Posts by Cassius

Episode Fifty-Seven of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's podcast we will continue to discuss the operation of the senses. As always, let us know your questions and comments in the thread below.

Protonus I almost listed LinkedIn in the poll but I decided against it as not really being social media. I have always had a negative impression of it as a huge spam generator - do you use it productively for more than just looking up people?

As if to show that I have a trivial thought for every occasion, I want to share this clip of a line I think is appropriate to the thread.

We're early in the work of trying to reinvigorate an Epicurean school on the internet, but as opportunities arise I think this cliche will apply ---

And that is: if anyone sees an appropriate place for philosophical discussion where it would be helpful to take quick action to bring up Epicurus and Epicurean philosophy, they should not wait for orders from "headquarters," and they should even say "to the devil with the orders" - they should use their best judgment and "ride to the sound of the guns."

Well I have managed to lose the material I typed so far so I have to begin again, but that's fine. In the meantime I would like to know if people have other ideas as to platforms that ought to be on the radar. Let me start a poll:

Just like you've done yourself Matthaois, most people are probably going to word search for Epicurus and find any Epicurean subgroups that way. Then it also seems most of the time there are going to be group descriptions that tell when the subgroup is about. I think the truth is that in every case a local group on a particular page is going to be unique, but it can still point to resources for further reading, such as we do here in regularly mentioning the Norman DeWitt book or other core resources, and it's in that context that this Epicureanfriends forum can be listed as a place for more in-depth discussion.

That's probably the best general guideline for proceeding in any context - just go ahead and mention Epicurus / Epicurean/ or Lucretius in the name so it's searchable, then point out that anyone not familiar with the philosophy should take the time to look up the details, and then refer to the links and reading material such as here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?faq/#entry-24

Argh the day is pretty much gone and I only got about 1/3 of the way through what I wanted to type, going through all the platforms I have participated in and my thoughts on each. I will finish it and post it hopefully tomorrow morning.

In the meantime another general comment: I think all of us who have been at this a while are sensitive to how difficult it is to keep together a community and keep it from fracturing over issues that really are not central to the community itself. There's probably no way to incorporate those divergent interests - it's a lot easier to say "stick to the very basics" and exclude everything else than it is to try to come up with compromise solutions. Even here on Epicureanfriends it's been tempting to set up sub-forums on topics and say "let's have those who think XXX post here" and "let's have those who think YYY post there" but that would probably create more hard feelings than would be worth it.

And I am not even really talking about controversial political issues -- even issues like discussion of different views of the Epicurean gods can create a lot of heat.

So I think in general the best answer to all these questions comes down to something like encouraging everyone to post where-ever they want, and where-ever they can spread the general message about Epicurus through their own local communities, but to always point back here as the place where at the very highest level we'll remain devoted explicitly to the philosophy as a philosophy, and cooperate on learning and understanding the basic doctrines, while leaving the "local application" to the individual locales

I'll leave it at that for now but i do have a lot more to say about the latest developments in platforms and censorship issues. So far we're pretty isolated from those because very few people know who we are, but I want us to dream big and hope for lot wider impact as time goes by, and I remain convinced that even though we're off everyone's radar right now, if we ever were to break through into a wider community we too would come under the full-force scrutiny of modern censorship. Right now in the USA we face virtually no censorship issues ourselves today, but already in many places in the rest of the world we'd fall under some types of blasphemy prohibitions, and/or be at risk for our personal safety for Epicurean religious views. I want us to have a world-wide reach and also to make the core Epicurean documents available everywhere, so the issue of how to do that without becoming captive to other agendas is a huge one. And that may make for some strange bedfellows or unconventional methods.

We're all aware of the highly-charged political issues that get labeled as fake news or historical revisionism of many types Well my view is that no matter what issue you want to name, and no matter how politically incorrect it is to take a position on something today, all of those pale in comparison to the "historical revisionism" that would result from someone making a full 2000+year review of world history from an EPICUREAN perspective. It's kind of ironic, but by sticking to the core doctrines we can seem like at the moment that we're being "safe," but in the end the core doctrines are really more explosive than any of today's charged political issue you'd care to name. I think we need to look at these issues from that perspective and plan accordingly.

