Posts by Don

Quote from Peter Konstans

First, we have to explore what motivates people to try to influence other people in general.

1. The answer is: to extract a desired reaction from them. In the case of influencers the desired reaction is likes, views, subscriptions etc.
2. Why are those reactions desired?
   1. Because those reactions bring them money.
3. And why do people want money?
   1. For the same reason they want energy. Money is effectively a form of energy as it can be converted to actual material goods and services.
4. And why do people seek energy?
   1. Well, they have evolved to aggressively seek it.
5. Why did they evolve to seek it?
   1. Because natural selection in humans favored strongly acquisitive behavior.
6. Why is natural selection the way life works?
   1. Eventually the answers will lead us to see reality for what it is: arrangements of quantum fields, everything else being an illusion that reflects our cognitive limitations as human beings.

[Etc...]

This whole digression into online "influencers" misses my point. I was using "influence" in the broad sense of simply getting people to do what you'd like them to do, from changing one's trivial opinions on where they'd like to go to supper to more serious matters like how they live their life.

The money issue seems to also be a tangent and one I'm not entirely sold on (pun intended). The only reason money can be exchanged for material goods is that we as a society have agreed to this shared social construct. "Money" is also a way that people try to signify their importance by concepts such as millionaire and billionaire. That money will never be able to purchase all possible material goods. It serves as a symbolic social status identifier. It also doesn't confer security as one has to be anxious about keeping it safe and other concerns.

There are a number of leaps in those bullet points and the rest of the post that I'm not willing to concede. I also don't see thatn last post resolving the contradiction about which I inquired. This has also taken this thread far afield from the pertinent discussion on determinism, fatalism, and Epicurean philosophy.

I'll agree that our choices are not entirely free of all constraints. We have general tendencies, dispositions, self-imposed and externally-imposed social constraints, etc. Even Epicurus states "some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power." Some will argue fervently that it can only be necessity OR chance, that there is nothing we do that's "by our own power." I'm open to having my opinion influenced, but I'm not willing to entirely concede to not having anything determined "by my own power" for now.

Quote from Peter Konstans

No philosophy, no advice, no magic formula made up of a string of words can bring down the iron walls of the environment and the brain. Someone's environment is what it is and someone's brain is what it is. This fixes human behavior in full.

Now, the absence of moral agency doesn't mean humans can't influence other humans. This is trivially easy to do by means of manipulating the circuits of human neurobiology that govern pleasure and pain. This technique is morally neutral and people use it as they please both to benefit others and to do harm.

I'm honestly trying to understand how both these can be true.

How can our behavior be determined fully by brain physics and environment BUT we can still influence other humans. If all is determined by physics, doesn't that mean even the influencers are not responsible for their "influence" but merely acting out their predetermined behaviors which those influenced are just the next step in the chain of determinism?

These ideas have also been expounded by Sipolsky and others, but I'm not entirely convinced by their arguments. I'll try to dig up some alternative perspectives at some point.

There's a lot of philosophical jargon flying through this thread, and I'll freely admit some of it is going over my head. For y'all's consideration:

Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Determinism versus Determinism | Issue 141 | Philosophy Now

Quote from Peter Konstans

Epicurus argued rightly that the two are not compatible, so he was what we call an anti-compatibilist.

But that last link states (emphasis added)...

Quote

Morally speaking, determinists are mainly divided into two camps, namely compatibilists and incompatibilists. The incompatibilists argue that determinism completely negates the possibility of agent causation, and therefore moral responsibility. On the other hand, compatibilists claim that moral responsibility is still applicable under determinism. They are both contrasted to libertarians, who defend moral responsibility through believing in free will, dismissing determinism.

Epicurus clearly thought we could be held accountable for our choices, so if you're saying Epicurus was a determinist (which I'm not sure is correct - he states the exact opposite of that in Menoikeus) he would have to be a compatibilist according to that article.

Quote from Peter Konstans

When it comes to humans the acquisition of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only true determinant forces of human behavior and all other motivations are illusory. This is determinism.

