Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

Epicurus/Lucretius talked about as "accidents":

Or, if one looks back at the Latin - EVENTUM. I suppose I've had too many car accident cases to like that word "accident."

"Eventum" (or "event") seems to me to convey less connotation of "chance" or "luck" than does "accident."

And it seems to me to be clear that these emergent events are in fact not unlimited randomness or "luck" or in any sense "anything can happen."

These emergent events arise within the limits of the combinations of the specific elements and void which are involved.

The ant example it starts with is a good example of that.

"More than the sum of its parts" is a good line.

So is there a separate video on consciousness as an emergent property?

This exercise is helping me see the connection between this "formal logic" problem and the problem of "necessity."

Since Epicurus was rejecting "necessity" in human life, in favor of "free will," then it's logical he would be suspicious of too-broad claims of "necessity" in anything involving human life.

So when DeLacy says:

combine Epicurus' rejection of dialectic with his rejection of "necessity" and it seems to me that you have a pretty sweeping rejection of the reliability of syllogistic logic in virtually every aspect of human affairs. That doesn't mean syllogistic logic isn't reliable in regard to "material" issues, because the letter to Herodotus points out that most things in the universe are as they have been set in motion from the "formation of the world."

So it looks like you end up with both necessity (and formal logic) being useful in most purely non-living affairs, but "free will," and therefore freedom from formal logic, in the affairs of living things with freedom of action.

These excerpts from a nearby post are also relevant:

Especially this part from Philip DeLacy as to Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" -->

The last reference I would throw into this pot is a comment by Richard Dawkins in which he seems to also place Aristotle in Plato's camp:

Last excerpt illustrating someone who fell victim to this issue, from Heller's biography "Ayn Rand and the World She Made":

One more point Macario: the messenger system in this software is called "conversations" so be sure to look for that word instead of "messages"

Examples:

Reference in DeWitt as to the Hermarchus example (however DeWitt is probably wrong in this first one to say Epicurus "ignored" the issue - the reason we have the example is that he was giving the proper response to the problem):

Seaching for "dialectic" in EAHP produces a huge number of hits. Here are some of the most on point:

Another:

Another, as to education:

Quote from Martin

Epicurus knew and even Aristotle was aware of that binary logic might be applicable in full only to timeless sentences and those which refer to past events but not to events in the future.

YES - that is the issue, and I think it's absolutely critical that people understand that before, during, and after they try to absorb the presentation, because otherwise the problem diagnosed in the Hermotimus excerpt is undetectable.

Do you have any specific references on those two categories (1) timeless sentences (2) future events?

I believe part of what you are referring to must include the Epicurus reference to not being willing to state whether Hermarchus will be alive or dead tomorrow.

And this comment is not directed just to Martin - everyone who is at all interested in this issue needs an understanding of this, so we need to develop means of explaining it that are as memorable as possible.

Martin I have glanced at both the the lit.edu material and your additional notes.

This looks to be a very interesting presentation!

Thinking forward to how you begin the presentation, I do not see anything in the Lit.edu material as to the meaning of the variables that will be used in the tables, and I presume that is one of the central issues that you will be describing in terms of how these operations are not necessarily tied to reality.

Is there a way to summarize or add to the handout picture the nature of this issue? I think you will be very thoroughly explaining how, given the premises of the exercise, the results of formal logic are reached.

So is the issue in the "premises of the exercise" themselves? And how do we start off the presentation emphasizing that aspect, so that we do not get lost in the weeds?

