Posts by Cassius

Quote from DevinH

I'm certainly not a skeptic by any means, since that just leads to paralysis, but I wonder what folks' feelings are on the matter?

This is an area where it is particularly helpful to expose yourself to what the various types of skeptics had (have) to say. I find that people have a hard time accepting that the various leaders (Pyrrho, Carneades) were as extreme as they were. And people today tend to view skepticism in a "loose" way (viewing it as "challenging authority") rather than in the philosophical way of being committed to the view that knowledge is effectively impossible no matter how much evidence one has. So the question really has to be focused on the logical extreme - What does it mean to say that something is known? When we say that something is "known," have we accepted a viewpoint that only an omnipotent and omnipresent god could meet? If we have accepted such a view - and many seem to do that, because anything is possible isn't it? - then we have a big problem. Epicurus didn't accept such a standard as the correct one.

Quote from DevinH

For example, I mentioned PD19/20, and it's an area I struggle with. If I measure a life by the fraction of it spent in pleasure, a short life at 100% equals a long one at 100%, and I can follow PD19/20 that far. But I also personally feel the pull to have more time within my lifetime (so long as life is pleasurable). Lucretius touches on it in book 5 ("Whoever has been born must want to continue in life, so long as fond pleasure shall keep him..."). That's the pull I feel, even if PD19/20 says more time doesn't add anything.

At one and the same time

1. Life is desirable, which means all things being equal (you have the ability to experience more pleasure than pain) a longer life is better, and it is desirable to continue to live.
2. But all things aren't equal. Even in best cases with current technology, humans get old and infirm and sick and even continuing to live becomes painful.
3. And more important than that, we very legitimately do not value all non-painful experiences as holding the same amount of pleasure for us. Most of us are going to instinctively agree that we would rather live X number of years in freedom than X+Y number of years as a slave. (Insert here your preferred example of extremely good vs extremely bad.) So quality of life matters - a lot.
4. Epicurus was well aware of these issues. He wrote in the letter to Menoeceus about the desirability of life and that the time factor (length of life) does not override all other factors. The wise man whether young or old does not make haste to end his life because life is desirable, and the same standard (pleasure) applies at any age. Likewise, a wise man at a banquet chooses not the most food, but the most pleasant food, and so the wise man doesn't seek to live the longest life, but the most pleasant.
5. So we have to consider that while all pleasure is pleasing because it is desirable, all pleasure is not equally pleasing to us (in every respect), so we have to determine what "most pleasant" means, and choose the "most pleasant," not merely the largest quantity. So when Epicurus talks about the "limit of pleasure" we have to think very carefully about what that means. It clearly does not simply mean "that which lasts the longest."

In my view a lot of people have a problem balancing these considerations. They can't keep in mind both that (1) pleasure is a general umbrella concept that (2) cannot be separated from individual real-life instances of pleasure. "Orange" does not exist except when considered as what is common between "things that are orange." This is where discussion of the "sorites" / heap question helps focus the mind on this issue.

So yes "pleasure" as a concept cannot improve past "pure pleasure." 100% pleasure is indeed the limit of pleasure - "nothing can be more true than this" as Torquatus said to Cicero -- because when you categorize all experience into pleasure or pain, then when you have no pain you be definition have the purest pleasure.

But identifying "pure pleasure" as you goal - as helpful as it is philosophically - does not tell you directly what to do when you get out of bed in the morning. You have to apply that viewpoint - which you should hold confidently as a matter of something that you know to be true - to your individual circumstances, many of which you may only have a vague grasp of at any particular moment.

Quote from DevinH

I've used this thought experiment to test this: what happens as our medical technology improves? Let's say my grandchildren can live 500 years. Today I would say a long 90-year lifespan lived in a state of ataraxia would pretty much max out both the % quality and the length criterion, an ideal one might aspire to. However, in this new world, if 90 years is no longer a long, full life, does the assessment change? I honestly don't know, and it's an area I have not been able to really work out on my own in a vacuum.

The only part of that paragraph I'd comment on at this point is that it is very important to be clear what you (anyone) means by "state of ataraxia." What some people think that term means is something that I personally would not want for a day or a year or a lifetime, and I would argue Epicurus wouldn't and didn't want either.

