Posts by Julia

To partially concur and partially expand on what has been said during this episode regarding the discussion of suicide as a sign that someone might have accepted the notion of fate, providence; in my experience, that is only rarely the case. Rather, suicide is the last line of defence, the ultimate boundary a person — a self, as opposed to a body — can set and enforce. As such, suicide as seen from the suicidal's perspective is (somewhat paradoxically) pseudo-healthy, in that they defend themselves and set a boundary against a pain which they predict to be both unbearable and highly likely. Except in extreme circumstances and terminally ill, their assessment of the future is usually riddled with cognitive distortions, such that they fail to see that we grow accustomed to prolonged intense pain, thereby reducing its severity, or that they predict something to be more likely than it actually is — those are, however, mere misconceptions; they are not usually indicative of an actual believe in fate. Furthermore, this last line of defense only happens after they have played all cards they can think of, done all they can think of to improve their perspective, their to-be-expected future. As such, suicide is typically quite calculated; almost always erroneous, but nonetheless calculated. This is also why there is an elation and relief once the solid commitment to end one's life has been made: knowing their suffering will end soon gives them a paradoxically positive perspective, and it is often the very energy and strength drawn from this that enables them to ultimately kill themselves. Suicide as seen from the suicidal's perspectie, then, is actually the triumph of free will, not it's absence. Furthermore, it is an established fact that antidepressants are associated with a higher risk for suicide during the first weeks and months, and it is generally thought the same mechanism is at work: energy increases faster than pain diminishes. This is not the case with antidepressants of the rapid-acting or psychedelic type, which despite eight decades of clinical research with astoundingly positive results are still uncommon in practise due to inhumane regulation, as those don't work by continuously drugging the patient. Rather than giving suicidal patients traditional antidepressants, my personal theory is that It might be much safer, healthier and more sustainable to challenge them out of depression by taking their comforts away, by forcing them out of their comfort zone, as depression thrives in a constricted, narrow world, whereas physically active people, who exercise or work physically, are strongly protected against it, and depression is mostly a phenomenon of modern societies, not of hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers who would starve if they didn't get out of the inner world of their minds and move their bodies, in reward for which they get the joy of food as a positive feedback. This general rule even applies to emotionally volatile people, including teenagers, those with a borderline personality pattern, some schizophrenics, and people addicted to certain types of drugs, except that in them, the distortion of reality might be even stronger, their perception of what they can do to improve things might be more limited, and their capacity to endure pain be smaller — however, they still act in defence, calculated according to their model of the world, which is why the best theoretical cure is the believable offer of another easy but life-affirming way out: If we could all ring a bell, upon which we'd be teleported to a new place, given a million dollars, our dream home, a set of genuinely caring friends, who would still want to kill themselves… That's not possible, of course, but the underlying idea can still guide the way: For example, in teenagers, it might help to tell them they can finish their high-school via distance learning, thereby avoiding the bullies without harming their future prospects.

It also brings to mind the Pirahã people, who were mentioned previously in the podcast by way of Everett's observations about their language: Their culture (allegedly) only allows for speech based on direct first-hand observation, which the exception of 2nd-hand observation in case of a particularly trusted intermediary: "If you didn't see it yourself, or at least I trust you a lot and you say your friend saw it themself, why should I even listen to you?" This, along with some other aspects, seems to focus them on their surrounding, the present and near future; not the past, not distant places, nor distant future. And as per an anecdote relayed by Everett, they laugh at the idea that Westerners would kill themselves — the idea itself is (allegedly) absurd and thus laughable to them. This squares nicely with what I have observed true about suicidal ideation, in which people seem to lose themselves in their minds, and stop focusing on doing their best with regards to their current and next few tasks. This is sometimes brought about by the current and next few tasks being highly unpleasant, inspiring their mind to start searching for a positive future, which it fails to find, setting off the unfortunate cascade — and once again can guide towards what might help: For example, in a relapsing adult, it might help to offer them to live quite rurally, such that drugs would no longer be readily available.

As much as most people in the ancient world were quite immediately subjected to the forces of nature, and therefore benefitted from understanding them, people in current developed countries are quite immediately subjected to forces of rule — in my two examples: the need to attend school, and the legal constraints on just leaving town to build a simple dwelling in the middle of nowhere. This is to say, as much as the forces of nature shaped lives in the past, the forces of society shape lives in the present. This is why, in my personal opinion, gaining a greater understanding not just of nature but also of nurture, of society and culture, can show us solutions to problems we would otherwise have missed, which is why I personally enjoy complementing my studies of nature with studies of law, public policy and broader social forces, such that my mental model of the world is more functionally complete and thus better equipped for the present day life, which strikes me as being characterised equally, if not more, by government and regulation than by gravity and rain.

Quote from Kalosyni

He seems to be saying that all other poets of that time were writing satire, therefore Lucretius also wrote satire. First of all is that premise correct? (Were all other poets before Lucretius writing satire?) And second of all, his conclusion is a "bandwagon" fallacy. Lucretius could be demonstrating a witty way of speaking of things rather than critical satire.

Sincerely, thank you so much for pointing that out!

Quote from Cassius

in this case there are few if any others who have held that Lucretius was anything but sincere in his admiration for Epicurus and his intent to convey Epicurus' philosophy faithfully. I am not aware of any significant writer who has ever taken any other position.

That's true

Quote from Cassius

but he's never disrespectful of Epicurean views.

Hmm -- that's true. In so many lines of poetry, even implicit, hidden satire would have shone through at one point or another -- yet, it simply doesn't.

Somehow I found the video lecture quite confusion -- What is he even saying? What really are his arguments? -- so thank you both very much for helping me untie the mental knot I was stuck in

Quote from Cassius

The main thrust of the video with which I can completely agree seems to be that "satire" is used in Lucretius. Clearly Lucretius does "make fun" of opposing schools in a number of passages in the book.

