Posts by Cassius

Happy Birthday to Pacatus! Learn more about Pacatus and say happy birthday on Pacatus's timeline: Pacatus

Yes, that is the direction I would take too. All the rest is of significantly less confidence. And I bet if we had more texts we would see that element more clearly, just like Velleius talks about "quasi blood" and the rest. Probably a lot of it was just entertaining theorizing.

If Joseph Smith can assert that the Garden of Eden was in Independence Missouri, we can claim a section of Missouri for an Epicurean Garden.

Or:

The gods may not speak Greek; but they speak a language like Greek.

All Epicureans may not live in Missouri, but they live in a state like Missouri.

It also seems pretty clear that Epicurus is saying that, as to the gods that exist, they are not such as the majority thinks of them. I interpret that as asserting his own definition of the word "god" and that's where we have to infer his definition from the rest of his work, primarily (I would say) by eliminating assertions that would contradict the rest of his premises. So in other words gods can't be supernatural and those other "mystical" qualities that some ascribe to them.

I haven't read Sedley's views closely enough to comment on them, but I would not expect Epicurus to be willing to accept a lot of "subjectivity" on the existence of national or personal gods. I would expect him to assert general high-level conclusions dictated by strict logic from his premises, but as to personal assertions of subjectivity I would expect him to take a strong "I'll entertain it if and when you can prove it by showing it to me" approach.

In other words, a strong Missouri "Show Me" approach!

Taking the approach that "Epicurus was talking possibilities about the gods just like he was talking possibilities about the stars" would probably be the best way to support Frances Wright's having Epicurus say that it would be equally improper to assert that the gods do or don't exist. The continuing problem with that, howevrer, is that Epicurus and the other texts seem much more firm about the gods than just "possibilities."

That's where I think the best reconciliation comes neither in a radical idealist or radical realist formula, but in trying to incorporate all the various premises (at least including: anticipations, isonomia, no single thing of a kind, multiplicity of worlds with living beings, eternal and infinite universe) into the things that Epicurus would have wanted his theory of "gods" to embrace.

I doubt he would allow any of those premises to be contradicted by asserting any characteristic of a "god" that would be in opposition to any of those in that list. If an "image" appeared to convey something contrary to things that are logically compelled by those starting points, then I would expect him to say that such image would be presumed to be unreliable and should be rejected. The only caveat there would be that if the image recurred over and over and to many different people over time under repeatable circumstances, then such an image would have to be given more credibility, even to the ultimate point of being "conversion-worthy" if it could be repeatedly observed and tested to repeat itself in the same way under "objective" conditions!

Quote from Don

seems firmly inline with the way different options are presented for other physical phenomena.

A primary example would be the celestial phenomena, in the letter to Pythocles, about which we are pretty clearly just guesstimating and taking the multivalent approach, correct? Or do you have others in mind?

Oh one one thing I wish I had said differently in the podcast: When Lucretius talks in Book Four about whether Nature has created or lined up these images to be provided for us to think about things, I think at least a significant part of that has to be interpreted as suggesting something that Lucretius was setting up as absurd and not to be believed, just like the idea of nature lining up souls to inhabit the bodies of new-born things. It seems to me he intended us to answer that as "no" and that the real issues is more along the lines of what we tune our minds to receive via past experiences and choices, although with perhaps a dash of "nature" being added in somewhere in addition to the "nurture."

Here is that question which should be answered "no, or course not, the idols don't keep watch on our wills:"

Quote

[779] First of all it is asked why, whatever the whim may come to each of us to think of, straightway his mind thinks of that very thing. Do the idols keep watch on our will, and does the image rise up before us, as soon as we desire, whether it pleases us to think of sea or land or sky either? Gatherings of men, a procession, banquets, battles, does nature create all things at a word, and make them ready for us? And that when in the same place and spot the mind of others is thinking of things all far different.