Every conversation has a context and in general I am at the point where use of an untranslated Greek word to describe the goal of life is a red flag to me, Unless I know the context of the discussion very clearly I usually think that the conversation at that point needs to drop back immediately and make very clear what is being discussed.

Even here at EpicureanFriends it is not safe at all to think that any two people have the same mental concept of what "ataraxia" really means. "Absence of disturbance" sounds fine until you remember that many people (especially Stoics) explicitly or implicitly hold the view that pleasure itself is a disturbance. It's less true here than elsewhere, but much writing about Epicurus is so shot-through with Stoicism and Platonism that it's not safe to take this issue for granted.

Eventually a lot of the discussion of ethics can start to sound like a word game. I don't think it is, but what is certainly not a word game is that Epicurus takes a firm position that there are no supernatural gods and that there is no life after death. Within that context no one has the luxury to debate ethical questions endlessly and suspend judgment on every question indefinitely. You have only a set amount of time to live, and you cannot be born again. Unless your goal is "quietude" - which is the problem with some definitions of the word "ataraxia" - then you need to ability to take a confident and firm position about what your real goal is. While being "quiet" or "undisturbed" is sometimes a pleasure, it is certainly not the only pleasure, nor is it always a pleasure. You don't want to be undisturbed while taking a nap on a railroad track in front of an oncoming train. "Pleasure" is the wider term and the most accurate statement of the ultimate goal, not "quietude" or "calmness" or "absence of disturbance."

Epicurus points to "pleasure" as the best umbrella-term-way to look at it. But there are people who will tell you that you should accept their definition of all sorts of other words (piety, logic, virtue, meaningfulness, etc) as what you should do with your life. It's not just a word game when you realize how important it is for you to get the answers to these questions right.

By coincidence some of the same issues we're discussing here arise in another thread in which Kalosyni has made us aware of a competing psycho-sociological group (devoted to what they call Self-Determination Theory). The link below goes to my own comment where I am going through the philosophical implications of that group's focus, but the entire thread is useful. It's a good example of the issues involved here in this thread. Much of psychology and sociology is embedded with philosophical presumptions that the ancient Greco Romans were discussing in detail 2000 years ago. If you let them take you down the wrong road, modern papers can start you thinking that these issues were discovered for the first time in the last 20 years, and no amount of "research" makes up for the narrowness of the view that results.

Post

RE: Does Self-Determination Theory Fit in With Epicurean Philosophy?

This is the final conclusion paragraph of their "The Theory" page:

[…]



SDT gives strong indication of being as much a sociological or even political group than any kind of personal therapy or insight into ultimate questions of life.

Also, the same emphasis is in the last paragraph of what is apparently one of their seminal articles from 2001 (underlining is mine):

[…]

Cassius

November 7, 2026 at 3:34 PM

This is the final conclusion paragraph of their "The Theory" page:

Quote from Self-determinationtheory.org

By focusing on the fundamental psychological tendencies toward intrinsic motivation and integration, SDT occupies a unique position in psychology, as it addresses not only the central questions of why people do what they do, but also the costs and benefits of various ways of socially regulating or promoting behavior. Overviews of the theory can be found in Ryan and Deci (2000) and in Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000), as well as numerous other articles and chapters identified here on our website.

SDT gives strong indication of being as much a sociological or even political group than any kind of personal therapy or insight into ultimate questions of life.

Also, the same emphasis is in the last paragraph of what is apparently one of their seminal articles from 2001 (underlining is mine):

Quote from ON HAPPINESS AND HUMAN POTENTIALS: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci

Perhaps the concern of greatest importance, not only for psychological theorists, but also for humanity, is the study of the relations between personal well-being and the broader issues of the collective wellness of humanity and the wellness of the planet. It is clear that, as individuals pursue aims they find satisfying or pleasurable, they may create conditions that make more formidable the attainment of well-being by others. An important issue, therefore, concerns the extent to which factors that foster individual well-being can be aligned or made congruent with factors that facilitate wellness at collective or global levels. Such research will, one would hope, point the way toward means through which individuals can seek hedonic or eudaimonic outcomes in ways that are sustainable in the context of the four billion others who also aspire to be fully functioning and satisfied in this earthly life.