I am reminded of this from Hermotimus:

Quote

Perhaps an illustration will make my meaning clearer: when one of those audacious poets affirms that there was once a three-headed and six-handed man, if you accept that quietly without questioning its possibility, he will proceed to fill in the picture consistently—six eyes and ears, three voices talking at once, three mouths eating, and thirty fingers instead of our poor ten all told; if he has to fight, three of his hands will have a buckler, wicker targe, or shield apiece, while of the other three one swings an axe, another hurls a spear, and the third wields a sword. It is too late to carp at these details, when they come; they are consistent with the beginning; it was about that that the question ought to have been raised whether it was to be accepted and passed as true. Once grant that, and the rest comes flooding in, irresistible, hardly now susceptible of doubt, because it is consistent and accordant with your initial admissions. That is just your case; your love-yearning would not allow you to look into the facts at each entrance, and so you are dragged on by consistency; it never occurs to you that a thing may be self- consistent and yet false; if a man says twice five is seven, and you take his word for it without checking the sum, he will naturally deduce that four times five is fourteen, and so on ad libitum. This is the way that weird geometry proceeds: it sets before beginners certain strange assumptions, and insists on their granting the existence of inconceivable things, such as points having no parts, lines without breadth, and so on, builds on these rotten foundations a superstructure equally rotten, and pretends to go on to a demonstration which is true, though it starts from premises which are false.

Just so you, when you have granted the principles of any school, believe in the deductions from them, and take their consistency, false as it is, for a guarantee of truth. Then with some of you, hope travels through, and you die before you have seen the truth and detected your deceivers, while the rest, disillusioned too late, will not turn back for shame: what, confess at their years that they have been abused with toys all this time? so they hold on desperately, putting the best face upon it and making all the converts they can, to have the consolation of good company in their deception; they are well aware that to speak out is to sacrifice the respect and superiority and honor they are accustomed to; so they will not do it if it may be helped, knowing the height from which they will fall to the common level. Just a few are found with the courage to say they were deluded, and warn other aspirants. Meeting such a one, call him a good man, a true and an honest; nay, call him philosopher, if you will; to my mind, the name is his or no one's; the rest either have no knowledge of the truth, though they think they have, or else have knowledge and hide it, shamefaced cowards clinging to reputation.

How do we make that point at the very introduction of the topic?

Perhaps we need a "humorous" section, but many of those we're posting are humorous / sarcastic, so that would be a hard split. You're probably just noticing lately that Nate has been going through the Principal Doctrines, so the recent ones are skewed toward the serious side.

Quote from Macario

accumulating more resources or limiting your necessities; both will do it, but the last one seems much easier to achieve.

That may in fact be true, but I do think that there are enticements to "living small as a rule" that have to be guarded against. I know I am a lazy person myself, and laziness is probably not the best way to make these decisions. I would always keep in mind the key rule of VS63 - Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.

Quote from Macario

A question: is there any way to private message someone in the forum?

Yes absolutely, I am sorry that is not easier to see. Perhaps it is harder to see if you only use a mobile advice. On the desktop it's easy to see the "dialog bubble" icon near the top right -- when you click that you can message any other user or combination of users.

I have engaged in a little private back and forth discussion with the author of the article, and have forwarded him a couple of clips in support of my view of this. I will try to circle back and add some commentary but for future reference here are the clips.

Aaron it is my understanding from what Francis Wright wrote in "A Few Days In Athens" that Aristotle held "color" to be something that exists apart from the entity which we perceive to have color. Do you believe that to be incorrect?

Also, in part of my analysis I am relying on this commentary from commentator Philip DeLacy as to the Epicurean Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" -->

The last reference I would throw into this pot is a comment by Richard Dawkins in which he seems to also place Aristotle in Plato's camp, as per DeLacy:

So to bring that back home to the discussion, my tentative diagnosis has been that by appearing to include "concepts" in her discussion of the law of identity (at least as many of her casual follows seem to do, and I can understand why) the implication of Rand is that concepts such as capitalism are also subject to categorization by "essentials" which leads to the Platonic idealism which at least on the surface Rand always campaigned against.

Last excerpt, from Heller's biography "Ayn Rand and the World She Made"

I would suggest just put it in the "General" category at least for now. Do you know how to do that? Why don't you try so you can learn, in case you come across others to submit. Thanks!

Images and videos in category “General” - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Today I was sent the following link by a fan of Ayn Rand who also follows some of our Epicurus material. I have not had a chance to read it all, and it may well end up with an Aristotelian slant which will not be helpful. However on first glance of the beginning, he's taking a position against the Stoics and their view of fate which may be helpful to us to know about as we work to better articulate Epicurus' position.

