Posts by Cassius

Quote from TauPhi

I'm pretty sure this attitude will not get you far in promoting Epicurean philosophy.

it's exactly the attitude that people like Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda displayed in calling Epicurus a "savior" or "father" or a virtual "god among men."

Quote from TauPhi

Proofs, knowledge and reality are very much within a grasp and abilities of most people.

And I see that statement as totally inconsistent with your prior statements to the effect that we can never really know truth about the nature of things.

Quote from TauPhi

In science it's called five sigma and it's a statistical significance which scientists agreed on to call a phenomenon proved to be true.

That may well be so. I have no personal allegiance "science" as if the word "science" is the ultimate religion with "scientists" as the priesthood. My allegiance is to Nature and this world, and to the Epicurean perspective - not "statistical significance " and especially not to "what scientists agree on."

This is a huge point and very clearly stated so thanks for bring it up again. Neither Epicurean philosophy nor this forum is dedicated to "science" in the way I think you mean it and the way that term is most often used today as a catch-all for "expert consensus." That's the equivalent of the Platonic adherence to "wisdom" or "logic" as the goal of life rather than to a human-achievable happiness based on pleasure.

Quote from TauPhi

And narrative where you accuse many people over millenia to be infected with "mind virus" and philosophers other than Epicurus to be regressive doesn't promote Epicurean philosophy at all. It makes it sound insane.

I realize that that reaction will come from quarters which are dedicated to "science" and to "skepticism" above all. That's one of those lines of separation from what Epicurus stood for and what he didn't stand for.

As i am editing this podcast I want to insert this note, that at about the 22 minute mark Joshua quotes Plato as taking the position that there is only ONE created world - not "many worlds." This too is something Epicurus directly contradicts.

As an aside many of these same issues are discussed when Joshua quotes from Timaeus at length in Episode 327 of the podcast (to be released later today or tomorrow). This appears in depth around the 15 minute mark but much of the episode is devoted to it.

The importance of these issues is why we are currently going through "Academic Questions." Plato makes very clear in Timaeus that the impossibility of stating anything about this world as more than "probable" is central to his viewpoint.

As to the arguments in recent posts as to the possibility of knowledge and proof and how to define terms, I want to cite and praise as insightful something that Titus raise in another context

Quote from Titus

What I am suggesting is, in analogy to information technology, an Epicurean thought serving on the kernel level that defines how the operative systems operate.

I think this is an excellent analogy to be brought to bear on the problem.

After 2000 years of Judeo-Christianty and all sorts of philosophical regression, and over 500 years of Pythagoreanism and Platonism and Academic Skepticism and even Democriteanism before that, what has happened is essentially the same thing as a "mind virus at the kernel level" which has destroyed any progress that Epicurus made with his canonics.

The virus is the idea that "proof" or "proving something" requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence -- an unhuman an inhuman level of "certainty" that is impossible by definition for a human to reach. This mind virus has destroyed the ability of many people to think that anything can be "proven" or anything can be "known" or that anything can be "real" if it fails to meet such an impossible standard.

This is why I think philosophy has regressed so far since the Epicurean period. Rather than accept Epicurus' position that there is a reasonable standard of proof grounded in the senses in which the mind IS and SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED to be able to prove things in human terms, such a position is denounced as the ultimate sin. Some will say "sin against god" but the majority of modern philosophers and intelligentsia will consider it a "sin against humanism" in a "good-without-god" kind of way.

This argument entirely dismisses or ignores or flies in the face of what is explained at length in Lucretius Book 4. There it is made perfectly clear that those who say "nothing can be known" are not making a simple error, they are removing the possibility of reason and life itself if they fail to "trust the senses." Not only is that section ignored, but it's not even given a legitimate meaning, because it is also clear that the senses in Epicurean philosophy do not contain opinions of their own - the senses simply provide data from which the mind must produce true or false opinion.

This thread makes clear that the Kantian-like attitude is to say that ALL opinion is false and can never be considered "truth" or "the way reality really is." That's clearly not the Epicurean framework, but people are so infected with this mind virus that they don't even recognize the issue and the self-contradiction implied in their anti-knowledge claim.

That self-refutation is what Epicurus latched onto as the most clear way of explaining the problem, and it's probable that that remains the best argument for the Epicurean position.