I didn't understand determinism in that way. I understood determinism to mean "roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." Epicurus writes:

Quote

even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves. [134] Because of this, it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers, because necessity is not moved by prayer; and such a one accepts that Fortune is not a god, as the hoi polloi understand (for a god does nothing in a disorderly or haphazardly manner); And it is not the uncertain cause of everything, for one cannot think it can grant good or evil for a person’s blessed life; however, it does furnish for oneself the starting point of great goods and great evils, [135] believing that it is better to be unfortunate rationally than fortunate irrationally because it is better to have been deciding the noble way in accomplishing one's actions and to have been foiled than having decided the bad way and to succeed by means of chance.

Just because our ultimate motivation is either pursuing pleasure or rejecting pain, that doesn't to me mean our choices are deterministic. Unless I'm misunderstanding the use of that term.

LLMs are nothing like the way the brain works. Since I don't think prolepsis isn't necessarily how the brain actually functions, I'm sharing a couple videos explaining the brain as prediction machine. The mind doesn't break reality into tokens and assign values to then assign probabilities. The brain works with past experience and sensory input.

For y'all's consideration...

That said, I don't even think LLMs are analogous to ancient Epicurean prolepseis. As I understand, the prolepseis engrave channels in our psykhē to make it easier for similar eidola to find their channel, making our psykhē recognize the pattern and assign meaning.

The LLM video (Thanks. Kalosyni!) did a good job of breaking down the process. I don't see ancient Epicurean prolepseis nor modern brain as prediction machine working like that at all.

Quote from Bryan

Let me throw in some quotes as a jumping-off point, I may be misunderstanding.

Thank you!! No, you are not misunderstanding... I just need to "get back to the books" to paraphrase Philodemus. I am woefully out of practice!

What I was saying is that we don't have any extant texts from Epicurus himself placing the gods in the intermundia. You've demonstrated we have several secondary sources, including of course Cicero (he was the only one I remembered in my late night missive). However, allow me to be a litte cantankerous this morning ...

Quote from Bryan

"...that Cosmoi such as this are also infinite in number is able to be thoroughly comprehended, and that such a Cosmos also has the force to be produced both in a cosmos and in the intermundia [μετακοσμίῳ] – which we say is the separation intervening between cosmoi"
[Epicurus to Pythocles, Lives 10.89a]

I read this as still consistent with my point about there being no cosmoi within the intermundia by definition. There are innumerable "bubbles" of order - cosmoi - in the universe. We live in one of those areas of order. The space between them is the intermundia. In Epicurean cosmology, there are cosmoi and there is an intervening space between the cosmoi. A cosmos can be produced in the intermundia BUT that simply means there's a new cosmos that came together - setting itself off from the intermundia, a new ordered space that came together from the flow of the atoms through the intermundia which is now separated from other cosmoi. There's now separation - intermundia - between that new cosmos and the other cosmoi around it. It seems to me that the cosmos is to the intermundia as atoms are to the void.

Quote from Bryan

Saint Hippolytus of Rome (fl.c. 210 CE), "Philosophical Questions" (Refutation of all Heresies) 22.3

I was ignorant of - or had forgotten - Hippolytus. Thanks for the reminder! If Hippolytus is right (writing about 400 years after Epicurus lived), then yes, Epicurus was positing the gods lived in the intermundia... but I still don't see how that works.

Quote from Hippolytus

the divine surrenders himself to pleasure, and takes his ease in the midst of supreme happiness) – and that neither has he any concerns of business, nor does he devote his attention to them."

I will admit this description to me smacks of what I was taught as a child in church with dead people sitting in heaven playing harps in some ethereal cloud-city. And, yes, I'm being provocative a little. I can't even sincerely comprehend what that would be like, taking my ease in the midst of supreme happiness with no concerns at all. Even imagining a happiness that can neither be diminished or increased boggles my mortal mind. When I think I can grasp it, it wafts away like fog.

Quote from Bryan

Philodemus' On Piety makes a clear case for this -- the idea is that a process can be eternal -- just as if a waterfall was always fed it would never stop existing, and all waterfalls are impervious to bullets, swords, and other direct damage.

