Posts by Kalosyni

Notes from first half of podcast:

Continuing with true opinions and false opinions -- presenting these issues so that newer readers can be aware of them and understand how they fit into the big picture

1:54 -- Epicurus' views on truth

DeWitt said that it was a true opinion that he exalted nature as the norm of truth - and that this was a revolt against Plato who considered reason the norm, reason to have a divine existence of its own.

Epicurus taught that nature ant the use of sensations, feelings, and anticipations are the standard for determining what we believe to be true.

False opinion to say that Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense -- he did not declare that sensation was the only source, and also be careful about the different meanings that the word "truth" can have.

3:00 -- commentary about the method by which Epicurus determined what was true vs what he thought was false.

This brings us to types of reasoning, deductive vs inductive reasoning -- DeWitt says that Epicurus taught chiefly by deduction adopting the procedures of Euclid, and parting company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.

The false opinion was that Epicurus was a strict empiricist

3:58 -- What is inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning

Inductive: Inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances -- moves from observations to a generalization -- example: we see that from dogs around us that they have four legs so we deduce that all dogs have four legs (over-generalize -- there are some dogs that only have 3 legs) But we have to live with the knowledge that we have not observed every instance of dogs in the world (you've got a problem if you say I don't believe it unless I've seen it). Once you've seen a certain number then you decide based on probability percentage -- 95 percent sure it is correct. (9:00)

9:50 -- Epicurus talked about multiple causations, waiting when you don't have enough information, he would have accknowledged the limitations of inductive reasoning

10:10 -- Deductive reasoning: the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning in which the conclusion about particulars follows from general or universal premises -- moves from a theory then deduce by logic what is not directly obvious -- it depends on the truth of the premises, and so not really more powerful than induction because these premises have be developed through induction

11:00 -- an interplay of induction and deduction

Plato - knowledge of absolutes through reasoning -- to be sure of something, ideal forms -- he hide inductive reasoning through geometry

12:25 -- Epicurus -- the need to rely on the senses -- he believe that nature gave us only the senses, the feelings, and anticipations for determining the truth

Plato -- believed we had to go beyond the senses, and to some extent reject what the senses were telling us

13:15 -- the problem of universals -- qualities or relations found in two or more entities -- for example: if cup holders are considered circular, then circularity may be considered a universal property of cup holders -- human beings can talk and think about universals but philosophers disagreed if universals exist in reality beyond mere thought and speech

14:25 -- Epicurus - universals are in our thoughts only

Categorization goes on in human mind, these categories aren't generated universally - does the color yellow exist on its own separate from things that are yellow, does yellow exist in the abstract apart from the things that are yellow - Martin says "No".

16:12 -- Mammals, platypus

19:00 -- Theory - an explanation for phenomenon which has taken account for all the known facts, and unknown facts
--the ability to account and assimilate new information, adjust your theory in relation to all the evidence.

22:55 -- based on probability and the need to make decisions, does that lead you to become a total skeptic.

Epicurus was not a skeptic -- he repeats in Letter to Pythocles -- "nothing in phenomena is against it". Magnetism, not possible to have an adequate understanding at that time. But for a tornado or lightning, he would say that nothing in phenomena is against it.

25:45 -- Dogmas are open to revision.

dogmatic=axiomatic. Realist as opposed to skeptical (but doesn't answer the questions). You still have to take positions on what is real and how do you determine what is real -- consistently reporting to us from the faculties which nature gave us.

27:20 -- Martin's take is that modern science is not after the truth in the way that ancient philosophers were

28:55 -- Joshua via Indiana Jones movie - Philosophy is looking for truth and science is looking for facts (my paraphrase)

31:50 -- Philosophical conversations which science can't answer, such questions as: is there life beyond the grave, dose a supernatural god exist, questions like that are particularly provinance of philosophy and religion. If you are going to make a claim, the claim is unfalsifyable and cannot be tested.