OK this is a deep subject about which I have a lot to say. I am going to set this here for the moment and then compose a long post and come back. First, however, thanks to Matthaios for bringing up the topic and offering to help with publicity, and thanks to Titus for pointing out that there is a link to us on the wikipedia page. I am not sure when that was added or how, but glad to see it there. In general I agree with Elayne's comments, but I want to go into a lot more detail about my thoughts. More soon.....

Thsnks for all the references on empty. After reading them I am still left with the feeling that it is easy to misuse the word except in a context that is pretty clear like for example the void. - now there "empty" rings true, or in discussing "virtue" detached from a specific goal. Maybe its just that the English has a different connotation but in combining it with words that have a more positive connotation it smacks to me as being more moralistic and judgmental than helpful (again maybe just in English). Even the phrase "empty desire" sounds more like something s Buddhist or even stoic would say.

But anyway now we're probably reaching the point where this tangent is empty of additional benefit!

Great to hear from you! Participate anytime you can. Your story is in many ways a familiar one - seems like many have traveled a similar path!

What I remember is Hiram referring to it fairly regularly, but I don't recall his context. Here is one example:

Which comes from here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.0…iew=fulltext#N4

That distinction could in fact be a very good one when used very clearly like that. An "empty" pleasure makes no sense to me. An "empty desire" might make sense, but even then I can't see "empty" being the best word to describe the problem. Why use a word like "empty" when it is pretty darn easy to be clear that the issue is that the decision may lead to more pain than pleasure, and that THAT is the issue.....?

Maybe I will chase that rabbit next, but maybe not

Ha - I don't mean to be argumentative here -- just thinking that this is one of those areas where I've seen in the past (not YOU!) use of the word "empty" in ways that made me uncomfortable, so I think it's good to think through the issues involved.

Quote from Don

Pleasure is the good toward which all our actions point, but that doesn't mean *every* pleasure is desirable or choiceworthy.

We are totally in agreement as to this result, but I do sense that the way the point is made is very important and can be confusing if the phrasing is unclear enough to imply in some way that pleasure is not pleasure, and that is where I think "empty" is uncomfortably close to implying that the pleasure is not in fact a pleasure, but only a "shell" of pleasure without any substance. Pleasure in fact presumably has no substance other than pleasure itself.

Well yes that last comment goes to the heart of the issue -- the word "empty" in English at least to me is indicating that it is not in actuality what it represents itself to be, and that is not my understanding of what Epicurus is saying as to pleasure. No pleasure, no matter how much pain the choice may later bring, is devoid of pleasure, and that would be what I would infer from use of the term "empty." Yes a particular pleasure may be unchoiceworthy in that it brings excessive pain in a myriad of ways, and that kind of analysis is core Epicurean thought, but a pleasure would NOT be labeled "empty" because the pleasure does not bring pleasure, because if that choice or action were not pleasurable then it would not be pleasure.

If the meaning to be conveyed is "don't choose it because it doesn't bring net pleasure" or anything that means something similar, then I am all ok. But that is not what the word "empty" conveys to me ,or to what I would wager would be a large number of people in common understanding. That's why I recoil from it.

Quote from Don

According to this (and I've seen similar more detailed expositions in Tsouna's book), anger can stem from pain but be sustained by "the pleasure of revenge." One is acceptable and understandable, the other is "empty."

I know that you're putting the quotes around "empty" because you're referring to references in the texts. At some point I would like us to spend some closer time examining those texts because I sense that "empty" is conveying things in English of which I don't think Epicurus would have approved. (I think another example of such a term would be "vainglory" as used a few times on this and other forums.)

I find that I don't use the "empty" term myself very much or at all, and when I see it used it seems it's frequently being applied as a label of disapproval for reasons that don't seem to have much to do with Epicurean philosophy. Maybe I will stand to be corrected on that and if so I will learn something, but I question how this term can be reconciled with the "all pleasure is desirable" foundation, and the foundation that pleasure and pain are intrinsically desirable/undesirable in themselves.

I need to read what you just wrote Don but I want to mark this point: After we read the new text for the podcast today we will circle back around and take up these two issues as they are great points to discuss to keep the podcast focused on the big picture issues.

Thanks for those two points Don because I think discussing them is going to be helpful.

In both cases I agree with Elayne's points as written, but I think you're bringing out aspects that need to be very clear.

