Posts by Cassius

Wow something happened to my first post in this thread. At this point I don't have a clue as to what it was supposed to be!

Quote from Matt

But because this isn’t the first time I’ve dealt with this type of thing it has caused me to really want to draw the line in the sand between what is casual belief in something supernatural and what is on the complete verge of madness.

My only caution is that most of the time when I have gotten too deeply involved with a person who is so clearly out of touch with reality nothing good has come of it. The chances of your changing their mind are next to none. Of course on the other hand we all have many casual relationships with people of all types and it doesn't really matter what they believe as long as their general relationship with us is beneficial.

No doubt there are lots of people in the world like that and always will be, and many of us will even have relatives that way. Possibly the real issue before the house that ought to be discussed is something like PD39 on what general methodology can be used to accurately decide whether someone (1) can be made our friend, or (2) can at least not be treated like an alien (stranger?) or (3) ought to be someone we actively separate ourselves from to the extent possible.

I don't necessarily think that Epicurus was suggesting that we ought to have only Epicurean friends, but those are interesting questions to consider -- such as "what really is a friend?" -- in realistic rather than poetic terms.

Quote from Matt

At this point a person must use prudent judgement for the best to “correct” this person. Either by using frank speech to shock them out of their imaginings by letting them know they are in jeopardy of having their friends lose faith in their ability to perceive reality or simply to leave the person to their imaginings neither reinforcing them but also never speaking of them again. I guess it depends on the relationship a person has with the other.

So i gather that this person is in a circle of relationship where it is appropriate to try to correct them, as opposed to simply separating from them?

Quote from Matt

This particular person believes she sees “things” like angels, spirits, demons etc.

That's a pretty specific list. So you do mean this literally, that this person says she actually sees these things in front of her, or is it still at all possible that she is talking figuratively?

I would almost be tempted to think it is possible that this person thinks that they are "ministering" to you by insisting on something that she really doesn't believe herself, out of a desire to try to bring you back into the fold.

You're the star of the show, except I am afraid that I sometimes botched your name as "smoothkiwi" instead of "smoothiekiwi."

Elli reminded me of this article that she wrote some time ago which includes some material on what might be called multivalent or manifold reasoning. I think the basic idea is tied to Epicurus' observation that when we do not have enough evidence to conclude that only one option of several is "the single correct one," then we have to avoid arbitrarily selecting between them as if we did have enough evidence to be sure which is right.

The subject is probably deeper than it might appear and so this post is mainly a placeholder so the topic can be more easily found for future discussions.

Blog Article

"The Canon of Epicurus In Everyday Life"

"The Canon of Epicurus In Everyday Life"

The purpose of this proposition is a brief introduction to the Canon of Epicurus that will help us to use it in our everyday life. There are, of course, studies on logical issues, which are very advanced and are based on studies of brain function, mathematical formulas etc. These are extremely important issues, but we, who do not study Logic in universities, should have help in our everyday life on this field.

When we were at school, we used to call as…

Elli

June 16, 2019 at 8:37 AM

Quote

Multiple causes

We said above that Epicurus ranked Canon together with Physics. He honored Democritus because he first discovered the principles of Nature, the atomic theory, namely the "elements", the atoms and the void. Let's not forget that Canon was also called "Elementary". Αs we know, he added the swerve. The movement of atoms in any direction, the unpredictable movement due to swerve, the striking between them, the repulsion of the striking, the creation of formations, the deconstruction of formations, if we accept that the causes are where the atoms are (this is from Metrodorus), we end up in the logic of the multiple causes and the many possible effects... and so through Physics we get to Canon. Everything is arranged “unshaken”, namely that everything is arranged firmly, without being shaken, “in any way cleansed according to the phenomena”, if they are explained by the manifold method, always in agreement with the events.

Canon and Fuzzy Logic

Cicero blames Epicurus because, as he writes, he abolishes the definition and says nothing about division and separation to parts. We add that Epicurus does not accept the "Excluded Middle of Law": "A is B or Non-B” (A is either bald or non-bald, male or non-male.) Nature is not bound by such laws. The structure of the logical system that accepts the Excluded Middle Law is two-dimensional, which means it requires that every aspect of existence can be divided into two lasting possibilities: true - false, it is – it is not, yes or no. But these two possibilities are not the only ones in nature (we reject the necessity in nature).

Thus, we can’t characterize Epicurean way of reasoning as Two-dimensional Logic, but we can easily characterize and call it a Manifold Reasoning.

All of the above are the features of the logic system which is called Fuzzy Logic. Modern technology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology etc. are based on this.

Canon is the forerunner of Fuzzy Logic, but almost no one says it. The Garden of Thessaloniki tries and wishes this to be known throughout Europe and around the world. It would be a great help if a scientist specializing in these issues, that is in the field of the positive sciences, would be activated in this field and help us.

Display More

Elli your post references the "manifold way" and that reminds me that we have a significantly different group of people active now as opposed when we had past discussions about that - and some of those discussions were possibly on facebook.

