Posts by Cassius

I finally had a chance to look at that link in detail, and it is VERY impressive! Thanks for the link!

Welcome to episode 166 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you too find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

Today we are very pleased to bring you a very special interview with Dr. David Glidden, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at University of California, Riverside.

Dr. Glidden has written numerous articles of interest to fans of Epicurus, including "Epicurean Prolepsis," in the 1985 Oxford Studies in Classical Philosophy, "Epicurean Thinking," and many others related to Epicurus which we encourage our listeners to seek out.

Epicurean Prolepsis (or anticipations, or preconceptions, or whatever you prefer as the best word for the topic) is one of the three legs of the Epicurean canon and one of the most difficult subjects for many people to understand as they study Epicurus.

We think you are really going to enjoy hearing Dr. Glidden's unique and challenging take on the subject, and we think it is going to prompt many of us to take a new look at what the standard commentators, even Diogenes Laertius himself, have had to say about the subject in the past. Dr. Glidden's approach promises to lead to a much deeper and rewarding understanding of many aspects of Epicurus that are often overlooked today.

We can't thank Dr. Glidden enough for his time in talking to us about his work, and we hope to be able to talk to him again in the future, so if you have questions or comments please be sure to post them in the thread below.

Now, let's talk with Dr. Glidden:

UCR Profiles - Search & Browse

Post

RE: Dr. David Glidden's "Epicurean Prolepsis"

Here's another point of terminology: If some people are concerned that the word "recognition" in "pattern recognition" is too strongly evocative of Plato suggesting we remember true forms from before we were born, or that gods are writing in our minds, or that there are "essences" in the world that are their equivalent, those people might get the same result from calling this "pattern appreciation."

As I understand English, "appreciation" carries most of the same meaning in terms of being able…

Cassius

March 4, 2023 at 8:55 AM

Episode 165 of the Lucretius Today Podcase is now available. This week we begin our review of "The New Physics" (Chapter 9 of DeWitt's book).

Matteng in my view these questions get resolved through a common sense basic observation of all that we find to be desirable, mental or physical, it that way because the feeling of pleasure tells us it is so. There are no bright line categories that apply to everyone because the universe doesn't give us categories -those are in the mind - the universe just gives us the faculty of pleasure and pain by which to evaluate everything.

It is up to each one of us to decide what level of pain we are willing to accept in return for what amount of pleasure. All of us accept the pains of daily life in order for us to continue to live and experience pleasure.

The implicit presumption in some arguments that all pain is unacceptable is simply not what Epicurus taught. He said we explicitly choose pain at times in order to avoid more pain or attain greater pleasure.

It therefore seems to me that every discussion of choices needs to state that emphatically at the beginning.

Yes you want to minimize pain, but you also want to maximize pleasure, and how you choose to strike that balance has no rules except your own decision as to how to live your life.

Episode 164 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we complete Chapter 8 of the DeWitt Book with a discussion of the feelings as a criteria of truth.

Yes I agree that is a good test. I would say that any saying which might arguably be interpreted as leaning in a flat "commandment" direction (and I am not sure there are really any at all) would appear to do so (if they do) only by virtue of lacking context from the original setting.

For example "live unknown" as a flat statement would appear to be a flat "commandment" that on its face would override any other consideration. However we know both (1) from the wider view of the philosophy that Epicurus did not work that way - as if context did not matter, and (2) we don't have the full context of a statement from Epicurus himself actually saying that.

There are good references and arguments in support of this observation -- of how the ethical doctrines are contextual -- in the article recently posted here from Jeffrey Fish - (Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus).

Quote from Kalosyni

a certified therapist would be recommended for really difficult problems, since there are limits to Epicurean philosophy, and it is not a therapy, and thus cannot take the place of a certified therapist.

Ha the way that is worded makes me want to confirm also that "there are limits to certified therapy, and therapy is not a philosophy, and that cannot take the place of Epicurean philosophy."

If someone truly needs medical assistance then they definitely need clinical therapy. But I would ultimately judge the success of clinical therapy according to philosophy, rather than the success of philosophy by clinical therapy.

For example see "Philosophical concerns with CBT methods"

Cognitive behavioral therapy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meaning of "Eristic" -

In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to an argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."^[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.^[2]

Eristic - Wikipedia

What about a column for "Did something undesirable happen which I could have prevented but for some reason did not?"

Welcome to Episode 165 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we start Chapter 9, entitled "The New Physics."

Charles has mentioned several times Julien Offray de La Mettrie -

Julien Offray de La Mettrie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In recent reading in the work of David Glidden on Epicurean Thought and Anticipations, this reference to La Mettrie occurs:

I don't know much about La Mettrie at all, but Charles apparently does, so this is at thread to use to document how La Mettrie may deepen our understanding of what Epicurus was saying about the physics of thought.

And here is a section from Diogenes of Oinoanda that on its face seems to be directed more toward physics, but probably impacts the same question:

Fr. 4

... [as is supposed by] some of the philosophers and especially the Socratics. They say that pursuing natural science and busying oneself with investigation of [celestial phenomena] is superfluous and unprofitable, and they do [not even] deign [to concern themselves with such matters.]

Fr. 5

[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Here is a strong, and even witty at the expense of the Stoics, hint from Dr. Glidden as to how he thinks the Epicureans responded:

In our review of the work of David Glidden on Epicurean "anticipations," we see a topic that Dr. Glidden has mentioned that goes by the name of the "eristic paradox."

