Posts by Cassius

OK my first comment would be that by placing 'CONCEPTION" as one of the three labels on the legs at the far left, you are taking sides (which you may or may not want to do) with Anticipations / Preconceptions BEING THE SAME AS conceptions. DeWitt advocates against that and I think for good reason. Yes that is a very possible reading of Diogenes Laertius, and Bailey uses that word, but most other translators do not. Against that view is Velleius, and to take that position from the beginning would skirt the very deep issues that I think DeWitt does a good job of describing. DeWitt's formula is that "conceptions" are the "output" of the thinking process, while the better labelings of the "inputs" are 1 - anticipations (or preconceptions or prolepsis) / 2 -feelings / 3 - 5 senses,

And the real issue is being clear to illustrate the location in the chart where "error" arises, which most people seem to agree to be in the opinion-making process (which seems to me to be more the "conceptualization" process). Until that point the three legs of the canon at the very left are presumably operating irrationally and mechanically and wherein 'all sensations are true". I personally think that the three legs of the Canon MUST be considered to operate "automatically" in that sense (of not having any component of opinion) in order for them to function as standards of "truth" or "measurement." To me, the "all sensations are true" formula makes the most sense by seeing all of the inputs from all of the 3 legs as "sensations" rather than just using that word to describe the 5 bodily senses. It makes sense to me to refer to the data from pain and pleasure as "senses" (I sense pleasure and pain) and for the sake of being parallel I would see "an anticipation" as data received from the faculty of anticipations just as would see light or sound as data received from the faculty of the 5 senses.

That leaves concept-formation and concept-application much further to the right on the chart, almost near the end, which is where error can and does occur and where you have to do the "waiting" and the "analogizing" and the application of the PDs in the mid-20s.

And given the way you are drawing the chart, you may want to have "images" in there somewhere too, or at least annotate it as to whether you see images to be part of anticipations, feelings, or sensations. This is where DeWitt hypothesizes that they were seeing the brain as a "suprasensory organism" - because you don't see "images" with your eyes.

Following Charles, it also strikes me that the appearances of all of them seem obscure. The artist seems capable of better representing some of the most famous, if he had wanted to, but none of them seem to bear a striking resemblance to anyone as one might expect, so hard to know what to say.

The main topic was the reading Epicurean theory about the virtue of friendship is not sufficient - we need to take steps to cultivate actual Epicurean friends, first online (since that today is currently the only practical way to do so), and then move next to "real life."

Scheduling note: The podcasting team had a good conversation during the last recording session but given the importance of the subject we decided to postpone the recording of the first program on Chapter Seven til our next recording session. We expect to be back on a normal schedule next week.

Yes thank you Don! I've added to the front page.

Humphries does a good job with the meaning, I think, but it strikes me that the Bailey version is actually a little more clear, so I substituted it for the same text posted earlier from Humphries:

For that body exists is declared by the feeling which all share alike; and unless faith in this feeling be firmly grounded at once and prevail, there will be naught to which we can make appeal about things hidden, so as to prove aught by the reasoning of the mind.” Lucretius, Book One Line 418 (Bailey)

For completeness here is Munro:

For that body exists by itself the general feeling of man kind declares; and unless at the very first belief in this be firmly grounded, there will be nothing to which we can appeal on hidden things in order to prove anything by reasoning of mind.

And Brown 1743:

That there is body common sense will show; this as a fundamental truth must be allowed, or there is nothing we can fix as certain in our pursuit of hidden things, by which to find the Truth, or prove it when 'tis found.

As we near the end of 2022 it's a good time to wish everyone happy holidays and take stock of where we are at EpicureanFriends.com.

Next month's Twentieth will be the best time to observe Epicurus' birthday, and the topic it looks like we are going to choose to discuss is going to be something like "The importance of not just studying Epicurus, but making Epicurean friends." We've been discussing lately that a significant number of fans of Epicurus are somewhat introverted, and that's probably related at least in part to the tendency of such people to dig deeper into things that interest them regardless of how interesting that topic is to "the crowd." In turn that is likely to be directly related to the general observation that Epicurean philosophy has never been the numerically dominant point of view, and given the "bitterness" of the medicine that Lucretius repeatedly mentioned, it's up to us to "rim the cup with honey" and find ways to get the longer range and ultimately more important benefits of it despite the initial discomfort we may experience in pursuing it.

