Charles do not let me hijack this thread but I have another comment which I also think is relevant, and it relates to the cliche that "absence of evidence of a thing is not evidence of the absence of that thing." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Quote

Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are similar but distinct concepts. This distinction is captured in the aphorism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Often attributed to Martin Rees or Carl Sagan, versions of this antimetabole appeared as early as the 19th century.^[1] In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance.^[2] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe.^[3] This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.^[4]

When you combine that with Epicurus' observation that: "But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?" as explained by Sedley, you have I think the key to observing that these earlier materialists were regressing from Epicurus rather than progressing. And why did they do so, given that Lucretius was plainly in front of them?

I would say that they regressed due to their failure to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus had identified in "waiting" and also in rigorously making sure that *all* evidence that bears on a subject is included in the opinion. Following Sedley's lead, they should have realized that we can in our own observation plainly observe - and therefore we can confidently conclude -- that some free will exists. "Will I pick up the salt or the pepper first?" Nothing by our own minds decides which we will do. Given then that free will exists to any degree, there must be a mechanism at the atomic level which allows for non-mechanical operations of at least some atoms at some times. I suspect Sedley is correct and this is the true origin of the swerve theory.

Personally I would say the same thing applies to the size of the universe and also to its eternality. Today, no matter how many times astronomers look in their telescopes (or the equivalent) and say that "all matter is expanding outward" they always have to keep in mind that this observation applies only to the limits of their observations. At to the size of the universe the logical arguments that Epicurus raised that what we observe is not compatible with limited void but unlimited matter, or with unlimited matter and limited void, but only with unlimited matter AND unlimited void, still carry weight -- and for me personally I believe them to be decisive. The same thing goes that nothing comes from nothing and therefore there was never a beginning point for the universe as a whole. Everyone's personal mileage on these issues may vary, but this seems to be the was Epicurus was reasoning and it surely seems persuasive to me.

But while "your mileage may vary" on any individual question, it ought to be accepted by everyone IMHO that observations must always be evaluated within the limits of what they are able to perceive. Epicurus wasn't strictly an empiricist and he didn't (like Frances Wright seems to have done) swear off having confidence in theories where he found the confidence warranted. To do so - to say that no conclusions are ever possible unless you have observed something personally yourself - would be (as a friend observed to me once) an extreme form of skepticism in itself.

I would expect that as we read back through the last several hundred years of materialism that that is what we are going to find -- that these scholars, whether under the influence of the church or otherwise - failed to appreciate the epistemological issues that Epicurus and Lucretius interwove into their physics.

Quote from Martin

hard determinism appeared to be the most fitting to a materialist world view

It's very interesting that Epicurus did not think so. That article by Sedley which talks about the swerve being more the product of Epicurus' logical reasoning on epistemology (I think it was) rather than in physics may be the best explanation, and also a guidepost for us in understanding better how he thought and the correctness of his view. I will find and link that here.

I am pretty sure it is this one, now to see if I can point to the right section. Here's the article, Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" and here's a link to a thread discussing it: Sedley: "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism"

I was thinking I would find something more pithy but this interesting page has basically the assertion I remember:

And this is the interesting comment in Lucretius of which I would never have seen the significance without Sedley's article:

Quote from Lucretius Book 2

For all things that fall through the water and thin air, these things must needs quicken their fall in proportion to their weights, just because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot check each thing equally, but give place more quickly when overcome by heavier bodies. But, on the other hand, the empty void cannot on any side, at any time, support anything, but rather, as its own nature desires, it continues to give place; wherefore all things must needs be borne on through the calm void, moving at equal rate with unequal weights. The heavier will not then ever be able to fall on the lighter from above, nor of themselves bring about the blows, which make diverse the movements, by which nature carries things on. Wherefore, again and again, it must needs be that the first-bodies swerve a little; yet not more than the very least, lest we seem to be imagining a sideways movement, and the truth refute it. For this we see plain and evident, that bodies, as far as in them lies, cannot travel sideways, since they fall headlong from above, as far as you can descry. But that nothing at all swerves from the straight direction of its path, what sense is there which can descry?

Happy Birthday to C. Florius Lupus! Learn more about C. Florius Lupus and say happy birthday on C. Florius Lupus's timeline: C. Florius Lupus

Just read the post. Excellent work Charles and I look forward to reading more. The whole subject of why these thinkers adopted so much of Epicurus' viewpoint on atomism but rejected his view of the swerve is highly interesting and a topic worthy of its own discussion. It they were willing to risk the wrath of the church on atomism, why not go all the way and embrace the swerve too?

I have some speculation on that, relating to epistemology and Epicurus' views on the primacy of the senses rather than "logic" (which they may have found even hotter to handle than the supernatural gods issue) but it's only speculation. I hope you will find good references that will help make the answer more clear.

Will do so now ... been feeling poorly today and somehow i didn't see this new post so glad you asked!

