New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Excellent questions Patrikios. Thanks for asking them and it seems to me thought experiment is a useful way to approach the problem.
It's possible "modern physics" might have one answer, but even if it's different -- and I'm not sure it would be -- it would be helpful to think about that from Epicurus' perspective. Would the atom require interaction with another atom to move, or would it simply move due to the available space around it?
Welcome Branden - You path here from Stoicism is not a lot different from my own, though I preferred Cicero to Seneca. As to the Buddhist question we have several here who know much more about that than I do, so I'll let them chime in.
Glad to have you with us!
BrandenOz tells us:
Hi Cassius,
I got into philosophy through Ryan Holiday's lighter works on Stoicism. Then from there, I read the three Roman Stoics he talks about, Marcus, Epictetus, and Seneca. I knew right away that I liked Seneca and through his letters, I was introduced to Epicureanism. I recently have read a few works of Epicureanism and I think it was "Epicurus of Samos: His Philosophy and Life: All the Principal Source Texts" that mentioned that a great deal of what Seneca says is a requoting of Epicurus's ideas. I found that what I liked most about Seneca was the Epicurean parts I had almost memorized. I also appreciated Seneca's cleverness and depiction of an intellectual life, but I found I didn't care much for Stoicism. I am an atheist as well and really like David Fitsgerald's work and I find that Stoicism seems to me to strengthen the claims in Christianity for most, rather than give the freedom that Epicureanism seems to give. I've been listening to the Lucretius Today podcast episodes linked on the homepage, specifically the 5 for physics, logic, and ethics and I find this model seems to be the best way to explain the real world I experience. I've studied philosophy at the undergraduate level for a few semesters for fun and have a bachelor's in education and a master's in business administration.
A topic I am really interested in learning more about, and maybe this is a separate topic, is if secular mindfulness meditation as derived from Buddhism, specifically including the body scan and labeling which seems to remove pain, and the thinking of the 5 hindrances, which seems to eliminate fear is incompatible with Epicurus. What would Epicurus likely say about that specific, secular meditation? I am an atheist and don't see meditation as anything more than a therapeutic act that affects only the physical and mental dimensions of the human being. I don't believe in a soul, spirit, or any mystical aspects that are often associated with meditation. I use no apps and simply set a time for 10 minutes to complete the whole activity, sometimes 20. Would Epicurus see a fallacy or improved alternative in this? It seems that things are dealt with in a direct, logical and conscious manner and possibly this form of meditation is helpful but overly complicated. I am new to Epicureanism comparatively but this question comes up for me as a student of philosophy, but a practitioner of meditation. I am not looking for approval necessarily either, but understanding if there is a better way to do what I seem to be doing with my meditation practice. The main benefits I experience from it are certain emotional awareness. I understand from Episode 262 of the Lucretius Today Podcast: "He Who Says 'Nothing Can Be Known' Knows Nothing." that Skepticism may be in many ways the western philosophical equivalent to Buddhism and Epicurus finds logical inconsistency in it. Therefore, would he find the same in even a specific form of meditation and why? Any materials you can recommend or answers you can give I would be very happy with.
--
Welcome Brandenoz
There is one last step to complete your registration:
All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).
You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.
Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.
This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.
You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.
We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).
Welcome to the forum!
Martin what is the understanding of gravity today?
Is it held to exist independently as its own entity separate from all other things?
Is gravity itself "uncaused"?
Given that it appears to take a moon-sized or planet-sized body to generate much gravity, I am still thinking that it is something that is associated with "matter" even today (?)
Edit: Do you agree with this from Grok?
Does an atom generate gravity?
Yes, a single atom generates gravity. According to both Newtonian gravity and Einstein’s General Relativity (our best current theory), any object with mass (or energy) produces a gravitational field and curves spacetime. An atom has mass—mostly from its protons and neutrons in the nucleus, plus a tiny contribution from electrons and binding energies—so it sources gravity just like a planet or star does, only vastly weaker.
I'll talk to the others and look into that. Thanks
Good thoughts Bryan. I would not want to use a word not closely related to something actually used.
Do you have any thoughts on the Greek or Latin words used in any of the places you have seen this discussed? I don't gather that "weight" is a direct transliteration of either Greek or Latin.
I see βαρύς (barys), meaning heavy, but that goes to barometer or "barium" rather than our english word.