As Don might say "Thank Zeus" that this section of Lucretius remains preserved, and we can cite it as a red line for what it means to follow Epicurean philosophy:

Quote from Lucretius 4-469

4-469

Lastly, if anyone thinks that he knows nothing, he cannot be sure that he knows this, when he confesses that he knows nothing at all. I shall avoid disputing with such a trifler, who perverts all things, and like a tumbler with his head prone to the earth, can go no otherwise than backwards.

And yet allow that he knows this, I would ask (since he had nothing before to lead him into such a knowledge) whence he had the notion what it was to know, or not to know; what it was that gave him an idea of Truth or Falsehood, and what taught him to distinguish between doubt and certainty?

4-478

But you will find that knowledge of truth is originally derived from the senses, nor can the senses be contradicted, for whatever is able by the evidence of an opposite truth to convince the senses of falsehood, must be something of greater certainty than they. But what can deserve greater credit than the senses require from us? Will reason, derived from erring sense, claim the privilege to contradict it? Reason – that depends wholly upon the senses,which unless you allow to be true, all reason must be false. Can the ears correct the eyes? Or the touch the ears? Or will taste confute the touch? Or shall the nose or eyes convince the rest? This, I think, cannot be, for every sense has a separate faculty of its own, each has its distinct powers; and therefore an object, soft or hard, hot or cold, must necessarily be distinguished as soft or hard, hot or cold, by one sense separately, that is, the touch. It is the sole province of another, the sight, to perceive the colors of things, and the several properties that belong to them. The taste has a distinct office. Odors particularly affect the smell, and sound the ears. And therefore it cannot be that one sense should correct another, nor can the same sense correct itself, since an equal credit ought to be given to each; and therefore whatever the senses at any time discover to us must be certain.

4-500

And though reason is not able to assign a cause why an object that is really four-square when near, should appear round when seen at a distance; yet, if we cannot explain this difficulty, it is better to give any solution, even a false one, than to deliver up all Certainty out of our power, to break in upon our first principle of belief, and tear up all foundations upon which our life and security depend. For not only all reason must be overthrown, but life itself must be immediately extinguished, unless you give credit to your senses. These direct you to fly from a precipice and other evils of this sort which are to be avoided, and to pursue what tends to your security. All therefore is nothing more than an empty parade of words that can be offered against the certainty of sense.

4-513

Lastly, as in a building, if the principle rule of the artificer be not true, if his line be not exact, or his level bear in to the least to either side, every thing must needs be wrong and crooked, the whole fabric must be ill-shaped, declining, hanging over, leaning and irregular, so that some parts will seem ready to fall and tumble down, because the whole was at first disordered by false principles. So the reason of things must of necessity be wrong and false which is founded upon a false representation of the senses.

That's a statement that the kind of skepticism we're arguing about is a "mind virus" and "at the kernel level" and at the end of the day it's not feasible to live the happiest live possible unless you eradicate it from your thinking. I didn't agree with Titus' analogy that it makes sense to try to get too close to supernatural religions in order to plant such a virus in them, but I think an analogy of attacking skepticism as a "mind virus at kernel level" is extremely useful.

Quote from Martin

My reference to being "Kantian" is limited to him as being named as the original source of the distinction between a model and truth.

if you are correct Kant is apparently saying that truth is never possible, on "models," some of which work better than others. I believe Epicurus would say that this is effectively the same thing as saying that "nothing can be known" just using different terminology.

Quote from Eikadistes

Epíkouros and Kant would argue. Kant wouldn't steal a loaf of bread for a starving child. Epíkouros would have died rather than betray a loved one. They fundamentally disagreed on the question of the divisibility of space, and I think you'd have a tough time convincing Epíkouros that a "thing-it-itself" is any thing at all.

Excellently points by Eikadistes. And this bleeds over into comments by DaveT in another thread. I do not believe Epicurus would view someone who would "fail to steal a loaf of bread for a starving child" as simply choosing another path in life. Epicurus would find that conduct outrageous and deserving of strong verbal condemnation if not worse. Ideas have consequences and this is the kind of result of Kantian ideology that deserves the forcefulness of a Nietzsche to condemn in adequate terms.

Quote from DaveT

I was referring to the progress of philosophy depending on the prior generations of great thinkers.

It's fair to say that I think "philosophy" in general has done nothing but regress since about 50 BC (which I'm equating with the high-water mark of penetration by Epicurean thinking).

