Can Determinism Be Reconciled With Epicureanism? (Admin Edit - No, But Let's Talk About Why Not)

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

I've prattled on long enough for now... Satisfied, Cassius

Yes, very satisfied, thank you!

I do hope my good-natured invocation of your name in my post came across that way Thanks for the nudge!

I've been looking around about Kevin J Mitchell and found this review of his book with links to blog posts of his reacting to Sapolsky:

Book review – Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will

A tightly argued and compelling case in favour of free will, Free Agents provides thought-provoking ideas that are relevant far beyond this debate.

inquisitivebiologist.com

Mitchell's position seems very interesting and possibly fruitful. Nothing more from me at the moment, but posting here to share.

I'm reading Mitchell's blog.

Undetermined - a response to Robert Sapolsky. Part 1 - a tale of two neuroscientists

Free will is in the air. Among neuroscientists at least, the question of whether we are in control of our actions has been attracting renewe...

www.wiringthebrain.com

I was originally attracted to Dennett's compatibilism stance, because I wanted to keep my free will but was enamored of the scientific (read: deterministic) arguments. However, that stance seems less tenable now to me. It's still a deterministic wolf in free will clothes.

Mitchell, on the other hand, seems just as hard-nosed scientifically as Sapolsky and Dennett but appears at first blush to provide a mechanism for free will, or more accurately maybe free agency. That line, which I am still very much exploring, seems more "compatible" with Epicurus' position.

Quote from Don

It's still a deterministic wolf in free will clothes.

I've not studied Dennett closely but something that sounds like "you don't really have it but you think you do" cannot be particularly satisfying.

I've got limited time to pursue this at the moment but when I can I will also review David Sedley's "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism." In the meantime I highly recommend this for those digging into the issue.

File

Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism"

1983 Paper which is the one of the best treatments of Epicurus' view of the Free Will / Agency / Determinism issue available.

Cassius

June 3, 2020 at 8:40 AM

Also, in my own mind I combine Sedley's interpretations with those of AA Long in his "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" which puts forth an explanation I find convincing as to why "the swerve" does not swallow up and invalidate the entire rest of the physics. By providing how small is the degree of the swerve you have a theory that allows both for the swerve of the atom giving rise to "choice" while also allowing the rest of the universe to proceed in a uniformly mechanistic way.

To me the two positions staked out by Sedley and Long go hand in hand to allow concistency in the theory.

File

Long: "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism"

Long: "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism"

Cassius

June 28, 2019 at 8:52 AM

From the review cited by Kalosyni in post #50:

“To be clear, Mitchell does not believe our choices are absolutely free from any prior causes. We are all constrained by our genes, our histories, our psychological traits, and our developed characters. Instead of radical metaphysical freedom, Mitchell persuasively develops a more modest conception of free will that entails the evolved ability to make real choices in the service of our goals—that is, to act for our own reasons.”

Thus, Mitchell is not advocating for so-called “libertarian free will.”

From the review cited by Don in post #60:

“Organisms are not passively driven by outside signals, they interpret them, they are “meeting the world halfway, as an active partner in a dance that lasts a lifetime” (p. 217). This is the kind of academic poetry that blows my mind.” Mine too!

“Ultimately, he thinks the question of free will is a red herring and takes a pragmatic view: ‘If free will is the capacity for conscious, rational control of our actions, then I am happy in saying we have it’ … Rather than all-or-none, we have degrees of freedom, and not all people are equal in that regard.”

Thus, we can recognize mitigating circumstances with regard to personal and ethical responsibility -- without denying responsibility altogether.

Quote from Cassius

the swerve of the atom giving rise to "choice"

I'll have to read your Sedley and Long papers again, but I don't see how the "swerve" - by definition a random event if I understand - can lead to a macro level volitional "choice" exercised by an free agent on the individual level.

Quote from Don

but I don't see how the "swerve" - by definition a random event if I understand - can lead to a macro level volitional "choice" exercised by an free agent on the individual level.