I'm not going to have more time to explore this at present myself, but I see that these particular writings are apparently significant indications of their Aristotelian focus. These articles would presumably lead us right back into core discussions of the differences between Aristotelian views of life (based on their being a prime move and intelligent direction as a basis for a system of virtue ethics), vs the Epicurean position (that there is no prime mover, no intelligent design, no absolute virtue, no reason to defer to the great men of Athens or anywhere else as a standard of how to live, and that the best way of life is that oriented toward pleasure - widely understood as all that we find desirable using our natural faculties). No doubt Ryan and Deci and their cohorts have all sorts of specific observations that might be helpful, just like we can find good cooking and fine wine and specific pleasures in most any intellectual group. The question though isn't how well they cook, but how they identify the best life given the true nature of the universe and our place in it.

Their major writings relevant to ancient philosophy

Several publications are especially important.

Ryan and Deci (2001)

On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

Their foundational comparative review of hedonic and eudaimonic theories of well-being.

Read full PDF

Ryan, Huta, and Deci (2008)

Living Well: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Eudaimonia.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.

Probably the single most important article for your investigation. It directly discusses Aristotle, hedonic happiness, and the relationship between Aristotle's philosophy and SDT.

Read full PDF

Deci and Ryan (2008)

Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and Well-Being: An Introduction.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11.

Explicitly contrasts hedonic and eudaimonic theories and identifies Aristotle as a historical source for the latter.

Read full PDF

Ryan, Curren, and Deci (2013)

What Humans Need: Flourishing in Aristotelian Philosophy and Self-Determination Theory.

In The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia, pp. 57–75.

This is their most explicitly Aristotelian collaboration, written with philosopher Randall Curren.

Publisher's chapter

Ryan and Deci (2017)

Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness.

Guilford Press.

Their major systematic statement of SDT, incorporating the accumulated research on autonomy, competence, relatedness, and human wellness.

Official publication listing

The 2001 and 2008 articles provide the strongest readily accessible primary evidence for their explicit philosophical judgments. The 2013 chapter is particularly important because its very subject is the connection between Aristotelian philosophy and SDT.

Self Determination Theory+4

3. Aristotle: A clear and affirmative philosophical affinity

The strongest evidence appears in the 2008 article Living Well.

Ryan, Huta, and Deci explicitly acknowledge that Aristotle was the originator of the eudaimonic tradition they are examining. They discuss his reasons for distinguishing eudaimonic happiness from hedonic happiness, including his unfavorable assessment of the latter.

They then identify several Aristotelian themes that closely resemble SDT:

• Actualization of intrinsic human capacities and excellences.
• Reflective awareness and deliberate choice.
• Volition rather than externally compelled behavior.
• Pursuit of activities and goals worthwhile in themselves.
• Human flourishing understood as a way of living rather than simply a pleasant mental state.

Their assessment is unusually direct:

Quote

"Many of these elements in Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia are at the core of self-determination theory’s (SDT’s) conceptions of wellness."

— Ryan, Huta, and Deci (2008), Living Well.

Self Determination Theory

This is not merely an observation that Aristotle anticipated modern psychological terminology. They affirm an actual conceptual overlap between his ethical theory and their account of psychological wellness.

... And that in itself opens up many lanes of fruitful discussion, because if we can identify where Aristotle goes wrong that will point out problem areas to expect to find in anyone who develops an elaborate theory from the same perspective.

First research indicates its heavily Aristotelian and considers Hedonism to be a problem.

Quote from DevinH

In working on my own I've developed some readings that I suspect drift from the classical positions, most notably around PD 19 and 20 and whether more time at the fullness of pleasure adds anything. I'd like to test those against people who know the texts far better than I do, and be corrected where I'm wrong.

Devin this would be an excellent topic to discuss whenever you are ready. Approach it however you wish here in this thread and we can move it later into a more appropriate forum if/when it gets long enough. Discussions of the meaning of limits of pleasure and how that relates to how to assess length of life are always of key interest.