Quote from DaveT

Sometimes this forum seems to take on the entire world as if in a black and white challenge to its philosophy.

Well stated!

Quote from DaveT

And yet, it is quite apparent that the goal of the forum is to host reasoned and frank discourse without excessive passion or extremism of any sort.

No, the goal of this forum is not to "host reasoned and frank discourse without excessive passion or extremism of any sort." The goal of this forum is to study and promote Epicurean philosophy. While it is true that what you just described is often the instrument of doing do, the instrumentality is never the goal and there is much "reasoned and frank discourse without excessive passion or extremism" that is totally inappropriate and outside the goals of this forum.

Quote from TauPhi

We certainly can claim knowledge. We can't claim that our knowledge is equivalent to the truth about how things are.

I clipped a number of statements to comment on but probably this one was all that is necessary. Whether we talk about "knowledge" or "truth" or "reality" or any other similar word, the issue is whether we can ever have confidence that our major conclusions about supernatural forces and life after death will ever need to be revised. I see Epicurus as being completely clear that there are issues like that at which we have no need of further observation, and the only compelling conclusion is "no" as to each. Holding those questions open as "maybe there will be new information tomorrow" creates needless doubt and anxiety, and more than that, has no logical basis, because you are speculating without evidence, and to do so means you are willing to give up your grip that Nature gave you on THIS world out of a speculative/imaginative possibility that "something else" may possibly - again without evidence - exist which will contradict the sum total of your and human prior experience.

Quote from TauPhi

ur knowledge will never be the truth about how things actually are. And this statement is not incompatible with Epicurean philosophy.

We disagree. I believe this statement is fundamentally at odds with Epicurean philosophy. In Epicurean philosophy it is "the truth' that there are no supernatural gods and no life after death.

We can all take personal positions on that in our personal lives, but there's only one position on those issues consistent with Epicurean philosophy, and to say otherwise is to simply ignore the totality of what is reliabily recorded. Where in any reliable citation can you find ANY opening for any other position?

Quote from TauPhi

There are only subjective, human faculties in Epicurus' canon: feelings, senses and anticipations.

And based on those faculties it is reasonable to reach confident conclusions which you can reasonably say are knowledge about truth and reality.

Quote from TauPhi

There's not even one canonical faculty that would allow us to measure how things are outside of our human experiences.

The faculties provide evidence on which we are confident that the nature operates through irreducible particles. The faculties provide the data but "true reason" produces the conclusions. That is why the sense are never wrong, but some opinions are wrong and others are right. And those right opinions constitute knowledge of truth and reality.

Quote from TauPhi

Your equivalences sound more like:There are stairs to knowledge we need to climb but we can't see the end of them therefore we must declare that the stairs don't exist.

There are indeed stairs to knowledge, and in some opinions we can have greater confidence than in others. It is skepticism to say that there is a staircase but never a final conclusion on any subject, and that the staircase goes on "forever."

The issue we're focusing on of course is that of dogmatism in Epicurean philosophy, not whether "everyone" has to agree on the subject. People are free to take whatever positions they like, but at some point it becomes obligatory on people who say that they are Epicureans to take a position on whether this is or is not part of Epicurean philosophy.

And this is where I think some of us have come to an understanding: they pick and choose what elements of core Epicurean philosophy they want to adapt, and they label themselves accordingly. That's why you (Tau Phi) have been frank in stating that you are not an Epicurean, and I appreciate your frankness and we operate on those parameters.

We simply disagree on these issues of skepticism. I'll close this post by saying that I'd be happy for someone to cite to me some very clear Epicurean texts that support the arguments Tau Phi is raising, but I don't expect Tau Phi himself to do that because he acknowledges that his position is not Epicurean.+

Quote from wbernys

In all this talk about trying to convert the masses don't forget that interpersonal conversion between friends co-workers or family is probably the main driving factor.

This is a good conversation. I'm pressed for time in writing but just to note quickly:

1 - I completely agree with concerns about not trying to convert "the masses." It always pays to know who you're talking to and not intrude on others who clearly don't want to hear your opinions.

2 - Diogenes' wall is good food for thought. He put up a PUBLIC WALL for all who happened upon it to read. But he presumably did not stand on the corner yelling at people about it either.

3 - And if I recall DL says Epicurus numbered his "friends" in whole cities, and Cicero said that Epicurean philosophy had taken Italy "by storm."