You won't find a detailed explanation in those papers either, any more than Epicurus' atomism allowed him to be a nuclear physicist. As I gather the situation, the swerve operates on determinism in the same way that atomism operates on religion and "he who says that nothing can be known knows nothing" operates on skepticism. These posiitons provide a plausible perspective on specific challenges so we can live our lives productively while never knowing a complete "explanation" of all the mechanisms involved in any of them.

The religionists and the radical skeptics and the hard determinists don't have the evidence to establish their conclusions with certainty either, but they happily insist on superficially persuasive arguments which have real impact on real people who swallow them. And it appears that Epicurus held that it's not valid to retreat into "agnosticism" on any of these. Doubt and uncertainty on basic questions of life don't lead to happy living, they lead to passivism and nihilism and other unpleasantries.

If you adopt those views (religion/skepticism/determinism) then you go through life under the sway of people who generally use those religious / skeptical / determinist viewpoints to promote specific social conclusions.

At the end of your life you're dead and no more aware of whether the religionists / skeptics / determinists were right than when you started, but you have accepted viewpoints of others which are not what you yourself could validate through your own experience. You've lived your life (if you lived it at all) in practice without gods telling you what to do, in fact acting as if knowledge is possible, and in fact as if you had choices about the decisions you made. But all the while, if you accepted their claims, you lived under the sway of people who told you that your practical perspectives were unreal.

It seems to me that Epicurus was saying that the best course is just to reject the pretensions of religion, skepticism, and determinism in the first place, and live with the faculties that Nature gave you.

The burden of proof on the issues is not on Epicureans, who are living as nature provided using the faculties nature provided. The burden of proof is on the religionists, skeptics, and determinists, and Epicurus' arguments provide real-world observations that contradict their assertions. Nothing comes from nothing - the supernatural gods are refuted. Those who allege nothing can be known contradict themselves - skepticism is refuted. You can cite the swerve or simply say that it is not necessary to "live with necessity" because at the very least we can exit life when it ceases to please us - determinism is refuted. Each issue comes down to having confidence in the faculties that nature gave us vs imagining that there are "logical" proofs that can invalidate our practical experience. Epicurus says to go with practical experience.

Letter to Pythocles:

First of all then we must not suppose that any other object is to be gained from the knowledge of the phenomena of the sky, whether they are dealt with in connection with other doctrines or independently, than peace of mind and a sure confidence, just as in all other branches of study.

[86] We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena. For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations.

Free will is still on the table depending on how you interpret it. Some, only Some, view it in the terms of an absolute. Which in my previous statements I deny in terms, as simply bad logic. If you take it at it's definition without bias it is simply "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." Not the actions itself nor the number or quality of choices to be made. What then are impediments to choice. Neurological impairment perhaps. Ignorance only decreases the number and quality of our choices, experience and genetics informs them or may alter the number of choices see previous category. Prudence and reason likewise need only inform not impede. The physical world only limits action, changes the quality of outcomes and thus informs our choice, but does not necessarily limit them. So what actually stops us if anything from making a choice at all. If you take for instance the lucid dreamer, who's environment is entirely of his own making and who's limits are that of his imagination, what are his impediments. What actually impedes the mechanism of turning thought to action, or even thought into another string of thoughts. When making a choice are we even then confronted with choices to consider about the choice. Whether to be bold or cautious, prudent or carefree. Though these choices may seem autonomic at times, dictated by ones character, do we not on occasion act out of character or even develop and change in manner and taste. Are these changes in character truly forced upon us or are they even then choices to be made.

Boy this thread is extremely helpful for many reasons. Thinking about the David Sedley article equating Epicurus' attitude on Skepticism and Determinism leads to an obvious conclusion --- there was at least an "Unholy Trinity" of ideas that were anathema to Epicurus in the form of Idealism / Skepticism / Determinism. That leaves the question of whether supernatural religion falls with idealism, or whether it would be best to shift the literary analogy and consider supernatural religion, idealism, skepticism, and determinism to be the "Four Horsemen."

I'd say it's a four horseman scenario, the power of supernatural religion attempts to assert on people goes well beyond idealism. We could dedicate an entirely new thread to list the ways religion attempts to hold power over peoples lives. Of the four I would say, as I'm sure most if not all epicureans before us woulds agree, that religion is by far the more dangerous. Unless this warrants giving religion a category of its own.