I agree

Quote from Cassius

Obviously I don't agree with that last point, but I can't tell how deeply the book goes into specifically arguing that Lucretius was in fact not a devoted Epicurean attempting to teach Epicurean philosophy, and that instead he was merely a poet following his muse to create a work of art.

What gives you your certainty that this was not the case? I suspect that if Gellar-Goad hadn't written that Size Of The Sun article, which I too like and respect him for, I wouldn't care much and dismiss it as an absurd claim – and anyone can be right one time and wrong another time.

I cannot say much about the subject myself, because my thoughts on it don't seem to want to coalesce into anything sensible – what about y'all? I'd appreciate your opinions!

Quote from Kalosyni

Please post any thoughts, plans, activities?

I thought about playing a benign trick on the kids – after all, who made the rule it has to be one-sided? To that end, I remembered someone wrapping Brussels sprouts in golden candy paper, and while I thought that was funny, most kids who will ring at my door bell live below the official poverty line, which just makes it mean…

I'll probably do the same as every year: Mute the doorbell, write a letter to lost loved ones, and watch a heartwarming show with a side of comfort food. That doesn't perpetuate supernatural believes, and yet it doesn't leave unused a "special day", as I enjoy having the year structured, having recurring events, and self-chosen symbolic behaviours, and in that process, it often helps me to recycle dates that already exist: The stores get redecorated, society talks about the upcoming event, and even though for them these signs mean "hand out or collect candy" and for me they mean something else, even though that is the case, it still allows me to experience all the same anticipation – I enjoy that quite a bit! (With Easter, Christmas, New Year's and three other dates, I am happier to pretend they don't exist, happier to keep them out of my mind, as much as I possibly can.)

I further clarified the introduction, and added another footnote just in case, but changed the title back; I like my choice of words there and don't think it harms anyone – if anything, I think it is more descriptive of the content

Quote from Cassius

[…] in the end this is probably another example of how a tool is neutral and its results for pleasure or pain depends on context / how it is used.

Exactly; as said in the introduction, this post is expressly an attempt to illuminate one perspective

Quote from Cassius

If used with great care, it can be very powerful for pleasure.

"Cocaine isn’t habit-forming! I should know, I’ve been using it for years." – Tallulah Bankhead

Quote from Cassius

Given the content of the thread and the strong consensus I think most of us have that social media has major negative issues, I thought "considering" might not be strong enough.

In that case, what about: "Social Media is Anti-Epicurean: 101 Reasons Why"

That seems catchy, strong and descriptive to me – and leaves plenty of room for anyone to think further and add to my list

Thank you!

Quote from Cassius

I also wonder if it doesn't point to the need for additional steps or conclusions of some kind.

In order to keep things neatly in one piece, I have edited the original post to extend the conclusion.

"I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know, they do not approve, and what they approve, I do not know." – Epicurus (Seneca’s Letters, Book I, Letter XXIX)

In this post, I'd like to outline my view that social media, as it is understood today, can be considered inherently and invariably Anti-Epicurean.[1] To be clear, I do not intend to offer a balanced treatise on the subject, but to offer my own, opinionated position. I feel this is justified, considering that enough has already been said and implied in modern culture to enthral us with social media's alleged blessings. My goal, therefore, is to help anyone who is willing to reevaluate that, to help anyone who wants to put social media into perspective by offering my forthright contraposition.

Definition: For the purpose of this post, "social media" refers to the content visible to (nearly) everyone who also uses the same platform (eg profile, feed, comments). I do not refer to private messages sent between a very limited number of users (direct messages or small groups), nor do I refer to medium sized groups with moderation actively maintaining their good climate (such as this forum).

Why I consider social media to be Anti-Epicurean (in no particular order):