Oh, that's a good explanation. So, it seems Philodemus (and Epicurus) then are emphasizing the existence of their gods as existing as an ever-lasting process of losing and replacing atoms. The waterfall is a good analogy and I had forgotten where that came from. Thanks!

Quote from Bryan

Worlds are closed systems, so the waterfalls in a world will eventually stop -- but between worlds there is no closed system and the flow of matter is infinite.

(Smacks head with palm) Okay, NOW I think I get it. The gods HAVE to exist in the intermundia to have access to the infinite flow of atoms coursing through the universe. This makes sense then as to how ancient Epicureans could rationalize the physical existence of "gods." Unfortunately, this makes me even less likely to think there are beings like this. This is all wrapped up in ancient cosmology, and I do not see the universe actually working this way. This is beginning to make perfect sense given the cosmology and physics of the ancient Epicureans, but modern science is doing a better (not perfect, not complete) job of explaining natural processes which I believe a modern Epicurean would be a fan of - to understand the natural world as accurately as possible without getting bogged down in details. Epicurus' fundamental pivotal importance to me is, at its heart, the firm knowledge that the universe is material, governed by natural laws, not created by supernatural beings, and gods (which are NOT supernatural to him) have no interest in us. I don't need to believe in intermundia, cosmoi, gods, etc. to be an Epicurean living in the 21st century of the common era. It's good to understand what the ancients believed, but I think the foundations - the kernel - of what they taught are why a 2,500 year old philosophy can still be relevant.

Quote from Bryan

I am being cheeky at this point -- you know the term better than most! The “religious-based” affirmative of choice was:

"νὴ Δία"

(slaps forehead again) Not cheeky at all! I appreciate the reminder, by Zeus!!

I'm running up against the clock to get ready for work, and I'll have other thoughts but I greatly appreciate the reply Bryan . Your grasp of the materials and deep knowledge of the subject are an inspiration. Thank you!!

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic anymore.

This is probably what you meant as written but just to be clear - this is not missing a "don't" is it? (The "anymore" rather than "nowadays" at the end is the main reason i ask that.)

Thanks! I've changed to nowadays to be clearer.

Quote from Cassius

To supplement my brilliant humor, I am hoping that some of our "idealists" like Don will weigh in on the objection Tau Phi is raising to what Titus has suggested.

This may not turn out exactly as you thought it might...

I have the utmost respect for TauPhi 's perspective and insightful comments in this thread and through the forum. Some of my responses below may be a little provocative, but they're not meant to be combative... and I sincerely hope they don't come across like that. My thinking on this topic of the gods has evolved a little over time, but we've been over this innumerable times on the forum, for example, here and here and here and here and here...to name a few.

Quote from TauPhi

, Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried.

I certainly agree with that. Even Diogenes Laertius says "Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." As mortal beings, we will never ever - can never - achieve the happiness of the gods precisely because our existences are so different. So, what use do they serve for Epicurus? They didn't create the universe, they don't bestow blessings, they don't rain down curses, they don't respond to prayer or worship. Why does Epicurus consistently site a proper understanding of the gods as paramount to his philosophy AND vehemently deny that his philosophy is an atheistic philosophy? I wrestle with this idea and do NOT have a completely satisfactory response.

Quote from TauPhi

Ultimate excellence does not exist. It's nothing more but a turn into idealism. Epicurean philosophy is a turn away from idealism so the claim that this imagined ideal can be a guide towards happy life is a contradiction to the goal of the philosophy.

Ultimate excellence does not exist for humans in the universe. Plus I fully agree that Epicurus rejected Platonic idealism, some Ideal Realm removed from our plane of existence from which emanates the essences of material things. Horse-ness resides in that Realm, we see only pale reflections of that Horse-ness in the animals we see.

But I don't think that necessarily negates the possibility of imagining what it might be like to have a happiness that was complete, unceasing, and could neither diminish nor increased. No human is ever going to achieve that, but humans can extrapolate and image what this state of being permanently blissfully incorruptible might be like. So, I think there are Ideals (upper case) and ideals (lower case).

