Posts by Don

That picture has an MC Escher vibe to it and also reminds me of the talk of pocket universes. Thanks for starting the thread!

There's a LOT to digest here and I greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts on this topic. I plan to respond in more detail, but I had to say that this line from Elayne 's post made me smile and nod my head in agreement!

Quote from Elayne

I have for years said the atheists should not celebrate a Day of Reason. They should have a Day of Evidence.

Well said!

I agree. If we are to use our emotions or feelings or pathē as criteria for our choices and avoidances, we had better be able to listen to them. From my perspective, Epicurus was telling us to use pleasure and pain as our stop and go signals. You can't just go, go, go. We have both pleasurable and painful emotions. If we're feeling a painful emotion, why? What's the cause? How can we use that to make a choice to avoid that cause? Or are we experiencing that painful emotion in order to achieve pleasure later? Suppressing specific emotions cuts one off from half one's criteria for prudent decisions.

I hope I characterized your thoughts correctly in my contribution here. Good topic!

I'm taking a look at the Yonge translation of the Letter to Herodotus and getting an interesting take on this subject (emphasis added):

Quote

“As to us, we find many explanations of the motions of the sun, of the rising and setting of the stars, of the eclipses and similar phænomena, just as well as of the more particular phænomena. And one must not think that this method of explanation is not sufficient to procure happiness and tranquillity. Let us content ourselves with examining how it is that similar phænomena are brought about under our own eyes, and let us apply these observations to the heavenly objects and to everything which is not known but indirectly.

Let us despise those people who are unable to distinguish facts susceptible of different explanations from others which can only exist and be explained in one single way.

Let us disdain those men who do not know, by means of the different images which result from distance, how to give an account of the different appearances of things; who, in a word, are ignorant what are the objects which can excite any trouble in us.

If, then, we know that such a phænomenon can be brought about in the same manner as another given phænomenon of the same character which does not inspire us with any apprehension; and if, on the other hand, we know that it can take place in many different manners, we shall not be more troubled at the sight of it than if we knew the real cause of it.

“We must also recollect that that which principally contributes to trouble the spirit of men is the persuasion which they cherish that the stars are beings imperishable and perfectly happy, and that then one’s thoughts and actions are in contradiction to the will of these superior beings; they also, being deluded by these fables, apprehend an eternity of evils, they fear the insensibility of death, as that could affect them.

What do I say? It is not even belief, but inconsiderateness and blindness which govern them in every thing, to such a degree that, not calculating these fears, they are just as much troubled as if they had really faith in these vain phantoms.

And the real freedom from this kind of trouble consists in being emancipated from all these things, and in preserving the recollection of all the principles which we have established, especially of the most essential of them.

Accordingly, it is well to pay a scrupulous attention to existing phænomena and to the sensations, to the general sensations for general things, and to the particular sensations for particular things.

In a word, we must take note of this, the immediate evidence with which each of these judicial faculties furnishes us; for, if we attend to these points, namely, whence confusion and fear arise, we shall divine the causes correctly, and we shall deliver ourselves from those feelings, tracing back the heavenly phænomena to their causes, and also all the others which present themselves at every step, and inspire the common people with extreme terror.

Display More

Here is where my rudimentary Greek is a handicap. I *so* wish I was more fluent to be able to read the original text better. I'm working on that. In the meantime, Yonge provides another perspective.

In this section, Epicurus is specifically discussing with Herodotus celestial phenomena (many explanations of the motions of the sun, of the rising and setting of the stars, of the eclipses and similar phænomena) HOWEVER he does also mention everything which is not known but indirectly. That last part is still a hang-up for me. But isn't the Epicurean atomic theory something that is "not known but indirectly"? I really need to read Philodemus on this. What is only know "indirectly" must be only ascertained through analogy with what is sensed directly, right? And once we come up with a satisfactory explanation that dispels terror, we can stop our investigation. Or do I have that wrong?

Epicurus says that what principally contributes to trouble the spirit of men is that men think the sun, planets, moon, stars, etc., are gods out to punish humans for actions in contradiction to the will of these superior beings.