And Here is the basis for suggesting that the images of things can be real and yet not reflect actually-existing things:

Quote

[732] And so we see Centaurs and the limbs of Scyllas, and the dog-faces of Cerberus and idols of those who have met death, and whose bones are held in the embrace of earth; since idols of every kind are borne everywhere, some which are created of their own accord even in the air, some which depart in each case from diverse things, and those again which are made and put together from the shapes of these. For in truth the image of the Centaur comes not from a living thing, since there never was the nature of such a living creature, but when by chance the images of man and horse have met, they cling together readily at once, as we have said ere now, because of their subtle nature and fine fabric. All other things of this kind are fashioned in the same way. And when they move nimbly with exceeding lightness, as I have shown ere now, any one such subtle image stirs their mind; for the mind is fine and of itself wondrous nimble.

And that's the basis for my suggestion above that this is probably the prime contender for reconciling how the gods can be "real" (the images are real) and yet the truth about the gods (what we more accurately gather about their true natures) does not come entirely or even primarily from what the images convey. They are neither totally idealistic nor totally "real" in the way that we are observing them, and that leads back to incorporating such issues as isonomia and "nature never makes only one thing of a kind."

Here's a related question: Given the way that the images discussion is presented ("It is not impossible that..." "Nothing contradicts...") is it possible that the "images" were being presented as a hypothetical "one among the possibilities" theory, rather than as a core part of the doctrine? That would be directly related then to the issue of the "gods" as well, since observing them through "images" seems to be a part of the way Epicurus was suggested that they are known.

Further the teminology of the discussion of Centaurs (which do not exist, yet can apparently be observed randomly when images mix) might be another example of how images of the gods are formed and received "clearly" and yet not originating from a "real" object (at least not "real" in the form that the images appear to make them).

I am pretty sure I have seen such a suggestion made in one of more of the commentaries.

And I think that's probably the prime contender for reconciling how the gods can be "real" (the images are real) and yet the truth about the gods is different from what the images convey. They are neither totally idealistic nor totally "real" in the way that we are observing them, and that leads back to incorporating such issues as isonomia and "nature never makes only one thing of a kind."

At the very very least, I do think that the "not impossible" phrasing indicates something important to be considered in the way Epicurus is discussing the whole issue of images.

Agreed. Analogies and comparisons only go so far, and some are more helpful than others. In the end, words are only representations of the reality and we are constantly working to revise them make them more accurate as our information expands. We shouldn't resist improvements in explanations any more than we should get complacent that our current wordings are "final."

Added thought:. I wonder if one of the analogies here too is a parallel between waht we presume must be nerve impulses traveling within our body and at least some of these images.

I am not even sure what we think of these today:. Are they electrical impulses? Chemicals?

Another question might be whether these impluses are "analog" vs digital" -. I presume analog is more likely? "Analog" would probably have more similarities to "images" retaining there "shape."

Episode 118 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we talk about the very difficult subject of "images" and how they impact the mind. Please let us know any comments or questions you have in the thread below, and please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your telephone or other podcast aggregator.

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Nineteen 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.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

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.

Today we continue our review of Epicurus' letter to Herodotus, and we move further into fundamental physics.

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

Bailey

Moreover, hearing, too, results when a current is carried off from the object speaking or sounding or making a noise, or causing in any other way a sensation of hearing. Now this current is split up into particles, each like the whole, which at the same time preserve a correspondence of qualities with one another and a unity of character which stretches right back to the object which emitted the sound: this unity it is which in most cases produces comprehension in the recipient, or, if not, merely makes manifest the presence of the external object.

[53] For without the transference from the object of some correspondence of qualities, comprehension of this nature could not result. We must not then suppose that the actual air is molded into shape by the voice which is emitted or by other similar sounds — for it will be very far from being so acted upon by it — but that the blow which takes place inside us, when we emit our voice, causes at once a squeezing out of certain particles, which produce a stream of breath, of such a character as to afford us the sensation of hearing.

Furthermore, we must suppose that smell too, just like hearing, could never bring about any sensation, unless there were certain particles carried off from the object of suitable size to stir this sense-organ, some of them in a manner disorderly and alien to it, others in a regular manner and akin in nature.

