the case in EP.

2) Regarding chance, my understanding is that chance is involved in the combinations of atoms. Once compounds are formed there are properties that affect future combinations, but as a general idea chance is a factor in the Epicurean universe (but not in the life of a wise man). If it were not a factor, then all would be by necessity and such is not the case.

3) Isonomy is where I get completely confused. DeWitt lists three aspects of isonomy: "first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, 'that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better'; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction."

DeWitt also mentions an isonomy of values as well as of things. Perfection and imperfection are values, but they are ideas of man and at the scale of man and not at the scale of the universe, to my understanding. Otherwise, wouldn't they be Platonic Ideals? And how can "equitable apportionment" occur in a chance system? Is the reason for more gods than mortals because the forces of preservation must exceed the forces of destruction in an everlasting universe? I'm completely on board with his third premise of preservation exceeding destruction. My understanding, however, is that that would apply only to the atoms. All else is compounds and is subject to dissolution.

The plot thickens! Yes I'm planning to continue this discussion. Tonight is date night though, so it won't be for a while

Thanks Nate and Cassius! Lots digest....

Lately I've been thinking about the Epicurean gods and would like to share some thoughts.

It's commonly acknowledged here that physics has advanced a great deal since Epicurus' time, but that Epicurean physics is still valid.

As for the gods, although it probably exists I haven't seen any discussion regarding the advance of religious thought since Epicurus. Today in the West there aren't gods, just God. Although valuable, the discussion of Epicurean gods is purely abstract to us living today as Epicurus was responding to the culture he lived in. Today God has replaced the gods, and it seems that is the idea that we must address if we want to truly live EP.

So, firstly, EP completely neuters the current idea of an all powerful God who created the universe and such. Therefore it seems that atheism is the only choice for an Epicurean, at least until further evidence becomes available. For me, having been raised Presbyterian, this isn't a choice that I make lightly even though I've been heading this way for a long time.

Secondly, what could have prompted Epicurus to make such an effort to retain the gods? What are the advantages of religion in general, regardless of which god or gods is/are concerned? Community, shared belief, safety.... He says that there is an anticipation of the gods; could this be simply awe and reverence for the universe we live in? Which I find increases once the idea of god is discarded.

What about Epicurus trying to avoid the charge of impiety? Or was he testing his ideas with the culture he lived in, which is something that we, too, must do.

What exactly is a social contract? Are these pertinent?

- An example of a just withdrawal that comes immediately to mind is the civil rights movement of the 60s. Which leads to the example of current redefinition of societal norms underway. Also the continual pendulum of economic redistribution. These are examples of harm or disadvantage.

- Also involved is the change of relative strength between two parties. One party often initially negotiates from a position of relative weakness, but if their relative strength increases then they renegotiate. Justly, it would seem.

Bailey continues: "...the gloomy billows of care. For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature."

Or Smith: "...This terrifying darkness that enshrouds the mind must be dispelled not by the sun’s rays and the dazzling darts of day, but by study of the superficial aspect and underlying principle of nature."

Quote

Maybe the final point to make is that it's empowering or even scary to think how much of all this is in our own hands, and that we have to decide for ourselves, but I think that's compelled by the nature of the Epicurean universe in which there are no gods telling us what to do and no "ideal patterns" to go by either -- not even any absolute standards of virtue or justice. We're really no different than any other animal -- we're here for only a short time and the best we can do for ourselves is use our time as productively as possible -- with "productively" being judged by the "feeling" we get from our life.

Well said Cassius! This relates to the discussion going on in other threads about the philosophy being a complete system beginning with a world view (physics) and working it's way to the practical application and consequences of that world view.

It's easy to take the physics for granted as it's more or less accepted scientific knowledge these days. Growing up in a primarily monotheistic culture which is at the same time science based, at some point it's necessary to really dig into the ramifications of the physics, and at that point it is "empowering or even scary" to embark on the Epicurean path.

Regarding choices and the hedonic calculus, I've been experimenting with what I might loosely call "Epicurean mindfulness". It's a fledgling attempt to apply the Canon to choices, and I guess the main benefit is to use it as a structure to maximize intuition and feelings. Basically it goes like this:

- Name the problem at hand

- Observe: what do I know about it, what do my senses tell me?