Do you recall if you had an article or reference point that we could point out to people now who might not be familiar with what you mean by that term? Was there a Dimitri Atlas article or something you wrote that summarized the point?

Godfrey: Both logseq and obsidian have extensive and very active user communities. But I would say the best and quickest way to get a feel for what this is about is to watch a couple of user youtube videos

There are many to choose from here that are basic: https://www.youtube.com/results?search…idian+vs+logseq

I have watched several of this guys videos and he is a good presenter

He focuses on Obsidian but there are many good videos on Logseq too and they are very similar.

What I gather is going on is that there was last year a "fad" to use a program called Roam Research among a number of researchers / writers / academics. It apparently has very advanced hyperlinking abilities, but is expensive.

Then this past year Obsidian and Logseq came along offering essentially "free" alternatives to Roam that do a lot of the same things.

I need to repeat that I think that there is absolutely no necessity to use a program like this. The whole approach tends to appeal to people who like to use "outlines" in daily life. It is very interesting how some people tend to want to "outline" everything, and some people don't think that way at all and find outlines a total waste of time.

I am not ready to pass judgment on whether everyone needs outlines or how often they need them. Maybe they are a really important tool only on very complex projects, or while learning, or whatever. But it does seem clear that Epicurus recommended outlining (which itself seems interesting to hear from an ancient mind) and I do think programs like this, which offer both hyperlinks and easy ways to move elements up and down and sideways on the outlines, are useful.

Right. Lots of the discussions around "knowledge bases" can get pretty "touchie-feelie" and then you have these geometric idea maps that these programs can draw that I admit are neat and pretty but I really fail to see the benefit of.

However the concept of "outlining" does seem to be important to Epicurus, and these programs are structured to really help with that.

Episode 104 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is devoted mostly to the questions about Epicurus being arrogant and whether his movement was a cult. Thanks for the questions!

Markdown is simply a method for typing plain text, with things like *emphasis* or for _underlined_. It is meant to be extremely simple and readable in any program even without processing the tags into polished form. It is free and therefore cannot be captured by any corporation. It is widely used by web designers for its "interoperability" with most any program and format. Due to its simplicity and readability without a computer program people talk about it as a good way to make "permanent" records that won't be obsolete in five years when a new program takes over. It's kind of like pain text etched on a wall.

The thing about obsidian and logseq is that your store all these data files locally and you are not dependent on "the cloud" to use them.

i'll eventually post some more screenshots so you'll eventually see the point of it that way best.

Quote from Pacatus

Yes. It would give us newer folks a chance to become more acclimated too for awhile, in a cordial moderated atmosphere.

Almost like, in addition to the "Welcome Post," we need a "Welcoming" committee to coordinate new participants.

That is a VERY good suggestion. I presume you're including the idea of inviting them to ask questions in addition to introducing themselves, and probably other things make sense as well. Thank you!

On the "Was Epicurus Arrogant" issue, probably this text reference from Cicero's "On The Nature of The Gods" is relevant:

Quote

Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus! “I am not going to expound to you doctrines that are mere baseless figments of the imagination, such as the artisan deity and world-builder of Plato's Timaeus, or that old hag of a fortuneteller the Pronoia (which, we may render ‘Providence’) of the Stoics; nor yet a world endowed with a mind and senses of its own, a spherical, rotatory god of burning fire; these are the marvels and monstrosities of philosophers who do not reason but dream.

1 - I had a friend once who was a big joseph campbell fan, but I never figured him out. It's possible that he deserves a thread here somewhere, but I don't even know enough to have an opinion on that.

2 -

Quote from Matt

Religious identity is very important to many people. I too grew up with a “religious” identity and it still echoes in my life even now.

I am not sure that this isn't part of what Velleius was talking about in "On the Nature of the Gods." Very complex issue.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

What do you think of that?

One thing I think about that is that I recall Frances Wright wrote this about debating with friends, in "A Few Days In Athens" Chapter Eight"

Quote

Theon stopped, and, making a short apology, hastily retired. “Stay!” cried the master. Theon again entered, but did not advance much within the threshold.

“When I bade you stay, I did not mean to fix you as doorkeeper. Come in, and shut the door behind you.” Theon joyfully obeyed, and hurried to seize the extended hand of the sage.” Since you have intruded on the sanctuary, I shall not drive you out.” He motioned the youth to a place on his couch. “And now, what pretty things am I to say to you for your yesterday’s defense of the wicked Gargettian? You should have come home with me last night, when we were both hot from the combat, and then I could have made you an eloquent compliment in full assembly at the Symposium, and you would as eloquently have disclaimed it with one of your modest blushes.”

“Then, truly, if the master had such an intention, I am very glad I did not follow him. But I passed the evening at my own lodgings, with my friend Cleanthes.”

“Trying to talk him into good humor and charity, was it?”

“Something so.”

“And you succeeded ?”

“Verily, I don’t know; he did not leave me in worse humor than he came.”

“Nay, then it must have been in better. Explanation always approaches or widens the differences between friends.”

“Yes, but we also entered into argument.”