And if you hold yourself to the standard that the only thing you are totally confident in is something which you observe for yourself, you've reached the end of your ability to reason -- we don't accept that there is any evidence from anyone who has come back from being dead and by definition understand that once were dead we don't come back from it. So in terms of being certain what happens after you die, if we take the position that we haven't experienced it for ourselves so therefore we're not sure, we've reached a dilemma in our reasoning -- Epicurus was taking the position that if you stop at that point, saying I don't know, you are always going to have doubt in your mind that will cause you to live less happily than you otherwise would.

33:15 -- Is it legitimate to speculate about things

I almost went to this Unity church this morning, but then I felt my "atheist" spirit say to me better to go worship at a "house of coffee" (a coffeehouse).

Here is what was on their website (everything is good except the Bible verse at the end).

Quote

I use divine wisdom to find my way.

When I’m pondering a perplexing question or I need to make an important choice, I reach beyond human reasoning to the limitless wisdom of divine mind, never further away than my next thought.

After clarifying my question and considering my available options, I release the situation, focusing instead on the divine presence within. I affirm: I am using divine wisdom to show me the way. In prayerful silence, peace envelops me.

As I conclude my prayer time and resume my activities, I may experience a flash of insight or a more gradual understanding. However it happens, I trust my next steps will become clear to me. Confident in my divine guidance, I move forward with calm assurance.

But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.—Matthew 6:33

Quote from Joshua

I find myself alive in the universe. I know that there is sorrow, and fear, and that life sometimes hurts—but I also know that it is wonderful, really wonderful, sometimes sublime, just to be alive here. There is beauty and delight here that will move me even at my last breath. There is knowledge and philosophy to dull my pains, and to enhance my pleasures. There is friendship, romance, love, art, and literature—all the choicest fruits of a peaceable and prosperous age, in a free and civil society. To say that I am grateful is simply to say that I appreciate it. To appreciate something, and to appreciate the gift of something, are two different things. One who appreciates wine recognizes its worth and its specialness in a deep and penetrating way.

That's what it is to appreciate life and its blessings

I really like this, and maybe will use some of this (if you don't mind Joshua) to create a kind of prayer.

Also thinking something similarly pithy with regard to "prayer" during illness -- that I remember that slight pains can be endured by adding in pleasure, and extreme pains are only short in duration. (Feeling a little under the weather and once my mind feels a little clearer will dive into this).

And also work on "prayer" addressing anxiety, fear, sadness.

Quote from Cassius

Kalosymi can you pithily condense to match Martin's formulation?

I suppose my version in post 52 is very different than Martin's formlation (too different). Also, I still need to study PD24 to get more clear on that.

Quote from camotero

Regarding my original post, the winner was this:

“We are very thankful

We are very glad

For friends we meet

And food we eat

For home and mom and dad.”

Winner because my wife and kid loved it, and we prayed it together and no supernatural beings took part.

Display More

Thank you Mathitis Kipouros, I think this question you brought up and the result is very good (provided by Don in post 4). And this seems like a good prayer for children.

As adults, especially ones who were raised in church, it might be good to also create adult Epicurean prayers. And there are various reasons for prayer: for when there is anxiety regarding the uncertainty of the future, for when there are difficult challenges, or for when there is sadness or illness. And also there is giving thanks and gratitude, at meals, at bedtime, and when waking in the morning. And I think it would be a good thing to add here to this thread -- and I will see if I can come up with anything and post soon. And Pacatus and Joshua with your poetic abilities if you have any adult prayer ideas you can come up with, please add

Quote from Martin

Epicurean non-belief creed

First draft:

I do not have any beliefs.

I know some stuff.

I know that some of my knowledge may be wrong.

I know that there is a lot more stuff which I do not know.

I know that there is stuff of which I do not even know that I do not know of it.

This very partial knowledge does not compel me to any belief, because so far, I have acquired any knowledge needed to enable a pleasurable life, and I am confident to keep this attitude until death terminates my existence.

Display More

Possible re-phrasing:

Epicurean Creed

Knowledge and faith in that knowledge must be backed by observation by the senses (or as augmented by trustworthy tools which can accurately take measurements).