Started 11/10/22:

Having made these points clear, we must now consider things imperceptible to the senses. First of all, that nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds. Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus * * * These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made. Lucretius Book One (Brown)

I think what you're talking about Godfrey is why DeWitt talks a lot about "faith" in Epicurean philosophy (if I recall correctly) in which I gather that he's talking about a blend of confidence based on information that we know to be limited but which we have good reason to think is sound. So just like a lot of words we have to parse "belief" and even "faith" to be sure exactly what we mean.

Reminds me of my high school's motto which was Fide sed cui vide which they used to translate as "have faith but be careful in what"

For the time being we are proceeding with regular Wednesday night meetings with more of an "open topic" agenda. If anyone has general questions, comments, or issues they would like to discuss, please feel free to bring them up. We'll generally first see if there are any comments on the most recent Lucretius Today podcast, and then we will move to open discussion. Please join us if you can.

Can someone else who uses Android confirm that Don's link above works for them on their phone? On my desktop it works fine but whenever I use my Android phone, on any of there browsers, it does not want to open a page but rather tried to download something . Anyone else having that issue?

Edit: Thanks for the responses below: must be me.

It occurs to me that it might be useful to follow up on my comment that the body of historical fiction on Epicurus is "uneven" at best.

A Few Days In Athens comes to mind as the most successful.

But there are others, including "Epicurus My Master" by Max Radin. It's been quite a long time since I read that but I don't remember it positively.

I know there are others and I will see if I can add them to this thread, but the reason I forget them is that I don't remember coming away impressed. I think in general what I am remembering is that most efforts I have seen, instead of doing justice to the philosophy, seem in my view more to trivialize Epicurus (or the philosophy) rather than to be useful. That's where A Few Days In Athens is the exception.

But I would be happy to be wrong. If anyone has come across historical fiction on Epicurus or his philosophy that is praiseworthy, please add a link to this thread.

Excellent!

The following post appeared very recently on the Facebook Epicurean Philosophy Group:

Quote

May I recommend my partner’s historical novel, ’Epicurus In Love’ (epicurusinlove.com) by Paul Donovan, published recently by The Euphorion Press, distribution by John Reed Books.

The book is a page-turner, yet well-researched, and written in accordance with the Rules, pushing no particular philosophy other than the Epicurean corpus as revealed in the master’s works — a model we use daily in living our own everyday lives.

As Paul says, ‘It is a labour of love, which surely lies at the heart of epicurean teaching’. The novel is his straightforward attempt to bring Epicurus to a wider, mainstream audience of readers, so that people are stimulated to seek him out, beyond the pages of a novel.

Epicurus of Samos remains a practical thinker, as revealed in his many aphorisms and other works, unlike the remote abstractions of Plato and Aristotle — which I suspect, stems from the fact he came from humble roots, yet well-educated by his school-teacher father.

Unlike many other philosophers of the Greek Golden Age, he is readily approachable and speaks in terms that we all understand, as applicable now in the 21st century as it was in Athens, Lampsacus, or Mytilene of the 4th century BCE.

Peace to all, Pam

Display More

My post in response was:

Quote

Thanks for posting Pamela. I haven't had a chance to check into this so I can't endorse or un-endorse, and historical fiction can be very tricky, but it certainly looks to be an interesting topic. If anyone here decides to check into it I hope you'll let us know what you think.

I was hoping to get some kind of preliminary feedback before posting this here, but I decided that was not likely to come quickly, and there's probably no harm in posting this. Some of the excerpts indicate to me an approach that might not be entirely positive from everyone's point of view, and several instances of historical fiction about Epicurus I have seen before cause me to think it's unlikely we're going to see anything like 'A Few Days In Athens' anytime soon. But I want to be positive and so will hope for the best.

There are free excerpts on the web page but it looks like the book itself is somewhat pricey, so I am not sure we will get much feedback very quickly. But if anyone reading this here on the forum decides to investigate, please be sure to let us know what you think.

Quote from Kalosyni

I would say this is "advanced level" Epicurean philosophy -- I don't think this is necessary, or even good for Epicurean newbies, because the basic philosophy needs to be understood first -- just my opinion

In regard to these fragments definitely yes - some of them are clear and immediately helpful but many are comments written by enemies and you have to know what they are talking about to evaluate - so that is definitely advanced material. Even me ( not that is is much of a standard) find new things in them when I read through them, because they aren't material to which we regularly refer.

But once you get a good grounding in the philosophy you can find nuggets that are very helpful in fleshing out details.

On the bread and water material, this would be an excellent topic to write up your summary (not much needed other than what is above plus your conclusion) and we will post it as a blog post here and then promote on Facebook. Or of course just a post on your own blog that we can link to and copy here so it will be safe both places

Outstanding posts Don.

I don't know if people could hear from the tone of voice but I think even Martin was employing some of the notorious dry German humor when he was talking about how it was lucky for him that he didn't spend too much time reading Plato, and I know I cut from the final version my laughing as he was saying it.