“Dangerous ground that, to be sure. And your fight, of course, ended in a drawn battle.”

“You pay me more than a merited compliment, in concluding that to be a thing of course.”

“Nay, your pardon! I pay you any thing but a compliment. It is not that I conclude your rhetoric and your logic equal, but your obstinacy and your vanity.”

“Do you know, I don’t think myself either obstinate or vain,” said Theon, smiling.

“Had I supposed you did, I might not have seen occasion to give you the information.”

“But on what grounds do you think me obstinate and vain?”

“Your years; your years. And do you think there is a man under twenty that is not both?”

“Why, I should think an old man, at least, more obstinate than a young one.”

“I grant you, when he is obstinate, which is pretty often, but not quite always; and when he is vain, the same. But whilst many old men have vanity and obstinacy in the superlative degree, all young men have those qualities in the positive. I believe your share to be tolerably moderate, but do not suppose that you have no share at all. Well, and now tell me, was it not a drawn battle?”

“I confess it was. At least, we neither of us convinced the other.”

“My son, it would have added one more to the seven wonders if you had. I incline to doubt, if two men, in the course of an olympiad, enter on an argument from the honest and single desire of coming at the truth, or if, in the course of a century, one man comes from an argument convinced by his opponent.”

Display More

One lesson that seems pretty easy to draw is that when we have just a few people who know each other well, we can be more "free-form" and probably satisfy everyone that their time is well spent. And when we have just a few people plus a small number of "new" people we can take the time to have general conversation to learn about their background.

But the more people we have who attend, the more important it's going to be to keep things more organized so that everyone knows what to expect, we have people participating in a "fair" or at least "appropriate" way, and we keep a tighter rein on the conversation so that people don't think their time is being wasted on topics they didn't come to talk about.

We always want to be considerate of peoples' time and that they don't feel like at the end of a session that their time has been wasted.

Thank you Don. Direct link

HA! GREAT! It includes what pretty directly seems like a slam at the Stoics! Anyone read that differently?

Quote

Such was the conviction of the ancients, and to produce this result they were aware that it was necessary not only to declaim in the schools of rhetoricians, or to exercise the tongue and the voice in fictitious controversies quite remote from reality, but also to imbue the mind with those studies which treat of good and evil, of honour and dishonour, of right and wrong. All this, indeed, is the subject-matter of the orator's speeches. Equity in the law-court, honour in the council-chamber, are our usual topics of discussion. Still, these often pass into each other, and no one can speak on them with fulness, variety, and elegance but he who has studied human nature, the power of virtue, the depravity of vice, and the conception of those things which can be classed neither among virtues nor vices. These are the sources whence flows the greater ease with which he who knows what anger is, rouses or soothes the anger of a judge, the readier power with which he moves to pity who knows what pity is, and what emotions of the soul excite it. An orator practised in such arts and exercises, whether he has to address the angry, the biassed, the envious, the sorrowful, or the trembling, will understand different mental conditions, apply his skill, adapt his style, and have every instrument of his craft in readiness, or in reserve for every occasion. Some there are whose assent is more secured by an incisive and terse style, in which each inference is rapidly drawn. With such, it will be an advantage to have studied logic. Others are more attracted by a diffuse and smoothly flowing speech, appealing to the common sentiments of humanity. To impress such we must borrow from the Peripatetics commonplaces suited and ready prepared for every discussion. The Academy will give us combativeness, Plato, sublimity, Xenophon, sweetness. Nor will it be unseemly in an orator to adopt even certain exclamations of honest emotion, from Epicurus and Metrodorus, and to use them as occasion requires. It is not a philosopher after the Stoic school whom we are forming, but one who ought to imbibe thoroughly some studies, and to have a taste of all. Accordingly, knowledge of the civil law was included in the training of the ancient orators, and they also imbued their minds with grammar, music, and geometry. In truth, in very many, I may say in all cases, acquaintance with law is desirable, and in several this last-mentioned knowledge is a necessity. (Latin)

This is an interesting comment from that article - i was not aware that Tacitus mentioned Epicurus:

Quote

since Tacitus, in the Dialogue of orators, advises orators to use Plato and Xenophon “and even to borrow certain edifying maxims from Epicurus and Metrodorus“.

For example I don't think I have ever found a good "overview" of how the philosophers were arranged on the panel - and this doesn't seem to tell us either. I bet there's a lot more that we who are particularly interested in Epicurus could gain from making a study of this work.

This is a fascinating topic. I have read about this mosaic but maybe not seen the page you linked. It is a very good one.

I recall reading about this mostly because Bernard Frischer talks about it (somewhere) as a good lead for what the "standard" seated bust of Epicurus must have looked like especially in terms of the placement of his right arm / hand. The controversy seems to be over whether his arm was in an outstretched 'gesturing' position, or folded up against his chest in what might be considered a more "passive" position.

Of course I favor the "gesturing" position (which would indicate teaching and engagement) and this mosaic is good evidence of that being the actual case.

Marco thank you very much for posting this and if you are able to do additional research and actually get there please post more!