And if someone else is making the observations we must have adequate trust that they know how to correctly make observations. The correct way to make observations is: 1) to make sure that we are not confusing our observations with any opinions about what we wish to be true and so we must have the ability to separate our observations from our opinions 2) we make sure we have gathered enough evidence before drawing a conclusion. When making conclusions: 1) we understand that correlation does not imply causation 2) we cannot put our faith in something unless we know that the observations were correct and that the conclusion drawn is sound.

I think this is worthwhile to do, and this may still need adjustment or more added.

Quote

We’ve all been told that correlation does not imply causation. Yet many business leaders, elected officials, and media outlets still make causal claims based on misleading correlations. These claims are too often unscrutinized, amplified, and mistakenly used to guide decisions.

Examples abound: Consider a recent health study that set out to understand whether taking baths can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. The analysis found that people who took baths regularly were less likely to have cardiovascular disease or suffer strokes. The authors conclude that the data suggests “a beneficial effect” of baths. Without a controlled experiment, or a natural experiment, one in which subjects are chosen randomly and without variable manipulation, it’s hard to know whether this relationship is causal. For example, it’s possible that regular bath takers are generally less stressed and have more free time to relax, which could be the real reason they have lower rates of heart disease. Still, these findings were widely circulated, with headlines like, “Taking a bath isn’t just relaxing. It could also be good for your heart.”

A large body of research in behavioral economics and psychology has highlighted systematic mistakes we can make when looking at data. We tend to seek evidence that confirms our preconceived notions and ignore data that might go against our hypotheses. We neglect important aspects of the way that data was generated. More broadly, it’s easy to focus on the data in front of you, even when the most important data is missing. As Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman has said, it can be as if “what you see is all there is.”

This can lead to mistakes and avoidable disasters, whether it’s an individual, a company, or a government that’s making the decision. The world is increasingly filled with data, and we are regularly bombarded with facts and figures. We must learn to analyze data and assess causal claims — a skill that is increasingly important for business and government leaders.

https://hbr.org/2021/11/leader…-with-causation

Last night we had a good discussion at our weekly Wednesday night Zoom meeting.

Onenski brought up the question of: Can you be certain about some things and what can you be dogmatic about in Epicureanism? (this is my paraphrase based on what I remember). So there are some beliefs that will not change:

--belief in eternal atoms and void

--no supernatural gods

--no life after death

--no absolute forms or way of doing things

Cassius not sure I got the wording right on the last point, and did I miss anything?

Also, the idea that you need to understand the fundamental points of the doctrine before you can go into therapeutics.

We are going forward with planning for December 2nd for our first Friday Night Epicurean Happy Hour Zoom Discussion.

The main topic will be Epicurean Therapuetics: How might Epicureans deal with negative emotions. We will open up the discussion to a more intuitive approach while also remaining true to what we know of the extant Epicurean texts.

Quote from Kalosyni

Idealist schools, nature lies to us constantly -- and if you are going to get at the truth you are going to have to penetrate the veil, see through nature into what lies on the otherside of nature (58:15)

At this point the image of this famous engraving popped into my mind:

the Flammarion engraving.

And thinking further as Epicureans, there is no veil, it is all just nature.

Second half of podcast notes:

35:05 -- One of the most controversial aspects. And there is major division of skepticism. Dogmatism.

True opinion -- Promulgated a dogmatic philosophy actuated by passion for inquiry to find certainty -- a destestation of skepticism.

False opinion -- he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy because he renounced inquiry and Epicureans unthinkingly accepted the positions.

36:35 -- The wise man will dogmatize -- the issue of dogmatism and what that word really means.

You figure out a set of axioms and then derive more than what was just there -- physics which establish a materialist worldview, and then derive everything else as was shown by Lucretius.

37:54 -- While the other schools of philosophy would rise and fall, the Epicureans had an unbroken line of scholarcs which seemed to go on and on, and it was the most enduring and robust school in the the ancient world. Dogmatism was an issue which may have supported that.

38:30 -- Methodology for evaluating competing claims. Methodology for remaining aloof from certainty when you couldn't be certain about which competing claim was true. The thing that you must avoid is to be enamored of the single cause. You have to remain aloof from a conclusion until you have enough good information to actually know what you think is true about you are observing.