The bigger issue for me is talking about "gods" "living" in the "intermundia". The intermundia is a utopia in its literal sense: it is No-Place. There would be by definition no worlds in the intermundia upon which a "god" could plant their anthropomorphic feet. BY DEFINITION, the intermundia or metakosmos is between world-systems/kosmoi. I don't remember Epicurus talking about the intermundia. I find it hard to believe Epicurus would advocate for giant humans with quasi-blood floating in a no-place without a world to inhabit. That almost sounds like the Ideal Realm of Plato and I would think he would reject that entirely.

Quote from TauPhi

Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. ... You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.

That brings up an interesting take for me. Epicurus didn't posit the "gods" as being imaginary friends. We can NEVER be friends with the gods. We can never ask the gods for help. We must never expect them to be mad at us. They don't know or care about us. That to me is one of the stickiest of wickets with Epicurean theology. If the gods don't care, don't have power over the universe or us, why bother with them at all?? Why does Epicurus place SO much importance on "getting it right"?

To me, ultimately, Epicurus primary concern is getting us to have a visceral gut-level unshakeable knowledge that (1) The universe was not constructed by the gods, (2) The gods have NO hand in governing the universe, (3) We have NOTHING to fear from the gods... in fact, less than nothing because "they" are not even aware of us.

So why attend the festivals, make sacrifices, and be concerned about piety toward the gods? Because it seems Epicurus did all these things. To me, one possible answer is that it gave him pleasure. He enjoyed the music, the dances, and taking part in the communal life of the city. He felt pleasure taking part in the Panathenaic procession to the Acropolis and gazing on the statue of Athena in the dimly lit Parthenon and feeling awe wash over him. I've felt this in religious settings (setting foot inside Saint-Chappelle in Paris was awe-inspiring, and I'm no longer Christian... although I also felt this even stronger when viewing Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View) If doing this somehow made it easier to think about the idea (not ideal) of being able to somehow experience total happiness that couldn't be augmented or diminished, of "bringing before his eyes" the idea of a completely blessed and incorruptible state of being, maybe that was enough. I've heard (Sedley I think) that maybe each of us constructs our own idea of "god." I'm basically thinking out loud here, so take it with a grain of salt.

Quote from TauPhi

I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives

THAT is a valuable contribution!

Quote from TauPhi

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

Amen (to use the religious term... still looking for a good Epicurean alternative).

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic nowadays. Epicurus tenets that gods don't bother with us makes me feel atheism is at least compatible with Epicurean philosophy even though Epicurus may differ. Epicurus isn't here to speak for himself, and we don't have enough texts to really understand his position. I can enjoy some hymns (I like Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing) and Christmas. But I see no need for the gods other than as historical curiosities... and some great stories!

The unifying factor with the ancients as to why I can still consider myself Epicurean is the first line of the Tetrapharmakos: Nothing to fear from the divine.

I have some thoughts on the initial topic of this thread. More on that later.... but it's late and I'm tired.

The Stoicism Scam

Exposing a Colossal Bait and Switch Trick

open.substack.com

A Pyrrhonist on Substack joins in the "Stoics aren't Stoics" debate head-on in some blunt language.

I do think a number of items in his list are either Epicurean in source or Epicurean in practice.

I had also not seen $toicism before, but evidently it was coined my Massimo Pigliucci?

Building an After-School Stoic Philosophy Club

By Russell Holt and Midori Holt, with Vivienne Le

open.substack.com

By Zeus! With the fact that modern Stoics are actually much more Epicurean than they like to admit, these kinds of evangelism/marketing are such missed opportunities. Granted, the "Stoics" have a much bigger head start and a much larger public awareness campaign, but still

Alie Ward released an episode of Ologies this month that complements this Eudemonology episode nicely:

Awe Psychology (WONDER) with Dr. Dacher Keltner

I've casually followed Dr. Keltner for a while and his book on Awe has been on my "to be read" list for since its release a couple years ago.

One part I liked about this podcast episode was Keltner's point about taking time for remembering past experiences of awe. That sounded very Epicurean to me.