And I see Lucretius uses both pondus which gives us "ponderous," "pound," and related English words and also gravis (heavy)
Is it as Eikadistes quoted earlier perhaps better to use the term gravity if Lucretius is using gravitas? Did the Greeks have separate word for "gravitas"?
In english gravity to me implies a force, which is really more what we are looking for.
i am finding no academic articles, but I see citation to the following place (On Fate 24) where Cicero apparently used BOTH pondus and gravitas in the same sentence, arguably implying that he considered them to be separate things (perhaps having weight BECAUSE of the gravitational force within it):
Cicero, De Fato 11.23–24
De Fato 23: "si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria" — "if the atom were always carried along by natural and necessary gravitas"
De Fato 24 (repeated): "per inane moveatur gravitate et pondere" — "moved through the void by gravitas and pondus" — and then immediately: "ipsius individui hanc esse naturam, ut pondere et gravitate moveatur" — "it is the nature of the atom itself to be moved by pondus and gravitas"
[23] Hanc Epicurus rationem induxit ob eam rem, quod veritus est, ne, si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria, nihil liberum nobis esset, cum ita moveretur animus, ut atomorum motu cogeretur. 11. Id Democritus, auctor atomorum, accipere maluit, necessitate omnia fieri, quam a corporibus individuis naturalis motus avellere. Acutius Carneades, qui docebat posse Epicureos suam causam sine hac commenticia declinatione defendere. Nam cum docerent esse posse quendam animi motum voluntarium, id fuit defendi melius quam introducere declinationem, cuius praesertim [p. 261] causam reperire non possent; quo defenso facile Chrysippo possent resistere. Cum enim concessissent motum nullum esse sine causa, non concederent omnia, quae fierent, fieri causis antecedentibus; voluntatis enim nostrae non esse causas externas et antecedentis.
24] Communi igitur consuetudine sermonis abutimur, cum ita dicimus, velle aliquid quempiam aut nolle sine causa; ita enim dicimus “sine causa”, ut dicamus: sine externa et antecedente causa, non sine aliqua; ut, cum vas inane dicimus, non ita loquimur, ut physici, quibus inane esse nihil placet, sed ita, ut verbi causa sine aqua, sine vino, sine oleo vas esse dicamus, sic, cum sine causa animum dicimus moveri, sine antecedente et externa causa moveri, non omnino sine causa dicimus. De ipsa atomo dici potest, cum per inane moveatur gravitate et pondere, sine causa moveri, quia nulla causa accedat extrinsecus.
And solving the problem of terminology doesn't require that we wait for some kind of explicit physics rechnology explanation, any more than Epicurus waiting before taking about uncuttable atoms or the swerve. The issue is that the atoms possess within themselves the power of movement and don't wait on gods or outside forces of any kind to bestow it on them.
The sole external requirement is space to move within.
"Weight" carries modern connotations that obscure that original intent of independent capacity, and also makes it harder to see how the swerve is equally uncaused.
Yes I presume Goodwin is struggling with the same issue we are discussing. Epicurus is apparently using the word to designate a capacity for self-generated motion (as in the swerve) and in English "weight" does not give us that self-moving capacity. We need to figure out how to convey this better.
Aenaedum tells us:
I have an undergraduate degree in Classics, with a focus on Horace and Lucretius, and a Masters in Comp Lit, with work on Montaigne and ataraxia. I've self-identified as a follower of Epicurus for many years, so I'm interested to learn more about how his philosophy can be applied in current day settings. From a practical standpoint, I intend to use what I learn to help people I sponsor in a 12 step program to find guidance from Epicurus in their recovery and everyday life.
Welcome Aeneadum !
There is one last step to complete your registration:
All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).
You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.
Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.
This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.
You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.
We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).
Welcome to the forum!
Note - I moved posts from wbernys and eikadistes to the subforum for PD06 as they are very useful there and can be found there more easily in the future.
Good thoughts as to the correspondence, Eikadistes. I haven't got much to go on yet but I think there's a bright line and that Epicurus would require that "weight" not imply that this particular cause of the motion of atoms is operating only because of some external force separate from matter and void. (In other words, given that the universe is infinite in size in all directiions and there's no "bottom," there's no force outside the atoms pulling them "down."