39:28 -- The Catholic church (the Vatican) pronouncing the assumption of Mary into heaven is a good example of dogmatism. -- Epicurus is not articulating a position in this manner and does not take position when there is clearly not enough information to take a position.

43:23 -- Book 4 of Lucretius -- those people who say that nothing can be known are essentially standing on their heads and you can't even reason with these people because their own logic and argument makes no sense -- saying they are certain that nothing can be known -- they are talking in riddles and in circles. Radical skepticism.

44:04 -- Epicurus is rejecting two extreme positions -- rejecting the idea that nothing can be known and also rejecting the idea that there is a supernatural god delivering some kind of absolute truth on everything. And looking for a fair reasonable position that is supported by the evidence --when to be confident of taking a position on something and when not to be confident of taking a position on something.

45:40 -- Multiple causes

47:50 -- Epicurus is not telling you to go read all these books on other philosophers and then follow xyz lines of argument -- he is telling you an opposite approach which is to trust your own senses, trust your own observations, and use that as your ultimate standard for what you are going to conclude with confidence to be right or wrong -- not using some dead philosopher's arguments. It is more important for you to understand that your senses are trustworthy, that they are what you have to deal with nature as the basis for making decisions.

48:50 -- Epicurus' view of truth -- DeWitt says that Epicurus exalted nature as the norm of truth revolting against Plato who had preached reason is the norm and considered reason to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the use of sensations and their role in determining that which we consider to be true.

The false opinion was that Epicurus was a modern empiricist, and that he declared that sensation is the only source of knowledge, or even that "all sensations are true"

49:38 -- Truth -- Is there a norm, is there a standard against which you can ever arive about truth about anything -- What is truth? Frances Wright presented a version of Epicurus that was more steeped in an empiricist view than maybe he really was in antiquity -- because Epicurus thought that sensation was one leg of the tripod of epistemology -- the anticipations and the feelings -- nature furnishes the norm and nature gives us a tool kit for accessing and evaluating competing claims about everything, from ethics to explanations of phenomena -- and because we are natural, we derive from nature and we are part of nature -- pleasure and pain as guides to how we should live our lives makes sense for us, because that's the norm that nature gives us to make those kinds of decisions.

53:00 -- Epicurus' method for determining truth -- types of logic and how to pursue logic -- is logic a norm to be used as a ruler or standard -- canonics, a standard to be compared against -- in Epicureanism the word canon refers to a rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged (an entirely different meaning than the Catholic use of the word).

56:25 -- Epicurus says: nature is the proper place to look for that authority for right and wrong (Plato takes the position that logos or reason in itself is superior to nature as this norm of truth -- Divinity, or God as a source of truth)

57: 15 -- How you view basic metaphysical claims about what nature is -- does nature have any existence independent from the human mind, does it have any existence independent from abstract principles, like reason or divine fire, is nature merely an ephemeral mirage that actually conceals the truth rather than revealing it to us, is nature merely creation and therefore simply one aspect of revelation from god but does not answer the total purpose of revelation. So these are all the competing ideas about the role of nature in the spirit of inquiry, whether we can learn anything from nature or not. Idealist schools, nature lies to us constantly -- and if you are going to get at the truth you are going to have to penetrate the veil, see through nature into what lies on the otherside of nature (58:15) -- God, ideal forms, or divine fire, or any other of the competing ideas.

58:29 -- Latin: nil ultra -- nothing higher -- is there anything higher than nature itself as a standard of truth. Plato -- logos is higher than nature, logos created nature, and god is behind nature, superior to nature. The telos -- what is ultimately your final authority for determining something to be right or wrong -- is it some standard that logic has revealed to you, or that religion reveals to you, or is some standard that nature gives to you -- nature gives us no guidance on what to choose or avoid other than pleasure and pain -- nature is the ultimate standard of authority, then you take the faculties that nature has given you as a starting point for making all the decisions for what to choose and what to avoid.