So, Epicurus states that "if we attend to these points (i.e., material causes of these phenomena), namely, whence confusion and fear arise (i.e., when we attribute divine properties to the planets, etc.), we shall divine the causes correctly (i.e., they are only material objects composed of atoms and void)."

SO, am I reading too much into the Bailey translation? It definitely appears from my reading here that Epicurus is not necessarily talking in the general sense about researching the causes of all phenomena although he does bring up the "everything which is not known but indirectly." And is talking about "all [other phenomena] which present themselves at every step" which may "inspire the common people with extreme terror." It appears to me that Epicurus is talking about confronting all phenomena, both the directly sensed and indirectly known, with a commitment to the fundamental teaching that The Universe Is Atoms and Void. Which, for us "moderns" - shall we say - is not a huge stretch for our minds. I'm getting stuck on the multiple explanations for phenomena within that "All is atoms and void" mindset. Do we go after the "real" cause or surmise a "good enough" cause and wait for someone else to say it's not A it's B. And as long as B is a material and not a supernatural cause, we incorporate that into our knowledge and move along. But we OURSELVES as Epicureans shouldn't go looking for THE cause if we have a "good enough" explanation?

If a scientist is troubled by their search for the "real" cause of a disease or the "real" cause of the birth of the universe or the "real" cause of the mass of a particle in the Higgs Field (I'm out of my depth here!), can they be an Epicurean if that search troubles their mind? They don't feel fear or terror from a vengeful deity, but is that anxiety/trouble incompatible with an Epicurean art to living?

My primary concern is with my interpretation of (especially) portions the Letter to Herodotus that sounds like "We don't need to investigate phenomena to find how they actually happen. All we need is an explanation that fits with our sense experience and doesn't make us wonder at our fear the phenomena anymore." I see this (admittedly maybe an incorrect interpretation) as unsatisfying personally. I'm curious as to the workings of the universe, the large and the small. So, I'm both airing my concerns and asking for other interpretations.

I also need to read Philodemus's treatise on methods of inference. But Let's start with the Letter to Herodotus. That's what brought me to this point most recently.

To make it easier to follow the argument, I'm going to replace "solstices, settings and risings, eclipses and the like" or "risings and settings and solstices and eclipses and all kindred subjects" with the simpler "them." The letter text is bold. My notes are italic.

Letter to Herodotus (excerpt)

[79]"But when we come to subjects for special inquiry,there is nothing in the knowledge of them that contributes to our happiness (μακάριον); but those who are well-informed about such matters and yet are ignorant what the heavenly bodies really are, and what are the most important causes of phenomena, feel

quite as much fear as those who have no such special information--nay, perhaps even greater fear, when the curiosity excited by this additional knowledge cannot find a solution or understand the subordination of these phenomena to the highest causes.

The basic argument here as I see it is:

• We have people with special knowledge of phenomena.
• There is nothing in knowledge of the phenomena that contributes to our happiness (μακάριον)
  
• Those who are well informed are just as fearful as those without special knowledge.
  
• Those with special knowledge may even be more fearful due to their curiosity exciting/agitating them and their inability to find a solution.
  

"Hence, if we discover more than one cause that may account for them, as we did also in particular matters of detail, [80] we must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy, so far as it is needful to ensure our tranquillity and happiness (ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν).

This seems to be saying "If we come up with more than one possible cause, that's fine." I don't know what he's saying in " we must not suppose that our treatment... Fails of accuracy." It seems to be we only have to consider it accurate if it ensures our tranquility and happiness. That's enough. It doesn't matter if it accurately reflects reality.

When, therefore, we investigate the causes of them, as of all that is unknown, we must take into account the variety of ways in which analogous occurrences happen within our experience ; while as for those who do not recognize the difference between what is or comes about from a single cause and that which may be the effect of any one of several causes, overlooking the fact that the objects are only seen at a distance, and are moreover ignorant of the conditions that render, or do not render, peace of mind impossible --all such persons we must treat with contempt.

