New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
You took the words out of my mouth. I was going to post this exact same question. I *really* dislike it when "flourishing" is used as a translation of eudaimonia.
I have a strong suspicion that Don and Cassius might not be the greatest fans of spiritual wellness influencers. I sense some tension in their inner energy currents restraining their flourishing potential. Cleanse your chakras, Gentlemen.
Here's more detailed publication:
Exciting times for Epicurean philosophy are coming and they're coming fast.
Part of Lucretius' Book 3 Proem sang in classical Latin pronunciation to some medieval-like music. Lovely stuff.
If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!
Spledid idea! Almost as good as appointing Lucifer as a gatekeeper at St. Peter's gates of heaven. It should be fine.
In general I often find it surprising how much I agree with Tau Phi's perspective on Epicurean philosophy despite the fact that he is very clear that he differs with Epicurus on certain key issues (such as issues of skepticism and as we see in this thread, physics).
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.
To me it's pretty clear that seeing things "on a spectrum," and seeing that there are clear differences between the higher end of the spectrum and the lower end, does not constitute "idealism."
Seeing things "on a spectrum" is usually the healthiest way to see things. It gets dangerous when people aim at the end of it looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or something like that. That's why I object when someone tries to talk in "ultimate" terms or seeks "ultimate" creatures hoping for some sort of reward in doing so.
As I am reading Tau Phi's view he is arguing outside of BOTH the "idealist" and "realist" perspectives, even though most readers of Epicurus find themselves gravitating towards one or the other.
That is correct. When I do that, I'm not trying to hijack Epicurean philosophy to fit my own agenda. I try to be as clear as possible when I'm not expressing Epicurean ideas. I do that because many of us (me included) come from religious upbringing and it is tempting to gravitate towards safe, known waters. People brake free from religions, find Epicurean philosophy but still think in religious categories. They reject Jesus but they try to make Epicurus yet another saviour. They think they are free from a burden of eternal life but flirt with the idea of prolonging their life indefinitely. They reject the perfection of god almighty and try to find a replacement in ultimate blessedness and incorruptibility. I do understand that people have different needs and I don't want to steer anyone from their "idealist" or "realist" perspectives if such perspectives work for them. I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives.
Here are my personal opinions on all three points. Please mind they are just that - personal opinions. Nothing else but food for thought, if someone is interested in reading them.
1.) As Patrikios said, the Gods symbolise ultimate excellence. They are something to orientate to as personifications of the highest state a being can possibly achieve. They give an idea what the happy life is.
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. Even to ancient Epicureans their gods were material beings, not some kind of symbols. On top of that, Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried. Treating them as symbols of human potential excellence is like taking someone whose only language is English and asking them to translate from Chinese.
2.a) The correct prolepsis of the Gods works as armour to save from wrong assumptions. Usually, these are the human ideas of ultimate power and this ulimate power being obsessed with moral behaviour. All of that is grounded in human projections rather than what ultimate excellence really is.
The prolepsis of the Gods and ultimate excellence are as much wrong assumptions as ultimate power is. They are based on wishful thinking, nothing more. You're trying to fight fire with fire here.
2.b) Human ideas on otherworldly powers are real. Religion is all around and structuring the lives of people. This is something we have to react to and interact with. Personally, I like the idea of imperishable and blessed beings around because this states a direct counterpart to human superstitions. Otherwise, we are in great danger of becoming overwhelmed by false opinions.
Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. Again, it looks like you're trying to fight fire with fire. You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.
He could believe in them in exactly the same way he believes in atoms, which he has also never perceived with his five senses.
Again, he had the same level of evidence he had as to atoms - all inference, no direct evidence - yet fully "believed" in atoms.
Both statements are true for Epicurus but are not true from modern perspective. We no longer can equate atomic theory and the theory of eidolas. The atomic theory still stands nowadays, the theory of eidolas has been proven to be incorrect. Epicurus based the existence of gods on the theory of eidolas. Since the theory is wrong, the conclusion about the gods is also wrong.
Because the gods must act to maintain their deathlessness. forces exist which tend toward dissolution and will cause that if not counteracted, but there is no "fate" which prevents counteracting forces from being sustainable without definite limit.
It's not about "fate" but the laws of nature - they forbid any material compounds to be indefinitely sustainable. Our current understanding of the universe makes such compounds bound to dissolution. Both is theory and in empirical observations - not a single thing composed of atoms have been found so far in our universe that would even remotely fit the description of Epicurean gods - everything seems to be corruptible over time.