1:00:36 -- Next week: the method for determining truth

1:01:10 -- Polemic: words of strong attack -- Books that begin with the word: "Against"

1:05:10 -- We are still on the synopotic view

1:06:29 -- Epicurus is anti-dogmatic -- but people who take the position that things can be known, that some truth is possible to optain, are refered to as "dogmatic" -- axiomatic is a good synonym to dogmatic.

We may not have it every Friday. Thinking perhaps on December 2nd, but looking to add in a few more people, or at least one more. The hope is that we all feel comfortable with eating, drinking, and talking all at the same time during the Zoom

Notes of the first half of the podcast:

True Opinions vs False Opinions

1:02 -- We are on chapter 1 and this is for people who haven't read a lot of Epicurus, we are starting at a very general level of the significant aspects - and this is to provide background

2:20 -- False opinion: that Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism.

Truth: Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism, Epicurus does not come after the Stoics in terms of time. He comes immediately after Plato and Pyhrro. He was reacting against Platonism (ideal forms, absolute truth) and Skepticism (no truth is possible to ever understand and therefore the best we can hope for is tranquility, and to get out of the mind controversies among competing arguements about what is true or false.

3:26 -- Epicurus place in Greek philosophy - a strong rebel against the consensus of other philosophers

4:10 -- How the false opinions arose -- Cicero writing dialogs in which competing schools of philosophy are arguing against each other

5:10 -- What Epicurus was really doing was responding to Plato -- To what extent do we need to be reading Plato in order to understand Epicurus?

6:33 -- Plato's work of Philebus -- a long discussion of the nature of pleasure

8:18 -- The Epicurean response to Plato. All of philosophy is simply a footnote to Plato (Whitehead). So reading Plato will help you have a better context. According to Martin unless you are going to debate philosophy then it is not necessary to go too deeply in Plato.

11:45 -- On Famous Women -- contains a biography of Leontium

13:50 -- Epicurus was reacting against idealism -- absolute right and wrong that we derive from eternal forms

15:15 -- Epicurus' attitude toward learning -- he was well educated and he was a thinker, very methodical. The false opinion was that he was an enemy of all culture and education, and rejected all forms of logic. The wise man will not write poetry but will be able to understand it.

17:40 -- possibly a reaction against the way that children were educated in Greece -- the Gymnasium system

19:28 -- the goal of education in ancient Greece was focused on the political, to produce a good citizen and good Greek city-state that would function the most successfully according to their view, bringing the individual into conformity with these predetermined ideas of how the correct state should be and should function, and to create worker bees, solders, or conventional "philosopher kings" -- so Epicurus challenged this -- charge your course for the correct goal of a happy life (Polyannus example).

22:03 -- Martha Nussbaum presents idea in Therapy of Desire that students in the Epicurean Garden were not allowed to speak up or challege and they were intimidated into following Epicurus' position -- this is another example of a very wrong attitude. Correct view is that in Epicureanism nothing more important in life than to use your senses and use your reasoning to examine things, to challenge things, to question authority.

22:29 -- Epicurus' goal for himself and his work, moral reformer rebelling against his teachers. False view -- that Epicurus was nothing more than a copy cat, ungrateful to his teachers. Epicurus asked his teacher about chaos, and challeged that (idea claiming that the primordial nature was chaos, but they can't even explain what it is). We are hanging quite a lot onto a very few words of Diogenes Laertius -- Epicurus denied his teachers and claimed to be self-taught, and we don't have this is Epicurus' own words.

26:02 -- the system which he had developed quite early on was sufficent to get him thrown out of town in one instance -- but he had a very devoted spirit of inquiry, and was not willing to settle for bad answers, answers like chaos that have no explanatory power, and from which you can't derive any inferences. So he developed his own system.

26:52 -- His own philosophy was different from what he learned. There were elements from his preceeding teachers but he made something different out of it -- and he completely changed such as his response to Democretus and hard determinism.

28:36 -- Would have made sense to use Democretus as a reference for atomism. But we now longer have all of Epicurus books, so can't know if he refered to to Democretus. Lucretius mentions Democretus.