Again, welcome DevinH - Your background indicates that you have lots to offer the discussions here. Take your time and weigh in on whatever areas interest you first and most.

Your science / technical background gives you expertise that will be particularly useful in our "canonics" discussions on the nature of truth and reality, and how and when we move from the accumulation of evidence to the decision that we have enough information to take a firm position on a topic.

That's what we've been discussing for many weeks on the podcast, but I freely admit that it is a topic that most people aren't immediately familiar with or see the relevancy of.

Also given your orientation I think you will find the DeWitt book the most helpful way you could proceed to dig deeper. You won't agree with all of it by any means, but it is almost alone among the "modern" books that attempts to give you an overview of the entire philosophy and how it fits together. That integrative perspective will color every detail that you read as time goes by, and like most of us you'll probably go through many revisions of how you view the more advanced topics like prolepsis or the nature of "gods."

I'll also particular point toward the academic articles of Dr. David Sedley. If he's written an article on a specific focus you'll likely find his research to be among the most thorough and his reasoning to conclusions to be the soundest.

There's a tremendous amount of information to digest and it's helpful to all of us to talk about it in a friendly and constructive way, among people who are largely (but of course to differing degrees) on board with the full sweep of Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Patrikios

What I have found is that these new details in modern science and psychology have much to say, mostly to reinforce Epicurean principles; but more importantly to give people today assurance that the Epicurean way is Nature’s way, as modern science and psychology continue to reinforce.

Patrikios:

Thanks for your post and I agree with your conclusion there. What we consider to be modern science reinforces Epicurean conclusions to the extent that it explores and brings to light new facts. We are always going to test our conclusions against facts and evidence, and welcome new instances of those, because we are committed to the truth and to making decisions based on truth, just as Epicurus was initially motivated to reject the "something from nothing" implications of the world arising spontaneously from chaos.

The comments that you see me make repeatedly are intended mainly for the people who lurk here or read our threads without content - or worse yet might take them out of context.

There are deep issues in what often gets included as part of "modern science" that are addressed through Epicurean canonics but are not apparent in most casual discussions of modern science. Many people talk as if "modern science" supersedes the answers that Epicurus gives (such as the primary principal doctgrines) and it always needs to be clear that we need to test the conclusions (not the facts, but the presumptions and conclusions) of modern science against the conclusions that there is no supernatural realm and the conclusions that follow, such as that there is no life after death.

Social sciences such as psychology (much more than biology or the other "hard" sciences - often carry embedded presumptions that should not be accepted on face value. Even the question of what "health" means in the psychological context is a highly loaded question, and I think it is a very bad idea for philosophy to get too far in bed with psychology unless the particular psychology or psychologist make very clear at the outset what their presumptions are about the nature of the universe and humanity's place in it

Thanks DevinH for your detailed and very interesting post and the kind words about the podcast and the forum. We look forward to having you and to hearing much more from you!

Welcome DevinH !

DevinH tells us:

I've registered and confirmed my email.

My username is: DevinH

I have read and agree to the Community Standards, Rules, and Terms of Use, including the "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean" statement and the posting policy. I understand the forum is committed to classical Epicurean positions, and I'll participate on that basis.

My background and interest: I'm a scientist ... I work in biotech process development. My footer may read as a lot of ambition. I've left it intact anyway, since I'm joining for frank criticism and it seems wrong to start by hiding things that I might need to examine.

I searched for decades for a philosophical and emotional home. I used to call myself a humanist, but I could never find a core for why it was right. Either it rested on absolute morality, which seemed plainly wrong, or it rested on nothing, and it felt hollow. When I came across Epicureanism five years ago, it felt less like a discovery than a home I had always lived in. It just felt right from the start, and the edges I first resisted mostly turned out, after study and reflection, to be right as well. Grounding the good in pleasure, something I actually feel that has a fully physical basis gave me the foundation I'd been searching for. The physics, and the almost insane degree of accuracy, fit how I already saw the world as a biologist. I now use it as a practical framework for how I work, how I treat the people close to me, and how I weigh my choices. I fail more often than I would like to admit, but I hope the community you have built is a place to explore and have peers challenge one's approach to the philosophy. I also have a strong interest in the Herculaneum papyri and follow the Vesuvius Challenge. Amazing that we get new thought from a richer epicurean past every year!!