I guess the best role I can have is to be a healthy critic of arguments in this debate. Instead of being a defender of Free Will Skepticism.

Pacatus, Mitchell is a libertarian. In philosophical community, there are just a few libertarians just like there are a few free will skeptics (compatibilism is the established position for majority). Contemporary libertarians don't say that everytime we take decisions that event is an uncaused cause. Sophisticated libertarians think that it's enough to affirm that sometimes human beings make free choices (for example, in very important moments in your life, or for others when you are in the best circumstances, so that you take the more informed and rational choice).

So far as I know, Mitchell thinks that the brain can be modeled as a quantum computer that evolved to take choices the best as possible, evaluating complex information of environment. The best way this can be done, for him, it's by developing free will (taken in the leeway sense).

If I'm wrong in this interpretation, then Mitchell would be a compatibilist. I suggest to discuss how the Epicurean notion of Free Will should be understood (as a libertarian or as a compatibilist account). For compatibilist, determinism and free will are compatible. I guess that may be in contradiction with the common passages on the topic.

Quote from Cassius

By providing how small is the degree of the swerve you have a theory that allows both for the swerve of the atom giving rise to "choice" while also allowing the rest of the universe to proceed in a uniformly mechanistic way.

( Cassius, surely your interpretation is stronger than what I'm going to critic.)

This fragment imply an ad hoc explanation (that is, a very specific solution to explain a phenomenon, but without more general application in the theory). If the swerve only explains free will but doesn't have any other consequence, then it's ad hoc.

And the critic can be worse, there could be a vicious circle.

1. The swerve explains free will.

2. Free Will is the only reason for arguing in favor of the existence of the swerve.

If this is true, neither of them have a real basis. I'm sure this is not what you mean, but I write this to nudge you, so that we can develop a better argument.

I'd like to add this:

So far as I understand, the swerve is a mechanism to introduce indeterminism to the world. By definition is an uncaused cause (a slightly deviance from the direction the atoms have, that deviance is uncaused by any prior event). If the swerve is not indeterministic, then Epicurean position becomes a compatibilism (because the world would be deterministic and there would be free will, just like Epicurus affirms).

If the indeterminism stays in the level of the microscopic, it would be useless to explain free choices of the agents. Indeterminism should extend to macroscopic events. And for not being an ad hoc explanation, we need more instances of free (random) events.

I hope this comment can be useful to develop and strength your ideas.

I am almost totally ignorant of modern ideas about determinism. I experience having free will and I am not sympathetic to arguments that are counter to repeated experience. It is not a matter of logic but simple immediate proof.

There is, as we know, also the fact that atoms would never have been able to make contact with each other without an uncaused swerve - in a void, heavy atoms are not able to catch up to lighter ones and and therefore unable to cause a collision.

Onenski I'd like to "swerve" away from theory and metaphysics for a moment and ask: Can, and how can, one find eudaimonia in their life if they believes in hard determinism?

As Bryan notes, determinism is counter to lived experience. This implies that in order to live pleasantly with a deterministic philosophy one must negate one's perceptions, which seems to me to be problematic.

From watching the video above in post #51, it seems that even Sapolsky has trouble with this aspect of determinism.

Cassius, I'd like to point out something so that the arguments, again, become stronger.

Quote from Cassius

The burden of proof on the issues is not on Epicureans, who are living as nature provided using the faculties nature provided. The burden of proof is on the religionists, skeptics, and determinists, and Epicurus' arguments provide real-world observations that contradict their assertions. Nothing comes from nothing - the supernatural gods are refuted. Those who allege nothing can be known contradict themselves - skepticism is refuted. You can cite the swerve or simply say that it is not necessary to "live with necessity" because at the very least we can exit life when it ceases to please us - determinism is refuted. Each issue comes down to having confidence in the faculties that nature gave us vs imagining that there are "logical" proofs that can invalidate our practical experience. Epicurus says to go with practical experience.

It's necessary to say that every metaphysical conclusion has the burden of proof in order to be solid, otherwise is only assumed. Both, free will and free will skepticism have the burden of proof to sustain their conclusions. No matter if it's an automatic or an extended belief among people, that doesn't make it true.