And as for the last part I am not saying this to be contentious but to say what I think and Epicurean from the ancient world would say even if they were alive today and have access to the same science we have:
You have every right to disagree with Epicurus and think that the error you think he committed proves his humanity. An ancient Epicurean would say that the error is yours for not agreeing with Epicurus' argument as to proof from circumstantial evidence. Although I am not an ancient Epicurus, I would say that I would agree with their position even given all the additional science we have today, which I don't think touches in any way the essence of Epicurus' logical argument.
If they had known what we know, they would have recognised that the theory of eidolas used to justify the existence of gods is wrong, therefore Epicurus' inference of gods is flawed. His argument as to proof from circumstantial evidence does not hold in this case.
Epicurus was a very consistent thinker. He, as we are today, had access to limited knowledge, however. He got some things wrong, we get some things wrong and the people in the future who will have us corrected will also be wrong about some things. The insistence that Epicurus should be left untouched because, in essence, he figured all out is not particularly compelling, in my opinion.
Cassius , please don't take my post as an attempt to pick a fight - I'm just presenting my opinions about the concept of Epicurean gods through my understanding of the world I live in. I reserve my right to be wrong about the things above, but I needed them to answer DaveT questions:
Did Epicurus then possibly or probably not believe in the Greek gods, but allowed that false opinions of the existence of gods do no harm since they only exist as opinions, and not fact?
If no one had ever actually seen the Greek Gods how could Epicurus have believed they actually existed?
Epicurus probably truly believed in existence of gods. They weren't the Greek gods, though. They were universal gods completely removed from human existence. He justified their existence based on the theory of eidolas. He most likely was convinced that human beings are capable of detecting godly eidolas so such beings were not just opinions but actually existed and their films reaching human minds were indirect proofs of such existence. From our modern perspective this argumentation simply doesn't hold (please refer to my above comments) but for ancient Epicureans this was very much a viable explanation.
Shortly after I joined the forum, during the first online meeting I attended, I was asked if given the opportunity, would I choose to become an Epicurean god. I said no because I wanted to retain my humanity since I was born human. I was in an overwhelming minority. Most people would choose to sacrifice their humanity for blessedness and incorruptibility. I never forgot this moment. Maybe because it was the first meeting, maybe because I was surprised by other people's decision. I think the usage of AI in the areas of human creativity boils down to a very similar choice.
Some people are perfectly fine with sacrificing the struggle of their own creativity because AI can write/paint/sing/play faster and better. Those people don't seem to see the point in slow betterment of their limited human potential since they have been presented with the opportunity of godlike simulacrum. Why to struggle with inferior human quality when you can effortlessly obtain godlike results?
And some people decide to pick up their pens, brushes, microphones and guitars and create something, every time something a bit better than their previous something. Never as fast, never as perfectly sterile. Always imperfect, human something. That's where I find myself. I love my imperfections and limitations. I will never ask AI to do creative work for me and I still don't want to be an Epicurean god.
Your comments about the book sum it up pretty accurately, Cassius. This is not a resource that can be reliably used in a study of Epicurean philosophy by any stretch of imagination. The book is archaic not only in language but the contents as well. I do find it interesting for several reasons, though:
1) It is one of the earliest attempts of introducing Epicurus into English speaking world. It's a highly distorted view of Epicurus but at least it's a start of re-introducing his after a millennium of oblivion.
2) It unintentionally proves superiority of pleasure over virtues. Because the book deals mainly with virtues, and it was written 350 years ago, it makes it obvious to a modern reader that what was once considered virtuous not necessarily is considered virtuous now. The idea of a virtuous woman presented in the book, for example, might be rather shocking to contemporary readers. Virtues are clearly dependant on social contracts and these contracts evolve over time. So do the virtues. If someone chooses to build their lives on the foundation of virtues, builds their lives on a rather shaky grounds.
3) The subtitle 'The Empire of Pleasure Over the Vertues' and the following dedication where the translator is blowing smoke up the patron's backside by praising his virtuous behaviour without even mentioning pleasure, made my chuckle as it initially looked to me as simultaneous flattery and mockery. (It's not the case. It's just my initial impression.)
I'm sorry to resurrect this thread after 5 years of inactivity, but if anyone's interested in this 350 years old book, I've restored it and prepared a modern PDF version.