Reading so far: Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, which is my foundation for the physics and the way to life that flows from it, and the Principal Doctrines, which I'm using as the spine of my study notes. I haven't yet worked through the letters or Philodemus. Next up is DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy, which I have but haven't started, then the Torquatus section of Cicero's On Ends, as your reading page recommends, and Philodemus' On Death. I'm also working my way through the podcast, lovingly. It's been wonderful and a part of my commute for years.

Why I'm requesting an account: I've been studying and practicing mostly alone, though I talk about it with people a lot. I've come to see that as the biggest gap. In working on my own I've developed some readings that I suspect drift from the classical positions, most notably around PD 19 and 20 and whether more time at the fullness of pleasure adds anything. I'd like to test those against people who know the texts far better than I do, and be corrected where I'm wrong.

I understand and agree that pleasure is the highest good, the beginning and end of the happy life. I can't imagine a higher one. As a biologist, I see us as social primates whom nature built to feel pleasure in friendship and community, so for me, living for pleasure and living among friends turn out to be the same project.

Thanks for running the forum and the podcast.

Best,
Devin

Thank you for registering at EpicureanFriends.com, and for writing to us about your background and interest in Epicurus. We look forward to hearing more from you!

As a reminder, all posts are subject to our Community Standards, Rules, and Terms of Use.

Welcome to EpicureanFriends!

Welcome to Episode 359 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues. This week will continue in Section 20 of Book 2, where we are now seeing Cicero argue on behalf of skepticism, and we will be interjecting Epicurean responses.

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here: Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As we proceed through the end of Academic Questions, these are the topics we expect to cover:

24. Lucullus's Extended Rebuttal of the Academic Doctrine, and His Concluding Appeal to Cicero (2:XIII)
25. Cicero Begins His Reply (2:XX)
26. Cicero Lays Out the Syllogism About Assent and Opinion (2:XXI)
27. Cicero Turns to Antiochus's Own Inconsistency (2:XXII)
28. Cicero Defends His Citation of the Ancient Philosophers (2:XXIII)
29. Cicero Adds Chrysippus and the Cyrenaics, Then Returns to Arcesilas and Zeno (2:XXIV)
30. Cicero Returns to Attacking the Senses (2:XXV)
31. Cicero Presses the Sun's Size and the Limits of Trained Perception (2:XXVI)
32. Cicero Turns the "Art" Argument Back on Lucullus (2:XXVII)
33. Cicero Multiplies Examples From Madness (2:XXVIII)
34. Cicero Attacks Reason and Dialectics: The Sorites Paradox (2:XXIX)
35. Cicero Presses the Liar Paradox (2:XXX)
36. Cicero Presents Carneades's Own Positive Doctrine of Probability (2:XXXI)
37. Cicero Distinguishes the Academic Position From Epicurus's (2:XXXII)
38. Cicero Defends Probability Against the Charge That It Cannot Support Memory or Action (2:XXXIII)
39. Cicero Answers the "Self-Refuting" and "Two Incompatible Propositions" Objections (2:XXXIV)
40. Cicero Broadens the Argument Beyond the Stoics (2:XXXV)
41. Cicero Reflects on His Own Position Among the Competing Schools (2:XXXVI)
42. Cicero's Survey of Disagreement Among the Natural Philosophers (2:XXXVII)
43. Cicero Presses the Problem of Providence and the Limits of Physics (2:XXXVIII)
44. Cicero's Survey Continues: The Soul, the Antipodes, and the Motion of the Earth (2:XXXIX)
45. Cicero Asks Which Natural Philosopher He Would Even Choose to Follow (2:XL)
46. Cicero Turns to Ethics: Even the Gods Are Disputed (2:XLI)
47. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part One (2:XLII)
48. Cicero's Roll Call of Rival Schools on the Chief Good, Part Two (2:XLIII)
49. Cicero Weighs Zeno Against Antiochus on Virtue and the Happy Life (2:XLIV)
50. Cicero Catalogs the Stoic Paradoxes About the Wise Man (2:XLV)
51. Cicero's Climactic Debate Between Pleasure and Honor (2:XLVI)
52. Cicero Turns to the Canon of Truth, and Zeno's Hand (2:XLVII)
53. The Dialogue's Close (2:XLVIII)