- Pause: just stop, and allow my intuitive mind to do it's work. The feelings tend to weigh in here, probably because I'm not drowning them out with thinking.

- Sometimes that's it; sometimes I add the thought of acting to maximize pleasure and see where that leads.

It's not a formula, but sometimes it's a useful tool in the toolbox fwiw.

Martin, thanks for your comments, especially regarding entropy. Joshua that's a good point about inflation/expansion.

The reason that I find these ideas of interest is that I think that EP has a strong enough basis in reality that grappling with them from time to time serves, at least generally, to bridge the 2000 year gap. As opposed to some ancient philosophies that crumble when exposed to current thinking.

From time to time I find great pleasure thinking about these ideas, while suspended on my hammock and swatting the occasional mosquito

Entropy is an interesting topic, and one that I as a non scientist ponder from time to time. Also the question: how can order arise from chaos? To this it seems that the answer is bit by bit, over eons: evolution. Does anybody here know of writings that address these topics in a manner comprehensible to a layman?

Random thought: current physics seems to be mostly based on reasoning, predominantly mathematical. These reasonings begin with observations of the physical world, but at what point do they become detached from the observable and enter the realm of pure speculation? However without this speculation there is no progress.

Cassius I like the idea of an outline with drop down sections. The format of Socrates quotes followed by Philebus/Protarchus wrong responses then Epicurus' correct responses is excellent. An alternative to drop down sections would be to summarize each argument and then refer to quotations at the end or in a related document.

Regarding Philebus as a whole, this is all new to me as I don't have a background in philosophy. Philebus seems to be pretty concise (at least as much as a dialectic argument can be) and touches on many ideas and methods of Plato in addition to being an argument against pleasure as the greatest good.

For example, dialectic is something Epicurus opposed. My intuitive reaction to it has always been that, while it may have some value, it's also possible to prove, using dialectic and/or logic, that a banana is a didgeridoo or an elephant is a building. Your outline is well structured to combat this by showing the fallacious statements which lead to fallacious conclusions.

Another thing that struck me in reading Philebus was the idea of the gods. Plato has the monotheistic conception of a universal mind. Understanding this made me realize that, whatever one makes of the Epicurean gods, they didn't create the universe and are not reduced to one all powerful god but are a refutation of the Platonic world view.

Much of my interest in Philebus is to use it as a Cliff Notes version of Plato from which a list of Platonic ideas and Epicurean responses could be created. The focus is pleasure but there seems to be much more in there to chew on.

When I have some time I'll try to take this further, for what it's worth....

Cassius: you mentioned Plato's Philebus, and have mentioned it in the past. Recently I finally got around to reading it and was amazed by the breadth and depth of Epicurus' engagement with it and how completely he refuted the entire dialogue.

Two points (out of many!):

1) Reading Philebus with Epicurus in mind makes evident the basis of the hostility directed at him.

2) Philebus should be required reading for every Epicurean. It's invaluable to have some understanding of the Platonic world view and how it is bizarre on so many levels.

Maybe this belongs in a separate thread. More to the point, thanks for pointing out that "much of the story begins with Plato and Philebus".

In terms of thinking things through out loud, that's really helpful. Not just to the initial poster: it also gives others a chance to mull over particular ideas

This is also why one doesn't pursue all pleasures, as some are more trouble than they're worth as described in PD 8 for instance.

Aren't there lots of intrinsic (natural?) goods? Eating, drinking, breathing, shelter, etc, but the GOAL of any good is pleasure. An intrinsic good is necessary for survival, but we pursue it to attain pleasure and/or avoid pain. So pleasure would be considered the goal rather than just a good.

It seems to work now, I just posted an answer to a conversation.

I didn't log out and back in: I've got to find my password before I do that lol

Cassius, I'm unable to answer or start a conversation. The message "Error Message 403 Forbidden Access to this resource on the server is denied" keeps popping up. I've tried to answer on two Android devices and a Windows computer and get the same popup.

Regarding the Skype discussion, I was sorry to miss it and plan to join in in the future. I do have a lot going on for the next few weeks and so may be sporadic in attending, but not through lack of desire

Cheers!

I'm planning on it: it was a pleasant and insightful discussion!

Thanks JAWS!

Regarding your points Cassius:

1, 3: Yes, we're in agreement.