Quote from Cassius

The religionists and the radical skeptics and the hard determinists don't have the evidence to establish their conclusions with certainty either, but they happily insist on superficially persuasive arguments which have real impact on real people who swallow them.

If any metaphysical conclusion is on the same level, we can read this paragraph like this:

The atheist and the dogmatics and free will defenders don't have the evidence to establish their conclusions with certainty either, but they happily insist on superficially persuasive arguments which have real impact on real people who swallow them [e. g. blaming, punishments, meritocracy, revictimization, resentment, guilt].

I don't mean to be ironic, or something like that. I just pretend to point out certain aspects of arguments in order to make enhance them. It's not so easy to refute a position, and it's worthy to develop the most solid interpretation of Epicurus.

Hi, Godfrey, thanks for commenting.

Quote from Godfrey

Onenski I'd like to "swerve" away from theory and metaphysics for a moment and ask: Can, and how can, one find eudaimonia in their life if they believes in hard determinism?

As Bryan notes, determinism is counter to lived experience. This implies that in order to live pleasantly with a deterministic philosophy one must negate one's perceptions, which seems to me to be problematic.

The possible practical problems that one may find in a metaphysical or physical conclusion are not reasons to deny that conclusion. The story says, for example, that certain pythagorean was killed when he revealed that the square root of 2 was irrational. The, seemingly, practical inconveniences were not a reason to deny that. Pythagoreans believed that it was very bad for their lives that there were irrational numbers.

Some philosophers (like Saul Smilansky), however, have concluded that effectively free will skepticism leads to immoral behavior or meaningless lives. In their opinion, we should maintain free will illusion.

For others (Strawson) , even if we recognize that we're not free, we can't resist having certain reactive attitudes. For them, we can't feel resentment when someone hurts us, or gratitude when someone benefits us.

Other philosophers (Derk Pereboom, Greg Caruso) think that free will skepticism imply a modification of several of our practices, but they're optimistic that these changes can enhance our lives and make them more just.

Finally, how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism? If you think so, you can help me in developing my understanding both of free will skepticism and of epicureanism by pointing out those contradictions.

I insist that I'm not an expert, I don't think I have the last word. I recognize I may be wrong. But I know as well that having a divergent opinion can improve discussion.

Sincere question: how is

(1) My experience of having freewill means that I do have freewill.

more of a 'metaphysical' conclusion than

(2) My experience of my cat being soft means that my cat is soft.

Also what does 'metaphysical' mean, in a simple/general sense?

Thanks for the response Onenski .

Quote from Onenski

...how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism? If you think so, you can help me in developing my understanding both of free will skepticism and of epicureanism by pointing out those contradictions.

The biggest practical contradiction, in my mind, has to do with the Canon and methods of inference. If we don't use proper reasoning based on our sensations, anticipations and feelings, then we can't form correct conclusions.

As I understand the determining of opinions to be true or false, based on Philodemus (and I'm not sure that I understand this very well) there is confirmation (also called attestation), and contradiction (also called contestation). True equals confirmed and not contradicted. False equals not confirmed and contradicted. Conjectural equals awaiting confirmation/contradiction. Based on this, I would say that denying free agency is false, based on our perceptions. Or at best conjectural.

From Diogenes Laertius 10.32; Mensch translation:

...the fact that our perceptions exist guarantees the truth of our sensations; for seeing and hearing are as real to us as feeling pain.” Hence, it is from phenomena that we must draw inferences about nonevident realities. For all our thoughts are derived from sensation, either by contact, analogy, resemblance, or synthesis (with some assistance from reasoning). And the delusions of madmen, as well as the visions we see in sleep, are real, since they have effects; whereas what is unreal has no effect.