Summary

Joshua returns, and Cassius and Joshua read Section 19 of Book Two of Cicero's Academic Questions, where Lucullus ends his defense of knowledge with a personal appeal to Cicero. Cicero has praised philosophy, yet he now follows a philosophy that "confounds what is true with what is false" and robs us of our senses. Even the Cimmerians, denied the light of the sun, had fires to see by, but the skeptics leave "not a single spark." Lucullus then throws Cicero's proudest moment in his face. Cicero swore that he had uncovered the Catilinarian conspiracy, so how can he now say that nothing can be known? Cassius reads Rackham's version and his footnote on the conspiracy of 63 BC. Catulus then answers that Cicero should not be moved by Lucullus's authority, and that Antiochus himself abandoned his opinions when it suited him. Joshua points out that this turns Lucullus's own argument about authority, from the end of Section 18, back against him. He also compares Cicero's challenge to Torquatus in On Ends Book Two: an Epicurean would never dare announce to the assembly that he does everything for pleasure. Cassius argues that the Epicurean can stand before the Senate, the army or the people and explain what pleasure means, while a skeptic cannot consistently urge any action at all. Joshua reviews Antiochus of Ascalon's turn from the skeptical Academy toward the Stoics, and the Roman legend of the Cimmerians living in perpetual darkness, compared with Plato's cave. Cassius closes with Lucretius's torch: without a reliable standard of truth we cannot tell which way to go. Joshua previews Section 20, where Cicero begins his reply as if pleading an important case in court.

Transcript

Lucretius Today Podcast Episode 358 is now available: "The Hypocrisy And Darkness of Academic Skepticism"

In this week's episode - to be released soon - we continueto look at issues of practicality involved in taking a position on truth. In the end of the Stoic argument we came upon an interesting historical example that helps us test the question with a practical example. The Stanford Encyclopedia describes the issue - which involves questions of probability or plausibility that is "unimpeded" in this way. Much of the article is relevant but this part is directly on point:

Quote

In perhaps Cicero’s most technical work, he rarely allows us to lose sight of what purpose the technicality serves. Lucullus had ended his speech in critique of scepticism by addressing Cicero himself, making what looks like a light-hearted jest that Cicero supports a philosophy that keeps things in the dark despite his having brought the most deeply hidden matters to light (2.62). He refers to the uncovering by Cicero of Catiline’s conspiracy, a plot whose nature and significance remain a matter of debate, but whose thwarting Cicero refers to often and takes to represent his having more or less single-handedly saved the republic from catastrophe.

The punning contrast of obscurity and illumination that Lucullus employs thus has a serious point, reminding us that what turns on the sometimes abstruse epistemology is the vital practical question of whether the sceptical viewpoint allows there to be a proper basis for decision and action, especially on the political stage. Roman – and of course not just Roman – politicians, including Cicero himself and those whom he might hope to win over to the sceptical cause, must at times take life-and-death decisions.

One of the most controversial aspects of Cicero’s actions against Catiline was the execution without trial of five of the alleged co-conspirators, an act that ultimately led to Cicero’s exile. Is mere likelihood sufficient to justify the weight of one’s actions in such cases? Should not certainty be the only proper basis? And is a criterion of plausibility even intelligible without a notion of certainty? Whatever we think of Cicero’s answers to these questions, he leaves us in no doubt about why the questions matter. Even at its most abstract, philosophy’s relation to the concrete and practical lies at the heart of his enterprise.

Quote from Kalosyni

can we then compare this with modern pyschology and science (and the understanding of clinical death and brain death).

The first step is making clear what "this" means.

Most of us here (including me) have a lot more to learn about what Epicurus and Lucretius really taught. And the bottom line is that they taught that the soul is material and is in no way supernatural and does not survive death. I am not aware that any new details of mechanics offered by "modern psychology and science" really have much to say on those ultimate conclusions.