Who do we treat with contempt? Those who don't recognize what comes from single or multiple causes and are ignorant of what provides for peace of mind. Is the research into the causes of phenomena itself contemptible? Or is it the ignorance of what brings peace of mind?

If then we think that an event could happen in one or other particular way out of several, we shall be as tranquil when we recognize that it actually comes about in more ways than one as if we knew that it happens in this particular way.

My hang up here is the "if we knew" phrase. If we *think* something happens a certain way (with no proof other than our "good enough" speculation), we can be done and don't need to investigate further. Or is this saying we can accept it could happen *this* way, we can be tranquil. Then later we find out it's another way, we're still tranquil. It doesn't affect us IF we're open to multiple explanations? But we don't go looking to solve which way is correct?

...

[82] But mental tranquillity means being released from all these troubles and cherishing a continual remembrance of the highest and most important truths.

So, we need to continually remember the "most important truths." Is this what Cassius was talking about when he mentioned we need to keep in mind no supernatural explanations, etc.,in podcast episode 27?

"Hence we must attend to present feelings and sense perceptions, whether those of mankind in general or those peculiar to the individual, and also attend to all the clear evidence available, as given by each of the standards of truth. For by studying them we shall rightly trace to its cause and banish the source of disturbance and dread, accounting for celestial phenomena and for all other things which from time to time befall us and cause the utmost alarm to the rest of mankind.

Here Epicurus says explicitly that we "study" the feelings and sense perceptions and "clear evidence" to arrive at a "rightly-traced" cause of phenomena. Then we banish fear and dread. No supernatural causes. No superstition. But by study, can he mean research as we would understand it. I get the impression Epicurus didn't want his students studying astronomy and other subjects. Is the clear evidence just what we sense? I see the sun as that large, then it must be that large. Thunder could be produced by A, B, or C. A is good enough for me, I'm not going to investigate whether it's B or C. I shouldn't care which one as long as the one I choose makes me not fear something.

I'm still getting the impression that Epicurus was not advocating open-ended, empirical research into a topic. I'm reading this letter as his advocating:

• looking at a particular phenomena
• gaining information through your senses
• feeling pleasure/pain in your reaction to it
• thinking of analogous events/situations
• coming up with a satisfactory "good enough" explanation that assuages your fear of that phenomena
• and moving on.

If at a later date, someone says "it happens this way," you go "oh, okay" and accept that. But you don't go looking for explanations if more than one will suffice. Maybe this, maybe that. It doesn't matter as long as I accept a non-supernatural explanation but don't get hung up on the "right" answer. That doesn't appeal to me. I personally enjoy contemplating this kind of thing, reading about theories, having my brain twisted in a pretzel by quantum physics, string theory, black holes, etc. I don't fear these phenomena. So does that lack of fear matter here?

I also realize we're dealing with a 2,000 year old philosophy. Epicurus didn't envision string theory, etc. Am I putting a round Epicurean peg in a 21st century square hole?

I'm about 3/4 of the way through episode 27. I swear I didn't know this was the topic before I posted here Talk about serendipity! I'll listen to the rest then review Epicurus's writings and continue to post.

I agree this is an important topic!

I'm revisiting this thread for my own peace of mind...ataraxia if you will.

This idea (as I understand it) of having a "good enough" explanation of phenomena is *almost* enough to make me question my commitment to Epicurean Philosophy. I'm looking for all of you to "talk me down."

AsI read the Letter to Herodotus (and other selections), I get the impression that an Epicurean only needs to have an explanation of phenomena that doesn't conflict with the senses and that doesn't cause them distress. If one's explanation of (for example) the size of the sun or why it thunders is corroborated by the senses and makes you less anxious, but doesn't equate with how we (now) know thunder happens now, that's alright.

Now, I know we know why thunder happens now and how big the sun is, but what about things like the size and age of the universe, how quantum physics works, how the brain works, and other topics of science research. I find reading and wondering about these immensely pleasurable. The contortions of my mind amuse me and make me more curious. I don't understand the how's and why's, but that doesn't make me question the material non-supernatural nature of the universe.

