Posts by Cassius

"The act of finding them establishes interference"

I can see where you might be coming from and I can see this being arguable in a limited context -- here on Earth --- but I don't think Epicurus would agree that there are truly hard and fast and definite limitations that prevent this from being so if we traveled through space.

If Epicurus had been asked to consider whether they could be sensed in some way after space travel (maybe he did like Lucian did, but we don't know) then I think he would have said that of course that would be conceivable. He said that there are infinite numbers worlds with life on them, some like and some unlike ours, and all his basic definition requires is that they be living, happy, and imperishable. All the rest about quasi-bodies and the like is pretty clearly labeled a derivative speculation based on reasoning which might or might not prove to be correct (as to size, shape, language, etc)

Quote from Kalosyni

There is nothing in Epicurean texts that says the gods are invisible.

Actually I think there is. It's pretty clear as I understand that texts that gods cannot be sensed through the five senses. Now if you want to call the "direct receipt of images by the brain" a sense then you can say that they can be sensed, but I think it's pretty clear that they are not visible to us. Perhaps that's one of the finer points of their being in the intermundia (very far away - too far to see them).

Quote from TauPhi

My point is, Epicureans should not engage in an attempt to actively seek a physical contact with their gods

Now if " PHYSICAL CONTACT" is the point you're making then we are in complete agreement, cause as I said to Kalosyni the texts are clear that they can't be seen or touched. But I read your comment as saying we should not "seek information" or "knowledge" about the gods. That would be directly contrary to core Epicurean views. I don't want to get too picky about language but let me go back and review the thread.

Here's the part i was responding to:

Quote from TauPhi

But the answer to your question about the hunt for gods, if those are Epicurean gods, is: "You don't." Epicurean gods do not interfere with human affairs. Whenever you find creatures that are living beings, blessed, and imperishable, you know for sure that those are not Epicurean gods. The act of finding them establishes interference, therefore whatever you have just found is definitely not Epicurean gods. Looking for such gods makes as much sense as trying to see an invisible elephant. If you see it, it's definitely not an invisible elephant.

So if you're clarifying that you mean don't "physically" hunt for them, then I'd agree, at least until we make further progress in space travel etc. But I read that as a dismissal of any concern about divinity whatsoever, and that position (don't concern yourself about gods at all) is simply not what Epicurus taught.

You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion on this topic, Tau Phi, but it's my responsibility to the website readers to point out that Epicurus felt dramatically differently, and I think - and apparently every dedicated Epicurean in recorded history thought - for very good reason.

If your life is not disturbed by the issue of gods then you are fortunate, but that is not the case for most of the world throughout history. Epicurean philosophy is based largely on developing a proper view of divinity as a response to those problems and is a very legitimate response.

The framing of this article reminds me of the relevant section of the letter to Menoeceus.

The question: "How do you look for alien life when you don't know what alien life might look like?"

Could be transposed as: "How do you look for gods when you don't know what gods might look like?"

And it seems to me that the only answer to that question is to start with a "definition" stating the essential attributes of the thing you think you are looking for. The article doesn't focus on addressing those in the case of "alien life," but it seems to me that what Epicurus is doing in regard to gods: his starting point is to define them as living beings, blessed, and imperishable, and saying that we reach that conclusion based on prolepses (which I think most of us presume relates to "images"). There's a lot more to say than that, but the point of this post is only to point out that you can't even discuss something without stating a clear picture of what you're talking about, and that problem is as apparent today (in this article) as it would have been to Epicurus.

Quote

We have only one example of biology forming in the universe – life on Earth. But what if life can form in other ways? How do you look for alien life when you don’t know what alien life might look like?

These questions are preoccupying astrobiologists, who are scientists who look for life beyond Earth. Astrobiologists have attempted to come up with universal rules that govern the emergence of complex physical and biological systems both on Earth and beyond.

I’m an astronomer who has written extensively about astrobiology. Through my research, I’ve learned that the most abundant form of extraterrestrial life is likely to be microbial, since single cells can form more readily than large organisms. But just in case there’s advanced alien life out there, I’m on the international advisory council for the group designing messages to send to those civilizations.