If one does not realize that a heap of sand is made of individual grains of sand, and nothing more, and if one does not take a position that the bodies our senses reveal to us are true and real, then no amount of detail about the operation of cells and synapses is going to move you closer to taking a position on whether there is an "immortal soul" somewhere in those cells and synapses. As far as I can tell modern science and psychology most of the time refuse to answer such ultimate questions, and they defer it to "philosophy" or 'religion" as if the question has no answer. Epicurus says that these questions DO have answers we can consider to be true.

the must more productive use of AI diagramming would be to help explain what Epicurus and Lucretius are actually saying. Only once that is clear does any amount of cellular biology or clinical psychology have any relevance.

And all that is because if you do indeed have an immortal soul designed by God and destined to either heaven or hell, then you darn well better put aside any other questions so you can "get right with god" as you could be called to meet your maker at any time!

Quote from Patrikios

Its health is found in the moderation of passions and the removal of groundless fears.

I think Kalsyni is quoting a part of this sentence but the whole context helps.

Diogenes Laertiius wrote that Epicurus held at line 117 of Book 10:

Quote

117

Such was his teaching on things celestial. As regards the principles of living and the grounds on which we ought to choose some things and avoid others, he writes the following letter. But before considering it let us explain what he and his followers think about the wise man. Injuries are done by men either through hate or through envy or through contempt, all of which the wise man overcomes by reasoning. When once a man has attained wisdom, he no longer has any tendency contrary to it or willingly pretends that he has. He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom.

So i'd say that discussion of "moderation of passions" needs to be clear that what we are talking about is not eliminating strong passions, because the wise man is going to work to feel them more deeply than others. Instead, when passions are treated wisely they are not an obstacle to wisdom but motivate us to work toward happiness. It is unfortunate that this needs to be said but Stoics and others have turned "moderation of passions" into a goal that seems to be a goal in itself as if there is something wrong with feeling strong passions, even if those passions are pleasurable.

No doubt the context of how people use "passions" varies widely in modern discussion, but I'd say that the word is used predominately negatively, even though it is occasionally used favorably as in passionate pursuit of one's art or work or productive desire. Of course i don't mean to say that Patrikios is doing this, but if we aren't careful we can reinforce Stoic/Buddhist/ quietest stereotypes that are the opposite of Epicurean pursuit of pleasure.

I'd equally say that this sentence is overbroad

Quote from Kalosyni

Also, from a modern psychology standpoint, t is actually healthy and motivates you to take action when you feel strong passions (or strong emotions/feelings) when you aren't getting your basic necessities for life met.

Because I personally hold "modern psychology" to be something that i view with strong suspicion, as it is not rooted in Epicurean views of the best life.

Bottom line: our purpose here is not to nitpick each others' posts, but to draw out in conversation fine points that help us and others to better apply the philosophy and articulate it to others. So I see both posts above as useful contributions.

For another example:

Quote from Patrikios

Epicurus would also likely speak to his basic physics and ethics topics, but they all come back to living for pleasure through a healthy body & mind.

That gets back to the original question raised earlier, about what Epicurus might talk about if he were here today. No doubt everything suggested would be something he would want to talk about, and it is very interesting to consider whether the current situation we find ourselves is in best addressed by (1) advocating generally for "a healthy body and mind" or (2) first defining what a healthy body and mind entails, which in my view cannot be done without first establishing a proper physics and canonics to allow for a proper standard of what "health" means.

That seems pretty accurate to me and illustrates what can be done with these tools. The construction of models that make things clearer, combined with illustrations and other features ai can offer, looks to be a very productive way forward in exploring the texts. Where do you plan to take this? The issue always is going to be that the person generating the material needs to be closely involved in proofing it and discussing whether it is accurate or how it can be improved. Posts that are just "chatgpt did this" aren't much better than posting a link to an encyclopaedia article. The way these things help ourselves and others is to discuss them and improve them, pointing out both defects and how they can be improved.

Great to see that you are writing on substack - very good article!

Well if you asked for a "text-based" flowchart that's not far from what I would expect. It's got to output the result as code to keep the lines in place. You probably need to designate the formatting you want and generate it as a picture or as html (which can be input into messages using the "code" icon (the first one in the message editor).