On the first point, the issue it seems you are pointing out is "I don't think it's accurate to say "our senses are also subjective." That sounds like a Skeptical position as if our senses can't be trusted and nobody could agree on what their senses are telling them. " To me the issue there is that I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that the senses are both subjective AND at the same time trustworthy and repeatable. Elayne's final point is really the foundation ("absolute, objective point of view, there being no such thing") which is based on the conclusion that there is no center point in the universe where God or anyone else stands and says "MY perspective is the correct one and all others are to be judged against mine." This is why I say taking positions on deep physics issues has such practical importance. While it may be possible to come a similar conclusion through all sorts of other theories, if you DO come to the conclusion that there is no absolute perspective against which all others are judged, you know easily that "one-for-all" perspectives cannot exist.

On the other hand, while we don't have a single one for all god perspective, there is a "We" which consists of humans like ourselves, living on a place like earth, and within the confined grouping even though our perspectives are not universal for the universe, there is a very large degree of repeatability and verifiability within our own experiences. I think back to the example of looking at our hand, and that we see a hand rather than a zillion whirring atoms. In fact what is there is a zillion whirring atoms, were our eyes geared to see them, but instead our eyes are geared to see the hand, and we can have great confidence that every time we or other humans look at our hands, we will see the hands and not the zillion atoms.

On the second point, I am not sure exactly where you are going except to flesh out the distinct meanings of the words "emotion" vs pain and pleasure or feeling or other words. I agree with you that we need to use words clearly and that emotion conveys something different than pain and pleasure, much in the way the word happiness conveys something different. But I still think Elayne's sentence is correct as written and I would be interested in where you are going with the distinction in this context. Are you trying to construct a definition of emotion that leaves out the feeling that it describes? Again I agree with Elayne that a feeling is an inherent part of an emotion.

Episode Fifty-Six of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In today's podcast we will continue to discuss the operation of the senses. As always, let us know your questions and comments in the thread below.

I agree with what you are saying Don and as you probably expect, I would go further. I am not prepared to say that some versions of the mechanisms described by Lucretius are impossible, especially since I am far from comfortable that I even understand what he is saying. I do not think it is productive to try to lock down his descriptions with more detail than our scanty texts allow us to be sure of, and I think the best way to deal with them is always first to try to understand where he is coming from before we decide whether he is wrong or right.

So when you say "our brains do not receive images/films/eidōlon like a radio receives radio waves" I can completely agree - our brain is not a radio receiver and we are not going to be able to tune into to a local radio station without mechanical assistance. But that doesn't mean that next year new scientists aren't going to be able to rig new experiments and determine that there are currently-unknown waves that can stimulate our minds directly, and so my own position at present is basically what you are saying - that this theory represents a non-supernatural way of explaining phenomena that are even today difficult to understand, and that we should make of it what we will.

I am firmly convinced that nothing has changed in human nature since Epicurus and Lucretius first articulated this theory, so they would have faced the same issues of testing and observation of how it works that we do today -- and they would have had the same experiential results that we have - that the receipt of information in this way is not a way to communicate with gods or to reliably organize our daily efforts to live our lives happily. Whatever Epicurus thought about the theory, he was dealing with the exact same facts and human nature that we are dealing with today, so he would not have had facts which are not available to us to flesh out the theory any more than we can today.

All of which leads me to conclude that to the extent Epicurus thought this aspect of his philosophy was important it appears to have had a very specific and limited role, so I would not assign any more importance to it today than he did then.

We will be discussing this excerpt in the Lucretius Today podcast to be recorded on February 14, so if anyone has any comments on this passage we have plenty of time to discuss and incorporate into that episode.

I really wanted to post this along with the discussion we had several weeks ago on the nature of images, but I can no longer find a good place. Perhaps at some point I can find the right place and insert a link to this post.

For present purposes, of course the topic of images is primarily treated in Book 4 of Lucretius.

The precise purpose of this post, however, is to highlight the second part of Book 4 where Lucretius moves past his initial introduction of images being perceived by the eyes, and returns to images to discuss how they can impact the mind DIRECTLY - meaning, without going through the eyes. This would clearly be relevant to DeWitt's discussion of the mind as a "suprasensory mechanism" that perceives images directly, and of course of relevance to the issue of receiving images of the gods, though that does not seem to be the focus here.