1. Living for Virtue: Throughout the Stoic-Christian dark ages of The West, social norms, such as gender roles, defined what one's life would be like. Playing one's part with sincerity meant doing well; personal desires or wishes were irrelevant. It took a very long time for authenticity, the development of personality based on personal values and preferences, to replace this. On social media, only virtuous profiles are successful, receive likes, followers, and little hate mail. This leads one to construct a profile around virtues and causes. Unlike theatre/movie actors playing a part, users identify with their profiles, thus want their real-life to keep up with the idealised online representation of themselves, such that they can feed their profile with proof of as much ideal, virtuous behaviour as possible: profilicity puts every thought under scrutiny, as the heteronomous "What would Jesus do"-attitude of sincerity is replaced by an equally heteronomous "How will social media react"-attitude of profilicity. This results in a life lived for causes and according to virtues sanctioned by the zeitgeist, which is engineered by people who do not have our best interests at heart (instead, they simply follow their own agenda).
2. Arrested Personal Development: With authenticity, any (un-)virtuous action was ephemeral, which allowed everyone to change their mind easily as facts change or new facts emerge; likewise, behaviour was ephemeral and limited to those it immediately affected, allowing personal development to take place without artificial restrictions. In contrast, social media archives all past statements and mishaps, which requires changes in opinion and behaviour to outshine, to overpower the cumulative weight of all past statements, creating much more inertia in how we are perceived. How we are perceived informs how others mirror ourselves back at us, which in turn influences how we see ourselves ("One becomes a self through encountering an other." – Martin Buber). How we see ourselves influences how we behave, closing the inertia loop. Many people know the extend of this effect when interacting with past friends or estranged relatives: The same social dynamic arises again, even though – on their own – many of those involved have long since changed. This is because what has not yet changed is their image, is how they're perceived, what is mirror back at them. This reactivates how they think of themselves, reactivates old roles, old behaviours, old feelings. Further inertia is created by the self-fulfilling prophecy of humans performing according to expectations, irrespective of whether those expectations are high or low, and other strong innate group effects (see section Unnatural Desire below).
3. Alliances not Friendships: Social media divorces action from reaction, such that we do not receive honest and immediate feedback on how our statements impact others: Feedback is often delayed, which limits emotional bonding.[2] Even when feedback is nearly immediate, it is filtered for compliance with virtues, to toe the party line and withstand public scrutiny, and its impact is flattened (eg, we will never react the same to a tearful emoji as we do to a physically present, crying person). This hinders the development of friendship, which is considered a central aspect of Epicurean life, because friendship relies on attachment, which in turn relies on holding space and emotional co-regulation: Not platitudes of sympathy (eg "At least it will end") but presence of empathy (eg "I'm here, I hold you") are what we seek when in pain, not platitudes of congratulation (eg "You worked hard for it") but presence of compersion (eg "Wow, show me!") are what we seek when exhilarated. At its worst, social media lacks the moderation of shame and empathy when forming lynch mobs. At its best, it forms positive alliances, which fall short of deep friendship.
4. Tempts to a Stoic Attitude: The real pain of enduring what self-righteous internet vigilantes can do easily outweighs the empty pleasure of virtual likes, which is why to be a feeling being on social media often contradicts hedonic calculus: the vulnerability of being authentic, being vulnerable by accidentally being oneself or by making a mistake results in anything from shaming to swatting, which can have profound, and even fatal effects. To protect from that, one has to portray a persona of virtuousness, exercise perfectionism, and in the inevitable event of a mistake, either adopt an emotionally Stoic attitude or withdraw, because showing emotion will only serve to further spur on the bullies; after this tidal wave is over, either the pain of shunning and ghosting needs to be endured – or being Stoically dead inside is invoked once more…
5. Anti-Science / Post-Truth: Epicurean philosophy implicitly follows the scientific method, where objective reality is the final judge of truth. However, fact-related interactions on social media are not rooted-in or tested-against reality, which is why they are considered post-truth debates. Rhetoric, PR tricks, and power of status matter more than reality. Additionally, when people have built their profiles around causes, they are unlikely to change their views, because any facts to the contrary don't just threaten their opinion, they threaten the entire identity, threatened the very core of who they understand themself as being. Instead, under conditions like this, the human psyche prefers false but self-validating information over the truth. Paired with the propaganda-like effect of algorithmic filter bubbles, all this can easily lead even critical thinkers astray and even radicalises ideologues to extremists and fanatics. And finally, even if one has been able to withstand all of this, the narrow corridor of opinion required to keep people in their mindless trance glued to the screen – which is the billion-dollar business of filter bubbles – will inevitably, insidiously serve to constrict one's Overton window, until so little openness to diverging views, let alone contradicting facts remains, that any sensible debate becomes impossible, effectively splintering society (making it vulnerable to divide-and-conquer-type political ploys), leaving detrimental groupthink and other bad group dynamics unchallenged, allowing them to solidify in people's minds. As habituation for diverging views/contradicting facts further diminishes, the severity of negative reactions to exposure to such views/facts increase: what should be nothing more than another point of view can suddenly cause outrage, even violent hate crime. As is the case with all gradual, subconscious psychological effects, this cannot be countered effectively, and eventually afflict everybody; furthermore, because the person does not know how open to diverging opinions/contradicting facts they would otherwise be, this induced shift in personality remains concealed from their conscious awareness, making it nonconsensual and harmful. ("The time when you should most of all withdraw into yourself is when you are forced to be in a crowd." – Epicurus (Seneca’s Letters, Book I, Letter XXV))
6. Unnatural Desire for Status: The allure to conform to groups is extremely hard to resist, even when we have nothing to gain. This is even more the case, when social pressure is applied or when group dynamics are at play, or authority is invoked — even by total strangers on the phone. This is because of humans' innate instincts as a pack animal. All these effects happen involuntarily, which makes it factually impossible to be uninfluenced by the feedback of likes, followers, and (positive or negative) comments. As a result, even if we can resist the group effects for a while, it requires immense effort, which will insidiously change our behaviour according to what yields the highest gain in status.
7. Unnatural Desire of Addiction: Social media is intentionally designed to capture as much attention as possible (because the corporations behind them earn their money through ad sales; there is no free lunch, so if a service is free, you are the product). Social media is designed to subconsciously, involuntarily keep one stuck in innate emotional response-systems, whether those are negative or positive emotions. This leads to more time spent as intended, followed by rationalisation, habituation, compulsion, addiction. We only have one life to live, and even though we're all different, I am confident neither "I wish I spent more time arguing with strangers online" nor "I wish I spent more time looking at cat videos" will be on any of our list of regrets.
8. Unnatural Desire for Perfection: The constant interaction with one's own and other's pretend-perfect social media profiles causes a strong desire to turn them into a reality, which can be debilitating. Besides damaged self-image and body-image, a tendency to consumer debt may result. Furthermore, constantly faking things for one's profile habituates people to lying, which is a slippery slope: Only those who see the truth, acknowledge it and face it can change. Others get stuck in cognitive dissonance and eventually develop unhealthy defense mechanisms, such as distortions. Thus, ignoring reality like this leads to Arrested Personal Development (see above) and risks mental health issues. ("All of humanity's problems stem from one's inability to sit quietly in a room alone." – Blaise Pascal)
9. Shortened Attention Span: Being able to focus on a task is mostly a trained skill (and typically not an innate capacity). Cultivating that skill allows for increasingly more difficult tasks to be doable within one's flow state, which is pleasurable. Thus, the investment into the ability to focus can easily pay off. On the other hand, social media use requires one to focus on many small, short and usually shallow items. This constant task switching is taxing for many, and lets the ability to focus, read longer texts and think with good depth atrophy, which can turn previously pleasurable tasks into chores, analogous to how many physical activities are possible and pleasurable to us only if we are fit enough.
10. Incompatible with miscellaneous Epicurean behaviours:
    1. Epicurus welcomed everybody; social media culture does not.
    2. The widespread use of intermittent reinforcement and FOMO, even without exploitation of the survival-instinct's negativity bias (eg through rage-baiting), is an outright antithesis to ataraxia. ("Although security on a human level is achieved up to a point by a power to resist and by prosperity, the security afforded by inner peace and withdrawing from the crowd is the purest." – PD14 (White))
    3. Additionally, Epicureans are inspired to think for themselves and to cultivate close friendships, not to hand over their agency or person to a commune. However, when one is continually exposed to campaigns, most of which are algorithmically perfected to bypass the scrutiny of rational thought, especially using dark patterns, bots and nudging, even the most stubborn mind will eventually succumb ("In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all, be a sheep." – Albert Einstein) and gradually believes can be internalised which one would otherwise have been rejected. In conjunction with all previously stated problems, social media thus amounts to smoldering, relentless brainwashing.
    4. Every species is hardwired for survival, which implies being hardwired for attaining as accurate and full a picture of reality as possible. This is why the inevitable adoption of a distorted view of reality by social media users leaves them with a vague, gnawing sense that something just isn't right, just doesn't add up. Continually overwriting this warning signal by one's subconscious is painful. The same is true for internalised egodystonic thoughts. ("If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich." – Epicurus (Seneca’s Letters, Book I, Letter XVI))
    5. Epicurean philosophy was not taught by beating about the bush; social media as a tool for exchange or learning would inevitably be just that (examples of much better options: for exchange, use a forum like this; to learn, read a book) and procrastination is in contradiction to Vatican Saying 14.
11. Imprudent: Epicurean schools were decentralised; social media is centralised. Epicurean schools were self-reliant; social media users depend on oligopolistic services of strangers. Epicurean philosophy could only spread and thrive because of free speech; outside of North America, social media is usually heavily censored. Throughout human history, the darkest detours were marked by a virtue-driven culture, by people over-identifying with a cause, which they forcibly went after by centralisation, censorship, policing their own peers, shunning, shaming, scapegoating, lack of empathy, dehumanisation, an ignorance of reality, as well as personality cults, creating the impression that everyone agrees, because nobody dares to speak their truth, and this false impression of universal consensus in turn served to justify all the evil actions being undertaken; all the ingredients to this soup of horror are readily available in social media. Playing with such fire is not prudent.