29:48 -- When your observations change you modify your conclusions.

30:45 -- Epicurus' role as a systematizer - attempting to build a synthesis and a wide range of thought, a broad system, a worldview from the ground up. False view that he was sloppy and disorganized. Cicero accused Epicurus of not being concerned about definition, and other aspects of logical system building.

33:02 -- Letter to Pythocles, methodology for how you should evaluate competing claims. Study of nature.

34:17 -- the work of writing responses to other philosophers, for example Leontium writing against Theophrastus. An effort to respond to all of the ideas and claims swirlling around the Aegean at that time.

Hi Everyone,

I want to propose a possiblity for having a fun Friday Night Epicurean Zoom meeting, and this is for anyone who needs to liven up their Friday evenings! Everyone attending is encouraged to eat and drink the food and beverage of their choice during the meeting. This is open to all members (new members are welcome to attend also).

If at least 3 other people besides myself are interested in attending, then we will move forward with setting a time. The time will be determined according to who will be in attendence and what time zones people live in (so may be 6pm ET -- or later if there are folks on the west coast who would like to attend).

If anyone is interested, you can let me know in this thread or you can private message me. If there is enough interest then we can determine from there the day and time.

Just pointing out that the "true opinions vs false opinions" is correcting what later writers said about Epicurus, and the some of the sources of those erroneous ideas can be found in the fragments:

Usener's Fragments Edited By Erik Anderson - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

I would say this is "advanced level" Epicurean philosophy -- I don't think this is necessary, or even good for Epicurean newbies, because the basic philosophy needs to be understood first -- just my opinion.

I will post some rough notes soon (either tomorrow or Wednesday).

Quote from Don

So, my take on all this? Epicurus is making a point in the "bread and water" sayings about enjoying the simply, everyday things (like the regular midday meal of the ancient Greeks on bread and beverage) as I mentioned in my translation. However, he's also specifically refuting Plato's ideal city-state as laid out in the Republic, what Socrates calls "the luxurious city," and is making a point of contrasting the overgrown city-state that imposes so many unnecessary desires and demands on its citizens, with what nature can provide.

I found that fascinating and worth investigating.

Thank you Don, and understanding this feeds back into making proper "choices and avoidances". From a modern perspective, the more luxurious tastes one has, then the more money one spends, potentially leading to credit card debt, or depleting back-up savings or retirement savings -- now with inflation being rampant, we all are probably paying a little more attention to evaluate what is necessary or not.

Also, I have been pondering the place of philosophy, and that some people might enjoy more indepth exploration, where as others (like me) prefer more simplicity and have a goal of practicality -- I "do philosophy" so that I can ponder and evaluate wise ideas for living a better life. I think that there a "levels" of intensity with regard to how to do philosophy. Some people also might enjoy holding and sifting through more details and facts than I do, and they have the mental capacity to do so. My own desire is to synthize and summarize the pearls of Epicurean philosophy and contemplating how to apply them to real life.

Quote from Cassius

Such an ambitious goal

I am extracting only these few words, since I think there might be some validity. It is ambitious since it first requires people to feel comfortable in their connections with each other -- friendship -- and of course that is quite difficult to do over Zoom. So further anaylizing that it may be unrealistic. Just ideas and trying them out -- that is what is happening here on the forum -- testing out whether or not the Epicurean philosophy can be adequately elucidated -- and then seeing if they are of interest to anyone. If ideas are not helpful, there may not be very much show of interest.

Quote from Don

Part of me wants to come up with a "Live like an Epicurean for a Week" annual event

We need to do that every February! The week preceeding Feb. 20th. or at least an EpicuruCon.

Quote from Kalosyni

"The Epicurean Friendship Meeting Handbook" or maybe just "The Epicurean Meeting Handbook"

Thinking a 12 (or eight) week overview of Epicureanism, alternating with 12 (or eight) weeks focusing just on just ethics -- and repeat that pattern throughout the year. Or maybe every fall focus on the overview and every spring focus on ethics. Of course this will probably end up being online.