Regardless of anything else, our notion of gravity implies something giving off an attractive force at a distance. Maybe there's something in the magnetism discussion in Lucretius that could be used to explain what "weight" might mean without requiring "action at distance" (without touch being involved).
Thanks Joshua. So clearly the word being used is "weight." It seems possible however that that does not end the inquiry because it's potentially not clear what is meant by weight.
Today (i gather) we are using weight as something that is attracted differentially by gravity (?)
Epicurus apparently was not using that paradigm (and would not, given that what we think of gravity would be a force outside the atom) ??
What Seldey seems to be saying is that Epicurus is using the term to mean a potential to move when space allows it, which itself is the cause of motion without interaction with anything outside it.
Am I reading that right? If so then a straight use of "weight" in our modern context might be confusing the issue just as it is confusing to think that Epicurus meant "atom" in the same way we do.
In a nearby thread we have discussed the analysis of space travel from the Epicurean point of view (Would Epicurus embrace going to the moon).
That's a very good specific example and might be all that's needed, but I am setting this thread up as a place to unify other examples of how to analyze risks vs reward and state the Epicurean attitude toward risk aversion more directly.
So to discuss the general issue of risk aversion outside of the specific space travel hypothetical, please post in this thread.
So the reason this topic came up today is that Patrikios brought up the question of whether atoms move because of some external force applied to them. And this directly relates to the motion of bodies such as magnets, discussed in Book 6 of Lucretius.
If I am reading this correctly, then it would not be appropriate to say that the the three eternal properties of atoms are size, shape, and motion. It is correct to say "size, shape, and weight."
However Epicurus intended "weight" to be understood as the internal cause of motion without need of any external force (which we might think of as gravity) acting on it. Thus Epicurus was holding that no external force is required to cause atoms to move, as they have moved eternally.
If someone has a better way to state that please post.
The Routledge Encyclopedia entry by David Sedley
Surprisingly, atoms never stop moving, even within a compound object, since the medium through which they move is void, which can offer them no resistance. More surprisingly, for the same reason they move at a vastly greater speed than any familiar motion through an obstructive medium such as air; even than sunlight, which is seen to spread from horizon to horizon virtually instantaneously (Lucretius II 142–64). More surprisingly still, they all move at equal speed, since in a vacuum, unlike air, there is no resistance from the medium to slow down the lighter ones more than the heavier ones (Letter to Herodotus 61). In stating all these claims, Epicurus is accepting paradoxical consequences of the hypothesis that void exists, consequences which Aristotle had drawn (Physics IV) in the belief that they were sufficiently absurd to discredit the hypothesis. Moreover, the equal speed of atoms was confirmed by another objection Aristotle thought he had found to atomism (Physics VI 2): if there is a minimal magnitude, there can be no differences of speed, because then in the time the faster object took to travel one minimum the slower one would, impossibly, have to travel less than one minimum. Epicurus welcomed this argument, along with the conclusion Aristotle thought absurd, because his theories of void and minima now offered two independent grounds for the same conclusion, that atoms move at equal speed.
The apparent lack of fit between these findings about atoms and the variable speed of macroscopic motions is explained as follows (Letter to Herodotus 62). Even in a compound object the individual atoms are perpetually moving, but in tight and regular cyclical patterns which make the complex as a whole stable. Phenomenal differences of speed, say between two runners, represent merely the aggregate motions of the atoms in each over an observed period of time.
There are three causes of an atom’s motion. The first is its own weight, interpreted as an inherent tendency to move downwards (see §8). The second is collisions with other atoms, which can deflect an originally downward motion along any number of new rectilinear trajectories, thus generating the patterns of motion of which compounds are born.