Like with everything else theres a context which has to be worked through in deciding what to say and to whom.

Quote from DaveT

What philosopher actually proves anything? We've probably dealt with that issue often enough, but my devilish sense of humor drove me to ask it again.

I think Epicurus would say that he has 'proven' that the universe as a whole is eternal and infinite in size and there is nothing "outside" of it. Now obviously that's a different definition than saying "I've been there and seen it and you can rely on me" or "god told me to tell you" but as I understand that is what it means to be a dogmatist. You take certain things to be beyond dispute, with beyond dispute at least meaning that at some point it's not worth wasting further time to discuss. That would be at least analogous to our legal framework of finality.

Quote from DaveT

Would they not have common respect for each other and be able to good naturedly but seriously, poke each other in the ribs verbally on this point or that?

I don't think that's necessarily so. We have the list of disparaging names that Epicurus is cited to have used against other philosophers in Diogenes Laertius, and we have that intensity reflected in Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda at least. Am I saying that they would get into a fistfight? Or refuse to talk to each other? No, but I also don't think that they would say "let's all just get along and spend the rest of our lives having tea with each other.

And in the end, given the intensity that all of them felt about the importance of their philosophy, I doubt any friendly meetings would last much longer than necessary to explore any ambiguities that one felt that they might have about some detail of the other. They would see the importance of their own work as much more important than building bridges for the sake of unity.

Quote from DaveT

don't think anyone needs to fear that comparative points on an Epicurean forum will confuse novice students. I suspect all forum members are already leaning into Epicurus and high level discussions.

That's trickier. Even at this point we're something of a "work in progress." I perceive I personally tend to want to confront other views more than I think that some others wish to do. And it's true that quarreling quickly gets tiresome, especially when it's readily available at Reddit. So that's why we have different sections and levels and try to meet as many needs as possible.

Thanks Martin will fix!

DaveT another example of my personal priority of where to spend time:

(1) I think we need very clear lists and charts and descriptions of the most basic of Epicurean canonical, physical, and ethical positions. That's what I've been working on for months with the material that is on the first page, on epicurustoday.com. That provides a newcomer with a very clear list of things to focus on, and I think that's of primary importance. if people come to grips with those and largely agree with them, then we have firm grounds for studying nature using a shared framework as Epicurus repeatedly advises.

(2) Next, i'm on the alert for pesky issues that continue to intrude on the objective. Those include (A) Stoicism (which I think in many cases translates into "seeing tranquility rather than pleasure as the goal." It also includes (B) "skepticism" - "Epicurus hasn't proved his case because in fact Epicurus CAN'T prove his case because it's really not possible to prove cases from nature in the first place. It appears to me that most modern philosophy but also Kant falls in this general category." Then there's (C) idealism / absolute moraiity - which is where "humanism" comes in, and again where the Kantian "categorical imperative" is involved.

Each of those A B and C in the last paragraph are major issues that most people are going to bring with them when they come to the study of Epicurus. They are also very difficult to dislodge even among some who generally begin to appreciate that the core issue isn't "How much ice cream should I eat?" but "How should i view the world at its deepest levels? (from which you can derive how much ice cream to eat much later on).

And as a specific example of that when I hear it said that "Epicurus' physics are obsolete" what I firmly believe to be going on is that they are not really saying "Epicurus didn't understand subatomic particles so his physics is obsolete." What they are really saying, or at least when normal people will hear, is "Epicurus' was wrong to conclude that the universe is eternal, and that there's nothing outside the universe, and all those questions are not answered, and will never be answered, so we'd better be humble about supernatural forces and life after death and make our Pascal's bargain to learn to live with the possibility that the reilgions are right."

And one of the operating presumptions of this forum is that we are dealing with "normal people" who want "normal lives lived happily" and we're not catering to those who live for the exhilaration that they apparently get from reveling in uncertainty about every question in life. That's a description of the kind of people I think we have here at the forum, and that we want to cultivate. All the while realizing that there are many many people who don't agree with that framework, and that we aren't going to be able to do build the community we'd like to have here if we cater to that second category.

Quote from DaveT

I'd enjoy reading relevant comparisons between E and Kant (and other more modern philosophers) that shows how they are similarly focused. Can it be done without avoiding the differences yet at the same time avoiding disputation?

I definitely think it can be done, and that it would be helpful to do exactly that.