This lead me to conclude that I am better off without social media, and since I have quit (except for a de-social-media-ised version of Youtube), I feel quite unburdened and am much happier. Alternatives (in no particular order):

• Spend more time in reality.
• Shift activity to forums like this one, with a welcoming, supportive culture.
• Spend more time with private or small group conversations, such as email, chats/messengers, or better yet: phone calls.
• If social media cannot be avoided, using distributed (or at least federated) systems avoids the problems of centralisation. Some of these, especially distributed ones, also offer some protection of free speech on a technical level. Just a few (SSB & PZP) additionally follow a peer-to-peer invite-type model which mimics natural human interaction in fluent social circles and would not produce the negative effects inherent in currently widespread social media; unfortunately, they're uncommon, tricky to use, and receive no funding (probably because they can neither be monetised nor abused…).

Unfortunately, this approach might not work for everyone, particularly because quite some people still use Facebook groups (even though I feel like, thankfully, their heyday is over); a few might even use social media at work. If using social media for (something akin to) Facebook groups, I recommend searching the web for alternatives, particularly forums (like this one). If there is no suitable alternative, I'd suggest firmly establishing this habit: First create in your mind a small, measurable goal of what you want to achieve (eg "Ask the group about XYZ", "Read top 3 replies to XYZ"). After this goal is set, enter the platform, perform your task, and leave. (This is analogous to adhering to shopping lists to get a grip on impulse purchasing.)

For those who have trouble reliably staying in conscious control, such as staying on for longer than intended to perform tasks unrelated to the decided-upon goal, I suggest using Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP). That's the name of a method used to (re-)build and improve impulse control, which works nicely to regain awareness and control over Internet-based behaviours and many other behaviours which have left conscious control, which have taken on sort-of a life of their own. ERP has proven itself for many years (mostly around OCD), and there are now lots of good resources available for it. This makes it quite accessible, such that the majority of people can learn it on their own, without needing to consult professionals. (Which does not imply that practising ERP with someone who is experienced with it is without benefit.) I use ERP for certain behaviours myself (which I don't want to quit entirely, but better keep reigned in). From that experience, I can confirm the promise that after it was mastered for one problem, it readily lends itself to the next, and continually grows, making it increasingly more powerful, more effortless. "Human freedom involves our capacity to pause between the stimulus and response and, in that pause, to choose the one response toward which we wish to throw our weight." (Rollo May) It is precisely this freedom that ERP strengthens.

A more general conclusion is that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, and so once again a large portion of the population is motivated by social pressure to engage in a strange, harmful behaviour, which only serves to make other people happy – in the past, that might have been smoking or tight-lacing. Of course, none of these invaded one's mind quite as much, or carried within them the building blocks of dystopia. The good news is that social media did not eradicate other modes of interacting online – it had merely overshadowed them. Since then, much time has passed, which allowed forums and other modalities to become better, too. The few good features pioneered by social media were adopted, the remainder discarded, and as long as users continue to select the fittest, the evolution of the web will continue. However, users need to select, need to assume their responsibility and make conscious, wise choices. If where we spend our time is the new currency, lets purchase the quality each and every one of us deserves.