Extraterrestrial life may look nothing like life on Earth − so astrobiologists are coming up with a framework to study how complex systems evolve

How do you look for alien life when you don’t know what alien life might look like?

www.space.com

I personally am in the camp of those who think that Lucretius did his dead level best to transmit Epicurus faithfully. Therefore whenever Lucretius says something clearly then I would wager that it reflects what Epicurus taught. But f someone were to ask me for an example of a line in Lucretius that has the most potential for deviating from what Epicurus himself taught, this - especially the part I underlined - would be the line that I would put under the microscope:

Quote from Lucretius 2:216

But if they were not used to swerve, all things would fall downwards through the deep void like drops of rain, nor could collision come to be, nor a blow brought to pass for the first-beginnings: so nature would never have brought aught to being.

But before I were to reach the conclusion that this deviates from Epicurus' own views, I would first want to examine the Latin original to see whether there is any chance of a subtlety of translation or other way to reconcile it. I presume that this isn't a scholium addition since it's poetry, but I presume that is not likely due to it being in poem form.)

Certainly like everything else swerves would go back infinitely in time, so there would have been no "first" swerve. As Sedley says it doesn't seem likely that Epicurus would have looked to the swerve as the reason why atoms come together in bodies, but maybe there's something even subtler going on that would have led him to think that it did. I don't gather that the letter to Herodotus is clear as to what it was that causes atoms to "stick" together after their initial collisions? That doesn't seem likely either, but maybe he was developing a theory that whatever causes the swerve has other emergent effects as well.

Are there other alternatives? Maybe Epicurus simply developed the swerve theory later in life and the Herodotus letter was earlier, and never revised, as Sedley seems to think? This calls for creative thinking.

For reference as to Lucretius saying the swerve initiates collisions, and as to whether a collision resulting from a swerve was necessary to initiate world formation:

EPICURUS’ REFUTATION OF DETERMINISM - David Sedley
1. The Swerve
A few facts are, I hope, uncontroversial enough to be set out without defence. Epicurus inherited Democritus’ atomic system, but modified it in a number of respects. In particular, he so vehemently objected to its rigidly deterministic laws as to postulate a minimal. ‘swerve’... in the motion of atoms, occurring at no fixed place or time — a doctrine which does not feature, in his meagre surviving writings but is nonetheless amply attested as his; and defended on his behalf by Lucretius (II 216-93). The swerve (a) _enables atoms falling through space at equal speed in parallel lines to collide occasionally and initiate cosmogonic patterns of motion_; and (b) somehow or other serves as a necessary condition for the behavioural autonomy of animate beings — a power often identified as ‘free will’.

...

I do not propose to expend much discussion on the swerve's cosmogonical function (Lucretius II 216-42), which I suspect to be a problem dreamed up with a preconceived solution in mind. Chains of atomic collisions in extra-cosmic space could have quite adequately been explained by the lateral intrusion of one or more atoms from elsewhere, despatched, say, by the break-up of a nearby world. The question of how such collisions ever started in the first place would not arise, given the infinity of past time and past worlds. That is, indeed, the view strongly implied by the Letter to Herodotus and the Letter to Pythocles, the physical epitomes which Epicurus wrote when he had already worked out his main cosmological views in Books I-XIII of his On Nature. Since these two works also contain no hint of the swerve doctrine, the likelihood is that it was his later work on psychology, apparently in the closing books of the thirty-seven book magnum opus, that led him to the innovation, and that it was only then grafted onto the existing cosmological scheme.

Bailey Lucretius Book 2 -

[216] Herein I would fain that you should learn this too, that when first-bodies are being carried downwards straight through the void by their own weight, at times quite undetermined and at undetermined spots they push a little from their path: yet only just so much as you could call a change of trend. But if they were not used to swerve, all things would fall downwards through the deep void like drops of rain, nor could collision come to be, nor a blow brought to pass for the first-beginnings: so nature would never have brought aught to being.

[225] But if perchance any one believes that heavier bodies, because they are carried more quickly straight through the void, can fall from above on the lighter, and so bring about the blows which can give creative motions, he wanders far away from true reason.