Differences can be sharpened in an unbiased unemotional way. Once we have a sharp view of the differences, then we can pretty easily find the line where we cross into advocacy of anti-Epicurean positions. Those who want to advocate core positions that are clearly anti-Epicurean can receive our best wishes and proceed to do that elsewhere for as long and passionately as they want. And those who conclude that an Epicurean framework allows for the best living can do so here.

For example it seems to me that it should be relatively easy to articulate positions on such core Epicurean views as "error is not in the senses but in the mind. "

Likewise it ought to be possible to articulate what it means to "prove" something.

On that last point I'm see the issue arise regularly: "Epicurus can't prove that the universe is infinite in size or eternal in time."

In my view, Epicurus had very sound reasoning as to why the universe as a whole cannot be otherwise. Obviously there are many local phenomena with specific circumstances which scientists are exploring. In Epicurus' time the question was the size of the sun, how magnets appear to generate action at a distance, and other poorly understood issues such as are listed in Book 6 of Lucretius.

Epicurus was very familiar that there are real-world issues like those for which we currently don't have adequate physical explanations.

But that didn't stop Epicurus from concluding that at the "ultimate" level of the universe as a whole, the javelin argument and similar hypotheticals are sufficient to conclude that we can be certain that no matter how far we go in space there's either "something" there or it not. Epicurus makes no claim to itemize what the various "somethings" might be, but he's say that from our human perspective it makes sense to categorize those things that affect us as "something" and those things that don't affect us as "nothing to us."

That is a kind of working real-world perspective that will take us through life with a practical frame of analysis. It doesn't exclude the possibility that there are in fact advanced civilizations that can create and destroy solar systems and living beings like we can only do in movies. I think Frances Wright was correct to include that possibility in her book. But such beings are not "supernatural" from the "universe as a whole" perspective. The possibility that such beings exist does not therefore negate the "universe as a whole" being eternal or infinite in size.

But getting back to what it means to "prove" something: Suggesting that Epicurus' framework is not "proven" seems to me to be missing Epicurus' point entirely. It's rejecting his combined logic-human experience perspective and suggesting that we require a level of proof that is clearly impossible for a human to possess. It's ultimately "otherworldly" in nature, highly damaging to human happiness, and exists mainly to sneak in a form of absolute morality or Judeo-Christianity-lite just as Nietzsche was suggesting as to Kant. (There's no god to justify my viewpoint, but I still think everyone should reach the same moral decisions - I'll just call it "categorical imperative"! )

Not everyone is going to agree completely with how to analyze these basic issues, but I firmly think that a forum that is dedicated to promoting Epicurean philosophy is going to at largely end up in the same place on the general outline.

It appears to me that the ancient Epicureans thought it makes no sense whatsoever to allow such people to argue such things without pushback, as if they occupy some kind of Stoic / moralist high ground.

So I do think it's important to dispassionately clarify where the issues really are found. After that we can passionately take sides as to the implications of those issues - after we are clear on what they really are.

Ok there's a lot to address there but here's at least a start:

All of the facts you've cited about current levels of penetration into the wider culture are very true from my perspective as well.

But I don't see those facts as the starting point of the analysis.

You can't even begin to penetrate the culture at all with a position until you have a clearly articulated position.

In fact, I'd hazard to say that I am happy that cultural recognition of Epicurus is so low given for what passes as the conventional wisdom about Epicurus.

Nothing exists to fight for in the culture unless and until there is a body of work that effectively translates what the ancient understanding of Epicurus was into modern terms.

So that's the place we have to start.

And I do think that good progress is being made, and I'd put Austin's and DeWitt's books into that category. But "books" aren't the goal either, and are becoming less and less relevant.

What you've described as real people engaging on social media and a regular drumbeat of activity are certainly the goal. But that can't come until we have more people confidently advocating what needs to be advocated.

And that's where AI as a tool become useful. A lot of good work has been produced here and other places, but it needs to be organized and presented persuasively. For example with the podcast in particular I think there has been a lot of useful formulations which most people even here on the forum are not aware of. AI will be useful, as it has been with the transcripts, in getting that material easier to access.

Another example are the "charts" or "side by side" versions of Lucretius and DL 10 and the collections of quotations. Those are all prepared using AI coding and would simply not have been reasonably possible without it.

In terms of social media posting most any of them that get any traction need some kind of graphic. AI makes possible creative and persuasive charts and graphics that would also otherwise be functionally impossible to most of us.

