Should Epicurean Philosophy Be Made More Accessible?

That's a good article. I especially liked the last line:

Quote from Shermer

The fact that science progresses toward, say, eradicating diseases and landing spacecraft on Mars must mean that our perceptions of reality are growing ever closer to the truth, even if it is with a small “t.”

I think the canonical faculties are there to give us a "true" presentation of what's "out there" in the real world. Epicurus says as much, to me, when he wrote (emphasis added):

Quote from Epicurus

For the presentations which, e.g., are received in a picture or arise in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind or by the other criteria of truth, would never have resembled what we call the real and true things, had it not been for certain actual things of the kind with which we come in contact.

Those things "with which we come in contact" are the things in the real world which our senses sense. I will say Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research augments my understanding on this. We jump from a stick or rope on the ground, thinking it is a snake, because it's easier for our brains to identify "long, thin shape on ground = snake > Run!" than to analyze every instance. Save yourself first; Laugh at false alarm later. That's a nutshell from me. Thanks for posting!

Quote from Kalosyni

Don you gave my post on ethics a confused smilie. Do you think that what I posted about ethics might not be Epicurean, or possibly goes beyond Epicureanism? What part were you confused about?

Oh!! My bad! I didn't see its connection to the specific article right before it. That's the only reason for the confused emoji.

Quote from Kalosyni

The reason I haven't spent much time with Epicurean physics and epistemology is that I am a firm believer in modern science. I think it might be important to contrast Epicurus' ideas with modern scientific understanding.

Parts of Epicurean physics are certainly outdated, but not all by any means, and none of Epicurean epistemology would really fit the "outdated" parts. I think as you read further into it you will find much that you won't otherwise understand as to how the Epicurean Ethics works.

Quote from Kalosyni

So now we must extend this "do no harm" to all people.

And this would be example number one. I am no expert on Kant, but the notion of "extending to all people" sounds like a Kantian categorical imperative, which I would say has no parallel at all in Epicurus, which would be quite the opposite in viewpoint. In Epicurus there is no universal justice, but in fact only local and subjective justice, for example as stated in PD33 and PD34.

While I don't share the extreme conclusions of some about "live unknown" there is a very strong strain of "subjectivism" in Epicurean philosophy where you don't expect everyone to agree with you on everything, and so with those who don't (who can't be made your friends because of it, you don't force them and yourself to live we each, you "separate." PD39

And there is no reason that you would tolerate others doing what you believe to be harmful to yourself, even though they don't agree with it's correctness. Such people you don't "reform," you "restrain," "Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.

I think as you read more into these physics and epistemology issues you'll begin to resolve some of your questions about what Epicurus was teaching. Note that I am not saying that you will agree with them, but that you'll begin to understand why they don't lead toward universal ethical values for everyone at all times and all places. Yes, I do think that it is possible to generalize that in most cases pleasure is to be chosen and pain to be avoided, but we don't even do that ALWAYS even in our own cases -- sometimes we choose pain in order to bring more pleasure to us later.

Possibly the big question in all this is "Whose pleasure?" I think you'll eventually find that the "greatest pleasure for the greatest number" might be Utilitarian philosophy, but not consistent with Epicurus.

**********

Admin Edit: For the continued discussion on the topic of justice, go here.

I am slogging through editing the most recent podcast and I think some of the issues we are discussing here are either the same or the subtext of this podcast episode. There are multiple levels of meaning and application in a lot of these issues, and they fly in the face of common attitudes we've learned or been exposed to in other places. And I dare say that most of us (me included) have very little experience in the Epicurean perspectives, so we make mistakes when trying to build up from the foundation when we think he is going to arrive where we already are -- and so we tend to think that we don't NEED the foundation.

That's a big problem to figure out ways around, but it's one of the reasons why we did the reading of Lucretius and I do think we need to urge everyone to try to go through that for themselves and listen to as many as possible.

Maybe we also need to make a list of "best" episodes since we now have so many, but this issue of how the physics and epistemology relate to the ethics is something that came up over and over in the podcast so there is some good material there especially in the episodes covering the early books where we dealt with these issues for the first time.

Somebody help me --- what's the reference in Lucretius to the point about a new scheme of philosophy presents itself in Epicurus, and what you should do is dive into it and either determine it is true and embrace it, or determine it is false and fight it with everything you've got?

I hate it when I can't remember text references.

(Note: It is amazing how Don and I can crosspost almost exactly to the second.)

From Brown's translation of Book 2, line 1023:

Now apply your mind closely to the documents of true reason, for a new scheme of philosophy presses earnestly for your attention, a new scene of things displays itself before you. Yet there is nothing so obvious but may at first view seem difficult to be believed, and there is nothing so prodigious and wonderful at first that men do not by degrees cease to admire. For see the bright and pure color of the sky, possessed on every side by wandering stars, and the Moon’s splendor, and the Sun's glorious light; these, if they now first shown to mortal eyes, and suddenly presented to our view, what could more wonderful appear than these? And what before could men less presume to expect? Nothing surely, so surprising would be the sight have been. But now, quite tired and cloyed with the prospect, none of us vouchsafes so much as to cast our eyes up towards the bright temples of the sky. Therefore do not be frightened, and conceive an aversion to an opinion because of its novelty; but search it rather with a more piercing judgment. If it appears true to you, embrace it; if false, set yourself against it.

Bailey version:

[1023] Now turn your mind, I pray, to a true reasoning. For a truth wondrously new is struggling to fall upon your ears, and a new face of things to reveal itself. Yet neither is anything so easy, but that at first it is more difficult to believe, and likewise nothing is so great or so marvelous but that little by little all decrease their wonder at it. First of all the bright clear color of the sky, and all it holds within it, the stars that wander here and there, and the moon and the sheen of the sun with its brilliant light; all these, if now they had come to being for the first time for mortals, if all unforeseen they were in a moment placed before their eyes, what story could be told more marvelous than these things, or what that the nations would less dare to believe beforehand? Nothing, I trow: so worthy of wonder would this sight have been. Yet think how no one now, wearied with satiety of seeing, deigns to gaze up at the shining quarters of the sky! Wherefore cease to spew out reason from your mind, struck with terror at mere newness, but rather with eager judgement weigh things, and, if you see them true, lift your hands and yield, or, if it is false, gird yourself to battle.

Book 2.1042?

Si falsum est, accingere contra. ?

Yes that's it, and crossposted again! I pasted the full Brown and Bailey translations above.

Somebody made the point that maybe the thread was driving from the original topic. Maybe we should step back and ask, in the process of making it more accessible, what does "it" refer to.

Since Kalosyni is fairly new here, what in a thumbnail are we talking about more accessible? (In terms of a list of five or six key points that we think might not currently be easily accessible?)

Yes it is hard to figure out how to organize things and it may be that conversations have to develop naturally.

But now that we've been reminds a couple of times about the personal outline approach, I think that would be particularly helpful for you, Kalosyni, given that it helps quickly highlight fundamentals and places where questions may arise that you may not recognize:

Personal Outlines of Epicurean Philosophy

Preparing an outline and incorporating the resulting feedback was extremely helpful for me, and provided some good guidance in how to proceed with grasping the philosophy. I confess it was intimidating at first, as I'm quite new to studying philosophy. But the exercise was well worth it.

(I should probably take another look at mine and see how my understanding has evolved since then....)