Posts by Cassius

1 - It's good to hear from Onenski!

2 - I agree with most everything Don and Onenski have written.

3 - I want to emphasize the underlined part of the wikipedia entry:

Quote

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms.

As I see it, it's important to see that the "no true Scotsman fallacy" does not mean that the thrust of the position being taken is not statistically true. All this "fallacy" is saying is that if you want to be precise about your assertion, you should explain and be prepared to prove - more than just asserting it to be true - why the counterexample being thrown in your face is an exception to the generalization.

Just because your uncle Angus puts sugar on his porridge does not prove that as a cultural generalization, 99% of Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge. The only thing that the "fallacy" says is that if someone can point to an exception, then the "rule" is not true 100% of the time, and so if one wants to be precisely accurate, what needs to say is "the great majority of Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge."

BOTH can be true at the same time: (1) your uncle DOES put sugar on his porridge, and (2) 99% of Scotsmen do not. There is no conflict between those two positions, but to say "No true Scotsman" or "No Scotsman" puts sugar on his porridge is overbroad.

Some cases call for precision more than do others, and asserting the Scotsman fallacy can sometimes be ridiculous itself when everyone knows that the person is stating a generalization rather than really meaning that there are no exceptions. However it's always good to be precise when issues are complex, such as when Onenski wrote:

Quote from Onenski

It’s possible that Epicurus also thought that we all act in pursuit of pleasure (i.e., hedonistically), and if we acknowledged this, we’d avoid many mistakes and sufferings by directly seeking what brings us the most long-term pleasure.

I commonly say that myself, and I think it's sometimes or even often true. But I think it's important to remember that in the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus said specifically that time is not only or overriding factor, thus "long-term" is not quite right. It's "the greatest pleasure" which might or might not necessarily be the "long-term" choice.

[126] ... And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.

So precision is generally a good idea. No true Epicurean would want to be less than clear!

Quote from Kalosyni

lives neither as a secluded ascetic, nor as sleepy sluggard or addict, nor as a wild bohemian party animal, nor as a work-aholic -- but instead finds a pleasing and pleasant sense of a well functioning life.

All of which are theoretically perfectly acceptable lifestyles, and in fact in some instances may be a rational choice, but which we also recognize as generally leading to unhappy / unpleasant results including sickness, disease, isolation, and earlier-than-otherwise death, for which reason it is generally good advice to avoid them.

Quote

PD10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

Please note: If you are new and interested in attending Sunday Zooms, visit this other thread to post your RSVP and to receive the link.

*****************************

I'm going to add an announcement box that I'll conduct a Zoom meeting this Sunday the 18th at 12:30 PM Eastern Time. I don't expect that most of our regulars will be there but they are of course welcome, and anyone who's new who would like to attend can post here or message me to ask for the link. I think Rolf will be there and we probably need one more session to deal getting to know people who don't regularly attend our existing zooms, with general discussion and questions, and then we'll work up a structure to go over an outline of the main topics in the future.

Quote from Rolf

What kind of “clinical issues” would discount somebody from achieving a proper grasp on Epicurean philosophy, in your view?

I don't know that it makes sense to try to come up with a distinct list, but I would analogize this with saying that someone born blind is not likely in the nature of things to become a good airline pilot or brain surgeon. Of course that's through no fault of their own, but in the absence of highly advanced technology such a goal for someone born blind would be as unrealistic as it would be for us to hope to live forever. Likewise some people are born with diseases or limitations of brain function that makes it highly unlikely for them to be able to understand anything of complicated intellectual nature.

There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law." In other words, the very unusual cases we're talking about don't often lead to useful generalizations, when the great majority of cases aren't really hard cases at all.

In regard to Epicurus, Cicero complained that it was among the simplest of philosophies, and Cicero looked down his nose at the ordinary people who took to it. (We have a graphic on the front page of the forum about that.) In other words, it's my view that the great majority of people can benefit from a philosophy that teaches getting in touch with reality rather than fantasy.

Quote from Rolf

There are many people with chronic physical or mental illnesses that can be mitigated but not removed - would Epicurus say that these people lack the “physical constitution” to be wise?

As regrettable as that might be, I think the answer to that question is clearly "Yes." Now "wise" has many shades to it, and i don't think there's an absolute definition that applies to everyone. But there are in my view clearly lines of clinical issues where it's going to be unreasonable to say that such and such a person is "wise."