2: I did read the chapter and much of the discussion seemed to depend on references of which I'm unaware. It's good to know why!

4: Nikolsky sounds like a valuable piece of the puzzle, I've downloaded that and will read it.

5, 6: I generally understand that Epicurus was responding to Plato and others but I haven't read Philebus and probably should find a Cliff Notes version to get the general idea. However I never considered that this was Epicurus's primary reason for discussing things as he does. Sitting here in 2019, studying philosophy of living, my motivations are far removed from philosophical competition. So it's quite helpful of you to point out his context. DeWitt does that quite a bit, but when reading his book I'm focused more on understanding the philosophy than the context.

Quote

If not for the negative programming we have all received from religion and ascetic philosophies, much of this issue of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain would all be pretty much a matter of "common sense" that a child would be ashamed not to understand.

This sentence of yours is exactly spot on! My frustration when writing this, which I couldn't articulate, is that it IS common sense. But at the same time the reason for my frustration is a lifetime in a culture inundated with religion and ascetic philosophies, so context, both of antiquity and of today, is indeed valuable.

I’m working on digesting DeWitt, Gosling & Taylor (having some indigestion with this one) and Wenham regarding katastematic and kinetic pleasure. Trying to get beyond the academic and into the practical day to day. So I’m putting some thoughts down to help me in the process and putting them here to see if they hold up.

Wenham seems to be spot on in describing pleasure as “experiential” as opposed to “attitudinal”, and supporting this with the fact that pleasure is a Feeling and a part of the Canon.

Regarding katastematic and kinetic pleasures and whether or not Epicurus defined them in this way, I confess that I’m a bit lost. Since I’m not writing this for academia but for my own pleasure and it’s growth, now I’m just putting down ideas (hopefully coherently) that came up while reading DeWitt’s The New Hedonism.

What is definitely attributable to Epicurus seem to be the ideas of continuous pleasure and unity of pleasure. Thinking about my experience of continuous pleasure leads me to times when I have been troubled by something and have, usually through extended effort, managed to solve the problem. Examples: 1) I spent years trying to figure out the most prudent way of saving and investing. It was (and still is) a great relief when I finally did a period of intense research and decided on and implemented a strategy that works for me. 2) Similarly for chronic health challenges: after extended periods of trial and error, finally arriving at a solution provides mental as well as physical relief/pleasure. 3) Being at a transitional period of my life, I embarked on an extended period of reading and introspection and in the process discovered Epicurus’ philosophy which has relieved much mental disturbance and brought much pleasure.

Is there a point where kinetic pleasure becomes continuous pleasure? Each of these examples (finances, health and philosophy) involves continued maintenance. If the maintenance is neglected the pleasure eventually vanishes. This is how I am understanding condensation (or more accurately extension, as it’s opposite) of pleasure…. A natural and necessary desire by it’s nature is recurrent (eating, drinking, etc.); autarchy is achieved when prudently considered continued effort, carried out through a what could be called an hedonic regimen, allows one to reach a place of continuous pleasure. At this point the natural and unnecessary pleasures provide the icing on the cake.

In other words, continuous pleasure requires continued effort and action. Over time, I think, the effort diminishes although the action involved may continue. Using my examples above: 1) Having settled on a strategy for my finances, there are “chores” which I perform weekly, some which I perform quarterly, and some that I do every six months. Notably the chores aren’t necessarily pleasurable in themselves, but they do lead to pleasure/peace of mind. 2) Having found a solution to a chronic health problem, one must continuously monitor one’s diet, exercise, sleep, take one’s meds if applicable, etc. 3) Similarly, philosophy requires continued reading, contemplation and ideally discussion to really take root and flourish.

So pleasure is pleasure. Some pleasures are the result of continuous effort, some are more immediate. Some are mental, some are physical. Some pleasures are attained by removing things (fear of the gods, fear of death, other mental disturbance, illness, etc.) and some by obtaining and/or consuming or doing things (food, water, reading a good book, going skiing). Some are necessary for life, some make life more fun. Taking care of things that pain our bodies or disturb our minds brings us pleasure: health and serenity are our natural states and feel good. When our bodies and minds are free of pain and disturbance we can especially enjoy other pleasures, particularly if they outweigh any pain involved. As the sky has much variety but is all the sky, so goes pleasure.