Epicurean Worldview, Personal Identity, and Creating Community

    Quote from smoothiekiwi

    Well, but the theory that "the world only consists of atoms and void" is false (waves), that the "universe is infinite" (it only expands really fast, but it has a border), that the multitude of atoms is infinite (we've only a few types of quarks and bosons), etc..... so I wouldn't call EP coherent by today's standards. Sadly.

    I am not sad ;) :

    Some of Epicurus' statements on physics do not match reality as we model it today and are therefore obsolete. It is part of the history of science that older theories get replaced by better ones. That does not take anything away from the merit of the obsolete theories.

    Moreover, EP is still coherent in itself despite that some of its statements on physics are obsolete. None of the conclusions derived for the philosophy depend on the obsolete parts.

    Another perspective to look at it is to not take the statements literally to have to match modern science but just to describe the analogies between them and modern science.

    Or we can consider them as analogous to those unrealistic idealizations which we use today sometimes as physical models because they combine mathematical simplicity with sufficient accuracy. E.g., the universe is much larger than a human can travel in his lifetime. Therefore, it is a good approximation to call the universe infinite in size.


    Waves are complementary to particles and are therefore rather a refinement than something that exists completely without particles. Taking this into account and by assigning physical properties to the void, there are still just particles and void from a very basic perspective.


    As of now, we have no experimental base to claim for sure that the universe is not infinite. We have a horizon beyond which we cannot see but that horizon expands with the speed of light. The furthest away parts of the universe which are now still within the horizon seem to move beyond it to be never seen again because of the apparent expansion of space.

    Quote from Don

    has led me to understand he was including a calm mind in his definition of what it means to lead a pleasureable life.

    Yes, and the key world there is "including" -- which is different from what some modern commentators seem to allege when they convert Epicurean philosophy into "Tranquilism" - with calmness as the highest good of life.


    Also, I should clarify that when I seemed to admit the possibility that someone might choose a life of contemplation as their highest good, I was trying only to make the theoretical point that there's no absolute single definition of how to experience pleasure as the highest good, so i suppose someone "might" want to devote themselves to a life of contemplation, if that somehow floats their boat. The bigger difficulty would be to succeed in sustaining that. i doubt that either of these would be very common, and they probably are not even possible to sustain for very long.

    Don , I agree with your statements, but can’t really „feel“ through them. Will take a Little more time and think about that :)

    Martin , I also agree with your statement that the Ethics still remain valid, but I still have the feeling that Epicurus had a few inconstistencies in his physics. His idea, that the Sun is as big as it seems (—> DeWitt), is very naive, even in the ancient world. As I’ve said, that doesn’t mean that the Ethics are worthless, only that the Physics seems to be not refined by todays standards, at least as far as I can jud he.

    Quote from Cassius

    Yes, and the key world there is "including"

    No question.

    Even at its most basic wording, we need *both* "the health of the body *and* the tranquility of the mind" for our well-being. That's why Epicurus's definition of pleasure in the letter to Menoikeus does not include an "endless string of drinking parties." That would be detrimental to the health of the body at the very least.

    Quote from smoothiekiwi

    His idea, that the Sun is as big as it seems (—> DeWitt), is very naive, even in the ancient world

    He was clearly wrong, but I don't think that "naive" is warranted. He had very specific epistemological reasons for his view point based on observing objects at a distance here one earth, and he was also concerned about the use of mathematecs to allege that the sun and other stars are gods. Exploring that further belongs in another thread, but I wanted to make a note on this.


    Also, as to Martin's post above, which I agree with, I think the big picture point on all of this is that Epicurus was using his physics as a foundation for his epistemology, such as is stated in the quote that's currently at the top of the website home page:


    Quote

    Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible. ... [W]hen cognition and knowledge have been invalidated, every principle concerning the conduct of life and the performance of its business becomes invalidated. So from natural science we borrow courage to withstand the fear of death, and firmness to face superstitious dread, and tranquillity of mind, through the removal of ignorance concerning the mysteries of the world, and self-control, arising from the elucidation of the nature of the passions and their different classes....


    And we can see that reflected in Diogenes Laertius:


    Quote

    We must begin with the first letter, but I will first speak briefly about the divisions of his philosophy. It is divided into three parts, the Canonicon (or Procedure), the Physics and the Ethics. The Canonicon gives the method of approach to the system, and is contained in the work called The Canon. The Physics contains all the investigation into nature, and is contained in the thirty-seven books On Nature and in an abridged form in the letters. The Ethics deals with choice and avoidance, and is contained in the books On Lives and the letters and the book on The End. The Epicureans usually group the Canonicon with the Physics and state that it deals with the criterion of truth and the fundamental principles and contains the elements of the system.