My question is primarily: If I'm going to call myself an Epicurean, do I have to "pick an explanation" for these phenomena and move on? Is curiosity an Epicurean trait? Or do I need to choose and declare (dogmatize)?

Help.

Pain (nociception) vs suffering! That's the distinction I was trying to get at! Thanks, Godfrey!

For me, it's important to remember that when Epicurus talked about freedom from pain, he couldn't have been talking about ridding oneself of nociception. The feeling/sensation of pain, as the video and Paul Brand article show, is indisputably beneficial in keeping us safe and healthy. It's seems to me that Epicurus had to be talking about our reaction to nociception. Aponia carried the connotation of not just freedom from "pain" but freedom from struggle, toil, trouble, labor. The Tetrapharmakos's last line stated that The Terrible (το δεινον "to deinon" (same as the dino- in dinosaur "terrible lizard"), referring to Pain, can be "easily" endured. So, we will still feel Pain (nociception) but we can make a conscious effort to endure it (our reaction to that pain). We need not struggle against it or dwell on it. "Endure" strikes me as "getting through" something. You don't stay with something. You get through it and know it will pass.

I think Godfrey is on to something but "atomic universe" sounds a little scary and radioactive Maybe in a material universe or a universe composed of only atoms and space.

Godfrey : Thanks for finding that article! Interesting reading! I found these pages very reminiscent of Epicureanism:

Quote

More physical activity (to build endurance); prayer or meditation (which calms the body and reduces pain); gratitude (an antidote to the pain-intensifying effects of anger and resentment); and a network of friends and family. “The best single thing I can do to prepare for pain is surround myself with a loving community who will stand by me when tragedy strikes,” Brand notes. He also says Americans need to embrace pain as a friend: “We silence pain when we should be straining our ears to hear it; we eat too fast and too much and take a seltzer; we work too long and too hard and take a tranquilizer. “Perhaps because I have had to repair so many physical problems caused by overindulgence, I take a long-term view of pleasure. [For example], gluttony may give short-term pleasure, [but] it sows the seed for future disease and pain. Hard work and exercise, which may seem like pain in the short term, paradoxically lead to pleasure in the longer term.”

I liked his characterization of pain and pleasure working together and seeing value in pain. Epicurus, too, while obviously valuing pleasure, seemed to see pain as a valuable stop signal and our awareness of it is part of our choice/avoidance process.

i found the latter paragraph reminding me of PD 10.

On the other hand, I didn't agree with this:

Quote

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed--but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they have brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? “The cuckoo clock.”

This is the same fallacy of people saying Van Gogh was a tortured soul but how fortunate we are to have his artwork. No. If Van Gogh could have been treated and lived a pleasurable life free from mental illness, we could do without the sunflowers and starry nights. And Switzerland had not exactly had 500 years of democracy and peace. Napoleon had control of the Helvetic Republic in the 1800s, there have been internal conflict, but this Wikipedia excerpt makes me think the Swiss might be doing okay:

Quote

The sovereign state is one of the most developed countries in the world, with the highest nominal wealth per adult and the eighth-highest per capita gross domestic product. It ranks at or near the top in several international metrics, including economic competitiveness and human development. Zürich, Geneva and Basel have been ranked among the top ten cities in the world in terms of quality of life, with Zürich ranked second globally. In 2019, IMD placed Switzerland first in attracting skilled workers. World Economic Forum ranks it the 5th most competitive country globally.

And the Swiss have done okay in the arts and humanities, too, with Giacometti, Herman Jesse, etc., etc. And, oh yeah, they also gave us the Red Cross.

Sorry, my Swiss ancestry is showing a little in that last part there

Now that I have your attention with that provocative title I wanted to share this Ted-ED video about the feeling of pain: How do animals experience pain.

I found it fascinating, but especially its description of nociception vs the cognitive feeling of pain. And some animals appear to be making decisions about pain (as in the octopus both protecting an injured limb but also deciding to use it to catch prey).

And I don't think octopuses can be Epicureans... Or do I?

Enjoy.

Quote from LukeL

I then read Catherine Wilson's How to be an Epicurean, which I found informative, but lacking in its stated purpose, unfortunately.

Welcome, LukeL !

I had the same the same reaction to Wilson. Well stated!

As for the "cult" aspect of classical Epicureanism, I agree with Cassius in that you need someone to start a school to get a school going, although when you read about the busts, rings, etc. that his followers had + the celebrations of the 20th and other regular celebrations of persons in the Epicurean "pantheon" (We live like unto the gods, right?), there was a little of that cult of personality. But I do think it was more father figure/founder than cult leader with Epicurus. I don't see the stereotypical mind and behavior control of a cult in the texts. Friendship and mutual support seemed the order.

As for the Garden itself: Do we know if everyone lived full time in the Garden or did they visit to learn or both? In other words, was it a residential "compound" or more like an actual school where people came for lessons and went back home? Do we know for sure? And I'm assuming Epicurean communities all over the ancient world were more informal, not necessarily having a Garden of their own.

Your farm sounds idyllic! "EpicuriCon 2025" at LukeL 's farm (It seems like we need some sort of -con to compete with StoiCon and Stoic Week)

Ευ πραττειν! May you practice well!

Literally, just came across Mexican architect/artist Pedro Reyes:

Drawing of Epicurus , part of series of Philosophers and authors from ancient Greece.

Massive sculpture of Epicurus. I can see the furrowed brows and strong nose of the classical busts. Additional view and another.

I was digging around online and it looks like the Villa is not open to the public. On the Villa's Wikipedia article's Talk page I found:

Quote

16. May 2012: Removed touristic advice "When the Ercolano site was visited on 29th April 2012 the Villa was closed with no indication of when it would reopen." I don't think the site is open for regular visits at all. It might only be possibel to visit it by special appointments.

Would have been nice for at least a distant peak or a mention.

Looking forward though to watching the whole video. Even if no Villa visit, Philodemus and other Epicureans walked those streets!

I found this footnote in a book on Google Books referring to the anonymous manuscript (Rawl. D.314) which the author said dates to around 1660: R. Barbour, “Anonymous Lucretius,” Bodleian Library Record 23 (2010) 105–11; D. Butterfield has also worked to trace this manuscript and its attribution history. (Note: Link provides table of contents only for April 2010 issue.)

(Note: I tried to find the article in the databases from Kent State, but only the abstract and citation were available in MLA Bibliography).

We don't have an image of the actual manuscript but a transliteration of several pages. but the file is too big to upload. The Google Drive link is above are end in my previous post. If you can upload it somehow Cassius from that link, I'll delete the link. (Always a little uneasy about linking directly to my drive).

Quote from JJElbert

Thank you for your perspective, Don! It is a big request. On the other hand, I have to assume that digitization is a constant and ongoing project for them. It might be interesting to know how they go about selecting which texts to start with—as I mentioned above, they've already scanned at least one Lucretius manuscript!

Good points! It's certainly a "nothing ventured, nothing gained." I'm wondering if getting in contact with Hugh de Quehen would be fruitful. Looks like he's affiliated with Univ of Toronto (link). He included those 3.25 pages of the anonymous D.314 in his book. I wonder if he'd have access to a complete transcription.

( Cassius has uploaded the PDF below that I scanned)

I'm not sure a letter would work. There's maybe a mechanism on their site for requesting interlibrary loans which may include digitization requests. Or there may be other official channels. I'll dig around.

Butthat's a BIG request! There are 162 leaves of text from a rare manuscript from 1500/1600s. There may be all kinds of limits on that.

I'm getting that from a description of MS Rawl. D.314 in Quehen's book of Lucy Hutchinson's translation. I took a PDF of the translation of D.314's excerpt in that book of about 3.25 pages but I can't upload an attachment to the forum, can I?

Agreed. My perspective is that, after reading some of his papers, I'm holding him to a higher standard now. I know he has the (academic) goods. I did genuinely find several of his points in this chapter fascinating and enlightening.

I'm getting closer to his exposition of doctrine, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I can be more generous overall.