For all things that fall through the water and thin air, these things must needs quicken their fall in proportion to their weights, just because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot check each thing equally, but give place more quickly when overcome by heavier bodies. But, on the other hand, the empty void cannot on any side, at any time, support anything, but rather, as its own nature desires, it continues to give place; wherefore all things must needs be borne on through the calm void, moving at equal rate with unequal weights. The heavier will not then ever be able to fall on the lighter from above, nor of themselves bring about the blows, which make diverse the movements, by which nature carries things on. Wherefore, again and again, it must needs be that the first-bodies swerve a little; yet not more than the very least, lest we seem to be imagining a sideways movement, and the truth refute it. For this we see plain and evident, that bodies, as far as in them lies, cannot travel sideways, since they fall headlong from above, as far as you can descry. But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?

At present I am not finding a thread devoted specifically to the question of whether the swerve was required to cause atoms to come together into bodies, as Lucretius seems to say. Absent another thread that probably needs to be incorporated here too, or at least linked to another thread on that topic if it exists, so I will adjust the title further.

The reason atomic motion came up in the 12/11/24 Zoom is that we were discussing images, and the question arose as to whether images should be considered to be bodies subject to the kind of effects of motion that we observe at the level of bodies (we observe that objects "fall") or whether images travel like atoms at uniform speed in any direction without being subject to "falling" as they travel.

Aside from general interest in the physics involved in Epicurus' view of the movement of atoms, the question arises whether the movement of atoms is related to the movement of images (which was the subject of the Usener section).

Atoms travel at uniform speed, but collide with each other and that affects their direction. Did Epicurus think something similar happens with images?

What issues, if any, related to the movement of atoms and images need to be considered in the processing of images by the mind?

Also by Bryan:


Regarding the direction of the atoms, here Epicurus says that they continue in whatever direction they are going, until they have an impact.

This (below) was suggested by Bryan



Here Epicurus says that compounds move at different rates, but atoms move at the same rate. Even though compounds appear to stand still, their atoms are vibrating at that same rate.

Does Life Really Need Planets? Maybe Not

Can organisms generate their own self-sustaining ecosystems in space without a planet. Researchers say it's at least plausible.

www.universetoday.com

Does Life Really Need Planets? Maybe Not

Do we have a planetary bias when it comes to understanding where life can perpetuate? It’s only natural that we do. After all, we’re on one.

However, planets may not be necessary for life, and a pair of scientists from Scotland and the USA are inviting us to reconsider the notion.

We focus on planets as habitats for life because they meet the conditions necessary for life to survive. Liquid water, the right temperature and pressure to keep it in a liquid state, and protection from harmful radiation are the primary requirements for photosynthetic life. But what if other environments, even ones maintained by organisms themselves, can also provide these necessities?

Lucretius Today Episode 258 is now available:

"There Is No Necessity To Live Under the Control of Necessity - Part 2 - Conclusion"

Editing of Lucretius Today Episode 258 is just about complete, and it will be up later today.

In the meantime, the outline for Episode 259 is up in raw form here:

Nothing Comes From Nothing

Our purpose in this series is to highlight:

1. The reasons why the issue is important;
2. The background and contentions of others to whom Epicurus was reacting;
3. The major aspects of Epicurus' reasoning in support of the doctrine; and
4. Takeaway implications of the doctrine.

There's a limit to what we have time to cover, so with these major goals in mind please feel free to make suggestions for additions here in this thread.

We had a very good recording session for this episode, and editing is going well.

Before I forget I want to mention an important supplement to Dr Sedley's article which provided much of the focus of the episode. In addition to that article, i strongly recommend A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" which extends Dr. Sedley's reasoning as to the impact of the swerve.

The basic point is that not only does Dr. Sedley's argument that the swerve is not Epicurus' primary argument for "agency" make sense, but that it is important not to exaggerate the expected impact of any swerve that does exist. In Dr. Long's view, the swerve rarely "breaks through" into the universe that is observable at our level, and that in fact in Epicurus' mind the primary extent to which it does "break through" is in the agency available to intelligent animals. As Dr. Long points out, Epicurus could never have intended the swerve to be an ever-present force creating random events at all times and places, at that would have exploded the original reason for atomism in the first place -- that it explains the regularity - the "laws of nature" that we do in fact see in the mechanical operation going on around us.