Footnotes:

1. Please note the language: "my view", "can be considered". Just like articles titled "X considered harmful" do not attempt to praise but to criticise X, I will not even attempt to defend social media. Since there are no absolutes, there will always be a case in which social media is positive. My opinion is, however, that (a) if social media didn't exist, the majority of those positive outcomes would have happened in another way, and, most importantly, that (b) if everyone who is, after carefully considering the facts, harmed by social media would leave it, there would be no social media left – it would just be a handful of people on an odd, obscure site. I am painfully aware that this is not because social networking protocols for user-generated content must always be bad, but because of how social media, as we know it today, has implemented this idea. If I could, I would happily help those who work on redesigning it from scratch. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to do so. In my opinion, while the idea underlying social media is as valuable as mankind's understanding of nuclear physics, the actual implementation of it is as bad as atomic bombs – and are atomic bombs absolutely bad? Certainly not, seeing how a select few people made a lot of money with them, how a case can even be imagined where they safe the world from a meteorite – but none of that justifies them as a casual part of daily life, does it?
2. This can be demonstrated if the Strange Situation is modified such that the caregiver is shown on a delayed video screen; once the delay exceeds a low threshold, the attachment breaks (and can only be repaired if the delay is reduced). Similarly, attunement, emotional co-regulation, holding empathic space require being present with each other – not being present after one another…

Thank you for pointing out those references to me!

"An event made up of events" does fit my visualisation of it quite nicely, because (even though time really is a continuous stream) I think of it as an very infinite series of not-quite-as infinitesimally short moments, such that it is more like what's called a stop frame animation. Then, every frame is one event, and all of the various things which changed with this new frame are also events, making each frame an event of events, and time itself and event of events of events. Considering, now, that my perspective-shift from time being a continuous stream to "frames" was artificial, the middle layer of events was artificial, which makes time a never-ending event, itself comprised of minuscule events; an event of events. That it would be "accompanied" by anything seems rather strange to me…rather, I'd say it "brings with it" or "allows for" everything. Might be a translation issue? Maybe I understand his "event of events" wrong? Or maybe, dare I say it, Epicurus was only human and didn't chose his verb perfectly?

Regarding the Herculaneum scrolls, I skimmed over the article, and I'm genuinely very happy to see people working on these, but I've found I'm better off focusing on actual translations – the scrolls themselves still just breaks my heart…

How I Think About Time

We've all seen projections of 3D objects onto 2D planes, such as this arch. It is reasonably easy for us to understand what we see is supposed to be a three-dimensional building, even though we really only see strange lines on a flat screen, even though all we see is in 2D. Paintings, photographs and motion pictures are such 3D-onto-2D projections, after we're born, we start practising them as soon as we can say "Crayon!" and by the time we're grown up, we know them well.

Now, imagine for a moment, you meet a 2D creature: Their body is in 2D, their senses can only perceive 2D and their mind's capabilities are also limited to concepts of a maximum of two dimensions. Soon, you might find them in a situation like this:

You and I, because we're 3D-capable humans, we see that our new 2D friend is in a 3D world, but they themselves can't make heads or tails of it – they keep bumping into that block, without understanding why, because to them, with their pure 2D perception and understanding, it looks just like all the rest of the world! Eventually, they will reason about their world, use the 2D sense perception they have, and theorise that "Whenever there is a dark spot (shadow) on the floor an invisible obstacle is near!" They will test the theory, see it to be 100% true, call it a law of physics, and it will help them make sense of things; not perfectly, but much better than before.

Just like the third spacial dimension is beyond the sensory abilities and mental conceptualisation capabilities of our 2D friend, any fourth dimension would be beyond the sensory and mental abilities of humans: We cannot visualise or think in four dimensions. We can merely reason about additional dimensions, even reason mathematically and geometrically, but we literally cannot hold dimensions beyond 3D in our mind the same as we can three dimensions; the hardware just isn't there for our brains to do that. The same is true for the sensation of time: Just like UV radiation, we cannot sense it directly. We can sense UV's effect, sense a sun-burn, we can also reason about where it came from, but we cannot directly sense the UV light due to which it occurred, and we cannot see UV light in our mind's eye, either – if we try to, we'll intuitively just end up transposing the colour of UV (which we never saw and never will see…) onto a colour we know – for me it's bright purple. So even though we cannot sense nor hold UV light as a concept (mind's eye), we can sense it's effects and reason about it. Magnetism is the same: Unlike migratory birds or sea-creatures, we cannot sense the earth's magnetic field directly, either. We can, however, use a compass to transpose magnetism onto our visual sense – just like we can transpose UV light to visual light and pretend it's bright purple. And for time, we use a clock to project that dimension onto our other senses: A typical clock allows me to see the effects of time, about half my clocks also allow me to hear the effects of time, and for a long time I even wore a watch that enabled me to feel haptically the effects of time, but never do I see, hear or otherwise feel or sense time itself directly – and this is why, in sensory deprivation, humans gradually loose all sense about time.

The opposite of sensory deprivation is sensory augmentation; and indeed: Sensory augmentation massively enhances and trains our sense of time – for a while. For example: If you're subjected to a one-minute noise every 15 minutes, after a day or so, you'll know quite precisely when the current 15-minute-interval is up, you'll be able to count down to the beginning of the next noise almost to the second. However, this new-found precision in your intuition of time does not last for more than a day or two after the noises stop, because it is precisely that, an intuition -- not a sense. (Similar ways exist to, for example, enhance intuitive navigation and spatial reasoning, but they too don't last after the augmentation is stopped.)

