A nice YouTube summary of Lucian's A True Story.
The best way that I find to understand the teachings of Epicurus is to try to live them.
And then evaluate the effects in terms of enjoying your life.
That is very well put. A similar idea as disproving the Eleatics by walking across a room.
As to the original question I think it boils down to the belief that the universe is fundamentally observable. I think this is essentially a dogma, but it is also unclear what someone who argues the opposite would be basing their assertions on if not the same senses.
As to the original question I think it boils down to the belief that the universe is fundamentally observable
And with this there is also a similar parallel to the belief in "free will", since they are both complex ideas that can't fall into an "all or nothing" conception. To insist that we have absolute free will would be incorrect, just as insisting that the universe is absolutely fundamentally observable.
The human mind has some "hiccups" when it comes to observing things, as can be seen in optical illusions.
I would add to Kalosyni's comment that in addition to what Simon said, as to "the universe is observable" comment, that part of what Simon is talking about is an understanding of "epistemology" - having a clear idea of what kind of evidence, and what amount of evidence, is sufficient for confidence in a conclusion. So yes I think Simon is correct and part of what we have to communicate is Epicurus' view of what is reasonable to expect in terms of evidence and how to process it.
So were talking about the Criterion of Truth, and what amount and class of evidence beyond our own experience should be required to form such an opinion?
Also about how to reason from the observable to the non-observable.
QuoteSo we're talking about the Criterion of Truth, and what amount and class of evidence beyond our own experience should be required to form such an opinion?
This must necessarily vary with the nature of the claim being made, or the hypothesis being proposed.
There's an interesting thought experiment in one of Patrick Rothfuss's books, which I will attempt to badly paraphrase from distance and memory:
-----------------
"Imagine a wild forest with three villages clinging to its edges. You travel to the first village, and the residents warn you not to go into those woods, for the place is haunted by demons and no one comes back alive.
In the second village, you are again advised to keep a wide berth from the trees, for the forest is home to a powerful witch. All who go there fall under her spell, and are never seen again.
At the third village they tell stories of men who were killed by werewolves in the night, and talk of the howling shrieks by moonlight that pierce the verdant gloom as darkness settles over the hamlet.
Which of these is true? Neither of them? Neither, of course. But here's the real question:
Would you go into those woods? Perhaps the witch and the demons are simply bandits or thieves, whose first and best weapon is fear? The howling beasts merely wolves, yet no less deadly for that? Maybe the forest is every bit as dangerous as they all say, though they all say it wrongly."
-----------------
The point, I think, is that mundane claims require no great amount of evidence, but fantastical claims demand a great deal more--a demand they seldom satisfy.
I'd like to see someone draw a map of terra incognito and write, "I don't know what's here, but I'll warrant it isn't dragons."
Godfrey In the realm of physics I'd argue that modern instruments extend our range of observations into realms previously unobservable.
Pacatus And our willingness to change our standing beliefs as observations change I believe is part of the criterion of truth. It's one of the things I most like about Epicureanism, the anti-dogmatism of it.