[54] Moreover, we must suppose that the atoms do not possess any of the qualities belonging to perceptible things, except shape, weight, and size, and all that necessarily goes with shape. For every quality changes; but the atoms do not change at all, since there must needs be something which remains solid and indissoluble at the dissolution of compounds, which can cause changes; not changes into the nonexistent or from the non-existent, but changes effected by the shifting of position of some particles, and by the addition or departure of others. For this reason it is essential that the bodies which shift their position should be imperishable and should not possess the nature of what changes, but parts and configuration of their own. For thus much must needs remain constant.

[55] For even in things perceptible to us which change their shape by the withdrawal of matter it is seen that shape remains to them, whereas the qualities do not remain in the changing object, in the way in which shape is left behind, but are lost from the entire body. Now these particles which are left behind are sufficient to cause the differences in compound bodies, since it is essential that some things should be left behind and not be destroyed into the non-existent.

Moreover, we must not either suppose that every size exists among the atoms, in order that the evidence of phenomena may not contradict us, but we must suppose that there are some variations of size. For if this be the case, we can give a better account of what occurs in our feelings and sensations.

[56] But the existence of atoms of every size is not required to explain the differences of qualities in things, and at the same time some atoms would be bound to come within our ken and be visible; but this is never seen to be the case, nor is it possible to imagine how an atom could become visible.

Besides this we must not suppose that in a limited body there can be infinite parts or parts of every degree of smallness. Therefore, we must not only do away with division into smaller and smaller parts to infinity, in order that we may not make all things weak, and so in the composition of aggregate bodies be compelled to crush and squander the things that exist into the non-existent, but we must not either suppose that in limited bodies there is a possibility of continuing to infinity in passing even to smaller and smaller parts.

HICKS

"Again, hearing takes place when a current passes from the object, whether person or thing, which emits voice or sound or noise, or produces the sensation of hearing in any way whatever. This current is broken up into homogeneous particles, which at the same time preserve a certain mutual connexion and a distinctive unity extending to the object which emitted them, and thus, for the most part, cause the perception in that case or, if not, merely indicate the presence of the external object.

[53] For without the transmission from the object of a certain interconnexion of the parts no such sensation could arise. Therefore we must not suppose that the air itself is moulded into shape by the voice emitted or something similar; for it is very far from being the case that the air is acted upon by it in this way. The blow which is struck in us when we utter a sound causes such a displacement of the particles as serves to produce a current resembling breath, and this displacement gives rise to the sensation of hearing. "Again, we must believe that smelling, like hearing, would produce no sensation, were there not particles conveyed from the object which are of the proper sort for exciting the organ of smelling, some of one sort, some of another, some exciting it confusedly and strangely, others quietly and agreeably.

[54] "Moreover, we must hold that the atoms in fact possess none of the qualities belonging to things which come under our observation, except shape, weight, and size, and the properties necessarily conjoined with shape. For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change, since, when the composite bodies are dissolved, there must needs be a permanent something, solid and indissoluble, left behind, which makes change possible: not changes into or from the non-existent, but often through differences of arrangement, and sometimes through additions and subtractions of the atoms. Hence these somethings capable of being diversely arranged must be indestructible, exempt from change, but possessed each of its own distinctive mass and configuration. This must remain.

[55] "For in the case of changes of configuration within our experience the figure is supposed to be inherent when other qualities are stripped off, but the qualities are not supposed, like the shape which is left behind, to inhere in the subject of change, but to vanish altogether from the body. Thus, then, what is left behind is sufficient to account for the differences in composite bodies, since something at least must necessarily be left remaining and be immune from annihilation. "Again, you should not suppose that the atoms have any and every size, lest you be contradicted by facts; but differences of size must be admitted; for this addition renders the facts of feeling and sensation easier of explanation.

[56] But to attribute any and every magnitude to the atoms does not help to explain the differences of quality in things; moreover, in that case atoms large enough to be seen ought to have reached us, which is never observed to occur; nor can we conceive how its occurrence should be possible, i. e. that an atom should become visible. "Besides, you must not suppose that there are parts unlimited in number, be they ever so small, in any finite body. Hence not only must we reject as impossible subdivision ad infinitum into smaller and smaller parts, lest we make all things too weak and, in our conceptions of the aggregates, be driven to pulverize the things that exist, i. e. the atoms, and annihilate them; but in dealing with finite things we must also reject as impossible the progression ad infinitum by less and less increments.