From Philodemus, On signs 34.29–36.17 Long and Sedley translation 1987:

(1) Those who attack sign-inference by similarity do not notice the difference between the aforementioned [senses of ‘in so far as’], and how we establish the ‘in so far as’ premise, such as, for instance, that man in so far as he is man is mortal…. (2) For we establish the necessary connexion of this with that from the very fact that it has been an observed concomitant of all the instances which we have encountered, especially as we have met a variety of animals belonging to the same type which while differing from each other in all other respects all share such-and-such common characteristics. (3) Thus we say that man, in so far as and in that he is man, is mortal, because we have encountered a wide variety of men without ever finding any variation in this kind of accidental attribute, or anything that draws us towards the opposite view. (4) So this is the method on which the establishment of the premise rests, both for this issue and for the others in which we apply the ‘in so far as’ and ‘in that’ construction – the peculiar connexion being indicated by the fact that the one thing is the inseparable and necessary concomitant of the other. (5) The same is not true in the case of what is established merely by the elimination of a sign. But even in these cases, it is the fact that all the instances which we have encountered have this as their concomitant that does the job of confirmation. For it is from the fact that all familiar moving objects, while having other differences, have it in common that their motion is through empty spaces, that we conclude the same to be without exception true also in things non-evident. And our reason for contending that if there is not, or has not been, fire, smoke should be eliminated, is that smoke has been seen in all cases without exception to be a secretion from fire. (6) Another error which they make is in not noticing our procedure of establishing that no obstacle arises through things evident. For the existence of chance and of that which depends on us is not sufficient ground for accepting the minimal swerves of atoms: it is necessary to show in addition that nothing else self-evident conflicts with the thesis.

Quote from Onenski

The possible practical problems that one may find in a metaphysical or physical conclusion are not reasons to deny that conclusion

I agree with this if the conclusion is true, as described above. The reason that I asked about how to live with eudaimonia if you believe in hard determinism is that I'm genuinely curious how that would work.

Quote from Onenski

Finally, how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism?

I honestly don't understand how you can achieve eudaimonia doing these things if you believe that you have no free will. Is the answer that you just go ahead and do them, realizing that there's not really a "you" that's doing them, and find eudaimonia in that? I'll have to ponder that for a while....

I continue to find pleasure in this discussion and appreciate everyone's willingness to share their views. In light of that, let me share some of my own thoughts on this:

The word Metaphysical

Several of you have used this word, and I will admit I find it ill-defined. To me, the word smacks of "woo" as in "mystical, supernatural, or unscientific." Merriam-Webster has one definition that tells me "a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology." If I remember correctly, Aristotle used it in his works to simply refer to the topics that weren't Physics... Oh, I don't remember correctly. It dates to 70 BCE and ordering of books covering "the science of what is beyond the physical." In any case, I find it unhelpful when it can be so vague and can be imbued with hazy meanings.

Quote from Bryan

I experience having free will and I am not sympathetic to arguments that are counter to repeated experience. It is not a matter of logic but simple immediate proof.

Quote from Godfrey

determinism is counter to lived experience.

I know where you're coming from, but we also experience the oar as being bent when we see it in the water. IF we investigate further, we do find the oar isn't bent (or the tower isn't round to use the classical example). So, I don't see anything inherently incorrect about examining free will and digging deeper more additional experience and investigation. And, yes, I agree that we have "repeated experience" of free will, but we also experience the oar as bent and the tower as round repeatedly and have to catch ourselves to remember other past repeated experiences. The "feeling" of free will is one sensation that could be backed up - or some say refuted - by examining it from other perspectives and experiences. I'm still inclined to free will, but these recent books and this discussion are helpful in making me defend my experience and making me question *why* I might maintain that free will exists.

Quote from Onenski

Some philosophers (like Saul Smilansky), however, have concluded that effectively free will skepticism leads to immoral behavior or meaningless lives. In their opinion, we should maintain free will illusion.

This seems to be similar to Dennet's compatibilism: the free will "illusion" has practical benefit so we should continue to live "as if" "free will" is a real thing... even though they don't believe there is such as a thing. Additionally, I find the whole "absence of free will" (just another way, to my thinking, as saying "there is no god") leading to immoral behavior or meaningless lives a fallacy. Which fallacy, I couldn't say (sorry.. .that's an area of study I need to explore!) Dennett tells a similar fable of the "nefarious neurosurgeon" to illustrate the point. I see the point of the story, but it smacks of the "people can't be good without God" argument.