The third cause of atomic motion is the ‘swerve’ (parenklisis), whereby an atom may shift from its rectilinear trajectory onto an adjacent one – a displacement sideways by a distance of one minimum (there being no smaller distance). This happens ‘at no fixed place or time’, meaning that the occurrence of a swerve is causally undetermined. The theory, derided by Epicurus’ opponents but now recognized as comparable in its implications to modern quantum indeterminism, looks like a drastic solution requiring a drastic problem. Two such problems are recorded (Lucretius II 216–93). First, since all atomic motion starts out as vertical and equal in speed, without a swerve no collisions would ever have started, and hence no world could have been formed. It may be doubted whether this was a sufficiently pressing problem to motivate an abandonment of universal causality: given the infinite past history of the universe,Epicurus had no need to posit a very first collision; in which case every collision could have been explained as the effect of previous ones. The second problem seems to have been the real motivation of the swerve: if all atomic motion is causally determined, free will becomes impossible (see §12).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epicureanism/v-1/sections/motion
Ok I asked Claude to summarize David Sedley's position. Apparently the main article is not publicly available but I will include the cite below:
The key Sedley text regarding the Epicurean relationship between weight and motion turns out to be his own entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), where he lays this out with unusual precision. Here is what he says:
There are three causes of an atom's motion. The first is its own weight, interpreted as an inherent tendency to move downwards. The second is collisions with other atoms, which can deflect an originally downward motion along any number of new rectilinear trajectories, thus generating the patterns of motion of which compounds are born. The third cause of atomic motion is the swerve, whereby an atom may shift from its rectilinear trajectory onto an adjacent one — a displacement sideways by a distance of one minimum. Routledge
So Sedley's answer is precise and structural: weight is not merely a property atoms happen to have — it is the first cause of motion itself. It is the explanatory ground of atomic movement before anything else enters the picture.
Then comes the crucial complication Sedley also states directly: atoms all move at equal speed, since in a vacuum, unlike air, there is no resistance from the medium to slow down the lighter ones more than the heavier ones. Routledge This is Sedley citing Letter to Herodotus 61. So weight is the cause of motion but plays no role whatsoever in determining how fast atoms move — all atoms move equally fast regardless of their weight or size.
Taken together, Sedley's position gives you the clearest possible statement of why "weight" in Epicurean physics is so philosophically strange. Weight is the source of motion — the intrinsic directional tendency that makes atoms move at all — but it does not differentiate fall-rate, does not produce attraction between atoms, and does not operate the way ordinary physical weight does. The atom's property of weight was designed to account for motion as a whole in Epicurus' physics St-andrews — it is the answer to Aristotle's objection that Democritus had no explanation for why atoms move in the first place.
This is exactly why "motion" seems like it could substitute for "weight" — because in Sedley's reading, Epicurean weight just is the cause of natural motion, and the two concepts are inseparable. But Sedley himself maintains "weight" as the right term because the Greek is clearly βάρος, and because weight is the cause of motion, not motion itself. Substituting "motion" would collapse the distinction between the property and what the property produces — which matters for understanding how the swerve then modifies things.
This topic arose in today's Zoom meeting and it needs further research and expansion. I am also going to modify the title of this thread to make the issue more clear.
I feel sure there are academic articles directly on point beyond what I've cited above.
One thing I'd add is that if we go by the list in the principal doctrines, only the concept of there being no supernatural gods comes before the doctrine that "you only live once." (And even the absence of supernatural gods is directly related to living only once and for a short period.)
In my first answer I focused on everyone having different personal tastes and preferences in life. We have a limited amount of time to pursue what we find to be most pleasurable, and I don't see how it makes sense to do anything other than pursue our greatest pleasures in as intelligent a manner as we can.
All that is to say that some people doubtless have zero interest in flying into space. If they have no desire to do that and find no pleasure in it, then of course they won't choose to do so. Far be it for me to tell them that they are wrong about their feelings - everyone has to make those decisions for themselves.
But for me, and I see this compelled by life is short and then it's over, I am drawn to the conclusion that I need to use my time as productively as possible to do things that bring me the greatest pleasure. For me, "tranquility" in the sense of detachment from all emotion -- which is what some people seem to think that "absence of pain" means - is not my goal.
To me, writers who focus on talking about "absence of pain" do not see that Epicurus was using that term as the exact equivalent of the word "pleasure." They are ignoring the very logical reasons why he did so, and the very detailed explanation of those reasons found in Cicero and Diogenes Laertius.
So philosophically I think Epicurus would say people who think going into space would bring them pleasure than pain under their own circumstances should do it. Those who think it would bring more pain to them than pleasure should not do it.
But in my own case I apply that rule this way: I know that knowledge and new experiences are not necessarily pleasurable in themselves. It makes no sense to pursue knowledge or experiences which do not lead to greater pleasure. But if I could do so safely -- and at some point that will be possible - I can think of few if any experiences that would bring more pleasure than space travel.