YONGE

"Again, hearing takes place when a current passes from the object, whether person or thing, which emits voice or sound or noise, or produces the sensation of hearing in any way whatever. This current is broken up into homogeneous particles, which at the same time preserve a certain mutual connexion and a distinctive unity extending to the object which emitted them, and thus, for the most part, cause the perception in that case or, if not, merely indicate the presence of the external object.

[53] For without the transmission from the object of a certain interconnexion of the parts no such sensation could arise. Therefore we must not suppose that the air itself is moulded into shape by the voice emitted or something similar; for it is very far from being the case that the air is acted upon by it in this way. The blow which is struck in us when we utter a sound causes such a displacement of the particles as serves to produce a current resembling breath, and this displacement gives rise to the sensation of hearing. "Again, we must believe that smelling, like hearing, would produce no sensation, were there not particles conveyed from the object which are of the proper sort for exciting the organ of smelling, some of one sort, some of another, some exciting it confusedly and strangely, others quietly and agreeably.

[54] "Moreover, we must hold that the atoms in fact possess none of the qualities belonging to things which come under our observation, except shape, weight, and size, and the properties necessarily conjoined with shape. For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change, since, when the composite bodies are dissolved, there must needs be a permanent something, solid and indissoluble, left behind, which makes change possible: not changes into or from the non-existent, but often through differences of arrangement, and sometimes through additions and subtractions of the atoms. Hence these somethings capable of being diversely arranged must be indestructible, exempt from change, but possessed each of its own distinctive mass and configuration. This must remain.

[55] "For in the case of changes of configuration within our experience the figure is supposed to be inherent when other qualities are stripped off, but the qualities are not supposed, like the shape which is left behind, to inhere in the subject of change, but to vanish altogether from the body. Thus, then, what is left behind is sufficient to account for the differences in composite bodies, since something at least must necessarily be left remaining and be immune from annihilation. "Again, you should not suppose that the atoms have any and every size, lest you be contradicted by facts; but differences of size must be admitted; for this addition renders the facts of feeling and sensation easier of explanation.

[56] But to attribute any and every magnitude to the atoms does not help to explain the differences of quality in things; moreover, in that case atoms large enough to be seen ought to have reached us, which is never observed to occur; nor can we conceive how its occurrence should be possible, i. e. that an atom should become visible. "Besides, you must not suppose that there are parts unlimited in number, be they ever so small, in any finite body. Hence not only must we reject as impossible subdivision ad infinitum into smaller and smaller parts, lest we make all things too weak and, in our conceptions of the aggregates, be driven to pulverize the things that exist, i. e. the atoms, and annihilate them; but in dealing with finite things we must also reject as impossible the progression ad infinitum by less and less increments.

One of the passages that caught my attention in recent A Few Days In Athens Discussions was this one from Chapter Eight:

Quote

Prejudices, when once seen as prejudices, are easily yielded. The difficulty is to come at the knowledge of them. A thousand lectures had I read to myself, ere I could calmly say, upon all occasions, it does not follow that the thing is, because I think it is;....

First of all, I am not sure that I can identify a specific passage in the texts which support this point, but I do think it is a fair expansion of the discussions of how to separate the true from the false.

Secondly, this particular passage may be focused more on reasons to be slow to anger because of error, given that we all commit errors. But if carried too far this would lead to radical skepticism, but of course I don't think that she means that or that Epicurus would endorse that conclusion. The much more useful analysis would be to identify under what conditions we should hold our conclusions as firm, what conditions less firm, and how we tell the difference.

But I wonder if there is not something else here too that would be worth thinking about: I wonder what "kind of lectures" that Frances Wright had in mind, or found a basis for in Epicurus, which would lead to this kind of conclusion?

Another way of asking the question here would be: What is the point here that would be significant for us to remember to improve our own thought processes? What "study and discipline" are necessary to produce "forbearance" and "candor"?