Quote from Author Unknown, From "Educheer"

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

Below is a brief description of the issue from a website called "Educheer." (probably not the best source but the first I can find that seems relatively clear). It would seem almost certain that Epicurus was aware of this argument and fashioned his own philosophy of knowledge (especially "anticipations") in a way as to show how Plato/Socrates were wrong. Therefore in this thread let's discuss what Epicurus would have seen as wrong with Plato's assertions and how Epicurus responded. (The eristic paradox, and Epicurus' likely position in response, are discussed in Dr. Glidden's articles.)

The Erisitic Paradox and The Slave Boy

Quote

Throughout history, philosophers have sought to understand the nature of true knowledge and how to achieve it. Most believe that true knowledge is acquired empirically, and not latent in our minds from birth. In Plato's Meno, Socrates argues in favor of the pre-natal existence of knowledge, the opposite of this proposal: that knowledge is essentially latent, and is brought to light through questioning.

The erisitic paradox, which stems from this view of knowledge, states that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you need not inquire, for you already know. If, however, you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, for you do not know what it is into which you are inquiring.

One consequence of this view is Plato's rejection of empiricism, the claim that knowledge is derived from sense experience. However, when one examines the scene in the Meno between Socrates and the slave boy in greater depth, one can see the flaws in this paradox. Plato uses Socrates' experiment, in which he draws one of Meno's slaves out from the gathered crowd and proceeds to demonstrate the theory of recollection using geometry; however, this experiment's purpose tests the credulity of the reader; and in some cases Socrates' questions are blatantly leading. Socrates merely places obvious propositions in front of the boy that can be immediately recognized.

<>Also, contrary to what Plato asserts, knowledge can be obtained by other means, and not exclusively through intellectual inquiry and questioning. It is far too difficult to dismiss, as Plato does, any and all claims or assertions about the physical or visible world, including both common-sense observations and the propositions of science, as mere opinions. Furthermore, the interpretation of the experiment with the slave boy can be expanded to suggest yet another position: that Plato is demonstrating the flawed nature of sophistry by showing that what on the surface appears to be Socratic dialectic is really Sophistic practice. In light of all of these factors, it becomes clear that the eristic paradox is, in fact, flawed. In the experiment, Socrates guides a slave through a series of geometric proofs in an effort to illustrate that the slave already possessed this knowledge and, therefore, that learning is not acquisition but recollection. Plato maintains that the slave is simply recalling knowledge learned in a former incarnation.

Source: https://educheer.com/essays/platos-…ristic-paradox/

Nate I think you are right that Kalosyni's comment are calling up what you are saying: There are different levels of "absoluteness" going on here.

In physics, as in the letter to Herodotus, we are being "absolute" -- NOTHING exists eternally the same except atoms and void. That doesn't change for anyone no matter what their circumstances. Implicitly death is the same way - we all die.

But in the letter to Pythocles Epicurus points out that we don't have clear vision at a distance, so in regard to taking opinions about the skies and stars we have to keep open multiple possibilities if all of them comport with the evidence and none are contradicted.

Then further in distinction to physics, where we are at times talking about unchanging properties and sometimes talking about emergent qualities, in ethics questions of "how to live among other people" was are ALWAYS talking about emergent and changing qualities, and ALL our statements are contextual. This section of the Fish article "Not All Politicians Are Sysiphus" points that out very well I think (underlined section):

This kind of contextual nature is probably a good idea to add to sort of an introduction, and then discuss in relation to each quote to develop the context.

I suggest that, of course, only for consideration when you have unlimited time, because you've already sunk a lot of time into the collection, and context will determine how much more time makes sense and how to spend it!

I REALLY like that last underlined sentence, and I think we need to find ways to highlight that on the forum:

Quote

The Epicureans had advice for both kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promised to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances.

The only way it appears to me to make that sentence better would be to generalize it by saying "ALL" instead of "BOTH."

or maybe for our current usage:

"The Epicureans have advice for all kinds of people, and a method of evaluating options that promises to maximize happiness whatever the relevant circumstances."

Thank you Don! This is such a recurring question that I am going to redo the FAQ on "Engagement with Society" based on the material in this article, and also add Dr. Fish to the list of people that would make potential good interviewees on the podcast.

So Torquatus was fighting with the remains of Pompey's Senatorial forces, against Caesar?

No doubt that would have endeared him to Cicero, if true.

There is a lot of discussion in this article about Philodemus' "On The Good King" but I do not recall that we have discussed it here much in the past.

We need to find the best available translations / reconstructions of what is left and start a thread on that under Ethics:

Cropped and OCR'd version of this article is now here:

File

Jeffrey Fish - Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus - What Roman Epicureans Were Taught About Politics

Well researched presentation of the argument that Epicurean philosophy can embrace, in proper circumstances, prudent participation in political affairs. I think this document is likely to become one of our key references on "engagement with society."

Cassius

March 6, 2023 at 10:43 PM

This is a fact of history that is new to me -- I was not aware that the historical Torquatus of Cicero's time had died as a hero in battle only a few years before De Finibus was written. Not sure exactly the implication of that but it strikes me that Fish is correct that this would have been a factor in Cicero choosing to use him as the Epicurean spokesman - presumably indicating Torquatus' good standing in Cicero's mind.