That's the first line of activity I am talking about. We need lots "summary" material that brings argument together in the way Epicurus talked about in Herodotus to enable people to go back and forth between the outline and the details. AI can help a LOT with that.

But no amount of slickness of presentation is going to be of any help if we have no more than a handful of people who can talk about Epicurus without corrupting him with skepticism, with idealism, with "retreatism," with falling into talking about "tranquility" as the real goal of life, with inability to talk about pleasure as the goal of life without apologizing for active pleasures, and characterizing basic aspects of the Epicurean approach to prudence and practical wisdom as obsolete.

Until we've got a core group of activists who are solid on those issues its probably better that our social penetration remains exactly where it is now!

Most of what I've written in this post is directed toward using AI to make more effective presentations. But there's another level too. It isn't a possible or satisfactory goal to "produce an AI version of Epicurus,' because a model is not a living thing and cannot possibly take into account all actual real-world circumstances. But the process of creating an "algorithm" that an "AI version of Epicurus" would follow is almost exactly the same kind of training material that educating real human Epicureans requires.

So that's a second aspect of what we're talking about.

I'll close with saying that I don't think you're being pessimistic. You're one of the people who we really owe a lot to for the work you've put into Epicurus already. It's not being pessimistic to point out what a big job we face because that's the reality. It's food for motivation, not pessimism, just like Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and many others DID NOT *** let the size of the job stop them from what they accomplished. [*** - thanks for the correction Martin!]

But none of that would have been possible had the earliest Epicureans not articulated the standard. The first step in going forward is to recover that.

Quote from Martin

Within Kant's epistemology, certainty with respect to knowledge about phenomena is possible but the metaphysical claim that that knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded.

So "knowledge is the truth about how things actually are is unfounded"
is a "metaphysical claim" which is "unfounded."

And as science advances still "there is no superior knowledge from where we could justify that thought."

That certainly sounds to me like the equivalent of making the assertion that because we observe progress in science we cannot claim "knowledge" of anything physical. And since the physical is this world, and we can't claim knowledge of it.

That sounds like the functional equivalent of saying that there is in fact a "true world" which is inaccessible to the senses and toward which we can never do anything more than approach knowledge.

And I would say that it sounds like the equivalence of saying "nothing can be known" to any regular person who has to choose how to live today based on whether there is a supernatural god and reward/punishment after death.

If that kind of formulation appeals to a certain type of "scientist" who are happy to have a theory that makes them feel good, then more power to them. But so far Kant adds up to me exactly as Nietzsche describes him.

As you've said earlier Martin this isn't the time or place for an extensive exploration into how to advocate for Kant. People can go outside the forum for that, where it is readily accessible.

But if you Martin or anyone else who has established that they are well disposed toward Epicurus want to add additional info about exactly what about Epicurus Kant makes "obsolete" then as far as I am concerned the floor will continue to be open to pursue this further.

Thanks Martin. I'll take a look at that aspect as I get time. I suspect in the end the issue might be summarized as "Kant rejected dogmatism and Epicurus embraced dogmatism."

Obviously to drill down into that the word "dogmatism" would have to be defined carefully. I don't know Kant at this point well enough to be sure, but given what you've said it seems you're indicatingthat to Epicurus "dogmatism" means held that "knowledge of some things is possible" and Kant held that "no knowledge of any kind is possible." It's possible that it would be better to state that as "Epicurus held that "certainty about some things is possible" and Kant held that "no certainty of any kind is possible."

If you think those are incorrect then maybe we could at least work toward a general division between the two positions. If you are saying that a significant aspect of Epicurus is obsolete then we ought to be able to at least get clarity on what aspect you're referring to.

Quote from Martin

My own position is that Epicurus extreme affirmation on the real world made sense at his time as opposition to Plato's nonsense, but it is obsolete now, thanks to Kant and others.

Quote from Eikadistes

I deleted my LinkedIn account a few weeks ago.

I want to add into this thread as an aside that I have tremendous respect for the effort that Eikadistes has put into Epicurean philosophy over the years. Not only that, but he's younger than most of the rest of us here and he's having to live through more of the stresses than most of us.

Not referring to him specifically but in general -- for how many years now have people been patronized with "learn to code" as the answer to economic changes?

And now where are we? Coders being laid off in every direction, all at the same time that the competition in some parts of the intelligence-driven job market is greater than ever.