This doesn't make into this episode but someone exploring the issues further would want to incorporate Dr. Long's article.

It should cheer all our regulars to know that Don and I are in complete agreement on the Oxford Comma!

Great find Don.

So where, if ever, in the ancient world do we have a variation of the word "tetrapharmakos" appearing on the same piece of paper as the four lines from Philodemus?

Are you then saying that the general idea of a "four-part-cure" originated with nothing to do with Epicurus whatsoever, and it is a generic term that commentators just came to apply to the passage from Philodemus after it was discovered in the modern world simply because it has four parts, just like we apply the word "kleenex" to any kind of tissue paper or "xerox" to photocopying?

Hey this might actually lead to something - but note the qualifying last sentence. I hope this doesn't lead us to find eventually that the term was intended by the christians who used it to be insulting, as one might read DeWitt to deduce....

So the name tetrapharmakos, and not just the details of the formulation, does appear in the Philodemus text itself?

--- For Comparison Purposes, Grok:

When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?
The word "Tetrapharmakon" (or its variant "Tetrapharmakos") was first used in the context of ancient Greek pharmacology, but its metaphorical use in Epicurean philosophy dates back to the 1st century BCE. Specifically, it appears in the works of Philodemus, preserved in the Herculaneum Papyri, where it refers to the four chief doctrines or remedies for healing the soul. This is documented in sources like the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, which lists the term and its uses, and various discussions on Epicurean philosophy websites.

Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?

After Philodemus, the next known mention of the "Tetrapharmakon" comes from the early Christian writers Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian, both of whom referenced it in their works critiquing Epicurean philosophy. This is based on posts found on X.

The "ultimate authority" in December 2024!

I asked:

When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?

ChatGPT said:

The word "Tetrapharmakon" (meaning "four-part remedy") is attributed to the later Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE). While it encapsulates key aspects of Epicurean philosophy, its formulation as a concise term may not have originated directly from Epicurus himself. The phrase is most famously associated with a poetic fragment found in Philodemus' works, which outlines four key maxims derived from Epicurus' teachings:

1. Do not fear the gods.
2. Do not worry about death.
3. What is good is easy to get.
4. What is terrible is easy to endure.

The earliest surviving textual evidence of the term is in Herculaneum papyri linked to Philodemus' writings, dating to the 1st century BCE. This suggests that the term gained currency among Epicureans as a way to succinctly summarize their core ethical guidance during or after Philodemus' time.

Cassius said:

Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?

ChatGPT said:

The term "Tetrapharmakon" is primarily associated with the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE), who utilized it to encapsulate four principal doctrines of Epicurean philosophy. The earliest known textual evidence of this term appears in the Herculaneum papyri, specifically in Philodemus' works dating to the 1st century BCE. Subsequent explicit mentions of the "Tetrapharmakon" are scarce in surviving ancient literature. While later Epicurean thinkers and commentators, such as Diogenes of Oenoanda in the 2nd century CE, propagated Epicurean doctrines, it remains uncertain whether they specifically referenced the "Tetrapharmakon" by name. Therefore, based on existing evidence, Philodemus is the earliest and, perhaps, the sole ancient source to explicitly mention the "Tetrapharmakon."

Yes I agree! I see his statement about "would never" as a personal opinion -- which sounds good to me -- but it sure would have been nice to cite for us where the name "tetrapharmakon" comes from!

And yes I agree too with the inconsistency that he cites it elsewhere more approvingly than I would myself. Again, not that I think that it can't be made to work quite nicely by those who know the big Epicurean picture, but that in its truncated form it can too easily be misunderstood by those who don't, especially if people get the impression it can take the place of the first four full doctrines. Nobody here does that, but it's very frustrating to read these generalist articles stating that the tetrapharmakon is all you need to know! It's a great summary of everything important that Epicurus had to say!

No, it's not!

Welcome -- we look forward to hearing more from you.