The choice to debate the finer points of philosophy has to be judged by the same test as everything else: does it lead to happier living for us? Philosophy is enjoyable in itself, but debate is not always so enjoyable, and Epicurus said.

PD27. Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.

So all our dexterity in being able to be precise in our debates, as important as it may be, is not "by far" our greatest possession -- that would be "friendship."

The ability to interact with so many smart and friendly people is a great benefit of what we have going on here at Epicureanfriends.com, and we need to continue to work in 2023 to make this community of even greater value to us as we also "strike a blow for Epicurus." It would be helpful to discuss how we can work toward that goal, and any ideas would be appreciated. Our regular Wednesday and 20th Zoom meetings have become an important part of my own regular routine, and there are no doubt many other ways that we can adapt technology to bring our like-minded friends closer together.

So thank you all for your involvement in the forum over the course of 2022, and please post your suggestions on how we can have an even better 2023. How can the forum and our efforts be of more benefit to you in the coming days and years?

PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain.

PD22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

PD23. If you fight against all sensations, you will have no standard by which to judge even those of them which you say are false.

PD24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

PD25. If on each occasion, instead of referring your actions to the end of nature, you turn to some other, nearer, standard, when you are making a choice or an avoidance, your actions will not be consistent with your principles.

Diogenes Laertius:

Logic they reject as misleading. For they say it is sufficient for physicists to be guided by what things say of themselves. Thus in The Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts [preconceptions / anticipations] and the feelings; the Epicureans add to these the intuitive apprehensions of the mind.

The Wise Man will found a school, but not in such a manner as to draw the crowd after him; and will give readings in public, but only by request. He will be a dogmatist but not a mere skeptic; and he will be like himself even when asleep.

Epicurean Canonics - Epicurus College Course Material

Quote from Todd

I think the idea of "the good" was probably a tool for manipulating people from the very beginning. Certainly it has been used that way in more recent history

I absolutely agree with that and I think it's very important. No doubt there is also a non manipulative reason to develop generic words for different uses, but we should not overlook this as a critical issue, and also see it as an explanation why the schools warred so vigorously in the ancient world. The willingness and even desire to blue these lines that many people have today strikes me as a major problem. Good God, people, no one expects you to be "right" all the time, but at least have the self respect to take the ideas seriously and see where the lead if you are not careful.

With Humphries in particular i gather it is always important to go back to the Latin, as he likes to wax poetic, but could be!

Started 12/24/22, on the eve of our beginning the discussion of the Canon in the Lucretius Today Podcast:

“We have our senses to tell us matter exists. Denying this, we cannot, searching after hidden things, find any base of reason whatsoever.” Lucretius, Book One (Humphries)

To be followed at some point by:

I could mention many things, Pile up a heap of argument-building proof, But why? You have some sense, and these few hints Ought to suffice. You can find out for yourself. As mountain-ranging hounds smell out a lair, And animals covert, hidden under brush, Once they are certain of its track, so you, All by yourself, in matters such as these, Can see one thing from another, find your way To the dark burrows and bring truth to light. Lucretius Book One Humphries

Quote from Don

Which may be why some later Epicureans felt it necessary to demonstrate why those replacements were corruptions using formal arguments.

Yes, but not because Epicurus was wrong to the extent he did not spend all his time working on formal arguments, but because different people in different schools and societies have been indoctrinated in different perspectives, and those who have been convinced to think that abstract logical proofs are the ultimate standard are helped by placing things in logical terms. The Stoics and their allies had been blabbering for 200 more years by the time of Cicero, and ow they have had an additional 2000 years to continue on the same path, especially after they merged with Judeo-Christianity.

I think Epicurus would say that you can draw those tickmarks on the yardstick using whatever language or number system or scheme of categorization you care to use, but in the end you call a spade a spade and this is the main thing people need to know: the yardstick handed to us by nature for how to live is understandable by everyone and known to them as feeling/pleasure/pain.

Quote from Todd

But is it The Yardstick? Or only a yardstick?