Here is the full context of the discussion:

Quote

I beg your pardon for the digression,” said Theon: “but I think you have more forbearance and more candor than any man I ever heard of.”

Epicurus: “If it be so, these useful qualities have not been attained without much study and discipline; for Zeno is mistaken in thinking all my virtues the children of temperament. I very early perceived candor to be the quality the most indispensable in the composition of a philosopher, and therefore very early set my whole efforts to the attaining of it. And when once I fairly engaged in the work, I did not find it either long or difficult. I had naturally a mild temper, and a sensitive heart, and these gifts were here of inconceivable use to me. Feeling kindly towards my fellow creatures, I could the easier learn to pity rather than hate their faults; to smile, rather than frown at their follies. This was a great step gained, but the next was more difficult — to be slow in pronouncing what is a fault, and what is a folly. Our superstition would haunt with the furies the man who should take his sister to wife, while the customs of Egypt would commend them. How has the astronomer been laughed at, who made the earth revolve round the stationary sun; and yet who can say but the age may come, when this shall be established as a truth? Prejudices, when once seen as prejudices, are easily yielded. The difficulty is to come at the knowledge of them. A thousand lectures had I read to myself, ere I could calmly say, upon all occasions, it does not follow that the thing is, because I think it is; and till I could say this, I never presumed to call myself a philosopher. When I had schooled myself into candor, I found I was possessed of forbearance; for, indeed, it is hardly possible to possess the one without the other.

Good list of online links to her work:

Frances Wright (Wright, Frances, 1795-1852) | The Online Books Page

FROM THIS LOCATION
Loebolus

Making the public domain Loebs more easily downloadable. Book Aligner

Automatic alignment of books between HathiTrust, Internet Archive, Google Books, etc. Latin OCR for Tesseract

Latin OCR training data and tools for Tesseract. Pleiades Static

Fast, static, client-side search and display for the Pleiades gazetteer of ancient places.

PROGRAMMING NOTE FOR THE ZOOM BOOK REVIEW:

Chapter 13 is very short, so we will combine discussion of it with Chapter 14 .

Starting at this point in the thread which discusses Philodemus on Anger are a number of slides / quotes that would also be relevant to today's chapter, both on the issue of anger itself, which is discussed in the first part of the chapter, and as to taking action when appropriate, which is discussed in the second.

I would say that Frances Wright is a little too flatly against "anger" than the Philodemus text reveals, and that she would have been better off with the same subtly she shows to "taking action" and also as to feeling the pain of the death of a loved one - in both of which cases a firm and even emotional response can be appropriate under certain circumstances.

And in fact perhaps the subtly is in fact there, such as in the scene in the prior chapter where Epicurus appears to get angry with Metrodorus for endorsing anger!

Post

RE: Philodemus' "On Anger" - General - Texts and Resources

In terms of commentary, the Preface helpfully suggests that those wanting an immediate overview should refer to sections 4 and 5 of the Introduction. I see that section 3 discusses the prior position of Plato and Aristotle, so that looks good too.

Here is a good baseline for comparison with the stoics: The Stoics held that there is no such thing as any kind of rational or natural anger, and this will be different from the Epicurean position, who are apparently going to focus on "vengeance" as…

Cassius

April 1, 2022 at 5:49 PM

Just in case Joshua doesn't get around to posting this again, I want to memorialize his comment:

Quote

Of course two seconds after we hang up I think of a this; ambient colors can affect human mood, so that green is restful to the eyes, and red can be used in senior living dining rooms to increase the appetite. Blue and aquariums have a calming effect, hence their use in dentists offices. Yellow may signify danger, as in the bee, wasp, yellow jacket, and the eyes of the snake.

In getting ready for today's podcast I decided to look for any other examples which might exist of ancient or other thought to the effect that the human mind can be affected by the flow of invisible particles. One criteria of significance would need to be that the flow of particles is entirely natural and not in any way supernatural.

Here is my list so far, which is necessarily tentative:

1 - Feng Shui (?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui