Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Don

Quote from DaveT

the four cardinal principles,

The Tetrapharmakos?

The first four Principal Doctrines??

PD01. The blessed and incorruptible nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak. ^[1]

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

PD04. Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh.

Quote

[01] MOTHER of Rome, Delight of Men and Gods, Sweet Venus; who with vital power does fill the sea bearing the ships, the fruitful Earth, all things beneath the rolling signs of Heaven; for it is by Thee that creatures of every kind conceive, rise into life, and view the Sun’s bright beams. Thee, Goddess, Thee the winds avoid; the clouds fly Thee and Thy approach. With various art the Earth, for Thee, affords her sweetest flowers; for Thee the sea’s rough waves put on their smiles, and the smooth sky shines with diffused light. For when the buxom Spring leads on the year, and genial gales of western winds blow fresh, unlocked from Winter’s cold, the airy birds first feel Thee, Goddess, and express thy power. Thy active flame strikes through their very souls. And then the savage beasts, with wanton play, frisk over the cheerful fields, and swim the rapid streams. So pleased with thy sweetness, so transported by thy soft charms, all living Nature strives, with sharp desire, to follow Thee, her Guide, where Thou art pleased to lead. In short, Thy power, inspiring every breast with tender love, drives every creature on with eager heat, in seas, in mountains, in swiftest floods, in leafy forests, and in verdant plains, to propagate their kind from age to age.

[21] Since Thou, alone, doest govern Nature’s laws, and nothing, without Thee, can rise to light, without Thee nothing can look gay or lovely; I beg Thee a companion to my lays, which now I sing of Nature, and I devote to my dear Memmius, whom Thou art ever pleased, sweet Goddess, to adorn with every grace. For him, kind Deity, inspire my song, and give immortal beauty to my verse.

In this opening passage, it seems that Venus is above Nature, but could we also see it as Venus is the personification of Nature?

Also we see the phrase "which now I sing of Nature" - which casts Nature as something to celebrate and extol - and this could have an aspect of the "spiritual".

This thread is to consider whether or not Nature could be the main focus of "religion" or "spirituality" for Epicureans.

I will add here some references from De Rerum Natura.

Quote from Don

On a slightly more serious note, inspired by Joshua 's post, I would offer that the paranormal and pseudoscience feed an answer to the question many seem to ask: Is this all there is?

That question presupposes there's something "less than" about our physical, natural, material universe. It's somehow "not enough". There has to be more than just this or nothing has any meaning.

I think this question happens because of religion, which focuses on heaven, and it makes the world and the earth as something less than heaven/God...so "Is this all there is?" is a remnent left by religious thinking.

Also, the "something less than" is that there are certain elements of true reality that are cumbersome and slow - but magic and a magical world (which would include telepathy) gives you powers and speeds things up, makes things possible that you couldn't do otherwise. While in reality (as I wrote in post 27 above) without telepathy you have to go the slow and difficult way to find out what someone is thinking.

Since we live in the material world in which "telepathy" equals guessing...the usual method, although much slower and basically requiring consent (in comparison), to find out what someone is thinking is to ask them to share their thoughts (lol).

Here's another Google search (take it or leave it, whether or not these tips will work):

Google said:

To gently guide someone towards sharing their true thoughts, ask open-ended questions that invite a more detailed response and encourage them to share their feelings and perspectives. Consider using phrases like "What's been on your mind lately?" or "What's your perspective on this?" Offer a safe space for them to share, showing respect and understanding.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. Open-Ended Questions:

• "What's been on your mind?": This is a general way to invite someone to share their thoughts.
• "How are you feeling?": This focuses on emotional state and can help them articulate their feelings.
• "What's your perspective on this?": This encourages them to share their opinion and insights.
• "What are your thoughts on...": This invites them to share their opinions on a specific topic.
• "How do you see things?": This encourages them to share their point of view.

2. Showing Respect and Understanding:

• Active listening:

  Pay attention to their words and body language, and show that you're engaged in the conversation.

• Non-judgmental approach:

  Create a safe space where they feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, even if they are different from your own.

• Empathy:

  Try to understand their perspective and feelings, even if you don't agree with them.

• Validation:

  Acknowledge their feelings and experiences, even if they are difficult to hear.

3. Guiding the Conversation:

• Reflect their statements: Paraphrase what they've said to show you're listening and understanding.
• Ask follow-up questions: If they're hesitant to share, you can gently ask more specific questions to guide them towards sharing their thoughts.
• Use "why" questions: "Why do you feel that way?" or "Why do you think that's important?" can help them explore their reasoning.

By combining open-ended questions, a respectful approach, and active listening, you can create a safe space for someone to share their true thoughts and feelings.

Quote from Don

how prominent supernatural or pseudoscience is ingrained into pop culture...

...And so on and so on ...

And Don your list didn't even include Dune, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.

Quote from Don

Quote from Rolf

To be honest I think a big reason why people believe in telepathy and the like is because it sounds cool

I blame Star Wars

Star Trek... the Vulcan mind-meld

Confirmation bias is a big reason why people retain superstitious or unscientific beliefs.

I did a further Google search and here are the results:

People hold unscientific beliefs, even in the absence of evidence, due to a combination of psychological, social, and cultural factors

Here are some reasons:

1. Psychological Factors:
   • People tend to stick to their initial beliefs and favor information that confirms them, which makes it hard to accept contradictory evidence.
   • There is a tendency to overestimate our understanding of complex issues and prefer simple explanations, even if inaccurate.
   • Holding strong beliefs can reduce anxiety caused by uncertainty.
   • People may rationalize information to align with their identities, accepting what supports their views and rejecting what doesn't.
2. Social and Cultural Influences:
   • Beliefs are often based on intuition, trust, personal experience, or trust in others, which can lead to false beliefs if trust is misplaced.
   • Social environment, including family and culture, shapes beliefs, and people may adopt beliefs to fit in.
   • Exposure to false information, both intentional and unintentional, contributes to unscientific beliefs.
   • Information that evokes strong emotions is more likely to be believed and shared.
3. Lack of Critical Thinking Skills:
   • Difficulty in evaluating information and comparing it with existing knowledge makes people susceptible to plausible misinformation.
   • Low analytical reasoning and numeracy skills can also increase susceptibility to misinformation.
4. Pseudoscience and Misinformation:
   • Pseudoscience, which presents itself as scientific but lacks a scientific basis, can deceive individuals.
   • Social media can facilitate the rapid spread of misinformation and pseudoscience.

Ultimately, human cognitive tendencies towards narratives, emotions, and social connection can sometimes override the ability to objectively evaluate information and evidence.

When ever talking about "science" consider the following, as a tool against pseudo-science (and to spot when science is done "poorly"):

The Baloney Detection Kit, by Carl Sagan:

Post

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Thanks to @Philia for this link! https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/bal…kit-carl-sagan/

Probably the most important part - two lists:

Nine Tools of Baloney Detection

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better

…

Cassius

September 21, 2021 at 11:15 AM

It's from a very good book, by Carl Sagan: "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

Further thoughts on the original question: "What fears does modern science remove?'

Modern science can usually diagnose diseases so that you can know if you have a terminal illness or something curable...and so in that way can sometimes reduce anxiety.

Modern science hasn't produced definitve answers for everything, so then fears will remain. We then need to go back to the Epicurean philosophy and work with our basic existential issues, in order to manage fears. I am adding in these links for anyone who happens to be reading this thread (there are of course many other threads on the forum dealing with these issues):

--Fear of dying - see this section of the forum:

Dealing With Death, Dying, And Old Age

--Fear of pain - see this thread:

Thread

What is terrible is easy to endure

What is terrible is easy to endure. (fourth point of the Tetrapharmakos) and also:

PD 4 - Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains.

We've talked about this in many other threads, and maybe could use this thread to post links to previous discussions.

Kalosyni

October 17, 2024 at 3:00 PM

--What can I control? ...Choices and avoidances, but some things still happen by chance. For free will read this article:

Article

"Free Will In Epicurean Philosophy" - by Dimitris Liarmakopoulos

Elli Pensa has translated for us the following article by a Greek student of Epicurus, Dimitris Liarmakopoulos.

Elli

May 17, 2019 at 6:40 PM

Quote from sanantoniogarden

It's in these new found fears and anxieties. Genetic predispositions to painful or deadly diseases can make some feel trapped by some biological destiny. Psychology or neuroscience can also make some feel trapped by brain chemistry or childhood experiences (even compound the anxiety of biological destiny). Climate change can be the source of much existential dread. The interesting question is how does the Epicurean respond to these new problems?

I am trying to remember what Epicurean philosophy says about length of life/a complete life.

The need to deal with the fear of death would be the antidote here. Also the need to understand free will and the ability to employ wise choice and avoidance. And to deal with fear of pain itself. All these are dealt with in Epicurean philosophy.

I'll try to find and link to previous discussions on these topics tomorrow (unless anyone else wants to post here).

We need to balance it all with the fact that before modern medicine the infant/mother mortality rate and the mortality rate in general was much higher. Also in modern times, more safety for more people (much less warfare, although depending on when/where you are living).

On the flip side, you could say that modern science has resulted in germ-warfare and nuclear weapons. Also, modern medicine has the ability to resuscitate an unconscious person and prolong "life" (in a vegetative state). Unless you have a "Do not attempt resuscitation order", CPR will be performed on you (no matter how old you are or your condition - read about it here) and even though it has a low likelihood of success in certain conditions.

We must remember the Epicurean idea that it isn't the longest life but the most pleasant (whenever discussion of the doomsday clock comes up).

Quote from Rolf

That said, I think we can both agree that ice cream is not necessary for a pleasant life.

What!!!? Ice cream isn't necessary? (lol ) That's like saying sex isn't necessary!

For the most pleasant life I would recommend both.

But I think you could still be happy with vanilla yogurt and massages.

Quote from Rolf

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you Kalosyni, and please correct me if I am, but it seems that your definition leads to an ascetic view of Epicureanism in which we should only pursue what is strictly necessary.

Lol, I was thinking the other way around...lol, that you Rolf were coming from an ascetic view (due to your comment about ice-cream).

Quote from Rolf

Movies are clearly not necessary for happiness or survival - countless people have been happy and healthy without them. And yet watching movies is not an inherently harmful or empty desire. In which case, what are movies other than natural but unnecessary desires?

I think that I talked about movies in another thread (but have forgotten exactly what I said, and forgotten what thread that was in). But this is a good time to talk about it again...because I would question whether or not harm might come about to an individual if they were to watch a lot of movies about people who desire and chase after great wealth, status, power, control, perfect beauty, perfect safety, or non-stop sensory variations...but it will depend on the person and the circumstances...so no absolute rules.

I wouldn't call myself ascetic...because I hold to Principal Doctrine 8 as being very important:

PD08: "No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."

Quote from Kalosyni

And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.

Because if something is necessary for survival, then you would endure pain and struggle for the sake of attaining it.

Quote from Rolf

I don’t know if I agree that natural/unnecessary desires are “difficult or impossible to attain”, or that they should be viewed negatively at all. From what I understand, this category simply refers to things that are pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness.

"pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness"... maybe the word "optional"?.

And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.

Something that causes pain would go into the "empty" category (as in empty of pleasure).

Ooops, meant to type in that my "mistaken" idea of just two categories was in post 16.

Okay, regarding my "mistaken" idea in post 22 post 16 above (of only two categories)...now revising back to three, lol:

• natural/necessary = necessary for life and for well-being
• natural/unnecessary = difficult or impossible to attain, and beyond ones means or recklessly depleting ones needed resources in order to attain
• empty = greed for status/wealth/power/control/perfection/non-stop sensory variations

Quote from Cassius

But do not there remain very many desires that are not easy and not affordable to attain, and which we would go on pursuing forever without limit if we did not identify their nature as such?

The things that are not easy and not affordable are also "empty", such that they come about from a desire for status or control (a futile attempt at controling circumstances to make them "perfect" in some way (perfectly beautiful, perfectly safe).