So to make sense of a fourth dimension, we need to simplify things first. Personally, I prefer to mentally "step out of the universe". To do that, I artificially limit the infinity of space; for instance, I pretend the universe consists merely of our solar system. I'm floating in space next to it, clicking away at my Kodak. Now, the passage of time is captured as the frame-by-frame progression on film:

Instead of capturing reality in such vastly simplified 2D scenes, I could capture it as perfect 3D-to-2D projections, such as proper photos, or even holograms. And what's more, I could account for the swerve (or quantum probability effects), by adding branches:

In this scene, at first there was a plain wooden chair, neatly captured on film as a 3D-to-2D projection. During each day, I make one picture at the same time. During the night from the 2nd to the 3rd day, due to the the swerve, complex quantum probabilities and free-willed humans, there will be two choices: Either it starts to rain, or someone comes to paint the chair. The past is a single, simple sequence of events, the future is still undetermined, and branches into different sequences at every swerve/quantum/choice junction. Once any given junction is reached, only one possibility will actually manifest and become a real event in the timeline. The other options, and all they would have led to in turn, will be lost entirely, forever – and just like in a 3D cinema, no matter the tantrum I throw, there are no do-overs, no scenes are ever replayed, and I don't get to press pause, either.

(Another way to think of time is to think of the universe as residing in a cylinder, which is shot through a pneumatic tube mail system: the further it moves ahead, the further time progresses inside the transport cylinder. For every swerve/quantum/choice event, the cylinder reaches a junction box, from where our universe is transported along one lane or another – and the path-not-taken is effectively lost forever (in science fiction, the path-not-taken is usually called alternate timeline).)

This is how I think of time – and this is why I think that Epicurus appeals to our intuitive understanding of it: We cannot sense it directly, because we have no such organ. We cannot hold it as a concept mentally, because our senses don't capture it and it is an additional dimension, which is beyond what our brains can do. We can only reason about it, we can only infer it's existence, because our senses don't lie, and they offer perpetual streams of varying sensory perceptions. Through the life-long exposure to these, we gain an intuitive – that is: non-sensual, internal, gut – understanding of time, because our brains learn to simulate it to some extend (ie, we can approximately tell when one minute has passed), thanks to various biological cycles ("clocks"); but they each depend on being perpetually re-adjusted based on the streams of varying sensory inputs we get.

(In terms of physics, time can reasonably be called a "dimension", however it is not an additional spatial dimension, such as height/width/depth; it is a dimension of its own kind, and behaves differently. However, for ordinary day-to-day life, I still find it very useful to imagine it spatially in the ways outlined above.)

Quote from kochiekoch

The bowmen must have been incredibly deadly.

Especially since there was no hiding from them.

For me, discussion of images always beings to mind the aphasia-hyperphasia continuum (some people have no mind's eye, some people have a vivid photorealistic one, and it is not an ability (fixed innate) but a skill (ie, it is flexible and can be trained) as well as the equally learnable skill to consciously create pseudohallucinations (to see the images of the mind's eye superimposed on-top of physical eye's images, as opposed to seeing them in a separate mental black-blank-canvas kind of space).

As I had describe regarding a previous episode (but after this one was recorded), it is entirely possible that ancient Greeks had their brains abilities developed so differently, that the resulting skills would seem unusual to us today. Considering the differences of average Western physical abilities versus those of children, adolescents and adults raised in Shaolin Kung-Fu monestaries, there is little reason to assume the mental skills of average modern Westerners would virtually identical to those raised in a similarly foreign environment than that of a Shaolin monestary – especially since it is known fact these skills exist and can be trained.

To illustrate once again the extent to which mental architecture and processing differs between subjects, it is entirely possible to train – rather than “train”, I should really say torture… – a child into developing dissociative skills to the extend that their perfectly healthy eyes will no longer evoke the pre-conscious electrical responses in the brain's visual center, rendering them blind for all intents and purposes: rather than their eyes seeing something, their minds becoming aware of it, but choosing to ignore it, their eyes see something, but the information does no reach their visual cortex, and they do not even subconsciously become aware of what their eyes saw. (Some can, later, regain their sight, because none of the nerves and infrastructure needed to see was ever actually damaged; it was just unplugged, disconnected, dissociated at the lowest level.)

To summarise, I think when discussing the images and idols, it might really be beneficial to keep in mind how different visualisation skills are between people, and how different the abilities of Average Jane Doe are compared to those of, say, East Asian monks, even though they arguably start from being the same quality babies Then, the idea the Ancient Greeks frequently had quite vivid and realistic images pop up effortlessly in their mind's eye, and they were simply looking for a reason for that, might no longer seem so absurd, and it would explain why this topic keeps being brought up alongside physical sight, using parallel vocabulary.

Now, if y'all won't mind, I'll be going to casually punch through five layers of solid bricks whilst standing on hot coal without feeling any discomfort

A less related example, but useful to make the point of just how different even simple, basic, and seemingly obvious things like shooting a bow and arrow were from how we think of them today, and how the evidence seems to have been there all along but nobody was ready to see it (until Lars Andersen entered the scene[1]).

I think it's really okay to think outside the box a bit more when it comes to these images appearing in the minds of Epicurus or Lucretius. In an environment were non-atomism is the prevailing conceptualisation of the world, closely connecting visual sight with visualisation really stands to reason, and is, in fact, much more reasonable than most people think, even according to modern science (cf what I said above, plus: the brain heavily auto-corrects according to what it expects to see, as our eyes themselves aren't actually all that good).

[1] If you like (watching) archery, he re-invented and perfected-by-practise even more tricks that for centuries were considered "exaggerated myths" and "impossible" during the nine years after the video I linked to was made.

Quote from Cassius

That's kind of the distinction I see in the Stirner quote. the first part I identify with, but "I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too" comes pretty close to total idealism in my book.