Quote from Onenski

For them, we can't feel resentment when someone hurts us, or gratitude when someone benefits us.

Sapolsky goes down that road, too, but admits he can't maintain it for more than (something like, in his words) 30 seconds at a time every few months. We naturally feel resentment and gratitude naturally arises unbidden (for the "average" human). Other non-human primates appear to express "gratitude," they groom each other, they appear to comfort each other. Emotions, to me, appear to be on a spectrum from rudimentary in less complex animals to chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. Even if there is "no free will" and actions are determined, nature/evolution has endowed life with the capacity to feel there is and to express and feel emotions.

Quote from Onenski

Finally, how do an epicurean find eudaimonia?: recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends. Is that contradictory with free will skepticism?

I would fully agree that that's how an epicurean finds eudaimonia "well-being." Trying to answer the second part is harder for me. As I understand "free will skepticism" isn't necessarily "determinism" per se. One source simply says "“Free will skepticism” refers to a family of views that all take seriously the possibility that human beings lack the control in action – i.e. the free will – required for an agent to be truly deserving of blame and praise, punishment and reward. " If that's the case, I would say "free will skepticism" (which implies to me "hard determinism") would be incompatible with Epicurean philosophy. At the root of Epicurean philosophy is that humans have the agency to choose the direction they take their life - to make "choices and rejections" - and praise and blame can be affixed to the choices people take. I see Epicurean philosophy as a philosophy of personal responsibility - we are responsible for the choices we take. Free will skepticism is the exact opposite of that.

That said, the things that Onenski lists (recognizing his place in the universe, studying nature, moderating desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain/suffering, feeling satisfied, enjoying time with friends) are all aspects of an Epicurean eudaimonic life. The questions are: How are those things pursued? Why do we pursue those things? Do we make choices to pursue avenues that will lead to this kind of life? Or are we, as Sapolsky and the free will skeptics say, simply the kind of person that would "choose" these things based soley on our genetics, environment, childhood, pre-wired neural activity, etc., and that we cannot in any way be credited with pursuing "good" decisions anymore than we can be blamed for "bad" decisions? There is no personal responsibility for the free will skeptic. If you're leading a eudaimonic life, that's just the life you *had* to lead. If you've done things that hurt others, you have no real responsibilty for those actions, but we need to sequester you from the rest of society for other people to get on with their pre-determined lives.

I'm going to have to explore Mitchell more, and this whole topic. But I don't think these are necessarily "metaphysical" questions. I think we can explore, study, scan, etc., etc., and at some point come up with answers. Maybe we don't have "free will" - we certainly have constrained choices! I "freely" admit that. But I don't think we can state definitely - a la Sapolsky and others - that we've determined there is no free will.. at least at this point in time.

Quote

There is, as we know, also the fact that atoms would never have been able to make contact with each other without an uncaused swerve -

This is a fact only within Epicurus' ancient physics. In modern physics, there are forces which attract particles to each other and thereby bent the straight paths expected by both Epicurus and Newton's first law. Once the particles are close enough, there are mechanisms which can bond them together.

Quote

- in a void, heavy atoms are not able to catch up to lighter ones and and therefore unable to cause a collision.

In Epicurus' ancient physics, the atoms move with constant speed irrespective of their weight.

While the anti-determinism viewpoint features prominently in the Letter to Menoeceus and the Vatican Sayings, it's interesting to think about why it is not so explicit in the Principal Doctrines.

I would say that (at the very fewest) the following presume that we have the power of choice to pursue the things mentioned (prudence, honor, justice, reason) and, that Epicurus would say that holding to hard determinism is therefore detrimental to their implementation. Most of the rest (even the existence of a list in the first place) imply that the statements therein can be chosen as a basis of a happy life, which also presumes that the person seeking to implement them is not a hard determinist.

PD05. It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life is not living prudently, honorably, and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life] cannot possibly live pleasantly.

PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain.

PD17. The just man is most free from trouble; the unjust most full of trouble.

I also think one of my favorite passages from Lucretius Book 2 strongly implies an anti-determinist viewpoint:

[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 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.

(The above quote is from the 1743 edition, whose "lost" translator Joshua is diligently even as we read this working on finding!)