I don't have time to finish reading this now but I want to preserve the link because I do expect it to be helpful:

Stoicism vs. Objectivism: Is Free Will Magic?

A common conception of causation leads many scientifically minded people to dismiss free will.

newideal.aynrand.org

I don't think there's anything unique or novel in this summary of Plato's position, but it strikes me as accurate and a very good summary to keep in mind as we think about Epicurus' viewpoint, and how it is a direct response to and attack on this perspective:

I believe Epicurus would agree with this characterization of Plato, which the writer posits to be Nietzsche's analysis. And so I think this viewpoint is helpful to us in assessing Plato from Epicurus' viewpoint:

Given Nietzsche's antipathy to Stoicism and his somewhat embrace of at least some aspects of Epicurus, I expect this article to have relevant material on what separates Epicurus from humanism.

Link to article

I don't think "preeminent to nonhuman matter is accurate" - that sounds like the Biblical setting up of Adam and Eve to rule over the animals. But I do think that from the perspective of the individual that Epicurus and Lucretius held that it was correct for us to view - through our feeling - that some things more important to us than others, and that the happiness of ourselves and our friends is at the top of that list.

There are lots of people who have been described over the years as happy warriors. I will date myself by remembering, from when I was growing up, the first person to whom I heard that title applied. He doesn't look so happy in this magazine cover though!

But in general I think "Happy Warrior" is a good title for any aggressive Epicurean philosopher.

I have not read anything further than the first several paragraphs, and I may not agree with anything else whatsoever in it, but I do agree strongly with the part I've underlined here in red. Is there an instution in the way of our happiness? Vive la Révolution!

And a key aspect of that is in the part I did not underline, which is that Lucretius should not be interpreted as preaching the "insignificance" of humans, as some seem to interpret Epicurus/Lucretrius as implying. Certainly any individual only occupies a tiny space in the vastness of an infinite universe, but that by no means implies that the individual should see himself or herself as "insignificant" in general.  

From: "Happy Violence" - Bentley, Lucretius, and the PreHistory of Freethinking.

Since this is a recurring source of good topics, let's think about a category for them rather than General Discussion. I will look too and if needed we will set up a new one, but I think we have a section perhaps on videos that is close.

Actually let me revise and extend those remarks. The first spark for the individuals involved won't necessarily "start" online - it will be the recognition among friends - as part of real life - that the world is screwed up beyond recognition. These like-minded friends will see that certain key issues such as bowing down to fictional gods and keeping people alive in nursing homes until they are little more than vegetables makes no sense, never has made sense, and must one day come to an end.

And when those friends who share those basic values start looking for means of decoding what when wrong, and organizing to find a fix, they will look for precedent in their history (which for most of us is "Western Civilization") which also helps them explain how we got so screwed up.

If they look long enough they will find Epicurus as the clear and articulate leader of a movement that could have prevented all this but for it being snuffed out far too early by the "bad guys."

But they will find that the study of his work will give them a jump-start toward doing what they need to do themselves today - which they will need to work to understand in depth, and share that information, in a way that only the internet allows.

Quote from Philia

In my own life, I want to create pleasurable friendships with like minded people. And so I ask myself how will I do that in these current times? Where I live (Oregon) is currently having a continued covid surge, which makes it difficult to create new social connections. My few friends are all busy people --- people live insular lives with their life partner, raising children, working long hours. I do none of those things, and so simply want to create a way to interact with people, and preferably in a fun way.

That's the reason why I think that whatever can happen will start online. Even if you're focusing on real-life meetings, you need a way to coordinate those meetings. Telegram or text messaging or Facebook are all "part" of the answer - to get the word out - but for long-lasting collaborative effort I don't think there's a substitute for a "permanent" on-line presence like this one. You certainly don't need to point people to a subforum here at Epicureanfriends (though we can easily set that up as requested) but you do need your own permanent "home" -- OregonEpicureans.com or whatever -- so that people can actually "collaborate" and get things done.