We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Grok misclassified Sabine Hossenfelder. Her insistence on hard determinism makes her the most extreme physicalist among those listed.
I suspect you are correct but can neither confirm nor deny. However I think the way you phrased that is very helpful for leading to the question: Does hard determinism presuppose physicalism? I suspect that at least some hard determinists would disagree with that, but I see that as one of those intersection questions between philosophy and physics.
I think mpst of our listeners will particularly enjoy the just-released episode 289, in which we focus on what Cicero's explanation of the Stoic position reveals to us about the details of Epicurus' rebuttal to those views. Can't promise an awful lot of air time for those who listen to our podcasts for Star Trek references, but the title does help summarize where we're going here. Find the podcast and comment on it in the thread below:
Episode 289 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today our episode is entitled: "Epicureans Are Not Spocks!"
I may come back and delete this post later if i find better information, but I think we have an obligation to those who "lurk" but don't participate not to let a debate go too far in a certain direction without refocusing it on making sure it is consistent with the purpose of the forum.
Pending further research I have posed the following question to the latest Grok and I believe the response, especially in its opening restatement of the question, is helpful with a general understanding of the issues involved. Even if details of the positions attributed to the particular individuals prove to be incorrect, this still seems to me to be a helpful summary.
Those who have time and inclination can parse through this response and continue to discuss it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Those who do not have time or inclination to do so will still gain, in my view, an appreciation that there are complex issues here, many of which are not "settled."
I hope those who are interested in this will continue to hammer out these issues.
What modern physicists, if any, continue to maintain a "physicalist" model of the universe as opposed to those models which are more consistent with a Herclitean flux where certain knowledge is impossible?
The distinction between a "physicalist" model of the universe and a Heraclitean flux perspective, where constant change undermines certain knowledge, is a deep philosophical divide in modern physics.
Physicalism, in this context, refers to the view that the universe is fundamentally composed of physical entities governed by consistent, discoverable laws, often tied to a mechanistic or reductionist framework. A Heraclitean flux perspective, by contrast, emphasizes constant change, indeterminacy, and the limits of certain knowledge, aligning with interpretations that prioritize process, emergence, or fundamental uncertainty (e.g., some interpretations of quantum mechanics).Below, I’ll outline key modern physicists and their leanings, based on their work and public statements, focusing on whether they align with a physicalist model or a Heraclitean flux-like view. Since direct evidence of their philosophical stances is often implicit, I’ll draw from their contributions, writings, and interviews, supplemented by web and X post analysis where relevant. Note that many physicists don’t explicitly label themselves as physicalists or flux advocates, so I’m inferring based on their approaches to fundamental physics.
Physicists Aligned with a Physicalist Model: Physicalist-leaning physicists tend to favor theories that seek unified, objective, and deterministic (or at least predictable) descriptions of reality, often rooted in reductionism or the belief that fundamental laws govern all phenomena.
Physicists Aligned with a Heraclitean Flux Perspective: Physicists leaning toward a Heraclitean flux view often embrace indeterminacy, emergent phenomena, or the idea that reality is fundamentally process-based or unknowable in an absolute sense. This aligns with interpretations of quantum mechanics (e.g., Copenhagen or QBism) or theories emphasizing complexity and change.
Mixed or Ambiguous Positions: Some physicists straddle the line, acknowledging both the power of physical laws and the limits of certain knowledge:
Summary
The divide reflects ongoing debates in physics about whether the universe is a fixed, knowable system or a dynamic, ever-changing process.
Rolf I am obviously not an expert on this either, nor have I found time to read the books I am about to recommend, but consistently over the years i have had people tell me that a very good resource is Victor Stenger:
To add to what Bryan says about atoms being too small for machines to detect, that highlights that we need to remember that Epicurus was clear that the atoms are not discernable at all by the senses. Anything we know about them is going to come from deductive reasoning based on what is observable.
For that reason, when Martin says:
as hard bodies, which has been refuted by modern physics.
I am not sure that I would agree that Epicurus was really focusing on the bodies as being "hard." That word may very well be used in places, and it is easy to presume that they are hard by analogizing them to the bodies we can observe, but I think we need to look closer and assume nothing that Epicurus himself did not clearly specify.
What I recall is that Epicurus held that the atoms have the three qualities of "size," "shape," and "weight." When I think of "hard," that's something that I identify with touch, and as before we can't touch the atoms to be sure, so any deduction that they are "hard" isn't necessarily required.
Even in terms of size, shape, and weight, what I believe comes through from the texts as necessarily the case was that the "size" of the atoms cannot be infinitely small, nor infinitely large. If they were infinitely small they would not exist, and if infinitely large they would swallow the universe. Within that range what he was focusing on is that the atoms in some way have permanent characteristics that do not change over time. Those permanent characteristics ensure the regularity of the universe and create what we see around us, meaning that there is no requirement for supernatural forces to have created them. Atoms are called "atoms" because the word means indivisible, not because of any other specific assertion about their nature.