    In the past I don't think I paid sufficient attention to that line, and I think from now on I am going to emphasize it as strongly as I can.


    The purpose of the study of phyiscs is to be able to grasp the way the universe works well enough to understand how to make sense of anything. Unless you have a basic framework that establishes that knowledge is possible, you can't make any progress on anything else.


    Epicurean physics isn't perfect from our point of view today, but it provided a basis for being able to have confidence in things right in front of us - things that are essential to happy living. I don't think anything in modern physics has come close to an effective challenge to that basic point of view, which is probably summarized in this statement of Diogenes of Oinoanda. He gets taken to task for attributing the wrong view to Aristotle rather than to others, but I am not going to be quick to just as wrong someone who presumably had access to much more of Aristotle's materials than we do. The point is to argue against those "who hold the same view... that nothing is scientifically knowable...."


    Quote

    Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

    Quote from Don

    Approaching life with a calm, tranquil mind makes us much better equipped to make choices and rejections for what will lead to a pleasurable life. A calm and tranquil mind is a base of operations from which to encounter the "slings and arrows" of our daily existence. It's not living numb in the world. It's like a lens through which to clearly encounter and evaluate what needs to be done. If our minds are disturbed, troubled, turbulent, it's like driving through our lives with a dirty windshield in a snowstorm. There is nothing wrong or improper about trying to have a tranquil mind. I think it can allow us to experience life more fully, more pleasurably. That's my summary take on this tranquility discussion.

    Thank you Don, this is very important in my opinion. I think that what causes a problem is the meaning of the words "tranquil" and "tranquility" because these imply that when one is tranquil, there is nothing going on in the mind. It might be better to say a "smooth and clear running mind"...so maybe the word "equanimity"...not out of some kind of forced stoic ideal...but because of throughly understanding the materiality of the world (and thus not fearing death) and utilizing the guidance of prudence toward the Epicurean aim of enjoyment and pleasure.

    Quote from Don

    Epicurus specifically took a stand against the Cyrenaics that what they called the neutral place between pleasure and pain, that tranquil balance was a pleasure.

    So in renaming the "neutral" as being a pleasureable tranquility...I would agree, but caution against putting too much on this, as this mind state only naturally occurs in very short intervals. Only if engaging in intentional meditation discipline can one extend this state of "neutral tranquility". But there are so many other things to do with one's mind, and instead of aiming for "neutral tranquility" as a remedy to stress, I would say pleasure is a much better way to deal with stress...so using healthy (and prudent) pleasures as medicine for stress...such as going for a walk or taking a relaxing bath. There is also a simple practice of "enjoying your breath" (mindful breathing) and when practiced correctly it is not a "neutral tranquility" but actually a blissful feeling moves inside the body as one attends to all the pleasureable sensations of breathing.

    Post
    RE: Epicurean Meditation
    I'll go ahead and do a description of a simple breath awareness meditation.

    You begin as you say to yourself: "Breathing in, I know I am breathing in. Breathing out, I know I am breathing out." This can be your starting thoughts, then you can drop this and move to watching the sensations as they arise in the body...

    Focus your awareness on air moving in through the nose (with mouth closed). Notice the feeling of the air as it flows inside the nostrils. Notice the feeling as your chest expands and…
    Kalosyni
    Quote

    His idea, that the Sun is as big as it seems (—> DeWitt), is very naive...

    Quote

    ...even in the ancient world.

    I might agree with the first part, but not as much with the second.


    It's important to consider the whole proposition. Epicurus thought that the sun was;


    1. Wholly material

    2. In constant but not uniform motion

    3. In a centerless cosmos

    4. Governed by the same laws as things on Earth

    5. Arose out of matter, and has a finite period of existence

    5a. But its matter will recombine into other things

    6. About as big as it seems.


    Compare Aristotle's sun;


    1. Made of aether, an element that didn't exist on earth

    2. In constant and uniform motion (because aetherial)

    2a. Set in motion by unmoved mover (god)

    3. Orbiting a stationary earth that was the center of everything

    4. Governed by different laws than Earth (the laws of the aether)

    5. Exists in perpetuity (because aetherial)

    6. Size uncertain (not mentioned, as far as I can tell)


    ______________________


    In view of the above, I think Epicurus came out alright.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    in renaming the "neutral" as being a pleasureable tranquility...I would agree, but caution against putting too much on this, as this mind state only naturally occurs in very short intervals.