I think Epicurus would say it (the feelings, pleasure and pain) is the only yardstick given us by nature for what to choose and what to avoid, which would take us back to those earlier issues as to whether human mental attempts to replace them and formulate other yardsticks are corruptions.

And of course my interpretation of Epicurus, and my personal answer to that is "Yes, the suggested replacements are corruptions."

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful.

An analogy would be that this folding yardstick pictured below is the feeling of "pleasure," a tool by which we measure how long , or how desirable, something is. The "limit of pleasure" would be a reference to this tool, straightened out to its maximum extent, at which it measures the largest quantity of pleasure that is possible to measure. At that point, there is no more crookedness ("pain") left in the tool, the pain is totally gone.

This analogy helps us draw many important conclusions in intellectual debates, but tells us exactly nothing about what we are using the yardstick to measure. The tools of precision tell us nothing about the type or purpose of the wall we are building. What we are measuring is the way we spend our time while we are alive, and that is going to vary for each of us according to our individual circumstances.

We don't obsess over yardsticks, and we should not obsess over the "limits" of pleasure as a measurement. We simply use the yardstick of pleasure to construct the most pleasant life that is possible to us given our individual circumstances.

Extending further on Don's sentence and adopting some Dewitticisms wording:

Quote

Pleasure is then the criteria (the yardstick, the canon) by which we determine if something is to be considered a good thing or a bad thing from a human perspective.

More broadly, the yardstick of desirability is feeling, of which there are two (pleasure and pain) so just as "pleasure" is one way to look at the yardstick, so is "pain."

The point we are making is that it is important to realize that the yardstick is not the same as the thing being measured. The tool of precision is not the same as the stone of the wall.

When viewed as a tool of precision, it is shockingly insufficient, and in fact naive, to consider "absence of pain" to be a full description of the best way of life or an ultimate experience in life.

And that would explain why PD3 refers to absence of pain as "the limit of quantity of pleasure" rather than the ultimate good or anything suggesting a particular experience.

PD3, and that whole "absence of pain" discussion, is geared toward the type of discussion we are having now, it's not a suggestion to perfect new methods of anesthesia.

Quote from Todd

But then IMO, it follows from there that you can't claim that the yardstick is also one of the things being measured (goods). Maybe that is just me being pedantic.

A close parallel with this, and I don't think this is a pedantic point :

Quote from Don

There are a limited number of candidates in answer to "What is The Good?" Other philosophies have different choices, but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure.

I would probably say ".....but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure mistaken, to say the least!

Quote

XIII. Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error.

Quote from Don

So, candidates for the telos/Chief Good were things like virtue, pleasure, wisdom. This is a select subset of traits or phenomena that could serve as the prime foundation for all choices and rejections. For a Stoic, virtue should be the foundation of this.

1 - And another candidate then and now would be "religion" or law of god.

2 - This is the point I come back to a lot when people express disappointment that there is not more "technique" or "therapy" preserved in Epicurean writing. It appears to me that the major concern of Epicurus and the key philosophical battle is not over "how to have a good time" but instead first establishing the foundation for all choice and avoidance in the first place. Both are important, but you never get to questions of how to pursue pleasure of you don't establish pleasure to be the goal in the first place. And that question was and still is the most controversial of them all.

The modern stoics want to totally gloss over and fudge that question, and we should make sure never to fall for the trap of sympathizing with them, because this is the key issue. Do you live for a "true world" beyond the senses, or for this one?

Quote from Godfrey

And there's a context in which it's important to parse good/a good/the good, but that's peripheral to a functional understanding of Epicurean philosophy. Is this the conclusion we're reaching?

I would agree with that, and would say it would be a good idea to state the context where it's appropriate: something like - "when we find ourselves in the company of ivory-tower intellectuals, or in those whom the ivory-tower intellectuals have corrupted into thinking that such debates are critical to happy living."

Unfortunately, given the world we live in and our educational and religious background, that happens a lot, so it's a necessary skill set for many of us.

Quote from Don

It always warms my heart when I read things like this. Makes me feel better for thinking Socrates was an annoying jerk. Not sure I would have voted to convict and condemn him, but his disregard for his wife and children are at the top of my list for holding the opinion that he was a jerk.

And thus we have an excellent example of how a person can be a prince of a guy and still say some very "sharp"
things about philosophical opponents!