Then the summer is open for "an Epicurean travel exchange" in which Epicureans invite other Epicureans to travel and spend a few days at their own house, and everyone takes turns hosting one or more visitors.

I was thinking the title could be something like: "The Epicurean Friendship Meeting Handbook" or maybe just "The Epicurean Meeting Handbook" -- and it would have a guide for 12 weeks of meetings, including handouts with info of what will be studied that week. The difference between Zoom and in person meetings would be that food would be part of an in-person meeting

We had four in attendance during the last Wednesday Night Zoom meeting, on November 2nd, and we ended up discussing which Epicurean books we have read and recommend:

Quote

Wednesday Zoom Comments:

On the issue of what book to read first, Onenski comments that A Few Days In Athens has strengths as a first book to read because it is approachable. Given that the ethics is what interests lots of people, AFDIA sort of takes that approach.

Onenski also says that in his case he first read Hiram's book as a general introduction. He would still recommend it to some audiences; today he might also recommend.

Kochie says that he has seen some Catherine Wilson videos and that he books might be a good place to start. He himself however likes the Epicurus Reader, and he likes the introduction to that which is also on the Epicurism.info website.

Our next Zoom meeting (click here to find out more) is coming up Wednesday November 9th, and I already have in mind a good topic to discuss, and also we will open it up to anything further based out of this Episode 146. Hope to see you there!

Notes from Podcast 146:

1:40 -- The Three Divisions of Epicurean Philosophy -- As presented by Diogenes Laertius and other Epicurean documents such as the poem by Lucretius On the Nature of Things, and also the Inscription of the Wall of Oenoanda.

--The Physics - the nature of the universe as a whole, the examination of the way things are and how things work from a natural basis as opposed to a supernatural basis, and place of humanity in the world and on the earth.

--The Epistemology and the Canonics - the science of how you know anything at all (what knowledge is possible and how you gain knowledge). How you gather evidence and process evidence, and form opinions.

--The Ethics -- how you should live after you understand the nature of the universe, and how you think about things through the canonics.

3:15 -- We are organizing our presentation according to the commentary of Norman DeWitt and we have talked about why that book is a good place to start. However some students who are serious in their studies are going to want to read the original extant texts as quickly as they can.

3:34 -- Books with which to begin Epicurean studies:
Lucretius' poem was Cassius first reading. For Joshua it was Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve, and then the Stallings translation of Lucretius, and then Principle Doctrines and Vatican Sayings (Diogenes Laertius). Martin started with Epicurus' Extant Texts by Kraut (similar to Bailey) and recommends to read DeWitt next. Kalosyni started with How to Be an Epicurean by Wilson and the text of the Principle Doctrines and Letter to Menoeceus.

8:59 -- Discussing Epistemology and Canonics at the same time - Letter to Pythocles -- manifold causes

13:28 -- 12 Fundamentals of Nature -- the ultimate distillation of his principles. That document does not exist today, but has been reassembled from information extracted from Lucretius' poem On the Nature of Things and Letter to Herodotus.

14:43 -- a second (large) epitome of physics which Lucretius used. 37 books on Nature by Epicurus.

15:53 -- Ethics -- 40 Doctrines and Letter to Menoeceus

16:11 -- Canonics -- The Celestial Book (which was lost)

16:40 -- Philodemus work On Signs; On Methods of Inference

17:43 -- Epicurus' relationship to Plato and Aristotle, and Pyrrho

18:49 -- Letter to Herodotus may have been the first litrature that was put into the hands of any potential Epicurean

21:26 -- Death is nothing to us (and the Tetraphamacon)
Understanding first about the way the universe works before jumping into this material

22:58 -- Letter to Herodotus and Letter to Pythocles gives a foundation that informs everything else

23:08 -- Joshua comments on Lucretius' poem -- lost 7th book might have been on the nature of the gods -- something to be studied later on in the study. And Joshua comments about how things are presented in A Few Days in Athens.

26:20 -- Best way to study is a brief overview and then move to the details. But the poem of Lucretius needs some preparation before reading to avoid being confused regarding the nature of the gods, that the gods are not interfering in human life.

27:40 -- the reason you shouldn't fear the gods, given in the Letter to Menoeceus and the Principle Doctrines, is that the gods aren't what we think of them; the gods are not involved; a perfectly blissful being would not take any interest in rewarding friends or punishing enemies on the small planet earth -- it is not an appeal to just a physics argument, but a logical argument derived from physics. Epicurus may have been talking to people who were all ready been familiar with physics of Epicureanism (12 Elementary Principles, etc) before coming to the understanding that that the gods aren't supernatural and not interfering in our lives.

29:27 -- The goal of pleasure -- as the right way to organize your life, how pleasure relates to happiness. Once you have eliminated the idea of following god or working hard to get into heaven. Feelings (pleasure and pain); calmness and tranquility; peace of mind; how pleasure relates to happiness.

30:55 -- good to start with reading a general summary. A map of the direction in which you are going, and what to study. Joshua mentions that there is a very good summary in Stephen Greenblott's The Swerve

.

32:20 -- Material written by people who were hostile to Epicurus. May have been recorded accurately, but the way they present it is in a critical manner (such as Cicero). In some translations of Lucretius, the translators distance themselves in the prologue (Bailey is not supportive of Epicurean Ethics). So any commentary present by these writers may not be consistent with what Epicurus actually presented.

34:58 -- There is a long list of denunciations of Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy out there in western literature -- Thomas More's Utopia, Dante's Inferno. When they come to a subject in this way, then their opinions and conclusions need to be scrutinized.

35:23 -- Lucretius was best accepted by his peers during his time, praise him and his ideas, compared to what we find during the Renaissance and the modern age, such as with Hutchinson, Lamban, Brown.

37:10 -- DeWitt says French and Italians more sympathetic to Epicureanism than the English - Pierre Gassendi (reintroduced Epicurean studies into the west) and Montaigne quotes Lucretius a lot and quite appreciatively.

37:43 -- Next Week: True Opinions vs False Opinions about Epicurus -- understanding this will help provide a framework for study.

Quote

"Sextus Empiricus was a Pyrrhonian Skeptic living probably in the second or third century CE, many of whose works survive, including the Outlines of Pyrrhonism, the best and fullest account we have of Pyrrhonian skepticism (a kind of skepticism named for Pyrrho (see entry on Ancient Skepticism)). Pyrrhonian skepticism involves having no beliefs about philosophical, scientific, or theoretical matters—and according to some interpreters, no beliefs at all, period."

-- from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It looks like there is a possibility that Sextus Empiricus could be the possible source of the "Epicurean paradox" or "Epicurean dilemma". Doing a quick Google search you find it sometimes stated as some kind of fact that it was written by Epicurus. However, no extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument and it is possible that it has been misattributed to him.

"The “Epicurean paradox” is a version of the problem of evil. Lactantius attributes this trilemma to Epicurus in De Ira Dei:

"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

"Perhaps the earliest expression of the trilemma appears in the writings of the sceptic Sextus Empiricus (160–210 AD), who wrote in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism:

"Further, this too should be said. Anyone who asserts that god exists either says that god takes care of the things in the cosmos or that he does not, and, if he does take care, that it is either of all things or of some. Now if he takes care of everything, there would be no particular evil thing and no evil in general in the cosmos; but the Dogmatists say that everything is full of evil; therefore god shall not be said to take care of everything. On the other hand, if he takes care of only some things, why does he take care of these and not of those? For either he wishes but is not able, or he is able but does not wish, or he neither wishes nor is able. If he both wished and was able, he would have taken care of everything; but, for the reasons stated above, he does not take care of everything; therefore, it is not the case that he both wishes and is able to take care of everything. But if he wishes and is not able, he is weaker than the cause on account of which he is not able to take care of the things of which he does not take care; but it is contrary to the concept of god that he should be weaker than anything. Again, if he is able to take care of everything but does not wish to do so, he will be considered malevolent, and if he neither wishes nor is able, he is both malevolent and weak; but to say that about god is impious. Therefore, god does not take care of the things in the cosmos."

Source: Lectures Bureau