    Thanks for the response. I would add here that it was the Cyrenaics and others that called it neutral, not Epicurus. Epicurus's position was that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain. Therefore, you can't say you're "neutral." That "calm, tranquil" feeling - what The Eagles called "a peaceful, easy feeling" - is pleasure.

    I'm also not talking about the tranquility found in meditation. I think he's referring to the state of the body and might working correctly. I would include this calm tranquility in taking a walk or a relaxing bath. That relaxation is what I'd describe as calm and tranquil.

    First, I feel bad that we've strayed from Kalosyni 's original purpose for this thread, but that seems to happen one this freewheeling forum :)

    I've also been letting the topic of this "there is no neutral position between pleasure and pain" roll around in my mind today. I originally, as I stated above, saw the "peaceful easy feeling" of taking a walk, lying in a hammock, taking a warm bath as the position identified by the Cyrenaics as the "neutral" position that Epicurus identified as pleasure. But I'm rethinking that now.

    Those activities (walk/hammock/bath) are actively pleasurable. If I do those, I feel pleasure - a calm, peaceful, everything is right with the world, satisfying "aaaaaahhh" feeling that's easily identified as pleasure. Even the calm of meditation is a real, positive feeling.

    The Cyrenaics' neutral position, I'm thinking now, is more the "I'm going about my daily routine not paying attention to whether I feel pleasure or pain... I'm not 'consciously' or 'actively' experiencing pleasure or pain right now." But Epicurus posited that you have to be feeling either pleasure or pain. So, I was sitting at work today working on tasks when this question hit me: "Am I feeling pleasure or pain right now?" Honestly, it was a difficult question to answer. I came down on the side that, if I was being honest with myself, I was mostly experiencing pleasure with a couple twinges of pain in my body and a couple minor turbulences in my mind.

    Maybe that's what Epicurus is calling us to do by eliminating a "neutral" position. *Really* understand your body and your mind. The feelings are two. How are are you really feeling, right now. Do you have a healthy body? Is your mind untroubled? If the answer to either of those is "no," your life is not as pleasurable as it has the potential to be. What needs to change? What choices and rejections do I need to make?

    Thoughts?

    I agree completely Don .


    Having said that though, I can't say if that's what Epicurus meant or if he was focused on a philosophical argument. However in practical day to day terms I think your conclusion is spot on.


    BTW I always enjoy an Eagles reference :)

    Quote from Godfrey

    Having said that though, I can't say if that's what Epicurus meant or if he was focused on a philosophical argument. However in practical day to day terms I think your conclusion is spot on

    Thanks, Godfrey . In answer to your question, I think it could be both. It was definitely a response to the Cyrenaics (and possibly other schools); but it could have had practical application as well in light of:

    Quote

    For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

    Quote from Godfrey

    BTW I always enjoy an Eagles reference :)

    The old guys strike again.


    I still remember when that came out, and how much I liked it, and how disappointed I was when the Eagles changed their lineup and their music format.


    You're right peaceful easy feeling does need an entry in our music list. But I hace to say back then I was probably partial to "Already Gone." :)


    Songs the Kalosyni and most of our people here have probably not heard!



    Note:. My gosh, after relistening to "Already Gone" I am immediately struck by the connection that comes to mind to a particular Vatican Saying! We could use Peaceful Easy Feeling as a background to any reference for Tranquility, but as a quiz, what Vatican Saying needs a particular type of song that fits Already Gone?

    Quote from Cassius

    Note:. My gosh, after relistening to "Already Gone" I am immediately struck by the connection that comes to mind to a particular Vatican Saying! We could use Peaceful Easy Feeling as a background to any reference for Tranquility, but as a quiz, what Vatican Saying needs a particular type of song that fits Already Gone?

    LOL! I'm assuming "I will sing a victory song!" came into play in your connection? ;)

    What about "Take it to the limit" for one of the PDs?

    Of Course!

    VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.


    Sort of what you would say to the grim reaper when he comes looking for you:


    But me, I'm already gone

    And I'm feelin' strong

    I will sing this vict'ry song

    'Cause I'm already gone

    Yes, I'm already gone

    And I'm feelin' strong

    I will sing this vict'ry song

    'Cause I'm already gone

    Yes, I'm already gone

    Already gone

    Quote from Don

    Is that a *Philadelphia* Eagles reference?

    Actually, Don, no. I'm afraid I know nothing about that sports team (or any sports team, basically). I was just giving the VS# that I thought related to the Eagles song - where Cassius was asking:

    Quote from Cassius

    what Vatican Saying needs a particular type of song that fits Already Gone?