Enjoy.

I completely missed the reference to New Epicurean!

It appears 251 at the end of his entry refers to the page number in Book Three:

https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-MONTAIGNE-00001-00004-00004/279

So it appears to be referring to around DRN 3.860:

For shouldst thou gaze

Backwards across all yesterdays of time

The immeasurable, thinking how manifold

The motions of matter are, then couldst thou well

Credit this too: often these very seeds

(From which we are to-day) of old were set

In the same order as they are to-day-

Yet this we can't to consciousness recall

Through the remembering mind. For there hath been

An interposed pause of life, and wide

Have all the motions wandered everywhere

From these our senses.

Reading Recommendations for Epicurean Philosophy

which books and authors are key for studying this classical philosophical school?

open.substack.com

Dr. Gregory Sadler has posted a recommended reading list of Ancient Epicurean Texts. Some I had forgotten about, so it's handy to have in one place (although I realize all these are likely posted somewhere around here)

I also posted a comment about the new MFS Oenoanda inscription text.

Quote from Bryan

Here are both versions for ease of direct comparison. My guess is that either Cicero alone is correct, or Diogenes is also correct and multiple letters were sent out.

Gedney noted (as you did) that the letter is addressed to υμιν "you all" (plural 2nd person), so the letter could have been addressed to the members of the school or the "governing board" if you will, which could have included both Hermarchus and Idomeneus. Cicero is closer in time to Epicurus than Diogenes Laertius, so maybe giving him the upper hand in authenticity is warranted??

Welcome aboard, AlteFrau

Plus it never hit me until I read Gedney's article: Epicurus could say to look after Metrodorus's children because it was Epicurus himself who had responsibility for them currently. So, could Epicurus have been the head of a household taking care of the children?

Quote from Todd

"fear...of what the neighbors will think"

While Epicurus would not have advised fearing what our neighbors might think, he definitely did not recommend ignoring their opinions.

His advice was to live so as to avoid attracting either envy or contempt.

And also according to Diogenes Laertius' Lives:

The wise one will also pay just enough attention to their reputation as to avoid being looked down upon. (X.120, my own translation)

Hicks: He will pay just so much regard to his reputation as not to be looked down upon.

Yonge: He will show a regard for a fair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised;

Original text: εὐδοξίας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον προνοήσεσθαι,

εὐδοξίας good repute

τοσοῦτον so far as

Provide for good repute for as far as...

ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὴ καταφρονήσεσθαι:

καταφρονέω look down upon, think slightly of

So, the translations are accurate.

Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary

SUAVITY
Meaning & use
1.†
1.a.c1450–1661 Sweetness or agreeableness to the senses; esp. sweetness (of taste), fragrance (of odour). Obsolete.

1.b.1614–1821 † Sweetness (of sound, harmony, expression).

2.a.1594– Pleasurableness, agreeableness; plural delights, amenities. Now only as coloured by sense 4.

2.b.a1617–80 † A state of sweet calm in the soul when specially favoured by God; plural feelings of spiritual sweetness or delight. Obsolete.

religion
3.1508–1649 † Graciousness; sweetness of manner or treatment. Obsolete.

4.a.1815– The quality or condition of being suave in manner or outward behaviour; bland agreeableness or urbanity.

4.b.1852– plural. Suave actions.
1852Cajoled by the attentions of an electioneering politician with more ease than Aunt Chloe was won over by Master Sam's suavities.
H. B. Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin (U.K. edition) viiiCitation details for H. B. Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin

I freely admit I have no grasp on what "suavity" means, and I didn't think DeWitt adds anything to explain it. He just assumes I know what it means and keeps using it.

Being suave or having suavity didn't seem all that positive from what I was seeing in various dictionaries. Without looking anything up, it conveyed being smooth, cool, or slick in The Fonz sort of way. But I read some definitions as being pleasant to the extent of being insincere. Wiktionary at least has "The quality of being sweet or pleasing to the mind; agreeableness; pleasantness" which doesn't help a lot for me.

Bryan 's bringing up χαρις is much more helpful to what Dewitt is trying to convey.