These are primarily deductive logical positions, not assertions of specific qualities such as hard or soft, yellow or red, etc. All that is needed is a reasonable explanation of how the universe has a natural, rather than supernatural basis, and for that we look inside of the things we can observe and do our best to deduce conclusions about the smaller parts of which they are composed. As such, it seems to me that virtually any new discovery of actual facts can be fit into this model so long as the new discovery does not constitute a n intelligent supernatural force or the mystical going back and forth to the truly nothing.
Happy Birthday to Eikadistes! Learn more about Eikadistes and say happy birthday on Eikadistes's timeline: Eikadistes
I find it fascinating that the ancient debate between Aristotle and Epicurus continues today in modern medicine—particularly in positive psychology's focus on Eudaimonia (Aristotle) vs Hedonia (Epicurus).
In addition with the problem of abstract ideals that you mentioned, I suspect that at least part of that debate still revolves around the question of what "happiness" really means. Just like "Virtue" being hard to define, it's much easier to understand happiness as pleasures predominating pains (each term broadly defined), than it is to try to itemize exactly what qualities "happiness" divorced from pleasure would really mean, or why they should be pursued.
Again great introduction and thank you for the kind words about the podcast.
This week's isn't going to be ready to post for several days, but we're entering a section of Tusculan Disputations that brings the Epicurean objections to the positions taken by Stoics and others on many emotional questions into sharp focus.
Today we're adding a "News and Announcements" box to the front page. It will display the last 30 days worth of "News/Announcements" threads that have been posted by a moderator/admin. We intend to use this box to keep people up to date on site activities. The box points to a normal forum, so new posts in this box will generate a "red dot" on your notifications just like any other thread.
We didn't end up discussing it very much, but I highly recommend this video of a debate between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on Krauss' book "Something From Nothing."
In summary, my personal (admittedly untrained) view is that in this case as in others, the point being argued by Krauss is overstated. If I recall correctly, Dawkins does a good job of dragging out of Krauss that the "nothing" in Krauss's sensational book title isn't really "nothing" as a philsopher would mean it. Instead, what appears to us to be empty space contains energy/fields/forces or whatever. The Epicurean point would be that whatever the thing we're describing turns out to be, it is going to be "natural," and it's not going to be evidence of an intelligent-design-god that overturns the "matter and void" system. Just like throwing the spear shows that the universe has no terminating point, if something is proved to exist then that simply shows it has a natural fundamental basis, and it isn't going to be "infinitely divisible" so as to upend the fundamental world-view.
My point, however, is less about this specific topic and more about scientific discoveries and consensus potentially being at odds with Epicurus’ physics. Don’s view is a valid one, and probably one I share, but I’m interested in hearing more perspectives on this.
I will look to see if we have prior threads on what happens when philosophy seems to conflict with science. I know the subject has come up regularly, but it tends to get buried with other topics.
But for now and in general, I don't think this apparent conflict is something new, and it existed to a degree even in Epicurus' time, on such issues as the calculations as to the size of the sun. In that case Epicurus can be made to look ridiculous in light of modern telescopes and observations, but he can also be defended as pointing to very reasonable caution about the implications of new methodology which might itself be incomplete. There's also a relationship here with Epicurus' refusal to accept a logical challenge that Metrodorus must be either alive or dead tomorrow.
We have a good thread on the size of the sun here.
And the subforum (which probably does not contain all the threads, some of which are buried in "general," is here:
Fascinating! Does this mean that we as Epicureans would be wise to align ourselves with modern scientific understanding, adopt this view as the most probable explanation, and ditch the Epicurean view on static atoms and void
I don't think Bryan meant to imply that, If following dominant interpretations were always a good idea, Epicurus would have accepted intelligent design for his physics and we would all be Abrahamists today! 😀
Welcome dlippman
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!
The "rage" probably implicates the discussion of the "good" vs "bad" types of anger in Philodemus and elsewhere. I can see the argument that being angry with your disease (or deterioration with age) would be of assistance in prolonging life and pleasure.
And I'd say this Vatican Saying calls for comparison:
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And I will not give myself up as captive to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for me to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who vainly cling to it, I will leave life crying aloud a glorious triumph-song that I have lived well.
I don't know anything about the context of Dylan Thomas or whether he's commented about what he means or any background. Anyone looked into the poem and found anything they'd care to recommend? All I know is that it is well known.
"do not go gentle" does not necessarily equate in my mind with "rage, rage, against..."
Let's do a separate thread on the Dylan Thomas poem:
Don referenced this poem so maybe we should discuss it:
Lots of interesting stuff there including the rage against the dying light which might need its own thread to analyze.
But I think we are establishing that drinking unmixed wine was known to be very dangerous and thus Epicurus would have known at the least that it might be fatal.
I personally would go further than Don in my conclusions at this point but that might mean diving into what the "rage against the dying light" really means.
At present I am mainly willing to say that there can come a time (mostly cases of clinically certain terminal highly painful disease combined with advanced age) when it can be a rational assessment to conclude that future pleasure is not worth the cost in pain.