The original book contains around 50 marginalia, mostly in Latin. I've moved these into footnotes and I've provided rough English translations. The marginalia aren't essential to the text and they serve mostly as reinforcements of discussed topics. I've also added interactive table of contents. Other than that, I've tried to be as faithful to the original as possible. The original scan of the book is available at archive.org (link below).
Cassius : You can add this to the files section if you find it worthwhile. Everything is in public domain as indicated at the end of the PDF. The book is not particularly valuable as an educational resource, but I think it's historically interesting.
Archive.org link:
Info about the author:
Antoine Le Grand (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Antoine Le Grand - Wikipedia
The restored version:
Nevertheless, I'm wondering if he believed there could be very many wise men among the general population of his followers and they had a higher calling from him than all of the others. And among those who were deemed wise, was he simply advocating those few should devote themselves to teaching.
What do you know about this issue? Have you seen or read evidence of who and how many men would qualify as wise in the Garden?
This may partially answer your question, Dave:
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 52.3: Epicurus remarks that certain men have worked their way to the truth without anyone’s assistance, carving out their own passage. And he gives special praise to these, for their impulse has come from within, and they have forged to the front by themselves. Again, he says, there are others who need outside help, who will not proceed unless someone leads the way, but who will follow faithfully. Of these, he says, Metrodorus was one; this type of man is also excellent, but belongs to the second grade. We ourselves are not of that first class, either; we shall be well-regarded if we are admitted into the second. Nor need you despise a man who can gain salvation only with the assistance of another; the will to be saved means a great deal, too. You will find still another class of man – and a class not to be despised – who can be forced and driven into righteousness, who do not need a guide as much as they require someone to encourage and, as it were, to force them along. This is the third variety. If you ask me for a man of this pattern also, Epicurus tells us that Hermarchus was such. And of the two last-named classes, he is more ready to congratulate the one, but he feels more respect for the other; for although both have reached the same goal, it is a greater credit to have brought about the same result with the more difficult material upon which to work.
Education and promotion of Epicurean philosophy and forceful engagement are two different things. Education and promotion gives people choice to decide what works for them. Forceful engagement is a lost cause. No-one wants to be forced to deal with someone else arguments.
The new film referenced below has just come to my attention, and as part of my ongoing campaign to make sure that we engage forcefully with the intelligent design argument, I'll work on addressing it in several ways.
Why do you think we should forcefully engage with the intelligent design argument? We may as well start discussing the shape of our planet with flat earthers. What's the point? You can change intelligent design worldview in people as much as they can change your worldview to intelligent design. You can't. They can't. Forceful engagement on both sides seems to me to be a complete waste of time.
I conducted similar thought experiment some time ago and tried to imagine how Epicureans in antiquity could tackle this problem. I hope you find it interesting:
I see virtue as excellence in something that is desirable. For me being virtuous means achieving excellence in something desirable. Friendship is pivotal in Epicurean philosophy so I completely agree with the statement that friendship is a virtue. Like with any other virtues, however, there's no free lunch. One has to work hard to achieve excellence. That's why 'Every friendship is an excellence (virtue) in itself...' translation doesn't work for me. Not because 'friendship is a virtue' part but because of 'Every'.
Thank you, Don .
I'm not a big fan of correcting manuscripts as it adds yet another danger of warping the original ideas. I think any corrections should be clearly marked and explained so the readers know what has been done and why.
That said, 'choiceworthy' or 'to be chosen for its own sake' option makes more sense to me in this case for very practical reasons. The act of starting a friendship doesn't make it excellent from the get go. Excellence and virtue in friendship can only be achieved by friends' good will, action and compatibility. Not all friendships end up being excellent and none start as excellent and virtuous. But that's only my personal interpretation.
After 2000 years of Judeo-Christianty and all sorts of philosophical regression, and over 500 years of Pythagoreanism and Platonism and Academic Skepticism and even Democriteanism before that, what has happened is essentially the same thing as a "mind virus at the kernel level" which has destroyed any progress that Epicurus made with his canonics.
If that's the case, Epicurus was the One. Every philosopher before and after him was and is infected with a "mind virus"? I'm pretty sure this attitude will not get you far in promoting Epicurean philosophy.
The virus is the idea that "proof" or "proving something" requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence -- an unhuman an inhuman level of "certainty" that is impossible by definition for a human to reach. This mind virus has destroyed the ability of many people to think that anything can be "proven" or anything can be "known" or that anything can be "real" if it fails to meet such an impossible standard.
In that case I think almost all of us are safe. I literally don't know anyone who thinks that proving something requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence. Proofs, knowledge and reality are very much within a grasp and abilities of most people.