Much has been lost in translation, partly due to Stirners quite idiosyncratic use of German even for the time (early 1840s), partly due to shifts in both German and English, which changed connotations since then. As such, my translation to modern English would be:

Max Stirner in The Unique and Their Selfownership: I love humans, too; not just specific ones, but everyone. But I love them with the conscious awareness of an Egoist; I love them, because love itself makes me happy; I love, because loving comes natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no "commandment of love." I have empathy with every feeling being, and their agony torments, their recreation refreshes me.

Stirner knew about the Epicureans, but had various misconceptions, some of which are common to this day.[1]. In my mind, Stirner – by chance – partially reinvented the wheel, albeit from a different framing and with new vocabulary, and in doing so did something loosely akin to[2] expanding upon Classical Epicureanism by applying it to modern economy, the state and law. Engels (Marx's companion) was his adversary, mischaracterised him at every chance and slandered him in a poem (rhymes lost in translation):

Look at Stirner, see him, the thoughtful hater of barriers
For now he drinks beer, soon he'll drink blood like water
Like others wildly yell: "Get rid of the king!"
He swiftly adds: "And get rid of laws, as well!"

To me, Stirner and Epicurus parallel each other even in the lengths their adversaries went to in suppressing their ideas Anyhow. I digress! All I meant to say was: Cassius , I disagree, because Stirner was very outspokenly against ideology, and what he really wanted to say with that passage is, if I may paraphrase: "Just because I embrace my own egoism, just because I am unapologetic and transparent about doing what gives me pleasure, doesn't mean I'm any less empathic or compassionate than you are; the opposite might well be true!" I dare say, that could just as well be proclaimed by an Epicurean like yourself

[1] Stirner once referred to an article by Feuerbach, which in turn contains the figurative(!) passage "[the ideas] move around in the empty space of his own self like Epicurean atoms […]". From this, I assume that Epicureans were well-known amongst The Free Ones, the informal group Stirner was part of. As far as I remember this was before Stirner's The Unique was published. Also five years prior to Stirner's The Unique is published, Feuerbach passes a fleeting remark about Epicureans in section 29 of his treatise On Criticism Of Hegel's Philosophy; I would expect Stirner to have read that. Later, Kropotkin explicitly notes the similarity between Epicurean thought and Stirner in the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910. Stirner himself mentioned Epicureans, including some nomenclature like "Ataraxia" a few times in The Unique. Therein, he both bundles Epicureans with Stoics and delineates them from each other, but does not appear to fully grasp Epicureans: He relates the descriptive state of Ataraxia to the prescriptive action of Stoic bravery/imperturbability, and seems to think Epicureans consider the world and it's people as much their mortal enemy as Stoics do, except that Epicureans also want to have a good time by tricking the very thing they reject into giving then pleasure. That is a rather wild mischaracterisation of wanting to, for example, stay out of politics, live a calm life, prepare for eventualities, and so forth. I think he fell prey to the "Epicureans are just hedonistic Stoics" narrative. Stirner died 20 years prior to DeWitt being born.

[2] "loosely akin to", because he didn't do this on purpose, and – as said in [1] – seems to have somewhat misunderstood Epicureans, but partially reinvented the wheel with a different focus, thus often coming up with parallel results.

Quote from Martin

I guess that "well-constituted" refers to people who are still willing to learn and adapt as they see fit if they encounter ideas which are new for them or which they have neglected in the past.

Oh, I see. Thank you!

Quote from Pacatus

The first (Hillel’s version) is negatively formed – and I have often preferred it

I also consider the negatively phrased version to be much preferable, because positively-phrased ones allow for imposing one's ideology onto others, which never ends well. Also, I would note the Christianist versions at least remain at a first-person level; with the abstraction to all of "mankind" found in the Islamist version ("That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.") virtually any atrocity can be justified. Other Islamist versions are translated/rendered using "brother", which opens up the loop-hole that non-conforming men simply aren't "brothers" and women are unprotected. The Christianist's "neighbour" seems less prone to being twisted in these ways.

I consider PD31 to be an improvement, because it incorporates a mandate to self-defence, unlike the Christianist's "turn the other cheek" doctrine. (This mandate to self-defence reminds me of the Libertarian porcupine (a mascot loosely analogous to the elephant and donkey), which "[…] was chosen because the porcupine is a defensive animal. It does not shoot its quils (contrary to myth), so it does not harm anyone who respects its boundaries, analogous to the non-aggression principle.")

Quote from Pacatus

Michel Onfray incorporated a somewhat more positively formed dictum in his Hedonist Manifesto: “Enjoy and have others enjoy, without doing harm to yourself or anyone else; that is all there is to morality” – especially if one takes that “have” in an active, rather than passive, sense.

I would not like to take "have" in an active sense, because that would make the pleasures of other people my responsibility; something which I am very firmly and vehemently against. If they are able, they can take care of their own pleasures, and I will not harm them. If they are disabled, I will take care of them to the extent that this pleases me. This is inherently ethical, because there is no reason that I should suffer for someone else, and furthermore, receiving "care" from people who are forced to provide it (because they aren't pleased by providing it) ends in abuse of the person in need, even if the one administering the care is an otherwise good person.

Quote from Cassius

...because rather than "personal conscience" I think you can substitute "pleasure." It gives a lot of people "pleasure' to want to make life better for "others in general" - even where you don't have direct relationships with those others.

But as to the general drift of your question as to whether there is anything in Epicurus that would provide some kind of general instruction analogous to a "great commission" to do so, I don't think such a thing would exist because that would come too close to a sort of "idealism" that would be inconsistent with much of the rest of the philosophy. But I think here is plenty of reason for thinking the it enhances your own happiness by making life better for others.