Quote from Rolf

This one has always been a bit prickly for me. If Epicureanism is a philosophy that is beneficial for everyone, and wisdom is so vital for prudently pursuing pleasure, then the idea that certain people are involuntarily unable to work towards this feels rather deflating. What is one to do if they lack the “physical constitution” or live in the “wrong nation”? Does Epicureanism still have something to offer such people, or are they better off looking elsewhere for pleasure and the reduction of pain?

The first thing to work to improve the "physical constitution" and get out of the "wrong nation" if at all possible. That in itself is a huge offering because it tells people not to wallow in their bad circumstances (not to "accept" them) if they can be changed.

If those circumstances cannot be changed, then what those people have is an extremely unfortunate situation that is thankfully very rare -- when you have absolutely no way to make things better. Then if there are truly no alternatives, one can exit the stage, but that is not going to be the case for almost anyone except in extreme conditions.

I have seen the argument that this is "deflating" but it is also reality, and it need not be deflating depending on one's attitude toward reality. It seems to me that the problem with thinking that "something has to be doable" when the situation really is beyond repair is a form of mysticism that often combines itself (in my view) with modern "humanism" of the kind that gets into regular debates about things like "all men are equal." Yes we would like them to be, and many of us take action to make things as equal as possible in many respects, but with our current technology there's nothing you can do to change a 100 year old person with terminal cancer into a 20 year old with perfect health. That's the kind of thing that in my view has to be "accepted" for now. If we want to change it, then we do whatever we can to advance medical science to the point where that might be possible. But where it isn't possible, that's the kind of thing we have to "accept."

And one more point: looking for answers to situations that are truly impossible to change seems to be what leads many people to supernatural religion. Would Epicurus suggest that people who refuse to accept reality take up supernatural religion?

I don't think so. That's a discussion worthy to pursue to, but I would say that Epicurus would not suggest that. I would say that Epicurus was so invested (properly) in living with Nature and with reality that he would find it intolerably painful to choose to abandon nature for something fictional.

Quote from Rolf

That said, painful chronic conditions are something I’m still struggling to reconcile with the philosophy. I’ve heard arguments against Epicureanism that “it’s a philosophy only for healthy, happy people”. While I disagree, I’m not entirely sure how I’d respond to the criticism.

I would say that it's not just a philosophy for healthy, happy, people, it's a philosophy that is the best way for anyone in any condition to work toward the greatest health and happiness that is possible for them.

Contrary to the mystical-based Stoicism or Platonism or the rest, Epicurus doesn't offer a magic pill that death is a better place, or that every circumstance in life can be changed. There are indeed many situations where there's no further viable option to reduce pain other than to live with it and recognize that the pleasures of being alive outweigh the pains. When you get to the point that you are certain that there is no possibility of pleasure ever again outweighing pain for you in your circumstances, then and only then is it time to start thinking about "exiting the stage." But as Epicurus also said (VS38) "He is a little man in all respects who has many good reasons for quitting life."

In respect to the main question, Epicurus is reported to have said that:

"A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation." https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/sbsdlx/#117

I'd be careful about how to apply that, but it only makes sense that Epicurus would recognize that everything that makes up what we think of as "us" is essentially bodily, and therefore sickness, disease, death, or the circumstances in which we live can effectively prevent us from living as we would like to live.

I'd call that realistic rather than pessimistic, and I'd call it much preferable to imagining that there is a better life after death, or a magic pill that overrides nature, becaus those things just don't exist, and I'd rather know the truth about my situation rather than spend whatever time I have under fake pretenses.

Quote

Quote from Cassius

I think I'd have to ask "why can't you enjoy it? Because it was totally beyond your power? Or because you didn't try?

Quote from Rolf

This is a fascinating question, and something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: The role of reframing and other such “mental tricks” in reducing pain and increasing pleasure, even in tough situations. Do you think that most things are able to be enjoyed with the right effort? I have a few health issues that cause me fairly consistent pain, and I cannot say that I enjoy them, but I have learned and am learning to accept them and thus reduce the associated pain. Interested to hear your further thoughts on this.

On this point, Rolf, I was mainly referring to mental attitudes that cause people to focus on pain when they could by making another choice focus on pleasure. In regard to consistent physical pain, that's what's referenced I think in PD04 as to long term pain being endurable, we have the kind of offsetting that Epicurus was doing on his last day, but not much more in the way of specifics as far as I know.