This is why I think philosophy has regressed so far since the Epicurean period. Rather than accept Epicurus' position that there is a reasonable standard of proof grounded in the senses in which the mind IS and SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED to be able to prove things in human terms, such a position is denounced as the ultimate sin. Some will say "sin against god" but the majority of modern philosophers and intelligentsia will consider it a "sin against humanism" in a "good-without-god" kind of way.
Nope. What you described here is not the ultimate sin. In science it's called five sigma and it's a statistical significance which scientists agreed on to call a phenomenon proved to be true. No omniscience, omniscience nor omnipresence is required. In day to day life people are much less strict than that. We only need to recognize a pattern to call something proven. If I hit my finger with a hammer it hurts. If I do it once more it hurts again. I established a pattern and I've proven that hitting fingers with hammers hurts. No-one goes ad infinitum hitting themselves with a hammer because they think it wasn't proven enough that the activity brings pain every time. That's human knowledge. It may be limited but it's ours and our limitations don't mean no knowledge is possible.
I find it really weird that you constantly try to claim that there's only 'Epicurus' truth' or 'nothing can be proven at all' as the alternative. And narrative where you accuse many people over millenia to be infected with "mind virus" and philosophers other than Epicurus to be regressive doesn't promote Epicurean philosophy at all. It makes it sound insane.
Martin and Cassius . Please correct me if my reasoning is faulty at any point but at the moment here are my thoughts about some of the things you mentioned in the posts above:
Within Kant's epistemology, certainty with respect to knowledge about phenomena is possible but the metaphysical claim that that knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded.
That certainly sounds to me like the equivalent of making the assertion that because we observe progress in science we cannot claim "knowledge" of anything physical. And since the physical is this world, and we can't claim knowledge of it.
I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense based on what Martin said. We certainly can claim knowledge. We can't claim that our knowledge is equivalent to the truth about how things are.
That sounds like the functional equivalent of saying that there is in fact a "true world" which is inaccessible to the senses and toward which we can never do anything more than approach knowledge.
Again, this conclusion is incompatible with what Martin said above. There's no "true world". There simply is the world which we can gradually obtain knowledge about. The world doesn't care if some species on a third planet from their star declares that the world is "true". What we call "true" is what we experience with our senses, feelings and anticipations and these stimuli are processed with a bit of reasoning powers we possess. That is all. That is our limit. And Nature doesn't work this way: "Oh, humans got some knowledge about me. I better adjust to what they have just discovered and act accordingly so I am true to them." Our knowledge will never be the truth about how things actually are. And this statement is not incompatible with Epicurean philosophy. There are only subjective, human faculties in Epicurus' canon: feelings, senses and anticipations. There's not even one canonical faculty that would allow us to measure how things are outside of our human experiences.
And I would say that it sounds like the equivalence of saying "nothing can be known" to any regular person who has to choose how to live today based on whether there is a supernatural god and reward/punishment after death.
And again, I have real difficulty understanding how you draw conclusions like that. Your equivalences sound more like: There are stairs to knowledge we need to climb but we can't see the end of them therefore we must declare that the stairs don't exist.
Things can be known. We can most definitely get knowledge from our human perspective. And the things we don't know about doesn't make them supernatural. We simply didn't find a way to discover them yet or we won't be able to discover them at all because of our human limitations. The knowledge we acquire is our "truth" but that knowledge doesn't mean we conquered Nature and know it to its core. We are not Nature. We'll never be Nature. We are only a part of it. Nature's "truth" is not equivalent to our "truth". And that's how I understand Martin 's initial quote.
Tau Phi I will think you have adequately stated your position as to any AI in this thread here. If you have some substantive criticism of the article please add it too.
I still think the content of the article is very good. Nothing has changed and I have no criticism in this regard whatsoever.
I retract my praise for the article because I was misled to think you wrote it which is not entirely the case. As I said before, I have no problem if you, or anyone else, choose to delegate creative processes to AI. I'm interested in doing philosophy with humans. That's my goal here. I'm not interested in AI summaries. If you have different goals, that's perfectly fine as long as you are clear about them.
However, if you intend to present AI creations as yours in conversation with me without notifying me about it, please refrain from doing so as I'm not interested in having conversations about AI algorithmic simulacrum of philosophical ideas, no matter how clear or accurate. I'm only asking about clarity in this respect when it concerns me personally. Nothing more.