I am very pleased with these recent episodes and I think this was a good example of covering the topic briefly but decently. You simply can't spend all your time reading background material or you will never get on with living your real life.

This is one of the benefits of a group and forum like this where we can divide work and help each other share discoveries.

I have never read what you quoted from Farrington but I agree: that's a very perceptive statement by him and elaboration by you and I think that ought to one day become the standard interpretation of what the Epicurean bread and water references mean. And how much confusion and false starts toward minimalism that could be avoided if it did.

I think you'll draw some similar deep observations from Nichomachean ethics, especially along the lines that Frances Wright is pointing out and confronting the problem of Universals and what Epicurus would have really thought about it. And at that time when we can condense better explanation, the section in Lucretius Book One about how properties and qualities of atoms and bodies relates to the Trojan War and the episode with Paris and Helen will jump out at us as making total sense rather than the bewilderment that it often seems to generate.

And when you finish Nichomachean ethics, if you'll consider tackling Philebus, i think you'll find similar origins of argument to unwind why "the limit of pleasure" is such a deep issue, and even how limits relate to "purity" which also seems dark to us.

This is a productive time for our discussions so let's keep them up!

Don I cannot remember how much you have said you have read into A Few Days In Athens. Chapter 15 of her book takes particular aim at Aristotle and I bet you would find it interesting while reading Nichomachean Ethics.

Some of what she says may be pure Epicurus and some may be extrapolation, and some may go to far about never reaching a theory, but in general I think she does a good job of bringing out the issues and hazards of Aristotle's approach.

This is discussed in both the letter to Herodotus and in Lucretius Chapter One under the topic of properties and qualities of atoms and bodies. Frances Wright comments on the issue at length in Chapter 15 of her book with this as part of her conclusion, which I think is at least partly a good description of Epicurus' position as far as she goes:

“What is in a substance cannot be separate from it. And is not all matter a compound of qualities? Hardness, extension, form, color, motion, rest — take away all these, and where is matter? To conceive of mind independent of matter, is as if we should conceive of color independent of a substance colored: What is form, if not a body of a particular shape? What is thought, if not something which thinks? Destroy the substance, and you destroy its properties; and so equally — destroy the properties, and you destroy the substance. To suppose the possibility of retaining the one, without the other, is an evident absurdity.”

“The error of conceiving a quality in the abstract often offended me in the Lyceum,” returned the youth, “but I never considered the error as extending to mind and life, any more than to vice and virtue.”

“You stopped short with many others,” said Leontium. “It is indeed surprising how many acute minds will apply a logical train of reasoning in one case, and invert the process in another exactly similar.”

Seems to me that this is a good summary of the Problem of Universals From Wikipedia :

The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes: Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?^[1]

The problem of universals relates to various inquiries closely related to metaphysics, logic, and epistemology, as far back as Plato and Aristotle, in efforts to define the mental connections a human makes when they understand a property such as shape or color to be the same in nonidentical objects.^[2]

Universals are qualities or relations found in two or more entities.^[3] As an example, if all cup holders are circular in some way, circularity may be considered a universal property of cup holders.^[4] Further, if two daughters can be considered female offspring of Frank, the qualities of being female, offspring, and of Frank, are universal properties of the two daughters. Many properties can be universal: being human, red, male or female, liquid or solid, big or small, etc.^[5]

Philosophers agree that human beings can talk and think about universals, but disagree on whether universals exist in reality beyond mere thought and speech.

Quote from Norman DeWitt Chapter One

True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.

False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction.

We did not get to this point in Episode 146, so before we record episode 147 let's make some notes and be clear on this point as to the difference between deduction and induction by defining those terms so we can be clear about when Epicurus is reasoning from the particular to the general as opposed to from the particular to the general. This is important because while we probably have little confusion about what it means to speak about particular atoms and void and their movement, we will need to spend some time talking about what is meant by "the general." The definition below uses the term "universal" and we will need to address "The Problem of Universals".

Merriam-Webster:

induction

in·duc·tion in-ˈdək-shən 

2 a(1): inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances

compare DEDUCTION sense 2a

deduction

de·duc·tion di-ˈdək-shən 

2 a: the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning based on intuition rather than deduction, specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises (see PREMISE entry 1 sense 1)

compare INDUCTION

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Eight 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'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll 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're 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 continue to discuss a series of Points and Counterpoints which Norman DeWitt describes as "True Opinions / False Opinions" about Epicurus:

• True Opinions - False Opinions
  • Epicurus’ View of Truth:
  • • True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.
    • False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”
  • Epicurus’ Method For Determining Truth:
    • True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.
    • False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction, the truth was that Epicurus' chief reliance was upon deduction.
  • Epicurus’ As A Man of Action
    • True: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.
    • False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.
  • Epicurus’ View of Self-Interest
    • True: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.
    • False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.
  • Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of Christianity
    • True: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.
    • False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”