There are many aspects of this that are fascinating, including the place it appears in the text, right after a discussion of lions fearing cocks, and right before he turns to the one of the even more fascinating sections that appears to bear directly on "evolution." For now, however, here is the part on images affecting the mind directly:

Quote

Come now, let me tell you what things stir the mind, and learn in a few words whence come the things which come into the understanding. First of all I say this, that many idols of things wander about in many ways in all directions on every side, fine idols, which easily become linked with one another in the air, when they come across one another’s path, like spider’s web and gold leaf. For indeed these idols are far finer in their texture than those which fill the eyes and arouse sight, since these pierce through the pores of the body and awake the fine nature of the mind within, and arouse its sensation. 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.

That these things come to pass as I tell, you may easily learn from this. Inasmuch as the one is like the other, what we see with the mind, and what we see with the eyes, they must needs be created in like manner. Now, therefore, since I have shown that I see a lion maybe, by means of idols, which severally stir the eyes, we may know that the mind is moved in like manner, in that it sees a lion and all else neither more nor less than the eyes, except that it sees finer idols. And when sleep has relaxed the limbs, the understanding of the mind is for no other cause awake, but that these same idols stir our minds then, as when we are awake, insomuch that we seem surely to behold even one who has quitted life, and is holden by death and the earth. This nature constrains to come to pass just because all the senses of the body are checked and at rest throughout the limbs, nor can they refute the falsehood by true facts. Moreover, the memory lies at rest, and is torpid in slumber, nor does it argue against us that he, whom the understanding believes that it beholds alive, has long ago won to death and doom. For the rest, it is not wonderful that the idols should move and toss their arms and their other limbs in rhythmic time. For it comes to pass that the image in sleep seems to do this; inasmuch as when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. And indeed we must suppose that this comes to pass in quick process: so great is the speed, so great the store of things, so great, in any one instant that we can perceive, the abundance of the little parts of images, whereby the supply may be continued.

And in these matters many questions are asked, and there are many things we must make clear, if we wish to set forth the truth plainly. 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. What, again, when in sleep we behold idols dancing forward in rhythmic measure, and moving their supple limbs, when alternately they shoot out swiftly their supple arms, and repeat to the eyes a gesture made by the feet in harmony? Idols in sooth are steeped in art and wander about trained to be able to tread their dance in the nighttime. Or will this be nearer truth? Because within a single time, which we perceive, that is, when a single word is uttered, many times lie unnoted, which reasoning discovers, therefore it comes to pass that in any time however small the several idols are there ready at hand in all the several spots. So great is the speed, so great the store of things.

Therefore when the first image passes away and then another comes to birth in a different posture, the former seems then to have changed its gesture. Again, because they are fine, the mind cannot discern them sharply, save those which it strains to see; therefore all that there are besides these pass away, save those for which it has made itself ready. Moreover, the mind makes itself ready, and hopes it will come to pass that it will see what follows upon each several thing; therefore it comes to be. Do you not see the eyes too, when they begin to perceive things which are fine, strain themselves and make themselves ready, and that without that it cannot come to pass that we see things sharply? And yet even in things plain to see you might notice that, if you do not turn your mind to them, it is just as if the thing were sundered from you all the time, and very far away. How then is it strange, if the mind loses all else, save only the things to which it is itself given up? Then too on small signs we base wide opinions, and involve ourselves in the snare of self-deceit.

It happens too that from time to time an image of different kind rises before us, and what was before a woman, seems now to have become a man before our very eyes, or else one face or age follows after another. But that we should not think this strange, sleep and its forgetfulness secure.

Herein you must eagerly desire to shun this fault, and with foresighted fear to avoid this error; do not think that the bright light of the eyes was created in order that we may be able to look before us, or that, in order that we may have power to plant long paces, therefore the tops of shanks and thighs, based upon the feet, are able to bend; or again, that the forearms are jointed to the strong upper arms and hands given us to serve us on either side, in order that we might be able to do what was needful for life. All other ideas of this sort, which men proclaim, by distorted reasoning set effect for cause, since nothing at all was born in the body that we might be able to use it, but what is born creates its own use. Nor did sight exist before the light of the eyes was born, nor pleading in words before the tongue was created, but rather the birth of the tongue came long before discourse, and the ears were created much before sound was heard, and in short all the limbs, I trow, existed before their use came about: they cannot then have grown for the purpose of using them.

Display More