Not just those of us who are older, but to whom and to what can younger people look to to help navigate these issues?

I think Epicurus had uniquely valuable insight into what really matters and how to attack ultimate issues.

I can reduce a lot of the frustration I have with Epicurean writing over the last 100 or so years to the observation that it seems people want to encourage everyone to believe that Epicurus advised "checking out" from society.

I think Epicurean philosophy calls us to "check in" and grapple with problems with everything we've got. Not because we want unlimited wealth or power or fame or momentary physical stimulation, but because this world and this life is all we have, and we have to use it in the best possible way while we can. And that doesn't mean giving in to Platonic idealism or Kantian models based on categorical imperatives or any other kind of ivory-tower logic-based reasoning.

AI hasn't been the cause of these problems. It's the uses to which AI is being put that are ramping them up. If we allow Platonic idealism and its related culprits to dominate the us of AI (or any other technology) then we're just going to get driven deeper into obscurity. Look what the anti-Epicurean world has done over the last 2000 years with just the more primitive tools of psychological manipulation they had available to them. If they are allowed to dominate AI and use it for the advancement of Idealism then much worse is yet to come, and that can't be allowed to happen unchallenged.

Quote from Eikadistes

let's just say I'm really hoping that our species won't split, and everyone connected to AI will become Eloi and the rest of us will become Morlocks.

As some say but I am saying without any sarcasm to you, as the phrase goes, "hope is not a strategy."

I think you're absolutely right to be concerned about that. It seems to me very very likely to happen, so we have to fight against it with every tool at our disposal. Ironically it appear AI itself will be necessary to enlist against those who would use it to produce the result you and I both don't want to see.

Quote from Don

Using your articles specifically, what did the generative AI application give you that you couldn't have brought to the work by composing them without the AI tool?

What does a generative AI tool do to "reach people" that is not available without that tool

Great question. Ultimately nothing that I could not have done alone given enough time and effort. But it is an exponential force multiplier that allows things to be possible in reasonable time and effort which would not have been possible without it.

The graphics are another example - I could "never" have done those myself, yet the "message" of the graphic is entirely at my direction.

Another specific hypothetical:

Suppose a human in 1965 who is creative but not a musician decides that he can use AI to produce a song that is as beautiful and catchy as anything produced by the Beatles, and also specifically brings to the listeners' attention genuine Epicurean arguments as to no life after death and no supernatural gods. It would make Epicurus's name and genuine teaching as famous as any name used as the title of any famous love song.

Now someone is likely going to say "that's not possible" (our Experience machine PD10 argument again) but i am simply going to disagree firmly. If it's not already possible, it's going to be possible soon.

Would a Lucretius or a Diogenes of Oinoanda or a Philodemus say "No, I'm not going to do that, because AI makes me very uneasy. It doesn't matter if I could "change the world" overnight and bring consciousness of Epicurean ideas to millions of real humans at essentially no cost."

I'm sure there are some who would say "Yes that's exactly what they would say - they'd refuse to do it."

And my response to that is that I would diplomatically but firmly disagree.

As in my earlier comments as to the Industrial Revolution, i think the arguments we're concerned about now are already becoming obsolete in younger generations, and the specific concerns we have are going to die with us.

Younger people are already being acclimated to the idea that no image or video or document can be trusted at face value, because it may be AI generated.

That's not entirely a bad thing and it may not be a bad thing at all. We've always had illusions to deal with as Lucretius discusses in Book 4. And much of what we've been taught over the last 2000 years is fraudulent as well. It's probably long past time to take anything or anyone at face value. We should always test whether an assertion is in fact really true, and what implications will arise if it is in fact believed versus those if it is not.

Quote from Don

If an AI application is used to model weather data to predict severe weather and to save lives, . If someone uses generative AI to create computer code and something goes wrong, you can't ask the coder "Why did you write this line this way instead of that way?" Software engineers can be asked. G

Yes as I see it that is the test - the actual result. You would not want to turn loose generative AI without human supervision and without the ability for a human to override the Ai when it is wrong, as it often will be. I think that's pretty much the dividing line between what is acceptable and what is not. Because if indeed we use generative AI to actually and in fact reach people with genuine Epicurean presentations that would not otherwise be available to them, and we also make sure that there is human supervision that allows the human to engage, ask questions, and participate with real humans, then that's in my mind an example where the specificc end justifies the specific means.