This is a line of thinking I first encountered in Max Stirner's egoism; to quote Wikipedia on that:

"[Stirner] believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this — as willing egoists — could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not — as unwilling egoists — will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion."

Now, let me modify this excerpt by replacing some key words appropriately:

"[Julia 😊] believed that everyone was propelled by their own pleasure and that those who accepted this — as willing Epicureans — could freely live their pleasures, while those who did not — as unwilling Epicureans, such as deceptive ("modern") Stoics — will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause [such as virtue] while they are secretly fulfilling their own pleasures. The willing Epicurean would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion."

To me, this way of phrasing it, is still quite persuasive and compelling. It doesn't beat around the bush. I'd paraphrase it as: "You'll be going after your own pleasure anyway; by being aware of and honest about it, things can only improve."

Quote from Diogenes of Oenoanda

So (to reiterate what I was saying) observing that these people are in this predicament, I bewailed their behaviour and wept over the wasting of their lives, and I considered it the responsibility of a good man to give benevolent assistance, to the utmost of one's ability, to those of them who are well-constituted. This is the first reason for the inscription.

I haven't yet read the inscription; which is probably why I don't understand this: Why does Diogenes of Oenoanda want to help those who are "well-constituted"? Doesn't that mean helping those who don't need help? Shouldn't he want to help those who are badly constituted? Or does he want to help the rich to lead good lives, such that their examples might spread, and their wealth/power not be abused?

Semi-Political Tangent

I think the importance of the Golden Rule cannot be overestimated, because…

• …I think it necessarily leads to a society based on genuinely voluntary win-win exchanges, which I consider a stepping stone to prosperity, freedom, and peace, which in turn I consider to be a requirement for the continuation of the human race due to the advent of the nuclear and genetic age. This is essentially the libertarian anti-capitalist free-market anarchist's perspective also found in Jay Snelson's book Taming the Violence of Faith.
• …I think it is hard to corrupt the well-phrased Golden Rule, because it refers back to the individual's own sensations and feelings, rather than referring to abstract concepts (which are prone to being misconstrued), and in this way can serve as a potent antidote to authoritarian sociopathy, the corruption through power, Stanford-Prison-Experiment- and Milgram-Experiment-esque effects, and so on, if only people's identity is firmly grounded in their philosophical/religious/… system of choice. Which is to say that, when push comes to shove, even a Christianist is less dangerous than someone without a firmly grounded identity. Note this excerpt of what Joshua quoted from Diogenes of Oenoanda above: "the majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things, and their number is increasing (for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another, like sheep)" That's why rulers like their subjects to have no identity other than as subjects of the rulers, and why the worst cases of indoctrination involve all areas of life that can impact identity formation: schools, media, culture, press, books, …

In short, I consider the Golden Rule as a key element towards a life without "the crimes to which Religion [and institutionalised government and all other forms of unnatural power] leads".

(I hope this tangent is not too political; if it is, moderators please do delete it. I don't mean to cause any drama.)

Quote from Cassius

I use those interchangeably, depending on whether I am in the mood to be charitable ("neoepicurean") or just want to refer to the groupthink aspect of it ("orthodoxy")

Oh, I see! Thank you for clarifying

Quote from Kalosyni

Thanks and editing my above post

Quote from Kalosyni

coming up with phrases

Just to avoid confusion ("to come up with" can be: invent or find/remember), the numbered sentences are all historic (CIL is the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). I would consider these translations:

CIL 6.38506: I was not, I was, I am not, I do not desire (desidero)
CIL 6.9258: I was not, and I am, I will not be, it neither pains nor grieves me (dolet)
CIL 8.4840: Once we were not, whence we were born, now we are at peace (quieti), as we were, care left

Granted, from context both "at rest" and "at peace" would be synonymous, but I'd prefer sticking closer to the original: "being quiet, still, peaceful" (quies) has a different connotation than "being at rest" (requies) in my mind

Quote from Kalosyni

Here is a very long way of saying it (lol):

For an eternity I did not exist, but then I was born.
I died, and now for an eternity I will no longer exist.
Nothing of me remains to be concerned about this.

The kids these days say "Yolo" (You only live once)

(PS: This all reminds me of how much I'm waiting for the Herculaneum scrolls!)

Quote from Cassius

Yes Julia I need to be more clear and avoid irony / sarcasm in some formulations, and you are right that "orthodox" has confusing possibilities.

Most of the time I use the term I am referring to "modern orthodoxy," rather than an attitude of actually attempting to be true to the Epicurean views of 2000 years ago. In my experience "orthodoxy" has always had a very negative connotation, and that's why I tend to use it negatively and rarely if ever positively. But you are right, loose references are likely to be confusing, and I plan to work on avoiding the term unless I am very clearly spelling out the meaning I intend.

Well, yes, but: What's the difference between this "modern orthodoxy" and "neo-Epicurean"?

Quote from Don

I also found an alternate version online:

If I may add:

• olim non fuimus, nati sumus unde, quieti nunc sumus, ut fuimus, cura relicta (CIL 8.4840) [This one is a bit long]
• non fui, fui, non sum, non desidero (CIL 6.38506) [Too Buddhist for me…]
• non fui, et sum, non ero, non mihi dolet (CIL 6.9258) [Too Stoic for me…]
• non fui, deinde fui, modo non sum (CIL 2.404) [Getting closer]

→ "Non fui, nunc sum, non ero" would be great, but I'm unhappy because I just made it up (Is it even correct Latin? My Latin is practically non-existent. (I know the historical ones were just made up once upon a time, too; but their being historical makes them feel different to me.)) Of the historical ones, so far I might like best the one Don brought up, "Non fui, fui, memini, non sum, non curo" (CIL 13.530):

NFFMNSNC

Hmmm