The other thought that I think it's important that "acceptance" of things always be conditioned on first taking as much action as one can to overturn the problem. I have a general concern in philosophical discussion that - under the influence of Stoicism or similar views - people "accept" far too many things that could be changed with the right effort. Physical problems that truly can't be fixed are an obvious exception to that concern, but even there I'd want to tell someone to be absolutely sure that they had exhausted all reasonable remedies before they "accepted" that the pain could not be fixed.

But of course you're right that when you have a problem that truly cannot be fixed after your best efforts, then you find ways to accept it, generally by distracting yourself from its presence.

Welcome to Episode 281 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in human life (Death, Pain, Grief/Fear, Joy/Desire, and Virtue) with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

Today we begin Part 2 - "Is Pain An Evil?," starting with Section V, where the question is posed.

--------------------------

Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…lish/section:12

And a side-by-side version with comments is here:

EpicureanFriends SideBySide Commentary on TD

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

Episode 280 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. Today we complete Part One of Cicero's Tusculun Disputations with an episode entitled: "On Death and Daring To Live"

Godfrey, so as to avoid taking this thread too far on a Tetrapharmakon tangent, let me ask a question here .

Prompted by some comments by Rolf , and then by Godfrey, I have a new question to add to this thread since a long time has passed since it started. I hope this hasn't been covered already but even if so it would be good to revisit this question:

We've had a number of references to statements like "the sun is the size it appears to be" as being in the nature of a "shibboleth" or in-your-face test of whether you understand a doctrine, as expounded by the article by Dr. Gellar-Goad.

I don't recall putting the "easy" wording of the Tetrapharmakon into that mold, but I suppose in thinking about it that the Epicureans might have over time developed such wording as a "test" of understanding, rather than as the kind of thing you'd say to your grandmother dying in the hospital.

I glanced back this morning at the word translated as "easy" and I see that there are also shades such as "readily" which arguably might not be so "in-your-face." And I stand firm in my general reservation that this formulation is not recorded to have been used by Epicurus, and apparently has never been seen other than in the fragment attributed to Philodemus in a book where he is critical of other Epicureans.

However for the sake of argument, to what extent might someone suggest that the "easy" phrasing as to the good and to the terrible was intended as a "make your point dramatically" shibboleth, rather than just a memory device or overgeneralization of PD03 and PD04?

Rolfe you have not been exposed to my deep reservations about the Tetrapharmakon, which you can read here.

So I'd phrase the question: Does the phrase accurately reflect Epicurean philosophy?

With that intro I'd say "enjoy what you can" seems correct to me, but "accept what you cannot" strikes me as too ambiguous -- cannot what? Cannot enjoy? Why?

I think I'd have to ask "why can't you enjoy it? Because it was totally beyond your power? Or because you didn't try?

Great suggestions DaveT thank you very much!

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

Quote from Patrikios

This cuts into dinner time and PBS Newshour time for some

What about starting same time and just going longer?

Rolf I have to apologize that I haven't seen this movie but if I recall at the very least Eikadistes is a big fan of it!

While we may want to extend the time frame of the Monday night meeting, and set it up for Principal doctrines of other introductory material (as if the PD's can be fully appreciated by a brand new beginner!! ) that isn't going to solve our need for something to offer people who can't make our eastern-US centered time zone.

I'm pretty much ready to commit to a regular early-Sunday-afternoon session, which would be workable for most of the Western Hemisphere, because I really want to expand our forum participation into Europe. Even if many of our current participants aren't able to make it, I'm ok with starting largely from scratch with just a few people as we did in the past with our earlier meetings.

So let me figure out which weekend makes sense to get started, and we'll see what we can put together.

Referenced in today's episode as to the end of Lucretius Book VI and the Thucydides version:

Quote

it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honourable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offences, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little.

Post

RE: Thoughts On What Lucretius Might Have Considered For The Ending of Book Six - A Comparison Chart of Thucydides and Lucretius

Joshua has me thinking about this subject again due to his post about the plague. Rather than put this note in that thread and disrupt the chain of thought, I will add this here:

If in fact the point of the ending is related to the point that the citizens of Athens who lived through the Plague were thereby freed from their religious superstitions (as Emily Austin suggests), it strikes me that the famous lines from Virgil might actually fit at the very end of the poem too.

Felix qui potuit rerum…

Cassius

January 15, 2023 at 7:10 PM